Transcript 3rd Annual Reading First National Conference Reno, Nevada

NASB/NASA
State Education Conference
Omaha, Nebraska
Novemeber 19th , 2009
Increased Achievement: A Reality for All Students When Professional
Development is Focused
Gering Public Schools
Gering, Nebraska
“The mission of Gering Public Schools is to develop the academic, personal, and social skills of all
students and to prepare them to be productive, responsible global citizens of the 21st century.”
Gering Public Schools
Gering, Nebraska
Bev Hague, Geil Reading Coach
Mary Kay Haun, Geil Principal
Don Hague, Superintendent
Andrea Boden, RTI Project Manager/UNL
District Demographics
Four Elementary Buildings (K-6)
1100 K-6 students
43 % Free and Reduced Lunch
30 % Ethnic Minority
13 % Mobility
1.5 % ELL
10 % Special Education
Gering Student Performance Data
Prior to Implementing the Reading program
Only 36 % of Third graders were meeting
Benchmark on DIBELS (Universal
Screener for RTI) in Spring of 2004 .
There were huge achievement gaps
between our various demographic groups
in some cases these gaps were as large
as 44%.
What did Professional Development consist
of in Gering prior to 2004-2005
Staff attended a large variety of
professional development activities based
on brochures, trends, ESU offered
activities, tradition-i.e. Title I –International
Reading Association conference in Denver
(IRA) and Kearney, etc.
Following the P.D. activity there was little if
any accountability to implement
information learned at these activities
THEN WHAT ?
Reading First and Direct Instruction
Programs were used to Improve Reading
Achievement
Reading First-Federal Grant used to fund the
program. RF provided focused professional
development and guidelines for utilizing
Scientifically Based Reading Research in
classrooms.
Direct Instruction-Scientifically Research
Based Program that was implemented to
address our district’s deficits in Reading at
the K-6 level.
When ?
K-6 Implementation Timeline
2004-2005 Grades K-3
2005-2006 Grade
4
2006-2007 Grades 5-6
2007-2008 Sustain Grades K-6
2008-2009 Sustain Grades K-6
2009-2010 Sustain Grades K-6
What changes have taken
place during our five year
journey of reform ?
Role of Leadership
Curriculum
Professional Development
Use of Assessment Data
Focused Professional
Development
MAJOR CHANGES:
1)Professional development decisions are based on student data.
2) Professional development training sessions are selected and
planned by leadership team, based on what teachers and
paraprofessionals need to implement the program with fidelity.
3) The continuum for professional development support is
prescriptive and provided on both a group and individual basis
depending on the need.
What did these changes look
like in our district?
Our district selected a Scientifically Research Based program.
Increased funding: We spent more money on professional
development than on materials.
Increased Accountability
Increased Support for Professional Development at the building
level
Utilized outside consultants: We provided high quality and ongoing professional development during the first 4 years of the
implementation (National Institute For Direct Instruction)
Screened all other P.D. opportunities for staff : We avoided
general P.D. sessions to limit confusion for our staff and help
them maintain the focus necessary to implement our program
with fidelity.
What did these changes look
like in our district? Continued:
Evaluated the effectiveness of the Professional Development:
We utilized frequent observations and student data to evaluate
the effectiveness of the training we provide.
Developed capacity to sustain high quality on-going
professional development within our district: We have 15
teachers and one paraprofessional that have successfully
completed the week long trainer of trainers course in either
Eugene, OR or Lincoln, NE.
Collaborated with ESU 13 P.D. Staff to schedule trainers for
next year that will help support the sustainability of our
implementation.
Provided our paraprofessionals the same level of training as
our teachers as they now play a critical role in our
implementation.
What did these changes look
like in our district? Continued:
Principals serve in much more of an instructional leader role i.e.
observations, teacher placement, data analysis, evaluator of
research, scheduling, building-wide rules to support academics
etc. (Principals will share some examples of role change)
District capacity and activities to sustain implementation: i.e.
weekly leadership meetings, weekly data review meetings, etc.
Possible Barriers To a Focused
Professional Development Plan
Ineffective programs: Not finding a scientifically research based
program that is going to guarantee results if implemented with
fidelity (Need to have a strong program)
Difficulty finding highly qualified trainers that can provide initial
and ongoing professional development
Unwillingness to combine resources to support one program
that focuses on improving student achievement
Availability of so many competing professional development
trends that move through education and result in distractions to
teachers
Maintaining commitment to improving student achievement –
Leadership that understands that this has to trump everything
else
Stakeholders being misinformed (staff, BOE, parents,
community members)
Difficulty maintaining focus and enthusiasm needed to continue
to implement your program with fidelity (Continuous training)
Three Components that are
imperative to making this program
work!
Principals that are prepared to be
Instructional Leaders
Full-time Reading Coach in each building
High quality and on-going professional
development (NIFDI).
Why does the Direct Instruction
program work?
Teachers use scripted lessons to provide
direct and explicit instruction
Students are homogeneously grouped
according to their instructional level
Students are taught to mastery
Only 10% of the information presented
each day is new information
Students are highly engaged
Why does the Direct Instruction
program work?
Frequent assessments are embedded into
the program to check for learning and
monitor student progress
Great deal of skill practice and application
of those skills is built into the program
Teachers are very skilled at reinforcing
desired behaviors with specific praise
Specific error correction procedures are
built into the program
What is our data telling us after 4 plus
years of implementation?
We are significantly reducing the percent of students reading
below grade level.
Students are improving their Fluency, Vocabulary, and
Comprehension skills.
Gaps are closing between the performance of demographic
groups.
The longer students are in the program the greater the
improvement in achievement.
Students are improving their writing skills.
The program is very effective as an early intervention
program (5 % below the state average for Special Education)
Lowest among the 25 largest districts in the state.
Increasing Achievement for All
Students
K-6 DIBELS
Impact of Reading First/DI after
4 and 5 years of Implementation
DIBELS Spring of 2004 vs. Spring of 2008 /Spring 2009
(District-Lincoln, Geil, Northfield)
Based on an average class size of 150 Gering has moved 231 students out of an
at risk category for reading failure in the future in just 4 years and 266 students in just
5 years!!
Percent at Benchmark
(K=NWF/1st-6th=ORF)
100
92
90 85
80
98
78
84
75
70
70
6972 71
76
74
76 77
62
57
60
77
51
50
Spring 2004
Spring 2008
Spring 2009
45
44
36
40
30
20
10
0
K
1
2
3
GRADE
4
5
6
4th GRADE Writing Assessment
Comparison of Nebraska 4th grade student performance and
Gering 4th grade student performance on 4th grade Statewide
Writing Assessment
Percent of students scoring proficient
(% of students assessed: 2005=100%, 2006=99%, 2007=99%, 2008 =99%)
100
90
83
85
92
82
86
95 91
80
70
60
57
Gering
50
40
Nebraska
30
20
10
0
2005
Before Reading First
(D.I. Reading Program)
2006
2007
After Reading First
(D.I. Reading Program)
Students had received 2 yrs. of
RF instruction
2008
After Reading First
(D.I. Reading Program)
Students had received 3
yrs. of RF instruction
After Reading First
(D.I. Reading Program)
Students had received 4 yrs.
Of RF program
Gering Public Schools
DIBELS ORF
3rd Grade
60
Number of Students
50
40
28
30
24
20
9
10
0
150+
Correct Words Per Minute
21
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
2004
2007
2008
2009
Gering Public Schools
DIBELS ORF
1st Grade
68
70
Number of Students
60
70
53
50
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
40
30
30
20
10
0
75+
Correct Words Per Minute
2004
2007
2008
2009
Median Scaled Score
Terra Nova Science and Social Studies Pre and Post RF
Implementation Scores for 3rd and 4th grade ( Five years of
data analyzed)
650
646.5
643.9
645
642.2
640.3
640
635
631.6
630
624
625
620 616.4 618.3
615
610
605
600
3rd
3rd Social
4th
4th Social
Science
Studies
Science
Studies
Pre
RF
Post
RF
Terra Nova Reading Median Scale Score
Comparison of Scale Scores for students who received the Language
Arts Direct Instruction program for 3 years vs. students who received
Gering’s Traditional Language Arts Program
Class of 2014 in 5th grade vs. Class of 2008, 2009, 2010 in 7th grade
Median Scale Score
667
666.5
666
665
664
663
662.4
662
660.7
660.5
661
660
659
658
657
5th Grade
7th Grade
Class of 2014 (N=152)
Class of 2008 (N=140)
Class of 2009 (N=149)
Class of 2010 (N=143)
Closing and Narrowing
Achievement Gaps
Class of 2014
Pre-Direct Instruction Program vs. Post
Direct Instruction
DIBELS DATA (ORF)
80
77
68
70
59
Percent Proficient
60
50
40
Hispanic
White
36
30
20
10
0
2004
-23 % GAP
Pre DI
2008
-9% GAP
Post 4 yrs. Of DI
Instruction
Gering Fourth Grade
Pre-Direct Instruction Program vs. Post
Direct Instruction Program
DIBELS DATA (ORF)
80
69
70
60
74
52
50
40
Hispanic
White
33
30
20
10
0
2004
-19 % GAP
Pre DI
2008
-5% GAP
Post 4 yrs. Of DI
Instruction
1st - 5th DIBELS ORF
Free and Reduced Lunch Students
Percent of F/R Students
at Benchmark (1st-5th=ORF)
Impact of Reading First/DI after
4/5 years of Implementation
DIBELS Spring of 2004 vs. Spring of 2008/2009
(District-Lincoln, Geil, Northfield)
80
73
68 72
70
60
50
68
62 64
63
65
57
55
49
46
40
Spring 2004
Spring 2008
Spring 2009
36
31
30
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
GRADE
4
5
Percent of students scoring proficient
100
4th GRADE State Writing Test
Comparison of Nebraska Hispanic student
performance and Gering Hispanic student
performance on 4th grade Statewide Writing
Assessment
93
93
90
80
74
76
88
80
73
70
GeringHispanic
60
50
40
39
NebraskaHispanic
30
20
10
0
2005
Before Reading First
(D.I. Reading Program)
2006
2007
After Reading First
(D.I. Reading Program)
Students had received 2 yrs.
of RF instruction
2008
After Reading First
(D.I. Reading Program)
Students had received 3
yrs. of RF instruction
After Reading First (D.I. Reading
Program) Students had received
4 yrs. Of RF instruction
Closing the Achievement Gap in Gering Between
Hispanic and All Students on the State-Wide
Writing Assessment
100
Percent Proficient
90
93
91
83
80
70
60
50
All State
Hispanic Gering
39
40
30
20
10
0
2005
-44% GAP
2008
+2% GAP
Gering Second Grade
Pre-Direct Instruction Program vs. Post
Direct Instruction Program
DIBELS DATA (ORF)
80
70
67
59
60
Percent Proficient
71
50
40
Hispanic
White
36
30
20
10
0
2004
-23 % GAP
Pre DI
2008
-4% GAP
Post 4 yrs. Of DI
Instruction
Terra Nova Reading
Percent of students scoring above the 50th percentile
Hispanic Students vs. White Students
Percent of Students scoring
above the 50th Percentile
Sixth Grade
70
70
62
60
53
50
40
Hispanic
White
30
22
20
10
0
2004
40% GAP
Pre-DI program
2008
17% GAP
Post DI program
Kindergarten Phoneme Segmentation Fluency on the
DIBELS
Pre DI/Reading First scores vs. Post DI Reading First
Scores for our Hispanic and White student groups
80
70
70
60
72
73
50
50
Hispanic
White
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-DI/RF
Post DI/RF
Example of the closure of Achievement Gap between demographic
groups on DIBELS (ORF) in 2nd grade
23% gap has narrowed to a 4% gap
80
71
70
67
59
60
50
40
Hispanic
White
36
30
20
10
0
2004
2008
Reducing the Number of Student in
Special Education
Example of Geil Elementary
Change in Special Education Numbers
Comparing 2000-2001 t0 2008-2009
These numbers do not represent students identified for speech services
only.
35
31
Number of Students
30
25
20
18
15
12
10
5
5
0
Sped. Resource
Sped. SLD
2000-2001
2008-2009
Example of Geil Elementary
Change in Special Education Population
Comparing 2000-2001 t0 2008-2009
These percentages do not represent students identified for speech services only.
Percent of Students
9.7
5.6
3.4
1.4
Sped. Resource
Sped. SLD
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2000-2001
2008-2009
Example of Gering District Three Elementary Buildings
Change in Special Education Population
Comparing 2001-2002 t0 2008-2009
These numbers and percentages do not represent
students identified for speech services only
N=1,010
75
80
70
62
Number of Students
60
50
40
26
30
20
11
10
0
Sped. Resource
Sped. SLD
2001-2002
2008-2009
Example of Gering District Three Elementary Buildings
Change in Special Education Population
Comparing 2001-2002 t0 2008-2009
These numbers and percentages do not represent
students identified for speech services only
N=1,025 for 08-09/N= 962 for 01-02
7.7
8
7
Percent of Students
6
6
5
4
2.7
3
2
1.1
1
0
Sped. Resource
Sped. SLD
2001-2002
2008-2009
GPS Classes That Received D.I. Reading
*These students received the comprehensive Language Arts Direct Instruction
Program (Reading Mastery, Reasoning & Writing, and Spelling Mastery).
** These students received only the Reading Mastery or Corrective Reading
portion of the DI Language Arts Program and it was used with approximately
80%-90% of the students at our Junior High School as part a comprehensive
School Reform Grant.
Class of 2008
None
Class of 2009
1 year as 9th** graders
Class of 2010
1 year as 8th** graders
Class of 2011
2 years as 7th** and 8th**
Class of 2012
2 years as 7th** and 8th**
Class of 2013
2 years as 6th* and 7th**
Class of 2014
4 years as 3rd-6th *
Class of 2015
5 years 2nd - 6th*
Class of 2016
6 years 1st - 6th*
Class of 2017
7 years as K - 6th *
Class of 2018
7 years as K - 6th *
Challenges Gering has faced with the implementation of
a Scientifically Research Based program in an effort to
improve Reading Achievement
Keeping all stakeholders informed of the progress
we have made towards the goal of Reading First
/RTI(To improve Student Achievement)
Some teacher resistance to accountability
Keeping staff focused on student needs
Dispelling rumors regarding the program that get
started in the community
Screening professional development opportunities
for staff
Desire of some staff wanting to go back to preReading First practices
What will it take for Gering Public Schools
to sustain the implementation
successfully?
Leadership focused on results for students
Continued district support
Continued focused professional development
Continued training for new staff members
Continued evaluation of program with data
What are the top ten reasons you would implement
a program with this much accountability?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Students
Students
Students
Students
Students
Students
Students
Students
Students
Students
Questions
Contact Information for Presenters
Andrea Boden [email protected]
Bev Hague [email protected]
Mary Kay Haun [email protected]
Don Hague [email protected]
If you would like an electronic version of this presentation please
e-mail us.
To view the Gering Video “Closing the Achievement Gap” go to
the National Institute For Direct Instruction website