Comprehensive
Intervention
Model (CIM) at
the Elementary
Level
Jennifer Price and
Glenn Maleyko
ICL conference 2009
At Salina Intermediate
Team Collaboration and the 3
Essential Questions


Question Three
3. How will we respond when they don’t learn?
Salina Intermediate PLC Pyramid of Interventions
IF STUDENTS DO NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS . . .
04-02-07
School:
PICL MODEL
Technology Integration
Mentoring
Peer Mediation
Title I Tutoring
Instructional Dialogues
Communication Box
Social Work intervention
21st Century Program
Parent-Principal Forums
SOS program
Counseling
Detention/ISS,
Brunch with Social Workers
CRSD Rec Program
Social Work Interns
Career Education
Community Resource Center
Bilingual Support
Bullying Prevention
Team/ Grade Level:
Pullout Study Skills Support w/ Samira
Bullying Intervention & Community Safety w/ William Ali
Parent Liaison Support
Home Visit
Co-teaching
Intervention Referral Process
Parent Communication and Meeting
DRA assessment
Team Collaboration Time
Classroom:
Flexible Grouping Intervention Referral
Teacher-student conference
Classroom Behavior/ Academic Plan
Formative assessment: follow-up & retest Student portfolios
Classroom Behavior/ Academic Plan
Differentiated Instruction Parent Conference/Contact
PICL MODEL
Advisor/Advisee
Writing Program
Team Collaboration and the 3
Essential Questions

A new, fourth question is:
How will we respond
when they have learned?
Salina Intermediate PLC Pyramid of Interventions
04-02-07
IF STUDENTS EXCEED EXCPECTATIONS . . .
School:
PICL MODEL
Technology Integration
Bullying Prevention
IGNITE
STAND
Emerging Scholars
DCMST Partnership
Peer Mediators
Academic Games
Math Counts
Student Council
Academic Games
CRSD Rec Program
Inter-School Multicultural Technology Partnerships
Media Broadcast
Technology Camp
Career Education
Science Club
Team/ Grade Level:
Co-teaching
Student Mentors
Team Teaching
Team Collaboration Time
Classroom:
Flexible Grouping
Enrichment Activities
Teacher-student conference
Above Grade Level Assignments
Differentiated Instruction
Student led co-teaching presentations/lessons
Technology Trainers
Classroom leadership Committees or Clubs
Advisor/Advisee
Wrting Program
The Triple P Core
Components



Personalization
Precision
Professional Learning
Personalization


Is education that puts the learner at
the center(leadbeater, 2002), or
more accurately puts each and every
child at the center and provides an
education that is tailored to the
students’ learning motivational needs
at any given time
-Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006
Precision



To get something right.
Precision is in the service of
personalization because it means to
be uniquely accurate, that is precise
to the learning needs of individuals.
Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006
Professional Learning





Breakthrough means focused on-going
learning for each and every teacher.
Daily learning is needed individually and
collectively
Schools need to work from the classroom
outward. Not centrally developed PD
Professional development works when it is
school-based and embedded in the daily
work of teachers
- Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006
Assessment Research by
Rick Stiggins

“The effect of assessment for learning on
student achievement is some four or five
times greater than the effect of reduced
class size.
Few interventions in education come
close to having the same level of impact
as assessment for learning.
But the most intriguing result is that, while
all students show achievement gains, the
largest gains accrue to the lowest
achievers.
Everyone wins, with those who have the
most to win, winning the most.”
Breakthrough by Fullan, Hill and
Crevola (2006)

Assessment for learning, as every
teacher knows is about obtaining
feedback on the teaching and
learning and using that feedback to
further shape the instructional
process and improve learning.
Feedback

Feedback to teachers enables them
to focus their instruction; feedback to
students enables them to monitor
and improve their learning.
-Fullan, Hill, & Crevola, 2006
Salina Intermediate 4th and
5th Grade model



We knew that we needed to
schedule something for our students
We had the information and
research/experience from the 6th 8th grade
We decided last year to do
something following a training
session with Dr. Dorn
Brainstorming





Due to the fact that the elementary
schedule is structurally different we had to
brainstorm how we could do this.
The 4th and 5th grade teachers came up
with an idea that evovled over time
We decided on one hour a day for 4th
grade and one hour a day for 5th grade
Scheduling began in May/June
We decided not to unleash the model until
November after we could implement
training and preparation.
Leadership


Ms. Price and Ms. Shami then took
over the logistics planning
This was completed in conjunction
with the training by Carole Lower.
Comprehensive Intervention Model
(CIM)
Elementary- 4th and 5th Grade
Glenn Maleyko and Jennifer Price
Layers of Support





Core Classroom Instruction
Tier I - Classroom Intervention
Tier II – Intervention Specialist
Tier III – Intervention Specialist
Tier IV – Special Education
Types of Intervention Groups







Reading Recovery (RR)
Emergent Language and Literacy
Group (ELLG)
Guided Reading Plus (GRP)
Assisted Writing Group (AWG)
Writing Process Group (WPG)
Comprehension Focus Group (CFG)
Content Strategy Groups (CSG)
Initial Placement


Student Information Form
DRA (Directed Reading Assessment)
– Levels 24 or lower



Writing Sample- PCL writing sample
using the 6+1 rubric
Gentry Spelling Inventory
DOLCH list



Running Records
Writing Samples
Observations of reading and writing
Formative Assessment
Progress Monitoring




Running records- unseen text at the child’s
instructional level, as needed
NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress)
Oral Reading Fluency Scale- used to
analyze the student’s oral reading.
Writing samples- assess an independent
writing sample every 2 weeks.
Observation notes on reading and writing
Guided Reading Plus (GRP)



Emergent through early transitional stages of reading and writing
Designed to promote monitoring and self –correcting strategies, fluency,
strategies for deeper comprehension and vocabulary development in
reading
Two day sequence

Day 1– Phonological Awareness and/or phonics
– Guided reading

Day 2– Reading assessment – running record
– Independent reading
– Writing about reading (writing strategy lesson, writing prompt, individual
conference)
– Reading and writing analysis
Comprehension Focus Groups
(CFG)




Students at the transitional stage and beyond
Difficulty comprehending the wide range of text
genres
Develop students’ reading and writing knowledge
for narrative, information and persuasive
Three Phases
– Phase I and II –




Reading several texts from one genre
responding to the reading through discussion and in
response logs
completing text maps for the genre being studied
Repeat phases I and II for each book in the genre
– Phase III –


Writing in the focus genre
Takes place after the students have had the opportunity to
read and respond to all of the books in the unit.
Exit Criteria

4th grade
– DRA level 30 or higher
– NAEP
– Writing prompt, graded with the 6+1 rubric
• 5th grade
– DRA level 40 or higher
– NAEP
– Writing prompt, graded with the 6+1 rubric
Presentation References





Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit:
From effectiveness to
greatness. New York, NY:
Franklin Covey Co.
Downey, Steffy, English, Frase
& Poston (2004). The Three
Minute Classroom WalkThrough.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R.
& Many, T. (2006). Learning by
Doing. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker,
R., & Karhanek. (2004). What
ever it takes: How professional
learning communities respond
when kids don’t learn.
Bloomington, Indiana: Solution
Tree
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., & Eaker,
R. (2002). Getting started:
Reculturing schools to become
professional learning
communities. Solution Tree:
Bloomington, Indiana.







Dufour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998).
Professional Learning Communities at
Work: Best Practices for Enhancing
Student Achievement. Bloomington,
Indiana: Solution Tree.
Education Week,, (2002) Technology in
Education, October 1st, 2003.
Fullan. (2008). The Six Secrets of
Change.
Fullan, Hill, & Crevola. (2006).
Breakthrough. Prentice-Hall.
Gardner () Do Technology Based Lessons
Meet the Needs of Student Learning Styles
Jackson, Anthony W & Davis, Gayle
(2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating
Adolescents in the 21st Century.
Marzano, R. (2006). Classroom
Assessment and Grading that Work.
ASCD Publications.
Presentation References

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A.
(2005). School Leadership that works: From
Research to Results.

National Association of State Boards of Education
(2002)
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional
learning communities and the work of high school
teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting ‘The culture of the
school and the problem of change’. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Souden, Mike (2003). Evolution of Standards:
Enhanced Information opportunities that technology
provides. Taken on October 24, 2003, form
www.macul.org
Stiggins, R. (2004). Student Involved Classroom
Assessment: 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall.



