Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting

Oregon Reading First (2010) 1

Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’

Meeting

May 13, 2010


Materials for this MeetingYou should have received the following by email:• Webinar ppt• 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:• 2009-2010 Action Plan• School Literacy Plan• Instructional Focus Group/CSI Plans


Sharing andCelebrations


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


Data-Based Action PlanGrade Level Meeting


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)


June GLT A genda ® 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 2009-2010 formative goals set on the Li teracy Plan? 6. Write new formative goals for the 2010-2011 Li teracy 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 2010 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 2010-2011 School Action Plan.

Due Date: Email or Fax to the ORRF Center ([email protected]) and to your Regional Coordinator:

June 18: Progress Notes for 2009-2010 Action Plan

New Action Plan 2010-2011 Revised School Literacy Plan Principal Data-Based Leadership Plan District Data-Based Leadership Plan


A Good Place to Start …

What did we want to accomplish?


Review grade-level actions on the 2009-2010 School Action Plan. Report on Progress (due June 18th)

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-5 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

Ins truction st a rte d by Sept 14 using the Spring 200 9 EOY place men t she e ts ; a ll ass essmen ts w ere given a nd mino r adju stm ents w ere made o n placeme nts. Ins tructiona l focus group plans w ere dev eloped using the ass eme nts.

2 Ins truction 2nd grade 69% of the students at Benchmark in ORF by Spring 20 minutes oral reading for each student each day. Students not reading accurately will be administered the Phonics Decoder. Targeted instruction will be given in small groups in the areas of need.

Classroom Teachers, Coach, Principal

At Winte r Benchma rk there we re 59% a t ben chmar k.

3 Professiona l Developm ent

K-5 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

Refreshe rs a ll comple te d in the fall. Peg gy ha s mode led lesso ns during visits as well.



Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:1. Review student scores and aimline progress.

Insert new pic of Booklets … K NWF & 2 ORF

With graph filled in forwhole year and aim lines


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/)

N ot 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 Acc urate

(< 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 pract ice at the word level.

• Instruction in reading words as whole units.


• Focus on blending fluency practice at the word level.

• Instruction in reading wo rds as whole units.


• 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).


• First, Fluenc y 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 accurat ely as whole units .

*No Peeps • Fluency with

known words. *5 x 5 Matrix *Rapid Read Words *Paired Peer Practice


• 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


• First, Fluency with known sounds:

*1-Minute Dash *Rapid Read Sounds • Then, f luency

practice in reading words accurately as whole unit s.

*No Peeps

• Fluency building activities in connected text.

*Repeated Reading Strategies *Partner Reading Strategies


Insert photo of booklets in piles


A B C D E F G Grade/Measure Percen t at

Es tablished (Low Ris k)

S pring 2 009 (Las t Ye ar)

Percent at Established

(Low Ris k) S pring 2 010 (This Ye ar)

Percen tage Po int Inc reas e/

De creas e (+ or -)

Percen t at De ficit

(At Ris k) S pring 2009

(Last Ye ar)

Percen t at De ficit

(At Ris k) S pring 2 010 (This Ye ar)

Percen tage Po int Inc reas e/

De creas e (+ or -)

Kinde rgarten IS F

Kinde rgarte n- P S F

Kinde rgarte n- NWF

First Gra de NWF

First Gra de- OR F

Second Gra de OR F

Third Grade OR F

Fourth Grade O RF

Fifth Grade OR F

Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data3. Review Outcomes for K-6 students during spring of last year and

compare to spring of this year.

Table 1


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!


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)


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.


Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:4. Evaluate winter to spring grade level instructional support plans by

calculating the 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


e.g., 1/5 or 20%.

Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress


e.g., 25/50 or 50%.

Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress


e.g., 95/100 or 95%.

Winter to Spring20__


Percent Change(+ or -)







Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark

Kindergarten- NWF

First Grade- ORF

Second Grade ORF

Third Grade ORF

Fourth Grade ORF

Fifth Grade ORF

Table 2





e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



e.g., 25/50 or 50%.

Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate

ProgressInclude actual

numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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.


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 S ummary of Effectiveness report is now available for the percentage of students making adequate progres s 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


strategic students?

% of students who made adequate progress within an instructional

support range


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





K (NWF)

**








68% to 93% M iddle Quartiles ≤ 67% Bottom Quartile

1 (ORF)






22% to 49% Middle Quartiles ≤ 21% Bottom Quar tile

= 100% Top Quartile


2 (ORF)









3 (ORF)




15% to 33% Middle Quartiles ≤ 14% Bottom Quarti le









e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



e.g., 25/50 or 50%.



e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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.





e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



e.g., 25/50 or 50%.



e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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


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.





e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



e.g., 25/50 or 50%.



e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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


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.


Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:5. Did you meet the 2008-2009 formative goals set on the Literacy Plan?

An Example of K-1 goals from a 2009-2010 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...


School Literacy Plan - Part 2

SAMPLE

Date: June 13, 2009 Literacy Plan Review Timeline: This plan will be reviewed and updated every June. If there is staff turnover, it will be reviewed with new staff at the start of every school year.

Component 1: Goals Primary Reading Goal: All children will be reading at grade level by grade 3. Formative Reading Goals: Kindergarten Phonemic Awareness Middle: 20 correct phonemes per minute

End: 35 correct phonemes per minute Phonics Middle: 15 correct sounds per minute

End: 25 correct sounds per minute with 8 whole words read accuarately First Grade: Phonics Beginning: 25 correct sounds per minute

Middle: 50 correct sounds per minute with at least 15whole words read accurately

Fluency Middle: 30 correct words per minute End: 60 correct words per minute

Second Grade Fluency Beginning: 50 correct words per minute

Middle: 70 correct words per minute End: 100 correct words per minute

Third Grade Fluency Beginning: 80 correct words per minute


School-Level Goals for Overall Improvement: Kindergarten: 94% of K students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 78% last year First Grade: 81% of 1st grade students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 69% last year Second Grade: 69% of 2nd grade students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 57% last year Third Grade: 71% of 3rd grade students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 59% last year


School-Level Goals for Overall Improvement:Kindergarten: 94% of K students will reach end of year

benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 78% last year

First Grade: 81% of 1st grade students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from

69% last yearSecond Grade: 69% of 2nd grade students will reach end of

year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 57% last year

Third Grade: 71% of 3rd grade students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from

59% last year


Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:

6. Write new formative goals for the 2010-2011 based on the Spring Outcomes (Table 1) and revise Literacy Plan

School Literacy Plan - Part 2

SAMPLE

Date: June 13, 2009 Literacy Plan Review Timeline: This plan will be reviewed and updated every June. If there is staff turnover, it will be reviewed with new staff at the start of every school year.

Component 1: Goals Primary Reading Goal: All children will be reading at grade level by grade 3. Formative Reading Goals: Kindergarten Phonemic Awareness Middle: 20 correct phonemes per minute

End: 35 correct phonemes per minute Phonics Middle: 15 correct sounds per minute

End: 25 correct sounds per minute with 8 whole words read accuarately First Grade: Phonics Beginning: 25 correct sounds per minute

Middle: 50 correct sounds per minute with at least 15whole words read accurately

Fluency Middle: 30 correct words per minute End: 60 correct words per minute

Second Grade Fluency Beginning: 50 correct words per minute


Third Grade Fluency Beginning: 80 correct words per minute


School-Level Goals for Overall Improvement: Kindergarten: 94% of K students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 78% last year First Grade: 81% of 1st grade students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 69% last year Second Grade: 69% of 2nd grade students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 57% last year Third Grade: 71% of 3rd grade students will reach end of year benchmark goals on the DIBELS assessment up from 59% last year


Move DIBELS data cards on the Wall Chart according to Spring DIBELS instructional recommendation and Assessment Plan Criteria.


• 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?


Planning Worksheet, June 2010 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 • All ocated 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. ORGANI ZATION • Lowest performers are taught by strong, well-qualif ied

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

Other issues to consider: Who will assume extended responsibilities if there is no coach? (data collection and entry, GLT scheduling and facilitating, etc.)


End-of-Year Stude nt List Spring 2010 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


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.


Write 2-3 measurable, high priority Grade

Level Actions that will address any identified areas of concern for the 2010-11 School

Action Plan.



Data-based Action

Planning ERT Meeting


Purpose of the ERT Meeting– Review Schoolwide Data– Review the GLTs’ Suggested Actions– Create 2009-2010 Action Plan


ERT Meeting LogisticsPrepare in Advance

– Coach fills in grade level data in advance and can highlight Table 2 of ERT packet.

– Gather Participant Materials (see attached List)


A B C D E F G

Grade/Measure Percent at Established(Low Risk)

Spring 20__

Percent at Established(Low Risk)

Spring 20__


Decrease (+ or -)

Percent at Deficit

(At Risk)Spring 20__

Percent at Deficit

(At Risk)Spring 20__


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.





e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



e.g., 25/50 or 50%.

Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate

ProgressInclude actual

numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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.


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 2010-2011 Action Plan.


2010-2011 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


Due Date: June 18, 2010

• 2009-2010 Action Plan progress notes• 2010-2011 Action Plan• Revised School Literacy Plan• Principal Spring Data-based Leadership

Plan


Mini Review:How to Read a Summary Of

Effectiveness Report


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 Deficit



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%


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


Middle of the Year Instructional Recommendation

Intensive Strategic Benchmark

Middle of Kindergarten Instructional

Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on

PSF


End of Year Deficit



End of Year Deficit



End of Year Deficit






N = 82


14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%



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


Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten

Benchmark Status on PSF


End of Year Deficit



End of Year Deficit



End of Year Deficit






N = 82


14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%



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.


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?


Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten

Benchmark Status on PSF


End of Year

Deficit



End of Year

Deficit



End of Year Deficit






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%

Documents

Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting