East Sac County Elementary GRADE LEVEL TEAM MEETINGS

East Sac County Elementary GRADE LEVEL TEAM MEETINGS (RTI)

RTI At East Sac Elementary If a sailor does not know to which port he is sailing, no wind is favorable. Seneca SEA Guidelines/accountability AEA Guidance/Assistance LEA Commitment How many of you have system wide RTI? Do you have a systematic way of using data to identify struggling students? Are your most talented teachers/interventionists working with identified students?

East Sac County School w 950 students w 57% free and reduced w 1% ethnic w 0% ESL w 2 A size school What is the make-up of schools in the room? HS, MS, or Elementary?

The Social Competence and Academic Achievement Journey Everyone needs to take an active role in developing our young citizens.

We need to provide frameworks and instruction necessary to ensure all students reach and/or surpass grade-level expectations across academic and behavioral areas. That is RTI

Grade Level Meetings = RTI § § § § Grade level teachers At Risk Coordinator Title I Instructor Principal Special Education Instructor AEA Representative School Counselor

Administrative Issues § From Child Study to RTI § Cost to the district § Provide support and resources for teachers § Scheduling § Keeping the right people at the meeting

Administrative Involvement § § Member of Grade Level Team Member of Tier I, III Teams Member of Building Leadership Team Attend Professional Development

Tiers of Intervention Tier 1: Quality core Tier 2: instruction that uses a gradual release of responsibility 75 -85% Supplement al needsbased Instruction 10 -15% Tier 3: Intensive Individualized Instruction 5 -10% Increased time, intensity, frequency, and expertise Enhancing RTI: How to Ensure Success with Effective Classroom Instruction and Intervention by Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey

Tier I § Quality core instruction § Formative assessments § High quality screeners to gauge student progress § Gradual release of responsibility, modeling, productive group work

Tier II § § Additional layer of support Additional small-group instruction More frequent progress monitoring Interventions offered within the general education environment

Tier III § § Intense interventions Increased time Very low teacher-student ratio Intervention provided by experts

Universal Screening for Kdgn & 1 st Grade

Phonological Awareness Test Yearly Schedule for Phonological Awareness Test 2 -Fall -Winter -Spring -Kindergarten -1 st Grade Kindergarten Fall Kindergarten Winter Spring 1 st Grade Fall 1 st grade Winter 1 st grade Spring Rhyming Discrimination Rhyming Production Segmenting Sentences Segmenting Syllables Segmenting Phonemes Isolating Initial Isolating Final Isolating Medial Deletion C/Syl Deletion Phonemes Substitution with Manipulatives Blending Syllables Blending Phonemes Graphemes: Consonants LS Vowels Consonant Blends Consonant Digraphs R-Controlled Vowel Digraph Diphthongs Decoding: VC Words Consonant Digraphs Consonant Blends Vowel Digraphs R-Controlled CVCe Diphthongs

Universal Screening for -1 st Grade -2 nd Grade -3 rd Grade -4 th Grade

Goals for Basic Reading Inventory -Fall -Winter -Spring -Fluency -Accuracy -Comprehension 1 st Grade Fall Winter Spring 2 nd Grade Fall Winter Spring 3 rd Grade Fall Winter Spring 4 th Grade Fall Winter Spring 5 th Grade Fall Winter Spring 6 th Grade Fall Winter Spring 7 th Grade Fall Winter Spring 8 th Grade Fall Winter Spring Accuracy Comprehension Advanced Proficient Needs Interv Needs Subst Interv (75 th %ile +) (50 -74 th %ile) (25 -49 th %ile) (0 -24 th %ile) BRI BRI 14+ 43+ 78+ 77+ 99+ 116+ 100+ 119+ 137+ 119+ 139+ 152+ 137+ 155+ 167+ 153+ 166+ 178+ 154+ 162+ 176+ 160+ 168+ 176+ 7 -13 22 -42 50 -77 50 -76 72 -98 89 -115 72 -99 91 -118 107 -136 94 -118 111 -138 124 -151 109 -136 126 -154 138 -166 127 -152 140 -165 150 -177 127 -153 134 -161 150 -175 130 -159 142 -167 151 -175 2 -6 11 -21 27 -49 24 -49 44 -71 62 -88 46 -71 60 -90 78 -106 69 -93 86 -110 99 -123 85 -108 98 -125 108 -137 98 -126 111 -139 122 -149 102 -126 108 -133 122 -149 104 -129 112 -141 124 -150 Independent Level Instructional Level Frustration Level 95 -100% 90 -94% 89% - Proficient Needs Intervention Needs Substantial Intervention 85 -100% 60 -80% 55% - 0 -10 0 -26 0 -23 0 -43 0 -61 0 -45 0 -59 0 -77 0 -68 0 -85 0 -98 0 -84 0 -97 0 -107 0 -97 0 -110 0 -121 0 -101 0 -107 0 -121 0 -103 0 -111 0 -123

Isolation Deletion Graph Blending 9 NA NA NA Student 24 3 0 3 NA NA 0 NA NA NA Student 25 7 6 9 NA NA 8 NA NA NA Student 26 9 9 8 NA NA 9 NA NA NA Student 27 9 4 9 NA 3 10 NA 8 NA NA 9 NA NA NA Student 28 2 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA NA Student 29 9 10 8 NA NA 0 NA NA 8 NA NA NA Student 30 6 0 10 NA NA 9 NA NA NA Student 31 9 10 10 NA NA 8 NA NA 9 NA NA NA Student 32 10 9 10 NA NA 10 NA NA NA Student 33 10 10 7 NA NA 10 NA NA NA Student 34 10 8 8 NA NA 0 NA NA 9 NA NA NA Student 35 9 9 7 NA NA 0 NA NA 8 NA NA NA Student 36 10 2 10 NA NA 0 NA NA NA Student 37 10 9 10 NA NA 10 NA NA NA Student 38 8 0 6 NA NA 9 NA NA 10 NA NA NA Student 39 7 0 7 NA NA 0 NA NA 8 NA NA NA Student 40 9 5 9 NA NA 10 NA NA NA Student 41 10 10 9 NA NA 10 NA NA 9 NA NA NA Student 42 9 8 8 NA NA 2 NA NA 0 NA NA NA Student 43 8 9 10 NA NA 9 NA NA NA Student 44 10 9 9 NA NA 0 NA NA 10 NA NA NA Class Proficiency Grade Proficiency NA NA 8 10 10 Student 23 39/44 18/22 89% 82% Vow Cons Phon Syl Phon C/Syl Medial Final Initial 9/22 41% Phon 21/44 48% Syl Sent Prod Disc Teacher B 33/44 16/22 75% 73% Segmentation 26/44 13/22 59% 55% Rhyming 34/44 17/22 77% Kdgn-WL-Fall

Name Fall PAT Interventionist Week of 9 -18 -11 9/27/12 *How *List how *Who did the *What specific student *Any notes about this *Who will be the will be in student areas will be performed student - patterns to interventionist for performance, alternative intervention perform on targeted in on this student? ? the Fall intervention? subsequent ways of presenting PAT? probes. problem area, performance in class, etc

Fluency Student F Student W Student H Student Y Student CC Student AA Student BB Student L Student K Student V Student U Student O Student GG Student J Student Q Student P Student D Student E Student I Student DD Student M Student EE Student FF Student X Student N Student C Student S Student A Student B Student Z Student T Student G Student HH Minimum Maximum Median Average F-Fl 20 39 31 47 64 66 71 69 81 81 48 61 87 95 66 63 93 153 114 102 87 96 82 104 142 117 96 124 128 139 127 125 153 20 153 87 90. 0 W-Fl 20 61 59 59 67 82 99 128 91 109 105 75 91 123 106 117 101 98 100 114 125 111 108 105 141 155 129 167 142 176 150 158 187 20 187 107 110. 7 Week of 1 -16 -12 2 -13 -12 28 32 87 77 95 82 84 87 97 92 100 96 118 98 124 99 104 107 150 108 161 109 115 114 122 117 127 117 135 120 124 120 146 124 111 127 133 127 142 127 167 128 157 132 157 133 144 135 148 142 167 164 187 166 176 167 162 167 250 175 167 176 222 181 250 194 28 32 250 194 143 125. 5 142. 1 126. 6 Needs Substantial Intervention (69 wcpm-) Fall BRI 8/33 24% Winter BRI 5/34 15% 1 -16 -12 1/34 3% 222 -12 1/34 3% Not Proficient Fall BRI 12/33 36% Winter BRI 9/34 27% 1 -16 -12 3/34 9% 2 -22 -12 5/34 15% Needs Intervention (70 -92 wcpm) Fall BRI 4/33 12% Winter BRI 4/34 12% 1 -16 -12 2/34 6% 2 -22 -12 4/34 12% Proficient (93 -122 wcpm) Fall BRI 11/33 33% Winter BRI 13/34 38% 1 -16 -12 8/34 24% 2 -22 -12 11/34 32% Proficient Fall BRI 21/33 63% Winter BRI 25/34 73% 1 -16 -12 31/34 91% 2 -22 -12 29/34 85% Advanced (123 wcpm+) Fall BRI 10/33 30% Winter BRI 12/34 35% 1 -16 -12 23/34 68% 2 -22 -12 18/34 53%

Accuracy Student F Student W Student H Student AA Student BB Student I Student N Student O Student L Student J Student Q Student R Student V Student CC Student DD Student C Student D Student E Student G Student K Student M Student P Student S Student U Student X Student Y Student Z Student FF Student GG Student A Student B Student T Student EE Student HH Minimum Maximum Median Average F-Ac 82 90 94 92 99 99 85 98 98 93 99 90 86 99 99 96 99 100 95 99 89 99 100 93 81 99 100 95 99 98 99 99 99 81 100 98. 5 95. 6 Week of W-Ac 1 -16 -12 2 -13 -12 88 92 92 90 95 91 89 98 94 96 98 96 95 99 96 97 99 97 98 100 97 94 97 97 100 99 98 97 99 98 99 100 98 94 99 98 96 100 98 99 100 98 97 99 99 96 100 99 100 100 99 96 100 99 97 99 99 97 100 99 96 100 99 94 98 99 96 99 99 100 99 97 98 99 99 100 100 96 99 100 100 89 95 91 100 100 97 99 99 96. 8 99. 2 98. 2 Frustration Level (89%-) Fall BRI 5/33 15% Winter BRI 2/34 6% Not Proficient 1 -16 -12 1/34 3% Fall BRI 11/33 33% 2 -22 -12 1/34 3% Winter BRI 6/34 18% 1 -16 -12 1/34 3% 2 -22 -12 3/34 9% Instructional Level (9094%) Fall BRI 6/33 18% Winter BRI 4/34 12% 1 -16 -12 0/34 0% 2 -22 -12 2/34 6% Independent Level Fall BRI 22/33 67% Winter BRI 28/34 82% 1 -16 -12 33/34 97% Proficient 2 -22 -12 31/34 91% Fall BRI 22/33 67% Winter BRI 28/34 82% 1 -16 -12 33/34 97% 2 -22 -12 31/34 91%

Comprehension Student F Student R Student Z Student W Student B Student C Student E Student H Student J Student M Student N Student S Student V Student FF Student HH Student A Student D Student G Student I Student K Student O Student P Student Q Student T Student U Student X Student Y Student AA Student BB Student CC Student DD Student EE Student FF Student L Minimum Maximum Median Average Week of 1 F-Co W-Co 16 -12 45 65 90 80 100 90 80 100 100 100 90 95 100 90 100 95 100 100 95 90 100 90 90 100 100 90 100 80 100 100 70 90 85 100 100 90 90 100 90 70 90 90 100 100 90 100 75 100 90 90 90 70 100 80 95 100 90 100 70 80 70 100 100 100 94. 7 96. 3 93. 9 Week of 213 -12 90 80 80 85 90 90 90 100 100 100 100 100 85 100 96. 0 Needs Substantial Intervention (55%-) Fall BRI 1/33 3% Winter BRI 0/34 0% 1 -16 -12 1/34 3% Not Proficient Fall BRI 4/33 12% 2 -22 -12 1/34 3% Winter BRI 3/34 9% 1 -16 -12 5/34 15% 2 -22 -12 3/34 9% Needs Intervention (60 -80%) Fall BRI 3/33 9% Winter BRI 3/34 9% 1 -16 -12 4/34 12% 2 -22 -12 2/34 6% Proficient (85 -100%) Fall BRI 29/33 88% Winter BRI 31/34 91% 1 -16 -12 29/34 85% 2 -22 -12 31/34 91% Proficient Fall BRI 29/33 88% Winter BRI 31/34 91% 1 -16 -12 29/34 85% 2 -22 -12 31/34 91%

Fall-79 -106 wcpm-red Winter 93 -122 wcpm-blue Spring 114 -141 wcpm-green Name 3 rd Grade 2 nd Semester Fall Winter IA Assess BRI Rdg/ Math Interventionist IAA Reading 166 -200 IAA Math 168 -192 12/14/11 Week of 1 -17 -12 1/25/12 *Notes taken during Grade Level Meeting. *Might include *How *Notes performance did *Who did *How *Iowa *What *Who comparing will be in student did student during Assessment areas need will be the Fall & Wintervention perform intervention, scores intervention? interventionist? screening ? on Winter on probe during class, scores Fall BRI? areas that still need work, areas of improvement, behavior data

Grade Level Meeting and the Classroom Teacher Ø Focusing on data and consistent conversation; it changes what teachers and students do in the classroom Ø Teachers need to continuously study and investigate teaching and apply what they learn. Ø Support for the implementation of curricular and instructional innovations. Ø Identify what works and what doesn’t. Ø Provides a chance for celebrations based on data

EM S ST TA Adapted from “What is a systems Approach in school-wide PBS? ” OSEP Technical Assistance on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http: //www. Pbis. org/schoolwide. htm ٭ OUTCOMES DA Supporting Staff Behavior Social Competence & Academic Achievement SY Positive Behavior Interventions Supports PRACTICES Supporting Student Behavior Supporting Decision Making

Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports: A Response to Intervention (Rt. I) Model Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems Tier 2/Secondary Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc. SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T n te Tier 3/ Tertiary In t en m (Behavior and Academic Goals) rv ss en se Daily Progress Report (DPR) Small Group tio As ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Interventions (CICO, SAIG, etc) Group Interventions with Individualized Focus (Cn. C, etc) Simple Individual Interventions (Brief FBA/BIP, Schedule/ Curriculum Changes, etc) Multiple-Domain FBA/BIP Wraparound Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Sept. , 2008 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS & SUPPORT ~5% Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior ~15% Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom. Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior

3 -Tiered System of Support Necessary Conversations (Teams) Universal Team Plans SW & Class-wide supports Universal Support Secondary Systems Team Grade Level Team (RTI) Tertiary Systems Team Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness CICO SAIG Group w. individual feature Brief FBA/BIP Sept. 1, 2009 Brief FBA/ BIP Complex FBA/BIP WRAP

Behavior Data

Behavior Data

Behavior Data

Home School Community Tool

Research-Based instruction Poor classroom management No increases in student achievement Poor instruction Adequate classroom management Little or no increases in student achievement Research-Based Instruction Guided Reading CGI PWIM Teaching for understanding Bloom’s Quadrant 4 Adequate classroom management PBIS Relationships Increased Student Achievement

How data can improve instruction and make positive systems changes Individual students/groups Individual teacher/classroom Grade level/system Systems What are some of the changes you would like to see in your building? Do you have data to support the changes?

Individual Issue Systems Issue

Tier II Systems Changes Staff Meetings Analysis of Data Monthly Meetings with Associates Focus Topics Recess

% Proficient in ITBS Rdg Comprehension by Grade Level-Wall Lake Bldg 100% 90% 87%88% 90% 92% 89% 84%85% 83% 81% 80% 77% 75% 79% 78% 74% 70% 73% 67%68% 67% 70% 85% 81% 62% 2003 -04 2004 -05 60% 2005 -06 50% 2006 -07 47% 2007 -08 2008 -09 40% 2009 -10 2010 -11 28% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2 nd Grade 3 rd Grade 4 th Grade

ESCO Comprehension Comparison ESCO Fluency Comparison 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 2008 -9 50% 2009 -10 40% 2010 -11 30% 20% 10% 0% 3 rd 2009 -10 40% 30% 2 nd 2008 -9 50% 2010 -11 0% 4 th 2 nd 3 rd ESCO Accuracy Comparison 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 2008 -9 50% 2009 -10 40% 2010 -11 30% 20% 10% 0% 2 nd 3 rd 4 th

"We have to think about accountability in a very different way. We have done a splendid job of holding nine-year-olds accountable. Let me suggest as a moral principle that we dare not hold kids any more accountable than we expect to hold ourselves. " Doug Reeves, Founder, Leadership and Learning Center

• Sustainability • Continuous improvement • Make sure norms are established and understood • Continued adult PD • ?

THANK YOU w Becky Halbur, Guidance Counselor bhalbur@eastsac. k 12. ia. us w Cindy Wuebker, Third Grade Teacher cwuebker@eastsac. k 12. ia. us w Mary Ann Peters, At-Risk mapeters@eastsac. k 12. ia. us w Mike Fischer, Elementary Principal mfischer@eastsac. k 12. ia. us