This document discusses a plan called GEAR (Getting Explicit About Reading) to improve literacy intervention programs across 9 elementary schools in the AMA ESD. The plan was informed by a survey identifying overreliance on DIBELS screening and lack of comprehension intervention. GEAR's vision is to provide training in diagnostic reading assessments and explicit comprehension instruction for Title 1 teachers and general educators. The strategic plan addresses obtaining district support, providing adequate time for implementation, and ensuring diagnostic assessments and strategy instruction become integrated into schools' intervention frameworks.

1. Courtney Huff Julie Bastow Meaghan Gauthier GettingExplicitAboutReading

2. 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 Alpena Hillman Alcona Bingham Arts

3. 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

4. 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

5. GEAR – Relevant Data Essential component of RTI – Use data for three purposes Screen Diagnose Progress Monitor Problem identified in survey results: Reliance on the DIBELS screening assessment to make diagnostic decisions.

6. GEAR - Guiding Beliefs #1 A diagnostic reading assessment is needed in order to determine an individual student’s intervention needs.

7. 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.

8. A Tiered Framework for RTI 1– 5% 1– 5% 1 TO 1 PROGRESS MONITORING SMALL GROUP, RAPID RESPONSE INTERVENTION 5 - 10% 5 - 10% 80 - 90% 80 - 90% UNIVERSAL SCREENING SCHOOL-WIDE CLASSROOM-LEVEL INTERVENTIONS

9. GEAR – Guiding Beliefs #2 Explicit Tier 1 literacy instruction provides a strong base in a framework for RTI

10. 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

11. GEAR – Guiding Beliefs #3 Comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. GEAR – Guiding Beliefs #4 Progress monitoring tools should be specific to the intervention in order to effectively guide instruction

15. 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.”

16. GEAR – Urgent Need http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIudAL5oDdo&feature=email

17. GEAR – Current Reality Two concerns about current culture Overreliance on DIBELS Targeted comprehension strategy instruction and intervention arenot being implemented

18. 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 School

19. GEAR – Preferred Future Common language in regards to diagnostic reading assessments and comprehension instruction. Consistency in instruction, intervention, and data. District

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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?

23. GEAR – Strategic Plan 2. Will there be enough time for Title 1 teachers to research, implement, and collaborate in a PLC format?

24. GEAR – Strategic Plan 3. Will general education teachers be willing to implement the DRA and comprehension strategy instruction?

25. GEAR – Strategic Plan 4. Will diagnostic assessment and strategy instruction become a part of schools” frameworks for intervention?

26. 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

27. GEAR – The Big Picture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_4D7h-Nzvg&feature=email