1 Cohort B Q2: How are we doing?. 2 Reviewing Outcomes  What percent of students are reaching benchmark goals in each grade level?  What percent of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Oregon Reading First: Three-Year Report Preliminary Impact Evidence Oregon Reading First Center LLSSC Meeting, November 29, 2006.
Advertisements

DIBELS Part I SEDL 368. To access the materials, you will need to go to Download.
1 Module 2 Using DIBELS Next Data: Identifying and Validating Need for Support.
Cohort A Project-wide Data “Our goals can only be reached through a vehicle of a plan, in which we must fervently believe, and upon which we must vigorously.
1 Achieving a Healthy Grade- Level System in Beginning Reading Content developed by Carrie Thomas Beck.
Oregon Reading First IBR V - Cohort B Introduction to Lesson Progress Reports (LPRs)
1 Data-Based Leadership Cohort B March 2, 2006 (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Instruction GoalsAssessment For Each Student For All Students Institute on Beginning Reading Day 4: Instruction: Time, Scheduling & Grouping / Reading.
Action Planning Spring 2008 Statewide Coaches’ Meeting Oregon Reading First.
Thinking Smart About Assessment Ben Clarke, Ph.D. Rachell Katz, Ph.D. August 25, 2004 Oregon Reading First Mentor Coach Training © 2004 by the Oregon Reading.
1 Reading First Internal Evaluation Leadership Tuesday 2/3/03 Scott K. Baker Barbara Gunn Pacific Institutes for Research University of Oregon Portland,
1 Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading: Evaluating and Planning Spring, 2006 Cohort B.
Oregon Reading First: Statewide Mentor Coach Meeting February 18, 2005 © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Oregon Reading First (2009)1 Oregon Reading First Webinar Data-based Action Planning Winter 2009.
What Can We Do to Improve Outcomes? Identifying Targets of Opportunity Roland H. Good III University of Oregon WRRFTAC State.
1 Cohort B Institute on Beginning Reading III February 1 and 2, 2006 Achieving Healthy Grade-Level Systems in Beginning Reading.
Oregon Reading First (2010)1 Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting May 13, 2010.
Oregon Reading First (2009)1 Oregon Reading First Regional Coaches’ Meeting May 2009.
Oregon Reading First (2008)1 Oregon Reading First Conference Call Data-based Action Planning Winter 2008.
1 Q3: How do we get there? Cohort B 2 GOALS AND ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS INSTRUCTIONAL TIME DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION/ ORGANIZATION.
1 Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading VII: Evaluating and Planning Institute on Beginning Reading VII: Evaluating and Planning.
Oregon Reading First (2010)1 Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups.
Instruction GoalsAssessment For Each Student For All Students Overview of Advanced DIBELS Applications Institute on Beginning Reading II.
1 Oregon Reading First: Cohort B Leadership Session Portland, Oregon May 27, 2009.
Instruction Goals Assessment For Each Student For All Students Institute on Beginning Reading II Planning Core/Benchmark, Strategic, & Intensive Interventions.
1 Project-wide Reading Results: Interpreting Student Performance Data and Designing Instructional Interventions Oregon Reading First February, 2004 Institute.
1 Q2: How are we doing? Cohort A (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
Oregon Reading First (2007)1 Oregon Reading First Coaches’ Meeting Spring 2007 IBR Preparation April 25 and 26th, 2007.
Cohort B Leadership Session March 3, 2008 Agenda.
1 Application of Model to Sample Data Set / Data Review and Analysis Breakout Sessions © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and.
From Data to Dialogue: Facilitating meaningful change with reading data Ginny Axon misd.net) Terri Metcalf
Cohort 5 Elementary School Data Review and Action Planning: Schoolwide Reading Spring
School Improvement Specialist Meeting
Interpreting DIBELS reports LaVerne Snowden Terri Metcalf
Implementing Structured Data Meetings Middle of Year (MOY) Meetings.
Strategic Early Intervention : Planning for Columbus Public School Students Dr. Penney Brooks, Speech/Language Pathologist Ms. Kristine Joaquin, School.
Grade-level Data Team Meetings.
Dynamic Measurement Group (DMG) Part 2.
Systems Review: Schoolwide Reading Support Cohort 5: Elementary Schools Winter, 2009.
B-ELL Leadership Session May 26, 2009 Jorge Preciado University of Oregon © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
School-wide Data Team Meeting Winter NSIF Extended Cohort February 10, 2012.
Using Data in the EBIS System Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring.
1 October 24, 2006 Doris Baker Rachell Katz Jorge Preciado B-ELL Leadership Session © 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.
CSI Maps Randee Winterbottom & Tricia Curran Assessment Programs Florida Center for Reading Research.
Cohort 4 Elementary School Data Review and Action Planning: Schoolwide Reading Spring
Implementing Structured Data Meetings End of Year (EOY) Meetings.
Data Analysis MiBLSi Project September 2005 Based on material by Ed Kameenui Deb Simmons Roland Good Ruth Kaminski Rob Horner George Sugai.
HOW DO WE USE DIBELS WITH AN OUTCOMES-DRIVEN MODEL? Identify the Need for Support Validate the Need for Support Plan Support Evaluate Effectiveness of.
EOY DIBELS Benchmark Data for Intervention Programs Oregon Reading First Schools June, 2009 © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.
Data-Based Decision Making: Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring.
Tallassee Elementary Summary of Effectiveness DIBELS Report Data Meeting May 9, 2012 Presenter: Cynthia Martin, ARI Reading Coach.
Overview For Parents Introduce yourself and any co-trainers to your staff.
Interpreting data for program evaluation and planning.
Setting ambitious, yet realistic goals is the first step toward ensuring that all our students are successful throughout school and become proficient adult.
1 Linking DIBELS Data to Differentiated Instructional Support Plans 32 nd Annual COSA Seaside Conference June 23, 2006 Hank Fien, Ph.D. Center for Teaching.
1 Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading: Evaluating and Planning Spring, 2006 Cohort A (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center.
DATA REFLECTION: Providing Generally Effective Instruction Oregon Reading First Cohort B Project Level Data Erin Chaparro, Ph.D. Jean Louise Mercier Smith,
Intensive Reading Support 6.0 Evaluate Instructional Support 21.
Falls-Lenox Primary School Wall to Wall Data 1. Background ➢ Intervention based Assessment Team, IAT, serves over 750 students ➢ Need to provide intervention.
Winston-Salem / Forsyth County Schools
Data-Driven Decision Making
Data-Based Leadership
Weaver Elementary School
Q3: How do we get there? Cohort A
Reading Goals and Reading Growth A Proposal for Cohort A
Reading Goals and Reading Growth A Proposal for Cohort A
Oregon Reading First Summary Outcomes at the End of Year 1: Students at Benchmark (On Track) (C) 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.
Oregon Reading First Summary Outcomes at the End of Year 1: Students at Benchmark (On Track) © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.
Program Effectiveness in DERF: State-Level Action Plan
Data-based Decisions: You try it
Presentation transcript:

1 Cohort B Q2: How are we doing?

2 Reviewing Outcomes  What percent of students are reaching benchmark goals in each grade level?  What percent of students have a deficit in benchmark skill areas for each grade level?

3 What reports can we use to answer these questions?

4 First Grade Example

5 How are K-3 students performing at the end of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction? Table 1 Taking Stock: Reviewing Outcomes for K-3 Students Spring 2006 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 2006 Percent at Deficit Spring 2006 Kindergarten-PSF Kindergarten-NWF First Grade-ORF Second Grade-ORF Third Grade-ORF

6 First Grade Example

7 How are K-3 students performing at the end of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction? Table 1 Taking Stock: Reviewing Outcomes for K-3 Students Spring 2006 Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Percent at Established (Low Risk) Spring 2006 Percent at Deficit Spring 2006 Kindergarten-PSF Kindergarten-NWF First Grade-ORF251/402 62% 69/402 17% Second Grade-ORF Third Grade-ORF

8 Activity 1 Materials Needed breakout forms school histograms: Spring 2005 Oregon Reading First project-wide data Directions Break into grade level teams and complete items A and B A.Using the grade level Spring histograms, complete Table 1. B.Discuss end-of-year (Spring 2006) K-3 performance on the essential components of beginning reading instruction using the information from Table 1.

9 Activity 1 (continued) C. Compare school outcomes to project-wide outcomes. How does our school compare?

10 Insert project-wide data- histograms here: K-PSF K-NWF 1-ORF 2-ORF 3-ORF

11 Evaluating Support  How effective were the grade-level Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)?

12 What report can we use to answer this question?

13 Summary of Effectiveness Report

14 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

15 Evaluating Support: Winter to Spring 2006  What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?  What percent of intensive students made adequate progress  What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?  What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

16 How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Bench mark Goal Measure Total percent of students at each grade that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 121/155 or 78%. 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 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Kindergarten- PSF

17 What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?

18 How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Bench mark Goal Measure Total percent of students at each grade that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 121/155 or 78%. 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 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Kindergarten- PSF 71/82 87%

19 Evaluating Support: Winter to Spring 2006  What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?  What percent of intensive students made adequate progress  What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?  What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

20 How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Bench mark Goal Measure Total percent of students at each grade that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 121/155 or 78%. 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 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Kindergarten- PSF

21 What percent of intensive students made adequate progress?

22 How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Bench mark Goal Measure Total percent of students at each grade that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 121/155 or 78%. 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 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Kindergarten- PSF 6/7 86%

23 Evaluating Support: Winter to Spring 2006  What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?  What percent of intensive students made adequate progress  What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?  What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

24 How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Bench mark Goal Measure Total percent of students at each grade that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 121/155 or 78%. 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 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Kindergarten- PSF

25 What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?

26 How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Bench mark Goal Measure Total percent of students at each grade that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 121/155 or 78%. 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 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Kindergarten- PSF 27/34 79%

27 Evaluating Support: Winter to Spring 2006  What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?  What percent of intensive students made adequate progress  What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?  What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

28 How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Bench mark Goal Measure Total percent of students at each grade that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 121/155 or 78%. 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 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Kindergarten- PSF

29 What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

30 How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/Bench mark Goal Measure Total percent of students at each grade that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 121/155 or 78%. 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 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Winter to Spring 2006 Kindergarten- PSF 38/41 93%

31 Activity 2 Materials Needed breakout forms Summary of Effectiveness Reports: Winter to Spring 06 Oregon Reading First Project-Wide Outcomes Directions Break into grade level teams and complete items A-B: A.Using the grade-level Summary of Effectiveness Reports, complete Table 2. B.For each grade, discuss the total percent of students making adequate progress towards the spring benchmark goals. Discuss what the data indicate for benchmark, strategic, and intensive students.

32 Activity 2 (continued) C. Compare your school’s percent of students making adequate progress to Oregon Reading First’s project-wide data.

33 Insert Project-Wide Summary of Effectiveness Reports K123K123