Summary of 2001-2002
LEN LASTINGER PRIMARY

1. Number of first graders in the school at the beginning of the year.  147
2. Number of first grade classrooms. 8
3. Daily number of RR teaching slots in the school. 6
4. Total number of children served in RR 51
5. How many discontinued? 22
6. How many “recommended action”  (20 or 20+ weeks and not discontinued) 14
7. How many had incomplete programs?  (Less than 20 weeks; did not discontinue) 11
8. How many moved while being served in RR? 4
9. How many “none of the above”?  (Withdrawn from RR, less than 20 weeks, with teacher leader approval; very rare) 0
10. Percentage of total RR students who discontinued. 43.1
11. Percentage of “full program” children who discontinued. 61%
12. Percentage of first-grade students served at the school. 35%
13. Average number of weeks for discontinued students. 15.5 (System Average)
14. Average number of weeks for incomplete program students. 14.6 (System Average)
15. Average number of children served for RR teachers. 8.5
16. Number of Reading Recovery children within or above the site average band in text reading. 14.9%
17. Number of Discontinued children within or above the site average band. 27.2%
18. Number of missed lessons. 7 (System Average)
 

What were the reasons for missed lessons?

Teachers attended the Southeastern Reading Recovery Conference in Greensboro, North Carolina during the month of January.  Also some student absences occurred when teachers were at the RR/LC Lab for Continuing Contact and training.  With EIP schedules at different times, teachers have to rotate students that miss lessons on that day.  It is obvious the teachers were diligent in making up missed lessons.
 

Evaluate the student outcomes for this year.

Reading Recovery teachers showed improvement in the number of students discontinued over the previous year.  The number of recommended students was the lowest it has been over a three-year period.  The number of moved students was about the same and there was a decrease in the number of incomplete students.   These teachers are diligent in seeing that the students are served each day.  Since fall entrance scores are so low, it takes longer to reach a self-extending system.

When considering the entire group of RR students, 43% of those students served were discontinued.  If you consider only those students who had a full 20 weeks or less, 61% of the students served were discontinued.  This was significant improvement over the previous year.

Students made significant gains on all components of the Observation Survey. Perhaps the greatest was in the number of words students could read and write independently.  There was a significant gain in text reading also.  Even though these students may have not reached the site average in text reading, the average child served developed a self-extending system.

When considering fall entrance scores, students entering first grade had made gains over the previous years.  This is reflective of the hard work of Kindergarten teachers. Spring scores show an increase over a three-year period.  When comparing results from 1999-2000, there is not a significant difference.  First grade students entering in 2000 were significantly lower than those of 1999 and 2001.  Therefore, it would be obvious that spring scores would also be lower.

When comparing Len Lastinger students to the site random sample, it is important to keep in mind the fact that no RR students are included in the random sample.  Thirty four percent (205) of the first grade students in Tift County received Reading Recovery during the 2001-2002-school term.  The random sample is drawn from the remaining 66%.  Reading Recovery at Len Lastinger was successful in bringing the lowest achievers in first grade closer to the site average.  This is a reflection of the hard work and collaboration of the Reading Recovery and classroom teachers.

What are the plans for monitoring the ongoing progress of all children served?

Monitoring of students after discontinuing is problematic.  Reading Recovery teachers are to continue checking on students at least once each nine-week period.  With one teacher serving 6 students, more time can be given to following up on students who need further assistance.

What was the status of former Reading Recovery children?

During the spring of 2002, students who had been in RR the previous year were checked for text reading level.  Only one student failed to move forward.  The average student moved forward 9 levels.  The average text reading level of these students was Level 18.  This is LC level J.  Seven students had moved since leaving first grade.

What recommendations are needed for next year?

· Since most students at LL take the full 20 weeks to reach a productive self-extending system, it is recommended that LL would benefit from an additional teacher to help assure that more students receive service.
· Continue to use volunteer readers to visit with RR children each week.
· Continue to allow RR teachers to help each other with the very hardest to teach students.
· Continue to work with classroom teachers and school personnel to inform parents of the importance of their role in this process.

Summary of 2001-2002
Annie Belle Clark Primary

1. Number of first graders in the school at the as of 8/9/01.  90
2. Number of first grade classrooms. 5
3. Daily number of RR teaching slots in the school. 3
4. Total number of children served in RR 24
5. How many discontinued? 18
6. How many “recommended action”  (20 or 20+ weeks and not discontinued) 4
7. How many had incomplete programs?  (Less than 20 weeks; did not discontinue) 1
8. How many moved while being served in RR? 1
9. How many “none of the above”?  (Withdrawn from RR, less than 20 weeks, with teacher leader approval; very rare) 0
10. Percentage of total RR students who discontinued. 75%
11. Percentage of “full program” children who discontinued. 91.6%
12. Percentage of first-grade students served at the school. 26.6%
13. Average number of weeks for discontinued students. 15.5 (System Average)
14. Average number of weeks for incomplete program students. 14.6 (System Average)
15. Average number of children served for RR teachers. 8
16. Number of Reading Recovery children within or above the site average band in text reading. 4.5%
17. Number of Discontinued children within and above the site band average. 5.9%

What were the reasons for missed lessons?

Teachers attended the Southeastern Reading Recovery Conference in Greensboro, North Carolina during the month of January.  Also, some student absences occurred when teachers were at the RR/LC Lab for Continuing Contact.  Teachers who have EIP during the afternoon hours must rotate or make up lessons with RR students normally served during this time on these days.  It is obvious the teachers were diligent in making up missed lessons.
 
 

Evaluate the student outcomes for this year.

Reading Recovery teachers at ABC discontinued more students this year than in the previous two years.  The number of Recommended and Incomplete students decreased.  This fact alone shows the diligence of the teachers to serve students each day, make up missed lessons, and participate in studying the needs of individual students.

There is concern over the drop in fall entrance scores.  This is no reflection on the Reading Recovery teachers for they have no control over entry scores.  However, the RR teachers showed hard work and positive results at the end of the year.  In most incidences on the Observation Survey RR teachers brought these lower entrance scores up to a level comparable to the spring scores of previous years.  There was a significant drop in text reading level from the previous year, but it was still higher than in the spring of 2000.  What appeared impossible at the beginning of the year ended in an average gain of 14 levels in text reading.

When ABC Reading Recovery students entered first grade in the fall, they were significantly below the average student in the county.  However, by the spring they had made significant gains and had almost closed the gap in some areas.  It is important to remember that no student served in RR was included in the random sample. A total of 205 students were served in Tift County.  Considering that these students were excluded from the random sample, there is a possibility that more students would have been equal to or better than the average random sample student.  There is proof once again of how hard the RR teachers are working to bring the average up at ABC and how beneficial accelerated teaching and learning is to ABC.

What are the plans for monitoring the ongoing progress of all children served?

Reading Recovery teachers will monitor students as in the past.  Each student that is discontinued through third grade will be seen at least once each nine-week period.  If additional assistance is needed, RR teachers will talk with classroom teachers and give suggestions for help in the classroom.  Unless a RR teacher serves one of these discontinued students in an EIP classroom, it is almost impossible for additional sessions due to the other responsibilities of RR teachers.  This is a problem throughout the county.

What was the status of former Reading Recovery children?

Second graders who received RR were tested on text reading at the end of the year.  Of the 25 monitored, 7 students moved.  All over students showed positive gains in text reading in the spring.

What recommendations are needed for next year?
· Continue to closely monitor discontinued students to assure continued progress.
· Participate in continuing contact sessions.
· Problem solve with colleagues on the hardest to teach child.
· Keep classroom teachers informed of the student’s progress in RR.
· Have classroom teacher observe a lesson with the child and the RR teacher.
· Keep parents informed of student progress.

Summary of 2001-2002
G. O. BAILEY PRIMARY

1. Number of first graders in the school as of 8/9/01. 138
2. Number of first grade classrooms. 7
3. Daily number of RR teaching slots in the school. 6
4. Total number of children served in RR 54
5. How many discontinued? 38
6. How many “recommended action”  (20 or 20+ weeks and not discontinued) 11
7. How many had incomplete programs?  (Less than 20 weeks; did not discontinue) 1
8. How many moved while being served in RR? 4
9. How many “none of the above”?  (Withdrawn from RR, less than 20 weeks, with teacher leader approval; very rare) 0
10. Percentage of total RR students who discontinued. 70.4%
11. Percentage of “full program” children who discontinued. 78%
12. Percentage of first-grade students served at the school. 39%
13. Average number of weeks for discontinued students. 15.5 (System Average)
14. Average number of weeks for incomplete program students. 14.6 (System Average)
15. Average number of children served for RR teachers. 9
16. Number of Reading Recovery children within or above the site band average in text reading. 38.3%
17. Number of Discontinued children within or above the site band average. 47.2%

What were the reasons for missed lessons?

Teachers attended the Southeastern Reading Recovery Conference in Greensboro, North Carolina during the month of January.  Also, some student absences occurred when teachers were at the RR/LC Lab for Continuing Contact.  With EIP schedules at different times, teachers have to rotate students that miss lesson on that day.  It is obvious the teachers were diligent in making up missed lessons.

Evaluate the student outcomes for this year.

With the exception of the Writing Vocabulary portion of the Observation Survey, fall entrance scores indicate that students entered with higher knowledge than in the previous two years.  The differences in the other tests are not that significant, but this is an indication that students at G. O. Bailey are leaving kindergarten stronger than in previous years.  All tests on the Observation Survey show that students spring scores were the highest recorded.  Reading Recovery teachers at G. O. Bailey were able to serve an average of 9 students each.  Seventy-one percent of those served (54 total) reached the average of their class and maintained growth.

Another factor that may have an effect on the rise in spring scores is the increased understanding and experience of Reading Recovery teachers and the continued growth in classroom teachers’ understanding of the complexities of the reading and writing process.  Reading Recovery is not a quick fix.  It takes everyone working together to reach the self-extending system that moves a child forward.

Reading Recovery students entered first grade significantly lower than the average random sample student in all subtests on the Observation Survey.  Average RR students at G. O. Bailey scored higher in Writing Vocabulary than the Random Sample students. Accelerated teaching and accelerated learning moved RR students closer to the average of the county.  It is important to note that no Reading Recovery students were included in the random sample. There is a possibility that these RR students would have been higher than the average student if RR students had been included in the random sample.  When drawing the random sample, one third (205 students) of the first grade was excluded. Even though a gap still is evident in text reading level, these students changed their average text reading level from 1.1 to 17.5.  That is a gain of 16.4 levels.

In looking at the End of Program Status over a three-year period, the number of discontinued students is on an upward trend.  Teachers are beginning to recommend fewer students and are getting better at giving students full programs.  Only 4 students received incomplete programs and they were picked up during the last few weeks of school.

What are the plans for monitoring the on going progress of all children served?

Reading Recovery teachers serve as EIP teachers for the remainder of their school day.  Some serve in first, second and third grades.  They are required to check on the progress of all discontinued students at least once during a nine-week period.  For those who are having difficulties retaining information or who have fallen behind, the only solution up to this time has been to talk with the classroom teacher and pull a child whenever possible.  During the 2002-2003 school term one RR teacher will serve 6 students and spend the rest of the day pulling students who have discontinued and need additional assistance.

What was the status of former Reading Recovery children?

Second graders who received RR were tested on text reading at the end of the year.  Of the 53 monitored, 8 students moved and all students showed positive growth in text reading except for one student.  This student is in the SST process of further testing. The average increase in text reading level from the previous year was 10 levels.  Twelve students were reading at Text Level 30.

What recommendations are needed for next year?

· Continue to closely monitor discontinued students to assure continued progress.
· Participate in continuing contact sessions.
· Problem solve with colleagues on the hardest to teach child.
· Keep classroom teachers informed of the student’s progress in RR
· Have classroom teacher observe a lesson with the child and the RR teacher.
· Repeat session at PTO on helping RR students at home.
 

Summary of 2001-2002
NORTHSIDE PRIMARY

1. Number of first graders in the school at the beginning of the year. Calculated on 8/9/01.  147
2. Number of first grade classrooms. 7
3. Daily number of RR teaching slots in the school. 6
4. Total number of children served in RR 52
5. How many discontinued? 47
6. How many “recommended action”  (20 or 20+ weeks and not discontinued) 4
7. How many had incomplete programs?  (less than 20 weeks; did not discontinue) 0
8. How many moved while being served in RR? 1
9. How many “none of the above”?  (Withdrawn from RR, less than 20 weeks, with teacher leader approval; very rare) 0
10. Percentage of total RR students who discontinued. 90.4 %
11. Percentage of “full program” children who discontinued. 92%
12. Percentage of first-grade students served at the school. 35%
13. Average number of weeks for discontinued students. 15.5 (System Average)
14. Average number of weeks for incomplete program students. 14.6 (System Average)
15. Average number of children served for RR teachers. 8.7
16. Number of Reading Recovery children within or above the site band average in text reading. 34%
17. Number of Discontinued children within or above the site average band. 37.8%
18. Number of missed lessons. 7 (System Average)
 

What were the reasons for missed lessons?

Teachers attended the Southeastern Reading Recovery Conference in Greensboro, North Carolina during the month of January.  Also, some student absences occurred when teachers were at the RR/LC Lab for Continuing Contact.  Teachers who have EIP during the afternoon hours must rotate or make up lessons with RR students normally served during this time on these days.  It is obvious the teachers were diligent in making up missed lessons.
Evaluate the student outcomes for this year.

Most students who entered Reading Recovery made accelerated progress and reached the average of the class.  Since students are picked as a school cohort, those students who discontinued had to be at the average of their class and reach close to the school average.  In discontinuing, the LC level and group placement were taken into consideration along with the criteria for a self-extending system. Improvement was seen in the number of incomplete students as compared to the previous year.  It was most helpful for Northside to see that student movement also improved and that all students placed in first grade did not have to be returned to kindergarten or withdrawn because of special problems.

Students entering first grade scored higher on the Observation Survey than those entering the previous two years.  Kindergarten teachers are making a strong impact on those students who are entering first grade.  Spring scores at the end of first grade show the hard work of the RR teachers and their collaboration with classroom teachers.  Working together, Northside Reading Recovery students performed higher on all components of the Observation Survey in the spring.

Perhaps the greatest significance is the difference between the comparison of Northside RR students and the site random sample.  In the fall a noticeable difference could be seen between these two groups.  However, in the spring the gap closed and there was no significant difference in all components with the exception of reading.  It is important to note that there were no Reading Recovery students included in the site random sample.  Thirty-four percent (205) of the students in first grade received Reading Recovery.  Therefore you are looking at a random sample coming from the top sixty six percent of first grade students.  Northside teachers and Reading Recovery teachers are to be commended for the hard work and diligent effort in seeing that all students are making progress in the reading and writing process.

What are the plans for monitoring the ongoing progress of all children served?

Teachers are allowed one day each month to monitor students.  Students must be monitored at least once in each nine-week period.  However, talking with teachers and taking responsibility for those students who have discontinued should be of concern at all times.

What was the status of former Reading Recovery children?

Most students who discontinued first round continued to make progress.  Students who had been served in RR the previous year showed positive gains in the spring of 2002.  Only one student fell down in text reading the year following Reading Recovery.  This was a student who had been recommended at the end of his program.  Thirty-three students served during the 2000-2001-school term gained an average of 8 levels in text reading by the end of 2002.  Seven students remained at the same level.  There is evidence that RR teachers are working with classroom teachers to assure that RR students continue to increase in strategic problem solving.
What recommendations are needed for next year?

· Continue to monitor students who have completed RR.
· Work with classroom teachers in any way that will help accelerate the child.
· Keep classroom teachers informed of the student’s progress in RR.
· Have classroom teacher observe a lesson with the child and RR teacher.
· Keep a positive attitude toward classroom teachers and students in RR.
· Have EIP teachers help with monitoring students.
 

Summary of 2001-2002
Omega Primary

1. Number of first graders in the school as of 8/9/01.  76
2. Number of first grade classrooms. 4
3. Daily number of RR teaching slots in the school. 2   (plus Teacher Leader)
4. Total number of children served in RR 24
5. How many discontinued? 15
6. How many “recommended action”  (20 or 20+ weeks and not discontinued) 4
7. How many had incomplete programs?  (Less than 20 weeks; did not discontinue) 1
8. How many moved while being served in RR? 3
9. How many “none of the above”?  (Withdrawn from RR, less than 20 weeks, with teacher leader approval; very rare) 1
10. Percentage of total RR students who discontinued. 62.5%
11. Percentage of “full program” children who discontinued. 79%
12. Percentage of first-grade students served at the school. 32%
13. Average number of weeks for discontinued students. 15.5 (System Average)
14. Average number of weeks for incomplete program students. 14.6 (System Average)
15. Average number of children served for RR teachers. 9.5 for full time teacher
16. Number of Reading Recovery children within or above the site average band in text reading. 20%
17. Number of Discontinued children within or above the site average band in text reading. 26.6%

What were the reasons for missed lessons?
 

Teachers attended the Southeastern Reading Recovery Conference in Greensboro, North Carolina during the month of January.  Also, some student absences occurred when teachers were at the RR/LC Lab for Continuing Contact.  Teachers who have EIP during the afternoon hours must rotate or make up lessons with RR students normally served during this time on these days.  It is obvious the teachers were diligent in making up missed lessons.
 
 

Evaluate the student outcomes for this year.

Fall entrance scores of Reading Recovery students showed an increase from previous years.  This increase in entrance scores is reflective of the hard work of kindergarten teachers.  Spring test scores on the Observation Survey showed positive gains.  It is very important to note that students scored higher on tests than in the previous two springs.  There is strong evidence that there is possibly an increase in teacher understanding and in stronger classroom support.

The additional help from another RR teacher also enabled more students to be served even though only 5 extra students were served.  There was a sharp increase in the number of discontinued students and a decrease in the recommended and incomplete students.  This is evidence of what an extra RR teacher can do for Omega.

Considering the fact that the Random Sample included students from the entire county and included no Reading Recovery students, Omega Reading Recovery students were very close to the site average in Letter ID, Word Test, Caps, and Dictation.  There continues to be a larger gap in Text Reading Level and Writing Vocabulary.  However, if you consider the increase over the previous years, Omega students would be able to reach closer to the average with an additional Reading Recovery teacher and on-going problem solving with classroom teachers.

What are the plans for monitoring the ongoing progress of all children served?     RR teachers are required to check on student progress at least once each nine weeks and give the classroom teacher support and suggestions if the need is there. Because of time restraints on Reading Recovery teachers during the remainder of the school day, it is almost impossible to give extra support for these students who discontinue if the need arises unless they are in the EIP classrooms that the RR teachers serve.

What was the status of former Reading Recovery children?

Second graders who received RR in first grade were tested on text reading at the end of the year.  Of the 23 students monitored, 3 had moved.  With the exception of one student, all students made positive gains in text reading level.   They continued to move forward.  The student who failed to show progress remained the same and was identified as learning disabled and placed in Special ED.

What recommendations are needed for next year?

· RR teachers will monitor students as closely as possible.
· RR teachers will participate in continuing contact sessions.
· RR teachers will serve a minimum of 8 students throughout the school term.
· RR teachers will keep classroom teachers informed of student’s progress.
· RR teachers will suggest that classroom teachers observe a RR lesson.
· RR teachers will keep parents inform of student progress.
· RR teachers will work with a school team to help create positive understanding of Reading Recovery.
· RRR Teachers will help give support to all teachers who teach discontinued students if the need arises.