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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Response to Instruction and Intervention Process Presentation.
Advertisements

PAYS FOR: Literacy Coach, Power Hour Aides, LTM's, Literacy Trainings, Kindergarten Teacher Training, Materials.
1 Progress Monitoring Content developed by Wayne Callender and Jeanie Mercier Smith The Link Between Instruction and Reading Proficiency.
November 2009 Oregon RTI Project Cadre 5.  Participants will understand both general IDEA evaluation requirements and evaluation requirements for Specific.
DIBELS Part I SEDL 368. To access the materials, you will need to go to Download.
1 Module 2 Using DIBELS Next Data: Identifying and Validating Need for Support.
Oregon Reading First Lesson Pacing (C) 2007 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Using Core, Supplemental, and Intervention Reading Programs to Meet the Needs of All Learners Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D. Oregon Reading First Center COSA.
North Penn School District Phase III Update Introduction to Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTII): A Schoolwide Framework for Student Success.
Department of Special Education August 3, 2010 iSTEEP Follow-up & Training Presented by: Raecheal Vizier, M.Ed. Special Education Program Effectiveness.
1 Reading First at Oak Grove Elementary School Medford School District 549C Julie York – District Person Julie Evans – Principal Barbara Low – Reading.
RtI Assessment CED 613. Universal Screening What is it and what does it Evaluate? What is the fundamental question it is asking? What is the ultimate.
Oregon Reading First Cohort B Statewide Coaches’ Training Session February 27, 2007 Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D. University of Oregon.
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.
Oregon Reading First Cohort B Leadership Session March 3, 2008 Checking in on Lesson Progress Reporting Systems (LPRs)
Supplemental and Intervention Programs
Oregon Reading First Cohort B Statewide Coaches’ Session September 14, 2006.
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 (2009)1 Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting December 10, 2009.
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.
1. 2 Dimensions of A Healthy System Districts Schools Grades Classrooms Groups.
Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading (IBR) Leadership Session for Mentor Coaches August 25, 2004.
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 (2008)1 Oregon Reading First Conference Call Data-based Action Planning Winter 2008.
1 Q3: How do we get there? Cohort B 2 GOALS AND ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS INSTRUCTIONAL TIME DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION/ ORGANIZATION.
Oregon Reading First (2010)1 Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups.
Oregon Reading First (2009)1 Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting November 12, 2009.
1 Oregon Reading First: Cohort B Leadership Session Portland, Oregon May 27, 2009.
1 Q2: How are we doing? Cohort A (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring Nebraska Department of Education Response-to-Intervention Consortium.
From Data to Dialogue: Facilitating meaningful change with reading data Ginny Axon misd.net) Terri Metcalf
Cohort 5 Elementary School Data Review and Action Planning: Schoolwide Reading Spring
Using a Comprehensive Assessment Plan to Meet All Students’ Instructional Needs Leadership Conference 2005 Orlando, Florida Pat Howard and Randee Winterbottom.
DATA BASED DECISION MAKING IN THE RTI PROCESS: WEBINAR #2 SETTING GOALS & INSTRUCTION FOR THE GRADE Edward S. Shapiro, Ph.D. Director, Center for Promoting.
Prevention to Avoid Intervention Tier 1: the most important tier!
1 RtII: Response to Instruction and Intervention Wissahickon School District.
Grade-level Data Team Meetings.
0 From TN Department of Education Presentation RTII: Response to Instruction and Intervention.
Progress Monitoring for students in Strategic or Intensive intervention levels Based on the work of Roland Good and Ruth Kaminski.
School-wide Data Team Meeting Winter NSIF Extended Cohort February 10, 2012.
1 The Oregon Reading First Model: A Blueprint for Success Scott K. Baker Eugene Research Institute/ University of Oregon Orientation Session Portland,
CSI Maps Randee Winterbottom & Tricia Curran Assessment Programs Florida Center for Reading Research.
Cohort 4 Elementary School Data Review and Action Planning: Schoolwide Reading Spring
Special Education Referral and Evaluation Report Oregon RTI Project Sustaining Districts Trainings
RTI: Response to Intervention An Invitation to Begin… Rutgers Conference January 2015 Janet Higgins Reading Specialist East Amwell Township School Rutgers.
Data Analysis MiBLSi Project September 2005 Based on material by Ed Kameenui Deb Simmons Roland Good Ruth Kaminski Rob Horner George Sugai.
Class Action Research: Treatment for the Nonresponsive Student IL510 Kim Vivanco July 15, 2009
Suggested Components of a Schoolwide Reading Plan Part 1: Introduction Provides an overview of key components of reading plan. Part 2: Component details.
Detroit Public Schools Data Review and Action Planning: Schoolwide Reading Spring
EOY DIBELS Benchmark Data for Intervention Programs Oregon Reading First Schools June, 2009 © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.
RtI Team 2009 Progress Monitoring with Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading -DIBELS.
Tallassee Elementary Summary of Effectiveness DIBELS Report Data Meeting May 9, 2012 Presenter: Cynthia Martin, ARI Reading Coach.
Effective Behavior & Instructional Support. Implementing RTI through Effective Behavior & Instructional Support.
Using DIBELS to Improve Reading Outcomes in Grades 3-5.
Elementary Middle School Expectation and Goal Setting Meeting June 26, 2009.
Prevention to Avoid Intervention Tier 1: the most important tier!
Intensive Reading Support 6.0 Evaluate Instructional Support 21.
Response to Intervention (RtI) Aldine ISD District Staff Development August 18, 2009.
RtI Team 2009 Progress Monitoring with Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading - AIMS.
WestEd.org Washington Private Schools RtI Conference Follow- up Webinar October 16, 2012 Silvia DeRuvo Pam McCabe WestEd Center for Prevention and Early.
Data-Driven Decision Making
The Continuum of Interventions in a 3 Tier Model
Data-Based Leadership
Q3: How do we get there? Cohort A
Systems Problem Solving
Overview: Understanding and Building a Schoolwide Assessment Plan
Ensuring Success for Every Reader
Presentation transcript:

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

What is a LPR?!

What is a LPR? A method of tracking lesson progress.

It all starts with a goal: What outcomes do we want for our students?

Clear Goals and Expectations for Each Grade Second Grade DIBELS Measures with Benchmark Levels DIBELS MeasureFallWinterSpring Oral Reading Fluency 44 Words Read Correctly Per Minute 68 Words Read Correctly Per Minute 90 Words Read Correctly Per Minute

How do we link these goals to program completion? To read at least 90 correct words per minute by Spring of second grade, what program must a second grader complete? Houghton Mifflin, Grade 2? Horizons, Level B? Read Well Plus? Reading Mastery Plus, Level 2?

What exact lesson do students need to complete? What lesson did each of these benchmark students complete at the time of Spring DIBELS testing?

What exact lesson do students need to complete? StudentORF ScoreProgram / Lesson Completed Student 193 Student 294 Student 394 Student 495 Student 5101 Student 6102 Student 7110 Student 8114 Student 9124 Student Student Student 12141

What exact lesson do students need to complete? Educational Resources, Inc. 2002

Lesson Pacing Goals Now, we have a lesson pacing goal. The goal for second grade students placed in RM Plus is to complete, at a minimum, the last lesson of RM Plus, Level 2 (Lesson 160) by the end of second grade.

“A goal without a plan is just a wish.” Antoine de Saint-Exupery ( )

What is our plan for meeting the lesson pacing goal? MonthWeek ofPacing Goal September4th 11th 18th 25th October2nd 9th 16th 23rd 30th November6th 13th 20th 27th December4th 11th January1st 8th 15th 22nd 29th

What is our plan for meeting the lesson pacing goal? MonthWeek ofPacing Goal February5th 12th 19th 26th March5th 12th 19th Spring Break April2nd 9th 16th 23rd 30th May7th 14th 21st 28th June4th 11th RM Plus, Level II, L160

What is our plan for meeting the lesson pacing goal? MonthWeek ofPacing Goal September4th 11th 18th 25thRM Plus, Level II, Lesson 15 October2nd 9th 16th 23rd 30thRM Plus, Level II, Lesson 40 November6th 13th 20th 27thRM Plus, Level II, Lesson 60 December4th 11thRM Plus, Level II, Lesson 70 January1st 8th 15th 22nd 29thRM Plus, Level II, Lesson 95 Goal for Winter Break

What is our plan for meeting the lesson pacing goal? MonthWeek ofPacing Goal February5th 12th 19th 26thRM Plus, Level II, Lesson 115 March5th 12th 19thRM Plus, Level II, Lesson 130 Spring Break April2nd 9th 16th 23rd 30thRM Plus, Level II, Lesson 155 May7th 14th 21st 28th June4th 11th RM Plus, Level II, L160 Goal for Spring Break

Tracking Lesson Progress MonthWeek ofPacing GoalLesson Completion September4thLesson 2 11thLesson 6 18thLesson 10 25thRM Plus, Level II, L15Lesson 14 October2ndLesson 18 9thLesson 22 16thLesson 26 23rdLesson 30 30thRM Plus, Level II, L40 November6th 13th 20th 27thRM Plus, Level II, L60 December4th 11thRM Plus, Level II, L70 January1st 8th 15th 22nd 29thRM Plus, Level II, L95 Lesson 34 The group is off pace!

How do we get back on pace? Structural ItemsQuality of Implementation Schedule adequate? Group size appropriate? Students placed correctly? Lessons implemented with fidelity? Pacing appropriate? Behavior management in place?

“To will is to select a goal, determine a course of action that will bring one to that goal, and then hold to that action till the goal is reached. The key is action.” Michael Hanson

Lesson pacing goals should not be met at the expense of student mastery! A Focus on Student Mastery

What is a LPR? A method of tracking lesson progress. A way to organize information on student performance/program mastery.

In-Program Assessments Reading Mastery Plus, Level II Example

In-Program Assessments Horizons, Level B - Test 1 Example

In-Program Assessments Horizons, Level B, Test 1 Example (cont.)

In-Program Assessments Horizons, Level B - Test Summary Example

In-Program Assessments Houghton Mifflin 2003, Second Grade, Theme Test 1 Example

In-Program Assessments Houghton Mifflin 2003, Second Grade Test Summary Example

In-Program Assessments LPRs provide: √ a list of in-program assessments administered in the last instructional period (e.g., month) √ a list of students who passed the assessment(s), a list of students who failed the assessment(s), and a list of students who were absent on the day of testing √ a summary of retesting procedures (i.e., who needs to be retested, who was retested, who passed the retest)

What is a LPR? A method of tracking lesson progress. A way to organize information on student performance/program mastery. A system for monitoring group progress toward important literacy benchmarks.

DIBELS Progress Monitoring ORF - Second Grade Passages

DIBELS Progress Monitoring

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 DIBELS results. To communicate questions, comments, or concerns to the coach. (NIFDI LPC Procedures, 2000)

Web-Based LPR System Let’s use technology as a tool to monitor lesson progress!

Lesson Progress Report - Teacher’s Copy Time period Group name Teacher

Lesson Progress Report - Teacher’s Copy Basic information about the group.

Lesson Progress Report - Teacher’s Copy Last lesson completed at the time of LPR collection. Number of lessons completed Number of instructional days (e.g., 2/17)

Lesson Progress Report - Teacher’s Copy In-program tests administered during this time period.

Lesson Progress Report - Teacher’s Copy Information on retesting students who failed the in-program assessment on the first try.

Lesson Progress Report - Teacher’s Copy Comments/concerns for the coach

Entering In-Program Assessments Online:

Lesson Progress Organizer - Coaches’ Copy All K-3 instructional groups listed here for coach. Last lesson completed to-date for each group. Lessons Completed Instructional Days (e.g., 15/17)

DIBELS Progress Monitoring The web-based LPR system will automatically farm progress monitoring data from the DIBELS website. DIBELS progress monitoring data will be organized by instructional group. A graph of performance of students in the instructional group will be provided.

DIBELS Progress Monitoring

Questions to Consider at GLTs: 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. Are students making progress as measured by DIBELS probes? 5. 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.) Is enough time scheduled? 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? (NIFDI Coaching Manual: Level I, 1999)

4. Are students making progress as measured by DIBELS probes? Are strategic and intensive students progress monitored regularly? Are students being monitored on the appropriate measures? Are there individual students who are not making progress comparable to the group? Is the group overall showing progress on the DIBELS measures? Do the supplemental and intervention programs appear to be addressing skill deficits in students?

5. 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? (NIFDI Coaching Manual: Level I, 1999)

Grade Level Team Notebooks TABContents 1Reading Groups 2Lesson Pacing Goals 3Lesson Progress Reports (LPRs) 4Instructional Focus Group Plan 5In-Program Assessment Data 6DIBELS Progress Monitoring Data 7Group 1 8Group 2 9Group 3 10Group 4 11Group 5 12Group 6

Collecting LPRs - Next Steps Each Cohort B school will use the web-based LPR system to track lesson progress for instructional groups in grades K-3. Schools will collect a round of LPRs once a month in conjunction with a Grade Level Team meeting. The goal is for each school to collect its first round of LPRs in time for November Grade Level Team meetings. Teachers can print out LPRs, in-program assessment data, and DIBELS progress monitoring data from the web-based LPR site to bring to GLTs. This information can be organized in the Grade Level Team Notebook.

1. What “squared” or agreed with what you already were doing? 2. What do you see from a new angle? What will you do differently? 3. What completed “a circle of knowledge” for you? How will this information strengthen your grade-level system? Please take a few minutes to answer the questions about LPRs below by yourself. Then, share your ideas with your group.

Topics For Team Consideration at a later time: