Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading (IBR) Leadership Session for New District Team Members Principals and Mentor Coaches August 24, 2004.

Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading (IBR) Leadership Session for New District Team Members Principals and Mentor Coaches August 24, 2004

© 2004 ORRF Center 3 Acknowledgments  Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph.D., University of Oregon  Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph. D., University of Oregon  Scott Baker, Ph. D., University of Oregon  Barbara Gunn, Ph.D., Pacific Institutes for Research  Hank Fien, Ph.D., University of Oregon  Nicole Sherman Brewer, Ph. D., University of Oregon  Rachell Katz, Ph. D., University of Oregon  Trish Travers, Ed. S., University of Oregon  Oregon Department of Education

© 2004 ORRF Center 4 “To provide assistance to State educational agencies and local educational agencies in establishing reading programs for students in kindergarten through grade 3 that are based on scientifically based reading research to ensure that every student can read at grade level or above not later than the end of grade 3.” NCLB, 2001, Part B, Sec. 1201. Purpose of Reading First

© 2004 ORRF Center 5 (2) “To provide assistance to State educational agencies and local educational agencies in preparing teachers, including special education teachers, through professional development and other support, so the teachers can identify specific reading barriers facing their students and so the teachers have the tools to effectively help their students learn to read.”  NCLB, 2001, Part B, Sec. 1201. Purpose of Reading First

© 2004 ORRF Center 6 ORF Letter of Intent to Apply  Component 1: Qualify/No Qualify  Each district has submitted a Letter of Intent to Apply and required attachments—including a commitment to the Reading First project as described in Oregon’s State Application (pp. 65-84 and 167-188) signed by 100% of K-3 certified staff in each applicant school with instructional duties related to reading. (p. 4, RFP) (p. 64, Oregon’s Application)

© 2004 ORRF Center 7 ORF Assurances: District & School  Component 2: Qualify/No Qualify  District and School Information and Assurances of Commitment to the Reading First project as described in Oregon’s State Application (pp. 65-83 and 167-188)  Signed by the Superintendent of the eligible district and by the principal of the applicant school  One District and School Information and Assurances form must be filled out for each school for which the district is applying (p. 6-8, RFP)

© 2004 ORRF Center 8 ORF Assurances: District & School  The district and school assure that 100% of the K-3 staff with duties related to reading, the principals, and district participants have been informed and agree to follow the program and assessment guidelines as outlined in Oregon’s Reading First State Application (p. 64, Oregon’s Application, p. 8, RFP)

© 2004 ORRF Center 9 ORF Assurances: District & School  As new staff members are hired (including K-3 staff with duties related to reading, the principals, and district participants), the district and school assure that prospective staff will be informed during the hiring process and agree to follow the program and assessment guidelines as outlined in Oregon’s Reading First State Application prior to hiring (p. 6-8, RFP) (p. 8, RFP)

© 2004 ORRF Center 11 Element #1: Critical Content and Student Learning Goals  Clear reading and literacy goals and expectations for each grade  Conceptual and working understanding of the big ideas in beginning reading  Reliance on research to determine what to teach and when to teach it  Curriculum-based 180-day pacing maps for each grade A Set of Strategic, Research-Based, and Measurable Goals and Working Understanding of Big Ideas to Guide Instruction and Learning

© 2004 ORRF Center 12 Element #2: Assessment of Student Learning  Requirement of Reading First  Aligned with State and District assessments to avoid “propping” on, fragmenting, and asking more  District and schoolwide assessment system established and maintained to enter and report findings  Student performance monitored more frequently for each child who is at risk of reading difficulty  Data used to make timely instructional adjustments  Commonly understood and used by teachers A Valid and Reliable Assessment System To Actively Monitor Progress in the Early Grades

© 2004 ORRF Center 13 Element #3: SBRR Reading Programs  A core (comprehensive) instructional program of validated efficacy adopted and implemented school wide  Programs and materials that teach enough of the critical elements  Selection of research-based supplemental and intervention programs  Programs implemented with high fidelity Adoption and Implementation of Research-Based Reading Programs that Support the Full Range of Learners

© 2004 ORRF Center 14 Element #4: High Quality Professional Development  Practice mastery (Huberman & Miles, 1984) is a critical determinant of commitment and sustained use.  Practice mastery invariably resulted from ongoing technical assistance during the early years (cited in Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000).  Effective PD includes opportunities for practice and reflection.  Effective PD focuses on the core of teaching practice.  Begins with clearly stated goals but is followed by a relentless process of improving lessons to improve student learning. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum.

© 2004 ORRF Center 15 Element #5: High Quality Implementation  District and schoolwide plan to allocate and coordinate time for initial and follow-up preparation in programs  Additional time and support to develop practice mastery (Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000) Adequate, Prioritized, and Protected Time and Resources

© 2004 ORRF Center 16 Overview of Oregon Reading First Oregon Reading First Districts and Schools Oregon Reading First Center Reading Leadership Team Oregon Department of Education Regional Coordinators & Regional Coordinating Teams

© 2004 ORRF Center 17 What Reading First Means to Oregon Schools  K-3 reading instruction following scientifically-based reading research (SBRR)  Ongoing assessments to monitor student reading progress and outcomes  Ongoing professional development targeting knowledge of SBRR, classroom expertise, and building long- term capacity

© 2004 ORRF Center 18 Four Common Features Among All Oregon Reading First Schools 1.Emphasis on five essential components of beginning reading  Phonemic awareness  Phonics  Reading fluency  Vocabulary  Comprehension

© 2004 ORRF Center 19 Four Common Features 2. Selection of SBRR beginning reading programs and materials  An approved comprehensive/core beginning reading program  Anchor for classroom instruction  Emphasis on five essential components  Meets instructional needs of 75-80% of students  Approved supplemental reading materials  Support core reading programs  Provide additional instruction in one or more areas of reading for 20-25% of students  Intensive interventions for 5-10% of students

© 2004 ORRF Center 20 Four Common Features 3. Reliance on research-based instructional practices and strategies  Allocated time and engaged time  At least 90 minutes per day of uninterrupted beginning reading instruction  Instructional grouping formats  Small group and whole class  Based on student knowledge and skill  Key component of strategic and intensive interventions

© 2004 ORRF Center 21 3. Reliance on research-based instructional practices and strategies (continued)  Differentiated instruction  Necessary to reach reading goals  Variations in intensity, amount, formats  Teaching to mastery  Understand previously taught material before new material is introduced  Monitor understanding during and after instruction Four Common Features

© 2004 ORRF Center 22 4. Student reading performance monitored systematically  Focus on five essential components of beginning reading  A minimum of three times per year  Reading data used to:  Identify students for strategic and intensive interventions  Establish reading goals  Determine program effects Four Common Features

© 2004 ORRF Center 23 Assessing Oregon Reading First Students Assessment Purposes  Screen students who need additional instructional support  Diagnose students’ instructional needs  Monitor progress of students over time  Evaluate outcomes at key points in time

© 2004 ORRF Center 25 Who will collect the assessment data?  District and school assessment teams will be trained to collect screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring data  The Oregon Reading First Center will collect some of the student outcome data  District and school assessment teams will be trained to conduct systematic reliability checks Assessing Oregon Reading First Students

© 2004 ORRF Center 26 Examples of Student Assessments: Screening AreaExamples Phonemic Awareness DIBELS: Initial Sound Fluency, Phonemic Segmentation Fluency PhonicsDIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency FluencyDIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency VocabularyWoodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement- III: Picture Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised: Passage Comprehension

© 2004 ORRF Center 27 Examples of Student Assessments: Progress Monitoring AreaExamples Phonemic Awareness DIBELS: Initial Sound Fluency, Phonemic Segmentation Fluency PhonicsDIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency FluencyDIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency VocabularyWoodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement- III: Picture Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Texas Primary Reading Inventory: Reading Comprehension

© 2004 ORRF Center 28 Examples of Student Assessments: Outcomes AreaExamples Phonemic Awareness DIBELS: Phonemic Segmentation Fluency PhonicsDIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency, SAT- 10: Word Study Skills FluencyDIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency VocabularySAT-10: Reading Vocabulary & Listening Comprehension Reading Comprehension SAT-10: Reading Comprehension, WRMT- R: Passage Comprehension

© 2004 ORRF Center 30 ORF Comprehensive Reading Programs Oregon Curriculum Review Panel  Purpose: To provide a critical analysis of beginning reading programs and materials that is objective, reliable, and based on the best information available about SBRR

© 2004 ORRF Center 32 The Process: What Oregon Reading First Center Has Done  Evaluated core/comprehensive reading programs to determine their areas of strength and weakness according to the big ideas in beginning reading  Provided a menu of options from which schools/districts will select  Assisted in the program selection process that fits the needs of individual schools

© 2004 ORRF Center 33 The Process: What You Have Done  Evaluated menu of program options to determine their areas of strength and weakness according to the big ideas in beginning reading  Studied and selected programs that fit the needs of learners in your respective schools  Scheduled and provided sufficient professional development to ensure high quality implementation

© 2004 ORRF Center 34 Understanding the Purpose of Different Programs Classifying Reading Programs: What is the purpose of the program? 1. Core 2. Supplemental 3. Intervention Core Reading Program Supplemental Reading Program Core Supplemental Intervention Reading Program Meeting the needs for most Supporting the CoreMeeting the needs for each Programs are tools that are implemented by teachers to ensure that children learn enough on time. (Vaughn et al., 2001)

© 2004 ORRF Center 35 Comprehensive Reading Programs  Purpose:  to provide sufficient instruction in the core components of reading  instruction should enable the majority of student to meet or exceed grade-level standards on all the key elements  Serves as the primary reading program for the school within and between grades (k-3)

© 2004 ORRF Center 36 Supplemental Reading Programs  Purpose: to provide additional instruction in one or more areas of reading  Examples:  phonemic awareness programs  fluency building programs  comprehension strategy programs

© 2004 ORRF Center 37 Intervention Reading Programs  Purpose: to provide additional instruction to students performing below grade level  Examples:  stand-alone intervention programs  in-program intervention programs components of core programs

© 2004 ORRF Center 38 Effective Reading Interventions  Even with research-based core reading instruction, some students have difficulty learning to read and make inadequate progress  Struggling readers need more time and additional, intensive instructional interventions

© 2004 ORRF Center 39 Continuum of PD Support Regional Expertise: University or Regional (Institutes, Beacon Schools, Coursework) Within School Expertise (Coaches & Study Teams) Local Expertise (District, Beacon Schools, or Program Specific) State or National Support (Institutes, Technology)

© 2004 ORRF Center 40 Professional Development (PD) and Support for Oregon Reading First Implementation  Institutes on Beginning Reading (IBRs)  School-based mentor coaches  School-based reading first teams and principal leadership  Regional coordinators  Beacon schools Two-year professional development model

© 2004 ORRF Center 41 Institutes on Beginning Reading (IBRs) Purpose: To develop knowledge and expertise related to Scientifically Based Reading Research  IBR I - 4 days  Summer prior to new school term  Scientific principles of beginning reading; application of principles to grade-specific goals and content  Selection of comprehensive program and supplemental materials  Learning DIBELS assessment system: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

© 2004 ORRF Center 42 Institutes on Beginning Reading (IBRs)  IBR II - 2 days  Following Fall data collection  Analysis of student performance data  Identify children at risk of reading difficulty  Plan instructional groups and differentiated instruction

© 2004 ORRF Center 43 Institutes on Beginning Reading (IBRs): Year 2  Focus on implementation quality  Improving effectiveness of interventions, especially for struggling students  Improving efficiency in using data for decision making  Key indicator of success will be student reading progress and outcomes

© 2004 ORRF Center 44 Regional Coordinators  Expertise in beginning reading and administration  Train mentor coaches  Help schools build capacity for continuous improvement  Extend Reading First activities to Pathfinder schools

© 2004 ORRF Center 45 Considerations for High Quality PD in Program Implementation  Provide comprehensive and standardized opportunities for all to learn and practice program specific preparation  Ensure that preparation is adequate for all teachers to have a high confidence level with the program  Provide opportunities for in-classroom practice and feedback early in program implementation  Develop local expertise to train new teachers (those who enter after initial PD)

© 2004 ORRF Center 46 What needs to be done to achieve high quality PD for program implementation  Identify what level of program-specific PD the program developer provides  Decide when PD will be scheduled and for how many schools  Determine what additional (follow-up PD) opportunities are available  Decide how to develop within region, district, and school expertise  Identify who will work with teachers who need more support  Map out your your professional development schedule for initial and sustained training

© 2004 ORRF Center 47 Critical Element: How To Differentiate Instruction  Using data to identify students who need additional instruction  Selecting core, supplemental, and intervention programs that complement one another  Intensifying intervention

© 2004 ORRF Center 48 Alterable Elements  Program: Is the learner likely to benefit from the core? If not, what specialized/acceleration program is available?  Time: A minimum of 30 + 30 minutes of small group intensive intervention.  Grouping/Organization: As small a group as possible

© 2004 ORRF Center 52 PD Planning and Follow-Up  Which professional development sessions and structures need to be in place to prepare individuals who are responsible for differentiating instruction?  Which process will be in place for learning, implementing, and evaluating new interventions?  How will your current Reading First PD address this?

© 2004 ORRF Center 53 An Action Plan for Professional Development 1. Define purposes and areas of PD need. 2. Identify and develop resources to develop capacity in the school and classroom. 3. Schedule and differentiate PD to develop teacher competence then confidence. 4. Recognize the need for a long-term plan.

© 2004 ORRF Center 55 Identify and Develop Resources To Develop Capacity in the School and Classroom Area/Purpose Who and What Forum Goals and Concept Development Ex: Summer Institutes; Web-based PD; Beacon School support Assessment and Use of Data Ex: Summer Institutes; Regional Coordinators; School-based Mentor Coaches Program Selection and Dissemination Ex: State, regional, and local team Program Implementation Publisher Provided PD; In-district expertise; School-based Coordinator; Teacher Study Teams Instructional Differentiation Publisher Provided PD, School-based Coordinator; Teacher Study Teams

© 2004 ORRF Center 56 Develop a Master Schedule  Specify window of time for initial PD for each purpose.  Determine scope of work for Year 01, 02, and 03.  Specify # of days for initial PD and for follow- up/implementation checks.  Coordinate with existing state and district level PD.  Develop a backup plan for absences and new hires.

© 2004 ORRF Center 57 School-Based Mentor Coaches  One coach per school  Teachers with expertise in beginning reading instruction  Focus on effective classroom implementation  Expertise with DIBELS and using data for decision making  Building school capacity to provide and sustain effective reading practices

© 2004 ORRF Center 58 School-Based Coaching  Valuable strategy for assisting teachers in the classroom implementation of scientifically-based reading programs, instructional strategies, and reading assessments  Key Implementation Issue — Ensuring coaches have sufficient knowledge and skills to provide necessary support for classroom teachers

© 2004 ORRF Center 59 School-Based Coaching: “What” Considerations  One More Thought About “What” —  Change is hard! It will be easy for teachers to be pulled off track (or never really get on track) if they don’t feel supported  Coaches must have answers to teachers’ questions and help them find solutions to their problems

© 2004 ORRF Center 60 School-Based Coaching: “Who” Considerations  Coaches should not have other responsibilities that take time from their instructional leadership roles  This will require particular monitoring. Individuals without “classroom” responsibilities are frequently asked to fill other roles

© 2004 ORRF Center 61 School-Based Coaching: “What” Considerations  Clear PD Curriculum  Coaches should have a clear scope and sequence for the training they are to provide  No one should be wondering what comes next  Clear Activities  How coaching will be provided should be clearly defined: joint planning with teachers, modeling strategies and skills, study groups, classroom observation, grade-level meetings, etc.  Activities will be defined through IBRs, Regional Coordinators, and school-based Reading First teams

© 2004 ORRF Center 62 School-Based Coaching: “What” Considerations  Program-Specific Support  School-level coaches will be the primary providers of support on the implementation of particular instructional programs  Training of coaches must include program- specific elements

© 2004 ORRF Center 63 School-Based Coaching: “When” Considerations  Time — Issues around time for school-level professional development activities must be settled before implementation begins  Coach should not need to be creative in order to have time with teachers  Participation cannot be optional  Sequence — Coaching must ensure that teachers have the skills they need when they need them

© 2004 ORRF Center 64 School-Based Coaching Follow-Up Considerations  New Teachers — Coaches will need to have plans to provide support to teachers who start in the middle of a school year or after the first year of implementation  Teachers Who Need Additional Support — Coaches must have a clear plan to identify and assist these teachers

© 2004 ORRF Center 65 Evaluation of Oregon Reading First  External evaluation by the Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts – primarily for summative purposes  Internal evaluation by the Oregon Reading First Center – primarily for formative purposes

© 2004 ORRF Center 66 Evaluation Targets  Student reading performance K–3  Classroom implementation  Teacher and coach knowledge: SBRR, comprehensive beginning reading program and supplemental materials, student assessments  Professional development and technical assistance  State leadership

Oregon Reading First Center Staff Oregon Reading First Fidelity of Implementation Observation System

© 2004 ORRF Center 68 Objectives 1.Rationale for Observation System 2.Features of Program Fidelity Checklist, General Features of Instruction and Observation Feedback Forms 3.Procedures for Conducting an Observation 4.Next Steps and Expectations

© 2004 ORRF Center 69 Rationale for Observation  Oregon’s Reading First Application states:  “The mentor coach’s primary responsibility will be to support and guide classroom teachers in their effective implementation of high-quality instruction in beginning reading.”  Therefore...“ the school mentor coach will observe each teacher on a regular basis, providing support and feedback, and model instruction as needed or requested by the teacher.”

© 2004 ORRF Center 70 Focus of Observations  Mentor Coaches will focus on two instructional areas during observations:  Program Fidelity  Implementation quality of more general features of instruction

© 2004 ORRF Center 71 Program Fidelity Checklist  USDOE states:  The State Educational Agency must report Implementation Evidence to the U.S. Department Of Education “ demonstrating that it has met all program requirements related to the implementation and administration of the Reading First Program.”

© 2004 ORRF Center 72 Program Fidelity Checklist  Features:  Time (actual time of activity, e.g., 8:15-8:25)  Instructional Heading  Activity  Instructional Target (PA, PH, FL, V, C, Other)  Grouping (whole group, small group, Independent)  Instructor (Teacher, Specialist, Educational Assistant)  Level of Implementation (None, Partial, Partial+, Full)  Comments

© 2004 ORRF Center 73 General Features of Instruction Form Oregon Reading First Grant states:  “Another aspect of the observation will be to determine how well aspects of the curriculum are implemented, as well as the implementation quality of more general features of instruction. Identifying which curriculum components are implemented as well as the quality of instructional delivery provides a more comprehensive assessment of classroom implementation than either aspect on it’s own.”

© 2004 ORRF Center 76 Procedures for Conducting Observations 1.Set a date with the teacher to conduct observation. 2.Determine the instructional lesson being taught that day and make a copy of the lesson. 3.Fill out Heading and Activity section of the Program Fidelity Checklist prior to observation. 4.Conduct Observation  Program Fidelity Checklist: Assess Level of Implementation for each Instructional Activity  General Features of Instruction Form: Complete a form for each group observed 5.Set up time and date to debrief information with the teacher using Observation Feedback Form. 6.Arrange for follow-up

© 2004 ORRF Center 77 Next Steps and Expectations  Mentor coaches will begin scheduling Observations  As soon as possible, Mentor Coaches will pair up with their respective Regional Coordinator to conduct an observation  The expectation will be for the mentor coach to observe each K-3 teacher three times in the upcoming school year: Fall, Winter, and Spring

© 2004 ORRF Center 78 Appropriate Use of Observation Forms  To inform instruction  To target areas of assistance for individual teachers  To establish trends that may inform professional development  To link fidelity and general features of instruction with student achievement data: internal/external evaluation

© 2004 ORRF Center 80 Technology and Dissemination  Accessing and using information contained in three interconnected websites  Oregon Reading First  Big Ideas in Beginning Reading  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

© 2004 ORRF Center 81 Oregon Reading First Interconnected Websites Oregon Reading First  http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/ Big IDEAS in Beginning Reading  http://reading.uoregon.edu/ Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)  http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

Introduction to the Oregon Reading First Website http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/ Oregon Reading First

Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading (IBR) Leadership Session for New District Team Members Principals and Mentor Coaches August 24, 2004.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading (IBR) Leadership Session for New District Team Members Principals and Mentor Coaches August 24, 2004."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading (IBR) Leadership Session for New District Team Members Principals and Mentor Coaches August 24, 2004.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Oregon Reading First Institute on Beginning Reading (IBR) Leadership Session for New District Team Members Principals and Mentor Coaches August 24, 2004."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback