B-ELL Leadership Session May 26, 2009 Jorge Preciado University of Oregon © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

Overview Logistics Celebrations Sustaining Reading First Data Presentation/Discussion School Data Posters Leadership Action Plans Closing statements

Celebrations 1.What grade level(s) made the biggest growth for adequate progress? 2.Did first grade strategic students receive a minimum of 20 minutes of connected text practice? 3.What grade levels had the largest percentage of intensive students make adequate progress? 4.How has the reading culture at your school changed over the past few years?

Sustainability “...the ability of a staff to maintain the core beliefs and values (culture) of a program...and use them to guide program adaptations over time...”...while maintaining improved or enhanced outcomes. -adapted from Century and Levy, 2002

What do we want to sustain? adaptability systems effective practices reading culture Improved outcomes

RF Elements + Systems Variables = Sustained Outcomes Program Elements SBRR Instruction and Materials (Curriculum) Differentiated Instruction and Interventions Data Analysis & Use Formative Assessment System Professional Development and Coaching Systems Variables Focused Reading Culture Sufficient Resources ($ / Time) Effective School & District Leadership / Support Improved Student Achievement (RMC Research Corporation, 2009)

Program Elements SBRR Instruction and Materials Differentiated Instruction and interventions Data Analysis and Formative assessment systems Professional Development/Coaching

Team Discussion Look over the four critical features pertinent to program elements and discuss with your team keepers and polishers. Choose two of the four critical features that are the most challenging to your staff and assign three keepers and one-two polishers as you move forward to next year and beyond. Use the form provided.

System Variables District and school leadership Sufficient resources Focused Reading Culture Primary goals and formative goals Evaluation of healthy systems (e.g., structural elements of system and quality of implementation)

Team Discussion Look over the five critical features pertinent to system variables and discuss with your team keepers and polishers. Choose two of the five critical features that are the most challenging to your staff and assign three keepers and one-two polishers as you move forward to next year and beyond. Use the form provided.

What are the greatest barriers to sustainability? Traditional thinking:  Expiration of funding  Turnover of key staff  Changing priorities  Other factors outside our control Alternate view:  Erosion of culture and commitment  School’s failure to focus on the variables they control

Sustaining Reading First: A Premise... Those who are able to sustain the improved outcomes they have attained under Reading First will be those who: see Reading First not as a funding stream, but as a different way of thinking about teaching and learning see the management of change as a systems level process (RMC Research Corporation, 2009)

Lessons Learned Three key factors that play the greatest roles in determining sustainability: 1.Shared leadership (and accountability) for desired outcomes 2.School culture around desired outcomes 3.Use of data to monitor, adjust and make important decisions related to outcomes Datnow, 2005

Sustainability Findings Schools that sustained reforms  More continuity of leadership (leadership)  More commitment among stakeholders (culture)  The reform was an obvious feature of the structure and culture of the school (culture)  More likely that principal played a key role in bringing reform effort to the school (leadership) School-level factors that inhibited sustainability:  The presence of competing reforms (lack of focus--leadership)  Greater turnover in leadership  Lack of buy-in initially and even after several years of implementation (culture)  Greater misunderstanding/criticism about the reform (culture) (adapted from Datnow, 2005)

Summary Sustainability is possible, if:  There are improved results to build upon.  A strong implementation is maintained.  Strong leadership, culture and systems elements are present to provide on-going support for implementation. (adapted from Datnow, 2005)

IDEL Spring Data IDEL Winter-Spring Histogram Tables IDEL Winter-Spring Summary of Effectiveness Reports Longitudinal Data

Cohort B-ELL FSF Spring Comparison Data Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students *K57%15% 28% 53 1st85%8%7%64 Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students K66%21%13%86 1st85%12%7%71 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FSF (PSF) Spring 08 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FSF (PSF) Spring 09 * No Data Reported for Liberty in Spring of 2008

Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students *K61%23%17%53 1st70%14%16%64 Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students K61%12%27%86 1st66%16%18%86 Cohort B-ELL FPS Spring Comparison Data B-ELL Cohort IDEL FPS (NWF) Spring 08 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FPS (NWF) Spring 09 * No Data Reported for Liberty in Spring of 2008

Cohort B-ELL FLO Winter Comparison Data B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Spring 08 Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students 1st56%20%24%64 2nd52%23%25%63 *3rd33%22%45%41 1st56%20%24%71 2nd63%20%17%63 3rd41%22%37%61 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Spring 08 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Winter 09 * Rigler did not have a third grade class in Low RiskSome Risk At RiskTotal Students 1st56%20%24%64 2nd52%23%25%63 *3rd33%22%45%41 1st56%20%24%71 2nd63%20%17%63 3rd41%22%37%61 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Spring 08 B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Spring 09

% at Established (Low Risk) Spring 2009 Schoo l K (FSF) K (FPS) 1 st (FPS) 1 st (FLO) 2 nd (FLO) 3 rd (FLO) Rigler 72%68%61%78%45%70% McNary Heights 61%57%73%62%64%25% Liberty 64%58%64%27%79%28%

% Of Students at Each Grade Level Making Adequate Progress SchoolK (FSF) K (FPS) 1 st (FPS) 1 st (FLO) 2 nd (FLO) 3 rd (FLO) Rigler 77%68%60%70%59%70% McNary Heights 74%63%74%60%67%28% Liberty 72%66%73%45%79%28%

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) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 65% 32/49 74% 60/ % 9/18 66% 19/ % 13/17 66% 19/ % 10/14 96%/ 22/ *Liberty 0% 0/0 72% 23/ % 0/0 59% 10/ % 0/0 80% 4/5 +800% 0/0 90% 9/ McNary Heights 88% 21/24 74% 20/ % 6/8 75% 6/8 0100% 8/8 55% 6/ % 7/8 100% 8/8 +12 Rigler 44% 11/25 77% 17/ % 3/10 75% 3/ % 5/9 69% 9/ % 3/6 100% 5/5 +50 Cohort B-ELL Schools Kindergarten - FSF * No Data Reported for Liberty in Spring 2008 (FSF)

Cohort B-ELL Schools Kindergarten - 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) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 73% 38/52 65% 53/ % 12/18 48% 14/ % 14/20 72% 21/ % 12/14 91% 21/23 +5 *Liberty 0% 0/0 66% 21/ % 0/0 47% 8/ % 0/0 80% 4/5 +800% 0/0 90% 9/ McNary Heights 70% 19/27 74% 20/ % 5/8 63% 5/8 073% 8/11 73% 8/11 075% 6/8 88% 7/8 +13 Rigler 76% 19/25 68% 15/ % 7/10 25% 1/ % 6/9 69% 9/ % 6/6 100% 5/5 0 * No Data Reported for Liberty in Spring 2008 (FPS)

Cohort B-ELL Schools First 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) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 63% 38/60 62% 42/68 32% 5/16 24% 5/ % 16/26 59% 10/ % 17/18 90% 27/30 -4 Liberty 43% 9/21 45% 10/ % 3/9 33% 5/15 033% 3/9 50% 2/ % 3/3 100%/ 3/3 0 McNary Heights 58% 11/19 60% 14/ % 2/7 0% 0/ % 6/8 25% 1/ % 3/4 87% 13/ Rigler 90% 18/20 78% 18/ % 0/0 0% 0/2 078% 7/9 78% 7/9 0100% 11/11 92% 11/12 -8

Cohort B-ELL 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) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 61% 38/62 71% 44/ % 7/23 38% 6/ % 5/11 40% 4/ % 26/28 94% 34/36 +1 Liberty 74% 14/19 89% 17/ % 5/9 75% 3/ % 1/1 80% 4/ % 8/9 100% 10/ McNary Heights 50% 10/20 67% 14/ % 2/9 0% 0/ % 1/3 0% 0/ % 7/8 88% 14/16 0 Rigler 60% 14/23 59% 13/22 0% 0/5 43% 3/ % 3/7 0% 0/ % 11/11 100% 10/10 0

Cohort B-ELL 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) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Winter to Spring 2008 Winter to Spring 2009 Percent Change (+ or -) Cohort B 38% 16/42 44% 26/ % 2/14 0% 0/ % 1/10 40% 2/ % 13/18 69% 24/35 -3 Liberty 45% 10/22 28% 5/ % 1/5 0% 0/5 -200% 0/5 0% 0/2 075% 9/12 45% 5/ McNary Heights 30% 6/20 28% 5/ % 1/9 0% 0/ % 1/5 50% 1/ % 4/6 57% 4/7 -10 *Rigler N/A70% 16/23 +70N/A0% 0/5 0N/A100% 1/1 +100N/A88% 15/ *Rigler did not have a third grade Spanish literacy class in

B-ELL Cohort B Longitudinal Data

First Grade

Second Grade

Third Grade

Data Boards and Posters Look at your data boards. Look at the grade levels who have a healthy system and discuss. Look at your data boards. Look at the grade levels who do not have a healthy system and discuss, and brainstorm polishers. Write 2-3 measureable outcomes to improve systems.

Healthy Systems 75% of Grade 1 students (56/75) met the Spring FLO benchmark goal. 80% of Grade 2 students (60/75) met the Spring FLO benchmark goal. 85% of Kindergarten students (64/75) met the Spring FSF benchmark goal.

Unhealthy Systems 29% of Grade 1 Students (22/75) met the Spring FLO benchmark goal. 33% of Grade 2 Students (25/75) met the Spring FLO benchmark goal. 14% of Kindergarten Students (10/69) met the Spring FSF benchmark goal.

Systems Measureable Outcomes 29% of Grade 1 Students (22/75) met the Spring FLO benchmark goal. First grade students will be assessed on IDEL within the first week of school. By September of 2009, all first grade teachers will have data to group students for individualized small group instruction. By September of 2009, intensive students will begin receiving targeted small group instruction (e.g., phonics skills and connected text) for a minimum of minutes within the second week of school. By September of 2009, strategic students will begin receiving targeted small group instruction (e.g., phonics skills and connected text) for a minimum of 30 minutes within the second week of school.

Systems Measureable Outcomes 33% of Grade 2 Students (25/75) met the Spring FLO benchmark goal. By September of 2009, intensive second grade students will begin receiving targeted small group instruction (e.g., phonics skills and connected text) for 45 min. within the second week of school. By September of 2009, intensive second grade students will have 15 minutes of skill based practice, 20 minutes of connected text reading, and 10 minutes to complete worksheets during the targeted 45 minutes of small group reading instruction.

Leadership Actions What will district leadership provide to support the reading culture at your school? What will school leadership provide to support the reading culture at your school? Look at your systems that were ineffective and write 2-3 measureable outcomes.

Leadership Measureable Outcomes By September of 2009, district will provide IDEL data collectors so that schools can assess K-3 students by the first week of school. By August of 2009, school administrator will meet with literacy coach and grade level teachers to plan and disseminate monthly professional development to K-3 teachers. By September of 2009, school administrator/literacy coach will review IDEL scores with K-3 teachers to form and plan reading small group instruction by the second week of school.

Share Out Share leadership outcomes with peers? How did you derive at these actions? How will these actions change and/or sustain the reading culture at your school? What is one leadership action that you would like to implement as soon as school begins in the fall of 2009?

Closing Thoughts Remember that sustaining a reading culture takes a relentless pursuit to provide children with the necessary literacy skills to compete and sustain in a global economy. Remember that strong leadership and systems elements makes it easier to sustain strong and vibrant reading cultures.