achieving educational excellence through literacy · achieving educational excellence through...

Achieving Educational Excellence

through Literacy: an update to the Board of Education

1

Presented to the

Board of Education

October 2, 2010

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

4

Reading Goals - Baseline and Results

Strategic Plan GoalBaseline

2007-08

Results

2008-09

Results

2009-10

Goal

2010-11

Goal

2011-12

Strategic

Plan Goal

2012

I.B - EOG Reading (percent

proficient)61.5 68.0 74.5 81.0 81

Performance 55.0 65.6 67.6

Level IV EOG Reading

(percent scoring Level IV)19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 25


Top Level IV EOG Reading

(percent scoring at top half of

Level IV)

3.8 4.5 5.3 6.0 6


Gap Reduction in EOG

Reading Scale Score (W-AA)8.4 8.1 7.7 7.4 -15%


GCS 2010 EOG Reading % Proficient and Goal 2012: I.B

67.6 66.969.5

53

41

53.6

67

56.2

84.9

34.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All AA AI AS H M W EDS LEP SWD

2012: 81.0

2010: 68.0

5

2008-10 End-of-Grade Reading - Subgroups

6

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

Reading Scale Score Gap

7

Grade Subgroup Percent Proficient 2010

Scale Score Points Gap

between All and African-

American (AA)

Scale Score Points Gap

between White (W)

and AA

3rd – 8th

Composite

All 67.6%

N/A 7.8AA 53.6%

W 84.9%

3rd

All 63.6%

3.9 9.7AA 50.2%

W 82.5%

4th

All 67.6%

3.6 8.3AA 53.8%

W 86.0%

5th

All 68.5%

3.3 7.4AA 55.3%

W 85.0%

6th

All 73.9%

3.2 7.2AA 62.2%

W 88.3%

7th

All 65.0%

3.3 7.0AA 49.8%

W 81.4%

8th

All 66.7%

3.4 7.5AA 50.1%

W 86.0%

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.

Kindergarten

1st Grade

2nd Grade

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.

8

See

attachments

for

additional

data

9

How will

we make

progress?

10

Balanced Literacy


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 self-

regulated 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

ReadingWriting

Word StudySpeaking & 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

Increased Student

Achievement

Area 1: Professional Development

Area 2: Curriculum Support and

Coaching

Area 3: Research and

Development

Area 4: Content Implementation

Area 5: Monitoring

17

DIBELS


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.

% of Students

(1) Western

Region

(1) Southeastern

Region

(1) Northern

Region

(1) Enrichment

(1) Central

Region

% of Students

(1) Guilford County

Schools

19

DIBELS Assessment Measures and Outcomes

Includes: Scores on each measure

assessed, goals for each measure, and

district percentiles.

Includes: Students responses and errors,

assessor, date of assessment, student

motivation, and assessor notes and

observations.

Includes: Current and past benchmark

scores and graph of key measure with aim

line from benchmark score to next

benchmark goal.

Contains information about all students

in a class sorted by instruction supports

recommendation.

Contains information about student

performance on all benchmark measures

assessed.

Contains a record of student responses for

each measure assessed.

20

DIBELS Assessment Measures and Outcomes

21

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

DIBELS Assessment Measures and Outcomes:

Progress Monitoring

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


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

25

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

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’ ResponsesSurvey 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

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

Brief Introduction of the Background

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

in READ 180 out READ 180

never in READ

180

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

3 4 5 6

3 4 5 6 7

4 5 6 7 8

Grade Study

Control pool

READ 180 Distribution by Cohort

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



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



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

degree of 2008 EOG

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

Examples

Precision Match and Random Selection

grade gender ethnicity FRL LEP SWD

Variables of Precision Match Random Selection

n experimental n control

35

Reason for further control of

previous 3 years’ historical reading performance

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

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 = 34536

experiment control

N N N

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.

Students in READ 180 and in Study Groups

2009 or/and 2010

% of students

Enrolled in Read180 Program Results of Precision Match & Random Selection

experiment & control

% of students

37

Grade 7: Experimental Group 1 vs. Control Group 1Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010

340

345

350

355

360

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010

Experimental Control

(2.643*)

(.260)

(.615)

(-.900)

(-1.272)

Strong Moderate Inconsistent

(-.489)

38

Grade 8: Experimental Group 1 vs. Control Group 1Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010

340

345

350

355

360

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010


(-.380)

(-.415)

(2.400*)

(.966) (1.470)

(-2.212)


39

Grade 6: Experimental Group 2 vs. Control Group 2

Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2010

340

345

350

355

360



(.420)

(1.955*) (.186)

40



340

345

350

355

360



(1.995)(.907) (-1.023)

41



340

345

350

355

360



(-1.776*)

(.391) (-.289)

42


Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010

340

345

350

355

360

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010


(2.907*)

(-.108)

(-.565)

(-2.078*)

(-1.175)

(.856)


43


Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010

340

345

350

355

360

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010


(1.725)

(.240)

(.499)

(.914)

(.602)

(.125)


44

Summary Table: Differences of Adjusted Mean Scale Scores

degree of

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

8

7

8

2

3

Differences of adjusted mean scale scores: experimental vs. control

7

8

1

6

7

Study Grade

45

Summary Table: Level Scores Movement by Percentage Proficient

level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4

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

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

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

2009 2010

1

2

3

2008

Study Group N

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

49

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

50

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

51

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 pre-

test.

• 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).

52

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.

IV. Relationship between EOG Reading Scale Score Gains and

Scholastic SRI Lexile Score Gains

Scatterplot: 2010 Grade 6

Cor relationsa

1 .102*

.022

550 505

.102* 1

.022

505 560

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

SRI lex ile gain 10 vs. 09

EOG Scale Score Gian

10 vs. 09

SRI lex ile gain

10 vs. 09

EOG Scale

Score Gian

10 vs. 09

Correlation is s ignif icant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

Grade = 6a.

53


Cor relationsa

1 .124**

.008

499 449

.124** 1

.008

449 509

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N



10 vs. 09

SRI lex ile gain

10 vs. 09

EOG Scale

Score Gian

10 vs. 09

Correlation is s ignif icant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Grade = 7a.

54


Cor relationsa

1 .189**

.000

530 473

.189** 1

.000

473 555

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N



10 vs. 09

SRI lex ile gain

10 vs. 09

EOG Scale

Score Gian

10 vs. 09

Correlation is s ignif icant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Grade = 8a.

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

57

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

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:

• 8th grade EOG Reading score

• 9th 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

8th grade EOG Reading mean scale score starting point

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

AE Control

AE Control

351.90 352.04

61

2010 EOC Eng I Mean Scores

Adjusted by 2009 EOG Reading Scale Scores

Significant difference found between groups.

AE students out performed control students.

Note: Passing score (2009-10) = 146

AE Control

147.6 146.3

62

Crosstabs: % Proficient

2009 EOG Reading vs. 2010 EOC English I

1 2 3 4 Total

EOG_lvl Count 11 35 55 0 101

% of Total 2.6% 8.1% 12.8% .0% 23.5%

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 Count 14 59 39 0 112

% of Total 3.3% 13.7% 9.1% .0% 26.0%

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%

Control

1

2

3

ENG_lvl

AE

1

2

3

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

Strategiesfor making

progress…

65

Additional Strategic Plan Reading Strategies

66

I.5 - Engage the community in the promotion of K-12 literacy.

I.10 - Provide ample opportunities for students to master 21st 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.

How

will we

track

progress?

67

Academic Services Improvement Plan

68

Monitor, observe, and support:

Balanced Literacy implementation through classroom walk-

throughs.

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.

Next

Steps

69

Additional District Strategies

70

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.

We’re Not Quite There Yet…but we’re on our way!

55%

67.6%

74.35%81%

71

2008

2010

2011

(Increase

6.75

percentage

points)

2012

achieving educational excellence through literacy · achieving educational excellence through...

Documents