1 / 70

Oregon Reading First Coaches’ Meeting Spring 2007 IBR Preparation

Oregon Reading First Coaches’ Meeting Spring 2007 IBR Preparation. April 25 and 26th, 2007. Activity: Finding Partners for Today’s Activities. 3. NOTE: All of the coaches that you find and list must be from outside of your own school district!! Find someone who....

yule
Download Presentation

Oregon Reading First Coaches’ Meeting Spring 2007 IBR Preparation

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. Oregon Reading First Coaches’ MeetingSpring 2007 IBR Preparation April 25 and 26th, 2007 Oregon Reading First (2007)

  2. Activity: Finding Partners for Today’s Activities 3 • NOTE: All of the coaches that you find and list must be from outside of your own school district!! Find someone who.... • Partner 1. ...uses the same core program as your school __________________. • Partner 2. ...uses the same third grade intervention program as your school. ________. • Partner 3. ...has approximately the same number of students as your school. _______. • Partner 4… has approximately the same number of teachers (K-3) as your school_____. • Partner 5. ...you have never had a long conversation with ____________. • Partner 6. ...lives in a different part of the state than you. ____________________. Wayne Trish Carrie Pat Rachell Scott Oregon Reading First (2007)

  3. Overview of the IBR Process • GLTs • Review Grade Level Data • Summary of Effectiveness Report • Identify systems that need support • Benchmark, Strategic, and/or Intensive • Plan Instructional Support • Healthy System Checklist • ERT • Review Schoolwide Data • Create Action Plan Oregon Reading First (2007)

  4. Mini Review:How to Read a Summary Of Effectiveness Report Oregon Reading First (2007)

  5. Summary of Effectiveness Report: Review • 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 (2007)

  6. 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 (2007)

  7. Middle of the Year Instructional Recommendation Intensive Strategic Benchmark Oregon Reading First (2007)

  8. End of Year Benchmark Status At Risk Some Risk 4. Low Risk At Risk 3. Low Risk Some Risk At Risk 1. Some Risk 2. Low Risk Oregon Reading First (2007)

  9. Jeopardy “Daily Double” Bonus Question! The “Benchmark Status” column lists the percent of students who met the benchmark goal. This is the same question that you can answer with the “histogram” (bar graph) report. However, you may notice that the numbers are slightly different on the histogram reports and this report. Why? Oregon Reading First (2007)

  10. TRUE OR FALSE?CAUTION! THIS IS TRICKY! T or F: An example of a student who made “Adequate Progress” is a kindergarten or first grade student who moved from strategic to benchmark. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  11. 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 (2007)

  12. Defining Adequate Progress • All of these definitions of adequate reading progress share the attribute of increasing the likelihood that a student will be a successful reader at the end of third grade. For many students, adequate progress reflects a meaningful reduction in the degree of reading risk from the beginning to the end of the school year. For students who are reading at benchmark level at the beginning of the year, adequate progress reflects continued reading at the benchmark level. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  13. Partner Practice • How will you explain the concept of Adequate Progress (as used in the Summary of Effectiveness table) to teachers on your teams? • Partner up and each take turns explaining the concept… • Make notes on the back of your Cheat Sheet on example wording. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  14. 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 (2007)

  15. Let’s Create a “Cheat Sheet” Step 1. Highlight the percentages in the “Summary of Effectiveness” Table that are added together to find the following totals: Total percent of students that Made Adequate Progress (Blue) Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress (Pink) Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress (Yellow) Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress (Green) Step 2. Highlight the columns that correspond to which percentages are added together on the “Summary of Effectiveness” Table. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  16. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  17. IBR GLT Oregon Reading First (2007)

  18. Purpose of the IBR GLT Meeting • Review Grade Level Data • Summary of Effectiveness Report • Identify systems that need support • Benchmark, Strategic, and/or Intensive • Plan Instructional Support • Healthy System Checklist Oregon Reading First (2007)

  19. IBR GLT Meeting Logistics Preparing in Advance • Coach can fill in grade level data in advance or the team could work on this together • Materials • Each person will have their own packet • Green, Yellow and Pink highlighters • CSI Maps • Schedules • Data Oregon Reading First (2007)

  20. Step 1. Review spring reading outcomes for your grade level. 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? Discuss as a team. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  21. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  22. Step 2: Use Figure 1 on the following page to evaluate the health of the Winter to Spring support systems for your grade level. Highlight Table 2 to reflect top (green highlighter), middle (yellow) and bottom (pink) quartiles. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  23. Figure 1 Percentile ranks based on approximately 300 Oregon schools using the DIBELS data system during the 2004-2005 academic year. Oregon Reading First Center (2007) Oregon Reading First (2007)

  24. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  25. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  26. Step 3: Identify Systems that Need Support • Using Tables 1 and 2, identify systems that need support • First look at Table 2 for areas in pink or yellow • Next look at Table 1 for systems that are green, but that could have more students reaching the benchmark goal • Example: Kindergarten Table 2 refers to PSF, but Table 1 will have information on NWF • Example: If all three systems in the grade level are “green”, the grade level may still have room for improvement in terms of the number of students who are meeting the goal Oregon Reading First (2007)

  27. Step 4: a. As a team, use the Healthy Systems Checklist to evaluate a system that you identified as needing support. b. Highlight questions on the Healthy Systems Checklist that are a concern in this system. c. Prioritize questions about that system to target what elements are not healthy. For example start with structural questions (in bold) and follow with quality of implementation questions. d. Record the prioritized questions (taken directly from the Healthy Systems Checklist) in Table 3 and list reasons for prioritizing each question Repeat Step 4 for each system that your team identified as needing support. Some grade levels may complete this step for one system, two systems or all three systems depending on the priorities set in Step 3. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  28. Step 5: Identify grade level actions that will address the identified areas of concern and record in Table 3 for each system that you identified as needing changes. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  29. Oregon Reading First -Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model Elements of a Healthy System Checklist School: Grade: Level of Support: Oregon Reading First (2007)

  30. Healthy System Checklist First, look at Structural Elements (in bold) Second, look at Quality of Implementation Elements Oregon Reading First (2007)

  31. Table 3 Oregon Reading First (2007)

  32. Let’s try one! Putting it all together… Oregon Reading First (2007)

  33. Step 1. Review spring reading outcomes for your grade level. Calculate the difference between last year and this year to note whether there is an increase or decrease in the percentage of students meeting the benchmark goals. • 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? Discuss as a team. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  34. 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 (2007)

  35. Partner Practice • With a partner, explain the directions in Step 1 to the teachers on your team. • Explain the purpose of the step • Explain how to read Table 1 • Demonstrate how to calculate the increase or decrease • Lead a discussion about the conclusions from the data Oregon Reading First (2007)

  36. Step 2: Use Figure 1 on the following page to evaluate the health of the Winter to Spring support systems for your grade level. Highlight Table 2 to reflect top (green highlighter), middle (yellow) and bottom (pink) quartiles. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  37. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  38. Figure 1 Percentile ranks based on approximately 300 Oregon schools using the DIBELS data system during the 2004-2005 academic year. Oregon Reading First Center (2007) Oregon Reading First (2007)

  39. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  40. 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. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  41. 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 sas 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. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  42. Partner Practice • With a partner, explain the directions in Step 2 to the teachers on your team. • Explain the purpose of the step • Explain how to read Table 2 • Demonstrate how to highlight the systems using the normative tables • Lead a discussion about the conclusions from the data Oregon Reading First (2007)

  43. Remember: This could be a whole system or one group within the system • Step 3: Identify systems that need support (circle): Benchmark Strategic Intensive One idea is to sort the DIBELS booklets/graphs into groups ahead of time. Then discuss whether to prioritize the whole system or a group within the system. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  44. We’ll focus on Intensive for this example • Step 3: Identify systems that need support (circle): Benchmark Strategic Intensive Oregon Reading First (2007)

  45. Partner Practice • Discuss with a partner at your table… • What are some cautions or things that might come up at this point in the process (Steps 1 through 3)? Oregon Reading First (2007)

  46. Step 4: a. As a team, use the Healthy Systems Checklist to evaluate a system that you identified as needing support. b. Highlight questions on the Healthy Systems Checklist that are a concern in this system. c. Prioritize questions about that system to target what elements are not healthy. For example start with structural questions (in bold) and follow with quality of implementation questions. d. Record the prioritized questions (taken directly from the Healthy Systems Checklist) in Table 3 and list reasons for prioritizing each question Repeat Step 4 for each system that your team identified as needing support. Some grade levels may complete this step for one system, two systems or all three systems depending on the priorities set in Step 3. Oregon Reading First (2007)

  47. Healthy System Checklist First, look at Structural Questions (in bold) Oregon Reading First (2007)

  48. Healthy System Checklist Second, look at Quality of Implementation Questions Oregon Reading First (2007)

  49. Prioritize QuestionsFocus on questions 1 & 2 before addressing question 3. 1. Are appropriate reading programs and materials being used to teach the full range of students (e.g., intervention programs in place for students significantly below grade level)?* 2. Is additional instructional time scheduled for students who are struggling?* 3. Are teachers incorporating general features of instruction (i.e., models, explicit language, etc.)? Oregon Reading First (2007)

  50. Table 3 Oregon Reading First (2007)

More Related