20152016 Summary & Results Year 2 of a 3Year Pilot
Grade Level Proficiency Project is an innovative, comprehensive teaching model. GLPP combines the best technology
programs in math and reading, implementation of 21st century Common Core State Standards, and inclass modeling and training f or both teachers and students . Our program is a direct response to the paradigm shift in education today, using technology to help guide teacher instruction and engage a ll students .
GLPP is in direct alignment with Sonoma Valley Unified School District’s Strategic Plan: All students will be reading at rd grade level by the end of 3 grade . Additionally, GLPP will meet the following goals of the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP): Students will be successful in meeting the Common Core State Standards (in math and reading). S tudents will use technology in their classes to enhance learning . All educators will be supported in implementing the CCSS.
1
Summary G LPP Program Year Two August 2015June 2016
GLPP Program Successes ● GLPP average reading scores in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade classes within or above grade level: 89%. ● Students are able to accelerate far beyond their grade level. ○ Example: Nine 3rd grade students completed Lexia, a grade equivalent of 6.0. If they did not have GLPP support, they would not have had access to this advanced content. ● 1st Grade Reading Goal: 40% of students working within or above grade level: all classes exceeded the goal scoring between 71% and 95%. ● GLPP average math scores in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade classes within or above grade level: 1 00%. ● 1st and 2nd Grade Math Goal: 1 00% met. ● 3rd Grade Math Goal: 70% or more of the students working within or above grade level: 8 3% (Sassarini 65%). ● GLPP works for ALL s tudents. ● On site coaching leads to more confident skilled teachers and instructional aides. Areas to Improve ● Although average reading level in all grades was 89%, there are still many students performing below grade level. ○ Example: At Dunbar, 40% of the 3rd graders scored a bove grade level on the May STAR E, yet over 50% are below grade level. ● Although students are working within grade level or higher, more work is needed to get the students at or above grade level in Math. Major Recommendations ● Continue and expand explicit phonics instruction support. ● Improve and expand Student Time (1to1 instruction). ● More coaching needed to insure student growth, sustainability, and accountability.
2
All averages are within or above grade level for both DreamBox math and ADAM math assessment. Dunbar 1st Grade Summary
Results
Baseline 1st Grade Sept
n = 27/27
2015
DreamBox ADAM all ADAM Num
1.0 0.9 0.6
Dunbar 2nd Grade Summary
9-‐Month May 2016
% Growth Beyond Normal
2.2 1.7 1.6
33% 50% 67%
Dunbar 3rd Grade Summary
Results n= 27/27
Baseline 1st Grade Jan 2014
Baseline 2nd Grade Sept 2015
DreamBox ADAM all ADAM Num
0.8 1.1 0.9
2.4 1.9 1.7
May 2016
% Growth Beyond Normal
Results n= 28/28
3.2 2.8 3.0
-‐11% 50% 78%
DreamBox ADAM all ADAM Num
Baseline 2nd Grade Oct 2014
1.5 1.7 1.3
Baseline 3rd Grade Sept 2015
May 2016
% Growth Beyond Normal
2.9 2.7 2.8
3.7 3.4 3.6
-‐11% 11% 22%
Sassarini 1st Grade Summary
Sassarini 2nd Grade Summary Baseline 1st Grade Dec 2014
Baseline 2nd Grade Sept 2015
May 2016
% Growth Beyond Normal
DreamBox ADAM all
0.6 0.9
2.3 1.8
2.9 2.6
-‐33% 33%
ADAM Num
0.7
1.6
2.7
33%
Results Baseline 1st Grade
9-‐Month
n = 57/59
Sept 2015
May 2016
% Growth Beyond Normal
DreamBox ADAM all ADAM Num
0.7 0.9 0.6
2.2 1.8 1.7
67% 50% 83%
Sassarini 3rd Grade Summary
Results n= 48/52
Results n= 43/44
Baseline 2nd Grade Dec 2014
Baseline 3rd Grade Sept 2015
May 2016
% Growth Beyond Normal
DreamBox ADAM all ADAM Num
2.8 1.6 1.5
2.8 2.5 2.6
3.5 3.1 3.4
-‐33% 0% 33%
SCS 1st Grade Summary
SCS 2nd Grade Summary
SCS 3rd Grade Summary
Results
Baseline 1st Grade
9-‐Month
n = 25/26
Sept 2015
May 2016
DreamBox ADAM all ADAM Num
1.3 1.0 0.8
% Growth Beyond Normal
2.5 1.9 1.8
Results n= 25/25
33% 50% 67%
DreamBox ADAM all ADAM Num
Baseline 1st Grade Nov 2014
Baseline 2nd Grade Sept 2015
0.6 1.1 0.9
2.2 1.8 1.7
May 2016
% Growth Beyond Normal
3.1 2.6 2.7
0% 33% 67%
n= Results 20/21
Baseline 2nd Grade Nov 2014
Baseline 3rd Grade Sept 2015
May 2016
% Growth Beyond Normal
DreamBox ADAM all ADAM Num
1.4 2.0 1.9
3.0 2.6 2.7
3.8 3.3 3.6
-‐11% 17% 33%
Reference to the first baseline for the students’ GLPP experience.
Met GLPP goal for 2015-‐16, working within or above grade level.
Working at or above grade level for the 2015-‐16 school year,
Percent growth for the 2015-‐16 school year.
Note: Students who are not struggling should get to at least 1.9 for 1st, 2.9 for 2nd, and 3.9 for 3rd for DreamBox and at least 1.6 for 1st, 2.6 for 2nd, and 3.6 for 3rd grade for ADAM by May. 3
1st and 2nd Grade accelerates growth in reading. 3rd Grade improves, but we are not caught up yet.
Dunbar 1st Grade Summary
Dunbar 2nd Growth Summary
%growth
Baseline 9-‐ beyond 9 Results 2015 month mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16 n=28 Lexia Early Lit GE
0.3 PP
1.7 1.4
56% 56%
Results n=33
0.4 1.4 STAR E IRL *emergent P (.9)
Lexia Early Lit GE
0.5 PP
1.8 1.8
44% 100%
Results n=51
0.3 1.4 STAR E IRL *emergent P (.9)
Early Lit GE
0.7 PP
2.2 1.8
67% 100%
Lexia STAR E IRL
2.7 2.4
Results n=20
44% 67%
1.5 1.1
2.9 2.4
2.5 2.2
4.0 3.4
67% 33%
Baseline %growth 2nd grade Baseline beyond Results Dec 2014 2015 9-‐month 9 mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16 n=48 Lexia
1.1
STAR E IRL Primer (kinder)
2.0 1.5
3.4 2.4
56% 0%
SCS 3rd Growth Summary
Baseline %growth 1st grade Baseline beyond 9 Nov 2014 2015 9-‐month mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16
0.4 STAR E IRL *emergent Lexia
1.2 1.1
Sassarini 3rd Growth Summary
SCS 2nd Growth Summary
%growth
Lexia
56% 44%
Baseline %growth 1st grade Baseline beyond 9 Dec 2014 2015 9-‐month mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16
Lexia
SCS Growth Summary Baseline 9-‐ beyond 9 Results 2015 month mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16 n=18
2.8 2.2
Baseline %growth 2nd grade Baseline beyond Results Oct 2014 2015 9-‐month 9 mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16 n=30
Sassarini 2nd Growth Summary
%growth
Baseline 9-‐ beyond 9 Results 2015 month mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16 n=59
Baseline %growth 1st grade Baseline beyond 9 Jan 2014 2015 9-‐month mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16
Lexia
Sassarini Growth Summary
Dunbar 3rd Growth Summary
56% 44%
Baseline %growth 2nd grade Baseline beyond Results Nov 2014 2015 9-‐month 9 mos Sep-‐15 May-‐16 n=24 Lexia STAR E IRL
1.4 1.3
2.6 2.5
4.3 3.4
89% 0%
PP = Pre-‐primer (Pre-‐Kinder) P = Primer (Kinder) *emergent from STAR Early Literacy assessment = 0 to 1.2
Reference to the first baseline for the students’ GLPP experience
Met GLPP goal for 2015-‐16, working within or above grade level.
Working at or above grade level for the 2015-‐16 school year,
Percent growth for the 2015-‐16 school year.
4
GLPP 1st Grade Student Growth: DreamBox and ADAM Test Results
Both measurements are showing outstanding student progress. . .
Note: First time users start about ½ year below their grade level. Next year, students will start where they left off.
² Dunbar 1st graders working within grade level or above grew from 48% to 100% 78% are working at or above grade level. ² Sassarini 1st graders working within grade level or above grew from 18% to 100%. 67% are working at or above grade level. ² SCS 1st graders working within grade level or above grew from 84% to 100%. 67% are working at or above grade level.
² Dunbar 1st graders scoring within grade level or above grew from 56% to 93% 59% are scoring at or above grade level. ² Sassarini 1st graders scoring within grade level or above grew from 53% to 89%. 53% are working at or above grade level. ² SCS 1st graders working within grade level or above grew from 80% to 88%. 72% are working at or above grade level.
² The schools exceeded the Girst year GLPP math goal of at least 60% of the students working within grade level or higher.
5
GLPP 2nd Grade Student Growth: DreamBox and ADAM Test Results Showing potential for catching up and accelerating . . .
² Dunbar 2nd graders scoring within grade level or above ² Dunbar 2nd graders working within grade level or above grew from 48% to 96%. 78% are scoring at or above grade grew from 89% to 100%. 93% are working at or above level. Outstanding progress with proGiciency. grade level. Outstanding progress with proGiciency. ² Sassarini 2nd graders scoring within grade level or above ² Sassarini 2nd graders working within grade level or above grew from 48% to 85%. 29% are working at or above grew from 10% to 79%. 44% are working at or above grade level. This needs to be higher. grade level. This needs to be higher. nd ² SCS 2nd graders working within grade level or above grew ² SCS 2 graders working within grade level or above grew from 40% to 82%. 69% are working at or above grade from 56% to 94%. 69% are working at or above grade level. level. ² The schools exceeded the second year GLPP math goal of at least 70% of the students working within grade level or higher. 6
GLPP 3rd Grade Student Growth: DreamBox and ADAM Results
SigniIicant growth but not optimal for catching up . . .
² Dunbar 3rd graders working within grade level or above ² Dunbar 3rd graders scoring within grade level or above grew from 21% to 100%. 25% are working at or above grew from 46% to 71%. 46% are scoring at or above grade grade level. level. rd ² Sassarini 3 graders working within grade level or above ² Sassarini 3rd graders scoring within grade level or above grew from 23% to 90%. 28% are working at or above grew from 19% to 65%. 19% are working at or above grade level. grade level. ² SCS 3rd graders working within grade level or above grew ² SCS 3rd graders working within grade level or above grew from 25% to 100%. 40% are working at or above grade from 35% to 85%. 20% are working at or above grade level. level. ² ProGiciency at each school needs to improve. ² Dunbar and SCS, but not Sassarini, exceeded the second year GLPP math goal of at least 70% of the students working within grade level or higher. 7
GLPP 1st Grade Student Growth: Lexia and STAR Early Literacy Test Results
First Grade Exceeds Their Goal
STAR Early Literacy Assessment
Lexia Progress Monitoring
² Dunbar students working within grade level or above grew from 3% to 71%.
² Dunbar students working within grade level or above grew 10% to 96%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from .3 to 1.7.
² Sassarini students working within grade level or above grew 17% to 90%.
² Sassarini students working within grade level or above 11% to 94%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from .5 to 1.8.
² SCS students working within grade level or above grew from 23% to 95%
² SCS students working within grade level or above 44% to 100%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from .8 to 2.2.
Note: 7 students not included in data because they were pulled out during GLPP iPad time for ELD instruction.
Note: 7 students not included in data because they were pulled out during GLPP iPad time for ELD instruction.
Note: We used the table from STAR Early Literacy’s Technical Manual.
Probable: ProBicient at recognizing many words, both in and out of context.. (1.7 and up) Transitional: Mastered alphabet skills and letter-sound relationships. . (1.3-1.6)
8
GLPP 2nd Grade Student Growth: Lexia and STAR E Test Results
Growth is Strong
STAR E Assessment
Lexia Progress Monitoring
² Dunbar students working within grade level or above grew from 6% to 57%. ² Average *IRL grew from Primer to 2.2.
² Dunbar students working within grade level or above grew from 12% to 88%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from 1.4 to 2.8.
² Sassarini students working within grade level or above grew from 18% to 57%. ² Average *IRL grew from Primer to 2.4.
² Sassarini students working within grade level or above grew from 17% to 76%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from 1.4 to 2.7.
² SCS students working within grade level or above grew from 26% to 55%. ² Average *IRL grew from 1.1 to 2.4.
² SCS students grew from working within grade level or above grew from 30% to 65%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from 1.5 to 2.9.
*IRL: Instructional Reading Level
9
GLPP 3rd Grade Student Growth: Lexia and STAR E Test Results
GLPP allows advanced students to accelerate; we still must catch them all early.
STAR E Assessment
Lexia Progress Monitoring
² Dunbar students working within grade level or above grew from 29% to 47%) ² Average *IRL grew from 2.3 to 3.4.
² Dunbar students working within grade level or above grew 37% to 77%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from 2.5 to 4.0.
² Sassarini 3rd grade students working within grade level or above grew from 15% to 38%. ² Average *IRL grew from 1.5 to 2.4.
² Sassarini students working within grade level or above grew from 17% to 58%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from 2.0 to 3.4.
² SCS students working within grade level or above grew from 40% to 71%. ² Average *IRL grew from 2.6 to 3.4.
² SCS students working within grade level or above grew from 36% to 83%. ² Average Lexia Grade Level grew from 2.6 to 4.3.
*Instructional Reading Level
10
2016 Comprehensive Report
11
GLPP P rogram
Successes ● Coaching Model ○ Consistent training in the classroom by modeling the program with teachers and students ○ Teachers learning to lead the programs in their classrooms on their own (as long as they have an instructional aide), allowing them to work with individual students or small groups ○ Developed procedures and materials essential for successful classroom management ○ Implemented explicit phonics instruction for kinders and 1st grade students ○ Provided modeling and coaching in small group phonics instruction which improved teacher effectiveness ○ The coaching model we offer, by teacher request, is working. ● Personalized Professional Development ○ Introduced the programs to new teachers and students ○ Student reports added and teacher dashboards introduced to new teachers ○ Trained instructional aides to prepare and teach Lexia Lessons and Skill Builders with students needing assistance as indicated on teacher dashboard. ○ Introduced EPIC Books to teachers and students, especially those students who completed the Lexia program. ○ Adapted program according to teacher needs. For example, added S pelling City ○ As interest grew, G LPP expanded to all grades (K, 4th, and 5th) on a limited basis. ● Introduced software applications and teacher dashboards ○ Expanded training for secondyear GLPP teachers, including more indepth use of reports and resources. ● We observed the following about secondyear GLPP teachers: ○ Teachers showed confidence using the teacher dashboards and student programs ○ Most teachers clearly understand the value of reviewing student data ○ Teachers show a readiness to integrate GLPP math and reading into their everyday curriculum ● Personalized/Differentiated Instruction for Students (for details, see pp. 1622) ○ Meets the needs of ALL students: English Only, English Language Learners, Special Needs, Advanced Learners/High Achievers, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, Newcomers, Special Day Class Learners ● Students show more confidence in math and reading ○ SBAC ○ ADAM M ath Test ○ Lexia and D reamBox w ith G LPP ○ STAR Early Literacy a nd S TAR E 12
● Technology ○ 10 iPads per classroom were added during the school year ○ Onetoone touch Chromebooks piloted with Sassarini 3rd grade classes was successful Recommendations ● C oaching Model during class time Rationale ● GLPP ’s third year goal is to integrate G LPP with teachers’ instructional needs. ● GLPP is a Common Core State Standards model – the first of its kind in Sonoma. It requires a different way of delivering instruction; inclass teacher training is necessary for the model to be successful. ● 100% of teachers surveyed felt G LPP is an effective professional development/coaching model. ● 100% of teachers surveyed would recommend L exia and D reamBox with G LPP to a colleague. ● Teacher survey responses indicated that they need help integrating GLPP with their instruction. ● Every teacher needs an instructional aide during reading and math. Rationale ● Schools recommended that instructional aides are needed during language arts and math time, regardless of when G LPP iPad time occurs. ● Teacher recommendations ○ Teachers surveyed felt that an aide in the classroom is necessary. ○ In the survey comment section, teachers wrote that instructional aides are needed to fully implement G LPP . ○ “The aides maximize the time on task for the students.” ○ Our students see the instructional aides as teachers in the classroom. ● Instructional aide training is essential, and needs to be site specific. ● All students remain in the classroom during G LPP instruction. For example, resource students are not pulled out during this time. Rationale ● From experience, students representing all demographic groups are engaged. ● Results prove that students representing all demographic groups demonstrate excellent growth (pp. 1622). ● 100% of teachers surveyed felt that L exia and D reamBox with G LPP helped their students in reading and math. ● First grade teachers should set a pace through their phonics instruction to address CCSS standard RF.1.3.d Decode twosyllable words following basic patterns by breaking the words into syllables by the end of the year. First grade students also should be exposed to strategies that enable them to decode multisyllabic words. Such instruction would prevent them from being stalled in their progress in Lexia at Level 8 which encompasses middle to end of first grade and two syllable word reading. 13
Metrics/Measurements
Successes ● 1st Grade G LPP Math goal was 60% of the students working w ithin or above grade level . This goal was met. (p. 5) ○ DreamBox : Dunbar 100%; Sassarini 100%; SCS 100% ○ ADAM: Dunbar 93%; Sassarini 89%; SCS 88% ● 2nd and 3rd Grade G LPP Math second year goal was 70% of the students w orking within or above grade level . All but one met this goal. (p. 67) ○ 2nd grade: ■ DreamBox : Dunbar 100%; Sassarini 79%; SCS 94% ■ ADAM: Dunbar 96%; Sassarini 85%; SCS 82% ○ 3rd grade: ■ DreamBox: Dunbar 100%; Sassarini 91%; SCS 100% ■ ADAM: Dunbar 71%; Sassarini 65%; SCS 85% ● 1st Grade G LPP Reading: our first year reading goal was 40% of the students working w ithin or above grade level . (p. 8) ○ Lexia : Dunbar 96%; Sassarini: 94%; SCS 100% ○ STAR Early Literacy : Dunbar 71%; Sassarini: 90%; SCS 95% ● 2nd and 3rd Grade G LPP Reading: our second year reading goal was 70% of the students working within or above grade level . (pp. 910, 2325) ○ 2nd grade: ■ Lexia: Dunbar 88%; Sassarini 76%; SCS 65% ■ STAR E: Dunbar 57% (Cohort 59%); Sassarini 57% (Cohort 58%); SCS 55% (Cohort 59%) ○ 3rd grade: ■ Lexia: Dunbar 77%; Sassarini: 58%; SCS 83% ■
STAR E: Dunbar 47% (Cohort 58%); Sassarini 38%; SCS: 71%
● Targeted first grade students receiving explicit phonics small group instruction showed significant growth in the S tar Early Literacy t est. (pp. 2629) ○ 71% of the targeted low performing students moved from below average growth to *typical first grade growth (*as determined by Renaissance). ■ 47% of targeted students scored above the 66th percentile. ○ 14% of the nontargeted students scored above the 66th percentile.
14
Recommendations ● Onsite coaching must continue Rationale ● Due to the ongoing turnover of both teachers and instructional aides, the threeyear training needs to be completed for each new G LPP teacher and instructional aide. ● The intensive coaching is needed for first, second, third year training, sustainability, and accountability. ● Implement full program at 1st3rd grades and partial implementation at Kinder. Rationale ● Results prove 1st and 2nd graders progress more quickly than 3rd graders. ● It is essential that we catch our students early, and not wait until third grade when progress becomes much more difficult. Refer to L exia and D reamBox results (pp.510). ● Student Time should continue and be expanded for L exia Lessons and Skill Builders. Rationale ● Too many students are below grade level in reading and need onetoone or small group instruction. ● It was excellent use of instructional aide time. ● Continue and expand explicit phonics instruction support (pp. 2629) Rationale ● Although reading instruction is an integral part of primary grade instruction, the ongoing demographic shift necessitates more targeted and intensive reading instruction training beyond first grade. ● Kinder and 1st grade teachers will continue the explicit phonics instruction training. ● Some 2nd and 3rd grade teachers need more training. ● Continue using A DAM m ath assessment as an independent math measure and S TAR E and S TAR Early Literacy a ssessments as independent reading measures. Rationale ● Consistent multiple measures are needed for reliability. ● Implement a program outside of G LPP for 4th and 5th graders. Rationale ● Students need to maintain grade level skills. ● Students not at grade level need intervention. 15
DreamBox and ADAM Math Results by Demographic Groups
GLPP and DreamBox work for all demographic groups. Grade 1st DreamBox SED Sp Ed Full Data Sets School Total EL* RFEP EO n = 27
Dunbar
2.2**
2.2
-‐
2.3
2.2
2.4*
n = 57
Sassarini
2.2
2.2
-‐
2.1
2.2
1.8
n = 25
SCS
2.5
2.2
-‐
2.7
2.3
2.6
1st Grade
ADAM
School Total
Full Data Sets
EL
RFEP
EO
SED
n = 27
Dunbar
1.7
1.6
n = 57
Sassarini
1.7
1.9
n = 25
SCS
1.9
1.7
2nd Grade
DreamBox
School Total
Full Data Sets
EL
Sp Ed -‐ 2.1 1.6 1.8 -‐ 1.9 1.6 1.5 -‐ 2.2 1.6 2.1 RFEP EO SED Sp Ed 3.4 3.0 3.2
n = 27
Dunbar
3.2
3.1
n = 48
Sassarini
2.9
2.9
-‐
2.9
2.8
2.7
n =16
SCS
3.1
2.4
-‐
3.4
2.7
1.7
EL
RFEP
EO
SED
2nd Grade
ADAM
School Total
Full Data Sets n = 27
Dunbar
2.8
2.6
-‐
n = 48
Sassarini
2.6
2.5
-‐
SCS
2.6
2.5
-‐
n = 16/24
3rd Grade
DreamBox
School Total
Full Data Sets n = 28 n = 43 n = 20/21
EL RFEP
Sp Ed 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.5 SED Sp Ed EO 3.5 3.7 3.5
Dunbar
3.7
3.7
4.5
Sassarini SCS
3.5 3.8
3.4 3.6
-‐ -‐
3.8 3.8
2.9 3.7
3.3 3.9
EL
RFEP
EO
SED
Sp Ed
ADAM School Total
3rd Grade Full Data Sets n = 28
Dunbar
3.4
3.2
4.3
3.5
3.2
2.6
n = 43
Sassarini
3.1
3.0
-‐
3.6
2.3
2.6
SCS
3.3
3.0
-‐
3.5
3.1
3.4
n = 20/21
Note: DreamBox math is a supplement to the math program. Its strengths are number sense, problem solving, and algebra sense with less emphasis on measurement, geometry, and data analysis. ADAM is a comprehensive diagnostic assessment that tests students on all strands: number sense, measurement, geometry, data analysis, and algebra strands. Further study will determine if we use all of ADAM components, or only the components that best match with DreamBox. When there are less than 10% in a demographic group, the scores may be skewed.
16
Summary: • 1st Grade: All classes are working at or above grade level in DreamBox. At grade level for ADAM is 1.6 or higher. Only one group has a lower score of 1.5 score. All demographic groups are doing well. • 2nd Grade: All three schools are working within 2nd grade level or higher in both DreamBox and ADAM, except one group. Of the 30 groups, 20 of the groups are working at or above grade level. Six are working one or two months from on grade level. Two groups are working 0.5 months or more below grade level. • 3rd Grade: Although students made progress, it is more difficult at this level. Twenty-‐seven of the 30 groups are working within the 3rd grade level. Special Ed and SED students at Dunbar and Sassarini are having the most difficulty. The largest gaps are between the EO groups and Special Ed groups. *EL = English Language Learners RFEP = Re-‐designated as Fluent English Proficient EO = English Only SED = Socially and Economically Disadvantaged SpEd = Special Education
Dunbar Demographics Count EL 1st Grade n = 27 81% 2nd Grade n = 27 67% 3rd Grade n = 28 68% Sassarini Demographics Count EL 1st Grade n = 57 79% 2nd Grade n = 48 71% 3rd Grade n =43 67% SCS Demographics Count 1st Grade n = 25 2nd Grade n = 16 3rd Grade n = 20
EL
** 2.2 means working at 2nd grade 2 months
RFEP
EO
SED
Sp Ed
-‐
19%
37%
7%
-‐
33%
26%
7%
7%
25%
36%
7%
RFEP
EO
SED
Sp Ed
-‐
21%
33%
7%
-‐
29%
35%
13%
-‐
33%
33%
23%
RFEP EO
SED
Sp Ed
44%
-‐
56%
52%
20%
19%
-‐
81%
42%
15%
25%
-‐
75%
35%
15%
17
2016 Lexia, STAR Early Literacy, and *STAR E Growth by Demographic Groups st 1 Grade Lexia Total EL RFEP EO SED Sp Ed Full Data Sets School Dunbar n=28 1.4 1.2 n/a 1.8 1.3 1.0 Sassarini n=59 1.3 1.2 n/a 1.4 1.1 .9 **SCS n=18 1.4 1.2 n/a 1.5 1.1 n/a Represents growth in years/months st 1 Grade Early Literacy
Full Data Sets n=28 n=59 n=18
Total
School Dunbar
206pts 186pts 182pts
Sassarini **SCS
2nd Grade Lexia Full Data Sets n=33 n=51 n=20
School
2nd Grade
EL
RFEP
208pts 196pts 133pts
n/a n/a n/a
EO
Total
1.4 1.3 1.4
Sassarini SCS
EL
RFEP
1.3 1.2 1.1
n/a n/a n/a
3rd Grade Lexia
Represents growth in scaled score points
Total
130pts 135pts 116pts
Dunbar SCS
School
Dunbar Sassarini SCS
RFEP
91pts 132pts 65pts
n/a n/a n/a
EL
1.5 1.4 1.7
Sassarini
Full Data Sets n=30 n=48 n=24
EL
Total
School
Total
118pts 86pts 87pts
EL
RFEP
87pts ***197pts 79pts n/a 108pts n/a
EO
Sp Ed
1.3 1.3 1.4
1.0 .7 1.7
SED
Sp Ed
SED
1.7 1.6 1.8
SED
EO
2.2 n/a n/a
1.2 .7 .7
197pts 116pts 112pts 137pts 97pts 83pts 143pts 64pts 63pts
Represents growth in years/months
Sp Ed
1.3 1.3 1.2
EO
RFEP
1.3 1.3 1.3
SED
1.6 1.2 1.7
Represents growth in years/months
EO
Represents growth in scaled score points
Dunbar
3rd Grade STAR E
Sp Ed
198pts 229pts 296pts 149pts 189pts 126pts 196pts 147pts n/a
STAR E Full Data Sets School Dunbar n=33 Sassarini n=51 SCS n=20
Full Data Sets n=30 n=48 n=24
SED
Sp Ed
144pts 100pts 88 pts 104pts 82pts 15pts 82pts 86pts 93pts
Represents growth in scaled score points
*Scaled Score Points **Note: 7 students not included in SCS 1st grade data because they were pulled out during GLPP iPad time for ELD instruction. ***RFEP at Dunbar comprised of only 2 students, and those two students are exceptional (both completed Lexia this year). 18
1st Grade: ● Dunbar and Sassarini: All groups showed excellent growth. SCS: EO population showed excellent growth in STAR Early Literacy; other sub groups did not do as well, although they made good progress. All groups accelerated in Lexia. 2nd Grade: ● Dunbar: All groups showed excellent growth. The EL population at Dunbar scored lower on STAR E than the other subgroups, but still showed good growth. Their growth in Lexia was nearly the same as the total population growth. ● Sassarini: All groups showed excellent growth. 3rd Grade: ● All schools showed accelerated growth in Lexia.
19
STAR E Assessment Growth by Demographics
3rd Grade STAR E Scores
EO
SED
SpEd
Tests Taken/Total
Baseline
May
Gain
EL
RFEP
Dunbar
280
398
118
87
197
144
100
88
30/32
64%
3%
30%
58%
13%
El Verano
247
339
92
85
94
104
93
17
61%
9%
30%
40%
12%
Flowery
254
364
110
78
-
147
74
58
54%
46%
25%
9%
Prestwood
343
445
102
99
48
102
99
104
25%
7%
71%
15%
12%
Sassarini
206
292
86
79
-
104
82
15
69%
31%
78%
17%
SCS
313
400
87
108
-
82
86
93
21%
-
79%
33%
17%
*El Verano, Dunbar, and Sassarini are similar in their demographics. Dunbar better compared to El Verano SCS better compared to El Verano
Students
67/69
56/56
67/68
48/48
24/24
Summary: • At the 3rd grade level, we can compare Dunbar to El Verano, a similar demographic school. Dunbar outperformed El Verano in all groupings. • SCS outperformed El Verano in two of four groupings (no RFEP at SCS).
20
STAR E Assessment Growth by Demographics
STAR E Scores 2nd Grade
EO
Baseline
May
Gain
EL
RFEP
138
268
130
91
-‐
197
116
112
33/33
64%
-‐
33%
58%
6%
El Verano
130
243
113
112
129
111
127
12
70/75
71%
6%
23%
24%
4%
Flowery
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
Prestwood
Only 7 scores In Illuminate
389
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
33%
3%
64%
Sassarini
153
286
133
132
-‐
137
97
83
51/53
70%
-‐
30%
78%
12%
SCS
173
289
116
65
-‐
143
64
63
20/22
33%
-‐
67%
48%
5%
Sassarini better compared to El Verano
Students
*El Verano, Dunbar, and Sassarini are similar in their demographics. Dunbar better compared to El Verano
SpEd
Tests Taken/Total
Dunbar
SED
Summary: • At the 2nd grade level, we can compare Dunbar and Sassarini to El Verano, a similar demographic school. Dunbar out performed El Verano in two of four groups no RFEP’s at Dunbar). Sassarini out performed El Verano in three of four groups (no RFEP’s at Sassarini). • Flowery did not have scores in Illuminate. • Prestwood only had 7 scores for baseline STAR E. 21
STAR Early Literacy Assessment Growth by Demographics Early L iteracy Scores 1st Grade STAR
EO
Baseline
May
Gain
EL
RFEP
536
742
206
208
-‐
198
229
296
28/31
82%
-‐
18%
58%
7%
El Verano
-‐
718
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
84/84
Flowery
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
Prestwood
-‐
763
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
-‐
52/54
Sassarini
591
777
186
196
-‐
149
189
126
79%
-‐
21%
78%
SCS
605
787
182
133
-‐
41%
-‐
SCS and Sassarini better compared to Prestwood and El Verano
Students
Only May scores shared
Only May scores shared
59/63
7%
196
147
-‐
18/27
59%
48%
-‐
No scores shared
*El Verano, Dunbar, and Sassarini are similar in their demographics. Dunbar better compared to El Verano
SpEd
Tests Taken/Total
Dunbar
SED
Summary: • All groups showed strong growth, especially Dunbar. • For El Verano and Prestwood, only May scores were available and none were available for Flowery, so comparisons are not possible.
22
Comparing Dependent and Independent Measures for Reading ( COHORTS) STAR E Reading Average Instructional Rdg Level
Lexia Reading Core5 Average Grade Level
rd 3 Grade
Baseline 2014
Dunbar
Baseline 2014
Sept 2015
Jan 2016
May 2016
4.4
1.1
2.6
3.4
3.6
3.4
Primer
1.5
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.4
Sept 2015
Jan 2016
May 2016
1.2
2.8
3.5
1.1
2.1
2.6
Began Oct 2014 n=24
Sassarini
(Kinder)
Began Dec 2014 n=43
SCS
1.4
2.6
3.3
4.3
1.3
Began Nov 2014 n=23
Lexia Reading Core5
STAR STAR E Reading Early Lit Average Instr. Rdg Level
Average Grade Level nd 2 Grade
Baseline 2014
Sept 2015
Jan 2016
May 2016
Baseline 2014
Sept 2015
Jan 2016
May 2016
Dunbar
.4
1.4
2.1
2.8
Emergent
Primer
1.7
2.2
.3
1.4
2.0
2.6
Emergent
Primer
1.8
2.4
.4
2.2
2.1
2.9
Emergent
1.2
1.9
2.4
(Kinder)
Began Jan 2014 n=27
Sassarini
(Kinder)
Began Dec 2014 n=48
SCS Began Nov 2014 n=17
© GLPP 2016
23
Lexia Reading Core5
STAR Early Literacy Assessment
Average Grade Level st 1 Grade
Sept 2015
Jan 2016
June 2016
Sept 2015
Jan 2016
June 2016
Dunbar
.3
1.1
1.7
Emergent
Transitional
Transitional
.5
1.2
1.8
Emergent
Transitional
Probable
.7
1.3
2.2
Emergent
Transitional
Began Sept 2015
Sassarini Began Sept 2015
SCS Began September 2015
Probable Note: 7 students not included in data because they were pulled out during GLPP iPad time for ELD instruction.
Observations: ●
●
●
●
The major difference between the independent and dependent measure is the amount of help an adult can give. For L exia , help is allowed, but limited to giving hints and helping with instructions. For the STAR Early Literacy and STAR E assessment, there is no help allowed unless it is for a technical problem. For 3rd grade, based on the STAR E: ○ Since first baseline in October 2014, Dunbar’s average IRL has grown from 1.1 to 3.6. ○ Since first baseline in December 2014, Sassarini’s average IRL has grown from Primer to 2.4. ○ Since first baseline in November 2014, SCS’s average IRL has grown from 1.3 to 3.4. For 2nd grade, based on the STAR E: ○ Since September 2015, Dunbar’s average IRL has grown from Primer to 2.2 ○ Since September 2015, Sassarini’s average IRL has grown from Primer to 2.4 ○ Since September 2015, SCS’s average IRL has grown from 1.2 to 2.4. For 1st grade, based on the STAR Early Literacy: ○ Since September 2015, Dunbar’s average reading scores have gone from Emergent to Transitional, only 25 points from being Probable (average grade equivalency of 1.7). ○ Since September 2015, Sassarini’s average reading scores have gone from Emergent to Probable (average grade equivalency of 1.8). ○ Since September 2015, SCS’s average reading scores have gone from Emergent to Probable average grade equivalency of 1.8.) Note: 7 students not included in data because they were pulled out during GLPP iPad time for ELD instruction.
. ●
Lexia allows students to accelerate their growth. Students no longer are limited to grade level learning.
© GLPP 2016
24
Definition of terms from Renaissance Learning: Instructional Reading Level (IRL) score: IRL is a criterionreferenced score that estimates the grade level of written material at which the student can most effectively be taught. It is the highest reading level at which a student is 80% proficient (or higher) at comprehending material with assistance. Grade Equivalent (GE) score: A GE is a normreferenced score. It provides a comparison of a student’s performance with that of other students around the nation. If a student receives a GE of 4.0, this means that the student scored as well on the STAR Reading test as did the typical student at the beginning of grade 4. It does not mean that the student can read books that are written at a fourthgrade level, only that he or she reads as well as fourth grade students in the norm group. Assessment is given to 1st grade students. The STAR Early Literacy It is a different assessment than the STAR E , and does not provide an Instructional Reading Level . It does provide a grade equivalency: Probable
Proficient at recognizing many words, both in and out of context. (1.7 and up)
Transitional
Mastered alphabet skills and lettersound relationships. (1.31.6)
Emergent
Mastered most alphabet skills and lettersound relationships. (0.01.2)
Lexia Reading Core5 is an adaptive online reading program. Lexia is the dependent measure used to determine student progress. STAR E and STAR Early Literacy is the independent measure used to determine student progress. STAR assessments are computer adaptive, using sophisticated item calibration to dynamically adjust to each student’s unique responses. (Renaissance Learning Web Site)
© GLPP 2016
25
GLPP 201516 Small Group Explicit Phonics Instruction Summary Report & Results
Goals: 1. Provide highly structured routines and explicit phonics instruction of key strategies to support students in becoming independent readers at grade level. 2. Provide modeling, coaching and training in explicit phonics instruction for teachers to effectively implement small group instruction that supports students in becoming independent readers at grade level. 3. Assist teachers in using Lexia assessment information to deliver differentiated instruction that results in appropriate student progress. Small Group Leveled Instruction Program
Teachers voluntarily participated in the reading phonics coaching aspect of GLPP. The teachers who actively embraced the coaching and implemented the explicit phonics approach into their small groups reported an increase in effectiveness. The coaching helped them to improve instruction and their personal teaching practice. Many teachers reported that the support they received was a significant factor in the success they experienced. Most of the small group program consisted of first grade teachers and students. Therefore in order to measure effectiveness, specific first grade students were targeted to receive explicit phonics instruction. The instruction was specific to student needs and delivered in homogenous leveled group format. I worked in the classroom together with each teacher to integrate targeted, explicit phonics instruction into the full reading program. The instruction was also designed to reach the Professional Learning Community (PLC) goals set by the principal and teachers. Instruction was differentiated using the results of the STAR Early Literacy test, Lexia performance levels and teacher administered phonics assessments.
Characteristics of Targeted Students: 1. Students who did not demonstrate mastery of gradelevel phonics skills 2. Students who demonstrated a lack of motivation to apply gradelevel phonics skills Indicators for Targeted Students: ● Those first grade students who are working below grade level in Lexia or transitional in Star ● Those first grade students whose literacy classification was emergent Early Literacy Assessment ● Those first grade students who did not demonstrate mastery on classroom phonics decoding assessments
Results: Lexia and Star Early Literacy Assessments measure how the students have progressed throughout the year in grade level standards in reading. An additional indicator of the success of GLPP could be to look at growth rates of targeted, low performing students throughout the year. Star Early Literacy 26
provides a Student Growth Percentile score (SGP) that can assist us in measuring growth no matter where the student started. Student Growth Percentile (SGP) In light of the lack of comparison data, we can look at normreferenced percentile scores in terms of growth points from STAR Early Literacy data. This score compares a student's growth to that of his or her academic peers nationwide. For example, a score of 75 means that the student's growth from one test to another exceeds the growth of 75% of students nationwide. Typical growth for first grade students according to Star Early Literacy Assessment is 3566 percentile points. Any student who achieved higher than 65% SGP would demonstrate above average growth and any student who achieved lower than 35% SGP would demonstrate below average growth. ● Overall, 42% of the targeted first graders in all 3 GLPP schools scored at or above the 65th percentile in the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) Measure. Therefore, 42% of the first graders’ scores exceeds the growth of 65% of student’s nation wide. 30% demonstrated typical growth and 27% below average growth. ● The most significant growth occurred among first grade students who did not demonstrate adequate progress on the November Star Early Literacy test. These students performed very low th category. By May, 47% of these students scored at or above the 65 or were in the emergent percentile SGP. 24% scored at the average or typical SGP and 29% scored below average. By way of comparison, among untargeted students with approximately the same low scores on the th November test, by the end of the year only 14% scored at or above the 65 percentile SGP. 43% demonstrated average or typical SGP and 43% remained below average. Student Growth Percentile in May Targeted Not Students Targeted Students th Above 65 Percentile SGP 47% 14% Typical Growth SGP 24% 43% th Below 35 Percentile SGP 29% 43%
For Future Development st 1) Finalize the Scope & Sequence for GradeLevel Phonics Elements – (1 Grade) Correlation with CCSS, Curriculum, & Lexia Focus on the skills Provide a way to differentiate instruction Will develop one for Kinder this summer 2) Develop a written guide that outlines the routines to deliver the explicit phonics instruction Develop Teacher Tool Kit – Modeling templates with the steps to deliver instruction in small group setting Give the Took Kit to the last year teachers to implement with limited classroom coaching so that can spend more time in Kinder and with first year teacher’s training 3) Begin Kinder no later than January
27
Program Parameters Time: October 2015 – May 2016 (8 Mos) Schools: Dunbar, Sassarini, SCS Teachers: Total: 13 teachers st 6 1 grade teachers participated in full program for the 8 months Targeted Small Group Instruction in Explicit Phonics School Teacher Grade Time Dunbar Renea Magnani 2/3 2 months Dunbar Kristin Edwards 1 8 months Dunbar Alita Matthews 1 8 months Dunbar Dawn McIntyre K 3 months Dunbar Sandra Zamudio K 1 month Lexia only Sassarini Kristin Reighley 1 3 months Sassarini Ronette Wesson 1 8 months Sassarini Alison Zuehlsdorff 1 8 months Sassarini Tasha Schmitz K 3 months Sassarini Kim Tomasello K 3 months SCS Judy Moses 2/3 1 mo. Student Time SCS Rachel Cisneros 1 8 months SCS Darice Dekker 1 8 months Teacher Time Frames: Meet 1 time a week for coaching, planning, progress monitoring – 20 to 30 minutes per week Classroom Small Group Instruction with the teacher 2 times a week – 45 to 60 minutes per day (120 minutes per week) Students: ● 190 students participated in the program in some way ● 73 first grade students were targeted to participate fully in the program to receive the full benefit of the program ● 60 Kindergartners were targeted in the last three months to participate fully in the program Notes RE: Kindergarten Implementation Our primary goal in kindergarten was to provide exposure and practice with basic iPad technology skills and Lexia. By the end of kindergarten, each student should be able to independently logon to Lexia on the iPad and follow directions to progress through each learning module. Secondarily, each kindergartner who was performing below grade level standards was targeted to receive additional small group instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. 28
Our goal with the kindergartners was to “catch them before they fall”; that is to provide necessary tools and instruction that would prevent them from falling behind. GLPP sought to provide support that would lead to success for the students who will enter the program in first grade. Yet due to unforeseeable circumstances, GLPP was not implemented in Kindergarten until March rather than January as planned. Therefore, the Kindergarten program was not as effectives as it was during the 201415 school year. Last year we began in January of 2015 and were able to build relationships, provide exposure to iPad and Lexia and bring instruction in basic phonics routines that set the context for success that we saw in first grade of 201516.
29