Oregon Reading First Conference Call Data-based Action Planning

1
Oregon Reading First Conference CallData-based
Action Planning

• Winter 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

3
Action Planning Process Overview Oregon 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)
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

5
Look whats 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)

6
Data-based Action Planning GLT Meetings
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

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

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.

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!

11
The percent of students at low risk has
increased. Thats good! However, only about 40
of our students are meeting the goal, so we have
room to improve.
The percent of students at risk has decreased,
so that is good. We still have 36 of students
at-riskthats more than one third of the
students. We think we can do better!
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
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.

13
Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level
Instructional Support Plans Percent of
Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS
Benchmark Goals
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 Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90. 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 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 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. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95.
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change ( or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__
Total Total Total Intensive Intensive Strategic Strategic Benchmark 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 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.
14
Figure 1
15
Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level
Instructional Support Plans Percent of
Students Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS
Benchmark Goals
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 Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90. 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 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 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. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95.
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change ( or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__
Total Total Total Intensive Intensive Strategic Strategic Benchmark 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.
16
None of the students in the intensive range
moved to some risk or low risk on the
benchmark goal. This system was in The bottom
quartile. We have fewer students in the
intensive range (23 vs. 45) but this is a
system that needs support. Lets 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 middle quartiles
compared to other schools in 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.
Lets look at the systems within the grade to
see where we should prioritize.
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 Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90. 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 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 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. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95.
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change ( or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__
Total Total Total Intensive Intensive Strategic Strategic Benchmark 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.
17
Almost all of the students in the benchmark range
made adequate progress this year and last year.
Only two students did not. Lets take a look at
those students data. Depending on that
information, we may decide to prioritize this
system.
Almost the same percent of students made adequate
progress in the strategic system this year
compared to last year. This system is in the
middle quartile. About one quarter of our
strategic students made adequate progress Winter
to Spring. We could have more. Lets make this
system a priority.
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 Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90. 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 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 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. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95.
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change ( or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__
Total Total Total Intensive Intensive Strategic Strategic Benchmark 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
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. Lets not
prioritize this system right now.
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.
18
Remember This could be a whole system or one
group within the system

• Step 3 Identify systems that need support
  (circle)
• Benchmark Strategic Intensive

One idea is to sort the DIBELS booklets/graphs
into groups ahead of time. Then discuss whether
to prioritize the whole system or a group within
the system.
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.
20
Healthy System Checklist
First, look at Structural Questions (in bold)
21
Healthy System Checklist
Second, look at Quality of Implementation
Questions
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.)?

23
Table 3
System (circle one) Benchmark Strategic Intensive System (circle one) Benchmark Strategic Intensive System (circle one) Benchmark Strategic Intensive 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 __________________
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.

25
Data-based Action Planning ERT Meeting
26
Purpose of the ERT Meeting

• Review Schoolwide Data
• Review the GLTs Suggested Actions
• Create Action Plan
• Consider RF Budget Implications

27
ERT Meeting Logistics

• Preparing 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

28
Reviewing Outcomes
Coach 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
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
Note This table shows the percent of students
that met the important end of year reading goals
for the purpose of reviewing outcomes.
29
Evaluating Support What 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
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 Total Students that Made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90. 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 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 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. Percent of Benchmark Students that made Adequate Progress Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95.
Grade/Benchmark Goal Measure Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Percent Change ( or -) Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__ Winter to Spring 20__
Total Total Total Intensive Intensive Strategic Strategic Benchmark Benchmark
Kindergarten- PSF
First Grade- ORF
Second Grade ORF
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.
30
(No Transcript)
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
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.

33
How to Document Adding New Actions
School _____________________
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 ______
34
Action Planning Process Overview Oregon 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)
35
Mini ReviewHow to Read a Summary Of
Effectiveness Report
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 Intensive at Middle of Year to Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF 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 End of Year Established Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5 of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5 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 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50 of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50 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 3 38 Deficit 1.2
of Instructional Recommendation 14.3 42.9 42.9 0 20.6 79.4 0 7.3 7.3 92.7 Emerging 15.9
of Total 1.2 3.7 3.7 0 8.5 32.9 0 3.7 3.7 46.3 Established 82.9
37
DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports4 Ways to
Achieve Adequate Progress
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 Intensive at Middle of Year to Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF 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 End of Year Established Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5 of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5 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 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50 of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50 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 3 38 Deficit 1.2
of Instructional Recommendation 14.3 42.9 42.9 0 20.6 79.4 0 7.3 7.3 92.7 Emerging 15.9
of Total 1.2 3.7 3.7 0 8.5 32.9 0 3.7 3.7 46.3 Established 82.9
39
End of Year Benchmark Status
At Risk
At Risk
Some Risk
1. Some Risk
2. Low Risk
At Risk
Some Risk
3. Low Risk
4. Low Risk
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year to Intensive at Middle of Year to Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF 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 End of Year Established Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5 of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5 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 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50 of Total Students 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50 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 3 38 Deficit 1.2
of Instructional Recommendation 14.3 42.9 42.9 0 20.6 79.4 0 7.3 7.3 92.7 Emerging 15.9
of Total 1.2 3.7 3.7 0 8.5 32.9 0 3.7 3.7 46.3 Established 82.9
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.

41
Summary of Effectiveness Report Review
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF Intensive at Middle of Year to Intensive at Middle of Year to Intensive at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Strategic at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark at Middle of Year to Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
Middle of Kindergarten Instructional Recommendation to End of Year Kindergarten Benchmark Status on PSF 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 Benchmark Status on PSF in End of Kindergarten (Total)
Adams 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 7 Students Intensive at Middle of K 8.5 of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5 of Total Students 34 Students Strategic at Middle of K 41.5 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 41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K 50 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
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?