1 Data-Based Leadership Cohort B March 2, 2006 (C) 2006 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 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.