Table 1 Reviewing Outcomes for K-3 Students Winter Last Year and Comparing to Winter Outcomes

District “How are we doing?” Report: Winter Data 20__

District Name ______Date ______

(Please attach the Principal Report for each school in your district at the end of this report.) 1. Reviewing Outcomes: How are K-3 students performing mid-year on essential components of beginning reading instruction within your district?

Fill in the tables to answer the following questions: a) What percent of students are reaching benchmark goals in each grade level in English? What percent of students have a deficit in benchmark skill areas for each grade level? b) What percent of students are reaching benchmark goals in each grade level in Spanish? What percent of students have a deficit in benchmark skill areas for each grade level? c) Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter from year to year within your district at each grade level in English? Is there a significant decrease in the percentage of students with a deficit in the winter from year to year within your district at each grade level? d) Is there a significant increase in the percentage of students reaching targets in the winter from year to year within your district at each grade level in Spanish? Is there a significant decrease in the percentage of students with a deficit in the winter from year to year within your district at each grade level?

Data sources: (a) District Histogram Reports for each grade level, (b) Cross-Year Box Plots for each grade level

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 1 Center on Teaching and Learning Table 1 Reviewing Outcomes for K-3 Students Winter Last Year and Comparing to Winter Outcomes This Year A B C D E F G Grade/Measure Percent at Percent at Percentage Percent at Deficit Percent at Deficit Percentage Include actual numbers of Established Established Point (At Risk) (At Risk) Point students, (Low Risk) Winter (Low Risk) Increase/ Winter 20__ Winter 20__ Increase/ e.g., 90/100 or 90% 20__ Winter 20__ Decrease e.g., 90/100 or 90% e.g., 90/100 or 90% Decrease e.g., 90/100 or 90% e.g., 90/100 or 90% (+ or -) (+ or -)

Kindergarten ISF Kindergarten PSF Kindergarten- NWF First Grade NWF First Grade ORF Second Grade ORF Third Grade ORF

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 2 Center on Teaching and Learning Table 1A Reviewing ENGLISH Midyear Outcomes for K-3 ELLs Winter 2008 and Comparing to Winter 2007 A B C D E F G Grade/Measure Percent at Percent at Percentage Percent at Deficit Percent at Deficit Percentage Include actual numbers of Established Established Point (At Risk) (At Risk) Point students, (Low Risk) Winter (Low Risk) Increase/ Winter 20__ Winter 20__ Increase/ e.g., 90/100 or 90% 20__ Winter 20__ Decrease e.g., 90/100 or 90% e.g., 90/100 or 90% Decrease e.g., 90/100 or 90% e.g., 90/100 or 90% (+ or -) (+ or -)

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 3 Center on Teaching and Learning Table 1B Reviewing ENGLISH Midyear Outcomes for K-3 English ONLY students Winter 2008 and Comparing to Winter 2007 (THIS TABLE IS OPTIONAL)

A B C D E F G Grade/Measure Percent at Percent at Percentage Percent at Deficit Percent at Deficit Percentage Include actual numbers of Established Established Point (At Risk) (At Risk) Point students, (Low Risk) Winter (Low Risk) Increase/ Winter 20__ Winter 20__ Increase/ e.g., 90/100 or 90% 20__ Winter 20__ Decrease e.g., 90/100 or 90% e.g., 90/100 or 90% Decrease e.g., 90/100 or 90% e.g., 90/100 or 90% (+ or -) (+ or -)

Grade/Measure Percent at Percent at Percentage Percent at Percent at Percentage Include actual numbers Established Established Point Increase/ Deficit Deficit Point Increase/ of students, e.g., 90/100 or 90% (Low Risk) (Low Risk) Decrease (At Risk) (At Risk) Decrease Winter 2007 Winter 2008 (+ or -) Winter 2007 Winter 2008 (+ or -)

Kindergarten-FSF Kindergarten-FPS First Grade-FLO Second Grade-FLO Third Grade-FLO

Question 2. Evaluating Support: Across all of the schools in the district, how effective were the grade-level, Fall to Winter Instructional Support Plans (CSI Maps) in English and in Spanish?

Fill in the tables to answer the following questions: a) For each grade, what is the total percentage of students that made adequate progress towards the Winter benchmark goals in English? What percentage of students that were intensive in the Fall achieved the Winter benchmark goal or emerging/some risk status? What percentage of students that were strategic in the Fall achieved the Winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were benchmark in the Fall achieved the Winter benchmark goal? b) For each grade, what is the total percentage of students that made adequate progress towards the Winter benchmark goals in Spanish? What percentage of students that were intensive in the Fall achieved the Winter benchmark goal or emerging/some risk status? What percentage of students that were strategic in the Fall achieved the Winter benchmark goal? What percentage of students that were benchmark in the Fall achieved the Winter benchmark goal? c) Is there a significant increase in the total percentage of students that made adequate progress towards the Winter benchmark goals from last Winter to this Winter in English? d) Is there a significant increase in the total percentage of students that made adequate progress towards the Winter benchmark goals from last Winter to this Winter in Spanish? Data source: Summary of Effectiveness Reports by School for each grade level

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 5 Center on Teaching and Learning Table 2 Evaluating Fall to Winter 2007-08 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of ALL Students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/ Percent of Total Students that Percent of Intensive Students Percent of Strategic Students Percent of Benchmark Benchmark made Adequate Progress that made Adequate Progress that made Adequate Progress Students that made Adequate Goal Measure Include actual numbers of students, Include actual numbers of students, Include actual numbers of students, Progress e.g., 90/100 or 90%. e.g., 1/5 or 20%. e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Fall to Fall to Percent Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Winter Winter Change 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ (+ or -) Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark 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. First Grade- NWF

Second Grade ORF

Third Grade ORF

(Sample) First 70/100 70/80 +18 20/40 30/50 10/20 20/30 9/10 14/15 Grade- NWF 70% 88% 50% 60% 50% 67% 90% 93%

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 6 Center on Teaching and Learning Table 2A. Evaluating Fall to Winter 2007-08 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of ELLs Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals Grade/ Percent of Total Students that Percent of Intensive Students Percent of Strategic Students Percent of Benchmark Benchmark made Adequate Progress that made Adequate Progress that made Adequate Progress Students that made Adequate Goal Measure Include actual numbers of students, Include actual numbers of students, Include actual numbers of students, Progress e.g., 90/100 or 90%. e.g., 1/5 or 20%. e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Fall to Fall to Percent Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Winter Winter Change 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ (+ or -) Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark 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. First Grade- NWF

Second Grade ORF

Third Grade ORF

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 7 Center on Teaching and Learning Table 2B. Evaluating Fall to Winter 2007-08 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of English ONLY students Making Adequate Progress Towards DIBELS Benchmark Goals (THIS TABLE IS OPTIONAL) Grade/ Percent of Total Students that Percent of Intensive Students Percent of Strategic Students Percent of Benchmark Benchmark made Adequate Progress that made Adequate Progress that made Adequate Progress Students that made Adequate Goal Measure Include actual numbers of students, Include actual numbers of students, Include actual numbers of students, Progress e.g., 90/100 or 90%. e.g., 1/5 or 20%. e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Fall to Fall to Percent Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Winter Winter Change 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ (+ or -) Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark 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. First Grade- NWF

Second Grade ORF

Third Grade ORF

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 8 Center on Teaching and Learning Table 2C Evaluating Fall to Winter 2007-08 Grade-Level Instructional Support Plans: Percent of ELLs Making Adequate Progress Towards IDEL Benchmark Goals Grade/ Percent of Total Students that Percent of Intensive Students Percent of Strategic Students Percent of Benchmark Benchmark made Adequate Progress that made Adequate Progress that made Adequate Progress Students that made Adequate Goal Measure Include actual numbers of students, Include actual numbers of students, Include actual numbers of students, Progress e.g., 90/100 or 90%. e.g., 1/5 or 20%. e.g., 25/50 or 50%. Include actual numbers of students, e.g., 95/100 or 95%. Fall to Fall to Percent Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Fall to Winter Winter Winter Change 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ 20__ (+ or -) Total Intensive Strategic Benchmark Kindergarten Note: To evaluate the Fall to Winter Grade Level Instructional support plans, we recommend evaluating the total number of students who met FSF and FPS goals (reported in Table 1C). First Grade- FPS

Second Grade FLO

Third Grade FLO

(Sample) First 70/100 70/80 +18 20/40 30/50 10/20 20/30 9/10 14/15 Grade- FPS 70% 88% 50% 60% 50% 67% 90% 93%

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 9 Center on Teaching and Learning Question 3: a) Based on Tables 1, 1A, 1B, 1C and 2, 2A, 2B, and 2 C and the normative criteria presented in Figures 1 and 2 (on the following pages), list grade levels and systems that are going to need support to improve student outcomes. List grade levels (by school and/or district) and systems (e.g., intensive third graders, strategic first graders, benchmark kindergarteners) that are meeting the goals for expected performance (i.e., getting most students to meet benchmark goals and/or with a high percentage of students making adequate progress). b) Based on the data listed in Question 3, Section a), list grade levels (by school and/or district) and systems that are going to need support to improve student outcomes.

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 10 Center on Teaching and Learning Question 4: a. Attach your 2007-2008 District Action Plan with a report on the progress of each action that you identified. (Progress notes can be made on the original action plan in the “Report on Progress” column or in a brief narrative form below. b. Based on the above data review of your current district action plan, please add any new actions to your district action plan. For example, if the second grade system is in need of support district-wide, what actions will you plan to address the issues? (The actions can be added to the original 2007-2008 action plan document or listed in the table below.)

New District Actions (Please specify if an action is specific to a particular school or for all RF schools in district.)

Date Added: New Actions Report on Progress Action Completion Date

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 11 Center on Teaching and Learning 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? benchmark 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 ≥ 79% Top Quartile 39% to 63% Middle Quartiles 27% to 62% Middle Quartiles 15% to 41% Middle Quartiles 58% to 78% Middle Quartiles ≤ 38% Bottom Quartile ≤ 26% Bottom Quartile ≤ 14% Bottom Quartile ≤ 57% Bottom Quartile

2 (ORF) ≥ 67% Top Quartile ≥ 21% Top Quartile ≥ 60% Top Quartile = 100% Top Quartile 45% to 66% Middle Quartiles 1% to 20% Middle Quartiles 27% to 59% Middle Quartiles 95% to 99% Middle Quartiles ≤ 44% Bottom Quartile ≤ 0% Bottom Quartile ≤ 26% Bottom Quartile ≤ 94% Bottom Quartile

3 (ORF) ≥ 63% Top Quartile ≥ 27% Top Quartile ≥ 41% Top Quartile ≥ 97% Top Quartile 41% to 62% Middle Quartiles 9% to 26% Middle Quartiles 14% to 40% Middle Quartiles 86% to 96% Middle Quartiles ≤ 40% Bottom Quartile ≤ 8% Bottom Quartile ≤ 13% Bottom Quartile ≤ 85% Bottom Quartile

Figure 1 Adequate Progress Normative Criteria Fall to Winter (USE THIS TABLE WITH QUESTION 3)

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

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 12 Center on Teaching and Learning FIGURE 2 Guidelines for the effectiveness of the grade level support plans in Spanish Adequate Progress Relative Criteria *Level of effectiveness adapted from English percentile ranks, and expected outcomes based on theory on reading development in Spanish.

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center 13 Center on Teaching and Learning 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? benchmark 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 K (FSF) ≥ 85% Strong ≥ 85% Strong ≥ 75% Strong ≥ 90% Strong 55% to 84% Moderate 50% to 84% Moderate 30% to 74% Moderate 70% to 89% Moderate ≤ 54% Low ≤ 49% Low ≤ 29% Low ≤ 69% Low

K (FPS) ≥ 80% Strong ≥ 85% Strong ≥ 75% Strong ≥ 90% Strong 50% to 79% Moderate 50% to 84% Moderate 30% to 74% Moderate 70% to 89% Moderate ≤ 49% Low ≤ 49% Low ≤ 29% Low ≤ 69% Low

1 (FLO) ≥ 75% Strong ≥ 50% Strong ≥ 50% Strong ≥ 90% Strong 50% to 74% Moderate 25% to 49% Moderate 25% to 49% Moderate 70% to 89% Moderate ≤ 49% Low ≤ 24% Low ≤ 24% Low ≤ 69% Low