Creating Action Plans When Student Reading Achievement is not at Desired Levels

1
Creating Action Plans When Student Reading
Achievement is not at Desired Levels

• Jerry Silbert
• University of Oregon
• Scott K. Baker, Ph.D.
• Pacific Institutes for Research / University of
  Oregon
• Dave Howe, M.S.
• University of Oregon
• National Reading First Conference
• July 2005

2
Oregon Department of Education

• Joni Gilles
• Russ Sweet
• Marianne Smith
• Salam Noor
• Margaret Bates
• Helen McGuire
• Kayla Barsted
• Teresa Schneiderman

3
Oregon Reading First Center

• Carrie Thomas Beck
• Edward J. Kameenui
• Hank Fien
• Trish Travers
• Rachell Katz
• Scott K. Baker
• Barb Gunn
• Josh Wallin
• Janet Otterstedt
• Jeanie Smith

• Anna Ingram
• Deni Basaraba
• Jon Hays
• Jennifer Walt
• Marianne Oakes
• Nicole Sherman Brewer
• Katie Tate
• Patrick Kennedy Paine
• Beth Harn

4
Two Ways to Think About and Evaluate Student
Reading Performance

• Absolute performance at any single point in time.
  
• Most important purpose and timepoint Evaluate
  performance at the end of the year
• E.g., Reading First primary outcome measure(s)
  administered at end of the year
• Range of other purposes and timepoints
• E.g., progress monitoring measure administered at
  beginning of year to screen students for reading
  problems
• Progress from one point in time to another
• Most important purpose and timepoints evaluate
  reading growth (progress) over time (a series of
  timepoints during the year)
• E.g., Reading First progress monitoring measures
  administered in the fall, winter, and spring
• Data used to make ongoing instructional changes
  (i.e., data-based decisions)
• E.g., provide more instructional time and/or
  instructional intensity

5
Two Ways to Think about and Evaluate Student
Reading Performance

• Absolute performance at a single point in time
  and progress on measures over time represent
  general concepts
• There will be overlap in how the data generated
  can be interpreted and used
• Absolute performance and progress over time are
  NOT mutually exclusive constructs
• e.g., Absolute performance measures can be used
  to determine progress over multiple years
• Performance on progress monitoring measures can
  be evaluated at any single point in time

6
Summarizing Absolute Performance at the End of
Implementation Year 1 of Students at Benchmark
(On Track)
7
Summarizing Absolute Performance at the End of
Implementation Year 2 of Students at
Benchmark (On Track)
8
Summarizing Absolute Performance Implementation
Years 1 2 Students Who Started On Track in the
Fall and Read at Grade Level in the Spring on
the SAT-10
9
Summarizing Absolute PerformanceImplementation
Years 1 2 Students On Track in the Fall and
Met the Benchmark Goal in the Spring on the
Primary DIBELS Measure
10
Summarizing Absolute PerformanceImplementation
Years 1 2 Students Who Started At Risk in the
Fall and Read at Grade Level in the Spring on
the SAT-10
11
Summarizing Absolute PerformanceImplementation
Years 1 2 Students At Risk in the Fall and Met
the Benchmark Goal in the Spring on the Primary
DIBELS Measure
12
Percent of Grade 1 Students Who Read at Grade
Level on the SAT-10, by District
13
Percent of Grade 1 Students Who Read at Grade
Level on the SAT-10, by School
14
Two Ways to Think about and Evaluate Student
Reading Performance

• Absolute Performance at any single point in time.
  
• Most important purpose and timepoint Evaluate
  performance at the end of the year
• E.g., Reading First primary outcome measure(s)
  administered at end of the year
• Range of other purposes and timepoints
• E.g., progress monitoring measure administered at
  beginning of year to screen students for reading
  problems
• Progress from one point in time to another
• Most important purpose and timepoints evaluate
  reading growth (progress) over time
• E.g., Reading First progress monitoring measures
  administered three times per year
• Data used to make ongoing instructional changes
  (i.e., data-based decisions)
• E.g., provide more instructional time and/or
  instructional intensity

15
(No Transcript)
16
DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports4 Ways to
Achieve Adequate Progress
17
(No Transcript)
18
2
1
3
4
19
(No Transcript)
20
Summarizing Adequate Progress Over
TimeImplementation Year 2, Fall to Spring
21
Summarizing Adequate Progress Over Time Students
On Track in the Fall and Made Adequate Progress
through the Spring
22
Summarizing Adequate Progress Over TimeStudents
At Risk in the Fall and Made Adequate Progress
through the Spring
23
Percent of Grade 1 Students Who Made Adequate
Progress Fall to Spring (ORF), by District
24
Percent of Grade 1 Students Who Made Adequate
Progress Fall to Spring (ORF), by School
25
Percent of Grade 1 Students Who Made Adequate
Progress Fall to Spring (ORF), by School
26
Percent of Grade 1 Students Who Made Adequate
Progress Fall to Spring (ORF), by School
27
Relation Between Benchmark Performance on DIBELS
and Grade Level Performance on SAT-10
Kindergarten, Implementation Year 2
28
Relation Between Benchmark Performance on DIBELS
and Grade Level Performance on SAT-10 Grade 1,
Implementation Year 2
29
Differentiated Support Needs for Districts and
Schools Implementation Year 3 (2005-2006)

• Support -- technical assistance and ongoing
  professional development based on two factors

1. Student reading data 2. Implementation of
major Reading First components
Differentiation based on variability among
districts and schools on Both of these factors
30
Implementation of Major Reading First Components

• Continuation Report describing implementation of
  major Reading First components
• Documentation of implementation through key
  deliverables such as fidelity observations and
  lesson progress reports
• Participation in required trainings, inservices,
  workshops, meetings, etc.

31
Six School Scenarios Integrating Reading
Performance and Implementation

• Scenario 1. reading performance Continued
  improvement needed / High implementation
• Scenario 2. reading performance Continued
  improvement needed / Low implementation
• Scenario 3. reading performance Moderate
  improvement needed / High implementation
• Scenario 4. reading performance Moderate
  improvement needed / Low implementation
• Scenario 5. reading performance Substantial
  improvement needed / High implementation
• Scenario 6. reading performance Substantial
  improvement needed / Low implementation

32
Three Levels of Support

• support as needed
• moderate support
• intensive support

33
Levels of Support is Based on Reading Performance
34
Type of Support

• A general rule
• high implementation inside out support
• low implementation outside in support

35

• The relation between school reading performance
  and level of implementation will determine the
  level and type of support needed.

36
(No Transcript)