implementation of data-based decision-making in an urban elementary school

Implementation of Data-Based Decision-Making in an Urban

Elementary School

Doug MarstonJane Thompson

Minneapolis Public Schools

March 26, 2009

History in Minneapolis of Data-Based ProgramModification, Problem Solving Model and RTI

• Curriculum-Based Measurement (1982)

• Problem Solving Model (1993)

• Web-based Student Data System (1999)

• Demonstration of Progress Monitoring Grant (2006)

my_collecxml_no_dmy_collecmy_collec

Stage 2: Team Intervention

Stage 1: Classroom Intervention

Academics

Student Remains Discrepant from School and/or Parent Expectation

Stage 3: Special Ed. Evaluation

Student Remains Discrepant from School and/or Parent Expectation

Building-wide Screening

Teacher/Parent Concerns

MPS Problem-Solving ModelMPS Problem-Solving Model

1-5%

15-20%

75-80%

Intensive Intervention• Few students• High Intensity

Targeted Group Interventions• Some students• Higher intensity

Core Literacy Instruction• All students

All students receive strong Core Curriculum with rigor (high and clear expectations)

All students screened with benchmarks

Students identified through screening receive more intensive literacy support in Targeted Group Intervention

Evidenced-based interventions delivered and progress monitored weekly

Students not making adequate progress receive more intensive intervention

Using Data for Instructional Decision-Making

TIER 1

TIER 2

TIER 3

Loring School (K-5): 372 Students

. American Indian 5%

. African American 43%

. Asian American 10%

. Hispanic American 16%

. White American 25%

. Students in Poverty 77%

. English Language Learners 20%

. Special Education 8%

• High quality, scientifically based classroom instruction

• Ongoing student assessment• Tiered instruction

Response to Intervention

High quality, scientifically based classroom instruction

•Reading Excellence Act/Reading First•Teacher Advancement Program (TAP)•Professional Learning Communities•Demonstration of Progress Monitoring Project

Ongoing student assessment

•Summative Data: MCA•Benchmark Data: NALT/MAP/CBM•Formative Data: Weekly CBM

Student Words ReadNames Correctly

Screening inFall, Winter,and SpringOn Words ReadCorrectly onGrade Level

Progress Monitoring is viewed on the OCR Website

Tiered instruction

• Use monthly grade level teams to review data

• Match student needs based on data with appropriate instructional strategies

• Focused on NRP areas

Tier 1-Core Tier 2 Tier 3

Kindergarten Houghton-Mifflin; Core MaterialsLeveled Library

PALS Program Reading MasteryPhonemic Awareness

Grade 1 Houghton-MifflinLeveled LibraryCollins Writing

EIRLeveled LibraryRead NaturallyReading Mastery

EIRReading Mastery

Grade 2 Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled Library

Leveled LibraryRead NaturallyReading Mastery

EIRReading Mastery

Grade 3 Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled Library

Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled Library

Reading Mastery

Grade 4 Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled Library

Houghton-Mifflin Core MaterialsLeveled LibrarySoar To Success

Corrective Reading

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 3

60 Minutes

60 Minutes

Classroom Teacher # 1Core or Tier 1

Classroom Teacher # 2Core or Tier 1

Typical Grade Level Instructional Groupings for Teaching Reading

Monthly Progress Monitoring and Instructional Planning Meetings

1. Meetings for each grade level

2. Participants include: general education teachers, ELL, Title 1, Special

Education, Associate Educators, EAs, Principal, Project Facilitator

3. Meetings 120 minutes in length

4. Initial tier of instruction defined by student performance on Fall

screening

5. Review student progress monitoring data (Weekly graphs)

6. Review instructional groupings and discuss intervention strategies

7. Move students needing more intensive or less intensive instruction

August JanuaryTraining on progress monitoring School-wide screening: WinterTier 2 & 3 intervention training Progress monitoring

Student data meetingsSeptember Study groups

School-wide screening: FallFormation of groups for Tier 2 and 3 FebruaryBegin progress monitoring Progress monitoringStudy groups Student data meetings

Study groupsOctober

Progress monitoring MarchStudent data meetings Progress monitoringStudy groups Student data meetings

Study groupsNovember

Progress monitoring AprilStudent data meetings Progress monitoringStudy groups MCA TESTING

May

December School-Wide screening: SpringProgress monitoring Progress monitoringStudent data meetings Student data meetings

Study groups

Fidelity of Implementation for RTI

• RTI Data Meetings for Grade Level Teams• Fidelity of Interventions• EBASS – Student Engaged Time• Reading Instruction Checklist

Summary of Year 1 Results

41 of 273 students moved up a tier (more intensive) or 15%

45 of 273 students moved down a tier (less intensive) or 16.5%

86 students out of 273 students moved up or down a tier or 31.5%

Instructional changes for studentsIn Year 1

In 2006-7 seven students were eligible for special education (2.5%)

Impact of RTI on Special Education Eligibility

Year 1: MCA changes for All Student at Loring School

Year 1: MCA Changes for African American Students at Loring School

Summary of Year 2 Results

17 of 283 students moved up a tier (more intensive) or 6%

25 of 283 students moved down a tier (less intensive) or 8.8%

42 students out of 283 students moved up or down a tier or 14.8%

Instructional changes for students in Year 2

In 2007-8 two students were eligible for special education (1%)

Impact of RTI on Special Education Eligibility: Year 2

Elements of Successful Reading Instruction (Percentage of Occurrence)

Tier 1

Tier 2

1 Phonemic awareness is taught 50 572 Phonics is used 42 653 Students have opportunities to read aloud 49 83

4Reading instruction includes explicit vocabulary instruction 59 77

5 Reading instruction includes sight word instruction 55 486 Comprehension strategies are used 85 527 Teacher modeling and guided practice are used 93 928 Writing component is evident as part of literacy block 59 79

9Classroom is rich with reading materials of high interest and varied reading levels 98 93

10 Clear classroom rules are reinforced by the teacher 95 94

11Behavior disruptions are handled consistently and promptly 90 95

12Interactions with students are positive, encouraging, and emphasize the importance of student effort 95 92

Ecobehavioral Assessment Software System(EBASS) Greenwood (1991)

Student Academic Responses (Active Engaged Time) •Writing•Task Participation•Read Aloud•Read Silently•Talk Academic

Year 1 & 2: MCA Reading - All Students

Year 1 & 2: MCA Reading Percent Proficient - Loring White and African-American Student Gap Comparisons

05-06 06-07 07-08

Loring White 72% 75% 77%State White 76% 75% 77%Loring African-American 33% 54% 52%MPS African-American 34% 31% 31%State African-American 44% 40% 43%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Observations from Principal

•Teacher repertoire increases•Instructional time maximized•Student performance formatively evaluated which informs instruction•Students continually challenged at their instructional level•Behavior issues reduced•Special education referrals reduced•School enrollment growing•Culture of school becomes more professional and positive•Joy of teaching is restored

Words of ExperienceThese must be in place:•Establishing a belief system•Strengthening core instruction•Strengthening behavior and classroom climate

Concern would be that if the above are not in place, too many students would be placed in Tier 2 interventions.

Principal’s Responsibilities:•Create a team who can develop, promote, and monitor the work•Schedules to ensure 120 minutes of Reading•Schedule Progress Monitoring •Quality of instruction•Fidelity of interventions•Choice of research-based interventions and appropriateness