Oregon Reading First Cohort B B-ELL Leadership Session Jorge Preciado University of Oregon March 5th, 2009 © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

Overview Celebrations Jo Robinson Presentation/Review of Big Ideas Enhancing Principal Walk Throughs Looking at Winter 2009 Data/Discussion Enhancing First Grade GLTs

Celebrations What systems/grade levels or classrooms have the most students at benchmark? What teachers are improving their delivery of classroom instruction? Are intensive students making gains? What instructional practices have improved the academic performance of strategic students? Increased administrative support?

Jo Robinson “Big Ideas” Leadership Data-based Action Planning Principal Targets More intensity Data Meetings System Level Restructuring

Leadership Data-Based Action Planning More Intensity Whole group instruction Whole Group More explicit (Sesame Street room) Make this weeks’ sounds, sight words, vocabulary visual when explicitly instructed and throughout the week More practice: Make sure all students read in small groups for at least 20 minutes every day Clean up classroom management…. Repeat initial instruction from TE throughout the week as needed Give more group and individual turns Increase engagement to 100%, use precision partner work Speed up transitions, moving from core section to section ASAP Start and end on time Repeat practice at times other than reading block Repeat practice during the week if skill not acquired More feedback Consistent (every time) error correction of sounding out, sight words, phrasing, bumpy reading

Continued Small group instruction Small Group More practice: Give more group and individual turns Increase engagement to 100% All students read in small group EVERY day Use extra practice material BEFORE strategic and intensive students read texts (decodables, at level readers, below level readers, ESL readers) Benchmarks read decodable, at-level, above level, anthology selection orally EVERY week more than once in small group. Teacher created seat work/centers are ALWAYS practice directly connected to needed skills from the core. More feedback Consistent (every time) error correction of sounding out, sight words, phrasing, bumpy reading More time Speed up transitions, moving from group to group ASAP Start and end groups on time Groups last at least 20 minutes Cut out teacher talk, use consistent, rapid cuing

Continued Identify Targets to Move Strategic Students Teacher Targets: More explicit and more practice

Principal Targets Targeted Walk-throughs Intensive Students Strategic Students Benchmark Students

More Intensity More explicit/direct instruction More modeling (MLT) More practice with More monitoring and feedback More time

Data Meetings Correct Placement: More Practice: More Feedback: Use public minutes Record ideas for targets on chart paper List all ideas Cluster related ideas to develop targets

Reading System Change Examples Reorganize the delivery of core Examples: Walk to read Ensure 3 groups each day Ensure full 90 minutes is actually reading Increase core block beyond 90 minutes Make seat work and centers practice connected to core Get advanced training on core delivery Match intervention to need more carefully Administer reading diagnostics to pinpoint needs Purchase more intense interventions Get training on intervention delivery Reorganize the delivery of intervention Examples: Increase intervention time Create teacher parapro intervention delivery teams Ensure fast efficient intervention delivery Ensure monitoring of every child in intervention Select more intense intervention/ train in delivery

Continued Select staff to deliver intense interventions Select staff to deliver interventions. Consider these points: Eagerness and support for intervention Fast efficient delivery, fidelity to specific program Ability to monitor every child Parapro and teacher teams who work well together

Enhancing Principal Walk Throughs Instructional leadership is clearly related to student achievement The walk-through process is one of the most visible and potentially powerful elements of instructional leadership Walk-throughs help build a strong teaching- learning culture to support reading success

Continued Instructional leadership is perhaps the single most important role for principals to play when increased achievement is the goal. (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2001)

Effective Instructional Leaders Are actively involved in reading instruction Are often visible Continuously engage staff in conversation about instruction Supervise instruction frequently and provide feedback (Paine et. al., 2009)

Purposes of Classroom Walk-Throughs Build a strong reading culture Improve student achievement Strengthen instructional leadership Reinforce recent training teachers have had Support the coaching process Assure that time planned is actually delivered Provide teacher support Promote principal learning (Paine et. al., 2009)

Before Observations Before Share walk-through tool(s) you will use Share with teachers the process—what to expect Ask what would be most helpful for them as part of the classroom visit process Defuse anxiety Clearly differentiate between formal evaluation and walk-throughs (Paine et. al., 2009)

During Observations What is the purpose of the lesson? Is there rigor in the lesson (i.e., is it at an appropriate but challenging level of difficulty)? Are the students learning the concepts/skills? What evidence is there of student learning? What are the students doing? Correlates of learning and achievement What is the teacher doing? Indicators of effective teaching (Paine et. al., 2009)

After Observation One positive comment One prompt, question, or suggestion One further follow-up component “Where do we go from here?” “Let’s touch base in a day or two.” Activity: Look at video and write down 2-3 ideas that effectively support walk throughs. (Paine et. al., 2009)

IDEL Winter Data IDEL Fall-Winter Histograms IDEL Fall-Winter Summary of Effectiveness Reports IDEL First Grade Data Activity: Data Action Planning

Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students *K 52% (26)12% (5)36% (18)49 1st 85% (53)12% (8)3% (2)63 Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students K 51% (44)20% (16)29% (25)85 1st 61% (45)26% (17)13% (9)71 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FSF (PSF) Winter 09 Cohort B-ELL FSF Winter Comparison Data B-ELL Cohort IDEL FSF (PSF) Winter 08 * No FSF at Kindergarten for Liberty Reported for Winter 08

Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students *K40% (18)28% (14)32% (16)48 1st37% (23)53% (34)10% (8)65 Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students K46% (37)28% (24)26% (23)84 1st50% (36)33% (22)17% (11)69 Cohort B-ELL FPS Winter Comparison Data B-ELL Cohort IDEL FPS (NWF) Winter 08 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FPS (NWF) Winter 09 * No FPS at Kindergarten for Liberty Reported for Winter 08

Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students 1st 43% (27)30% (19)27% (17)63 2nd 46% (29)16% (11)38% (24)64 *3rd 42% (18)24% (10)34% (14)42 1st 52% (37)20% (14)28% (18)69 2nd 57% (36)16% (10)27% (17)63 3rd 58% (35)9% (5)33% (19)59 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Winter 08 Cohort B-ELL FLO Winter Comparison Data B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Winter 09 * Rigler did not have a third grade class in 07-08

SchoolK (FSF) K (FPS) 1 st (FPS) 1 st (FLO) 2 nd (FLO) 3 rd (FLO) Rigler 48%64%63%71%45%74% McNary Heights 54%46%75%67%76%39% Liberty 53%28%14%19%50%61% % at Established (Low Risk) Winter 2009

School1 st (FPS)2 nd (FLO)3 rd (FLO) Rigler 75% (18)43% (9)74% (17) McNary Heights 83% (19)75% (15)39% (7) Liberty 62% (13)65% (13)61% (11) % Of Students at Each Grade Level Making Adequate Progress

Cohort B-ELL Schools Kindergarten - FSF SchoolPercent of Total Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Intensive Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Strategic Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Benchmark Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winte r 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 64% 28/44 71% 55/ % 23/36 72% 52/ % 3/6 75% 3/ % 3/3 0% 0/ *Liberty 0% 0/0 55% 16/29 0% 0/0 58% 15/26 57% 0/0 100% 1/1 0% 0/0 0% 0/2 McNary Heights 74% 14/19 84% 21/ % 14/19 84% 21/ % 1/1 0% 0/ % 0/0 0% 0/0 0 Rigler 56% 14/25 75% 18/ % 9/17 76% 16/ % 2/5 67% 2/ % 3/3 0% 0/ * No Data Reported for Liberty (FSF)

Cohort B Schools First Grade - FPS SchoolPercent of Total Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Intensive Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Strategic Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Benchmark Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winte r 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 67% 40/60 74% 50/ % 22/27 81% 17/ % 10/23 63% 15/ % 8/10 82% 18/22 +2 Liberty 61% 14/21 63% 13/ % 11/13 77% 10/ % 1/6 20% 1/ % 2/2 67% 2/3 -33 McNary Heights 61% 12/18 83% 19/ % 9/12 67% 4/ % 3/6 78% 7/ % 0/0 100% 8/ Rigler 70% 14/21 32% 18/ % 2/2 100% 3/3 0 55% 6/11 70% 7/ % 6/8 73% 8/11 -2

Cohort B Schools Second Grade - FLO SchoolPercent of Total Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Intensive Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Strategic Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Benchmark Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percen t Chang e (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winte r 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 48% 30/62 61% 37/ % 3/26 32% 7/ % 7/13 58% 7/ % 20/23 86% 23/27 Liberty 53% 10/19 65% 13/ % 1/9 50% 5/ % 2/3 86% 6/ % 7/7 67% 2/3 -23 McNary Heights 42% 8/19 75% 15/ % 1/10 29% 2/ % 2/4 100% 1/ % 5/5 100% 12/12 0 Rigler 50% 12/24 43% 9/ % 1/7 0% 0/ % 3/6 43% 0/ % 8/11 75% 9/12 +2

Cohort B Schools Third Grade - FLO SchoolPercent of Total Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Intensive Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Strategic Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Percent of Benchmark Students Making Adequate Progress (includes # of students) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winte r 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Fall to Winter 2008 Fall to Winter 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 60% 25/42 59% 35/59 36% 8/22 23% 6/ % 2/5 57% 4/ % 15/15 96% 25/26 -4 Liberty 68% 15/22 61% 11/ % 3/8 0% 0/ % 1/3 67% 2/ % 11/11 100% 9/9 0 McNary Heights 50% 10/20 39% 7/ % 5/14 10% 1/ % 1/2 33% 1/ % 4/4 100% 5/5 0 *Rigler 0% 0/0 74% 17/ % 0/0 50% 5/ % 0/0 100% 1/ % 0/0 92% 11/ * Rigler did not have Spanish literacy in third grade ( )

Action Plans & Targets to Support Data When discussing first grade strategic students focus on the following: Operationalize Contributing Factors State Problem and Evidence Support and Strategies that are Directly Linked to the Problem Evaluate Support

Operationalize Contributing Factors Why operationalize terms? Clear, specific definitions, reduces ambiguity Pacing-What does that look like? Teaching to mastery-What does that look like? Make clear statements based on data. Focus on variables that are under the control of school personnel.

Problem and Evidence Question: What variables caused decreases in student outcomes? Response: Pacing (Lesson progress is slow) Operationalized Response: Students began intensive program three weeks after school started. Currently, students are on lesson X. Students should be on lesson X. Overall, _% of students are passing checkouts. Skills are being re-taught for those students who do not pass checkouts the first time.

Continued Question: What variables caused decreases in student outcomes? Response: Students not attending to lessons. Operationalized Response: Students are not responding to signals provided by teacher. Rules are reviewed before the lesson and reinforced throughout the lesson. Teacher is asking _ to _ unison responses per minute during templates instruction. Students are responding with _% accuracy during templates instruction.

Continued Question: What variables caused decreases in student outcomes? Response: Students not decoding text with fluency. Operationalized Response: When presented with connected text, students take more than two minutes to read a 30 word passage. Students are accurate with responses (can decode over 90% of words on text).

Support and Strategies that are Directly Linked to the Problem Ask the following question: What specifically will school personnel do for this group or students? Example: Pacing Principal- Will check number of lessons completed in one week. Will provide feedback to teacher on delivery of lesson. Coach- Will work with teacher to increase unison responses and accuracy of student responses. Will provide feedback to teacher on delivery of lesson. Classroom Teacher- Will work on recommendations from coach. RC- Will observe instruction and lesson delivery (unison responses, student accuracy and check lessons completed). Will review coaches actions.

Evaluate Support How will student's progress be measured? DIBELS/IDEL Benchmark scores DIBELS/IDEL progress monitoring scores Intervention programs checkouts Theme skills tests Phonics decoders Quick checkouts