1

Q2: How are we doing?Q2: How are we doing?

Cohort A

(C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

2

Reviewing Outcomes

What percent of students are reaching benchmark goals in each grade level?

What percent of students have a deficit in benchmark skill areas for each grade level?

Is there an increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the spring from year to year?

Is there a decrease in the percentage of students with a deficit in the spring from year to year?

3

What reports can we use to answer these questions?

4

First Grade Example

5

6

How are K-3 students performing at the end of the year on essential components of beginning reading

instruction?Table 1 Taking Stock: Reviewing Outcomes for K-3 Students Spring 2006 and Comparing to Spring 2005 Outcomes

Grade/

Measure

Percent at Established

(Low Risk)

Spring 2005

Percent at

Established

(Low Risk)Spring 2006

Percentage Point Increase/

Decrease

(+ or -)

Percent at

Deficit

(At Risk) Spring 2005

Percent at

Deficit

Spring

2006

Percentage

Point Increase/

Decrease

(+ or -)

K - PSF

K - NWF

1-ORF

2-ORF

3-ORF

7

First Grade Example

8

How are K-3 students performing at the end of the year on essential components of beginning reading

instruction?Table 1 Taking Stock: Reviewing Outcomes for K-3 Students Spring 2006 and Comparing to Spring 2005 Outcomes

Grade/

Measure

Percent at Established

(Low Risk)

Spring 2005

Percent at

Established

(Low Risk)Spring 2006

Percentage Point Increase/

Decrease

(+ or -)

Percent at

Deficit

(At Risk) Spring 2005

Percent at

Deficit

Spring

2006

Percentage

Point Increase/

Decrease

(+ or -)

K - PSF

K - NWF

1-ORF 251/402

62%

69/402

17%

2-ORF

3-ORF

9

Activity 1Materials Needed

• breakout forms• green and pink highlighters• school histograms: Spring 2005 and 2006• cross year box plots• Oregon Reading First project-wide data

DirectionsBreak into grade level teams and complete items A-D.

A. Using the grade level Spring histograms, complete Table 1B. Using a highlighter, identify areas with positive trends (e.g., intensive students

decrease by 10%, benchmark students increase by 10%) in green and areas with negative trends in pink.

C. Discuss end-of-year (Spring 2006) K-3 performance on the essential components of beginning reading instruction using the information from Table 1. Discuss year to year trends.

D. Use cross year box plots to further analyze cross year trends.

10

Activity 1 (continued)

E. Compare school outcomes to project-wide

outcomes. How does our school compare?

11

Insert project-wide data-histograms here:

K-PSFK-NWF1-ORF2-ORF3-ORF

12

Evaluating Support

How effective were the grade-level Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)?

13

What report can we use to answer this question?

14

Summary of Effectiveness Report

15

At Risk

Intensive Strategic Benchmark

Time 1: ( e.g., Winter)

Time 2: (e.g., Spring)

1. Some Risk

2. Low Risk

At Risk

Some Risk

3. Low Risk

At Risk

Some Risk

4. Low Risk

DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports4 Ways to Achieve Adequate Progress

16

Evaluating Support: Winter to Spring 2006

What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?

What percent of intensive students made adequate progress

What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?

What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

17

How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)

Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBIELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/

Benchmark

Goal Measures

Total percent of students in K that made Adequate

Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 90/100 or 90%

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students

e.g., 1/5 or 20%

Percent of Strategic students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%

Percent of Benchmark

students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g.95/100

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

K - PSF

18

What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?

19

How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)

Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBIELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/

Benchmark

Goal Measures

Total percent of students in K that made Adequate

Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 90/100 or 90%

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students

e.g., 1/5 or 20%

Percent of Strategic students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%

Percent of Benchmark

students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g.95/100

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

K - PSF 71/82

87%

20

Evaluating Support: Winter to Spring 2006

What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?

What percent of intensive students made adequate progress

What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?

What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

21

How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)

Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBIELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/

Benchmark

Goal Measures

Total percent of students in K that made Adequate

Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 90/100 or 90%

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students

e.g., 1/5 or 20%

Percent of Strategic students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%

Percent of Benchmark

students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g.95/100

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

K - PSF

22

What percent of intensive students made adequate progress?

23

How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)

Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBIELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/

Benchmark

Goal Measures

Total percent of students in K that made Adequate

Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 90/100 or 90%

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students

e.g., 1/5 or 20%

Percent of Strategic students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%

Percent of Benchmark

students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g.95/100

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

K - PSF 6/7

86%

24

Evaluating Support: Winter to Spring 2006

What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?

What percent of intensive students made adequate progress

What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?

What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

25

How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)

Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBIELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/

Benchmark

Goal Measures

Total percent of students in K that made Adequate

Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 90/100 or 90%

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students

e.g., 1/5 or 20%

Percent of Strategic students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of

students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%

Percent of Benchmark

students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g.95/100

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

K-PSF

26

What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?

27

How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)

Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBIELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/

Benchmark

Goal Measures

Total percent of students in K that made Adequate

Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 90/100 or 90%

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students

e.g., 1/5 or 20%

Percent of Strategic students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of

students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%

Percent of Benchmark

students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g.95/100

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

K-PSF 27/34

79%

28

Evaluating Support: Winter to Spring 2006

What was the total percent of students that made adequate progress?

What percent of intensive students made adequate progress

What percent of strategic students made adequate progress?

What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

29

How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)

Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBIELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/

Benchmark

Goal Measures

Total percent of students in K that made Adequate

Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 90/100 or 90%

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students

e.g., 1/5 or 20%

Percent of Strategic students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of

students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%

Percent of Benchmark

students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g.95/100

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

K-PSF

30

What percent of benchmark students made adequate progress?

31

How effective were the grade-level, Winter to Spring Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps)

Table 2 Evaluating Winter to Spring 2006 Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBIELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/

Benchmark

Goal Measures

Total percent of students in K that made Adequate

Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g., 90/100 or 90%

Percent of Intensive Students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students e.g., 1/5 or

20%

Percent of Strategic students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 25/50 or 50%

Percent of Benchmark

students that made Adequate Progress

Include actual numbers of students,

e.g.95/100

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

Winter

to

Spring

2005

Winter

to

Spring

2006

Percent

Change

(+ or -)

K-PSF 38/41

93%

32

Activity 2Materials Needed

• breakout forms• green and pink highlighters• Summary of Effectiveness Reports: Winter to Spring (05 and 06)• Oregon Reading First Project-Wide Outcomes

DirectionsBreak into grade level teams and complete items A-C.A. Using the grade-level Summary of Effectiveness Reports, complete Table 2.B. Using a highlighter, identify areas with a positive increase in green and areas

with negative or no increase in pink.C. For each grade, discuss the total percent of students making adequate

progress towards the spring benchmark goals. Discuss what the data indicate for benchmark, strategic, and intensive students. Be sure to discuss trends across years.

33

Activity 2 (continued)

D. Compare your school’s percent of students making

adequate progress to Oregon Reading First’s

project-wide data.

34

Insert Project-Wide Summary of Effectiveness Reports

K

1

2

3