View
221
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Impacting Reading Fluency Through a
Structured Intervention Program
ELA Leadership ProjectPepperdine University
Celene Alvarado
SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS George Washington
Carver Elementary
• Located in the Watts-Willowbrook community of Los Angeles, CA
• Compton Unified School District
• A few blocks from King Drew Medical Magnet High School and Charles Drew University
• TK – 6th Grade• 1 Special Day Class• 380 students enrolled• 21 classroom teachers• 1 Curriculum specialist (ELA)• 1 principal
CPSEL 6
SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS
African Americans
27%
Latinos73%
CPSEL 6
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE2013 ELA AYP BY GRADE LEVEL
SCHOOL PERFORMANCEOVERALL API FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS
COMPELLING NEED Consistent Language Arts
intervention is a current struggle for Carver teachers
CPSEL 5
PAR TEAM
Damian K. Principal
Vanessa E.
3rd Grade Teacher
Traci B.
4th Grade Teacher
Diana S.
SchoolPsychologi
st
Damian K.
Carver Principal
Diana S.
SchoolPsycholo
gist
Celene A.
PAR Leader
CPSEL 6
EDUCATIONAL VISION
As an educator, I am passionate about supportingthe growth and education of students. I believe in empowerment. I will always strive to encourage, nurture their learning, and have them reach their highest potential in order to attain academic success.
CPSEL 1,2 & 6
PROJECT MISSION
Develop an opportunity within the daily school schedule to provide effective and targeted reading fluency intervention for struggling students.
CPSEL 1 & 2
INQUIRY QUESTION
How will student achievement in fluency be affected when 2nd – 5th grade implement a structured reading intervention program?
CPSEL 2
RESEARCH “We now know that the majority of students can learn to
read irrespective of their backgrounds—if their reading instruction is grounded in the converging scientific evidence about how reading develops and how we can prevent reading failure” (Lyon, 2002; Moats, 1999; Shaywitz, 2003)
“One-on-one targeted instruction may be necessary to produce the frequent and accurate response rate associated with improved results among struggling learners” (McMasters, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005)
CPSEL 5
MIXED METHODOLOGY Qualitative:
Teacher Survey
Quantitative:
AIMS Web fluency HELPS (Helping Early
Literacy with Practice Strategies)
CPSEL 2 & 5
Evidenced based and scientifically validated
Requires no more than
10-12 minutes per
day, 2-3 days per
week
Used with students of all reading
levels
Easily integrated
into a school’s RTI
program
HELPS
CPSEL 2
CYCLES OF THE PAR PROCESS
DiagnoseHow can we
increase reading fluency?
Act Plan and
implement intervention
Measure AIMS Web
HELPS
Reflect Did it work ? Was there significant growth?
CPSEL 1 & 2
TIMELINE
• Identify PAR TEAM
• Develop project Mission and Vision
• Identify struggling students for each grade level
• Train teachers for HELPS intervention
• Create packets for each student in intervention
Fall Winter
Spring
• Analyze AIMS Web fluency results
• Identify fluency growth per grade level
• Continue HELPS training
• Begin teacher incentives for intervention application
• Progress monitor struggling students
• Analyze AIMS Web fluency results
• Make adjustments to small group instruction
• Identify growth of targeted students
• Planning intervention for next school year
CPSEL 1,2,3, 4 & 5
TIER 1 SCREENING : FALL-SPRING
2 ORF 3 ORF 4 ORF 5 ORF0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tier 1 Movement by Benchmark Period
Tier 1 FTier 1 WTier 1 S
Measure
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dents
CPSEL 2
TIER 2 SCREENING: FALL-SPRING
2 ORF 3 ORF 4 ORF 5 ORF0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tier 2 Movement by Benchmark Period
Tier 2 F Tier 2 WTier 2 S
Measure
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dents
CPSEL 2
TIER 3 SCREENING: FALL-SPRING
2 ORF 3 ORF 4 ORF 5 ORF0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tier 3 Movement by Benchmark Period
Tier 3 FTier 3 WTier 3 S
Measures
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dents
CPSEL 2
DATA CONCLUSIONS
• All grade levels had growth in Tier 1
•3rd and 5th grade lost students in Tier 2 from winter to spring screening
•4th grade lowered number of students in Tier 3 from winter to spring screening
CPSEL 2
QUALITATIVE DATA
“Passages were great to use and easy for students to read”
”I saw how my students fluency grew with time”
“I needed more training to implement HELPS”
“I would like one on one training or modeling”
CPSEL 2 & 5
REFLECTIONS
Challenges•100% teacher participation•Planning time•Teacher training•District professional development•Transition to common core
Successes•Began school-wide intervention program•Targeted student intervention•Promote student success•Leadership role
CPSEL 1,2, 3 & 5
NEXT STEPS
Professional Development
Instructional Strategies
Progress Monitoring
CPSEL 2,3 & 4
• Recruited the right teachers• Developed a shared
mission/vision• Led and empowered others• Made data-driven decisions• Inspired teachers to create
and action plan to address the compelling need
Leadership
• Copied student packets• Gathered necessary
materials • Trained teachers in
implementationManageme
nt
Leadership vs. Management
CPSEL 1,2,3 & 5
PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION
Moral
Imperati
ve
School
Culture
Strengths
Servant Leadership
CPSEL 1, 2, 5 & 6
REFERENCES
Fletcher, J. M., & Lyon, G. R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach. In W. Evers (Ed.), What's gone wrong in America's classrooms (pp. 49–90). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institute Press
Fuchs,D., Fuchs, L., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-227
Lipson, M. Y., &Wixson, K. K. (2012). To What Interventions Are Students Responding?.Reading Teacher, 66(2), 111-115.
Begeny, J. C. Laugle, K. M., Krouse, H. E., Lynn, A. E., Tayrose, M. P., & Stage, S. A. (2010). A control-group comparison of two reading fluency programs: The Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) program and the Great Leaps K–2 reading program. School Psychology Review, 39, 137-155.
Hughes, C.A., Douglas, D.D. (2011) Response to Intervention: A research-based summary.Theory Into Practice, 50:4–11
Recommended