PROMOTING ACHIEVEMENT: RESTRUCTURING SUPPORT SERVICES TO CLOSE THE PROFICIENCY GAP Joseph F. Kovales

1
PROMOTING ACHIEVEMENTRESTRUCTURING SUPPORT
SERVICES TO CLOSE THE PROFICIENCY GAPJoseph F.
KovaleskiIndiana University of PAPatricia A.
GarnerARIN Curriculum CoordinatorDonna K.
SmithARIN Director of Pupil ServicesCarol Boone
and Mark WeaklandARIN CSPD Staff
2
Acknowledgements

• Selected slides for this presentation were
  developed by the following
• David Prasse, Loyola University (Chicago) and
  Dick Hall (Eastern Lancaster County School
  District).
• Jeff Grimes and David Tilly, presented at the
  Innovations Conference, Charleston, SC,
  September, 2003.
• Joy MacKenzie, Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate
  Unit, East Petersburg, PA.
• Jason Pedersen, Jennifer Lillenstein, and Tracey
  Clemens, Cornwall-Lebanon School District,
  Lebanon, PA.

3
Goals of Todays Session

• Explore ways to create a seamless system of
  support to help all students.
• Present and discuss techniques for harnessing
  people power to enable schools to attain AYP
  goals.
• Conceptualize a system that will help limit
  numbers in special education.

4
More goals

• Understand a school-wide restructuring process
  based on student data.
• Fuse diverse programs for at-risk students.
• Reconceptualize support services within a
  three-tier model of service delivery.
• Imagine the principals role as being directly
  connected to student proficiencies.

5
PDE Structure(See 2a and 2b)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Impact of NCLB on Current Practice
9
What Were Hearing

• Belief that we can (and are) helping more
  students to achieve proficiency
• Translating statistics to real, live people
  (students) personalizing the data
• Shared responsibility for promoting achievement
• Learning to be proactive as well as reactive
• Becoming data driven

10
What Were Hearing

• Targeted tutoring
• Direct instruction
• Its all about reading.
• Reading across the content areas
• Reading to Learn vs Learning to Read

11
What Were Hearing

• Do we need secondary level reading immersion
  programs, that is, reading literacy programs?
• Improving attendance
• Parent education
• Early intervention

12
Reading Statistics

• 5 of children learn to read effortlessly
• 20-30 learn relatively easily once exposed to
  reading instruction
• For 60 of children learning to read is a much
  more formidable task
• For at least 20-30 of children, reading is one
  of the most difficult tasks that they will have
  to master.
• For 5 of students even with explicit and
  systematic instruction, reading will continue to
  be a challenge.
• MacKenzie (2000), citing statistics from Lyon,
  Kammeenue, Simmons, et al.

13
National Reading Panel

• http//www.nationalreadingpanel.org/default.htm

14
(No Transcript)
15
Features of an EffectiveEarly Literacy Program

• Kindergarten screening for phonological
  awareness
• Kindergarten intervention program to address
  phonological awareness
• Regular (quarterly) assessments of all students
  on phonological/phonemic awareness and reading
  decoding
• Flexible intervention (remedial) programs to
  address needs of students who fall behind
• Reading program based on sufficient time
  allocated to direct instruction in phonemic
  awareness and efficient decoding of text

16
CONTINUUM OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION IN PHONICS OR
THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE
17
What is a School-Wide Model?

• A system-wide intervention model to enhance
  academic and social behaviors of all students
• Prevention
• Proactive instruction
• Data-based decision making
• Assessment driving instruction
• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

18
Three Tier Model of Teaming
Tier 1 Grade level teaming based on data
Tier 2
Standard Protocol Intervention
IST
Tier 3 Special Education
19
Three Tier Model of Teaming
Before the tiers The foundational
program Curriculum maps Focus on effective
instruction Belief system
Tier 1
Grade level teaming based on data Focus on entire
group Scientifically based instruction Specific
lesson planning Intentional instructional change
Eye on the benchmarks
20
Tier 2
Standard Protocol Intervention 15 Pre-planned
Flexible grouping Kids in and out
IST Model 5 - 10
Tier 3
Special education 5
21
Three Tier Model

• Tier 1 Data Analysis Teaming
• Tier 2
• Standard Protocol Interventions
• Instructional Support Teaming (Case Review)
• Tier 3 Flexible Service Delivery

22
Tier 1 Data Analysis Teaming

• Teams of like teachers working together to
• Access critical data on all students performance
  related to achievement of standards
• Analyze data and find which students have which
  gaps in attainments
• Set measurable goals to close the gap
• Brainstorm or create instructional strategies

23
Teachers Working Together

• Like teachers grade level or department level
• Use skills of collaborative consultation (e.g.,
  problem identification, brainstorming)
• Need a structure (time, place, etc.)

24
Accessing Critical Data

• Two forms of data group tests and district
  performance tests/tasks
• Need a process for gathering data
• Need someone to convert data into
  teacher-friendly summary documents
• Need to train teachers on how to read summary
  documents

25
DIBELS Website

• http//dibels.uoregon.edu/index.php

26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Teachers Analyze Data

• View skills critical to meeting standards
• Identify which students have attained skill
• Identify which are developing skill
• Identify which are deficient

29
Team Learning LogTARGETED STANDARD/BENCHMARK
(from state or local assessment)e.g. compare
and order decimals and fractions (from Stanford
9, 5th grade)___________________________________
_____________________ ___________________________
____________________________________INSTRUCTIONAL
SOLUTION BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF LESSON
PLAN/STRATEGY (that address the above area of
weakness)________________________________________
_ _________________________________________ _
_________________________________ _ __________
______________________________ __RESULTS
MEASURABLE IMPACT OF SOLUTION (e.g. 62 of our
students or 17 of 28 students mastered the
targeted standard)_______________________________
______ _____ _______________________________ _
___________Adapted from Schmoker (1999)
30
Teachers Set Group Goals

• Create brief statements describing expected
  attainments of group
• Set a deadline or target date
• For example By January, 90 of students will
  demonstrate proficiency on (describe specific
  skill)

31
Teachers Brainstorm Strategies

• With goal in mind, teachers brainstorm specific
  ideas for teaching to the target skill
• Can use existing known strategies
• Many teams choose to create entirely new
  strategies
• Keep focused on research-based strategies

32
Teachers Implement Strategies

• All strategies are whole- or small-group
  interventions

33
What We Need TASK

• Time
• Attitude
• Strategies
• Know-how (to work together)

34
Quarterly Assessment Products What to Look For

• Quarterly
• By individual students
• By specific benchmark skills
• Examples
• Testlynx?
• http//www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski/RTI20websites.ht
  m

35
Benefits of Tier 1

• Promotion of evidence-based instruction on a
  whole-class, whole-school level
• Systematic identification of non-responders (not
  just teacher referral)
• Eventual focusing of resources on fewer students
  at tiers 2 and 3

36
Three Tier Model of Teaming
Tier 1 Grade level teaming based on data
Tier 2
Standard Protocol Intervention
IST
Tier 3 Special Education
37
Tier 2 Two Options

• Some students will not meet benchmarks even with
  help at Tier 1
• Someone is monitoring results of data-analysis
  teams to identify students for IST
• Options are
• Standard Protocol Interventions
• IST (Case Review Process)

38
A Standard Protocol Intervention

• is scientifically based.
• has a high probability of producing change for
  large numbers of students.
• is designed to be used in a standard manner
  across students.
• is usually delivered in small groups.
• is often scripted or very structured.
• can be orchestrated by a problem-solving team.

39
Special-education-like Instruction(McMaster et
al., 2003)

• immediate corrective feedback
• mastery of content before moving to next lesson
• more time on activities that were especially
  difficult
• more opportunities to respond
• fewer transitions
• setting goals and self-monitoring progress
• special relationship with tutor

40
Demo of Standard ProtocolInterventions
41
Direct Instruction Techniques

• Explicitly teach the students what you want them
  to learn
• Teach to mastery and use error correction
• Keep pace of instruction brisk
• Engage students via choral response and random
  selection of individuals

42
D.I. and IDEA 2004Scientifically-based
instruction

• Classroom Instruction that Works (ASCD 2001)
• Similarities and differences
• Homework and practice
• Effective Teaching Principles (Ellis, et al.)
• Active engagement
• Generate high success rates
• Increase direct instruction time

43
Direct Instruction Techniquesand Vocabulary

• A non-example
• An example

44
THIEVES

• Identifies elements of a text chapter to survey,
  read, and think about in advance of actual
  reading
• Enhances access of prior knowledge, as well as
  expectation and purpose

45
THIEVES

• T Title
• H Headings
• I Introduction
• E Every First Sentence in a Paragraph
• V Visuals and Vocabulary
• E End-of-chapter Questions
• S Summary

46
Standard Protocol Websites

• http//www.fcrr.org/
• http//reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/con_guide.php
  
• http//oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downloads/10
  6_High_Priority_Programs.pdf

47
Exemplary Standard Protocols for Early Literacy

• Phonological Awareness Training for Reading
  (PATR)
• Early Reading Intervention (Scott Foresman)
• REWARDS (Sopris West)

48
Tier 2 Organizational Changes

• special and general educators pooling resources
• creative/flexible scheduling to allocate
  sufficient time to small group instruction
• creative uses of personnel resources (i.e., many
  people teaching reading groups)
• (Kamp Greenwood, 2003)

49
Problem Solving for Individual Students Key
Features

• a core group of teachers working together to
  get the job done (Kamp Greenwood, 2003)
• Curriculum-based assessment
• Establishing the intervention
• Graphing and evaluating data
• Routinizing the intervention

50
(No Transcript)
51
Graph of IST data
52
Results of Tier 2

• Identify which students have good or poor
  response to instruction (RTI)
• Sort students who need further help
• Decide which students are helped in general
  education
• Decide which students need evaluation for special
  education

53
Tier 2 Ongoing Support
54
Tier 3 Flexible Service Delivery

• No further data collection needed for most
  remedial programs (e.g., Title 1, Reading
  Recovery)
• MDE decides if further evaluation is needed for
  special education eligibility
• At this stage, specialists are added to the
  ongoing implementation of the remediation

55
System Change for Flexible Services

• Consensus on evidence-based practice (a house
  divided)
• Administrative leadership and involvement
• Revision of paperwork and job descriptions

56
Critical Features of Flex

• Cross training of staff
• Non-categorical deployment of staff
• Remediation based on students needs
• Transitory services

57
Cross Training

• Identification of critical knowledge and
  strategies
• Training of all flex staff in ALL of the
  procedures

58
Non-categorical Deployment

• Eliminate wide variety of job titles (at least
  conceptually)
• Specialists are fungible -- anyone can take
  anothers place or role

59
Need-based Services

• Data are now used to sort students into
  appropriate levels and types of service
• Level how much time during school day
• Type what type of strategies are needed
• Use of double-grid system of planning
• Data profiles of students receiving different
  types of services created

60
Transitory Service

• Students may not need a given service for the
  entire year
• Program may be reorganized from month to month
  and from year to year
• Program organization follows needs of students,
  not a model

61

Flexible Service Delivery Model
Time
Period
A
B
C
D
910-955
1
PT
LA 2/3
Flex
Flex
1000-1045
2
PT
LA 2/3
LA 4/5
Flex
1050-1135
3
PT
Flex
LA 4/5
M2
1140-1225
Lunch
Lunch
Lunch
Lunch
Lunch
1230-110
Flex
PT
Flex
Flex
LA2B
110-155
4
PT
M 3/4
M 4/5
LA2A
200-245
5
PT
LA 4
LA 1B
LA1A
250-320
Activity
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
320 until ?
Parent Meetings
Flex IST, DIBELS, TARGETED INTERVENTION,
ASSESSMENT DATA Additional Support Members such
as Reading Specialists, ESL, Guidance, Learning
Facilitator, Speech and Language, etc. will also
work on data collection and collaboration.
62
Roles and FunctionsNewark Valley (NY) School
District
63
IDEA 2004 CHANGES Eligibility Determinations

• A child shall not be determined to be a child
  with a disability if determinant factor is
• Lack of scientifically-based instructional
  practices and programs that contain the essential
  components of reading instruction.
• Lack of instruction in math
• Limited English Proficiency

64
IDEA 2004 Changes reSpecific Learning
Disabilities

• The LEA shall not be required to take into
  consideration whether the child has a severe
  discrepancy between achievement and intellectual
  ability in oral expression, listening
  comprehension, written expression, basic reading
  skill, reading comprehension, mathematical
  calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

65
IDEA 2004 Changes re Specific Learning
Disabilities (cont)

• In determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability, a local educational agency
  may use a process which determines if a child
  responds to scientific, research-based
  intervention.

66
Entitlement for Special Education
Assessment and Progress Data From Problem Solving
Process
Educational Progress
Discrepancy
Instructional Needs
Convergence of Data from a Variety of Sources
(Grimes Tilly, 2003)
67
3 Purposes of Assessment Data

• To enable student performance
• To enable student performance
• To enable student performance
• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

68
What structures do you have in place that support
the 3 tier process?
69
What organizational structures do you need to put
in place to make this happen?
70
What professional development needs does this
model require?
71
Contacts

• Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed.
• Indiana University of PA
• jkov_at_iup.edu
• Patricia A. Garner
• ARIN Intermediate Unit
• pgarner_at_arin.k12.pa.us