1. 1 Project-wide Reading Results: Interpreting Student Performance Data and Designing Instructional Interventions Oregon Reading First February, 2004 Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement College of Education University of Oregon

2. 2 Acknowledgments  Oregon Department of Education  Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, College of Education, University of Oregon  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs  Oregon Reading First Supplemental and Intervention Curriculum Review Panel

3. 3 Content Development Content developed by: Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph. D. Professor, College of Education University of Oregon Hank Fien University of Oregon Additional support: Patrick Kennedy-Paine Katie Tate University of Oregon

4. 4 Copyright  All materials are copy written and should not be reproduced or used without expressed permission of Dr. Edward J. Kame’enui or Dr. Deborah C. Simmons. Selected slides were reproduced from other sources and original references cited.

5. 5 Schoolwide: Each & All Prevention Oriented Scientifically Based Results Focused IBR Foundational Features: Translating Research into Practice

6. 6 Today’s Focus IBR Guiding Questions 1.Goals: What outcomes do we want for our students in our state, district, and schools? 2.Knowledge: What do we know and what guidance can we gain from scientifically based reading research? 3.Progress Monitoring Assessment: How are we doing? What is our current level of performance as a school? As a grade? As a class? As an individual student? 4.Outcome Assessment: How far do we need to go to reach our goals and outcomes? 5.Core Instruction: What are the critical components that need to be in place to reach our goals? 6.Differentiated Instruction: What more do we need to do and what instructional adjustments need to be made?

7. 7 The objectives of today’s session are to: 1.Examine DIBELS outcomes for a model district. 2.Review fall and winter Oregon Reading First project-wide student performance data. 3.Examine the kinds of information available from DIBELS reports. Objectives: What You Will Learn and Do

8. 8 Quarterly Benchmark GoalsFinal Benchmark Goals and Later Low RiskEstablished Some RiskEmerging At RiskDeficit Instructional Status Terminology

9. 9 28% Low risk for reading difficulties 34% Some risk for reading difficulties 38% At risk for reading difficulties Model District - End of Year Histogram - ORF, Year 1 Establishing A Baseline Of Performance for a New Program

10. 10 57% Low risk for reading difficulties 20% Some risk for reading difficulties 22% At risk for reading difficulties Model District - End of Year Histogram - ORF, Year 2 After changes in curricular program, instruction, time, professional development: Evaluating Response to Efforts

11. 11 41% (n=1O36) Established 25% (n= 621) Emerging 34% (n= 858) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Kindergarten ISF

12. 12 36% (n= 839) Established 46% (n=1O71) Emerging 19% (n= 434) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Kindergarten ISF

13. 13 41% (n=28) Established 44% (n=3O) Emerging 15% (n=1O) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Kindergarten ISF

14. 14 32% (n= 8OO) Established 22% (n= 558) Emerging 46% (n=1157) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Kindergarten LNF

15. 15 41% (n= 965) Established 21% (n= 5OO) Emerging 38% (n= 9O1) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Kindergarten LNF

16. 16 56% (n=38) Established 18% (n=12) Emerging 26% (n=18) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Kindergarten LNF

17. 17 23% (n= 596) Established 41% (n=1O34) Emerging 36% (n= 922) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Grade 1 PSF

18. 18 72% (n=1759) Established 21% (n= 5O2) Emerging 7% (n= 171) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Grade 1 PSF

19. 19 85% (n=53) Established 11% (n= 7) Emerging 3% (n= 2) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Grade 1 PSF

20. 20 26% (n= 651) Established 24% (n= 61O) Emerging 51% (n=129O) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Grade 1 NWF

21. 21 32% (n= 789) Established 41% (n= 991) Emerging 27% (n= 653) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Grade 1 NWF

22. 22 36% (n=23) Established 3O% (n=19) Emerging 34% (n=22) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Beginning of Year Grade 1 NWF

23. 23 5O% (n=31) Established 42% (n=26) Emerging 8% (n= 5) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Grade 1 NWF

24. 24 29% (n= 714) Established 19% (n= 470) Emerging 51% (n=1254) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Grade 2 ORF

25. 25 38% (n= 857) Established 14% (n= 3O8) Emerging 48% (n=1O94) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Grade 2 ORF

26. 26 52% (n=32) Established 13% (n= 8) Emerging 34% (n=21) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Grade 2 ORF

27. 27 28% (n= 660) Established 25% (n= 585) Emerging 47% (n=1115) Deficit Oregon Reading First Beginning of Year Grade 3 ORF

28. 28 34% (n= 776) Established 24% (n= 548) Emerging 42% (n= 967) Deficit Oregon Reading First Mid Year Grade 3 ORF

29. 29 25% (n=17) Established 34% (n=23) Emerging 4O% (n=27) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Beginning of Year Grade 3 ORF

30. 30 43% (n=29) Established 34% (n=23) Emerging 24% (n=16) Deficit Oregon Reading First - Single School Mid Year Grade 3 ORF

31. 31 Benchmark goal for all students: 25-35 correct initial sounds per minute in the middle of Kindergarten. Students scoring 8 or more in the beginning of Kindergarten are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Oregon Reading First Box Plot Mid Year Kindergarten ISF

32. 32 Benchmark goal for all students: 50-60 correct letter-sounds per minute in the middle of First Grade. Students scoring 24 or more in the beginning of First Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Oregon Reading First Box Plot Mid Year Grade 1 NWF

33. 33 Benchmark goal for all students: 90 correct words per minute at the end of Second Grade. Students scoring 44 or more in the beginning of Second Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Students scoring 68 or more in the middle of Second Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Oregon Reading First Box Plot Mid Year Grade 2 ORF

34. 34 Benchmark goal for all students: 110 correct words per minute at the end of Third Grade. Students scoring 77 or more in the beginning of Third Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Students scoring 92 or more in the middle of Third Grade are likely to achieve the benchmark goal with effective instruction. Oregon Reading First Box Plot Mid Grade 3 ORF

35. 35 After 4 years of sustained focused effort: Evaluating Growth Over Time

36. 36 Summary of Effectiveness of Core, Strategic and Intensive Programs

37. 37 Sample School Summary of Effectiveness Table

38. 38 Sample Class Summary of Effectiveness Table

39. 39 Kindergarten Summary Report

40. 40 Kindergarten Summary Report (cont.)

41. 41 Grade 1 Summary Report

42. 42 Grade 1 Summary Report (cont.)

43. 43 Grade 2 Summary Report

44. 44 Grade 3 Summary Report

45. 45 Target Goal Progress Monitoring Score Benchmark Score Sample Progress Monitoring Graph Kindergarten ISF

46. 46 Sample Progress Monitoring Graph Grade 2 ORF Target Goal Progress Monitoring Score Benchmark Score