(c) 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center
Center on Teaching and Learning
1
Dimensions of A Healthy System
Districts
Schools
Grades
Classrooms
Groups
2
Schoolwide Reading Model Elements
As an ERT team, list the 7 Elements of the Schoolwide Reading Model.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
3
Schoolwide Reading Model and
Systems Problem Solving
How is this the same?
• Outcomes-driven
model
• Data-driven
• Action Planning
How is this new?
• Systems vs. individual
problem solving
• Defining the role of the
ERT
• Collecting information
through Observations
• Aligning the Schoolwide
Reading Model with
Response to
Intervention (RTI)
4
Systems Problem Solving vs.
Individual Problem Solving
5
Systems Problem Solving vs. Individual
Problem Solving
Group A
Student weekly
growth:
.5 cwpm
Instructional
Group Average
weekly growth:
.5 cwpm
Group B
Student weekly
growth:
.5 cwpm
Instructional
Group Average
weekly growth:
1.75 cwpm
6
Systems Problem Solving
1. Identify A System/Group of Students that Needs
Additional Support
Distinguish between systems level and individual student-level
concerns
2. Plan and Implement Level of Support
Implement instructional support to address systems-level or
individual-level concern
3. Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify the Support
Plan
4. Review Outcomes
Examine Benchmark Data (Winter and Spring) and
In Program Assessments
7
1. Identify a System/Group of Students that
Needs Additional Support
1A. Use data to determine what part(s) of the
system are not healthy. Highlight areas of
needed support.
1B. Prioritize areas of needed support.
1C. Review Instructional Support Plan (CSI) for
priority area of needed support.
Resources: Winter “How are we doing?” Report, DIBELS
Reports (Histograms, Cross-Year Box Plots, Summaries of
Effectiveness)
8
1A. Use data to determine what parts of the
system are not healthy
9
1A. Use data to determine what parts of
the system are not healthy (continued)
1AStep 1. Are all students meeting the
Benchmark Goals? (“HWD?” R
Table 1)
1AStep 2. Are differentiated support plans
working for the full range of learners?
(“HWD?” R Table 2)
1AStep 3. Within a support system, is there a
specific group of students not making
the same progress as other students?
(Assessment Data, LPRs)
10
1AStep 1. Are all students meeting the
Benchmark Goals?
Table 1 Taking Stock: Reviewing Midyear Outcomes for K-3 Students Winte r 2007 and Comparin g to Winte r 2006
Grade/Measure
Kindergarten -PSF
Kindergarten -NWF
First Grade -NWF
First Grade -ORF
Second Grade -ORF
Third Grade-ORF
Percent a t
Established
(Low Risk)
Winter 2006
53%
45%
37%
24%
31%
33%
Percent a t
Established
(Low Risk)
Winter 2007
78%
64%
59%
30%
39%
28%
Percentage
Point Increase/
Decrease
(+ or -)
+25
+19
+22
+6
+8
-5
Percent a t
Deficit
(At Risk)
Winter 2006
18%
15%
19%
21%
51%
49%
Percent a t
Deficit
(At Risk)
Winter 2007
8%
9%
11%
16%
36%
42%
Percentage
Point Increase/
Decrease
(+ or -)
-10
-6
-8
-5
-15
-7
If YES, move to individual problem solving
If No, continue on to step 2
Data source to be utili zed: Summary of Effectiveness Reports by School for each grade level
11
1AStep 2. Are differentiated support plans
working for the full range of learners?
Table 2 Evaluating Fall to Winter 2006 -07 Grade -Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS
Benchmark Goa ls
Grad e/
Total percent of students at
Percent of Intensive Students Percent of Strategic Student s
Percent of Benchmark
Benchmar k Goa l
each grade that mad e Adequate
that mad e Adequate
that mad e Adequate
Student s that made
Meas ure
Progress
Progress
Progress
Adequat e Progress
Include actual numbers of
Include actual numbers of
Include actual numbers of
Include actual numbers of
students,
students,
students,
students,
e.g., 90/100 or 90%.
e.g., 1/5 or 20%.
e.g., 25/50 or 50%.
e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
Fal l to
Fal l to
Percent
Fal l to
Fal l to
Percent
Fal l to
Fal l to
Percent
Fal l to
Fal l to
Percent
Winter
Winter Change
Winter Winter Change
Winter Winter Change
Winter
Winter Change
2005-06
2006-07 (+ or -) 2005-06 2006-07 (+ or -) 2005-06 2006-07 (+ or -) 2005-06 2006-07 (+ or -)
Kindergarten-ISF
Firs t Gra de-NWF
Second Grade-ORF
Third Gra de-ORF
62%
59%
39%
36%
76%
66%
42%
29%
-8
+14
+3
-7
90%
73%
18/20
8/11
52%
55%
12/23
6/11
0%
0%
0/45
0/23
7%
0%
2/30
0/31
-17
+3
-13
-7
36%
26%
12/33
6/23
52%
38%
11/21
6/17
42%
40%
8/19
8/20
23%
15%
3/13
4/27
-10
-14
-2
-8
75%
73%
18/22
16/22
50%
84%
10/20
37/44
95%
95%
18/19
21/22
94%
87%
17/18
19/22
-2
+34
-9
-7
Continued on Page 3.
If YES, Move to Individual Problem Solving
If NO, continue on to step 3
Data source to be utili zed: Summary of Effectiveness Reports by School for each grade level
12
1AStep 3. Within a support system, is there a
specific group of students not making the same
progress as other students?
• Progress Monitoring booklets
• Lesson Progress Reports
Theme Test Re sult s/Lesson Progre ss Repo rt
Date___(of test)______
Teache r: __________________________
Group Leve l _____( int, strat, bench )__________________
Hough ton Mif fli n Leve l__(grade, theme)_____________________
Number of days taugh t____(since last theme test)____________
Number of lessons taugh t___(since last theme test)__________
test
area A
Name
1.
test
area B
test
area C
test
area D
test
area E
test
area F
test
area G
total %
#poss.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Comm ents:
If YES, target specific group(s) not making the same progress
If NO, target the entire level of support not making the same progress
13
1AStep2. Use data to determine what
parts of the system are not healthy
(continued)
Adequate Progress Normative Criteria
Fall to Winter*
What is the overall
effectiveness of the gradelevel plan?
How effective is the gradelevel inst ructional support
plan for intensive students?
How effective is the gradelevel inst ructional support plan
for strategic students?
How effective is the grade-level
instructional support plan for
benchmark students?
% of students who made
adequate progress in each
grade
% of students who made
adequate progress within an
instructional support range
% of students who made
adequate progress within an
instructional support range
% of students who made
adequate progress within an
instructional support range
•5 3% Top Quartile
26% to 52% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 25% Bottom Qu artile
•31% Top Quartile
8% to 30% Middle Quartiles
Š 7% Bottom Quartile
•47% Top Quartile
19% to 46% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 18% Bottom Qu artile
•79% Top Quartile
52% to 78% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 51% Bottom Qu artile
•57% Top Quartile
32% to 56% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 31% Bottom Qu artile
•15% Top Quartile
1% to 14% Middle Quartiles
Š 0% Bottom Quartile
•46% Top Quartile
20% to 45% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 19% Bottom Qu artile
•79% Top Quartile
61% to 78% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 60% Bottom Qu artile
•59% Top Quartile
37% to 58% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 36% Bottom Qu artile
•4% Top Quartile
1% to 3% Middle Quartiles
Š 0% Bottom Quartile
•6 0% Top Quartile
31% to 59% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 30% Bottom Qu artile
•96% Top Quartile
88% to 95% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 87% Bottom Qu artile
•57% Top Quartile
38% to 56% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 37% Bottom Qu artile
N/A Top Quartile**
N/A Middle Quartiles**
N/A Bottom Quartile**
•38% Top Quartile
18% to 37% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 17% Bottom Qu artile
•9 6% Top Quartile
89% to 95% Mi ddle Quartiles
Š 88% Bottom Qu artile
K
1
2
3
*Percentile ranks based on over 300 Oregon schools during the 2005 - 2006 academic year.
** Bottom, middle, and top quartile cutoff criteria all are equal to 0% adequate progress
14
1AStep2. Are differentiated support plans
working for the full range of learners?
Table 2 Evaluating Fall to Winter 2006 -07 Grade -Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS
Benchmark Goa ls
Grad e/
Total percent of students at
Percent of Intensive Students Percent of Strategic Student s
Percent of Benchmark
Benchmar k Goa l
each grade that mad e Adequate
that mad e Adequate
that mad e Adequate
Student s that made
Meas ure
Progress
Progress
Progress
Adequat e Progress
Include actual numbers of
Include actual numbers of
Include actual numbers of
Include actual numbers of
students,
students,
students,
students,
e.g., 90/100 or 90%.
e.g., 1/5 or 20%.
e.g., 25/50 or 50%.
e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
Fal l to
Fal l to
Percent
Fal l to
Fal l to
Percent
Fal l to
Fal l to
Percent
Fal l to
Fal l to
Percent
Winter
Winter Change
Winter Winter Change
Winter Winter Change
Winter
Winter Change
2005-06
2006-07 (+ or -) 2005-06 2006-07 (+ or -) 2005-06 2006-07 (+ or -) 2005-06 2006-07 (+ or -)
Kindergarten-ISF
Firs t Gra de-NWF
Second Grade-ORF
Third Gra de-ORF
62%
59%
39%
36%
76%
66%
42%
29%
-8
+14
+3
-7
90%
73%
18/20
8/11
52%
55%
12/23
6/11
0%
0%
0/45
0/23
7%
0%
2/30
0/31
-17
+3
-13
-7
36%
26%
12/33
6/23
52%
38%
11/21
6/17
42%
40%
8/19
8/20
23%
15%
3/13
4/27
-10
-14
-2
-8
75%
73%
18/22
16/22
50%
84%
10/20
37/44
95%
95%
18/19
21/22
94%
87%
17/18
19/22
-2
+34
-9
-7
Continued on Page 3.
Data source to be utili zed: Summary of Effectiveness Reports by School for each grade level
15
1B. Prioritize Areas of Needed Support
A. Intensive Second Grade (entire
level of support not making same
progress)
B. Strategic First Grade (specific group
within level of support not making
same progress)
16
1C. Review Instructional Support Plan (CSI Map)-2nd Grade
Intensive
Instructional
Recommend
Inten sive
Subgroup 1:
Participation in Core
Whole
X
n=15
Instructor:
Jones/Smith
Group Size:
13/17
Activi ties:
All
compo nent of
the HM
enhan cements
Curriculum:
Small
X
Supplemental & In tervention Programs/Strategies:
IW
X
Instructor:
Jones/Smith
Group Size:
6-8
Curriculum
1: Read
Naturally
Instructor:
Williams
Student s
Served:
Entu re
Reading
Class
Activi ties:
Activi ties:
Anthology,
Partner
Group
Size: 9
Activi ties:
Read
Naturall y
levels 1.03.0
Curriculum
2:
Phonics for
Reading
Instructor;
Smith/Jones
Student s
Served:
Ent ire
reading
class
Curriculum
3:
Curriculum
4:
Group Size:
8
Activi ties:
All
compo nents
of Phon ics
for Rea ding
lesson
X_w/in
reading
block
__X in
addition to
reading
block
Minu tes: 30
Group
Size:
Activi ties:
reading
block
__in
addition to
reading
block
Minu tes:
reading
block
__in
addition to
reading
block
Minu tes:
Days Per
Week: 5
Days Per
Week:
Days Per
Week:
Instructor:
Inde pendent
Work:
Student s
Served:
Student s
Served:
Minu tes: 60
extension
lessons
Minu tes:
30
Minu tes: 30
In -Program Tests: HM En d of Selection tests
at the end of every story
reading
block
__in
addition to
reading
block
Minu tes:
30
Days Per
Week: 2/3
In -Program
Tests: RN
check out
with teacher
In -Program
Tests:
Observation
form
In -Program
Tests:
Test #1: DIBE LS
Freque ncy: 3
times a year
Activi ties:
Activi ties:
ThisLeveled
needsreading,
to HM
be filled in and highlighted
Readers,
workbook
Phonics
pages,
properly
Librar y, I
comprehension _X_ w/ in
__w/in
__w/in
Love
Reading
Determining
Instructional
Eff ective ness
Out-of-Program
Testing
In -Program
Tests:
Test #2: HM
Phonics/Decodin g
Screening
Assessment
Freque ncy: 3
times a year
Minu tes:
Test #3: Progress
Monito ring
Freque ncy:
every 2 weeks
17
1. Identify a System/Group of Students that
needs instructional support
YOUR TURN!
1A. Use tables 1 and 2 from your How are we
doing? Reports to determine what part(s) of
your system are not healthy (Steps 1 and
2). Highlight areas of needed support.
Complete Step 3, if necessary, at a later
time.
2B. Prioritize areas of needed support
3C. Review Instructional Support Plan (CSI
Map) for priority area of needed support 18
Systems Problem Solving
1. Identify A System/Group of Students that Needs
Additional Support
Distinguish between systems level and individual student-level
concerns
2. Plan and Implement Level of Support
Implement instructional support to address systems-level or
individual-level concern
3. Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify the Support
Plan
4. Review Outcomes
Examine Benchmark Data (Winter and Spring) and
In Program Assessments
19
2. Plan and Implement Level of Support
2A. Using objective information, ask datadriven questions to determine what
parts of the identified system are not
healthy
2B. Plan changes to the system
20
2A. Using objective information, ask datadriven questions to determine what parts of
the system are not healthy
Oregon Reading First
Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model
Elements of a Healthy System
Checklist
School:
Grade :
Level of Support:
I. GOA LS, OBJECTIVES, PRIOR ITIES
Were content-coverage goals and pacing guides for programs established so sufficient lessons/units would be mastered and
children make adequate progress?
II. ASS ESSMENT
Are DIBELS progress mon itoring assessments administered once a mo nth for strategic students? once every two weeks for
intensive students?
Are in-program assessments administered regularly?
Did grade level teams regularly analyze student reading data (DIB ELS and in-program assessments), plan/adjust instruction
based on data, and regroup students based on the data?
III. INS TRUCTION AL PROGRAMS AND MATERIALS
Y
Are appropriate reading programs and mat erials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., interven tion
progra ms in place for students significantly be low grade level)?*
Are all necessary mat erials availa ble in each classroom? For eac h small group?*
Are instructors incorporating general features of strong instruction (e.g., mod els, exp licit language, mu ltiple opportunities for
students to respond, etc.)into their daily lessons?
Have the grade level teams worked together to systematically enhance the program as necessary (e.g., mak e instruction more
systematic and explicit)?
Is the program im plemented with fidelity? Are efforts to improve fidelity workin g?
IV. INS TRUCTIONAL T IME
Y
Is a sufficient amo unt of time allocated (i.e., 90-minute reading block wit h a mi nimum of 30 minutes of small group
teacher-directed reading instruction da ily)?* Are teachers following the schedule?
N
Is ad ditional instructional time scheduled for student s who are struggling?*
Are important activities taught/stressed (e.g., red checks, targets, etc.)? Are instructional priorities well understood?
Are students spending an appropriate amount of time on independent activities (i.e., a small portion of the reading block)? Are
the independent activities directly linked to the reading instruction?
Are students meeting projections for lesson progress pacing?
Are students being accelerated whenever possible to bring closer to grade-level performan ce (i.e., 2 lessons per day)?
V. DIF FERENTI ATED INS TRUCTION/GROUPIN G/SCHEDULING
Y
Are students grouped homog enously by performance level?*
Y
Are students grouped bas ed on progr am recommendati ons?*
Y
Are group s izes for small group activities approp riate (i.e., 4-6 students)?*
Are cross-class and cross-grade grouping used when appropriate to maximize learning opportunities?
VI. A DMINISTRATION/ ORGANIZATIO N/COMMUNICATION
Y
Is a sufficient number of staff allocated?*
Y
Have staff been assigned in a way such that reading instruction can b e delivered to the full range of student s each day?*
Are the lowest performing students taught by strong, experienced, and well qualified instructors?
Are students participating in a reasonable number of programs so as to have an aligned, coherent program without conflicting
informa tion being presented?
Are Title and Special Education coordinated with and comp lementary to general education reading instruction?
VII. PROFE SSIONA L DEVELO PMENT
Is ongoing, high quality training provided (i.e., staff received professional development on programs used in classrooms prior to
imp lementation and at least twice after in itial training)?
Are program-specific consultants brought in to observe in classrooms and provide ongoing support and training?
Are teachers receiving support from the RF coach in the classroom? outside the classroom?
Are regular inservice sessions developed around imp lementation issues identified by the coach?
Do teachers have opportunities to observe model lessons from the coach? from peers? from other schools?
Are new teachers provided the necessary program training?
* = Structural element
Resources: PET-R, Healthy Systems Checklist, PET-Action Planning Tool
21
2A. Using objective information, ask datadriven questions to determine what parts of the
system are not healthy (continued)
How to identify questions:
•
Use tools like the Healthy System Checklist,
PET-R, PET-Action Planning Tool, and the
Options Handbook
A. Look first at structural elements
B. Move to quality elements
•
Prioritize questions
22
Structural vs. Quality-Related Elements
Structural Elements
–
–
–
–
Materials
Time
Grouping
Staffing
Quality Related Elements
can vary in their degree
of effectiveness
– Opportunities to
Respond
– Modeling and Explicit
language
23
Healthy System Checklist
Oregon Reading First
Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model
Elements of a Healthy System
Checklist
School:
Grade:
Level of Support:
I. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PRIORITIE S
Were content-coverage goals and pacing guides for programs established so sufficient lessons/units would be mastered and
children make adequate progress?
II. ASSESSMENT
Are DIBEL S progress mo nitoring assessments administered once a mo nth for strategic students? once every two weeks for
intensive students?
Are in-program assessments administered regularly?
Did grade level teams regularly analyze student reading data (DIBEL S and in-program assessments), plan/adjust instruction
based on data, an d regroup students based on the data?
First,
look at
Structural
Elements
(in bold)
III. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND MATER IALS
N
Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention
programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?*
Are all necessary materials available in each classroom? For each small group?*
Are instructors incorporating general features of strong instruction (e.g., mo dels, explicit language, multiple opportunities for
students to respond, etc.)into their daily lessons?
Have the grade level teams worked together to systematically enhance the program as necessary (e.g., make instruction more
systematic and explicit)?
Is the program implemented with fidelity? Are efforts to imp rove fidelity working?
IV. INSTRUCTIONAL T IME
Y
Is a sufficient amount of time allocated (i.e., 90-minute reading block with a minimum of 30 minutes of small group
teacher-di rected reading instruction daily)?* Are teachers following the schedule?
? Is addi tional instructional time schedu led f or students wh o are struggling?*
Are important activities taught/stressed (e.g., red checks, targets, etc.)? Are instructional priorities well understood?
Are students spending an appropriate amount of time on independent activities (i.e., a small portion of the reading block)? Are
the independent activities directly linked to the reading instruction?
Are students meeting projections for lesson progress pacing?
Are students being accelerated whenever possible to bring closer to g rade-level performance (i.e., 2 le ssons per day)?
V. DIFFERE NTIATED INSTRUCTION/GROUPING/SCHEDULING
Y
Are students grouped homogenously by p erformance level?*
Y
Are students grouped bas ed on program rec omme ndations?*
Y
Are group sizes for small group activities app ropriate (i.e., 4 -6 students)?*
Are cross-class and cross-grade grouping used when appropriate to maximize learning opportunities?
VI. ADMINISTRATION/ORGA NIZATION/COMMUNICATION
Y
Is a sufficient number of staff allocated?*
Y
Have staff b een assigned i n a way such t hat readi ng instruction can be deliver ed t o th e full range of students each da y?*
Are the lowest performing students taught by strong, experienced, and well qualified instructors?
Are students participating in a reasonable number of programs so as to have an aligned, coherent program without conflicting
information being presented?
Are Title and Special Education coordinated with and comp lementary to general education reading instruction?
VII. PROFESSIONAL DEVELO PMENT
Is ongoing, high quality training provided (i.e., staff received professional development on programs used in classrooms prior to
imp lementation and at le ast twice after initial training)?
Are program-specific consultants brought in to observe in classrooms and provide ongoing support and training?
Are teachers receiving support from t he RF coach in the classroom? outside the classroom?
Are regular inservice sessions developed around imp lementation issues identified by the coach?
Do teachers have opportunities to observe model le ssons from t he coach? from peers? from other schools?
Are new teachers provided the necessary program training?
* = Structural element
24
Healthy System Checklist
Oregon Reading First
Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model
Elements of a Healthy System
Checklist
School:
Grade:
Level of Support:
I. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PRIORITIE S
Y
Were content-coverage goals and pacing guides for programs established so sufficient lessons/units would be mas tered and
children make adequate progress?
II. ASSESSMENT
Y
Are DIBEL S progress mo nitoring assessme nts admi nistered once a month for strategic students? once every two weeks for
intensive students?
Y
Are in-program assessments administered regularly?
Y
Did grade level teams regularly analyze student reading data (DIBEL S and in-program assessments), plan/adjust instruction
based on data, an d regroup students based on the data?
Second,
look at
Quality of
Implementation
Elements
III. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND MATER IALS
Y
Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention
programs in place for students significantly below grade leve l)?*
Are all necessary materials available in each classroom? For each small group?*
Y
Are instructors incorporating general features of strong instruction (e.g., mo dels, explicit language, multiple opportunities for
students to respond, etc.)into their daily lessons?
Y
Have the grade level teams worked together to systematically enhance the program as necessary (e.g., make instruction more
systematic and explicit)?
Y
Is the program implemented with fidelity? Are efforts to imp rove fidelity working?
IV. INSTRUCTIONAL T IME
Y
Is a sufficient amount of time allocated (i.e., 90-minute reading block with a minimum of 30 minutes of small group
teacher-di rected reading instruction daily)?* Are teachers following the schedule?
N
Is addi tional instructional time schedu led f or students wh o are struggling?*
Y
Are important activities taught/stressed (e.g., red checks, targets, etc.)? Are instructional priorities well understood?
Y
Are students spending an appropriate amount of time on independent activities (i.e., a small portion of the reading block)? Are
the independent activities directly linked to the reading instruction?
N
Are students meeting projections for lesson progress pacing?
Y
Are students being accelerated whenever possible to bring closer to g rade-level performance (i.e., 2 le ssons per day)?
V. DIFFERE NTIATED INSTRUCTION/GROUPING/SCHEDULING
Y
Are students grouped homogenously by p erformance level?*
Y
Are students grouped bas ed on program rec omme ndations?*
Y
Are group sizes for small group activities app ropriate (i.e., 4 -6 students)?*
Y
Are cross-class and cross-grade grouping used when appropriate to maximize learning opportunities?
VI. ADMINISTRATION/ORGA NIZATION/COMMUNICATION
Y
Is a sufficient number of staff allocated?*
Y
Have staff b een assigned i n a way such t hat readi ng instruction can be deliver ed t o th e full range of students each da y?*
Y
Are the lowest performing students taught by strong, experienced, and well qualified instructors?
Y
Are students participating in a reasonable number of programs so as to have an aligned, coherent program without conflicting
information being presented?
Are Title and Special Education coordinated with and comp lementary to general education reading instruction?
?
VII. PROFESSIONAL DEVELO PMENT
Y
Is ongoing, high quality training provided (i.e., staff received professional development on programs used in classrooms prior to
imp lementation and at le ast twice after initial training)?
Y
Are program-specific consultants brought in to observe in classrooms and provide ongoing support and training?
Y
Are teachers receiving support from t he RF coach in the classroom? outside the classroom?
Y
Are regular inservice sessions developed around imp lementation issues identified by the coach?
Y
Do teachers have opportunities to observe model le ssons from t he coach? from peers? from other schools?
Y
Are new teachers provided the necessary program training?
* = Structural element
25
Prioritize Questions
Focus on questions 1 & 2 before addressing question 3.
1. Are appropriate reading programs and
materials being used to teach the full
range of students (e.g., intervention
programs in place for students
significantly below grade level)?*
2. Is additional instructional time
scheduled for students who are
struggling?*
3. Are teachers incorporating general features
of instruction (i.e., models, explicit
26
language, etc.)?
As a team, discuss how you would
prioritize the following questions? Rank
the order 1, 2, 3 and 4
Did grade level teams regularly analyze student reading
data (DIBELS and in-program assessments), plan/adjust
instruction based on data, and regroup students based
on the data?
Are instructors incorporating general features of strong
instruction (e.g., models, explicit language, multiple
opportunities for students to respond, etc.)into their daily
lessons?
Is a sufficient amount of time allocated (i.e., 90minute reading block with a minimum of 30 minutes
of small group teacher-directed reading instruction
daily)?* Are teachers following the schedule?
Is ongoing, high quality training provided (i.e., staff
received professional development on programs used in
classrooms prior to implementation and at least twice
27
Use Objective Information
to answer the Questions
28
S.O.L.A.R
Systems Problem Solving
Observations
Listening
Assessment
Review Schedules
29
Systems Problem Solving
Observations




Listening/Discussion
 Getting input from team members about their
perspectives on the situation
Assessme nt
 Additional Phonics Assessment to identify skill gaps
 Placement tests in programs that might be considered
Review





Five Minute Observations/Walk Throughs
Observing Correct Responses
Opportunities to Respond
Transition Time
Schedules
Grouping Plans
Assessment Data
Support Plans
Attendance Records
30
Use objective information to answer the questions
Systems Questions
Observations
Listening
Discussion
Assessm
ent
Review Existing
Data, Schedules,
Instructional Plans
1. Are appropriate reading
programs and materials
being used to teach the full
range of students (e.g.,
intervention programs in
place for students
significantly below grade
level)?*
-Review 2nd grade
intensive CSI Map
2. Is additional instructional
time scheduled for students
who are struggling?*
-Review CSI Map
3. Are teachers
incorporating general
features of instruction (i.e.,
,models, explicit language,
etc)?
-Review
supplemental and
intervention program
reviews on ORRFC
Website.
-Review Schoolwide
Reading Schedule
-Coach to observe
instruction using General
Features of Instruction
Observation Form in 2nd
grade intensive
classrooms
-Principals to conduct 5Minute observations
31
1. As a team, use the Healthy Systems Checklist to evaluate a
system that you identified as not healthy.
2. Prioritize questions about that system to target what elements
are not healthy.
3. Brainstorm what information you would use to answer the
questions.
Systems Questions
Observations
Listening Discussion
Assessment
Review Existing
Data, Schedules,
Instructional Plans
32
Have a Strategy for Prioritizing Questions:
Don’t Put the Cart Before the Horse!
1. Structural
2. Quality
3. What needs to
be in place
first?
33
2B. Plan Changes to the System(continued)
Early Reading Team Syste m Problem Solving Form
Identify A Syste m/Group of Students that Needs Additional Support
Syst em:
Evidence (Summarize data):
Plan and Implement Levels of Support
Syst em Questions
Obse rvations
Liste ning/Discuss ion
Assess ment
Review Exist ing
Data, Schedules,
Instr uctional Plans
1.
2.
3.
Specific Actions/Solutions
Who
When
Eva luation Method
When will you meet to evaluate the support plan? Date: __ ___________
Evaluate, and if necessary , Modify the Suppo rt Plan
Summarize Results:
Are modifications to the syste m needed?_______
If so, complete Plan and Implement Levels of Support step.
Modifications:
• Resources: PET, PET Action Planning Tool, Professional
Development Presentations, Consumer’s Guide Reviews of
Reading Programs, Alterable Variables Charts
34
Examples of Common SystemLevel Problems
• A program that does not meet the
needs of the students
• Not enough instructional time to
accelerate learning
• Not using a program the way it was
designed
35
The Elephant in The Room
Solving the
Problem
36
A program that does not meet the
needs of the students
Question: Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used
to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention programs in
place for students significantly below grade level)?
Collecting Information: ERT reviews CSI map/Instructional Plan and
compares programs to usage recommendations; Coach observes
student success rate; ERT reviews in-program assessment results.
Summarizing Results: ERT decides that a more intensive program is
needed because the current program is not mastery-based and
does not provide the necessary intensity. Coach identifies that the
student group is currently is only answering correctly 43% the time.
Planning Changes: ERT would like the grade level team to implement
a more intensive program with the students in the intensive range to
supplant the core program.
37
Not enough instructional time to
accelerate learning
Question: Is additional instructional time scheduled for
students who are struggling?
Collecting Information: ERT reviews CSI map/Instructional
Plan
Summarizing Results: ERT decides that a more instructional
time is needed
Planning Changes: ERT works together to coordinate Title,
SPED and General Ed services to allocate an additional 30
minutes per day for the students in the intensive range.
38
Not using a program the way it
was designed
Question: Is the program implemented with fidelity?
Collecting Information: Principal decides to do 5-minute walk
throughs; Coach follows up with longer fidelity observations
Summarizing Results: Principal and Coach observe that critical
portions of the program are being left out.
Planning Changes: Principal tells the teachers that through their
observations he/she decided that resources should be
allocated to work with a program expert to provide the
teachers with more information on how to use the program
effectively.
39
Systems-Level Problem Solving
1.
Identify A System/Group of Students that Needs
Additional Support
Distinguish between systems level and individual student-level
concerns
2.
Plan and Implement Level of Support
Implement instructional support to address systems-level or individuallevel concern
3.
Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify the Support Plan
4.
Review Outcomes
Examine Benchmark Data (Winter and Spring) and In Program
Assessments
40
Example System Problem Solving Form
Early Reading Team System Problem Solving Form
Identify A Syste m/Group of Students that Needs Additional Support
Syst em: I nt ensive S econd Grade
Evidence (Summarize data): DIBELS Fall to Wint er Adequat e progr ess re vea le d 0% of t he 2nd gra de int ensive
st udent s moved to strat egic/b enchmar k
Plan and Implement Levels of Support
Syst em Questions
Obse rvations
Liste ning/
Disc ussi on
Assess ment
1. Are ap pr opr iate
r e ading progr a ms an d
mat er ia ls being use d t o
t ea ch t he fu ll r ang e o f
st udents ?
2. I s add it ional
inst r uct iona l t ime
sche dul ed f or stu dents
who a re s t r uggl ing?
3. Ar e t eache r s
incor por at ing gen er a l
f eatu re s of ge ne r a l
inst r uct ion?
Review Exist ing Data,
Schedules,
Instr uctional Plans
- ERT tea m will r evie w 2nd
gr a de CSI M ap
- Tit le 1 t ea che r t o r e vie w
supplem enta l/i nt er vent ion
progr ams re views
- ERT te am t o r e view 2nd
gr a de CSI M ap
- Coa ch a nd Pri ncipal t o
r evie w school wide r e ading
sche dul e
- Coa ch t o o bserve inst r uct ion
using gener a l f eatu re s of
inst r uct ion o bs er va t ion f orm in
2nd gr a de i ntens ive class rooms
- Pri ncipa l t o conduct 5- minutes
obser vati ons in 2nd g r ade
inte nsive clas sr ooms
Specific Actions/Solutions
Who
When
Eva luation Method
1. I nten sive 2nd gr a de st uden t s will re ceive
inst r uct ion i n Rea ding Mast er y.
Coach will give placement t ests an d ord e r
mat er ia ls.
2. St udents will r e ce ive 4 0-45 minutes t ea che r dir e cte d RM inst ru ct ion pl us w ork book; 20
minut es IA monit ored f luency b uildi ng inst ru ct ion
in RN; 30 minute t eacher - dir e ct ed RM
inst r uct ion, n o wo r kbook (r et ea ch o r a cce ler at e)
da ily.
3. 2 nd gr ade tea che r a nd I A will be t r a ined in
RM . Coach will ass ist w it h i mple me ntat ion an d
obs er vati ons.
All intens ive 2nd
gr a de stu dents
Mar ch 15, 2007
DIBELS P M and In Pr ogr a m Assess ments
Pr incipal will o bs er ve imple men t at ion
Pr incipal
Febru ar y 15, 2007
2nd gr a de i ntens ive
t ea cher s
IA
Spe d t eache r
Mar ch 15, 2007
Sa me as ab ove
2nd gr a de i ntens ive
t ea cher s, I A, Sped,
an d Re ading C oa ch
Febru ar y 28 a nd 29
weekly obs er va t ions
an d support
RM o bs erv at ion f or m
When will you meet to evaluate the support plan? Date: __ Tuesday Febru ary2 7, 200 7 3-4 pm____ _ ______
Evaluate, and if necessary , Modify the Suppo rt Plan
Summarize Results:
Are modifications to the syste m needed?_______
If so, complete Plan and Implement Levels of Support step.
41
System Problem Solving
Timeline
• Informal Systems Problem Solving is an
Ongoing Process
• Systems Problem Solving process is
most useful after your Winter
Benchmark Data Collection
• How/why is the systems problem
solving process different in the Spring?
42
YOUR TURN!
Problem Solving Form
• USE THEIR OWN DATA TO IDENTIFY
A SYSTEM and TAKE INITIAL PS
STEPS…
• What system?
• What evidence?
• What questions?
• What info will you collect?
43
Team Discussion Questions
• How is this the same as what you have been
doing?
• What pieces of information are different from
what you have been doing?
• What pieces would you like to implement?
• What are the next steps to putting this in
place?
• How does this fit into our RTI plan?
44
The answers are
within our grasp.
45