1. Monitoring School Progress Towards Reading First Goals Pam Bell Morris, Ph.D. Theresa Clarke

2. Session Objective Outline a process for school leaders to use student performance data to establish goals and evaluate progress toward these goals

3. Questions we want to answer today Is our Reading First improvement plan comprehensive? Are we implementing our plan as it was designed? Is our plan effectively moving us toward achieving our annual goals? If we are off course, how do we get back on course?

4. Is our Reading First improvement plan comprehensive? A comprehensive plan includes: –Annual goals –Objectives Indicators Activities

5. Comprehensive Plan Goals Objectives Specific Activities Evidence of Implementatio n Indicators of Progress (Service) Student Outcomes Performance Targets

6. Are we implementing our plan as it was designed? Review goals, performance targets, and objectives Conduct needs assessment Create objectives Plan supporting activities Examine the evidence

7. Examine annual goals RF-MandatedExamples Five-year Goals Annual School Goals To ensure students are Provide quality instructional reading on or above grade materials for teachers and students level by end of 3rd grade Insure effective leadership To implement SBRR Implement a PD program based on need Reading Programs Decrease number of students referred to special education

8. Examine annual goals 1.Are the goals adequately defined? Do they reflect particular needs in our school or are they general statements that could be applied to any RF school? 2.How are they related to Reading First principles? 3.Have they been constructed so that progress can be tracked? 4.In what ways do they guide the practical operation in schools? 5.Are they explicitly related to the instructional and curricular program? 6.Are they understood and used in the everyday language of teachers and staff? Kame’enui, E. and Simmons, D., “Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective Schoolwide Reading Programs,” Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, University of Oregon, Spring 2000.

9. Conduct needs assessment Use a needs assessment tool to determine the extent of implementation in relevant areas of the school’s reading program (assessment, instructional materials, professional development, 3- tier reading model, etc.)

10. Needs assessment sample results: individual teacher Category Average implementation score 1. 3-Tier Reading Model2.33 2. Assessment2.4 3. Instructional Strategies, Programs, and Materials 2.33 4. Professional Development2.66 5. Instructional Leadership1.33 6. Management2 7. Planning1 8. Evaluation3

11. Needs assessment sample results: schoolwide IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIII K teachers 6.7 1st grade teachers 7.3 2nd grade teachers 9 3rd grade teachers 7.7 Average school score 7.7 Points possible 91518991596 Percentage of total (Average/Points possible) 85

12. Indicators that monitor campus progress What are indicators? Indicators typically are used to monitor and measure progress toward the desired goals. They are measurable and can be tracked over time. Are there different types of indicators? Some are more closely related to the student outcomes or goals (e.g., students receiving intervention). Some are more closely related to the services provided (e.g., teachers receiving PD).

13. Indicators for instructional assessment (C2) Number of students qualifying for intervention at each tier = 239 in Tier II (Grades K-2); 48 in Tier III (Grades 1-3) Of these, the percentage of students receiving intervention at each tier = 71 in Tier II (Grades K-2); 14 in Tier III (Grades 1- 3)

14. Indicators for instructional assessment (C2) Examples of “Digging in” questions (by grade level): Which students are at risk or failing? New/mid-year students? English language learners? Chronically absent or tardy? In a particular class or grade level? Do they have common needs related to specific component of reading?

15. Indicators for instructional assessment (C2) (cont.) Examples Is the intervention working? % of students in Tier II or intervention instruction who exit: after one round (one semester) after two rounds (two semesters) % of students in Tier III or intensive intervention instruction who exit

16. Indicators for instructional strategies and programs (C3) Number and percentage of K-3 teachers receiving initial training in the use of the core program = 21, 100% Number and percentage of the special education teachers, ESL teachers, and reading specialists receiving initial core reading program training = 1, 25% Average amount of time per teacher per week devoted to same-ability small groups (Tier 1) = 100 minutes Average amount of time per teacher per week devoted to mixed-ability small groups (Tier 1) = 0 minutes Number and percentage of students identified for Special Education due to reading difficulties = 14 students, or 3%

17. Indicators for instructional strategies and programs (C3) (cont.) Examples of “digging in” questions: Does the school put reading first by providing the necessary blocks of time for core reading and intervention instruction? Is there sufficient time and intensity provided in intervention instruction for at-risk students?

18. Indicators for instructional materials (C4) Annual amount of time allocated per teacher to core program training = 2 days/person Annual amount of time allocated per teacher to follow-up and/or planning related to core program = 4 hours/person Average number of meetings between LCC and grade-level teams per month = 5 Number of meetings per year among principal, LCC, teachers regarding scheduling = 2

19. Indicators for instructional materials (C4) (cont.) Examples of “digging in” questions: Does the core reading program provide sufficient instruction in the areas of student needs? Do teachers have all of the materials needed to implement the core reading program? Does the reading intervention program address the needs at risk students?

20. Indicators for instructional leadership (C5) Number and percentage of instructional leaders (administrators and LCC) trained in the core reading program and how to evaluate its implementation during observation = 1, or 50% Number of teachers who have used observation feedback given by administrators = 0 Number of teachers who have used observation feedback given by LCC = 16 Number and percentage of instructional leaders trained in assessment data analysis = 1, or 50% Number of grade-level meetings attended by principal per month: 1

21. Indicators for professional development (C6) Number of PD sessions per month delivered based on needs identified from student assessment data = 1 Number of PD sessions per month delivered based on teacher surveys = 2 Number of PD sessions per month LCC delivers based on needs identified in instructional observations = 1 Average number of meetings per week between coach and individual teachers = 7 Number of follow-up trainings provided by publishers during the year = 0

22. Indicators of technical assistance (C7) Number of meetings during the year among principal, project manager, and RTA = 4 Number of meetings during the year organized by principal to discuss and analyze data = 6 Number of meetings during the year organized by principal to discuss progress toward reaching campus goals = 0 Average number of problem-solving sessions per month between principal/project manager and LCC/teachers = 1

23. Indicators for access to print materials (C9) Percentage of students in Tiers II and III checking out books from the classroom or school library to take home, per month = 10% Percentage of students earning tokens in reading incentives program = 60% Number of students recognized for reading improvement in school ceremonies = 30% Classroom library surveys indicating variety of text genres = 95% narrative, 5% expository

24. Indicators of management (C11) Annual number of meetings among project manager, principal, and LCC = 11 Average number of times per month that the business manager draws down RF funds = < 1 Number of RF meetings (not PD) during the year that included: –special education teachers = 2 –librarian = 1 –reading specialist = 0 –diagnostician = 0 –speech therapist = 0 –Title I teachers = 0 –ESL teachers = 0 –parents = 1 Number of new teachers who began after start of school year = 3 Number and percentage of these teachers who received all professional development on programs and assessments = 0

25. Other information Identify other factors that may impact student progress in reading: Student nutritional needs Student transportation schedule Competing programs Staffing patterns/teacher retention

26. If we are off course, how do we get back on course? Identifying gaps between: –Perception (needs assessment) and reality (data) –Data (progress on indicators and outcomes) and annual goals –Planned objectives/activities and accomplished objectives/activities

27. Indicators show school is on target Indicators show school is not on target High level of implementation of PD plan according to needs- assessment 1: Continue implementation of PD plan 3. The plan is not working: change strategies and activities in the school’s PD plan Low level of implementation according to needs- assessment 2: Something is working that is not being identified. Review actual practices, analyze what works, reformulate plan. 4. The PD plan is probably not working and this is confirmed by current practices. If we are off course, how do we get back on course?

28. Adjusting our plan Create more specific annual goals based on needs assessment information and progress on indicators Design action plan that will accelerate progress toward goals –Identify objectives, activities, action steps, and evaluation component

29. Adjusting our plan: considerations Timing Buy-in of all involved in Reading First Remember that assessment data can inform –Instruction –Professional development –Budget decisions Considering all data (not just student assessment data) Data is powerful!

30. Adjusting our plan: first steps A.Create more specific and explicit annual goals B.Revise goals so that they target the improvement needed to close the identified gaps

31. A. Create more specific and explicit annual goals Decrease the number of students referred to special education Monitor all students’ progress towards grade level benchmarks Develop and implement a PD plan that responds to needs identified from student assessment and classroom observation data Decrease the number of students who are at risk for reading failure at the end of each year….

32. B. Revise goals to move toward closing gaps Revision: Decrease the number of students who are at risk for reading failure at the end of each year: In Kindergarten, from 35% to 20% (to 15%) In first grade, from 38% to 25% (to 20%) In second grade, from 32% to 25% (to 20%) In third grade, from 35% to 20% (to 15%)

33. Adjusting our action plan Theory to action Activities: –based on need –correlated to performance targets and outcomes Resulting plan is the school’s plan, not the district grant writer’s plan, and will accelerate progress toward goal

34. Fitting it all together Critical final step: create a master calendar by combining all activities Identify overlapping activities and redefine plan

35. Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts www.texasreading.org info@texasreading.org