1 / 41

Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups

Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups. Overview of the Data-based Action Planning Process. GLTs Review Grade Level Data Identify systems that need support Plan Instructional Support ERT Review Schoolwide Data Create Action Plan.

socrates-flavian
Download Presentation

Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Winter 2010 Data Based Planning for Instructional Focus Groups Oregon Reading First (2010)

  2. Overview of the Data-based Action Planning Process • GLTs • Review Grade Level Data • Identify systems that need support • Plan Instructional Support • ERT • Review Schoolwide Data • Create Action Plan Oregon Reading First (2010)

  3. Data-based Action Planning GLT Meetings Oregon Reading First (2010)

  4. DBAP GLT Meeting Logistics Preparing in Advance: • Coach can fill in grade level data in advance for Tables 1 and 2 or the team could work on this together • Gather Participant Materials (see attached List) Oregon Reading First (2010)

  5. GLT Agenda Oregon Reading First (2010)

  6. Review grade-level actions on the 2008-2009 School Action Plan. Report on Progress (due February 27th) Oregon Reading First (2010)

  7. Review DIBELS benchmark data • Review student scores and aimline progress. Set goals and draw aimlines for newly introduced measures (e.g. NWF in kindergarten, ORF in first grade) Oregon Reading First (2010)

  8. 2. Analyze error patterns and/or word reading strategies from individual DIBELS booklets for each group (e.g. NWF General Performance Pattern Table; ORF General Performance Pattern Table) Oregon Reading First (2010)

  9. 3. Review Outcomes (Table 1) for K-5 students during winter of last year and compare to winter of this year. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  10. The percent of students at low risk has increased. That’s good! However, only about 40% of our students are meeting the goal, so we have room to improve. The percent of students at risk has decreased, so that is good. We still have 36% of students at-risk…that’s more than one third of the students. We think we can do better! Oregon Reading First (2010)

  11. CAUTION! Remember that our BOTTOM LINE consideration is the percent of students that are reaching benchmark. Sometimes schools that are in the upper quartile of the adequate progress range still have room for improvement in the number of students they are supporting to achieve the benchmark! Oregon Reading First (2010)

  12. 4. Evaluate fall to winter grade level instructional support plans (Table 2) by calculating the percent of students making adequate progress toward DIBELS benchmark goals. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  13. Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic and/or intensive) that are healthy or that need moderate to substantial changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  14. Figure 1 Oregon Reading First (2010)

  15. Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  16. None of the students in the intensive range moved to some risk or low risk on the benchmark goal. This system was in The bottom quartile. We have fewer students in the intensive range (23 vs. 45) but this is a system that needs support. Let’s make this a priority. Overall we increased the percent of students who made adequate progress a little bit. The total for the grade level is in the middle quartiles compared to other schools in the state using DIBELS. Our challenge is that less than half of our students making adequate progress. How can we make changes to improve the system next year. Let’s look at the systems within the grade to see where we should prioritize. Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  17. Almost all of the students in the benchmark range made adequate progress this year and last year. Only two students did not. Let’s take a look at those students’ data. Depending on that information, we may decide to prioritize this system. Almost the same percent of students made adequate progress in the strategic system this year compared to last year. This system is in the middle quartile. About one quarter of our strategic students made adequate progress Winter to Spring. We could have more. Let’s make this system a priority. After looking at the data, one student was absent for 3 months due to illness. The other student missed the cut-off by 1 point. Let’s not prioritize this system right now. Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e., benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  18. Move DIBELS data cards on the Wall Chart according to Winter DIBELS benchmark goals Table Oregon Reading First (2010)

  19. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  20. Review group in-program assessment data Did the students in the group meet the in-program assessment mastery criteria? If yes, everyone give a yahoo! If no, create a plan for reteaching/retesting. Review Group pacing schedule and lesson progress. Is the group meeting projected lesson pacing progress? If yes, everyone give a cowboy cheer. If no, create plan for an action to address pacing concern. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  21. Regroup Students as necessary and document on Focus Group plan Oregon Reading First (2010)

  22. Modify Instructional Focus Group Plans for any groups that are not meeting assessment mastery criteria, and/or are not meeting projected lesson pacing progress. Brainstorm possible group instructional strategies that could address any possible interferences/problems (use “Alterable Variables Chart”, the “Healthy Systems Checklist”, or the “Options for Changes in Interventions” for ideas) Oregon Reading First (2010)

  23. Discuss and Problem Solve any individual student concerns. Compare students’ instructional recommendations from fall to winter. Are there students who fell from benchmark to strategic, or strategic to intensive? These students will likely need more intensive instruction. You may need to administer the Phonics Screener to benchmark students who fell back to strategic. Consider which intervention programs might be appropriate for strategic students who fell back to intensive and give the intervention program placement tests. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  24. Identify any new grade level actions that will address any identified areas of concern … Determine what future professional development and coaching support is needed … Oregon Reading First (2010)

  25. Data-based Action Planning ERT Meeting Oregon Reading First (2010)

  26. Purpose of the ERT Meeting • Review Schoolwide Data • Review the GLTs’ Suggested Actions • Create Action Plan • Consider RF Budget Implications Oregon Reading First (2010)

  27. ERT Meeting Logistics Preparing in Advance • Coach fills in grade level data in advance and can highlight Table 2 of ERT packet. • Gather Participant Materials (see attached List) Oregon Reading First (2010)

  28. Reviewing Outcomes Coach will have completed all rows in Tables 1 and 2 in the Early Reading Team booklet (and could highlight boxes in Table 2 where appropriate) before the ERT meeting. • Step 1. Review spring reading outcomes for K-3 students. Discuss as a team: • Has the percentage of students established on each measure increased? • Has the percentage of students at deficit on each measure decreased? Table 1Reviewing Outcomes for K-5 Students Spring Last Year and Comparing to Spring Outcomes This Year Note: This table shows the percent of students that met the important end of year reading goals for the purpose of reviewing outcomes. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  29. Evaluating Support What is the effectiveness of the grade level support plans? Step 2:Evaluate the health of the Winter to Spring support systems for grades K-3. Discuss the percentage and number of students in each grade level system that are making adequate progress. Table 2:Evaluating Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Note: This table shows the percent of students who made adequate progress. The information can be used to identify systems (i.e. benchmark, strategic, or intensive) that are healthy or that need changes. Use caution when interpreting percentages for systems that only have a few students. For example, 90% of 5 students and 90% of 30 students should lead to different interpretations. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  30. Step 3: Based on Tables 1 and 2, list the systems, across grade-level (K-3 or K-5) data, that are of highest priority. Step 4: Review grade level teams’ identified new grade level actions. Step 5: ERT team should consider whether any systems, other than those identified in grade level teams, are in need of support. If so, identify questions and suggested actions. Step 6: Based on team consensus, prioritize actions that will have a significant impact on student achievement. Use this information to revise your current action plan to include new actions and revised current actions. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  31. How to Document Adding New Actions School: _____________________ Oregon Reading First (2010)

  32. Due Date: February 27 • School Action Plan Progress Notes and New Actions • Winter-Spring Instructional Focus Group Plans Oregon Reading First (2010)

  33. Mini Review:How to Read a Summary Of Effectiveness Report Oregon Reading First (2010)

  34. Summary of Effectiveness Report • Time Period, Grade Level, and Measure • Number of students: • Total included in the report • Number with a Benchmark, Strategic, or Intensive in the middle of the year • Number at each benchmark status Oregon Reading First (2010)

  35. Time 1: ( e.g., Winter) Intensive Strategic Benchmark Time 2: (e.g., Spring) At Risk Some Risk 4. Low Risk At Risk 3. Low Risk Some Risk 1. Some Risk 2. Low Risk At Risk DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports4 Ways to Achieve Adequate Progress Oregon Reading First (2010)

  36. Middle of the Year Instructional Recommendation Intensive Strategic Benchmark Oregon Reading First (2010)

  37. End of Year Benchmark Status At Risk At Risk Some Risk 1. Some Risk 2. Low Risk At Risk Some Risk 3. Low Risk 4. Low Risk Oregon Reading First (2010)

  38. Defining Adequate Progress • (a) a benchmark instructional recommendation (i.e., at low risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “low risk/established” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year; • (b) a strategic instructional recommendation (i.e., at some risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “low risk/established” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year; • (c) an intensive instructional recommendation (i.e., at risk for reading difficulty based on DIBELS screening measures) and ended the year with “low risk/established” OR “emerging/some risk” reading performance on the primary DIBELS measure administered at the end of the year. Oregon Reading First (2010)

  39. Summary of Effectiveness Report: Review Count = Number of students % of Instructional Recommendation = How many students within the instructional range (i.e., benchmark, strategic, intensive) made adequate progress? % of Total = How many students made adequate progress at this grade level? Oregon Reading First (2010)

  40. Recommended Pacing Kindergarten: Reading Mastery 1 - Lesson 135 + ERI - all 126 lessons WITH enhancements Read Well K Unit 15+ First Grade: Reading Mastery 2 - Lesson 168 + Horizons B - complete all lessons Read Well 1 - complete all units Oregon Reading First (2010)

  41. Recommended Pacing Second Grade Reading Mastery 3 - Lesson 120 + Horizons CD - lesson 70+ Third Grade: Reading Mastery 5 - Lesson 55 + Horizons CD - lesson 160 Oregon Reading First (2010)

More Related