1. Reading Goals and Reading Growth A Proposal for Cohort A
Oregon Reading First Center
Oregon Reading First Cohort A Leadership Session
March 3, 2006
(C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

2. Purpose of the Presentation
Consider two ways to think about student reading goals with our DIBELS data
Benchmark Goals:
e.g., 90 words per minute at end of grade 2 on ORF
Individualized Performance Goals:
e.g., 75 words per minute at end of grade 2 on ORF
Present the rationale for these complimentary goal systems
Outline how we might set student goals in the fall using this type of approach

3. How We Currently Think About Reading Goals and Adequate Reading Progress or Growth

4. Reaching Benchmark Goals in 1 Year
Probability may be very low for some students, especially in the higher grades (e.g., 2 & 3)
Important differences in REAL student growth may occur YET NOT result in a reduction of risk status (e.g., Intensive to Strategic or Strategic to Benchmark)
More sensitive ways to set goals for some students may lead to greater achievement and a more accurate way to acknowledge school success

5. What do we know from research about setting student achievement goals
Setting goals leads to better student achievement
Ambitious goals are better than meager goals
When student progress is monitored toward measurable goals, achievement is enhanced
When data decision rules are used in conjunction with progress monitoring data, achievement is optimal!

6. Our Current System of Defining Adequate Progress Can Be Improved
A real example of data from our Cohort A Reading First schools can help frame the issue

7. Mean Rates of Progress for All 2nd Grade Students based on Fall Level of Performance
Oral Reading Fluency Goals

8. Mean Rates of Progress of Those 2nd Grade Students MOST At-Risk in the Fall
Means for all student groups are in At High Risk category at the beginning of the year AND at the end of the year

9. Strong Rates of Growth in High Performing Schools
Schools in the Upper Quartile in DIBELS Data System (literally thousands of schools are represented)
These schools were successful with 2nd grade intensive students
Data from these types of schools can help us set realistic and challenging Individualized Performance Goals

10. Growth of Students Most At-Risk in High Performing Schools
Mean Growth of Top Third
Mean Growth of Middle Third
Mean Growth of Lowest Third

11. Goal Setting Proposal for Cohort A 2006-2007
Use fall screening data to set one of two types of goals for all students, K-3
For Benchmark Students: Goal will be Benchmark Goal or higher in the spring
For Strategic and Intensive Students: Goal will be EITHER Benchmark Goal or Individualized Performance Goal in the spring
Decision will be based on probability of attaining Benchmark Goal
Probabilities will be determined using High Performing Schools in DIBELS Data System and Oregon Reading First Schools
Individualized Performance Goals will be based on High Performing Schools in DIBELS Data System and Oregon Reading First Schools

12. Hypothetical example of setting Benchmark and Individualized Performance Goals with 5 Grade 2 Students S1 S2 S5 S4 S3 x
Benchmark Goal = 90 wpm or above x x x
Individualized Performance Goals: 88, 86, 60 x
Scott, look at this with animation.

13. Hypothetical performance of 3 Intensive Students with similar fall ORF scoresx
Scott, look at this with animation.

14. Analyzing Patterns of Growth May Help Us Distinguish Between Student-Level and Systems-Level Issues
Alex
Ben
Lori
School A
Xavier
Jordan
Cassi
School B x
Growth Goal Line
Scott, look at this with animation.

15. DIBELS Benchmark Goals
Grade
DIBELS Winter Goals
DIBELS Spring Goals
Kindergarten
PSF >= 18
NWF >= 25
Grade 1
NWF >= 50
ORF >= 40
Grade 2
ORF >= 90
Grade 3
ORF >= 110

16. Concept of Individualized Performance Goals for Some Students
Grade
Intermediate goals
Year-end goals
Kindergarten
PSF = X (individualized)
NWF = X (individualized)
Grade 1
ORF = X (individualized)
Grade 2
Grade 3

17. Next Steps By the summer, what the ORFC will do
Determine Realistic and Challenging Individualized Performance Goals for students who are NOT likely to meet Spring DIBELS Benchmark Goals
Based on High Performing Schools nationwide and Oregon Reading First Schools
Determine child, school, and other factors that may influence attainment of Individualized Performance Goals
e.g., Percent of Intensive Students in the school; English Language Learner status

18. What the ORFC will do
By the beginning of school in the fall, establish specific criteria for schools to be considered high performing, average performing, or low performing in relation to DIBELS primary reading measure (i.e., NWF and ORF)
Criteria by risk status -- i.e., Intensive, Strategic, and Benchmark Students
By the beginning of school in the fall, establish school based goals for performance on the SAT-10 and OSAT
Based on prior performance and national Reading First goals
Establish performance criteria for high performing, average performing, or low performing

19. As soon as your fall data are collected, what the ORFC will do
Provide Individualized Performance Goals for student who are not likely to meet DIBELS Benchmark Goals
Link fall data to criteria for schools to be high performing, average performing, or low performing