Richard Henry Dana Elementary School

School Information

School Name:      R. H. Dana Elementary School
School Address:   24242 La Cresta, Dana Point, CA 92629
School Phone:      (949) 496-5784
School Fax:         (949) 488-3867
Principal:             Dr. Chris Weber
Principal email:   cweber@capousd.org

Demographics

Number of Students: 386
Number Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 78%
Percent of Limited English Proficient: 61%
Percent of Special Education: 4%
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:

- White (25%)
- Black (1%)
- Hispanic (71%)
- Asian/Pacific Island (0%)
- Other (3%)

 

Student Achievement Data:

California Standards Test (CST) Results
% Proficient or Above

All Grades -All Students

School test	2004 (RH Dana /State)	2005 (RH Dana /State)	2006 (RH Dana /State)	2007 (RH Dana /State)
English	30/37	30/42	44/45	48/46
Math	38/40	41/45	49/48	64/49

All Grades -Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students

School test	2004 (RH Dana /State)	2005 (RH Dana /State)	2006 (RH Dana /State)	2007 (RH Dana /State)
English	17/22	16/27	30/29	34/30
Math	28/28	30/33	40/36	51/37

 

Please comment on any aspect of the data that you believe is particularly significant.

Our district uses Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) data as a measure of student progress, particularly in Kindergarten and First Grade. In 2005-2006, our Kindergarten scores were the second highest of the district’s 37 elementary schools (most of the schools serve far more affluent communities that R. H. Dana) and 96% of the Kindergarten students scored Benchmark. In 2006-2007, 99% of students scored Benchmark. In 2004-2005, 71% of Kindergarten students scored Benchmark. While not part of the NCLB or state testing mandates and not listed above, we feel this data and progress is significant nonetheless, and is perhaps a leading indicator of more progress to come.

An examination of NCLB and State data will reveal that we are closing the gap; our white subgroup is making great gains, and our disadvantaged subgroups are making greater gains.

 

Please present additional information that indicates your efforts to build a professional learning community have had a positive impact on students and/or teachers. Please elaborate strategies you have found to be effective in the following areas:

Working hard to teach all students, many of whom came from disadvantaged backgrounds, our elementary school was eager to overcome the challenge of how to accelerate previously mediocre test results and close the learning gap for our students. As a staff we had embraced the principles of Professional Learning Communities (PLC), a process our school district had studied for several years.  As a group of professionals we specifically wanted to answer the four essential questions:

1. What do we want students to know?
2. How will we know if they have learned?
3. How will we help them if they haven’t learned?
4. How will we challenge them if they have learned? (DuFour et al. 2003). 

Through our collaborative model we recognized three specific needs. We were determined to ensure that every student grew academically. We recognized the need to focus our curriculum and instruction, to set very high expectations for all students and ourselves, and that we needed to focus on the specific needs of each individual student to ensure student achievement. Once these needs were targeted, we committed to serving our students and achieving success as a team, as a true professional learning community. What follows is a description of how we devised a system to meet every student’s need within the school day with our existing resources, drawing heavily upon the principles of Response to Intervention.

Our school serves a population that is approximately 70% non-white, English learning, and socioeconomically disadvantaged. Despite our attempts to use high-quality curriculum with fidelity, to “double-dip” at-risk students in the classroom for an additional time with the classroom teacher, to maximize instructional time during the school day, to set high expectations for all children, and to focus our curricular choices, we needed something more. We wanted to meet students’ specific needs along the literacy continuum.

The resulting system of interventions was purposively called the Diagnostic, Explicit, and Systematic Student Support Program (DE-S3P), a student support system provided during the school day to meet individual needs before academic failure.  This system was developed through our site’s Professional Learning Communities (PLC) model, under the administration of the site’s reading specialist and principal, with consideration to Response to Intervention (RTI), as understood by the authors, in response to our school’s situation.

Several programs were previewed that met our criteria as research-based and specific to instruction in our initial focus areas of phonics, decoding, fluency, and comprehension.  After the final selections, interventionists (6 paraprofessionals and 2 credentialed teachers) received a full-day of initial training in two specific programs they would be responsible for using with targeted students. The interventionists also received ongoing training throughout the year and held team meetings approximately every six weeks to discuss student progress and program implementation.

Classroom teachers also received training on all programs used by the interventionists at their grade levels so that the teachers would be familiar with the type of work students were being asked to do during their intervention time. Moreover, classroom teachers participated in walk-throughs (an activity completed approximately every six weeks) in which they observed intervention lessons in action. Lastly, classroom teachers themselves taught the intervention programs, with the assistance of the interventionists, to a group of students while the principal and reading specialist covered their regular classes. This training and shared teaching experience, along with the collaborative way in which it was implemented, attempted to value each individual involved in the learning process and emphasized the teamwork necessary to help every student achieve success.

We consciously made a PLC-inspired commitment to collectively and collaboratively ensure every student made exemplary academic growth. We first answered the PLC question, What do we expect students to learn? Student placement in programs within the intervention system depended upon where in the literacy-continuum students were experiencing difficulty: Phonemic Awareness-Phonics-Decoding (Word Attack)-Fluency-Vocabulary (Language)-Comprehension-Writing. Students were selected for specific interventions based on their performance on Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessments and Comprehension Analysis tests, brief, leveled assessments borrowed from Qualitative Reading Inventory-3, by Lauren Leslie and JoAnne Caldwell (Addison-Wessley, 2001). These are one-on-one assessments 5-15 minutes in length and were universally administered across all grade levels. Any student at risk for school failure, regardless of socioeconomic or linguistic characteristics, were candidates for DE-S3P.

To continually asses whether students were learning, student performance was monitored every 2-3 weeks using DIBELS and Comprehension Analysis. The intervention programs selected also contained progress monitoring components; we used DIBELS and Comprehension Analysis as an external validation of the efficacy of the programs used and of progress made.

Part of the challenge of ensuring a high-quality DE-S3P system was finding high-quality programs that met our criteria. Research-based programs (receiving high marks from the Florida Center for Reading Research or the University of Oregon’s Reading First Center) were those that were initially considered. Selected programs were generally specific to a single component of the literacy continuum (e.g., fluency), as opposed to comprehensive, Open Court-like programs. We believed our intervention programs should be supplemental; we were not attempting to supplant the core program. In fact, we have been engaged in a focused effort to continuously strengthen the core literacy (the Tier I) program provided during regular class time.

We selected programs that were explicit enough to be delivered with fidelity by either a teacher or a paraprofessional. Staff development at the beginning of the year was critical. In addition, the reading specialist observed other interventionists regularly and meetings of the intervention team were held on a quarterly basis to review specific program goals and concerns and questions about the DE-S3P system.

As we universally screened students, we designed a system of interventions for each individual that addressed their specific areas of need. Thus, while we feel as though some of the programs we elected to use were Tier II-type programs and others were Tier III-type programs, the types and number of interventions that students received depended upon their unique strengths and weaknesses far more than on any pyramid of intervention plan. For example, a third grade student may comprehend well and decode at grade level, but may need assistance and support with fluency. This student would receive 30 minutes of fluency support each day. Another third grade student experiencing difficulties decoding beyond CVC words may need decoding, fluency, and comprehension interventions, all at the appropriate instructional level. This student may need three or four 30-minute interventions per day. The first student could be described as residing in the Tier II level and the second student in the Tier III, but we identified the supports that students needed, based on their specifically diagnosed characteristics as learners rather than the severity of their deficiencies. When feasible, students are grouped with students with similar needs and ability levels.

We universally screened all students four times during the year – at the beginning of the year and at the end of each trimester. Any and all students with needs diagnosed in the literacy continuum received the targeted, prescriptive intervention they required. When students were still not progressing adequately, they were given additional and/or altered support. Our definition of adequate growth is provided below. As an example, a first grade student who did not make adequate growth in blending and decoding intervention was also given phonemic awareness intervention. Progress monitoring data was collected at regular intervals during the trimester to determine if students were responding to interventions.

The DE-S3P system is led by a full-time reading specialist and a principal, who oversee personnel, programs and instructional materials, student scheduling, progress monitoring, while also providing feedback to classroom teachers and leading Student Study Teams.

We call the educators who actually deliver the instruction interventionists. These interventionists, including the Reading Specialist, the Resource Teacher, the Resource Instructional Aide, and five additional instructional aides provide direct instruction with specific programs for targeted needs. The all received initial and ongoing training on the programs they use.

Students requiring additional time and assistance are assisted outside their classroom in two classrooms, specifically designed for small group instruction with kidney-shaped tables, listening centers, and student libraries. One of these rooms also houses a teacher and staff resource area with the latest information in literacy research, as well as references and materials for check out.

DE-S3P classes are held throughout the regular school day five days a week, with additional before and after school classes held at least three days a week. All regular classrooms have designated daily schedules with organized small-group times, during the first 2 ½ hours of the day, a typical schedule at elementary schools. During these time periods, homogeneously-organized groups of students are involved in activities – one of the activities is a small group with the classroom teacher and the other activities are typically more independently completed. Students leave the room to participate in DE-S3P classes when they are NOT receiving core or double-dip instruction from their classroom teacher. In other words, students pulled out of the class for intervention also receive the core curriculum and a double-dip of the core curriculum from their classroom teacher.

For students more than two grade levels behind, additional pull-out and assistance may be required. We have worked with classroom teachers to provide extra assistance during social studies, science, independent silent reading, or writing times. We are reluctant to pull students from these activities, but feel their needs are critical and immediate. DE-S3P class scheduling is flexible, allowing students the opportunity to participate in instrumental and choral music, Meet the Masters art lessons, field trips and other important educational opportunities.

Our goal is to ensure that every single child makes substantial progress in their literacy development and on their journey to becoming a critical thinker. For students below grade level, the goal is to provide intensive, supplemental instruction for at-risk students during the school day when they are least likely to be engaged in appropriate, meaningful, direct instruction classroom activities. All our students benefit from this program.  Students for whom intervention is not appropriate are provided differentiated content and instruction by the classroom teacher in smaller settings, often at accelerated levels. The ultimate goal is for all our students to achieve at or above grade level in all areas of the literacy continuum.

Classroom teachers, the principal, and the reading specialist assess students every 3-4 weeks using DIBELS (K-5) and Comprehension Analysis (1-5). While not all teachers were ready to schedule progress monitoring into their schedules, this practice will increase in the future. Every trimester, students take the short STAR assessment that is part of the Accelerated Reader program. We view Accelerated Reader as an incentive program, not an intervention. That said, the Enterprise Edition of Accelerated Reader offers nearly 100,000 titles. This allows interventionists to use Accelerated Reader quizzes as another form of external validation, assessing student comprehension of many of the titles read during Open Court and Soar to Success.

Results from progress monitoring are shared with individual teachers promptly, including during monthly planning team time. Every 6-8 weeks placement changes are considered and discussed with the schoolwide team. Changes are considered when “Benchmark” or grade level competency is achieved and maintained. If limited progress is noted, more intensive and frequent interventions are initiated. When minimal progress is noted over an extended period of time and maximum programs have been received, a formal Student Study Team is convened to determine further action and perhaps gather additional information through formal assessment. Minimal progress is further defined as a discrepancy in a student’s rate of learning relative to other students receiving similar DE-S3P interventions.

In one year, the school made a 58-point gain in California’s Academic Performance Index, one of the highest in the County.  Our student’s performance as measured by DIBELS has been profound. Nearly 100% of our Kindergarten students score Benchmark, and the percent Benchmark in first through fifth grade has increased by over 25%. Comprehension Analysis assessments reveal that over 90% of students are reading at grade level. Lastly, we have reduced referrals to special education by 75%.

As stated above, this system is intended to avoid dependence on any particular program – flexibility and changes based on better programs and student needs are important. This year, we recognized that fluency deficiencies were being successfully ameliorated through classroom and intervention efforts. We concurrently recognized that language and vocabulary development were needs that we were not adequately addressing or remediating through existing programs or in-class English Language Development. We also found that providing two comprehension interventions simultaneously (a more explicit program a more Reciprocal Teaching-inspired program) was overly duplicative, too difficult for students with more severe comprehension needs and unnecessary for students with more moderate comprehension needs. We have also realized that students made significant improvements in phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding (word attack), fluency, and comprehension components of literacy in 4-8 weeks, in some cases to an extent that they could graduate from an intervention. Vocabulary and language development was more of a challenge, an observation long reported by researchers (Marzano, 2006; Cummins, 2001). We felt we needed a better program, more explicit instruction, and more time spent in this area.  Following our PLC model, a group of concerned staff members developed a process for systematically introducing more academic vocabulary school wide during regular classroom instruction. Next year, per another suggestion of our professional learning community and in an effort to answer the fourth question as articulated by DuFour, et al. (2003), we will be spending one day a week meeting with small groups of students who have, for the most part, mastered grade level standards during DE-S3P. Our interventionists will be leading these groups of advanced learners in an effort to promote their academic achievement to the fullest potential.

Our goal is to meet student needs early and aggressively so that students begin experiencing success in school immediately. We believe this is best accomplished by universally screening and diagnostically, explicitly, and systemically helping to shore up areas of need. Our goal for students is not grade level adequacy but excellence in critical thinking, in their future academic endeavors, and in life. We feel that working as a professional learning community doing whatever it takes, these goals can be accomplished.

 

List awards and recognitions your school has achieved

- Double the API gain among all 55 schools in the district over the past 3 years
- A similar schools rank of 10
- The only schoolwide Title I school in the District to make Adequate Yearly Progress requirements and avoid Program Improvement status
- One of 239 school in California (from among 9,000, of which 6,00 are Title I schools) to be selected as a 2007-08 Title I Academic Achievement Award winners