Achieving Educational Excellence through Literacy: an update to the Board of Education Presented to the Board of Education October 2, 2010 1
What do we want to accomplish? How are we doing? 2
GCS Strategic Plan 2012 Area I Improving Academic Achievement Goal I.B: Eighty-one percent of students will perform at Level III or higher proficiency on End-of-Grade (EOG) reading tests as measured by the North Carolina ABC accountability model. Goal I.G: The percentage of students in grades 3-8 scoring at a Level IV will increase by 8 percentage points on EOG reading tests while students scoring at the top half of the Level IV range will increase by 3 percentage points on the composite score for EOG reading. Goal I.I: The scale score gap will be reduced by 15 percent on EOG reading tests. 3
Reading Goals - Baseline and Results Strategic Plan Goal I.B - EOG Reading (percent proficient) Baseline 2007-08 Results 2008-09 Results 2009-10 Performance 55.0 65.6 67.6 Level IV EOG Reading (percent scoring Level IV) Performance 17.0 19.8 20.5 Top Level IV EOG Reading (percent scoring at top half of Level IV) Performance 3.0 2.7 2.7 Gap Reduction in EOG Reading Scale Score (W-AA) Performance 8.7 8.0 7.8 Goal 2010-11 Goal 2011-12 Strategic Plan Goal 2012 61.5 68.0 74.5 81.0 81 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 25 3.8 4.5 5.3 6.0 6 8.4 8.1 7.7 7.4-15% 4
GCS 2010 EOG Reading % Proficient and Goal 2012: I.B 100 90 80 70 67.6 66.9 67 69.5 84.9 2012: 81.0 2010: 68.0 60 53.6 56.2 53 50 40 30 34.7 41 20 10 0 All AA AI AS H M W EDS LEP SWD 5
2008-10 End-of-Grade Reading - Subgroups Group % proficient gain of % proficient 2008 2009 2010 09 vs. 08 10 vs. 09 10 vs. 08 All 54.3 65.6 67.6 11.3 2.0 13.3 AA 37.6 50.7 53.6 13.1 2.9 16.0 AI 49.4 61.3 66.9 11.9 5.6 17.5 AS 58.2 67.1 67.0 8.9-0.1 8.8 H 39.0 52.6 56.2 13.6 3.6 17.2 M 56.7 68.4 69.5 11.7 1.1 12.8 W 74.7 83.8 84.9 9.1 1.1 10.2 6
Reading Scale Score Gap Grade Subgroup Percent Proficient 2010 Scale Score Points Gap between All and African- American (AA) Scale Score Points Gap between White (W) and AA 3 rd 8 th All 67.6% AA 53.6% Composite W 84.9% 3 rd AA 50.2% All 63.6% W 82.5% 4 th AA 53.8% All 67.6% W 86.0% 5 th AA 55.3% All 68.5% W 85.0% 6 th AA 62.2% All 73.9% W 88.3% 7 th AA 49.8% All 65.0% W 81.4% 8 th AA 50.1% All 66.7% W 86.0% N/A 7.8 3.9 9.7 3.6 8.3 3.3 7.4 3.2 7.2 3.3 7.0 3.4 7.5 The 2010 goal is to narrow the gap to 7.2 scale score points or less. The 2012 goal is to narrow the gap to 5.9 scale score points or less. 7
GCS DIBELS Results - End of Year 2010 Percentage of K-2 students in GCS by grade whose overall results fell within the benchmark, strategic, or intensive instructional recommendations categories. Kindergarten 1 st Grade 2 nd Grade 8
See attachments for additional data 9
How will we make progress? 10
Balanced Literacy GCS Strategic Plan 2012 Strategy I.3: Use a balanced literacy approach as core reading instruction and intervention in reading and language arts K-12. GCS will develop a common language and understanding of the practices of the balanced literacy approach that will be evidenced in every school consistently. Reading across the content areas and vocabulary development will be emphasized for core subjects at each grade level. 11
GCS Reading History Four Blocks and a Ball Literacy First Read GCS Balanced Literacy 12
Identified Needs Clarify the terms of Balanced Literacy and the goals of the components. Identify critical practices and classroom conditions. Plan professional development on the topic of selfregulated learning in general as well as self-regulated learning applied to literacy. 13
What We Know Five areas of reading instruction important to supporting the development of readers: Phonemic awareness Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Text comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000) 14
Reading Writing Word Study Speaking & Listening 15
Components of Balanced Literacy Reading Whole Group Differentiated Small Group Self-Selected Reading Writing Formal Informal Word Study Word Recognition Word Meaning Speaking & Listening 16
Three-Year Implementation Plan Area 2: Curriculum Support and Coaching Area 3: Research and Development Area 4: Content Implementation Area 1: Professional Development Increased Student Achievement Area 5: Monitoring 17
DIBELS GCS Strategic Plan 2012 Strategy I.1: Provide early literacy intervention to identified K-2 students. GCS will continue to focus on early literacy intervention by implementing dynamic indicators of basic early literacy (DIBELS) district-wide, which will provide early identification of reading difficulties and the diagnostic information needed to provide immediate interventions. 18
Benchmark Results Comparison Chart End of Year 2010 (all elementary schools) Percentage of K-2 students in GCS and each region whose overall results fell within the benchmark, strategic, or intensive instructional recommendations categories. (1) Guilford County Schools (1) Western Region (1) Southeastern Region (1) Northern Region (1) Enrichment (1) Central Region % of of Students Students 19
DIBELS Assessment Measures and Outcomes Contains information about all students in a class sorted by instruction supports recommendation. Includes: Scores on each measure assessed, goals for each measure, and district percentiles. Contains information about student performance on all benchmark measures assessed. Includes: Current and past benchmark scores and graph of key measure with aim line from benchmark score to next benchmark goal. Contains a record of student responses for each measure assessed. Includes: Students responses and errors, assessor, date of assessment, student motivation, and assessor notes and observations. 20
DIBELS Assessment Measures and Outcomes 21
DIBELS Assessment Measures and Outcomes: Progress Monitoring Student s whose scores fall in intensive and strategic are monitored more frequently while receiving differentiated instruction targeted at specific skills. Intensive students are monitored once every 2 weeks Strategic students are monitored once every 4 weeks Benefits of Progress Monitoring Accelerated learning because students are receiving more appropriate instruction More informed instructional decisions Documentation of student progress for accountability purposes More efficient communication with families Higher expectations for students by teacher 22
Fast ForWord Fast ForWord, is a comprehensive, research-based reading intervention program that helps struggling students improve vocabulary, reading comprehension, fluency, and memory. This software program supports research-based practices. Participating schools: Brightwood Elem., Fairview Elem., Gillespie Park Elem., Hunter Elem., McLeansville Elem., Murphy Traditional Academy, Oak Hill Elem., Rankin Elem. Proposed expansion of 15 additional Title I schools Implemented during fourth quarter of 2009-10 Insufficient length of implementation for effective evaluation. 23
Reading Interventions GCS Strategic Plan 2012 Strategy I.2: Provide reading interventions at middle and high school. GCS will ensure that middle school students who are reading below grade level take a mandatory reading class until grade level proficiency is achieved. On average, students will participate in 45 minutes of additional reading instruction per day. Reading skills will be emphasized across all content areas. High schools will use reading teachers to support students needing assistance with phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. 24
READ 180 READ 180 is a research-based intensive reading intervention program that helps struggling readers whose reading achievement is below proficient level. The program directly addresses individual needs through differentiated instruction, adaptive and instructional software, high-interest literature, and direct instruction in reading, writing, and vocabulary skills. Twenty middle schools and one high school participating Aligned to balanced literacy Second year of implementation Program and teacher at Smith High and all middle schools except Brown Summit and Johnson Street Evaluation of READ 180 in middle schools 25
READ 180 Program Study Report Board of Education October 2, 2010 26
Four-Parts of This Report I. 2009-10 READ 180 Teacher Survey Results II. GCS Quantitative Evaluation Research on READ 180 III. Scholastic of End of Year Gain Analysis - Executive Summary IV. Relationship between EOG Reading Scale Score Gains and Scholastic SRI Lexile Score Gains 27
I. 2009-10 READ 180 Teacher Survey Results Teachers Responses Survey sent to 21 teachers in May 2010; received 17 responses The small-group instruction, software, and independent reading components were appropriate for students, and the generated reports helped teachers monitor student progress and plan instructional activities. Software issues caused some delays for students when working on READ 180 computer work. The students have been able to transfer knowledge from READ 180 to their work in other subject areas. READ 180 is taught in a small learning environment with close interaction between students and teachers. Many students have expressed an increase in confidence and have exhibited more interest in reading. 28
Teachers Suggestions for Improvement Fourteen of 17 teachers reported that their schedule was sometimes disrupted by other activities in the school. Reading intervention time should be protected. Teachers suggested giving letter grades for student work and final course grades to increase student motivation and perseverance. READ 180 intervention needs to be a priority for administration, teachers, students, and parents. Some teachers reported having difficulty with student misbehaviors which interrupted daily instruction. To increase student motivation, look for creative scheduling options that allow students to participate in more encore classes. 29
II. GCS Quantitative Evaluation Research on READ 180 Brief Introduction of the Background READ 180 implementation o 45 minutes/day rather than as prescribed 90 minutes/day o Implementation sometimes disrupted by other activities Program has been implemented for two academic years Results may be confounded by: o Student motivation o Other reading initiatives o Professional development at different levels o School leadership situation 30
Definitions of Degree of Implementation in Middle Schools* Strong 8 middle schools Schools in which the same teacher taught for two consecutive years and where the teacher quickly developed a deep understanding of the program, its components, and how to use the data to inform instruction as evidenced by data, planning, and observations. Moderate 6 middle schools Schools in which the same teacher taught for two consecutive years and where the teacher, with coaching and support,developed an understanding of the program, its components, and how to use the data to inform instruction as evidenced by data, planning, and observations. Inconsistent 6 middle schools Schools in which teacher turn-over prevented consistent implementation. *Based on 45-minute implementation. 31
READ 180 Distribution by Cohort in READ 180 out READ 180 never in READ 180 Study Grade 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8 NA 2 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 8 3 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8 NA Control pool 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 8 32
Study Questions 1. Study Question 1: Did students who were in READ 180 only in 2009 perform better than students who were never in READ 180 as measured by state reading scores, by sampling the experimental and control groups based on precision match and random selection? 2. Study Question 2: Did students who were in READ 180 only in 2010 perform better than students who were never in READ 180 as measured by state reading scores, by sampling the experimental and control groups based on precision match and random selection? 3. Study Question 3: Did students who were in READ 180 in 2009 and 2010 perform better than students who were never in READ 180 as measured by state reading scores, by sampling the experimental and control groups based on precision match and random selection? 4. Study Question 4: Did READ 180 work favorably for certain student groups, such as AA, FRL, LEP & SWD groups in terms of positive impact on reading performance as measured by state EOG reading scores? 33
Study Design 1. This is an after the fact study. 2. Three studies and two groups in each study: (1) Experimental: Students in READ 180 program (2) Control: Students in READ 180 schools but never in the program 3. Selection of students for the experimental and control groups: Students were selected based on precision match and random sampling method: Eight variables -- grade, degree of implementation, gender, ethnicity, FRL status, LEP status, SWD status and starting point EOG reading scale score -- were used for the precision match. 4. Ways to control the starting point: (1) precision match and random selection of students (2) further control of previous 3 years EOG reading scores by statistical analysis procedures - - ANCOVA 5. EOG Reading scale scores and level scores were used in the study. 34
Examples Precision Match and Random Selection Variables of Precision Match Random Selection degree of 2008 EOG n experimental n control grade gender ethnicity FRL LEP SWD implementation reading score pool selection selection pool 7 strong F AA Y N N 342 3 3 3 9 7 moderate M AA Y N N 346 6 4 4 4 35
360 Reason for further control of previous 3 years historical reading performance 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 group1 students matched group2 students in all 8 variables with rss08 = 345 group2 students matched group1 students in all 8 variables with rss08 = 345 36
Students in READ 180 and in Study Groups Enrolled in Read180 Program Results of Precision Match & Random Selection 2009 or/and 2010 experiment control experiment & control N % of students N N % of students grade students AA FRL LEP SWD students* students* AA FRL LEP SWD Study 1 7 248 60.1 74.2 11.7 35.9 110 110 70.9 72.7 4.5 10 8 256 63.7 75 16 39.1 104 104 75 77.9 6.7 7.7 Study 2 6 588 64 70.5 4.6 17.7 290 290 75.9 77.9 3.8 8.3 7 295 63 69.8 9.6 14.9 119 119 74.8 76.5 4.2 5 8 342 64.5 63.9 7.2 12.7 168 168 72.6 69 3 7.7 Study 3 7 241 73 80.5 12.9 22.4 106 106 83 84.9 5.7 7.5 8 256 73 83.2 10.2 22.3 119 119 87.4 87.4 5 5 * The final numbers in ANCOVA were 5-10% less because of missing the previous years' reading scores for those students. 37
Grade 7: Experimental Group 1 vs. Control Group 1 Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010 360 355 (2.643*) (.260) (.615) (-1.272) 350 (-.489) (-.900) 345 340 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Strong Moderate Inconsistent Experimental Control 38
Grade 8: Experimental Group 1 vs. Control Group 1 Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010 360 355 (-.380) (-.415) (.966) (1.470) (-2.212) 350 (2.400*) 345 340 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Strong Moderate Inconsistent Experimental Control 39
360 Grade 6: Experimental Group 2 vs. Control Group 2 Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2010 355 350 (.420) (1.955*) (.186) 345 340 Strong Moderate Inconsistent Experimental Control 40
Grade 7: Experimental Group 2 vs. Control Group 2 Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2010 360 355 350 (1.995) (.907) (-1.023) 345 340 Strong Moderate Inconsistent Experimental Control 41
Grade 8: Experimental Group 2 vs. Control Group 2 Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2010 360 355 (-1.776*) (.391) (-.289) 350 345 340 Strong Moderate Inconsistent Experimental Control 42
Grade 7: Experimental Group 3 vs. Control Group 3 Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010 360 355 350 345 (2.907*) (-.108) (-.565) (-2.078*) (-1.175) (.856) 340 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Strong Moderate Inconsistent Experimental Control 43
Grade 8: Experimental Group 3 vs. Control Group 3 Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010 360 355 350 (1.725) (.240) (.499) (.914) (.602) (.125) 345 340 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Strong Moderate Inconsistent Experimental Control 44
Summary Table: Differences of Adjusted Mean Scale Scores Study 1 2 3 Grade 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 degree of Differences of adjusted mean scale scores: experimental vs. control implementation 2009 Results 2010 Results Strong 2.643*.260 Moderate -.489.615 Inconsistent -.900-1.272 Strong -.380 -.415 Moderate 2.400*.966 Inconsistent 1.470-2.212 Strong.420 Moderate 1.955* Inconsistent.186 Strong 1.995 Moderate.907 Inconsistent -1.023 Strong -1.776* Moderate.391 Inconsistent -.289 Strong 2.907* -.108 Moderate -.565-2.078* Inconsistent -1.175.856 Strong 1.725.240 Moderate.499.914 Inconsistent.602.125 45
Summary Table: Level Scores Movement by Percentage Proficient Study Group N 2008 2009 2010 level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 1 experimental 214 38.8 47.2 14 0 29.4 35.5 34.1 0.9 27.6 46.7 23.8 1.9 control 214 38.8 47.2 14 0 30.4 36.4 29.4 3.7 23.4 44.4 29.4 2.8 2 experimental 577 32.8 66.4 0.9 0 25.1 44.5 29.1 1.2 control 577 32.8 66.4 0.9 0 26.9 40.2 32.2 0.7 3 experimental 225 48 45.8 6.2 0 54.7 44.9 0.4 0 44.4 48.4 7.1 0 control 225 48 45.8 6.2 0 54.2 35.1 10.7 0 37.8 47.1 14.7 0.4 46
Findings As measured by EOG Reading scale scores: For study 1, the grade 7 strong implementation group and grade 8 moderate implementation group of READ 180 program performed significantly better than the corresponding groups, whose students have never been in READ 180 program, in 2009 EOG reading. However, after they exited the program in 2010, the advantages disappeared in 2010 EOG reading. For study 2, the results were mixed. The grade 6 moderate implementation group of READ 180 program performed significantly better, but the grade 8 strong implementation group of READ 180 program performed significantly worse than the corresponding groups, whose students have never been in the READ 180 program, in 2010 EOG reading. For grade 7 there was no difference. For study 3, the grade 7 group of READ 180 program in 2009 and 2010 were mixed. The strong implementation group had significant positive results in 2009 but the moderate implementation group had significantly negative results in 2010. The grade 8 showed no differences in both years. 47
Findings Although there were mixed results when comparing students in READ 180 program to students who were never in READ 180 program, educationally speaking, overall READ 180 program has had slightly positive impact on students EOG reading scale scores. The above findings also answered study question 4: There is not enough available data for LEP and SWD groups. However, since most of the students included in the study are AA students and FRL students, educationally speaking, overall READ 180 has had slightly positive impact on EOG reading scale scores for AA students and FRL students. As measured by EOG Reading level scores: In terms of the gain on percentage proficient, there were no clear differences between students who were in READ 180 program and students who were never in READ 180 program in the study 1 and study 2. However, there were clear differences. The students who were never in READ 180 program out performed students in READ 180 program in the study 3. 48
III. Scholastic End of Year Gain Analysis Executive Summary An analysis was performed on data from 1,849 students in 21 schools that used READ 180 during SY09-10. The analysis examines reading achievement gains, measured in Lexiles, relative to usage and implementation fidelity metrics. Summary results for all students o 36% of students (667) had 2.0+ years and 87% of students (1,604) had 1.0+ years of reading gain o 58 classes had 2.0+ years of reading gain o 6 schools had 2.0+ years and 20 schools had 1.0+ years of reading gain 49
Executive Summary Summary results for students, after removal of students with invalid test scores and less than 60 days of program usage. 53% of students (233 of 436) had 2.0+ years of reading gain in 71 sessions of program usage 66% of students (288 of 436) had 1.5+ years of reading gains in 71 sessions of program usage 50
Executive Summary Recommended areas for further discussion: Increasing student usage above an average of 48 sessions. Only 25% of students had 60+ sessions of usage in the 34 week time frame between tests. Increasing classroom-level implementation fidelity through focused professional development and in-classroom coaching for any class with less than 1.5+ years of gain Increasing correct placement into READ 180. There were 42 Beginning Readers and 303 proficient readers noted at the pretest. Increased monitoring of student test behavior. There were 8 students with invalid pre-test scores and 141 students with invalid post-test scores. An invalid pre-test is assumed when the pre-test is below 100 Lexiles and gain is above 500 Lexiles. An invalid post-test is a decline of 60+ Lexiles (outside SEM of test). 51
Recommendations Take steps to replicate the success of schools that showed greatest gains. Reinforce importance of on-model implementation to building-level leadership by following regular reporting protocol and review of implementation status. Follow-up with students whose end-of-year SRI score indicates a drop from previously demonstrated reading ability at 2010-2011 pre-test. Encourage teachers to enroll in literacy-focused professional development courses. Invest in an ongoing coaching and support program to increase implementation fidelity and enhance teacher instructional practices. Evaluate expansion of READ 180/System 44 into additional areas of high need. 52
IV. Relationship between EOG Reading Scale Score Gains and Scholastic SRI Lexile Score Gains Scatterplot: 2010 Grade 6 SRI lexile gain 10 vs. 09 EOG Scale Score Gian 10 vs. 09 Cor relations a Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Grade = 6 EOG Scale SRI lexile gain Score Gian 10 vs. 09 10 vs. 09 1.102*.022 550 505.102* 1.022 505 560 53
Scatterplot: 2010 Grade 7 SRI lexile gain 10 vs. 09 EOG Scale Score Gian 10 vs. 09 Cor relations a Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Grade = 7 EOG Scale SRI lexile gain Score Gian 10 vs. 09 10 vs. 09 1.124**.008 499 449.124** 1.008 449 509 54
Scatterplot: 2010 Grade 8 SRI lexile gain 10 vs. 09 EOG Scale Score Gian 10 vs. 09 Cor relations a Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Grade = 8 EOG Scale SRI lexile gain Score Gian 10 vs. 09 10 vs. 09 1.189**.000 530 473.189** 1.000 473 555 55
Suggestions Findings from this after-the-fact study may not be generalized to all students, students who were in READ 180 and students who were never in READ 180. A small scale pilot for implementation of 90 minutes/day, fully based on Scholastic prescription, may be worthwhile to try if it s feasible. Further study after three years of READ 180 implementation in 2011 is suggested. In order to have accurate experimental and control student pools, schools must keep accurate and consistent READ 180 student rosters. The difference of adjusted mean scale scores between experimental and control groups is the difference of 2010 growth of adjusted reading scale scores between experimental and control groups. Since there s no clear relationship between EOG scale score gains and SRI Lexile score gains, the GCS study findings may not compare to the Scholastic analysis results. 56
Academic Edge Academic Edge is a core reading/language arts program designed for students reading below grade level. It prepares students for success on exit exams and moves them to graduation and a promising future. Participating high schools: Andrews, Dudley, Eastern, Grimsley, High Point Central, High School Ahead, Northeast, Page, Ragsdale, Southeast, Southern, and Southwest Third year of implementation Evaluation of Academic Edge 57
Academic Edge Program Study Report Board of Education October 2, 2010 58
Academic Edge (AE) Program Introduction Instruction involves systematic teaching, active participation, and scaffolding techniques. Strategies and skills are taught with focus and repetition across genres to promote transfer. It is intended for high school students who have not mastered essential reading, writing, and language skills, and is intended for those who are typically reading two or more years below grade level. Materials include engaging, high-interest fiction/nonfiction and multicultural literature selections. 59
Research Design Group Wise Matching Conditions for Student Selection: 8 th grade EOG Reading score 9 th grade EOC Eng I score 120 days membership in both 2008-09 and 2009-2010 Experimental and control groups each have 430 students from the 11 high schools. Analysis method: ANCOVA 60
Ethnicity of groups AE Control Count Percent Count Percent AMIN 4 0.9 1 0.2 ASIA 21 4.9 16 3.7 HISP 38 8.8 40 9.3 BLCK 275 64.0 285 66.3 WHTE 76 17.7 77 17.9 MULT 16 3.7 11 2.6 8 th grade EOG Reading mean scale score starting point AE Control 351.90 352.04 61
2010 EOC Eng I Mean Scores Adjusted by 2009 EOG Reading Scale Scores AE Control 147.6 146.3 Significant difference found between groups. AE students out performed control students. Note: Passing score (2009-10) = 146 62
Crosstabs: % Proficient 2009 EOG Reading vs. 2010 EOC English I ENG_lvl 1 2 3 4 Total EOG_lvl 1 Count 11 35 55 0 101 % of Total 2.6% 8.1% 12.8%.0% 23.5% AE 2 3 Count 8 55 243 5 311 % of Total 1.9% 12.8% 56.5% 1.2% 72.3% Count 0 0 14 4 18 % of Total.0%.0% 3.3%.9% 4.2% Total Count 19 90 312 9 430 % of Total 4.4% 20.9% 72.6% 2.1% 100.0% EOG_lvl 1 Count 14 59 39 0 112 % of Total 3.3% 13.7% 9.1%.0% 26.0% Control 2 3 Count 9 87 199 5 300 % of Total 2.1% 20.2% 46.3% 1.2% 69.8% Count 1 0 15 2 18 % of Total.2%.0% 3.5%.5% 4.2% Total Count 24 146 253 7 430 % of Total 5.6% 34.0% 58.8% 1.6% 100.0% 63
Academic Edge Summary Students in AE group significantly out performed students in control group as measured by English I scores. Students in AE group have better movement from Level II to Level III than in control group. Suggestions: Continue to support AE program and teachers Level III and IV students should not be enrolled in AE 64
Additional Strategies for making progress 65
Additional Strategic Plan Reading Strategies I.5 - Engage the community in the promotion of K-12 literacy. I.10 - Provide ample opportunities for students to master 21 st skills and knowledge: Power objectives Professional learning communities I.11 - Establish scheduling standards for schools to provide equity for all students. I.12 - Implement the response to intervention model (launch date August 2011) I.31 - Provide high quality, research-based professional development activities for both licensed and classified staff to support district programs. VIII.1 GCS will develop baseline standards for all schools and equity standards for targeted schools in areas of instructional supplies and materials, technology, media materials and supplies, human resources, staffing, facilities and co-curricular activities. 66
How will we track progress? 67
Academic Services Improvement Plan Monitor, observe, and support: Balanced Literacy implementation through classroom walkthroughs. DIBELS implementation through monthly student and school reports and progress monitoring. Fast ForWord, Read 180, and Academic Edge implementation through program reports and observations. Quarterly benchmark results and data-driven instruction. Effective utilization of tutoring dollars supported by PRC 072 - Improving Student Accountability Standards through monthly budget reports and student progress. Teacher, curriculum facilitator, and principal participation in literacy professional development. Student progress on projected growth data. 68
Next Steps 69
Additional District Strategies Increase reading materials that are culturally relevant and of high interest to students. Identify and implement strategies proven effective for African-American and Latino students. Engage parents to support reading at home (Parent Academy, school specific events, Homework on Wheels, etc.). Increase assistance for Title I schools through the use of additional literacy coaches. Create model classrooms for demonstration of best reading practices. 70
We re Not Quite There Yet but we re on our way! 55% 2008 67.6% 2010 74.35% 2011 (Increase 6.75 percentage points) 81% 2012 71