JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL #51RALPH WALDO EMERSON #58

Indianapolis Public SchoolsOrton-Gillingham Pilot Program

2012-2013

The Need

A significant number of students read below grade level according to DIBELS and SRI data

Core reading program was not meeting the needs of most students*

More students needed reading interventions than could be serviced with resources available

Reading interventions did not complement or align to the core reading program

Students’ inability to read grade-level text impeded learning in all content areas

*Dynamic Measurement Group defines an effective Core Reading Program as one that results in less than 20% of students needing Tier II or Tier III interventions.

Why DIBELS?

Dynamic Indicators Basic Early Literacy SkillsDIBELS is comprised of seven measures to function as

indicators of phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency with connected text, reading comprehension, and vocabulary.

DIBELS was designed for use in identifying children experiencing difficulty in acquisition of basic early literacy skills in order to provide support early and prevent the occurrence of later reading difficulties.

There is a high correlation between DIBELS scores and scores of high-stakes assessments, such as ISTEP.

The Need

Getting to the Root of the CauseAnalyzed student data (DIBELS and TRC) measures

for performance trendsCompared SRI and DIBELS data to see if DIBELS

was a good predictor of later reading performance Selected a group of below-level readers in 4th-6th

grade to administer a diagnostic reading assessmentAnalyzed diagnostic data for trends

The Need

Diagnostic Data Revealed Students:Consistently confused short vowels Lacked an awareness of the six basic syllable

patternsStruggled to apply syllable division rules to decode

multi-syllabic wordsDid not have mastery of phonetically irregular, high-

frequency words

The Need

Diagnostic Data Revealed Students:Made more errors when prefixes and suffixes were

added to familiar base wordsHad difficulty understanding how morphemes

changed or enhanced the meaning of wordsHad issues with decoding that impeded fluency

and comprehension

What We Know

“Students who get effective intervention later (after third grade) do not catch up in terms of reading fluency. With intervention, they get close to their grade peers in terms of accuracy, but fluency, even though it improves over time, remains way behind peers’ and represents a significant reading impediment.”

Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, edited by Judith E Birsch, Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 2011 (page300)

What We Know

Under the proper teaching conditions, even students at the lower reading percentiles can reach a threshold of accuracy and fluency by the end of second or third grade. And then, going forward, they remain on par with their peers in accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. In other words, it is possible to short-circuit the usual year-by-year widening gap between average readers and those with reading disabilities when the “catch-up” occurs within the window of the early school years (Grades 1-3).

Torgeson and Hudson’s (2006)

What We Know

We have evidence that curriculum matters. Instruction that’s guided by a systematic and explicit curriculum is more effective, particularly with at-risk learners, than instruction that does not have these features.

Elissa J. Arndt, M.S. CCC-SLP, Florida Center for Reading Research. July, 2007

What We Know

Longstanding evidence reveals a striking difference in the number of practice repetitions different children require to reach a reliable level of word reading accuracy… teachers (should) differentiate the intensity and frequency of practice to meet students differing needs:

Four to fourteen repetitions for average young readersMore than 40 repetitions for those with reading

difficulties

Joseph Torgensen 2001

What We Know

Phonics instruction worksNot all phonics instruction follows the same

pedagogy or is created equal in terms of effectiveness

The National Reading Panel (NRP) recognizes five different approaches to teaching phonics: Analogy

Analytic

Embedded

Phonics through Spelling

Synthetic Phonics

Phonics Approaches Analytic

This approach is often thought of as whole to part. Students are given a set of words with a common unit. They are to break the words down into syllables and then individual sounds. Their goal is to find the common feature and make a connection between the sound and symbol.

Analogy

This is a form of analytic phonics that uses the concept of word families. Students learn a series of word families. When they encounter unfamiliar words, their goal is to identify a common word family within the word to help them decode.

Phonics through Spelling

This approach teaches phonics through spelling and writing that they are to apply in reading.

Phonics Approaches

EmbeddedThis form is often used in conjunction with a whole-language approach. Phonics instruction is not direct or intentional, but designed to be a teachable moment. Students and teachers observe patterns in the story, very similar to the word family approach in Analogy Phonics.

Synthetic This approach is named for it’s emphasis on students synthesizing, or pulling together sounds to create syllables and words. This approach is a part to whole approach that uses direct instruction to introduce a specific phoneme and grapheme pattern. This pattern is then used to blend syllables and words.

What We Know

The National Reading Panel Reports:“This type of phonics instruction [synthetic] benefits

both students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students who are not disabled. Moreover, systematic synthetic phonics instruction was significantly more effective in improving low socioeconomic status (SES) children’s alphabetic knowledge and word reading skills than instructional approaches that were less focused on these initial reading skills.”

What We Know

The National Reading Panel Reports:• “The ability to read and spell words was

enhanced in kindergarteners who received systematic beginning phonics instruction.”

• “First graders who were taught phonics systematically were better able to decode and spell, and they showed significant improvement in their ability to comprehend text.”

What We Know

Impact of Multisensory InstructionInstruction that is direct and meaningful is

not effective if students don’t have the capacity to retain and apply the skills in context.

Instruction that employs a multisensory approach is effective in engaging students’ permanent memory.

What We Know

What is Multisensory Instruction?

Simultaneous deployment of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile sensory modalities that supports the connection of oral language with visual language symbols

What We Know

Impact of Multisensory InstructionExposure to stimuli through multisensory

experiences results in superior recognition of objects compared to unisensory exposure

Simultaneous visual, auditory, and tactile/kinesthetic stimuli develops superior memory capacity

Benefits of Multisensory Learning: Ladan Shams and Aaron R. Seitz).

What We Learned

Analysis of the Current Core Reading Program Revealed

A combination of embedded and analogy phonics lessons

Gaps in instruction consistent with the diagnostic data collected

Limited opportunities for students to practice phonics skills in text

Instruction was unisensory

The IPS Plan

Goals of the IPS PilotImplement a whole-class Orton-Gillingham approach

to reduce the number of students in Tier II and Tier III interventions.

Enhance the current core reading curriculum to meet the needs of all students.

Improve reading instruction by providing professional development for classroom teachers, and instructional support staff.

The IPS Plan

Enhance the Core Curriculum Ensure phonics instruction is systematic, direct and

explicitDevelop daily lesson plans for whole-class

implementation within the 90-minute reading blockIncrease the opportunity for repetitionProvide scaffolded support through fair and

decodable textEvaluate progress to design lessons that are

diagnostic and prescriptive

The IPS Plan

Provide Instructional SupportTrain kindergarten through second grade teachers in

the Orton-Gillingham approach Provide training in multisensory teachingOrganize monthly grade-level specific professional

development opportunities Assign an Orton-Gillingham coach to both schools

for modeling, co-teaching, and side-by side coaching

TrainingTeachers attended a three-day training in the

summer, prior to the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year.

Training was modified from the more traditional Orton-Gillingham approach to include whole-class adaptations.

The content of the course was primarily in lesson components and procedures, versus lesson content.

The IPS Plan

The IPS Plan

BudgetProfessional Development

Teachers were paid a $20.00 hourly stipend for attending summer training

In-house trainer eliminated cost of contracting out training

Materials Per classroom

Card deck Decodable readers

Per building Additional decodable readers Phonological awareness kits (kindergarten only)

Impact Statement

Both pilot schools made notable growth from BOY to MOY in DIBELS

Growth at pilot schools was well above the district average in kindergarten and first grade

At BOY only 22% of all kindergarten students had met benchmark goals. At MOY 92% had met benchmark goals.

At the MOY benchmark a significant number of kindergarten students had already reached the EOY benchmark goal*

*EOY comparison is possible when calculating the MOY composite score on EOY criteria.

Impact Statement

Kindergarten students were able to blend simple short-vowel words by the end of the first quarter as well as read and write short-vowel words with blends by the middle of the third quarter

First grade students were able to read and spell multi-syllabic words by the end of the first quarter

While progress was also notable in second grade, closing the achievement gap becomes more difficult as student progress from grade to grade

BOY to MOY Growth

Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade

BOY MOY Growth BOY MOY Growth BOY MOY Growth

James Russell Lowell

IPS #51

22% 92% 70% 47% 68% 21% 47% 63% 16%

Ralph Waldo Emerson IPS #58

41% 84% 43% 35% 61% 26% 47% 53% 6%*

Indiana Public School District

Average

31% 62% 31% 48% 59% 11% 54% 62% 8%

BOY =Beginning of YearMOY = Middle of Year

*Teacher retired in November. Substitute teacher was not trained in the approach.

Sample Kindergarten Class BOY to MOY Growth Class A BOY Composite MOY Composite

Benchmark 26 122 Student 1 0 215

Student 2 0 220

Student 3 0 224

Student 4 0 181

Student 5 0 213

Student 6 0 232

Student7 0 200

Student 8 0 234

Student 9 0 195

Student 10 0 190

Student 11 0 195

Student 12 0 201

Student 13 0 273

Student 14 0 239

Student 15 0 236

Student 16 0 221

Student 17 0 236

Student 18 1 175

Student 19 2 233

Student 20 2 210

Student 21 3 204

Student 22 4 158

Student 23 11 228

Student 24 15 210

BOY =Beginning of YearMOY = Middle of Year

BOY to MOY Growth

Findings

• At BOY 0% of the students had met the BOY benchmark goals and 75% of the students had a composite score of zero.

• This reflects that students were unable to produce any letter names or provide the beginning sound in a word.

• At the MOY 100% of the students had met the MOY benchmark goals.

• All but two students in one kindergarten classroom met EOY benchmark goals at MOY

• This reflects that students knew letter names, could recognize initial sounds, as well as segment and blend CVC words.

Comparing MOY to EOY CompositeClass A MOY Composite

LNF+FSF+PSF+NWF-FSF

Raw ScoreEOY Comparison

LNF+PSF+NWF

Benchmark 122 *119 Student 1 215 -56 159

Student 2 220 -58 162

Student 3 224 -54 170

Student 4 181 -42 139

Student 5 213 -58 160

Student 6 232 -60 172

Student7 200 -60 140

Student 8 234 -40 194

Student 9 195 -56 139

Student 10 190 -35 155

Student 11 195 -54 141

Student 12 201 -60 141

Student 13 273 -57 216

Student 14 239 -44 195

Student 15 236 -60 176

Student 16 221 -52 169

Student 17 236 -49 187

Student 18 175 -60 115

Student 19 233 -56 177

Student 20 210 -45 165

Student 21 204 -55 149

Student 22 158 -60 98

Student 23 228 -53 175

Student 24 210 -57 153*FSF is not included in the EOY Composite

Resources

Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, edited by Judith E Birsch, Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 2011.

National Reading Panel, 2000, Chapter 2, Phonics and Alphabetics.

Torgensen, J.K. (1995). Orton Emertitus Series: Phonological Awareness. A critical factor in dyslexia. Baltimore: International Dyslexia Association.

Torgensen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., Alexander, A., Alexander J., & MacPhee, K. (2003). Progress towards understanding the instructional conditions necessary for remediating reading difficulties in older children. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science up to scale (pp. 275-298). Timonium, MD: York Press.