1 Data-Based Leadership Cohort B March 2, 2006 (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on...

1

Data-Based LeadershipCohort B

March 2, 2006

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

2

Using data in an Outcomes-Driven model:

1. Identify Goals for Expected Performance

2. Identify and Validate Level of Support Needed to meet Expected Performance Goals

3. Plan and Implement Level of Support

4. Evaluate and, if necessary, Modify Support Plan

5. Review Outcomes

3

How are we doing?

Question 1

District: How are K-3 students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction within the district?

Data Source: District Histogram (add to #3)

4

5

How are we doing?

Question 1

School: How are K-3 students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction within the school?

Data Source: First Grade Histogram (#3)

6

7

How are we doing?

Question 1

Projectwide: How are K-3 students performing in the middle of the year on essential components of beginning reading instruction within the project?

Data Source: Oregon Reading First Histograms

8

Oregon Reading First: Projectwide HistogramPhoneme Segmentation Fluency

9

Oregon Reading First: Projectwide HistogramNonsense Word Fluency

10

Oregon Reading First: Projectwide HistogramOral Reading Fluency

11

Oregon Reading First: Projectwide HistogramOral Reading Fluency

12

Breakout Activity

Review of District and School Data

13

How are we doing?

Question 2

District: Within a district, what are the outcomes when examined school by school?

Data Source: First Grade Distribution Report - Breakdown by School (#11)

14

District Level Distribution Reports

• By School• By Race / Ethnicity• By Gender• By Free / Reduced Lunch• By Special Education• By Disability Status / Special Education Category /

Services Provided• By Additional Codes• By DIBELS-Approved Accommodations

15

16

How are we doing?

Question 2

School: Within a school, what are the outcomes when examined class by class?

Data Source: School Level Distribution Report (add to #11)

17

School Level Distribution Reports

• By Class• By Secondary Class• By Race / Ethnicity• By Gender• By Free / Reduced Lunch• By Special Education• By Disability Status / Special Education Category /

Services Provided• By Additional Codes• By DIBELS-Approved Accommodations

18

19

How are we doing?

Question 2

Projectwide: Within the project, what are the outcomes when examined school by school?

Data Source: Oregon Reading First: First Grade Distribution Report - Breakdown by School

20

Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Distribution Summary

21

Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Distribution Summary

22

Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Distribution Summary

23

Oregon Reading First: Projectwide Distribution Summary

24

Breakout Activity

Review of District and School Data

25

How are we doing?

Question 3

District: Within a district, what are the outcomes when examined by subgroups of students?

Data Source: First Grade Distribution Report - Breakdown by Demographics (#12)

26

27

28

How are we doing?

Question 3

School: Within a school, what are the outcomes when examined by subgroups of students?

Data Source: School Level Distribution Report - Breakdown by Demographics (add to #12)

29

30

31

Breakout Activity

Review of District and School Data

32

How are we doing?

Question 4

District: Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter across the year within the district?

Data Source: Yearly Box Plot - Districtwide (#13)

33

Yearly Box Plot

34

How are we doing?

Question 4

School: Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter across the year within the school?

Data Source: Yearly Box Plot - Schoolwide (add to #13)

35

Yearly Box Plot

36

How are we doing?

Question 4

Projectwide: Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter across the year within the project?

Data Source: Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box Plot

37

Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box Plot Nonsense Word Fluency

38

Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box PlotSecond Grade Oral Reading Fluency

39

Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box PlotThird Grade Oral Reading Fluency

40

Oregon Reading First: Yearly Box Plot Oral Reading Fluency

41

Cross Year Box Plot

42

Breakout Activity

Review of District and School Data

43

How are we doing?Question 5

District: a) Across the district, for each grade, what is the total percent

of students that made adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goals?

b) Across the district, for each grade, what percentage of students that were benchmark in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were strategic in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were intensive in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal or emerging/some risk status?

Data Source: Summary of Effectiveness by District (#14)

44

45

46

How are we doing?Question 5

School: a) For each grade, what is the total percent of students that

made adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goals?

b) For each grade, what percentage of students that were benchmark in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were strategic in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were intensive in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal or emerging/some risk status?

Data Source: Summary of Effectiveness by School (#15) and Summary of Effectiveness by Class (#16)

47

4848

49

50

How are we doing?

Question 5

Projectwide: a) For each grade, what is the total percent of students that

made adequate progress towards the winter benchmark goals?

b) For each grade, what percentage of students that were benchmark in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were strategic in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were intensive in the fall achieved the winter benchmark goal or emerging/some risk status?

Data Source: Summary of Effectiveness - Project Level

51

Oregon Reading FirstProject Level Summary of Effectiveness

2005-2006: Beginning of First Grade to Middle of First Grade

51% of ALL students made adequate progress

52

Oregon Reading FirstProject Level Summary of Effectiveness

2005-2006: Beginning of First Grade to Middle of First Grade

•65% of benchmark students made adequate progress

•37% of strategic students made adequate progress

•52% of intensive students made adequate progress

53

B-ELL Summary of Effectiveness

Slide for leadership session

54

District: B-ELL School: Project Data Date: 2005-2006

Step: Beginning of First Grade to Middle of First Grade Measures: IDEL Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS) DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)

IDEL

FPS

At-Risk at Beginning of Year to

Some Risk at Beginning of Year to

Low Risk at Beginning of Year to

Mid-Year Deficit

Mid-Year Emerging

Mid-Year

Established

Mid-Year

Deficit

Mid-Year Emerging

Mid-Year

Established

Mid-Year

Deficit

Mid-Year Emerging

Mid-Year

Established

Benchmark Status on FPS in Middle of First Grade (Totals)

72 Students At-Risk at Beginning of First Grade

79% of Total Students

10 Students Some Risk at Beginning of First Grade

11% of Total Students

9 Students Low Risk at Beginning of First Grade

10% of Total Students

N= 91

Count % of Instructional Recommendation

49 68%

18 25%

5 7%

5 50%

4 40%

1 10%

0 0%

0 0%

9 100%

Deficit Emerging

Established

60% 24% 16%

DIBELS

NWF At-Risk at Beginning of Year

to

Some Risk at Beginning of Year to

Low Risk at Beginning of Year to

Mid-Year Deficit

Mid-Year Emerging

Mid-Year

Established

Mid-Year Deficit

Mid-Year Emerging

Mid-Year

Established

Mid-Year Deficit

Mid-Year Emerging

Mid-Year

Established

Benchmark Status on NWF in Middle of First Grade (Totals)

68 Students At-Risk at Beginning of First Grade

73% of Total Students

14 Students Some Risk at Beginning of First Grade

15% of Total Students

11 Students Low Risk at Beginning of First Grade

12% of Total Students

N= 93

Count % of Instructional Recommendation

37 54%

21 31%

10 15%

5 36%

7 50%

2 14%

1 9%

0 0%

10 91%

Deficit Emerging

Established

46% 30% 24%

55

Breakout Activity

Review of District and School Data

56

Project-wide Data for Adequate Progress towards Winter DIBELS

Benchmark Goals

57

First Grade Rank Ordered by AP

75th Percentile for AP in State

Mean First AP

Mean K Intensive

58

First Grade Rank Ordered by AP within Context

75th Percentile for AP in State

LR Median=52%LR Median=52%LR Median=55%

59

Second Grade Rank Ordered by AP

Mean K Intensive

Mean Second AP

75th Percentile for AP in State

60

Second Grade Rank Ordered by AP within Context

75th Percentile for AP in State=67%

LR Median=47%HR Median=46%

MR Median=40%

61

Third Grade Rank Ordered by AP

75th Percentile for AP in State= 63%

Mean K Intensive

Mean Third AP

62

Third Grade Rank Ordered by AP within Context

LR Median=39%

MR Median=31%HR Median=32%

75th Percentile for AP in State= 63%

63

Diagnostic Response to USDOE Reading First Office

Submitted amendment to USDOE for OR assessment plan to clarify use of diagnostic assessments

Amendment was recently approved by USDOE

Will roll out Multiple Gating Procedure Fall 2006

64

Gate 1: Conduct initial screening of ALL students to determine support students need to reach end-of-year reading goals.

Gate 2: Implement instructional support plan for students on track for successful reading outcomes. Plan and deliver additional support for students who are not on track for successful reading outcomes, and monitor each student’s progress towards end-of-year reading goals. As part of the instructional support plans for all student’s, appropriate curriculum embedded tests will be administered.

Gate 3: Problem-solve in grade level team meetings. Teams will evaluate students’ progress based on DIBELS progress monitoring tests, theme skills tests, and intervention program mastery tests. Teams will increase the intensity of the instructional support plans for students that are not making adequate progress. Adequate progress means that a student’s rate of growth matches or exceeds the necessary trajectory for the student to reach end-of-year reading goals.

Gate 4: Collect information to document that reading instructional plans are being implemented as intended for those students that are not making adequate progress. Reading coaches will use observational tools to document implementation and communicate this information during grade level team meetings. Teams will decide whether to improve implementation fidelity, to increase the intensity of instruction, or to collect additional information on individual student’s not making adequate progress.

Gate 5: Administer diagnostic assessments to those students who are not making sufficient progress and the instructional plans have been implemented as intended.