achieving educational excellence through literacy · achieving educational excellence through...
Post on 27-Oct-2019
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Performance 17.0 19.8 20.5
Top Level IV EOG Reading
(percent scoring at top half of
Level IV)
3.8 4.5 5.3 6.0 6
Performance 3.0 2.7 2.7
Gap Reduction in EOG
Reading Scale Score (W-AA)8.4 8.1 7.7 7.4 -15%
Performance 8.7 8.0 7.8
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
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 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
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.
% 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
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
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
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
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
Experimental Control
(-.380)
(-.415)
(2.400*)
(.966) (1.470)
(-2.212)
Strong Moderate Inconsistent
39
Grade 6: Experimental Group 2 vs. Control Group 2
Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2010
340
345
350
355
360
Strong Moderate Inconsistent
Experimental Control
(.420)
(1.955*) (.186)
40
Grade 7: Experimental Group 2 vs. Control Group 2
Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2010
340
345
350
355
360
Strong Moderate Inconsistent
Experimental Control
(1.995)(.907) (-1.023)
41
Grade 8: Experimental Group 2 vs. Control Group 2
Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2010
340
345
350
355
360
Strong Moderate Inconsistent
Experimental Control
(-1.776*)
(.391) (-.289)
42
Grade 7: Experimental Group 3 vs. Control Group 3
Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010
340
345
350
355
360
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Experimental Control
(2.907*)
(-.108)
(-.565)
(-2.078*)
(-1.175)
(.856)
Strong Moderate Inconsistent
43
Grade 8: Experimental Group 3 vs. Control Group 3
Differences of Mean Adjusted EOG Reading Growth Scores 2009 & 2010
340
345
350
355
360
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Experimental Control
(1.725)
(.240)
(.499)
(.914)
(.602)
(.125)
Strong Moderate Inconsistent
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
Scatterplot: 2010 Grade 7
Cor relationsa
1 .124**
.008
499 449
.124** 1
.008
449 509
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 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.
Grade = 7a.
54
Scatterplot: 2010 Grade 8
Cor relationsa
1 .189**
.000
530 473
.189** 1
.000
473 555
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 0.01 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
top related