Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elementary Intervention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District analysis recommends tighter alignment of elementary RTI programs, adoption of EduClimber for progress tracking
Summary
District staff presented a cross‑site RTI analysis finding similar intervention practices and recommended adopting EduClimber, calibrating assessments through PD, increasing collaboration time and sharing Beach's push‑in best practices to improve consistency across elementary schools.
District staff told the Piedmont Unified School District board they found more similarities than differences across the elementary sites' Response to Intervention programs, but identified opportunities to align practices and share effective approaches.
Assistant principal Beth Ryan, who led the site analysis, said intervention prevalence was broadly similar across the three elementary schools: roughly 6–8% of students receiving math intervention and about 8–11% receiving reading intervention in the snapshot she compiled. "When you look at percentages, it's 6 to 8% math of the population at the school site ... and in reading, 8 to 11%," Ryan said, while noting the numbers are fluid because short‑term interventions and pull‑in practices change caseloads.
The presentation documented common elements — six‑week RTI cycles, 30‑minute reading sessions several times a week, and shared use of evidence‑based reading interventions such as Orton‑Gillingham, Barton and Wilson — and suggested several next steps: adopt a single data platform (EduClimber) to centralize intervention groups and session counts; provide a year of professional development to calibrate assessments and intervention practices; expand push‑in models where scheduling permits; and replicate Beach Elementary's coaching and classroom‑modeling practices across other sites.
Board members questioned how FTE allocations are determined and how special‑education services interface with intervention programs. District staff said FTE is calculated by an enrollment‑based formula and that Havens had its reading intervention FTE increased after an audit; they also described the process by which students who do not make progress after RTI cycles are moved to student study teams or referred for special‑education assessment.
The board did not vote on the recommendations at the meeting but requested follow‑up details on student selection criteria, the number of students receiving both math and reading interventions, and the professional‑development calendar tied to EduClimber implementation.
Next steps: Staff will proceed with EduClimber procurement and return to the board with implementation details and a plan for the PD calendar and monitoring.
