1. JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL #51RALPH WALDO EMERSON #58IndianapolisPublic SchoolsOrton-Gillingham PilotProgram2012-2013
2. The Need A significant number of students read below gradelevel according to DIBELS and SRI data Core reading program was not meeting the needsof most students* More students needed reading interventions thancould be serviced with resources available Reading interventions did not complement or alignto the core reading program Students’ inability to read grade-level text impededlearning in all content areas *Dynamic Measurement Group defines an effective Core Reading Program as one that results in less than 20% ofstudents needing Tier II or Tier III interventions.
3. Why DIBELS?Dynamic Indicators Basic Early Literacy Skills DIBELS is comprised of seven measures to function asindicators of phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle,accuracy and fluency with connected text, readingcomprehension, and vocabulary. DIBELS was designed for use in identifying childrenexperiencing difficulty in acquisition of basic early literacyskills in order to provide support early and prevent theoccurrence of later reading difficulties. There is a high correlation between DIBELS scores andscores of high-stakes assessments, such as ISTEP.
4. The NeedGetting to the Root of the Cause Analyzed student data (DIBELS and TRC) measuresfor performance trends Compared SRI and DIBELS data to see if DIBELSwas a good predictor of later reading performance Selected a group of below-level readers in 4th-6thgrade to administer a diagnostic reading assessment Analyzed diagnostic data for trends
5. The NeedDiagnostic Data Revealed Students: Consistently confused short vowels Lacked an awareness of the six basic syllablepatterns Struggled to apply syllable division rules to decodemulti-syllabic words Did not have mastery of phonetically irregular, high-frequency words
6. The NeedDiagnostic Data Revealed Students: Made more errors when prefixes and suffixes wereadded to familiar base words Had difficulty understanding how morphemeschanged or enhanced the meaning of words Had issues with decoding that impeded fluencyand comprehension
7. What We Know“Students who get effective intervention later (afterthird grade) do not catch up in terms of readingfluency. With intervention, they get close to theirgrade peers in terms of accuracy, but fluency, eventhough it improves over time, remains way behindpeers’ and represents a significant readingimpediment.”Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, edited by Judith E Birsch, Paul H.Brookes Publishing, 2011 (page300)
8. What We KnowUnder the proper teaching conditions, evenstudents at the lower reading percentiles canreach a threshold of accuracy and fluency by theend of second or third grade. And then, goingforward, they remain on par with their peers inaccuracy, fluency, and comprehension. In otherwords, it is possible to short-circuit the usualyear-by-year widening gap between averagereaders and those with reading disabilities whenthe “catch-up” occurs within the window of theearly school years (Grades 1-3).Torgeson and Hudson’s (2006)
9. What We KnowWe have evidence that curriculummatters. Instruction that’s guided bya systematic and explicit curriculumis more effective, particularly withat-risk learners, than instructionthat does not have these features.Elissa J. Arndt, M.S. CCC-SLP, Florida Center for Reading Research. July, 2007
10. What We KnowLongstanding evidence reveals a strikingdifference in the number of practice repetitionsdifferent children require to reach a reliable level ofword reading accuracy… teachers (should)differentiate the intensity and frequency of practiceto meet students differing needs: Four to fourteen repetitions for average youngreaders More than 40 repetitions for those with readingdifficultiesJoseph Torgensen 2001
11. What We Know Phonics instruction works Not all phonics instruction follows the samepedagogy or is created equal in terms ofeffectiveness The National Reading Panel (NRP) recognizes fivedifferent approaches to teaching phonics:AnalogyAnalyticEmbeddedPhonics through SpellingSynthetic Phonics
12. Phonics ApproachesAnalyticThis approach is often thought of as whole to part. Students are given aset of words with a common unit. They are to break the words downinto syllables and then individual sounds. Their goal is to find thecommon feature and make a connection between the sound andsymbol.AnalogyThis is a form of analytic phonics that uses the concept of wordfamilies. Students learn a series of word families. When they encounterunfamiliar words, their goal is to identify a common word family withinthe word to help them decode.Phonics through SpellingThis approach teaches phonics through spelling and writing that theyare to apply in reading.
13. Phonics ApproachesEmbeddedThis form is often used in conjunction with a whole-language approach. Phonics instruction is not direct orintentional, but designed to be a teachable moment.Students and teachers observe patterns in the story, verysimilar to the word family approach in Analogy Phonics.SyntheticThis approach is named for it’s emphasis on studentssynthesizing, or pulling together sounds to create syllablesand words. This approach is a part to whole approach thatuses direct instruction to introduce a specific phoneme andgrapheme pattern. This pattern is then used to blendsyllables and words.
14. What We KnowThe National Reading Panel Reports:“This type of phonics instruction [synthetic] benefitsboth students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students who are not disabled. Moreover,systematic synthetic phonics instruction wassignificantly more effective in improving lowsocioeconomic status (SES) children’s alphabeticknowledge and word reading skills than instructionalapproaches that were less focused on these initialreading skills.”
15. What We KnowThe National Reading Panel Reports:• “The ability to read and spell words wasenhanced in kindergarteners who receivedsystematic beginning phonics instruction.”• “First graders who were taught phonicssystematically were better able to decodeand spell, and they showed significantimprovement in their ability to comprehendtext.”
16. What We KnowImpact of Multisensory Instruction Instruction that is direct and meaningful isnot effective if students don’t have thecapacity to retain and apply the skills incontext. Instruction that employs a multisensoryapproach is effective in engaging students’permanent memory.
17. What We KnowWhat is Multisensory Instruction?Simultaneous deployment of visual,auditory, kinesthetic, and tactilesensory modalities that supports theconnection of oral language with visuallanguage symbols
18. What We KnowImpact of Multisensory Instruction Exposure to stimuli through multisensoryexperiences results in superior recognitionof objects compared to unisensory exposure Simultaneous visual, auditory, andtactile/kinesthetic stimuli develops superiormemory capacityBenefits of Multisensory Learning: Ladan Shams and Aaron R. Seitz).
19. What We LearnedAnalysis of the Current Core ReadingProgram Revealed A combination of embedded and analogy phonicslessons Gaps in instruction consistent with the diagnosticdata collected Limited opportunities for students to practice phonicsskills in text Instruction was unisensory
20. The IPS PlanGoals of the IPS Pilot Implement a whole-class Orton-Gillingham approachto reduce the number of students in Tier II and TierIII interventions. Enhance the current core reading curriculum to meetthe needs of all students. Improve reading instruction by providing professionaldevelopment for classroom teachers, andinstructional support staff.
21. The IPS PlanEnhance the Core Curriculum Ensure phonics instruction is systematic, direct andexplicit Develop daily lesson plans for whole-classimplementation within the 90-minute reading block Increase the opportunity for repetition Provide scaffolded support through fair anddecodable text Evaluate progress to design lessons that arediagnostic and prescriptive
22. The IPS PlanProvide Instructional Support Train kindergarten through second grade teachers inthe Orton-Gillingham approach Provide training in multisensory teaching Organize monthly grade-level specific professionaldevelopment opportunities Assign an Orton-Gillingham coach to both schoolsfor modeling, co-teaching, and side-by side coaching
23. Training Teachers attended a three-day training in thesummer, prior to the beginning of the 2012-2013school year. Training was modified from the more traditionalOrton-Gillingham approach to include whole-classadaptations. The content of the course was primarily in lessoncomponents and procedures, versus lesson content.The IPS Plan
24. The IPS PlanBudget Professional Development Teachers were paid a $20.00 hourly stipend for attending summertraining In-house trainer eliminated cost of contracting out training Materials Per classroom Card deck Decodable readers Per building Additional decodable readers Phonological awareness kits (kindergarten only)
25. Impact Statement Both pilot schools made notable growth from BOY toMOY in DIBELS Growth at pilot schools was well above the districtaverage in kindergarten and first grade At BOY only 22% of all kindergarten students hadmet benchmark goals. At MOY 92% had metbenchmark goals. At the MOY benchmark a significant number ofkindergarten students had already reached the EOYbenchmark goal**EOY comparison is possible when calculating the MOY composite score on EOY criteria.
26. Impact Statement Kindergarten students were able to blend simpleshort-vowel words by the end of the first quarter aswell as read and write short-vowel words withblends by the middle of the third quarter First grade students were able to read and spellmulti-syllabic words by the end of the first quarter While progress was also notable in second grade,closing the achievement gap becomes moredifficult as student progress from grade to grade
27. BOY to MOY GrowthKindergarten First Grade Second GradeBOY MOY Growth BOY MOY Growth BOY MOY GrowthJames RussellLowellIPS #5122% 92% 70% 47% 68% 21% 47% 63% 16%Ralph WaldoEmersonIPS #5841% 84% 43% 35% 61% 26% 47% 53% 6%*Indiana PublicSchool DistrictAverage31% 62% 31% 48% 59% 11% 54% 62% 8%BOY =Beginning of YearMOY = Middle of Year*Teacher retired in November. Substitute teacher was not trained in the approach.
29. BOY to MOY GrowthFindings• At BOY 0% of the students had met the BOYbenchmark goals and 75% of the students had acomposite score of zero.• This reflects that students were unable to produce anyletter names or provide the beginning sound in a word.• At the MOY 100% of the students had met the MOYbenchmark goals.• All but two students in one kindergarten classroom metEOY benchmark goals at MOY• This reflects that students knew letter names, couldrecognize initial sounds, as well as segment and blendCVC words.
31. Resources Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, edited byJudith E Birsch, Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 2011. National Reading Panel, 2000, Chapter 2, Phonics andAlphabetics. Torgensen, J.K. (1995). Orton Emertitus Series: PhonologicalAwareness. A critical factor in dyslexia. Baltimore:International Dyslexia Association. Torgensen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., Alexander, A., Alexander J.,& MacPhee, K. (2003). Progress towards understanding theinstructional conditions necessary for remediating readingdifficulties in older children. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventingand remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science up toscale (pp. 275-298). Timonium, MD: York Press.