Rome Wasn’t
Built in a
Day!
Neither Was
Intervention!
How We Started
Year One
DIBELS
Informal Assessments:
- Fry
- S.T.A.R.
- Wright Group Leveled Reading Assessment
What We Learned from Data:
Year One
Kindergarten
ISF low mid-year
PSF low end-of-year
LNF on target
NWF low end-of-year
Fry – did not administer
S.T.A.R. – administered to above average
students per teacher recommendation
Reading Level Assessment – not given
What We Learned from Data:
Year One
First Grade
Mid-year NWF went down
PSF on target
LNF on target
End-of-year ORF low
Fry: low
Reading Level Assessment – many below grade
level
S.T.A.R.: many below grade level
What We Learned from Data:
Year One
Second Grade
NWF low
Students either regressed or showed no
movement in ORF
Reading level slight increase
S.T.A.R. slight increase
Fry increase
What We Learned from Data:
Year One
Third Grade
ORF benchmark continued to improve;
strategic and intensive – little or no movement
S.T.A.R. minimal growth
Fry increase
Meeting the Needs
•
•
•
•
•
•
Small-group Instruction
K, 1- Road to the Code
PA/Phonics strategies
from core and Teacher
Academy materials
2, 3 – Fluency using
intervention materials
from core
Assisted Reading
Pulled 1st grade phonics
lessons
1, 2 – Failure Free (sight
words)
•
•
Intervention
K, 1 – Early Reading
Intervention (Scott
Foresman)
2, 3 – Read Naturally
Year One Generalizations
•
•
•
•
•
Implemented Progress monitoring record keeping
system too late
First Grade ORF low due to lack of monitoring NWF
Overemphasized Fry list (1)/realized needed to
administer Fry in K
Slight increase in reading levels resulted from lack
of firm phonics foundation
Overemphasis on ORF scores at the expense of
firm phonics foundation
Realized there was not enough data to determine
specific phonics deficiencies
Year One Generalizations
•
•
•
PSF scores in First Grade indicated
Road to the Code no longer needed
Realized need for higher level phonics
intervention for 1
Realized need for intervention program
to address phonics deficits in 2 and 3
Where We Went Next:
Year Two
•
•
•
Realized that teachers in 2 and 3 needed
additional support in the teaching of phonics
Administered Informal Phonics Survey
Struggling students in 3: Administered Test of
Knowledge of Onsets, Z-test, Developmental
Test of Word Recognition to differentiate smallgroup instruction
Meeting the Needs
•
•
•
•
•
Small-group
K- continue Road to the
Code; PA/Phonics from
Teacher Academy and
core
1 - PA/Phonics from
Teacher Academy and
core
2,3 – used IPI data to plan
lessons in phonics (based
on grade 1 core scope and
sequence)
2 – Core intervention
manual for fluency lessons
2, 3 – Comprehension Plus
Intervention
•
•
•
•
K- Early Reading
Intervention
1 - Early Reading
Intervention (intensives);
Early Intervention in
Reading (strategic)
2 - Voyager; Read
Naturally
3 - Corrective Reading;
Read Naturally
Year Two Generalizations
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehension needed more focus
Fluency suffered due to overemphasis on
phonics – needed to balance
Began to notice lack of Print and Book
Awareness skills in 1
Data from CRCT and ITBS indicated spelling
skills were deficient
Realized importance of students’ assessment
history as students moved from grade to grade
Where We Went Next
Year Three
DIBELS – included RTF
Informal Assessments:
- Fry
- Informal Phonics Survey
- Developmental Spelling Assessment
- Wright Group Leveled Reading Assessment
- S.T.A.R.
- Informal Reading Inventory
- Open Court Print Book Awareness (K)
- Johns Basic Reading Inventory – Listening Comprehension mid-year (K)
Strugglers: Z-test, Developmental Test of Word Recognition, Test of
Knowledge of Onsets
Meeting the Needs
•
•
•
•
•
•
Small-group
K - 3 Word Study (Words
Their Way sorts)
K - continue Road to the
Code; PA/Phonics from
Teacher Academy and core
1 - PA/Phonics from Teacher
Academy and core; modified
Read Naturally
2,3 - used IPI data to plan
lessons in phonics (based on
grade1core scope and
sequence)
2 - core intervention manual
for fluency lessons
2, 3 - Comprehension Plus
Intervention
K - Early Reading Intervention
1 - Early Reading Intervention,
Early Intervention in Reading
2, 3 - Voyager; Read Naturally
Year Three Generalizations
•
•
•
•
Listening Comprehension needed to be
assessed at the beginning of the year - K
Print Book Awareness assessment yielded
positive results due to emphasis on the skills
involved
Realized new grade 1 students needed basic
K assessments
Word Study not effectively implemented –
needed more training for teachers
Where We Are Now:
Year Four
•
•
•
Fully implementing Words Their Way word
study based on DSA results (to address all
levels)
K – addressing oral language vocabulary
based on Peabody results
1 – bridging NWF and ORF through lesson
pacing
JCES 3rd Grade Intervention 06-07 September 2006 ( 2:25-2:55)
VOYAGER
Read Naturally
Teacher/ # students
Parapro/# students
Fortner
6
Carol
Parapro # students
6
Marida
6
Brandterion (HH)2.3 but move up quickly
Wade
Tykendrick
Tyrone 2.3 but move quickly up
Lamonka t (HH) 2.3
Jasmine
JaQuandrick (F) 3.5
Cortlen e (HH) 3.5
T’Mai
D’Mario (F) 3.5
Special t (Couey) 2.3
Jamorice
Jamari (F) 3.5
Mara s (Snead) 2.3
Wiley Clark
Jalen (F) 2.3 but move up quickly
Parapro Day
Reading Parapro
 8:05-8:25—Word Study Groups 5th grade
 8:25-9:25—Small Group First Grade
 9:30-10:30—Small group 2nd grade
 10:30-10:40—break
th
 10:40-11:15 –lunch duty 4 grade
rd
 11:15-12:15—3 grade small group
 12:15-12:45—2nd grade intervention
 12:50-1:20—lunch
 1:20-1:55—Math 5th grade
 1:55-2:25—Intervention 1st grade
rd
 2:25-2:55—Intervention 3 grade
Intervention Caveat
Intervention is not permanent!
Remember
“The purpose of providing extra instructional
time is to help children achieve levels of
literacy that will enable them to be successful
through their school careers and beyond.”
(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, p. 247)
Remember this!
If you don’t start none,
there ain’t gonna be
none.