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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Response to Intervention (RtI) in Primary Grades
Advertisements

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.
Deborah Simmons, Hank Fien and Nicole Sherman Brewer Oregon Reading First Center Oregon Reading First Review of Supplemental and Intervention Programs:
1 Data-Based Leadership Cohort B March 2, 2006 (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Instruction GoalsAssessment For Each Student For All Students Institute on Beginning Reading Day 4: Instruction: Time, Scheduling & Grouping / Reading.
Supplemental and Intervention Programs
1 Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading IV: Evaluating and Planning Institute on Beginning Reading IV: Evaluating and Planning.
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.
Implementing a Comprehensive Reading First Assessment Plan
Roland H. Good III University of Oregon
Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D Coordinator, Oregon Reading First Center
Scott Baker, Ph.D. Michael Rebar, Ph.D. Oregon Reading First Center Oregon Reading First Review of Supplemental and Intervention Programs: Summary by Essential.
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.
Oregon Reading First Review of Supplemental and Intervention Programs: Summary by Essential Component Reading Comprehension Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph. D.
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.
Changing the World through Reading First Using an Outcomes-Driven Model Roland H. Good III University of Oregon WRRFTAC State.
IBR II Cohort B September 28 and 29, 2005
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.
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.
Instruction GoalsAssessment For Each Student For All Students Overview of Advanced DIBELS Applications Institute on Beginning Reading II.
1 Oregon Reading First: Cohort B Leadership Session Portland, Oregon May 27, 2009.
Instruction Goals Assessment For Each Student For All Students Institute on Beginning Reading II Planning Core/Benchmark, Strategic, & Intensive Interventions.
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.
Calling Ms. Cleo:What Can DIBELS Tell Us About the Future Ben Clarke, Scott Baker, and Ed Kame’enui Oregon Reading First Center February 3, 2004.
Beth Harn & Rachell Katz Oregon Reading First Center Oregon Reading First Review of Supplemental and Intervention Programs: Summary by Essential Component.
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.
Oregon Reading First Cohort B Regional Coaches’ Meeting October, 2005
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
Schoolwide Reading Improvement Model - RTI Name:___________________________ Grade:___________________________ School:__________________________ CONSULTING.
Interpreting DIBELS reports LaVerne Snowden Terri Metcalf
1 RtII: Response to Instruction and Intervention Wissahickon School District.
Systems Review: Schoolwide Reading Support Cohort 5: Elementary Schools Winter, 2009.
Instructional Leadership and Reading First Component 3-Part B Sara Ticer, Principal, Prairie Mountain School District Support for Instructional Leadership.
B-ELL Leadership Session May 26, 2009 Jorge Preciado University of Oregon © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Using Data in the EBIS System Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring.
DIBELS Data: From Dabbling to Digging Interpreting data for instructional decision-making.
1 The Oregon Reading First Model: A Blueprint for Success Scott K. Baker Eugene Research Institute/ University of Oregon Orientation Session Portland,
Keystone Educational Consulting Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson.
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
Data Analysis MiBLSi Project September 2005 Based on material by Ed Kameenui Deb Simmons Roland Good Ruth Kaminski Rob Horner George Sugai.
HOW DO WE USE DIBELS WITH AN OUTCOMES-DRIVEN MODEL? Identify the Need for Support Validate the Need for Support Plan Support Evaluate Effectiveness of.
Detroit Public Schools Data Review and Action Planning: Schoolwide Reading Spring
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.
DIBELS: Doing it Right –. Big Ideas of Today’s Presentation Reading success is built upon a foundation of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early.
Interpreting data for program evaluation and planning.
Setting ambitious, yet realistic goals is the first step toward ensuring that all our students are successful throughout school and become proficient adult.
The State of the School Fall Goals What do we want children to know and be able to do with text in this school? We want our children to know how.
1 Linking DIBELS Data to Differentiated Instructional Support Plans 32 nd Annual COSA Seaside Conference June 23, 2006 Hank Fien, Ph.D. Center for Teaching.
Intensive Reading Support 6.0 Evaluate Instructional Support 21.
RtI Team 2009 Progress Monitoring with Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading - AIMS.
K-5: Progress Monitoring JANUARY, 2010 WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM INTERVENTION ALIGNMENT.
Data-Driven Decision Making
Data Review Team Time Fall 2013.
Data-Based Leadership
Weaver Elementary School
Q3: How do we get there? Cohort A
DIBELS Next Overview.
Program Effectiveness in DERF: State-Level Action Plan
Data-based Decisions: You try it
Presentation transcript:

1 Project-wide Reading Results: Interpreting Student Performance Data and Designing Instructional Interventions Oregon Reading First February, 2004 Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement College of Education University of Oregon

2 Acknowledgments  Oregon Department of Education  Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, College of Education, University of Oregon  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs  Oregon Reading First Supplemental and Intervention Curriculum Review Panel

3 Content Development Content developed by: Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph. D. Professor, College of Education University of Oregon Hank Fien University of Oregon Additional support: Patrick Kennedy-Paine Katie Tate University of Oregon

4 Copyright  All materials are copy written and should not be reproduced or used without expressed permission of Dr. Edward J. Kame’enui or Dr. Deborah C. Simmons. Selected slides were reproduced from other sources and original references cited.

5 Schoolwide: Each & All Prevention Oriented Scientifically Based Results Focused IBR Foundational Features: Translating Research into Practice

6 Today’s Focus IBR Guiding Questions 1.Goals: What outcomes do we want for our students in our state, district, and schools? 2.Knowledge: What do we know and what guidance can we gain from scientifically based reading research? 3.Progress Monitoring Assessment: How are we doing? What is our current level of performance as a school? As a grade? As a class? As an individual student? 4.Outcome Assessment: How far do we need to go to reach our goals and outcomes? 5.Core Instruction: What are the critical components that need to be in place to reach our goals? 6.Differentiated Instruction: What more do we need to do and what instructional adjustments need to be made?

7 The objectives of today’s session are to: 1.Examine DIBELS outcomes for a model district. 2.Review fall and winter Oregon Reading First project-wide student performance data. 3.Examine the kinds of information available from DIBELS reports. Objectives: What You Will Learn and Do

8 Quarterly Benchmark GoalsFinal Benchmark Goals and Later Low RiskEstablished Some RiskEmerging At RiskDeficit Instructional Status Terminology

9 28% Low risk for reading difficulties 34% Some risk for reading difficulties 38% At risk for reading difficulties Model District - End of Year Histogram - ORF, Year 1 Establishing A Baseline Of Performance for a New Program

10 57% Low risk for reading difficulties 20% Some risk for reading difficulties 22% At risk for reading difficulties Model District - End of Year Histogram - ORF, Year 2 After changes in curricular program, instruction, time, professional development: Evaluating Response to Efforts

11 41% (n=1O36) Established 25% (n= 621) Emerging 34% (n= 858) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Kindergarten ISF

12 36% (n= 839) Established 46% (n=1O71) Emerging 19% (n= 434) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Kindergarten ISF

13 41% (n=28) Established 44% (n=3O) Emerging 15% (n=1O) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Kindergarten ISF

14 32% (n= 8OO) Established 22% (n= 558) Emerging 46% (n=1157) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Kindergarten LNF

15 41% (n= 965) Established 21% (n= 5OO) Emerging 38% (n= 9O1) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Kindergarten LNF

16 56% (n=38) Established 18% (n=12) Emerging 26% (n=18) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Kindergarten LNF

17 23% (n= 596) Established 41% (n=1O34) Emerging 36% (n= 922) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Grade 1 PSF

18 72% (n=1759) Established 21% (n= 5O2) Emerging 7% (n= 171) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Grade 1 PSF

19 85% (n=53) Established 11% (n= 7) Emerging 3% (n= 2) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Grade 1 PSF

20 26% (n= 651) Established 24% (n= 61O) Emerging 51% (n=129O) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Grade 1 NWF

21 32% (n= 789) Established 41% (n= 991) Emerging 27% (n= 653) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Grade 1 NWF

22 36% (n=23) Established 3O% (n=19) Emerging 34% (n=22) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Beginning of Year Grade 1 NWF

23 5O% (n=31) Established 42% (n=26) Emerging 8% (n= 5) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Grade 1 NWF

24 29% (n= 714) Established 19% (n= 470) Emerging 51% (n=1254) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Grade 2 ORF

25 38% (n= 857) Established 14% (n= 3O8) Emerging 48% (n=1O94) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Grade 2 ORF

26 52% (n=32) Established 13% (n= 8) Emerging 34% (n=21) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Grade 2 ORF

27 28% (n= 660) Established 25% (n= 585) Emerging 47% (n=1115) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Grade 3 ORF

28 34% (n= 776) Established 24% (n= 548) Emerging 42% (n= 967) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Grade 3 ORF

29 25% (n=17) Established 34% (n=23) Emerging 4O% (n=27) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Beginning of Year Grade 3 ORF

30 43% (n=29) Established 34% (n=23) Emerging 24% (n=16) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Grade 3 ORF

31 Benchmark goal for all students: correct initial sounds per minute in the middle of Kindergarten. Students scoring 8 or more in the beginning of Kindergarten are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Oregon Reading First Box Plot Mid Year Kindergarten ISF

32 Benchmark goal for all students: correct letter-sounds per minute in the middle of First Grade. Students scoring 24 or more in the beginning of First Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Oregon Reading First Box Plot Mid Year Grade 1 NWF

33 Benchmark goal for all students: 90 correct words per minute at the end of Second Grade. Students scoring 44 or more in the beginning of Second Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Students scoring 68 or more in the middle of Second Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Oregon Reading First Box Plot Mid Year Grade 2 ORF

34 Benchmark goal for all students: 110 correct words per minute at the end of Third Grade. Students scoring 77 or more in the beginning of Third Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Students scoring 92 or more in the middle of Third Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Oregon Reading First Box Plot Mid Grade 3 ORF

35 After 4 years of sustained focused effort: Evaluating Growth Over Time

36 Summary of Effectiveness of Core, Strategic and Intensive Programs

37 Sample School Summary of Effectiveness Table

38 Sample Class Summary of Effectiveness Table

39 Kindergarten Summary Report

40 Kindergarten Summary Report (cont.)

41 Grade 1 Summary Report

42 Grade 1 Summary Report (cont.)

43 Grade 2 Summary Report

44 Grade 3 Summary Report

45 Target Goal Progress Monitoring Score Benchmark Score Sample Progress Monitoring Graph Kindergarten ISF

46 Sample Progress Monitoring Graph Grade 2 ORF Target Goal Progress Monitoring Score Benchmark Score