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

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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%

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

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

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

10. 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

11. Progress Monitoring is viewed on the OCR Website

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

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

18. Summary of Year 1 Results

19. 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%

20. Impact of RTI on Special Education Eligibility
In seven students were eligible for special education (2.5%)

21. Year 1: MCA changes for All Student at Loring School

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

23. Summary of Year 2 Results

24. 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%

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

28. 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

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

30. Year 1 & 2: MCA Reading - All Students

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

32. 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

33. 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