Transcript Document

DIBELS™ Training Institute:
Mentoring Workshop
Module 5
Interpreting and Using Data
Part 2: System-wide Data
Evaluating Outcomes
Dynamic
Measurement
Group
Supporting School Success One Step at a Time
Reviewing Outcomes
• What do you need to know?
– How are we doing?
– What proportion of students have achieved
literacy goals?
– What proportion of students are making adequate
progress toward achieving literacy goals?
– Is our system of support effective to get students
on track and to keep them there?How effective is
our core (benchmark) support?
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
2
Getting
Reports from
DIBELS web
From DIBELS Data System, University of Oregon, 2000-2005
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
3
View/Create Reports
Summary of
Effectiveness
Reports
From DIBELS Data System, University of Oregon, 2000-2005
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
4
DIBELS Steps to Reading Success
Step 8 - ORF 3
One Step per Semester
One Goal per Step
Step 7 - ORF 3
Step 6 - ORF 2
(Keep moving in the
Step 5 - ORF 2
direction of the
next goal)
Step 4 - ORF 1
Step 3 - NWF
Step 2 - PSF
G2 ORF
Step 1 - ISF
PSF
PSF
ISF
Beg
G1 ORF
NWF
50
Beg
Mid
68
90
Mid
End
G3 ORF
92 110
Beg
Mid
40
35
25
Mid
End
Kindergarten
First Grade
End
Beg
Second Grade
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
End
Third Grade
5
Effectiveness Report:
District: Test District
School: All Schools
Data: 2001-2002
How effective is our system
Step: Beginning of 1st Grade to Middle of 1st Grade
Intensive
of support?
Strategic
Benchmark
All
District
Name
School Names
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
6
Effectiveness Report:
How are We Doing as a District?
How effective is our core (benchmark) support?
How effective is our supplemental (strategic) support?
How effective is our intervention (intensive) support?
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
7
How Effective is our
Core (Benchmark) Program?
• A Core Program is effective if it:
• Meets the needs of 80% of all students in
the school.
• Supports 95-100% of benchmark students
to make adequate progress and achieve
the benchmark goal.
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
8
How Effective is our
Core (Benchmark) Program?
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
9
Effectiveness Report:
How are We Doing as a District?
How effective is our core (benchmark) support?
How effective is our supplemental (strategic) support?
How effective is our intervention (intensive) support?
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
10
How Effective is our
Supplemental (Strategic) Support?
• A Supplemental Program is effective if it:
• Meets the needs of students in the school who
will need more support than the core
curriculum and instruction can provide
• Supports 80% - 100% of strategic students to
achieve the benchmark goal.
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
11
How Effective is our
Supplemental (Strategic) Support?
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
12
Effectiveness Report:
How are We Doing as a District?
How effective is our core (benchmark) support?
How effective is our supplemental (strategic) support?
How effective is our intervention (intensive) support?
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
13
How Effective is our
Intervention (Intensive) Support?
• An Intervention Program is effective if it:
• Meets the needs of the 5% of students in the
school who will need very intensive intervention
to achieve literacy goals.
• Supports 80% - 100% of intensive students to
reduce their risk of reading difficulty to strategic
or achieve the benchmark goal.
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
14
How Effective is our
Intervention (intensive) Support?
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
15
DIBELS Summary of Effectiveness Reports
4 Ways to Achieve Adequate Progress
Time 1 (e.g., Fall)
Time 2 (e.g., Winter)
Intensive
At-Risk
1. Some Risk
2. Low Risk
Strategic
At-Risk
Some Risk
3. Low Risk
Benchmark
At-Risk
Some Risk
4. Low Risk
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
16
What is Adequate Progress?
• Benchmark Students
– Effective core curriculum & instruction should:
• support 95% of benchmark students to achieve
each literacy goal.
• Strategic Students
– Effective supplemental support should:
• support 80% of strategic students to achieve
each literacy goal.
• Intensive Students
– Effective interventions should:
• support 80% of intensive students to achieve the
goal or achieve emerging or some risk status.
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
17
Effectiveness Report Worksheet
1.
406
How many 1st graders are included in this Effectiveness Report? _____
At the beginning of first grade:
2.
how many 1st graders in the District had Intensive instructional
49
recommendations? ____
3.
what percentage of 1st graders in the had Intensive instructional
recommendations? 12.1%
____
4.
Which school had the lowest percentage of 1st graders with Intensive
Washington
instructional recommendations? ________________________
5.
Which school had the highest percentage of 1st graders with Intensive
Jefferson
instructional recommendations? ________________________
6.
Which school had the lowest percentageJefferson
of 1st graders with Benchmark
instructional recommendations? ________________________
7.
What could a school do to have a higher percentage of 1st graders with a
Benchmark instructional recommendation at the beginning of first grade?
Strengthen kindergarten instruction, catch move-ins early
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
18
Practice
• Divide into 2 groups of 3.
• Review Summary of Effectiveness Report and
answer remainder of questions on Summary of
Effectiveness Worksheet for beginning to middle of
first grade for Test District.
• What recommendations for curriculum and instruction
and/or professional development might you have if
you were an administrator for the Test District?
• Discuss your recommendations with others at your
table.
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
19
Intensive Recommendation at the Beginning of the Year
1. At the beginning of first grade, how many students in the Test District had
49
Intensive instructional recommendations? ___
Not Adequate
Progress
Of the students who had Intensive instructional recommendations at the
beginning of first grade:
16
How many were Deficit in NWF in the middle of first grade?____
2.
33%
What percent were Deficit in NWF in the middle of first grade? ____
3.
How many were Emerging in NWF in the middle of first grade? ____
18
4.
What percent were Emerging in NWF in the middle of first grade? 37%
____
5.
15
How many were Established in NWF in the middle of first grade?____
6.
31%
What percent were Established in NWF in the middle of first grade? ____
7.
What percent made adequate progress? 68%
____
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
Adequate
Progress
1.
20
Middle of First Grade Outcomes
In the middle of first grade:
1. What percent of 1st graders Test in the District were Established
in NWF? 67%
2. What percent of students who were Intensive at the beginning-ofthe-year were Established on NWF? 31%
3. What percent of students who were Strategic at the beginning-ofthe-year were Established on NWF? 46%
4. What percent of students who were Benchmark students
beginning-of-the-year were Established on NWF? 82%
5. Which school was most effective in supporting students who
were Benchmark at the beginning of the year to be Established
on NWF? Washington
6. Which school was least effective in supporting students who
were Benchmark at the beginning-of-the-year to be Established
on NWF? McKinley
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
21
Classroom and Student Level Reports
• Classroom level reports can identify strengths and
weaknesses within a school, but caution is indicated.
– Sometimes students with additional needs or challenges are
grouped together in a class.
– Sometimes reading instructional groups are organized
across classes.
– Sometimes student mobility impacts one class more than
another.
• The most important level of interpretation and the
clearest information is the schoolwide report.
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
22
View/Create Reports
Summary of
Effectiveness By
Class
From DIBELS Data System, University of Oregon, 2000-2005
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
23
Effectiveness Report: Classroom
Kindergarten Mid to End of Year
From DIBELS Data System, University of Oregon, 2000-2005
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
24
Effectiveness Report: Classroom
First Grade Mid to End of Year
From DIBELS Data System, University of Oregon, 2000-2005
2005 Dynamic Measurement Group
25