A summary of efforts made in establishing a Collaborative Response Model at Julia Kiniski School.

1. Using
a
Collaborative
Response
to
Intervention
at
Julia
Kiniski
School
2014
“Without
teacher
dialogue
and
discussion
about
students,
it
really
doesn’t
matter
what
your
intervention
is......"
(Kurtis
Hewson,
Mill
Woods
Professional
Learning
Session,
August
2013)
What
sounds
so
simple
is
really
about
creating
a
cultural
shift
in
how
we
talk
about
what’s
most
important.
At
Julia
Kiniski
School,
our
journey
with
interventions
has
had
a
shared
history
with
that
of
many
of
our
schools
–
teachers
have
worked
with
a
‘focus
on
results;’
have
shared
‘best
practices;’
have
followed
the
‘instructional
focus’
framework;
have
moved
from
‘differentiation’
to
‘universal
design
for
learning,’
and
so
on.
We
have
spent
team
meetings
and
collaborative
time
developing
rubrics,
I
Can
statements,
and
backwards
design
lessons.
All
of
this
has
been
time
well
spent.
All
of
this
has
focused
on
solid
teaching
practice,
supporting
inclusion,
and
school-­‐wide
improvement.
This
year,
we
have
made
a
slight
shift,
by
talking
about
students
first.
In
August
2013,
the
staff
at
Julia
Kiniski
School
committed,
along
with
colleagues
in
the
PLC
South
Network
(Mill
Woods),
to
working
with
the
Collaborative
Response
Model
developed
by
Kurtis
and
Lorna
Hewson.
(JigsawLearningca.wordpress.com).
The
focus
of
this
work
is
on
strengthening
collaborative
team
structures
and
processes,
and
providing
regular
opportunities
for
educators
to
discuss
individual
student
growth
in
relation
to
a
four-­‐tiered
Intervention
Pyramid,
and
common
team
assessments
.
In
our
October
collaborative
team
meetings,
teachers
and
their
EAs
used
large
tri-­‐fold
boards
to
create
an
Intervention
Pyramid
at
each
grade
level,
using
colour-­‐coded
post-­‐it
notes
representing
students.
Each
pyramid
was
created
with
four
colours;
each
colour
corresponding
to
one
tier
of
the
pyramid.
During
regularly
scheduled
team
meetings,
the
pyramid
serves
as
a
catalyst
for
professional
dialogue
about
the
celebrations
and
successes
of
specific
students;
any
supports
currently
being
provided;
those
students
who
may
need
additional
supports;
and
strategies
that
teachers
are
using
as
interventions.
The
conversation
involves
physically
moving
the
students
along
the
pyramid
–
down
a
tier
if
the
student
has
shown
growth
and
no
longer
requires
the
intervention;
up
a
tier
if
increased
supports
or
services
are
needed.
The
beauty
of
the
conversation
is
that
every
4-­‐6
weeks,
teachers
are
intentional
and
strategic
in
their
conversations
about
student
growth.
Each
team
has
created
team
norms
and
SMART
goals,
to
which
they
refer
at
the
beginning
of
each
meeting.
They
keep
a
record
of
the
students
and
strategies
discussed,
in
a
team
binder,
along
with
an
achievement
chart
that
we
created
for
transition
discussions
at
the
end
of
the
year.
In
Term
2,
teams
were
all
provided
with
some
time
embedded
into
the
day,
to
work
on
their
goals.
Most
teams
created
an
assessment
tool,
such
as
a
rubric
or
a
student
reflection
checklist.
Some
teams
have
organized
themselves
into
cross-­‐graded
guided
reading
groups.
Other
teachers
are
taking
LLI
training
and
building
Leveled
Literacy
Interventions
into
their
guided
reading
time.
And
all
teachers
are
using
UDL
strategies,
to
provide
multiple
means
of
representation,
engagement,
and
demonstration
of
learning.
During
the
year,
the
work
has
been
evolving.
It’s
messy
work
at
times
because
it
is
nonlinear.
We’re
making
adjustments
along
the
way,
in
how
to
best
work
with
the
physical
aspect
of
the
pyramid,
for

2. example,
or
what
to
record
in
our
meeting
logs.
In
our
recent
team
meetings,
it
was
encouraging
to
see
how
many
students
were
indeed
moving
‘down’
the
pyramid,
to
more
independent
tiers,
because
of
supports
that
had
been
successful.
With
meetings
scheduled
for
every
4-­‐6
weeks,
teachers
are
better
able
to
stay
on
top
of
not
only
the
shifting
needs
in
their
students,
but
also
the
opportunity
to
support
each
other
with
intervention
strategies
to
try.
In
a
recent
planning
session
with
Kurtis,
our
school
leadership
team
was
excited
about
possibilities
for
next
year
–
how
do
we
sustain
this
valuable
collaborative
time
embedded
into
the
day?
How
might
we
re-­‐organize
in
blocks
during
the
year,
to
create
flexible
groupings
between
classes
or
to
enable
more
teachers
to
provide
interventions
for
a
few
targeted
students
?
How
might
we
further
define
our
strategies
within
each
Tier
and
communicate
these
to
students
and
parents?
How
do
we
shift
the
focus
to
looking
at
interventions
in
math?
Or
in
social-­‐emotional
well-­‐being?
How
might
we
involve
our
ILS
partners
in
our
team
meetings?
The
questions
are
an
important
part
of
the
journey.
The
Collaborative
Response
Model
is
a
simple,
yet
systematic
framework
that
can
provide
the
structures,
processes
and
tools
for
robust
professional
dialogue
about
complex
issues
related
to
improving
teaching
practice
and
student
achievement.
Marlene
Hanson,
MSc.
Principal
Julia
Kiniski
School