Continuous Improvement Plan

Literacy Collaborative Report

2015-2016

Greenleaf Elementary School

Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan School District
#196
13333 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, Minnesota
55124
952-431-8270

Michelle deKam Palmieri, Principal

Adam Fogolin, Administrative Assistant
Mauren Wallenberg, MTSS Lead Teacher
Angela McCabe, MTSS Lead
Amy Toner, Tier 3 Lead
Scott Williams, Tier 3 Lead
Jennifer Pauly, Instructional TOSA

Table of Contents
I. Introduction to school
II. Evaluation Plan and Summary Data (2014-2015):
a. Smart Goals
b. MCA Data Summary
III. Data - Analysis of Smart Goal data and MCA data
IV. Summary - Summary of findings into action plan
V. Implementation Factors:
a. 2014-2015 Team reflection on major accomplishments for the
year (Enablers)
b. 2014-2015 Team reflection on Barriers that are left from the year.
(If not, why not, then what?) (root cause analysis)
c. 2015-2016 Enablers and Barriers
Include Enablers and Barriers carried over, and the new
list of Enablers and Barriers.
d. Team reflection on how to use Enablers and Barriers in
the fall.
VI.
Future Goals
a. Goals as a Leadership Team
b. Professional Development Goals
c. Goals for Writing about Reading PLC with Stakeholders in the fall
d. 2015-2016 Smart Goals
VII.
Intervention Reports
a. Reading Recovery
b. Leveled Literacy Intervention

I.

Introduction to school

Greenleaf Elementary School: Greenleaf Elementary is an elementary

school located in Apple Valley, Minnesota and is part of the Rosemount,
Apple Valley, Eagan School District. The student enrollment for the 20142015 school year was 927 students. Greenleaf has a 36.4% free and
reduced lunch population. The school offers Reading Recovery, Title 1,
Gifted Talented, Young Scholars, Special Education and English Language
Learners. 10.2% of students receive Title 1 services, 13.7% Special
Education and 14% of the school population are English Language
Learners. The ethnic groups represented include Native American - 1%,
Asian 9%, Hispanic 15%, Black 13% and White 62%. The
breakdown of students by gender is 55% male and 45% female.

II. Evaluation Plan and Summary Data 2014-2015

a. Smart Goals (Put only percents after the question. This is
a summary page of your data analysis).
1) What percentage of Kindergarten students scored 23
or higher as measured by Hearing and Recording Sounds
in Words assessment of the Observation Survey by spring?
95.18%
2) What percentage of Kindergarten students scored 15
as measured by Concepts About Print assessment on the
Observation Survey by spring? 95%
3) What percentage of Kindergarten students scored 23
or higher as measured by Writing Vocabulary assessment
of the Observation Survey by spring? 92%
4) What percentage of Kindergarten students scored 47
or higher as measured by Letter Identification assessment
on the Observation Survey by spring? 98%

5) What percentage of First Grade students scored 33 or

higher as measured by Hearing and Recording Sounds in
Words assessment of the Observation Survey by spring?
94%
6) What percentage of First Grade students scored 18 as
measured by Concepts About Print assessment on the
Observation Survey by spring? 95%
7) What percentage of First Grade students scored 51 or
higher as measured by Writing Vocabulary assessment of
the Observation Survey by spring? 84.29%
8) What percentage of First Grade students scored 54 as
measured by Letter Identification assessment on the
Observation Survey by spring? 100%
9) What percentage of K through 5th grade students met
the end of the year high benchmark for their grade level
of TOTAL (Reading and Writing) High Frequency Words?
K - 26: 75.3%
1 - 100: 69.5%
2 200: 57.76%
3 300: 69.68%
4 400: 83.04%
5 - 500: 68.52%
10) What percentage of K through 5th grade students met
the end of the year high benchmark for their grade level
of Reading High Frequency Words by spring?
K -26: 86.75%
1 - 100: 75.18%
2 - 200: 81.99%

3 - 300: 74.19%
4 - 400: 86.55%
5 500: 87.65%
11.)
What percentage of K through 5th grade students
met the end of the year high benchmark for their grade
level of Writing High Frequency Words?
K - 26: 75%
1 - 100: 78%
2 200: 52%
3 300: 50%
4 400: 82%
5 - 500: 70%
12.) What percentage of K through 5th grade students are
reading instructionally in the meets proficiency band as
measured by the Benchmark Assessment System?
K C: 88%
1 I: 79%
2 M: 81%
3 P: 69%
4 S: 71%
5 - V: 71%
13) What percentage of K through 5th grade students
scored a 2 or 3 in fluency on their instructional benchmark
as measured by the Benchmark Assessment System?
K - 26%
1 - 68%
2 88%
3 89%
4 91%
5 - 85%

14.) What percent of students of students K-5 show no

letter reversals in the 2015 Spring Writing about Reading
Prompt?
K - Insufficient data
1 - Insufficient data
2 - Insufficient data
3 - Insufficient data
4 - Insufficient data
5 - Insufficient data
b. MCA Data Summary

III Data - Analysis of Smart Goal data and

MCA data
2014-2015 Building Goals to Raise the Bar and Close the
Gaps for WBWF (Worlds Best Work Force)
(Put a screen shot of the graph that shows the data. Put a
summary statement under the graph. Example: Our goal
was to have 90% of the students pass. We had 80
percent of the students pass. We have a 10% gap.)
1. By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet
with end of Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 23 or
higher on Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words.

Our goal was 90% of Kindergarten students will meet the

benchmark of 23 or higher, we achieved our goal with
95.18%.
2. By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet
the end of Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 15 on
Concepts about Print.

Our goal was 90% of Kindergarten students will meet 15

on Concepts of Print, we achieved our goal with 94.61%.

3. By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet

with end of Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 23 or higher
on Writing Vocabulary.

Our goal was for 90% of kindergarten students to meet

the end of year benchmark of 23 or higher on Writing
Vocabulary. 92 % of our kindergarteners met that
benchmark. We surpassed our goal.

4. By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet

the end of Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 47 on Letter
ID

Our goal was for 90% of kindergarten students to meet

the end of year benchmark of 47 or higher on Letter
Identification. 98% of our kindergarteners met that
benchmark. We surpassed our goal.

5. By May 30, 2015, 90% of First Grade students will meet

with end of First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 33 or higher
on Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words.

Our goal was 90% of First Grade students will meet with
end of First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 33 or higher on
Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words. We achieved this
goal at 94.3%.

6. By May 30, 2015, 90% of First Grade students will meet

the end of First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 18 on Concepts
about Print

Our goal was 90% of First Grade students will meet the
end of First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 18 on Concepts
about Print. We achieved this goal at 95%.

7. By May 30, 2015, 90% of First Grade students will meet

with end of First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 51 or higher
on Writing Vocabulary.

84% of the 1st graders scored 51 or higher on the spring

assessment on writing vocabulary. We have a 6% gap.

8. By May 30, 2015 90% of First Grade students will score 54

as measured by Letter Identification assessment on the
Observation Survey by spring.

100% of the 1st graders scored 54 or higher as measured

by Letter Identification Assessment on the Observation
Survey in the spring. We surpassed the goal.

9. By May 30, 2015, 90% of students in K-5 will meet the end
of the year high benchmark for their grade level of TOTAL
(Reading and Writing)
K - 26:

Our goal was that 90% of students can read and write
grade level high frequency words. Our students achieved
75.3%. We had a 15% gap.

1 - 100

Our goal was that 90% of students can read and write
grade level high frequency words. Our students achieved
69.5%. We had a 20% gap.

2 - 200:

Our goal was that 90% of students can read and write
grade level high frequency words. Our students achieved
57.76%. We had a 32% gap.

3 - 300:

Our goal was that 90% of students can read and write
grade level high frequency words. Our students achieved
69.68%. We had a 20% gap.

4 - 400:

Our goal was that 90% of students can read and write
grade level high frequency words. Our students achieved
83.04%. We had a 7% gap.

5 500

Our goal was that 90% of students can read and write
grade level high frequency words. Our students achieved
68.52%. We had a 21% gap.

10. By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten through 5th grade

students will meet the end of the year high benchmark
for their grade level of Reading High Frequency Words.
K - 26

Our goal was that 90% of students can read grade level
high frequency words. Our students achieved 86.75%. We
had a 3% gap.

1 - 100:
Our goal was that 90% of students can read grade level
high frequency words. Our students achieved 75.18%. We
had a 15% gap.

2 - 200:

Our goal was that 90% of students can read grade level
high frequency words. Our students achieved 81.99%. We
had an 8% gap.

3 - 300:

Our goal was that 90% of students can read grade level
high frequency words. Our students achieved 74.19%. We
had a 16% gap.

4 - 400:

Our goal was that 90% of students can read grade level
high frequency words. Our students achieved 86.55%. We
had a 3% gap.

5 - 500:

Our goal was that 90% of students can read grade level
high frequency words. Our students achieved 87.65%. We
had a 2% gap.

11. By May 30, 2015, 90% of Kindergarten through 5th grade

students will meet the end of the year high benchmark for
their grade level of Writing High Frequency Words.
K 26:

Our goal was 90% of the students pass. We had 75%

pass. We have a 15% gap.

1 100

Our goal was 90& of the students pass. We had 78% pass.
We have a 12% gap.

2 200

Our goal was 90% of the students pass. We had 52% pass.
We have a 38% gap.

3 300

Our goal was 90% of the students pass. We had 50% pass.
We have a 40% gap.

4 400

Our goal was 90% of the students pass. We had 82% pass.
We have an 8% gap.

5 500

Our goal was 90% of the students pass. We had 70% pass.
We have a 20% gap.
12. By May 30, 2015 85% of K-5 grade students will be reading
instructionally within the meets proficiency band as
measured by the Benchmark Assessment System:
K - Level C

Our goal was 85% of the students pass. We had 88% pass.
We exceeded our goal.

1- Level I

Our goal was 85% of the students pass. We had 79% pass.
We have a 6% gap.

2 - Level M

Our goal was 85% of the students pass. We had 81% pass.
We have a 4% gap.

3 - Level P

Our goal was 85% of the students pass. We had 69% pass.
We have a 16% gap.

4 Level S

Our goal was 85% of the students pass. We has 71% pass.
We have a 14% gap.

5 Level V

Our goal was 85% of the students pass. We had 71% pass. We have a 14%
gap.

13. By May 30, 2015, 95% of K-5 grade students will score a 2 or 3 in the fluency
on their instructional benchmark as measured by the Heinemann Benchmark
Assessment System
25 out of 169 fifth graders did not make it = 85% scored a 2 or 3
16 out of 170 fourth graders did not make it = 91% scored a 2 or 3
18 out of 165 third graders did not make it = 89% scored a 2 or 3
19 out of 161 second graders did not make it = 88% scored a 2 or 3
45 out of 145 first graders did not make it = 68% scored a 2 or 3
124 out of 168 kindergarteners did not make it = 26% scored a 2 or 3. Note
that a theory about the lower percentage in kindergarten is that some
kindergarten teachers did not complete the fluency portion of the BAS with
their students. Also, fluency assessment does not start until a child reads at a
level C.
14. By May 30, 2015, 95% of students K-5 will show no letter
reversals in any of the following measures they may be
administered: Letter ID, Hearing and Recording Sounds in
Print, Writing Vocabulary, Writing Sample, Writing about
Reading Prompt, and High Frequency Words.

IV.
Summary - Summary of findings into
action plan
Kindergarten and first graders made exceptional progress in
Hearing and Recording Sounds, CAP, writing vocabulary, and
letter ID.
Fountas & Pinnell text level will continue to be monitored in first
grade, as the goal was not met. Tier 1 instruction can be
examined as well as intervention groups.
Kindergarten teachers will understand the importance of
assessing and entering a fluency score for any child reading at
level C and above.
First grade writing vocabulary goal was not met, however the first
grade team will continue to look at how the teachers administer
this assessment as well as give students opportunities to practice.
Additionally, more community writing will be done daily in
classrooms.
The high frequency word goal was not met school-wide. The range
from different grade levels was from 57% to 83%. As we are
analyzing our upcoming writing about reading samples next year,
we can look more closely at the high frequency words there to
help better understand how the students are using these in
context. Writing conferences can be used to help the student
analyze incorrect high frequency words with scaffolding (by using
questions). Teachers can be trained on the prompts to use to help
students subitize the high frequency words. More work can be
done to ensure Northstar data accuracy in this area.

V.

Implementation Factors -

a. 2014-2015 Team reflection on major accomplishments for the

year (Enablers)
1. The push-in from interventionists was successful.
2. The beginning emphasis of writing in classrooms made a
difference for students.
3. The flexibility of intervention groups, based on data, was
beneficial for students. Starting off the year using data and then
continuing to shift groups based on student progress was well
received and made a difference for students.
4. The mindset about having teachers work together shifted in a
positive way!
5. The grade level schedule was successful for consistency, even
though it was a battle initially. People started to see the value in
keeping a consistent schedule.
6. The resources we have available are helpful. We need to better
use them next year. Being able to have time during meetings to
access these resources will be helpful again next year.
7. Kindergarten and first grade goals were met successfully. In
looking at EL students in kindergarten and EL, enormous gains
were made!
a. 2014-2015 Team reflection on Barriers that are left from the year.
(If not, why not, then what?) (root cause analysis)
1. Interventionists providing consistent services continued to be
problematic:
a. This was due to a variety of factors, but one thing that needs to
be addressed with interventionists is expectations for BAS
assessing.
b. A solution for interventionists absences could be that a grade
level teacher, if s/he knows ahead of time that the interventionist

will be absent, plans a lesson for a particular group, or the

interventionist plans for a particular group. Either way, the group
is not forgotten.
2. Communication between interventionists has been difficult. The
Certified Support Staff learning team meetings have helped
although scheduling has been tricky. At the same time,
communication between interventionists and grade level teachers
has also be challenging. Something new in Northstar is the ability
to leave short, anecdotal notes to help foster communication. An
additional idea is the Know, Need, Teach, Check sheet on a
clipboard in a central location for all interventionists and teachers
to access and write notes. An effort to start this clipboard with
just students in interventions next year.
3. Writing and reading is becoming more connected, but more work
is needed in writing. We need to look at what is happening in
classrooms in writing, as well as use the writing grid/plan for each
grade level next year. Teachers gaining a deeper understanding of
writing and implementing writing instruction next year will be
beneficial. Intermediate teachers will be given the opportunity to
learn more about community writing next year.

c. 2015-2016 Enablers and Barriers

-Greenleaf Elementary
Needs Assessment: Barriers and Enablers
Barriers:
Large school scheduling for push-in can be cumbersome but can
also be an enabler as there is a lot of staff for interventions
Co-teaching at more than one grade level can be a barrier

because of trying to co-plan with more than one grade level

teacher.
Communication among interventionists about focus of instruction
for students need more focused time to talk about students
TIME:
Time to analyze students individual growth with all teachers
Time for teams to look at the standards to plan for
instruction
Time to enter the data
Having everyone aligned to move forward
Change is hard and is resisted by some
Interventionists arent always providing consistent
support/services
Assessing: still need some quick formative assessments
Much progress has been made by staff members who dont want
to let go or have fear to try new things
IEP constraints for students
Writing and reading are becoming more connected but more work
is needed on writing
Progress has been made on using and analyzing data to truly
inform instruction - how can we support teachers on how to better
understand transforming data into problem solving around
students?
Data is an enabler and a barrier. There is pressure for teachers to
inflate it. There is also more of a story to the data for students.
More coaching is needed. Accessibility to training videos is
needed so that teachers can see models and examples whenever
they need

Enablers:
Strong literacy leadership team
Many staff members are willing to try new things
Successful push-in models in some grade levels
Teachers are given some support to assess, if there are high
numbers
Teachers are using data
Established grade level schedules with solid instructional blocks
and more staff members are seeing the value in this now
Professional development and training in literacy
Extended day opportunities for students
Collaborative learning teams are established
Large school many opportunities for LLI many teachers are
trained
Many resources are there
New staff members are on board
Title students are changing / flexible
Trust high on leadership team
Staff outlook on student behavior has shifted
More writing instruction is happening
More consistency with intervention support is being seen
Everyone is trying to do this now
Teachers are using space to share with interventionists and are
more comfortable sharing space for push-in interventionists

Accessibility of data on Northstar and iCue

d. Team reflection on how to use Enablers and Barriers in the

fall.
1. Conversation on how to change barriers to
enablers through site plan team meetings, literacy
leadership team meetings and staff development.
2. Implement goals into site plan related to barriers
from previous year.
3. We cannot just complain, we must be part of the
solution. We need to address concerns, but address
them effectively/efficiently.

VI.

Future Goals

a. Goals as a Leadership Team

a. Assist in the implementation of high quality writing instruction in
classrooms
b. We will effectively share this continuous improvement plan with
the whole staff
c. The team is scheduled to meet monthly, along with a literacy core
team that will.
d. The Literacy Leadership team will help lead our teams to
communicate effectively to our parents to help educate them in
our shifts in literacy.
e. Be intentional about doing assessments with fidelity by doing all
of the pieces effectively.
f. Coaching around integrating community writing into the daily
classroom routine. Use of videos and resources on Northstar to
help guide this coaching process
g. Our schedule for 2015-16 will focus more on utilizing the
managed independent learning block as the intervention period.

b.
a.

b.
c.
c.
a.
b.

This schedule will help us provide the interventions for students.

Needs of the students will determine what works best.
Professional Development Goals
Due to our gaps with High frequency word smart goals, we need
to focus on the fidelity of administration and assessment of high
frequency words for reading and writing.
More training in BAS Assessment and Northstar to use and
analyze data to inform instruction.
Everyone needs to administer the writing about reading and how
to score
Goals for Writing about Reading PLC with Stakeholders in the fall
We will understand how to effectively assess reversals for writing
about reading.
There will be designated professional time for teams to work
through writing about reading. Because these meeting types are
on a scheduled rotation, stakeholders and interventionists are
able to attend team meetings.

d. 2015-2016 Smart Goals

a. By May 30, 2016, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet with
end of Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 23 or higher on Hearing
and Recording Sounds in Words.
b. By May 30, 2016, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet the end
of Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 15 on Concepts about Print.
c. By May 30, 2016, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet with
end of Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 23 or higher on Writing
Vocabulary.
d. By May 30, 2016, 90% of Kindergarten students will meet the end
of Kindergarten RWB3 benchmark of 47 on Letter ID
e. By May 30, 2016, 90% of First Grade students will meet with end
of First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 33 or higher on Hearing and
Recording Sounds in Words.
f. By May 30, 2016, 90% of First Grade students will meet the end of
First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 18 on Concepts about Print

g. By May 30, 2016, 90% of First Grade students will meet with end
of First Grade RWB3 benchmark of 51 or higher on Writing
Vocabulary.
h. By May 30, 2016 90% of First Grade students will score 54 as
measured by Letter Identification assessment on the Observation
Survey.
i. By May 30, 2016, 90% of students in K-5 will meet the end of the
year high benchmark for their grade level of TOTAL (Reading and
Writing)
j. By May 30, 2016, 90% of Kindergarten through 5th grade
students will meet the end of the year high benchmark for their
grade level of Reading High Frequency Words.
k. By May 30, 2016, 90% of Kindergarten through 5th grade students
will meet the end of the year high benchmark for their grade level
of Writing High Frequency Words.
l. By May 30, 2016, 85% of K-5 grade students will be reading
instructionally within the meets proficiency band as measured by
the Benchmark Assessment System
m. By May 30, 2016, 95% of K-5 grade students will score a 2 or 3 in the fluency on
their instructional benchmark as measured by the Heinemann Benchmark
Assessment System
n. By May 30, 2016, 95% of students K-5 will show no letter
reversals in any of the following measures they may be
administered: Letter ID, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Print,
Writing Vocabulary, Writing Sample, Writing about Reading
Prompt, and High Frequency Words.

VII.

Intervention Reports

a. Reading Recovery Report

Greenleaf
Reading Recovery Building Report
Table of Contents

I. History
II. Evaluation Plan
III. Data
IV. Summary
V. Implementation Factors
VI. Future Goals
History
Independent School District 196 began its initial extensive
information gathering of Reading Recovery during the 1990-91
school year. Dr. Julie Olson and a group of principals and
teachers visited the Ohio State University to observe the
program. Dr. Olson presented documented information to the
Board of Education who approved the implementation of the
Reading Recovery program. In 1991-92, Kathy Holmdahl was
trained as the first Teacher Leader for the district.
Implementation in the 18 elementary buildings took place over
three years, training 12 teachers each year. At the time of
implementation each elementary building had two Reading
Recovery teachers. In 2007-08 the decision was made to place
Reading Recovery teachers in buildings according to greatest
need. This practice is being continued at the time of this writing.
The district assessment office uses three of the assessments
given during summer assessment days to determine the
selection scores for Reading Recovery selection. This includes
the following assessments from Marie Clays Observation Survey:
Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words and
Text Reading Level. The mean scores for incoming first graders
have also been calculated. The charts below show the history of
the mean score for these three assessments since 1995.

It is interesting to note the difference in Text Reading Level from

2011 to 2012 and then from 2013-2014. Fall of 2012 the district
went from using the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)
to using the Benchmark Assessment System (BAS). With this
new resource, a shift in protocols was also made. The shift was
made from only assessing for accuracy to assessing for accuracy
and comprehension to determine student reading level and
needs. With professional development constructing teachers
understanding on use of the assessment, another decrease in
mean level was noted in 2013-2014.
Evaluation Plan

The goal for Reading Recovery students is to develop effective

reading and writing strategies in order to work within an average
range of classroom performance. An Observation Survey of Early
Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2002) is used as a pre-test for
selection purposes, a measure for making exit decisions, and an
end-of-year test to examine change over time.
The Reading Recovery master selection pool is determined by
three of the assessments that are used during the summer
assessment days that are given in August of each school year.
The three assessments given include Writing Vocabulary, Hearing
and Recording Sounds in Words and Text Reading Level. In August
2014, the district tested 1,902 students entering first grade; first
grade enrollment was 1,922 on October 1, 2014. A district mean
score is calculated for each of the three tests. Using this data, a
selection range is determined that identifies students scoring in
the lowest 20% on each of the three tests. The master selection
pool is then defined by counting the number of students who
score in the lowest 20% on all three tests. Table 1 gives the Fall
2014 district mean score on each test and the district selection
range indicating which scores define the lowest 20%.

Table 1: 2014 Summary Statistics and District Selection

Ranges for Reading Recovery
Assessment

Mean

Lowest 20%
Selection Pool
Criteria

Writing Vocabulary

20.4

11

Hearing and Recording

Sounds in Words

29.9

26

Text Reading Level

4.7

Data
At Greenleaf Elementary, twenty-five first graders were served in
Reading Recovery. Out of those students six different languages
were serviced.
Of those serviced, 32% discontinued, 28% were recommended for
further service, 28% had incomplete lessons(less than 18 weeks
of service) and three students moved before program completion.
Six students were referred for special education but only three
were placed. No students were considered for retention or
retained.
Students who were recommended for further service missed an
average of 9.4 sessions versus students who discontinued missed
an average of 6.6 sessions.
Results from Observation Summary testing shows:
Discontinued students had a significantly higher text level gain
(20.0) than incomplete students(7.8) and recommended students
(11.3).
On the writing vocabulary task, discontinued students had a gain
(48.3) while incomplete students had a gain of (34.8) and
recommended(32.7).
The letter identification test reflects the greatest gains being
made by recommended students (6.9), discontinued (3.0).
Recommended and incomplete students entered with lower letter
id scores.

Four students who were recommended for further service (LLI and
spec ed) continued to make significant gains, they all ended at
text level 18 and above.
The lowest first grade students who qualified for Reading
Recovery services were all served with the addition of a Reading
Recovery teacher in training.
For first round recommended students small group interventions
such as LLI, Tier 3 and spec ed were instrumental in continual
student growth and literacy confidence.
Teacher Questionnaires reflected the following:
-Improved independent use of reading strategies.
-Improved self correction rate.
-Better writing skills.
-Increased self confidence.
-Needs less teacher support to decode new words.
Parent Questionnaires reflected the following:
-Improved confidence and ability in reading.
-Enjoys reading.
-More excited and loves to read.
-Homework is done right away.
-Lower frustration level when reading and writing.
-Reading recovery is an opportunity to grow and succeed.
Summary
Our school has had reading recovery for 21 years. We currently
have five reading recovery teachers and advocates servicing
first graders. There are three reading recovery teachers and two
advocates.
Eight teachers in our building have been trained in reading
recovery.
Implementation Factors

a. Enablers and Barriers

+ Literacy collaborative has basis in reading recovery instruction.
+ First grade teachers and administrators value reading recovery.
+ Pairing trained teachers with new reading recovery teachers
provides support and collaboration.
+ Developed a common literacy language between first grade
and reading recovery.
+ Increased collaboration in reading recovery at the school level.
+ Increasing the links between classroom and reading recovery
learning.
+ Involved other teaching professionals when selecting students
including, EL, speech, special ed, principal, kindergarten and first
grade teachers.
+ Research based/data driven instruction.
+ Parent communication and involvement to support RR
expectations.
- Time for communication between RR teachers and first grade
teachers.
- Time to interpret/analyze students daily records to prepare for
the next days individualized instruction.
- Time for data entry.
- Not enough time for .375 teachers to complete everything.
- RR students who are pulled out for MANY different support
services.
- Behaviors and special needs of studentsteachers do not
always feel trained, equipped to handle.
- When selecting students, not only looking at data, but looking
at the whole child; particularly first round students.
- Getting the first grade teachers to understand that they are
OUR students.
- Students who move before their program is complete.

- Consistency with homework follow through.

- Communication with parents who do not speak English and/or
students who do not have support at home.
Future Goals
Valued input of other professionals in choosing first round
students, looking beyond the data.
Increase the number of students who discontinue.
Bridge the communication with families who do not speak
English.
Immediate support from Tier 3 for lowest scoring students.
Continued support from LLI and Tier 3 for recommended
students.
Time to collaborate with Reading Recovery and/or first grade
teachers to discuss reading recovery students.
b. Leveled Literacy Intervention Report 2014-15
Team Members:
Kendyl Blasier
Brenda Buchwald
Teri Bumpers
Mark Ceilly
Jenny Leroux
Michelle OKeefe
Jennifer Pauly
Kristi Roddy
Amy Toner
Sarah Welshans
Karla Winkelman

Common Agreements
1.
2.
3.
4.

We believe in teaching all students to reach their full potential.

We believe in fidelity/commitment to the framework.
We believe in making decisions throughout a lesson, while adhering to the framework.
We will respect the needs of the child and therefore our actions are based on their needs.

5. We will be flexible to make changes when necessary and let ourselves be led through our own
6.
7.
8.
9.

fears.
We believe our number one priority is our students.
We believe that we exist in a continuous improvement model (data and research).
We believe in collaboration and problem solving with the stakeholders around student need.
We believe that all people are delivering instruction to the best of their current understanding,
therefore we assume positive intentions.

10. We agree to ask questions and bring them forward. We will speak our truths at the table with
forward momentum

11. We will value, use, and enter data.

12. We believe that we are all in different places with our understanding.
13. We believe in LLI as an effective Tier 2 intervention, therefore we will speak positively about it.
14. We believe that time is important. We agree to be present and prepared.
Barriers
1. Not enough teachers to deliver lessons and be flexible
2. Scheduling
3. Scheduling interruptions
4. Physical space for push in/pull out (3 teachers in one classroom at a time)
5. Inconsistent MIL
6. If LLI is not working then what?
7. Lack of prep time for part-time workers
8. Time to analyze and how to analyze for data driven decision making
9. Transition times
10. Time to regroup and collaborate with teachers (Setting up a system to do that)
11. Fidelity to the time allocation
12. Lack Fidelity
13. Caseloads
14. Lack of materials
15. Sharing resources
16. Students receiving a lot of service (sped/el/LLI/SPL/) out of the classroom
17. Collapsing for science and how do we fit in (what does it look like for the LLI teacher)
18. Lack of understanding of the big picture; criticizing the new, parking lot conversations
19. Time for communication
20. Home school communication
21. Value of progress monitoring
22. Labels/stigmas placed on kids
23. Core not in place for students in the yellow
24. Transition for kids after LLI
25. Guided reading not in the classroom yet
26. Other duties as assigned (choosing or having to do something)
27. Challenged understanding of the systems (MTSS and LLI)
Enablers
1. Adding an EL coach for LLI/Lead Teacher

2. School belief in LLI

3. LLI Leadership Team
4. Educating all teachers with common language
5. Schoolwide block schedules that are followed
6. Principals involved with scheduling and staff (open door)
7. DATA! Northstar, etc.
8. Meeting together after each testing cycle
9. Ongoing professional development
10. The books! The systems! The Framework!
11. All students involved, colleagues sharing students
12. Five years of experience of using the systems
13. Relying on colleagues to support students or with the system when stuck
14. Coaching sessions
15. Organizational systems in place for materials
16. Alignment with core, testing, MCAs, etc.
17. Adding tier three on to the MTSS model
18. Most special ed, title and many EL teachers are trained in using the systems
19. Classroom teachers are taking on components of the lessons
20. Peer coaching for next year
21. Parental and school support of LLI
22. Strong building literacy leadership teams (knowledgeable)
23. Strong support from administration
24. Districtwide LLI
25. Having flexibility within the framework
26. Kids make growth, academic and identity
27. Series books that kids become familiar with and enjoy
28. Alignment with the core (learning)
29. Kids have just right books in their hands every night

History of LLI in The District

2011-2012
LLI was introduced into the district. A number of teachers were trained from Westview,
Woodland, Cedar Park, Glacier Hills, Parkview, Diamond Path, Echo Park, Greenleaf
and Oak Ridge. Joanie Frederickson and Karla Winkelman were the first GL teachers
trained.
2012-2013
LLI trained 70+ teachers to deliver the Green/Blue Systems for intervention at schools
throughout the district. Teacher attended six days of training throughout the year. Beth

Swenson trained and coached teachers in LLI. All schools received a green and blue
system from the district. Middle school added a few teachers.
2013-2014
LLI trained approximately 60 teachers. Forty teachers were trained additionally in the
Red/Gold systems. District hired special education coach alongside Kerri Town and
Kris Samsel. All schools received a red system from the district. Coaching for new
trainees occurred twice a year for one day each time. Middle school added several
teachers to the red system training. Approximately 50 teachers who were not new to
either of the systems attended two sessions of ongoing professional development. The
focus of these sessions were: fluency and comprehension. Orange system pilot study
for kindergarteners. Service focus was on first through fifth grade.
2014-2015
LLI trained approximately 80 teachers in blue/green and/or red/gold systems. Hired new
coach to replace Kerri Town, alongside Sarah Papineau and Kris Samsel. Some
schools received the gold system from the district. New trainees received one single
day coaching session and one two-day coaching session. Approximately 60 teachers
attended three half-day sessions of ongoing professional development. The focus of the
sessions this year were: fluency, reciprocity of writing, and fidelity. Service focus was on
2nd - 5th grade, with some first grade at the end of the year and resources were
available.

Greenleafs LLI Story for 2014-2015

135 students at Greenleaf received LLI in the 2015-15 school year.
2014-15 Data of LLI Students
First Grade
64.71% of first graders with scores made grade level growth or more (6 or more levels).
# of
levels of
growth

10

# of
students

62.5% (5/8) of first grade special ed students with scores made grade level growth or
more.
90.9% (10/11) of first grade EL students with scores made grade level growth or more.

Accelerated growth = 7+ levels

51.7% of first graders with scores made accelerated progress (15/29).

37.5% of special ed. first graders with scores made accelerated progress ().
63.6% of EL first graders with scores made accelerated progress (7/11).
2nd Grade
91.3% of second graders with scores made grade level growth or more (4 or more
levels). (21/23)
# of
levels of
growth

10

# of
students

11

85.7% of second grade special ed students with scores made grade level growth or
more (6/7).
75% of second grade EL students with scores made grade level growth or more (3/4).

Accelerated growth = 5+ levels

87% of second graders with scores made accelerated progress (20/23).
85.7% of special ed. second graders with scores made accelerated progress (6/7).
75% of EL second graders with scores made accelerated progress (3/4).

Grade 3
84% of third graders with scores made grade level growth or more (3 or more levels).
(21/25)
# of
levels of
growth

10

# of
students

11

62.5% of third grade special ed students with scores made grade level growth or more
(5/8).
75% of third grade EL students with scores made grade level growth or more (3/4).

Accelerated growth = 4+ levels

52% of third graders with scores made accelerated progress (13/25).
37.5% of special ed. third graders with scores made accelerated progress (3/8).
50% of EL third graders with scores made accelerated progress (2/4).
Grade 4

91.6% of fourth graders with scores made grade level growth or more (3 or more
levels). (22/24)
# of
levels of
growth

10

# of
students

80% of fourth grade special ed students with scores made grade level growth or more
(8/10).
80% of fourth grade EL students with scores made grade level growth or more (4/5).

Accelerated growth = 4+ levels

70.8% of fourth graders with scores made accelerated progress (17/24).
50% of special ed. fourth graders with scores made accelerated progress (5/10).
60% of EL fourth graders with scores made accelerated progress (3/5).

Grade 5
90.9% of fifth graders with scores made grade level growth or more (3 or more levels).
(20/22)
# of
levels of
growth

10

# of
students

90% of fifth grade special ed students with scores made grade level growth or more
(9/10).
88.9% of fifth grade EL students with scores made grade level growth or more (16/18).

Accelerated growth = 4+ levels

72.7% of fifth graders with scores made accelerated progress (16/22).
70% of special ed. fifth graders with scores made accelerated progress (7/10).
66.7% of EL fifth graders with scores made accelerated progress (12/18).

Questions for further research

Double identified students: El/Special ed: Can/Do we have data on those students?
How many students receive 18-22 weeks of LLI? How many receive more or fewer?

What progress do LLI students make compared to students who only receive regular classroom
literacy instruction?
What progress do LLI students make compared to to students who receive regular (non-LLI)
guided reading/writing intervention?
What is the long-term impact of LLI - beyond one school year? What does the reading
achievement of students who have participated in LLI look like a few years down the road?
Do students who have participated in LLI suffer from summer slide? If so, how much?

Goals for 2015-16

Implement LLI with fidelity.
Ensure that parents and classroom teacher understand the goals and procedures for LLI.
Communicate student progress to parents and teachers.
Bring students to grade level achievement through quality LLI instruction.
Enter and use data regularly.