• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Star Pilot Project Review of Year 1
 

Star Pilot Project Review of Year 1

on

  • 2,739 views

Kathleen Bethke, Texas Ace conference 2013

Kathleen Bethke, Texas Ace conference 2013
Austin, Texas

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,739
Views on SlideShare
2,739
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • WE HAVE SEEN WONDERFUL WORK IN THE STAAR PILOT PROJECT. WE HAVE BEEN IMPRESSED AT THE LEVEL OF COLLABORATION WE’VE SEEN IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROJECT. AT ALMOST EVERY SITE VISIT, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND AFTERSCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS HAVE JOINED AROUND A TABLE WITH US AND SHARED ALL THE WONDERFUL WORK BEING ACCOMPLISHED.WE HEARD THINGS LIKE, “THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE EVER HAD THESE KIND OF CONVERSATIONS,” WE HAVE CHANGED THE WAY WE DO AFTERSCHOOL AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT,” “FINALLY WE ARE ALL FOCUSED ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO FOR OUR STUDENTS.”
  • HERE ARE THE NUMBERS FOR THE SPP PROGRAM. HOWEVER, WHILE IT APPEARS THAT WE ARE SERVING MANY STUDENTS, THERE ARE GRANTEES WHO ARE STUGGLING WITH ADA ESPECIALLY AT SECONDARY
  • HERE ARE A FEW RESULTS FROM GRANTEES WHO HAVE ALREADY STARTED COLLECTING DATA.
  • SUCCESS HASN’T COME WITHOUT IT’S ISSUES. FORTUNATELY, THEY WERE FEW AND I WANT TO THANK EACH GRANTEE FOR THEIR CANDIDNESS AND HONESTY AS WE TALKED ABOUT HOW TO ENSURE THE FIDELITY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF YOUR PROJECT.THIS SLIDE SHOWS A FEW OF THE BARRIERS THAT WERE COMMON AMONGST MANY OF YOU.ENROLLMENT AND ATTENDANCE OF SECONDARY STUDENTS SEEMED COMMON ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE SERVING HS. MUCH WORK AND DISCUSSION HAS HAPPENED IN THE PLANNING STAGES FOR YEAR 2 TO OVERCOME THIS BARRIERI HAVE HAD LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS AROUND ENRICHMENT. HOW TO DO, WHO TO PUT IN IT. WE HAVE BEEN PRETTY LENIENT IN THIS FIRST SEMESTER, BUT STARTING IN YEAR 2, EACH WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS COMPONENT IN THEIR CONTINUATION GRANT AND DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WILL BE A PART OF YOUR INTERVENTION. MANY ALSO TALKED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO GET STUDENTS TO STAY FOR ENRICHMENT. MANAGING HAS BEEN CHALLENGING, BUT HOPEFULLY NOW IS SMOOTHING OUT.WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING SPP GRANTEES TO PROVIDE UNIT AND LESSON PLANS FOR THEIR SPP ENRICHMENT AND I WILL BE WORKING WITH THEM TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY ALIGNED AND EMBEDD THE TARGETED ACADEMIC SKILLS. WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THESE WITH THE FIELD AS WE EXPECT THEM TO BE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY AND DEMONSTRATE WHAT WE’VE BEEN TEACHING IN OUR ACTIVITY DEV TRAINING.
  • THE INTERVENTIONS WE HAVE SEEN VARY. THESE ARE SOME OF THE THEMES WE HAVE OBSERVED AS WE HAVE MADE OUR VISITS.MANY ARE USING COMPUTER-BASED INTERVENTIONS AND AS WE HAVE OBSERVED STUDENTS INVOLVED IN THESE TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THOSE WHICH SEEMED TO HAVE STUDENTS MOST ENGAGED WERE THE ONES THAT INCLUDED A GUIDED OR RECIPROCAL LEARNING ACTIVITY WITHIN THAT INTERVENTION. RECIPROCAL: STUDENTS ARE HELPING EACH OTHER LEARN, GUIDED: TEACHERS HELPS GUIDE STUDENTS TO DISCOVER ANSWERS ON THEIR OWN. IN THESE TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS, I SAW THAT SOME STUDENTS WERE ON THE COMPUTER WHILE OTHERS WHERE AT ANOTHER TABLE WITH A TEACHER OR WITH THEIR PEERS. STUDENTS WOULD TRANSITION THROUGH AT LEAST ONE OTHER “CENTER.” THEY DID NOT SPEND THE ENTIRE TIME ON THE COMPUTER PROGRAM, BUT WHERE OFFERED OTHER INNOVATIVE METHODS TO PRACTICE THE NEW SKILLS. SOME OF THE OTHER ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE INTERVENTION INCLUDED SMART BOARD GAMES, IPAD APPS, BOARD GAMES, USE OF MANIPULATIVES, AND HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES SUCH AS SECTIONING FRUIT TO PRACTICE FRACTIONS. EACH OF THE ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES WAS DESIGNED TO BUILD UPON THE SKILLS STUDENTS WERE PRACTICING ON THE COMPUTER PROGRAMS. ONE CAUTION: BE SURE THAT STUDENTS HAVE PLENTY OF ADULT INTERACTION REGARDLESS OF THE ACTIVITY IN WHICH THEY ARE PARTICIPATING.GRANTEES WHO HAD STUDENTS ON THE COMPUTER INTERVENTION THE ENTIRE TIME, WERE SCORED LOWER DURING OBSERVATION PRIMARILY BECAUSE STUDENTS APPEARED DISCONNECTED. BORED, AND JUST GENERALLY NOT ON TASK.RECIPROCAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS WERE VIEWED AS POSITIVE WHEN A HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER WAS LEADING.A FEW SPP GRANTEES HAVE CHOSEN TO USE MORE MODERN LEARNING STRATEGIES…..IN THESE PROGRAMS THERE IS NOT A “CURRICULUM” BUT RATHER THE STUDENTS ARE TAUGHT STRATEGIES THEY CAN EMPLOY IN THEIR CORE DAY CLASSES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THE MATERIAL AND PROBLEM SOLVE. THESE INTERVENTIONS SHOW POTENTIAL, BUT WILL REQUIRE CONSTANT WORK TO ENSURE THAT ALL LEADERS UNDERSTAND HOW TO FACILITATE THIS TYPE OF LEARNING (COACH NOT SAGE).WE DID OBSERVE A TENDENCY FOR SOME GRANTEES TO REVERT TO APPROACHES THAT LOOK MUCH LIKE A CORE DAY CLASSROOM WHEN OBSERVED. WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE LABELED THIS PROJECT “STAAR” GRANTEES IMMEDIATELY REVERTED TO TRADITIONAL INTERVENTION METHODS. MOST OF YOU HAVE ADJUSTED OVER THE LAST 8 WEEKS AND ARE NOW MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF INNOVATIVE AND ENGAGING.PROBABLY THE MOST IMPACTIVE THEMES WE’VE SEEN IS IN THE QUALITY OF STAFF AND LOW RATIOS. IT IS APPARENT THAT STAFF ARE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY IN SPP. IN ADDITION, STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ARE REPORTING THAT THE LOW RATIOS ARE RESULTING IN POSITIVE OUTCOMES WHICH INCLUDE INCREASE IN ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, STUDENT INVOLVEMENT AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR.ONLY A COUPLE OF THE 15 SPP GRANTEES ARE PROVIDING INTENTIONAL ENRICHMENT. WHILE IT WAS NOT WRITTEN IN THE SPP RFA AS A “REQUIREMENT,” SPP IS STILL 21ST CCLC AND 21ST CCLC REQUIRES ACADEMICS, ENRICHMENT, C/W AND FAMILY ENGAGEMENT. THIS SPECIAL PROJECT IS NOT DIFFERENT. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON THE IMPORTANCE OF INTENTIONAL ENRICHMENT FOR THE LAST YEAR. SPECIFICALLY HOW ALLOWING STUDENTS TO PRACTICE NEW SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE IN RELEVANT, REAL-LIFE, ENGAGING ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES CAN HELP THEM MASTER THOSE SKILLS. THIS WILL BE A FOCUS OF YEAR 2.OVERALL, FOR EVERY GRANTEE, WE HAVE FOUND AN INCREASE IN MORE PURPOSEFUL PLANNING THAN WHAT WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY SEEN IN ACE. EVEN THE STATE EVALUATORS ARE COMMENTING THAT THIS PROGRAM IS YIELDING A HIGHER QUALITY THAN THEY HAVE SEEN IN ANY AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS THEY HAVE OBSERVED. THAT SIMPLY INDICATES THAT WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK FOR HOW ACE SHOULD BE DESIGNED GOING FORWARD.
  • MOVING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY WITH CYCLE 8, TEA IS GOING TO EXPECT GRANTEES TO BEGIN TO EMBED THE BEST PRACTICES WE HAVE DISCOVERED THROUGH THE SPP. GONE ARE THE DAYS OF JUST PROVIDING TUTORING AND ENRICHMENT BASED ON WHAT PDS AND SCS THING IS GOOD AND FUN.GRANTEES WILL HAVE TO DOCUMENT THEIR NEED AND ALIGN EVERY COMPONENT OF ACE TO ADDRESS THOSE NEEDS. WHILE A CAMPUS MAY HAVE MANY NEEDS, ACE LEADERS NEED TO BE ABLE TO NARROW THEIR WORK TO ENSURE THE HIGHEST IMPACT. WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU MUST DECIDE WHAT ACADEMIC SKILLS, BEHAVIOR/SOCIAL BEHAVIORS YOU CAN MOST EFFECTIVELY EMBED INTO YOUR PROGRAM.THERE SHOULD BE NO INTERVENTION OR ENRICHMENT OFFERED THAT IS NOT CLEARLY ALIGNED WITH THE CAMPUS NEED. GRANTEES WILL BE ASKED TO MEASURE IMPACT OF THE ACTIVITIES THEY PROVIDE THROUGH THE USE OF SMART GOALS AND TO ADJUST PROGRAMMING IF NECESSARY BASED ON THOSE MEASURABLE FINDINGS.TACS WILL BE PROVIDING MORE MENTORING AND COACHING TO HELP GRANTEES REACH THIS HIGHER LEVEL OF QUALITY AND YOU ALL WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

Star Pilot Project Review of Year 1 Star Pilot Project Review of Year 1 Presentation Transcript

  • STAAR Pilot Project Review of Year 1 Kathleen Bethke ACE Training Consultant STAAR Lead
  • Objectives • 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 • Intentional Recruitment • Targeted Scientifically-Based Intervention • Targeted, Intentional Enrichment • SMART Goals • Research Questions • 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 Interventions Content Focus
  • Total SPP Students Grantee Proposed Students Students Served 30+ days New Students Austin 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-Bartlett 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 – Istation, 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 resulting 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 Writing 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 participating 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 additional 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 retention • Providing intentional enrichment for SPP students • Getting parents to allow students to stay for enrichment (or only planning 1 hour of intervention) • Getting core day to see the importance of intentionally aligned enrichment • Managing SPP and traditional ACE program • Managing the requirements from State Evaluators
  • Common Themes • Computer-based Interventions (Think Through Math, Achieve 3000, etc.) • Computer-based Interventions with Reciprocal/Guided Learning • Reciprocal/Guided Learning Intervention • Student Centered Learning (giving students a voice in learning) • Highly Qualified Staff • Lack of Staff:Student Interaction in some interventions • Low Staff:Student Ratios • More purposeful planning
  • Best Practices • Alignment to student need for both academic intervention and enrichment • Campus:Afterschool Collaboration • Highly Qualified Teachers • Low Staff:Student Ratios • Intentional Recruitment • Engaging Learning Environment (Reciprocal Learning, Guided Learning, Student Voice, Intentional Enrichment)
  • What SPP Findings Mean For The Future • Intentional academic interventions • Academically aligned enrichment • Intentional recruitment • Scientifically and/or evidence-based learning strategies embedded in every activity • Fidelity measurement tools • More coaching/mentoring to help programs reach desired quality goals • Everything is connected
  • A Look At NYOS
  • NYOS Charter School, Inc. STAAR Pilot Program Alyssa Moore Project Director amoore@nyos.org
  • 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
  • Intervention Rotations
  • CGI Small Group Intervention Students work together to develop and verbalize their own strategies to solve problems using manipulatives.
  • SMART Board Instruction & Games
  • MEASURES OF FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION • 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 check-out logs • Mentor Logs
  • MEASURES OF FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION • Training sign-in 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
  • RECRUITMENT Beginning of Year Benchmark (BOY) • All students that scored a 70 or below on math benchmark were referred into the program • Teacher referral
  • FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT RESULTS • BOY (Beginning of Year) Math Benchmark: 53% of NYOS K-3rd graders were BELOW level in Math. • MOY (Middle of Year) Math Benchmark: 21% of NYOS K-3rd graders were BELOW level in Math • EOY (End of Year) Math Benchmark: 12% of NYOS K-3rd graders were BELOW level in Math
  • FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT RESULTS 2013 2012 71% 84% STAAR Passing
  • INTENTIONAL ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT Enrichment Activity When I Grow Up College and Career Readiness
  • ENRICHMENT INTENTIONAL ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT • 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, hands-on enrichment lessons • Chose an experienced counselor to lead activity development
  • ACTIVITY PLANNING • Google “School Career Days” for original pool of careers as examples for students to choose from • Google “Crafts for Careers” to see if fun, hands-on 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
  • STUDENT CHOICE • 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
  • STUDENT CHOICE • 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, reflections, etc.
  • STUDENT CHOICE • Once activity is implemented with the students the activity leader completes a reflection feedback form and turns that in to the counselor • Counselor makes revisions to the activity based on student and teacher feedback
  • ENRICHMENT INTENTIAL ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT • All activities are project- based • Students experience first-hand how the math they are learning in school can relate to their future careers
  • ACE LESSON PLAN • 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
  • WHEN I GROW UP • 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 officer o Librarian o Business owner- hats and shirts
  • Questions? Kathleen Bethke kathleen.bethke@mytexasace.org Alyssa Moore amoore@nyos.org