1. 1 Data-Based Leadership Cohort B March 2, 2006 (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

2. 2 Using data in an Outcomes-Driven model: 1. Identify Goals for Expected Performance 2. Identify and Validate Level of Support Needed to meet Expected Performance Goals 3. Plan and Implement Level of Support 4. Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify Support Plan 5. Review Outcomes

3. 3 How are we doing? Question 1 uDistrict: How are K-3 students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction within the district? uData Source: District Histogram (add to #3)

4. 4

5. 5 How are we doing? Question 1 uSchool: How are K-3 students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction within the school? uData Source: First Grade Histogram (#3)

6. 6

7. 7 How are we doing? Question 1 uProjectwide: How are K-3 students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction within the project? uData Source: Oregon Reading First Histograms

8. 8 Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Histogram Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

9. 9 Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Histogram Nonsense Word Fluency

10. 10 Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Histogram Oral Reading Fluency

11. 11 Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Histogram Oral Reading Fluency

12. 12 Breakout Activity Review of District and School Data

13. 13 How are we doing? Question 2 uDistrict: Within a district, what are the outcomes when examined school by school? uData Source: First Grade Distribution Report - Breakdown by School (#11)

14. 14 District Level Distribution Reports By School By Race / Ethnicity By Gender By Free / Reduced Lunch By Special Education By Disability Status / Special Education Category / Services Provided By Additional Codes By DIBELS-Approved Accommodations

15. 15

16. 16 How are we doing? Question 2 uSchool: Within a school, what are the outcomes when examined class by class? uData Source: School Level Distribution Report (add to #11)

17. 17 School Level Distribution Reports By Class By Secondary Class By Race / Ethnicity By Gender By Free / Reduced Lunch By Special Education By Disability Status / Special Education Category / Services Provided By Additional Codes By DIBELS-Approved Accommodations

18. 18

19. 19 How are we doing? Question 2 uProjectwide: Within the project, what are the outcomes when examined school by school? uData Source: Oregon Reading First: First Grade Distribution Report - Breakdown by School

20. 20 Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Distribution Summary

21. 21 Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Distribution Summary

22. 22 Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Distribution Summary

23. 23 Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Distribution Summary

24. 24 Breakout Activity Review of District and School Data

25. 25 How are we doing? Question 3 uDistrict: Within a district, what are the outcomes when examined by subgroups of students? uData Source: First Grade Distribution Report - Breakdown by Demographics (#12)

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28 How are we doing? Question 3 uSchool: Within a school, what are the outcomes when examined by subgroups of students? uData Source: School Level Distribution Report - Breakdown by Demographics (add to #12)

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31 Breakout Activity Review of District and School Data

32. 32 How are we doing? Question 4 uDistrict: Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter across the year within the district? uData Source: Yearly Box Plot - Districtwide (#13)

33. 33 Yearly Box Plot

34. 34 How are we doing? Question 4 uSchool: Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter across the year within the school? uData Source: Yearly Box Plot - Schoolwide (add to #13)

35. 35 Yearly Box Plot

36. 36 How are we doing? Question 4 uProjectwide: Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter across the year within the project? uData Source: Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box Plot

37. 37 Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box Plot Nonsense Word Fluency

38. 38 Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box Plot Second Grade Oral Reading Fluency

39. 39 Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box Plot Third Grade Oral Reading Fluency

40. 40 Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box Plot Oral Reading Fluency

41. 41 Cross Year Box Plot

42. 42 Breakout Activity Review of District and School Data

43. 43 How are we doing? Question 5 uDistrict: a) Across the district, for each grade, what is the total percent of students that made adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goals? b) Across the district, for each grade, what percentage of students that were benchmark in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were strategic in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were intensive in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal or emerging/some risk status? uData Source: Summary of Effectiveness by District (#14)

44. 44

45. 45

46. 46 How are we doing? Question 5 uSchool: a)For each grade, what is the total percent of students that made adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goals? b) For each grade, what percentage of students that were benchmark in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were strategic in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were intensive in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal or emerging/some risk status? uData Source: Summary of Effectiveness by School (#15) and Summary of Effectiveness by Class (#16)

47. 47

48. 48

49. 49

50. 50 How are we doing? Question 5 uProjectwide: a) For each grade, what is the total percent of students that made adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goals? b) For each grade, what percentage of students that were benchmark in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were strategic in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were intensive in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal or emerging/some risk status? uData Source: Summary of Effectiveness - Project Level

51. 51 Oregon Reading First Project Level Summary of Effectiveness 2005-2006: Beginning of First Grade to Middle of First Grade 51% of ALL students made adequate progress

52. 52 Oregon Reading First Project Level Summary of Effectiveness 2005-2006: Beginning of First Grade to Middle of First Grade 65% of benchmark students made adequate progress 37% of strategic students made adequate progress 52% of intensive students made adequate progress

53. 53 B-ELL Summary of Effectiveness uSlide for leadership session

54. 54

55. 55 Breakout Activity Review of District and School Data

56. 56 Project-wide Data for Adequate Progress towards Winter DIBELS Benchmark Goals

57. 57 First Grade Rank Ordered by AP 75 th Percentile for AP in State Mean First AP Mean K Intensive

58. 58 First Grade Rank Ordered by AP within Context 75 th Percentile for AP in State LR Median=52% LR Median=55%

59. 59 Second Grade Rank Ordered by AP Mean K Intensive Mean Second AP 75th Percentile for AP in State

60. 60 Second Grade Rank Ordered by AP within Context 75 th Percentile for AP in State=67% LR Median=47% HR Median=46% MR Median=40%

61. 61 Third Grade Rank Ordered by AP 75th Percentile for AP in State= 63% Mean K Intensive Mean Third AP

62. 62 Third Grade Rank Ordered by AP within Context LR Median=39% MR Median=31% HR Median=32% 75th Percentile for AP in State= 63%

63. 63 Diagnostic Response to USDOE Reading First Office uSubmitted amendment to USDOE for OR assessment plan to clarify use of diagnostic assessments uAmendment was recently approved by USDOE uWill roll out Multiple Gating Procedure Fall 2006

64. 64 Gate 1: Conduct initial screening of ALL students to determine support students need to reach end-of-year reading goals. Gate 2: Implement instructional support plan for students on track for successful reading outcomes. Plan and deliver additional support for students who are not on track for successful reading outcomes, and monitor each student’s progress towards end-of- year reading goals. As part of the instructional support plans for all student’s, appropriate curriculum embedded tests will be administered. Gate 3: Problem-solve in grade level team meetings. Teams will evaluate students’ progress based on DIBELS progress monitoring tests, theme skills tests, and intervention program mastery tests. Teams will increase the intensity of the instructional support plans for students that are not making adequate progress. Adequate progress means that a student’s rate of growth matches or exceeds the necessary trajectory for the student to reach end-of-year reading goals. Gate 4: Collect information to document that reading instructional plans are being implemented as intended for those students that are not making adequate progress. Reading coaches will use observational tools to document implementation and communicate this information during grade level team meetings. Teams will decide whether to improve implementation fidelity, to increase the intensity of instruction, or to collect additional information on individual student’s not making adequate progress. Gate 5: Administer diagnostic assessments to those students who are not making sufficient progress and the instructional plans have been implemented as intended.