Cohort B Leadership Session

March 3, 2008

Agenda

Time Topic Presenter

8:30-8:45 Welcome and Announcements Jeanie Smith

8:45-9:30 “How are we doing?”

Sharing Cohort B Winter Data

Rachell Katz and Jeanie Smith

9:30-10:00 Announcing Beacon Schools! Humboldt Elementary Portland Public Schools

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-10:45 Cohort B Continuation Process Joni Gilles and Russ Sweet

10:45-11:30 ODE K-3 Framework/School Literacy Plans Carrie Beck and Joni Gilles

11:30-12:00 Hillsboro Literacy Plan Hillsboro School District

12:00-1:00 Lunch

1:00-3:30 During the afternoon session, we will split into three groups:

Bella Vista Room

Coaches

Jeanie Smith and Carrie Beck

• Observations

• LPRs (paper and web-based)

Sophia Room

Principals

Carol Dissen and Elizabeth Jankowski

• Principal walk-though observations

• “L ook Fors” and “Polishers”

Isabelle Room

District Team Leaders

Joni Gill es and Pat Nash

• Sustaining RF

• Scaling up

Cohort B Project Data:“How are we doing?”

State Project Data

Cohort B Projectwide Data: Reviewing Outcomes

(Winter 2006-Winter 2008)

 Grade/Measure

Percent at Established/ Low Risk

Winter 2006

Winter 2007

Winter 2008

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Kindergarten - PSF 47% 50% (+3) 70% (+23)

Kindergarten - NWF 38% 45% (+7) 60% (+22)

First Grade - NWF 34% 48% (+6) 52% (+18)

First Grade - ORF 31% 40% (+9) 41% (+10)

Second Grade - ORF 42% 49% (+7) 53% (+9)

Third Grade - ORF 30% 34% (+4) 47% (+17)

Cohort B Projectwide Data: Reviewing Outcomes

(Winter 2006-Winter 2008)

 Grade/Measure

Percent at Deficit/ At Risk

Winter 2006

Winter 2007

Winter 2008

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Kindergarten - PSF 27% 24% (-3) 11% (-16)

Kindergarten - NWF 39% 30% (-9) 16% (-13)

First Grade - NWF 27% 18% (-9) 15% (-12)

First Grade - ORF 34% 24% (-10) 23% (-11)

Second Grade - ORF 45% 36% (-9) 30% (-15)

Third Grade - ORF 45% 40% (-5) 28% (-17)

Cohort A Years 3-5 vs. Cohort B Years 1-3

Grade/Measure

Percent at Established / Low RiskWinter 2006 Winter 2007 Winter 2008

Cohort A (Year 3)

Cohort B (Year

1)

Cohort A (Year 4)

Cohort B (Year

2)

Cohort A

(Year 5)

Cohort B (Year 3)

Kindergarten-PSF 62% 47% 69% 50% 74% 70%

Kindergarten-NWF 53% 38% 60% 45% 66% 60%

First Grade-NWF 51% 34% 59% 48% 65% 52%

First Grade-ORF 44% 31% 48% 40% 51% 41%

Second Grade-ORF 52% 42% 54% 49% 57% 53%

Third Grade-ORF 42% 30% 47% 34% 49% 47%

Cohort A Years 3-5 vs. Cohort B

Years 1-3

Grade/Measure

Percent at Deficit / At RiskWinter 2006 Winter 2007 Winter 2008

Cohort A

(Year 3)

Cohort B

(Year 1)

Cohort A

(Year 4)

Cohort B (Year 2)

Cohort A

(Year 5)

Cohort B (Year 3)

Kindergarten-PSF 16% 27% 14% 24% 11% 11%

Kindergarten-NWF 23% 39% 17% 30% 14% 16%

First Grade-NWF 14% 27% 12% 18% 10% 15%

First Grade-ORF 23% 34% 19% 24% 16% 23%

Second Grade-ORF 33% 45% 32% 36% 31% 30%

Third Grade-ORF 33% 45% 29% 40% 27% 28%

NOTES: The dotted lines represent the 75th and 25th percentiles for the percent of students making AP based on all Oregon schools collecting DIBELS in 2004-05.Intact refers to students who have data in both fall and winter. Challenge contexts are based on the percent of kindergarteners identified as intensive in the fall. The least challenging context includes schools with fewer than 33% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, the moderate context includes schools with between 34 and 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, and the most challenging context includes schools with more than 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive.

NOTES: The dotted lines represent the 75th and 25th percentiles for the percent of students making AP based on all Oregon schools collecting DIBELS in 2004-05.Intact refers to students who have data in both fall and winter. Challenge contexts are based on the percent of kindergarteners identified as intensive in the fall. The least challenging context includes schools with fewer than 33% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, the moderate context includes schools with between 34 and 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, and the most challenging context includes schools with more than 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive.

NOTES: The dotted lines represent the 75th and 25th percentiles for the percent of students making AP based on all Oregon schools collecting DIBELS in 2004-05.Intact refers to students who have data in both fall and winter. Challenge contexts are based on the percent of kindergarteners identified as intensive in the fall. The least challenging context includes schools with fewer than 33% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, the moderate context includes schools with between 34 and 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, and the most challenging context includes schools with more than 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive.

NOTES: The dotted lines represent the 75th and 25th percentiles for the percent of students making AP based on all Oregon schools collecting DIBELS in 2004-05.Intact refers to students who have data in both fall and winter. Challenge contexts are based on the percent of kindergarteners identified as intensive in the fall. The least challenging context includes schools with fewer than 33% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, the moderate context includes schools with between 34 and 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, and the most challenging context includes schools with more than 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive.

NOTES: The dotted lines represent the 75th and 25th percentiles for the percent of students making AP based on all Oregon schools collecting DIBELS in 2004-05.Intact refers to students who have data in both fall and winter. Challenge contexts are based on the percent of kindergarteners identified as intensive in the fall. The least challenging context includes schools with fewer than 33% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, the moderate context includes schools with between 34 and 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, and the most challenging context includes schools with more than 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive.

NOTES: The dotted lines represent the 75th and 25th percentiles for the percent of students making AP based on all Oregon schools collecting DIBELS in 2004-05.Intact refers to students who have data in both fall and winter. Challenge contexts are based on the percent of kindergarteners identified as intensive in the fall. The least challenging context includes schools with fewer than 33% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, the moderate context includes schools with between 34 and 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, and the most challenging context includes schools with more than 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive.

Beacon Schools

“The Reading First Center will identify Beacon Schools from the first 30-35 Reading First Schools in Cohort A - based on exceptional student performance and effective implementation of research-based reading practices. These Beacon Schools will serve as laboratory schools of research-based reading implementation for other Reading First schools, Pathfinder schools, state and private Colleges of Education, and interested elementary schools.”

Oregon Reading First Application, p. 125

Announcing Beacon Schools!

• The Oregon Department of Education and Oregon Reading First Center have identified three Beacon Schools to serve as demonstration sites for schools throughout the state:

• Humboldt Elementary (Portland) (April 2008)• Jefferson Elementary (Medford) (Fall 2008)• David Hill Elementary (Hillsboro) (Winter 2009)

• Beacon Schools were selected on the basis of the progress they made in demonstrating high quality implementation of effective reading practices and strong student outcomes.

Beacon Schools

• “Hope for Humboldt”

• What will happen on a visit?

• How can we schedule a visit?

• For more information please check the Oregon Reading First Center website (http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu)

Humboldt Elementary,Portland Public

Schools4915 N. GantenbeinPortland, OR 97217(503) 916-5468

Principal: Jamila Williams

Coach: Mary Peake

OPEN TO VISITORS IN APRIL 2008

Humboldt Elementary

To schedule a visit, please contact: Mary Peake (mpeake@pps.k12.or.us)

Jefferson Elementary,Medford School

District333 Holmes Ave.Medford, OR 97501(541) 842-3800

Principal: Susan InmanCoach: Kathy Staller

OPEN TO VISITORS IN FALL 2008

Jefferson Elementary

To schedule a visit, please contact: Kathy Staller (kathy.staller@medford.k12.or.us

David Hill ElementaryHillsboro School

District440 SE Oak St.Hillsboro, OR 97123(503) 844-1680

Principal: Toni Crummett

Coach: Connie Robertson

OPEN TO VISITORS IN JANUARY 2009

at Lincoln Street Elementary

To schedule a visit, please contact: TBD

Cohort B Continuation Process

•Timeline•Deliverables

2008-2009 Funding

Oregon’s K-3 Literacy Framework

Presented to the LLSSCNovember 15, 2007

Components of the Framework

• Goals• Assessment• Instruction• Leadership• Professional Development• Commitment

Outline for Oregon’s K-3 Literacy Framework

1. A schoolwide priority on K-3 reading goals is established.

2. Reliable and valid reading assessments are used to inform instructional practices.

3. Reading instructional time is protected and sufficient for all students to meet reading goals.

4. Instructional programs and materials are based on research and linked to reading goals.

Outline for Oregon’s K-3 Literacy Framework

5. Differentiated instruction is an integral part of the schoolwide reading plan and is used to help all students meet reading goals.

6. Leadership prioritizes attainment of reading goals for all students.

7. High quality professional development must be linked to the school’s reading goals and program.

8. Schoolwide commitment to meeting reading goals.

GOALS

• Five Big Ideas• State Standards

ProfessionalDevelopment

Commitment

Leadership

Goals Assess Instruction LeadershipProfessionalDevelopment Commitment

School

District

State

A 3 X 6 Matrix

Implementation of the Schoolwide Model

District Support for Implementation of Schoolwide Model

State-Level Initiatives to Support Districts/Schools in Implementation of the Schoolwide Model

At the School Level

• Preamble• Chapters 1-6• IN DRAFT FORM• provide conceptual understanding and practical examples

• literature referenced in footnotes

• resources and tools referenced in text and in footnotes

At the District Level

Expectations for District Literacy Leaders

In Sustaining the Oregon Literacy Framework - DRAFT

Elements of OLF Strategies and Actions

I. Goals, Objectives, Priorities• Establish clear, quantifiable district level reading goals across K-3 that at

minimum are linked to the five essential elements of early ready achievementand state standards.

• Focus reading improvement efforts on scientifically-based practices thathave demonstrated effectiveness.

• Ensure that district policies, procedures and actions are aligned with andsupport reading goals.

• Review school level action plans to determine alignment with districtgoals. Modify school plans as necessary.

• Utilize data on how well students are doing in relation to district readinggoals to improve districtwide reading efforts. After each major data collectionperiod, determine necessary actions and document in a district action plan.

• Provide positive attention, recognition, and support for schoolsthroughout the district that are making progress in meeting district goals.Showcase those schools as model demonstration sites.

At the State Level

Goals Assessment Instruction

Leadership Professional Development

Commitment

State

At the State Level

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:Sample Policy Considerations:• What implications does the Oregon

Literacy Framework have for preservice PD for teachers, coaches, specialists, and school, district, and state leaders?

• What role and responsibilities do institutions of higher education have in helping build the capacity to implement the Oregon Literacy Framework?

At the State Level

What role should ODE – or the LLSSC – play in directing decisions of districts and schools to build effective, strong beginning reading programs through the implementationof the Oregon Literacy Framework?

School-Level Literacy Plans

• Purpose of a Literacy Plan• Action Plans vs. Literacy Plans

Framework for School-Level Literacy Plans

• Part 1: IntroductionProvides an overview of key components of literacy plan.

• Part 2: DetailsProvides details on how school will apply the key components identified in the Introduction.

Introduction

The introduction states school’s commitment to reading instruction K-3 and the role of the schoolwide beginning reading model.

• Why is early reading instruction and achievement important to the school?

• What are the reading goals at the school?• How will the components of the schoolwide reading model help meet the reading goals?

• How will the school use the literacy plan?

Details

School Literacy Plan - Part 2DRAFTDate:

Literacy Plan Review Timeline:

Component 1: Goals

Primary Reading Goal:

Formative Reading Goals:

Kindergarten

Phonemic Awareness

Middle:End:

Phonics Middle:End:

First Grade:

Phonics Beginning: Middle:

Fluency Middle:End:

Details

School Literacy Plan - Part 2DRAFT

Second Grade

Fluency Beginning:Middle:End:

Third Grade:

Fluency Beginning:Middle:End:

School-Level Goals for Overall Improvement:

K:

1:

Remember, school-level literacy plans are a tool for sustainability. Don’t focus discussion on what you are doing this year

with Reading First funding. Instead, focus these plans and the discussion on how you will do things in your building next year without funding.

Hillsboro District Literacy Plan

Agenda

Time Topic Presenter

8:30-8:45 Welcome and Announcements Jeanie Smith

8:45-9:30 “How are we doing?”

Sharing Cohort B Winter Data

Rachell Katz and Jeanie Smith

9:30-10:00 Announcing Beacon Schools! Humboldt Elementary Portland Public Schools

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-10:45 Cohort B Continuation Process Joni Gilles and Russ Sweet

10:45-11:30 ODE K-3 Framework/School Literacy Plans Carrie Beck and Joni Gilles

11:30-12:00 Hillsboro Literacy Plan Hillsboro School District

12:00-1:00 Lunch

1:00-3:30 During the afternoon session, we will split into three groups:

Bella Vista Room

Coaches

Jeanie Smith and Carrie Beck

• Observations

• LPRs (paper and web-based)

Sophia Room

Principals

Carol Dissen and Elizabeth Jankowski

• Principal walk-though observations

• “L ook Fors” and “Polishers”

Isabelle Room

District Team Leaders

Joni Gill es and Pat Nash

• Sustaining RF

• Scaling up