1. Oregon Reading First (2009)1 Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting May 2009

2. Oregon Reading First (2009)2 Materials for this Meeting You should have received the following by email: Webinar ppt May 2009 Newsletter GLT Agenda GLT Action Planning Module –Participant Material List –NWF Performance Pattern Table –ORF Performance Pattern Table –Planning Worksheet –Student Group List ERT Action Planning Module Other materials that will be referred to: 2008-2009 Action Plan School Literacy Plan Instructional Focus Group/CSI Plans

3. Oregon Reading First (2009)3

4. 4 Overview of the Data-based Action Planning Process GLTs –Review Grade Level Data –Identify systems that need support –Plan Instructional Support ERT –Review Schoolwide Data –Create Action Plan

5. Oregon Reading First (2009)5 Data-based Action Planning GLT Meetings

6. Oregon Reading First (2009)6 Data-Based Action Plan GLT Meeting Logistics Preparing in Advance: –Coach can fill in grade level data in advance for Tables 1 and 2 or the team could work on this together –Gather Participant Materials (see attached List)

7. Oregon Reading First (2009)7

8. 8 Review grade-level actions on the 2008-2009 School Action Plan. Report on Progress (due June 26th)

9. Oregon Reading First (2009)9 Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data: 1.Review student scores and aimline progress.

10. Oregon Reading First (2009)10 Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data: 2.Analyze error patterns and/or word reading strategies from individual DIBELS booklets (e.g., NWF Performance Pattern Table or ORF General Performance Pattern Table).

11. Oregon Reading First (2009)11 Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data: Review Outcomes (Table 1) for K-5 students during spring of last year and compare to spring of this year. Table 1 Reviewing Outcomes for K-5 Students Spring Last Year and Comparing to Spring Outcomes This Year ABCDEFG Grade/Measure Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20 ___ (Last Year) Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20 ___ (This Year) Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20 ___ (Last Year) Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20 ___ (This Year) Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Kindergarten- PSF Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF **This table shows the percent of students that met the important mid-year reading goals for the purpose of reviewing outcomes. ***Grades 4 and 5 have been included in the table for school teams that would like to include this information (not required by Reading First).

12. Oregon Reading First (2009)12 Remember that our BOTTOM LINE consideration is the percent of students that are reaching benchmark. Sometimes schools that are in the upper quartile of the adequate progress range still have room for improvement in the number of students they are supporting to achieve the benchmark!

13. Oregon Reading First (2009)13 Table 1 Reviewing Outcomes for K-5 Students Spring Last Year and Comparing to Spring Outcomes This Year ABCDEFG Grade/Measure Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20 ___ (Last Year) Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20 ___ (This Year) Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20 ___ (Last Year) Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20 ___ (This Year) Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Kindergarten- PSF Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF 31%39%+8%51%36%-15% Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF The percent of students at low risk has increased. That’s good! However, only about 40% of our students are meeting the goal, so we have room to improve. The percent of students at risk has decreased, which is good. However, 36% of the students are still at-risk…that’s more than one third of the students.

14. Oregon Reading First (2009)14 Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data: 4. Evaluate winter to spring grade level instructional support plans (Table 2) by calculating the percent of students making adequate progress toward DIBELS benchmark goals. Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic and/or intensive) that are healthy or that need moderate to substantial changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students.

15. Oregon Reading First (2009)15 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten NWF First Grade ORF Second Grade ORF 40%43%+3%0% 0/45 0% 0/23 25% 5/19 23% 5/20 90% 17/19 90% 20/22 Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic and/or intensive) that are healthy or that need moderate to substantial changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students.

16. Oregon Reading First (2009)16

17. Oregon Reading First (2009)17 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF 40%43%+3%0% 0/45 0% 0/23 25% 5/19 23% 5/20 90% 17/19 90% 20/22 Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations.

18. Oregon Reading First (2009)18 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF 40%43%+3%0% 0/45 0% 0/23 25% 5/19 23% 5/20 90% 17/19 90% 20/22 Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations. Overall we increased the percent of students who made adequate progress a little bit. The total for the grade level is in the middle quartiles compared to other schools in the state using DIBELS. Our challenge is that less than half of our students made adequate progress. How can we make changes to improve the system next year. Let’s look at the systems within the grade to see where we should prioritize. None of the students in the intensive range moved to some risk or low risk on the benchmark goal. This system was in the bottom quartile. We have fewer students in the intensive range (23 vs. 45) but this is a system that needs support. Let’s make this a priority.

19. Oregon Reading First (2009)19 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF 40%43%+3%0% 0/45 0% 0/23 25% 5/19 23% 5/20 90% 17/19 90% 20/22 Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations. Almost the same percent of students made adequate progress in the strategic system this year compared to last year. This system is in the middle quartile. About one quarter of our strategic students made adequate progress Winter to Spring. We could have more. Let’s make this system a priority. Almost all of the students in the benchmark range made adequate progress this year and last year. Only two students did not. Let’s take a look at those students’ data. Depending on that information, we may decide to prioritize this system. After looking at the data, one student was absent for 3 months due to illness. The other student missed the cut-off by 1 point. Let’s not prioritize this system right now.

20. Oregon Reading First (2009)20 5.Did you meet the 2008-2009 formative goals set on the Literacy Plan? Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data: An Example of K-1 goals from a 2008-2009 School Literacy Plan... School-Level Goals for Overall Improvement: Kindergarten: 90 percent of kindergarten students will reach or exceed the kindergarten spring 2008 NWF DIBELS progressive benchmark. This is an 8 percent increase from spring of 2007. 1st grade: 60 percent of first grade students will reach or exceed the spring DIBELS ORF benchmark goal of 40 correct words per minute. This is a 21 percent increase from to spring 2007. Discuss...

21. Oregon Reading First (2009)21 6.Write new formative goals for the 2009-10 Literacy Plan based on the Spring Outcomes (Table 1). Review Spring DIBELS benchmark data:

22. Oregon Reading First (2009)22 Move DIBELS data cards on the Wall Chart according to Spring DIBELS instructional recommendation.

23. Oregon Reading First (2009)23 Identify any groups that did not meet benchmark goals, assessment criteria, and/or projected lesson pacing. Brainstorm possible group system changes or instructional strategies that could address interferences/problems (use the Planning Worksheet). Where do changes need to be made? What changes will you make?

24. Oregon Reading First (2009)24

25. Oregon Reading First (2009)25

26. Oregon Reading First (2009)26 Modify Instructional Focus Group Plans/CSI Maps for any groups that did not meet assessment mastery criteria, and/or did not meeting projected lesson pacing progress.

27. Oregon Reading First (2009)27 Write 2-3 measurable, high priority Grade Level Actions that will address any identified areas of concern for the 2009-10 School Action Plan.

28. Oregon Reading First (2009)28 Data-based Action Planning ERT Meeting

29. Oregon Reading First (2009)29 Purpose of the ERT Meeting –Review Schoolwide Data –Review the GLTs’ Suggested Actions –Create 2009-2010 Action Plan

30. Oregon Reading First (2009)30 ERT Meeting Logistics Preparing in Advance –Coach fills in grade level data in advance and can highlight Table 2 of ERT packet. –Gather Participant Materials (see attached List)

31. Oregon Reading First (2009)31 ABCDEFG Grade/MeasurePercent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20__ Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 20__ Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20__ Percent at Deficit (At Risk) Spring 20__ Percentage Point Increase/ Decrease (+ or -) Kindergarten- PSF Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Reviewing Outcomes Coach will have completed all rows in Tables 1 and 2 in the Early Reading Team booklet (and could highlight boxes in Table 2 where appropriate) before the ERT meeting. Step 1. Review spring reading outcomes for K-3 students. Discuss as a team: Has the percentage of students established on each measure increased? Has the percentage of students at deficit on each measure decreased? Table 1 Reviewing Outcomes for K-5 Students Spring Last Year and Comparing to Spring Outcomes This Year Note: This table shows the percent of students that met the important end of year reading goals for the purpose of reviewing outcomes.

32. Oregon Reading First (2009)32 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent of Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90%. Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 1/5 or 20%. Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ TotalIntensiveStrategicBenchmark Kindergarten- NWF First Grade- ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF Fourth Grade ORF Fifth Grade ORF Evaluating Support What is the effectiveness of the grade level support plans? Step 2: Evaluate the health of the Winter to Spring support systems for grades K-3. Discuss the percentage and number of students in each grade level system that are making adequate progress. Table 2: Evaluating Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e. benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations.

33. Oregon Reading First (2009)33 Step 3: Based on Tables 1 and 2, list the systems, across grade-level (K-3 or K-5) data, that are of highest priority. Step 4: Review grade level teams’ identified new grade level actions. Step 5: The ERT team should consider whether any systems, other than those identified in grade level teams, are in need of support. If so, identify questions and suggested actions. Step 6: Based on team consensus, prioritize actions that will have a significant impact on student achievement. Use this information to develop your 2009-2010 action plan.

34. Oregon Reading First (2009)34 2009-2010 Action Plan School: _____________________ Column Hint: Refer to GLT Table 3 for Roman numerals that reference schoolwide element from Healthy Systems Checklist. List that element in this column. Column Hint: Possible examples include “ All 2 nd graders ”, “ All 2 nd graders in HM ”, “ All 2 nd graders within ten words of the benchmark ”, “ The 2 nd graders in the Reading Mastery Bluebirds group. ” Column Hint: Actions should not be a continuation of already established practices. Instead, the action plan is intended to highlight the new practices that will be implemented during the coming year to improve student outcomes. If the ERT team would like to ensure that certain current practices are continued, considering adding a _______________(e.g., John Henry Elementary) School Expectations document to the end of your action plan. Schoolwide Element Indicate Schoolwide or Specific Grade and Group Action to Be Taken (Be specific enough so that it is possible to determine when the action has been implemented.) Person Responsible Report on Progress of Implementation 1

35. Oregon Reading First (2009)35 Due Date: June 26, 2009 2008-2008 Action Plan progress notes 2009-2010 Action Plan Revised School Literacy Plan Principal Spring Data-based Leadership Plan

36. Oregon Reading First (2009)36 Mini Review: How to Read a Summary Of Effectiveness Report

37. Oregon Reading First (2009)37 Summary of Effectiveness Report Time Period, Grade Level, and Measure Number of students: Total included in the report Number with a Benchmark, Strategic, or Intensive in the middle of the year Number at each benchmark status Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year toStrategic at Middle of Year toBenchmark at Middle of Year toBenchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total) End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established Adams7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5% of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5% of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50% of Total Students N = 82 Count13307270338Deficit 1.2% % of Instructional Recommendation 14.3%42.9% 0%20.6%79.4%0%7.3%92.7%Emerging 15.9% % of Total1.2%3.7% 0%8.5%32.9%0%3.7%46.3%Established 82.9%

38. Oregon Reading First (2009)38 At Risk IntensiveStrategicBenchmark Time 1: ( e.g., Winter) Time 2: (e.g., Spring) 1. Some Risk 2. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 3. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 4. Low Risk DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports 4 Ways to Achieve Adequate Progress

39. Oregon Reading First (2009)39 Middle of the Year Instructional Recommendation IntensiveStrategicBenchmark Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year toStrategic at Middle of Year toBenchmark at Middle of Year toBenchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total) End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established Adams7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5% of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5% of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50% of Total Students N = 82 Count13307270338Deficit 1.2% % of Instructional Recommendation 14.3%42.9% 0%20.6%79.4%0%7.3%92.7%Emerging 15.9% % of Total1.2%3.7% 0%8.5%32.9%0%3.7%46.3%Established 82.9%

40. Oregon Reading First (2009)40 End of Year Benchmark Status At Risk 1. Some Risk 2. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 3. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 4. Low Risk Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year toStrategic at Middle of Year toBenchmark at Middle of Year toBenchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total) End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established Adams7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5% of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5% of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50% of Total Students N = 82 Count13307270338Deficit 1.2% % of Instructional Recommendation 14.3%42.9% 0%20.6%79.4%0%7.3%92.7%Emerging 15.9% % of Total1.2%3.7% 0%8.5%32.9%0%3.7%46.3%Established 82.9%

41. Oregon Reading First (2009)41 Defining Adequate Progress – (a) a benchmark instructional recommendation (i.e., at low risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “ low risk/established ” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year; –(b) a strategic instructional recommendation (i.e., at some risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “ low risk/established ” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year; –(c) an intensive instructional recommendation (i.e., at risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “ low risk/established ” OR “ emerging/some risk ” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year.

42. Oregon Reading First (2009)42 Summary of Effectiveness Report: Review Count = Number of students % of Instructional Recommendation = How many students within the instructional range (i.e., benchmark, strategic, intensive) made adequate progress? % of Total = How many students made adequate progress at this grade level? Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year toStrategic at Middle of Year toBenchmark at Middle of Year toBenchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total) End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established End of Year Deficit End of Year Emerging End of Year Established Adams7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5% of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5% of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50% of Total Students N = 82 Count13307270338Deficit 1.2% % of Instructional Recommendation 14.3%42.9% 0%20.6%79.4%0%7.3%92.7%Emerging 15.9% % of Total1.2%3.7% 0%8.5%32.9%0%3.7%46.3%Established 82.9%