oregon reading first: statewide mentor coach meeting february 18, 2005 © 2005 by the oregon reading...

Oregon Reading First:Statewide Mentor Coach Meeting

February 18, 2005

© 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

Oregon Reading FirstStatewide Mentor Coach Training

February 18, 2005

TIME TOPIC PRESENTER9:00-9:15 Overview of the Data-Based Leadership Model: Questions and Data

SourcesWhat are our goals? How are we doing? How do we get there?

Hank Fien

9:15-9:30 Coach’s Role in Data-Based Leadership Model Hank Fien9:30-9:45 How are we doing?

By grade and within each class, which students made adequate readingprogress from the beginning of the year to the middle of year (fall towinter)?Explanation of New Summary of Effectiveness Reports

Debbie Connolly

9:45-10:15 How are we doing?

School-Based Normative Context for Evaluating Effectiveness ofInstruction - Projectwide, National

Rachell Katz

10:15-10:30 BREAK10:30-12:00 How are we doing? / How do we get there?

By grade and within each class, how are students performing in themiddle of the year on the essential components of RF?Are the reading programs being used effective?Examples of Using Data to Drive Instruction

Debbie ConnollyKaren AcquinasToni FisherPat Nashothers

12:00-1:00 A Working Lunch:How do we get there?Are the reading programs and materials being used as intended? Areefforts to improve fidelity working?Issues Around the Coaching Cycle

Jennifer Walt (Moderator)

1:00-1:30 How do we get there?By grade and within each classroom, are the reading programs andmaterials being used to teach the full range of students effective?A Plan to Build Capacity for Program Specific Training

Trish TraversJim WaltToni FisherCarol DissenBarbara LowMaria Randle

1:30-2:30 How do we get there?How should students be grouped?Do we need to reschedule adequate instructional time for the differentreading groups?Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instruction?Using LPRs as a Data Source

Carrie Thomas Beck

2:30-3:00 Question and Answer / Large Group Sharing Regional CoordinatorsCoaches

Overview of the Data-Based Leadership Model

Teacher/ClassBeginning (Fall)

Question #1: What are our goals? Question #2: How are we doing? Question #3: How do we get there?

Data Source(s): Data Source(s): Data Source(s):

Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)



Student Performance and Implementation Questions and Data Sources

Grade Level Teams/GradeBeginning (Fall)



Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)




Reading First School CoachBeginning (Fall)



Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)




Principal/SchoolBeginning (Fall)



Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)




Coach’s Role in the Data-Based Leadership Model

Reading First School Coach

Beginning (Fall)

Question #1: What are our goals?

Question #2: How are we doing? Question #3: How do we get there?

a. What are the most important goals and objectives for students at each grade (K-3) to accomplish this year in reading to be on track for successful reading outcomes?

a. By grade and within each classroom, how are students performing at the beginning of the year on the essential components of RF? 1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or at Benchmark) for successful reading outcomes and are likely to benefit from the core reading program? 2. Which students will require additional instructional support and are likely to benefit from a supplemental reading program? 3. Which students will require substantial instructional support and are likely to benefit from an intervention program?

Stage 1: Infrastructure a. By grade and within each classroom, what reading programs and materials should be used to teach the full range of students across K-3? b. How can we schedule adequate instructional time for the different reading groups? d. Who will deliver reading instruction to the full range of students each day? When? For how long? c. How will instructional fidelity be monitored, and if necessary, improved? Stage 2: Quality of Implementation a. By grade and within each classroom, how should students be grouped for reading instruction?


1. Simmons & Kame'enui K-3 Curriculum Maps 2. RF State Plan: Grade level goals and objectives

1. Screening measures specific to RF essential components 2. The following DIBELS reports: a. Class Progress Reports b. Class List Report c. Individual Student Performance Profiles d. School Progress Reports 3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, and intervention programs aligned with essential components of RF appropriate to grade level. 4. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive Maps) – Beginning to Middle 5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model (Simmons et al., 2004) 6. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist (2004)

1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core, supplemental, intervention) that have been reviewed and approved. 2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) – Beginning to Middle 3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, and intervention programs aligned with essential components of RF 4. The following DIBELS reports: a. Class Progress Reports b. Class List Report c. Individual Student Performance Profiles d. School progress reports by grade 5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model (Simmons et al., 2004) 6. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist (2004)

Middle (Winter)



a. What are the most goals and objectives for students in our grade to accomplish from the middle of the year to the end of the year in reading to be on track for successful reading outcomes? Data Source(s): 1. Simmons & Kame'enui K-3 Curriculum Maps 2. RF State Plan: Grade level goals and objectives

a. By grade and within each classroom, how are students in our grade performing in the middle of the year on the essential components of RF? 1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or at Benchmark) for successful reading outcomes and are likely to benefit from the core reading program? 2. Which students will require additional instructional support and are likely to benefit from a supplemental reading program? 3. Which students will require substantial instructional support and are likely to benefit from an intervention program? 4. By grade and within each class, which students in our grade made adequate reading progress from the beginning of the year to the middle of the year (fall to winter) a. Started at Benchmark in the fall and were at Benchmark in the Winter b. Started at Strategic in the fall and were at Benchmark in the winter c. Started at Intensive in the fall and were at Strategic or Benchmark in the winter Data Source(s): 1. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essential components 2. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measures specific to core, supplemental, or intervention materials 3. The following DIBELS reports: a. Class Progress Summary Reports b. Class List Report c. Individual Student Performance Profiles d. School/Grade Progress Reports e. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade and class 4. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive Maps) – Winter to Spring 5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model (Simmons et al., 2004) 6. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist (2004)

Stage 1: Infrastructure a. Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instruction to the full range of students each day? b. Do we need to re-schedule adequate instructional time for the different reading groups? Stage 2: Quality of Implementation a. By grade, and within each classroom, are the reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students in our grade effective? b. Are the reading programs and materials being used as intended (i.e., instructional fidelity)? Are efforts to improve fidelity working? c. By grade and within each classroom, how should students be grouped for reading instruction? Data Source(s): 1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core, supplemental, intervention) that have been reviewed and approved. 2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) – Beginning to Middle 3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, and intervention programs aligned with essential components of RF 4. The following DIBELS reports: a. Class progress reports b. Class List Reports c. Individual Student Performance Reports d. School progress reports e. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade 5. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essential elements 6. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measures specific to RF essential element 7. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model (Simmons et al., 2004) 8. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist (2004)

End (Spring)



Data Source(s): 1. Simmons & Kame'enui K-3 Curriculum Maps 2. RF State Plan: Grade level goals and objectives

a. By grade and in each classroom, how are students performing at the end of the year on the essential components of RF? 1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or at Benchmark) for successful reading outcomes and are likely to benefit from the core reading program? 2. Which students will require additional instructional support and are likely to benefit from a supplemental reading program? 3. Which students will require substantial instructional support and are likely to benefit from an intervention program? 4. Which students in our grade made adequate reading progress from the middle of the year to the end of the year (winter to spring): a. Started at Benchmark in the fall or winter and were at Benchmark in the spring b. Started at Strategic in the winter and were at Benchmark in the spring c. Started at Intensive in the fall and were at Benchmark in the spring d. Started at intensive in the winter and were at Strategic or Benchmark in the spring Data Source(s): 1. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essential components 2. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measures specific to core, supplemental, or intervention materials 2. The following DIBELS reports: a. Class Progress Summary Reports b. Class List Report c. Individual Student Performance Profiles d. School/Grade Progress Reports 3. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade

Stage 1: Infrastructure a. Do we need to re-schedule adequate instructional time for the different reading groups? b. Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instruction to the full range of students each day? Stage 2: Quality of Implementation a. Are the reading programs and materials we use to teach the full range of students in our grade effective? b. Are the reading programs and materials being used as intended (i.e., instructional fidelity)? Are efforts to improve fidelity working? c. Should we re-group students for reading instruction across classrooms? Data Source(s): 1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core, supplemental, intervention) that have been reviewed and approved. 2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) – Middle to Spring 3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, and intervention programs aligned with essential components of RF 4. The following DIBELS reports: a. Class progress reports b. Class List Report c. Individual Student Performance Profiles d. School progress reports e. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade 5. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essential elements 6. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measures specific to RF essential element 7. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model (Simmons et al., 2004) 8. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist (2004)

Linking to the Outcomes Driven Model

Validate Needfor Support

ReviewOutcomes

EvaluateSupport

ImplementInstructional

Support

PlanInstructional

Support

Provide Instructional SupportBased on IntegratedAssessment - InterventionFeedback Loop

Identify Needfor Support

3 times per year progress monitoring

- Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk

How Are We Doing?

By grade and within each class, which students made adequate reading progress from the beginning of the year to the middle of the year?

Explanation of New Summary of Effectiveness Reports

How Are We Doing?

School-Based Normative Context for Evaluating Effectiveness of Instruction

Projectwide, National

R. Good (2004) 18

Model of Big Ideas, Indicators, and Timeline

Adapted from Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.

R. Good III (2004) 19

Summary of Effectiveness By School, District or Project

• Provides a quick summary of the effectiveness of core, supplemental, and intervention programs for students who require benchmark, strategic, and intensive support.

• It examines a step in time:– Beginning to Middle of Year– Middle to End of Year– Beginning to End of Year

• It divides students by Instructional Recommendations– Benchmark– Strategic– Intensive

N = 840 (35.5 %) Kindergarten Students Intensive at Beginning of Yr.

N = 214 (9%) Kindergarten Students Deficit at Middle of Year

N = 401 (16.9 %) Kindergarten Students Emerging at Middle of Year

N = 225 (9.5%) Kindergarten Students Established at Middle of Year

N = 968 (40.9 %) Kindergarten Students Strategic at Beginning of Yr.

N = 99 (4.2%) Kindergarten Students Deficit at Middle of Year


N = 418 (17.7 %) Kindergarten Students Established at Middle of Year

N = 558 (23.6 %) Kindergarten Students Benchmark at Beginning of Yr.

N = 9 (0.4%) Kindergarten Students Deficit at Middle of Year


N = 399 (16 .9%) Kindergarten Students Established at Middle of Year

Oregon Reading First Schools

N= 2366 Kindergarten Students

Deficit: 13.6% Emerging: 42.3 %

Established: 44 1%

School Effectiveness Reports- Kindergarten

N = 685 (29.7%) 1st Gr. Students Intensive at Beginning of Yr.

N = 366 (15.9%) 1st Gr. Students Deficit at Middle of Year

N = 235 (10.3%) 1st Gr. Students Emerging at Middle of Year

N = 84 (3.6%) 1st Gr. Students Established at Middle of Year

N = 632 (27.4%) 1st Gr. Students Strategic at Beginning of Yr.


N = 297 (12.9%) 1st Gr. Students Emerging at Middle of Year


N = 987 (42.8%) 1st Gr. Students Benchmark at Beginning of Yr.


N = 264 (11. 5%) 1st Gr. Students Emerging at Middle of Year


Oregon Reading First Schools

N= 2304 First Grade Students

Deficit: 21.3% Emerging: 34.5%

Established: 44.1 %

School Effectiveness Reports- First Grade

22

N = 923 (40.8%) 2nd Gr. Students Intensive at Beginning of Yr.

N = 809 (35.7%) 2nd Gr. Students Middle of Year At Risk

N = 87 (3.8%) 2nd Gr. Students Middle of Year Some Risk

N = 27 (1.2%) 2nd Gr. Students Middle of Year Low Risk

N = 560 (24.7%) 2nd Gr. Students Strategic at Beginning of Yr.




N = 781 (34.5%) 2nd Gr. Students Benchmark at Beginning of Yr.




Oregon Readin g

First Schools

N= 2264 Second Grade Students At Risk: 40.2% Some Risk: 13.7% Low Risk: 4 6.1%

School Effectiveness Reports- Second Grade

23

N = 956 (43%) 3rd Gr. Students Intensive at Beginning of Yr.

N = 791 (35.6%) 3rd Gr. Students Middle of Year At Risk

N = 152 (6.8%) 3rd Gr. Students Middle of Year Some Risk

N = 13 (0.6%) 3rd Gr. Students Middle of Year Low Risk

N = 528 (23.8%) 3rd Gr. Students Strategic at Beginning of Yr.




N = 739 (33.2%) 3rd Gr. Students Benchmark at Beginning of Yr.




Oregon Readin g

First Schools

N= 2223 Third Grade Students At Risk: 38.6% Some Risk: 23.3% Low Risk: 38%

School Effectiveness Reports- Third Grade

DIBELS National Norms

• Summary tables including percentages.

• See handouts.

Guiding Questions

• How are we doing compared to the Oregon Reading First schools?

• How are we doing compared to national standards of DIBELS users?

• Where do we want to focus our efforts for improvement? (i.e. purchase of intervention program, refining implementation.)

How Are We Doing?How Do We Get There?

By grade and within each class, how are students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of RF?

Are the reading programs being used effective?

Examples of Using Data to Drive Instruction

How Do We Get There?

Are the reading programs and materials being used as intended? Are efforts to improve fidelity working?

Issues Around the Coaching Cycle


By grade and within each classroom, are the reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students effective?

A Plan to Build Capacity for Program Specific Training


How should students be grouped?

Do we need to reschedule adequate instructional time for the different reading groups?

Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instruction?

Using LPRs as a Data Source

Why Use LPRs?

Regional Coordinators, Principals, Coaches:• To analyze the overall status of the implementation.• To continuously monitor mastery and lesson progress.• To determine areas that require change, and to identify

solutions.

Teachers, Specialists, Assistants:• To summarize and report lesson gains, in-program tests,

and results.• To communicate questions or comments to the coach.

(NIFDI LPC Procedures, 2000)

Questions to Consider:

1. Is instruction differentiated?

2. Is lesson progress adequate?

3. Are students at a high level of mastery as measured by in-program tests?

4. What information or concerns has the teacher communicated?

1. Is Instruction Differentiated?

• Are the group sizes appropriate?• Are programs matched to student performance

level?• Are all of the groups on the same lesson? (Is

teacher treating all groups the same?) • Are high, medium, and low groups completing

lessons at optimum rates? • Does the data indicate the need for acceleration

for some students?(NIFDI Coaching Manual: Level I, 1999)

2. Is Lesson Progress Adequate?

• Does the data reveal potential problems with use of time? (Slow progress may indicate that teacher is (a) not following the schedule, (b) not teaching the program as specified, or (c) struggling with presentation skills or behavior management issues.)

• Are some lessons being repeated too many times?• Will projections be met if current rate of lesson progress

is continued?• If projections will not be met, do justifiable reasons exist

for not meeting them? Do the projections need to be changed?

(NIFDI Coaching Manual: Level I, 1999)

3. Are students at a high level of mastery as measured by in-program tests?

• Did teacher indicate the number of students who passed the in-program test(s)?

• Did teacher miss an opportunity to give an in-program test?• Did teacher remediate and retest students who failed the test on the

first try?• Consider group performance: How many students overall passed

the in-program test?• Consider individual student performance: Who are the students who

failed one test, two consecutive tests? Which tests? Are the same students failing from time to time? Does data indicate a possible need for change in placement?

• Is lesson gain being achieved at the expense of mastery?


4. What additional information or concerns has the teacher communicated?

• Did the teacher list types of items missed on in-program tests?

• Did the teacher include information on remediation and retesting?

• Did the teacher indicate a concern about an individual student?


Lesson Progress Organizer

Lesson Progress Report

Question and Answer/Large Group Sharing

oregon reading first: statewide mentor coach meeting february 18, 2005 © 2005 by the oregon reading...

Documents