Drilling Drilling Down to Down to Individual Individual Students:Students:

Using Academic Intervention Plans to Make AYP Attainment Personalized

Jennifer D. Morrison, SDT, Baker Middle School Margaret Rudt, SDT, Col. E. Brooke Lee Middle School

OutcomesOutcomes• Compelling why – data

• History of how the AIPs came to be used

• Definition of AIP and Connection to Strategic Monitoring

• Description of AIP process and uses• Discussion flow-chart• Responsibilities outline

• We’re not the only ones…

• Evaluation

Baker MSA DataWhy Do it? Results

Baker Middle School

—93.50nanana95.8093.40All StudentsAttendance

2.7057.2014.5040.0042.90

54.5050.00Limited EnglishMath

—57.2028.6029.2042.90

57.8050.00Special EducationMath

—57.2018.8044.0042.90

62.8050.00FARMSMath

—57.2012.9064.3042.9077.2050.00HispanicMath

—57.203.8083.9042.9087.7050.00WhiteMath

—57.204.9059.1042.9064.0050.00African AmericanMath

—57.20—5.785.7042.9080.0050.00AsianMath

—57.20nana42.90100.0050.00American IndianMath

—57.204.3079.7042.9084.0050.00All StudentsMath

—71.1012.7060.0061.50

72.7066.30Limited EnglishReading

10.9071.1021.7038.5061.50

60.2066.30Special EducationReading

—71.1026.8045.3061.50

72.1066.30FARMSReading

—71.1012.9064.3061.5077.2066.30HispanicReading

—71.105.4085.4061.5090.8066.30WhiteReading

—71.105.1068.2061.5073.3066.30African AmericanReading

—71.108.6085.7061.5094.3066.30AsianReading

—71.10nana61.50100.0066.30American IndianReading

—71.106.4081.7061.5088.1066.30All StudentsReading

Needed for 2008

2008 AMONext

Change2006 Attend/ Prof%

2006 AMO 2007 Attend/Prof%

2007 AMOCurre

nt

SubgroupTitle

SubjectTitle

Comparison of MSA Proficiency Data, 2006-2008

—93.50nanana95.8093.40All StudentsAttendance

2.7057.2014.5040.0042.90

54.5050.00Limited EnglishMath

—57.2028.6029.2042.90

57.8050.00Special EducationMath

—57.2018.8044.0042.90

62.8050.00FARMSMath

—57.2012.9064.3042.9077.2050.00HispanicMath

—57.203.8083.9042.9087.7050.00WhiteMath

—57.204.9059.1042.9064.0050.00African AmericanMath

—57.20—5.785.7042.9080.0050.00AsianMath

—57.20nana42.90100.0050.00American IndianMath

—57.204.3079.7042.9084.0050.00All StudentsMath

—71.1012.7060.0061.50

72.7066.30Limited EnglishReading

10.9071.1021.7038.5061.50

60.2066.30Special EducationReading

—71.1026.8045.3061.50

72.1066.30FARMSReading

—71.1012.9064.3061.5077.2066.30HispanicReading

—71.105.4085.4061.5090.8066.30WhiteReading

—71.105.1068.2061.5073.3066.30African AmericanReading

—71.108.6085.7061.5094.3066.30AsianReading

—71.10nana61.50100.0066.30American IndianReading

—71.106.4081.7061.5088.1066.30All StudentsReading

Needed for 2008

2008 AMONext

Change2006 Attend/ Prof%

2006 AMO 2007 Attend/Prof%

2007 AMOCurre

nt

SubgroupTitle

SubjectTitle

Comparison of MSA Proficiency Data, 2006-2008

Why Do it? ResultsBaker Middle School

—93.50nanana95.8093.40All StudentsAttendance

2.7057.2014.5040.0042.90

54.5050.00Limited EnglishMath

—57.2028.6029.2042.90

57.8050.00Special EducationMath

—57.2018.8044.0042.90

62.8050.00FARMSMath

—57.2012.9064.3042.9077.2050.00HispanicMath

—57.203.8083.9042.9087.7050.00WhiteMath

—57.204.9059.1042.9064.0050.00African AmericanMath

—57.20—5.785.7042.9080.0050.00AsianMath

—57.20nana42.90100.0050.00American IndianMath

—57.204.3079.7042.9084.0050.00All StudentsMath

—71.1012.7060.0061.50

72.7066.30Limited EnglishReading

10.9071.1021.7038.5061.50

60.2066.30Special EducationReading

—71.1026.8045.3061.50

72.1066.30FARMSReading

—71.1012.9064.3061.5077.2066.30HispanicReading

—71.105.4085.4061.5090.8066.30WhiteReading

—71.105.1068.2061.5073.3066.30African AmericanReading

—71.108.6085.7061.5094.3066.30AsianReading

—71.10nana61.50100.0066.30American IndianReading

—71.106.4081.7061.5088.1066.30All StudentsReading

Needed for 2008

2008 AMONext

Change2006 Attend/ Prof%

2006 AMO 2007 Attend/Prof%

2007 AMOCurre

nt

SubgroupTitle

SubjectTitle

Comparison of MSA Proficiency Data, 2006-2008

—93.50nanana95.8093.40All StudentsAttendance

2.7057.2014.5040.0042.90

54.5050.00Limited EnglishMath

—57.2028.6029.2042.90

57.8050.00Special EducationMath

—57.2018.8044.0042.90

62.8050.00FARMSMath

—57.2012.9064.3042.9077.2050.00HispanicMath

—57.203.8083.9042.9087.7050.00WhiteMath

—57.204.9059.1042.9064.0050.00African AmericanMath

—57.20—5.785.7042.9080.0050.00AsianMath

—57.20nana42.90100.0050.00American IndianMath

—57.204.3079.7042.9084.0050.00All StudentsMath

—71.1012.7060.0061.50

72.7066.30Limited EnglishReading

10.9071.1021.7038.5061.50

60.2066.30Special EducationReading

—71.1026.8045.3061.50

72.1066.30FARMSReading

—71.1012.9064.3061.5077.2066.30HispanicReading

—71.105.4085.4061.5090.8066.30WhiteReading

—71.105.1068.2061.5073.3066.30African AmericanReading

—71.108.6085.7061.5094.3066.30AsianReading

—71.10nana61.50100.0066.30American IndianReading

—71.106.4081.7061.5088.1066.30All StudentsReading

Needed for 2008

2008 AMONext

Change2006 Attend/ Prof%

2006 AMO 2007 Attend/Prof%

2007 AMOCurre

nt

SubgroupTitle

SubjectTitle

Comparison of MSA Proficiency Data, 2006-2008

But can we attribute these numbers to the AIPs?

YES!

How?

All AIP StudentsMath

0102030405060708090

100

# Passed

# Not Passed5

16

11

26

1315

All AIP StudentsReading

0102030405060708090

100

# Passed

# Not Passed8

12

18 18 1113

Between 33-47% of all

students targeted with an

AIP passed the MSA!!!!!!(29 out of 86 in math

37 out of 80 in reading)

Lee Data

Of the 128 AIP students, 46 showed dramatic growth from fall to winter on the MAP-R

28 of these students are Hispanic

17 have IEPS

34 are FARMs

12 are ESOL

Predicted 12-17

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

Predicted 1-10

Basic

Proficient

Advanced

Over time, strategic monitoring showed improved MSA predictions for AIP students.

The Breakdown Based on Twenty Points Above and Below

• 29 are RELL

• 64 are both FARMs and Hispanic

• 27 are both FARMs and African American

• 39 are in the Special Education sub group

• 41 count in 3 or more cells

• 8 are Hispanic, FARMs, LEP, and Special Education

Of All of the 129 Students Who Have

AIPs:

What we learned about identifying students for AIPs?

AYP Targets:

Completing the AIPThe OBJECTIVE identifies what the

target is for this student. This could

be formative or summative.

The SMART goal is

•Specific•Measurable•Attainable•Result Oriented•Time Sensitive

What evidence will we use to evaluate how we are meeting

this child’s needs.

These ideas are a result of biweekly

intervention meetings.

Completing the AIPThese are notes that reflect student progress, behavior

changes, revisions in interventions, parent

conferences, etc.

Think about what programs your

students are currently

participating in and/or have been recommended for

over the summer or next year.

Automatically updates in file

maker

How did we predict proficiency for the AIP students to identify new

students or to retire an AIP?

AIPs Strategically Monitored on Teams

Drilling Down

Confidence Interval

AMO

Where are they kept for teams?

SMART FILE

As students demonstrate continued proficiency on all tracked data points, they are moved to the SMART file. While still on our radar, they take less of a priority based on data.

As students demonstrate continued proficiency on all tracked data points, they are moved to the SMART file. While still on our radar, they take less of a priority based on data.

Student is identified for an AIP.

Discussions about student reveal shyness and discomfort in talking in groups.

Team determines one intervention is to provide safe opportunities for student to share in non-verbal or low-risk ways.

Team may ask SDT to provide and model strategies so teachers can more effectively support student’s needs.

“Steps” to Successfully Meeting Student Needs

Teachers use strategies with student, monitor impact through AIP discussions,and document results on AIP running records.

Is this studentbeing successful on the targeted data points?

Place student in “smart” file

Continue to discussstudent in AIP meetings

Continue to monitor; Bring student back to full

AIP participation if data deems

Team leader sets agenda

Team members bring academicdata related to AIP interventions

Teams examine key data pointsDetermined for strategic monitoring

Move new students in need to AIP pool

Yes

No

Suggested Role Responsibilities for AIP Success

Team Leader

• Facilitate creation of initial AIPs by examining data and strategically selecting students and appropriate interventions

• Implement and provide communication about interventions as determined by individual AIPs

• Set AIP meeting agenda

•Facilitate discussions

•Assign necessary roles (recorder, time keeper)

•Ensure AIPs are maintained and updated after meetings

•Communicate team needs and suggestions to administration, SDT, counselor, and other pertinent personnel

Team Members:

• Help create initial AIPs by examining data and strategically selecting students and appropriate interventions

• Implement interventions as determined by individual AIPs

Suggested Role Responsibilities for AIP Success

•Prepare for AIP discussions by providing evidence and data to support or refute effectiveness of interventions

•Participate in AIP discussions

•Support team leader with AIP updating

Staff Development Teacher

• Support teams in examining data and strategically selecting students and appropriate interventions

• Support Team Leaders in preparation for meetings

• Support team and provide input at AIP discussions

• Provide necessary strategies, training, or support to teachers as determined by students’ individual interventions

• Help ensure integrity and quality of AIP documents

• Maintain “big picture” view of schoolwide AIPs

• Communicate between groups of stakeholders

Suggested Role Responsibilities for AIP Success

Principal /Administrator:

• Participate in AIP discussions

• Ensure all participants are regularly attending meetings (including counselors)

Suggested Role Responsibilities for AIP Success

• Ensure quality and integrity of AIP plans through monitoring

• Support teams with determined interventions

• Maintain “big picture” of AIPs throughout the school

We aren’t the only ones…

• Newport Mill• Sligo• Silver Spring International• Takoma Park• Argyle

Other schools have decided to implement AIPs.

Next Steps: Force Field Analysis

• Drivers • Restrainers