Fast ForWordThird Grade Implementation

March 19, 2013

Implementation History

• Initial pilot: Summer 2011• 86 students in grades 1-8

• Board approves purchase: January 2012• Implementation pilot: Spring 2012

• 4 elementary schools/both middle schools• 2 basic implementation models

• Implementation plan presented: June 2012• All-district third grade implementation: Sept.-Dec.

2012

Third Grade Implementation

• Began toward end of September (after MAP testing)

• 30-minute, 5-day protocol• Initial Reading Progress Indicator (RPI)

assessment• Worked to complete first two products:

• Language V2• Language to Reading

• Students unable to finish by winter recess continued through January

Third Grade Overview

Student group No. of students Percent

All enrolled third graders 666 100%

Students who opted out 18 3%

Students without a second RPI

74 11%

Students on whom results are based

574 86%

Student OutcomesSCHOOL Posted gains Did not post

gains

Beye 61.9% 38.1%Hatch 57.7% 42.3%Holmes 68.3% 31.7%Irving 59.7% 40.3%Lincoln 65.7% 34.3%Longfellow 82.2% 17.8%Mann 62.9% 37.1%Whittier 78.1% 21.9%

DISTRICT 67.2% 32.8%

Outcome by Fall MAP Percentile Grouping

81

22

1st to 33rd percentile

GainedDid not gain

95

33

34th to 66th percentile

GainedDid not gain

209131

67th to 99th percentile

Gained Did not gain

Outcome by Fall DIBELS Instructional Recommendation

21

5

Intensive

GainedDid not gain

38

10

Strategic

Gained Did not gain

142

70

Benchmark

GainedDid not gain

Outcome by IEP Status

21

5

Students with IEPs

Gained Did not gain

142

70

Students without IEPs

Gained Did not gain

Outcome by Lunch Status

78

32

Eligible forfree/reduced lunch

Gained Did not gain

308

156

Not eligible for free/reduced lunch

Gained Did not gain

Outcome by Ethnicity

Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial White0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

19 5927

40 240

5 246

24 126

Gains No Gains

Progress Compared to MAP

No MAP gain MAP gain

No Fast ForWord gain 15% 17%

Fast ForWord gain 23% 45%

Third Grade Conclusions

• Overall results were about typical for students completing one Fast ForWord product

• The first product was most successful among least proficient students, low income students and students with IEPs

• Starting with first product for all students may not be the most effective approach

Second Grade Implementation

• Used auto-placement

• Students continuing to end of school year

• Committee will evaluate results at end of year to determine implementation for 2013-2014year

Distribution of Second Grade Placement

Reading Readiness

Language v2

Language to Reading

Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 30

50

100

150

200

250

Fast ForWord Products

Questions?