Download
1 / 41
410 likes | 503 Views
Best Practices and RBI Instruction Presented by: Josh Jackson. Objective of Presentation. Share the endeavors of a school starting to implement RIT Band Instruction in the content areas of reading and math to meet NCLB goals in just their second year of using MAP. School Overview.
E N D
Objective of Presentation • Share the endeavors of a school starting to implement RIT Band Instruction in the content areas of reading and math to meet NCLB goals in just their second year of using MAP.
School Overview • 430 students K-6 • 63% free and reduced population • 20% special education population • 2009-2010 Reading AMO (percentage proficient/distinguished): 73.64 for grades 3-5 and 72.80 for grade 6 • 2009-2010 Math AMO (percentage proficient/distinguished): 61.23 for grades 3-5 and 58.25 for grade 6
MAP OverviewYear 1 • Teachers and administration attended the Stepping Stones and Data Ladder professional developments. • Together we were learning how to read, decipher, and use the MAP data and reports. • Began using the MAP and Compass Odyssey Interface to create individualized learning paths for each student based on their RIT scores in reading and math.
MAP OverviewYear 2 • We sent a team of teachers to a MAP Conference in Daviess County along with Mr. Borchers, our Director of Curriculum. This conference prompted discussions of flexibly grouping students based on RIT scores. • Mr. Borchers held a MAP district presentation during the beginning of the school year. • We continued to use and enhance our knowledge of the MAP and Compass Odyssey Interface. • Students at each grade level were specifically targeted.
Getting Started • Held a professional development focusing on creating student target lists using the Fall 2009 MAP scores in reading and math. • The hurdle was we were looking at two separate models. KCCT: proficient/distinguished and MAP: growth model. • Using the MAP Alignment Study, we were able to mesh the two models together to make data driven decisions.
Expectations • After the target lists were created, teams worked together to develop a plan of how they were going to move the targeted students forward from fall to winter. • A few of the grade levels decided to flexibly group students according to Fall 2009 RIT scores. • Teams met on a weekly basis with me to discuss the progress of students on the target list. The formative data began to show that the students who were part of flexible grouping based on RIT scores were making greater strides than the students who were in grade levels that were not doing flexible grouping based on RIT scores.
Analyzing Winter MAP Data • Over the winter break, Mr. Borchers and I began analyzing the growth from Fall 2009 to Winter 2010 scores. • We found that more gains were made in the grade levels that had decided to target students by implementing flexible groups by RIT scores. • Mr. Borchers and I began to draft a plan to implement RIT Based Instructional Groups (RBI Groups) in grades 3-6. Based on state models of RIT Based Instructional Groups, we were trying to create a small school model with limited resources.
Data Driven Decisions • Every decision that was made was based on data. • Mr. Borchers and I presented the Winter 2010 data to the teachers in a professional development held in January. • The data focused on where were currently stood in meeting our AMO percentages in reading and math for grades 3-6 in both overall growth and the sub population of special education. • We focused on putting names with numbers.
Overview of Data Mathematics Reading • Strengths • Geometry • Algebraic Thinking • Growth • Numbers / Operations • Measurement • Strengths • Interpret Text :Inform • Growth • Nothing Stands Out • Very Consistent
Vision • We had to have a plan. • We had to give our teachers proper support. • We needed to take away the barriers of time and resources. • We challenged our teachers with high expectations. • Everything we did was intentional.
Next Steps • RBI Groups • Team Teaching • Scheduling • Planning • Coordination
RBI Groups • Were not limited to grade levels • Were content specific • We ensured that we had a very high end group that was taught by our GT Teacher. • We found that our low end students were not only students with special needs. We intentionally kept the low end groups at small numbers.
Team Teaching • We intentionally paired strong reading and math teachers together. • Teachers did not have the majority of their grade level in their RBI Group. • Placed teachers out of their comfort zone.
Scheduling • Grades 3-6 participated in four weeks of reading instruction and then four weeks of math instruction for one hour every Thursday in the afternoon. • Teachers in grades 1-2 held RBI groups within their classrooms, focusing on hands-on centers that were designed to meet the needs of students within particular RIT bands.
Planning • All teachers in grades 3-6 were placed into a team of two. One teacher was responsible for planning reading and the other teacher responsible for planning math. However, both teachers taught reading and math RBI Groups. • A brainstorming session led by Mr. Borchers, was held for both reading and math RBI teachers on two separate days. We focused on the areas of growth in reading and math that were documented in the district summary report. Then using Des Cartes we identified the skills that would be taught in the growth areas.
Planning Continued • Both reading and math RBI teachers were given a sub for 1 and ½ days to plan 4 weeks of lessons in their responsible content area. On the ½ day, the teaching teams met to discuss the planned reading and math lessons and to make any necessary revisions. • Lessons included a heavy focus on hands-on instruction and integration of technology with materials needed for RBI groups being purchased by the district. • Every Wednesday morning during common planning time was protected to allow the teams to meet with each other on a consistent basis.
Coordination • Sorted students by RIT Band for both reading and math on Microsoft Excel. • Gave the RIT band list to the team that were responsible for the RIT band to construct their RBI Groups for both reading and math. • Made name tags with the student’s RBI teacher name listed on the name tag. • All hands on deck! • I sent a letter out to parents explaining the concept and purpose of the RBI Groups.
Growth Index • Compares a year of school growth to nationally normed data. • A positive growth index means that the school/grade has grown more than the national average in a school year. • A zero growth index means that the school/grade has grown at the exact same rate as the national average within a school year. • A negative growth index means that the school/grade did not grow as much when compared to the national average within a school year
Student Comments • Loved being in a different class with students in different grade levels. • The assignments were on my level. • Loved using things to learn better. • Felt like I learned a lot and understood what I was doing. • It’s fun!
Parent Comments In General • Liked how the RBI Groups individualized instruction more for their child. • Made their child even that more excited about coming to school. • Liked the creative thinking for the benefit of their child and other students. • Made the parents more interested in how MAP is used.
Teacher Comments • Offered flexibility to the learner • Excited; took me out of my comfort zone • Targeted instruction • Builds success and self confidence • Smaller groups • High achieving; able to focus and enrich • Given lots of days to plans both vertically and horizontally • Change pace for teachers and students
Teacher Comments Continued • In sports we allow a student who is achieving at high levels at the junior varsity level to bump up to the varsity level. Then why should we not have the same mindset for our students academically?
Contact Information • Josh Jackson: Principal of Newport Intermediate School • Phone: (859) 816-1821 • Email: joshuajackson@insightbb.com or find me in the global directory
