Assesment in Kindergarten

Implementing and Evaluating the
Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model:
Aligning Reading Programs to Meet

the Needs of All Students
For Each
Student
Assessment Goals
For All
Students
Instruction
IBR Foundational Features:
Translating Research into Practice
w i d e : Res
h oo l Foc ults
Sc & A l l use
E ac h d
Prev
Orie ention ll y
nted t i fic a
n
Scie ed
Bas
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.
A School-Wide Reading
Improvement Model
For Each
Student
Assessment Goals
For All
Students
Instruction
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 3

Essential Components in Reading
Effective, comprehensive, reading instruction includes
instruction in each of the essential components:
Phonological
Awareness Phonics
Reading
Comprehensio
n
Vocabulary Fluency
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004

. 4
Improving Reading Instruction
in Oregon
 Systematic, high quality instruction that focuses on the five
essential components of beginning reading.
 Reliable and valid assessments for screening, diagnostic,
and monitoring progress decisions.
 Skillful, research based interventions for children who need
intensive intervention in learning to read.
Oregon Reading First, 2002

Aligning Core, Supplemental, and
Intervention Programs
Goal and Challenge

 To implement, evaluate, and replicate a
schoolwide beginning reading model
that will accelerate and sustain the early
reading achievement of all students.

Objectives: What You Will Learn and Do
 The objectives of today’s session are to:

1. Describe three levels of instructional support.
2. Identify guidelines for aligning core,
supplemental and intervention programs.
3. Discuss factors to consider when building an
aligned and coordinated beginning reading
model.
4. Provide methods to evaluate the effectiveness
of your levels of instructional support.

Three Levels of
Instructional Support
Instructional Recommendations Are Based on

Performance Across All Measures
 Benchmark: Established skill performance across all
administered measures
 Strategic: One or more skill areas are not within the
expected performance range
 Intensive: One or many skill areas are within the
significantly at-risk range for later reading difficulty

Three Levels of Instructional Support
Intensive 5%
15%
Strategi
c
Benchmar 80%
k

Three Levels of Instructional Support
A class list provides a report of children’s performance on all measures

administered at a given benchmark period in relation to established
goals.
Fall of First Grade
Phoneme Segmentation Letter Naming Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency
Fluency
Student Score %ile Status Score %ile Status Score %ile Status Instructional
Recommendation
Sam 22 10 Emerging 3 1 At risk 5 5 At risk Intensive
Jill 19 9 Emerging 14 8 At risk 13 20 Some risk Strategic
Susan 47 58 Established 5 2 At risk 14 20 Some risk Strategic
Ken 67 95 Established 31 38 Some 19 26 Some risk Strategic

risk
Kim 40 36 Established 46 75 Low risk 27 49 Low risk Benchmark
Jose 41 39 Established 44 70 Low risk 58 90 Low risk Benchmark

Types of Reading Programs
Classifying Reading Programs
Core Supplemental Intervention

Reading Reading Reading
Program Program Program
(Benchmark) (Strategic) (Intensive)
Provide essential areas Provide additional Provide additional
of reading instruction for instruction in one or instruction to students
the majority of students. more areas of reading to performing below grade
support the core. level on one or more
essential instructional
skills.
80% 15%
Vaughn et al, 2001. 5%
CORE, 2003. Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 11
Core Reading Program
A Core Instructional Program of Validated
Efficacy Adopted and Implemented School-
wide.
 A core program is the “base” reading
program designed to provide instruction
on the essential areas of reading for the
majority of students schoolwide.
 In general, the core program should
enable 80% or more of students to
attain schoolwide reading goals.
Simmons, Kame'enui, Harn, & Coyne © 2003. 12
Benchmark
Level of Instructional Support
Addressing the needs of most students. . .
INSTRUCTIONAL PLACEMENT
Level of Support ASSESSMENT PLAN
 Progress Monitoring: Three times per

Benchmark SBRR Core Reading year- All students
Program-minimum 90  In-Program Assessments
minutes daily  Screening & Outcome Assessment

Core Reading Programs
One Size Does

NOT Fit All.
Period!
We may need to supplement
or modify, but we must do it
judiciously.
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003. 14
Core Reading Programs
However,
“one size” may
work effectively
for most.

Selecting Additional Reading
Programs
 Differentiated Instruction Aligned With

Student Needs
 Students are grouped based on assessment results.
 Specified supplemental and/or intervention
programs are implemented depending on student
needs and profiles.
 Groups are systematically and regularly reorganized
based on progress monitoring data.

Supplemental Reading Programs
 Support and extend the critical elements of a core
reading program.
 Provide additional instruction in one or two areas (i.e., fill
the gaps for phonological awareness, fluency).
 Provide more instruction or practice in particular area(s)
of need.
 May include large group, small group, one-on-one
instruction.
 Provide more teacher scaffolding.
 Provide more explicit and systematic instruction.

Strategic
Addressing the needs of some
students. . .
 Progress Monitoring: Monthly

Strategic Core Reading Program  In-Program Assessments
Plus Supplement  Screening & Outcome Assessment

Intervention Reading Programs
 Designed for children who demonstrate reading difficulty
and are performing below grade level (< 20th
percentile).
 Provide more explicit, systematic instruction to
accelerate learning to a high criterion level of
performance.
 Focus on more than one area (e.g., phonics, fluency,
and comprehension).
 Teacher instruction to meet the needs of students who
are struggling in their classrooms.
 Typically delivered in small group settings.
Intensive
Addressing the needs of each student. . .
 Progress Monitoring: Every 2 weeks

Intensive Part Core Reading Program  In-Program Assessments
Plus Intervention  Screening & Outcome Assessment
or Supplant Core with
Intensive Program

Three Levels of Instructional Support:
Summary of CSI Map
Guidelines
 One instructional support map per grade level.
 Each grade level map addresses benchmark, strategic and
intensive student levels of support.
 All teachers/specialists should work from the same map.
 Data will direct changes as necessary.
 Each map is a work in progress.
 Use alterable variables to assist in increasing/decreasing
intensity for varying levels of support.
 Alter the fewest number of variables that impact reading
progress.

Summary of CSI Map
Ti me Period Instructional Participation in Core Supplemental and Supplemental andI ntervention Frequency of Dete rmining Ins tructional
Recomm end Intervention Programs / Program Delivery DIBELS Effectiveness
ation Strategies Progress
Monitoring
Fall to benc hmark: Who: Who: Who:
Winter
When: When:
__ w/in 90 minutes HowO ften:
__ outside of9 0 min
Activities:
Ti me :
Criteria:
GroupS ize: GroupS ize:
strategic: Who: Who: Who:
When: When:
Activities:
Ti me :
Criteria:
intensive: Who: Who: Who:
When: When:
Activities:
Ti me :
Criteria:

Summary of CSI Map
Kindergarten Example
Supplemental Frequency of
Instr. Supplemental and Determining
Participation in and Intervention DIBELS
Recommen- Intervention Instructional
Core Programs/ Progress
dation Program Delivery Effectiveness
Strategies Monitoring
intensive: Who: Early Reading Who: Every Two Who:
All intensive Intervention Certified teacher (i.e. Weeks Classroom teacher
students* title I, special ed, with assistance from
classroom teacher, reading coach,
When: speech pathologist) possibly early
M-F, 9:00-9:30 *Enhance literacy teams or
vocabulary When: grade level teams as
Activities: sections of HM XX w/in 90 minutes discussed in team
Learning to Read using IBR2 (ERI) meetings
and Word Work strategies. XX outside of 90 min
sections from HM (double dose) How Often:
(emphasis on red * Provide Monthly
checked items) additional practice Time:
opportunities on 30 minutes daily for Criteria:
Group Size: letter-sound ERI 3 points at or above
Whole (30 minutes) correspondences goal line on Dibels,
and word continue program
blending. Group Size:
Small (< 4 students) 3 points below goal
line, change
instruction

Aligning Core, Supplemental , and
Intervention Programs
“We have not succeeded in answering all of
our problems.
Indeed, we often feel we have not

completely answered any of them
Q uick T im e ™ a nd a
T IFF (LZ W ) de co m pre s s o r
a re ne e de d to s e e this picture .
The answers we have found only serve to
raise a whole set of new questions.
In some ways, we feel we are as confused

as ever, but we believe we are confused on
a much higher level, and about more
important things.”

Lessons Learned: One District’s Evolution
Before: A Little of This, A Little of That
 Read Well  Open Court

 Open Court Intervention
 Optimize  Explode the Code
 Reading Mastery  Primary Phonics
 Horizons  Saxon
 Read Naturally  Flair
 Write Well

Lessons Learned: One District’s Evolution
After: A Streamlined Model
Core Program:
 Open Court
Supplemental Programs:
 Open Court Booster
 Horizons
 Read Naturally
Intervention Programs:
• Early Reading Intervention
 Reading Mastery

Objectives: What You Will Learn
and Do
model.

Guiding Questions for Aligning Core,
Supplemental, and Intervention Programs
1. What essential components (PA, PH, FL,
COMP, VOC) do your programs address?
2. Is the scope and sequence for introducing each

essential component similar across programs?
3. Do the programs utilize similar instructional

strategies to teach high priority skills?
4. Is the amount of instructional content students

receive appropriate across programs?
1. What essential components (PA, PH, FL, COMP,
VOC) do your programs address?
For each supplemental and intervention program your grade

level has adopted, determine:
 What essential component(s) does the program teach?

 For what grade level(s) is the program most appropriate?
 Are the expected outcomes for the program specified?
Are they appropriate?

2. Is the scope and sequence for introducing each
essential component similar across programs?
 Analyze the architecture of the core,

supplemental and intervention programs to
determine alignment of scope and sequence.
 Keep the struggling readers in mind when

determining if scope and sequences align.
 Be careful not to layer conflicting programs on

top of one another.

Progression of Regular Word Reading
Sounding Out
(saying the
sound of each letter)
Whole Word Reading

(vocalizing each sound
and blending it to a whole word)
Sight Word Reading

(sounding the word out in
your head and then reading the whole word)
Automatic Word Reading

(reading the word without sounding it out)

Remember Your Curriculum Maps....

Example of Scope and Sequence Analyses
 Let’s take a look at some examples....

3. Do the programs utilize similar strategies to
teach important skills?
Do the programs use similar or conflicting strategies

to teach children to:
 identify main idea

 blend sounds to form words
 read irregular words
 segment or blend phonemes in words
 use context to infer the meaning of a word

Examples of Similar and Conflicting
Strategy Instruction

Applying a Strategy Across Programs
Touchphonics strategy for teaching students to
sound out and blend sounds to form a word:
Lessons divided into 9 parts:

1. Build the word
2. Touch and sound the units
3. Blend the sounds into a word
4. Cover and spell the word
5. Cover and write the word
6. Change the word/ Shake and Make
7. Read the word in isolation
8. Read the word in print
9. Write the word in print
 Could apply this strategy to the core phonics
instruction.

4. Is the amount of instructional content students
receive appropriate across programs?
 Document the amount of instructional content

struggling readers cover when they are placed in
multiple programs.
 This is essential when the student is receiving

services from multiple teachers/specialists (e.g.,
SPED, Title 1).
 Broader coverage of content could be problematic,

some students may need to go deeper.

Example of Skills Trace Analyses

Breakout Activity
 Within your school teams, divide up so as to
complete each of the following analyses:
1. Scope and Sequence Analysis
2. Strategy Instruction Analysis
3. Skills Trace Analysis
 If your school team only consists of a few staff
members, select one of the above analyses to
complete.
 Teams will have 30 minutes to work.
 Be prepared to share out to the large group.

Scope and Sequence Analyses
1. Find the breakout activity form titled “Scope and

Sequence Analyses.”
2. Work in school teams, within grade levels if
possible.
3. From your Summary of CSI Maps, decide if you are
cross-walking programs for a strategic support plan
or intensive support plan.
4. Track the scope and sequence for one high priority
skill within a big idea (e.g. phoneme segmentation
within Phonological Awareness).
5. Document the scope and sequence for the first
month of instruction for all of the programs listed in
the support plan.

Strategy Instruction Analyses
1. Find the breakout activity form titled “Strategy

Instruction Analyses.”
possible.
3. From your Summary of CSI Maps, decide if you are
cross-walking programs for you strategic support
plan or intensive support plan.
4. Choose a strategy from any of the essential
components to track across each program (e.g.
document how each program teaches students to
read irregular words).

Skills Trace Analyses
1. Find the breakout activity form titled “Skills
Trace Analyses.”
possible.
3. From your Summary of CSI Maps, decide if
you are cross-walking programs for you
strategic support plan or intensive support
plan.
4. Conduct a skills trace across 10 lessons for
one high priority skill within a big idea (e.g.,
irregular word instruction within decoding).

Large Group Sharing
1. Identify your school.
2. Identify grade level for analyses.
3. Identify strategic or intensive support plan.
4. Identify the programs that were cross-walked.
5. Identify specific analyses completed (Scope
and Sequence, Strategy, or Skills Trace).
6. Share findings based on analyses.

Scope and Sequence Analyses:
Recommendations and Considerations
 If there is discrepancy in the scope and sequence of skills
instruction across programs, consider the following:
 Avoid layering the programs on top of each other, especially

for struggling readers.
 Add pre-teaching and re-teaching lessons from the extra
support handbooks to the core instruction.
 If the intervention or supplemental program is considerably
stronger than the core, replace part of the core instructional
content with the specific big ideas addressed by the
supplemental/intervention program.*
 Use data to evaluate decisions (e.g. Summary of Effectiveness
Reports, Histogram Reports)

Strategy Instruction Analyses:
 If the strategy instruction is not consistent across
programs:
 Apply the most explicit strategy from one programs across
all programs.
 Revisit a strategy that appears explicit, systematic and
provide review of previously taught skills.
 Select a set of highly similar examples (e.g., cvc words with
continuous sounds in the initial position) and develop a
systematic strategy to teach the set of examples (e.g.,
blending each sound in a word using an explicit finger
pointing prompt).

Skills Trace Analyses:
 If there is discrepancy in the scope and sequence
of skills instruction across programs, consider the
following:
 Avoid layering the programs on top of each other, especially

for struggling readers.
 Add pre-teaching and re-teaching lessons from the extra
support handbooks to the core instruction.
 If the intervention or supplemental program is considerably
stronger than the core, replace part of the core instructional
content with the specific big ideas addressed by the
supplemental/intervention program.*
 Use data to evaluate decisions (e.g., Summary of
Effectiveness Reports, Histogram Reports).


model.

90-Minute Block
 CORE
 CORE + SUPPLEMENT
 CORE + INTERVENTION
 INTERVENTION
 INTERVENTION + SUPPLEMENT

Factors to Consider:
 Matching Students to Programs

 Supplementing vs. Supplanting
 Program Pacing
 Allocating Additional Instructional Time
 Assessing Students’ Progress
 Coordinating Programs Across Grades

Matching Students to Programs
 Use DIBELS data to guide decision

making.
 Avoid the “Road to Nowhere”:
“We know where we’re going, but we don’t

know where we’ve been . . .”
(Talking Heads, Road to Nowhere)

Matching Students to Programs: Example
 Problem: School A has just purchased

Read Well K and is trying to set up their
kindergarten program for 2004-2005.
Which students will participate in Read
Well K?

 School A: 2003-2004 Summary of Effectiveness Reports
 Beginning of K Middle of Year

 N = 60 # Established
 32 Intensive Students 5
 22 Strategic Students 5
 6 Benchmark Students 4
 Middle of K End of Year

 n = 56 # Established
 21 Intensive Students 9
 24 Strategic Students 22
 11 Benchmark Students 10

 Is it necessary for all kindergarten

students to participate in Read Well K?
 Which students are benefiting from the
core program?
 Which students failed to make adequate
progress in the core program and
require an intervention?

 “The consequences of providing extra
intervention are considered far less risky
than a wait-and-see position that withholds
opportunity for additional instruction until
students are seriously discrepant from their
peers.”
 Oregon Reading First Grant Application, 2002

Supplementing vs. Supplanting
Factors to Consider:
1. Overall Strength of Core Program
2. Which Essential Components Does the
Intervention Program Teach? What are
the Outcomes?
3. Grade Level of Students: Kindergarten
vs. Grade 3

1. Overall Strength of the Core Program
 Is the program a top tier or a middle tier

program?
 Within the top tier programs, consider level of
intensity (e.g., spiral curriculum vs. mastery
based)
 Determine if fidelity of implementation is at a
high and effective level.

Overall Strength of Core Program: Example
School B:
Core Program: Middle tier
Benchmark Status on PSF at End of
Kindergarten 2003-2004:
n = 51
Deficit: 22%
Emerging: 37%
Established: 41%

School C:
Core Program: Top tier - high intensity
n = 67
Deficit: 6%
Emerging: 15%
Established: 79%

School D:
Core Program: Top tier - high intensity
n = 102
Deficit: 1%
Emerging: 5%
Established: 94%

Overall Strength of Core Program
 Some core programs have the necessary intensity to

meet the full range of student needs which includes:
(a) grouping by instructional level, (b) continual
monitoring for mastery and regrouping, (c)
acceleration for some students and remediation for
others, and (d) implementing the program with high
fidelity.
 Other core programs lack the architecture. May

require use of more supplemental and intervention
programs to meet the needs of the full range of
students.

2. Which essential components does the intervention
program teach? What are the outcomes?
Example 1: ERI
Designed for at-risk kindergarten students
Essential Components: PA, Phonics
Outcomes: • Initial Sound Isolation (25+ sounds per min)
• Phoneme Segmentation (35+ sounds per min)
• Alphabetic Understanding (as measured by NWF - 50+ sounds per min)
• Oral Reading Fluency - Students exiting the program typically do not
read 40-60 cwpm on first grade
passages. Text is very controlled in ERI. Students need
additional instruction to reach that oral reading fluency
benchmark.

Example 1: ERI
 Is the intervention appropriate for kindergarten students?
Yes, ERI outcomes match or exceed kindergarten
benchmarks.
• Is the intervention appropriate for first grade students?
Only for those very low performers to establish PA and AU
with the understanding that acceleration is important to
allow students to transition into a first grade program that
would build skills necessary for students to meet the ORF
goal at the end of first grade.
• Is the intervention appropriate for second grade students?
No

Which essential components does the intervention
Example 2: Read Well
Designed for students in first grade
Essential Components: PA, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, Comprehension
Outcomes: • Phonemic Awareness
• Letter-Sounds
• Blending
• Irregular Words
• Multi-syllable Words
• Decodable Passage Reading
• Multiple Genres
• Story Elements
• Story Mapping
* Students who exit the program at Unit 38 are reading 80-100 cwpm.
* ~ 2.5 basal level
* narrative and expository text

Example 2: Read Well
 Is the intervention appropriate for kindergarten students?
Read Well K now available for kindergarten students.
• Is the intervention appropriate for first grade students?
Yes
• Is the intervention appropriate for second grade students?
Yes- remedial*
• Is the intervention appropriate for third graders?
Yes - remedial*
* Note that the program allows students to progress through each

unit at a pace appropriate for them:
Condensed Unit - 2 days
Expanded Unit - 6-8 days
Regular Unit - 3 days

Which essential components does the intervention
 Consider intervention program content and outcomes when
deciding whether to supplement or supplant the core.
 If an intervention program only teaches 1 or 2 essential
components, it may work best to use the program as a
supplement to the core.*
 If the intervention program is comprehensive and teaches all
5 essential components, then supplanting the core would
make sense. Note that this would be the case only for those
students who did not benefit from the core program.
* Note that in some cases it may be necessary to supplant the core with an
intervention that only teaches 1 or 2 essential components if the alignment is
completely off or resources are limited.

3. Grade Level of Students
 If the students are in grades K or 1 . . .
 Then we have less to teach to catch the
students up. It makes sense to address all 5
essential components in our overall
instructional plan.
 The core program in K and 1 will be more
forgiving for these students. It may be that
we can work to enhance and supplement the
core for most students.

Program Grades Essential Supplant Rationale
Components Core?
Phonemic Awareness K-1 PA No This program only teaches 1 of the

in Young Children essential components. Use to
supplement PA instruction in core
program following alignment
guidelines.
ERI K PA, Phonics No This program only teaches 2 of the

essential components. In the original
research studies, this program was
Kindergarten always used in addition to instruction
in the core program.
Scenarios
Read Well K K PA, Phonics, Yes This program teaches all of the
Vocab, Comp essential components appropriate for
K. Will want to supplant only for those
student who did not benefit from the
core.
Language for Learning K-2 Vocab No This program only teaches 1 of the
essential components. If resources
are limited and must choose between
Read Aloud from core vs. Lang. for
Learning, will want to choose more
intensive instruction for the students
who are struggling.
Grade Level of Students
 If the students are in grades 2 or 3 . . .
 It is difficult to catch students up. May need to focus on decoding
and fluency. Allocate the majority of instructional time to these
areas.
 Supplant with intervention program from week 1 of instruction.
 Accelerate students’ progress by providing double dose of the
intervention program in the afternoon.
 Sample interventions include:
Corrective Reading: Decoding
Reading Mastery I, II, Fast Cycle, and III

Program Pacing /
Allocating Additional Instructional Time
 Time allocated to program
 Utilizing time within 90-minute block
 Utilizing time outside of 90-minute block

Program Pacing:
Time Allocated to Program
 Completing at least one lesson a day is essential.
 In many programs, the pieces of the lesson are
designed to work together and should not be divided
up over a period of two or more days.
 For example, each ERI lesson has two parts: (1) PA/AU and
(2) Spelling/Writing. The Spelling/Writing portion of the
lesson was designed to compliment and build on the new
skills introduced in the first part of the lesson.
 For example, Corrective Reading: Decoding Level B1 and
B2 have a series of activities designed to teach preskills
necessary for daily passage reading - sounds practice, word
reading. Also, passage reading has follow-up activities
(comprehension and reading checkouts) that work best
when presented on the same day of the passage reading.
Program Pacing:
Time Allocated to Program
 Follow Program Guidelines for Pacing:
 FOR EXAMPLE:
• ERI - 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week
• Corrective Reading: Decoding Level A- minimum of

35 teacher-directed minutes daily
• Corrective Reading: Decoding Levels B1/B2 -

minimum of 45 teacher-directed minutes daily
• Read Naturally - 20 minutes, at least 3 days a week

Program Pacing: Time Allocated to Program
 Make projections for lesson completion
 For example: School E has placed 15 intensive second grade students in Reading
Mastery Classic Fast Cycle. The students all placed in the program at lesson 1 at the
beginning of the year. (Groups started the third week in September.) If students
complete one lesson a day, they will be approximately at lesson 63 upon returning from
Winter Break. Fast Cycle has 170 lessons. Students enter in to beginning second grade
material at lesson 81 so should be at least that far in the program mid-year. If the goal is
for these second graders to finish Fast Cycle by the end of the school year, School E will
need to adjust instructional time to allow for more lesson completion.
 What can School E do to increase instructional time for these intensive second graders?

Program Pacing:
Utilizing time within 90-minute block
 Golden Rule: Maximize academic learning time of
students
 Academic Learning Time = Time children are engaged in
tasks in which they can be highly successful.
 If students require intensive interventions, use the time
during the 90-minute block to provide these interventions.
 If students are spending part of their 90-minute block
completing independent work, consider pulling students
from these independent work activities for more intensive,
teacher-directed instruction (e.g., Could ELL, Title, or
SPED specialists work with students at this time?
Instructional Assistants? Peer tutors? Parent volunteers?)

Program Pacing:
Utilizing time outside of 90-minute block
 Additional time needs to be allocated for

students who are not making adequate
progress.
 These additional instructional minutes are

often provided outside of the 90-minute
block.

“Double-Dosing” Instruction
 Once placed in a strong instructional program,
students most often need MORE NOT DIFFERENT.
 Schedule your double dose keeping “MORE” in mind.
 Some double-dose options include:
• Firming up the morning’s lesson
• Moving on to the next lesson

Lesson Firm Up
 Does NOT mean instructor needs to repeat exact lesson from
the morning.
 Identify areas where students struggled (e.g., letter-sound
knowledge, regular word reading, irregular words, reading in
connected text, fluency, comprehension questions, vocabulary)
 Be more specific (e.g., students were not firm on letter sounds
for a, n, r, t; students had difficulty reading words with the final e
rule; students did not know irregular words brother, where,
people; students did not meet 60 cwpm goal for fluency
checkouts; students had difficulty sequencing important events in
the story; students could not successfully use the 5 new
vocabulary words in their own speaking and writing.)

Lesson Firm Up
To firm up areas of student difficulty:
1. Use materials from the morning’s

lesson in a new way; or
2. Use some quick teacher-created

materials.

Lesson Firm Up
For example:
• Highlighters: circle, underline
• Pocket Chart Cards
• Pointy Fingers
• Halloween Rings
• Game Boards/Cards
• Dictation
(from Marilyn Sprick’s “Tweaking Read Well”)

Lesson Firm Up
Other ideas include:
 Redoing a sounds/words page with the added incentive of earning points.
 Fluency practice - Students take turns going around the table each reading one sentence from
the morning’s passage. Emphasis is on accuracy. Once the group meets goal for accuracy
(e.g., no more than 3 total errors for whole story), then students pair up for timed readings.
 Reading Olympics -
 Warm-up
 Sprints
 And the list goes on . . .

What about after-school tutoring
programs?
 Same rules apply here.
 Think “MORE NOT DIFFERENT”

Program Pacing / Allocating Additional
Instructional Time:
THINK PAIR SHARE
 Scenario: School F has recently purchased

Corrective Reading A, B1, and B2 for
intensive 3rd graders. The school has
allocated a total of 30 minutes per day outside of
the 90-minute block to implement this program.
Does this provide students with the necessary
academic learning time? What adjustments in
the schedule are necessary?

Assessing Students’ Progress
 Always keep your eyes on the DIBELS!
 DIBELS measures reliably identify and predict a student’s later
reading proficiency in a time efficient and standardized manner
 Once students are identified as being at risk, an intervention is
put into action. Educators need to have timely feedback to
ensure that the efforts are beneficial.
 DIBELS as a progress monitoring assessment provides
educators with information on students who are on track or
require more intensive instruction.

Assessing Students’ Progress:
Where do in-program tests fit in?
In-Program Tests tell us:
• Once an intervention program is selected, in-program tests can identify: (a)
what lesson the student should begin at, and (b) how the student should be
grouped.
• Is the student at mastery at this point of time in this specific program?
• What skills does the student need additional practice on before moving forward?
• Does the student need to go back and repeat a series of lessons?
• Does the student need to be regrouped?
• When can the student exit from this program?

How Do DIBELS and
In-Program Tests Work Together?
 DIBELS will identify a student’s instructional recommendation:
benchmark, strategic, intensive.
 Use DIBELS recommendations for identifying those students who will
receive additional support (strategic, intensive).
 Identify supplemental and intervention programs that will meet the
needs of these students.
 Once the program(s) have been identified, use in-program tests for
placement, grouping, and to inform instruction within the program.
 Use DIBELS as an overall indicator of strength of the intervention
program. Is the student making reasonable progress toward the next
critical literacy benchmark? What if the student is performing strongly
in the program, but is not making necessary gains toward the next
benchmark?

Instructional Enhancements
Alterable
Comp onents Speci fic E nhancemen ts
Op tions 1 2 3 4 5
Use co re Use Supp lement Replace Imp lement
Increasing Intensity
program & exten sions of core wi th current co re spec ially
Program explicitl y the core reteach ing or program wi th designed
Em phas is teach p riority program interven tion interven tion program
skills. (e.g., add componen ts program.
examp les) of core.
Schedu le & Increase Schedu le Schedu le
deliv er 90 oppo rtunities core + two
minute s of to respond supp lemen tal interven tion
Time
daily read ing during core period daily. sessions
(Op portunities to
instruction instruction. (90 + 30 or daily (no less
Learn)
(minimum 30 60 + 30) than 90
minute s minute s
sma ll group ). tota l)
Check group Schedu le Reduce Provide
placemen t & sma ll group group size indivi dua l
provide oppo rtunity instruction
Grouping for
comb ination for spec ifi c
Instruction
of whole & practice
sma ll group
instruction.
Increasing Intensity

Coordinating Programs Across Grades
Elements of a Coordinated Beginning Reading Model:
1. Program alignment within a grade for benchmark,

strategic, and intensive students.
2. Coordination of services provided by regular

education, specialists, IA’s, etc.
3. Coordination of programs across grade levels.

Summary of Effectiveness of Core, Strategic, and Intensive Programs:
Oregon Reading First Projectwide Data
Spring, 2004
Effectiveness of Effectiveness of
Effectiveness Of
Strategic Support Intensive Support
Core Curriculum
Program Program
K 731/791 554/771 243/595
92% 72% 41%
Grade 1 647/692 263/716 28/778
94% 37% 4%
Grade 2 775/843 75/292 9/994
92% 26% 1%
Grade 3 622/725 114/517 17/879
86% 22% 2%

K 1 2 3
Benchmark Houghton-Mifflin Houghton-Mifflin Houghton-Mifflin Houghton-Mifflin

+ enhance + enhance + enhance
vocab/comp with vocab/comp with vocab/comp with
IBR strategies IBR strategies IBR strategies
Strategic High: HM + High: HM (see High: HM High: HM

Classroom above) + (see above) + (see above) +
Management/ Classroom Classroom Classroom
Extra Support Management/ Management/ Management/
Handbooks Extra Support Extra Support Extra Support
Handbooks Handbooks Handbooks
Read Naturally Read Naturally Read Naturally
Low: HM + ERI Low: Horizons Low: Horizons Low: Horizons
Intensive HM + ERI HM + ERI

Reading Mastery Reading Mastery Reading Mastery
Classic Classic Classic

Coordinating Programs Across Grades:
A Nonexample
K 1 2 3
Benchmark Houghton Mifflin Houghton Mifflin Houghton Mifflin Houghton Mifflin
Strategic Read Naturally Read Naturally Read Naturally

Headsprout Headsprout
Build Up Kit Build Up Kit Build Up Kit
Intensive ERI ERI

Reading Mastery Reading Mastery Reading Mastery
Classic - SPED Classic - SPED Classic - SPED
Language for Language for Language for
Learning - SPED Learning - SPED Learning - SPED
Headsprout Headsprout
Build Up Kit Build Up Kit Build Up Kit

Breakout Activity:
• In school level teams, complete the
“Coordinating Programs Across Grades”
flowchart using your Summary of CSI Maps as a
guide.
 Examine consistency of instruction across grade
levels for (a) strategic students, and (b) intensive
students.
 Discuss implications and potential areas for
change.
Let’s Collaborate
 Over break, collect strips to represent each core,
supplemental, and intervention program included on your
school’s CSI Map.
 Tape strips to a piece of butcher paper, starting with the
core program on top, then supplemental programs, then
intervention programs. Be sure to write your school’s
name on the top of the paper.
 Display your school’s completed chart so all can see.
 After break, look for those schools who have similar
combinations of core, supplemental, and intervention
programs.
 Get together with those schools to share implementation
ideas.


model.

Progress of Groups of Students: Instructional Steps
from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes
The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b)
effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system
of additional instructional support.
Evaluating Levels of Instructional
Support
 Use the following DIBELS reports to examine students’

progress:
 Summary of Effectiveness Reports
 Histograms
 Class Lists
 Examine reports to determine progress of groups of

students and individual students

Kindergarten
Time Fall Winter Spring
Question A. How many A. How successful is my instruction in

benchmark, strategic, helping benchmark, strategic, and intensive
and intensive students reach phonological awareness
students are in my goals?
classroom? B. How effective are instructional programs
B. Who are the at reducing the numbers of students at risk
benchmark, strategic, in phonological awareness?
and intensive C. Is instruction improving the phonological
students? awareness skills of the majority of students?
D. Who are the benchmark, strategic, and
intensive students?
Report A. Histogram A. Summary of Effectiveness Reports

B. Class Lists B. Histograms
C. Class Lists

First Grade

and intensive students reach decoding and oral reading
students are in my fluency goals?
classroom? B. How effective are the instructional
B. Who are the programs at reducing the numbers of
benchmark, strategic, students at risk on decoding and oral
and intensive reading fluency scores?
students? C. Is instruction improving the decoding
skills and oral reading fluency of the
majority of students?
intensive students?

C. Class Lists

Second Grade

benchmark, strategic,
and intensive students
helping benchmark, strategic, and intensive
are in my classroom? students reach oral reading fluency goals?
B. Who are the B. How effective are the instructional
benchmark, strategic, programs at reducing the numbers of
and intensive students? students at risk in oral reading fluency?
C. Is instructional support improving the oral
reading fluency of the majority of students?
intensive students?

C. Class Lists

Third Grade

and intensive students reach oral reading fluency goals?
students are in my
B. How effective are instructional programs
classroom?
at reducing the numbers of students at risk
B. Who are the in oral reading fluency?
benchmark, strategic,
C. Is instruction improving the oral reading
and intensive
fluency of the majority of students?
students?
intensive students?

C. Class Lists

Summary of Effectiveness Reports
 Questions answered by the report
 How effective is my instruction for benchmark, strategic, and
intensive students?
 How to use the report
 Document percentage of students at the three levels of
instructional support that meets benchmark goals.
 Cautionary note
 Remember to look at the actual number of students in each
category as you consider making changes at the student level
or the systems level.

Effectiveness of Intensive Support Program:
Grade 1 Fall to Winter
 Although the percentage of students
meeting the benchmark goal is the same
Numbers of Percent
in each school, differences in the number Intensive
of students influence implications. Students
 Implications for School A:
1) Core, supplemental, and intensive
programs are not being successful with a
large percentage of students and
significant change is warranted.
School A 9/90 10%
(Grade 1 Out of 90
Intervention program for intensive intensive
2)
students is not resulting in a sufficient Total students in the
number of children reaching benchmark Students = fall, 9 made the
goal. Change is warranted. winter goal of 50
103) on NWF.
• Implications for School B:
1) Reading programs are resulting in a high
percentage of students reaching
School B 1/10 10%
benchmark goal. (Grade 1 Out of 10
intensive
2) Focus on improving the number and Total students in the
percentage of intensive students who Students = fall, 1 made the
meet benchmark goal by addressing winter goal of 50
alterable variables chart. 103) on NWF.

Effectiveness of Core Curriculum: Grade 3
Winter to Spring
 Although the percentage of Numbers of Percent
students meeting the benchmark BenchmarkSt
goal is the same in each school,
differences in the number of udents
students influence implications.
School C 9/9 100%
 School C needs to consider Out of ONLY 9
systemic changes to increase the (Total benchmark
number of students who reach Grade 3 students in the
benchmark status in the winter of students = winter, all 9 made
Grade 3 (9 of 78). it to the 120 ORF
78) goal in the spring.
 School D can celebrate the high
number of students who reach
benchmark status in the winter of School D 58/ 58 100%
Grade 3, and who remained on
track to the spring of Grade 3 (58 (Total Out of 58
benchmark
of 78). Grade 3 students in the
students = winter all 58 made
78) it to the 120 ORF
goal in the spring.

Summary of Effectiveness of Core, Strategic and Intensive
Programs: Oregon RF Schools (Winter to Spring)
Students Reaching Benchmark Goal
Strategic:
Benchmark: Intensive:
Effectiveness of
Effectiveness of Effectiveness of
Supplemental
Core Curriculum Intervention Program
Program
K 731/791 554/771 243/595
92% 72% 41%
Grade 1 647/692 263/716 28/778
94% 37% 4%
Grade 2 775/843 75/292 9/994
92% 26% 1%
Grade 3 622/725 114/517 17/879
86% 22% 2%

Breakout Activity – Summary of
Effectiveness Reports
 Examine your grade level summary of
effectiveness report from last spring.
 In your grade level teams discuss what

changes are being made this year in the
instructional plan to increase the number of
intensive students making the benchmark
goal.

Histogram Reports
 At this point in time, how well are students performing
on a key reading measure?
 Note the percentage of students who have reached a
key reading goal or the percentage of students at the
three levels of risk. Histograms at different points in
time provide evidence for how well reading programs
are working to reduce risk.
 Cautionary note
 Each report includes one individual measure. While all
measures are crucial stepping stones, focus on the
measure that is used for the benchmark goal at that
time period.

Oregon Reading First
Mid Year Grade 1 NWF
32% (n= 789) Established

41% (n= 991) Emerging
27% (n= 653) Deficit
Oregon Reading First
End of Year Grade 1 NWF
61% (n= 1397) Established

29% (n= 658) Emerging
1O% (n= 221) Deficit
Breakout Activity- Histogram Reports
 Based on your fall histogram reports, what
percentage of students are in each of the three
levels of risk?
 How is your grade level team going to use these
data when planning instructional groups and the
allocation of personnel to teach the groups?
 Do additional personnel need to be trained in
supplemental and intervention programs to serve
the numbers of at risk students?

Progress Monitoring Reports
 Are individual students making adequate progress on critical
early literacy skills?
 Monitor the effectiveness of current interventions and the
need for change in the instructional plan.
 Three points below the aim line indicates that an
instructional change is needed.
 Cautionary note
 Setting appropriate goals for individual students can be
complex. Need to set attainable goals that also encourage
an accelerated learning rate so the student can catch up.
Progress Monitoring: The Teacher’s Map
A change in intervention
60
50
40
Aimline
30
20
10
Dec. Jan. Feb. M arc h A p r il M ay June

S c o re s S c o re s S c o re s S c o re s S c o re s S c o re s S c o re s

Assesment in Kindergarten

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assesment in Kindergarten

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementing and Evaluating the

Schoolwide Beginning Reading Model:

Aligning Reading Programs to Meet

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 3

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004

Oregon Reading First, 2002

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 5

Goal and Challenge

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 6

 The objectives of today’s session are to:

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 7

Instructional Recommendations Are Based on

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 8

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 9

A class list provides a report of children’s performance on all measures

Sam 22 10 Emerging 3 1 At risk 5 5 At risk Intensive

Jill 19 9 Emerging 14 8 At risk 13 20 Some risk Strategic

Susan 47 58 Established 5 2 At risk 14 20 Some risk Strategic

Ken 67 95 Established 31 38 Some 19 26 Some risk Strategic

Kim 40 36 Established 46 75 Low risk 27 49 Low risk Benchmark

Jose 41 39 Established 44 70 Low risk 58 90 Low risk Benchmark

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 10

Classifying Reading Programs

Core Supplemental Intervention

Addressing the needs of most students. . .

 Progress Monitoring: Three times per

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 13

One Size Does

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004

 Differentiated Instruction Aligned With

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004

 Progress Monitoring: Monthly

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 18

 Progress Monitoring: Every 2 weeks

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 20

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 21

GroupS ize: GroupS ize:

strategic: Who: Who: Who:

GroupS ize: GroupS ize:

intensive: Who: Who: Who:

GroupS ize: GroupS ize:

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 23

Indeed, we often feel we have not

In some ways, we feel we are as confused

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 24

 Read Well  Open Court

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 25

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 26

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 27

2. Is the scope and sequence for introducing each

3. Do the programs utilize similar instructional

4. Is the amount of instructional content students

For each supplemental and intervention program your grade

 What essential component(s) does the program teach?

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 29

 Analyze the architecture of the core,

 Keep the struggling readers in mind when

 Be careful not to layer conflicting programs on

Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 30

Whole Word Reading

Sight Word Reading

Automatic Word Reading