A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012

1. CST English Language Arts Results Rosetta Stone Elementary Students A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012

2. Overall Summary • This report includes a review of the effectiveness of the following initiatives in the 2011-12 school year: • Rosetta Stone • Language! • Read 180 • iPad Pilot • Overall, we found that Rosetta Stone, Language!, and Read 180 were more effective for students needing the most intensive intervention than other students performing below or at grade level. • We also found that teachers who participated in the iPad pilot during the 2011-12 school year believed that teaching and learning was enhanced by using tablet technology.

3. CST English Language Arts Results Rosetta Stone Elementary Students A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012

4. Rosetta Stone Background • Rosetta Stone is a computer-based software designed to help users learn a new language. • This program is used in Lodi USD to assist students in learning / improving English language skills primarily in grades K thru 6. • Students with a California English Language Development Test (CELDT) level of Beginning or Early Intermediate (1 or 2) were recommended for participation, along with CELDT Intermediate (level 3) students as determined by individual sites.

5. CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone • Rosetta Stone was more effective at helping all students at the Far Below Basic level increase by one CST level than students not using Rosetta Stone. • However, Far Below Basic students not using Rosetta Stone were more likely to increase by two or more CST levels than students using Rosetta Stone. • Additionally, Far Below Basic students who previously scored at CELDT Level 1 or 2, and used Rosetta Stone, were more likely to increase CST levels compared to their counterparts who did not use Rosetta Stone.

6. CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone (continued) • Rosetta Stone was not as effective at helping all students at the Below Basic level increase CST levels than students not using Rosetta Stone. • However, Below Basic students who previously scored at CELDT Level 1 or 2, and used Rosetta Stone, were more likely to increase CST levels compared to their counterparts who did not use Rosetta Stone. • Rosetta Stone was generally not as effective at helping all students at the Basic level increase CST levels than students not using Rosetta Stone. • Rosetta Stone was generally not as effective at helping all students at the Proficient or Advanced level maintain or increase CST levels than students not using Rosetta Stone.

7. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Far Below Basic in 2011 201 students who were previously Far Below Basic used Rosetta Stone across the district.

8. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Far Below Basic in 2011 & 2012 CELDT Level 1 or 2 90 students who were previously Far Below Basic & CELDT Level 1 or 2 used Rosetta Stone across the district.

9. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Below Basic in 2011 348 students who were previously Below Basic used Rosetta Stone across the district.

10. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Below Basic in 2011 & 2012 CELDT Level 1 or 2 70 students who were previously Below Basic & CELDT Level 1 or 2 used Rosetta Stone across the district.

11. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Basic in 2011 438 students who were previously Basic used Rosetta Stone across the district.

12. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Proficient in 2011 145 students who were previously Proficient used Rosetta Stone across the district.

13. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Rosetta Stone Who Were Previously Advanced in 2011 32 students who were previously Advanced used Rosetta Stone across the district.

14. CST English Language Arts Results Language! Elementary Students A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012

15. Language! Background • Language! is an English Language Arts replacement core for students at two or more years below grade level. • This program is used as a replacement core in Lodi USD in grades 3 thru 6. • Students with a CST level of Far Below Basic or Below Basic (and a CELDT level Beginning, Early Intermediate or Intermediate) were recommended for participation.

16. CST ELA Results for Students Using Language! • Language! was generally more effective at helping students at the Far Below Basic level increase by one CST level than students not using Language!. • However, Far Below Basic students not using Language! were generally more likely to increase by two or more CST levels than students using Language!. • Language! was generally not as effective at helping all students at the Below Basic or Basic levels increase CST levels than students not using Language!.

17. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Language! Who Were Previously Far Below Basic in 2011 93 students who were previously Far Below Basic used Language! across the district.

18. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Language! Who Were Previously Below Basic in 2011 118 students who were previously Below Basic used Language! across the district.

19. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Language! Who Were Previously Basic in 2011 28 students who were previously Basic used Language! across the district.

20. CST English Language Arts Results Read 180 Secondary Students A comparison of CST English Language Arts results from 2011 to 2012

21. Read 180 Background • Read 180 is a computer-enhanced English Language Arts replacement core for students at two or more years below grade level. • This program was used as a replacement core in Lodi USD in grades 7 thru 12 during the 2011-12 school year. • Students at the CST Far Below Basic level or Below Basic level (and CELDT level 1 or 2) were recommended for participation.

22. CST ELA Results for Students Using Read 180 • Read 180 was generally more effective at helping students at the Far Below Basic and Below Basic levels who made 2 or more years growth in the program increase one or multiple CST levels than students not using Read 180. • However, Read 180 was generally not as effective at helping all students at the Basic level who made 2 or more years growth in the program increase one CST level than students not using Read 180.

23. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Read 180 Who Were Previously Far Below Basic in 2011 156 students who were previously Far Below Basic used Read 180 across the district.

24. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Read 180 Who Were Previously Below Basic in 2011 263 students who were previously Below Basic used Read 180 across the district.

25. 2012 CST ELA Results for Students Using Read 180 Who Were Previously Basic in 2011 239 students who were previously Basic used Read 180 across the district.

26. iPad Pilot A Qualitative Review

27. iPad Pilot Background • Six classrooms were given class sets of iPads to use during the 2011-12 school year in an effort to increase student achievement: • 4 elementary classrooms, including 1 combination classroom • 1 middle school History-Social Science classroom • 1 high school English Language Arts classroom • Feedback was obtained from the teachers as part of a qualitative review of the impact of 1-to-1 tablet technology upon teaching and learning.

28. iPad Pilot Teacher Feedback Teacher Observed Instructional Benefits: • Highly engaging for students of all abilities • Able to differentiate curriculum for differing needs • Research opportunities at each child's fingertips at the same time- no waiting for shared books or classroom computers, no waiting for lab spot once a week • Allows for quick differentiation of instruction and for more targeted teaching. • Interactive apps allow: • Teachers to observe the students’ learning and make modifications as necessary.  • Students to have text read to them giving them access to the core instruction. • Tracking of student progress, which increases the student accountability and again allows for modifications in instruction.

29. iPad Pilot Teacher Feedback Teacher Observed Impact on Student Success: • Several apps give immediate feedback and show improvement. (AR, RocketMath, Spelling City) • With the differentiation available, students are able to experience success at their own instructional level. • We have been able to get accurate, up to date, information instantly.  This has helped my EL students who often need help building background knowledge. • Students often come into class on their own time to use them which has increased their daily practice/drill time. 

30. iPad Pilot Teacher Feedback Teacher Observed Implementation Successes: • Students were highly engaged • Students learned how to use iPads very quickly. • Students’ time on task on has increased. • Using the “Personal iPadTime” (free time) apps, students were able to access curriculum in music, arts, science, and social science in addition to reading and math. • Students had a greater opportunity to pursue their own interests and learning. 

31. iPad Pilot Teacher Feedback Teacher Observed Implementation Challenges: • The syncing protocol (iPad set up) is an involved process and takes time. • Making sure the students are always working on the assigned task can be difficult. • Everything keeps changing/improving at a rapid pace, and you have to work at constantly staying informed. • It’s a bit frightening to be responsible for the high cost of these easily portable devices. • Restrictions on how iPads could be used- many apps could not be used due to district network restrictions