1. E VALUATION T OOLS AS I MPLEMENTATION D RIVERS Two Implementation Rubrics from the California SPDG 1

2. E ARLY ERIA: E FFECTIVE R EADING I NTERVENTIONS A CADEMY ERIA established in 2003-04 before the Era of RTI upper-elementary and middle schools focus a diversity of approaches at sites in regional cohorts recently dev ERIA 2.0 middle and high school focus Frequently Asked Questions “What is ERIA?” “How does this relate to RtI 2 ?” “What is ‘intervention’ and where do we get it?” How do we Evaluate this? 2

3. T WO I NTEGRATIVE E VALUATION T OOLS S ERVE AS I MPLEMENTATION D RIVERS Program Guide articulates PD model a 16-page booklet, explicitly addresses both implementation and intervention practices to guide the design of a site-based program. Implementation Rubric operationalizes PD model a 10-item instrument which provides a framework for trainers, coaches, site team members, and teachers to evaluate and discuss implementation, fidelity, and next steps Everyone is on the same page Sustainability (beyond funding, staff turnover) Scale-up (recruit new sites/districts, beyond SPDG) Diversity of approaches enabled 3

4. SPDG Evaluators Li Walter and Alan Wood synthesized content expert input and worked to make it readily accessible to a variety of stakeholders. “5 Steps” Step 1: Identify Step 2: Assess Step 3: Deliver Step 4: Monitor Step 5: Improve E VALUATION T OOL : T HE P ROGRAM G UIDE 4

5. 5 Stakeholders from every level were included to provide input both on implementation and intervention practices. A variety of existing documents and other resources were also synthesized into the Program Guide.

6. 6 There is a Table of Contents for ease of use.

7. 7 Implementation practices are outlined over a three-year schedule.

8. 8 Implementation practices are described in detail.

9. 9 The Site Team is key to implementing ERIA. It and its supporting structures are detailed.

10. An expansive list of key roles are described in detail. 10

11. While the first half of the Program Guide focuses on implementation practices, the second half focuses on intervention practices and the 5 Steps: Step 1: Identify Step 2: Assess Step 3: Deliver Step 4: Monitor Step 5: Improve 11

12. Step 1: Identify “Identify struggling readers through universal literacy screening early in the school year using statewide English- language Arts test scores.” 12

13. Step 2: Assess (1 of 2) “Assess the decoding, reading fluency, and comprehension skills of struggling readers to guide intervention placement and instruction.” 13

14. Step 2: Assess (2 of 2) Presents a variety of assessment tools and strategies, both for basic and advanced implementation. 14

15. Step 3: Deliver (1 of 2) “Deliver interventions to assess specific skill needs for success in the core curriculum using evidence-based programs and practices with fidelity.” 15

16. Step 3: Deliver (2 of 2) Presents a variety of Intervention topics, programs, and models and how they may be appropriate for implementation, both in basic and advanced implementation. 16

17. Step 4: Monitor “Monitor the progress of struggling students to ensure that interventions are helping students improve and to adjust intervention placements accordingly.” 17

18. Step 5: Improve “Improve content literacy instructional practices to actively and effectively engage all students in the core curriculum.” 18

19. Student Outcomes Past successes, increasing English- Language Arts proficiency inclusive of Students with Disabilities, is detailed. 19

20. E VALUATION T OOL : I MPLEMENTATION R UBRIC The 10 items are intervention practices-focused mostly, with site team and fidelity items The overall tool and process of how the rubric is used drives the implementation practices Self-evaluate and reflect on learning and implementation. Shared with coaches and trainers to guide activities Evaluates the fidelity of implementation of both the PD model and the interventions Former 26-item, 3-point checklist lacked the specificity to be meaningful and useful. 20

21. I MPLEMENTATION R UBRIC, A DAPTED FROM “G OAL A TTAINMENT S CALES ” Amy Gaumer Erickson and Monica Ballay presented “goal attainment scales” on a June 17 SIG Network webinar: http://www.signetwork.org/content_pages/78 http://www.signetwork.org/content_pages/78 Rubric explicitly describes 5 implementation levels for each of 10 items: Levels 1, 2, and 3 reflect the “Not started,” “In progress,” and “Achieved” implementation levels of former checklist. Levels 4 and 5 detail concrete steps towards optimal implementation, beyond the basics. Each implementation level for each item is explicitly described, building more meaning into the tool than our previous checklist format allowed. 21

22. 22

23. 23

24. 24

25. 25

26. 26

27. 27

28. Automatically generated report summarizes three years of implementation in a two-page format. 28 The most-recent response to each item is summarized below the trend chart, including text which describes what each implementation level means in explicit terms.

29. 29 The most-recent response to each item’s “Summary” is gathered in a one-page format.

30. 30 The most-recent response to each item’s “Next Steps” is also gathered in a one-page format.

31. 31 All data from all three years of collection is gathered in a single row on the “Hidden Formulas” tab for easy aggregation. All of this other blank space stores the hidden formulas that make the Excel file work. Because this file doesn’t rely on Visual Basic or Macros, we have avoided security and software compatibility issues.

32. T HE G UIDE AND R UBRICS : W ELL -R ECEIVED Sites love it. Returning sites love the specificity and usefulness. New sites feel like they know what they are getting into. Trainers and coaches can see how sites are progressing and where the needs are. Evaluation Taskforce was encouraged by the possibility of greater ability to learn about the effectiveness of the professional development models. 32

33. BEST I MPLEMENTATION R UBRIC Building Effective Schools Together 33

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. 38

39. ERIA on the Web: http://calstat.org/effectivereading.html BEST / PBS on the Web: http://calstat.org/bestpbs.html Li Walter: li@sonic.net Alan Wood: alan.wood@calstat.org (707) 287-0054 http://calstat.org/effectivereading.html http://calstat.org/bestpbs.htmlli@sonic.netalan.wood@calstat.org 39