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 and Learning University of Oregon

2 Content Development Content developed by: Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph. D.Deborah C. Simmons, Ph. D. University of OregonTexas A & M University Beth Harn, Ph. D.Sarah McDonagh, Ph.D.University of Oregon Hank Fien, Ph.D. University of Oregon Prepared by: Patrick Kennedy-PaineKatie TateUniversity of Oregon

3 School-wide Reading Model Foundational Features: Translating Research into Practice Schoolwide: Each & All Prevention Oriented Scientificall y Based Results Focused

4 Focusing Comments “Never eat more than you can lift.” (Miss Piggy, circa 1979)

5 Reading Assessment for Different Purposes An effective, comprehensive reading program includes reading assessments for four purposes: –Screening –Diagnostic –Progress Monitoring –Outcomes or Program Evaluation

6 Relation of DIBELS to Purposes of Assessment Utility of DIBELS Purpose of AssessmentUtility ScreeningYes Progress MonitoringYes DiagnosticLimited OutcomeSelected measures

7 DIBELS™ Assess the Big Ideas

8 Using data in an Outcomes-Driven model: Decision making steps 1.Identify Goals for Expected Performance 2. Identify and Validate Level of Support Needed to meet Expected Performance Goals 3. Plan and Implement Level of Support 4. Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify Support Plan 5. Review Outcomes

9 ODM StepQuestion(s)Data 1. Identify Need Are there students who may need support? How many? Which students? Benchmark data: Histograms, box plots, Class List Report 2. Validate Need Are we confident that the identified students need support? Benchmark data and additional information: Repeat assessment, use additional data, knowledge of/information about student 3. Plan Support What level of support for which students? How to group students? What goals, specific skills, curriculum/program, instructional strategies? Benchmark data and additional information: Individual student booklets, additional diagnostic information, knowledge of/information about student 4. Evaluate Support Is the support effective for individual students? Progress Monitoring data: Individual student progress graphs, class progress graphs 5. Evaluate Outcomes As a school/district: How effective is our core (benchmark) support? How effective is our supplemental (strategic) support? How effective is our intervention (intensive) support? Benchmark data: Histograms, Cross-Year Box Plots, Summary of Effectiveness Reports

10 From DIBELS Data System, University of Oregon, Getting Reports from DIBELS™ Data System

11 Identify Goals for Expected Performance: Primary Goal: All children reading at grade-level by the end of third grade

12 Identify Goals for Expected Performance: Primary Goal: All children reading at grade-level by the end of third grade Measure How Much?By When? Initial Sounds Fluency 25 or moreMiddle of K Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 35 or moreEnd of K Nonsense Word Fluency 25 or more 50 or more End of K Middle of 1st Oral Reading Fluency 1 st : 40 or more 2 nd : 90 or more 3 rd : 110 or more 1 st : End of year 2 nd : End of year 3 rd : End of year

13 DIBELS™ Benchmark Goals by Grade Kindergarten –Initial Sounds: 25 by winter –Phoneme Segmentation: 35 by spring –Nonsense Words: 25 by spring First Grade –Nonsense Words: 50 by winter –Oral Reading: 40 by spring Second Grade –Oral Reading: 90 by spring Third Grade –Oral Reading: 110 by spring Fourth Grade –Oral Reading: 118 by spring Fifth Grade –Oral Reading: 124 by spring Sixth Grade –Oral Reading: 125 by spring

14

15 Identify and Validate Level of Support Needed to meet Expected Performance Goals

16 Identify and Validate Level of Support Needed to meet Expected Performance Goals Student Level: What level of instructional support will students need to meet expected reading goals? Data Source: Grade list/Class list report Grade Level: What percent of our student are going to need additional support to meet expected reading goals? Data Source: Distribution Report (by class) School Level: What level of instructional support will grade levels need to meet expected reading goals? Are there certain grade levels that may need more support than other grade levels? Data Source: Distribution Report (by class) District Level: What level of instructional support will schools need to meet expected reading goals? Are there certain schools that may need more support than other schools? Data Source: Distribution Report (by school)

17 Grade Level: What percent of our student are going to need additional support to meet expected reading goals? DIBELS Reports that answer this question –Histogram Reports –Distribution Reports by Class

18

19 What level of instructional support will students need to meet expected reading goals? Class List Report The Class List and Grade List reports provide information on individual students at a given assessment period. The Class List report includes all the students from one class. The Class List Report shows: –The raw scores of each student's performance on each measure. –The status category (I.e., at risk, some risk, low risk or deficit, emerging, established) for the student’s score on each measure. –Percentile ranks for the student’s score on each measure to show the student's performance in relation to all participating students in the district. –Instructional recommendations based on a summary of each student's performance on all of the measures.

20 Fall Grade-Level Team Meetings: (Identification) What level of support will students need to meet winter benchmark goals?

21 Plan and Implement Levels of Instructional Support

22 Plan Support What will benchmark support and instruction look like? What will strategic support and instruction look like? What will intensive support and instruction look like? –What SBRR programs will we use? –What SBRR strategies will we use? –Who will teach each group? –What will the group size be? –How often will we monitor progress? –How often will we discuss student progress in grade level team meetings?

McDonagh © Three Tier Model of Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Prevention Note. Adapted from Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D, & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school –age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, Primary Prevention Students at low risk or who make adequate progress with modest support (80%) Students at some risk or who make adequate progress with additional intervention (15%) Students severe sustained learning difficulty (5%) Secondary Prevention Tertiary Prevention  Progress Monitoring: 2-4 x Month  In-Program Assessments  Diagnostic Assessment  Screening & Outcome Assessment  Progress Monitoring: Monthly  In-Program Assessments  Screening & Outcome Assessment  Progress Monitoring: Term  In-Program Assessments  Screening & Outcome Assessment

McDonagh © Three Tier Model of Prevention and Intervention TIERDIBELS INSTRUCTIONAL RECOMMENDATION INSTRUCTIONAL PLACEMENT ASSESSMENT PLAN TertiaryIntensive/At Risk/Deficit Part Core + Replacement Program Progress Monitoring: 2-4 x Month In-Program Assessments Diagnostic Assessment Screening & Outcome Assessment SecondaryStrategic/Some Risk/Emerging Core Reading Program + Supplement Progress Monitoring: 2-4 x Month In-Program Assessments Screening & Outcome Assessment PrimaryBenchmark/Low Risk/Established Core Reading Program Progress Monitoring: Term In-Program Assessments Screening & Outcome Assessment

25 Additional Information on Programs: u

26 Three Levels of Instruction and Support: Summary of CSI Map

27 Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify Support Plan

28 Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify Support Plan Student Level: Did the student make adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goal? Is the student responding well to the intervention? Data Source: Progress Monitoring Report, CSI map, Student Intervention Profile Time Period: Ongoing between fall and winter benchmarking Grade Level: Did all of the students in second grade make adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goal? Did the second grade instructional support plans adequately support benchmark, strategic and intensive students? If not, do we need to modify parts of the plan? Data Source: Fall to Winter Summary of Effectiveness Report (by grade), Fall to Winter CSI map, Winter to Spring CSI map Time Period: Immediately following winter benchmarking Grade Level: How well is our ELL (SPED) population achieving compared to our Non-ELL (Non SPED) population? Data Source: Distribution Report (by subgroups), CSI map Time Period: Immediately following winter benchmarking

29 DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports 4 Ways to Achieve Adequate Progress

30 Winter Grade Level Team Meeting What is the total percent of students that made adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goals? 50% of the first grade students made adequate progress towards winter DIBELS benchmark goal of 50cspm on NWF measure. Adams Elem

31 Winter Grade Level Team Meeting What is the total percent of students that made adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goals? Benchmark Students: 65% made adequate progress towards the winter NWF benchmark goal Strategic Students: 31% made adequate progress towards the winter NWF benchmark goal Intensive Students: 53% made adequate progress towards the winter NWF benchmark goal Adams Elem

32 Winter Grade Level Team meeting: Which Kindergarten students are making adequate progress towards winter DIBELS benchmark goals?

33 Were grade-level instructional maps effective in supporting adequate progress for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive needs? If not, What do we do about it? Modifying Instructional Support at the Systems Level: Achieving a Healthy System:

34 Seven Elements To Evaluate: I.Goals, Objectives, Priorities II.Assessment III.Instructional Programs and Materials IV.Instructional Time V.Differentiated Instruction, Grouping, Scheduling VI.Administration, Organization, Communication VII.Professional Development

35 Oregon Reading First -Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model Elements of a Healthy System Checklist School: Grade:Level of Support:

36 Ongoing Grade Level Team Meetings: Did Robert make adequate progress towards winter benchmark goal? Is Robert responding well to the intervention?

37 Evaluate and Modify at the Student Level

38 Review Outcomes Key Questions: What percent of students are reaching end of year benchmark goals? –Are we doing better over time? Did our levels of instructional support assist benchmark, strategic and intensive students meet end of year reading goals? Data used to inform the decision: Histogram reports -compare to grade level goals or previous year’s histograms Grade Level: Summary of effectiveness Reports

39 Spring Grade Level Team Meeting What is the total percent of students that made adequate progress towards the spring benchmark goal? 90% (50%) of the first grade students made adequate progress towards spring DIBELS benchmark goal of 40cwpm on ORF measure. Adams Elem

40 Spring Grade Level Team Meeting What is the percent of benchmark, strategic and intensive students that made adequate progress towards the spring benchmark goal? Benchmark Students: 98% (65%) made adequate progress towards the spring ORF benchmark goal Strategic Students: 71% (31%) made adequate progress towards the spring ORF benchmark goal Intensive Students: 80% (53%) made adequate progress towards the spring ORF benchmark goal Adams Elem

41

42