Upload
laird
View
33
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting. May 2009. Materials for this Meeting. You should have received the following by email: Webinar ppt May 2009 Newsletter GLT Agenda GLT Action Planning Module Participant Material List NWF Performance Pattern Table - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Oregon Reading First (2009) 1
Oregon Reading First Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Regional Coaches’
MeetingMeeting
May 2009May 2009
Oregon Reading First (2009) 2
Materials for this MeetingYou should have received the following by email:• Webinar ppt• May 2009 Newsletter• GLT Agenda• GLT Action Planning Module
– Participant Material List– NWF Performance Pattern Table– ORF Performance Pattern Table– Planning Worksheet– Student Group List
• ERT Action Planning Module
Other materials that will be referred to:• 2008-2009 Action Plan• School Literacy Plan• Instructional Focus Group/CSI Plans
Oregon Reading First (2009) 3
Oregon Reading First (2009) 4
Overview of the Data-based Action Planning Process
• GLTs– Review Grade Level Data
– Identify systems that need support
– Plan Instructional Support
• ERT– Review Schoolwide Data– Create Action Plan
Oregon Reading First (2009) 5
Data-based Action Planning GLT Meetings
Oregon Reading First (2009) 6
Data-Based Action PlanGLT Meeting Logistics
Preparing in Advance:– Coach can fill in grade level data in advance for
Tables 1 and 2 or the team could work on this together
– Gather Participant Materials (see attached List)
Oregon Reading First (2009) 7
June GLT Agenda Briefly review Meeting Norms Select a recorder to fill out the Data Team Minutes during the meeting Review grade-level actions on the 2008-09 School Action Plan and report on
progress Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data
1. Review student scores and aim line progress. 2. Analyze error patterns and/or word reading strategies from
individual DIBELS booklets for each group (e.g., NWF General Performance Pattern Table; ORF General Performance Pattern Table).
3. Review Out comes (Table 1) for K-6 students during spring of last year and compare to spring of this year.
4. Evaluate winter to spring grade level instructional support plans (Table 2) by calculating the percent of students making adequate progress toward DIBELS benchmark goals.
5. Did you meet the 2008-09 formative goals set on the Literacy Plan?
6. Write new formative goals for the 2009-10 Literacy Plan based on the Spring Outcomes (Table 1).
Move DIBELS data cards on the Wall Chart according to the Spring DIBELS Benchmark data and Assessment Plan Criteria.
Identify any groups that did not meet benchmark goals, assessment mastery criteria, and/or projected lesson pacing.
Brainstorm possible group system changes or instructional strategies that could address interferences/problems (use the June 2009 Planning Worksheet.)
Fill out End of Year Student List. This is part of the Planning Worksheet (second bullet for GROUPING).
Modify Instructional Focus Group Plan/CSI Maps for any groups that are not meeting assessment mastery criteria, and/or are not meeting projected lesson pacing progress.
Write 2-3 measurable, high priority Grade Level Actions based on the above discussions for the 2009-10 School Action Plan.
Due Date: Email or Fax to the OR RF Center ([email protected]) and to your Regional Coordinator:
June 26: District Action Plan Progress Notes and New Actions School Action Plan Progress Notes and New Actions Revised Literacy Plan
Oregon Reading First (2009) 8
Review grade-level actions on the 2008-2009 School Action Plan. Report on Progress (due June 26th)
Schoolwide 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 Assessment K-2 Phonics screeners, DIBELS, and other pertinent
assessments will be given in September so groups can be formed and reading instruction can begin during the first full week of school.
Classroom Teachers, Reading Coach, Title 1-A Staff
All phonics screeners were given in September and instruction started.
2 Professional Development
K-2 A (2 hour) Houghton Mifflin assessment and material refresher will be scheduled with Carol Dissen.
Principal/Reading Coach
Completed the second week of September.
3 Professional Development
K-2 A refresher session for all intervention programs and enhancements (Templates, ERI, Horizons, and Reading Mastery) will be available to all teachers and assistants.
Coach, District School Improvement Specialist, Regional Coordinator
Refreshers all completed in the fall. Peggy and Ann have modeled lessons during visits as well.
4 Professional Development
K-2 A parent involvement outline will be created to help parents understand the DIBELS measures and targets, create letter name, sight word, and high frequency word flashcards and show how to help their child succeed in reading using templates.
Building Leadership Team
Family Nights were held in the fall. Parent newsletters contain helpful hints.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 9
Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:1. Review student scores and aimline progress.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 10
Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:2. Analyze error patterns and/or word reading strategies from
individual DIBELS booklets (e.g., NWF Performance Pattern Table or ORF General Performance Pattern Table).
Nonsense Word Fluency Assessment General Performance Pattern and Instructional Recommendations
Sound Only (/f/ /e/ /k/)
Not Accurate
(< 90% accuracy)
Sound Only (/f/ /e/ /k/)
Accurate
(>90% accuracy)
Sound by Sound and then Recode (/f/ /e/ /k/ /fek/)
Not Accurate (< 90% accuracy)
Sound by Sound and then Recode (/f/ /e/ /k/ /fek/)
Accurate (>90% accuracy)
Partial Blend (/f/ /ek/)
Not Accurate
(< 90% accuracy)
Partial Blend (/f/ /ek/)
Accurate
(>90% accuracy)
Whole Word or Unit Reading
(/fek/) Not Accurate
(< 90% accuracy)
Whole Word or Unit Reading
(/fek/) Accurate
(>90% accuracy) List Student
Names (list each
student once based on
their predominant
pattern)
Instructional Implications
Focus on accuracy instruction at the letter-sound level.
Identify known and unknown letter-sound combinations.
Focus on blending fluency practice at the word level.
Focus on accuracy instruction at the letter-sound level and then accuracy instruction at the blending level.
Focus on blending fluency practice at the word level.
Instruction in reading words as whole units.
Focus on accuracy instruction at the letter-sound level and then accuracy instruction at the blending level.
Focus on blending fluency practice at the word level.
Instruction in reading words as whole units.
Focus on accuracy instruction at the letter-sound level and then accuracy instruction at the blending level.
Focus instruction on accuracy and fluency in connected text.
Example Activities
Continued Phonics Instruction
Fluency with known sounds:
*1-Minute Sound Dash *Rapid Read Sounds
Instruction in continuous blending of CVC words (i.e., Card 9). Followed by re-reading the blended words as whole words (i.e., Card 3).
Continued Phonics Instruction
First, Fluency with known sounds:
*1-Minute Dash *Rapid Read Sounds Instruction in
continuous blending of CVC words (i.e., Card 9). Followed by re-reading the blended words as whole words (i.e., Card 3).
Blending practice in reading words accurately as whole units.
*No Peeps Fluency with
known words. *5 x 5 Matrix *Rapid Read Words *Paired Peer Practice
Continued Phonics Instruction
First, Fluency with known sounds:
*1-Minute Dash *Rapid Read Sounds Instruction in
continuous blending of CVC words (i.e., Card 9). Followed by re-reading the blended words as whole words (i.e., Card 3).
Blending practice in reading words accurately as whole units.
*No Peeps Fluency with
known words. *5 x 5 Matrix *Rapid Read Words *Paired Peer Practice
Continued Phonics Instruction
First, Fluency with known sounds:
*1-Minute Dash *Rapid Read Sounds Then, fluency
practice in reading words accurately as whole units.
*No Peeps
Fluency building activities in connected text.
*Repeated Reading Strategies *Partner Reading Strategies
Oregon Reading First (2009) 11
Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:• Review Outcomes (Table 1) for K-5 students during
spring of last year and compare to spring of this year. Table 1 Reviewing Outcomes for K-5 Students Spring Last Year and Comparing to Spring Outcomes This Year
A B C D E F G
Grade/Measure Percent at Established(Low Risk)
Spring 20 ___(Last Year)
Percent at Established(Low Risk)
Spring 20 ___(This Year)
Percentage Point Increase/
Decrease (+ or -)
Percent at Deficit
(At Risk)Spring 20 ___
(Last Year)
Percent at Deficit
(At Risk)Spring 20 ___
(This Year)
Percentage Point Increase/
Decrease(+ or -)
Kindergarten- PSF
Kindergarten- NWF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
Third Grade ORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
**This table shows the percent of students that met the important mid-year reading goals for the purpose of reviewing outcomes. ***Grades 4 and 5 have been included in the table for school teams that would like to include this information (not required by Reading First).
Oregon Reading First (2009) 12
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!
Oregon Reading First (2009) 13
Table 1 Reviewing Outcomes for K-5 Students Spring Last Year and Comparing to Spring Outcomes This Year
A B C D E F G
Grade/Measure Percent at Established(Low Risk)
Spring 20 ___(Last Year)
Percent at Established(Low Risk)
Spring 20 ___(This Year)
Percentage Point Increase/
Decrease (+ or -)
Percent at Deficit
(At Risk)Spring 20 ___
(Last Year)
Percent at Deficit
(At Risk)Spring 20 ___
(This Year)
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 studentsare meeting the goal, so we have room to improve.
The percent of studentsat risk has decreased, which is good. However, 36% of the students are still at-risk…that’smore than one third of the students.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 14
Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:4. Evaluate winter to spring grade level instructional support plans (Table 2)
by calculating the percent of students making adequate progress toward DIBELS benchmark goals.
Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals
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 Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- NWF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
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 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.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 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
ProgressInclude actual
numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
KindergartenNWF
First GradeORF
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 GradeORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of StudentsMaking 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.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 16
FIGURE 1 What is the effectiveness of the grade level support plans?
Adequate Progress Relative Criteria WINTER TO SPRING
*Percentile ranks based on over 300 Oregon schools using the DIBELS data system during the 2004 - 2005 academic year. ** The DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness report is now available for the percentage of students making adequate progress towards NWF.
What is the overall effectiveness of the grade-level plan?
% of students who made
adequate progress in each grade
How effective is the grade-level instructional support plan for
intensive students?
% of students who made adequate progress within an instructional support range
How effective is the grade-level instructional support plan for
strategic students?
% of students who made adequate progress within an instructional
support range
How effective is the grade-level instructional support plan for
benchmark students?
% of students who made adequate progress within an instructional
support range K
(PSF)
≥ 87% Top Quartile 57% to 86% Middle Quartiles
≤ 56% Bottom Quartile
≥ 89% Top Quartile
52% to 88% Middle Quartiles ≤ 51% Bottom Quartile
≥ 76% Top Quartile
34% to 75% Middle Quartiles ≤ 33% Bottom Quartile
≥ 97% Top Quartile
76% to 96% Middle Quartiles ≤ 75% Bottom Quartile
K (NWF)
**
≥ 72% Top Quartile
39% to 71% Middle Quartiles ≤ 38% Bottom Quartile
≥ 54% Top Quartile
9% to 53% Middle Quartiles ≤ 8% Bottom Quartile
≥ 60% Top Quartile
25% to 59% Middle Quartiles ≤ 24% Bottom Quartile
≥ 94% Top Quartile
68% to 93% Middle Quartiles ≤ 67% Bottom Quartile
1 (ORF)
≥ 72% Top Quartile
50% to 71% Middle Quartiles ≤ 49% Bottom Quartile
≥ 50% Top Quartile
22% to 49% Middle Quartiles ≤ 21% Bottom Quartile
≥ 50% Top Quartile
22% to 49% Middle Quartiles ≤ 21% Bottom Quar tile
= 100% Top Quartile
91% to 99% Middle Quartiles ≤ 90% Bottom Quartile
2 (ORF)
≥ 61% Top Quartile
40% to 60% Middle Quartiles ≤ 39% Bottom Quartile
≥ 18% Top Quartile
1% to 17% Middle Quartiles ≤ 0% Bottom Quartile
≥ 27% Top Quartile
1% to 26% Middle Quartiles ≤ 0% Bottom Quartile
≥ 91% Top Quartile
78% to 90% Middle Quartiles ≤ 77% Bottom Quartile
3 (ORF)
≥ 59% Top Quartile
43% to 58% Middle Quartiles ≤ 42% Bottom Quartile
≥ 34% Top Quartile
15% to 33% Middle Quartiles ≤ 14% Bottom Quarti le
≥ 28% Top Quartile
10% to 27% Middle Quartiles ≤ 9% Bottom Quartile
≥ 92% Top Quartile
81% to 91% Middle Quartiles ≤ 80% Bottom Quartile
Oregon Reading First (2009) 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 Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- NWF
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 StudentsMaking 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.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 18
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 Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- NWF
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.
Overall we increased the percent of students who made adequate progress a little bit. The total for the grade level is in the middlequartiles compared to other schoolsin the state using DIBELS. Our challenge is that less than half of our students made adequate progress. How can we make changes to improve the system next year. Let’s look at the systems within the gradeto see where we should prioritize.
None of the students in the intensive range moved to some risk or low risk on the benchmarkgoal. 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.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 19
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 Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- NWF
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 studentsmade adequate progress in the strategic system this year comparedto last year. This system is in the middle quartile. About one quarter of our strategic students made adequate progress Winter to Spring. We couldhave more. Let’s make this system a priority.
Almost all of the studentsin the benchmark range made adequate progressthis 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.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 20
5. Did you meet the 2008-2009 formative goals set on the Literacy Plan?
Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:
An Example of K-1 goals from a 2008-2009 School Literacy Plan...
School-Level Goals for Overall Improvement:Kindergarten: 90 percent of kindergarten students will reach or exceed the kindergarten spring 2008 NWF DIBELS progressive benchmark. This is an 8 percent increase from spring of 2007. 1st grade: 60 percent of first grade students will reach or exceed the spring DIBELS ORF benchmark goal of 40 correct words per minute. This is a 21 percent increase from to spring 2007.
Discuss...
Oregon Reading First (2009) 21
6. Write new formative goals for the 2009-10 Literacy Plan based on the Spring Outcomes (Table 1).
Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:
Oregon Reading First (2009) 22
Move DIBELS data cards on the Wall Chart according to Spring DIBELS instructional recommendation.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 23
• Identify any groups that did not meet benchmark goals, assessment criteria, and/or projected lesson pacing.
• Brainstorm possible group system changes or instructional strategies that could address interferences/problems (use the Planning Worksheet).
Where do changes need to be made? What changes will you make?
Oregon Reading First (2009) 24
Planning Worksheet, June 2009 Discuss these critical areas as a grade level team to ensure that groups start at the beginning of the
year and to continue to increase the intensity of instruction. Areas that are identified in need of support may then become clear actions for your schoolwide Action Plan.
School____________________________________ Grade Level ____________ SYSTEM KEY ELEMENTS NEEDING SUPPORT SUGGESTED ACTION
B. S. I. II. ASSESSMENT
Administer Phonics Screener to all students in Kindergarten this spring
Administer Phonics Screener to all students in grades 1-3 who are not in an intervention program this spring
III. MATERIALS Take inventory and purchase programs and materials that
are needed for the fall (attached “EOY Student List” will identify programs/levels for the fall)
IV. INSTRUCTIONAL TIME Prioritize groups by those in most critical need of
additional small group instruction Schoolwide commitment to begin small groups by first
full week of school Allocated time in reading programs is aligned with
program requirements (i.e. 90 min. for Horizons C/D) Students met projections for lesson progress pacing
Independent activities are directly linked to reading instruction
V. GROUPING Group sizes are appropriate for instructional needs
“EOY Student List” (attached) is completed by each teacher and electronic copy sent by coach to RC
VI. ORGANIZATION Lowest performers are taught by strong, well-qualified
instructors
Title and Spec. Ed. reading instruction is coordinated and complimentary to general ed.
VII. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Training needs have been identified for each program
(i.e., core enhancements, Horizons. etc) for teachers and instructional assistants
Identify additional support for new teachers (DIBELS, schoolwide model, PD, etc.)
Identify in-house experts in each instructional area who can provide support to staff
Determine means for providing monthly PD based on implementation
Oregon Reading First (2009) 25
End-of-Year Student List Spring 2009 School:_____________________ Teacher: _________________________ Grade:_____ Each teacher will electronically complete student names, reading program/level, and ending lesson number with reading instructor’s initials. RF will enter DIBELS score to collect data on program completion and DIBELS comparison, which will be shared in the fall to help with lesson pacing goals. The coach is to send a copy of each teacher list to their RC, as one of the EOY deliverables.
DIBELS Measure: ________________
Student (Last name, First name) Rdg. Program/Level Ending lesson # and instructor’s initials
DIBELS Score
Oregon Reading First (2009) 26
Modify Instructional Focus Group Plans/CSI Maps for any groups that did not meet assessment mastery criteria, and/or did not meeting projected lesson pacing progress.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 27
Write 2-3 measurable, high priority Grade Level Actions that will address any
identified areas of concern for the 2009-10 School Action Plan.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 28
Data-based Action Planning ERT Meeting
Oregon Reading First (2009) 29
Purpose of the ERT Meeting
– Review Schoolwide Data– Review the GLTs’ Suggested Actions– Create 2009-2010 Action Plan
Oregon Reading First (2009) 30
ERT Meeting LogisticsPreparing in Advance
– Coach fills in grade level data in advance and can highlight Table 2 of ERT packet.
– Gather Participant Materials (see attached List)
Oregon Reading First (2009) 31
A B C D E F G
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
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
Reviewing OutcomesCoach 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.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 32
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
ProgressInclude actual
numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten-NWF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
Third Grade ORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
Evaluating SupportWhat 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.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 33
Step 3: Based on Tables 1 and 2, list the systems, across grade-level (K-3 or K-5) data, that are of highest priority.
Step 4: Review grade level teams’ identified new grade level actions.
Step 5: The ERT team should consider whether any systems, other than those identified in grade level teams,
are in need of support. If so, identify questions and suggested actions.
Step 6: Based on team consensus, prioritize actions that
will have a significant impact on student achievement. Use this information to develop your 2009-2010 action plan.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 34
2009-2010 Action PlanSchool: _____________________
Column Hint: Refer to GLT Table 3 for Roman numerals that reference schoolwide element from Healthy Systems Checklist. List that element in this column.
Column Hint: Possible examples include “All 2nd graders”, “All 2nd graders in HM”, “All 2nd graders within ten words of the benchmark”, “The 2nd graders in the Reading Mastery Bluebirds group.”
Column Hint: Actions should not be a continuation of already established practices. Instead, the action plan is intended to highlight the new practices that will be implemented during the coming year to improve student outcomes. If the ERT team would like to ensure that certain current practices are continued, considering adding a _______________(e.g., John Henry Elementary) School Expectations document to the end of your 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
Oregon Reading First (2009) 35
Due Date: June 26, 2009
• 2008-2008 Action Plan progress notes• 2009-2010 Action Plan• Revised School Literacy Plan• Principal Spring Data-based Leadership
Plan
Oregon Reading First (2009) 36
Mini Review:How to Read a Summary Of
Effectiveness Report
Oregon Reading First (2009) 37
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 statusMiddle of Kindergarten
Instructional Recommendation to End
of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on
PSF
Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark 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
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K8.5% of Total Students
34 Students Strategic at Middle of K41.5% of Total Students
41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K50% of Total Students
N = 82
Count 1 3 3 0 7 27 0 3 38Deficit 1.2%% of Instructional Recommendation
14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%
% of Total 1.2% 3.7% 3.7% 0% 8.5% 32.9% 0% 3.7% 46.3%Established 82.9%
Oregon Reading First (2009) 38
At Risk
Intensive Strategic Benchmark
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 Reports4 Ways to Achieve Adequate Progress
Oregon Reading First (2009) 39
Middle of the Year Instructional Recommendation
Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional
Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on
PSF
Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark 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
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K8.5% of Total Students
34 Students Strategic at Middle of K41.5% of Total Students
41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K50% of Total Students
N = 82
Count 1 3 3 0 7 27 0 3 38Deficit 1.2%% of Instructional Recommendation
14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%
% of Total 1.2% 3.7% 3.7% 0% 8.5% 32.9% 0% 3.7% 46.3%Established 82.9%
Oregon Reading First (2009) 40
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 to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark 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
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K8.5% of Total Students
34 Students Strategic at Middle of K41.5% of Total Students
41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K50% of Total Students
N = 82
Count 1 3 3 0 7 27 0 3 38Deficit 1.2%% of Instructional Recommendation
14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%
% of Total 1.2% 3.7% 3.7% 0% 8.5% 32.9% 0% 3.7% 46.3%Established 82.9%
Oregon Reading First (2009) 41
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.
Oregon Reading First (2009) 42
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 to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark 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
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K8.5% of Total Students
34 Students Strategic at Middle of K41.5% of Total Students
41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K50% of Total Students
N = 82
Count 1 3 3 0 7 27 0 3 38 Deficit 1.2%
% of Instructional Recommendation
14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7% Emerging 15.9%
% of Total 1.2% 3.7% 3.7% 0% 8.5% 32.9% 0% 3.7% 46.3% Established 82.9%