Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Response to Intervention Part 3: Success!

N.B.E. Man
Part 1 in this series covered the background of our 1st year of school-wide interventions. Part 2 looked into the guidelines, management issues and lessons learned. Finally, in Part 3, the success of the reading interventions are laid out for review. 

After a year of planning, training, and implementing it is rewarding to report on the student achievement success from the interventions used during the 2010-2011 school year. The best proof that professional learning has been successful is the resulting student achievement. On the FCAT, Florida’s state test, Neptune Beach Elementary grew by 52 points and made AYP in reading!

An earlier post described the some of the professional learning the teachers participated in prior to the start of the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) lessons. As with any new program, there were some glitches that had to be worked out, but in the end it was running smoothly. LLI was the main reading intervention in the primary grades. We are proud to report that 100% of the students in LLI showed 6 months or more growth in reading. Our 3rd grade students take the FCAT. They must pass FCAT Reading to be promoted to 4th grade. The 3rd grade students in LLI groups made outstanding growth with 90% of them passing the FCAT Reading test. In fact 70% of them scored at proficient level or above!

We had other reading interventions also in place in 3rd grade. The students in Corrective Reading also made growth. The Corrective Reading Group B1 had 40% of the students passed the FCAT while Corrective Reading Group B2 had 60% pass the FCAT. In 4th grade the students from the Corrective Reading groups will most likely be placed in LLI groups, starting around the second week of school.

Our main math intervention, Math Navigator, was easier to implement but more difficult to document. As mentioned in the previous post, effective record keeping and documenting student growth was problematic. At the end of the school year the data had holes and a number of students had missing scores. Due to the inconsistencies in the data, it was not possible to clearly report student growth in math. NBE did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in math, in both of our subgroups. Three things could have impacted our math scores: new generation standards, new textbook adoption, and a retooled test FCAT 2.0. Any one of these could account for a decrease in student achievement. Next year there will need to be an increased focus not only on the interventions, but also on the core math instruction.

In the past, teachers have asked, "What can we do with students who come to my class reading a year or more behind the rest of the students?" Until this year there wasn't a clear answer. Now, with the LLI and other interventions being used with a dedicated time to provide them, there seems to be an answer that meets the needs of both the students and the teachers. This continued focus, working with tested and untested grades, should reduce the overall number of students requiring interventions. At least now when they are identified, we have options. We also have a reason to celebrate all the hard work everyone gave to get to this point. 

Thank you for reading about our interventions and sharing in our successes. Please take a moment to leave a comment, ask a question, or make a suggestion. All will be greatly appreciated!

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Response to Intervention Part 2: Guidelines, Management and Lessons Learned

N.B.E. Manatee

Part 1 covered the background of our Response to Intervention efforts at Neptune Beach Elementary. This post will cover some of the specifics, those pesky little details that make or break a program! 

As with any new program we are learning as we go along. Here are some of the guidelines we follow:
·      No more than 50% of the teachers on a grade level are doing intervention groups. The other teachers monitor the rest of the students on the grade level. We have a state mandated 30-minute physical education time. The entire grade level goes to “recess” at the same time. We pull most intervention groups during this 30-minute block. While we don’t want students to miss the critical outdoor exercise time, there are less than 10% of the students in intervention groups. All of our interventions are intended to be finite in duration so students return to the normal schedule at the end of the intervention.
·      All students must be progress monitored between every 5th to 7th lesson. The results must be graphed not only to show individual growth but also against the norm for the grade level. In other words, interventions must not only show growth but also must be closing the achievement gap.
·      Students who need additional support beyond the 30-minute Tier 2 block are seen by a team to determine Tier 3 eligibility. The Tier 3 work must also follow the same academic focus in Tier 2. If a child’s weakness is in comprehension then all intervention work is in comprehension. Our special education and ESOL teachers help support the majority of our Tier 3 work.
·      All intervention groups meet daily for the allotted time. Exceptions are made for teacher absence and state testing.
·      All students are to receive Tier 1, or core instruction, daily in their own classroom. Intervention groups supplement, not supplant, core instruction.

In addition, there are specific guidelines for each type of intervention. With the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) we follow specific guidelines, such as:
·      LLI groups have 3 to 4 students in the group. Fewer students can move faster than larger groups. This also allows us to do progress monitoring on a student every sixth lesson. More students would produce less frequent progress monitoring.
·      LLI groups are determined from multiple sets of data. This includes FAIR (Florida Assessment in Reading), DRA 2 (Developmental Reading Assessment), and BAS (Benchmark Assessment System) as well as anecdotal and observational notes, and running records.
·      In upper grades, students who present with decoding or fluency issues may be placed in a Corrective Reading group prior to LLI.

Math Navigator:
·      Our first math groups worked with student who scored between 25% and 50% on the screener. Students that scored lower generally needed a different form of remediation. Math Navigator is not a one-size fits all tool.
·      Math Navigator groups work best with 6 students. Larger groups are problematic.

Materials Management:
·      Materials need to be housed in a central location where all teachers have access. Once trained in the system, teachers are responsible for collecting and returning materials in a timely manner.
·      For LLI, copies need to be turned in well in advance of the lessons. Most teachers request copies in 5 to 10 lesson increments.
·      Math Navigator has consumable student workbooks. Reordering new materials will be done on an annual basis.

Student and Information Management:
·      Students follow rituals and routines similar to classroom guided reading groups.
·      Attendance must be kept daily.
·      Anecdotal notes must be kept at least weekly on individual student progress.
·      Communication between the intervention provider and the classroom teacher must be on a regular basis. This can included electronic or paper copies, followed by discussion, but cannot solely be verbal.
·      Group notes and graphs of student progress can be requested at any time by administration.
Lessons Learned:
Problem 1:The biggest issue we encountered was effective record keeping. Time strapped teachers had difficulty getting into the routine of recording information from the intervention. Both Math Navigator and LLI have electronic record keeping systems but the teachers were slow to embrace them and thus a lot of data was lost when they transferred the paper data into digital information. 
Solution: Start, from Day 1, with the electronic record keeping. For Math Navigator this means taking the pre- and post-test on the computer. It saves time by automatically scoring the assessment as well as giving the teacher data on common misconceptions. In LLI the data system keeps attendance, documents progress monitoring and graphs growth over time. 

Problem 2: The right student in the right group at the right time. During training we all worked together to break down data to identify the students that would benefit the most from the interventions. By the time the last intervention was complete some of the students in the groups were too high for the group, and thus did not show the gains obtained by the lower students. 
Solution: Letting the data tell the story speaks volumes in selecting students for interventions. When there is limited time, space, and resources it is important to be diagnostic when selecting students for interventions. We recommended spaces be filled first by students in our AYP groups with additional spaces being filled by the other students.

Problem 3: Communication. Communication between the classroom teacher and the interventionist needs to be documented. Often the classroom teacher was unaware of the progress being made in the intervention groups, making it hard to communicate with parents and other stakeholders.
Solution: This is related to Problem 1, effective record keeping. One solution is to print up the documentation from the digital data collection system with LLI or Math Navigator. The second solution would be to have dedicated time, during weekly data discussion meeting, to verbally update classroom teachers on the printed copy of student progress.

Be sure to look for Part 3: Success!

Monday, July 25, 2011

Response to Intervention Part 1: Background Information

N.B.E. Manatee
This is Part 1 of a three part series on the first year of Response to Intervention at Neptune Beach Elementary School.

Response to Intervention, RtI, is not a new thing. Florida, as a whole, and Duval County in particular, spent time discussing it before it became a reality. Prior to implementation we knew Neptune Beach Elementary had to have a plan before taking this school-wide. Luckily there were trailblazers before us to help lead the way.

The first thing our team did was read. Blogs, books, and articles by some of the biggest names and organizations in education were consumed by the boatload. We learned about new websites where we could see what others schools were doing. We also learned from some of their mistakes.

The next thing was to develop a master schedule. Teachers have too much on their shoulders all ready. If we just said, “Fit this in as best you can” then we took the chance it could be dropped. Designating time for RtI helped to make it a reality. This time was considered sacred and no other academics could occur during this time slot. The time slot varied for each grade level. Some schools have had success with one common time for all grade levels to do intervention work. This make sense when a large proportion of the students need interventions. At Neptune Beach Elementary the number was less than 10% of the entire student population. It made sense for the time to be dedicated when there were no other academics occurring and other students were engaged in non-academic tasks.

At the same time we had to identify and train personnel on how to work with struggling learners. We started with reading in primary grades. Even though these students would not take the state test for several years, we felt this was an investment in the future. We kept hearing over and over what takes 30 minutes to remediate in kindergarten and 1st grade takes 2 hours in 4th grade. Since we didn’t have 2 additional hours in the school day, we started working to reduce the number of kids who struggled in reading. By October of 2010 we started five Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) groups.

In November of 2010 we started training three of our upper grade math teachers in America's Choice Math Navigator. NBE lost 50 points between the 2009 and 2010 FCAT, with 32 points occurring specifically in math. By February 2011 we ended up with 5 teachers running Math Navigator groups in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades.

Reading, though, was still problematic. We trained additional teachers in LLI to meet the needs of 2nd and 3rd grade students. Currently the LLI program materials only go up to Level N, or the middle of 3rd grade. We are looking for a solution for 4th and 5th grade students. In those grades the identified RtI teachers can use Soar to Success (part of our Houghton Mifflin reading adoption) as well as other materials, such as Corrective Reading.

In the spring we expanded our math intervention groups to include second grade. The entire grade level was screened globally and then specifically in place value. We find the most of our struggling math students have weak conceptual understanding in place value and how numbers work. They can memorize facts but have little recourse when they get problems wrong due to number sense issues. The work done this spring should show an impact next spring when they take the 2012 FCAT.

The next post, Response to Intervention Part 2, will go into the specific guidelines, management tips, and lessons learned from our experiences.