Using the data below, describe all intervention strategies employed by the school to improve the academic performance of students identified by the early warning system.

The school used its early warning system to identify students who needed additional academic, attendance, or behavioral support. Teachers and school staff reviewed early warning indicators alongside classroom performance, assessment results, and progress-monitoring data to identify specific needs and prioritize students with multiple indicators.
Students performing at Level 1 in ELA or mathematics received targeted support focused on the skills they had not yet mastered. Teachers used small-group instruction, a daily intervention period, prerequisite-skill review, manipulatives, visual models, and additional guided practice to address those gaps. Assessment results informed instructional groups, and teachers provided reteaching after assessments before checking whether students had improved.
Attendance was also a major area of concern. Staff monitored students who missed 10% or more of school days, contacted families to discuss barriers to attendance, and helped students reconnect with missed instruction. For students with suspensions, staff provided behavioral support and worked with families to reduce disruptions to learning.
Grade-level teams reviewed the progress of students with two or more early warning indicators and students with a history of retention. These reviews helped the team determine whether a student was responding to support or needed a change in the frequency, focus, or intensity of intervention. The school continued to monitor both academic progress and early warning indicators so that support could be adjusted as students’ needs changed.

PLC Meeting Schedule

RtI Team Meeting Schedule

SAC Upload Center