1. Oregon Reading First (2008)1 Oregon Reading First Conference Call Data-based Action Planning Winter 2008

2. Oregon Reading First (2008)2 Materials for this Meeting We will be referring to the Data-based action planning modules that were included in the handouts from the December 4/6th Regional coaches meetings. Also please have your current action plan on hand. The forms can also be found on the Oregon Reading First Website under "Forms and Downloads" (at the bottom of the page). Specifically, we will be talking about the following forms: –a) Action Planning Overview (gold) –b) GLT Action Planning Module (blue) –c) ERT Action Planning Module (yellow) –d) New Action Form (pink)e) Your current action plan

3. Oregon Reading First (2008)3 Action Planning Process Overview Oregon Reading First - Winter 2008 Getting Ready: Plan GLT, ERT, and District Team meeting dates and notify team members Hold DIBELS Refresher trainings (see DIBELS Refresher Training Module posted on the Oregon Reading First website under Assessment) Coaches join January 18th conference call on the GLT/ERT Data-based Action Planning Modules (if needed) Copy modules (posted on the Oregon Reading First website under Forms and Downloads) and prepare data tables in advance of GLT and ERT meetings. Step 1 - GLT Action Planning: After the DIBELS data has been entered, coaches facilitate data-based action planning during the January and/or February Grade Level Team meetings under GLT Action Planning Module Step 2 - ERT Action Planning: Coaches and Principals facilitate data-based action planning during the winter ERT meeting using ERT Action Planning Module, current Action Plan documents, and a “New Actions” form. Step 3 - Principal Winter 2008 “How are we doing?” Report Step 4 - District Team Action Planning: District Team meets to update progress on district actions and to add new actions as indicated by winter DIBELS data. Step 5 - District Winter 2008 “How are we doing?” Report School DeliverablesDistrict Deliverables Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First Center and Regional Coordinator by February 29, 2008 Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First Center and Regional Coordinator by March 14, 2008 Action Plan Progress Notes New Actions Principal “How Are We Doing?” Report District “How Are We Doing?” Report (includes new district actions)

4. Oregon Reading First (2008)4 Overview of the Data-based Action Planning Process GLTs –Review Grade Level Data Summary of Effectiveness Report –Identify systems that need support Benchmark, Strategic, and/or Intensive –Plan Instructional Support Healthy System Checklist ERT –Review Schoolwide Data –Create Action Plan

5. Oregon Reading First (2008)5 Look what’s New! Revisions and New Features… New GLT and ERT tables are not-specific to this year (so you can use these forms after RF) Table 2: Calculating percent change only for Percent of Total (because other groups could be too small to have meaningful numbers. Table 2 and Adequate Progress Table: We recommend evaluating the total number of students who met the goals (from Table 1) instead of adequate progress towards ISF Healthy Systems Checklist: We have included space to evaluate B, S, and I all in the same table instead of 3 separate tables. Table 3: The questions at the top of the table are revised for the winter to add space for collecting additional information. ERT Tables 1 and 2 include spaces to include 4th and 5th grade data (not required)

6. Oregon Reading First (2008)6 Data-based Action Planning GLT Meetings

7. Oregon Reading First (2008)7 Purpose of the DBAP GLT Meeting –Review Grade Level Data Summary of Effectiveness Report –Identify systems that need support Benchmark, Strategic, and/or Intensive –Plan Instructional Support Healthy System Checklist

8. Oregon Reading First (2008)8 DBAP GLT Meeting Logistics Preparing in Advance –Coach can fill in grade level data in advance or the team could work on this together –Materials Each person will have their own packet Green, Yellow and Pink highlighters CSI Maps Schedules Data

9. Oregon Reading First (2008)9 Step 1. Review spring reading outcomes for your grade level. Calculate the difference between last year and this year to note whether there is an increase or decrease in the percentage of students meeting the benchmark goals. Discuss as a team: –Has the percentage of students established on each measure increased? –Has the percentage of students at deficit on each measure decreased? Discuss as a team.

10. Oregon Reading First (2008)10 CAUTION! Remember that our BOTTOM LINE consideration is the percent of students that are reaching benchmark. Sometimes schools that are in the upper quartile of the adequate progress range still have room for improvement in the number of students they are supporting to achieve the benchmark!

11. Oregon Reading First (2008)11 ABCDEFG Grade/Measure Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20 ___ Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20 ___ Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20 ___ Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20 ___ Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Kindergarten- PSF Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF 31%39%+8%51%36%-15% Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF The percent of students at low risk has increased. That’s good! However, only about 40% of our students are meeting the goal, so we have room to improve. The percent of students at risk has decreased, so that is good. We still have 36% of students at-risk…that’s more than one third of the students. We think we can do better!

12. Oregon Reading First (2008)12 Step 2: Use Figure 1 on the following page to evaluate the health of the Winter to Spring support systems for your grade level. Highlight Table 2 to reflect top (green highlighter), middle (yellow) and bottom (pink) quartiles.

13. Oregon Reading First (2008)13 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- PSF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF 40%43%+3%0% 0/45 0% 0/23 25% 5/19 23% 5/20 90% 17/19 90% 20/22 Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic and/or intensive) that are healthy or that need moderate to substantial changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students.

14. Oregon Reading First (2008)14 Figure 1

15. Oregon Reading First (2008)15 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- PSF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF 40%43%+3%0% 0/45 0% 0/23 25% 5/19 23% 5/20 90% 17/19 90% 20/22 Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations.

16. Oregon Reading First (2008)16 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- PSF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF 40%43%+3%0% 0/45 0% 0/23 25% 5/19 23% 5/20 90% 17/19 90% 20/22 Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations. None of the students in the intensive range moved to some risk or low risk on the benchmark goal. This system was in The bottom quartile. We have fewer students in the intensive range (23 vs. 45) but this is a system that needs support. Let’s make this a priority. Overall we increased the percent of students who made adequate progress a little bit. The total for the grade level is in the middle quartiles compared to other schools in the state using DIBELS. Our challenge is that less than half of our students making adequate progress. How can we make changes to improve the system next year. Let’s look at the systems within the grade to see where we should prioritize.

17. Oregon Reading First (2008)17 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- PSF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF 40%43%+3%0% 0/45 0% 0/23 25% 5/19 23% 5/20 90% 17/19 90% 20/22 Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations. Almost the same percent of students made adequate progress in the strategic system this year compared to last year. This system is in the middle quartile. About one quarter of our strategic students made adequate progress Winter to Spring. We could have more. Let’s make this system a priority. Almost all of the students in the benchmark range made adequate progress this year and last year. Only two students did not. Let’s take a look at those students’ data. Depending on that information, we may decide to prioritize this system. After looking at the data, one student was absent for 3 months due to illness. The other student missed the cut-off by 1 point. Let’s not prioritize this system right now.

18. Oregon Reading First (2008)18 Step 3: Identify systems that need support (circle): Benchmark Strategic Intensive Remember: This could be a whole system or one group within the system One idea is to sort the DIBELS booklets/graphs into groups ahead of time. Then discuss whether to prioritize the whole system or a group within the system.

19. Oregon Reading First (2008)19 Step 4: a.As a team, use the Healthy Systems Checklist to evaluate a system that you identified as needing support. b.Highlight questions on the Healthy Systems Checklist that are a concern in this system. c.Prioritize questions about that system to target what elements are not healthy. For example start with structural questions (in bold) and follow with quality of implementation questions. d.Record the prioritized questions (taken directly from the Healthy Systems Checklist) in Table 3 and list reasons for prioritizing each question Repeat Step 4 for each system that your team identified as needing support. Some grade levels may complete this step for one system, two systems or all three systems depending on the priorities set in Step 3.

20. Oregon Reading First (2008)20 First, look at Structural Questions (in bold) Healthy System Checklist

21. Oregon Reading First (2008)21 Second, look at Quality of Implementation Questions Healthy System Checklist

22. Oregon Reading First (2008)22 Prioritize Questions Focus on questions 1 & 2 before addressing question 3. 1. Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?* 2. Is additional instructional time scheduled for students who are struggling?* 3. Are teachers incorporating general features of instruction (i.e., models, explicit language, etc.)?

23. Oregon Reading First (2008)23 Table 3 System (circle one): Benchmark Strategic Intensive System Questions (Taken from the Healthy Systems Checklist) What evidence do you have that identifies this question as a concern? (I.e. observations, interviews, further assessment, Review Existing Data, Schedules, Instructional Plans?) Is there more information you can collect to clarify area in need of support? (I.e. observations, interviews, further assessment, Review Existing Data, Schedules, Instructional Plans?) List Suggested Actions to Address the Concern: 1. Healthy Systems Checklist Element: __________________ 2. Healthy Systems Checklist Element: __________________ 3. Healthy Systems Checklist Element: __________________

24. Oregon Reading First (2008)24 Step 5: Identify grade level actions that will address the identified areas of concern and record in Table 3 for each system that you identified as needing changes.

25. Oregon Reading First (2008)25 Data-based Action Planning ERT Meeting

26. Oregon Reading First (2008)26 Purpose of the ERT Meeting –Review Schoolwide Data –Review the GLTs’ Suggested Actions –Create Action Plan –Consider RF Budget Implications

27. Oregon Reading First (2008)27 ERT Meeting Logistics Preparing in Advance –Coach fills in grade level data in advance and can highlight Table 2 of ERT packet. –Materials Each person will have their own packet Green, Yellow and Pink highlighters CSI Maps Schedules Data List of suggested actions from GLT packets Sample Action Plan Blank Action Plan Spring 2007 Oregon Reading First Activities Checklist

28. Oregon Reading First (2008)28 ABCDEFG Grade/MeasurePercent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20__ Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20__ Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20__ Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20__ Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Kindergarten- PSF Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Reviewing Outcomes Coach will have completed all rows in Tables 1 and 2 in the Early Reading Team booklet (and could highlight boxes in Table 2 where appropriate) before the ERT meeting. Step 1. Review spring reading outcomes for K-3 students. Discuss as a team: Has the percentage of students established on each measure increased? Has the percentage of students at deficit on each measure decreased? Table 1 Reviewing Outcomes for K-5 Students Spring Last Year and Comparing to Spring Outcomes This Year Note: This table shows the percent of students that met the important end of year reading goals for the purpose of reviewing outcomes.

29. Oregon Reading First (2008)29 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- PSF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Evaluating Support What is the effectiveness of the grade level support plans? Step 2: Evaluate the health of the Winter to Spring support systems for grades K-3. Discuss the percentage and number of students in each grade level system that are making adequate progress. Table 2: Evaluating Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e. benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations.

30. Oregon Reading First (2008)30

31. Oregon Reading First (2008)31 Schoolwide Action Plan School: _______________________ Date Created: _______________________ Staff Who Created This Action Plan: __________________________________________ ____________________ ______________________ Schoolwide Element Indicate Schoolwide or Specific Grade and Group Action to Be Taken (be specific enough so that it is possible to determine when the action has been implemented) Person Responsible Report on Progress of Implementation 1 2 3 4 5

32. Oregon Reading First (2008)32 How to Document Action Plan Progress Format Option A: Use the "Action Plan Progress" column (type or by hand) located on the action plan. Format Option B: Use a separate form and list the actions currently being addressed. If using a separate sheet of paper, attach to current action plan for documentation.

33. Oregon Reading First (2008)33 How to Document Adding New Actions Schoolwide Element Indicate Schoolwide or Specific Grade and Group Action to be Taken (be specific enough that it is possible to determine when the action has been implemented) Person Responsible Report on Progress Implementation New Action #___ Date Added: ______ New Action #___ Date Added: ______ New Action #___ Date Added: ______ New Action #___ Date Added: ______ New Action #___ Date Added: ______ School: _____________________

34. Oregon Reading First (2008)34 Action Planning Process Overview Oregon Reading First - Winter 2008 Getting Ready: Plan GLT, ERT, and District Team meeting dates and notify team members Hold DIBELS Refresher trainings (see DIBELS Refresher Training Module posted on the Oregon Reading First website under Assessment) Coaches join January 18th conference call on the GLT/ERT Data-based Action Planning Modules (if needed) Copy modules (posted on the Oregon Reading First website under Forms and Downloads) and prepare data tables in advance of GLT and ERT meetings. Step 1 - GLT Action Planning: After the DIBELS data has been entered, coaches facilitate data-based action planning during the January and/or February Grade Level Team meetings under GLT Action Planning Module Step 2 - ERT Action Planning: Coaches and Principals facilitate data-based action planning during the winter ERT meeting using ERT Action Planning Module, current Action Plan documents, and a “New Actions” form. Step 3 - Principal Winter 2008 “How are we doing?” Report Step 4 - District Team Action Planning: District Team meets to update progress on district actions and to add new actions as indicated by winter DIBELS data. Step 5 - District Winter 2008 “How are we doing?” Report School DeliverablesDistrict Deliverables Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First Center and Regional Coordinator by February 29, 2008 Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First Center and Regional Coordinator by March 14, 2008 Action Plan Progress Notes New Actions Principal “How Are We Doing?” Report District “How Are We Doing?” Report (includes new district actions)

35. Oregon Reading First (2008)35 Mini Review: How to Read a Summary Of Effectiveness Report

36. Oregon Reading First (2008)36 Summary of Effectiveness Report Time Period, Grade Level, and Measure Number of students: Total included in the report Number with a Benchmark, Strategic, or Intensive in the middle of the year Number at each benchmark status Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year toStrategic at Middle of Year toBenchmark at Middle of Year toBenchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total) End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established Adams7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5% of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5% of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50% of Total Students N = 82 Count13307270338Deficit 1.2% % of Instructional Recommendation 14.3%42.9% 0%20.6%79.4%0%7.3%92.7%Emerging 15.9% % of Total1.2%3.7% 0%8.5%32.9%0%3.7%46.3%Established 82.9%

37. Oregon Reading First (2008)37 At Risk IntensiveStrategicBenchmark Time 1: ( e.g., Winter) Time 2: (e.g., Spring) 1. Some Risk 2. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 3. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 4. Low Risk DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports 4 Ways to Achieve Adequate Progress

38. Oregon Reading First (2008)38 Middle of the Year Instructional Recommendation IntensiveStrategicBenchmark Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year toStrategic at Middle of Year toBenchmark at Middle of Year toBenchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total) End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established Adams7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5% of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5% of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50% of Total Students N = 82 Count13307270338Deficit 1.2% % of Instructional Recommendation 14.3%42.9% 0%20.6%79.4%0%7.3%92.7%Emerging 15.9% % of Total1.2%3.7% 0%8.5%32.9%0%3.7%46.3%Established 82.9%

39. Oregon Reading First (2008)39 End of Year Benchmark Status At Risk 1. Some Risk 2. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 3. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 4. Low Risk Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year toStrategic at Middle of Year toBenchmark at Middle of Year toBenchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total) End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established Adams7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5% of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5% of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50% of Total Students N = 82 Count13307270338Deficit 1.2% % of Instructional Recommendation 14.3%42.9% 0%20.6%79.4%0%7.3%92.7%Emerging 15.9% % of Total1.2%3.7% 0%8.5%32.9%0%3.7%46.3%Established 82.9%

40. Oregon Reading First (2008)40 Defining Adequate Progress – (a) a benchmark instructional recommendation (i.e., at low risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “ low risk/established ” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year; –(b) a strategic instructional recommendation (i.e., at some risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “ low risk/established ” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year; –(c) an intensive instructional recommendation (i.e., at risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “ low risk/established ” OR “ emerging/some risk ” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year.

41. Oregon Reading First (2008)41 Summary of Effectiveness Report: Review Count = Number of students % of Instructional Recommendation = How many students within the instructional range (i.e., benchmark, strategic, intensive) made adequate progress? % of Total = How many students made adequate progress at this grade level? Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year toStrategic at Middle of Year toBenchmark at Middle of Year toBenchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total) End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established Adams7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5% of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5% of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50% of Total Students N = 82 Count13307270338Deficit 1.2% % of Instructional Recommendation 14.3%42.9% 0%20.6%79.4%0%7.3%92.7%Emerging 15.9% % of Total1.2%3.7% 0%8.5%32.9%0%3.7%46.3%Established 82.9%