where are we now: lee aip process. we asked ourselves: what interventions were effective? what...

Where Are We Now: Lee AIP Process

We asked ourselves:

• What interventions were effective? What interventions worked?

• How do we know? Why or Why not? (implementation, timing,

materials?)

• What needs redevelopment?

• What do we stop doing?

• Should we continue these Interventions and for who? Who are the targeted students?

AIP and Reading Interventions

Year (2007) over year (2008)comparison of MSA scores for students who had an AIP, to students without an AIP in same reading class.

Year 2007 compared to Year 2008

SubjectTitle

SubgroupTitle

2006 AMO

2006 Attend/ Prof%

2007 AMO

2007 Attend/Prof%

Change 2006 to

2007

2008 AMO

Current

2008 Attend/ Prof%

Change 2007 to

2008

2009 AMO

2009 Needed

Baker MS Targets

Needed to

Achieve Goal

READING

Reading All Students 61.50 81.70 66.30 88.10 6.40 71.10 92.80 4.70 75.9 x 95.5 (2013)

2.70

Reading American Indian 61.50 66.30 71.10 75.9 x — —

Reading Asian 61.50 85.70 66.30 94.30 8.60 71.10 93.50 -0.80 75.9 x 95.5 (2013)

2.00

Reading African American

61.50 68.20 66.30 73.30 5.10 71.10 85.20 11.90 75.9 x 90.6 (2012)

5.40

Reading White 61.50 85.40 66.30 90.80 5.40 71.10 93.90 3.10 75.9 x 95.5 (2013)

1.60

Reading Hispanic 61.50 64.30 66.30 77.20 12.90 71.10 89.10 11.90 75.9 x 90.6 (2012)

1.50

Reading FARMS 61.50 45.30 66.30 72.10 21.00 71.10 81.10 9.00 75.9 x 85.7 (2011)

4.60

Reading Special Education

61.50 38.50 66.30 60.20 21.70 71.10 71.10 10.90 75.9 4.8 75.9 (2009)

4.80

Reading Limited English Prof.

61.50 60.00 66.30 72.70 12.70 71.10 84.60 11.90 75.9 x 85.7 (2011)

1.10

MATH

Math All Students 42.90 79.70 50.00 84.00 4.30 57.20 85.50 1.50 64.3 x 92.7 (2013)

7.20

Math American Indian 42.90 50.00 57.20 64.3 x — ---

Math Asian 42.90 85.70 50.00 80.00 —5.7 57.20 83.90 3.90 64.3 x 85.6 (2012)

1.70

Math African American

42.90 59.10 50.00 64.00 4.90 57.20 63.90 -0.10 64.3 0.4 78.5 (2011)

14.60

Math White 42.90 83.90 50.00 87.70 3.80 57.20 89.10 1.40 64.3 x 92.7 (2013)

3.60

Math Hispanic 42.90 64.30 50.00 77.20 12.90 57.20 74.90 -2.30 64.3 x 78.5 (2011)

3.60

Math FARMS 42.90 44.00 50.00 62.80 18.80 57.20 59.50 -3.30 64.3 4.8 64.3 (2009)

4.80

Math Special Education

42.90 29.20 50.00 57.80 28.60 57.20 49.50 -8.30 64.3 14.8 64.3 (2009)

14.80

Math Limited English Prof.

42.90 40.00 50.00 54.50 14.50 57.20 84.60 30.10 64.3 x 85.6 (2012)

All AIP StudentsMath

0102030405060708090

100

% Passed

% Not Passed5

16

11

26

1315

Graph shows reduction of Basic scores.

All AIP StudentsReading

0102030405060708090

100

% Passed

% Not Passed8

12

18 18 1113

Between 33-47% of all

students targeted with an

AIP passed the MSA!!!!!!(29 out of 86 in math37 out of 80 in reading)

Graph shows reduction of Basic scores.

2008 MSA Reading - Grade 7

2008 MSA Reading - Grade 8

Reading Interventions 07-08: Basic Reading

Year over Year – 2007 2008

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Basic Proficent Advanced

08 Non AIP

07 Non AIP

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


08 AIP

07 AIP

In Basic Reading, there was a 71% increase in proficient or advanced for students with AIPs.

Students in Basic Reading without an AIP showed no change.

Reading Interventions 07-08: Wilson

0

5

10

15

20

25


08 Non AIP

07 Non AIP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


08 AIP

07 AIP


In Wilson, there was a 24% increase in proficient or advanced for students with AIPs.

Students in Wilson without an AIP showed a 2% decrease.

Reading Interventions 07-08: Read 180


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


08 Non AIP

07 Non AIP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


08 AIP

07 AIP

In Read 180, there was a 39% increase in proficient or advanced for students with AIPs.

Students in Read 180 without an AIP increased 16%.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


08 Non AIP

07 Non AIP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


08 AIP

07 AIP

Reading Interventions 07-08: Reading 7and 8


Reading 7and 8, there was a 14% increase in proficient or advanced for students with AIPs.

Students in Reading 7and 8, without an AIP increased 29%.

Reading Interventions 07-08: After School

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


08 Non AIP

07 Non AIP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


08 AIP

07 AIP


In After School reading there was an 11% increase in proficient or advanced for students with AIPs.

Students in After School without an AIP increased 28%.

• 29 are RELL

• 64 are both Farms and Hispanic

• 27 are both Farms and African American

• 39 are in the special education sub group

• 41 count in 3 or more cells

• 8 are Hispanic, Farms, LEP, and Special education

07-08 Of All of the 129 Students

Who Have AIPs

Seventy One Targeted Students with AIPs for Reading

41

3028

16 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

All Hispanic FRs LEP SPED

71 51 51 28 33

MSA 08 Proficient

MSA (Predict 02-20- 08) Proficient

Teams zero in on

Really, Really targeted for review of their AIP

8th grade met 3 or 4 times to discuss AIP students Improved grades

Improved MAP-R

TSICPluses for usage this year or

next Deltas (upgrades for next year)

Arts * To see a students progress from one semester to another.

* One site to store student data, test scores, grades, etc.

* Access to student information, phone numbers, language spoken at home, etc …

* Team members need to have passwords to access student data.

* Add parent conference “Tab” from counselors for teachers to access. Share outcomes with teachers, like student contracts, etc.

6th * Data all in one place expecially the report card data.

* Support EMT and IEP meetings* Support the creation of IEPs

* Need passwords for all teachers with access to the phone log

* Training during pre-service

7th * Easy to read* Usable data* Picture with student* One-stop shopping

* Teachers access parent contacts

8th * Focused conversation * Data readily available

* ACCESS* Simplify , not too busy

No time for differentiation No time to follow up on interventions Squeaky wheel gets the oil Class size makes it difficult to support the kids Not enough support in inclusion classes Conflict between Reading and Math needs.

Reading typically overrules Math.

Look at the students individually and give input from various perspectives

Looking at the kids’ scores and grades. Data based decisions linked to interventions

Look more at instructional interventions during and after school interventions.

We also had SMART behavioral goals

6th

There were too many steps involved in getting to view the student AIP’s.

*Difficulty in accessing the TSIC, passwords were not always available to teachers.

*The Arts team was not able to properly access and use the AIPs Data Base this year.

Arts

Restrainers: What is keeping us from reaching our goal?

Drivers: What are we currently doing with AIPs that is helping us to reach

our goal?

Greater access for all teachers to the aipTest givers should look at accom/tips prior to giving

students testSimplify titles – less boxes – can be confusing

Excellent job 8th grade team!!!Form is readable- much better Fuels important conversations about the studentsRevisiting aip help modify and monitorEasy to see how students did the year before

- in same format

8th

Inadequate monitoring of progress and measuring success of intervention plans for each students.

Reduce delay in creating files and entering data for new students.

Need more time to enter information and implement plan.

Ensure that teachers can locate students and any/all relevant information via AIPs with access facilitated via passwords.

Include training in pre-service week activities.

Keep contact information current.

7th

Force Field AnalysisGoal: Successful tracking and identification of individual student

interventions for selected target group chosen based on MSA/AYP data?

SMT- Who are our target students?

Safe Harbor

Confidence Interval

AMO

SMT- Who are our target students?

Students were selected 10 points below cut for proficiency and to the AMO, sorted by last name duplicates were sorted.

Drivers and restrainers last year

revealed that the teams wanted to have a manageable number of AIPs to work with.

Drivers and restrainers last year

revealed that the teams wanted to have a manageable number of AIPs to work with.

Targeted Students given to teams

NEW_AIP_08PO_MATH_NEAIP0708

ID

LNAMEFNAME

GR

R

FRESOL

TLHRSRDPL_2008

RDSS_2008

MPL_08MSS_08

X

301294Pena

Yesenia

8

H

YRELL

2

386

X

317255Reyes

Celvin

8

H

Y

3

1

370

X

321390Toledo-Diggs

Ariana

8

H

Y

1

374

X

X

340091Martinez

Christian

8

H

Y

2

386

2

401

X

X

341564Hinojosa

Charly

8

H

Y

3

2

390

1

386

X

X

341664Davis

Jillian

8

B

Y

1

378

1

382

X

359040Mendez

Vanessa

8

H

1

374

X

X

376966Wade

Christopher

8

B

Y

2

390

1

386

X

402170Hanchard

Mickesha

8

B

Y

3

1

382

X

X

AIP779676

RomeroWilliam

8

H

Y

2

386

2

415

X

AIP809599

CrossTavon

8

B

Y

Y

1

370

X

820870Rivas

Cristian

8

H

Y

2

394

X

822255Parran

Corey

8

B

Y

Y

1

362

X

X

901091Acevedo

Stephanie

8

H

RELL

1

382

1

384

X

X

901306Burgos

Jenny

8

H

1

378

1

395

X

903695Zacarias

Alex

8

W

Y

2

1

366

X

AIP925596

QuinterosChris

8

H

Y

Y

2

390

X

932024Frampton

Tabatha

8

B

Y

1

382

X

933697Diaz

Joel

8

H

Y

Y

1

382

X

958117Flores

Eber

8

H

Y

Y

1

374

X

X

AIP994559

FloresGeovanni

8

H

YRELL

2

386

1

384

X

X

AIP995625

LlicaJazmin

8

H

Y

Y

1

378

1

374

Articulated Incoming 6th AIPsFor 6th grade all basic added to AIP


ID

LNAMEFNAME

GR

R

FRESOL

TLHRSRDPL_2008

RDSS_2008

MPL_08MSS_08

X

301294Pena

Yesenia

8

H

YRELL

2

386

X

317255Reyes

Celvin

8

H

Y

3

1

370

X

321390Toledo-Diggs

Ariana

8

H

Y

1

374

X

X

340091Martinez

Christian

8

H

Y

2

386

2

401

X

X

341564Hinojosa

Charly

8

H

Y

3

2

390

1

386

X

X

341664Davis

Jillian

8

B

Y

1

378

1

382

X

359040Mendez

Vanessa

8

H

1

374

X

X

376966Wade

Christopher

8

B

Y

2

390

1

386

X

402170Hanchard

Mickesha

8

B

Y

3

1

382

X

X

AIP779676

RomeroWilliam

8

H

Y

2

386

2

415

X

AIP809599

CrossTavon

8

B

Y

Y

1

370

X

820870Rivas

Cristian

8

H

Y

2

394

X

822255Parran

Corey

8

B

Y

Y

1

362

X

X

901091Acevedo

Stephanie

8

H

RELL

1

382

1

384

X

X

901306Burgos

Jenny

8

H

1

378

1

395

X

903695Zacarias

Alex

8

W

Y

2

1

366

X

AIP925596

QuinterosChris

8

H

Y

Y

2

390

X

932024Frampton

Tabatha

8

B

Y

1

382

X

933697Diaz

Joel

8

H

Y

Y

1

382

X

958117Flores

Eber

8

H

Y

Y

1

374

X

X

AIP994559

FloresGeovanni

8

H

YRELL

2

386

1

384

X

X

AIP995625

LlicaJazmin

8

H

Y

Y

1

378

1

374


ID

LNAMEFNAME

GR

R

FRESOL

TLHRSRDPL_2008

RDSS_2008

MPL_08MSS_08

X

301294Pena

Yesenia

8

H

YRELL

2

386

X

317255Reyes

Celvin

8

H

Y

3

1

370

X

321390Toledo-Diggs

Ariana

8

H

Y

1

374

X

X

340091Martinez

Christian

8

H

Y

2

386

2

401

X

X

341564Hinojosa

Charly

8

H

Y

3

2

390

1

386

X

X

341664Davis

Jillian

8

B

Y

1

378

1

382

X

359040Mendez

Vanessa

8

H

1

374

X

X

376966Wade

Christopher

8

B

Y

2

390

1

386

X

402170Hanchard

Mickesha

8

B

Y

3

1

382

X

X

AIP779676

RomeroWilliam

8

H

Y

2

386

2

415

X

AIP809599

CrossTavon

8

B

Y

Y

1

370

X

820870Rivas

Cristian

8

H

Y

2

394

X

822255Parran

Corey

8

B

Y

Y

1

362

X

X

901091Acevedo

Stephanie

8

H

RELL

1

382

1

384

X

X

901306Burgos

Jenny

8

H

1

378

1

395

X

903695Zacarias

Alex

8

W

Y

2

1

366

X

AIP925596

QuinterosChris

8

H

Y

Y

2

390

X

932024Frampton

Tabatha

8

B

Y

1

382

X

933697Diaz

Joel

8

H

Y

Y

1

382

X

958117Flores

Eber

8

H

Y

Y

1

374

X

X

AIP994559

FloresGeovanni

8

H

YRELL

2

386

1

384

X

X

AIP995625

LlicaJazmin

8

H

Y

Y

1

378

1

374

GR AIP LY::ID LNAME FNAME :R :FR :ESOL TLHRS RDSS07 :RDPL07 :RDSS 2008 RDPL 200806 379528 Adams Kasha B Y 358 106 962220 Anderson Emely H Y 360 1 392 206 948303 Argueta Wendy H Y 360 1 379 106 964313 Bundu Ibrahim B Y 412 2 452 306 964314 Carranza Jonathan H Y RELL 406 2 404 206 958855 Castellon Roberto H Y 3 363 1 413 206 949277 Chen Jenny A Y 407 2 400 206 967947 Dox Alan H Y 396 2 404 206 301269 Fall Jacklyn W 363 1 433 306 949835 Hernandez Alejandro H Y 369 1 396 206 961860 Lucero Ivan H Y 401 2 400 206 992719 McDuffie Keith B Y 401 2 418 206 972929 Melara Nancy H Y 391 2 452 306 973015 Molina Ricardo H Y 418 2 439 306 949854 Nyaley Nyagoh B Y 360 106 949774 Osei Angel B Y 368 1 400 206 949750 Pierrelus Gershom B Y 382 2 413 206 949334 Sarmiento-AlmaDayra H 356 1 387 206 972974 Taylor Destanie B 369 1 413 206 953323 Vasquez Catherine H Y 356 1 404 206 965630 Yoboue Asher B Y 412 2 404 2

where are we now: lee aip process. we asked ourselves: what interventions were effective? what...

Documents