• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Psy dorn
 

Psy dorn

on

  • 1,179 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,179
Views on SlideShare
1,179
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
14
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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.

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

    Psy dorn Psy dorn Document Transcript

    • 6/8/11   RTI:  A  Systemic  and  Comprehensive   Professional  References     Model  for  Literacy  Improvement     Dorn, L. & Henderson, S. (2010). A comprehensive assessment system as a response to intervention method. In P. Johnston (Ed.), RTI in Literacy: Responsive and Comprehensive. Newark, DE: IRA.   Dorn, L. & Schubert, B. (2010). A comprehensive intervention model for preventing reading failure: A response to intervention process. In P. Johnston (Ed.), RTI in Literacy: Responsive and Comprehensive. Newark, DE: IRA.   Dorn, L. & Henderson, S. (2010). A comprehensive intervention model: A systems approach to RtI. In M. Y. Lipson, M. & K. K. Linda  Dorn,  PhD.   Wixon (Eds.), Successful approaches to RTI: Collaborative practices for improving K-12 literacy. Newark, DE. Professor,  Director,  Center  for  Literacy   University  of  Arkansas  at  LiFle  Rock     Dorn, L. & Soffos, C. (2011). Interventions that work: A comprehensive intervention model for preventing reading failure. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Themes  of  RTI    High  quality,  research-­‐based  core  literacy   instrucMon    Research-­‐based  intervenMons  with  levels  of   intensity    Alignment  between  classroom  and   supplemental  instrucMon      School-­‐embedded  professional  development   that  focuses  on  teaching  and  learning   Changing  Literacy  Outcomes  by   Changing  People  •  MulMple  and  balanced  assessments  with   emphasis  on  formaMve  assessments    A  Comprehensive  and  Systemic  Approach    A  systemic  and    An  intervenMon  that  is  grounded  in  the   comprehensive   belief  that  teachers  are  the  agents  for   approach  calls   transforming  schools,  and  that  school-­‐ upon  every  team   embedded  professional  development   and  every  teacher   creates  an  authenMc  context  for  developing   to  idenMfy  and   teacher  experMse,  thus  reducing  the  literacy   aFack  areas  for   gap  and  ensuring  success  for  all  students.     improvement.   1  
    • 6/8/11   Three  Levels  of  IntervenMons   A  System  of  IntervenMons   School  Culture   School  Culture   Transforming   Schools   Professional   Development   Teacher     PercepMons   and     Knowledge     To  get  started  with  Response     to  IntervenMon,  you  must  first   Three  Problems   idenMfy  and  aFack  the  problem.   That  Impact  the   Literacy   Achievement   Work  on  causes,  not  symptoms.   Get  to  the  root  of  the  problem  and   dissolve  the  root!     1)  The  Special  EducaMon  Problem      2)  The  Poverty  Problem   Number  of  children  idenMfied  as  LD  in  special    Poverty  is  the  single  biggest  predictor  for  a  child’s   failure  in  school.   educaMon  has  increased  dramaMcally  since  1975    The  average  middle-­‐class  child  has  been  exposed  to   80-­‐90%  of  children  idenMfied  as  LD  are  impaired   as  many  as  1,700  hours  of  one-­‐on-­‐one  reading   in  reading   while  the  average  low-­‐income  child  has  been   exposed  to  25  hours.     Many  children  in  special  educaMon  may  be    Children  of  poverty  cannot  be  educated  with  the   instrucMonal  casualMes  because  they  did  not  get   same  amount  of  money  as  higher-­‐income  children.   adequate  instrucMon  prior  to  idenMficaMon    RemediaMon  programs  are  grounded  in  a  deficit   model,  in  contrast  to  layered,  accelerated   approaches.     hFp://www.jstart.org/site/DocServer/America_s_Early_Childhood_Literacy_Gap.pdf? docID=3923   2  
    • 6/8/11   The  Widening    Poverty  Gap   3)  The  Data  Problem    A  substanMal  gap   between  between   •  Too  many  schools  use  data  in  simplisMc  ways   students  in  high-­‐ (single  measure)  that  can  ignore  complex  issues   poverty  schools  and  low   in  learning.   poverty  schools  already   •  As  a  result,  schools  may  engage  in  ‘random  acts   exists  when  they  enter   of  improvement’  in  contrast  to  systemaMc  and   kindergarten,  and  it   focused  plans  for  improvement.   grows  to  an  average  of   •  Therefore,  schools  react  by  treaMng  symptoms   three  or  four  years  by   and  ignoring  the  root  causes.   the  Mme  they  get  to  the   •  In  the  process,  data  are  not  used  for  school   end  of  high  school.   improvement.     Some  QuesMons  to  Ask   Some  QuesMons  to  Ask  About   •  How  does  the  school  perceive  the  struggling   PercepMons,  Programs,   reader?     •  How  do  classroom  teachers  view  their   Processes,  and  PracMces     responsibility  for  teaching  the  lowest   students?   •  How  is  reading  instrucMon  taught  in  the   classroom?     •  Is  classroom  instrucMon  differenMated  to  meet   needs  of  diverse  learners?   QuesMons  (conMnued)  •  What  intervenMons  are  in  place  for  the   struggling  readers?   Six  SoluMons  to  Transform  •  What  are  the  qualificaMons  of  the  individuals   Schools   who  teach  the  struggling  students?    •  Are  students  referred  to  special  educaMon   without  the  opportunity  to  parMcipate  in   high-­‐quality  instrucMon?  •  What  assessments  are  used  to  make  these   decisions?     3  
    • 6/8/11   Six  SoluMons   Solution 1: Create a culture for1)  Create  a  culture  for  learning  and  high  expectaMons   learning and high expectations2)  Provide  differenMated  core  instrucMon  as  the  first  line   of  defense  against  illiteracy  3)  Implement  comprehensive  layered  intervenMons  for   struggling  readers   The  school  culture  determines  how  teachers  4)  Build  instrucMonal  congruency  across  programs,   perceive  students’  learning,  what  instrucMonal     assessments,  and  intervenMons   methods  they  value  and  use  for  parMcular  students,  5)  Provide  opportuniMes  for  teachers  to  collaborate  on   and  how  they  assess  student’s  literacy  learning.     ways  to  help  struggling  readers    6)  Analyze  and  uMlize  data  for  conMnuous  improvement        8  Cultural  Forces  that  Impact  Literacy  Growth  •  The  expectaMons  for  students’  thinking  and  learning  that   SoluMon  2:  Provide  differenMated   the  teacher  conveys  •  The  rouMnes  and  structures  that  guide  the  life  of  the   core  instrucMon  as  the  first  line  of   classroom  •  Teacher  and  student  language  that  the  teacher  uses  and   defense  against  illiteracy   students  use  and  conversaMons  they  engage  in  •  The  opportuniMes,  work,  or  acMviMes  the  teacher  creates  for   students  •  How  the  teacher  acts  and  what  the  teacher  models  for   students  •  The  interacMons  and  relaMonships  between  the  teacher  and   students,  as  well  as  among  the  students  themselves  •  The  physical  environment  and  arMfacts  present  in  the  room  Ritchart,  R.  (2002).  Intellectual  Character.  Jossey-­‐Bass.  CA.  p.  146-­‐147.   High Quality Core Instruction (Tier 1)      Core  InstrucMon  (Tier  1)     Research-­‐based  literacy     Within  a  Workshop  Framework   pracMces     Structured  rouMnes  and     predictable  frameworks   Congruency  across   classroom  curriculum  and     supplemental  programs     Seamless  conMnuum  up  the     grades  that  increases  in     complexity  and  sophisMcaMon   4  
    • 6/8/11   Reading Workshop !"#$%&($)"*+,-."/$%"0122.%.34154136"734%8,41$3 Framework  for  DifferenMaMon   Writing Workshop M  =48H.34"(5%." -.5%3136"2%$F" M  N5%6.4.H"F5--" 6%$8)"F131P-.$3" 134.%D.341$3"2$%" •  Reading  Workshop   •  WriMng  Workshop   13H.).3H.34" )%$R.,4" 48H.34"Q($"H1H" –  Mini-­‐Lesson     –  Mini-­‐Lesson   Language Workshop M  N.5,(.%"!.F.34" 3$4"%.)$3H"4$" Q($-."6%$8)"-.$3" M"N.5,(.%" –  Small  Group  Reading  InstrucMon   –  Independent  WriMng   !.F.34" –  Workshop  Projects     –  Small  Group  Mini-­‐Lessons   –  WriMng  About  Reading     SC""#($-."T%$8)" BC""#($-."T%$8)" G131P-.$3"" Content Workshop =(5%136" >O5.H"$3"" >O5.H"$3"3..H"$2" –  Individual  and  Group   13H.).3H.34"Q$%&" 2%$F"5163.H" F5R$%14+"$2",-5"P" F1U.H"-.D.-C"" –  Teacher  Conferences   Conferences     –  Debriefing  and  Assessment   )%$R.,4C" Math Workshop VC""W3."P4$PW3."$%" =F5--"T%$8)"" *$32.%.3,."54" "@C""=F5--"T%$8)"""""" T81H.H"J.5H136" •  Content  Workshop   134%8,41$35-"-.D.-" :.$3""54"" 1348,41$35-"-.D.-" •  Language  Workshop   >$4(.%"48H.34"Q$%&" $3""5163.H")%$R.,4" >$4(.%"48H.34"Q$%&" 54"13H.).3H.34" $3""5163.H")%$R.,4" –  Mini-­‐Lesson,  Read  Aloud   –  Mini-­‐Lesson   –  InvesMgaMve  Units  in  Content   -.D.-C" 54"13H.).3H.34"-.D.-"" –  Author/Genre/Text  Studies   M  73H1D1H85-"$%"F5--" M  N5%6.4.H" –  Language  InvesMgaMons   Areas   6%$8)"45%6.4.H" 134.%D.341$3">#$%H" ,$32.%.3,." M  N.5,(.%" =48H+9"#%14136"!O$84" J.5H1369"!14.H" –  Response  Logs   –  Research  Teams   #%14136C" 5.F.34" M  N.5,(.%"!.F.34" –  Small  Group  Work   –  Individual  and  Group   –  Teacher  Conferences   Conferences   " " _        Debriefing  and  Assessment   0$%39":;"<"=$22$9"*;">?5385%+9"@ABAC;"734.%D.341$3"4(54"#$%&E"!"*$F)%.(.31D." 734.%D.341$3"G$H.-"2$%"I%.D.34136"J.5H136"/51-8%.;"K$4$39"GLE"!--+3"<"K5,$3;"" Typical Classroom Schedule Using Workshop Framework  Shared Reading Poetry (10 minute)   Language Studies (35 minutes)   Language Mini-Lesson  Spelling/Phonics (20 minutes) SoluMon  3:  Implement     Small Group Language Investigations, teacher  Reading Workshop: (90 minutes) conferences comprehensive  layered     Reading Mini-Lesson   Debriefing & Closure   Small Group Instruction: Guided Reading, Literature Discussion Group,   Writing Workshop (45 minutes) Assisted Writing   Reading Conferences   Writing Mini-Lesson   Independent Writing, teacher intervenMons  for  sustaining   improvement     Debriefing & Closure conference  Math Workshop: (65 minutes)   Content Workshop (45 minutes)   Math Mini Lesson   Content Mini-Lesson   Small group math investigations,   Small group investigations, teacher conferences content strategy groups   Debriefing and Closure  Lunch/Recess (50 minutes)  Specials (40 minutes) System  IntervenMons  in  a  Layered  4-­‐Tiered  Approach   Classroom  Literacy   Tier  1:  Core  classroom   program  with  differenMated   System  IntervenMons   Program   small  group  instrucMon   CR  Interven8on   Classroom  teacher  provides    If special education is the only significant addiMonal  support  to  lowest   group.   intervention tool available in a school, it is Tier  2:  Small  group  with   inevitable that the school will come to rely uponTiers  2  and  3  are  not  linear.   intensity  that  relates  to  group   that tool too frequently. A school with a multi-step Small  Group  Interven8on   size  and  experMse;  duraMon  in  They  represent  degrees  of   or     group  depends  on  student   system of interventions arms itself with a variety ofintensity  for   1-­‐1  Interven8on   need  meeMng   tools for meeting the needs of its students and thusstudent  needs.   Tier  3:  1:1  with  Reading   Recovery  in  1st  grade;  1:2   is more likely to find the appropriate strategy (p. group  or  reading/wriMng   165) Special   conferences  in  upper  grades   Educa8on     Tier  4:  Referral  process  aper   student  has  received   intervenMon  in  layers  1,  2,   DuFour,  R,  et  al.  (2004).  Whatever  it  Takes:  How  Professional  Learning  CommuniMes   All  intervenMons  are  dynamic  and  interacMve,  not  staMc  and  linear.     and  3     Respond  When  Kids  Don’t  Learn.  SoluMon  Tree.  Bloomington,  IN.   5  
    • 6/8/11   Premises  for  Early  IntervenMon                        Maintain  Focus  on  System  Goal   •  Intervene  as  early  as  possible  before  confusions   To  change  the  achievement  profile  of  a  school     become  habituated  and  unthinking  reacMons   by:   •  Provide  short-­‐term  services  that  focus  on  helping    •  providing  high  quality  intervenMons     young  readers  develop  strategies  for  efficient    that  increase  literacy  levels  of  low-­‐     problem  solving  in  conMnuous  texts    performing  children   •  Make  data-­‐driven  decisions  about  the  intensity  of    •  providing  training  and  professional     intervenMons,  duraMon,  and  if  follow-­‐up  support    development  for  teachers  that  increase     is  needed.    knowledge  and  experMse  for  teaching  the      lowest  children.   A Wrap Around Model for Layering Interventions   Reading  Recovery   Co g n ntin ldi   Emergent  Language  &  Literacy  Group   ffo gen Layered Sca   Guided  Reading  Plus  Group   t Sc nt aff   Assisted  WriMng  Group   nge Support old nti   InteracMve  WriMng   ing Co   WriMng  Aloud   Contingent Scaffolding   WriMng  Process  Group     Comprehension  Focus  Group    Genre  Units    Content  Units   Intensive Intervention Aligning and Layering Supplemental Interventions Within a Workshop Framework RtI Plan for Aligning and Layering Literacy Interventions Student Goal: Developing a Self-Regulated Learner Student_____________________________________ Grade _____________ Classroom Teacher________________________ Date_______________  Shared Reading Poetry (10 minute)   Language Workshop (35 minutes) Degrees of Intensity Individual Small Group Whole Class Independent Work   Language Mini-Lesson ! Reading Conference ! Guided Reading Group ! Read Aloud ! Familiar/Easy Reading  Spelling/Phonics (20 minutes   Small Group Language Investigations, ! Writing Conference ! Literature Discussion Group ! Shared Reading ! Writing Process Universal teacher conferences ! Reading and Writing Conferences ! ! Mini-Lessons Spelling/Phonics ! ! Phonics or Vocabulary Tasks Literature Extensions RTI: Comprehension Focus Groups ! Classroom: Tier I  Reading Workshop: (90 minutes) ! Language Investigations Genre, Text, and Author ! Share Time ! ! Research Projects   Reading Mini-Lesson   Debriefing & Closure Studies Internet Projects ! Tailored Mini-Lessons   Small Group Instruction: Guided Reading, 1:1 or Small Group (2-3) Small Group (4-5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration Literature Discussion Group   Writing Workshop (45 minutes) ! Reading Conference ! Word Study (prior to Guided Intervention ! Reading)   Writing Mini-Lesson Writing Conference layers of Support/Expertise ! Writing About Reading   Reading Conferences   Independent Writing, teacher ! (following Guided Reading) RTI: Guided Reading Plus conference ! Language and Literacy Group Assisted Writing Group RTI: Assisted Writing RTI: Assisted Writing Small Group (2-3) Small Group (4 -5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration RTI: Comprehension Focus Group RTI: Writing Process Group ! Guided Reading Plus Group ! Guided Reading Plus Group Intervention Specialist ! Comprehension Focus Group ! Comprehension Focus Group Tier II   Debriefing & Closure   Debriefing and Closure ! Language and Literacy Group ! Language and Literacy Group ! Assisted Writing Group ! Assisted Writing Group ! Writing Process Group (push-in) ! Writing Process Group (push-in)  Math Workshop: (65 minutes) 10:10-11:15   Content Workshop (45 minutes) 1:1 Plan/Monitoring/Duration   Content Mini-Lesson ! Tier III   Math Mini Lesson Reading Recovery   Small group investigations, content ! Targeted Intervention (beyond   Small group math investigations, teacher strategy groups first grade) conferences RTI: Content Strategy Group 1-1 Small Group (2-5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration ! Targeted Intervention ! Guided Reading Plus Group   Debriefing and Closure Education ! Special Tier IV Comprehension Focus Group !  Lunch/Recess (50 minutes) ! Language and Literacy Group Assisted Writing Group ! Writing Process Group (push-in)  Specials (40 minutes) Team Members Present: 215 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6  
    • 6/8/11   SoluMon  4:  Build  instrucMonal   congruency  across  programs,   Improvement is related to the extend to which the school’s programs forassessments,  and  intervenMons.     students and staff are coordinated, focused on learning goals, and sustained over a period of time.” InstrucMonal  coherence  is  related  to   student  improvement.        Fullan,  M.  The  New  Meaning  of  EducaMonal  Change.  NY:  Teachers  College   Press.   Poor  Readers  Become  Even  More:   •    Confused  The  NegaMve  Consequences  of   •    Fragmented   Incongruent  Programs  on   •    Haphazard   Struggling  Readers   •    Dependent     which  all  can  lead  to  instrucMonal     disabiliMes  or  learned  helplessness   SoluMon  5:  Provide  opportuniMes  for   teachers  to  collaborate  on  ways  to  help   Building  a  Common  Philosophy   struggling  learners.     Among  Teachers   KaMe  Meyer,  Literacy  Coach,   Sheboygan,  Wisconsin   7  
    • 6/8/11  Schoolwide Collaborative Efforts  System  Change  and  CollaboraMon   . . . schoolwide collaborative professional learning is a critical factor in CollaboraMve  approaches  to   distinguishing high-performing, high- professional  learning  can  promote   poverty schools from high-poverty, school  change  that  extends  beyond   lower-performing schools individual  classrooms.   hFp://www.srnleads.org/resources/publicaMons/pdf/ nsdc_profdev_tech_report.pdf   •  CollaboraMve  conferences  around  teaching   and  learning        Example  of  Cluster  Conference   – ApprenMceship  learning  in  authenMc   context   – Focused  observaMons  around  specific   Angela  Moix,  a  4th  grade  teacher,  seeks   teaching  goals   feedback  from  three  teachers  regarding  her   – Meaningful,  relevant,  and  immediate   reading  conference  with  a  student.   feedback  The  teacher  Sets  the  Focus  for  the  ObservaMon  •  Student  Behaviors    Changing the context of schools to – How  did  Cody  use  evidence  from  the  text   create settings for building and to  support  his  inferences?   sharing learning among adults is•  Teacher  Behaviors     essential to produce learning for – How  did  Angel  scaffold  Cody  to  achieve  this   students. instrucMonal  goal?     8  
    • 6/8/11   SystemaMc  Data  Analysis   •  Analyze  individual  growth  over  Mme  in   Solution 6: Analyze and Utilize Data response  to  parMcular  intervenMons   for Continuous Improvement •  Examine  data  for  closing  the  achievement  gap   •  Keep  longitudinal  data  to  monitor  student   proficiency   •  Use  data  to  intervene  when  learning  gets  off   track  and  provide  targeted  support     Types  of  Data  in  Planning  for  and  Sustaining   Systemic  Improvement   •  Demographic   Use  FormaMve  Data  to  Monitor   •  AFendance   Student  Progress  in  Response  to   •  Drop-­‐out/graduaMon  rates   IntervenMon   •  PercepMons  (teachers,  students,  parents)   •  Student  Achievement  (mulMple  assessments)   •  RetenMons   •  Referrals  to  Special  EducaMon   Progress Monitoring Grade 2 Student: Teacher:Book Level Record Instructional Level N M L K Using  an  Assessment  Wall  for   J I H Systemic  Data  Analysis   G F E D C My New Pet, 98, 1:3 Little Mouse, 96, 1:2 The Storm, 95, 1:3 Sea Lights, 98, 1:2Book Title, Termites, 96, 1:3 Weather, 95, 1:4 Forecasting the AccuracyRate, Self- How  is  the  overall  literacy  Correction Rate achievement  of  the  school  changing?   16: 12/13-12/17 8: 10/18-10/22 Date of 24: 2/14-2/18 32: 4/18-4/21 End of Year Progress 1: 9/1-9/3Monitoring Intervals Week ofIntervention 01 08 16 24 32 How  can  data  be  monitoring  at  a   system  level?     Tier I CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI GRP GRP GRP Tier II GRP WA WA Tier III Tier IV Layering and Mixing GRP: Guided Reading Plus IW: Interactive Writing WP: Writing Process Interventions CFG: Comprehension Focus Group WA: Writing Aloud CRI: Classroom Intervention 9  
    • 6/8/11   Assessment  Walls  •  Provide  a  visual  display  of  change  over   Mme  in  a  school’s  literacy  performance  •  Compare  and  monitor  progress  of   subgroups  in  literacy  areas  •  Plan  for  intervenMons  in  targeted  areas  •  Promote  understanding  of  the  link   between  assessment  and  instrucMon   1.  High  Quality  Classroom  InstrucMon   Designing  a  Comprehensive   •  DifferenMated  framework  with  small  group,   IntervenMon  Model  for  Literacy   whole  group,  and  individual  instrucMon   Improvement   •  Strategy-­‐based  lessons   •  Reading  materials  at  easy  and  instrucMonal   levels   IdenMfy  key  elements  and  develop  school-­‐ •  Built-­‐in  assessments   wide  plan  based  on  these  essenMal   elements   •  Respectul  and  safe  climate   •  Well-­‐organized  structures   2.  Research-­‐based  IntervenMons   3.  Seamless  and  Systemic  Assessments  •  Provide  a  range  of  research-­‐based   •  Seamless  assessment  system  with  emphasis  on   intervenMons  with  varying  degrees  of   formaMve  assessments  for  progress  monitoring   intensity   •  Teachers  use  data  to  guide  their  instrucMonal  •  Focus  on  early  intervenMon  for  prevenMng   decisions   reading  failure   •  RTI  assessment  portolios  for  individual  children  •  Emphasize  problem-­‐solving,  strategy-­‐based   •  Assessment  walls  to  monitor  individual  and   intervenMons     system  progress  •  Align  intervenMons  and     •  Transparency,  accountability,  and  annual   reporMng          classroom  programs   10  
    • 6/8/11   5.  Professional  Learning  CommuniMes     •  Teacher  conferences  are  embedded  into   •  Teachers  acquire  deeper  knowledge  of  how   school  plan,  including  intervenMon   children  learn  through  school-­‐embedded   conferences  and  cluster  (peer  group)   professional  development.   conferences.     •  School  climate  fosters  opportuniMes  for   •  RTI  conferences  focus  on  observing  children   in  classroom  seungs.     teachers  to  problem-­‐solve  around  teaching   and  learning  issues.   •  Curriculum,  programs,  and  assessments  are   aligned  across  classroom,  supplemental,  and   Special  EducaMon  programs.       6.  Comprehensive  and  Seamless  Data   System   RTI:  A  Systemic  and  Comprehensive   Model  for  Literacy  Improvement  •  Use  mulMple  assessments,  mostly  formaMve,  to   inform  instrucMon    •  Focus  on  curriculum-­‐based  assessments  that   reflect  the  impact  of  teaching  on  student   outcomes  •  Use  real-­‐word  assessments  that  involve  the  use   of  authenMc  and  meaningful  literacy  skills  and   Linda  Dorn,  PhD.   strategies   Professor,  Director,  Center  for  Literacy  •  Study  data  across  programs,  grades,   University  of  Arkansas  at  LiFle  Rock   assessments,  and  over  Mme   11  
    • 6/9/11   Example of RTI Scheduling Tier 2 Interventions Within a Workshop Framework  Shared Reading Poetry (10 minute)   Language Workshop (35 minutes)   Language Mini-Lesson  Spelling/Phonics (20 minutes   Small Group Language Investigations, teacher conferences  Reading Workshop: (90 minutes) RTI: Comprehension Focus Groups   Reading Mini-Lesson   Debriefing & Closure   Small Group Instruction: Guided Reading, Literature Discussion Group   Writing Workshop (45 minutes)   Writing Mini-Lesson   Reading Conferences   Independent Writing, teacher RTI: Guided Reading Plus conference RTI: Assisted Writing RTI: Assisted Writing RTI: Comprehension Focus Group RTI: Writing Process Group   Debriefing & Closure   Debriefing and Closure  Math Workshop: (65 minutes) 10:10-11:15   Content Workshop (45 minutes)   Content Mini-Lesson   Math Mini Lesson   Small group investigations, content   Small group math investigations, teacher strategy groups conferences RTI: Content Strategy Group   Debriefing and Closure  Lunch/Recess (50 minutes)  Specials (40 minutes) RtI Plan for Aligning and Layering Literacy Interventions Student Goal: Developing a Self-Regulated Learner Student_____________________________________ Grade _____________ Classroom Teacher________________________ Date_______________ Degrees of Intensity Individual Small Group Whole Class Independent Work ! Reading Conference ! Guided Reading Group ! Read Aloud ! Familiar/Easy Reading ! Writing Conference ! Literature Discussion Group ! Shared Reading ! Writing Process Universal ! Reading and Writing ! Mini-Lessons ! Phonics or Vocabulary Tasks Conferences ! Spelling/Phonics ! Literature Extensions ! Language Investigations ! ! Classroom: Tier I Share Time Research Projects ! Genre, Text, and Author ! Internet Projects Studies ! Tailored Mini-Lessons 1:1 or Small Group (2-3) Small Group (4-5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration ! Reading Conference ! Word Study (prior to Guided Intervention ! Writing Conference Reading) layers of Support/Expertise ! Writing About Reading (following Guided Reading) ! Language and Literacy Group ! Assisted Writing Group ! Writing Process Group (push-in) Small Group (2-3) Small Group (4 -5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration ! Guided Reading Plus Group ! Guided Reading Plus Group Intervention Specialist ! Comprehension Focus Group ! Comprehension Focus Group Tier II ! Language and Literacy Group ! Language and Literacy Group ! Assisted Writing Group ! Assisted Writing Group ! Writing Process Group (push-in) ! Writing Process Group (push-in) 1:I Plan/Monitoring/Duration ! Tier III Reading Recovery ! Targeted Intervention (beyond first grade) 1-1 Small Group (2-5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration ! Targeted Intervention ! Guided Reading Plus Group Education ! Special Tier IV Comprehension Focus Group ! Language and Literacy Group ! Assisted Writing Group ! Writing Process Group (push-in) Team Members Present: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Next Meeting:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1  
    • Framework for Early Intervening Services Cooper Elementary School Spokane Public Schools Spokane, WashingtonCooper Elementary is one of the 35 K-6 schools located in the city of Spokane, Washington. The school has 501students, of which 20% are minority, 10 % of which are students whose native language is other than English and 75% of students receive free or reduced lunch.The school uses a Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) as the Response to Intervention approach. The RtIprocess emphasizes increasingly differentiated and intensified intervention in language and literacy. Classroomteachers provide whole group, small group and individualized instruction that is responsive to the needs of allstudents. Classroom teachers, literacy coaches, and reading specialists play a central role in conducting language andliteracy assessments and in using assessment to plan instruction and monitor student performance. The RtI modelincludes collaborative decision-making that is based on the available evidence about the needs of students strugglingin language and literacy.Our intervention framework is layered on top of a differentiated core curriculum. As an RtI process, theComprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) employs a design of tiers within layers. The four tiers vary in intensityand teacher expertise and include classroom intervention, small literacy groups, one-to-one, and special education.The tiers are layered on top of each other simultaneously according to the needs of individual students. This “wraparound” model of support has enabled the school to accelerate the achievement trajectory of low-performinglearners, thus enabling these students to catch up with the grade level peers and eventually meet rigorous district andstate standards. In first grade, Reading Recovery is fully implemented, ensuring that all students who need intensiveintervention are provided with this opportunity. At the end of 2007-2008, 87.5% of students who received ReadingRecovery were successfully discontinued after only 12-20 weeks of intervention. Additionally, the school providessmall group interventions to other low-performing students. Tiers 2 and 3 interventions, along with exemplary Tier 1classroom instruction, ensure that all students continue to make gains commensurate with grade level peers.The essential components of our RtI process are aligned with the six guiding principles of a successful RtI approachas outlined by the International Reading Association:• RtI is first and foremost intended to prevent language and literacy problems by optimizing instruction.• The RtI process emphasizes small group and individualized instruction in reducing the number of students who are at risk of becoming classified as learning disabled.• Assessment should reflect the multidimensional nature of language and literacy learning and the diversity among students being assessed.• Reading specialists/literacy coaches should provide leadership in every aspect of the RtI process-- planning, assessment, provision of more intensified instruction and support, and making decisions about next steps.• RtI must be part of a comprehensive, systemic approach to language and literacy assessment and literacy curriculum that guides comprehensive instruction for all students.• Professionals who provide supplemental instruction/intervention must have a high level of expertise in all aspects of language and literacy instruction and assessment and must be capable of intensifying or accelerating language and literacy learning.Results of rigorous district and state assessments of literacy achievement highlight the success of Cooper’sComprehensive Intervention Model. After initial implementation in 2006, 89% of fourth grade students met orexceeded the state standard in reading. By the end of grade 6, 85.2% of students were meeting or exceedingproficiency levels. These data included students who had not been continuously enrolled at Cooper or anotherelementary school in the district. With the extension of the kindergarten program to a full day, 90% of studentsachieved the end of year proficiency benchmarks by January. The population of Special Education students referredhas steadily declined since the CIM as RTI model has been implemented at Cooper Elementary. Special Educationstaffing ratio at Cooper is currently at a 1.0 full time equivalent down from a full 2.0. This is reflective of asuccessful effort to reduce referrals to and identification for special education services.As further evidence of the overall quality of instruction and intervention model at Cooper, the school wasrecognized as a Title I award winner for academic achievement in 2006. The achievement levels of Cooper studentscontinue to illustrate the high standard for academic excellence that the Cooper community holds for itself.Contact: Rona Williams RonaW@spokaneschools.orgCooper ElementarySpokane Public Schools, 509-354-2500
    • Washington School for Comprehensive Literacy, Sheboygan, Wisconsin: Response to Intervention ModelWashington School for Comprehensive Literacy is a K-5 charter school of the Sheboygan Area School District inSheboygan, Wisconsin. The charter is for the implementation of the Partners in Comprehensive Literacy (PCL)Model from the Center for Literacy at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock. The school has 365 students, 61% ofwhich are minority and 75% of students receive free or reduced lunch.The core curriculum includes the essential components of balanced literacy (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,vocabulary, comprehension). Classrooms utilize a differentiated workshop approach for meeting the needs of allstudents, including a balance of whole group mini-lessons, small group instruction, and individual conferenceswithin an integrated, inquiry-based curriculum. Students acquire problem-solving strategies for working on tasksthat increase in complexity and difficulty. The PCL model is based on theories of apprenticeship learning, self-regulation, contingent scaffolding, and literacy processing along a developmental learning continuum.Our Response to Intervention (RtI) framework is layered on top of exemplary core classroom instruction. The RtImethod employed at Washington is the Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM). The model uses a four-tiereddesign with layers of intervention that vary in intensity and teacher expertise. The interventions include classroomintervention, small literacy groups, one-to-one, and special education. Intervention teams meet to determine the mostappropriate intervention to meet the needs of struggling readers, and student progress is monitored on a range ofassessments that are part of an intervention portfolio.There are several important features of our RtI model: • A menu of K-5 interventions that include Reading Recovery (first grade) and small group literacy interventions that align with classroom curriculum • Seamless Assessment System that includes a range of formative and summative assessments for screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, instructional planning, and evaluation. • Intervention Wall that is used to visually monitor student achievement at the school level, across and within sub-groups, and individual student progress and used to set goals for increasing student achievement. • Scheduled Intervention Team Meetings include the principal, literacy coaches, Reading Recovery Teachers, ELL teachers, Intervention Specialists, and Special Education staff who collaborate to monitor RtI implementation. • As-Needed Intervention Team Meetings are used to determine appropriate interventions for individual struggling students. • Professional Development that is job-embedded including weekly grade-level team meetings, bi-monthly school-wide team meetings, literacy coaching, peer observations, and opportunities for course-work in strategic processing.In 2006-2007, prior to implementation of the RtI framework, 57 students received interventions with 59% meetingreading proficiency at the end of theyear. 100% 100% 90%With implementation of the layeredintervention approach in 2007-2008, 80% 82% 80%171 students received reading 76% 70% 73% 72%interventions in grades K-5 including 67% 60% 62%Reading Recovery and Special 61% 60% 55%Education. 69% of these students were 54% 50% 50%proficient or advanced on the end-of- 40%year reading assessment. 30% none served none servedIn 2008, the International Reading 20% 20%Association and the Wisconsin State 10%Reading Association (WSRA) presented 0%Washington School with the Exemplary Reading Kinder- First Second Third Fourth Fifth SpecialReading Program Award. The purpose Recovery garten Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Ed K-5of the award is to recognize outstanding 2006-2007 2007-2008reading and language arts programs at allgrade levels and to call the public’s attention to outstanding programs in schools throughout North America. Theaward led the WSRA to invite Washington School to speak at numerous statewide RtI conferences.Contact information: Karl Bekkum, Principal kbekkum@sheboygan.k12.wi.us