oregon reading first conference call data-based action planning
DESCRIPTION
Oregon Reading First Conference Call Data-based Action Planning. Winter 2008. Materials for this Meeting. We will be referring to the Data-based action planning modules that were included in the handouts from the December 4/6th Regional coaches meetings. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Oregon Reading First (2008) 1
Oregon Reading First Conference Call
Data-based Action Planning
Winter 2008
Oregon Reading First (2008) 2
Materials for this Meeting
• We will be referring to the Data-based action planning modules that were included in the handouts from the December 4/6th Regional coaches meetings.
• Also please have your current action plan on hand. The forms can also be found on the Oregon Reading First Website under "Forms and Downloads" (at the bottom of the page).
• Specifically, we will be talking about the following forms:– a) Action Planning Overview (gold)
– b) GLT Action Planning Module (blue)
– c) ERT Action Planning Module (yellow)
– d) New Action Form (pink)e) Your current action plan
Oregon Reading First (2008) 3
Action Planning Process OverviewOregon Reading First - Winter 2008
Getting Ready:• Plan GLT, ERT, and District Team meeting dates and notify team members• Hold DIBELS Refresher trainings (see DIBELS Refresher Training Module posted on the Oregon Reading First website under Assessment)• Coaches join January 18th conference call on the GLT/ERT Data-based Action Planning Modules (if needed)• Copy modules (posted on the Oregon Reading First website under Forms and Downloads) and prepare data tables in advance of GLT and ERT meetings.
Step 1 - GLT Action Planning: After the DIBELS data has been entered, coaches facilitate data-based action planning during the January and/or February Grade Level Team meetings under GLT Action Planning Module
Step 2 - ERT Action Planning: Coaches and Principals facilitate data-based action planning during the winter ERT meeting using ERT Action Planning Module, current Action Plan documents, and a “New Actions” form.
Step 3 - Principal Winter 2008 “How are we doing?” Report
Step 4 - District Team Action Planning: District Team meets to update progress on district actions and to add new actions as indicated by winter DIBELS data.
Step 5 - District Winter 2008 “How are we doing?” Report
School Deliverables District Deliverables
Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First Center and Regional Coordinator by
February 29, 2008
Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First Center and Regional Coordinator by
March 14, 2008
• Action Plan Progress Notes• New Actions• Principal “How Are We Doing?” Report
• District “How Are We Doing?” Report (includes new district actions)
Oregon Reading First (2008) 4
Overview of the Data-based Action Planning 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 (2008) 5
Look what’s New!Revisions and New Features…
• New GLT and ERT tables are not-specific to this year (so you can use these forms after RF)
• Table 2: Calculating percent change only for Percent of Total (because other groups could be too small to have meaningful numbers.
• Table 2 and Adequate Progress Table: We recommend evaluating the total number of students who met the goals (from Table 1) instead of adequate progress towards ISF
• Healthy Systems Checklist: We have included space to evaluate B, S, and I all in the same table instead of 3 separate tables.
• Table 3: The questions at the top of the table are revised for the winter to add space for collecting additional information.
• ERT Tables 1 and 2 include spaces to include 4th and 5th grade data
(not required)
Oregon Reading First (2008) 6
Data-based Action Planning GLT Meetings
Oregon Reading First (2008) 7
Purpose of the DBAP 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 (2008) 8
DBAP 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 (2008) 9
• 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 (2008) 10
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 (2008) 11
A B C D E F G
Grade/Measure Percent at Established(Low Risk) Spring 20
___
Percent at Established(Low Risk)
Spring 20 ___
Percentage Point
Increase/Decrease
(+ or -)
Percent at Deficit
(At Risk)Spring 20 ___
Percent at Deficit
(At Risk)Spring 20 ___
Percentage Point
Increase/Decrease
(+ or -)
Kindergarten- PSF
Kindergarten- NWF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
Third Grade ORF 31% 39% +8% 51% 36% -15%Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
The percent of students at low risk has increased. That’s good! However, only about 40% of our studentsare meeting the goal, so we have room to improve.
The percent of studentsat 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 (2008) 12
• 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 (2008) 13
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure
Percent of Total Students 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 or 95%.
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- PSF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
40% 43% +3% 0% 0/45
0%
0/23
25% 5/19
23% 5/20
90% 17/19
90% 20/22
Third Grade ORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of StudentsMaking 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 (2008) 14
Figure 1What is the effectiveness of the grade level support plans?
Adequate Progress Relative Criteria FALL TO WINTER
*Percentile ranks based on approximately 300 Oregon schools using the DIBELS data system during the 2004 - 2005 academic year.
**Kindergarten Note: The Summary of Effectiveness reports provide information on the number and percentage of students who made adequate progress towards the Winter ISF goal. To evaluate the Fall to Winter Grade Level Instructional support plans, we recommend evaluating the total number of students who met ISF, PSF, and NWF goals (reported in Table 1) instead of the adequate progress towards ISF
What is the overall effectiveness of the grade-
level plan?
% of students who made adequate progress in each
grade
How effective is the grade-level instructional support
plan for intensive students?
% of students who made adequate progress within an instructional support range
How effective is the grade-level instructional support plan
for strategic students?
% of students who made adequate progress within an instructional support range
How effective is the grade-level instructional support plan for
benchmark students?
% of students who made adequate progress within an instructional support range
1 (NWF)
≥ 64% Top Quartile
39% to 63% Middle Quartiles ≤ 38% Bottom Quartile
≥ 63% Top Quartile
27% to 62% Middle Quartiles ≤ 26% Bottom Quartile
≥ 42% Top Quartile
15% to 41% Middle Quartiles ≤ 14% Bottom Quartile
≥ 79% Top Quartile
58% to 78% Middle Quartiles ≤ 57% Bottom Quartile
2 (ORF)
≥ 67% Top Quartile
45% to 66% Middle Quartiles ≤ 44% Bottom Quartile
≥ 21% Top Quartile
1% to 20% Middle Quartiles ≤ 0% Bottom Quartile
≥ 60% Top Quartile
27% to 59% Middle Quartiles ≤ 26% Bottom Quartile
= 100% Top Quartile
95% to 99% Middle Quartiles ≤ 94% Bottom Quartile
3 (ORF)
≥ 63% Top Quartile
41% to 62% Middle Quartiles ≤ 40% Bottom Quartile
≥ 27% Top Quartile
9% to 26% Middle Quartiles ≤ 8% Bottom Quartile
≥ 41% Top Quartile
14% to 40% Middle Quartiles ≤ 13% Bottom Quartile
≥ 97% Top Quartile
86% to 96% Middle Quartiles ≤ 85% Bottom Quartile
Oregon Reading First (2008) 15
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure
Percent of Total Students 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 or 95%.
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- PSF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
40% 43% +3% 0% 0/45
0%
0/23
25% 5/19
23% 5/20
90% 17/19
90% 20/22
Third Grade ORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of StudentsMaking 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 (2008) 16
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure
Percent of Total Students 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 or 95%.
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- PSF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
40% 43% +3% 0% 0/45
0%
0/23
25% 5/19
23% 5/20
90% 17/19
90% 20/22
Third Grade ORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
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.
None of the studentsin the intensive range moved to some risk or low risk on the benchmarkgoal. This system was in The bottom quartile. We have fewer students in the intensive range (23 vs. 45)but this is a systemthat 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 middlequartiles compared to other schoolsin 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 gradeto see where we should prioritize.
Oregon Reading First (2008) 17
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure
Percent of Total Students 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 or 95%.
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- PSF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
40% 43% +3% 0% 0/45
0%
0/23
25% 5/19
23% 5/20
90% 17/19
90% 20/22
Third Grade ORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
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.
Almost the same percent of studentsmade adequate progress in the strategic system this year comparedto last year. This system is in the middle quartile. About one quarter of our strategic students made adequate progress Winter to Spring. We couldhave more. Let’s make this system a priority.
Almost all of the studentsin the benchmark range made adequate progressthis 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.
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.
Oregon Reading First (2008) 18
• Step 3: Identify systems that need support (circle):
Benchmark Strategic Intensive
Remember: This could be a whole system or one group within the
system
One idea is to sort the DIBELS booklets/graphs into groups ahead of time. Then discuss whether toprioritize the whole system or agroup within the system.
Oregon Reading First (2008) 19
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 (2008) 20
First, look at
Structural Questions(in bold)
Healthy System Checklist
Oregon Reading First (2008) 21
Second, look at
Quality ofImplementation
Questions
Healthy System Checklist
Oregon Reading First (2008) 22
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 (2008) 23
Table 3
System (circle one): Benchmark Strategic Intensive
System Questions
(Taken from the Healthy Systems Checklist)
What evidence do you have that identifies this question as a concern?
(I.e. observations, interviews, further assessment, Review Existing Data, Schedules, Instructional Plans?)
Is there more information you can collect to clarify area in need of support?
(I.e. observations, interviews, further assessment, Review Existing Data, Schedules, Instructional Plans?)
List Suggested Actions to Address the Concern:
1. Healthy Systems Checklist Element: __________________
2. Healthy Systems Checklist Element: __________________
3. Healthy Systems Checklist Element: __________________
Oregon Reading First (2008) 24
• 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 (2008) 25
Data-based Action Planning ERT Meeting
Oregon Reading First (2008) 26
Purpose of the ERT Meeting
– Review Schoolwide Data
– Review the GLTs’ Suggested Actions
– Create Action Plan
– Consider RF Budget Implications
Oregon Reading First (2008) 27
ERT Meeting LogisticsPreparing in Advance
– Coach fills in grade level data in advance and can highlight Table 2 of ERT packet.
– Materials• Each person will have their own packet• Green, Yellow and Pink highlighters• CSI Maps• Schedules • Data• List of suggested actions from GLT packets• Sample Action Plan• Blank Action Plan• Spring 2007 Oregon Reading First Activities Checklist
Oregon Reading First (2008) 28
A B C D E F G
Grade/Measure Percent at Established(Low Risk)
Spring 20__
Percent at Established(Low Risk)
Spring 20__
Percentage Point Increase/
Decrease (+ or -)
Percent at Deficit
(At Risk)Spring 20__
Percent at Deficit
(At Risk)Spring 20__
Percentage Point Increase/
Decrease(+ or -)
Kindergarten- PSF
Kindergarten- NWF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
Third Grade ORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
Reviewing OutcomesCoach 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 1 Reviewing 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 (2008) 29
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure
Percent of Total Students 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
ProgressInclude actual
numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Percent Change(+ or -)
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Winter to Spring20__
Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Kindergarten- PSF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
Third Grade ORF
Fourth Grade ORF
Fifth Grade ORF
Evaluating SupportWhat 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 (2008) 30
Step 3: Based on Tab les 1 and 2, list the systems, across K-3 data, that are of highest priority.
Step 4: Review K-3 grade level teams’ Table 3 – Proposed System Support Plan documents to learn more about a) systems identified for support at each grade level, b) system-specific questions from the Healthy Systems Checklist selected by those teams, and c) suggested actions for those identified system needs. Step 5: ERT team should consider whether any systems, other than those identified in grade level teams, are in need of support. If so, complete Table 3 – Proposed System Support Plan from the grade level team booklet, using the Healthy Systems Checklist to identify questions and suggested actions. Step 6: Using the system priority list from Step 3 above, and K-3 completed Tab le 3 – Proposed System Support Plans, consider the suggested actions that are of highest priority. Based on team consensus, prioritize actions that will have a significant impact on student achievement. Identify NO MORE THAN TEN actions and list them on the Schoolwide Action Plan.
Oregon Reading First (2008) 31
Schoolwide Action Plan
School: _______________________ Date Created: _______________________Staff Who Created This Action Plan:___________________ _______________________ ____________________ ______________________
___________________ _______________________ ____________________ ______________________
Schoolwide Element
Indicate Schoolwide or Specific Grade
and Group
Action to Be Taken (be specific enough so that it is possible to
determine when the action has been implemented)
Person Responsible
Report on Progress of
Implementation
1
2
3
4
5
Oregon Reading First (2008) 32
How to Document Action Plan Progress
Format Option A: Use the "Action Plan Progress" column (type or by hand) located on the action plan.
Format Option B: Use a separate form and list the actions currently being addressed. If using a separate sheet of paper, attach to current action plan for documentation.
Oregon Reading First (2008) 33
How to Document Adding New Actions
Schoolwide Element
Indicate Schoolwide or Specific Grade
and Group
Action to be Taken (be specific
enough that it is possible to determine when the action has been implemented)
Person Responsible
Report on Progress
Implementation
New Action #___
Date Added: ______
New Action #___
Date Added: ______
New Action #___
Date Added: ______
New Action #___
Date Added: ______
New Action #___
Date Added: ______
School: _____________________
Oregon Reading First (2008) 34
Action Planning Process OverviewOregon Reading First - Winter 2008
Getting Ready:• Plan GLT, ERT, and District Team meeting dates and notify team members• Hold DIBELS Refresher trainings (see DIBELS Refresher Training Module posted on the Oregon Reading First website under Assessment)• Coaches join January 18th conference call on the GLT/ERT Data-based Action Planning Modules (if needed)• Copy modules (posted on the Oregon Reading First website under Forms and Downloads) and prepare data tables in advance of GLT and ERT meetings.
Step 1 - GLT Action Planning: After the DIBELS data has been entered, coaches facilitate data-based action planning during the January and/or February Grade Level Team meetings under GLT Action Planning Module
Step 2 - ERT Action Planning: Coaches and Principals facilitate data-based action planning during the winter ERT meeting using ERT Action Planning Module, current Action Plan documents, and a “New Actions” form.
Step 3 - Principal Winter 2008 “How are we doing?” Report
Step 4 - District Team Action Planning: District Team meets to update progress on district actions and to add new actions as indicated by winter DIBELS data.
Step 5 - District Winter 2008 “How are we doing?” Report
School Deliverables District Deliverables
Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First Center and Regional Coordinator by
February 29, 2008
Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First Center and Regional Coordinator by
March 14, 2008
• Action Plan Progress Notes• New Actions• Principal “How Are We Doing?” Report
• District “How Are We Doing?” Report (includes new district actions)
Oregon Reading First (2008) 35
Mini Review:How to Read a Summary Of
Effectiveness Report
Oregon Reading First (2008) 36
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
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional
Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on
PSF
Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K
8.5% of Total Students
34 Students Strategic at Middle of K
41.5% of Total Students
41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K
50% of Total Students
N = 82
Count 1 3 3 0 7 27 0 3 38Deficit 1.2%% of Instructional Recommendation
14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%
% of Total 1.2% 3.7% 3.7% 0% 8.5% 32.9% 0% 3.7% 46.3%Established 82.9%
Oregon Reading First (2008) 37
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
Oregon Reading First (2008) 38
Middle of the Year Instructional Recommendation
Intensive Strategic Benchmark
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional
Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on
PSF
Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K
8.5% of Total Students
34 Students Strategic at Middle of K
41.5% of Total Students
41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K
50% of Total Students
N = 82
Count 1 3 3 0 7 27 0 3 38Deficit 1.2%% of Instructional Recommendation
14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%
% of Total 1.2% 3.7% 3.7% 0% 8.5% 32.9% 0% 3.7% 46.3%Established 82.9%
Oregon Reading First (2008) 39
End of Year Benchmark Status
At Risk
1. Some Risk
2. Low Risk
At Risk
Some Risk
3. Low Risk
At Risk
Some Risk
4. Low Risk
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional
Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten
Benchmark Status on PSF
Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K
8.5% of Total Students
34 Students Strategic at Middle of K
41.5% of Total Students
41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K
50% of Total Students
N = 82
Count 1 3 3 0 7 27 0 3 38Deficit 1.2%% of Instructional Recommendation
14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%
% of Total 1.2% 3.7% 3.7% 0% 8.5% 32.9% 0% 3.7% 46.3%Established 82.9%
Oregon Reading First (2008) 40
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 (2008) 41
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?
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional
Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten
Benchmark Status on PSF
Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
End of Year
Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
End of Year
Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
End of Year Deficit
End of Year Emerging
End of Year Established
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K
8.5% of Total Students
34 Students Strategic at Middle of K
41.5% of Total Students
41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K
50% of Total Students
N = 82
Count 1 3 3 0 7 27 0 3 38 Deficit 1.2%
% of Instructional Recommendation
14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7% Emerging 15.9%
% of Total 1.2% 3.7% 3.7% 0% 8.5% 32.9% 0% 3.7% 46.3% Established 82.9%