1. Oregon Reading First Cohort B IBR I: Selecting a Core Program June 23, 2005

2. 2

3. 3 A Special Thanks...  Linda Taylor - Mentor Coach, Jefferson Elementary, Medford  Barbara Low - Mentor Coach, Oak Grove Elementary, Medford  Rhonda Wolter - Reading Coordinator, Bethel School District  Judy Chesnut - Mentor Coach, Grove/Freewater, Milton-Freewater  Carol Dissen - Mentor Coach, Mooberry Elementary, Hillsboro  Toni Fisher - Mentor Coach, William Walker Elementary, Beaverton  Shawna Moran - Mentor Coach, Hayesville Elementary, Salem

4. “What does IBR mean?”

5. 5 Institutes on Beginning Reading  held for teachers, mentor coaches, principals, and other personnel involved in Reading First implementation  aligned to the Grade 3 Reading Standards and K-2 Optional Curriculum  organized and delivered by the Oregon Reading First Center  provided four times in Year 01 for Cohort B

6. 6 Cohort B IBRs: Year 01 IBR IJune 23 Aug 23-25 Aug 26 Selecting a Core Program SBRR/ 5 Big Ideas, Schoolwide Model, DIBELS Foundations DIBELS Administration IBR IISept. 27 Sept. 28 or Sept. 29 S-I Program Overview Identify Students Who Need Support/Plan Support IBR IIIFeb. 1 or Feb. 2 Evaluating Support Models IBR IVMay 30-June 9 (1 day - regional) Evaluating and Planning

7. 7 A Schoolwide Model For Each Student Instruction Goals Assessment For All Students

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10 State-Level Reading First Oregon Department of Education Joni Gilles, Director Russ Sweet, Team Leader Oregon Reading First Center University of Oregon Scott Baker (B-ELL) Co-Director Carrie Thomas Beck (Cohort B) Co-Director Hank Fien Coordinator of Evaluation Trish Travers Coordinator, Cohort A Doris Baker Judith Plasencia-Peinado Lupina Vela Carol Dissen Jennifer WaltRachell Katz Jeanie Smith RC Pat Nash

11. 11 Subgrant Award Notifications Funds can be used to:  hire the mentor coach  purchase core, supplemental, and intervention programs  purchase K-3 library books  provide professional development * Districts need approval from the Oregon Reading First Center and the Oregon Department of Education for these purchases and activities.

12. 12 Objective of Reading First (1) “To provide assistance to State educational agencies and local educational agencies in establishing reading programs for students in kindergarten through grade 3 that are based on scientifically based reading research to ensure that every student can read at grade level or above not later than the end of grade 3.”  NCLB, 2001, Part B, Sec. 1201.

13. 13 Why Focus on a Reading Program? Aligning what we know and what we do to maximize outcomes.  Unprecedented convergence on skills children need to be successful readers  Much classroom practice is shaped by reading programs  Publishers have responded to the research and redesigned programs.  A program provides continuity across classrooms and grades in approach.  Many state standards are using research to guide expectations

14. 14 Types of Reading Programs  Core Reading Programs:  Provide instruction on the essential areas of reading for the majority of students  Supplemental Programs:  Provide additional instruction in one or more areas of reading (e.g., phonological awareness, fluency, etc.) to support the core  Intervention Programs:  Provide additional instruction to students performing below grade level on one or more essential instructional skills (e.g., increasing structure and time to accelerate learning).

15. 15 Understanding the Purpose of Different Programs Classifying Reading Programs: What is the purpose of the program? 1. Core 2. Supplemental 3. Intervention Core Reading Program Supplemental Reading Program Core Supplemental Intervention Reading Program Meeting the needs for most Supporting the CoreMeeting the needs for each Programs are tools that are implemented by teachers to ensure that children learn enough on time. (Vaughn et al. 2001)

16. 16 Evaluating Core Programs: Identifying Gaps One size does not fit all— Period! We may need to supplement or modify, but we must do it judiciously.

17. 17 Evaluating Core Programs: Identifying Gaps However, “one size” may be necessary and appropriate for most.

18. 18 Advantages of Implementing a Core Program Increasing communication and learning  Improving communication  Teachers within and across grades using common language and objectives  Improving learning  Provides students a consistent method or approach to reading which is helpful for all students  Provides teachers an instructional sequence of skill presentation and strategies to maximize student learning  Provides more opportunity to differentiate instruction when necessary

19. 19 Which Program Should We Choose?

20. 20 Evaluating Core Programs 1.Does it teach all the relevant essential elements? 2.Are the design and delivery adequate for the majority of learners?

21. 21 Evaluating Core Programs: Instructional Content  Essential elements of scientifically based programs include:  phonemic awareness instruction  systematic, explicit phonics instruction  fluency instruction  vocabulary instruction  comprehension instruction

22. 22 Changing Emphasis of Big Ideas Comprehension Vocabulary Automaticity and Fluency with the Code Alphabetic Principle Phonological Awareness 321K Listening Reading Listening Reading Multisyllables Letter Sounds & Combinations

23. 23 Design and Delivery  Features of well-designed programs include:  Explicitness of instruction for teacher and student  Making it obvious for the student  Systematic & supportive instruction  Building and developing skills  Opportunities for practice  Modeling and practicing the skill  Cumulative review  Revisiting and practicing skills to increase strength  Integration of Big Ideas  Linking essential skills

24. 24 TOOL: Consumer’s Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program  Developers: Drs. Deborah C. Simmons and Edward J. Kame’enui, University of Oregon  Why Developed: To assist states, districts and schools in the selection of research-based tools  When Developed: As part of National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators’ scope of work (1990-2000)  Purpose: To document and quantify the design and delivery features of core reading programs.

25. 25 The “Consumers Guide” provides a common metric for evaluating: 1.Scope of review and prioritization of skills 2.Quality and nature of the delivery of instruction Examining Program Content

26. 26 Consumer’s Guide: Organization  Programs Evaluated by Grade  Within Grade by Essential Component:  Phonemic Awareness  Phonics  Fluency  Vocabulary  Comprehension

27. 27 Consumer’s Guide: Organization (cont.)  For each Essential Component:  High Priority Items  Discretionary Items  Overarching Design Items for Each Grade

28. 28 http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/

29. 29 To access results of Oregon’s review, click on “Teachers” tab...

30. 30 Scroll down to “Amended Core Report” and click.

31. 31 Select complete report or results for individual programs.

32. 32 Houghton Mifflin KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade Phonemic Awareness85%100% Phonics83%82%88% Fluency75%92%67% Vocabulary Comprehension TOTAL84%82%89%75% High Priority Items KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade Phonemic Awareness100% Phonics88%96%90%75% Fluency25%50%42% Vocabulary Comprehension TOTAL94%87%81%66% Discretionary Items KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade TOTAL90%85%80%75% Design Items

33. 33 Houghton Mifflin KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade Phonemic Awareness85%100% Phonics83%82%88% Fluency75%92%67% Vocabulary Comprehension TOTAL84%82%89%75% High Priority Items KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade Phonemic Awareness100% Phonics88%96%90%75% Fluency25%50%42% Vocabulary Comprehension TOTAL94%87%81%66% Discretionary Items KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade TOTAL90%85%80%75% Design Items

34. 34 High Priority Items for Fluency in First Grade

35. 35 Houghton Mifflin KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade Phonemic Awareness85%100% Phonics83%82%88% Fluency75%92%67% Vocabulary Comprehension TOTAL84%82%89%75% High Priority Items KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade Phonemic Awareness100% Phonics88%96%90%75% Fluency25%50%42% Vocabulary Comprehension TOTAL94%87%81%66% Discretionary Items KindergartenFirst GradeSecond GradeThird Grade TOTAL90%85%80%75% Design Items

36. 36 Discretionary Items for Fluency in First Grade

37. 37

38. Choose a program with “good bones,” but once you’ve chosen the program don’t assume good outcomes will follow.

39. Oregon Reading First Data Fall ‘03 Kindergarten % Intensive and Fall to Spring ’05 First Grade % making Adequate Progress on ORF by Program

40. 40 How do we get good outcomes?  Strong and Active Leadership (district/principal)  Knowledgable Mentor Coach  Teacher Buy In  Ongoing High Quality Professional Development  Implementing with Fidelity  Data-Based Decision Making  A Schoolwide System for Meeting the Needs of the Full Range of Learners

41. 41 Summary of CSI Maps