APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
For Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services
Minnesota Statute § 125A.50
APPLICATION COVER SHEET
Required for Option 1 & 2
See Attached
AGREEMENT TO COMPLY FORM
See Attached
BUDGET SUMMARY SHEET
Required for Option 1 & 2
See attached.
BUDGET NARRATIVE - Must align with Budget Summary Sheet.
Required for Option 1 & 2
In the ISD # 832 Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services program we will spend $475,000.00 on the salaries of the
interventionists/teachers needed to implement the program described herein. At the elementary level, five licensed classroom teachers will be
working .5 FTE each (i.e., 50% of their work day) on activities directly related to the Alternative Delivery program. Additionally, we will have four 1.0
FTE (4.0 FTE’s, total) academic and behavioral support instructors working with students identified as eligible for the Alternative Delivery program.
This will involve instruction in reading, math, and social/emotional/behavioral functioning for students at risk of poor outcomes (i.e., identified at Tier
2). The groups with whom academic staff work for reading and math will be identified through the eligibility process described herein within a flexible
grouping model (i.e., needing Tier 2 intervention to make desired academic gains and/or avoid special education evaluation and placement). Given
the overlap of academic and social/emotional/behavioral concerns for students at risk of academic failure, these teachers will also receive instruction
in the Responsive Classroom model and receive support from our behavior specialists for delivering Tier 2 social/emotional/behavioral interventions
within their classrooms.
At the middle school level, four math teachers will be working a total of 1.6 FTE’s, and two reading teachers will be working a total of 1.4 FTE’s on
activities directly related to the Alternative Delivery program. (An additional behavior specialist will be the primary contact person for
social/emotional/behavioral interventions and data; however, this application is not requesting funding for that role). Academic interventionists will
also receive training in a core social/emotional/behavioral program (e.g., Developmental Designs, RT/CT, etc.) and support from the behavior
specialists for delivering Tier 2 social/emotional/behavioral interventions within their classrooms.
These salary expenditures are necessary to achieve our goals of: decreasing identification of special education students in the areas of SLD, EBD,
ASD, OHD; increasing our number of students who are highly likely to be proficient on the MCA-2’s in Reading; and increasing the social/emotional
competencies of our students. The projected student enrollment we anticipate serving as part of the Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional
Services program is as follows (based on eligibility information from the first half of the 2008-09 school year):
Math = 515 students (307 based on 2008-09 K-5 eligibility, which is 26% of the total population; 208 for projected middle school eligibility based on
26% of their current enrollment); Reading = 445 (269 based on 2008-09 K-5 eligibility, which is 22% of the population; 176 for projected middle school
eligibility based on 22% of their current enrollment); and Social/Emotional/Behavioral functioning = 100 (28 based on 2008-09 eligibility, which is 2%
of the population; 56, which is 7% of the middle school population, or the SWIS-suggested level of need at that level; and an additional 16 for students
with yet-to-be-screened internalizing difficulties). Our current data for 2008-09 suggests that about 50% of students were eligible for both Reading
and Math ADSIS while the remaining 50% were eligible for services in only one academic area. If this ratio holds true for the 2009-2010 school year,
we could provide services to approximately 795 unduplicated students in grades K-8. To provide our current level of services, the cost per participant
in ADSIS was approximately $800 per pupil. Given that we are now requesting to add another building to the project, but only increase the allowable
expenditure by $150,000, we are proposing to implement the program at a cost of $597.48 per pupil (given the staffing request of $475,000). (staff
will fall under object code 140). We feel this will not compromise the integrity of the program as the district is going to bear the cost of behavioral
support positions.
We will spend $20,850 on individualized instructional supplies (object code 433). This breaks down in the following manner: 5 transition classrooms
needing minimal supplemental reading and math materials for direct student use ($200 for each teacher = $1000 total); 4 middle school “transition”
teachers new to the ADSIS program needing more extensive materials for direct student use ($400 per teacher = $1600 total); 2 elementary and 1
middle school intensive interventionists/teachers needing supplemental reading materials for direct student use ($500 for each teacher = $1500 total);
2 elementary and 1 middle school intensive interventionists/teachers needing supplemental math materials for direct student use ($500 for each
teacher = $1500 total); computers for 2 academic teachers and 1 behavior specialist to create materials for students to use and to implement
1
computer-based interventions directly to students (3 computers at $1350 per computer = $4050); Texts, videos, and supplies for 13 interventionists to
deliver Response Classroom-related / secondary-level equivalent instruction directly to students and PBIS-developed strategies to enhance pupil
performance socially, behaviorally, and academically ($400 per interventionist for these materials for student use @ 13 teachers = $5200 total).
Additionally, we will implement a diagnostic assessment, progress monitoring and intervention system for reading and math (estimated at $15 / pupil
for ADSIS students K-5 = $6,000). (object code 433)
NARRATIVE/WORKPLAN
The following criteria must be included in the Narrative/Work Plan. Follow instructions carefully and do not exceed the page maximum. Be sure to
attach the required documents if requested.
I.
STATEMENT OF NEED
Required for Option 1 & 2
Points Possible: 10 points
Please limit the length of the response to approximately two (2) pages.
I. STATEMENT OF NEED
Points Possible: 5 points
The Mahtomedi Public School district is a small, suburban district northeast of St. Paul, which serves a total of approximately 3,700 students K-12.
Our two elementary schools – Wildwood, a K-2 building, and OH Anderson, a 3-5 building – and our middle school (Mahtomedi Middle School, a 6-8
building) are developing a 3+-tiered model for providing reading, math, and social/emotional/behavioral instruction and support. We are developing a
System-Wide Intervention Model that integrates the exciting initiatives of a Problem-Solving Model, a Standard Treatment Protocol approach,
Response to Intervention, and Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. As a grant recipient from the MN Department of Education in both RtI
and PBIS, and a recently-accepted Reading Corp Site and a Pilot site for Evaluating Cross-Battery and Processing Assessment in SLD Evaluations,
Mahtomedi is a state leader in thinking creatively in meeting the needs of all our learners. Additionally, staff from Mahtomedi are working with
personnel from the MDE to develop and train other districts in implementing this type of integrated model.
While our elementary and middle schools have made tremendous strides in collecting benchmark and progress monitoring data via NWEA-MAP
tests and curriculum based measurement, creating a tiered problem-solving structure, and developing an extensive menu of research-based
instructional interventions, additional work is yet to be done. Our current NWEA, CBM, and SWIS data indicate that, to maximize student
achievement, we must further strengthen our targeted, or Tier 2, systems in the domains of literacy and math skills and social/emotional/behavioral
health. We have found the following related to the structures currently in place:
- our percentage of students responding to our core instruction in math is close to a desired 80% across most grade levels K-8
- Many students participating in our tiered literacy interventions at the primary level are achieving annual NWEA growth targets before the
mid-year point. This year’s Kindergarten, first grade, and second grade students began this school year reading approximately 10-15 more
words per minute than their counterparts last year who had not participated in an equal intervention.
- Based on School-Wide Information System (SWIS) data and teacher report of social and emotional wellbeing, we currently have 98%
“responders” to our core emotional/social curriculum of Responsive Classroom at our primary building, allowing for increased focus on
academic content and more intensive classroom-based social/behavioral interventions for those in need.
However… Our data also indicate the following:
- As students progress through the elementary grades and middle school years, there is an increase in the number of at-risk learners who
do not respond to targeted (i.e., supplemental, Tier 2) math instruction resulting in an inflated 3rd Tier of students requiring exceptional
intervention to prepare them for being proficient on the MCA-2’s. While our Tier 1 gradually grows as students progress through school,
our Tier 2 diminishes at the expense of Tier 3 (i.e., the middle Tier sometimes is smaller than Tier 3). In addition to identifying needed
supplements to our core curriculum to prevent students from requiring targeted or intensive interventions, we must increase the rigor and
effectiveness of our Tier 2 math interventions to prevent students from requiring intensive, individual intervention and/or appearing to have
the characteristics of students with disabling conditions (i.e., those at risk of being identified as needing Special Education). We need to
frequently assess early numeracy and developing math skills, delivering targeted interventions as early as possible when needed. We
need to fund teachers specialized in the assessment of, and instruction in, early numeracy skills, basic computational skills, and the range
of applied mathematical thinking.
- As students enter our intermediate building that has beginning-to-emerging skills implementing PBIS and Responsive Classroom
strategies, they are increasingly demonstrating behaviors and social symptoms that share characteristics with children identified as
having Emotional or Behavioral Disorders, Autism Spectrum Disorders, and Other Health Disabilities. For example, while only 6% of the
class of 2017 required Targeted or Intensive social/behavioral supports during the 2006-07 school year as 2nd graders (when they attended
the Primary building), approximately 20% of this group required Targeted or Intensive social/behavioral supports following their transition
into 3rd grade – when they entered a building with only emerging skills in implementing a universal social skills curriculum. Commensurate
with this reduction in social responding, this same group experienced a 7% decline in the percentage of children on track to be proficient
on the MCA-2’s in Math and a 5% reduction in Reading. In addition to further developing our core social/emotional/behavioral curriculum
and intervention menu at the entire elementary and middle level, we must focus on targeted intervention / tertiary prevention of emerging
concerns. We need to implement a formal, system-wide model for explicit instruction in desired social skills and coping behaviors,
supporting at-risk students in their development of social/emotional health.
2
-
-
As children progress through the elementary grades and transition to the middle level grades, the gap for struggling readers widens,
creating a deeper 3rd Tier. This is especially true when Tier 2 supports are insufficient for closing the gap. We must continue to
aggressively intervene with primary-grade students at moderate risk for poor success on the MCA’s (i.e., Tier 2) to prevent poor reading
outcomes long-term. Additionally, we must strengthen our Tier 2 approach at the intermediate grade levels (i.e., grades 3-8) to increase
the probability of student success on the MCA-2’s and, subsequently, on the life skills those assessments are hypothesized to predict. We
must continue to expand our Tiered literacy intervention model to further prevent students from being erroneously identified as having
learning disabilities.
Although our tiered academic intervention model and implementation of PBIS have resulted in a decrease in the number of students
identified as having Specific Learning Disabilities, particularly at the primary level, we continue to have concerning levels of students
referred for special education evaluations for the following: reading concerns later in the elementary and middle years, math concerns K-8,
organization and planning concerns K-8, physical- and mental-health-related concerns K-8, and social communication / atypical behavior
concerns K-8. We must strengthen all of the aforementioned Tier 2 structures to prevent students from requiring intensive/individual
interventions and, thus, sharing characteristics with students with disabling conditions (i.e., those at risk of being identified as needing
Special Education).
The following is a summary of our special education totals from school year 2000 through school year 2008:
Special Education Categories Totals Grade K-5
2000
Mahtomedi Middle
School
(Grades 6-8)
OH Anderson
Elementary
(Grades 3-5)
Wildwood
Elementary (Grades
K-2)
II.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
ASD
1
1
0
2
3
4
6
10
10
EBD
15
11
12
9
10
9
8
10
14
OHD
SLD
8
43
9
43
9
39
8
31
10
25
10
25
10
18
13
16
11
15
ASD
2
2
2
6
9
14
14
14
EBD
4
4
5
6
6
8
6
6
3
3
OHD
9
12
11
10
11
30
26
20
16
15
13
7
6
9
7
11
12
10
1
1
2
1
4
2
3
1
3
4
5
8
5
4
5
5
1
2
5
OHI
8
8
9
9
1
SLD
71
51
47
39
3
5
ASD
EBD
1
1
OHD
1
12
OHI/HI
7
5
3
2
2
1
1
1
SLD
30
25
28
10
8
3
13
8
DESCRIPTION OF INTERVENTION PROGRAM AND GOALS
Required for Option 1 & 2
Points Possible: 20 points
Please limit the length of the response to three (3) pages.
GOAL TO INCREASE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT:
The Mahtomedi Public Schools grades K-8 will increase the number of students on track to be proficient on the MN Comprehensive Assessments in
Reading and Math (i.e., at Tier 1) from a current K – 8 average of <70% in reading and < 68% in math in the Fall of 2008-09 of to a K-8 average of
75% by Spring of 2010.
Rationale for Goal:
The Mahtomedi Public School’s universal screening data per the NWEA-MAP tests and CBM’s indicates that a large percentage of our students are
at risk for not being proficient on the MCA’s. As a result,, a large percentage of students are being referred for remedial instructional programs such
as Title One, ADSIS, and, ultimately special education services. Given that the cost of remediating skills deficits through the special education
system is exorbitant, and special education is associated with less-than-desired life outcomes, we desire to prevent such referrals by providing early
and intensive instruction / prevention at students’ instructional levels in the areas of reading (phonological awareness, decoding, vocabulary,
comprehension, and fluency) and math (basic number sense, computation, fluency, abstract numerical thinking). Given the success of the program
thus far, we believe that we can prevent students from falling behind academically by providing early intensive instruction as well as specific,
intensive remediation for older students.
Periodic Measurable Outcomes:
The Mahtomdei Public Schools will rely on NWEA-MAP tests for all ADSIS participants three times each year in the area(s) in which the student is
receiving ADSIS services. Additionally, CBM reading data will be collected three times per year for all ADSIS-reading students. For students
needing the most intensive services in ADSIS, progress will be monitored weekly via curriculum based measures. Benchmark data will be collected
and reviewed three times per year to determine responders to the instruction, non-responders, and areas for programmatic change.
GOAL TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF REFERRALS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION AND OTHER COMPENSATORY SERVICES:
3
The Mahtomedi Public Schools grades K-8 will reduce the number of students receiving special education services in the categories of Specific
Learning Disabilities, Other Health Disabilities, Emotional/Behavioral Disorders, and Autism Spectrum Disorders from their 2008 average of 6% of
the student population to 5% of the student population by Spring of 2010.
Rationale for Goal:
While the Mahtomedi Elementary Schools have made great strides in preventing inappropriate placement in special education for academic
concerns at the elementary level by implementing a Tiered instructional model, the middle school needs support for implementing this prevention
infrastructure. Additionally, while the primary building has made strides in preventing EBD and ASD referrals due to the implementation of a core
social/emotional/behavioral curriculum, the other two buildings need to continue to develop the infrastructure to support a similar prevention initiative.
While we have made growth as a district in our special education identification, we need to organize our efforts across buildings and grow systems
that are working up through the grades.
Periodic Measurable Outcomes:
The Building Coordinator at each of the participating schools will maintain an ongoing record of all students referred to special education, decisions
about whether to pursue evaluation, and eligibility /entitlement decisions. These data will be reviewed monthly at district Building Coordinator
meetings and with building-level special education teams.
Social / Emotional / Behavioral Goal:
Mahtomedi Elementary Schools and Middle School will decrease their identification of students as needing special education instruction/services to
remediate social/emotional/behavioral difficulties from 6 per year (based on K-5 data) to 5 per year (inclusive of EBD, ASD, and OHD) and increase
their number of students who respond to our core social/emotional/behavioral curriculum and supports from an average of 96% in Spring 2008 to
98% in Spring 2009 per SWIS data. This will be accomplished via a 3+ Tier instruction, problem-solving, and assessment model. Tiered
intervention will be based upon individual student need as identified by SWIS, observational, teacher rating data, health records, and parent reports.
Rationale for Goal:
Mahtomedi Elementary Schools and Middle School’s current Tier II data indicates that between 2 and 5% of students are needing tier II
social/emotional/behavioral supports based on information from our SWIS office discipline referral data (externalizing behavior). We need to
implement a universal screening tool to systemically identify kids who need Tier II social/emotional/behavioral support for internalizing behaviors.
We believe implementing the ADSIS program will prevent this at-risk student population from needing special education services to remediate
social/emotional/behavioral difficulties and increase age-appropriate social/emotional skills and academic engaged time.
Periodic Measureable Outcomes:
Mahtomedi Elementary Schools and Middle School will use a universal screening tool, along with SWIS, to identify students who are at-risk
socially/emotionally/behaviorally. Monthly progress will be monitored through use of the Check-in/Check-out database connected to SWIS. This
data will be analyzed quarterly to determine overall effectiveness of Tier II supports.
ROLES OF STAFF
General Education Teacher:
1. Role and responsibility for planning: General education representation will be critical for planning how the Alternative Delivery
Program will look and for examining the data of referrals to the Program. General Education Teachers will participate in an ongoing
Professional Learning Community with other grade-level teachers. Within this forum, they will discuss children who may be at risk of
not responding to core curricula, request consultative support from a building specialist,
2. Role and responsibility for implementation: General Education Teachers will be responsible for receiving training in, and implementing
the Universal Interventions necessary for moving toward our goal of 80% “responders” to our core academic and
social/emotional/behavioral curricula at each grade level.
3. Role and responsibility for evaluation: General education teachers will participate in the scheduling of their students’ participation in
our triennial CBM’s, as well as all standardized assessments (NWEA, MCA-2’s, etc.). Additionally, teachers will be trained in the use
of Direct Behavior Ratings and/or Check-In/Check-Out data collection and supported to use these tools for collecting social/behavioral
data for their students, as needed.
Alternative Delivery Program Teacher:
1. Role and responsibility for planning: The Alternative Delivery Program Teachers will be actively involved in Vertical Tier 2/3 Literacy,
Math, and/or Social/Emotional/Behavioral Professional Learning Communities. In this forum, they will review literature regarding best
practices in their fields, share resources, and receive focused staff development for interventions. Together, these PLC’s will actively
shape the delivery of the Alternative Delivery Program in response to the ongoing data that will be collected, as outlined above.
2. Role and responsibility for implementation: The A.D.P. Teachers will be responsible for receiving training in, and implementing the
Universal and Targeted Interventions necessary for making ambitious growth for students not responding to the core curriculum
alone. They will receive support to make instructional adaptations needed to increase the likelihood that students will be able to exit
from the Program.
3. Role and responsibility for evaluation: The A.D.P. Teachers will be responsible for administering or supervising the administration of
the Curriculum-Based Measurement tools in use triennially. They will also be expected to oversee the bi-weekly progress-monitoring
4
of the students they teach via a method appropriate for the target skill. Additionally, teachers will be trained in the use of Direct
Behavior Ratings and Check-In/Check-Out data collection and supported to use these tools for collecting social/behavioral data for
their students, as needed.
Special Education Teacher:
1. Role and responsibility for planning: Special Education Teachers will be actively involved in Vertical Tier 2/3 Literacy, Math, and/or
Social/Emotional/Behavioral Professional Learning Communities. In this forum, they will review literature regarding best practices in
their fields, share resources, and receive focused staff development for interventions. Together, these PLC’s will actively shape the
delivery of the Alternative Delivery Program in response to the ongoing data that will be collected, as outlined above.
2. Role and responsibility for implementation: Special Education Teachers will support the A.D.P. Teachers who will be the direct
providers of the Program. They will provide guidance and support to these peers, offering expertise in individualized intervention, as
needed. Special Education Teachers will be utilized as Coaches for our A.D.P. Teachers, when available.
3. Role and responsibility for evaluation: Special Education Teachers will also support our ongoing CBM data collection procedures,
offering direct support, when possible. They will be responsible for the ongoing progress monitoring of students in their classes via
methods appropriate for target skills.
Additionally, support will be provided for the PLC’s mentioned above. At the k-5 buildings, the PLC’s will be supported by the elementary
RtI Coordinator and PBIS Coordinator (or equivalent support positions); the RtI Coordinator will oversee data collection and analysis practices,
ensuring integrity of interpretation and data-based decision-making. At the 6-8 building, the PLC’s will be supported by designated members of the
RtI/PBIS team; for the 2009-2010 school year – school psychologist (literacy); counselor (math); assistant principal (behavior). The designated
members will oversee data collection and analysis practices of the PLC’s as well as coordinate with each other as necessary during weekly
administrative/counseling team meetings. Assessment support personnel (i.e., paraprofessionals hired to assist with some data collection activities)
will be trained in CBM administration procedures by the school psychologist and/or reading specialist. Inter-rater reliability data will be gathered
annually to assure consistency in administration procedures and integrity of data collection. Ongoing progress monitoring data will be collected by
licensed math or reading specialists or paraprofessionals trained to gather these data.
All teachers in our elementary buildings will participate in the review of student screening data for the purpose of determining students meeting
entrance criteria for the Alternative Delivery Program. This will occur through our Tier 2 Problem Solving Structure, which was described earlier in this
application (PLC-based grade-level problem-solving). Members of the Tier 2 Team (building principals, psychologists, behavior specialists, special
education teachers, Autism Consultant, reading specialists, and math specialists) will make final recommendations regarding candidates for the
Alternative Delivery Program. The Program goals will be carried out by the following personnel (broken down by domain of instruction):
- Reading: direct small-group instruction delivered by a teacher holding reading specialist licensure or equivalent. Consultation support to
be offered by special education teachers.
- Math: direct small-group instruction delivered by a licensed math specialist or equivalent. Consultation support to be offered by special
education teachers.
- Social/Emotional/Behavioral: direct targeted instruction delivered by personnel trained to deliver the intervention. This may include:
individual or small group instruction delivered by a licensed school psychologist; individual or small group instruction delivered by a
licensed E/BD teacher; instruction or support from a general education teacher with consultative support from a licensed E/BD teacher,
Autism consultant, or licensed school psychologist; or instruction or support from a trained paraprofessional under the direction of a
licensed E/BD teacher, Autism consultant, or licensed school psychologist.
Within our Tiered model of service delivery, all teachers are needed as interventionists. There is a professional expectation that staff will support one
another with intervention planning and implementation ideas. This theoretical support model is realized through our Professional Learning
Communities, vertical ad hoc committees, and formalized problem-solving structures. General education teachers and special education teachers
alike are given support to interpret CBM and NWEA data and translate these data into meaningful instruction for children. Students are grouped
flexibly based on performance data.
III. DECRIPTION OF SCREENING PROCESS AND SELECTION/EXIT CRITERIA.
Required for Option 2
Points Possible: 15 points
Mahtomedi k-8 schools are using a 3+-Tier Problem-Solving system for evaluating multiple data sources and matching individual student concerns
with intervention structures. At a Tier 1/Universal level, we have grade level Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s), which are the primary unit
of adult learning and professional development. PLC’s work together, with the support of a “data coach,” to review available school and grade-level
data and make decisions about curriculum effectiveness, student grouping, and curricular supplements. At the individual student referral, or Tier 3
level, we have a formalized problem-solving team at the K-5 buildings, which is comprised of the building’s principal, school nurse, school
psychologist, behavior specialist, reading specialist(s), a representative from each grade level, and a representative from the allied arts (music, PE,
art, Spanish). At the 6-8 building, a problem solving team structure is evolving that capitalizes on the teaching team structure built in at each grade
level. The team is comprised of principal, assistant principal, guidance counselors, school psychologist, special education teacher, reading
specialist, math specialist, behavior specialist, physical education teacher, social studies teacher, science teacher, math teacher, and English
teacher. We are also developing a Tier 2 / Targeted problem-solving structure, which involves a formal monthly review of all “concerning” students’
5
data at each grade level’s PLC at the elementary buildings. The middle school utilizes the team structure to review the data. This review is
facilitated by the school psychologist, behavior specialist, and reading specialist. Brief intervention plans are developed, and referrals to the
problem-solving team made, based upon this systematic review. At the k-8 level, the Tiers 1 and 2 problem-solving structures will be pivotal to our
implementation of our alternative delivery program as they will promote a collaborative review of data for making decisions about students who: (1)
are eligible for the program, (2) are benefitting from the program, (3) require instructional changes, and/or (4) are ready to exit from the program.
Data Sources: All students grades K-5 are individually evaluated three times per year using a measure of either early literacy or Oral Reading
Fluency via AIMSweb. Additionally, individual evaluation is conducted twice each year via NWEA-MAP tests of reading and math proficiency at the
Kindergarten and grades 3-5 level, and three times per year at grades 1-2. Students in grades K-2 are also screened for reading skill by obtaining
Rigby Reading Levels at least three times per year. At the 6-8 level, all students are individually evaluated a minimum of two times a year via
NWEA-MAP. Additionally, Tier 1 students of concern and Tier 2 and 3 students are evaluated a minimum of three times a year. Oral reading
Fluency and MAZE comprehension measures are utilized to track students in Tiers 2 and 3. Authentic math proficiency data are gathered via
curriculum unit tests, portfolio reviews, and Pearson Perspective. During the 2008-2009 school year, the middle school has been selected to
participate in the Region 11 math and science teacher academy. The participation involves utilizing math probes 6-8 on a regular basis and
comparing results with regional data to inform instruction. Social/emotional/behavioral performance of students is tracked via SWIS, as well as
through direct observation, health record reviews, and an emerging use of DBR’s (Direct Behavior Ratings, developed by Ted Christ, et al, at the U
of MN). We are investigating the use of teacher-generated social networks information, as well.
Screening Activities and Selection Criteria: Reading and Math
As discussed earlier, Mahtomedi utilizes a 3+ Tier approach to intervention, problem-solving, and data/assessment systems.
To analyze the effectiveness of our intervention structures, we gather NWEA-MAP test data and curriculum-based measures of academic
proficiency. To determine the degree to which our curriculum and instruction is meeting the needs of our learners, we utilize results from an analysis
conducted through TIES, which demonstrates how NWEA-MAP test performance can predict success on the MCA-2’s. Additional research
conducted at the St. Croix River Education District demonstrates how CBM performance can also predict proficiency on the MCA’s. We use these
data to determine how many of our students “populate” each of our Tiers of instruction. These data also help us to determine the percentage of
students “responding” to our different instructional practices.
The following is an excerpt from the TIES study referenced:
This excerpt illustrates the following: In second grade in the fall, over 90% of students in the research sample who obtained a score at or above 167
were proficient on the MCA-2’s (same for those who obtained a score at or above 184 in the spring). Thus, students scoring in this range, which
suggests a high probability of success on the MCA’s, would be considered to populate “Tier 1.” Approximately 52% of students in the research
sample who scored between 149 and 167 in the fall were proficient on the MCA-2’s (designated as Tier 2). For those scoring below 149 in the fall,
70% were NOT proficient on the MCA’s. Students performing in this group are at high risk for poor performance on the MCA’s and are considered to
populate Tier 3. For additional illustration of our numeric Tier Targets / Cut-Scores, refer to the table below for reading (a similar table is used for
math but was left out of this application due to space constraints).
For students developing early literacy skills, results from the NWEA-MAP tests and measures of Oral Reading Fluency are not relevant data points
for designation to an appropriate instructional Tier. Therefore, we have used target scores from AimsWeb’s measures of Early Literacy. These
include measures of Letter Name Fluency; Letter Sound Fluency; and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (see tables below). The correspondence
between performance levels and Tier designation is listed in the table.
Students will be eligible for the ADSIS program based on demonstrating performance at the Tier 2 or 3 level based on the best predictor at the
child’s grade level of success on the MCA’s (i.e., NWEA for grades 1-8; CBM’s for students grades K-1).
Screening Activities and Identification for Program Involvement: Social/Emotional/Behavioral
All students are screened for social/emotional health via the Ages and Stages Questionnaire prior to Kindergarten entrance. Additional data are
collected for K-8 students via teacher report/observation and a careful examination of health records and enrollment forms. As with the academic
areas, students will be identified as “eligible” for the Alternative Delivery program based on screening data that would suggest that they are not
6
responding to our core social/emotional/behavioral curriculum. Referrals for Tier 2-level problem solving and interventions usually arise from our
cross-grade-level Problem-Solving structure (a problem-solving system that precedes an individual’s referral to a Problem-Solving Team). Data
used to create targeted interventions are drawn from teacher referral, parent referral, SWIS data, DBR data, private psychological or medical
evaluations, and/or nurse referrals. Currently, the SWIS system identifies that students populating Tier 2 have 2-5 Office Discipline Referrals and
have less than 80% mastery using a Check-In/Check-Out procedure with a standardized companion behavior chart. These are students who,
without additional instruction and intervention, are at risk for special education evaluation and placement.
Prescriptive Assessment – Reading, Math, and Social/Emotional/Behavioral Functioning
Our diagnostic assessment system for Reading will consist of Rigby Reading Levels assessments for grades K-2, strand analysis of NWEA-MAP
tests using the Des Cartes continuum of learning, Yearly Progress Pro for Math (and possibly Reading) for select Tier 2 students; and diagnostic
Curriculum-Based Measurement for grades K – 8 (we may also be partnering with the U of M to pilot a computer-based CBM called the Subskill
Analysis of Reading Fluency, which allows for miscue analysis, word list development, and intervention recommendation based on AimsWeb reading
passage performance). For Math, prescriptive assessment will be accomplished through curriculum-derived assessments and NWEA-MAP test
subskill analysis using the Des Cartes continuum. Our prescriptive assessment system for social/emotional/behavioral functioning will consist of the
following: mini-Functional Behavior Evaluations, Direct Behavior Ratings (DBR’s) at the K-5 level, and SWIS data analysis including data from the
Check-In/Check-Out procedure.
Progress Monitoring – Reading, Math, and Social/Emotional/Behavioral Functioning
Students receiving Tier 2 Reading and Math interventions will have their progress monitored on a bi-weekly basis using an age- and gradeappropriate General Outcome Measure of reading and/or math proficiency. These can include the following based upon each student’s instructional
level: Letter Name Fluency, Letter Sound Fluency, Phonemic Segmentation Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, MAZE, and Math Fact calculation
Fluency (or a substitute, currently being piloted in another school district). Students receiving Tier 2 Social/Emotional/Behavioral intervention will
have their progress monitored as appropriate based upon the intervention used (e.g., CI/CO would involve daily monitoring via behavior sheets).
Additional progress monitoring will be accomplished via a pre- and post-test design for social skills small group instruction (child behavior and/or
emotional functioning as rated by teachers and/or parents). Additional DBR or social/emotional skills checklist data will be collected bi-weekly by
classroom teachers for students receiving social/emotional/behavioral interventions at the K-5 level, as needed.
Decision-making Process
Students will be identified as “eligible” for the Alternative Delivery program based on screening data (CBM’s, NWEA’s, SWIS data, observation data,
ASQ results) that would suggest moderate risk for poor outcomes on the MCA’s. Based on our 3+-Tier model, these are students who would be
considered at “Tier 2” but NOT eligible for Title 1 services at the K-5 level (See range of “cut-scores” for Tier 2). There are no Title I services
provided in the 6-8 school. Students who are identified as needing additional instructional support to succeed in the general educational
environment and who, without additional intervention, may be at risk for special education evaluation and placement. Criteria for exiting Tier 2
support will rely on a trans-disciplinary review of multiple data sources. The majority of data sources needs to confirm that a student’s performance
aligns with a high probability of success on the MCA’s (i.e., the graphed “trend line” of their measured performance needs to show a recent or
imminent point of intersection with performance of peers at Tier 1, i.e., those who have a 90% probability of success on the MCA’s). By looking at
multiple data sources in making this determination, we will be examining “cumulative resilience” for positive reading, math, and
social/emotional/behavioral outcomes. As a general rule, students will be exited from ADSIS for math and reading after obtaining performance at the
Tier 1 level across two consecutive benchmark data points (e.g., at Tier 1 per NWEA data for Winter and Spring).
Exit Criteria
Students will be exited from the Program’s reading or math intervention when (1) student performance data demonstrates sustained performance at
the Tier 1 Level across two measures of performance (exited back to Tier 1 – will receive “continuing care” in the form of instruction or monitoring
until able to maintain Tier 1 performance over two consecutive data collection periods, e.g., fall, winter, spring); (2) when students meet Title One
eligibility criteria; or (3) when students meet special education entrance/eligibility criteria due to less-than-desired response to intervention and/or
onset of immediate and critical difficulties. These decisions will be based on a team review of comprehensive student data, response to ongoing
analysis of appropriate interventions, and consideration for differences in cultural and linguistic background.
IV.
DESCRIPTION OF ADSIS COORDINATION WITH OTHER DISTRICT/SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
Required for Option 2
Points Possible: 10 points
This proposed Alternative Delivery Program coordinates with our existing Tiered Model of student support, which views all student learning supports
on a continuum. Our goal is to provide a SEAMLESS CONTINUUM OF SERVICES AND SUPPORTS, where students receive intervention based on
presenting performance data rather than prescribed by funding source. While funding source is of critical importance, we believe that all students’
needs can be addressed without making funding source a primary, directing consideration; rather, if orchestrated functionally, funding sources can be
woven into a seamless intervention fabric on the periphery of children’s actual daily experiences (i.e., they feel the effects of the funding, not the
struggle to fund). Our Tiered Model will be geared toward maximizing student engaged time by strategically aligning curriculum and intervention with
all learners’ instructional levels as determined by data. We will actively use a trans-disciplinary review of cumulative student data to make
7
determinations regarding instructional opportunities. These opportunities include the following (note that the cells in the table below artificially divide
supports available to children):
Tier
Reading/Literacy
General education teacher as primary
instructor; consultation as needed by
support staff
Instructional Strategies:
* Houghton-Mifflin as core curriculum k-5;
* McDougal Littell Curriculum and the Six
Traits of Writing 6-8
* Extension activities; enrichments; readers’
theater
* Accelerated Reader 6-8
Math
General education teacher as primary
instructor; consultation as needed by
support staff
Instructional Strategies:
* Everyday Math as core curriculum
* Challenge Math problems systematically
assigned
* Strategic use of instructional group size
General education teacher as primary
instructor; consultation as needed by
support staff; ESL support if eligible
General education teacher as primary
instructor; consultation as needed by
support staff; ESL support if eligible
Tier 1
Instructional strategies:
* Guided Reading/Tucker Signing k-5
* Literacy Blocks (flexible grouping based on
sub-skill analysis of needs) k-5;
* Houghton Mifflin k-5
* McDougal Littell Curriculum 6-8
* Variable group size to strategically increase
academic engagement
* Accelerated Reader 6-8
Instructional strategies:
* Everyday Math as core curriculum
* Flexible grouping based on sub-skill analysis
of needs
* Math games as recommended by core text
* Supplements, as needed, from such sources
as Study Island
Instructional strategies:
* Responsive Classroom as core curriculum k5
* Developmental Designs as core curriculum 68
* School Motto and core 3 School-Wide
Expectations
* infused throughout physical and philosophical
space of school
* Teaching Matrix, which identifies how
expectations look in all environments
* School-Wide Expectations
* Plan
* School Improvement Goal
Tier 2
Instruction delivered by general education
staff; access to
Title One services and supports if eligible;
Access to Alternative Delivery Program if
eligible; ESL support and/or instruction t if
eligible; access to Reading Corps support,
if eligible
Instruction delivered by general education
staff; consultation from sp.ed. as needed;
Access to Alternative Delivery Program if
eligible; Remedial instruction as needed in
specific concepts; ESL support and/or
instruction t if eligible
Instruction delivered by general education
staff; consultative support provided by
specialists; small group support provided
by specialists for specific skill building;
Access to Alternative Delivery Program if
eligible; ESL support and/or instruction t if
eligible
Tier 1+
Instructional strategies:
* Houghton-Mifflin k-5
* McDougal Littell Curriculum 6-8
* Orton-Gillingham k-5
* Tucker Signing k-5
* Rewards curriculum 6-8
* Jamestown Publishers’ Critical Reading
series 6-8
* Accelerated Reader 6-8
* Word Study
* Repeated reading
* Six Minute Solution
* Incremental Rehearsal
* Error correction procedures
* PALS and K-PALS k-5
* Reading intervention volunteers (duet
reading, pencil tapping, etc.)
* RtI grant-supported curriculum and training
Tier 3
Instruction delivered by special education
staff; access to Title One services and
Instructional strategies:
* Everyday Math as core curriculum
* Saxon Math as supplement when needed to
teach core concepts k-5
* Study island to address skills specific to
success on MCA’s
* Incremental rehearsal for key concepts
* Review and adoption of systematic
supplements to core curriculum
* RtI grant-supported curriculum and training
* Pearson Perspective
* Yearly Progress Pro (K-8, per interventionist
discretion)
Instruction delivered by special education
staff; Access to Alternative Delivery
Social / Emotional / Behavioral Health
General education teacher as primary
instructor; consultation as needed by
support staff
Instructional Strategies:
* Responsive Classroom as core curriculum
k-5
* Developmental Designs as core curriculum
6-8
* Supplemented with small group problemextension work
* Social/emotional needs assessment and
intervention by school psychologist
General education teacher as primary
instructor; consultation as needed by
support staff; ESL support if eligible
Instructional strategies:
* Responsive Classroom k-5
* Developmental Designs 6-8
* Check-In-Check-Out (M&M club)
* Social Skills Group (targeted)
* Second Steps
* Targeted Classroom Intervention
* Mini-FBA w/PBSP
* School-based group counseling
* Mentor program
* Need-a-break cards
* Instruction in self-monitoring strategies
* Access to calming space – as needed
* Modifying academic expectation
* What Am I Working For? Cards
* Work systems;
* First/Then cards;
* Sensory breaks – preventive
* Morning run-through of visual schedule
* Parent conference and targeted support
* Peer mediation
* PBIS cohort training and supports
Instruction delivered by general and special
education staff; Access to Alternative
8
supports if eligible; Access to Alternative
Delivery Program if eligible; special
education case management available if
sp.ed. eligible; access to county case
management and services if eligible;
coordination of school and outside services
if eligible and needed; ESL support and/or
instruction t if eligible
Instructional strategies:
* Houghton-Mifflin k-5
* McDougal Littell 6-8
* Reading Mastery k-5
* Orton-Gillingham k-5
* Tucker Signing k-5
* Rewards curriculum 6-8
* Language! Curriculum 6-8
* Word Study
* Repeated reading
* Six Minute Solution
* Incremental Rehearsal
* Error correction procedures
* Individually-designed instruction based on
multiple curricula
* Related services access
* Sonday System
* Jamestown Publishers’ Critical Reading
series 6-8
Program if eligible; special education case
management available if sp.ed. eligible;
access to county case management and
services if eligible; coordination of school
and outside services if eligible and needed;
ESL support and/or instruction t if eligible
Instructional strategies:
* Everyday Math
* Saxon Math for specific skill practice k-5
* Study Island for skills related to MCA”s
* Adoption of systematic supplements to core
curriculum
* Related services access
* Pearson Perspective
* Yearly Progress Pro (k-8 per interventionist
discretion)
Delivery Program if eligible; special
education case management available if
sp.ed. eligible; access to county case
management and services if eligible;
coordination of school and outside services
if eligible and needed; services offered by
school psychologist, behavior specialist, or
related services specialist if needed; ESL
support and/or instruction t if eligible
Instructional strategies:
* Responsive Classroom k-5
* Developmental Designs or equivalent 6-8
* Second Steps
* One-on-one or direct skills instruction w/task
analysis
* FBA w/full Behavior Intervention Plan
* Pull-out behavioral instruction
* Pull-out instruction in schedule strategies,
social stories, etc.
* Wrap-around, person-centered planning
* Crisis intervention plan School-based
individual counseling
* Instruction in self-monitoring strategies
* Instruction in conflict resolution
* Access to calming space – as needed and
strategic/planned use
* Special education resource room
* Frequent sensory experiences planned
throughout day (preventative)
* Intensive teaching of how to run a schedule
and implement changes
* Parent training
* Out of building placement in need-specific
program
We are working to align our Title 1 service delivery model and data collection procedures as outlined in our Title 1-School-wide Program Application
and Plan with the contents of this application. Additionally, we are streamlining our data collection procedures and our Mn CIMP procedures.
Essentially, we are working to reduce duplicative systems of data collection, analysis, and reporting thereby increasing our accuracy, efficiency, and
ability to increase our time intervening with children.
In the Mahtomedi Schools, we are very responsive to requests from other districts to visit our schools, observe our instructional practices, and offer
informational sessions regarding our service Model. Representatives from Wildwood have presented at the Minnesota School Psychologists
Association annual Midwinter Conference in 2008, at a principal’s retreat in Red Wing, and at other metro school districts upon request.
Representatives from the Mahtomedi Middle School presented at the North Central Regional Conference on RtI in Chicago, IL. We are excited to
prepare data and interpretive information for our school board based on our efforts and are equally excited to share our information with Mahtomedi
residents. We will continue these practices to share information about our involvement in the Alternative Delivery Program.
V.
A.
B.
-
DESCRIPTION OF PLAN FOR REQUIRED PROGRAM EVALUATION
Required for Option 1 & 2
Points Possible: 15 points
Plan for developing the summative evaluation report (see appendix for required report document)
See table below for data sources and specific tools to be used to gather data.
Plan for disseminating ADSIS program instructional strategies, interventions and positive outcomes with other education entities
The Mahtomedi Public Schools is supportive of having staff share their knowledge and expertise with educators in other districts. We have, to
date, provided more than 15 tours, lectures, or informational sessions for colleagues from MN, WI, IA, and IL in such forums as professional
conferences, site visits, and small group work sessions. We will continue this practice at the grassroots level. We will also continue to
collaborate with staff from the MN Department of Education to share ideas and experiences with interested parties in the state. Additionally, we
will continue to publish articles in association newsletters and district publications that promote our instructional practices and offer our support to
other districts.
In the Mahtomedi Public Schools, we pride ourselves in our high rate of parental involvement and support of our educational endeavors. We truly
view parents as partners in our pursuits. This is evidenced by our attendance rates at conferences (close to 98%), teachers’ commitment to frequent
newsletters and classroom website updates, and use of more frequent home-school communication strategies for students needing more personal
9
support across settings. We emphasize parental partnership for students needing additional intervention. This is accomplished via informational
sessions about our Tiered model of intervention at our Parent Advisory Council, frequent information disseminated in our school newspaper (The
Globe), and a consistent climate of responsiveness to parents’ concerns and needs.
Parents are given their children’s data from NWEA-MAP tests, along with links to the Des Cartes learning continuum, so that they can support their
children’s learning at home. Teachers provide parents with math and reading extension activities for their children at their measured instructional
levels in order to enrich classroom learning experiences and encourage distributed practice.
To build on our current parental involvement activities and partnerships, we will do the following:
- add additional information about our continuum of instruction to our website (Tiers 2-3 inclusive of sp.ed., Title One, and Alt. Delivery)
- develop a Tiered model of parent supports including a Tiered menu of home-school interventions (e.g., Responsive Classroom home
updates; an “assume nothing – teach everything” orientation regarding parental response to behavioral interventions – teach parents how
we would like them to respond their children’s behavioral successes or challenges at school; provide access to such resources as “Teach
Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons;” Etc.).
- offer a “meet-and-greet” information opportunity for parents during our fall and spring conferences where we will offer sequential,
overlapping “drop-in” sessions covering such areas as: our Tiered Model of Academic Instruction; how to support the
social/emotional/behavioral functioning of our children across home and school; and how to support your child’s development of critical
organizational skills. We will also use these sessions as a forum for gathering input about how to improve home-school connections to
support student achievement
- Gather parental input for students entering Tier 2 supports (disaggregate extant data from beginning of year parental surveys)
- Obtain end-of-year survey data from parents to determine satisfaction with Tier 2 services.
- Review survey data as a core Tier 2 Team when establishing service delivery goals and planning for continued parental involvement
- Invite parents of students participating in the Alternative Delivery program into the school to volunteer in the program and/or observe, firsthand, the interventions in which their children are participating
- Obtain videotaped samples of teachers delivering Alternative Delivery Reading, Math, and Social/Emotional/Behavioral program
interventions. Offer parents the opportunity to view this video recording prior to their children’s involvement in the Program. Offer viewings
of this video at the fall and spring conference “drop-in” session mentioned earlier.
- At the 6-8 building, teachers utilize the iCUE system to record assignments and grades, with comments when appropriate. This system
also includes data on attendance, behavior, and standardized assessments. Parents and students have access to this information through
the SchoolView system via the internet.
We will also develop and disseminate end-of-year satisfaction surveys for representatives from any advocacy groups or community agencies
involved with students participating in the Alternative Delivery Program. The data will be reviewed by our Tier 2 Team (The Primary and
Intermediate school principals, psychologists, behavior specialists, reading specialists, and math specialists) for the purpose of making programmatic
changes or adjustments to our partnership arrangements.
Student satisfaction with the Alternative Delivery Program will be measured by increases in the target behavior (reading, math, social/emotional
functioning) and via end-of-year satisfaction surveys. Data will be examined by the Tier 2 Team for the purpose of making programmatic changes
and enhancing service delivery.
Evaluation Requirement
1. number of pupils with and
without a disability served;
2. impact of the program on
the academic and behavioral
progress and of pupils;
Procedures
(Data to be collected)
Count of unique students eligible for the Program during the
course of the Program year and whether they are sp.ed. eligible;
frequency of ultimate referral for sp.ed. evaluation and outcome;
Count of students served by the Program and served through
Special Education
Direct observations of behavior; frequency of Office Discipline
Referrals (ODR’s); general outcomes measures of literacy;
Diagnostic measures of literacy including Rigby Reading Levels
and classroom Portfolio information (e.g., from Kindergarten);
General Outcomes Measures of literacy development three times
per year for all K-5 students and selected 6-8 students, bi-monthly
to weekly data collected for at-risk learners; administration of
NWEA MAP tests in Reading and Math two to three times per year
(depending on grade level); MCA-2 results for children grades 3
and up; research and implement a general outcomes measure for
math/early numeracy
Evaluation Measure
Internal spreadsheet (via Excel) maintained to track
students eligible for the Alternative Delivery Program as well
as Title One, Tier 3, and other support services; cross
reference special education data with TIES database;
SWIS will be used to track ODR’s and Check-In/Check-Out
data; Direct Behavior Ratings (DBR’s) and Momentary Time
Sampling observations will be used to collect data regarding
student behavioral performance; Aimsweb will be used to
track Oral Reading Fluency as well as other measures of
literacy; at the 6-8 building use of a computer-adapted
reading measure being developed at the U of M will be
explored; a data management host will be selected for
general outcomes measures in math; Kindergarten portfolio
data will be maintained in Access; Rigby reading levels;
NWEA MAP tests in reading and math (K-8 (access via
Cognos/Query Studio and the NWEA Dynamic Report
System); an analysis of pre- and post- program performance
will be calculated, both by cohort and grade level over time
with regard to percent of students meeting individual growth
targets and percentage of students on track to be proficient
on the MCA’s.
10
3. level of satisfaction of
teachers, parents/guardians
and pupils have with the
program;
Direct opinions of teachers, parents/guardians, and pupils in
response to closed- and open-ended questions inquiring about
response to the Program
Anonymous Survey to be developed and administered at
the conclusion of the school year to teachers, parents, and
students involved in the program
4. effect of the program on the
number of referrals for special
education, Title 1 and other
federal programs;
Referrals to our Problem-Solving Team will be tracked along with
primary presenting concerns – these data will be compared with
that from previous school years; additionally, data will continue to
be tracked regarding special education referral and assessment
rates; Title 1 participation will continue to be tracked along with
outcome data for that program
Inventory of all primary and supplemental curricula / interventions
that are research-based; use of Fidelity Checklists or scripts for
implementation of these interventions (administered via
observation and/or interview)
Comparison of Problem-Solving Team referrals and Special
Education referrals / assessments longitudinally (pre- and
post-program implementation); spreadsheet containing all
participants in the Alt. Delivery Program with referrals to
additional support programs (e.g., Title 1, Sp.Ed.) and
eligibility outcomes
Inventory of curricula / supplements; fidelity checklists;
observations and interviews; review of academic and
behavioral outcomes data (CBM, NWEA) to determine
effectiveness for specific students and for the program
overall.
District accountant attending to appropriate maintenance of the
Project’s budget; spreadsheet maintained with all expenses related
to the project on an ongoing basis; year-end analysis of
sustainability needs for Program elements
A review of local improvement plans (e.g., district’s Balanced
Scorecard; CIMP documents) by all teachers and administrators
participating in the program; matching ongoing data collection
efforts to Balanced Scorecard elements; consider
representativeness of different ethnic groups in our Tiers of
intervention and referrals for special education – monitor; work to
align reporting efforts to ease data collection requirements
Review of budget spreadsheet and expenditures; analysis of
costs incurred, identification of elements essential to the
program, and analysis of sustainability
5. effective practices for pupils;
6. cost implications; and
7. impact on data reporting on
local improvement plans.
Requirements as indicated on the district’s Balanced
Scorecard; CIMP plans; monitoring of Program membership
representative of our student population in our intervention
programs and special education; qualitative analysis of
whether data collection and reporting efforts were simplified
and redundancy reduced
11
MID-YEAR EVALUATION REPORT (See Appendix A for Evaluation Report Form)
Required for Option 1 & 2
Points Possible: 30 points
Please limit the length of the response to six (6) pages.
See Attached.
12
APPLICATION COVER SHEET
Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services
Minnesota Statute § 125A.50
Application for 2009-2010 School Year
Required Form
Complete this form electronically by filling in the form fields. The individual(s) with legal authority must sign.
PROGRAM INFORMATION
Starting Date: July 1, 2009
Ending Date: June 30, 2010
Option 1) Renewing application NOT making
significant changes
Program Title: System-Wide Intervention Model
Option 2) Renewing application making significant changes
Grade Level(s) to be served: K - 8
Location of Program (list school sites): ISD #832: WW Elementary
FUNDING SOURCE: Minn. Stat. § 125A.50 and 125A.78
School (K-2), OH Anderson Elementary School (3-5), Mahtomedi
Middle School (6-8)
APPLICANT INFORMATION
District/Charter School: Mahtomedi - ISD #832
ISD#:
Federal Tax ID: 41-6007883
State Tax ID: 69-0410942
and Vendor #
(required upon request when being considered for district/charter
school)
Address: 1520 Mahtomedi Ave; Mahtomedi, MN 55115
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
LEGALLY BINDING
NAME AND TITLE OF IDENTIFIED OFFICIAL WITH AUTHORITY
Name and Title: Mark Wolak, Superintendant
PERSON WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN LEGAL DOCUMENTS
ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT/CHARTER SCHOOL
_________________________________Date _____
MAIN PERSON WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN LEGAL DOCUMENTS ON
BEHALF OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT/CHARTER SCHOOL
BY SIGNING, YOU ARE GRANTING APPROVAL TO SUBMIT
YOU MUST ALSO SIGN THE AGREEMENT TO COMPLY FORM
Name of Superintendent: Mark Wolak
_________________________________Date _____
SIGNATURE OF SUPERINTENDENT
ADDRESS: 1520 MAHTOMEDI AVE; MAHTOMEDI, MN 55115
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
NAME AND TITLE OF PROGRAM CONTACT:
Address: Lynne Viker, Director of Special Services
1520 Mahtomedi Ave; Mahtomedi, MN 55115
District or Charter School Accountant: Lynda Counihan
Address: (same as above)
Telephone: 651-407-2422
Fax: 651-407-2025
Email: lynne.viker@mahtomedi.k12.mn.us
Telephone: 651-407-2031
Fax: 651-407-2025
Email:lynda.counihan@mahtomedi.k12.mn.us
13
AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH ASSURANCES FORM
Complete this form electronically by filling in the form fields. The individual(s) with legal authority must sign.
In regard to potential funding of an Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services program, the following clauses are stated in their entirety
in the application materials section titled ASSURANCES. For the purpose of this form, said clauses are referenced only by their clause number and
heading hereafter in this Agreement to Comply with Assurances form.
The district/charter school must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations and provisions stated
therein and herein in the performance of the program should expenditures be approved. As part of the application requirements, applicant must sign
and submit this form and attach applicable certification(s) indicating its agreement to comply with the provisions of the application and assurance
clauses.
19. OTHER PROVISIONS
Regarding clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16:
These provisions are required when the program involves federal funds. Applicants shall refer to the regulations cited to determine the certification
to which they are required to attest. Applicants should also review the instructions for certification included in the regulations before completing this
form. Signature of this form provides for compliance with certification requirements under 34 CFR Part 82, "New Restrictions on Lobbying,"; 34 CFR
Part 84, Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace and 34 CFR Part 85 Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and the certifications shall be treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when the Minnesota
Department of Education determines the approved expenditures.
The title of the funding opportunity: Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services
The applicant shall list the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with this specific funding opportunity.
________________________________________
______________________________
Place of Performance
Street Address
_________________________________________
_______________________________
County
City, State and Zip Code
Check if there are (additional) workplaces on file that are not identified above.
By signing this form, I _______________________________________________ the applicant, acknowledge that I have read the assurances in
their entirety as stated within the application materials and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations and provisions stated therein and herein in the performance of the Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services program
should the district/charter school’s application be approved. I hereby assure and agree to comply with all conditions and submit required documents
and certifications as required.
__________________________________________/_______________________________/____________
Print Name and Title of Identified Official with Authority to sign
Signature
Date
Must bear same signature as on the Application Cover Sheet
14
ASSURANCES
Approved programs shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations and provisions. The applicant
shall sign and submit the attached “AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH ASSURANCES” form indicating its agreement should expenditures be
approved.
19. OTHER PROVISIONS be it understood:
A. By filing of this application, the applicant has therefore obtained the necessary legal authority to apply for and receive the proposed funds;
B.
The filing of this application has been authorized by applicant’s governing body, and the undersigned official (on the Application Cover
Page and Agreement to Comply Form) has been duly authorized to file this application for and on behalf of said applicant, and otherwise to
act as the representative of the applicant in connection with this application;
C. The activities and services for which assistance is sought under this program will be administered by or under the supervision and control
of applicant;
D. Funds shall not be used to supplant funds normally budgeted by the applicant/agency. Total time for each staff paid for through various
funding streams shall not exceed one Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
E.
Fiscal control and accounting procedures will be used to ensure proper disbursement of all approved funding;
F.
Every reasonable effort will be made by the applicant to continue the project after the termination of state/federal funding;
G. If the Authorized Representative listed on the application cover sheet changes at any time during the funding period, the applicant must
immediately notify the State;
H. The State's Authorized Representative, or his/her successor, listed on the Official Approval Notification has the responsibility to monitor the
performance of the program and has the authority to accept the services provided by the program.
I.
All services provided by the applicant must be performed to the State’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s
Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. The
applicant will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state or local law;
J.
Any amendment to an approved program must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same
parties who approved the original program application, or their successors in office;
K.
If the State fails to enforce any provision of a program, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it;
L.
An ADSIS program may be cancelled by the State or applicant at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to
the other party. In the event of such a cancellation, applicant shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or
services performed to the State’s satisfaction. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the event the reimbursement to the State
sources or appropriations by the Minnesota Legislature are not obtained and continued at an aggregate level sufficient to allow for the
applicants program to continue operating, the program shall immediately be terminated upon written notice by the State to the applicant. In
the event of such termination, the applicant shall be entitled to payment determined on a pro rata basis, for services performed and
liabilities already accrued prior to such termination;
M. The State may cancel an ADSIS program immediately if the State finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of the
approved program, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the purposes for which the funds were approved have not been or
will not be fulfilled. The State may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional
funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed.
N. As an applicant you fully understand that this is an approval process and as a result, your application may not be funded. The application
process is designed to provide an equitable opportunity for eligible candidates to apply. It is to be understood that one or more factors may
result in a funding or a non-funded outcome. The review process includes a consistent, impartial application review conducted for all
applications that meet the requirements set forth in the application instructions. As applications are evaluated based on the information
provided by the applicant and failure to comply with submission requirements, is solely the responsibility of the applicant. All funding
decisions made by the Commissioner of Education are final.
O. The school district/charter school will meet its obligation to provide special instruction and services to children with a disability according to
Minnesota Statutes § 125A.03 to 125A.25 and 125A.65 (Minn. Stat. § 125A.50, subdivision 4).
15
P.
The school district/charter school must submit to the Commissioner of Education a report containing the information described in
Minnesota Statute § 125A.50, subdivision 3 (Minn. Stat. § 125A.50, subdivision 5). Applicants failing to submit a complete report violate
Minnesota Statute § 125A.50, subdivisions 3 and 5, and will not be approved for subsequent years.
Q. A student who is eligible for services under Minnesota Statutes § 125A.03 to 125A.24 and 125.65 is entitled to procedural protections
under 20 United States Code § 33, in any matter that affects the identification, evaluation, placement or change in placement of a student.
R. The applicant must ensure the protection of a student’s civil rights, provide equal education opportunities and prohibit discrimination (Minn.
Stat. § 125A.50, subdivision 6).
S.
Programs must comply with applicable monitoring, training, meeting and evaluation requirements.
T.
The applicant must include procedures to document that federal special education funds are used to supplement or increase the level of
special education instruction or related services, provided with state and local revenue, but in no case supplant that revenue or affects the
school district/charter school maintenance of effort.
1. Maintenance of effort calculation does not include the following:
i.Funding Source Code C Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services program Regular Year
ii. Funding Source Code N Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services program Extended Year
iii.Any lines in error on EDRS
U. Staff performing duties in these programs must hold appropriate licensure and meet the appropriate requirements to be highly qualified in
the content area they are teaching, consistent with Minnesota Statute § 122A.16, 34 CFR § 300.18 and 34 CFR § 200.56. Copies of the
licensure should be maintained by the district for purposes of program and fiscal monitoring by MDE.
16
APPLICATION BUDGET SUMMARY FOR 2009-2010 SCHOOL YEAR
Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services
Minnesota Statute § 125A.50
DIVISION NAME:
Office of School Improvement and Accountability/ Special Education Policy
DISTRICT/CHARTER SCHOOL NAME ,TYPE AND NUMBER:
Mahtomedi – ISD #832
FISCAL AGENT NAME: Mahtomedi Public Schools
PROJECT NAME: State Aid Alternative Delivery of Specialized Instructional Services
PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENT for current year Alternative Delivery of Special Instructional services: 795
All expenditures should be coded to UFARS Finance code 740/335 and Program code 422. The EDRS Funding Source is
C for regular year and N for extended year. The EDRS Disability code is 422.
UFARS
EDRS
MDE AMOUNT
REVENUE
OBJECT SERVICE
BUDGET LINE ITEM CATEGORIES
OF FUNDS
INCOME IF
CODES
CODES
REQUESTED
APPLICABL
$475,000
E
SALARIES AND WAGES (Payroll Personnel)
140-144 A & U
Number of Teachers Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) requested: 9.5
Number of Other Professional Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
requested:
Number of Paraprofessional Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
requested:
CONTRACTED PERSONNEL/AGENCY SERVICES FOR
394
B&p
PUPILS
Number of Contracted Professional Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
requested:
Number of Contracted Other Professional Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs) requested:
Number of Contracted Paraprofessional Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs) requested:
SUPPLIES – INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
433
H
AND TESTING MATERIALS
$20,850
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS – Instructional $20,850
530/545/
555/580 P
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR EQUIPMENT FOR
INSTRUCTION
TOTAL
NOTE:
$ 495,850
$
A budget revision request must be submitted for any budget line item changes of more than 10% per
line item category. Contact the State Aid Specialist (see page 8 of instructions) BEFORE making
changes. Changes in any approved budget amount must be submitted on the REQUEST FOR
EXPENDITURE CHANGE FORM (see Appendix C).
17
Appendix A:
X Mid year
ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY OF SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES EVALUATION REPORT
SY 2008-2009
Final
Date of Report: March 10, 2009
District/Charter School Name: Mahtomedi Public Schools - ISD #832
Title of Program: System-Wide Intervention Model
Person completing evaluation report and contact information: Heidi Springborg, #651-407-2422
1. NUMBER OF PUPILS WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES SERVED
Grade Level K
Total student enrollment in grade levels served
1st
182
2nd
3rd
193
4th
180
5th
212
Total
218
215
1200
Total special education enrollment in grade
levels served
18
28
24
18
37
25
150
Total number of pupils by grade level served in
the alternative delivery program
R = 46
M = -**U = 46
B=3
R = 42
M = 95
U = 95
B=3
R = 41
M = 46
U = 55
B=4
R = 37
M = 43
U = 46
B=3
R = 51
M = 58
U = 69
B = 11
R = 52
M = 65
U = 83
B=4
Total number of pupils on IEPs by grade level
served in the alternative delivery program
0
0
0
0
0
0
R = 269
M = 307
*T = 576
**U = 394
B = 28
0
R=Reading, M=Math, B=Behavior
*T = total of students served in Reading and Math (including students served in both Reading and math)
**U = Unique students (unduplicated count) – this number is adjusted for those who receive service in both reading and math
Notes about enrollment in ADSIS:
1st Grade: ALL reading ADSIS students are also eligible for MATH ADSIS; additionally, there are 53 more students eligible only for math. The
unique student count for 1st grade is 95.
2nd Grade: 35 of these students are eligible for both Reading and Math ADSIS support. There are 13 students who are only eligible for Math and 7
only eligible for Reading ADSIS. The unique student count for 2nd Grade is 55.
3rd Grade: 21 of these students are eligible for both Reading and Math ADSIS. There are 14 students who are only eligible for Math and 11 only
eligible for Reading ADSIS. The unique student count for 3rd Grade is 46.
4th Grade: 40 of these students are eligible for both Reading and Math ADSIS. There are 18 students who are only eligible for Math and 11 only
eligible for Reading ADSIS. The unique student count for 4th Grade is 69.
5th Grade: 37 of these students are eligible for both Reading and Math ADSIS. There are 31 students who are only eligible for Math and 15 only
eligible for Reading ADSIS. The unique student count for 3rd Grade is 83.
2. IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM ON ACADEMIC AND BEHAVIORAL PROGRESS
(NOTE: GOALS FROM ORIGINAL APPLICATION WERE USED FOR THIS MIDYEAR REPORT– NOT THE NEW FORMAT OF THE 20092010 APPLICATION)
Academic Achievement Goal from Application: Decrease our identification of students as needing special education instruction/services to
remediate academic difficulties and increase our number of students who are highly likely to be proficient on the MCA’s. This will be accomplished
via a 3+ Tier instruction, problem-solving, and assessment model. Tiered intervention will be based upon individual student need as identified by
NWEA data, CBM data, running records, and classroom work samples.
Behavior Goal from Application: Decrease our identification of students as needing special education instruction/services to remediate
social/emotional/behavioral difficulties and increase our number of students who respond to our core social/emotional/behavioral curriculum and
supports. This will be accomplished via a 3+ Tier instruction, problem-solving, and assessment model. Tiered intervention will be based upon
individual student need as identified by SWIS, observational, teacher rating data, health records, and parent reports.
Describe how you determined the level of progress using the measure described in SMART goal statement. Eligiblity, readiness for exiting, and
18
level of progress toward goal were primarily determined by NWEA-MAP data in reading and math. When these data were not available,
Curriculum-based measures of reading and early literacy were used (CBM's are also used to make instructional delivery changes and make
intermediate determinations about response to intervention between benchmark periods). The designations in this report were defined in the
following way:
Significant Improvement = met exit criteria or has demonstrated “Tier 1” level performance on the most recent NWEA-MAP test
Some improvement = Student has demonstrated growth toward his/her individual growth target, but is still within the same range of risk (i.e., “Tier”)
for poor performance on the MCA’s
Stayed the Same – made no growth toward individual growth targets per NWEA-MAP data
Some Decline = Student has demonstrated a one “Tier” drop in his/her designation per NWEA-MAP test data, thus increasing their risk for poor
performance on the MCA’s
Significant Decline = Student has demonstrated a two “Tier” drop in his/her performance data per the NWEA-MAP tests
Reading = 269
Level
Number
Math = 307
Level
Number
Writing
Level
Number
Behavior = 28
Level
Number
Significant improvement = 139
Significant improvement = 149
Significant improvement
Significant improvement = 10
Some improvement= 105
Some improvement = 111
Some improvement
Some improvement = 15
Stayed the same= 11
Stayed the same = 18
Stayed the same
Stayed the same = 2
Some decline = 10
Some decline = 17
Some decline
Some decline = 1
Significant decline = 4
Significant decline = 12
Significant decline
Significant decline = 0
Did you make your academic achievement goal? Why or why not?
Yes – we are making excellent progress toward meeting this goal! For the current academic year, we have conducted 7 initial evaluations for
special education in grades K-5 (not including mandatory evaluations for triennial review or for students receiving ECSE who are being assessed
for categorical eligibility). There are an additional 5 evaluation in progress. Of those evaluations completed, three children did not meet eligibility
criteria (however, one due to excessive absenteeism and inconsistent education and another, due to a medical delay in obtaining a medical
diagnosis – eligibility is pending receipt of this information). Of the 4 that did qualify for special education, two qualified as Other Health Disabled
and 2 as having Autism Spectrum Disorders. No children during the 2009-2010 academic year, thus far, have qualified for special education for a
Specific Learning Disability. This may change when the final 5 initial evaluation are complete. Of the students transitioning from ECSE/DD to
categorical, one child has met eligibility criteria as a student with Specific Learning Disability.
In Mahtomedi, we reference research from TIES regarding the potential of NWEA performance to predict success on the MN Comprehensive
Assessments. This research suggests the level of performance, or “target” performance that a student should attain to be highly likely to be
successful on the MCAs. Conversely, this research also describes levels of performance that suggest varying degrees of risk for poor MCA
performance. This research helps us to define the assessed performance that populates our 3-Tier instruction and intervention model. As with
other RtI models, we assess the health of our system by determining the success of most students. To have the resources to adequately address
the needs of our learners, we strive to have 80% of students “responding” (i.e., on track to be proficient on the MCAs) to our core curriculum – this
is referred to as Tier 1. Tier 2 is populated by students whose data suggest that they have about a 50/50 chance of being proficient on the MCA’s
per the aforementioned TIES research) – ideally, this Tier would be comprised of about 15% of a given population. Finally, Tier 3 consists of
students who are highly unlikely to be proficient on the MCA’s (~80-90% chance of not being proficient) – this Tier should not consist of more than
5% of a population.
According to 1st grade NWEA math data from the fall of 2008-09, we had only 59% of the grade at Tier 1, 30% at Tier 2, and 11% at Tier 3. For 2nd
Grade, Tier 1 was comprised of 77%, Tier 2, 15%, and Tier 3, 8%. By our Winter benchmark time in January, the 1 st grade group had 81% of
students at Tier 1, 15% at Tier 2, and 4% at Tier 3. Second grade demonstrated an almost identical distribution with 81% at Tier 1, 15% at Tier 2,
and 5% at Tier 3. (Note – NWEA data is collected for at-risk learners three times per year, but universally for grades 3-5 in the Fall and Spring
only; thus, it will not be possible to compare the entire population until after the spring data collection period).
According to the 1st grade NWEA Reading data from the fall of 2008-09, we had 80% of students at Tier 1, 19% at Tier2, and 1% at Tier 3.
Second grade had 71% of students at Tier 1, 28% at Tier 2, and 2% at Tier 3. While these numbers demonstrate a very manageable Tier 3
population (i.e., services for the most discrepant learners), they represent an over-inflated Tier 2 – students who need supplements to the core
curriculum or additional practice in a few discreet skills. By this winter, due largely to the ADSIS program, this bulge at Tier 2 was corrected: at 1st
grade, 91% of students were at Tier 1f, 8% at Tier 2, and 1% at Tier 3; at 2nd grade, 84% were at Tier 1, 12% were at Tier 2, and 4%, at Tier 3.
From September of 2008 to January of 2009, 134 of the 307 ADSIS students (i.e., 44% across grades 1-5) in Math decreased their “risk” level by 1
Tier or more (e.g., they moved from performing at Tier 2 to Tier 1). Additionally, 132 of the 269 ADSIS students (i.e., 49% across grades K-5) in
Reading decreased their “risk” level by at least 1 Tier. This suggests that, of the students who qualified for ADSIS in Reading and Math, there is
an increase of 44% and 49%, respectively, of students who have less risk for poor outcomes on the MCAs.
19
Did you make your behavior goal? Why or why not?
We are on track for meeting behavioral goal insofar as we reduced referrals for special education and appear to have most students “responding”
to our core social/emotional/behavioral instruction (98% at grades K-2; 97% at grades 3-5). Additionally, EBD rates at our 3-5 building have
been cut by 50%. However, we have noticed that there is additional training to be done with staff to increase the fidelity of our data collection
system for social/behavioral issues (SWIS). We also need to consider alternative methods for tracking social/emotional/behavioral concerns
that are less overt or more “internalizing” in presentation. While we believe that our current system is doing an excellent job of supporting
students’ behavior, we may not be capturing the range of social/emotional/behavioral concerns with which children present.
3. LEVEL OF SATISFACTION TEACHERS, PARENTS/GUARDIANS, PUPILS, AND
PARENT/COMMUNITY ADVOCATES HAVE WITH PROGRAM
Describe the process (including survey instrument) used to determine stakeholder satisfaction including how you arrived at the degree of satisfaction
rating: To gather mid-year data regarding stakeholder satisfaction, we developed a survey and piloted it with a small sample from each stakeholder
group. The survey asked respondents to answer six questions using a three-point likert-type scale (questions queried parallel content, but wording
varied mildly based on group being questioned). The responses for all survey options were as follows: Not at all true (0), A Little True (1), and Very
True (3). The questions probed: degree of fit between instruction and child’s skills, interest in learning topic, excitement about learning topic,
demonstration of skill growth, perceptions of being part of the classroom community, and overall satisfaction. Teacher surveys were distributed to a
sample of teachers of students participating in the ADSIS program. Parent surveys were sent home with a sample of students participating in the
program. Parent and Community advocate surveys were distributed directly to a sample of these persons. Pupils were not directly surveyed for this
mid-year report; rather, their perception of their instruction was indirectly assessed via teacher and parent ratings of interest, excitement, and growth.
Stakeholders
Teachers
Parent/Guardians
Pupils
Parent/
Community
Advocates
Summative Analysis of Stakeholder Data
Math: Overall, students’ homeroom teachers reported a good fit between students’ skills
and their math instruction (1.83), a lot of excitement for learning math (1.83), interest in
learning math (1.83), and overall satisfaction with ADSIS students’ math instruction
(2.0). Math teacher surveys suggest strong perceptions of goodness of fit between
skills and instruction (2.0), interest in learning math (1.75), students’ feelings of being
part of a classroom community (1.92), and overall satisfaction with ADSIS students’
instruction (1.92).
Reading: Of returned surveys, homeroom teachers reported excellent ratings in all
areas surveyed (2.0 for all questions). Reading teacher ratings suggest very strong
ratings for goodness of fit between students’ skills and instruction (2.0), feelings of being
part of a classroom community (2.0), growth in reading skills (1.78), and overall
satisfaction with ADSIS students’ instruction (2.0). Only mildly lower were ratings for
interest and excitement for learning reading (1.67, both).
Math: Of returned surveys, parents reported excellent ratings in all areas surveyed (2.0
for all questions).
Reading: Parents surveyed reported, on average, a good fit between their children’s
skills and their instruction (1.75), observed growth in reading skills (1.75), feelings that
their children are part of the classroom community (1.75), and overall satisfaction with
ADSIS students’ reading instruction (2.0). Slightly lower ratings were obtained for
interest in learning reading (1.5) and excitement about learning reading (1.25).
Across stakeholder groups, students are perceived as feeling like they are part of their
classroom communities. They also perceived as making good growth in their reading
and math skills and expressing interest and excitement about learning. These indirect
measures of student satisfaction suggest a good degree of success. Direct measures of
student perceptions should be obtained in the future.
Of the advocates surveyed, an average rating of 2.0 was obtained for 1) ratings of
goodness of fit between students’ skills and reading/math instruction; 2) perceptions of
students’ interest in learning; and 3) perception that creating a community of learners is
important. An average rating of 1.67 was obtained re: student excitement for learning
and overall satisfaction regarding quality of instruction.
Degree of Satisfaction
(Check one)
High X
Medium
Low
High X
Medium
Low
High X
Medium
Low
High X
Medium
Low
4. EFFECT OF THE PROGRAM ON THE NUMBER OF REFERRALS FOR SPECIAL
EDUCATION, FEDERAL TITLE 1 AND OTHER COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS
20
Referral Goal from Application: (in our original application, this was integrated into our behavioral and academic goals. See above)
Total number of pupils in prevention program
Pupils that exited the prevention program because they met the goals established by
the program
Number
Rdg = 269
Math = 307
*Total both = 576
**Unduplicated
count = 394
Behavior = 28
Rdg = 30
Math = 41
Behavior = 3
Percentage of Students Served
in ADSIS Program
Reading = 22%
Math = 26%
Unduplicated Students Served
by ADSIS in Reading and/or
Math: 33%
Behavior = 2%
Rdg = 11%
Math = 13%
Behavior = 11%
Special Education:
Number of pupils in prevention program referred to special education
7
Number of pupils from the prevention program that were referred and became
0 (but 4 are in
eligible for special education.
progress)
Federal Title 1:
Number of pupils in prevention program referred to Title 1
27
Number of pupils from the prevention program that were referred and became
23
eligible for federal Title 1.
Other Compensatory Programs (list): NA
(Repeat the following two lines for each compensatory program separately.)
Number of pupils referred for
Number of pupils from the prevention program that were referred and became
eligible for
1.7%
0%
2%
1.9%
Summative analysis of significant changes or trends on pupil referral to special education, federal Title 1 or other compensatory programs:
Students referred for a special education evaluation have tended to have more global learning deficits and have shown considerably lower-thanexpected response to intervention in reading and/or math; however, were we to have eligibility criteria in place for an RtI model, these students
would still have not qualified as they were not performing below the 5th percentile. Kids referred for sp.ed. tend to have skills that fall between the
5th and 15th percentile but do not have cognitive skills “high” enough to obtain the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement. In
planning for subsequent years of program implementation, we will continue to refine our instructional groups, our data sources and analysis for
making instructional decisions, and our treatment fidelity. Additionally, we are exploring the integration of a speech/language clinician into our Tier
2 and 3 classes to support the development of key vocabulary and language skills for building academic proficiency.
The ADSIS program and a global RtI / PBIS model has significantly reduced the number of students referred for a special education evaluation,
particularly for suspected Specific Learning Disabilities and Emotional/Behavioral Disorders; however, referrals for Autism Spectrum-related
concerns remain persistent. Additionally, referrals and specialized needs continue in the area of Other Health Disabilities – especially as related
to the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
As we move into new years of the ADSIS program, we would like to explore alternative ways of defining Tier “membership” for
social/emotional/behavioral concerns. While SWIS records Office Discipline Referrals and classroom observations document overt, observable
behavior, there are elements of “need” that are not being captured by our current system. Specifically, we cannot use these methods to capture
students who may be experiencing personal perceptions of social stress or emotional difficulties.
Did you make your referral goal? Why or why not?
Based on our referral, assessment, and eligibility data thus far in 2008-09, we appear to be on track to reach our goal. We have reduced,
significantly, the number of students referred and assessed for Specific Learning Disabilities (7 evaluations this year that are in progress or
completed where SLD was a primary consideration – thus far, 0 have qualified even though their rate of response to intervention was slower than
expected and their performance over time was lower than age-mates). Our total rates for SLD, ASD, EBD, and OHD appear to be close to last
year, but much less than previous years. Important to note is that the EBD rate for the grades 3-5 building has been halved.
Our social/emotional/behavioral support structure is proving to effectively build the social competencies of most children in grades K-5 as
evidenced by the large “responder” rate demonstrated by our SWIS data (over 98% in Tier 1 at Wildwood).
21
5. EFFECTIVE PRACTICES FOR PUPILS
Describe the kind of pupils for which the program was most effective and include evidence to support this conclusion: Our data
indicated a bi-modal distribution of eligibility – very young (i.e., Kindergarten/1st grade) and very old (i.e., 5th grade) students tended to have
higher rates of eligibility for the program than the intervening grades. Younger students appeared to respond much more quickly to the program
as evidenced by higher “exit” rates for K and 1st grade vs. older grades. Students who had a lesser-degree of risk also appeared to make more
progress (i.e, across grades, more students moved from Tier 2 to Tier 1 than moved from Tier 3 to Tier 2). For example,
Area Grade Beg. Tier
End. Tier
Count
Math
1st
3
2
7
Math
1st
2
1
34
Math
2nd
3
2
3
Math
2nd
2
1
23
Reading 1st
3
2
0
Reading 1st
2
1
21
Reading 4th
3
2
8
Reading 4th
2
1
13
These results suggest that the ADSIS program provided the most effective intervention for students at moderate to severe risk for poor
performance on the MCA’s (i.e., a ~50/50 chance at proficiency); however, for students who were significantly below average (i.e, very low in a
Tier 3), the first ½ year of the ADSIS program was insufficient for diminishing their academic risk.
Although the total ESL population in the ADSIS program was very low (12 students), 75% of LEP students (9) made some to significant growth in
response to this model.
Describe the kind of pupils for which the program was least effective and include evidence to support this conclusion: As stated
above, older students who were significantly discrepant from their peers appeared to benefit least from this first ½ year of the ADSIS program;
however, it is important to note that almost all of these students made growth toward their individual growth targets per the NWEA MAP tests.
These students may require more engaged time in the intervention program and more practice of deficient skills to reduce their overall risk.
We also noted that, at the higher grade levels (e.g., 4th and 5th grades), Tier 3 starts to get inflated (e.g., 4th Gr. Reading = 9% of whole grade in
Tier 3 NOT including special education students; 5th gr. Reading = 7% at Tier 3; 4th gr. Math at Tier 3 = 9%). Although Tier 2 seems to wane in
size over time, it will be important to monitor 4th and 5th grades to ensure that the distribution isn’t increasing Tier 3 and Tier 2 without addressing
the Tier 2 needs of kids.
Behaviorally, the ADSIS program did not seem to “capture,” or therefore adequately “treat” students with less overt, or internalizing behaviors.
To address this concern, we will explore screening instruments for these types of student issues and supplement our intervention menu based
on that data. Evidence to support this conclusion comes from two sources: First, our SWIS data relies on Office Discipline Referrals, which are
most often the result of disruptive disengagement. Second, the data that we collect through our Tier 2 problem-solving system (where teachers
discuss all students who present with concerns) reflects a higher incidence of concerns regarding low affect, quiet disengagement, inattention,
and social awkwardness, all concerns that would not necessarily be captured via SWIS. Currently, our data collection for this population is
primarily based on informal observation, health records, and intuition.
We also found that the progress of some students in the ADSIS program was hindered by mild difficulties with fine motor skills or language skills.
While progress may be enhanced through consultation and support from Occupational Therapists and Speech/Language clinicians, our access
to these professionals is limited by special education rules and regulations. We are currently brainstorming some ways to address these
concerns, but funding and schedules are proving to be formidable barriers.
Describe the nature of the interventions that were most effective and include evidence to support this conclusion: The aforementioned menu of
Tier 2 and 3 interventions for Reading and Math were effective for remediating academic difficulties when interventionists had the discretion of
altering instruction and strategy when performance data indicated a need. For students in the ADSIS program for social/emotional/behavioral
concerns, the interventions that produced the most growth were Check-in/check-out, targeted social skills groups, mentorship, strategic use of
external reinforcers (i.e., rewards, natural consequences) and individualized counseling.
The most effective interventions across ADSIS areas incorporated:
- focus on specific sub-skill development (e.g., phonological awareness training, decoding, number sense, social interactions)
- Increased opportunities for each students to respond, either chorally or individually
- General outcomes measures to guide ongoing instructional decision-making
- Increased time for practicing skills (more repetition of skills)
- Distributed practice
- Scaffolding and strategic introduction of key concepts (e.g., Orton-Gillingham’s recommended introduction of letters)
- The teaching of “routines” necessary for success
22
- Individualized practice sessions based on performance data (e.g., Yearly Progress Pro for math)
- maximizing academic engaged time via:
- narrowing the skill range within groups by flexibly grouping students based on performance data, reviewing data frequently, and
persistently measuring student growth via CBM’s.
- Providing smaller group sizes for intensive instruction (e.g., ~1:6 adult to student ratio at the primary level; maximum of 1:10 ratio at
the intermediate level)
- providing teachers with increased skills in classroom management and the development of learning communities (e.g., via Responsive
Classroom training and materials to be used directly with students)
- Providing increased social/emotional/behavioral intervention within academic settings for students in need (not removing students from
instructional time prematurely when support can be provided in natural environments)
- Providing teachers and students with state-of-the-art technology and tools to ensure that students are being instructed in an
environment that matches their technologically rich worlds (e.g., use of SmartBoards, web-based curriculum, etc.)
For all students grades K-5, the implementation of a solid Tier 1 social/emotional/behavioral program has resulted in increased academic
outcomes for most students by increasing academic engaged time, increasing student participation in learning communities, and enabling
students to be ‘available’ to instruction. Current SWIS data indicate that 98% of students grades K-2, and 97% at grades 3-5 are “responding” to
our core social/emotional/behavioral curriculum. This suggests that students are not requiring removal from the classroom for behavioral
concerns, which, in turn, makes them more available to instruction.
Based on data and experience, what recommendations, suggestions or effective practices might help other districts/charter schools?
Starting with good data is essential in this process – both for students and systems. Thus, it is important to have student-based universal
screening and progress monitoring measures in place to know 1) how effective current instruction is; 2) who is responding (or not) to core
instruction; 3) how many students need more support than what is routinely provided to all students; 4) what type of instruction students need;
and 5) whether intervention efforts are conferring benefit to recipients. System-based data should document perceived need for change,
readiness for change, key information about the culture of the system (i.e., beliefs, values, assumptions), and an inventory of human resources
that could be mobilized to effect system change. Underlying all of this is the need for effective leadership that understands the complexity of
systems work, effectively enhances staff competencies, and bridges areas of systemic deficits through resource allocation, staff development,
and scheduling.
We have found that it was essential to build up our Tier 1 and Tier 3 interventions and supports simultaneously. Tier 2 benefitted from the
overlap of resources and expertise given this approach. We find that it is now easier to “backfill” gaps in resources based on our data. We
would also recommend doing a complete inventory of available instructional resources/curriculum, data sources, and problem-solving structures
in each system. Finally, it is essential that staff who are asked to work with our most at-risk learners have the skills, desire, and resources to
complete this task with a high degree of success.
6. COST IMPLICATIONS
Describe the cost benefit, if any, of the program.
According to our district records, the cost of providing staff support for special education students is an average of $10,604.66 per pupil. In
contrast, the $325,000 we were able to access for the ADSIS program enabled 405 at-risk students to receive more appropriate, individualized,
intensive instruction – the cost of which is an average of $802.47 per pupil (based on unduplicated count for reading and math, plus behavioral
support for Tier 2). While this startling comparison should not suggest that we could save $9,000 per pupil by supplanting special education
services with ADSIS, it does suggest that it is amazingly cost effective to prevent inappropriate assessment of, and placement in special
education of students who are remediatable.
7. IMPACT OF ADSIS COORDINATION WITH OTHER DISTRICT/
CHARTER SCHOOL/LOCAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Summarize how coordination of the ADSIS program impacted the outcomes of other district/charter school/local school programs
including goals, use of assessments, achievement of academic standards, evaluation, and parental involvement? Results from our RtI
Grant project at Wildwood Elementary School strongly supported the power of a Tiered Instructional Model to optimize our resources and meet
kids’ needs in an effective, efficient manner. By coordinating these efforts with the ADSIS program, we have been able to extend this basic
framework to enhance reading instruction, develop a Tiered math program, and weave together our academic and social/emotional/behavioral
23
supports for kids. The ADSIS program also provides a good incentive for systems to embrace frequent data collection and the use of core
instruction for all academic areas (inclusive of social/emotional/behavioral functioning).
The problem-solving structures we foster during the school day pervade our communications and support of parents, also. This is evidenced by
our home-school connections being more solutions-focused and collaborative than in previous years. The development of this integrated model
has also continued to open doors for more inter-agency collaboration. For example, due to our implementation of PBIS, PACER is partnering
with ISD #832 to extend PBIS to home and community environments.
I certify that the above information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.
District Superintendent or Charter School Designee
Signature
Title
Date
24
Appendix C:
ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY PROGRAM REQUEST FOR EXPENDITURE CHANGE
District/Charter
School Name
District/Charter
School Number
UFARS
Mahtomedi Public Schools
#832
EDRS
OBJECT
CODES
SERVICE
CODES
140 - 144
A&U
BUDGET LINE ITEM CATEGORIES
SALARIES AND WAGES (Payroll
Personnel)
DATE 3/10/09
(for July 1, 200
June 30, 2010)
TOTAL
EXPENDITURE
BY LINE ITEM
CATEGORY
APPROVED
AMOUNT OF
CHANGE
$ 325,000
$ 150,000
Number of Teachers Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs) requested 9.5
Number of Other Professionals Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs) requested
Number of Paraprofessionals Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs requested
394
B&p
CONTRACTED
PERSONNEL/AGENCY SERVICES
FOR PUPILS
Number of Contracted Professional Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs) requested
Number of Contracted Professionals Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs) requested
Number of Contracted Paraprofessionals Full
Time Equivalents (FTEs requested
433
530 / 545 / 555
/ 580
H&u
P
SUPPLIES - INDIVIDUALIZED
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES AND
TESTING MATERIALS
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS -Instructional
$14,300
$12,
$339,300
$162,
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR
EQUIPMENT FOR INSTRUCTION
TOTAL
25
26