Cohort A Project-wide Data “Our goals can only be reached through a vehicle of a plan, in which we must fervently believe, and upon which we must vigorously.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Consensus Building Infrastructure Developing Implementation Doing & Refining Guiding Principles of RtI Provide working knowledge & understanding of: -

Advertisements

November 2009 Oregon RTI Project Cadre 5.  Participants will understand both general IDEA evaluation requirements and evaluation requirements for Specific.

1 Module 2 Using DIBELS Next Data: Identifying and Validating Need for Support.

Survey Level Assessment

Response to Intervention: The new Road to Ensuring Student Success January, 2011 PISD.

CA Multi-Tiered System of Supports

Oregon Reading First IBR V - Cohort B Introduction to Lesson Progress Reports (LPRs)

1 Data-Based Leadership Cohort B March 2, 2006 (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.

October, 2006 Leadership Session: A Proposal for Further Professional Development for Cohort A Reading First Schools Hank Fien Center for Teaching and.

Thinking Smart About Assessment Ben Clarke, Ph.D. Rachell Katz, Ph.D. August 25, 2004 Oregon Reading First Mentor Coach Training © 2004 by the Oregon Reading.

1 Cohort B Q2: How are we doing?. 2 Reviewing Outcomes  What percent of students are reaching benchmark goals in each grade level?  What percent of.

1 Reading First Internal Evaluation Leadership Tuesday 2/3/03 Scott K. Baker Barbara Gunn Pacific Institutes for Research University of Oregon Portland,

Oregon Reading First: Statewide Mentor Coach Meeting February 18, 2005 © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.

Oregon Reading First (2009)1 Oregon Reading First Webinar Data-based Action Planning Winter 2009.

What Can We Do to Improve Outcomes? Identifying Targets of Opportunity Roland H. Good III University of Oregon WRRFTAC State.

1 Cohort B Institute on Beginning Reading III February 1 and 2, 2006 Achieving Healthy Grade-Level Systems in Beginning Reading.

Oregon Reading First (2010)1 Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting May 13, 2010.

Oregon Reading First (2009)1 Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting May 2009.

Oregon Reading First (2010)1 Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups.

1 Project-wide Reading Results: Interpreting Student Performance Data and Designing Instructional Interventions Oregon Reading First February, 2004 Institute.

1 Q2: How are we doing? Cohort A (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.

Comprehensive Reading Model Teaching Reading Sourcebook 2 nd edition.

Using a Comprehensive Assessment Plan to Meet All Students’ Instructional Needs Leadership Conference 2005 Orlando, Florida Pat Howard and Randee Winterbottom.

Individual Program Plan (IPP) Module 3: IPP Implementation.

What is Reading First This “program” focuses on putting proven methods of early reading instruction in classrooms. Through Reading First, states and districts.

Response to Intervention (RTI) at Mary Lin Elementary Principal’s Coffee August 30, 2013.

D62 Response to Intervention

Kansas Special Education.  Eligibility is based upon a student meeting 2 prongs  Prong 1 ◦ Does the student have an exceptionality?  Prong 2 ◦ Does.

B-ELL Leadership Session May 26, 2009 Jorge Preciado University of Oregon © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.

Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day. Oregon Response to Intervention Vision: Every child.

Using Data in the EBIS System Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring.

High Plains Education Cooperative.  A Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) is a term used in Kansas to describe how schools go about providing supports.

Intervention Team / Tier III Overview Harding University High School

Designing and using assessment systems to prevent reading difficulties in young children Dr. Joseph Torgesen Florida State University and Florida Center.

1 The Oregon Reading First Model: A Blueprint for Success Scott K. Baker Eugene Research Institute/ University of Oregon Orientation Session Portland,

Special Education Referral and Evaluation Report Oregon RTI Project Sustaining Districts Trainings

ELLA Module 3 Assessments and Interventions. Goals for Today: Participants will be able to: Identify the four purposes for assessment. Align DIBELS assessments.

EOY DIBELS Benchmark Data for Intervention Programs Oregon Reading First Schools June, 2009 © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.

What is Response to Intervention (RTI)? Response to Intervention is the practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student.

RtI Team 2009 Progress Monitoring with Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading -DIBELS.

Data-Based Decision Making: Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring.

Tallassee Elementary Summary of Effectiveness DIBELS Report Data Meeting May 9, 2012 Presenter: Cynthia Martin, ARI Reading Coach.

Evaluation and Eligibility Using RTI Crook County School District February 26, 2010.

Data Report July Collect and analyze RtI data Determine effectiveness of RtI in South Dakota in Guide.

Third Grade Guarantee. Overview of the requirements of the Third Grade Reading Guarantee. Implications of the Third Grade Guarantee for Worthington City.

What Do I Do With My DIBELS Data? Aligning Student Needs and Instruction source: Tracy Cormane:

Interpreting data for program evaluation and planning.

Response to Intervention in a Nutshell August 26, 2009.

By: Jill Mullins. RtI is… the practice of providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and using learning rate over time and.

RTI Readiness Conference: Intensive Levels of Assistance Kira Florence Jonathan Potter University of Oregon.

Using DIBELS to Improve Reading Outcomes in Grades 3-5.

Intensive Reading Support 6.0 Evaluate Instructional Support 21.

School-Based Problem-Solving for Individuals (SBIT)

What do we know and what does it look like? Judith Carta & Virginia Buysse OSEP National Early Childhood Conference December 8, 2008 Washington DC.

Intervention and Supports for Students.  Strong core instruction for all students in reading and math  Supplementary instruction and supports for students.

RtI Team 2009 Progress Monitoring with Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading - AIMS.

Data Review Team Time Spring Purpose 0 This day is meant to provide school leadership teams with time to review the current status of their.

Data-Driven Decision Making

Data Review Team Time Fall 2013.

Data-Based Leadership

RTI & SRBI What Are They and How Can We Use Them?

All readers by 3rd grade Guidance for the Use of Diagnostic

Reading Goals and Reading Growth A Proposal for Cohort A

RESPONDING TO K-12 STUDENTS

Reading Goals and Reading Growth A Proposal for Cohort A

Oregon Reading First Summary Outcomes at the End of Year 1: Students at Benchmark (On Track) (C) 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.

Oregon Reading First Summary Outcomes at the End of Year 1: Students at Benchmark (On Track) © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.

Program Effectiveness in DERF: State-Level Action Plan

Response to Intervention in Educational Transformation Schools

RTI Readiness Conference: Intensive Levels of Assistance

Presentation transcript:

Cohort A Project-wide Data “Our goals can only be reached through a vehicle of a plan, in which we must fervently believe, and upon which we must vigorously act. There is no other route to success.” Stephen A. Brennan © 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

Kindergarteners Progress Towards PSF

First Graders Progress Towards NWF

Second Graders Progress Towards ORF

Third Graders Progress Towards ORF

Diagnostic Response to USDOE Reading First Office Submitted amendment to USDOE for OR assessment plan to clarify use of diagnostic assessments Amendment was recently approved by USDOE Will roll out Multiple Gating Procedure Fall 2006

Gate 1: Conduct initial screening of ALL students to determine support students need to reach end-of-year reading goals. Gate 2: Implement instructional support plan for students on track for successful reading outcomes. Plan and deliver additional support for students who are not on track for successful reading outcomes, and monitor each student’s progress towards end-of-year reading goals. As part of the instructional support plans for all student’s, appropriate curriculum embedded tests will be administered. Gate 3: Problem-solve in grade level team meetings. Teams will evaluate students’ progress based on DIBELS progress monitoring tests, theme skills tests, and intervention program mastery tests. Teams will increase the intensity of the instructional support plans for students that are not making adequate progress. Adequate progress means that a student’s rate of growth matches or exceeds the necessary trajectory for the student to reach end-of-year reading goals. Gate 4: Collect information to document that reading instructional plans are being implemented as intended for those students that are not making adequate progress. Reading coaches will use observational tools to document implementation and communicate this information during grade level team meetings. Teams will decide whether to improve implementation fidelity, to increase the intensity of instruction, or to collect additional information on individual student’s not making adequate progress. Gate 5: Administer diagnostic assessments to those students who are not making sufficient progress and the instructional plans have been implemented as intended.