Sunday, February 10, 2013

Care Model

Examining What We Do to Improve Our Schools Sandra Harris, Stacey Edmonson, Julie Combs

Tool 8.1 CARE Model: Planning Tool

Identify Concerns that must change (look to the future)

(Assign points to concerns from 1 to 3 in the order of the most important issues to consider.)

1.  At times it appears that our current progress monitoring tool, I-Station, does not accurately represent a student’s true ability when it comes to comparing the students results from I-Station to the students test results on standardized tests as well as local assessments such as 6 Weeks Tests.

2.  We want to ensure that our interventionists are working with Tier 3 students.  We want to be sure that these students are indeed correctly identified to be sure that we the students who are most in need receive the services of the campus interventionists.  Since we currently use I-Station as one of the factors to help us determine these students it is important that the reports and information we receive from I-Station are accurate and correlate to student expectations per the TEKS (which are assessed through standardized tests and local benchmarks).

3.  It appears that there may be discrepancies in how the current progress monitoring tool, I-Station is administered from teacher to teacher.  In order to be able to accurately compare students and identify those most in need, it is necessary for there to be set procedures with regard to how the probes are administered.

Identify Affirmations that must be sustained (look to the present)

(Assign points to affirmations from 1 to 3 in the order of the most important issues to consider.)

1.  Our campus does a phenomenal job of implementing the RtI (Response to Intervention) program with regarding to documentation and actual implementation of small group interventions.

2.  As a school we have a good working knowledge of who our struggling students are and we do a good job of involving all team members including administrators, counselor, interventionists and teachers with regard to making decisions and communicating the needs of these students and monitoring their progress as well as voicing concerns.

3.  Our faculty is knowledgeable regarding how best to provide intervention to struggling students and has done a great job with implementing small group instruction not just during designated intervention time, but during regular class time as well.

SMART Recommendations that must be implemented:

(Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely)

(Assign points to recommendations from 1 to 3 in the order of the most important recommendations to implement.)

1.  Analyze the extent to which I-Station scores accurately reflect a student’s ability to apply the TEKS on written assessments (standardized tests and local benchmarks).

2.  Analyze the processes and procedures used to administer progress monitoring probes to ensure that all students have been given the same opportunity for success.

3.  Review other possible programs for progress monitoring which may more closely reflect the rigor imposed by the TEKS.

EVALUATE – Specifically and Often

(Identify the best ways to evaluate the implemented recommendations.)

1.  On-going comparison of scores between I-Station and written assessments.

2.  Walk-throughs by administrators and discussions among faculty members to ensure that I-Station probes are being administered uniformly according to the procedures set in place.

3.  Administer annual surveys for teachers regarding their feelings regarding the I-Station program, procedures for administering the program, as well as how they feel it helps to identify students in need.