Using Data to Plan Instructional Support ODE K-3 Literacy Outreach Using Data to Plan Instructional Support For Each Student Instruction Goals Assessment For All Students Content Arranged by Trish Travers, Ed.S and Jeanie Mercier Smith, PhD

Oregon K-12 Literacy Framework and K-3 Statewide Outreach This framework is designed to provide teachers, administrators, parents, and other stakeholders with a blueprint of what districts and schools in Oregon can and must do to help students learn how to read and move toward reading to learn. As Outreach sessions are intended to support districts and schools in their implementation of the Oregon Literacy Framework, each of the Modules has been designed to target one or more of the Framework components. This framework is organized around the following components: Goals (Module 1) Assessment (Modules 1, 2, and 3) Instruction (Modules 1, 4, 5, and 6) Leadership (Module 7) Professional Development (All Modules) Commitment Today’s Session For additional information about the Oregon K-12 literacy framework, including details about the implementation of each component, please visit the Oregon Department of Education website at http://state.or.us

Copyright All materials are copy written and should not be reproduced or used without the expressed permission of Trish Travers, coordinator of the Oregon Reading First Center. Selected slides may have been reproduced from other sources and original references cited.

Overview A Comprehensive Assessment System that Addresses the Multiple Purposes of Assessment Using Data to Plan Interventions: Determining Student Needs and Making Instructional Recommendations Creating an Efficient and Effective Progress Monitoring System Creating a Communication Plan for Instructional Decision-Making

Assessment is the collection of data to make decisions. (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1997)

Video Clip: Using Data in Schoolwide Reading Model While you watch the video clip, make a list of ways that this school uses data to make decisions: Show William Walker Video (From CD)

A Comprehensive Assessment System that Addresses the Multiple Purposes of Assessment

Three Important Questions In a Comprehensive Reading Framework Have students met important reading goals? Are students on track to meet important reading goals? What types of instructional supports are necessary to ready or maintain grade level proficiency?

Taking Stock: What Reading Assessments are currently used in your district or school?

Reading Assessment for Different Purposes An effective, comprehensive reading program includes reading assessments for four purposes: Screening Diagnostic Standardized Curriculum Embedded Progress Monitoring Outcomes or Program Evaluation Diagnostic assessment: facilitates instructional planning by providing in-depth information about students’ skills and instructional needs. Progress monitoring assessment: provides continuous, ongoing, formative information that is used to evaluate and modify the instructional plan.  Useful assessment is also focused on the essential early literacy skills of phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, automaticity and fluency with connected text, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Matching Educational Questions to Purposes of Assessment Purpose of Assessment Educational Questions Screening What level of risk does a student face for meeting important reading goals? What level of instructional support does each student need to meet important reading goals? Progress Monitoring Are student learning enough to reach important reading goals? Diagnostic What are the student’s instructional needs? Outcome Is each student meeting important reading goals? The DIBELS assessments are intended to provide school-based data to inform instructional planning and to review school level outcomes. DIBELS are especially useful for screening/early identification, and for progress monitoring student response to intervention. Currently, the DIBELS website, which we will be discussing later, has over 32,000 students in it from over 300 school districts around the nation. The DIBELS system can be used for the following purposes: Screening: Because the measures are designed to be brief and instructionally focused, all students can be efficiently screened to determine if they are at risk for reading difficulties. The measures assess only literacy skills that research has found to be predictive of later reading proficiency, namely letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity and fluency with the code. Progress Monitoring: For each measure, progress monitoring materials are available to evaluate how individual children are responding to instruction. The measures are designed to be sensitive to small changes in skill performance across time so that instructional changes can be made on a timely basis to maximize student outcomes. Outcomes: DIBELS measures have been found to be highly related to state-level high stakes/outcome assessment (e.g., OR, PA, IA). DIBLES can be useful for the early identification of students who are at risk for not passing these important tests. Diagnostic: While not directly researched, teachers with long-term experience using the measures have reported the measures do provide specific and direct diagnostic assessment on certain early reading skills.

What assessments does your school use? Taking Stock Purpose Educational Question What assessments does your school use? Screening What level of risk does a student face for meeting important reading goals? What level of instructional support does each student need to meet important reading goals? Progress Monitoring Are student learning enough to reach important reading goals? Diagnostic What are the student’s instructional needs? Outcome Is each student meeting important reading goals? The DIBELS assessments are intended to provide school-based data to inform instructional planning and to review school level outcomes. DIBELS are especially useful for screening/early identification, and for progress monitoring student response to intervention. Currently, the DIBELS website, which we will be discussing later, has over 32,000 students in it from over 300 school districts around the nation. The DIBELS system can be used for the following purposes: Screening: Because the measures are designed to be brief and instructionally focused, all students can be efficiently screened to determine if they are at risk for reading difficulties. The measures assess only literacy skills that research has found to be predictive of later reading proficiency, namely letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity and fluency with the code. Progress Monitoring: For each measure, progress monitoring materials are available to evaluate how individual children are responding to instruction. The measures are designed to be sensitive to small changes in skill performance across time so that instructional changes can be made on a timely basis to maximize student outcomes. Outcomes: DIBELS measures have been found to be highly related to state-level high stakes/outcome assessment (e.g., OR, PA, IA). DIBLES can be useful for the early identification of students who are at risk for not passing these important tests. Diagnostic: While not directly researched, teachers with long-term experience using the measures have reported the measures do provide specific and direct diagnostic assessment on certain early reading skills.

Relation of DIBELS to Purposes of Assessment Utility of DIBELS Purpose of Assessment Utility Screening Yes Progress Monitoring Diagnostic Preliminary error analyses are possible Outcome Selected measures The DIBELS assessments are intended to provide school-based data to inform instructional planning and to review school level outcomes. DIBELS are especially useful for screening/early identification, and for progress monitoring student response to intervention. Currently, the DIBELS website, which we will be discussing later, has over 32,000 students in it from over 300 school districts around the nation. The DIBELS system can be used for the following purposes: Screening: Because the measures are designed to be brief and instructionally focused, all students can be efficiently screened to determine if they are at risk for reading difficulties. The measures assess only literacy skills that research has found to be predictive of later reading proficiency, namely letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, alphabetic understanding, and automaticity and fluency with the code. Progress Monitoring: For each measure, progress monitoring materials are available to evaluate how individual children are responding to instruction. The measures are designed to be sensitive to small changes in skill performance across time so that instructional changes can be made on a timely basis to maximize student outcomes. Outcomes: DIBELS measures have been found to be highly related to state-level high stakes/outcome assessment (e.g., OR, PA, IA). DIBLES can be useful for the early identification of students who are at risk for not passing these important tests. Diagnostic: While not directly researched, teachers with long-term experience using the measures have reported the measures do provide specific and direct diagnostic assessment on certain early reading skills. What about Classroom-based Assessments?

Using Data to Plan Interventions: Determining Student Needs and Making Instructional Recommendations 14

Planning Interventions: Objectives To assist schools in using student assessment information to: help plan instruction for all students throughout the year. identify students who are in need of additional reading instruction beyond the established reading block. determine instructional recommendations for students with different Instructional Profiles. Effective use of assessment data is a cornerstone of Reading First. This section of Meeting the Needs of All Learners (MNAL) is designed to help schools collect and use assessment information to plan instruction throughout the school year. Included in this discussion will be: The types of assessment data schools need to collect on all as well as just some of its students, and How schools identify which students may be in need of additional instruction beyond the typical “reading block” designed for all students, In addition, this section will focus on using progress monitoring data to evaluate and plan instruction for small groups and individual students throughout the year. 15

Instructional Profile Framework Data are used to determine each student’s Instructional Profile. Framework provides guidance on the type of instruction that may best match each student’s literacy needs. The goal of Reading First is to bring all students to proficiency by third grade. To do that we need to match instruction to their identified needs. By instructional profile we mean a snapshot of the student’s skills as well as instructional needs. A flexible grouping framework can help provide guidance on the type of instructional that may best match a student’s literacy needs based upon assessment data that has gathered on the student. This framework will be displayed on the next slide. Groups need to flexible or willing to change based on student data. We make decisions not on just one piece information but a convergence of data. Data collected on all students can help create an “instructional profile” for each student. 16 16

Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Overview of K-3 Grouping Framework Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Advanced Grade Level Some Risk High Risk In-Program Assessments Phonics Screener Pass No Pass Profile #6 High Risk on Screening Assessments Intensive Interventions along with Core Replacement Intervention Core Program Guided by Placement Test Results Pass Pass No Pass Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #2 Grade Level or above on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #3 Grade Level or above on Screening Assessments & Fails Some In-Program Unit Tests Profile #4 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Passes Phonics Screener Skills Profile #5 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Fails Some Phonics Screener Skills Presenter: Ask participants to get out Handout 4 Student Profile Framework. An example script for this slide follows: What you see in front of you (and in Handout 4) is a framework for determining a child’s instructional profile. We will come back to this graphic a number of times as we work our way through the framework. Look at the top of the chart. Notice that the current school year screening data and previous year outcome data will initially help identify four broad categories in which all students will fall. (Advanced, Grade Level, Some Risk, and High Risk). As we administer additional assessments to selected students, we will be able to identify differences within these broad categories which allow teachers to more closely match instruction to instructional needs of all students. First, however, let’s define each one of the four broad categories depicted at the top of the chart. Presenter: Ask participants to get out Handout 1, page 2. Go over highlights of the definitions of each of the four broad performance categories. Cover up bottom section of chart (below four broad categories - custom animation is set to do this). Remind participants that other portions of the slide will soon be discussed. ELL Profile Usually needs extra language support & can be in any profile 17

Another way of looking at it… Grade Level Some Risk Percentiles (Presenter: Point out all four broad categories of student level of performance). If the four groups previously discussed - advanced, grade level, some risk, and high risk - are applied to a typical bell curve it would look like this. In addition, between those four categories are “borderline” students. Those are the students who may score at grade level on a screening measure but may not always pass in-program assessments. Or, they may be students who score just above high risk on one measure but teacher observations and progress monitoring data demonstrate that they are definitely struggling. Borderline students may need to be included in the lower level instructional group they border to receive more intensive instruction. Reviewer Comments: Expand speaker notes and connect to previous slide. Advanced High Risk 20 40 50 75 18 18

Our Overall Goal… Grade Level Some Risk Advanced High Risk 20 40 50 75 Percentiles In the first bell curve identified was how the students entered the school. However, if we their skill deficits are assessed and those skills gaps are filled through systematic, explicit, and intensive instruction, this is what the normal curve can look like. What differs is not the outcome, it’s the approach. Borderline students, some risk students, and high risk students receive more intense, more explicit, and more systematic instruction so that their growth is accelerated and they meet grade level proficiencies. In order to work toward this goal, more information will be needed on some students so that instruction can be carefully planned to meet their instructional needs. This is what will next be discussed. Advanced High Risk 20 40 50 75 19 19

Diagnostic and Classroom Information: Phonics Phonics/Decoding Screener Phonics/decoding screeners help pinpoint areas in which the student needs explicit phonics instruction. In-program and informal specific skill tests Help determine if students are learning what is being taught A phonics screener is one type of diagnostic assessment. It helps pinpoint areas in which the student needs explicit phonics instruction. Some Comprehensive Learning Systems have their own phonics screeners. In addition, other formal and informal commercial phonics screeners are also available. Keep in mind that diagnostic information can also be attained by an analysis of errors with other assessment information already obtained through screening. An example of a phonics screener is located in Section 3 of this module. 20 20

Diagnostic and Classroom Information: Vocabulary and Comprehension K-1 Language Screener Example Informal Tools: Retell Maze/Cloze In-Program Vocabulary and Comprehension Assessments As with screening tools, diagnostic tools related to vocabulary and comprehension are not abundant. There are formal tools available for gaining insight into why a child may be experiencing reading difficulties due to vocabulary and comprehension deficits. In addition, other informal screening measures could be analyzed to gain sight. For example: Retell: What part of the retell does the student have difficulties with? Does the student only retell details rather than major points? Is s/he unable to come up with the gist of the story? Does the student avoid using key vocabulary in the retell? Maze/Cloze: Maze and cloze performance are closely related to the similarity between the language of the student and the language of the text (Howell, 2000). Therefore, a caution with these tools is that students with language problems or a primary language other than English may do poorly regardless of their comprehension skills. Attention to these students may need to be focused on language development. In-Program Unit Assessments: Analyze the types of questions students seem to answer incorrectly. For example, does the student answer basic recall questions, but do poorly on cause-effect and/or inference questions? If so, methods for answering these types of questions need to be taught. 21 21

Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Grade Level Some Risk High Risk Phonics Screener Profile #2 on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #3 & Fails Some Pass No Pass In-Program Assessments Overview of K-3 Profile Framework Profile #4 Phonics Screener Skills Profile #5 ELL / Low Language Profile Usually needs extra language support & can be in any profile Profile #6 High Risk on Screening Assessments Intensive Interventions along with Core Replacement Intervention Core Program Guided by Placement Test Results Advanced Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks Presenter: Ask participants to once again pull out Handout 4. A sample script follows: Look at the top of the chart. As a reminder, the current school year screening data and previous year outcome data will initially help identify four broad categories in which all students will fall. (Advanced, Grade Level, Some Risk, and High Risk). . As we administer additional assessments to selected students, we will be able to identify differences within these broad categories which allow teachers to more closely match instruction to instructional needs of all students. One of the key reasons for using such a chart is to identify students with similar needs. This will help group students for instruction more effectively and efficiently based upon similar needs as well as the resources and personnel available within a school. In this section of the module, we will simply discuss creating learner profiles. Section 3 of the module discusses matching instruction to these profiles. Let’s take a few minutes to talk about each one of these profile. Participants can follow along either on the screen or looking at the overview of profiles on page 4 of the Key Terms handout (HO 1). 22

Profile 1 Students Exceeding Grade Level Standards Profile #1 Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Advanced In-Program Assessments Pass Profile 1 Students Exceeding Grade Level Standards Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile 1 encompasses students who consistently exceed grade level standards. For districts that have or will have a profile for these students, criteria for students who will fall into this profile need to be established. Some schools select the 75th percentile as a cut-off point for stating students are “exceeding” grade level standards. Other schools choose other criteria. Take a look at the Student Profile Framework Handout 4 (SPF), you will note that these students scored above benchmark levels in the outcome measure from the previous school year and on the screening assessment from the current school year. No additional assessment was necessary for these students. 23 23

Profile 2 Grade Level Students Consistently Passing In-Program Tests Study the SPF and look at the path of assessments that lead to this profile. Notice that on the complete SPF, Grade Level students can be divided into two profiles…one that consistently passes all unit tests and one profile that has some difficulty consistently passing unit tests. Profile 2, then, includes students at grade level on the screening and outcome assessments and pass all in-program tests. Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Advanced Grade Level In-Program Assessments Pass Pass Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #2 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile 2 Grade Level Students Consistently Passing In-Program Tests 24 24

Profile 3 are students who score at grade level but do not consistently pass in-program unit assessments. There are a number of reasons this may occur: These students may have vocabulary or comprehension difficulties. Additional information about their vocabulary and comprehension skills may need to be obtained. Some students may have a performance problem rather than a skill deficit. For example, other factors such as attention, focus, etc. may be interfering with the student’s ability to perform in the classroom. These students may be acquiring knowledge and skills presented in the comprehension reading program but not mastering the material. Additional practice on these knowledge and skills may be necessary. Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Advanced Grade Level In-Program Assessments Pass Pass No Pass Profile 3 Grade Level Students NOT Consistently Passing In-Program Tests Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #2 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #3 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Fails Some In-Program Unit Tests 25 25

Accurate But Not Fluent Again, let’s look at our SPF. Notice that the next major profile are those students that were determined to be at Some Risk based upon the previous year’s outcome measure and current screening measure. Generally, it will be necessary to administer additional assessments to these students in order to determine their specific instructional needs. One of those additional assessments would most likely be a phonics screener. For students in mid-to-end level of grade 1 and grades 2 and 3, diagnostic information can also be obtained by analyzing the students’ accuracy level and errors on oral reading fluency passages. For students that fit Profile 4, their accuracy is above 95% when reading grade level material. However, these students are not yet fluent enough to reach grade level benchmarks. A phonics screener would indicate these students possess many or most of the phonics skills expected at their particular grade level. Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Advanced Grade Level Some Risk In-Program Assessments Phonics Screener Pass Pass No Pass Pass Profile 4 Some Risk Students Accurate But Not Fluent Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #2 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #3 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Fails Some In-Program Unit Tests Profile #4 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Passes Phonics Screener Skills 26 26

Not Accurate and Not Fluent Students with Profile 5 are students that are determined to be at Some Risk based upon prior outcome and current screening measures. Unlike students in Profile 4, these students read grade level material with less than 95% accuracy. A phonics screener would indicate these students have missing phonics skills from previous grades. These missing skills are then the focus of additional instruction inside and outside the 90+ minute reading block. Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Advanced Grade Level Some Risk In-Program Assessments Phonics Screener Pass No Pass Pass Pass No Pass Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #2 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile 5 Some Risk Students Not Accurate and Not Fluent Profile #3 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Fails Some In-Program Unit Tests Profile #4 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Passes Phonics Screener Skills Profile #5 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Fails Some Phonics Screener Skills 27 27

Profile 6 High Risk Students Take a look back at our SPF. Look at the box containing High Risk students. Profile 6 are high risk students. A phonics screener will likely indicate these students have significant skill gaps from previous grades and will require intense direct instruction in order to close the gap with grade level peers. Notice that, as the flow chart indicates, Profile 6 students can receive instruction either using the Comprehensive Learning System or an Intervention Core Reading Program. An Intervention Core Reading Program is a reading program designed to accelerate learning for students significantly below grade level. A careful analysis of student errors as well as a more in-depth phonics assessment may be necessary for high risk students in order to plan instruction for these students. A placement test will be necessary for students who will use an Intervention Core Reading Program as a basis for instruction. Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Advanced Grade Level Some Risk High Risk In-Program Assessments Phonics Screener Pass No Pass Intensive Intervention With CLS Profile #6 High Risk on Screening Assessments Intensive Interventions along with Core Replacement Intervention Core Program Guided by Placement Test Results Pass Pass No Pass Profile 6 High Risk Students Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #2 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #3 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Fails Some In-Program Unit Tests Profile #4 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Passes Phonics Screener Skills Profile #5 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Fails Some Phonics Screener Skills ELL/Low Language Profile Usually needs extra language support & can be in any profile 28 28

Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Presenter: Point out the ELL box at the bottom of the flow chart. Notice that the ELL can fit into any one of the profiles depending on individual characteristics of each student. In general, ELLs will need extra language support including expressive and receptive vocabulary development, building background knowledge, academic language, etc. Outcome Measures from Previous School Year Screening Data from Current School Year Advanced Grade Level Some Risk High Risk In-Program Assessments Phonics Screener Pass No Pass Intensive Intervention With CLS Profile #6 High Risk on Screening Assessments Intensive Interventions along with Core Replacement Intervention Core Program Guided by Placement Test Results Pass Pass No Pass Profile #1 Significantly Exceeds Grade Level Benchmarks on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #2 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Passes In-Program Unit Tests Profile #3 Grade Level on Screening Assessments & Fails Some In-Program Unit Tests Profile #4 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Passes Phonics Screener Skills Profile #5 Some Risk on Screening Assessments & Fails Some Phonics Screener Skills ELL/Low Language Profile Usually needs extra language support & can be in any profile 29 29

Application Activity Michael Michael is a third grade student. His second grade outcome data indicated an overall reading score at the 22nd percentile which placed him in the Some Risk category Michael’s recent screening information on reading fluency placed him at Some Risk, reading 68 wpm with 88% accuracy. Michael was administered a phonics screener which indicated significant difficulty with mastery of vowel combinations and two-syllable words. Using the assessment information, determine Michael’s instructional profile. Presenter: Use this first student (Michael) to walk the participants through the activity (guided practice). Ask participants to get out Activity #2. Read the following information as participants follow along with their copies: Michael is a third grade student. His second grade outcome data indicated an overall reading score at the 22nd percentile which placed him at below grade level in the Some Risk category. Michael’s recent screening information on reading fluency placed him in the “Some Risk” range reading 68 wpm with 85% accuracy. Michael was administered a phonics screener which indicated significant difficulty with mastery of vowel combinations and two-syllable words. Using the assessment information, place determine Michael’s instructional profile. Michael’s Instructional Profile is Profile 5. Reviewers Comments: “Expand the content of the slide in Speaker Notes.” 33 30 30

Application Activity Brianna Brianna is a first grade student at a new school. There are no previous records from Kindergarten. Recent screening information indicates that Brianna falls into the “High Risk” category of instructional need. Diagnostic information indicates that Brianna has not acquired phonemic awareness skills, she lacks beginning alphabetic skills (few letter-sound relationships), and recognizes few sight words. Using the assessment information, determine Brianna's instructional profile. Pair and Share. Presenter: You are going to read the following information to participants as they follow along. Once you’ve read the information to participants give participants 2-3 minutes to determine Brianna’s instructional profile. Give 2-3 minutes to share with a partner. Then call on participants to see which Student Profile participants identify for Brianna. Brianna is a first grade student at a new school. There are no previous records from Kindergarten. Recent screening information indicates that Brianna falls into the “High Risk” category of instructional need. Diagnostic information indicates that Brianna has not acquired phonemic awareness skills, she lacks beginning alphabetic skills (few letter-sound relationships), and recognizes few sight words. Using the assessment information, determine Brianna’s instructional profile. Brianna’s profile is Profile 6. 31 31

Application Activity Daniel Daniel is a second grade student who has received ELL services in the past. Outcomes measures from first grade place him in the Some Risk category. Recent screening data indicates Daniel is at grade level on reading fluency measures. Although the school year has just started, Daniel has had some difficulty passing in-program assessments. Using the assessment information, determine Daniel’s instructional profile. Pair and Share. Presenter: Presenter: You are going to read the following information to participants as they follow along. Once you’ve read the information to participants give participants 2-3 minutes to determine Daniel’s instructional profile. Give 2-3 minutes to share with a partner. Then call on participants to see which Student Profile participants identify for Brianna. Daniel is a second grade student who has received ELL services in the past. Outcomes measures from first grade place him below grade level. Recent screening data indicates Daniel just below grade level on reading fluency measures. Although the school year has just started, Daniel has had some difficulty passing in-program assessments. Using the assessment information, place Daniel in the appropriate instructional group. Pair and Share. Presenter: Daniel’s profile is Profile 3. Note to participants that not all students neatly fit into one profile. At times, more assessment information may need to be collected to help determine a specific student’s instructional needs. 35 32 32

Sample K-1 Oral Lang. Screener Additional Handouts Sample K-1 Oral Lang. Screener Handout 2 Generic Phonics Screener Handout 3A & B Instructional Profiles and Recommendations, Grade-level Goals Handout 4 Class Sorting Grids Handout 5 See HANDOUT 3A & 3B “Generic Phonics Screener and Student Copy” See HANDOUT 4A & 4B “data grade 1” and “data grade 2” - Identify which is most appropriate for your participants. If there is sufficient time do both. Reminder, please refer to the “Guide for Presenters” to help you navigate through this activity and the handouts that accompany it. See HANDOUT 5 “Class Sorting Grids” The scenarios included in Handout 3 can be used after you have led the participants through the student profiles. Participants can have the opportunity to match the assessment data with the correct instructional profile.

Activity Data-sort

Additional Time Schoolwide Schedule Schedule time to reflect three types of reading instruction: Initial Instruction Pre-teaching/re-teaching of grade level content for below grade level students Intervention time for below grade level students on skills they have not mastered from previous grades When designing a schoolwide schedule, it is important to make sure that time is included for three different types of reading instruction: Initial instruction includes content coverage of the daily material presented in the comprehensive learning system. Pre-teaching and reteaching provides extra practice on those same daily skills to ensure they are mastered as they are taught and students don’t fall behind. Intervention time is provided outside the reading block to catch below grade level students up on skills they have not mastered from previous lessons and grades. 35

Creating an Efficient and Effective Progress Monitoring System

What is Progress Monitoring? The student’s current levels of performance are determined and goals are identified The student’s academic performance is measured on a regular basis (weekly or monthly). The student’s progression of achievement is monitored and instructional techniques are adjusted to meet the individual students learning needs. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring (http://www.studentprogress.org/)

Progress Monitoring Answers Important Questions: Is the instructional support effective in improving the child’s skills? Is the child progressing at a sufficient rate to achieve the next important goal?

Decision Rule Monitor child’s progress and use decision rules to evaluate data . Three consecutive data points below the aimline indicates a need to modify instructional support. How would a team’s decision to monitor progress weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly affect this decision rule?

Brandon, Kindergarten Identify Goal and Draw Aimline Correct Phonemes per Minute Aimline The aimline connects where you are to where you want to get to, and shows the rate of progress needed to get there.

Monitor and Evaluate Progress: Modify Instruction for Brandon? Brandon: Whoops! Time to make a change! Correct Phonemes Aimline

Monitor and Evaluate Support: Modify Instruction for Brandon? Aimline Correct Phonemes

Timely Progress Monitoring Evaluating student’s response to intervention More than 3 points under goal line is predictive of not meeting the benchmark—time to make an instructional change How is this 1st grader responding to the intervention? Animation of text boxes in interpreting progress and indicating key points in the graph. This is an example of a progress monitoring graph for a first grader receiving additional instructional support and being monitored on NWF each week. The red dotted line is an automatically generated goal line connecting the students initial score with the goal to determine if the student is progressing. The blue dots are the weekly NWF data. In determining if the instruction is meeting the students needs, a general rule of thumb is if the student has three data points below the goal line, a instructional change is warranted. In this example, the student consistently displays scores well below the goal line and is showing minimal growth over the course of three months. A change in program was indicated by the end of October; however, these data were not used to inform instruction and valuable instructional time was wasted for this child. Benchmark Goal Student Performance Aimline Harn (2005)

Timely Progress Monitoring Evaluating student’s response to intervention What is the likelihood of this student meeting the end-of-year goal if her response continues? High Medium Low Animation of circles and text boxes in leading participants in interpreting the progress monitoring graph. This is an example of a progress monitoring graph for a second grader on ORF. Lead the participants in interpreting student performance (all data points well above the goal line) which is highly predictive of the student meeting the end of year goal on ORF. Maria’s ORF Progress Consistent ORF scores above goal line Harn (2005)

Timely Progress Monitoring Evaluating student’s response to intervention What is the likelihood of this student meeting the end-of-year goal if his response continues? High Medium Low Animation of circles and text boxes in leading participants in interpreting the progress monitoring graph. This is an example of a progress monitoring graph for a second grader on ORF. Lead the participants in interpreting student performance indicating that he appears to be making good progress, but at this point we can not be too confident that he will achieve the goal. We need to continue to monitor performance and make instructional changes if the data warrant it. Tom’s ORF Progress Inconsistent ORF scores above goal line—continue intervention and monitor and evaluate performance closely Harn (2005)

Tia, 1st Grade: Evaluating Responsiveness to Intervention Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 Words Read Correct Tier 1: gen ed consultation to improve fidelity of core program Tier 2: small group +30 min packaged, e.g., Early Rdg Intervention or Reading Mastery (systematic, explicit, research-based) Tier 3: add’l 30 min targeting fluency, e.g., Repeated reading strategy Is the support effective in improving the child’s early literacy skills? Is the child progressing at a sufficient rate to achieve the next benchmark goal? Would you be considering special education eligibility? At what point? --this is flexible. The standard protocol only models consider sped after tier 2. we would advocate for considering sped only after individual problem solving has been done. In this case, we may have made a different decision after tier 2 if we had not continued with tier 3.

Logistics Materials Schedules Managing Materials Managing Data

Materials Materials for: 20 Alternate Forms per measure ISF PSF NWF ORF (1st, 2nd, 3rd) (not LNF) 20 Alternate Forms per measure One booklet per measure One Student Materials per measure

How often to progress monitor? Benchmark At least 3 times per year for students at low risk Some schools have chosen to monitor the progress of students in the Benchmark range monthly Strategic At least once per month for students with some risk Some schools choose 2 times per month Intensive 1 per week for students at risk

DIBELS Progress Monitoring: Which Measure to Use? Match the level of material to the current instructional objectives Examples: 2nd grade student in the beginning of the year ORF=3; NWF=5; Team decided to use an intensive decoding intervention Progress monitored using NWF weekly and ORF (1st grade) monthly Also wanted to assess current skill level in PSF. If score is not >35, team may progress monitor with PSF as well and provide a phonemic awareness intervention. 3rd grade student in the beginning of the year ORF=10 Team decided to use an intensive decoding intervention and a fluency intervention Progress monitored weekly with NWF and ORF (alternating weeks)

DIBELS Progress Monitoring: Guidelines For early measures, (i.e., PSF, NWF) continue progress monitoring until the student has met the benchmark goal for two consecutive data points It is only necessary to administer one passage/probe each time a student is progress monitored However, to make reliable and valid decision, administer 3 probes/passages and record the median score When progress monitoring on ORF, select the grade level passages that will be sensitive to the instruction provided. It is important to note that only grade level passages will tell us if students are on-track to meet grade level goals. At minimum, the Fall, Winter, and Spring benchmark assessments will provide this information.

Other logistics Who collects the data? Who enters the data? Classroom teachers? Assessment team? Who enters the data? IA? Teacher? Coach? How to manage the materials? Who keeps the booklets? Example: Assessment Notebook

Example: Using Progress Monitoring Data to Evaluate the Instructional Plan Step 1: Sort progress monitoring booklets into 2 categories: progress that appears to be on-track (above their aimline) Progress that appears to not be on track (below the aimline). Step 2: For students who appear to be not on track, look for patterns (i.e., multiple students in one instructional group)

Creating a Communication Plan for Instructional Decision-Making

Data Walls Jamila & Ameritia

Focus Group #1: Focus Group #2: Focus Group #3: Focus Group #5: Students who are at DIBELS Benchmark instructional recommendation and have passed all sections of the Theme/Unit Skills assessment. Focus Group #2: Students who are at DIBELS Benchmark goal and have failed sections of the Theme/Unit Skills assessment. Focus Group #3: Students who are at DIBELS Strategic instructional recommendation and pass all sections of the Phonics Screener. Focus Group #5: Students who are at DIBELS Strategic instructional recommendation and fail sections of the Phonics Screener. Focus Group #4: Students who are at DIBELS Strategic instructional recommendation and pass all sections EXCEPT the multisyllabic section of the Phonics Screener. This is an example of using a phonics screener ALONG with DIBELS to: Place students in tiers of support Identify instructional focus groups Show movement of individual students The pocket charts can be ordered from: Carson Dellosa Publishing (some schools use butcher paper or card board) The cards are a handout in their packet (some schools also use color coded stickie notes with the students name and scores). The cards have progress monitoring data. They are color coded by beginning of the year benchmark status. The students can move up if they meet the next progressive goal 3 times. Remind them to post in a confidential place. Focus Group #6: Students who are at DIBELS Intensive instructional recommendation. Place students according to placement test of intervention program.

Practical Ways Of Managing Data Data Management Systems Assessment Notebooks for Each Teacher Folders and Sticky Notes to Document Progress and Movement “Assessment Walls” Spreadsheets Consider Efficiency, Organization, and Ease of Communication

5 Minute Discussion What “squared” with what you already knew? What do you see from a new angle? What completed a circle of knowledge? Of what do you now have a more complete understanding?

To access any of the tools that were shared today go to: http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu

The answers are within our grasp.

Oregon Beacon Schools The Oregon Department of Education and Oregon Reading First Center have identified three Beacon Schools to serve as demonstration sites throughout the state: Humboldt Elementary (Portland) Jefferson Elementary (Medford) Lincoln Street Elementary (Hillsboro) Beacon Schools were selected on the basis of the progress they made in demonstrating high quality implementation of effective reading practices and strong student outcomes. Beacon Schools are currently accepting visitors! For more information on who to contact to schedule your visit, please visit the Oregon Reading First Center website at http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/beacon_schools.html

OPEN TO VISITORS IN OCTOBER 2008 Humboldt Elementary Portland Public Schools 4915 N. Gantenbein Portland, OR 97217 (503) 916-5468 Principal: Jamila Williams Coach: Mary Peake To schedule a visit, please contact: Mary Peake (mpeake@pps.k12.or.us)

OPEN TO VISITORS IN FALL 2008 Jefferson Elementary Medford School District 333 Holmes Ave. Medford, OR 97501 (541) 842-3800 Principal: Tom Sherwood Coach: Bridget McMillen To schedule a visit, please contact: Bridget McMillen (bridget.mcmillen@medford.k12.or.us

OPEN TO VISITORS IN JANUARY 2009 Lincoln Street Elementary Hillsboro School District 801 N.E. Lincoln St. Hillsboro, OR 97124 (503) 844-1680 Principal: Toni Crummett Coach: Connie Robertson To schedule a visit, please contact: Connie Robertson (RobertsC@hsd.k12.or.us)