orientation to oregon reading first november 30, 2004 jantzen beach, portland doubletree columbia...

Orientation to Oregon Reading First

November 30, 2004Jantzen Beach, Portland

Doubletree Columbia River

2

Content Development

Content developed by:

Edward J. Kame’enui & Trish Travers

Oregon Reading First Center Staff

University of Oregon

Prepared by:

Edward J. Kame’enui, Trish Travers, and Katie Tate

University of Oregon

3

Acknowledgments Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph.D, University of Oregon

Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D., University of Oregon

Scott Baker, Ph.D., University of Oregon

Hank Fien, Ph.D., University of Oregon

Rachell Katz, Ph.D., University of Oregon

Marianne Oakes, M.S., University of Oregon

Trish Travers, Ed.S., University of Oregon

Jennifer Walt, M.S., University of Oregon

Oregon Department of Education

Reading First OrientationTuesday, November 30, 2004 (8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)

8:30-8:45 Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of AgendaDr. Salam Noor and Joni Gilles, Oregon Department of Education (ODE)

8:45-9:15 Reading First: Oregon Reading First and the National PerspectiveDr. Edward J. Kame’enui, Director, Oregon Reading First Center (ORFC), UO

9:15-10:00 Oregon Reading First Application Process: Grant Timeline, Readiness Tool,Assurances, Letter of Intent, and Requests for Proposals (RFP)Joni Gilles, Russ Sweet, & Mary Ann Smith (ODE)

10:00-10:15 BREAK

10:15-10:45 Oregon Reading First (ORF) AssessmentDr. Hank Fien, ORFC Regional Coordinator

10:45-11:15 ORF Programs and MaterialsTrish Travers, Ed.S., ORFC Regional Coordinator

11:15-11:30 ORF Differentiated InstructionDr. Edward J. Kame’enui, Director, ORFC

11:30-12:00 ORF School Experiences: Year 01 (2003-2004)Toni Fisher (RF Coach) & Barbara Evans (Principal), William WalkerElementaryMary Peake (RF Coach), Humboldt Elementary

12:00-1:00 LUNCH

1:00-1:30 ORF CoachingDr. Rachell Katz, ORFC Regional Coordinator

1:30-2:00 ORF Professional DevelopmentJoni Gilles, Director, Oregon Reading First, ODEJennifer Walt, M.S., ORFC Regional Coordinator

2:00-2:30 ORF School Experiences: Year 01 (2003-2004)Debbie Connolly (Coach) & Trisha Evens (Principal), Howard Elementary

2:30-2:45 BREAK

2:45-3:15 ORF LeadershipDr. Edward J. Kame’enui, Director, Oregon Reading First Center (ORFC), UO

3:15-4:00 ORF District Experience: Phil Long, Medford School District

5

Reading First OrientationTuesday, November 30, 2004

8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

4:00-4:15 BREAK

4:15-5:15 Cohort B and English Language Learners: State and NationalPerspectivesDr. Scott Baker, ORFC Director of Evaluation

5:15-6:00 ELL Options and Questions and Answers

6

All children will read at grade level or above by the end of grade 3.

7

Reading First Early Reading First Scientifically based reading

research (SBRR) Valid & reliable assessments for

Screening

Diagnosis

Instruction

Evaluation

$900 million for FY2002 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico,

American Samoa, Guam, N. Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Significant New Reading Support

8

“To provide assistance to State educational agencies and

local educational agencies in establishing reading programs

for students in kindergarten through grade 3 that are based

on scientifically based reading research to ensure that

every student can read at grade level or above not later

than the end of grade 3.”

NCLB, 2001, Part B, Sec. 1201.

Purpose of Reading First

9

(2) “To provide assistance to State educational agencies

and local educational agencies in preparing teachers,

including special education teachers, through

professional development and other

support, so the teachers can identify specific reading

barriers facing their students and so the teachers have

the tools to effectively help their students learn to read.”

Purpose of Reading First

NCLB, 2001, Part B, Sec. 1201.

10

Districts & Schools Reading First Targets Most

Districts and schools with highest percentages or numbers of K-3 students reading below grade level

Districts and schools with large numbers of poor children

States have latitude to determine eligibility, but must strategically decide how funds will be awarded, ex:

Allocation to each LEA is entitled based on Title I share

Number of eligible schools within LEA

Of “sufficient size and scope to enable LEA to improve reading instruction…”

11

Basic Premises of Reading First

All but a very small number of children can be taught to be successful readers

Prevention of reading problems is far more cost effective and efficient than remediation

Reading failure can be prevented by relying on extensive scientifically based reading research

12

DNA of Reading First

Reading by end of Grade 3

Science and Scientifically Based Reading Research

Accountability and Results

Five Essential Components

Minimum framework for reading

13

Overview of Oregon Reading First

Regional Coordinators & Regional Coordinating Teams

Oregon Reading First

Districts and Schools

Oregon Reading First Center

Reading Leadership Team

Oregon Department of Education

17

Principal/SchoolBeginning (Fall)

Question #1: What are our goals? Question #2: How are we doing? Question #3: How do we get there?

Data Source(s): Data Source(s): Data Source(s):

Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)



Student Performance and Implementation Questions and Data Sources

18

What Reading First Means to Oregon Schools

K-3 reading instruction following scientifically-based reading research (SBRR)

Ongoing assessments to monitor student reading progress and outcomes

Ongoing professional development targeting knowledge of SBRR, classroom expertise, and building long-term capacity

19

Oregon Reading FirstApplication Process

Timeline

Intent to Apply Packet Letter of Intent

Selected School Form ( Form A)

Non-selected School Form (Form B)

Grant Writing Workshop Registration (District Team) (Form C)

Grant Writing Workshop Registration (School Team) (Form D)

20

RF School Readiness Tool

One School Readiness tool is provided in each district packet.

School Readiness tool must be filled out by each of the staff members listed on page 64 of ORF Grant.

Each district is responsible for distributing and collecting the School Readiness Tool from each eligible school.

Using the School Readiness Tool, each district is responsible for selecting those schools ready to participate in the Reading First grant. ( Form A)

Using the School Readiness Tool, each district is responsible for determining which schools are not ready to participate in the Reading First grant. (Form B)

21

Required Elements of ORRF

1. Measurable student reading goals at each grade (K-3).

2. Benchmark assessment 3 times a year to identify at- risk students and monitor progress.

3. Differentiated instruction to increase progress of at-risk students.

4. Use of a core reading program evaluated and selected based on principles of SBRR.

22


1. Use of supplemental and intervention programs evaluated and selected based on principles of SBRR.

2. Ongoing professional development (PD) to ensure high quality implementation of all RF objectives.

3. Minimum of 90 minutes of reading instruction per day.

4. Frequent progress monitoring of students (e.g., once a month or once every two weeks) toward benchmark goals.

23


1. High quality coaching support for RF purposes only.

2. District and school-building leadership committed to the implementation of RF.

3. Attendance at all RF meetings, institutes, and PD sessions.

4. Coordination of RF requirements and elements with existing reading elements and commitments.

24

Oregon Reading First: 7 Major Elements

3. Reading Programs

4. Differentiated Instruction

1. Goals

2. Assessment

5. Coaching

6. Professional Development

7. Leadership

25

Element #1: Goals of Beginning Reading

A Set of Strategic, Research-Based, and Measurable Goals and Working Understanding of Big Ideas to Guide Instruction and Learning

26

#1: What are our goals?

What are the most important goals and objectives for our K-3 students to accomplish in the fall and by the end of the year in each of the five essential components of RF?

One Data Source:

Simmons & Kame’enui K-3 Curriculum Maps

27D. Simmons & E Kame’enui 2003

28

Element #2: Assessment of Student Learning

Requirement of Reading First--”Approved” reading measures only, aligned with State and District assessments

District and schoolwide assessment system established and maintained to enter and report findings

Student performance monitored frequently for each child at risk of reading difficulty

Data used to make timely instructional adjustments at monthly grade level team meetings

Commonly understood and used by all teachers

A Valid and Reliable Assessment System To Actively Monitor Progress in the Early Grades

29

Assessing Oregon Reading First Students

Assessment Purposes

Screen all students to determine who is at grade level, and who needs additional or substantial instructional support

Diagnose students’ instructional needs

Monitor progress of students over time

Evaluate outcomes at key points in time

30

Assessing Essential Components in ReadingEffective, comprehensive, reading instruction includes

instruction in each of the essential components:

.

PhonologicalAwareness

Fluency

Phonics

Vocabulary

Reading

Comprehension

31

Who will collect the assessment data?

District and school assessment teams trained to collect benchmark data as well as screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring data

Grade level teams, coaches, teachers work together to collect progress monitoring data

The Oregon Reading First Center will collect some student outcome data

District and school assessment teams trained to conduct reliability checks


32

Student reading performancemonitored systematically

Assess five essential components of beginning reading at different grade levels at different points in time

Assess all students a minimum of three times per year

Determine if students are “at grade level” (i.e., Benchmark) and likely to benefit from the core reading program


33


Determine if students are “below grade level” and require additional instructional support (i.e., Strategic) using supplemental programs

Determine if students are “significantly below grade level” and require substantial instructional support (i.e., Intensive) using intervention programs

Determine effectiveness of core, supplemental, and intervention programs


34

Assess students who require “additional” instruction (i.e., Strategic) once a month

Assess students who require “substantial” instruction (i.e., Intensive) every two weeks

Make timely instructional adjustments as necessary and appropriate



35

Examples of Student Assessments: Screening

Area Examples

Phonemic Awareness

DIBELS: Initial Sound Fluency, Phonemic Segmentation Fluency

Phonics DIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency

Fluency DIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency

Vocabulary Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement-III: Picture Vocabulary

Reading Comprehension

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised: Passage Comprehension

36

Examples of Student Assessments: Progress Monitoring

Area Examples

Phonemic Awareness

DIBELS: Initial Sound Fluency, Phonemic Segmentation Fluency

Phonics DIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency


Vocabulary Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement-III: Picture Vocabulary


Texas Primary Reading Inventory: Reading Comprehension

40

Examples of Student Assessments: Outcomes

Area Examples

Phonemic Awareness

DIBELS: Phonemic Segmentation Fluency

Phonics DIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency, SAT-10: Word Study Skills


Vocabulary SAT-10: Reading Vocabulary & Listening Comprehension


SAT-10: Reading Comprehension, WRMT-R: Passage Comprehension

41

Element #3: Scientifically Based Reading Research Programs

A comprehensive (core) instructional program of validated efficacy adopted and implemented school wide

Programs must teach the five essential components

Use of approved research-based supplemental and intervention programs

Programs must be implemented with high fidelity

All children (Special Education, Title, ELL) included

Adoption and Implementation of Research-Based Reading Programs that Support the Full Range of Learners

42

Types of Reading Programs

Vaughn et al, 2001.CORE, 2003.

CoreReading Program

(Benchmark)

Supplemental Reading Program

(Strategic)

Intervention Reading Program

(Intensive)

80% 15% 5%

Classifying Reading Programs

43

Core Reading Program

A core program is the “base” reading program designed to provide instruction on the essential areas of reading for the majority of students schoolwide.

In general, the core program should enable 80% or more of students to attain schoolwide reading goals.

Simmons, Kame'enui, Harn, & Coyne © 2003.

A Core Instructional Program of Validated Efficacy Adopted and Implemented School-

wide.

44

Benchmark Level of Instructional Support

Level of SupportINSTRUCTIONAL

PLACEMENT ASSESSMENT PLAN

Benchmark SBRR Core Reading Program

Progress Monitoring: Three times per year- All students

In-Program Assessments

Screening & Outcome Assessment

Addressing the needs of most students. . .

45

Core Reading Programs

We may need to supplement or modify, but we must do it

judiciously.Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.

One Size Does NOT Fit All.

Period!

46

Core Reading Programs

Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.

However, “one size” may work effectively

for most.

47

Supplemental Reading Programs

Support and extend the critical elements of a core reading program.

Provide additional instruction in one or two areas (i.e., fill the gaps for phonological awareness, fluency).

Provide more instruction or practice in particular area(s) of need.

May include large group, small group, one-on-one instruction.

Provide more teacher scaffolding.

Provide more explicit and systematic instruction.

Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.

48

Strategic Level of Instructional Support



Strategic Core Reading Program

Plus Supplement

Progress Monitoring: Monthly



Addressing the needs of some students. . .

49

Intervention Reading Programs

Designed for children who demonstrate reading difficulty and are performing below grade level (< 20th percentile).

Provide more explicit, systematic instruction to accelerate learning to a high criterion level of performance.

Focus on more than one area (e.g., phonics, fluency, and comprehension).

Teacher instruction to meet the needs of students who are struggling in their classrooms.

Typically delivered in small group settings.Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.

50

IntensiveLevel of Instructional Support



Intensive Part Core Reading Program Plus Intervention

or Supplant Core with Intervention Program

Progress Monitoring: Every 2 weeks



Addressing the needs of each student. . .

51

90-Minute Block

CORE

CORE + SUPPLEMENT

CORE + INTERVENTION

INTERVENTION

INTERVENTION + SUPPLEMENT

52

ORF Comprehensive Reading Programs

Oregon Curriculum Review Panel

Purpose:

To provide a critical analysis of beginning reading programs and materials that is objective, reliable, and based on the best research available about SBRR

53

The Process: What Oregon Reading First Center Has Done

Evaluated core, supplemental, and intervention reading programs to determine strengths and weaknesses in teaching the essential components of reading

Provided a menu of options from which schools/districts will select reading programs

Will assist in the program selection process to fit the needs of individual schools based on student performance data

54

K-3 Comprehensive Reading Programs

Publisher Program Title CopyrightHarcourt Rigby Education Rigby Literacy 2000Harcourt SchoolPublishers

Trophies 2003

Houghton Mifflin The Nation’s Choice 2003Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Macmillan/McGraw-Hill

Reading2003

SRA/McGraw-Hill Open Court 2002SRA/McGraw-Hill Reading Mastery Plus 2002Scott ForesmanPublishing

Scott Foresman Reading 2004

Success For AllFoundation

Success for All K/1 - 20022 - 1998 (2002 partially admitted)3 -1999 (2002, 2003 partially admitted)

Wright Group/McGrawHill

Wright Group Literacy 2002

55

Rank Order by Type of Item(High Priority/Discretionary)

K-3High Priority

(Total # < 75%)

K-3Discretionary

(Total # < 75%)

K-3Total

(Total # < 75%)

1. Houghton Mifflin (1) 1. Reading Mastery (0) 1. Reading Mastery (2)

2. Reading Mastery (2) 2. Open Court (2) 2. Houghton Mifflin (4)

3. Open Court (3) 3. Houghton Mifflin (3) 3. Open Court (5)

4. Harcourt (4) 4. Harcourt (4) 4. Harcourt (8)

5. Scott Foresman (5) 4. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill (4) 5. Scott Foresman (9)

6. Success For All (7) 4. Scott Foresman (4) 6. Macmillan/McGraw Hill (11)

6. Macmillan/McGraw Hill (7) 7. Success for All (5) 7. Success For All (12)

8. Wright Group (12) 8. Wright Group (6) 8. Wright Group (18)

8. Rigby (12) 9. Rigby (9) 9. Rigby (21)

56

The Process: What You Must Do

Evaluate menu of program options to determine areas of strength and weakness according to the big ideas in beginning reading

Study and select programs that fit the needs of learners in your respective schools

Schedule and provide sufficient professional development to ensure high quality implementation

57

ORF Reading Reading Instruction

Reliance on research-based instructional practices and strategies

Allocated time and engaged time At least 90 minutes per day of uninterrupted beginning

reading instruction

Instructional groups--Opportunities to Learn Small group and whole class

Minimum of 30 minutes teacher directed instruction

Based on student performance and resources

58

Element #4:High Quality Differentiated Instruction

Instructional plans, strategies, and systems designed to respond to the needs of each and every child.

The management of alterable variables and programs designed to meet individual needs of struggling readers

Instruction that is individualized, focused on clear goals, data driven and results based

59

Differentiated instruction requires:

individualized instruction for each and all to reach reading goals

varying the intensity, amount, explicitness and response requirements

teaching each child to high criterion levels of performance

reviewing previously taught material before introducing new material

monitoring student performance during and after instruction

60

How To Differentiate Instruction

Use data to identify students who need additional or substantial instruction

Use progress monitoring data to adjust instruction

When possible, select supplemental and intervention programs that complement one another and the core program

Manipulate “alterable variables” to intensify instruction

61

Alterable Elements

Program: Is the learner likely to benefit from the core? If not, what intervention-- specialized/ acceleration program--is available?

Time: A minimum of 30 + 30 minutes of intensive intervention.

Grouping/Organization: Small group (e.g., 3-5 per group)

62

Instructional Adjustments

AlterableComponents Specific Adjustments

Opportunities toLearn (Time/

Concentration ofInstruction)

Increaseattendance

Provideinstructiondaily

Increaseopportunitiesto respond

Varyschedule ofeasy/hardtasks/skills

Add anotherinstructionalperiod(doubledose)

Program Efficacy

Preteachcomponentsof coreprogram

Useextensions ofthe coreprogram

Supplementcore withappropriatematerials

Replacecurrent coreprogram

Implementspeciallydesignedprogram

ProgramImplementation

Model lessondelivery

Monitorimplementa-tionfrequently

Providecoaching andongoingsupport

Provideadditionalstaffdevelopment

Varyprogram/lessonschedule

Grouping forInstruction

Check groupplacement

Reducegroup size

Increaseteacher-ledinstruction

Provideindividualinstruction

Changeinstructor

Coordination ofInstruction

Clarifyinstructionalpriorities

Establishconcurrentreadingperiods

Providecomplemen-tary readinginstructionacrossperiods

Establishcommunica-tion acrossinstructors

Meetfrequently toexamineprogress

Grouping: Reduce

group size

63

Instructional AdjustmentsAlterable

Components Specific Adjustments



Increaseattendance





Program Efficacy














Reducegroup size



Changeinstructor







Program Efficacy: Preteach components

of core program

64

Instructional Adjustments

AlterableComponents Specific Adjustments



Increaseattendance





Program Efficacy














Reducegroup size



Changeinstructor







Coordination of Instruction: Meet frequently

to examine progress

65

Three Levels of Instructional Support:Summary of CSI Map

Guidelines One instructional support map per grade level. Each grade level map addresses benchmark, strategic and

intensive student levels of support. All teachers/specialists should work from the same map. Data will direct changes as necessary. Each map is a work in progress. Use alterable variables to assist in increasing/decreasing

intensity for varying levels of support. Alter the fewest number of variables that impact reading

progress.


Time Period InstructionalRecommend

ation

Participation in Core Supplemental andIntervention Programs/

Strategies

Supplemental and InterventionProgram Delivery

Frequency ofDIBELSProgress

Monitoring

Determining InstructionalEffectiveness

benchmark: Who:

When:

Activities:

Group Size:

Who:

When:__ w/in 90 minutes__ outside of 90 min

Time:

Group Size:

Who:

How Often:

Criteria:

strategic: Who:

When:

Activities:

Group Size:

Who:


Time:

Group Size:

Who:

How Often:

Criteria:

Fall toWinter

intensive: Who:

When:

Activities:

Group Size:

Who:


Time:

Group Size:

Who:

How Often:

Criteria:

67


Instr.Recommen-

dation

Participation inCore

Supplementaland Intervention

Programs/Strategies

Supplemental andIntervention

Program Delivery

Frequency ofDIBELS

ProgressMonitoring

DeterminingInstructionalEffectiveness

Intensive: Who:All intensivestudents*

When:M-F, 9:00-9:30

Activities:Learning to Readand Word Worksections from HM(emphasis on redchecked items)

Group Size:Whole (30minutes)

Early ReadingIntervention

*Enhancevocabularysections of HMusing IBR2strategies.

* Provideadditionalpracticeopportunities onletter-soundcorrespondences and wordblending.

Who:Certified teacher(i.e. title I, specialed, classroomteacher, speechpathologist)

When:XX w/in 90 minutes(ERI)XX outside of 90min (double dose)

Time:30 minutes daily forERI

Group Size:Small (< 4students)

Every TwoWeeks

Who:Classroom teacherwith assistancefrom reading coach,possibly earlyliteracy teams orgrade level teamsas discussed inteam meetings

How Often:Monthly

Criteria:3 points at or abovegoal line on Dibels,continue program

3 points below goalline, changeinstruction

Kindergarten Example

68

“Double-Dosing” Instruction

Once placed in a strong core, supplemental, or intervention reading program, students most often need MORE NOT DIFFERENT.

Schedule your double dose keeping “MORE” in mind.

Some double-dose options include:

• Firming up the morning’s lesson

• Moving on to the next lesson

69

Element #5: High Quality Coaching

A Reading Coach in each school

A supportive, knowledgeable school leader

Knowledge of goals, programs, assessment, strategies, data organization/management/

interpretation

Collaborative support with school principal and teachers

Informed, Knowledgeable, Committed

70

School-Based Mentor Coaches

Teachers with expertise in beginning reading instruction

Focus on effective program-specific implementation and support

Expertise with DIBELS and using data for decision making

Build school capacity to provide and sustain effective reading programs and practices

71

School-Based Mentor Coaches

Coaches must not have other responsibilities that take time from their instructional leadership roles

Coaches must schedule monthly collaboration meetings with grade-level teams to: (a) review and analyze lesson progress reports (LPRs)

and progress monitoring data

(b) plan instruction and grouping

(c) provide professional development

(d), and problem solve

72

Program Fidelity Checklist

USDOE states:

The State Educational Agency must report Implementation Evidence to the U.S. Department Of Education “ demonstrating that it has met all program requirements related to the implementation and administration of the Reading First Program …”

73

Rationale for Observation

Oregon’s Reading First Application states:

“The mentor coaches’ primary responsibility will be to support and guide classroom teachers in their effective implementation of high-quality instruction in beginning reading.”

Therefore ...“ the school mentor coach will observe each teacher on a regular basis, providing support and feedback, and model instruction as needed or requested by the teacher.”

74

Focus of Observations

Mentor coaches will conduct the following observations:

5 minute observations

Program fidelity observations

75


Features Instructional Heading

Activity

Instructional Target (PA, PH, FL, V, C, Other)

Grouping (whole group, small group, Independent)

Time (actual time of activity, e.g. 8:15-8:25)

Level of Implementation (None, Partial, Partial+, Full)

Comments

Hank Fien, Carrie Thomas Beck,Hank Fien, Carrie Thomas Beck,Nicole Sherman-Brewer Nicole Sherman-Brewer

Oregon Reading First Center StaffOregon Reading First Center Staff

Oregon Reading First

Fidelity of Implementation Observation System


District _____________________ School _____________________ Teacher ID #_____________________

Observer ____________________Date_______________________ Program / Lesson _________________

Name of Group ______________ Number of Students _________ Grade __________________________

Time Spent Observing ________ Special Considerations ________________________________________

Instructional TargetPhonemic Awareness = PA Phonics = PH Fluency = FL Vocabulary = V Comprehension = COther (e.g., writing, music) = O

Time Heading Activity Grouping Primary Instructor Level ofImplementation

Write instart andstoptime.

Write inmajorheading.

Write in activity. Circle the maininstructional target of the activity.Slash other targets (s) theteacher emphasizes.

WholeClass

SmallGroup

Indep Teacher = TSpecialist = SEd Asst = A

N = NoneP = PartialF = Full

Activity 1:

PA PH FL V C O

W S I T S A N P / P+ F

Comments

78

Element #6:High Quality Professional Development

Professional Development (PD) requires a significant and serious investment at the school level (e.g., Substitute teachers may be required for all teachers attending PD sessions)

PD must be based on SBRR and aligned with Oregon Reading First goals

PD must support implementation of core, supplemental and intervention programs

PD must receive “prior approval” from ORFC and ODE

Principals and District leaders must attend PD sessions (e.g., IBRs, Leadership IBRs)

79

Continuum of PD Support

Regional Expertise: University or Regional (Institutes, Beacon Schools,

Coursework)

Within School Expertise (Coaches

& Study Teams)

Local Expertise (District, Beacon Schools, or Program

Specific)

State or National Support(NRFTAC--WRRFTAC, CRRFTAC,

ERRFTAC)

80

Professional Development (PD) and Support for Oregon Reading First Implementation

Institutes on Beginning Reading (IBRs)

School-Based mentor coaches

School-based Reading First teams and principal leadership

Regional Reading First coordinators

Leadership IBRs for principals & coaches

Two-year professional development plan

81


IBR I: A School-wide Model

IBR II: Enhancing the Core

IBR III: Differentiating Instruction through Supplemental and Intervention Programs

IBR IV: Evaluating and Planning

IBR V-VII: Regionally focused IBRs

82


Purpose: To develop knowledge and expertise related to Scientifically Based Reading Research

IBR I - 4 days Conducted the summer prior to new school year

Focuses on scientific principles of beginning reading; application of principles to grade-specific goals and programs

Provides support for the selection of core, supplemental, and intervention programs

Includes support for learning the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) assessment system

83


IBR II - 2 days

Held following fall data collection

Focus on analysis of student performance data

Plan instructional groups and differentiated instruction for students who require more instructional support

84

Institutes on Beginning Reading (IBRs): Year 2

Focus on quality of program implementation

Improve effectiveness of interventions, especially for struggling students

Improve efficiency and effectiveness using data for decision making

Focus on data-based leadership and data sources--student reading progress and outcomes

85

Oregon Reading FirstRegional Coordinators

Provide support in beginning reading and administration

Train mentor coaches

Help schools build capacity for continuous improvement

Extend Reading First activities to Pathfinder schools

86

Oregon Reading First Interconnected Websites

Oregon Reading First http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=96

Oregon Reading First Center (U of O) http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/

Big IDEAS in Beginning Reading

http://reading.uoregon.edu/

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

87

Element #7: High Quality Leadership

District and school leaders who provide a serious and “good faith” commitment to the tenets and requirements of ORF

District and school leaders who focus on student performance data and school systems and support

Informed, Knowledgeable, Committed

89

Reading First Questions & Data Sources

Fall #1: What are our goals?

J. Silbert, K. Howe, & D. Howe 2004

What are the most important goals and objectives for our K-3 students to accomplish in the fall and by the end of the year in each of the five essential components of RF?

One Data Source:

Simmons & Kame’enui K-3 Curriculum Maps

90D. Simmons & E Kame’enui 2003

Planning and Evaluation Tool (PET)

Planning and Evaluation Tool forEffective Schoolwide Reading Programs - Revised

(PET-R)

Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph.D.Deborah C. Simmons, Ph.D.

Institute for the Development of Educational AchievementCollege of EducationUniversity of Oregon

Revised May, 2003

*Based on: Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Todd, A. (2000). Effective behavior support: Self-assessment survey.Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 91

1

Institute on Beginning (IBR)Reading Action Plan

(RAP)

Name of School, District City, State

Reading Goals and Priorities

1. What:

Who:

When:

2. What:

Who:

When:

3. What:

Who:

When:

Committee Members

Adopted by School Staff (date): 92

1

Institute on Beginning Reading

School Profile

Name of School: District:

Address:

Phone: email:

Principal:

Reading Co ordinator:

Grade Levels: Total School Enrollment:

Total Number of Certified Teachers:

Title School: (Circle One) YES NO

Mobility Rate (i.e., % children who move in and out):

Percent of Students in Grades K-3 Receiving Special Educa tion:

Percent of Students in Grades K-3 not Fluent in English:

Ethnicity Breakdown by Percent:

Caucasian: _________ Hispanic/Latino: __________ African American: _________

Asian: _________ Other (please specify): ______________________________________

Number of Teachers Per Grade:

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Number of Classes Per Grade:

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Number of Students Per Grade:

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 93

94


Fall #2: How are we doing?

For each grade and essential component, what percentage of students have bench-mark, strategic, and intensive needs?

Data Source(s):

DIBELS Grade List Reports

a.

95

Grade List Report - School A, Grade 2

Name

Oral Reading Fluency

Instructional RecommendationScore Percentile Status

Travis 5 4 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Brad 6 4 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Lynn 12 13 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Brittany 22 17 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Jesus 24 21 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Kayla 27 25 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Austin 30 29 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Erin 31 33 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Jimmy 37 38 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Jose 37 42 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Maria 40 46 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

LaTanya 42 50 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Derek 44 54 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Tiffany 48 58 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Ben 50 63 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Juan 53 67 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Monica 56 71 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Justin 57 75 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade LevelJ. Silbert, K. Howe, & D. Howe 2004 Dynamic Measurement Group © 2004

Benchmark - 50%Strategic - 29%Intensive - 21%

96


Fall #2: How are we doing?

Is there substantial increase in the number of students reaching targets in the fall from year to year?

Data Source(s):

DIBELS Cross-Year Box Plots

b.


97

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Cross Year Box Plot Chart - School A

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Benchmark Time

Co

rrec

t W

ord

s

Beginning Middle End


2002-2003

2003-2004

Dynamic Measurement Group © 2004

98


Winter & Spring #2: How are we doing?

For each grade and essential component, what percentage of students who started at benchmark remained at benchmark?What percentage of students moved from strategic and intensive to benchmark? What percentage of students moved from intensive to strategic?

Data Source(s):

DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Report

a.



Summary of Effectiveness Report - Grade 2, School AEffectiveness of Core Curriculum Effectiveness of Strategic Support Program Effectiveness of Intensive Support Program

Students in

Benchmark

Range

Beginning End Check if

Reached Benchmark

of 90

Students in

Strategic

Range


Reached Benchmark

of 90

Students in

Intensive

Range


Reached Benchmark

of 90ORF ORF ORF ORF ORF ORF

Score Score Score Score Score Score

Carlos 108 163 X LaTanya 42 123 X Jesus 24 90 X

Jennifer 82 153 X Maria 40 92 X Brittany 22 97 X

Pedro 72 140 X Jose 37 101 X Lynn 12 95 X

Anna 71 143 X Jimmy 37 86 Brad 6 73

Tony 68 92 X Erin 31 97 X Travis 5 46

Sonja 63 107 X Austin 30 100 X

Justin 57 133 X Kayla 27 83

Monica 56 138 X

Juan 53 98 X

Ben 50 118 X

Tiffany 48 99 X

Derek 44 108 X

Count: 12/12 Count 5/7 Count 3/5

Percent: 100% Percent: 71% Percent: 60%


100

State Reading First Questions & Data Sources

Winter & Spring #2: How are we doing?

Is there a substantial increase in the number of students reaching benchmark in the spring from year to year?

Data Source(s):

DIBELS Cross-Year Box Plots

b.


101

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Cross Year Box Plot Chart - School A

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Benchmark Time

Co

rrec

t W

ord

s

Beginning Middle End


2002-2003

2003-2004


102

An Oregon Reading First School:

has a schoolwide beginning reading plan which includes an instructional map for Benchmark, Strategic, and Intensive students in each grade level. All K-3 teachers participate in this plan.

uses an assessment system (e.g., DIBELS for screening, progress monitoring and evaluating reading outcomes). Teachers use data to group students and inform instruction.

establish reading “instructional routines” and protocols that result in the prevention of reading difficulties in Kindergarten through Grade 3.

103

An Oregon Reading First School:

has adopted a research-based core program for K-3 and is implementing that program faithfully with those students who require additional instructional support.

has purchased and is implementing faithfully research based intervention programs to meet the needs of those students who do not benefit from the core instruction and require substantial reading support.

has purchased and is implementing faithfully research based supplemental programs to fill the gaps in the core program and to provide additional instruction and practice in essential components for those students who need it.

orientation to oregon reading first november 30, 2004 jantzen beach, portland doubletree columbia...

Documents

schools oregon reading

overview of oregon reading

reading instruction

purpose of reading

reading programs

dna of reading

early reading

based reading research