1 / 48

Gering Public Schools Gering, Nebraska

shina
Download Presentation

Gering Public Schools Gering, Nebraska

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NASB/NASAState Education ConferenceOmaha, NebraskaNovemeber 19th , 2009Increased Achievement: A Reality for All Students When Professional Development is FocusedGering Public SchoolsGering, 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.”

  2. Gering Public SchoolsGering, Nebraska Bev Hague, Geil Reading Coach Mary Kay Haun, Geil Principal Don Hague, Superintendent Andrea Boden, RTI Project Manager/UNL

  3. 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

  4. Gering Student Performance DataPrior 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%.

  5. 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

  6. THEN WHAT ?

  7. 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.

  8. When ?

  9. K-6 Implementation Timeline2004-2005 Grades K-32005-2006 Grade 42006-2007 Grades 5-6 2007-2008 Sustain Grades K-62008-2009 Sustain Grades K-62009-2010 Sustain Grades K-6

  10. What changes have taken place during our five year journey of reform ? • Role of Leadership • Curriculum • Professional Development • Use of Assessment Data

  11. 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.

  12. 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 on-going 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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)

  16. 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).

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. Increasing Achievement for All Students

  21. K-6 DIBELSImpact of Reading First/DI after4 and 5 years of ImplementationDIBELS 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 anat 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) GRADE

  22. 4th GRADE Writing AssessmentComparison of Nebraska 4th grade student performance and Gering 4th grade student performance on 4th grade Statewide Writing Assessment(% of students assessed: 2005=100%, 2006=99%, 2007=99%, 2008 =99%) Percent of students scoring proficient After Reading First (D.I. Reading Program) Students had received 2 yrs. of RF instruction 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 Before Reading First (D.I. Reading Program)

  23. Gering Public SchoolsDIBELS ORF3rd Grade Number of Students Correct Words Per Minute

  24. Gering Public SchoolsDIBELS ORF1st Grade Number of Students Correct Words Per Minute

  25. Terra Nova Science and Social Studies Pre and Post RF Implementation Scores for 3rd and 4th grade ( Five years of data analyzed) Median Scaled Score

  26. Terra Nova Reading Median Scale ScoreComparison 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 ProgramClass of 2014 in 5th grade vs. Class of 2008, 2009, 2010 in 7th grade Median Scale Score

  27. Closing and Narrowing Achievement Gaps

  28. Class of 2014Pre-Direct Instruction Program vs. Post Direct InstructionDIBELS DATA (ORF) Percent Proficient -23 % GAP Pre DI -9% GAP Post 4 yrs. Of DI Instruction

  29. Gering Fourth GradePre-Direct Instruction Program vs. Post Direct Instruction Program DIBELS DATA (ORF) Percent of Students at Benchmark -19 % GAP Pre DI -5% GAP Post 4 yrs. Of DI Instruction

  30. 1st - 5th DIBELS ORFFree and Reduced Lunch StudentsImpact of Reading First/DI after4/5 years of ImplementationDIBELS Spring of 2004 vs. Spring of 2008/2009 (District-Lincoln, Geil, Northfield) Percent of F/R Students at Benchmark (1st-5th=ORF) GRADE

  31. 4th GRADE State Writing TestComparison of Nebraska Hispanic student performance and Gering Hispanic student performance on 4th grade Statewide Writing Assessment Percent of students scoring proficient After Reading First (D.I. Reading Program) Students had received 2 yrs. of RF instruction After Reading First (D.I. Reading Program) Students had received 3 yrs. of RF instruction Before Reading First (D.I. Reading Program) After ReadingFirst (D.I. Reading Program) Students had received 4 yrs. Of RF instruction

  32. Closing the Achievement Gap in Gering Between Hispanic and All Students on the State-Wide Writing Assessment Percent Proficient -44% GAP +2% GAP

  33. Gering Second GradePre-Direct Instruction Program vs. Post Direct Instruction ProgramDIBELS DATA (ORF) Percent Proficient -23 % GAP Pre DI -4% GAP Post 4 yrs. Of DI Instruction

  34. Terra Nova Reading Percent of students scoring above the 50th percentileHispanic Students vs. White StudentsSixth Grade Percent of Students scoring above the 50th Percentile 40% GAP Pre-DI program 17% GAP Post DI program

  35. Kindergarten Phoneme Segmentation Fluency on the DIBELSPre DI/Reading First scores vs. Post DI Reading First Scores for our Hispanic and White student groups Percent of students at benchmark

  36. Example of the closure of Achievement Gap between demographic groups on DIBELS (ORF) in 2nd grade23% gap has narrowed to a 4% gap

  37. Reducing the Number of Student in Special Education

  38. Example of Geil ElementaryChange in Special Education NumbersComparing 2000-2001 t0 2008-2009These numbers do not represent students identified for speech services only. Number of Students Sped. Resource Sped. SLD

  39. Example of Geil ElementaryChange in Special Education PopulationComparing 2000-2001 t0 2008-2009 These percentages do not represent students identified for speech services only. Percent of Students Sped. Resource Sped. SLD

  40. Example of Gering District Three Elementary BuildingsChange in Special Education PopulationComparing 2001-2002 t0 2008-2009 These numbers and percentages do not represent students identified for speech services only N=1,010 Number of Students Sped. Resource Sped. SLD

  41. Example of Gering District Three Elementary BuildingsChange in Special Education PopulationComparing 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 Percent of Students Sped. Resource Sped. SLD

  42. 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 pre-Reading First practices

  43. 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

  44. What are the top ten reasons you would implement a program with this much accountability? • Students • Students • Students • Students • Students • Students • Students • Students • Students • Students

  45. Questions • Contact Information for Presenters Andrea Bodenaboden2@unl.edu Bev Hague bhague@geringschools.net Mary Kay Haunmkhaun@geringschools.net Don Hague dhague@geringschools.net 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

More Related