Fast ForWord
Third 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 Outcomes
SCHOOL
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
1st to 33rd
percentile
22
34th to 66th
percentile
33
Did not gain
131
209
95
81
Gained
67th to 99th
percentile
Gained
Did not gain
Gained
Did not gain
Outcome by Fall DIBELS Instructional
Recommendation
Intensive
5
Strategic
Gained
70
10
21
Did not gain
Benchmark
142
38
Gained
Did not gain
Gained
Did not gain
Outcome by IEP Status
Students with IEPs
Students without IEPs
5
70
142
21
Gained
Did not gain
Gained
Did not gain
Outcome by Lunch Status
Eligible for
free/reduced lunch
32
Not eligible for
free/reduced lunch
156
308
78
Gained
Did not gain
Gained
Did not gain
Outcome by Ethnicity
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5
19
Asian
6
24
24
126
40
240
Multiracial
White
27
59
Black
Hispanic
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
Fast ForWord Products
250
200
150
100
50
0
Reading Language Language Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3
Readiness
v2
to Reading
Questions?