The Common Core has brought many changes to literacy and numeric programs. Even though Minnesota has not adopted the Common Core for math, the practices that are being used in math in Minnesota are similar in many ways. In the area of English Language Arts, Minnesota has adopted the Common Core and rolled out the deeper, comprehension-based standards to classrooms. Both schools’ literacy and numeric progress are tested and published annually for multiple grade levels. These scores, while relied heavily upon at the government level as school quality determinants, are in question for use as overarching evaluation criteria by many in the education field.
Despite the push-back on the use of standardized test data, it is being used to evaluate schools. So, I have always accepted it as law and tried to help set our students up for success. Our school uses an RtI format of student support. This structure begins with “first best instruction” which happens in the general classroom. Our teachers begin with rich, engaging, standards based lessons, use formative assessment throughout the lesson, and ensure mastery through summative assessments. This format is present in both ELA and math classes. If students do not show mastery of an essential concept, they participate in re-teaching exercises in order to catch up. If a student is experiencing on-going trouble in reaching the standards, teachers begin a series of classroom interventions to try to impact success. If a student is still struggling, teachers refer the student to the building intervention team (iTeam). I have served on iTeam in all three buildings in the district, helping to support students who are showing a pattern of low or no growth in the areas of math and/or ELA. The iTeam uses a problem solving process to find a root cause of the problem and put into place further interventions (Artifact 1). Eventually, if students show great enough need, they may be tested for special education services or put on a 504 plan.
The RtI structure begins with the instruction that occurs in the general education classes. That instruction must begin with strong curriculum that incorporates the Minnesota Standards, leading to lessons based on student-friendly learning targets, and assessments that capture student understandings at an appropriate level of depth and rigor. I have been involved in the professional development for learning targets, engagement, and formative assessment district wide via PLCs. One year, we focused on instructional strategies from the book, each like a Champion: 49 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College (2010), and the next year, we focused on learning targets and formative assessment (Artifact 2).
Beginning in the fall of 2014, I was a part of the team that gathered data to propose the replacement of the current K-5 reading series. The current series was weak, including having leveled readers that were incorrectly leveled. The issues with the program were creating a lack of consistent teaching across the grades. By mid-year, the administration had listened, and we moved on to study our options for new purchase. I was part of a small group that went on school visits and heard company proposals. My two reading intervention colleagues and I also advised our curriculum director in many ways during this process (Artifact 3). We evaluated options, discussing with all stakeholders, and eventually chose a program. Purchases were made for grades 1 & 2, with grades K, 3, and 4 following for the 2016-2017 school year. Since the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year, I have been working with grades 1 & 2 to ensure consistent assessments are being used so we can use comparative data.
I have also been involved in creating a plan of academic interventions to prepare students for Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments at the high school level. I coordinated pre-testing, grouping, curriculum, instructors, and calendaring for intervention groups in both reading and math (Artifact 4).
Because the state and federal governments insist on the use of standardized testing as the evaluation tool for schools, we must do what we can to prepare our students for testing. This means strong, standards aligned lessons and assessments, as well as preparation for test taking itself.
Lemov, Doug. Teach like a Champion: 49 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.
Despite the push-back on the use of standardized test data, it is being used to evaluate schools. So, I have always accepted it as law and tried to help set our students up for success. Our school uses an RtI format of student support. This structure begins with “first best instruction” which happens in the general classroom. Our teachers begin with rich, engaging, standards based lessons, use formative assessment throughout the lesson, and ensure mastery through summative assessments. This format is present in both ELA and math classes. If students do not show mastery of an essential concept, they participate in re-teaching exercises in order to catch up. If a student is experiencing on-going trouble in reaching the standards, teachers begin a series of classroom interventions to try to impact success. If a student is still struggling, teachers refer the student to the building intervention team (iTeam). I have served on iTeam in all three buildings in the district, helping to support students who are showing a pattern of low or no growth in the areas of math and/or ELA. The iTeam uses a problem solving process to find a root cause of the problem and put into place further interventions (Artifact 1). Eventually, if students show great enough need, they may be tested for special education services or put on a 504 plan.
The RtI structure begins with the instruction that occurs in the general education classes. That instruction must begin with strong curriculum that incorporates the Minnesota Standards, leading to lessons based on student-friendly learning targets, and assessments that capture student understandings at an appropriate level of depth and rigor. I have been involved in the professional development for learning targets, engagement, and formative assessment district wide via PLCs. One year, we focused on instructional strategies from the book, each like a Champion: 49 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College (2010), and the next year, we focused on learning targets and formative assessment (Artifact 2).
Beginning in the fall of 2014, I was a part of the team that gathered data to propose the replacement of the current K-5 reading series. The current series was weak, including having leveled readers that were incorrectly leveled. The issues with the program were creating a lack of consistent teaching across the grades. By mid-year, the administration had listened, and we moved on to study our options for new purchase. I was part of a small group that went on school visits and heard company proposals. My two reading intervention colleagues and I also advised our curriculum director in many ways during this process (Artifact 3). We evaluated options, discussing with all stakeholders, and eventually chose a program. Purchases were made for grades 1 & 2, with grades K, 3, and 4 following for the 2016-2017 school year. Since the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year, I have been working with grades 1 & 2 to ensure consistent assessments are being used so we can use comparative data.
I have also been involved in creating a plan of academic interventions to prepare students for Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments at the high school level. I coordinated pre-testing, grouping, curriculum, instructors, and calendaring for intervention groups in both reading and math (Artifact 4).
Because the state and federal governments insist on the use of standardized testing as the evaluation tool for schools, we must do what we can to prepare our students for testing. This means strong, standards aligned lessons and assessments, as well as preparation for test taking itself.
Lemov, Doug. Teach like a Champion: 49 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.