0
The Ohio Education Research Center (OERC) is a COLLABORATIVE of Ohio-based researchers from six universities (Case Western Reserve University, Miami University, Ohio University, The Ohio State University, University of Cincinnati, and Wright State University) and four research institutions (Battelle, Battelle for Kids, Community Research Partners and Strategic Research Group) The founding partners coordinate the work of the OERC through the Governance Committee and three standing committees (Research Agenda, Data, and Outreach). Membership includes key participants from State of Ohio agencies and partner organizations. Administratively, the OERC reports to the State of Ohio through the Policy Council. The OERC is headquartered at The Ohio State University. The MISSION of the OERC is to develop and implement a statewide, preschool-through-workforce research agenda addressing critical issues of education practice and policy. The OERC identifies and shares successful practices, responds to the needs of Ohio’s educators and policymakers, and signals emerging trends. The OERC communicates its findings broadly, through multiple platforms and networks, producing materials, products and tools to improve educational practice, policy and outcomes. The VISION of the OERC is to be the source for cutting edge knowledge and resources regarding education and training for Ohio’s educators, policymakers and community leaders creating a dynamic cycle of research and practice where the needs of practitioners drive the research agenda and high-quality research has a rapid impact upon practice in the field. Core FUNDING for the OERC is provided by the Ohio Department of Education. Additional funding comes from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services in collaboration with the Ohio Board of Regents.
Making Research Work for Education
www.oerc.osu.edu|
[email protected]
1
ABSTRACT In June 2012, Ohio legislated that all 3rd graders, with the exception of students with disabilities or English-learners, pass the state's 3rd grade reading assessment before continuing to the 4th grade. In the fall of 2012 Ohio provided a competitive grant process to assist Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in planning and implementing K-3 early literacy and reading. This case study investigated the funded implementation of a proposal from a consortium of three LEAs. The funded proposal involved incorporating the Orton Gillingham (O/G) multi-sensory instructional strategies into the K-3 classrooms. One LEA elected not to participate in the case study. A mixed methods design collecting qualitative and quantitative data addressed six research questions. Qualitative data included document analyses, interviews, surveys, observations and focus groups with administrators, teachers and parents; quantitative data included student scores from K-3 level reading skills assessments. LEA personnel described effective 2013-2014 O/G training sessions and the acquisition of resources, although neither was completed before the school year started. O/G was not required and did not replace existing reading curriculum in either LEA. A professional learning community among the three LEAs was proposed but did not materialize. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) was the progress monitoring tool. A mandatory after school reading intervention class was provided for those 3rd graders whose test scores were Not On Track (NOT) in one LEA. Prior to the start of the 2014-2015 academic year, an O/G refresher course will be provided. For 2014-2015, one LEA has adopted O/G as the literacy curriculum for K-3; the other will not replace existing reading curriculum with O/G but will continue to include O/G as an instructional tool. After-school reading instruction will be continued and enhanced with a redesign of the instructional school day to allot more time for reading instruction. O/G monitoring assessments are in review for possible application for inclusion in the 2015-2016 state approved assessments list. Keywords: Elementary Literacy Reading Multiple Sensory Teaching Learning
Funding for this case study was provided by the Ohio Department of Education. The Ohio Education Research Center would like to thank the following individuals who helped make this research possible: Project Team: Suzanne Franco, EdD, Wright State University Questions regarding this report should be directed to Suzanne Franco at:
[email protected].
2 © 2013 Ohio Education Research Center
CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 II. The Problem ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 The Research Questions................................................................................................................................................... 6 III. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Data........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Procedures............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Consideration of the Validity/Reliability/Trustworthiness of the Findings............................................ 12 IV. Findings ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Research Question 1: What are teachers’ and administrators’ feedback and buy-in regarding the Orton-Gillingham Multi-Sensory training?............................................................................................................. 13 Research Question 2: What are the successes and challenges for implementation of the O/G strategy? ............................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Research Question 3: What are the successes and challenges experienced in the development of and maintenance of a PLC among LEAs? ................................................................................................................ 17 Research Question 4: What progress and monitoring tools are used for reading skill development for grade levels and LEAs? ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Research Question 5: What reading skills improved for students who were identified as underperforming and for those who were identified as performing on or above grade level in 2012-2013? ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Research Question 6: What percentage of K-3 students are identified as underperforming (NOT = Not on Target) in Fall, 2012-2013, Spring, 2012-2013 and Fall 2013-2014? ......................................... 19 V. Conclusions and Implications of Findings ...................................................................................................... 20 VI. References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Kindergarten RIMP .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Kindergarten RIMP .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix C .............................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Grade 1 RIMP...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Grade 2 RIMP...................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix E .............................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Grade 3 RIMP...................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix F .............................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Grades K-3 RIMP ............................................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix G ............................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Sample Tier 3 Student Information Sheet .............................................................................................................. 39
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ohio’s Third Grade Reading Guarantee (TGRG) was legislated in June 2012 and requires all 3rd graders, with the exception of students with disabilities or English-learners, to pass the state's 3rd grade reading assessment before continuing to the 4th grade. Ohio’s TGRG was implemented in 2013-2014. A three-LEA consortium applied for and received state funding to implement K-3 early literacy and reading interventions that assist in improving reading development and prepare students to read at grade level by the end of 3rd grade. This study investigated the funded implementation of the proposal from a 3 LEA consortium to implement the consortium’s decision to embrace the Orton-Gillingham (O/G) multi-sensory instructional strategy. One LEA declined participation in the larger project. A mixed methods design collecting qualitative and quantitative data addressed six research questions. Qualitative data included document analyses, interviews, observations, surveys and focus groups with administrators, teachers and parents; quantitative data included student scores from K-3 level reading skills assessments. A professional learning community among the three LEAs was proposed but did not materialize.
FINDINGS 1. O/G training for consortium teachers and principals was rated by teachers and principals as being effective.
The 5 day training was offered in the summer and late fall of 2013. Teachers requested refresher courses for summer 2014. Principals and teachers noted that having the principals trained contributed to rich conversations during the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) process.
2. Incorporating O/G into an existing LEA’s required reading curriculum was challenging for the consortium LEAs.
Due to the delayed completion of training and receipt of materials, O/G was not a required strategy in 2013-2014. Due to differences in nomenclature and process, using O/G within the framework of existing reading instruction was confusing for students and teachers.
One LEA has adopted O/G as the LEA’s required reading program for 2014-2015.
3. The O/G progress monitoring assessment is not on the list of state approved tests.
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) was the progress monitoring tool for 2013-2014 and will also be used for 2014-2015. Efforts are underway to have the O/G monitoring tool reviewed for inclusion on the list of state approved assessments in 2015-2016, if not earlier.
2
4. The consortium LEAs’ reading improvement and management plan (RIMP) documents were not standardized among grade levels and among consortium LEAs.
In this case study, LEAs modified existing grade level student summary templates to include RIMP data. Teachers completed a summary for students that moved from their classroom to the next grade level and received a different form of summary data for students moving into their classroom.
5. LEA administrators suggested that reading progress monitoring data (included in RIMP) can provide statewide insights into K-3 students’ longitudinal development of reading competencies and the impact of the TGRG over time.
Ohio’s Education Management Information System (EMIS) TGRG reporting requirements do not include information regarding reading competencies but instead include an indicator regarding the student being ‘On Track’ or ‘Not on Track.’
6. One LEA with a higher mobility rate than others in the consortium stated that the TGRG policies are more difficult to implement in LEAs with higher mobility rates.
New students are required to be evaluated and a RIMP developed if necessary within 30 days of registering. Given current student-data transfer mechanisms, this is not enough time for the new school to obtain the previous testing data from the previous school. As a result, the highly mobile students are being tested more frequently than needed.
7. The case study LEAs are unaware of alternative approaches to the TGRG being used in other LEAs throughout the state.
Case study LEAs would like to have an opportunity to learn what other LEAs are doing regarding the TGRG.
8. Principals in both LEAs described negative learning environments that resulted from high stakes testing, especially for struggling students.
Ohio’s K-3 students are tested frequently for all subjects. Though literacy progress monitoring is not new, the TGRG makes it a high stakes initiative. The subsequent stress and related behavior issues are viewed as detrimental to creating a positive attitude towards school.
RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON CASE STUDY FINDINGS 1. Continue monitoring LEA implementation of funded and non-funded TGRG implementation plans, and share “lessons learned” throughout the state. Case study findings are not generalizable.
3
2. Continue funding for planning and implementation of the TGRG. One year is not enough
time to fully implement the consortium’s proposed plan in this case study. Moreover, results from a case study cannot be generalized.
3. Expedite reviews of monitoring/assessment tools related to TGRG interventions. 4. Review the TGRG 30 day requirements for new/highly mobile students. Either lengthen the timeframe or create mechanisms so that the receiving schools get full data sets in less than 30 days.
5. Revise RIMP format and collect RIMP data for longitudinal analyses of common deficiencies and the TGRG impact across the state.
6. Embrace testing for multiple purposes instead of testing for individual initiatives.
4
I. INTRODUCTION On June 25, 2012 the Ohio Legislature passed a bill requiring all third graders, with the exception of students with disabilities or English-learners, to pass the state's third grade reading assessment section of the Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) in order to continue on to the fourth grade (Ohio Revised Code 3313.608 Fourth grade reading capability). Local Education Agencies (LEAs) gathered K-3 reading skills data during the 2012-2013 ‘piloting’ year. The bill required all LEAs to test K-3 students’ reading skills before September 30, 2012. Upon identification of a student as not on track (NOT), the LEA is required to notify the student's parent and provide the student with intervention services. To that end, every Ohio LEA is required to develop a reading improvement and monitoring plan (RIMP) within 60 days for any student who is NOT according to the September reading diagnostic assessment. Enforcement of the third grade reading guarantee (TGRG) law took effect during the 2013-2014 school year. According to state education officials, the TGRG aligns with Ohio’s Race to the Top (RttT) plan to close achievement gaps, improve overall academic achievement, and increase college attendance. All statewide tests in Ohio have five performance levels – advanced, accelerated, proficient, basic and limited. To pass the third grade reading assessment, students must score at the “proficient” level or above. During the 2011-2012 school year, 79% of Ohio third graders scored proficient or above on the state reading assessment, while 21% scored below proficient. In Ohio’s Urban 8 school districts in the 2011-2012 school year, the percentage of third graders who passed the reading exam at the proficient or above level ranged from 74.1% in Cincinnati to 56.6% in Cleveland and 54.8% in Dayton. None of the Urban 8 districts met the state standard of 75% passing the reading exam. In 2010-2011, 44 out of the 132 (33%) urban charter schools that teach K-3 students met the state reading standard. In the seven virtual charter schools, three schools met the state reading standard. In the seven special needs charter schools, two met the state standard. Three of the five district conversion schools met the state reading standard. One rural charter school did not meet the state reading standard. Ohio is one of 13 states across the country that requires 3rd grade students to be reading at grade level in order to be promoted to 4th grade. Shepard and Smith (1989) published a meta-analysis of 63 grade retention studies. The studies include the history of retention, the policies that support retention, and results from longitudinal tracking of students who were retained. For those who were retained, the consistent finding was that retention was a predictor for dropping out of high school. Changes in instruction are championed as the alternative to retention. More recent research studies (Allensworth, 2005) confirmed the meta-analysis findings that retention did not improve students’ academic growth and increased the likelihood of dropping out. In addition, the results pointed to the disproportionately high share of low-income and minority students who comprise the group of students who are held back as points of potential educational inequality.
5
II. THE PROBLEM In October 2012, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) announced a competitive grant for LEAs to design and implement a grades K-3 early literacy and reading intervention plan that assists students in improving and enhancing their reading development and prepares them to read at grade level by the end of grade three. LEAs were able to apply for the funding either individually or through a consortium. This case study investigated the implementation and results of a three LEA consortium funded by the ODE grant for 2013-2014 support in developing and implementing a third grade reading guarantee plan. The consortium proposal was to implement Orton Gillingham (O/G) Multi-Sensory reading instructional strategies within each of the LEAs. Training and resource materials related to the O/G instructional strategies were purchased. Included in the funded plan was the development of a professional learning community (PLC) among the consortium’s LEAs. The PLC was intended to enhance progress and share challenges experienced using the O/G strategies for developing and monitoring reading skill development for all K-3 students.
THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. What are teachers’ and administrators’ feedback and buy-in regarding the O/G MultiSensory training? 2. What are the successes and challenges for implementation of the O/G strategies for each LEA by grade level? 3. What are the successes and challenges experienced in the development of and maintenance of a professional learning community among LEAs? 4. What progress monitoring tools are used for reading skill development for grade levels and LEAs? 5. What reading skills improved for students who were identified as underperforming and for those who were identified as performing at or above grade level in 2012-2013? (This level of detail was not available) 6. What percentage of K-3 students are identified as underperforming (NOT) in the Fall 2012-2013, Spring 2012-2013 and Fall 2013-2014?
6
III. METHODOLOGY A mixed methods methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) was the framework for collecting qualitative and quantitative data to address the six research questions. Interviews, surveys and focus groups with teachers, administrators, parents, and the O/G trainer provided data for research questions 1 – 4 during the 2013-2014 school year. Classroom observations provided details about student engagement and reading progress. The data for research questions 5 and 6 were provided by the LEAs.
DATA The consortium consisted of three Ohio LEAs that selected the O/G training as a method to improve reading skills for all K-3 students. The three LEAs are RttT districts representing ODE typology 2 (Rural with average poverty and small student Annual Daily Membership [ADM]) and 4 (Small Town with high poverty and average ADM). Table 1 includes additional LEA demographics. Table 1. Case Study LEA Demographic Data
LEA
Typology
1
2: Rural with avg. poverty & low ADM
2 3
4 :Small Town with high poverty & avg. ADM 2: Rural with avg. poverty & low ADM
2010-2011 % passed 3rd grade reading
2011-2012 % passed 3rd grade reading
20122013 Mobility
% White/ NonHispanic
% Econ. Disadvan.
Exc.
87.3
85.9
7.0
97
40
Exc.
90.3
80.2
11.4
87
53
Exc. with Distinction
84.7
84
6.1
98
19
Report Card Rating
LEA 3 elected not to participate in the case study. The remainder of this report provides data from LEA 1 and LEA 2. The O/G training included student instructional and assessment strategies that use multi-sensory strategies. Two five-day trainings were held the first two weeks after school ended in June 2013. A second training for new hires or any other teachers who did not complete the summer training was held in November 2013. Parent nights for those parents of students identified as NOT were completed by December 2013. The qualitative data were housed in Nvivo. The transcripts from audio files and supporting documents from each LEA were coded according to themes related to the research questions as well as themes that emerged from the coding process. Inter-rater reliability was established by checking for consistency in the codes assigned by multiple coders. 7
At the end of the school year, the LEA RIMPS were analyzed using document analysis techniques. De-identified longitudinal DIBELS student data were reviewed for trends. Finally, in one-on-one interviews, LEA administrators reflected on the instructional and monitoring plans employed in 2013-2014 and articulated planned improvements for the upcoming year. The consortium’s proposal included plans to support a PLC among the O/G trained teachers. Due to late training (last training was in November 2013) and a delay in encumbering of resources, the PLC did not evolve. Severe weather in the winter also played a role in a PLC not materializing. Figure 1 below represents the two participating LEAs’ reading plan details.
PROCEDURES Training O/G training was scheduled in November 2013 for those new to the LEAs or those who were not able to attend the June 2013 training. O/G training observations provided the opportunity to discuss the O/G process with the trainer and to informally discuss O/G strategies with the attendees.
LEAs Individual principal interviews and building RIMP reviews occurred in May 2014 for all consortium K-3 buildings: one K12 LEA1 building, one K LEA2 building and three grades 1-3 LEA2 buildings. LEA visits for observations and interviews were rescheduled multiple times due to conflicts that arose due to LEA unplanned developments and weather related delays. Principals determined which classrooms would be observed and which teachers would be interviewed based on teacher availability. Teacher observations and interviews occurred in one LEA1 building, one grade K LEA2 building and two of the three grades 1-3 LEA2 buildings between November 2013 and February 2014. Both LEAs hosted parent informational sessions. Neither session was well attended. Principals provided anecdotal feedback about the reasons for the low attendance. LEA 1 LEA1 consists of one K12 building. Classroom composition for LEA1 K-6 students was based on prior student assessment results. As a result, two grade three classrooms contained grade three students who were NOT as of Fall 2013. The teachers for the two classrooms completed O/G training during the summer of 2013 and started implementation in Fall 2013. Both participated in a focus group. In addition, there was an interview and subsequent observation of the instructional specialist implementing O/G. Additional clarifications about teacher input was collected through email communications with the interviewed teachers and the principal.
8
LEA 2 LEA2 houses all Kindergarten students in one building. Two Kindergarten teachers and one instructional specialist completed the O/G training in the summer of 2013 and began implementation in Fall 2013. Structured interviews and observations were scheduled with the two classroom teachers and the one instructional specialist. Additional clarifications about teacher input was collected through email communications with the principal. The majority of LEA2 grades 1-3 students who were NOT attended one of the three grades 1-3 elementary buildings. Four grade three classrooms and two instructional specialist classes were observed in said building; individual teacher interviews followed. Additional clarifications about teacher input was collected through email communications with the principal.
9
Figure 1. LEA 1 and LEA 2 details for implementing the funded TGRG plan
LEA
1
Sept. Testing and progress monitoring
State screener for grades 1, 2, 3; KRAL for Kindergarten; DIBELS used for monitoring of those identified as NOT.
2013-14 Plans: identification and monitoring
DIBELS for those identified as needing further assessment. Progress Monitoring will be done using DIBELS
How is evaluation of O/G measured?
Teacher anecdotes; student longitudinal data;
Any tools or curriculum replaced?
O/G was never meant to replace our early literacy program. Training and implementation for O/G was desired because O/G is a research based tool. It has provided our teachers another tool to use during RTI and during general instruction.
Who uses O/G?
Not required. O/G enhanced our everyday instruction; Is used in Bulldog breakout (RTI), pull out classes and Title I reading classes.
Additional Training or Resources needed?
Would like refresher course and to have new staff trained going forward. Need teachers to take the 2nd tier of training. Teachers have received O/G resources.
Parent Meeting and Professional Learning Communities Feedback Held a parent night for TGRG communication and O/G presentation. Thirty-nine invitations sent, 8 families attended, most of whom had been working with the school prior to this. Parents concerned that attendance meant others would know their child was NOT. PLC not formed.
Other TGRG interventions implemented 2013-2014 -Homework Club -Summer school 4 days a week (the month of June) for students NOT -RTI (various research based programs used throughout K-4, depending on level and ability). -Ticket to Read for all NOT students in grades 2 and 3 -Grade level work books provided to all Grade 2 & 3 parents of NOT students
10
2
DIBELS for identifying; NWEA for monitoring progress (and value-added scores) No change
NWEA DIBELS Teacher anecdotes
It will be the K curriculum for 2014. Grades 1-3 will continue to use O/G with benchmarks. Plan to link O/G with Phonemic Awareness Curriculum (by LRI) that supports the progression of the O/G skills taught.
Not everyone was trained by the start of school. Principals are monitoring O/G use to better understand full effect. In 2014 all will be required to use it.
Would like refresher course. (A refresher course is offered in August, 2014).
At parent night there were a few concerns voiced about the fact that attending alerted others that their child(ren) were NOT. PLCs not formed.
After School mandatory 1 hr. literacy classes organized by areas of need within each building. Held twice a week. O/G used with other tools. -LEA provides transportation home after sessions.
11
CONSIDERATION OF THE VALIDITY/RELIABILITY/TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE FINDINGS The mixed methods research design included qualitative and quantitative data analysis. The qualitative data were housed in Nvivo, a qualitative software package designed to assist in project analyses. The transcripts and documents from each LEA were coded according to themes related to the research questions as well as themes that have emerged from the coding process. To maintain trustworthiness of the qualitative data collected, the following steps were implemented: 1. The transcripts were coded by the Primary Investigator and Graduate Research Assistants to minimize drifting and to allow confirmation of emergent themes and establish inter-rater reliability. 2. The one-on-one interview participants were asked to review the transcripts of interviews for accuracy. 3. Administrators at LEA locations were asked to review the documents summarizing the site visit to insure accuracy. 4. Field notes recorded during the site visits documented any specific contexts or challenges that were present during the data collection. For the quantitative analysis, the reading monitoring assessments were completed at the LEA level to minimize any effects caused by differences in LEA context. The case study summary and findings cannot be generalized. The researcher has no data to indicate whether or not the sources are representative of all K-3 classrooms throughout Ohio.
12
IV. FINDINGS RESEARCH QUESTION 1: WHAT ARE TEACHERS’ AND ADMINISTRATORS’ FEEDBACK AND BUY-IN REGARDING THE ORTON-GILLINGHAM MULTI-SENSORY TRAINING? Teachers’ Feedback and Buy-in Regarding Training Overall, the teachers valued the O/G training experience. Many stated that they “loved the experience” and would not mind taking the exact training again. The majority of teachers reported that the multi-sensory training “makes sense”; they reported that they were able to implement O/G immediately in their classrooms to help their students develop their reading skills. Several teachers stated that learning the different strategies for reading and instruction using phonics was “eye opening.” More than one teacher stated that she wished she had completed the training at an earlier time in her career. Specifically, teachers liked the O/G method of teaching the letter sounds to their students. Conducting role plays with other teachers during the training was also thought to be useful. One teacher commented that she and her co-teacher would help each other and correct each other during the practice role plays. Role playing kept the trainees focused on the topic and provided an opportunity for them to practice the instructional strategies frequently. Many teachers indicated that the O/G trainer was engaging and knowledgeable. The trainer involved the teachers in many activities and encouraged them to “get up and do things.” One teacher added that the trainer shared a personal email address and promptly replied to any queries directed towards her after the training. This was useful because teachers realized that until they were involved in delivering instruction they could not have known what questions they had. A few teachers provided constructive criticism about the training. One primary concern was the fact that the training was extensive and “a lot in five days.” As a result, some teachers found it difficult to remain focused and reported being “out of it” during the training. Some mentioned that sitting through the 30 hours of training was especially difficult as they were already tired after having just completed the end of year activities. (The training started the week after the last day of school.) One teacher recommended that it would be beneficial to split up the training into separate sections such as ‘primary’, ‘intermediate’ or ‘high school.’ More than one teacher reported that not all the information that was provided in the training was applicable for all teachers.
Administrators’ Feedback about Training Administrators reported that they learned about the O/G efficacy from other LEAs in the state as well as from prior published research. One administrator described the training and implementation of O/G as a “catalyst for how (the teachers) continue to progress through the year.”
13
A different administrator stated that she completed the training along with the teachers and although she did not remember every aspect of the training, she re-learned the materials during classroom observations during which the strategies were used by teachers. However, one administrator did not expect to go to the training and said “all of a sudden we went through the Orton training.”
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: WHAT ARE THE SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE O/G STRATEGY? Teachers’ Feedback on Successes The primary success can be summarized easily: teachers reported that students’ reading skills improved. Teachers remarked that students enjoyed the sand trays because they are tactile, engaging, and fast-paced. One teacher mentioned that struggling students were able to retain information better when the tactile aspect was added as an instructional strategy. The LEAs were able to provide all materials needed as a result of the state funding, though many did not receive the supplies until the middle of the first quarter. Yes, I have everything that I need. We were able to put orders in after the training at the beginning of the [school] year. I have the blending board, the carts, manual, and the sand trays. The teachers indicated that O/G is informative for all levels of students. It’s an enrichment for the higher kids. Teachers reported trying to push them so that we're not forgetting about them. We’re trying to meet the needs of the kids when they are in the lower grades so that when they come to third-grade we're not sitting with a lot of them threatened to be retained next year.
Teachers’ Feedback on Challenges The major challenges with implementation are reflected in four areas: 1. Receiving supplies in the middle of the first quarter of the school year. Due to delays in access to the funds, the teachers did not receive all supplies until midway through the first quarter of the year. 2. Not having enough time in the school day for full implementation. Teachers reported that full implementation required more than the time allotted for reading in their school day.
14
3. The inconsistency of use throughout the LEAs:
One teacher reported: “We only had about half of our building trained during the summer. The other half just went in the fall. That made it difficult, especially from my standpoint [as an intervention specialist]. It was hard to figure out who [which student] has had it, who has not had it, and are the teachers using it in the classroom?”
Another observed: “I use Orton at this point. Again it is difficult because if the teacher is not using it, they [the students] are definitely at a different place than I am. It is probably not as effective because I'm doing different letters and sequences. I follow the recipe for reading from Orton, and the teachers were mostly following Handwriting Without Tears except for some of them that went [to the O/G training] this summer.”
4. The difficulty combining O/G strategies with other reading programs adopted by the LEA:
Some teachers reported struggling with merging the O/G strategies with the current LEA adopted reading curriculum. For example, the O/G strategy uses lowercase letters whereas the district adopted literacy program uses uppercase letters. So, even though the teachers valued the training, they found it difficult to figure out how they would “put it together and have that marriage.”
It just depends on who is using what. We're trying to figure out how to blend Handwriting Without Tears with the Orton Gillingham piece. If we use some of the verbiage… I already do that sometimes. Orton doesn't necessarily have that really strong piece of how to write the letters. Handwriting Without Tears will say “long line down” or “little line down.” We are able to pull that verbiage in while we’re writing in the sand for each letter.
However the teachers in one LEA were hopeful that the difficulty would go away since all staff will be using O/G next year: “Next year when we change some things [in the LEA] going from Popcorn Words [Handwriting Without Tears] to Red Words [Orton-Gillingham], that will help a lot. We have been trying to blend the two, and its been a struggle. Now that we know for sure [that the LEA will use Orton-Gillingham in all classrooms] it is going to help a lot.”
Administrators’ Feedback on Successes The administrators indicated that they were pleased to receive the ODE grant that allowed them to purchase the O/G training and materials because the program is effective according to researchbased articles. O/G is allowing them to create a strong foundation for reading instruction in their buildings. Below are examples of principals’ reports of changes in practice as a result of O/G implementation:
15
One administrator stated that O/G affected the grouping of students within their school; students were being grouped during intervention periods according to which O/G skills were not on target. “Then we’re going to be able to go right into this IE period. That is when students are going to break into smaller groups, and teachers that are doing intervention are going to be able to sit at a table and really do those Orton skills over and over to get that in. The enriched students will be in a small group too, and they will be able to apply the strategy for them differently.” An administrator reported that O/G was the basis for a mandatory after-school intervention reading program to improve reading skills of students who have not reached the 392 reading benchmark on the OAA. “I do not know what we are going to hear from them [the students] yet, but verbally talking with principals, they are pleased with the attendance [after school] and are talking about how the students are coming in.” An administrator stated that completing the O/G training helped her have rich conversations with teachers after classroom observations.
Administrators’ Feedback on Challenges Regarding challenges in the implementation, one administrator reported that O/G does not have an Ohio approved progress-monitoring tool; therefore the LEA must use DIBELS to monitor student progress.
“What we are going to do is, right now we are working on the DIBELS pacing and trying to figure out where kids need to be, based on their DIBELS assessments. We are marrying that with the Orton piece and filling in the gaps. We are creating one document.”
“We will be doing more than what DIBELS is requiring of us, but we will still have the DIBELS piece that is required of us for the third-grade reading guarantee. We are going to go above and beyond because we really want to get that full data that Orton is going to give us.”
Administrators also mentioned that the cost of the O/G training and materials was a challenge. They stated that without the ODE grant O/G would have been cost-prohibitive. Both LEAs expressed concern that they will not have the funds to maintain the O/G training and consequent implementation after the grant funds are expended.
“I mentioned to you that we studied Orton for a couple of years, but it was cost prohibitive. We need focused funding for things like that to keep the momentum going. We’re going to have those dollars spent by April, but I am going to get new teachers next year. We have to keep that going. How do I maintain something like this? Those are important things to us, being focused with our spending and being focused with our ability to deliver.”
The administrators also stated that the 2013-2014 winter weather affected their ability to collect as much data by the end of the third quarter as they would have liked. 16
One LEA administrator reported that teachers were using O/G as a resource in the classroom but not “doing the whole phonics thing with it.” O/G is an optional instructional strategy for teachers in some buildings. An administrator suggested that September was too early to identify students as far as being on track or NOT “because so many are just getting used to school. This year we had 171 K students identified in the fall and only 42 were still at Tier 3 by May testing.” Not only was the identification misleading, but staffing was a challenge because over half the grade required intervention. “Our music and art teachers provide reading instruction/intervention in between their time on their content. This makes 1.4 teachers for the 171 identified in fall.” And finally, at the end of the school year, administrators from both LEAs described high student test anxiety and related negative behaviors for very young students.
RESEARCH QUESTION 3: WHAT ARE THE SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AND MAINTENANCE OF A PLC AMONG LEAS? PLCs were not established due to late access to grant funding and severe winter weather requiring an unusually high number of school closings.
RESEARCH QUESTION 4: WHAT PROGRESS AND MONITORING TOOLS ARE USED FOR READING SKILL DEVELOPMENT FOR GRADE LEVELS AND LEAS? LEA 1 The administrators indicated that they were trying to align O/G with DIBELS because they liked the benchmarks from O/G but needed to use DIBELS to report to the state. Orton has assessments already in place that they have for their strategy. The state has not approved those… They line up really well with DIBELS. DIBELS can be a good piece, but Orton gives us more details to work from. Since we are implementing that program we really want to use that. The teachers in one LEA indicated that in previous years they had used NWEA for progress monitoring but were not using it this year because it was not approved by the state. The teachers expressed that they were glad to no longer be using NWEA because they felt that the technology aspect was not appropriate for young children. I do not feel like it is very age-appropriate. We have a lot of students who come in and have never even touched a computer mouse.
17
LEA 2 The teachers indicated that they were using DIBELS, Study Island, and Renaissance Place for progress monitoring.
RESEARCH QUESTION 5: WHAT READING SKILLS IMPROVED FOR STUDENTS WHO WERE IDENTIFIED AS UNDERPERFORMING AND FOR THOSE WHO WERE IDENTIFIED AS PERFORMING ON OR ABOVE GRADE LEVEL IN 2012-2013? Data regarding the specific reading competencies were not collected electronically regarding the 2012-2013 pilot year or in the 2013-2014 implementation year. As a result, summary information regarding the competencies is not included. DIBELS scores by grade level reflected reading progress over the 2013-2014 school year. There was no opportunity to verify the data before the review. Therefore the following broad findings are offered:
The trend for both LEAs was that the percentage/number of students NOT decreases from grade K to grade 3.
In LEA 2, almost half of the Kindergarten class was NOT in the Fall of 2012 and 2013.
In LEA 1 and LEA 2, the Spring 2014 testing results indicated that 4% or fewer of the Kindergarten students were NOT. The change from almost 50% Kindergarteners being NOT in Fall 2013 to 4% being NOT by Spring 2014 is the basis for administrators’ suggestion that Fall testing of Kindergarteners is too early.
Document analyses of completed RIMPs at the end of the 2013-2014 year demonstrated that each LEA had developed individual student RIMP forms. Though the forms included most of the information included on the state RIMP template, the forms varied in order, terminology and style. In some instances the classroom teacher included unique data tables in addition to a Response to Intervention (RTI) form along with the RIMP. Discussions with LEA administrators indicated that the teachers were allowed to include additional data with the RIMP forms. Some administrators required the state template to be included while others did not. Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F represent some alternative RIMP templates used. No determination was made regarding one format being preferred over another. Appendix G is a deidentified Tier 3 informational sheet with reading progress and intervention data. No reading progress data were collected regarding students who met or exceeded the OAA 3rd grade reading proficiency score.
18
RESEARCH QUESTION 6: WHAT PERCENTAGE OF K-3 STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS UNDERPERFORMING (NOT = NOT ON TARGET) IN FALL, 2012-2013, SPRING, 20122013 AND FALL 2013-2014? Table 2 presents the data available to respond to this research question.
Table 2. Percentage identified as Not on Target (NOT) in Fall and Spring, 2012-2013 and Fall, 20132014 LEA 1
LEA 2
% NOT Fall, 2012-13
% NOT Spring*, 2012-13
% NOT, Fall, 2013- 14
K (KRAL)
14%
2%
13%
1 (State Screener)
16%
12%
8%
2 (State Screener)
15%
12%
21%
3 (OAA & DIBELS)
17%
14%
27%
Grade Level (Assessment)
Grade Level (Assessment) K (NWEA,2012; DIBELS, 2013) 1 (NWEA,2012; DIBELS, 2013) 2 (NWEA,2012; DIBELS, 2013) 3 (NWEA,2012; DIBELS, 2013)
% NOT Fall, 2012- 13
% NOT Spring*, 2012- 13
% NOT Fall, 2013-14
54%
4%
40%
62%
13%
39%
66%
23%
26%
57%
13%
29%
*Students identified with learning disabilities are included
19
V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS In Ohio the student who does not pass the 3rd grade reading test at the state required level is retained in the 3rd grade for reading, but is provided differentiated instruction at the 4th grade level for other content areas if the student is ready. Moreover, once a retained student’s reading improves, the student can be moved to the fourth grade in the middle of the year (ODE, 2014). Moving to the fourth grade is dependent on the student’s subsequent testing results. Previous research studies do not include the option of partial grade level retention or retention bounded by student future testing. It is hopeful that Ohio’s TGRG policy will provide the intensive focus on reading skills for those students who test below grade level and that the intensive focus will mitigate the negative research findings associated with previous retention policies that removed the student from the age appropriate grade level for the entire academic year. The findings from this case study include qualitative and quantitative data to contribute to the literature regarding the use of a third grade reading level requirement for promotion to fourth grade. The final 3rd grade testing results will be available in late August 2014 after all interventions for the TGRG are completed. Though not generalizable, the results will inform Ohio policy makers regarding specific successes and challenges for implementation of the TGRG in two LEAs that represent excellent districts in one rural and one small town in Ohio. The findings from this case study have implications for policy makers. The implications and recommendations are described below: 1. The LEAs in this case study were not able to implement O/G strategies for a full school year. Future funding should be awarded so as to allow for strong implementation on agreed-upon schedules. Additional chronicling of LEAs’ implementation and tracking of student reading progress over a complete calendar year in response to the TGRG can continue to inform policy makers of support needs and unintended consequences. Continued monitoring can also provide ‘lessons learned’ information to LEAs throughout the state. 2. LEAs will need to reallocate funding for O/G strategies if additional funding for LEA TGRG planning and implementation does not continue. One year of funding support is not enough for iterative implementation improvements and sustainable program development. 3. In this case study LEA RIMP data could be used to track efficacy of the TGRG within the LEAs and possibly to identify any common literacy competency deficits across the LEAs. Such tracking in other LEAs would be informative to policy makers. 4. The assessment tools for reading programs proposed in LEA funding proposals should receive an option of expedited review for inclusion on the state approved reading assessments. Expedited review is necessary when the deadline for the TGRG funding decisions and the determination of the state approved assessment list are not aligned.
20
5. Administrators and teachers in the LEAs indicated that the TGRG testing yielded high student test anxiety and related negative behaviors for very young students. Testing for multiple purposes is preferable to testing for individual initiatives. 6. Current law requires a RIMP and preliminary assessments for new/mobile students to be completed within 30 days of enrollment. The one LEA in this study who had the highest mobility rate in the consortium suggested that there is a need for a much more rapid exchange of data among schools and districts (preferred), or a need to extend the time requirement to at least 60 days.
21
VI. REFERENCES Allensworth, E. M. (2005). Dropout rates after high-stakes testing in elementary school: A study of the contradictory effects of Chicago's efforts to end social promotion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(4), 341-364. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.libraries.wright.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ737747&site=eds-live; http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=316 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. ODE. (2014). Third grade reading guarantee. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Early-Learning/Third-Grade-ReadingGuarantee/TGRG.pdf.aspx Scheffel, D. L., & Shaw, J. (2008). The efficacy of a supplemental multisensory reading program for first-grade students, Reading Improvement, 45(3), 139-152. Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. London; New York: Falmer Press.
22
APPENDIX A KINDERGARTEN RIMP Beginning of School Year Assessment KRA-L ___/29 Dibels Composite Score (Goal 26)
< Enter score here >
First Sound Fluency (Goal 10)
< Enter score here >
Letter Naming Frequency
< Enter score here >
< Enter specific information about the student’s performance on the tests >
Middle of School Year Assessment Dibels Composite Score (Goal 122)
< Enter score here >
First Sound Fluency (Goal 30)
< Enter score here >
Letter Naming Frequency
< Enter score here >
Phoneme Segmentation (Goal 20)
< Enter score here >
Nonsense Word Fluency (Goal 17)
< Enter score here >
< Enter specific information about the student’s performance on the tests >
End of School Year Assessment Dibels Composite Score (Goal 119)
< Enter score here >
Letter Naming Fluency
< Enter score here >
Phoneme Segmentation (Goal 40)
< Enter score here >
Nonsense Word Fluency (Goal 28)
< Enter score here >
< Enter specific information about the student’s performance on the tests >
23
APPENDIX B KINDERGARTEN RIMP Results of Fall Diagnostic Assessment: Ohio Diagnostic Assessment/KRA-L__________________________ DIBELS Score______________________________ Reading Deficiency: o Comprehension o Oral Reading Fluency o Vocabulary o Phonemic Awareness o Phonics/Alphabetic Principle o Other__________________________________________________ Supplemental Intervention: (____ minutes, ____ days a week) o Small Group o Tutoring o Extended Day o 1:1 o Other__________________________________________________ Materials to be used in Intervention: o ____________________________________________ o _____________________________________________ o _____________________________________________
Kdg: Orange – 10/17/13
Frequency of Monitoring: o Weekly o Bi-weekly o Bi-monthly o Quarterly Parent/Family Involvement: o Child reads ______ minutes at home every night with an adult o Parent/Guardian will practice _______________________with child each night for ______________minutes. o Parent/Guardian reads to the child and then the child reads to the adult _____ minutes every night o Have the child: o Make lists o Keep a journal o Write a story o Make cards o Talk about everyday activities
24
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Teacher’s Signature
Start Date
End Date
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian’s Signature*
Start Date
End Date
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Principal/Designee’s Signature *Indicates parent is fully aware of the interventions and has played a role in developing this plan. Students who fail to attain grade-level competence in Reading as measured by the 3rd Grade Ohio Achievement Assessment in Reading may be retained.
25
APPENDIX C GRADE 1 RIMP Results of Fall Assessment: Ohio Diagnostic Assessment Screener __________________________ DIBELS Composite Score_________________________________________ Text Reading Level_______________________________________________ Reading Deficiency: o Comprehension o Oral Reading Fluency o Sight Word Recognition o Phonemic Awareness o Phonics/Alphabetic Principle o Other__________________________________________________ Supplemental Intervention: (____ minutes, ____ days a week) o Small Group Guided Reading Instruction on student’s level o Bulldog Breakout group using _____________________ o Title I o Tutoring o 1:1 o Other__________________________________________________ Materials to be used in Intervention: ____________________________________________________
Gr 1: Yellow – 10/17/13
Frequency of Monitoring: o Weekly o Bi-weekly o Monthly o Quarterly Parent/Family Involvement: o Child reads ______ minutes at home every night to an adult o Parent/Guardian reads to the child _____ minutes every night o Parent/Guardian practices sight words with child each night for _____ minutes o Have the child: o Make lists o Keep a journal o Write photo captions o Make greeting cards o Talk about everyday activities
26
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Teacher’s Signature Start Date End Date __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian’s Signature*
Start Date
End Date
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Principal/Designee’s Signature *Indicates parent is fully aware of the interventions and has played a role in developing this plan. Students who fail to attain grade-level competence in Reading as measured by the 3rd Grade Ohio Achievement Assessment in Reading may be retained.
27
APPENDIX D GRADE 2 RIMP Results of Fall Diagnostic Assessment: Ohio Diagnostic Assessment/KRA-L_______________________________ DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Score ______________________________ STAR Grade Equivalent Reading Level ____________________________ Reading Deficiency: o Comprehension o Oral Reading Fluency o Vocabulary o Phonemic Awareness o Phonics/Alphabetic Principle o Other__________________________________________________ Supplemental Intervention: (____ minutes, ____ days a week) o Small Group o Tutoring o Title o Bulldog Breakout o Other__________________________________________________ Materials to be used in Intervention: ____________________________________________________ Frequency of Monitoring: o Weekly o Bi-weekly o Bi-monthly o Quarterly
Gr 2: Green – 10/17/13
Parent/Family Involvement: o Child reads ______ minutes at home every night to an adult o Parent/Guardian practices sight words with child each night for _____ minutes o Parent/Guardian reads to the child and then the child reads to the adult _____ minutes every night o Have the child: o Make lists o Keep a journal o Write a story o Make sight word flashcards o Talk about everyday activities o Other _________________________________________________
28
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Teacher’s Signature
Start Date
End Date
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian’s Signature*
Start Date
End Date
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Principal/Designee’s Signature *Indicates parent is fully aware of the interventions and has played a role in developing this plan. Students who fail to attain grade-level competence in Reading as measured by the 3rd Grade Ohio Achievement Assessment in Reading may be retained.
29
APPENDIX E GRADE 3 RIMP Results of Fall Diagnostic Assessment: Ohio Diagnostic Assessment ______________________________ DIBELS Score_______________________________________________ STAR Reading Level________________________________________ Reading Deficiency: o Comprehension o Oral Reading Fluency o Vocabulary o Phonemic Awareness o Phonics o Other__________________________________________________ Supplemental Intervention: (____ minutes, ____ days a week) o Small Group o Tutoring o Extended Day o 1:1 o Title One o Other__________________________________________________ Materials to be used in Intervention:
Gr 3: Blue – 10/17/13 Frequency of Monitoring: o Weekly ____________________________________________________ o Bi-weekly _________________________________________________ o Bi-monthly ________________________________________________ o Quarterly _________________________________________________ Parent/Family Involvement: o Child reads ______ minutes at home every night to an adult o Parent/Guardian practices sight words with child each night for _____ minutes o Parent/Guardian reads to the child and then the child reads to the adult _____ minutes every night o Have the child: o Make lists o Keep a journal o Write a story o Make cards o Talk about everyday activities o Other ________________________________________________
30
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Teacher’s Signature
Start Date
End Date
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian’s Signature*
Start Date
End Date
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Principal/Designee’s Signature *Indicates parent is fully aware of the interventions and has played a role in developing this plan. Students who fail to attain grade-level competence in Reading as measured by the 3rd Grade Ohio Achievement Assessment in Reading may be retained.
31
APPENDIX F GRADES K-3 RIMP Student Name: ____________ Grade:____ Teacher:__________ DOB: _____________ “Not on Target” Date Parent Letter Sent: _______ Parent Acknowledgement - Date form received:_______ Parents contacted or conference held to discuss concerns for this student by: Name / Title ___________________________________ Parent Signature: _______________________________ Grade Level
Assessment Fill in the name/initials of the assessment used
Status of Diagnostic Assessment Administered by Sept 30th each year (OT = on Track) (NT= not on track)
Date: _________________ Date: _________________ Report the independent reading level for each grading period (Lexile) 1st
2nd
3rd
Comments:
4th
K 1 2 3 4 Grade Level(s) retained: _____
Exempt from Retention (provide reason) _____________
Grade Level(s) on a RIMP____
Referred for further evaluation: ____no ____yes _____date
Child is on an IEP ______no _____ yes Child receives Title I reading services: ___ no ___ yes AYP subgroups: __ IEP __ Economically Disadvantages __ LEP __ Hispanic __ Multiracial __ American Indian or Alaskan Native __ African American __ Asian or Pacific Islander __ White
32
Data Summary: NWEA RIT Score for Reading: Fall:_____________ Winter:____________ Spring:____________ Grade level benchmark score: Fall:_____________Winter:____________ Spring:____________ Dibels: Areas below benchmark: ______________________________ Other Data: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A review of this student’s cumulative folder, OAA scores, recent vision, hearing and speech screenings, and language screening, if necessary, has been completed. Check the area of instructional focus for this Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan: (S) Satisfactory (P) Progressing (U) Unsatisfactory Check one area for curriculum and instructional focus: ___ Comprehension
Specify one or more instructional strategies employed in response to the instructional focus:
___ Text Reading Level
____ large group
___ Phonemic Awareness
____ small group
___ Phonics and Word recognition
____ individual
___ Fluency
1st nine weeks
2nd nine weeks
3rd nine weeks
4th nine weeks
Instructional Strategy:
___ Vocabulary ___other
33
Tier 1: Targeted Instruction or Enrichment
Who Will Implement the Targeted Instruction or enrichment: Where will the instruction take place?
Instructor:
Student:____________________________________
Baseline data
Frequency and duration of instruction
Description of enrichment being provided and/or skills being targeted:
Progress monitoring tools: Person responsible
Outcome: Target Goal or Desired outcome:
Evidence or data Collected:
Decision Point:
Start and end dates:
___ Instruction or enrichment was successful –continue in Tier I
How often?
___Instruction or intervention is not appropriate/successful –needs modified as follows:
Setting: Length of time?
34
Tier 2: Implementation of Targeted Group Academic Intervention(s)
Who Will Implement the Targeted Academic Interventions? Where will the intervention take place?
Instructor:
Student:________________________________________
Baseline data Frequency and duration of intervention sessions:
Start and end dates:
How often? Setting:
Length of time?
Description of intervention being provided and skills being targeted:
Progress monitoring tools: Person responsible
Outcome: Target Goal or rate of improvement:
Evidence or data Collected:
Decision Point: ___ Intervention was successful – move to Tier I –continue progress monitoring ___ Intervention is appropriate student will continue until adequate data is collected to determine success ___Intervention not appropriate/successful –needs modified as follows:
35
Tier 3: Implementation of Intensive Academic Intervention(s):
Who Will Implement the Intensive Academic Interventions? Where will the intervention take place?
Instructor:
Student:_______________________________________________
Baseline data Frequency and duration of intervention sessions:
Start and end dates:
How often? Setting:
Length of time?
Description of intervention being provided and skills being targeted:
Progress monitoring tools: Person responsible
Outcome: Target Goal or rate of improvement:
Evidence or data Collected:
Decision Point: ___ Intervention was successful – move to Tier 2 –continue progress monitoring ___ Intervention is appropriate student will continue until adequate data is collected to determine success ___Intervention not appropriate/successful –needs modified as follows: ____ Referral for a formal evaluation
36
For Third Grade Reading Guarantee Intervention
Dates
Description of intervention and how it was delivered/results
Ending date
90 Minutes of Reading Instruction Alternate Assessment Taken Participated in Summer Intervention Program Information on Teacher Providing Reading Guarantee Services: Check all that apply: The teacher providing the reading guarantee services: A) Is the teacher of record: ___ yes ___ no If no, the teacher is providing reading guarantee services as agreed by the building principal and the teacher of record ___ yes ___no a. Name the assigned teacher if not the teacher of record______________________________________ B) Meets at least one of the following criteria to provide reading services: a. ___ Holds a reading endorsement and has attained a passing score on the corresponding assessment b. ___ Has obtained a master’s degree with a major in reading. c. ___ shows evidence of completion of a program from a list of research-based reading instruction programs approved by ODE. d. ___ Has earned a passing score on a rigorous test of principles of scientifically researched based reading instruction e. ___Was rated “most effective” for reading instruction consecutively for the most recent two years based on assessment of student growth measures. f. ___Was rated ‘above expected value added’ in reading instruction as determined by criteria established by ODE for the most recent consecutive two years. C) ____ Has less than one year of teaching experience and is mentored by a teacher with at least one year of experience who meets the qualifications to provide reading guarantee services. Name the qualification the teacher with less than one year of teaching experience meets from the list above:___________________________________________________ D) ___ Holds an alternative credential or has successfully completed training that is based on principles of research based reading instruction, either of which is approved by ODE, to provide a student, who enters third grade prior to July 1, 2016, with reading guarantee services.
37
E) ___ Is a speech-language pathologist who holds a license issued by the Board of SpeechLanguage Pathology and Audiology. F) ____ The district has submitted a Staffing Plan and the teacher providing services to the student does not meet the qualifications established by legislation. Comments/Concerns from the parent/guardian: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Teacher:
Start date:
End date:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Principal or designee
Start date:
End date:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Parent/Guardian signature/Notification
Start date:
End date:
38
APPENDIX G SAMPLE TIER 3 STUDENT INFORMATION SHEET Who Will Implement the Targeted Academic Interventions? Where will the intervention take place? Instructor:
Baseline data
Frequency and duration of intervention sessions: Start and end dates: December 2013April 2014 How Often? 3X per week
Setting: Small Group in the classroom/ One on One
Length of time? 30 minutes
Progress monitoring tools: Description of intervention being provided and skills being targeted: Interventions: -White board practice *Leveled Worksheets, Binders, Games -Sentence Building games -Read it, Trace it, Make it Pages -Ending Letter Sound Stamps -Leveled Readers Independent worksheets to practice letter formation -Group review board games -Matching games with rhyming pairs -Orton Gillingham flash cards and sand trays Skills Targeted: -Letters Identification -Letter Sounds -Sentence Writing -Word Families -Blending -Rhyming
Person responsible Base: FSFLNF-
Outcome: Target Goal or rate of improvement: End of the year goal: FSFPSFNWF-
Tools: DIBELS
Person Responsible:
Evidence or data collected Outcome: LNF PSF NWF
End of the Year Benchmark:
Evidence of Data Collected: -Each child has a folder of their completed work from RTI time as evidence -During each RTI time, anecdotal notes were taken by the teacher as to each child’s progress -DIBELS has been used to progress monitor
Decision Point: ___ Intervention was successful – move to Tier I – continue progress monitoring ___ Intervention is appropriate. Student will continue until adequate data is collected to determine success ___ Intervention not appropriate/ successful – needs modified as follows:
39
40 © 2013 Ohio Education Research Center
