Implementation of Data-Based Decision-Making in an Urban Elementary School Doug Marston Jane Thompson Minneapolis Public Schools March 26, 2009

History in Minneapolis of Data-Based Program Modification, Problem Solving Model and RTI Curriculum-Based Measurement (1982) Problem Solving Model (1993) Web-based Student Data System (1999) Demonstration of Progress Monitoring Grant (2006)

MPS Problem-Solving Model Building-wide Screening Teacher/Parent Concerns Academics Stage 1: Classroom Intervention Student Remains Discrepant from School and/or Parent Expectation Stage 2: Team Intervention Student Remains Discrepant from School and/or Parent Expectation Stage 3: Special Ed. Evaluation

Using Data for Instructional Decision-Making TIER 3 Students not making adequate progress receive more intensive intervention Intensive Intervention Few students High Intensity 1-5% Evidenced-based interventions delivered and progress monitored weekly Targeted Group Interventions Some students Higher intensity 15-20% Students identified through screening receive more intensive literacy support in Targeted Group Intervention TIER 2 All students screened with benchmarks Concept borrowed from public health. It’s all about strategic use of resources It makes no sense to structure a system in which you use your deep end resources for a large percentage of the population that you serve. Note that in this model, it is structured so that you can focus your intensive resources on a small percentage of children who need it the most. Core Literacy Instruction All students 75-80% TIER 1 All students receive strong Core Curriculum with rigor (high and clear expectations) 4

Loring School (K-5): 372 Students . American Indian 5% African American 43% Asian American 10% Hispanic American 16% White American 25% Students in Poverty 77% English Language Learners 20% Special Education 8%

Response to Intervention High quality, scientifically based classroom instruction Ongoing student assessment Tiered instruction

High quality, scientifically based classroom instruction Reading Excellence Act/Reading First Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) Professional Learning Communities Demonstration of Progress Monitoring Project

Ongoing student assessment Summative Data: MCA Benchmark Data: NALT/MAP/CBM Formative Data: Weekly CBM

Screening in Fall, Winter, and Spring On Words Read Correctly on Student Words Read Names Correctly Screening in Fall, Winter, and Spring On Words Read Correctly on Grade Level

Progress Monitoring is viewed on the OCR Website

Tiered instruction Use monthly grade level teams to review data Match student needs based on data with appropriate instructional strategies Focused on NRP areas

Tier 1-Core Tier 2 Tier 3 Kindergarten Houghton-Mifflin; Core Materials Leveled Library PALS Program Reading Mastery Phonemic Awareness Grade 1 Houghton-Mifflin Collins Writing EIR Read Naturally Grade 2 Houghton-Mifflin Core Materials Grade 3 Grade 4 Soar To Success Corrective Reading

Typical Grade Level Instructional Groupings for Teaching Reading Classroom Teacher # 1 Core or Tier 1 Classroom Teacher # 2 Core or Tier 1 60 Minutes Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 3 60 Minutes

Monthly Progress Monitoring and Instructional Planning Meetings Meetings for each grade level Participants include: general education teachers, ELL, Title 1, Special Education, Associate Educators, EAs, Principal, Project Facilitator Meetings 120 minutes in length Initial tier of instruction defined by student performance on Fall screening Review student progress monitoring data (Weekly graphs) Review instructional groupings and discuss intervention strategies Move students needing more intensive or less intensive instruction

August January Training on progress monitoring School-wide screening: Winter Tier 2 & 3 intervention training Progress monitoring Student data meetings September Study groups School-wide screening: Fall Formation of groups for Tier 2 and 3 February Begin progress monitoring October March November April MCA TESTING May December School-Wide screening: Spring

Fidelity of Implementation for RTI RTI Data Meetings for Grade Level Teams Fidelity of Interventions EBASS – Student Engaged Time Reading Instruction Checklist

Summary of Year 1 Results

Instructional changes for students In Year 1 41 of 273 students moved up a tier (more intensive) or 15% 45 of 273 students moved down a tier (less intensive) or 16.5% 86 students out of 273 students moved up or down a tier or 31.5%

Impact of RTI on Special Education Eligibility In 2006-7 seven students were eligible for special education (2.5%)

Year 1: MCA changes for All Student at Loring School

Year 1: MCA Changes for African American Students at Loring School

Summary of Year 2 Results

Instructional changes for students in Year 2 17 of 283 students moved up a tier (more intensive) or 6% 25 of 283 students moved down a tier (less intensive) or 8.8% 42 students out of 283 students moved up or down a tier or 14.8%

Impact of RTI on Special Education Eligibility: Year 2 In 2007-8 two students were eligible for special education (1%)

Elements of Successful Reading Instruction (Percentage of Occurrence) Tier 1 Tier 2 1 Phonemic awareness is taught 50 57 2 Phonics is used 42 65 3 Students have opportunities to read aloud 49 83 4 Reading instruction includes explicit vocabulary instruction 59 77 5 Reading instruction includes sight word instruction 55 48 6 Comprehension strategies are used 85 52 7 Teacher modeling and guided practice are used 93 92 8 Writing component is evident as part of literacy block 79 9 Classroom is rich with reading materials of high interest and varied reading levels 98 10 Clear classroom rules are reinforced by the teacher 95 94 11 Behavior disruptions are handled consistently and promptly 90 12 Interactions with students are positive, encouraging, and emphasize the importance of student effort

Ecobehavioral Assessment Software System (EBASS) Greenwood (1991) Student Academic Responses (Active Engaged Time) Writing Task Participation Read Aloud Read Silently Talk Academic

Year 1 & 2: MCA Reading - All Students

Year 1 & 2: MCA Reading Percent Proficient - Loring White and African-American Student Gap Comparisons

Observations from Principal Teacher repertoire increases Instructional time maximized Student performance formatively evaluated which informs instruction Students continually challenged at their instructional level Behavior issues reduced Special education referrals reduced School enrollment growing Culture of school becomes more professional and positive Joy of teaching is restored

Words of Experience These must be in place: Establishing a belief system Strengthening core instruction Strengthening behavior and classroom climate Concern would be that if the above are not in place, too many students would be placed in Tier 2 interventions. Principal’s Responsibilities: Create a team who can develop, promote, and monitor the work Schedules to ensure 120 minutes of Reading Schedule Progress Monitoring Quality of instruction Fidelity of interventions Choice of research-based interventions and appropriateness