Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Kathleen Bethke Ace Conference 2013 Austin, Texas
Citation preview
STAAR Pilot Project Review of Year 1
Kathleen Bethke ACE Training Consultant
STAAR Lead
ObjecCves
• Review criteria/requirements of SPP • A look at preliminary Year 1 results
• Review of how findings will impact the future of ACE
• A look at NYOS
Celebrate
• Total SPP Students • Total New Students • Preliminary Results
SPP Requirements
• Data‐Driven Design • IntenConal Recruitment • Targeted ScienCfically‐Based IntervenCon • Targeted, IntenConal Enrichment • SMART Goals • Research QuesCons • Fidelity Tools • Pre‐ and Post‐Assessments
SPP Programs 9
3 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
Mixed FTF/Online FTF Only Online Only
8
6
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
ELA & Math ELA Only Math Only
Types of IntervenCons
Content Focus
Total SPP Students Grantee Proposed Students Students Served 30+ days New Students
AusCn 120 120 70
CIS SA 72 63 27
CIS SEHC 100 83 78
Ft Worth 6 72 72 35
Ft Worth 7 72 55 14
Harlingen 450 255 326
HCDE 140‐280 177 1
NYOS 40 45 13
Reg 13‐Bartle` 50 59 14
Richardson 442 364 37
Sherman 270 208 187
Snyder 120 15 71
Taylor 160 164 96
Temple 126 126 88
Valley View 280 210 3
TOTAL 2602 1812 1051
Preliminary Results • Sherman ISD – Power Reading
2490 months of reading improvement in 4 months, an average of 11 months with a range of 2 months to 24 months of improvement (24 months is equivalent of 2 ½ school years!)
• Taylor – IstaHon, Think Through Math 85% of SPP students improved reading proficiency 69% of SPP students improved math proficiency 56% of SPP students who were “on the bubble” in January were “off the bubble” in May resulCng in significant
increases in STAAR assessment passing percentages (as high as >70% exceeding State Stds in Reading at both campuses and >45% exceeding State Stds in Math at Passman
• Temple – Sylvan ACE It! When compared to non‐SPP students of similar demographics, SPP students scored 6.02 points higher on STAAR
Reading Assessments. When compared to non‐SPP students of similar demographics, SPP students scored 10.44 points higher on STAAR
WriCng Assessments SPP students had 44% lower absences and 43% lower disciplinary referrals when compared to non‐SPP students of
similar demographics.
• CIS – SEHC – Kids College 79% of the students parCcipaCng in SPP for math either passed or improved their score on the STAAR math assessment. 56.5% of the 108 Regular SPP students passed the STAAR test for the subject in which they were tutored. 31% of the
108 SPP Students passed at least one addiConal STAAR subject test. 11.25% of the SPP students did not pass any STAAR subject, but improved from last year’s scores.
Common Barriers
• Secondary Student recruitment and retenCon • Providing intenConal enrichment for SPP students • Genng parents to allow students to stay for enrichment (or only planning 1 hour of intervenCon)
• Genng core day to see the importance of intenConally aligned enrichment
• Managing SPP and tradiConal ACE program • Managing the requirements from State Evaluators
Common Themes
• Computer‐based IntervenCons (Think Through Math, Achieve 3000, etc.)
• Computer‐based IntervenCons with Reciprocal/Guided Learning
• Reciprocal/Guided Learning IntervenCon • Student Centered Learning (giving students a voice in learning)
• Highly Qualified Staff • Lack of Staff:Student InteracCon in some intervenCons • Low Staff:Student RaCos • More purposeful planning
Best PracCces
• Alignment to student need for both academic intervenCon and enrichment
• Campus:Aperschool CollaboraCon • Highly Qualified Teachers • Low Staff:Student RaCos • IntenConal Recruitment • Engaging Learning Environment (Reciprocal Learning, Guided Learning, Student Voice, IntenConal Enrichment)
What SPP Findings Mean For The Future
• IntenConal academic intervenCons • Academically aligned enrichment • IntenConal recruitment • ScienCfically and/or evidence‐based learning strategies embedded in every acCvity
• Fidelity measurement tools • More coaching/mentoring to help programs reach desired quality goals
• Everything is connected
A Look At NYOS
APPROACH TO DESIGN • Cognitively Guided Instruction
– SMART Boards
• Essential Skills and Mentoring Minds software – Student and Parent Laptops
• Parent Math Numeration Classes and software classes
• Mentoring Program
Students work together to develop and verbalize their own strategies to solve problems using manipulatives.
• Benchmarks o BOY, MOY, EOY campus developed STAAR assessments
• Progress monitoring data o Essential Skills software
• Students, parents and teachers may track progress o Mentoring Minds software
• Teachers monitor student progress TEK by TEK
• Attendance Records • Laptop checkout logs • Mentor Logs
• Training signin sheets • ACE program leader observation forms • Principal observation forms • Lesson plan review by Site Coordinator • Center leaders and school leaders meet monthly to review progress
• Center leaders, school leaders and teachers meet every 9 weeks to analyze data
Beginning of Year Benchmark (BOY)
• All students that scored a 70 or below on math benchmark were referred into the program
• Teacher referral
• BOY (Beginning of Year) Math Benchmark: 53% of NYOS K3rd graders were BELOW level in Math.
• MOY (Middle of Year) Math Benchmark: 21% of NYOS K3rd graders were BELOW level in Math
• EOY (End of Year) Math Benchmark: 12% of NYOS K3rd graders were BELOW level in Math
Enrichment Activity When I Grow Up College and Career Readiness
• Needs Inventory • How can we relate math to career readiness? • Reviewed STAAR Math Reporting Categories 1 & 2 and started to brainstorm how we could “sneak” those TEKS into fun, handson enrichment lessons
• Chose an experienced counselor to lead activity development
• Google “School Career Days” for original pool of careers as examples for students to choose from
• Google “Crafts for Careers” to see if fun, handson activities already existed o Counselor tweaks the activity to meet our program needs
• Appropriate grade level • Align with STAAR Math Reporting Categories 1 & 2
o All students participated in the same activities for the 2 weeks so that students and activity leaders could gain a sense for how the activity is implemented
o At the end of the 2 weeks students were asked to choose which activities they wanted to learn about
• Students asked to write down their top 5 careers that they would like to learn about
• All choices were graphed as a class
• The 5 most popular careers were the winners o Students voted on the order in which they would learn about each career
• Activity leaders discuss career with students • Students are asked what math skills they think would be used in that particular career
• Activity leader compiles a list of the math skills and turns that list over to the counselor planning the activity
• The counselor researches the projects/activities and gives the activity leaders and students a foundation to build on o The counselor provides the students with a topic but the students come up
with the activities math problems, games, realections, etc.
• Once activity is implemented with the students the activity leader completes a realection feedback form and turns that in to the counselor
• Counselor makes revisions to the activity based on student and teacher feedback
• All activities are projectbased
• Students experience airsthand how the math they are learning in school can relate to their future careers
• Follow 1 “E” per day • Monday
o Students learn about their career
• Tuesday – Thursday o Students work on aligned
activities • Math Problems • Projects • Games • Arts and Crafts
o Parent Involvement
• Friday o Project completion
• Career Activity Examples o Dancer dance studio o Photographer o Detective o Construction worker
• Engineers • Popsicle stick city
o Veterinarian o Fashion Designer o Artist sculptures o Police ofaicer o Librarian o Business owner hats and shirts
