1 Oregon Reading First Leadership Session: Data-Based Leadership Framework Oregon Reading First Center (ORFC) and the Western Regional Reading First Technical

1

Oregon Reading FirstLeadership Session:

Data-Based Leadership Framework

Oregon Reading First Center (ORFC) and theWestern Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center

(WRRFTAC)

College of EducationUniversity of Oregon

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

2

Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center

(WRRFTAC)

University of Oregon

Center on Teaching and Learning

University of Oregon

3

DNA of Reading First

All children reading by end of Gr. 3 Science and SBRR Accountability and results Five essential components Minimum framework for reading Effective leadership

4

Goals of Analysis & Framework:Getting Results Through

Leadership Clarity and coherence Protocol and standardization Disciplined differentiation Scaffolding and scaling Deep implementation

5

6

7

8

Teacher/ClassBeginning (Fall)

Question #1: What are our goals? Question #2: How are we doing? Question #3: How do we get there?

Data Source(s): Data Source(s): Data Source(s):

Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)



Student Performance and Implementation Questions and Data Sources

9

Grade Level Teams/GradeBeginning (Fall)



Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)




10

Reading First School CoachBeginning (Fall)



Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)




11

Principal/SchoolBeginning (Fall)



Middle (Winter)



End (Spring)




12

Principal/SchoolBeginning (Fall)

Question #1: What areour goals?

a. What are the most importantgoals and objectives for our K-3students to accomplish in thefall and by the end of the year ineach of the five essentialcomponents of RF?

Data Source(s):

1. Simmons & Kame’enui K-3Curriculum Maps2. RF State Plan: Grade levelgoals & objectives3. Planning and EvaluationTool-Revised (PET-R)(Kame’enui & Simmons, 2003)4. Reading Action Plan (RAP)or 180-Day Investment Portfolio5. School Profile (PET-R)

Question #2: How are we doing?

a. How are our K-3 students performing at thebeginning of the year on the essential components ofRF appropriate to this grade?

1. Which students in each class at each gradelevel are on track (e.g., at grade level orBenchmark) for successful reading outcomesand are likely to benefit from a core readingprogram?

2. Which students in each class at each gradelevel will require additional instructional supportand are likely to benefit from a supplementalreading program?

3. Which students in each class at each gradelevel will require substantial instructional supportand are likely benefit from an interventionreading program?

Data Source(s):1. Screening measures specific to RF essentialcomponents2. The following DIBELS reports:

a. Grade Level Participation Summaryb. Grade Level Summary Reportc. Grade Level School Reports--Histogramsd. Summary of Effectiveness by District Reports*e. Grade Distribution Summary By SchoolReportsf. Grade Distribution Summary of DemographicsBy District Reportsg. School by Grade Scatterplotsh. Scatterplot By School Reporti. Grade Level School Progress Reports--Boxplotsj. Grade Level Cross-Year Box Plot--Districtwidek. Grade Level Local Norms

Question #3: How do we get there?

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. What K-3 reading programs and materials should we use to teach the full rangeof students in our classes?b. What criteria & strategies will we use to group students for reading instruction?c. What decision rules will we use to schedule adequate instructional time for thedifferent reading groups?d. Do we have adequate staffing and capacity to deliver reading instruction to the fullrange of students in each class and each grade level each day?e. Are measurable reading goals established at each grade level throughout K-3?f. Is a schoolwide reading assessment system in place, including a databaseestablished and maintained to document student reading performance andprogress? This system should include screening assessments at the beginning ofthe year, progress monitoring assessments at least 3 times per year, and outcomeassessments at the end of the year.g. Were screening measures administered to all students at the beginning of theyear to identify their instructional level and were the findings used to planinstruction?h. Do grade level teams analyze student reading data, plan instruction based ondata, and group students for reading instruction based on data?i. Are “intensive” students (i.e., students at high risk) receiving instruction in materialsthat ARE at their reading level and ARE explicit and systematic?j. Have positions for all teachers, the Reading Coach, and Principal been filled for100% of the school year?k. Have RF teachers/staff had professional development on materials used inclassroom by the first month of school year and have they received furtherprofessional development at least twice after initial training?

Stage 2: Qu ality of Imp lem entation

Data Source(s):

1. The following DIBELS reports:a. G rade Level Participation Summ aryb. G rade Level Summ ary Reportc. G rade Level School Reports--Histogramsd. Summa ry of Effectiveness by District Reports*e. G rade Distribution Summ ary By School Reports

2. K-3 CSI Ma ps (K-3 Core, Strategic, & Intensive Maps)--Fall to W inter3. A menu of SBRR reading program s (core, suppleme ntal, intervention) that havebeen reviewed and deem ed to be effective.4. IBR Imp leme ntation Checklist: Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model (Sim mo ns,Kame ’enui, Fien, Harn, Thom as Beck, Katz, Sherman Brewer, & Travers (2004)5. OR FC Program Fidelity Checklist (2004)


13

Principal/School

Middle (Winter)


a. What are the most importantgoals and objectives for our K-3students to accomplish in themiddle of the year (winter) andby the end of the year in eachof the five essentialcomponents of RF?


a. How are our K-3 students performing in the middleof the year on the essential components of RFappropriate to this grade?

1. Are students in each class at each gradelevel on track (e.g., at grade level orBenchmark) for successful reading outcomesand benefiting from the core reading program?What percentage of students made adequatereading progress from the beginning of the yearto the middle of the year (fall to winter)?

2. Are students in each class at each gradelevel benefiting from additional instructionalsupport, the supplemental reading program, andon track for successful reading outcomes?

3. Are students in each class at each grade levelbenefiting from substantial instructional support,the intervention reading program, and on trackfor successful reading outcomes?


Stage 1: Infrastructurea. Was the reading progress of students monitored systematically to determine ifstudents are on track for successful reading outcomes?b. Do we need additional professional development to ensure effectiveimplementation of programs?c. Were progress-monitoring assessments administered at least three times duringthe year to all students and were the findings used to adjust instruction?d. Do grade level teams analyze student reading data, plan instruction based ondata, and group students for reading instruction based on data?e. Are “intensive” students (i.e., students at high risk) receiving instruction inmaterials that ARE at their reading level and ARE explicit and systematic?f. Have all students been receiving A MINIMUM OF 90 minutes of reading instructionon core reading material, at least 90% of the available school days?g. Does the principal follow up with teachers on changes called for based on studentdata?

Stage II: Quality of Implementationa. Are the K-3 reading programs and materials we are currently using to teach thefull range of students in our classes effective?b. Are the K-3 core, supplemental, and intervention reading programs and materialsbeing implemented with fidelity?c. What adjustments or modifications are necessary in program implementation,delivery of instruction or the schedule of reading instruction and progressmonitoring?d. Is the principal aware, through communication with the coach and/or classroomvisits, of whether teachers are implementing all components of the reading programwith fidelity including scheduling, grouping and presentation techniques? Does theprincipal take steps to correct situations in which a program component is not beingwell implemented?


14


Principal/School

Middle (Winter) continued

Data Source(s):

1. Simmons & Kame’enui K-3 Curriculum Maps2. RF State Plan: Gradelevel goals & objectives3. Planning and EvaluationTool-Revised (PET-R)(Kame’enui & Simmons,2003)4. Reading Action Plan(RAP) or 180-DayInvestment Portfolio

Data Source(s):

1. Progress monitoring measures specific to RFessential components2. The following DIBELS reports:

a. Grade Level Participation Summaryb. Grade Level Summary Reportc. Grade Level School Reports--Histogramsd. Summary of Effectiveness by DistrictReports*e. Grade Distribution Summary By SchoolReportsf. Grade Distribution Summary ofDemographics By District Reportsg. School by Grade Scatterplotsh. Scatterplot By School Reporti. Grade Level School Progress Reports--Boxplotsj. Grade Level Cross-Year Box Plot--Districtwidek. Grade Level Local Norms

Data Source(s):

1. The following DIBELS reports:a. Grade Level Participation Summaryb. Grade Level Summary Reportc. Grade Level School Reports--Histogramsd. Summary of Effectiveness by District Reports*e. Grade Distribution Summary By School Reports

2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, & Intensive Maps)--Fall to Winter3. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core, supplemental, intervention) thathave been reviewed and deemed to be effective.4. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model(Simmons, Kame’enui, Fien, Harn, Thomas Beck, Katz, Sherman Brewer, &Travers (2004)5. ORFC Program Fidelity Checklist (2004)

15


Principal/School

End (Spring)


a. What are the most importantgoals and objectives for our K-3students to accomplish by theend of the year (spring) in eachof the five essentialcomponents of RF?

Data Source(s):

1. Simmons & Kame’enui K-3Curriculum Maps2. RF State Plan: Grade levelgoals & objectives3. Planning and EvaluationTool-Revised (PET-R)(Kame’enui & Simmons, 2003)4. Reading Action Plan (RAP)or 180-Day Investment Portfolio


a. How are our K-3 students performing at the end ofthe year on the essential components of RFappropriate to this grade?

1..Are students in each class at each grade levelon track (e.g., at grade level or Benchmark) forsuccessful reading outcomes and benefitingfrom the core reading program?What percentage of students made adequatereading progress from the middle of the year tothe end of the year (winter to spring)?

2. Are students in each class at each gradelevel benefiting from additional instructionalsupport, the supplemental reading program, andon track for successful reading outcomes?

3. Are students in each class at each grade levelbenefiting from substantial instructional support,the intervention reading program, and on trackfor successful reading outcomes?

Data Source(s):

1. Progress monitoring measures specific to RFessential components2. The following DIBELS reports:

a. Grade Level Participation Summaryb. Grade Level Summary Reportc. Grade Level School Reports--Histogramsd. Summary of Effectiveness by District Reports*e. Grade Distribution Summary By SchoolReportsf. Grade Distribution Summary of DemographicsBy District Reportsg. School by Grade Scatterplotsh. Scatterplot By School Reporti. Grade Level School Progress Reports--Boxplotsj. Grade Level Cross-Year Box Plot--Districtwidek. Grade Level Local Norms


Stage 1: Infrastructurea. Was the reading progress of students monitored systematically to determine ifstudents are on track for successful reading outcomes?b. Do we need additional professional development to ensure effectiveimplementation of programs?c. For students who have not met benchmark reading goals, are procedures inplace to provide additional reading instruction time (i.e., beyond the 90 minutes), andmore intensive reading instruction formats (e.g., more small group readinginstruction)?d. Does the principal follow up with teachers on changes called for based on studentdata?e. Have positions for all teachers, the Reading Coach, and Principal been filled for100% of the school year?

Stage 2: Quality of Implementationa. Are the K-3 reading programs and materials we are currently using to teach thefull range of students in our classes effective?b. Are the K-3 core, supplemental, and intervention reading programs and materialsbeing implemented with fidelity?c. What adjustments or modifications are necessary in program implementation,delivery of instruction or the schedule of reading instruction and progressmonitoring?d. Is the principal aware, through communication with the coach and/or classroomvisits, of whether teachers are implementing all components of the reading programwith fidelity including scheduling, grouping and presentation techniques? Does theprincipal take steps to correct situations in which a program component is not beingwell implemented?

Data Source(s):

1. The following DIBELS reports:a. Grade Level Participation Summaryb. Grade Level Summary Reportc. Grade Level School Reports--Histogramsd. Summary of Effectiveness by District Reports*e. Grade Distribution Summary By School Reports

2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, & Intensive Maps)--Fall to Winter3. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core, supplemental, intervention) that havebeen reviewed and deemed to be effective.4. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model (Simmons,Kame’enui, Fien, Harn, Thomas Beck, Katz, Sherman Brewer, & Travers (2004)5. ORFC Program Fidelity Checklist (2004)

16


Reading First District

Beginning (Fall)


a. What are the most important goals andobjectives for our K-3 students to accomplishin the fall and by the end of the year in eachof the five essential components of RF?

Data Source(s):1. Simmons & Kame’enui K-3 Curriculum Maps2. RF State Plan: Grade Level goals &

objectives3. Planning and Evaluation Tool-Revised (PET-

R) (Kame’enui & Simmons, 2003)4. Reading Action Plan (RAP) or 180-Day

Investment Portfolio5. School Profile (PET-R)

a. For each grade and essential component, what% age of students have benchmark, strategic,and intensive needs?

b. Is there a significant increase in the number ofstudents reaching targets in the fall from yearto year?

Data Source(s):

a. DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reportsb. DIBELS boxplots

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. Is the district RF comprehensive assessment

plan complete and is it being implementedappropriately?

b. In each school, is the necessary structure inplace (materials, allocated time, goals, scopeand sequence, grouping) to effectivelyimplement the reading program for benchmarkand strategic students?

c. In each school, is the necessary structure inplace to accelerate progress for studentsperforming significantly below grade level?

Stage 2: Quality of Implementation

Data Source(s):1. District Implementation Questions.2. District RF Assessment Plan3. Student performance data reports as

specified in Plan4. Monitoring Data5. Team Meeting Schedules and Minutes.6. District RF Instructional Plan7. Grade level goals8. Grade level CSI maps9. Intervention materials checklists11. Reading schedules for grade levels and

groups

17



Middle (Winter)


a. What are the most important goals andobjectives for our K-3 students to accomplish inthe fall and by the end of the year in each of thefive essential components of RF?

Data Source(s):1. Simmons & Kame’enui K-3 Curriculum Maps2. RF State Plan: Grade Level goals & objectives3. Planning and Evaluation Tool-Revised (PET-R)

(Kame’enui & Simmons, 2003)4. Reading Action Plan (RAP) or 180-Day


a. For each grade and essential component, what% age of students starting at benchmarkremained at benchmark? What %age ofstudents moved into benchmark from strategicand intensive? What %age of students movedinto strategic from intensive?

b. Is there a significant increase in the number ofstudents reaching targets in the winter fromyear to year?

Data Source(s):

1. DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports2. DIBELS boxplots

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. Is the district’s RF comprehensive

assessment plan complete and is it beingimplemented appropriately?

b. In each school, is the necessary structure inplace to effectively implement the readingprogram for benchmark and strategicstudents? Is the plan being implementedconsistently?

c. In each school, is the necessary structure inplace to accelerate progress for studentsperforming significantly below grade level?Is the plan being implemented consistently?


Data Source(s):

1. District Implementation Questions.2. District RF Assessment Plan3. Student performance data reports as

specified in Plan4. Monitoring Data5. Team Meeting Schedules and Minutes.6. District RF Instructional Plan7. Grade level goals8. Grade level CSI maps9. Implementation Fidelity Checklists10. Intervention materials checklists11. Reading schedules for grade levels

and groups

18



End (Spring)


a. What are the most important goals andobjectives for our K-3 students to accomplish inthe fall and by the end of the year in each of thefive essential components of RF?

Data Source(s):1. Simmons & Kame’enui K-3 Curriculum Maps2. RF State Plan: Grade Level goals & objectives3. Planning and Evaluation Tool-Revised (PET-R)

(Kame’enui & Simmons, 2003)4. Reading Action Plan (RAP) or 180-Day


a. For each grade and essential component, what% age of students starting at benchmarkremained at benchmark? What %age ofstudents moved into benchmark from strategicand intensive? What %age of students movedinto strategic from intensive?

b. Is there a significant increase in the number ofstudents reaching targets in the winter from yearto year?

Data Source(s):

1. DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports2. DIBELS boxplots

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. Is the district’s RF comprehensive

assessment plan complete and was itimplemented appropriately?

b. In each school, was the necessary structurein place to effectively implement the readingprogram for benchmark and strategicstudents? Was the plan being implementedconsistently?

c. In each school, was the necessary structurein place to accelerate progress for studentsperforming significantly below grade level?Was the plan being implementedconsistently?


Data Source(s):

1. District Implementation Questions.2. District RF Assessment Plan3. Student performance data reports as

specified in Plan4. Monitoring Data5. Team Meeting Schedules and Minutes.6. District RF Instructional Plan7. Grade level goals8. Grade level CSI maps9. Implementation Fidelity Checklists10. Intervention materials checklists11. Reading schedules for grade levels

and groups

19


Reading First School CoachBeginning (Fall)


Question #2: How are we doing? Question #3: How do we get there?

a. What are the mostimportant goals andobjectives for students ateach grade (K-3) toaccomplish this year inreading to be on track forsuccessful readingoutcomes?

a. By grade and within each classroom, how are studentsperforming at the beginning of the year on the essentialcomponents of RF?1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or atBenchmark) for successful reading outcomes and are likely tobenefit from the core reading program?2. Which students will require additional instructional supportand are likely to benefit from a supplemental readingprogram?3. Which students will require substantial instructional supportand are likely to benefit from an intervention program?

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. By grade and within each classroom, what reading programsand materials should be used to teach the full range of studentsacross K-3?b. How can we schedule adequate instructional time for thedifferent reading groups?d. Who will deliver reading instruction to the full range ofstudents each day? When? For how long?c. How will instructional fidelity be monitored, and if necessary,improved?

Stage 2: Quality of Implementationa. By grade and within each classroom, how should students begrouped for reading instruction?


1. Simmons & Kame'enuiK-3 Curriculum Maps2. RF State Plan: Gradelevel goals and objectives

1. Screening measures specific to RF essential components2. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class Progress Reportsb. Class List Reportc. Individual Student Performance Profilesd. School Progress Reports3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, andintervention programs aligned with essential components ofRF appropriate to grade level.4. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive Maps) –Beginning to Middle5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)6. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist(2004)

1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core, supplemental,intervention) that have been reviewed and approved.2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) –Beginning to Middle3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, andintervention programs aligned with essential components of RF4. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class Progress Reportsb. Class List Reportc. Individual Student Performance Profilesd. School progress reports by grade5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)6. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist(2004)

20


Reading First School CoachMiddle (Winter)



a. What are the mostgoals and objectives forstudents in our grade toaccomplish from themiddle of the year to theend of the year in readingto be on track forsuccessful readingoutcomes?

Data Source(s):


a. By grade and within each classroom, how are students inour grade performing in the middle of the year on the essentialcomponents of RF?1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or atBenchmark) for successful reading outcomes and are likely tobenefit from the core reading program?2. Which students will require additional instructional supportand are likely to benefit from a supplemental readingprogram?3. Which students will require substantial instructional supportand are likely to benefit from an intervention program?4. By grade and within each class, which students in our grademade adequate reading progress from the beginning of theyear to the middle of the year (fall to winter)a. Started at Benchmark in the fall and were at Benchmark inthe Winterb. Started at Strategic in the fall and were at Benchmark in thewinterc. Started at Intensive in the fall and were at Strategic orBenchmark in the winter

Data Source(s):

1. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essentialcomponents2. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measuresspecific to core, supplemental, or intervention materials3. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class Progress Summary Reportsb. Class List Reportc. Individual Student Performance Profilesd. School/Grade Progress Reportse. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade and class4. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive Maps) –Winter to Spring5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)6. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist(2004)

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instruction tothe full range of students each day?b. Do we need to re-schedule adequate instructional time forthe different reading groups?

Stage 2: Quality of Implementationa. By grade, and within each classroom, are the readingprograms and materials being used to teach the full range ofstudents in our grade effective?b. Are the reading programs and materials being used asintended (i.e., instructional fidelity)? Are efforts to improvefidelity working?c. By grade and within each classroom, how should students begrouped for reading instruction?

Data Source(s):

1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core, supplemental,intervention) that have been reviewed and approved.2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) –Beginning to Middle3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, andintervention programs aligned with essential components of RF4. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class progress reportsb. Class List Reportsc. Individual Student Performance Reportsd. School progress reportse. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade5. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essentialelements6. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measures specificto RF essential element7. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)8. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist(2004)

21


Reading First School CoachEnd (Spring)



Data Source(s):


a. By grade and in each classroom, how are studentsperforming at the end of the year on the essential componentsof RF?1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or atBenchmark) for successful reading outcomes and are likely tobenefit from the core reading program?2. Which students will require additional instructional supportand are likely to benefit from a supplemental readingprogram?3. Which students will require substantial instructional supportand are likely to benefit from an intervention program?4. Which students in our grade made adequate readingprogress from the middle of the year to the end of the year(winter to spring):a. Started at Benchmark in the fall or winter and were atBenchmark in the springb. Started at Strategic in the winter and were at Benchmark inthe springc. Started at Intensive in the fall and were at Benchmark in thespringd. Started at intensive in the winter and were at Strategic orBenchmark in the spring

Data Source(s):

1. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essentialcomponents2. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measuresspecific to core, supplemental, or intervention materials2. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class Progress Summary Reportsb. Class List Reportc. Individual Student Performance Profilesd. School/Grade Progress Reports3. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. Do we need to re-schedule adequate instructional time forthe different reading groups?b. Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instruction tothe full range of students each day?

Stage 2: Quality of Implementationa. Are the reading programs and materials we use to teach thefull range of students in our grade effective?b. Are the reading programs and materials being used asintended (i.e., instructional fidelity)? Are efforts to improvefidelity working?c. Should we re-group students for reading instruction acrossclassrooms?

Data Source(s):

1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core, supplemental,intervention) that have been reviewed and approved.2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) – Middleto Spring3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, andintervention programs aligned with essential components of RF4. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class progress reportsb. Class List Reportc. Individual Student Performance Profilesd. School progress reportse. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade5. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essentialelements6. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measures specificto RF essential element7. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)8. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist(2004)

22


Grade Level Teams/GradeBeginning (Fall)

Question #1: What are ourgoals?


a. What are the most goals andobjectives for students in our grade toaccomplish this year in reading to beon track for successful readingoutcomes?

a. How are students in our grade performing at thebeginning of the year on the essential components ofRF appropriate to our grade?1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or atBenchmark) for successful reading outcomes and arelikely to benefit from the core reading program?2. Which students will require additional instructionalsupport and are likely to benefit from a supplementalreading program?3. Which students will require substantial instructionalsupport and are likely to benefit from an interventionprogram?

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. What reading programs and materials should I use toteach the full range of students in our grade?b. How can we schedule adequate instructional time forthe different reading groups?c. Who will deliver reading instruction to the full range ofstudents each day? When? For how long?

Stage 2: Quality of Implementationa. How can we group students for reading instructionacross classrooms?


1. Simmons & Kame'enui K-3Curriculum Maps2. RF State Plan: Grade level goalsand objectives

1. Screening measures specific to RF essentialcomponents2. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class Progress Reportsb. School Progress Reports3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, andintervention programs aligned with essentialcomponents of RF appropriate to grade level.4. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and IntensiveMaps) – Beginning to Middle5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)6. Oregon Reading First Center Program FidelityChecklist (2004)

1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core,supplemental, intervention) that have been reviewed andapproved.2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) –Beginning to Middle3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, andintervention programs aligned with essential componentsof RF4. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class progress reportsb. School progress reports5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)6. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist(2004)

23


Grade Level Teams/GradeMiddle (Winter)

Question #1: What are ourgoals?


a. What are the most goals andobjectives for students in our grade toaccomplish from the middle of theyear to the end of the year in readingto be on track for successful readingoutcomes?

Data Source(s):


a. How are students in our grade performing in themiddle of the year on the essential components of RFappropriate to our grade?1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or atBenchmark) for successful reading outcomes and arelikely to benefit from the core reading program?2. Which students will require additional instructionalsupport and are likely to benefit from a supplementalreading program?3. Which students will require substantial instructionalsupport and are likely to benefit from an interventionprogram?4. Which students in our grade made adequate readingprogress from the beginning of the year to the middle ofthe year (fall to winter) –a. Started at Benchmark in the fall and were atBenchmark in the Winterb. Started at Strategic in the fall and were at Benchmarkin the winterc. Started at Intensive in the fall and were at Strategic orBenchmark in the winter

Data Source(s):

1. Progress monitoring measures specific to RFessential components2. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measuresspecific to core, supplemental, or intervention materials2. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class Progress Summary Reportsb. School/Grade Progress Reports3. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade4. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and IntensiveMaps) – Winter to Spring5. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)6. Oregon Reading First Center Program FidelityChecklist (2004)

Stage 1: Infrastructurea. Do we need to re-schedule adequate instructional timefor the different reading groups?b. Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instructionto the full range of students each day?

Stage 2: Quality of Implementationa. Are the reading programs and materials we use to teachthe full range of students in our grade effective?b. Should we re-group students for reading instructionacross classrooms?

Data Source(s):

1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core,supplemental, intervention) that have been reviewed andapproved.2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) –Beginning to Middle3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, andintervention programs aligned with essential componentsof RF4. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class progress reportsb. School progress reportsc. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade5. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essentialelements6. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measuresspecific to RF essential element7. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)8. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist(2004)

24


Grade Level Teams/Grade

End (Spring)Question #1: What are ourgoals?


a. What are the most goals andobjectives for students in our grade toaccomplish by the end of the year(spring) in each of the five essentialcomponents of RF?

Data Source(s):


a. How are students in our grade performing at the endof the year on the essential components of RFappropriate to our grade?1. Which students are on track (e.g., at grade level or atBenchmark) for successful reading outcomes and arelikely to benefit from the core reading program?2. Which students will require additional instructionalsupport and are likely to benefit from a supplementalreading program?3. Which students will require substantial instructionalsupport and are likely to benefit from an interventionprogram?4. Which students in our grade made adequate readingprogress from the middle of the year to the end of theyear (winter to spring)a. Started at Benchmark in the fall or winter and were atBenchmark in the springb. Started at Strategic in the winter and were atBenchmark in the springc. Started at Intensive in the and were at Benchmark inthe springd. Started at intensive in the winter and were atBenchmark in the spring

Data Source(s):

1. Progress monitoring measures specific to RFessential components2. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measuresspecific to core, supplemental, or intervention materials2. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class Progress Summary Reportsb. School/Grade Progress Reports3. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade

Stage 1: Infrastructurec. Do we need to re-schedule adequate instructional timefor the different reading groups?d. Do we need to revise who will deliver reading instructionto the full range of students each day?

Stage 2: Quality of Implementationa. Are the reading programs and materials we use to teachthe full range of students in our grade effective?b. Should we re-group students for reading instructionacross classrooms?

Data Source(s):

1. A menu of SBRR reading programs (core,supplemental, intervention) that have been reviewed andapproved.2. K-3 CSI Maps (K-3 Core, Strategic, and Intensive) –Middle to Spring3. Placement tests specific to core, supplemental, andintervention programs aligned with essential componentsof RF4. The following DIBELS reports:a. Class progress reportsb. School progress reportsc. Summary of Effectiveness Reports by Grade5. Progress monitoring measures specific to RF essentialelements6. Curriculum embedded progress monitoring measuresspecific to RF essential element7. IBR Implementation Checklist: Schoolwide BeginningReading Model (Simmons et al., 2004)8. Oregon Reading First Center Program Fidelity Checklist(2004)

25

Data Source(s) Simmons & Kame’enui K-3 Curriculum Maps

Mapping of Instruction To Achieve Instructional PrioritiesGrade 1

Instructional Priority: Alphabetic Principle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Focus 1: Letter & Letter Combinations

* 1a: Produces L-S correspondences (1/sec) X X X X 50

* 1b: Produces sounds to common lettercombinations

X X X X

Focus 2: Decoding (Sounding Out)

* 2a: Decodes words with consonant blends X X X

* 2b: Decodes words with letter combinations X X X X X

* 2c: Reads regular 1-syllable words fluently X X X X X X

* 2d: Reads words with common word parts X X X X

Focus 3: Sight-Word Reading

* 3a: Reads common sight words automatically X X X X X X X X X

Focus 4: Reading Connected Text

* 4a: Read accurately (1 error in 20 words) X X X X X X X

* 4b: Reads fluently (1 word per 2-3 sec mid year;1 word per sec end of year)

X X X X X 20 X X40-60

4c: Phrasing attending to ending punctuation X X X X

4d: Reads and rereads to increase familiarity X X X X

4e: Rereads and self-corrects while reading X X X X

*. high-priority skill

26

29

30

First Grade Core, Supplemental, & Intervention Maps (CSI): Fall to WinterDirections: Meet with your grade-level team to complete the following instructional map. The map includes goals for months 1-5 and DIBELS benchmarks for the mid-year assessment. Use the instructional need indicators (i.e., benchmark, strategic, and intensive) to differentiate instructional details.

Summary of CSI Map Humboldt Elementary first grade 10-14-04Time Period Instructional

Recommendation

Participation in Core Supplemental andIntervention Programs/

Strategies

Supplemental and InterventionProgram Delivery

Frequency ofDIBELSProgress

Monitoring

Determining InstructionalEffectiveness

benchmark: Who:Classroom teachers

When:9:00-10:30

Activities:Open Court green and redsection

Group Size: Open Court green= whole group less theintensive kids. OC red=whole group

Read Naturally Who: Reading Support staff

When:X w/in 90 minutesX outside of 90 min-RN lab

Time: w/in 90 min @ 9:00-9:45, or outside 90 min @TBA for Read Naturally lab

Group Size: 4-6

3times a year Who:Class room teachers,Reading Support Staff,coach

How Often:On-going

CriteriaIn program testsDIBELS

strategic: Who:Classroom teachers

When:9:45-10:30

Activities:Open Court red section

Group Size:Whole group

Reading Mastery Classicand/or Read N naturally

Who:Reading Support Staff

When:X w/in 90 minutes__ outside of 90 min

Time:9:00-9:45

Group Size:5-6

Every 4 weeks Who: Classroom teachers,specialists, coach

How Often:

On-going

Criteria:In program tests, PM

Fall toWinter

intensive: Who:Classroom teacher

When:9:45-10:30

Activities:OC red section


Reading Mastery ClassicLanguage for Learning

Who: Reading Support staff

When:X w/in 90 minutes__ outside of 90 min

Time:9:00-9:45

Group Size:3-5

Every 2-4weeks

Who:Classroom Teachers,reading support staff, coach

How Often:On-going

CriteriaIn program tests,PM

31

Second Grade Core, Supplemental, & Intervention Maps (CSI): Fall to WinterDirections: Meet with your grade-level team to complete the following instructional map. The map includes goals for months 1-5 and DIBELS benchmarks for the mid-year assessment. Use the instructional need indicators (i.e., benchmark, strategic, and intensive) to differentiate instructional details.

Summary of CSI Map Humboldt Elementary 2nd grade 10-14-04Time Period Instructional

Recommendation


Strategies



Monitoring


benchmark: Who: Classroom teachers

When:9:00-10:30

Activities:Open Court green & redsectionGroup Size: whole group forred section, whole group lessthe intensive and somestrategic students for thegreen section

Read Naturally Who: Reading Support staff

When:__ w/in 90 minutesX outside of 90 min

Time:10:30-11:15 in 6 week unitsTBA upon program arrival

Group Size:6

3 times a year Who:Classroom teachers, coach,reading support staff

How Often:On going

Criteria:In program testsDIBELS

strategic: Who: Classroom teacher

When: 9:00-10:30

Activities:Open court green and redsectionsGroup Size: whole group forred section, whole group-intensive and some strategicfor green section

Reading Mastery FastCycle

Read Naturally

Who:Reading Support Staff

When: w/in 90 minutes-RM FCXoutside of 90 min-RN

Time:9:45-10:30 RM FC10:30-11:15 RN in 6 weekunitsGroup Size:

5-6

Every 4 weeks Who: Classroom teacher,reading support staff, coach

How Often:

On-going


Fall toWinter

intensive: Who: classroom teachers

When:9:00-9:45



Reading Mastery ClassicRead Naturally

Who: Reading Support staff

When:Xw/in 90 minutes-RMCXoutside of 90 min-RN

Time:9:45-10:30-RMC10:30-11:15 RN in 6 weekunitsGroup Size:4-6

Every 2-4weeks

Who: classroom teacher,reading support staff, coach

How Often:Ongoing


32

Third Grade Core, Supplemental, & Intervention Maps (CSI): Fall to WinterDirections: Meet with your grade-level team to complete the following instructional map. The map includes goals for months 1-5 and DIBELS benchmarks for the mid-year assessment. Use the instructional need indicators (i.e., benchmark, strategic, and intensive) to differentiate instructional details.

Summary of CSI Map Humboldt Elementary 3rd grade 9-30-04Time Period Instructional

Recommendation


Strategies



Monitoring


benchmark: Who:Classroom teachers

When:9:45-11:15Activities:

OC green and red

Group Size: whole groupminus intensive during green

Read Naturally Who:Reading support staff

When:__ w/in 90 minutesXoutside of 90 min

Time:9:00-9:45

Group Size:

6

3 times a year Who:Classroom teachers, readingsupport staff, coach

How Often:On going

Criteria: in programassessment, DIBELS

strategic: Who:Classroom teachers

When:9:45-10:30

Activities:

OC red section


Read Naturally Who:Reading support staff

When:__ w/in 90 minutesXoutside of 90 min

Time:

9:00-9:45Group Size:6

Every 4 weeks Who:Classroom teachers, readingsupport staff, coach

How Often:Ongoing


Fall toWinter

intensive: Who:Classroom teachers

When:9:45-10:30



Read Naturally andCorrective Reading

Who:Reading support staff

When:Xw/in 90 minutes-CR

Xoutside of 90 min-RN

Time:CR=10:30-11:15

Group Size:3-6

Every 2-4weeks

Who:Classroom teachers,Reading support staff, coach

How Often:ongoing


33

34

Institute on Beginning ReadingImplementation Checklists

Year 1 and Year 2

Developed by Oregon Reading First Center

University of Oregon, College of Education

For Each

Student

Instruction

GoalsAssessment

For All Students

35

IMMEDIATELY

Implementation Checklist: Month at a GlanceSchoolwide Beginning Reading Model

Who Immediate Priorities When

1. Select and secure at least 1.0 FTE Mentor Coach for your school.

2. Finalize selection of core/comprehensive reading program.

3. Schedule “core reading program” professional development.

4. Review and refine goals and priorities based on Planning andEvaluation Tool completed at IBR #1.

5. Establish master reading schedule that allocates a minimum of 90minutes of reading instruction per day.

6. Establish data collection schedule for screening, progress monitoring,diagnostic, and outcome measures for the year.

7. Schedule and protect professional development days for the schoolyear.

8. Establish Early Reading Team.

36

37

Program Fidelity Checklist

District _____________________ School _____________________ Teacher ID #_____________________

Observer ____________________Date_______________________ Program / Lesson _________________

Name of Group ______________ Number of Students _________ Grade __________________________

Time Spent Observing ________ Special Considerations ________________________________________

Instructional TargetPhonemic Awareness = PA Phonics = PH Fluency = FL Vocabulary = V Comprehension = COther (e.g., writing, music) = O

Time Heading Activity Grouping Primary Instructor Level ofImplementation

Write instart andstoptime.

Write inmajorheading.

Write in activity. Circle the maininstructional target of the activity.Slash other targets (s) theteacher emphasizes.

WholeClass

SmallGroup

Indep Teacher = TSpecialist = SEd Asst = A

N = NoneP = PartialF = Full

Activity 1:

PA PH FL V C O

W S I T S A N P / P+ F

Comments

38

General Features of Instruction (Circle Approximate Level of Implementation)Primary Instructor: Teacher Specialist Assistant Grouping: Whole Class Small Group

1. Instructor modeled instructional tasks when appropriate.Comments

2. Instructor provided explicit instruction.Comments

3. Instructor engaged students in meaningful interactions with language during lesson.Comments

4. Instructor provided multiple opportunities for students to practice instructional tasks.Comments

39

General Features of Instruction (Circle Approximate Level of Implementation)Primary Instructor: Teacher Specialist Assistant Grouping: Whole Class Small Group

5. Instructor provided corrective feedback after initial student responses.Comments

6. Students were engaged in the lesson during teacher-led instruction.Comments

7. Students were engaged in the lesson during independent work.Comments

8. Students were successful completing activities at a high criterion level of performance.Comments

9. Instructor encouraged student effort.Comments

40

Observation Feedback

Areas Implemented Well:

Identified Area(s) for Student Support:

Action Plan:

Follow-Up Date:

41

42

43

44

Outcome Measure Scatter Plot Comparing End-of-Third Oral Reading Fluency to Oregon State Achievement Test

46

47

49

51

52

54

56

57

58

Project-Level Accounts combine schools from multiple districts,allowing a research project to analyze results at the student, class, school, district, and project-wide level. All reports which combine results at the school and district level can also look at the project-wide level.

Project-Level Accounts are available for no additional charge. Contact Joshua Wallin for more information ([email protected]).

Reading First projects with Project-Level Accounts:

AlaskaAmerican SamoaArizonaColoradoDelaware

HawaiiLouisianaMarylandMichiganMontana

New HampshireNorth DakotaOregonPennsylvaniaTennessee

WashingtonWyoming

Project-Level Accounts

Planning and Evaluation Tool (PET)

Planning and Evaluation Tool forEffective Schoolwide Reading Programs - Revised

(PET-R)

Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph.D.Deborah C. Simmons, Ph.D.

Institute for the Development of Educational AchievementCollege of EducationUniversity of Oregon

Revised May, 2003

*Based on: Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Todd, A. (2000). Effective behavior support: Self-assessment survey.Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 59

1

Institute on Beginning (IBR)Reading Action Plan

(RAP)

Name of School, District City, State

Reading Goals and Priorities

1. What:

Who:

When:

2. What:

Who:

When:

3. What:

Who:

When:

Committee Members

Adopted by School Staff (date): 60

1

Institute on Beginning Reading

School Profile

Name of School: District:

Address:

Phone: email:

Principal:

Reading Co ordinator:

Grade Levels: Total School Enrollment:

Total Number of Certified Teachers:

Title School: (Circle One) YES NO

Mobility Rate (i.e., % children who move in and out):

Percent of Students in Grades K-3 Receiving Special Educa tion:

Percent of Students in Grades K-3 not Fluent in English:

Ethnicity Breakdown by Percent:

Caucasian: _________ Hispanic/Latino: __________ African American: _________

Asian: _________ Other (please specify): ______________________________________

Number of Teachers Per Grade:

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Number of Classes Per Grade:

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Number of Students Per Grade:

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 61

Documents

1 Oregon Reading First Leadership Session: Data-Based Leadership Framework Oregon Reading First Center (ORFC) and the Western Regional Reading First Technical