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

1
NASB/NASAState Education ConferenceOmaha,
NebraskaNovemeber 19th , 2009 Increased
Achievement A Reality for All Students When
Professional Development is Focused Gering
Public SchoolsGering, NebraskaThe 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
  districts 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 (KNWF/1st-6thORF)
GRADE
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
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 2005100, 200699, 200799, 2008
99)
Percent of students scoring proficient
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 2 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)
25
Gering Public SchoolsDIBELS ORF3rd Grade
Number of Students
Correct Words Per Minute
26
Gering Public SchoolsDIBELS ORF1st Grade
Number of Students
Correct Words Per Minute
27
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
28
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 Gerings
Traditional Language Arts ProgramClass of 2014
in 5th grade vs. Class of 2008, 2009, 2010 in 7th
grade
Median Scale Score
29
Closing and Narrowing Achievement Gaps
30
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
31
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
32
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-5thORF)
GRADE
33
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 3 yrs. of RF
instruction
After Reading First (D.I. Reading
Program) Students had received 2 yrs. of RF
instruction
Before Reading First (D.I. Reading Program)
After Reading First (D.I. Reading Program)
Students had received 4 yrs. Of RF instruction
34
Closing the Achievement Gap in Gering Between
Hispanic and All Students on the State-Wide
Writing Assessment
Percent Proficient
-44 GAP
2 GAP
35
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
36
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
37
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
38
Example of the closure of Achievement Gap between
demographic groups on DIBELS (ORF) in 2nd
grade23 gap has narrowed to a 4 gap
39
Reducing the Number of Student in Special
Education
40
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
41
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
42
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 N1,010
Number of Students
Sped. Resource
Sped. SLD
43
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 N1,025 for 08-09/N 962
for 01-02
Percent of Students
Sped. Resource
Sped. SLD
44

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. 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
45
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

46
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

47
What are the top ten reasons you would implement
a program with this much accountability?

1. Students
2. Students
3. Students
4. Students
5. Students
6. Students
7. Students
8. Students
9. Students
10. Students

48
Questions

• Contact Information for Presenters
• Andrea Boden aboden2_at_unl.edu
• Bev Hague bhague_at_geringschools.net
• Mary Kay Haun mkhaun_at_geringschools.net
• Don Hague dhague_at_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