Docstoc

win08_data_based_planning

Document Sample
win08_data_based_planning Powered By Docstoc
					  Oregon Reading First
     Conference Call
Data-based Action Planning
         Winter 2008



        Oregon Reading First (2008)   1
       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



                         Oregon Reading First (2008)               2
                                         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    Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First
                            Center and Regional Coordinator by          Center and Regional Coordinator by
                                     February 29, 2008                            March 14, 2008
                         • Action Plan Progress Notes                • District “How Are We Doing?” Report
                         • New Actions                               (includes new district actions)
                         • Principal “How Are We Doing?” Report


                                              Oregon Reading First (2008)                                                  3
 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


                    Oregon Reading First (2008)   4
               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)


                           Oregon Reading First (2008)                 5
Data-based Action Planning
      GLT Meetings



        Oregon Reading First (2008)   6
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




              Oregon Reading First (2008)    7
 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




                       Oregon Reading First (2008)         8
• 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.




                     Oregon Reading First (2008)                      9
                          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!




                  Oregon Reading First (2008)                 10
                                                                            The percent of students
       The percent of students at low risk has increased.                   at risk has decreased,
       That’s good! However, only about 40% of our students                 so that is good. We still
       are meeting the goal, so we have room to improve.                    have 36% of students
                                                                            at-risk…that’s more than
        A               B              C              D              E      one third of the students.
                                                                                      F            G
 Grade/Measure       Percent at     Percent at    Percentage     Percent at We think we can do
                                                                                  Percent at   Percentage
                    Established    Established        Point        Deficit  better!Deficit        Point
                    (Low Risk)     (Low Risk)      Increase/      (At Risk)       (At Risk)     Increase/
                     Spring 20    Spring 20 ___    Decrease     Spring 20 ___   Spring 20 ___   Decrease
                        ___                          (+ or -)                                     (+ 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




                                       Oregon Reading First (2008)                                   11
• 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.


               Oregon Reading First (2008)   12
    Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students
                      Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals
Grade/Benchmark            Percent of Total              Percent of Intensive       Percent of Strategic     Percent of Benchmark
Goal Measure             Students that Made              Students that made         Students that made        Students that made
                         Adequate Progress               Adequate Progress          Adequate Progress         Adequate Progress
                       Include actual numbers          Include actual numbers     Include actual numbers         Include actual
                             of students,                    of students,               of students,         numbers of students,
                         e.g., 90/100 or 90%.              e.g., 1/5 or 20%.         e.g., 25/50 or 50%.      e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
                    Winter to   Winter to   Percent    Winter to      Winter to    Winter to     Winter to   Winter to    Winter to
                     Spring      Spring     Change      Spring         Spring       Spring        Spring      Spring       Spring
                      20__        20__      (+ or -)     20__           20__         20__          20__        20__         20__
                                 Total                         Intensive                  Strategic                Benchmark

Kindergarten-
PSF
First Grade- ORF

Second Grade         40%         43%        +3%         0%                 0%       25%               23%    90%          90%
ORF
                                                        0/45               0/23     5/19              5/20   17/19        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.



                                                  Oregon Reading First (2008)                                            13
                                                           Figure 1
                                                          ne
                                   What is the e ffe ctiv e ss of the grade lev el support plans?
                                     Ade quate Progre ss Re lativ e Cri te ria FALL TO WI NTER

*Percentile ranks based on approximately 300 Oregon schools using the DIBELS data system during the 2004 - 2005 academic
year.

             What is the overall        How effective is the grade-     How effective is the grade-      How effective is the grade-level
         effectiveness of the grade-    level instructional support   level instructional support plan    instructional support plan for
                  level plan?          plan for intensive students?       for strategic students?            bench mark students?

          % of students who made         % of students who made          % of students who made             % of students who made
         adequate progress in each     adequate progress within an     adequate progress within an        adequate progress within an
                   grade                instructional support range     instructional support range        instructional support range
  1
(NWF)      • 64% Top Quartile             • 63% Top Quartile             • 42% Top Quartile                   7
                                                                                                              • 9% Top Quartile
        39% to 63% Mi ddle Quartiles   27% to 62% Mi ddle Quartiles   15% to 41% Mi ddle Quartiles        58% to 78% Mi ddle Quartiles
          Š 38% Bottom Quartile          Š 26% Bottom Quartile          Š 14% Bottom Quartile               Š 57% Bottom Quartile

  2
(ORF)      • 67% Top Quartile              •21% Top Quartile              6
                                                                          • 0% Top Quartile                  = 100% Top Quartile
        45% to 66% Mi ddle Quartiles    1% to 20% Middle Quartiles    27% to 59% Mi ddle Quartiles        95% to 99% Mi ddle Quartiles
          Š 44% Bottom Quartile           Š 0% Bottom Quartile          Š 26% Bottom Quartile               Š 94% Bottom Quartile

  3
(ORF)      • 63% Top Quartile               • 7% Top Quartile
                                            2                            • 41% Top Quartile                   9
                                                                                                              • 7% Top Quartile
        41% to 62% Mi ddle Quartiles    9% to 26% Middle Quartiles    14% to 40% Mi ddle Quartiles        86% to 96% Mi ddle Quartiles
          Š 40% Bottom Quartile           Š 8% Bottom Quartile          Š 13% Bottom Quartile               Š 85% Bottom Quartile

**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

                                                Oregon Reading First (2008)                                                   14
    Table 2. Evaluating Winter to Spring Grade Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of Students
                      Making Adequate Progress Toward DIBELS Benchmark Goals

Grade/Benchmark            Percent of Total              Percent of Intensive       Percent of Strategic     Percent of Benchmark
Goal Measure             Students that Made              Students that made         Students that made        Students that made
                         Adequate Progress               Adequate Progress          Adequate Progress         Adequate Progress
                       Include actual numbers          Include actual numbers     Include actual numbers         Include actual
                             of students,                    of students,               of students,         numbers of students,
                         e.g., 90/100 or 90%.              e.g., 1/5 or 20%.         e.g., 25/50 or 50%.      e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
                    Winter to   Winter to   Percent    Winter to      Winter to    Winter to     Winter to   Winter to    Winter to
                     Spring      Spring     Change      Spring         Spring       Spring        Spring      Spring       Spring
                      20__        20__      (+ or -)     20__           20__         20__          20__        20__         20__
                                 Total                         Intensive                  Strategic                Benchmark

Kindergarten-
PSF
First Grade- ORF

Second Grade         40%         43%        +3%         0%                 0%       25%               23%    90%          90%
ORF
                                                        0/45               0/23     5/19              5/20   17/19        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.
                                                  Oregon Reading First (2008)                                            15
           Overall we increased the percent
           of students who made adequate                                            None of the students
           progress a little bit. The total for                                     in the intensive range
           the grade level is in the middle                                         moved to some risk or
           quartiles compared to other schools                                      low risk on the benchmark
           in the state using DIBELS.
Grade/Benchmark            Percent of Total           Percent of Intensive                                   was in
                                                                                    goal. This system Percent of Benchmark
                                                                                   Percent of Strategic
Goal Measure             Students that Made           Students that made           Students that made         Students that made
           Our challenge is that less than                                          The bottom quartile.
                         Adequate Progress            Adequate Progress            Adequate Progress          Adequate Progress
           half of our students numbers
                      Include actual                Include actual numbers          We have fewer
                                                                                 Include actual numbers          Include actual
           making adequate progress. How
                             of students,                  of students,                of students,          numbers of students,
                         e.g., 90/100 or to improve
           can we make changes 90%.                     e.g., 1/5 or 20%.           students 50%.
                                                                                    e.g., 25/50 orin the intensive
                                                                                                              e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
                                                                                                         45)
                                                                                    range (23 vs. to Winter to Winter to
                                 year. Let’s look Winter to
           the system next Winter to Percent
                   Winter to                                         Winter to    Winter to       Winter
                    Spring        Spring    Change
           at the systems within the (+ or -)
                                            grade
                                                      Spring           Spring       but this isSpring
                                                                                   Spring           a systemSpring          Spring
                     20__          20__                20__             20__         20__           20__       20__          20__
           to see where we should prioritize.                                       that needs support.
                                  Total                      Intensive                    Strategic                 Benchmark
                                                                                    Let’s make this a priority.
Kindergarten-
PSF
First Grade- ORF

Second Grade         40%         43%        +3%         0%            0%           25%          23%         90%          90%
ORF
                                                        0/45          0/23         5/19         5/20        17/19        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.                                    Oregon Reading First (2008)                                         16
 Almost the same percent of students                                              Almost all of the students
 made adequate progress in the                                                    in the benchmark range
 strategic system this year compared                                              made adequate progress
 to last year.
Grade/Benchmark This system is in
                          Percent of Total           Percent of Intensive               year of Strategic
                                                                                  thisPercent and last year. Onlyof Benchmark
                                                                                                              Percent
                        Students one quarter
 the middle quartile. About that Made
Goal Measure                                         Students that made                 students made
                                                                                  twoStudents thatdid not. Students that made
                        Adequate Progress
  of our strategic students made adequate Adequate Progress
                     Include actual numbers        Include actual numbers
                                                                                      Adequate Progress        Adequate
                                                                                  Let’s take a look at thoseInclude Progress
                                                                                    Include actual numbers              actual
 progress Winter to Spring. We could
                            of students,                  of students,            students’ data. Depending onof students,
                                                                                           of students,       numbers
                        e.g., 90/100 system
 have more. Let’s make this or 90%.                    e.g., 1/5 or 20%.                                       e.g.,
                                                                                  that e.g., 25/50 or 50%.we may 95/100 or 95%.
                                                                                        information,
                  Winter to    Winter to   Percent  Winter to      Winter to
  a priority.      Spring        Spring    Change    Spring          Spring
                                                                                      Winter to
                                                                                  decide to prioritize thisWinter to . Winter to
                                                                                                    Winter to
                                                                                       Spring        Spring     system Spring
                                                                                                               Spring
                      20__       20__      (+ or -)     20__               20__        20__               20__    20__       20__
                                 Total                         Intensive                      Strategic              Benchmark

Kindergarten-
PSF
First Grade- ORF

Second Grade         40%         43%       +3%         0%                  0%         25%                 23%    90%       90%
ORF
                                                       0/45                0/23       5/19                5/20   17/19     20/22
Third Grade ORF
                                                                       After looking at the data, one student
Fourth Grade
ORF                                                                    was absent for 3 months due to illness. The other
                                                                       student missed the cut-off by 1 point.
Fifth Grade ORF
                                                                       Let’s 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.                                    Oregon Reading First (2008)                                         17
             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.
                 Oregon Reading First (2008)    18
                                  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.
                        Oregon Reading First (2008)       19
Healthy System Checklist



   First,
  look at
Structural
Questions
 (in bold)




             Oregon Reading First (2008)   20
     Healthy System Checklist


   Second,
    look at
  Quality of
Implementation
  Questions




                 Oregon Reading First (2008)   21
           Prioritize Questions
Focus 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.)?
                     Oregon Reading First (2008)            22
 Table 3

System (circle one):   Benchmark       Strategic         Intensive

System Questions                   What evidence do you              Is there more information         List Suggested Actions to
(Taken from the Healthy            have that identifies this         you can collect to clarify        Address the Concern:
Systems Checklist)                 question as a concern?            area in need of support?

                                   (I.e. observations, interviews,   (I.e. observations, interviews,
                                   further assessment, Review        further assessment, Review
                                   Existing Data, Schedules,         Existing Data, Schedules,
                                   Instructional Plans?)             Instructional Plans?)

1. Healthy Systems Checklist
Element: __________________




2. Healthy Systems Checklist
Element: __________________




3. Healthy Systems Checklist
Element: __________________




                                                 Oregon Reading First (2008)                                            23
• 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.




               Oregon Reading First (2008)   24
Data-based Action Planning
       ERT Meeting




        Oregon Reading First (2008)   25
Purpose of the ERT Meeting
– Review Schoolwide Data
– Review the GLTs’ Suggested Actions
– Create Action Plan
– Consider RF Budget Implications




           Oregon Reading First (2008)   26
           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



                           Oregon Reading First (2008)              27
                                                          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         Percent at        Percentage           Percent at         Percent at        Percentage
                             Established        Established       Point Increase/         Deficit            Deficit        Point Increase/
                             (Low Risk)         (Low Risk)          Decrease             (At Risk)          (At Risk)         Decrease
                             Spring 20__        Spring 20__           (+ or -)         Spring 20__        Spring 20__           (+ 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.
                                                     Oregon Reading First (2008)                                                   28
                                                     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             Percent of Total               Percent of Intensive        Percent of Strategic             Percent of
   Goal Measure              Students that Made               Students that made          Students that made        Benchmark Students
                             Adequate Progress                Adequate Progress           Adequate Progress          that made Adequate
                           Include actual numbers           Include actual numbers           Include actual                 Progress
                                 of students,                     of students,           numbers of students,            Include actual
                             e.g., 90/100 or 90%.               e.g., 1/5 or 20%.          e.g., 25/50 or 50%.      numbers of students,
                                                                                                                      e.g., 95/100 or 95%.
                        Winter to   Winter to   Percent     Winter to      Winter to     Winter to     Winter to    Winter to     Winter to
                         Spring      Spring     Change       Spring         Spring        Spring        Spring       Spring        Spring
                          20__        20__      (+ or -)      20__           20__          20__          20__         20__          20__
                                      Total                         Intensive                   Strategic                 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.
                                                    Oregon Reading First (2008)                                                  29
                    les
Step 3: Based on Tab 1 and 2, list the systems, across K-3 data, that are of highest
priority.




Ste p 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.

Ste p 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.

Ste p 6: Using the system prority list from Step 3 above, and K-3 completed Table 3 –
                           i
Proposed System Support Plans, consider the suggested actions that are of highest
             ed
priority. Bas 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.
                              Oregon Reading First (2008)                             30
                                            Schoolwide Action Plan

    School: _______________________     Date Created: _______________________
    Staff Who Created This Action Plan:
    ___________________ _______________________          ____________________                 ______________________

    ___________________    _______________________            ____________________           ______________________

      Schoolwide           Indicate                  Action to Be Taken                       Person         Report on
       Element          Schoolwide or       (be specific enough so that it is possible to   Responsible     Progress of
                        Specific Grade         determine when the action has been                         Implementation
                          and Group                        implemented)

1




2




3




4




5



                                         Oregon Reading First (2008)                                            31
 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.



                Oregon Reading First (2008)     32
                How to Document Adding New Actions
   School: _____________________

                     Schoolwide       Indicate       Action to be             Person        Report on
                      Element      Schoolwide or    Taken (be specific      Responsible      Progress
                                   Specific Grade     enough that it is                   Implementation
                                     and Group      possible to determine
                                                     when the action has
                                                     been implemented)

New Action #___
Date Added: ______


New Action #___
Date Added: ______


New Action #___
Date Added: ______


New Action #___
Date Added: ______


New Action #___
Date Added: ______




                                      Oregon Reading First (2008)                                  33
                                         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    Email or Fax to the Oregon Reading First
                            Center and Regional Coordinator by          Center and Regional Coordinator by
                                     February 29, 2008                            March 14, 2008
                         • Action Plan Progress Notes                • District “How Are We Doing?” Report
                         • New Actions                               (includes new district actions)
                         • Principal “How Are We Doing?” Report


                                              Oregon Reading First (2008)                                                34
       Mini Review:
How to Read a Summary Of
  Effectiveness Report




        Oregon Reading First (2008)   35
           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       Intensive at Middle of Year to                       Strategic at Middle of Year to                    Benchmark at Middle of Year to         Benchmark Status
     Instructional                                                                                                                                                         on PSF in End of
Recommendation to End                                                                                                                                                      Kindergarten
 of Year Kindergarten                                                                                                                                                      (Total)
 Benchmark Status on End of Year     End of Year      End of Year         End of Year    End of Year      End of Year         End of Year    End of Year     End of Year
          PSF          Deficit         Emerging       Established           Deficit       Emerging        Established           Deficit       Emerging       Established


                 Adams      7 Students Intensive at Middle of K                34 Students Strategic at Middle of K              41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K      N = 82
                                  8.5% of Total Students                             41.5% of Total Students                             50% of Total Students
                  Count           1                  3                3              0                  7                27               0                    3        38Deficit 1.2%

      % of Instructional      14.3%            42.9%              42.9%           0%             20.6%                79.4%             0%                 7.3%      92.7%Emerging 15.9%
      Recommendation
              % of Total       1.2%             3.7%                 Oregon0%
                                                                            Reading8.5%
                                                                  3.7%              First                   (2008)
                                                                                                                32.9%                   0%                 3.7%           36
                                                                                                                                                                     46.3%Established 82.9%
       DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports
       4 Ways to Achieve Adequate Progress

                           Time 1: ( e.g., Winter)

       Intensive                     Strategic                    Benchmark


                           Time 2: (e.g., Spring)



 At     1. Some   2. Low       At      Some      3. Low     At      Some   4. Low
Risk      Risk     Risk       Risk     Risk       Risk     Risk     Risk    Risk




                             Oregon Reading First (2008)                    37
                    Middle of the Year
              Instructional Recommendation
                       Intensive                                                    Strategic                                                 Benchmark




Middle of Kindergarten      Intensive at Middle of Year to                       Strategic at Middle of Year to                    Benchmark at Middle of Year to          Benchmark Status
     Instructional                                                                                                                                                         on PSF in End of
Recommendation to End                                                                                                                                                      Kindergarten
 of Year Kindergarten                                                                                                                                                      (Total)
 Benchmark Status on End of Year     End of Year     End of Year          End of Year    End of Year      End of Year         End of Year    End of Year     End of Year
          PSF          Deficit        Emerging       Established            Deficit       Emerging        Established           Deficit       Emerging       Established


                 Adams      7 Students Intensive at Middle of K                34 Students Strategic at Middle of K              41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K                 N = 82
                                  8.5% of Total Students                             41.5% of Total Students                             50% of Total Students
                 Count            1                  3                3              0                  7                27               0                    3        38Deficit 1.2%

      % of Instructional     14.3%             42.9%              42.9%           0%             20.6%                79.4%             0%                 7.3%     92.7%Emerging 15.9%
      Recommendation
             % 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)                                                                           38
                End of Year Benchmark Status

            At           1. Some       2. Low                     At          Some           3. Low                 At           Some           4. Low
           Risk            Risk         Risk                     Risk                         Risk                 Risk          Risk            Risk
                                                                              Risk

    Middle of             Intensive at Middle of Year to            Strategic at Middle of Year to            Benchmark at Middle of Year to         Benchmark
   Kindergarten                                                                                                                                      Status on PSF in
   Instructional                                                                                                                                     End of
Recommendation to                                                                                                                                    Kindergarten
   End of Year       End of Year End of Year End of Year End of Year End of Year            End of Year    End of Year End of Year End of Year (Total)
   Kindergarten        Deficit      Emerging       Established   Deficit      Emerging       Established     Deficit      Emerging       Established
Benchmark Status on
        PSF
              Adams     7 Students Intensive at Middle of K       34 Students Strategic at Middle of K      41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K                N = 82
                               8.5% of Total Students                    41.5% of Total Students                     50% of Total Students
               Count            1               3              3          0               7             27             0                 3         38Deficit 1.2%
    % of Instructional     14.3%           42.9%         42.9%          0%          20.6%          79.4%             0%              7.3%      92.7%Emerging 15.9%
    Recommendation
           % 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)                                                             39
    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.




                            Oregon Reading First (2008)                     40
                                Summary of Effectiveness
                                   Report: Review
Middle of Kindergarten         Intensive at Middle of Year to                   Strategic at Middle of Year to                  Benchmark at Middle of Year to            Benchmark
    Instructional                                                                                                                                                         Status on PSF
 Recommendation to                                                                                                                                                        in End of
     End of Year                                                                                                                                                          Kindergarten
    Kindergarten          End of      End of Year      End of Year        End of        End of Year     End of Year      End of Year    End of Year      End of Year      (Total)
 Benchmark Status on       Year        Emerging        Established         Year          Emerging       Established        Deficit       Emerging        Established
         PSF              Deficit                                         Deficit

                Adams        7 Students Intensive at Middle of K            34 Students Strategic at Middle of K             41 Students Benchmark at Middle of K                 N = 82
                                   8.5% of Total Students                         41.5% of Total Students                            50% of Total Students

                Count           1                3                  3               0             7                 27             0               3                38    Deficit 1.2%

     % of Instructional    14.3%           42.9%                42.9%          0%            20.6%               79.4%           0%            7.3%              92.7%    Emerging
     Recommendation                                                                                                                                                       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?
                                                                        Oregon Reading First (2008)                                                                      41

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:9/19/2011
language:English
pages:41