aligning reading programs to meet the needs of all students implementing and evaluating the...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
Aligning Reading Programs to Meet Aligning Reading Programs to Meet the Needs of All Studentsthe Needs of All Students
Implementing and Evaluating the Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model:
Instruction
GoalsAssessment
For Each Student
For All Students
IBR Foundational Features: Translating Research into Practice
Schoolwide:
Each & All
Prevention Oriented
Scientifically
Based
Results Focused
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 3
A School-Wide Reading A School-Wide Reading Improvement ModelImprovement Model
For Each Student
Instruction
GoalsAssessment
For All Students
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 4
Essential Components in ReadingEssential Components in ReadingEffective, comprehensive, reading instruction includes
instruction in each of the essential components:
.
PhonologicalAwareness
Fluency
Phonics
Vocabulary
Reading
Comprehension
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 5
Improving Reading InstructionImproving Reading Instruction in Oregon in Oregon
Systematic, high quality instruction that focuses on the five essential components of beginning reading.
Reliable and valid assessments for screening, diagnostic, and monitoring progress decisions.
Skillful, research based interventions for children who need intensive intervention in learning to read.
Oregon Reading First, 2002
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 6
Aligning Core, Supplemental, and Aligning Core, Supplemental, and Intervention ProgramsIntervention Programs
Goal and Challenge To implement, evaluate, and replicate a
schoolwide beginning reading model that will accelerate and sustain the early reading achievement of all students.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 7
Objectives: What You Will Learn and DoObjectives: What You Will Learn and Do
The objectives of today’s session are to: 1. Describe three levels of instructional support.2. Identify guidelines for aligning core,
supplemental and intervention programs.3. Discuss factors to consider when building an
aligned and coordinated beginning reading model.
4. Provide methods to evaluate the effectiveness of your levels of instructional support.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 8
Three Levels of Three Levels of Instructional SupportInstructional Support
Instructional Recommendations Are Based on Performance Across All Measures
Benchmark: Established skill performance across all administered measures
Strategic: One or more skill areas are not within the expected performance range
Intensive: One or many skill areas are within the significantly at-risk range for later reading difficulty
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 9
Three Levels of Instructional Support
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
5%
15%
80%
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 10
A class list provides a report of children’s performance on all measures administered at a given benchmark period in relation to established goals.
Three Levels of Instructional SupportThree Levels of Instructional Support
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
Nonsense Word Fluency
Student Score %ile Status Score %ile Status Score %ile StatusInstructional
Recommendation
Sam 22 10 Emerging 3 1At
risk 5 5 At risk Intensive
Jill 19 9 Emerging 14 8At
risk 13 20Some risk
Strategic
Susan 47 58 Established 5 2At
risk 14 20Some risk
Strategic
Ken 67 95 Established 31 38Some risk 19 26
Some risk
Strategic
Kim 40 36 Established 46 75Low risk 27 49 Low risk Benchmark
Jose 41 39 Established 44 70Low risk 58 90 Low risk Benchmark
Fall of First Grade
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 11
Types of Reading ProgramsTypes of Reading Programs
Vaughn et al, 2001.CORE, 2003.
Provide essential areas of reading instruction for the majority of students.
CoreReading Program
(Benchmark)Provide additional instruction in one or more areas of reading to support the core.
Supplemental Reading Program
(Strategic)Provide additional instruction to students performing below grade level on one or more essential instructional skills.
Intervention Reading Program
(Intensive)
80% 15%5%
Classifying Reading Programs
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 12
Core Reading ProgramCore Reading Program
A core program is the “base” reading program designed to provide instruction on the essential areas of reading for the majority of students schoolwide.
In general, the core program should enable 80% or more of students to attain schoolwide reading goals.
Simmons, Kame'enui, Harn, & Coyne © 2003.
A Core Instructional Program of Validated Efficacy Adopted and Implemented School-
wide.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 13
Benchmark Benchmark Level of Instructional SupportLevel of Instructional Support
Level of SupportINSTRUCTIONAL
PLACEMENT ASSESSMENT PLAN
Benchmark SBRR Core Reading Program-minimum 90
minutes daily
Progress Monitoring: Three times per year- All students
In-Program Assessments Screening & Outcome Assessment
Addressing the needs of most students. . .
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 14
Core Reading ProgramsCore Reading Programs
We may need to supplement or modify, but we must do it
judiciously.Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.
One Size Does NOT Fit All.
Period!
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 15
Core Reading ProgramsCore Reading Programs
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.
However, “one size” may
work effectivelyfor most.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 16
Selecting Additional Reading Selecting Additional Reading ProgramsPrograms
Differentiated Instruction Aligned With Student Needs Students are grouped based on assessment results. Specified supplemental and/or intervention
programs are implemented depending on student needs and profiles.
Groups are systematically and regularly reorganized based on progress monitoring data.
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 17
Supplemental Reading ProgramsSupplemental Reading Programs
Support and extend the critical elements of a core reading program.
Provide additional instruction in one or two areas (i.e., fill the gaps for phonological awareness, fluency).
Provide more instruction or practice in particular area(s) of need.
May include large group, small group, one-on-one instruction.
Provide more teacher scaffolding.
Provide more explicit and systematic instruction.
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 18
Strategic Strategic Level of Instructional SupportLevel of Instructional Support
Level of SupportINSTRUCTIONAL
PLACEMENT ASSESSMENT PLAN
Strategic Core Reading Program
Plus Supplement
Progress Monitoring: Monthly In-Program Assessments Screening & Outcome Assessment
Addressing the needs of some students. . .
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 19
Intervention Reading ProgramsIntervention Reading Programs
Designed for children who demonstrate reading difficulty and are performing below grade level (< 20th percentile).
Provide more explicit, systematic instruction to accelerate learning to a high criterion level of performance.
Focus on more than one area (e.g., phonics, fluency, and comprehension).
Teacher instruction to meet the needs of students who are struggling in their classrooms.
Typically delivered in small group settings.
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 20
IntensiveIntensiveLevel of Instructional SupportLevel of Instructional Support
Level of SupportINSTRUCTIONAL
PLACEMENT ASSESSMENT PLAN
Intensive Part Core Reading Program Plus Intervention
or Supplant Core with Intensive Program
Progress Monitoring: Every 2 weeks In-Program Assessments Screening & Outcome Assessment
Addressing the needs of each student. . .
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 21
Three Levels of Instructional Support:Three Levels of Instructional Support:Summary of CSI MapSummary of CSI Map
Guidelines One instructional support map per grade level. Each grade level map addresses benchmark, strategic and
intensive student levels of support. All teachers/specialists should work from the same map. Data will direct changes as necessary. Each map is a work in progress. Use alterable variables to assist in increasing/decreasing
intensity for varying levels of support. Alter the fewest number of variables that impact reading
progress.
Three Levels of Instructional Support:Summary of CSI Map
Time Period InstructionalRecommend
ation
Participation in Core Supplemental andIntervention Programs/
Strategies
Supplemental and InterventionProgram Delivery
Frequency ofDIBELSProgress
Monitoring
Determining InstructionalEffectiveness
benchmark: Who:
When:
Activities:
Group Size:
Who:
When:__ w/in 90 minutes__ outside of 90 min
Time:
Group Size:
Who:
How Often:
Criteria:
strategic: Who:
When:
Activities:
Group Size:
Who:
When:__ w/in 90 minutes__ outside of 90 min
Time:
Group Size:
Who:
How Often:
Criteria:
Fall toWinter
intensive: Who:
When:
Activities:
Group Size:
Who:
When:__ w/in 90 minutes__ outside of 90 min
Time:
Group Size:
Who:
How Often:
Criteria:
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 23
Three Levels of Instructional Support:Three Levels of Instructional Support:Summary of CSI MapSummary of CSI Map
Instr.Recommen-
dation
Participation inCore
Supplementaland Intervention
Programs/Strategies
Supplemental andIntervention
Program Delivery
Frequency ofDIBELS
ProgressMonitoring
DeterminingInstructionalEffectiveness
intensive: Who:All intensivestudents*
When:M-F, 9:00-9:30
Activities:Learning to Readand Word Worksections from HM(emphasis on redchecked items)
Group Size:Whole (30 minutes)
Early ReadingIntervention
*Enhancevocabularysections of HMusing IBR2strategies.
* Provideadditional practiceopportunities onletter-soundcorrespondencesand wordblending.
Who:Certified teacher (i.e.title I, special ed,classroom teacher,speech pathologist)
When:XX w/in 90 minutes(ERI)XX outside of 90 min(double dose)
Time:30 minutes daily forERI
Group Size:Small (< 4 students)
Every TwoWeeks
Who:Classroom teacherwith assistance fromreading coach,possibly earlyliteracy teams orgrade level teams asdiscussed in teammeetings
How Often:Monthly
Criteria:3 points at or abovegoal line on Dibels,continue program
3 points below goalline, changeinstruction
Kindergarten Example
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 24
Aligning Core, Supplemental , and Aligning Core, Supplemental , and Intervention ProgramsIntervention Programs
“We have not succeeded in answering all of our problems.
Indeed, we often feel we have not completely answered any of them
The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions.
In some ways, we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a much higher level, and about more important things.”
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 25
Lessons Learned: One District’s EvolutionBefore: A Little of This, A Little of That
Read Well Open Court Optimize Reading Mastery Horizons Read Naturally
Open Court Intervention
Explode the Code Primary Phonics Saxon Flair Write Well
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 26
Core Program: Open Court
Supplemental Programs: Open Court Booster Horizons Read Naturally
Intervention Programs:• Early Reading Intervention Reading Mastery
Lessons Learned: One District’s EvolutionAfter: A Streamlined Model
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 27
Objectives: What You Will Learn Objectives: What You Will Learn and Doand Do
The objectives of today’s session are to: 1. Describe three levels of instructional support.2. Identify guidelines for aligning core,
supplemental and intervention programs.3. Discuss factors to consider when building an
aligned and coordinated beginning reading model.
4. Provide methods to evaluate the effectiveness of your levels of instructional support.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 28
Guiding Questions for Aligning Core, Guiding Questions for Aligning Core, Supplemental, and Intervention ProgramsSupplemental, and Intervention Programs
1. What essential components (PA, PH, FL, COMP, VOC) do your programs address?
2. Is the scope and sequence for introducing each essential component similar across programs?
3. Do the programs utilize similar instructional strategies to teach high priority skills?
4. Is the amount of instructional content students receive appropriate across programs?
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 29
1. What essential components (PA, PH, FL, COMP, 1. What essential components (PA, PH, FL, COMP,
VOC) do your programs address?VOC) do your programs address?
For each supplemental and intervention program your grade level has adopted, determine:
What essential component(s) does the program teach? For what grade level(s) is the program most appropriate? Are the expected outcomes for the program specified?
Are they appropriate?
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 30
2. Is the scope and sequence for introducing each 2. Is the scope and sequence for introducing each essential component similar across programs?essential component similar across programs?
Analyze the architecture of the core, supplemental and intervention programs to determine alignment of scope and sequence.
Keep the struggling readers in mind when determining if scope and sequences align.
Be careful not to layer conflicting programs on top of one another.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 31
Progression of Regular Word Reading
Sounding Out (saying the
sound of each letter)
Whole Word Reading (vocalizing each sound
and blending it to a whole word)
Sight Word Reading (sounding the word out in
your head and then reading the whole word)
Automatic Word Reading (reading the word without sounding it out)
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 32
Remember Your Curriculum Maps....Remember Your Curriculum Maps....
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 33
Example of Scope and Sequence AnalysesExample of Scope and Sequence Analyses
Let’s take a look at some examples....
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 34
3. Do the programs utilize similar strategies to 3. Do the programs utilize similar strategies to teach important skills?teach important skills?
Do the programs use similar or conflicting strategies to teach children to:
identify main idea blend sounds to form words read irregular words segment or blend phonemes in words use context to infer the meaning of a word
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 35
Examples of Similar and Conflicting Examples of Similar and Conflicting Strategy InstructionStrategy Instruction
Let’s take a look at some examples....
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 36
Applying a Strategy Across ProgramsApplying a Strategy Across ProgramsTouchphonics strategy for teaching students tosound out and blend sounds to form a word:
Lessons divided into 9 parts:1. Build the word2. Touch and sound the units3. Blend the sounds into a word4. Cover and spell the word5. Cover and write the word6. Change the word/ Shake and Make7. Read the word in isolation8. Read the word in print9. Write the word in print
Could apply this strategy to the core phonics instruction.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 37
4. Is the amount of instructional content students 4. Is the amount of instructional content students receive appropriate across programs? receive appropriate across programs?
Document the amount of instructional content struggling readers cover when they are placed in multiple programs.
This is essential when the student is receiving services from multiple teachers/specialists (e.g., SPED, Title 1).
Broader coverage of content could be problematic, some students may need to go deeper.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 38
Example of Skills Trace AnalysesExample of Skills Trace Analyses
Let’s take a look at some examples....
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 39
Breakout ActivityBreakout Activity
Within your school teams, divide up so as to complete each of the following analyses:
1. Scope and Sequence Analysis2. Strategy Instruction Analysis3. Skills Trace Analysis
If your school team only consists of a few staff members, select one of the above analyses to complete.
Teams will have 30 minutes to work. Be prepared to share out to the large group.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 40
Scope and Sequence AnalysesScope and Sequence Analyses
1. Find the breakout activity form titled “Scope and Sequence Analyses.”
2. Work in school teams, within grade levels if possible.
3. From your Summary of CSI Maps, decide if you are cross-walking programs for a strategic support plan or intensive support plan.
4. Track the scope and sequence for one high priority skill within a big idea (e.g. phoneme segmentation within Phonological Awareness).
5. Document the scope and sequence for the first month of instruction for all of the programs listed in the support plan.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 41
Strategy Instruction AnalysesStrategy Instruction Analyses
1. Find the breakout activity form titled “Strategy Instruction Analyses.”
2. Work in school teams, within grade levels if possible.
3. From your Summary of CSI Maps, decide if you are cross-walking programs for you strategic support plan or intensive support plan.
4. Choose a strategy from any of the essential components to track across each program (e.g. document how each program teaches students to read irregular words).
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 42
Skills Trace AnalysesSkills Trace Analyses
1. Find the breakout activity form titled “Skills Trace Analyses.”
2. Work in school teams, within grade levels if possible.
3. From your Summary of CSI Maps, decide if you are cross-walking programs for you strategic support plan or intensive support plan.
4. Conduct a skills trace across 10 lessons for one high priority skill within a big idea (e.g., irregular word instruction within decoding).
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 43
Large Group SharingLarge Group Sharing
1. Identify your school.
2. Identify grade level for analyses.
3. Identify strategic or intensive support plan.
4. Identify the programs that were cross-walked.
5. Identify specific analyses completed (Scope and Sequence, Strategy, or Skills Trace).
6. Share findings based on analyses.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 44
Scope and Sequence Analyses:Scope and Sequence Analyses:Recommendations and ConsiderationsRecommendations and Considerations
If there is discrepancy in the scope and sequence of skills instruction across programs, consider the following:
Avoid layering the programs on top of each other, especially for struggling readers.
Add pre-teaching and re-teaching lessons from the extra support handbooks to the core instruction.
If the intervention or supplemental program is considerably stronger than the core, replace part of the core instructional content with the specific big ideas addressed by the supplemental/intervention program.*
Use data to evaluate decisions (e.g. Summary of Effectiveness Reports, Histogram Reports)
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 45
Strategy Instruction Analyses: Strategy Instruction Analyses: Recommendations and ConsiderationsRecommendations and Considerations
If the strategy instruction is not consistent across programs: Apply the most explicit strategy from one programs across
all programs.
Revisit a strategy that appears explicit, systematic and provide review of previously taught skills.
Select a set of highly similar examples (e.g., cvc words with continuous sounds in the initial position) and develop a systematic strategy to teach the set of examples (e.g., blending each sound in a word using an explicit finger pointing prompt).
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 46
Skills Trace Analyses:Skills Trace Analyses:Recommendations and ConsiderationsRecommendations and Considerations
If there is discrepancy in the scope and sequence of skills instruction across programs, consider the following:
Avoid layering the programs on top of each other, especially for struggling readers.
Add pre-teaching and re-teaching lessons from the extra support handbooks to the core instruction.
If the intervention or supplemental program is considerably stronger than the core, replace part of the core instructional content with the specific big ideas addressed by the supplemental/intervention program.*
Use data to evaluate decisions (e.g., Summary of Effectiveness Reports, Histogram Reports).
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 47
Objectives: What You Will Learn and DoObjectives: What You Will Learn and Do
The objectives of today’s session are to: 1. Describe three levels of instructional support.2. Identify guidelines for aligning core,
supplemental and intervention programs.3. Discuss factors to consider when building an
aligned and coordinated beginning reading model.
4. Provide methods to evaluate the effectiveness of your levels of instructional support.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 48
90-Minute Block90-Minute Block
CORE CORE + SUPPLEMENT CORE + INTERVENTION INTERVENTION INTERVENTION + SUPPLEMENT
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 49
Factors to Consider:Factors to Consider:
Matching Students to Programs Supplementing vs. Supplanting Program Pacing Allocating Additional Instructional Time Assessing Students’ Progress Coordinating Programs Across Grades
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 50
Matching Students to ProgramsMatching Students to Programs
Use DIBELS data to guide decision making.
Avoid the “Road to Nowhere”:
“We know where we’re going, but we don’t know where we’ve been . . .”
(Talking Heads, Road to Nowhere)
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 51
Matching Students to Matching Students to ProgramsPrograms: Example: Example
Problem: School A has just purchased Read Well K and is trying to set up their kindergarten program for 2004-2005. Which students will participate in Read Well K?
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 52
Matching Students to Programs: ExampleMatching Students to Programs: Example
School A: 2003-2004 Summary of Effectiveness Reports
Beginning of K Middle of Year N = 60 # Established 32 Intensive Students 5 22 Strategic Students 5 6 Benchmark Students 4
Middle of K End of Year n = 56 # Established 21 Intensive Students 9 24 Strategic Students 22 11 Benchmark Students 10
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 53
Matching Students to Programs: ExampleMatching Students to Programs: Example
Is it necessary for all kindergarten students to participate in Read Well K?
Which students are benefiting from the core program?
Which students failed to make adequate progress in the core program and require an intervention?
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 54
“The consequences of providing extra intervention are considered far less risky than a wait-and-see position that withholds opportunity for additional instruction until students are seriously discrepant from their peers.”
Oregon Reading First Grant Application, 2002
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 55
Supplementing vs. SupplantingSupplementing vs. Supplanting
Factors to Consider:
1. Overall Strength of Core Program
2. Which Essential Components Does the Intervention Program Teach? What are the Outcomes?
3. Grade Level of Students: Kindergarten vs. Grade 3
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 56
1. Overall Strength of the Core Program1. Overall Strength of the Core Program
Is the program a top tier or a middle tier program?
Within the top tier programs, consider level of intensity (e.g., spiral curriculum vs. mastery based)
Determine if fidelity of implementation is at a high and effective level.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 57
Overall Strength of Core Program: ExampleOverall Strength of Core Program: Example
School B:Core Program: Middle tierBenchmark Status on PSF at End of
Kindergarten 2003-2004:n = 51Deficit: 22%Emerging: 37%Established: 41%
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 58
Overall Strength of Core Program: ExampleOverall Strength of Core Program: Example
School C:Core Program: Top tier - high intensityBenchmark Status on PSF at End of
Kindergarten 2003-2004:n = 67Deficit: 6%Emerging: 15%Established: 79%
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 59
Overall Strength of Core Program: ExampleOverall Strength of Core Program: Example
School D:Core Program: Top tier - high intensityBenchmark Status on PSF at End of
Kindergarten 2003-2004:n = 102Deficit: 1%Emerging: 5%Established: 94%
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 60
Overall Strength of Core ProgramOverall Strength of Core Program
Some core programs have the necessary intensity to meet the full range of student needs which includes: (a) grouping by instructional level, (b) continual monitoring for mastery and regrouping, (c) acceleration for some students and remediation for others, and (d) implementing the program with high fidelity.
Other core programs lack the architecture. May require use of more supplemental and intervention programs to meet the needs of the full range of students.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 61
2. Which essential components does the intervention 2. Which essential components does the intervention program teach? What are the outcomes?program teach? What are the outcomes?
Example 1: ERIDesigned for at-risk kindergarten studentsEssential Components: PA, PhonicsOutcomes: • Initial Sound Isolation (25+ sounds per min)
• Phoneme Segmentation (35+ sounds per min)• Alphabetic Understanding (as measured by NWF - 50+ sounds per min)• Oral Reading Fluency - Students exiting the program typically do not read 40-60 cwpm on first grade passages. Text is very controlled in ERI. Students need additional instruction to reach that oral reading fluency benchmark.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 62
Example 1: ERIExample 1: ERI Is the intervention appropriate for kindergarten
students?
Yes, ERI outcomes match or exceed kindergarten benchmarks.
• Is the intervention appropriate for first grade students?
Only for those very low performers to establish PA and AU with the understanding that acceleration is important to allow students to transition into a first grade program that would build skills necessary for students to meet the ORF goal at the end of first grade.
• Is the intervention appropriate for second grade students? No
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 63
Which essential components does the intervention Which essential components does the intervention program teach? What are the outcomes?program teach? What are the outcomes?
Example 2: Read WellDesigned for students in first gradeEssential Components: PA, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, ComprehensionOutcomes: • Phonemic Awareness
• Letter-Sounds• Blending• Irregular Words• Multi-syllable Words• Decodable Passage Reading• Multiple Genres• Story Elements• Story Mapping
* Students who exit the program at Unit 38 are reading 80-100 cwpm.* ~ 2.5 basal level* narrative and expository text
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 64
Example 2: Read WellExample 2: Read Well
Is the intervention appropriate for kindergarten students? Read Well K now available for kindergarten students.
• Is the intervention appropriate for first grade students? Yes
• Is the intervention appropriate for second grade students? Yes- remedial*
• Is the intervention appropriate for third graders?Yes - remedial*
* Note that the program allows students to progress through each unit at a pace appropriate for them:Condensed Unit - 2 daysExpanded Unit - 6-8 daysRegular Unit - 3 days
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 65
Which essential components does the intervention Which essential components does the intervention program teach? What are the outcomes?program teach? What are the outcomes?
Consider intervention program content and outcomes when deciding whether to supplement or supplant the core.
If an intervention program only teaches 1 or 2 essential components, it may work best to use the program as a supplement to the core.*
If the intervention program is comprehensive and teaches all 5 essential components, then supplanting the core would make sense. Note that this would be the case only for those students who did not benefit from the core program.
* Note that in some cases it may be necessary to supplant the core with an intervention that only teaches 1 or 2 essential components if the alignment is completely off or resources are limited.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 66
3. Grade Level of Students3. Grade Level of Students
If the students are in grades K or 1 . . .
Then we have less to teach to catch the students up. It makes sense to address all 5 essential components in our overall instructional plan.
The core program in K and 1 will be more forgiving for these students. It may be that we can work to enhance and supplement the core for most students.
Program Grades Essential Components
Supplant Core?
Rationale
Phonemic Awareness in Young Children
K-1 PA No This program only teaches 1 of the essential components. Use to supplement PA instruction in core program following alignment guidelines.
ERI K PA, Phonics No This program only teaches 2 of the essential components. In the original research studies, this program was always used in addition to instruction in the core program.
Read Well K K PA, Phonics, Vocab, Comp
Yes This program teaches all of the essential components appropriate for K. Will want to supplant only for those student who did not benefit from the core.
Language for Learning
K-2 Vocab No This program only teaches 1 of the essential components. If resources are limited and must choose between Read Aloud from core vs. Lang. for Learning, will want to choose more intensive instruction for the students who are struggling.
KindergartenScenarios
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 68
Grade Level of StudentsGrade Level of Students
If the students are in grades 2 or 3 . . .
It is difficult to catch students up. May need to focus on decoding and fluency. Allocate the majority of instructional time to these areas.
Supplant with intervention program from week 1 of instruction.
Accelerate students’ progress by providing double dose of the intervention program in the afternoon.
Sample interventions include:
Corrective Reading: Decoding
Reading Mastery I, II, Fast Cycle, and III
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 69
Program Pacing / Program Pacing / Allocating Additional Instructional TimeAllocating Additional Instructional Time
Time allocated to program
Utilizing time within 90-minute block
Utilizing time outside of 90-minute block
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 70
Program Pacing: Program Pacing: Time Allocated to ProgramTime Allocated to Program
Completing at least one lesson a day is essential.
In many programs, the pieces of the lesson are designed to work together and should not be divided up over a period of two or more days.
For example, each ERI lesson has two parts: (1) PA/AU and (2) Spelling/Writing. The Spelling/Writing portion of the lesson was designed to compliment and build on the new skills introduced in the first part of the lesson.
For example, Corrective Reading: Decoding Level B1 and B2 have a series of activities designed to teach preskills necessary for daily passage reading - sounds practice, word reading. Also, passage reading has follow-up activities (comprehension and reading checkouts) that work best when presented on the same day of the passage reading.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 71
Program Pacing: Program Pacing: Time Allocated to ProgramTime Allocated to Program
Follow Program Guidelines for Pacing:
FOR EXAMPLE:
• ERI - 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week
• Corrective Reading: Decoding Level A- minimum of 35 teacher-directed minutes daily
• Corrective Reading: Decoding Levels B1/B2 - minimum of 45 teacher-directed minutes daily
• Read Naturally - 20 minutes, at least 3 days a week
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 72
Program Pacing: Time Allocated to ProgramProgram Pacing: Time Allocated to Program
Make projections for lesson completion
For example: School E has placed 15 intensive second grade students in Reading Mastery Classic Fast Cycle. The students all placed in the program at lesson 1 at the beginning of the year. (Groups started the third week in September.) If students complete one lesson a day, they will be approximately at lesson 63 upon returning from Winter Break. Fast Cycle has 170 lessons. Students enter in to beginning second grade material at lesson 81 so should be at least that far in the program mid-year. If the goal is for these second graders to finish Fast Cycle by the end of the school year, School E will need to adjust instructional time to allow for more lesson completion.
What can School E do to increase instructional time for these intensive second graders?
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 73
Program Pacing: Program Pacing: Utilizing time within 90-minute blockUtilizing time within 90-minute block
Golden Rule: Maximize academic learning time of students
Academic Learning Time = Time children are engaged in tasks in which they can be highly successful.
If students require intensive interventions, use the time during the 90-minute block to provide these interventions.
If students are spending part of their 90-minute block completing independent work, consider pulling students from these independent work activities for more intensive, teacher-directed instruction (e.g., Could ELL, Title, or SPED specialists work with students at this time? Instructional Assistants? Peer tutors? Parent volunteers?)
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 74
Program Pacing: Program Pacing: Utilizing time outside of 90-minute blockUtilizing time outside of 90-minute block
Additional time needs to be allocated for students who are not making adequate progress.
These additional instructional minutes are often provided outside of the 90-minute block.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 75
““Double-Dosing” InstructionDouble-Dosing” Instruction
Once placed in a strong instructional program, students most often need MORE NOT DIFFERENT.
Schedule your double dose keeping “MORE” in mind.
Some double-dose options include:
• Firming up the morning’s lesson
• Moving on to the next lesson
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 76
Lesson Firm UpLesson Firm Up
Does NOT mean instructor needs to repeat exact lesson from the morning.
Identify areas where students struggled (e.g., letter-sound knowledge, regular word reading, irregular words, reading in connected text, fluency, comprehension questions, vocabulary)
Be more specific (e.g., students were not firm on letter sounds for a, n, r, t; students had difficulty reading words with the final e rule; students did not know irregular words brother, where, people; students did not meet 60 cwpm goal for fluency checkouts; students had difficulty sequencing important events in the story; students could not successfully use the 5 new vocabulary words in their own speaking and writing.)
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 77
Lesson Firm UpLesson Firm Up
To firm up areas of student difficulty:
1. Use materials from the morning’s lesson in a new way; or
2. Use some quick teacher-created materials.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 78
Lesson Firm UpLesson Firm Up
For example:• Highlighters: circle, underline• Pocket Chart Cards• Pointy Fingers• Halloween Rings• Game Boards/Cards• Dictation
(from Marilyn Sprick’s “Tweaking Read Well”)
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 79
Lesson Firm UpLesson Firm UpOther ideas include:
Redoing a sounds/words page with the added incentive of earning points.
Fluency practice - Students take turns going around the table each reading one sentence from the morning’s passage. Emphasis is on accuracy. Once the group meets goal for accuracy (e.g., no more than 3 total errors for whole story), then students pair up for timed readings.
Reading Olympics -
Warm-up
Sprints
And the list goes on . . .
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 80
What about after-school tutoring What about after-school tutoring programs?programs?
Same rules apply here.
Think “MORE NOT DIFFERENT”
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 81
Program Pacing / Allocating Additional Program Pacing / Allocating Additional Instructional Time:Instructional Time:
Scenario: School F has recently purchased Corrective Reading A, B1, and B2 for intensive 3rd graders. The school has allocated a total of 30 minutes per day outside of the 90-minute block to implement this program. Does this provide students with the necessary academic learning time? What adjustments in the schedule are necessary?
THINK PAIR SHARETHINK PAIR SHARE
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 82
Assessing Students’ ProgressAssessing Students’ Progress
Always keep your eyes on the DIBELS!
DIBELS measures reliably identify and predict a student’s later reading proficiency in a time efficient and standardized manner
Once students are identified as being at risk, an intervention is put into action. Educators need to have timely feedback to ensure that the efforts are beneficial.
DIBELS as a progress monitoring assessment provides educators with information on students who are on track or require more intensive instruction.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 83
Assessing Students’ Progress: Assessing Students’ Progress: Where do in-program tests fit in?Where do in-program tests fit in?
In-Program Tests tell us:
• Once an intervention program is selected, in-program tests can identify: (a) what lesson the student should begin at, and (b) how the student should be grouped.
• Is the student at mastery at this point of time in this specific program?
• What skills does the student need additional practice on before moving forward?
• Does the student need to go back and repeat a series of lessons?
• Does the student need to be regrouped?
• When can the student exit from this program?
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 84
How Do DIBELS and How Do DIBELS and In-Program Tests Work Together?In-Program Tests Work Together?
DIBELS will identify a student’s instructional recommendation: benchmark, strategic, intensive.
Use DIBELS recommendations for identifying those students who will receive additional support (strategic, intensive).
Identify supplemental and intervention programs that will meet the needs of these students.
Once the program(s) have been identified, use in-program tests for placement, grouping, and to inform instruction within the program.
Use DIBELS as an overall indicator of strength of the intervention program. Is the student making reasonable progress toward the next critical literacy benchmark? What if the student is performing strongly in the program, but is not making necessary gains toward the next benchmark?
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 85
Instructional EnhancementsInstructional EnhancementsAlterable
Components Specific Enhancements
Options 1 2 3 4 5
ProgramEmphasis
Use coreprogram &explicitlyteach priorityskills.
Useextensions ofthe coreprogram(e.g., addexamples)
Supplementcore withreteaching orinterventioncomponentsof core.
Replacecurrent coreprogram withinterventionprogram.
Implementspeciallydesignedprogram
Time(Opportunities to
Learn)
Schedule &deliver 90minutes ofdaily readinginstruction(minimum 30minutessmall group).
Increaseopportunitiesto respondduring coreinstruction.
Schedulecore +supplementalperiod daily.(90 + 30 or60 + 30)
Scheduletwointerventionsessionsdaily (no lessthan 90minutestotal)
Grouping forInstruction
Check groupplacement &providecombinationof whole &small groupinstruction.
Schedulesmall groupopportunityfor specificpractice
Reducegroup size
Provideindividualinstruction
Increasing Intensity
Increasing Intensity
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 86
Coordinating Programs Across GradesCoordinating Programs Across Grades
Elements of a Coordinated Beginning Reading Model:
1. Program alignment within a grade for benchmark, strategic, and intensive students.
2. Coordination of services provided by regular education, specialists, IA’s, etc.
3. Coordination of programs across grade levels.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 87
Summary of Effectiveness of Core, Strategic, and Intensive Programs:Summary of Effectiveness of Core, Strategic, and Intensive Programs:Oregon Reading First Projectwide DataOregon Reading First Projectwide Data
Spring, 2004Spring, 2004
Effectiveness Of Core Curriculum
Effectiveness of Strategic Support
Program
Effectiveness of Intensive Support
Program
K 731/791 554/771 243/595
92% 72% 41%
Grade 1 647/692 263/716 28/778
94% 37% 4%
Grade 2 775/843 75/292 9/994
92% 26% 1%
Grade 3 622/725 114/517 17/879
86% 22% 2%
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 88
Coordinating Programs Across GradesCoordinating Programs Across Grades
K 1 2 3
Benchmark Houghton-Mifflin
Houghton-Mifflin + enhance vocab/comp with IBR strategies
Houghton-Mifflin + enhance vocab/comp with IBR strategies
Houghton-Mifflin + enhance vocab/comp with IBR strategies
Strategic High: HM + Classroom Management/
Extra Support Handbooks
Low: HM + ERI
High: HM (see above) + Classroom Management/ Extra Support Handbooks
Read Naturally
Low: Horizons
High: HM
(see above) + Classroom Management/ Extra Support Handbooks
Read Naturally
Low: Horizons
High: HM
(see above) + Classroom Management/ Extra Support Handbooks
Read Naturally
Low: Horizons
Intensive HM + ERI HM + ERI
Reading Mastery Classic
Reading Mastery Classic
Reading Mastery Classic
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 89
Coordinating Programs Across Grades: Coordinating Programs Across Grades: A NonexampleA Nonexample
K 1 2 3
Benchmark Houghton Mifflin Houghton Mifflin Houghton Mifflin Houghton Mifflin
Strategic
Headsprout
Read Naturally
Headsprout
Build Up Kit
Read Naturally
Build Up Kit
Read Naturally
Build Up Kit
Intensive ERI
Language for Learning - SPED
Headsprout
ERI
Reading Mastery Classic - SPED
Language for Learning - SPED
Headsprout
Build Up Kit
Reading Mastery Classic - SPED
Language for Learning - SPED
Build Up Kit
Reading Mastery Classic - SPED
Build Up Kit
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 90
Breakout Activity:Breakout Activity:Coordinating Programs Across GradesCoordinating Programs Across Grades
• In school level teams, complete the “Coordinating Programs Across Grades” flowchart using your Summary of CSI Maps as a guide.
Examine consistency of instruction across grade levels for (a) strategic students, and (b) intensive students.
Discuss implications and potential areas for change.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 91
Let’s CollaborateLet’s Collaborate
Over break, collect strips to represent each core, supplemental, and intervention program included on your school’s CSI Map.
Tape strips to a piece of butcher paper, starting with the core program on top, then supplemental programs, then intervention programs. Be sure to write your school’s name on the top of the paper.
Display your school’s completed chart so all can see. After break, look for those schools who have similar
combinations of core, supplemental, and intervention programs.
Get together with those schools to share implementation ideas.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 92
Objectives: What You Will Learn and DoObjectives: What You Will Learn and Do
The objectives of today’s session are to: 1. Describe three levels of instructional support.2. Identify guidelines for aligning core,
supplemental and intervention programs.3. Discuss factors to consider when building an
aligned and coordinated beginning reading model.
4. Provide methods to evaluate the effectiveness of your levels of instructional support.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 93
Progress of Groups of Students: Instructional Steps Progress of Groups of Students: Instructional Steps from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomesfrom Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes
The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b) effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system of additional instructional support.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 94
Evaluating Levels of Instructional Evaluating Levels of Instructional SupportSupport
Use the following DIBELS reports to examine students’ progress: Summary of Effectiveness Reports Histograms Class Lists
Examine reports to determine progress of groups of students and individual students
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 95
Kindergarten
Time Fall Winter Spring
Question A. How many benchmark, strategic, and intensive students are in my classroom?
B. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and intensive students?
A. How successful is my instruction in helping benchmark, strategic, and intensive students reach phonological awareness goals?
B. How effective are instructional programs at reducing the numbers of students at risk in phonological awareness?
C. Is instruction improving the phonological awareness skills of the majority of students?
D. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and intensive students?
Report A. Histogram
B. Class Lists
A. Summary of Effectiveness Reports
B. Histograms
C. Class Lists
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 96
First Grade
Time Fall Winter Spring
Question A. How many benchmark, strategic, and intensive students are in my classroom?
B. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and intensive students?
A. How successful is my instruction in helping benchmark, strategic, and intensive students reach decoding and oral reading fluency goals?
B. How effective are the instructional programs at reducing the numbers of students at risk on decoding and oral reading fluency scores?
C. Is instruction improving the decoding skills and oral reading fluency of the majority of students?
D. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and intensive students?
Report A. Histogram
B. Class Lists
A. Summary of Effectiveness Reports
B. Histograms
C. Class Lists
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 97
Second Grade
Time Fall Winter Spring
Question A. How many benchmark, strategic, and intensive students are in my classroom?
B. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and intensive students?
A. How successful is my instruction in helping benchmark, strategic, and intensive students reach oral reading fluency goals?
B. How effective are the instructional programs at reducing the numbers of students at risk in oral reading fluency?
C. Is instructional support improving the oral reading fluency of the majority of students?
D. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and intensive students?
Report A. Histogram
B. Class Lists
A. Summary of Effectiveness Reports
B. Histograms
C. Class Lists
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 98
Third Grade
Time Fall Winter Spring
Question A. How many benchmark, strategic, and intensive students are in my classroom?
B. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and intensive students?
A. How successful is my instruction in helping benchmark, strategic, and intensive students reach oral reading fluency goals?
B. How effective are instructional programs at reducing the numbers of students at risk in oral reading fluency?
C. Is instruction improving the oral reading fluency of the majority of students?
D. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and intensive students?
Report A. Histogram
B. Class Lists
A. Summary of Effectiveness Reports
B. Histograms
C. Class Lists
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 99
Summary of Effectiveness ReportsSummary of Effectiveness Reports
Questions answered by the report How effective is my instruction for benchmark, strategic, and
intensive students?
How to use the report Document percentage of students at the three levels of
instructional support that meets benchmark goals.
Cautionary note Remember to look at the actual number of students in each
category as you consider making changes at the student level or the systems level.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 100
Effectiveness of Intensive Support Program: Effectiveness of Intensive Support Program: Grade 1 Fall to WinterGrade 1 Fall to Winter
Although the percentage of students meeting the benchmark goal is the same in each school, differences in the number of students influence implications.
Implications for School A:
1) Core, supplemental, and intensive programs are not being successful with a large percentage of students and significant change is warranted.
2) Intervention program for intensive students is not resulting in a sufficient number of children reaching benchmark goal. Change is warranted.
• Implications for School B:
1) Reading programs are resulting in a high percentage of students reaching benchmark goal.
2) Focus on improving the number and percentage of intensive students who meet benchmark goal by addressing alterable variables chart.
Numbers of Intensive Students
Percent
School A
(Grade 1 Total Students = 103)
9/90Out of 90 intensive students in the fall, 9 made the winter goal of 50 on NWF.
10%
School B
(Grade 1 Total Students = 103)
1/10Out of 10 intensive students in the fall, 1 made the winter goal of 50 on NWF.
10%
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 101
Effectiveness of Core Curriculum: Grade 3 Effectiveness of Core Curriculum: Grade 3 Winter to SpringWinter to Spring
Although the percentage of students meeting the benchmark goal is the same in each school, differences in the number of students influence implications.
School C needs to consider systemic changes to increase the number of students who reach benchmark status in the winter of Grade 3 (9 of 78).
School D can celebrate the high number of students who reach benchmark status in the winter of Grade 3, and who remained on track to the spring of Grade 3 (58 of 78).
Numbers of BenchmarkStudents
Percent
School C
(Total Grade 3 students = 78)
9/9Out of ONLY 9 benchmark students in the winter, all 9 made it to the 120 ORF goal in the spring.
100%
School D
(Total Grade 3 students = 78)
58/ 58Out of 58 benchmark students in the winter all 58 made it to the 120 ORF goal in the spring.
100%
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 102
Summary of Effectiveness of Core, Strategic and Intensive Summary of Effectiveness of Core, Strategic and Intensive Programs: Oregon RF Schools (Winter to Spring)Programs: Oregon RF Schools (Winter to Spring)
Students Reaching Benchmark GoalStudents Reaching Benchmark Goal
Benchmark: Effectiveness of Core Curriculum
Strategic: Effectiveness of Supplemental
Program
Intensive: Effectiveness of
Intervention Program
K 731/791 554/771 243/595
92% 72% 41%
Grade 1 647/692 263/716 28/778
94% 37% 4%
Grade 2 775/843 75/292 9/994
92% 26% 1%
Grade 3 622/725 114/517 17/879
86% 22% 2%
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 103
Breakout Activity – Summary of Breakout Activity – Summary of Effectiveness ReportsEffectiveness Reports
Examine your grade level summary of effectiveness report from last spring.
In your grade level teams discuss what changes are being made this year in the instructional plan to increase the number of intensive students making the benchmark goal.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 104
Histogram ReportsHistogram Reports
Questions answered by the report At this point in time, how well are students performing
on a key reading measure? How to use the report
Note the percentage of students who have reached a key reading goal or the percentage of students at the three levels of risk. Histograms at different points in time provide evidence for how well reading programs are working to reduce risk.
Cautionary note Each report includes one individual measure. While all
measures are crucial stepping stones, focus on the measure that is used for the benchmark goal at that time period.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 105
32% (n= 789) Established41% (n= 991) Emerging27% (n= 653) Deficit
Oregon Reading FirstOregon Reading FirstMid Year Grade 1 NWFMid Year Grade 1 NWF
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 106
61% (n= 1397) Established29% (n= 658) Emerging1O% (n= 221) Deficit
Oregon Reading FirstOregon Reading FirstEnd of Year Grade 1 NWFEnd of Year Grade 1 NWF
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 107
Breakout Activity- Histogram ReportsBreakout Activity- Histogram Reports
Based on your fall histogram reports, what percentage of students are in each of the three levels of risk?
How is your grade level team going to use these data when planning instructional groups and the allocation of personnel to teach the groups?
Do additional personnel need to be trained in supplemental and intervention programs to serve the numbers of at risk students?
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 108
Progress Monitoring ReportsProgress Monitoring Reports Questions answered by the report
Are individual students making adequate progress on critical early literacy skills?
How to use the report
Monitor the effectiveness of current interventions and the need for change in the instructional plan.
Three points below the aim line indicates that an instructional change is needed.
Cautionary note
Setting appropriate goals for individual students can be complex. Need to set attainable goals that also encourage an accelerated learning rate so the student can catch up.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 109
Progress Monitoring: The Teacher’s MapProgress Monitoring: The Teacher’s Map
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
MarchScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
Aimline
A change in intervention