Reading Goals and Reading Growth A Proposal for Cohort A Oregon Reading First Center Oregon Reading First Cohort A Leadership Session March 3, 2006 (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

Purpose of the Presentation Consider two ways to think about student reading goals with our DIBELS data Benchmark Goals: e.g., 90 words per minute at end of grade 2 on ORF Individualized Performance Goals: e.g., 75 words per minute at end of grade 2 on ORF Present the rationale for these complimentary goal systems Outline how we might set student goals in the fall using this type of approach

How We Currently Think About Reading Goals and Adequate Reading Progress or Growth

Reaching Benchmark Goals in 1 Year Probability may be very low for some students, especially in the higher grades (e.g., 2 & 3) Important differences in REAL student growth may occur YET NOT result in a reduction of risk status (e.g., Intensive to Strategic or Strategic to Benchmark) More sensitive ways to set goals for some students may lead to greater achievement and a more accurate way to acknowledge school success

What do we know from research about setting student achievement goals Setting goals leads to better student achievement Ambitious goals are better than meager goals When student progress is monitored toward measurable goals, achievement is enhanced When data decision rules are used in conjunction with progress monitoring data, achievement is optimal!

Our Current System of Defining Adequate Progress Can Be Improved A real example of data from our Cohort A Reading First schools can help frame the issue

Mean Rates of Progress for All 2nd Grade Students based on Fall Level of Performance Oral Reading Fluency Goals

Mean Rates of Progress of Those 2nd Grade Students MOST At-Risk in the Fall Means for all student groups are in At High Risk category at the beginning of the year AND at the end of the year

Strong Rates of Growth in High Performing Schools Schools in the Upper Quartile in DIBELS Data System (literally thousands of schools are represented) These schools were successful with 2nd grade intensive students Data from these types of schools can help us set realistic and challenging Individualized Performance Goals

Growth of Students Most At-Risk in High Performing Schools Mean Growth of Top Third Mean Growth of Middle Third Mean Growth of Lowest Third

Goal Setting Proposal for Cohort A 2006-2007 Use fall screening data to set one of two types of goals for all students, K-3 For Benchmark Students: Goal will be Benchmark Goal or higher in the spring For Strategic and Intensive Students: Goal will be EITHER Benchmark Goal or Individualized Performance Goal in the spring Decision will be based on probability of attaining Benchmark Goal Probabilities will be determined using High Performing Schools in DIBELS Data System and Oregon Reading First Schools Individualized Performance Goals will be based on High Performing Schools in DIBELS Data System and Oregon Reading First Schools

Hypothetical example of setting Benchmark and Individualized Performance Goals with 5 Grade 2 Students S1 S2 S5 S4 S3 x Benchmark Goal = 90 wpm or above x x x Individualized Performance Goals: 88, 86, 60 x Scott, look at this with animation.

Hypothetical performance of 3 Intensive Students with similar fall ORF scores x Scott, look at this with animation.

Analyzing Patterns of Growth May Help Us Distinguish Between Student-Level and Systems-Level Issues Alex Ben Lori School A Xavier Jordan Cassi School B x Growth Goal Line Scott, look at this with animation.

DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade DIBELS Winter Goals DIBELS Spring Goals Kindergarten PSF >= 18 NWF >= 25 Grade 1 NWF >= 50 ORF >= 40 Grade 2 ORF >= 90 Grade 3 ORF >= 110

Concept of Individualized Performance Goals for Some Students Grade Intermediate goals Year-end goals Kindergarten PSF = X (individualized) NWF = X (individualized) Grade 1 ORF = X (individualized) Grade 2 Grade 3

Next Steps By the summer, what the ORFC will do Determine Realistic and Challenging Individualized Performance Goals for students who are NOT likely to meet Spring DIBELS Benchmark Goals Based on High Performing Schools nationwide and Oregon Reading First Schools Determine child, school, and other factors that may influence attainment of Individualized Performance Goals e.g., Percent of Intensive Students in the school; English Language Learner status

What the ORFC will do By the beginning of school in the fall, establish specific criteria for schools to be considered high performing, average performing, or low performing in relation to DIBELS primary reading measure (i.e., NWF and ORF) Criteria by risk status -- i.e., Intensive, Strategic, and Benchmark Students By the beginning of school in the fall, establish school based goals for performance on the SAT-10 and OSAT Based on prior performance and national Reading First goals Establish performance criteria for high performing, average performing, or low performing

As soon as your fall data are collected, what the ORFC will do Provide Individualized Performance Goals for student who are not likely to meet DIBELS Benchmark Goals Link fall data to criteria for schools to be high performing, average performing, or low performing