• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Getting explicit about reading

Getting explicit about reading






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 19

http://amaesdleadership.blogspot.com 19



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Hill

Getting explicit about reading Getting explicit about reading Presentation Transcript

  • Courtney Huff
    Julie Bastow
    Meaghan Gauthier
  • GEAR - Setting/Environment
    9 Elementary Schools
    Avg. Free & Reduced Lunch – 65%
    ~15 Title 1 Teachers
    Environmental Challenges:
    Lack of consistency in Title 1 Programs
    Not all Title 1 teachers have a literacy background
    Bingham Arts
  • GEAR – Relevant Data
    All elementary schools completed a survey entitled, “STARS Framework for Interventions”
    To detail schools’ current framework for interventions
    To identify strengths & weaknesses
    Results provide rationale for GEAR
  • GEAR – Relevant Data
    Survey Question 1: What data is used to determine who needs literacy intervention?
    DIBELS is the primary assessment used in all schools
    Two out of ten schools mentioned using MLPP as a diagnostic assessment in the early grades
    MEAP is only additional data used in upper grades
  • GEAR – Relevant Data
    Essential component of RTI – Use data for three purposes
    Progress Monitor
    Problem identified in survey results: Reliance on the DIBELS screening assessment to make diagnostic decisions.
  • GEAR - Guiding Beliefs
    A diagnostic reading assessment is needed in order to determine an individual student’s intervention needs.
  • GEAR – Relevant Data
    Survey Question 2: Describe the format of intervention in your school(number of students in a group, push-in or pull-out, person responsible for facilitating intervention, etc.)
    The format is primarily the same across schools: Title 1 teacher provides interventions to groups of students ranging from 3-5 mostly outside the classroom.
    None of the schools reported the role of the general education teacher in the intervention process.
  • A Tiered Framework for RTI
    1– 5%
    1– 5%
    1 TO 1
    5 - 10%
    5 - 10%
    80 - 90%
    80 - 90%
  • GEAR – Guiding Beliefs
    Explicit Tier 1 literacy instruction provides a strong base in a framework for RTI
  • GEAR – Relevant Data
    Survey Question 3: Describe the typical interventions within your school.
    Every school implements research-based interventions with varying levels of fidelity in fluency, phonics, and phonemic awareness.
    Fluency is the most common area for intervention
    None of the schools reported interventions in the area of comprehension
  • GEAR – Guiding Beliefs
    Comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading.
  • GEAR – Relevant Data
    Survey Question 4: How is student learning monitored and how often is it monitored?
    All schools reported using DIBELS as a progress monitoring tool once every 2-3 weeks.
    3 out of 10 schools reported using a more specific tool for progress monitoring.
  • GEAR – Relevant Data
    Essential component of RTI – Student progress needs to be monitored to determine if the intervention is working.
    DIBELS is a good measure for progress monitoring, but may not be specific enough for certain students/interventions.
  • GEAR – Guiding Beliefs
    Progress monitoring tools should be specific to the intervention in order to effectively guide instruction
  • GEAR – Urgent Need
    Schools seem to be lacking a systems approach to a vital area of intervention – comprehension.
    A strong RTI framework includes a systematic approach to intervention in all areas. A varied approach may cause students to “slip through the cracks.”
  • GEAR – Urgent Need
  • GEAR – Current Reality
    Two concerns about current culture
    Overreliance on DIBELS
    Targeted comprehension strategy instruction and intervention arenot being implemented
  • GEAR – Preferred Future
    Title 1 teachers as literacy leaders
    Accurately diagnose struggling readers with the Diagnostic Reading Assessment (DRA)
    Design explicit comprehension strategy lessons
    Coach classroom teachers through the same process
  • GEAR – Preferred Future
    Common language in regards to diagnostic reading assessments and comprehension instruction.
    Consistency in instruction, intervention, and data.
  • GEAR – Preferred Future
    Reduce the number of struggling readers in the AMA ESD
    Accurately identify a student’s literacy needs
    Effective comprehension instruction and intervention
    Balanced use of assessments
  • GEAR – Vision Statement
    To strengthen schools’ current Response to Intervention framework, the AMA ESD will provide training, resources, and support in diagnostic reading assessment and explicit comprehension instruction K-5.
  • GEAR – Strategic Plan
    1. Will the AMA ESDhave adequate support from its constituent districts to provide training in the Diagnostic Reading Assessment (DRA) and Strategies that Work (an approach to comprehension instruction) in the 2010-2011 school year?
  • GEAR – Strategic Plan
    2. Will there be enough time for Title 1 teachers to research, implement, and collaborate in a PLC format?
  • GEAR – Strategic Plan
    3. Will general education teachers be willing to implement the DRA and comprehension strategy instruction?
  • GEAR – Strategic Plan
    4. Will diagnostic assessment and strategy instruction become a part of schools” frameworks for intervention?
  • GEAR – Communication Plan
    Conditions needed to implement this initiative
    Monthly Title 1 meetings
    3 consultants act as coaches for individual schools
    Administrative update led by consultants
  • GEAR – The Big Picture