TL;DR:
- Attempts to use a common WIN period for intervention were overwhelming due to the sheer number of students who needed help.
- After brainstorming with a colleague and involving administrators, a new initiative for a Math Intervention WIN was proposed and implemented, eventually leading to the creation of full-time Math Interventionist positions to better support struggling students.
The Case for Intervention
“Well… that didn’t go the way I had planned it.”
I was sitting at lunch and thinking about how some of my Algebra 1 students were really struggling. It was something that was always on my mind. When we switched our schedule this past year to have a common WIN (What I Need) period at the end of the day, I really had imagined I would be able to provide more intervention.
But so far, it wasn’t working.
Once I had taken attendance for the 23 kids in my WIN, checked their passes to see other teachers, and checked their grades, I hardly had any time to work with the 5-10 kids that I had given passes to see me for extra help. It was overwhelming.
Right then, as if she could read my mind, my colleague D in the math department brought up her frustration to me about WIN. And in particular, not being able to effectively help her Algebra 2 kids.
Let me tell you a bit about D. D is a relatively new teacher who student taught during the COVID year. She is super passionate, hard-working, and really wants the kids to do better. But like me, she was frustrated a lot.
I told her that I shared her frustration. She and I had probably the two toughest classes to teach in terms of the number of kids who were below grade level: Algebra 1 and Algebra 2.
I remain hopeful that together, as a team of teacher leaders and administrators, we could make this school great. Click To TweetSo we started to brainstorm.
How could we make WIN more effective in doing what it was intended to do (which was ultimately to get the kids what they needed)?
Running a full WIN and then trying to intervene with a small group of kids just wasn’t working. So then we thought, what if there were one or two WINs where all that teacher did was an intervention for any kid needing it and didn’t have any other kids sitting there?
So I decided to invite B (the AP of Curriculum & Instruction) to our next PLC meeting to see what he thought of the idea and if it held any water.
At our next meeting, D and I presented our idea to the whole department and B. We discussed our struggles with the sheer number of kids in our classes needing intervention and how our current WIN structure just wasn’t working. And then we threw out the idea of a Math Intervention WIN.
We held our breath.
B and the department overall liked it and saw the need for it. But B had to bring it to the rest of the admin team and also wanted to run it by the Guiding Coalition committee. That committee, as I mentioned in an early post, was a committee I had been a part of the year before. And it was a collection of admin and teachers who were tasked with improving the climate and culture of the building.
Both the admin team and the Guiding Coalition committee liked the idea.
Not only did the team and committee like it, the English department members also expressed their struggles with WIN and helping kids. And they wanted the same thing in their department.
Now who would be the intervention WIN teacher and where would their WIN students go?
We decided the intervention teacher had to have a strong math background and have taught every course in the sequence in order to effectively help any kid that came their way. We also talked about tracking kids who came and how to sign kids up on a Google Sheet that would be shared between us.
And deep down, I knew this job would quickly get overwhelming just seeing how many kids just D and I had coming in daily for help at the time.
As for where the kids would go that the intervention teacher currently had, it was decided those kids would be split up into the other WINs. And we were responsible to do that, which I never understood why that was. But luckily our IC (Instructional Coach) jumped in and said he could do that easily.
My intuition kicked in when we were deciding who to have as the intervention teacher. I knew that this ultimately could be good data to use for other changes necessary in the building. And I would feel guilty dropping this responsibility on someone else. I knew it was going to be a lot of work.
So I volunteered to be the intervention WIN teacher.
I set up the Google Sheet other teachers in the department could use to sign kids up for intervention. This way, I knew who to expect each day, what class they were in, and what they needed help with. Our IC split up my roster into the other four classes.
And Math Intervention WIN was now a new initiative.
It started out slow but quickly became overwhelming at certain times. As predicted, the majority of kids coming to see me were from Algebra 1 and Algebra 2, particularly from my and D’s classes since we taught the majority of those classes. I also had students coming to see me for test corrections before a retake and to make up tests/quizzes for my own classes. As a result, there were days when I had over two dozen kids in my room.
It quickly started to become too much. And I reached out to B.
“B, when you have a chance, take a look at my sign in sheet for WIN today…”
He was in shock at the sheer number of kids I had coming. And not all the teachers were sending kids every day. So he told me he would send my IC into the room occasionally on days things were out of control, but also to try to get peer tutors in there with me.
He asked me to survey the other teachers for recommendations of students who would make good peer tutors to volunteer in my room on days things were out of control. So I collected a list of students and sent them his way.
Sadly, nothing came of that, and I continued to struggle through my WIN each day trying to help as many kids as I could but also being overwhelmed with the number of kids who just had retakes, make-ups, and test corrections to distribute out.
With everything else I had taken on this year, I was beginning to feel burnt out.
I talked to B again about this, and he and the IC brainstormed how to at least get the test takers out of there. They brought the issue to the rest of the admin team and MTSS team. And they decided to create a Math Make Up Test Center in the Innovation Center.
This did help. But I still sometimes had 15-20 kids getting help with me each day, particularly right before a big test was being given in Algebra 1 or Algebra 2. Plus, at the semester, I had 4 WIN students in there each day doing credit recovery with a pilot program (more on this in a later post). It was still too much…
This was not working. I was not providing the intervention these kids needed.
I continued to share my data with B and my IC, all the while maintaining hope that the issue that I, along with another PLC leader in the building, had highlighted months earlier, would be addressed.
But let’s rewind a bit.
First, let me tell you a bit about K. K is the Science PLC Leader in the building. She has been in the building for quite a long time. K is super passionate. She loves kids and science, and I adore her because she tells it like it is without any fear. We have somewhat similar personalities, but I tend to be a little more optimistic when it comes to admin’s initiatives. She has been around a while and seen a lot, so I understand why she feels the way she does.
Back in the winter break of 2022-2023, K and I were texting back and forth vigorously, which we tended to do when we were both frustrated with something or if we had an idea.
This past year in BLT (Building Leadership Team) meetings, our focus had been on reading a book about Data Driven Instruction, and how to use data from assessments to drive our instruction. Each month we had to read a chapter and then discussed it at meetings. Our focus was on exploring how to implement the ideas from the chapters into our building.
[scroll down to keep reading]
The ideas of this book were overall good, but there was something that wasn’t addressed at these meetings.
K and I had been texting because the last few chapters of the book had been focused on the re-teaching and tutoring aspect of the model. We were struggling with the idea based on our current schedule and contract.
Our current WIN structure didn’t support the idea of tutoring. And there was no after-school time in our contract. Before school was focused on PLC meetings and planning, so it couldn’t happen then. So we were trying to brainstorm how and when to tutor the kids who were still not mastering the material after re-teaching.
We put together a Google Doc with all our ideas. And I encouraged K to email B and our IC to see what they thought.
With a little encouragement, she sent it to them.
B replied later suggesting we meet after break to talk through our ideas. And on January 19th, we did just that.
We had a great brainstorming session before school with him and our IC. We used a lot of my data from my Intervention WIN and how crazy that was. And of course, we brought up our scores from standardized testing that showed our kids were low performing in math, which was no secret across the building.
We bounced ideas around and kept finding negatives to each idea.
And finally, we all agreed that the only way to solve this problem was with a full-time Math Interventionist in the building. Someone who could pull specific kids based on the assessment data we would be analyzing. And then do focused re-teaching and tutoring with small groups of kids throughout the day. The idea of “after-school tutoring” just wasn’t feasible.
But then, of course, B said that they would try to get the school board to see the need for this, but it may not happen.
So essentially again, I was being told not to get my hopes up.
Fast forward to my current situation in March of feeling overwhelmed and finally getting a testing center to help. I kept communicating how this wasn’t working, even with all our best efforts. That we needed more than just one person trying to intervene with a bunch of kids in a 30-minute window. And at the end of the day too when everyone is just exhausted.
I had heard that the principal of our school had written up a proposal to the school board for a full-time Math Interventionist. I felt like at least we are trying our best to make this happen. And hoped that the school board would see the definitive need we had for this position.
Then, right before spring break, B sent me a G-chat.
“Did you see the email???”
And there it was: a job posting for five full-time Math Interventionists in the district, including our school. I was completely elated.
I took a deep sigh of relief that next year would be different and less overwhelming for me. And we would be helping our most at-risk kids in a more effective way with this position. This was a huge win.
And I remain hopeful that together, as a team of teacher leaders and administrators, we could make this school great. It might take a few years, but it definitely is feeling more attainable with each step.
The reluctant leader marches on.
About Julie Saller
Julie is a math teacher who currently teaches at Plano HS in Plano, IL and is also the Math PLC Leader & Educators Rising Sponsor at the school. She is an advocate for public education & recruitment of quality professionals in the teaching profession. She uses the GRID method by Teach Better in her math classes & supports teachers in her building who are looking to try GRID in their classes.
