Implementation of Data-Based Decision-Making in an Urban Elementary School

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. Intensive Intervention • Few students • High Intensity • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students • Higher intensity • Core Literacy Instruction • All students Using Data for Instructional Decision-Making TIER 3 Students not making adequate progress receive more intensive intervention 1-5% Evidenced-based interventions delivered and progress monitored weekly 15-20% Students identified through screening receive more intensive literacy support in Targeted Group Intervention TIER 2 All students screened with benchmarks 75-80% TIER 1 All students receive strong Core Curriculum with rigor (high and clear expectations)

5. Loring School (K-5): 372 Students

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. 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

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

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 2006-7 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 2007-8 two students were eligible for special education (1%)

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