July 2010 SPDG Quarterly Report

July 2010 SPDG Quarterly Report

Name: Christi Reay (Rdg/Math Intervention Specialist & Coach)

Email:

Organization: Valley Region - LegacyElementary School

Date: July 15, 2010

Last Quarter Highlights:

Our preliminary label from the state shows we went from Failing status to Performing Plus. All except 3rd grade surpassed the state average in Reading. In Math, all of our grades have showed a large amount of improvement from last year with the exception of 3rd grade.
We continued with our Reading Leadership Team (Systemic Change in Reading Team) and have started up a Math Team with a similar model. They will attend the Intel Math training by the state when they offer it, provide professional development, and help grade level teams analyze data.
The Reading/Math Intervention Specialist met with all staff members and discussed strengths/weaknesses in both Tier 1 and Intervention Instruction. All staff set goals with the Rdg/Math Specialist. Some staff was asked to have more consistent meetings with the Coach.
Administrationmet with a staff at the end of the school year and used the Problem Solving Model to determine what obstacles we have with improving even more so in Math. We came up with some plans for fine-tuning our Math intervention programs.
Principal and Rdg/Math Coach attended the “Leading Change” Conference in Tucson and received valuable RTI information that will help in the influence of further changes.

This Spring, we administered DIBELS, AIMSweb Computation Math Fact Tests, and the AIMSweb concept and application assessments. Grades K-4 were tested with DIBELS and grades 5th-6th were tested using the AIMSweb Reading Comprehension and MAZE tests. After analyzing the Spring 2009 Arizona AIMS data we decided we needed to provide extra assistance to our 5th-6th graders. Therefore, we contracted to have an additional Rdg/Math Intervention Specialists to work with our SPDG coach to help those two grade levels. The Principal’s Office works with the bottom 20% of both grade levels. They group them into 4 students per group. She works with them for 30 minutes three times a week with each group. For math The Principal’s Office works with them for 5 minutes on rapid math fact fluency and then 25 minutes on specific concepts and application. For reading they again work with the students for 30 minutes 3 times a week.

For all other grades we have 3 Intervention assistants. They assist the teacher during their reading and math core times as well as aide the Tier 3 students. They see the Tier 3 students 3 times a week for 25 minutes.

The following table shows how students scored on benchmark assessments in DIBELS (reading assessment). The first score is the number of students scoring in that category and the score in the parenthesis is the percentage of students testing in that category.

Kindergarten
Fall Benchmark
59 Students / ISF / LNF / WUF / PSF / NWF
Deficit / 27 (46%) / 23 (39%) / 27 (46%)
Emerging / 9 (15%) / 13 (22%) / 0 (0%)
Established / 15 (39%) / 23 (39%) / 32 (54%)
Winter Benchmark
56 Students / ISF / LNF / WUF / PSF / NWF
Deficit / 15 (27%) / 12 (21%) / 22 (39%) / 22 (39%) / 14 (25%)
Emerging / 24 (43%) / 13 (23%) / 12 (21%) / 8 (14%) / 11 (20%)
Established / 17 (30%) / 31 (55%) / 22 (39%) / 26 (46%) / 31 (55%)
Spring Benchmark
54 Students / ISF / LNF / WUF / PSF / NWF
Deficit / Not Tested / 9 (16.7%) / 1 (1.9%) / 2 (3.7%) / 5 (9%)
Emerging / Not Tested / 17 (31.5%) / 5 (9.3%) / 8 (14.8%) / 10 (19%)
Established / Not Tested / 28 (51.8%) / 48 (88.8%) / 44 (81.5%) / 39 (72%)
First Grade
Fall Benchmark
34 Students / LNF / PSF / NWF / WUF / ORF / RTF
Deficit / 10 (29%) / 7 (21%) / 4 (12%) / 16 (47%)
Emerging / 6 (18%) / 7 (21%) / 11 (32%) / 4 (12%)
Established / 18 (53%) / 20 (58%) / 19 (56%) / 14 (41%)
Winter Benchmark
32 Students / LNF / PSF / NWF / WUF / ORF / RTF
Deficit / Not Tested / 2 (6%) / 1 (3%) / 16 (47%) / 1 (3%) / 7 (22%)
Emerging / Not Tested / 10 (31%) / 15 (47%) / 4 (12%) / 6 (19%) / 5 (16%)
Established / Not Tested / 20 (63%) / 16 (50%) / 14 (41%) / 25 (78%) / 20 (62%)
Spring Benchmark
32 Students / LNF / PSF / NWF / WUF / ORF / RTF
Deficit / 15 (27%) / 0 (0%) / 1 (3.1%) / 3 (9.4%) / 2 (6%) / 7 (22%)
Emerging / 24 (43%) / 1 (3.1%) / 6 (18.8%) / 3 (9.4%) / 8 (25%) / 5 (16%)
Established / 17 (30%) / 31 (96.9%) / 25 (78.1%) / 26 (81.2%) / 22 (69%) / 20 (62%)
Second Grade
Fall Benchmark
42 Students / NWF / ORF / RTF / WUF
Deficit / 4 (10%) / 12 (29%) / 15 (36%) / 10 (24%)
Emerging / 13 (31%) / 10 (24%) / 10 (24%) / 10 (24%)
Established / 25 (59%) / 20 (47%) / 17 (40%) / 22 (52%)
Winter Benchmark
31 Students / NWF / ORF / RTF / WUF
Deficit / Not Tested / 9 (29%) / 6 (19%) / 10 (32%)
Emerging / Not Tested / 6 (19%) / 7 (23%) / 6 (19%)
Established / Not Tested / 16 (52%) / 18 (58%) / 15 (49%)
Spring Benchmark
26 Students / NWF / ORF / RTF / WUF
Deficit / Not Tested / 8 (31%) / 6 (19%) / 6 (23.1%)
Emerging / Not Tested / 5 (19%) / 7 (23%) / 5 (19.2%)
Established / Not Tested / 13 (50%) / 18 (58%) / 15 (57.7%)
Third Grade
Fall Benchmark
40 Students / ORF / RTF / WUF
Deficit / 14 (35%) / 2 (5%) / 15 (38%)
Emerging / 7 (18%) / 21 (53%) / 6 (15%)
Established / 19 (47%) / 17 (42%) / 19 (47%)
Winter Benchmark
40 Students / ORF / RTF / WUF
Deficit / 15 (38%) / 13 (33%) / 9 (23%)
Emerging / 12 (30%) / 3 (8%) / 4 (10%)
Established / 13 (32%) / 24 (59%) / 27 (67%)
Spring Benchmark
40 Students / ORF / RTF / WUF
Deficit / 10 (23.3%) / 13 (33%) / 7 (16.3%)
Emerging / 16 (37.2%) / 3 (8%) / 10 (23.3%)
Established / 17 (39.5%) / 24 (59%) / 26 (60.4%)
Fourth Grade
Fall Benchmark
48 Students / ORF / RTF
Deficit / 16 (33%) / 14 (29%)
Emerging / 12 (25%) / 13 (31%)
Established / 20 (42%) / 19 (40%)
Winter Benchmark
40 Students / ORF / RTF
Deficit / 14 (35%) / 6 (15%)
Emerging / 10 (25%) / 11 (28%)
Established / 16 (40%) / 23 (57%)
Spring Benchmark
37 Students / ORF / RTF
Deficit / 17 (46%) / 6 (15%)
Emerging / 6 (16%) / 11 (28%)
Established / 14 (38%) / 23 (57%)

As mentioned before we contracted a company to aide us with our 5th and 6th grades. This company uses only AIMSweb and therefore tested with the AIMSweb reading comprehension and MAZE tests. These numbers are divided into six categories: Well below average, below average, average, above average and well above average. These scores also include both the number of students and percentage of students that tested within each category.

Fifth Grade
Fall Benchmark
35 Students / Reading / MAZE
Well Below Average / 4 (11%) / 4 (11%)
Below Average / 5 (14%) / 4 (11%)
Average / 18 (50%) / 16 (46%)
Above Average / 5 (14%) / 6 (17%)
Well Above Average / 4 (11%) / 5 (15%)
Winter Benchmark
36 Students / Reading / MAZE
Well Below Average / 4 (11%) / 4 (11%)
Below Average / 5 (14%) / 5 (11%)
Average / 18 (50%) / 17 (47%)
Above Average / 5 (14%) / 5 (14%)
Well Above Average / 4 (11%) / 5 (14%)
Spring Benchmark
37 Students / Reading / MAZE
Well Below Average / 5 (13.5%) / 5 (13.5%)
Below Average / 5 (13.5%) / 6 (16.2%)
Average / 18 (48.6%) / 17 (45.9%)
Above Average / 5 (13.5%) / 5 (13.5%)
Well Above Average / 4 (10.8%) / 4 (10.8%)
Sixth Grade
Fall Benchmark
23 Students / Reading / MAZE
Well Below Average / 3 (13%) / 2 (9%)
Below Average / 2 (9%) / 4 (17%)
Average / 12 (52%) / 11 (48%)
Above Average / 3 (13%) / 3 (13%)
Well Above Average / 3 (13%) / 3 (13%)
Winter Benchmark
22 Students / Reading / MAZE
Well Below Average / 3 (14%) / 1 (5%)
Below Average / 2 (9%) / 5 (23%)
Average / 11 (50%) / 9 (40%)
Above Average / 2 (9%) / 2 (9%)
Well Above Average / 4 (18%) / 5 (23%)
Spring Benchmark
21 Students / Reading / MAZE
Well Below Average / 3 (14.3%) / 4 (19%)
Below Average / 3 (14.3%) / 3 (14.3%)
Average / 10 (47.6%) / 11 (52.3%)
Above Average / 3 (14.3%) / 1 (4.7%)
Well Above Average / 2 (9.5%) / 2 (9.5%)

The following tables show how students scored on baseline assessments using AIMSweb benchmark assessments. For Kindergarten and First Grade we added the Early Numeracy Test by AIMSweb.This is a test that is given one-on-one with 4 categories. The categories are OCM – Oral Counting, NIM – Number Identification, QDM – Quantity Discrimination, and MNM – Missing Number. First grade was also tested with the Math Computation test. All other grades are given Concepts & Application plus the Math Computation test.

Kindergarten
Winter Benchmark
59 Students / Early Numeracy
OCM / NIM / QDM / MNM
Well Below Average / 6 (10%) / 5 (9%) / 5 (9%) / 0 (0%)
Below Average / 8 (14%) / 9 (16%) / 7 (12%) / 13 (22%)
Average / 28 (48%) / 27 (47%) / 31 (53%) / 30 (52%)
Above Average / 10 (17%) / 6 (10%) / 8 (14%) / 7 (12%)
Well Above Average / 6 (41%) / 11 (19%) / 7 (12%) / 8 (14%)
Spring Benchmark
54 Students / Early Numeracy
OCM / NIM / QDM / MNM
Well Below Average / 4 (7%) / 4 (7%) / 6 (11%) / 3 (6%)
Below Average / 9 (16%) / 9 (16%) / 4 (7%) / 10 (19%)
Average / 27 (51%) / 13 (24%) / 25 (46%) / 23 (43%)
Above Average / 7 (13%) / 0 (0%) / 6 (11%) / 12 (22%)
Well Above Average / 7 (13%) / 28 (52%) / 13 (24%) / 6 (11%)
First Grade
Fall Benchmark
32 Students / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 0 (0%)
Below Average / 7 (22%)
Average / 16 (50%)
Above Average / 4 (13%)
Well Above Average / 5 (15%)
Winter Benchmark
*32 Students / Math Computation / Early Numeracy
OCM / NIM / QDM / MNM
Well Below Average / 3 (9%) / 3 (9%) / 3 (9%) / 1 (3%) / 2 (6%)
Below Average / 4 (13%) / 5 (15%) / 4 (13%) / 7 (22%) / 5 (16%)
Average / 12 (39%) / 14 (44%) / 16 (50%) / 14 (44%) / 14 (44%)
Above Average / 8 (26%) / 5 (16%) / 2 (6%) / 6 (19%) / 7 (22%)
Well Above Average / 4 (13%) / 5 (16%) / 7 (22%) / 4 (12%) / 4 (12%)
Spring Benchmark
*32 Students / Math Computation / Early Numeracy
OCM / NIM / QDM / MNM
Well Below Average / 3 (9%) / 3 (9%) / 3 (9%) / 3 (9%) / 3 (9%)
Below Average / 5 (16%) / 5 (16%) / 5 (16%) / 5 (16%) / 4 (12%)
Average / 15 (47%) / 15 (47%) / 15 (47%) / 11 (34%) / 13 (41%)
Above Average / 5 (16%) / 0 (0%) / 3 (9%) / 5 (16%) / 7 (22%)
Well Above Average / 4 (12%) / 9 (28%) / 6 (19%) / 8 (25%) / 5 (16%)

* For First Grade Math Computation – One student has not been able to be tested so the percentages are configured out of 31 students.

Second Grade
Fall Benchmark
42 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 3 (0%) / 4 (10%)
Below Average / 4 (0%) / 4 (10%)
Average / 21 (0%) / 23 (55%)
Above Average / 9 (0%) / 6 (14%)
Well Above Average / 5 (0%) / 5 (11%)
Winter Benchmark
34 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 3 (9%) / 3 (9%)
Below Average / 3 (15%) / 6 (18%)
Average / 17 (50%) / 16 (47%)
Above Average / 4 (12%) / 4 (12%)
Well Above Average / 5 (15%) / 5 (15%)
Spring Benchmark
26 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 3 (12%) / 3 (12%)
Below Average / 2 (8%) / 3 (12%)
Average / 14 (54%) / 13 (50%)
Above Average / 4 (15%) / 2 (8%)
Well Above Average / 3 (12%) / 5 (19%)
Third Grade
Fall Benchmark
42 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 0 (0%) / 4 (10%)
Below Average / 5 (12%) / 5 (12%)
Average / 26 (62%) / 18 (43%)
Above Average / 4 (10%) / 9 (21%)
Well Above Average / 7 (16%) / 6 (14%)
Winter Benchmark
40 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 2 (5%) / 4 (10%)
Below Average / 7 (17%) / 6 (15%)
Average / 18 (45%) / 19 (48%)
Above Average / 8 (20%) / 4 (10%)
Well Above Average / 5 (13%) / 7 (17%)
Spring Benchmark
37 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 3 (8%) / 4 (11%)
Below Average / 6 (16%) / 5 (14%)
Average / 18 (49%) / 17 (46%)
Above Average / 5 (14%) / 6 (16%)
Well Above Average / 5 (14%) / 5 (14%)
Fourth Grade
Fall Benchmark
48 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 5 (10%) / 5 (10%)
Below Average / 3 (6%) / 7 (15%)
Average / 26 (54%) / 23 (48%)
Above Average / 8 (17%) / 8 (17%)
Well Above Average / 6 (13%) / 5 (10%)
Winter Benchmark
43 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 4 (9%) / 3 (7%)
Below Average / 6 (14%) / 8 (19%)
Average / 20 (46%) / 21 (49%)
Above Average / 8 (19%) / 5 (12%)
Well Above Average / 5 (12%) / 6 (13%)
Spring Benchmark
37 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math Computation
Well Below Average / 1 (5%) / 2 (10%)
Below Average / 4 (19%) / 3 (14%)
Average / 10 (48%) / 10 (48%)
Above Average / 3 (14%) / 3 (14%)
Well Above Average / 3 (14%) / 3 (14%)
Fifth Grade
Fall Benchmark
36 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math
Computation
Well Below Average / 4 (11%)
Below Average / 4 (11%)
Average / 15 (42%)
Above Average / 9 (25%)
Well Above Average / 4 (11%)
Winter Benchmark
36 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math
Computation
Well Below Average / 4 (11%) / 4 (11%)
Below Average / 5 (14%) / 5 (14%)
Average / 17 (47%) / 17 (47%)
Above Average / 5 (14%) / 6 (17%)
Well Above Average / 5 (14%) / 6 (11%)
Spring Benchmark
37 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math
Computation
Well Below Average / 4 (11%) / 4 (11%)
Below Average / 4 (11%) / 5 (14%)
Average / 19 (51%) / 18 (47%)
Above Average / 5 (14%) / 5 (14%)
Well Above Average / 5 (14%) / 5 (14%)
Sixth Grade
Fall Benchmark
23 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math
Computation
Well Below Average / 0 (0%)
Below Average / 6 (26%)
Average / 11 (48%)
Above Average / 3 (13%)
Well Above Average / 3 (13%)
Winter Benchmark
22 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math
Computation
Well Below Average / 0 (0%) / 3 (14%)
Below Average / 5 (23%) / 2 (9%)
Average / 11 (50%) / 11 (50%)
Above Average / 3 (14%) / 3 (14%)
Well Above Average / 3 (14%) / 3 (14%)
Spring Benchmark
21 Students / Concepts & Applications / Math
Computation
Well Below Average / 1 (5%) / 2 (10%)
Below Average / 4 (19%) / 3 (14%)
Average / 10 (48%) / 10 (48%)
Above Average / 3 (14%) / 3 (14%)
Well Above Average / 3 (14%) / 3 (14%)
Percentage of Students who reached Benchmark or Average, Above Average & Well Above Average
Teacher / DIBELS/Reading / Teacher / MCAP/MCBM / E. N. / E. N.
Fall / Winter / Spring / Fall / Winter / Spring / Winter / Spring
Breen/Ms. M / k / 25% / 12% / 53% / Breen/Ms. M / k / 53% / 80%
Harmor / k / 41% / 72% / 95% / Harmor / k / 89% / 84%
Woodbury / k / 32% / 57% / 65% / Woodbury / k / 76% / 75%
Hannam / 1 / 76% / 80% / 71% / Hannam / 1 / 85% / 77% / 66% / 57% / 53%
Sonive / 1 / 78% / 71% / 69% / Sonive / 1 / 75% / 83% / 88% / 78% / 75%
Cardenas / 2 / 57% / 46% / 46% / Cardenas / 2 / 73% / 84% / 77%
Fields / 2 / 41% / 56% / 54% / Fields / 2 / 68% / 67% / 62%
Bond / 3 / 43% / 15% / 41% / Bond / 3 / 76% / 71% / 77%
Tengei / 3 / 48% / 35% / 38% / Tengei / 3 / 67% / 67% / 52%
Arnold / 4 / 42% / 35% / 41% / Arnold / 4 / 71% / 59% / 65%
Edwards / 4 / 33% / 45% / 37% / Edwards / 4 / 63% / 74% / 84%
Stein / 5 / 58% / 47% / 47% / Stein / 5 / 58% / 60% / 41%
Zwagerman / 5 / 74% / 74% / 75% / Zwagerman / 5 / 79% / 75% / 90%
Bryant / 6 / 75% / 60% / x / Bryant / 6 / 75% / 67% / x
Bulger / 6 / 67% / 83% / 70% / Bulger / 6 / 75% / 68% / 65%
School Avg / 51% / 51% / 57% / School Avg / 72% / 73% / 76% / 71% / 74%
* Bulger / 64% / 70% / * Bulger / 68% / 65%
* Since Ms. Bryant was let go, all 6th grade students were combined into Mrs. Bulger's class

Goals for the next few months

Continue monthly data meetings however add an additional time once more in the month for Grade level teams to analyze data.
Create ILP type documents for all Tier 3 students with data from previous years benchmark and AIMS data.
Begin using Acuity Testing as an additional Benchmark type assessment.
Have staff work progressively through the year on organizing unit assessments which can also be used to establish benchmarks. Possible goal: 80% of students passing unit assessments at 80% of the test.
Reading and Math Teams will continue to meet every other week.
We want to further online training to correlate with our 95% Group Phonics instruction.
Begin Math Fact Fluency Tests – Sums of 5, sums of 10 and sums of 20.
We need to add more Reading Interventions for our Tier 3 students, first focusing on our Special Education Students. We have a spiral review time each day in which students will attend additional Reading Intervention.
Follow through with school-wide math fact practice procedure.
Increase classroom and intervention observations.