oregon reading first (2008)1 oregon reading first conference call data-based action planning winter...

Oregon Reading First (2008) 1

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.

• 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


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


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)


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


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)


Data-based Action Planning GLT Meetings


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


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


• 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.


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!


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!


• 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.


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


e.g., 1/5 or 20%.

Percent of Strategic Students that made Adequate Progress


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

Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress


e.g., 95/100 or 95%.

Winter to Spring20__


Percent Change(+ or -)







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.


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?


How effective is the grade-level instructional support plan for

benchmark students?


1 (NWF)

≥ 64% Top Quartile

39% to 63% Middle Quartiles ≤ 38% Bottom Quartile







2 (ORF)







= 100% Top Quartile


3 (ORF)













e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



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



e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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.





e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



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



e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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


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.





e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



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



e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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


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.


• 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.


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.


First, look at

Structural Questions(in bold)

Healthy System Checklist


Second, look at

Quality ofImplementation

Questions

Healthy System Checklist


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.)?


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: __________________




• 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.


Data-based Action Planning ERT Meeting


Purpose of the ERT Meeting

– Review Schoolwide Data

– Review the GLTs’ Suggested Actions

– Create Action Plan

– Consider RF Budget Implications


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


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.





e.g., 90/100 or 90%.



e.g., 1/5 or 20%.



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

Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate

ProgressInclude actual

numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%.











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.


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.


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


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.


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: _____________________


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


February 29, 2008


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)


Mini Review:How to Read a Summary Of

Effectiveness Report


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 Deficit



Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K

8.5% of Total Students

34 Students Strategic at Middle of K


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%


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


Middle of the Year Instructional Recommendation

Intensive Strategic Benchmark


Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on

PSF


End of Year Deficit



End of Year Deficit



End of Year Deficit









N = 82


14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%



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


Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten

Benchmark Status on PSF


End of Year Deficit



End of Year Deficit



End of Year Deficit









N = 82


14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 0% 20.6% 79.4% 0% 7.3% 92.7%Emerging 15.9%



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.


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?


Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten

Benchmark Status on PSF


End of Year

Deficit



End of Year

Deficit



End of Year Deficit









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%

oregon reading first (2008)1 oregon reading first conference call data-based action planning winter...

Documents

district team action

current action plan

current action plan

winter dibels data

new district actions

plan glt

data tables

district winter