1. Where Are We Now: Lee AIP Process

2. 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?

3. 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

4. Subject Title Subgroup Title 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 ReadingAll Students61.5081.7066.3088.106.4071.1092.804.7075.9x95.5 (2013) 2.70 ReadingAmerican Indian61.50 66.30 71.10 75.9x—— ReadingAsian61.5085.7066.3094.308.6071.1093.50-0.8075.9x95.5 (2013) 2.00 ReadingAfrican American 61.5068.2066.3073.305.1071.1085.2011.9075.9x90.6 (2012) 5.40 ReadingWhite61.5085.4066.3090.805.4071.1093.903.1075.9x95.5 (2013) 1.60 ReadingHispanic61.5064.3066.3077.2012.9071.1089.1011.9075.9x90.6 (2012) 1.50 ReadingFARMS61.5045.3066.3072.1021.0071.1081.109.0075.9x85.7 (2011) 4.60 ReadingSpecial Education 61.5038.5066.3060.2021.7071.10 10.9075.94.875.9 (2009) 4.80 ReadingLimited English Prof. 61.5060.0066.3072.7012.7071.1084.6011.9075.9x85.7 (2011) 1.10 MATH MathAll Students42.9079.7050.0084.004.3057.2085.501.5064.3x92.7 (2013) 7.20 MathAmerican Indian42.90 50.00 57.20 64.3x—--- MathAsian42.9085.7050.0080.00—5.757.2083.903.9064.3x85.6 (2012) 1.70 MathAfrican American 42.9059.1050.0064.004.9057.2063.90-0.1064.30.478.5 (2011) 14.60 MathWhite42.9083.9050.0087.703.8057.2089.101.4064.3x92.7 (2013) 3.60 MathHispanic42.9064.3050.0077.2012.9057.2074.90-2.3064.3x78.5 (2011) 3.60 MathFARMS42.9044.0050.0062.8018.8057.2059.50-3.3064.34.864.3 (2009) 4.80 MathSpecial Education 42.9029.2050.0057.8028.6057.2049.50-8.3064.314.864.3 (2009) 14.80 MathLimited English Prof. 42.9040.0050.0054.5014.5057.2084.6030.1064.3x85.6 (2012)

5. All AIP Students Math 5 16 11 26 13 15

6. Graph shows reduction of Basic scores.

7. All AIP Students Reading 8 12 18 11 13 Between 33-47% of all students targeted with an AIP passed the MSA!!!!!! ( 29 out of 86 in math 37 out of 80 in reading)

8. Graph shows reduction of Basic scores.

9. 2008 MSA Reading - Grade 7

10. 2008 MSA Reading - Grade 8

11. Reading Interventions 07-08: Basic Reading Year over Year – 2007 2008 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.

12. Reading Interventions 07-08: Wilson Year over Year – 2007 2008 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.

13. Reading Interventions 07-08: Read 180 Year over Year – 2007 2008 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%.

14. Reading Interventions 07-08: Reading 7and 8 Year over Year – 2007 2008 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%.

15. Reading Interventions 07-08: After School Year over Year – 2007 2008 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%.

16. 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

17. Seventy One Targeted Students with AIPs for Reading

18. Teams zero in on Really, Really targeted for review of their AIP

19. 8 th grade met 3 or 4 times to discuss AIP students Improved grades Improved MAP-R

20. TSIC Pluses 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

21.  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 aip Test givers should look at accom/tips prior to giving students test Simplify titles – less boxes – can be confusing Excellent job 8 th grade team!!! Form is readable- much better Fuels important conversations about the students Revisiting aip help modify and monitor Easy 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 Analysis Goal: Successful tracking and identification of individual student interventions for selected target group chosen based on MSA/AYP data?

23. SMT- Who are our target students? Safe Harbor Confidence Interval AMO

24. 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.

25. Targeted Students given to teams Articulated Incoming 6 th AIPs For 6 th grade all basic added to AIPIncoming 6 th