Oregon Reading FirstCohort B

B-ELL Leadership Session

Jorge Preciado

University of Oregon

March 5th, 2009

© 2009 by the Oregon Reading First CenterCenter on Teaching and Learning

Overview

Celebrations Jo Robinson Presentation/Review of

Big Ideas Enhancing Principal Walk Throughs Looking at Winter 2009

Data/Discussion Enhancing First Grade GLTs

Celebrations

What systems/grade levels or classrooms have the most students at benchmark?

What teachers are improving their delivery of classroom instruction?

Are intensive students making gains? What instructional practices have improved

the academic performance of strategic students?

Increased administrative support?

Jo Robinson “Big Ideas”

Leadership Data-based Action Planning

Principal Targets More intensity Data Meetings System Level Restructuring

Leadership Data-Based Action Planning More Intensity Whole group instructionWhole Group

More explicit (Sesame Street room) Make this weeks’ sounds, sight words, vocabulary visual when explicitly

instructed and throughout the week More practice:

Make sure all students read in small groups for at least 20 minutes every day Clean up classroom management…. Repeat initial instruction from TE throughout the week as needed Give more group and individual turns Increase engagement to 100%, use precision partner work Speed up transitions, moving from core section to section ASAP Start and end on time Repeat practice at times other than reading block Repeat practice during the week if skill not acquired

More feedback Consistent (every time) error correction of sounding out, sight words, phrasing,

bumpy reading

ContinuedSmall group instructionSmall Group

More practice: Give more group and individual turns Increase engagement to 100% All students read in small group EVERY day Use extra practice material BEFORE strategic and intensive students read

texts (decodables, at level readers, below level readers, ESL readers) Benchmarks read decodable, at-level, above level, anthology selection orally

EVERY week more than once in small group. Teacher created seat work/centers are ALWAYS practice directly connected

to needed skills from the core.

More feedback Consistent (every time) error correction of sounding out, sight words,

phrasing, bumpy reading

More time Speed up transitions, moving from group to group ASAP Start and end groups on time Groups last at least 20 minutes Cut out teacher talk, use consistent, rapid cuing

Continued

Identify Targets to Move Strategic Students

Teacher Targets: More explicit and more practice

Principal Targets

Targeted Walk-throughs Intensive Students Strategic Students Benchmark Students

More Intensity

More explicit/direct instructionMore modeling (MLT)More practice withMore monitoring and feedbackMore time

Data Meetings

Correct Placement: More Practice: More Feedback:

Use public minutes Record ideas for targets on chart paper List all ideas Cluster related ideas to develop targets

Reading System Change Examples

Reorganize the delivery of core Examples:

Walk to read Ensure 3 groups each day Ensure full 90 minutes is actually reading Increase core block beyond 90 minutes Make seat work and centers practice connected to core Get advanced training on core delivery

Match intervention to need more carefully Administer reading diagnostics to pinpoint needs Purchase more intense interventions Get training on intervention delivery

Reorganize the delivery of intervention Examples: Increase intervention time Create teacher parapro intervention delivery teams Ensure fast efficient intervention delivery Ensure monitoring of every child in intervention Select more intense intervention/ train in delivery

Continued

Select staff to deliver intense interventions• Select staff to deliver interventions. Consider

these points: Eagerness and support for intervention Fast efficient delivery, fidelity to specific program Ability to monitor every child Parapro and teacher teams who work well

together

Enhancing Principal Walk Throughs Instructional leadership is clearly related to

student achievement The walk-through process is one of the most

visible and potentially powerful elements of instructional leadership

Walk-throughs help build a strong teaching-learning culture to support reading success

Continued

Instructional leadership is perhaps the single

most important role for principals to play

when increased achievement is the goal.

(National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2001)

Effective Instructional Leaders

Are actively involved in reading instruction Are often visible Continuously engage staff in conversation

about instruction Supervise instruction frequently and provide

feedback (Paine et. al., 2009)

Purposes of Classroom Walk-Throughs Build a strong reading culture Improve student achievement Strengthen instructional leadership Reinforce recent training teachers have had Support the coaching process Assure that time planned is actually delivered Provide teacher support Promote principal learning (Paine et. al., 2009)

Before Observations

Before Share walk-through tool(s) you will use Share with teachers the process—what to

expect Ask what would be most helpful for them as

part of the classroom visit process Defuse anxiety Clearly differentiate between formal

evaluation and walk-throughs (Paine et. al., 2009)

During Observations

What is the purpose of the lesson? Is there rigor in the lesson (i.e., is it at an appropriate

but challenging level of difficulty)? Are the students learning the concepts/skills? What evidence is there of student learning? What are the students doing?

Correlates of learning and achievement What is the teacher doing?

Indicators of effective teaching (Paine et. al., 2009)

After Observation

One positive comment One prompt, question, or suggestion One further follow-up component

“Where do we go from here?” “Let’s touch base in a day or two.” Activity: Look at video and write down 2-3

ideas that effectively support walk throughs. (Paine et. al., 2009)

IDEL Winter 08-09 Data

IDEL Fall-Winter 08-09 Histograms IDEL Fall-Winter 08-09 Summary of

Effectiveness Reports IDEL First Grade Data Activity: Data Action Planning

Low Risk Some Risk

At Risk Total Students

*K 52% (26) 12% (5) 36% (18) 49

1st 85% (53) 12% (8) 3% (2) 63

Low Risk Some Risk

At Risk Total Students

K 51% (44) 20% (16) 29% (25) 85

1st 61% (45) 26% (17) 13% (9) 71

B-ELL Cohort IDEL FSF (PSF) Winter 09

Cohort B-ELL FSF Winter 08- 09 Comparison Data

B-ELL Cohort IDEL FSF (PSF) Winter 08

* No FSF at Kindergarten for Liberty Reported for Winter 08

Low Risk Some Risk

At Risk Total Students

*K 40% (18) 28% (14) 32% (16) 48

1st 37% (23) 53% (34) 10% (8) 65

Low Risk Some Risk

At Risk Total Students

K 46% (37) 28% (24) 26% (23) 84

1st 50% (36) 33% (22) 17% (11) 69

Cohort B-ELL FPS Winter 08-09 Comparison Data

B-ELL Cohort IDEL FPS (NWF) Winter 08

B-ELL Cohort IDEL FPS (NWF) Winter 09

* No FPS at Kindergarten for Liberty Reported for Winter 08

Low Risk Some Risk

At Risk Total Students

1st 43% (27) 30% (19) 27% (17) 63

2nd 46% (29) 16% (11) 38% (24) 64

*3rd 42% (18) 24% (10) 34% (14) 42

1st 52% (37) 20% (14) 28% (18) 69

2nd 57% (36) 16% (10) 27% (17) 63

3rd 58% (35) 9% (5) 33% (19) 59

B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Winter 08

Cohort B-ELL FLO Winter 08-09 Comparison Data

B-ELL Cohort IDEL FLO (ORF) Winter 09

* Rigler did not have a third grade class in 07-08

School K (FSF)

K (FPS)

1st (FPS)

1st (FLO)

2nd (FLO)

3rd (FLO)

Rigler 48% 64% 63% 71% 45% 74%McNary Heights 54% 46% 75% 67% 76% 39%Liberty 53% 28% 14% 19% 50% 61%

% at Established (Low Risk) Winter 2009

School 1st (FPS) 2nd (FLO) 3rd (FLO)

Rigler 75% (18) 43% (9) 74% (17)

McNary Heights

83% (19) 75% (15) 39% (7)

Liberty 62% (13) 65% (13) 61% (11)

% Of Students at Each Grade Level Making Adequate Progress

Cohort B-ELL SchoolsKindergarten - FSF

School Percent of Total Students Making Adequate

Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Intensive Students Making

Adequate Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Strategic Students Making Adequate

Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Benchmark Students Making

Adequate Progress (includes # of students)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Cohort B 64%28/44

71%55/78

+7 64%23/36

72%52/72

+8 50%3/6

75%3/4

+25 100%3/3

0%0/2

-100

*Liberty 0%0/0

55%16/29

0%0/0

58%15/26

57%0/0

100%1/1

0%0/0

0%0/2

McNary Heights

74%14/19

84%21/25

+10 74%14/19

84%21/25

+12 100%1/1

0%0/0

-100 0%0/0

0%0/0

0

Rigler 56%14/25

75%18/24

+19 53%9/17

76%16/21

+23 40%2/5

67%2/3

+27 100%3/3

0%0/0

-100

* No Data Reported for Liberty (FSF)

Cohort B SchoolsFirst Grade - FPS

School Percent of Total Students Making Adequate

Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Intensive Students Making

Adequate Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Strategic Students Making Adequate

Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Benchmark Students Making

Adequate Progress (includes # of students)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Cohort B 67%40/60

74%50/68

+7 81%22/27

81%17/21

0 43%10/23

63%15/24

+20 80%8/10

82%18/22

+2

Liberty 61%14/21

63%13/21

+2 85%11/13

77%10/13

-8 17%1/6

20%1/5

+3 100%2/2

67%2/3

-33

McNary Heights

61%12/18

83%19/23

+22 75%9/12

67%4/6

-8 50%3/6

78%7/9

+28 0%0/0

100%8/8

+100

Rigler 70%14/21

32%18/24

-38 100%2/2

100%3/3

0 55%6/11

70%7/10

+15 75%6/8

73%8/11

-2

Cohort B SchoolsSecond Grade - FLO

School Percent of Total Students Making Adequate

Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Intensive Students Making

Adequate Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Strategic Students Making Adequate

Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Benchmark Students Making

Adequate Progress (includes # of students)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent

Change (+ or

-)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Cohort B 48%30/62

61%37/61

+13 12%3/26

32%7/22

+20 54%7/13

58%7/12

+4 87%20/23

86%23/27

-1

Liberty 53%10/19

65%13/20

+12 11%1/9

50%5/10

+39 67%2/3

86%6/7

+19 100%7/7

67%2/3

-23

McNary Heights

42%8/19

75%15/20

+33 10%1/10

29%2/7

+19 50%2/4

100%1/1

+50 100%5/5

100%12/12

0

Rigler 50%12/24

43%9/21

-7 14%1/7

0%0/5

-14 50%3/6

43%0/4

-7 73%8/11

75%9/12

+2

Cohort B SchoolsThird Grade - FLO

School Percent of Total Students Making Adequate

Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Intensive Students Making

Adequate Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Strategic Students Making Adequate

Progress (includes # of students)

Percent of Benchmark Students Making

Adequate Progress (includes # of students)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Fall to Winter 2008

Fall to Winter 2009

Percent Change (+ or -)

Cohort B 60%25/42

59%35/59

-1 36%8/22

23%6/26

-13 40%2/5

57%4/7

+17 100%15/15

96%25/26

-4

Liberty 68%15/22

61%11/18

-13 38%3/8

0%0/6

+38 33%1/3

67%2/3

+34 100%11/11

100%9/9

0

McNary Heights

50%10/20

39%7/18

-11 36%5/14

10%1/10

-26 50%1/2

33%1/3

-17 100%4/4

100%5/5

0

*Rigler 0%0/0

74%17/23

+74 0%0/0

50%5/10

+50 0%0/0

100%1/1

+100 0%0/0

92%11/12

+92

* Rigler did not have Spanish literacy in third grade (2007-2008)

Action Plans & Targets to Support Data When discussing first grade strategic

students focus on the following: Operationalize Contributing Factors State Problem and Evidence Support and Strategies that are Directly

Linked to the Problem Evaluate Support

Operationalize Contributing Factors

Why operationalize terms? Clear, specific definitions, reduces ambiguity Pacing-What does that look like? Teaching to mastery-What does that look

like? Make clear statements based on data. Focus on variables that are under the control

of school personnel.

Problem and Evidence

Question: What variables caused decreases in student outcomes?

Response: Pacing (Lesson progress is slow) Operationalized Response: Students began

intensive program three weeks after school started. Currently, students are on lesson X. Students should be on lesson X. Overall, _% of students are passing checkouts. Skills are being re-taught for those students who do not pass checkouts the first time.

Continued

Question: What variables caused decreases in student outcomes?

Response: Students not attending to lessons. Operationalized Response: Students are not

responding to signals provided by teacher. Rules are reviewed before the lesson and reinforced throughout the lesson. Teacher is asking _ to _ unison responses per minute during templates instruction. Students are responding with _% accuracy during templates instruction.

Continued

Question: What variables caused decreases in student outcomes?

Response: Students not decoding text with fluency.

Operationalized Response: When presented with connected text, students take more than two minutes to read a 30 word passage. Students are accurate with responses (can decode over 90% of words on text).

Support and Strategies that are Directly Linked to the Problem Ask the following question: What specifically will school

personnel do for this group or students? Example: Pacing Principal- Will check number of lessons completed in one week.

Will provide feedback to teacher on delivery of lesson. Coach- Will work with teacher to increase unison responses and

accuracy of student responses. Will provide feedback to teacher on delivery of lesson.

Classroom Teacher- Will work on recommendations from coach.

RC- Will observe instruction and lesson delivery (unison responses, student accuracy and check lessons completed). Will review coaches actions.

Evaluate Support

How will student's progress be measured? DIBELS/IDEL Benchmark scores DIBELS/IDEL progress monitoring scores Intervention programs checkouts Theme skills tests Phonics decoders Quick checkouts