1 Next Steps District/School Expectations and Support Needs (C) 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Progress Towards Reading Success: The Reading First Evaluation Prepared by: Amy Kemp, Ph.D. Research Associate and Patricia A. Muller, Ph.D. Associate.
Advertisements

Continuous Improvement in the Classroom -Professional Learning Communities.
Response to Intervention (RtI) in Primary Grades
Response to Intervention: A Different Look
1 Oregon Reading First: Three-Year Report Preliminary Impact Evidence Oregon Reading First Center LLSSC Meeting, November 29, 2006.
Plan Evaluation/Progress Monitoring Problem Identification What is the problem? Problem Analysis Why is it happening? Progress Monitoring Did it work?
Extending RTI to School-wide Behavior Support Rob Horner University of Oregon
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements.
1 Data-Based Leadership Cohort B March 2, 2006 (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Action Planning Spring 2008 Statewide Coaches’ Meeting Oregon Reading First.
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. 2 Dimensions of A Healthy System Districts Schools Grades Classrooms Groups.
1 Oregon K-12 Literacy Framework and K-3 Statewide Outreach.
1 National Reading First Impact Study: Critique in the Context of Oregon Reading First Oregon Reading First Center May 13, 2008 Scott K. Baker, Ph.D. Hank.
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.
1 Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading VII: Evaluating and Planning Institute on Beginning Reading VII: Evaluating and Planning.
Oregon Reading First (2010)1 Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups.
1 Q2: How are we doing? Cohort A (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Oregon Reading First (2007)1 Oregon Reading First Coaches’ Meeting Spring 2007 IBR Preparation April 25 and 26th, 2007.
1 Application of Model to Sample Data Set / Data Review and Analysis Breakout Sessions © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and.
District General Supervision: The Balancing Act Spring Leadership Meeting March 20, 2012.
Providing Leadership in Reading First Schools: Essential Elements Dr. Joseph K. Torgesen Florida Center for Reading Research Miami Reading First Principals,
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
Pennsylvania Reading First Leadership Meeting A Pathway For Success Eastern Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center Florida Center for Reading.
Interpreting DIBELS reports LaVerne Snowden Terri Metcalf
1 Building District Capacity through State Monitoring of SIG The Massachusetts Model March 22, 2011 Presented by Karla Brooks Baehr, Deputy Commissioner.
Elementary Assessment Data Update Edmonds School District January 2013.
0 1 1 TDOE’s accountability system has two overarching objectives and Growth for all students, every year Faster growth for those students who are furthest.
How Do We Do This? Educate all students: – Build upon prior knowledge and experience –Address a wide range of skill levels –Instruct utilizing various.
The Jordan Performance Appraisal System (JPAS) is designed to help educators in their continuing efforts to provide high quality instruction to all students.
School-wide Data Team Meeting Winter NSIF Extended Cohort February 10, 2012.
Effective Behavioral & Instructional Support Systems Overview and Guiding Principles Adapted from, Carol Sadler, Ph.D. – EBISS Coordinator Extraordinaire.
1 The Oregon Reading First Model: A Blueprint for Success Scott K. Baker Eugene Research Institute/ University of Oregon Orientation Session Portland,
Literacy Framework: What Does It Look Like at Shawnee Heights? Tamara Konrade ESSDACK Educational Services and Staff Development Association of Central.
Cohort 4 Elementary School Data Review and Action Planning: Schoolwide Reading Spring
1 ASPIRING GOALS… What you need to know. 2 ASPIRING GOALS A Assessable Measurable with a defined assessment process or tool S Specific Intensity of focus.
NOTES FROM INFORMATIONAL BRIEFINGS FOR POTENTIAL REGIONAL CENTER AND CONTENT CENTER APPLICANTS JUNE 19,20 & 22, 2012 Comprehensive Centers Program.
Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day. Oregon Response to Intervention Vision: Every child.
Learning More About Oregon’s ESEA Waiver Plan January 23, 2013.
Low Performing Schools Plan Presentation New Hanover County Schools October 20, 2015.
Enhancing Education Through Technology Round 8 Competitive.
Where Do You Stand? Using Data to Size Up Your School’s Progress Michael C. McKenna University of Virginia.
Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day. Oregon Response to Intervention Vision: Every child.
WELCOME!  The Physical Education Teacher Hire/ Professional Development Grant Application Webinar will begin in a few minutes!
Using DIBELS to Improve Reading Outcomes in Grades 3-5.
Oregon Reading First Leadership Session October 20, 2005 (Cohort B) October 21, 2005 (Cohort A) Erb Memorial Union University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon.
1 Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading: Evaluating and Planning Spring, 2006 Cohort A (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center.
A Commitment to Continuous Improvement in Teaching and Learning Michaela Rome, Ph.D. NYU Assistant Vice Provost for Assessment.
Statewide System of Support For High Priority Schools Office of School Improvement.
Extending an RTI Approach to School-wide Behavior Support Rob Horner University of Oregon
© 2010 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS AND SUPPORTS Wauwatosa School Board – January 9, 2012.
Data-Based Leadership
Q3: How do we get there? Cohort A
Systems Problem Solving
Reading Goals and Reading Growth A Proposal for Cohort A
Oregon Reading First Leadership Session
Extending RTI to School-wide Behavior Support
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.
Assessments: Beyond the Claims
Refresher: Background on Federal and State Requirements
Presentation transcript:

1 Next Steps District/School Expectations and Support Needs (C) 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

2 How Are We Doing? u How are we doing overall as a state Reading First project that consists of 34 schools in 14 school districts? u How is each district doing as a RF district? u How is each school doing as a RF school within a RF district?

3 How Are We Doing? Five Subquestions 1.How are K-3 students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction within the district? within each school? 2.Within a district, what are the outcomes when examined school by school? Within a school, what are the outcomes when examined class by class? 3.What are the outcomes when examined by subgroups of students within the district? within each school? 4.Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter from year to year within the district? within each school? 5.For each grade and essential component, what percentage of students at benchmark remained at benchmark? What percentage of students moved into benchmark from strategic and intensive? What percentage of students moved into strategic from intensive? Address within the district and within each school. 1.

4 Expectations for Reporting u RF districts and schools twice annually - winter and spring - report to ODE on each of the five subquestions. u For each question, the school/district attaches the relevant DIBELS data reports and a one page narrative that summarizes/explains the data. u District collects individual school reports and attaches them to the district summary for submission. u First set of reports due Spring of 2005.

5 Support Needs Based on the reports from RF districts and schools, subsequent technical and professional development support will be based on at least two factors: 1. Student reading data 2. Level of implementation of major RF components

6 Six School Scenarios: ustrong reading performance / high implementation ustrong reading performance / low implementation uaverage reading performance / high implementation uaverage reading performance / low implementation upoor reading performance / high implementation upoor reading performance / low implementation

7 Three Levels of Support support as needed moderate support intensive support

8 Levels of Support: strong reading performance = support as needed average reading performance = moderate support poor reading performance = intensive support

9 Type of Support Inside Out Support: A model of support in which the school (working with the district) is primarily responsible for determining what needs to happen in the school to improve implementation. Outside In Support: A model of support in which ODE and the Oregon Reading First Center are primarily responsible for determining what needs to happen in the school to improve implementation.

10 Type of Support A general rule: high implementation = inside out support low implementation = outside in support

11 The relationship between school reading performance and level of implementation will determine the level and type of support needed.

12 average reading performance / high implementation strong reading performance / low implementation strong reading performance / high implementation poor reading performance / high implementation average reading performance / low implementation poor reading performance / low implementation Outside In Support Inside Out Support Figure 1: District/School Support Needs Intensive Support Moderate Support Support as Needed

13 School Scenario #1: Strong Reading Performance / High Implementation u school requests support from ODE and ORRF Center only as needed u support primarily inside out (i.e., school will develop their own school-specific PD plan)

14 School Scenario #2: Strong Reading Performance / Low Implementation u expectation for school to meet basic requirements of the RF grant, but school can work on this from the inside out u ODE and ORRF Center will support the school as needed to put the basic components in place

15 School Scenario #3: Average Reading Performance / High Implementation uschool will require a moderate level of support ubalance of outside in and inside out support as negotiated between the school, ODE, and ORRF Center

16 School Scenario #4: Average Reading Performance / Low Implementation uschool will require a moderate level of support umuch of support in the form of outside in support from the ORRF Center uin conjunction, the school will carefully examine implementation on an ongoing basis and make changes from inside out to systematically improve implementation

17 School Scenario #5: Poor Reading Performance / High Implementation uintensive support ualthough implementation is high, this school will require intensive support from the outside in due to poor outcomes uat the same time, school will need to work from the inside out to determine the potential sources of problems and set plans in place to improve reading performance

18 School Scenario #6: Poor Reading Performance / Low Implementation uschool will require intensive support usupport primarily from the outside in uwritten action plan uintensified monitoring