Oregon Reading First: Statewide Mentor Coach Meeting February 18, 2005 © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Consensus Building Infrastructure Developing Implementation Doing & Refining Guiding Principles of RtI Provide working knowledge & understanding of: -
Advertisements

PLP Circle of Support: A prevention/intervention model December 12, 2003 Rhode Island Department of Education.
Response to Instruction and Intervention Process Presentation.
How Do We Know We Are Making Progress? Virginia Department of Education Office of School Improvement
Delta Sierra Middle School Napa/Solano County Office of Education School Assistance and Intervention Team Monitoring Report #8 – July 2008 Mary Camezon,
Using Core, Supplemental, and Intervention Reading Programs to Meet the Needs of All Learners Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D. Oregon Reading First Center COSA.
Eugene, OR Brown Bag Presentation: November 19, 2007
Self Assessment and Implementation Tool for Multi- Tiered Systems of Support (RtI)
1 Visions of Community 2011 March 12, 2011 The Massachusetts Tiered System of Support Madeline Levine - Shawn Connelly.
Oregon Reading First Cohort B Statewide Coaches’ Training Session February 27, 2007 Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D. University of Oregon.
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.
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.
Oregon Reading First Cohort B Leadership Session March 3, 2008 Checking in on Lesson Progress Reporting Systems (LPRs)
Oregon Reading First Cohort B Statewide Coaches’ Session September 14, 2006.
1 Reading First Internal Evaluation Leadership Tuesday 2/3/03 Scott K. Baker Barbara Gunn Pacific Institutes for Research University of Oregon Portland,
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. 2 Dimensions of A Healthy System Districts Schools Grades Classrooms Groups.
1 Oregon K-12 Literacy Framework and K-3 Statewide Outreach.
Changing the World through Reading First Using an Outcomes-Driven Model Roland H. Good III University of Oregon WRRFTAC State.
1 Q3: How do we get there? Cohort B 2 GOALS AND ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS INSTRUCTIONAL TIME DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION/ ORGANIZATION.
Oregon Reading First (2010)1 Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups.
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.
Using Targeted Interventions to Support School Improvement Presenter: Kathleen Smith Director Office of School Improvement.
Providing Leadership in Reading First Schools: Essential Elements Dr. Joseph K. Torgesen Florida Center for Reading Research Miami Reading First Principals,
From Data to Dialogue: Facilitating meaningful change with reading data Ginny Axon misd.net) Terri Metcalf
Comprehensive Reading Model Teaching Reading Sourcebook 2 nd edition.
Using a Comprehensive Assessment Plan to Meet All Students’ Instructional Needs Leadership Conference 2005 Orlando, Florida Pat Howard and Randee Winterbottom.
Interpreting DIBELS reports LaVerne Snowden Terri Metcalf
Guidance from the CSDE on SRBI Implementation May 14, 2010 CAPSS Assistant Superintendents’ Meeting Mary Anne Butler, Education Consultant Iris White,
An Introduction to - PBIS in Roseburg Public Schools: RTI, Professional Learning Communities and How to Respond When Kids Don’t Learn.
RtI/DI Intervention Model for The Public Schools of Petoskey Building Strong, Life-long Learners.
The Instructional Decision-Making Process 1 hour presentation.
Response to Intervention: Improving Achievement for ALL Students Understanding the Response to Intervention Process: A Parent’s Guide Presented by: Dori.
Instructional Leadership and Reading First Component 3-Part B Sara Ticer, Principal, Prairie Mountain School District Support for Instructional Leadership.
School-wide Data Team Meeting Winter NSIF Extended Cohort February 10, 2012.
Using Data in the EBIS System Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring.
Effective Behavioral & Instructional Support Systems Overview and Guiding Principles Adapted from, Carol Sadler, Ph.D. – EBISS Coordinator Extraordinaire.
Winston/Salem Forsyth County Schools RESPONSIVENESS TO INSTRUCTION (RTI)
1 The Oregon Reading First Model: A Blueprint for Success Scott K. Baker Eugene Research Institute/ University of Oregon Orientation Session Portland,
Literacy Framework: What Does It Look Like at Shawnee Heights? Tamara Konrade ESSDACK Educational Services and Staff Development Association of Central.
CSI Maps Randee Winterbottom & Tricia Curran Assessment Programs Florida Center for Reading Research.
Data Analysis MiBLSi Project September 2005 Based on material by Ed Kameenui Deb Simmons Roland Good Ruth Kaminski Rob Horner George Sugai.
RTI Response To Intervention. What is RTI ? Response to intervention is a multi – tier approach to the early identification and support of students with.
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.
Data Report July Collect and analyze RtI data Determine effectiveness of RtI in South Dakota in Guide.
Spotlight on Districts and Campuses Bonham Independent School District February 25, 2011.
Marcia L. Grek, Ph.D. The Florida Center for Reading Research Reading Coaches Conference Orlando, Florida August, 2004.
Scientifically Researched-Based Interventions (SRBI)
Using the PMRN, ECI and EI Indices, and Other Information to Make Effective Decisions Elizabeth Crawford, MS, CCC-SLP Director of Interventions The Florida.
Response to Intervention in a Nutshell August 26, 2009.
The Leadership Challenge in Graduating Students with Disabilities Guiding Questions Joy Eichelberger, Ed.D. Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance.
The Action Planning Process
Response to Invention (RTI) A Practical Approach 2016 Mid-Level Conference.
Response to Instruction and Intervention and how it could apply to High Achievers/Gifted Education Tanya Morret, Dr. Christine.
MASSACHUSETTS TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORT Melrose Public Schools July 9, 2013.
Response to Intervention for PST Dr. Kenneth P. Oliver Macon County Schools’ Fall Leadership Retreat November 15, 2013.
(MTSS) Multi-Tiered System of Supports Charles R. Eccleston, District MTSS Trainer.
The Continuum of Interventions in a 3 Tier Model
Data Review Team Time Fall 2013.
Data-Based Leadership
RTI & SRBI What Are They and How Can We Use Them?
Q3: How do we get there? Cohort A
Systems Problem Solving
Response to Intervention in Illinois
Intensive Intervention – Tier 3
Presentation transcript:

Oregon Reading First: Statewide Mentor Coach Meeting February 18, 2005 © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

Overview of the Data-Based Leadership Model

Student Performance and Implementation Questions and Data Sources

Coach’s Role in the Data-Based Leadership Model

Linking to the Outcomes Driven Model 3 times per year progress monitoring - Low Risk Frequent progress monitoring - At Risk

How Are We Doing? By grade and within each class, which students made adequate reading progress from the beginning of the year to the middle of the year? Explanation of New Summary of Effectiveness Reports

How Are We Doing? School-Based Normative Context for Evaluating Effectiveness of Instruction Projectwide, National

R. Good (2004)18 Model of Big Ideas, Indicators, and Timeline Adapted from Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision- making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third- grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5,

R. Good III (2004)19 Summary of Effectiveness By School, District or Project Provides a quick summary of the effectiveness of core, supplemental, and intervention programs for students who require benchmark, strategic, and intensive support. It examines a step in time: –Beginning to Middle of Year –Middle to End of Year –Beginning to End of Year It divides students by Instructional Recommendations –Benchmark –Strategic –Intensive

School Effectiveness Reports- Kindergarten

School Effectiveness Reports- First Grade

22 School Effectiveness Reports- Second Grade

23 School Effectiveness Reports- Third Grade

DIBELS National Norms Summary tables including percentages. See handouts.

Guiding Questions How are we doing compared to the Oregon Reading First schools? How are we doing compared to national standards of DIBELS users? Where do we want to focus our efforts for improvement? (i.e. purchase of intervention program, refining implementation.)

How Are We Doing? How Do We Get There? By grade and within each class, how are students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of RF? Are the reading programs being used effective? Examples of Using Data to Drive Instruction

How Do We Get There? Are the reading programs and materials being used as intended? Are efforts to improve fidelity working? Issues Around the Coaching Cycle

How Do We Get There? By grade and within each classroom, are the reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students effective? A Plan to Build Capacity for Program Specific Training

How Do We Get There? How should students be grouped? Do we need to reschedule adequate instructional time for the different reading groups? Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instruction? Using LPRs as a Data Source

Why Use LPRs? Regional Coordinators, Principals, Coaches: To analyze the overall status of the implementation. To continuously monitor mastery and lesson progress. To determine areas that require change, and to identify solutions. Teachers, Specialists, Assistants: To summarize and report lesson gains, in-program tests, and results. To communicate questions or comments to the coach. (NIFDI LPC Procedures, 2000)

Questions to Consider: 1. Is instruction differentiated? 2. Is lesson progress adequate? 3. Are students at a high level of mastery as measured by in-program tests? 4. What information or concerns has the teacher communicated?

1. Is Instruction Differentiated? Are the group sizes appropriate? Are programs matched to student performance level? Are all of the groups on the same lesson? (Is teacher treating all groups the same?) Are high, medium, and low groups completing lessons at optimum rates? Does the data indicate the need for acceleration for some students? (NIFDI Coaching Manual: Level I, 1999)

2. Is Lesson Progress Adequate? Does the data reveal potential problems with use of time? (Slow progress may indicate that teacher is (a) not following the schedule, (b) not teaching the program as specified, or (c) struggling with presentation skills or behavior management issues.) Are some lessons being repeated too many times? Will projections be met if current rate of lesson progress is continued? If projections will not be met, do justifiable reasons exist for not meeting them? Do the projections need to be changed? (NIFDI Coaching Manual: Level I, 1999)

3. Are students at a high level of mastery as measured by in-program tests? Did teacher indicate the number of students who passed the in- program test(s)? Did teacher miss an opportunity to give an in-program test? Did teacher remediate and retest students who failed the test on the first try? Consider group performance: How many students overall passed the in-program test? Consider individual student performance: Who are the students who failed one test, two consecutive tests? Which tests? Are the same students failing from time to time? Does data indicate a possible need for change in placement? Is lesson gain being achieved at the expense of mastery? (NIFDI Coaching Manual: Level I, 1999)

4. What additional information or concerns has the teacher communicated? Did the teacher list types of items missed on in-program tests? Did the teacher include information on remediation and retesting? Did the teacher indicate a concern about an individual student? (NIFDI Coaching Manual: Level I, 1999)

Lesson Progress Organizer

Lesson Progress Report

Question and Answer/ Large Group Sharing