Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Response to Intervention Making it Work in Jessamine County Michelle Gadberry, Psy. S. Assistant Director of Special Programs.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Response to Intervention Making it Work in Jessamine County Michelle Gadberry, Psy. S. Assistant Director of Special Programs."— Presentation transcript:

1 Response to Intervention Making it Work in Jessamine County Michelle Gadberry, Psy. S. Assistant Director of Special Programs

2 Background  05-06 – funds allotted to purchase reading/math programs  Jan 07 – I met with CRAs to introduce RTI  March 07 – DoSE introduced RTI to principals and secured volunteers to pilot the process in 07-08  K-2 only in reading  4 elementary schools involved

3 07-08 PILOT YEAR Used DRA for universal screening DIBELS for Progress Monitoring Curriculum Coaches and Curriculum Administrators provided school structure Each tier was outlined with suggested interventions for each level. Still used discrepancy formula for SLD identification

4 If we could do it again…  We would have used district administrators to train all teachers so the message was more consistent.  Would have provided more organizational structure rather than allow flexibility.  Monitored interventions and process more intentionally.

5 Year Two 08-09  All elementary schools involved  K-3 for Reading  Trained on DIBELS and administered 3x year as universal screening  Identified bottom 10% district-wide  All other grades were expected to use RTI to implement interventions with at-risk students and monitor progress (Pyramid of Interventions) for reading and other areas including attendance.

6 Year Two  Developed district forms for monitoring implementation, documenting meetings and a rubric for level/tier changes.  Provided a stipend for a coach to serve as the POI coach at each elementary.  I met with RTI Coaches each month to review intervention ideas, share concerns and celebrations, and share information as needed.

7 End of the year planning  All day planning with coaches  Refined district forms  Developed plan for district Pyramid of Interventions University in August 09.

8 Year Three and on…  With support of ARRA funds, each school hired an Intervention Resource Teacher (see job description.)  Asst. DoSE dedicated half of her time to RTI coaching (two years only.)  Currently - all schools are implementing RTI in some form or fashion. Elementary schools have the tightest program.

9 How are students selected?  We use universal screening (3x a year).  K-2 uses DIBELS for reading.  3-11 uses PAS for reading and math.  Scores are combined and sorted to determine the bottom 10% district-wide.  Schools are then notified of the students in the “Bottom 10%”.  Teachers may also refer students.

10 Levels  Refer to Handbook  Three levels of increasing intensity/frequency based upon student need  Pyramids have been developed for reading, math, behavior and attendance

11 Progress Monitoring  We use DIBELS for reading K-5  We use MBSP for math 1-5  We use Aimsweb for reading/math middle school  We use a combination of created maze probes and PAS probes at high school.

12 Schedules  Elementary – all have blocks of time for students to receive intervention. Schedules vary but most have combined intervention teacher, reading teachers and assistants to cover multiple programs and multiple grade levels.  Computerized programs are used to supplement also and allow flexibility.

13 Schedules  Middle – both have a 30 minutes block for enrichment/intervention. Additional intervention is provided in pockets of time including before/after school.  High school – both have intervention “classes” which provide an elective credit.  One high school also provides individualized intervention (computer based) for small groups of students all day.

14 Student Monitoring Meetings  Teams meet monthly to review student progress.  Decisions are based on data.  Interventions are selected based on student need, not teacher convenience.  Targeted Intervention Plan form is completed each month to maintain record of progress.

15 Elementary Team Meeting


17 Interventions  Level 1 reading and math is differentiated instruction using evidence based practices.  We love the Florida Center for Reading Research activities that line up with the areas of reading.  We created intervention packets from our Envisions materials.

18 Interventions  Level Two – supplemental 30 minutes  Interventions vary but most school have added quite a lot over the last few years  In most cases the same programs can be used for Level Two and Level Three – the intensity and/or frequency may vary, though.

19 Interventions  Level Three – should be 5% or less of population  Intervention should be changed if not working before referring for special education.  Prior to referral must show dual discrepancy.

20 What if it doesn’t work?  Referral for special education is only made when you can show that:  The student has received intensive evidence-based intervention geared at his/her academic deficits.  The student has failed to show an adequate response (slope).  The students skills remain well below that of their peers.

21 Training  Train, train and then train some more!  POI University  IA University  DIBELS trainings  Problem Solving Process trainings  Specific intervention trainings

22 Forms  Teacher Handbook  TIP  Level Change Rubric  Implementation Documentation  Referral Checklist

23 Success!  First grade students  May 08 vs. May 09  The percentage of students “Low Risk” in oral reading fluency increased from 53% to 63%!!  The AVERAGE score for a 1 st grader on ORF increased from 49 wpm to 63 wpm – an increase of 11 words per minute!

24 QUESTIONS??  Contact information:  Michelle Gadberry 

Download ppt "Response to Intervention Making it Work in Jessamine County Michelle Gadberry, Psy. S. Assistant Director of Special Programs."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google