Systems Problem Solving

1(c) 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center

Center on Teaching and Learning

2

Dimensions of A Healthy System

Districts

Schools

Grades

Classrooms

Groups

3

Schoolwide Reading Model Elements

I.II.III.IV.V.VI.VII.

As an ERT team, list the 7 Elements of the Schoolwide Reading Model.

4

Schoolwide Reading Model and Systems Problem Solving

How is this the same?

• Outcomes-driven model

• Data-driven• Action Planning

How is this new?

• Systems vs. individual problem solving

• Defining the role of the ERT

• Collecting information through Observations

• Aligning the Schoolwide Reading Model with Response to Intervention (RTI)

5

Systems Problem Solving vs. Individual Problem Solving

6

Systems Problem Solving vs. Individual Problem Solving

Group AStudent weekly

growth: .5 cwpm

Instructional Group Average

weekly growth: .5 cwpm

Group BStudent weekly

growth: .5 cwpm

Instructional Group Average weekly growth:

1.75 cwpm

7

Systems Problem Solving1. Identify A System/Group of Students that Needs

Additional SupportDistinguish between systems level and individual student-level concerns

2. Plan and Implement Level of SupportImplement instructional support to address systems-level or individual-

level concern

3. Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify the Support Plan

4. Review Outcomes Examine Benchmark Data (Winter and Spring) and In Program Assessments

8

1A. Use data to determine what part(s) of the system are not healthy. Highlight areas of needed support.

1B. Prioritize areas of needed support.

1C. Review Instructional Support Plan (CSI) for priority area of needed support.

1. Identify a System/Group of Students that Needs Additional Support

Resources: Winter “How are we doing?” Report, DIBELS Reports (Histograms, Cross-Year Box Plots, Summaries of Effectiveness)

9

1A. Use data to determine what parts of the system are not healthy

10

1AStep 1. Are all students meeting the Benchmark Goals? (“HWD?” R Table 1)

1AStep 2. Are differentiated support plans working for the full range of learners? (“HWD?” R Table 2)

1AStep 3. Within a support system, is there a specific group of students not making the same progress as other students? (Assessment Data, LPRs)

1A. Use data to determine what parts of the system are not healthy (continued)

11

1AStep 1. Are all students meeting the Benchmark Goals?

Data source to be utilized: Summary of Effectiveness Reports by School for each grade level

Table 1 Taking Stock: Reviewing Midyear Outcomes for K-3 Students Winter 2007 and Comparing to Winter 2006

Grade/Measure Percent at Established (Low Risk)

Winter 2006

Percent at Established (Low Risk)

Winter 2007

Percentage Point Increase/

Decrease (+ or -)

Percent at Deficit

(At Risk) Winter 2006

Percent at Deficit

(At Risk) Winter 2007

Percentage Point Increase/

Decrease (+ or -)

Kindergarten-PSF 53% 78% +25 18% 8% -10 Kindergarten-NWF 45% 64% +19 15% 9% -6 First Grade-NWF 37% 59% +22 19% 11% -8 First Grade-ORF 24% 30% +6 21% 16% -5 Second Grade-ORF 31% 39% +8 51% 36% -15 Third Grade-ORF 33% 28% -5 49% 42% -7

If YES, move to individual problem solvingIf No, continue on to step 2

12

1AStep 2. Are differentiated support plans working for the full range of learners?


Table 2 Evaluating Fall to Winter 2006-07 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals

Total percent of students at each grade that made Adequate

Progress Include actual numbers of

students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%.

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate



Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate



Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 95/100 or 95%.

Grade/ Benchmark Goal

Measure

Fall to Winter 2005-06


Percent Change (+ or -)










Kindergarten-ISF

62% 76% -8 90%

18/20

73%

8/11

-17 36%

12/33

26%

6/23

-10 75%

18/22

73%

16/22

-2

First Grade-NWF

59% 66%

+14 52%

12/23

55%

6/11

+3 52%

11/21

38%

6/17

-14 50%

10/20

84%

37/44

+34

Second Grade-ORF

39% 42% +3 0%

0/45

0%

0/23

-13 42%

8/19

40%

8/20

-2 95%

18/19

95%

21/22

-9

Third Grade-ORF

36% 29% -7 7%

2/30

0%

0/31

-7 23%

3/13

15%

4/27

-8 94%

17/18

87%

19/22

-7

Continued on Page 3.

If YES, Move to Individual Problem SolvingIf NO, continue on to step 3

13

1AStep 3. Within a support system, is there a specific group of students not making the same

progress as other students?

• Progress Monitoring booklets • Lesson Progress Reports

Theme Test Results/Lesson Progress Report Date___(of test)______Teacher: __________________________Group Level _____(int, strat, bench)__________________Houghton Mifflin Level__(grade, theme)_____________________Number of days taught____(since last theme test)____________ Number of lessons taught___(since last theme test)__________

Name

testarea A

#poss.

testarea B

testarea C

testarea D

testarea E

testarea F

testarea G

total %

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.Comments:

If YES, target specific group(s) not making the same progressIf NO, target the entire level of support not making the same progress

14

Adequate Progress Normative Criteria Fall to Winter*

1AStep2. Use data to determine what parts of the system are not healthy

(continued)

What is the overall effectiveness of the grade-

level plan?

% of students who made adequate progress in each

grade

How effective is the grade-level instructional support

plan for intensive students?

% of students who made adequate progress within an instructional support range

How effective is the grade-level instructional support plan

for strategic students?


How effective is the grade-level instructional support plan for

benchmark students?


K ≥ 53% Top Quartile

26% to 52% Middle Quartiles ≤ 25% Bottom Quartile

≥ 31% Top Quartile






1 ≥ 57% Top Quartile










≥ 4% Top Quartile








N/A Top Quartile**

N/A Middle Quartiles** N/A Bottom Quartile**





*Percentile ranks based on over 300 Oregon schools during the 2005 - 2006 academic year. ** Bottom, middle, and top quartile cutoff criteria all are equal to 0% adequate progress

15

1AStep2. Are differentiated support plans working for the full range of learners?

Table 2 Evaluating Fall to Winter 2006-07 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals

Total percent of students at each grade that made Adequate



Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate



Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate



Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 95/100 or 95%.

Grade/ Benchmark Goal

Measure













Kindergarten-ISF

62% 76% -8 90%

18/20

73%

8/11

-17 36%

12/33

26%

6/23

-10 75%

18/22

73%

16/22

-2

First Grade-NWF

59% 66%

+14 52%

12/23

55%

6/11

+3 52%

11/21

38%

6/17

-14 50%

10/20

84%

37/44

+34

Second Grade-ORF

39% 42% +3 0%

0/45

0%

0/23

-13 42%

8/19

40%

8/20

-2 95%

18/19

95%

21/22

-9

Third Grade-ORF

36% 29% -7 7%

2/30

0%

0/31

-7 23%

3/13

15%

4/27

-8 94%

17/18

87%

19/22

-7

Continued on Page 3.


16

1B. Prioritize Areas of Needed Support

A. Intensive Second Grade (entire level of support not making same progress)

B. Strategic First Grade (specific group within level of support not making same progress)

17

1C. Review Instructional Support Plan (CSI Map)-2nd Grade Intensive

This needs to be filled in and highlightedproperly

Instructional Recommend

Participation in Core

Curriculum:

Supplemental & Intervention Programs/Strategies:

Determining Instructional Effectiveness

Whole

X

Small

X

IW

X

Curriculum 1: Read

Naturally

Curriculum 2:

Phonics for Reading

Curriculum 3:

Curriculum 4:

Independent Work:

Out-of-Program Testing

Instructor: Jones/Smith

Instructor: Jones/Smith

Instructor: Williams

Instructor; Smith/Jones

Instructor:

Students Served: Enture Reading Class

Students Served: Entire reading class

Students Served:

Group Size: 13/17

Group Size: 6-8

Group Size: 9

Group Size: 8

Group Size:

Students Served:

Test #1: DIBELS Frequency: 3 times a year

Activities: Read Naturally levels 1.0-3.0

Activities: All components of Phonics for Reading lesson

Activities: Activities: Activities: All component of the HM enhancements

Activities: Anthology, Leveled Readers, Phonics Library, I Love Reading

Activities: Partner reading, HM workbook pages, comprehension extension lessons

_X_ w/in reading block __in addition to reading block

X_w/in reading block __X in addition to reading block

__w/in reading block __in addition to reading block

__w/in reading block __in addition to reading block

Activities: Test #2: HM Phonics/Decoding Screening Assessment Frequency: 3 times a year

Minutes: 60

Minutes: 30

Minutes: 30 Minutes: 30 Days Per Week: 2/3

Minutes: 30 Days Per Week: 5

Minutes: Days Per Week:

Minutes: Days Per Week:

Intensive Subgroup 1: n=15

In-Program Tests: HM End of Selection tests at the end of every story

In-Program Tests: RN check out with teacher

In-Program Tests: Observation form

In-Program Tests:

In-Program Tests:

Minutes: Test #3: Progress Monitoring Frequency: every 2 weeks

18

1A. Use tables 1 and 2 from your How are we doing? Reports to determine what part(s) of your system are not healthy (Steps 1 and 2). Highlight areas of needed support. Complete Step 3, if necessary, at a later time.

2B. Prioritize areas of needed support3C. Review Instructional Support Plan (CSI

Map) for priority area of needed support

1. Identify a System/Group of Students that needs instructional support

YOUR TURN!

19

Systems Problem Solving1. Identify A System/Group of Students that Needs

Additional SupportDistinguish between systems level and individual student-level concerns


level concern



20

2. Plan and Implement Level of Support

2A. Using objective information, ask data-driven questions to determine what parts of the identified system are not healthy

2B. Plan changes to the system

21

2A. Using objective information, ask data-driven questions to determine what parts of

the system are not healthy

Resources: PET-R, Healthy Systems Checklist, PET-Action Planning Tool

Oregon Reading First Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model

Elements of a Healthy System Checklist

School: Grade: Level of Support: I. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PRIORITIES Wer e content-coverage goals and pacing guides for programs established so sufficient lessons/units would be mastered and

children make adequate progress? II. ASSESSMENT Are DIBELS progress monitoring assessments administered once a month for strategic students? once every two weeks for

intensive students? Are in-program assessments administered regularly? Did grade level teams regularly analyze student reading data (DIBELS and in-program assessments), plan/adjust instruction

based on data, and regroup students based on the data? III. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND MAT ERIALS Y Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention

programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?* Are all necessary materials available in each classroom? For each small group?* Are instructors incorpora ting general features of strong instruction (e.g., models, explicit language, multiple opportunities for

students to respond, etc.)into their daily lessons? Have the grade level teams worked together to systematically enhance the program as necessary (e.g., make instruction more

systematic and explicit)? Is the program implemented with fidelity? Are efforts to improve fidelity working? IV. INS TRUCTIONAL TIME Y Is a sufficient amount of time allocated (i.e., 90-minute reading block with a minimum of 30 minutes of small group

teacher-directed reading instruction daily)?* Are teachers following the schedule? N Is additional instructional time scheduled for students who are struggling?* Are important activities taught/stressed (e.g., red checks, targets, etc.)? Are instructional priorities well understood? Are students spending an appropriate amount of time on independent activities (i.e., a small portion of the reading block)? Are

the independent activities directly linked to the reading instruction? Are students meeting projections for lesson progress pacing? Are students being accelerated whenever possible to bring closer to grade-level performance (i.e., 2 lessons per day)? V. DIF FERENTIATED INSTRUCTION/GROUPING/SCHEDULING Y Are students grouped homogenously by performance level?* Y Are students grouped based on program recommendations?* Y Are group sizes for small group activities appropriate (i.e., 4-6 students)?* Are cross-class and cross-grade grouping used when appropri ate to maximize learning opportunities? VI. ADMINISTRATION/ORGANIZATIO N/COMMUNICATION Y Is a sufficient number of staff allocated?* Y Have staff been assigned in a way such that reading instruction can be delivered to the full range of students each day?* Are the lowest performing students taught by strong, experienced, and well qualified instructors? Are students participating in a reasonable number of programs so as to have an a ligned, coherent program without conflicting

information being presented? Are Title and Special Education coordinated with and complementary to general education reading instruction? VII. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Is ongoing, high q uality training provided (i.e., staff received professional development on programs used in classrooms prior to

implementation and at least twice after initial training)? Are program-specific consultants brought in to observe in classrooms and provide ongoing support and training? Are teachers receiving support from the RF coach in the c lassroom? outside the classroom? Are regular inservice sessions developed around implementation issues identified by the coach? Do teachers have opportunities to observe mode l lessons from the coach? from peers? from other schools? Are new teachers provided the necessary program training? * = Structural element

Planning and Evaluation Tool forEffective Schoolwide Reading Programs - Revised

(PET-R)

Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph.D.Deborah C. Simmons, Ph.D.

Institute for the Development of Educational AchievementCollege of EducationUniversity of Oregon

*Based on: Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Todd, A. (2000). Effective behavior support: Self-assessment survey. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Revised May, 2003

22

How to identify questions:

• Use tools like the Healthy System Checklist, PET-R, PET-Action Planning Tool, and the Options HandbookA. Look first at structural elementsB. Move to quality elements

• Prioritize questions

2A. Using objective information, ask data-driven questions to determine what parts of the

system are not healthy (continued)

23

Structural vs. Quality-Related Elements

Structural Elements– Materials– Time– Grouping – Staffing

Quality Related Elements can vary in their degree of effectiveness– Opportunities to

Respond– Modeling and Explicit

language

24

First, look at

Structural Elements(in bold)

Healthy System ChecklistOregon Reading First

Schoolwide Beginning Reading ModelElements of a Healthy System

Checklist

School: Grade: Level of Support:

I. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PRIORITIESWere content-coverage goals and pacing guides for programs established so sufficient lessons/units would be mastered andchildren make adequate progress?

II. ASSESSMENTAre DIBELS progress monitoring assessments administered once a month for strategic students? once every two weeks forintensive students?Are in-program assessments administered regularly?Did grade level teams regularly analyze student reading data (DIBELS and in-program assessments), plan/adjust instructionbased on data, and regroup students based on the data?

III. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND MATERIALSN Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention

programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?*Are all necessary materials available in each classroom? For each small group?*Are instructors incorporating general features of strong instruction (e.g., models, explicit language, multiple opportunities forstudents to respond, etc.)into their daily lessons?Have the grade level teams worked together to systematically enhance the program as necessary (e.g., make instruction moresystematic and explicit)?Is the program implemented with fidelity? Are efforts to improve fidelity working?

IV. INSTRUCTIONAL TIMEY Is a sufficient amount of time allocated (i.e., 90-minute reading block with a minimum of 30 minutes of small group

teacher-directed reading instruction daily)?* Are teachers following the schedule?? Is additional instructional time scheduled for students who are struggling?*

Are important activities taught/stressed (e.g., red checks, targets, etc.)? Are instructional priorities well understood?Are students spending an appropriate amount of time on independent activities (i.e., a small portion of the reading block)? Arethe independent activities directly linked to the reading instruction?Are students meeting projections for lesson progress pacing?Are students being accelerated whenever possible to bring closer to grade-level performance (i.e., 2 lessons per day)?

V. DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION/GROUPING/SCHEDULINGY Are students grouped homogenously by performance level?*Y Are students grouped based on program recommendations?*Y Are group sizes for small group activities appropriate (i.e., 4-6 students)?*

Are cross-class and cross-grade grouping used when appropriate to maximize learning opportunities?VI. ADMINISTRATION/ORGANIZATION/COMMUNICATIONY Is a sufficient number of staff allocated?*Y Have staff been assigned in a way such that reading instruction can be delivered to the full range of students each day?*

Are the lowest performing students taught by strong, experienced, and well qualified instructors?Are students participating in a reasonable number of programs so as to have an aligned, coherent program without conflictinginformation being presented?Are Title and Special Education coordinated with and complementary to general education reading instruction?

VII. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTIs ongoing, high quality training provided (i.e., staff received professional development on programs used in classrooms prior toimplementation and at least twice after initial training)?Are program-specific consultants brought in to observe in classrooms and provide ongoing support and training?Are teachers receiving support from the RF coach in the classroom? outside the classroom?Are regular inservice sessions developed around implementation issues identified by the coach?Do teachers have opportunities to observe model lessons from the coach? from peers? from other schools?Are new teachers provided the necessary program training?

* = Structural element

25

Oregon Reading FirstSchoolwide Beginning Reading Model

Elements of a Healthy SystemChecklist

School: Grade: Level of Support:

I. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PRIORITIESY Were content-coverage goals and pacing guides for programs established so sufficient lessons/units would be mastered and

children make adequate progress?

II. ASSESSMENTY Are DIBELS progress monitoring assessments administered once a month for strategic students? once every two weeks for

intensive students?Y Are in-program assessments administered regularly?Y Did grade level teams regularly analyze student reading data (DIBELS and in-program assessments), plan/adjust instruction

based on data, and regroup students based on the data?

III. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND MATERIALSY Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention

programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?*Are all necessary materials available in each classroom? For each small group?*

Y Are instructors incorporating general features of strong instruction (e.g., models, explicit language, multiple opportunities forstudents to respond, etc.)into their daily lessons?

Y Have the grade level teams worked together to systematically enhance the program as necessary (e.g., make instruction moresystematic and explicit)?

Y Is the program implemented with fidelity? Are efforts to improve fidelity working?

IV. INSTRUCTIONAL TIMEY Is a sufficient amount of time allocated (i.e., 90-minute reading block with a minimum of 30 minutes of small group

teacher-directed reading instruction daily)?* Are teachers following the schedule?N Is additional instructional time scheduled for students who are struggling?*Y Are important activities taught/stressed (e.g., red checks, targets, etc.)? Are instructional priorities well understood?Y Are students spending an appropriate amount of time on independent activities (i.e., a small portion of the reading block)? Are

the independent activities directly linked to the reading instruction?N Are students meeting projections for lesson progress pacing?Y Are students being accelerated whenever possible to bring closer to grade-level performance (i.e., 2 lessons per day)?V. DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION/GROUPING/SCHEDULINGY Are students grouped homogenously by performance level?*Y Are students grouped based on program recommendations?*Y Are group sizes for small group activities appropriate (i.e., 4-6 students)?*Y Are cross-class and cross-grade grouping used when appropriate to maximize learning opportunities?VI. ADMINISTRATION/ORGANIZATION/COMMUNICATIONY Is a sufficient number of staff allocated?*Y Have staff been assigned in a way such that reading instruction can be delivered to the full range of students each day?*Y Are the lowest performing students taught by strong, experienced, and well qualified instructors?Y Are students participating in a reasonable number of programs so as to have an aligned, coherent program without conflicting

information being presented?? Are Title and Special Education coordinated with and complementary to general education reading instruction?VII. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTY Is ongoing, high quality training provided (i.e., staff received professional development on programs used in classrooms prior to

implementation and at least twice after initial training)?Y Are program-specific consultants brought in to observe in classrooms and provide ongoing support and training?Y Are teachers receiving support from the RF coach in the classroom? outside the classroom?Y Are regular inservice sessions developed around implementation issues identified by the coach?Y Do teachers have opportunities to observe model lessons from the coach? from peers? from other schools?Y Are new teachers provided the necessary program training?* = Structural element

Second, look at

Quality ofImplementation

Elements

Healthy System Checklist

26

Prioritize QuestionsFocus on questions 1 & 2 before addressing question 3.

1. Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?*

2. Is additional instructional time scheduled for students who are struggling?*

3. Are teachers incorporating general features of instruction (i.e., models, explicit language, etc.)?

27

As a team, discuss how you would prioritize the following questions? Rank

the order 1, 2, 3 and 4

Did grade level teams regularly analyze student reading data (DIBELS and in-program assessments), plan/adjust instruction based on data, and regroup students based on the data?Are instructors incorporating general features of strong instruction (e.g., models, explicit language, multiple opportunities for students to respond, etc.)into their daily lessons?Is a sufficient amount of time allocated (i.e., 90-minute reading block with a minimum of 30 minutes of small group teacher-directed reading instruction daily)?* Are teachers following the schedule?Is ongoing, high quality training provided (i.e., staff received professional development on programs used in classrooms prior to implementation and at least twice after initial training)?

28

Use Objective Informationto answer the Questions

29

S.O.L.A.R

Systems Problem SolvingObservationsListeningAssessmentReview Schedules

30

Systems Problem Solving Observations ß Five Minute Observations/Walk Throughs

ß Observing Correct Responses ß Opportunities to Respond ß Transition Time

Listening/Discussion ß Getting input from team members about their perspectives on the situation

Assessment ß Additional Phonics Assessment to identify skill gaps ß Placement tests in programs that might be considered

Review ß Schedules ß Grouping Plans ß Assessment Data ß Support Plans ß Attendance Records

31

Systems Questions Observations Listening

DiscussionAssessment

Review Existing Data, Schedules, Instructional Plans

1. Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?*

-Review 2nd grade intensive CSI Map

-Review supplemental and intervention program reviews on ORRFC Website.

2. Is additional instructional time scheduled for students who are struggling?*

-Review CSI Map

-Review Schoolwide Reading Schedule

3. Are teachers incorporating general features of instruction (i.e., ,models, explicit language, etc)?

-Coach to observe instruction using General Features of Instruction Observation Form in 2nd grade intensive classrooms

-Principals to conduct 5-Minute observations

Use objective information to answer the questions

32

1. As a team, use the Healthy Systems Checklist to evaluate a system that you identified as not healthy. 2. Prioritize questions about that system to target what elements are not healthy.3. Brainstorm what information you would use to answer the questions.

Systems Questions Observations Listening Discussion Assessment Review Existing Data, Schedules, Instructional Plans

33

1. Structural2. Quality3. What needs to

be in place first?

Have a Strategy for Prioritizing Questions:Don’t Put the Cart Before the Horse!

34

2B. Plan Changes to the System(continued)

• Resources: PET, PET Action Planning Tool, Professional Development Presentations, Consumer’s Guide Reviews of Reading Programs, Alterable Variables Charts

Early Reading Team System Problem Solving Form

Identify A System/Group of Students that Needs Additional Support

System:

Evidence (Summarize data):

Plan and Implement Levels of Support

Specific Actions/Solutions Who When Evaluation Method

When will you meet to evaluate the support plan? Date: _____________

System Questions Observations Listening/Discussion Assessment Review ExistingData, Schedules,Instructional Plans

1.

2.

3.

Eva luate , and if nece s sary , Modi fy the Suppo rt PlanSu mmarize Re su lts:

Are mod ific ation s to the s yste m n ee ded? _______If so, co mplete Plan and Impleme nt Le ve ls of Support step .

Mod ificat ion s:

35

Examples of Common System-Level Problems

• A program that does not meet the needs of the students

• Not enough instructional time to accelerate learning

• Not using a program the way it was designed

36

The Elephant in The Room

Solving the Problem

37

A program that does not meet the needs of the students

Question: Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?

Collecting Information: ERT reviews CSI map/Instructional Plan and compares programs to usage recommendations; Coach observes student success rate; ERT reviews in-program assessment results.

Summarizing Results: ERT decides that a more intensive program is needed because the current program is not mastery-based and does not provide the necessary intensity. Coach identifies that the student group is currently is only answering correctly 43% the time.

Planning Changes: ERT would like the grade level team to implement a more intensive program with the students in the intensive range to supplant the core program.

38

Not enough instructional time to accelerate learning

Question: Is additional instructional time scheduled for students who are struggling?

Collecting Information: ERT reviews CSI map/Instructional Plan

Summarizing Results: ERT decides that a more instructional time is needed

Planning Changes: ERT works together to coordinate Title, SPED and General Ed services to allocate an additional 30 minutes per day for the students in the intensive range.

39

Not using a program the way it was designed

Question: Is the program implemented with fidelity?

Collecting Information: Principal decides to do 5-minute walk throughs; Coach follows up with longer fidelity observations

Summarizing Results: Principal and Coach observe that critical portions of the program are being left out.

Planning Changes: Principal tells the teachers that through their observations he/she decided that resources should be allocated to work with a program expert to provide the teachers with more information on how to use the program effectively.

40

Systems-Level Problem Solving

1. Identify A System/Group of Students that Needs Additional Support

Distinguish between systems level and individual student-level concerns


level concern



41

Example System Problem Solving FormEarly Reading Team System Problem Solving Form

Identify A System/Group of Students that Needs Additional Support

System: I ntensive Second GradeEvidence (Summarize data): DIBELS Fall to Winter Adequate progress revealed 0% of the 2nd grade intensivestudents moved to strategic/benchmark

Plan and Implement Levels of Support

Specific Actions/Solutions Who When Evaluation Method1. I ntensive 2nd grade students will receiveinstruction in Reading Mastery.Coach will give placement tests and ordermaterials.

All intensive 2ndgrade students

March 15, 2007

February 15, 2007

DIBELS PM and In-Program Assessments

2. Students will receive 40-45 minutes teacher-directed RM instruction plus workbook; 20minutes IA monitored fluency building instructionin RN; 30 minute teacher-directed RMinstruction, no workbook (reteach or accelerate)daily.

2nd grade intensiveteachersIASped teacher

March 15, 2007 Same as above

3. 2nd grade teacher and IA will be t rained inRM. Coach will assist with implementation andobservations.

Principal will observe implementation

2nd grade intensiveteachers, IA, Sped,and Reading Coach

Principal

February 28 and 29weekly observationsand support

RM observation form

When will you meet to evaluate the support plan? Date: __Tuesday February27, 2007 3-4pm____ _ ______

System Questions Observations Listening/Discussion

Assessment Review Existing Data,Schedules,Instructional Plans

1. Are appropriatereading programs andmat er ials being used t ot each t he fu ll r ange ofstudents?

- ERT tea m will r eview 2ndgrade CSI Map- Ti t le 1 t eacher t o r eviewsupplementa l/i nt ervent ionprograms reviews

2. I s addit ionalinstruct ional t imescheduled f or studentswho are st ruggling?

- ERT te am t o review 2ndgrade CSI Map- Coach and Principal t oreview schoolwide r eadingschedule

3. Are t eachersincorporat ing generalf eatu res of generalinstruct ion?

- Coach t o observe instruct ionusing general f eatu res ofinstruct ion observat ion f orm in2nd grade intensive classrooms- Principal t o conduct 5- minutesobservati ons in 2nd gradeintensive classrooms

Evaluate, and if necessary, Modify the Support PlanSummarize Results:

Are modifications to the system needed?_______If so, complete Plan and Implement Levels of Support step.

42

System Problem Solving Timeline

• Informal Systems Problem Solving is an Ongoing Process

• Systems Problem Solving process is most useful after your Winter Benchmark Data Collection

• How/why is the systems problem solving process different in the Spring?

43

Problem Solving Form

• USE THEIR OWN DATA TO IDENTIFY A SYSTEM and TAKE INITIAL PS STEPS…

• What system?

• What evidence?

• What questions?

• What info will you collect?

YOUR TURN!

44

Team Discussion Questions

• How is this the same as what you have been doing?

• What pieces of information are different from what you have been doing?

• What pieces would you like to implement?

• What are the next steps to putting this in place?

• How does this fit into our RTI plan?

45

The answers are within our grasp.

Systems Problem Solving

Documents