NASDSENovember 14, 2006

Margaret McGlincheyKim St. Martin

This document was produced and distributed through an IDEA Mandated Activities Project for Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) awarded by the Michigan Department of Education. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Michigan Department of Education, the Michigan State Board of Education, or the U.S. Department of Education, and no endorsement is inferred. This document is in the public domain and may be copied for further distribution when proper credit is given. For further information or inquiries about this project, contact the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

End of Year goal is for the student to demonstrate this skill at 35 phonemes per minute-grey area

Now you see this student in the context of the whole class. Does it make a difference in how

you think about this student?

• Yes

• No

Same building different teacher

Mission Statement

To develop support systems and sustained implementation of a data-driven, problem solving model in elementary schools to help students become better readers with social skills necessary for success.

Three Important Themes

• Create systems, not just programs, to support each and all students

• Earlier rather than later

• Evidence, not opinion

Participating Schools

2004 Schools (21)

2005 Schools (31)

2006 Schools (50)

Reaching over 40,000 students and 2,600 teachers and administrators in 102 schools and 17 ISDs!

School-Wide Support Systems for Student Success

ReadingBehavior

Universal InterventionCore Instruction, all studentsPreventive

Targeted InterventionSupplemental, somestudents, reduce risk

Intensive Intervention Individualized, functional assessment, highly specific

80%

7-15%

1-5%

Percent of Students at DIBELS Benchmark Level: Cohort 1

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Kdg First Second ThirdGrade Level

2003-20042004-20052005-2006

Percent of Students at DIBELS Intensive Level: Cohort 1

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Kdg First Second ThirdGrade Level

2003-20042004-20052005-2006

Comstock East ElementaryAn Exemplar of MiBLSi

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

     

 

Year 1Behavior• Leadership team received training in

creating a positive behavior support system•February~April: •3-5 school-wide behavior expectations •school-wide teaching matrix •major vs. minor behavior•consequences•office referral form

Behavior Continued…

Summer 2004: teaching plans for non-classroom settings

-hallway-bathroom-playground-bus-cafeteria-library media center-assembly

Year 1Literacy• DIBELS training was provided for all

K-5 staff– Expectations for DIBELS testing:

Classroom teachers had a leadership role in all DIBELS assessments.

– Progress monitoring expectations•Intensive students-weekly•Strategic students-monthly

Literacy Continued…

• Data Analysis– Kindergarten retention data was

analyzed and discussed. Reading Mastery I in grades K~1 was implemented

– Child Study data analyzed: 100% of the referrals cited reading as a major concern.

Year 2• Behavior

– August: school wide behavior expectations taught directly and formally, implemented acknowledgment/reward system, SWIS was used to monitor referral data

– December: staff met to discuss regaining momentum for behavior tickets, classroom incentives were established to increase the number of tickets given.

Behavior Continued…

Behavior Trainings:• Fall-Leadership team attended training on

how to address tier 1 & 2 behaviors (check-in/check-out system, SWIS data analysis training)

• Winter-Leadership team received intensive behavior training to address tier 3 behaviors (functional behavior assessments, behavior intervention plans, wrap-arounds)

Behavior Continued…

Implementation of Tier 2~Teir 3 Systems• Behavior Intervention Team (B.I.T)

– Students receiving three major office referrals were discussed at the B.I.T.

– Goal was to establish a behavior intervention plan for students with input from teachers, parents, administrators, and personnel having behavioral expertise.

– Check-in/Check-out person was identified and data collection system was established to determine effectiveness of the plan

Year 2Literacy• 90-30 (K~5)

– 90 minutes of uninterrupted language arts

– 30 minutes of targeted reading support by reading personnel.•The most intensive students working

with trained reading personnel.•Students identified using

DIBELS/classroom assessment data•Flexible grouping

Literacy Continued…• 90-30-30 (K~1)

– All kindergarten and first grade students received an additional 30 minutes of intensive reading support using Reading Mastery I to address phonemic awareness and alphabetic principle.

– All students received 150 minutes of daily language arts instruction.

– Supplemental programs became a part of the core instruction to fill gaps.

Literacy Continued

– Leadership team received training on• analysis of core reading program• effectiveness of intervention

programs •grade level meeting structure• application of data based decision

making •action planning

Literacy Continued…Grade Level Meetings• The child study team changed from problem

solving for one student, to groups of students within a grade level.

• Grade level teachers, principal, school psychologist, reading personnel

• 1st Meeting: review of core program and critical skills necessary for each grade level

• Subsequent Meetings: – student progress monitoring data – data based decision making – Interventions – resources

Year 3• Behavior

– School Improvement Behavior Committee reviewed 2004-2005 SWIS data and identified months having highest referral counts.

– Incentives were communicated to students via school-wide assemblies. (dessert buffet, pizza party, ice cream social)

– Second Step (social skills curriculum) was being taught school-wide.

Year 3Literacy• 90-30-30 (K~5)

– 90 minutes of core instruction for all students

– 30 minutes of targeted reading for intensive and lower strategic students• Sound Partners, Corrective Reading, Road to the

Code

– 30 minutes of intensive support for lowest students • Reading Mastery I & II, Teacher-Directed PALS,

Corrective Reading, Read Naturally, Rewards

Percent at Benchmark Range Second Grade: School to District

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2003-2004 2005-2006 2003-2004 2005-2006

Comstock East Other District Schools

Comstock East 2003-2004

Comstock East 2005-2006

Other District Schools 2003-2004Other District Schools 2005-2006

Percent at Intensive Range Second Grade: School to District

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2003-2004 2005-2006 2003-2004 2005-2006

Comstock East Other District Schools

Comstock East 2003-2004

Comstock East 2005-2006

Other District Schools 2003-2004Other District Schools 2005-2006

Referrals Per Year Per 100 Students

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2004-2005 2005-2006

Putting the Pieces Together

MiBLSi provided problem solving framework : • to implement a culture of collaboration between

general education and special education staff • for frequent assessment of student performance• to allow staff common planning time, grade level

meetings, and staff meetings to address student’s needs and adjust instruction accordingly

All of these practices are in accordance with NCLB, IDEA 2004 and are aligned with a Response to Intervention model