B-ELL Leadership Professional Development Oregon Reading First October 2 nd, 2008 University of Oregon © 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center.
Post on 17-Dec-2015
212 Views
Preview:
Transcript
B-ELL Leadership Professional Development
Oregon Reading FirstOctober 2nd, 2008
University of Oregon
© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First CenterCenter on Teaching and Learning
Overview Celebrations Critical features of effective instruction Principal Walk Throughs Focus Groups Templates/Lesson Maps BELL Report Fall Leadership Webinar
Critical Features of Effective Instruction1. Instructor models instructional tasks when
appropriate.2. Lead3. Test4. Instructor provides explicit instruction.5. Instructor engages students in meaningful
interactions with language.
Continued6. Instructor provides multiple opportunities
for students to practice.7. Instructor provides corrective feedback
after initial student responses.8. Instructor encourages student effort.9. Students are engaged in the lesson during
teacher-led instruction.
Continued10. Students are engaged in the lesson
during independent work.11. Students are successful completing
activities at a high criterion level of performance.
12. Unison responses13. Behavior Management Support
Walk Throughs During Reading Instruction Have a purpose/goal for conducting
observations Have an established format/routine Walk throughs are more effective
conducted as a team Walk throughs are more effective when
teachers are given immediate verbal feedback
What is the next best thing?
Continued Take Spanish literacy coach with you when
observing Spanish reading instruction Remember that critical features of effective
instruction also pertain to Spanish Reading Instruction
Focus on student responses Opportunities to respond Correct student responses Error corrections Re-teaching concepts
Walk Through Feedback How is this done? What is the most effective way? How do you keep track of polishers? What follow up/support is given to
teachers? Are polishers tied to data? How often should walk throughs be
conducted?
Planning Differentiated Planning Differentiated Instructional Focus GroupsInstructional Focus Groups
Instructional Focus Number of Students in this Focus Group:
Assessment Plan:
Assessment:
Frequency (How often will you administer
this assessment?)
Criteria (List passing criteria for the specific assessment, ie, 80% mastery on in-
program assessments.)
In-Program Assessments
Select: Theme Skills Theme Skills plus Mastery checkouts Unit Test Unit Test plus Mastery checkouts Mastery Test Mastery Checkouts
DIBELS progress monitoring
NWF with Recoding ORF
Once a Month Once a Trimester
DIBELS Monthly Goals (refer to Table)
Other (i.e., Language for Learning)
Instructional Plan:
Whole Group Instruction: Start Time: End Time: Total # of Minutes: Start Time: End Time: Total # of Minutes: # Days/Week: Who will instruct the Whole Group?: What materials will be used during Whole Group instruction (make a list of specific components/activities)?
Core Program Materials Supplemental Program Materials Intervention Program Materials
Independent Practice: Total # of Minutes/Student: What materials will be used for independent practice (make a list of specific program components/activities)?
Core Program Materials Supplemental Program Materials Intervention Program Materials
Instructional Focus (page 2) Small Group-Dose # : What is the small group plan?
Instructor’s Name:
Group Size: List Student Names:
Within 90 min?
Outside 90 min?
Start Time
End Time
Total # of
Minutes #Days/Week
What materials will be used during this Small Group instruction (list components/activities)? Core Program Materials Supplemental Program Materials Intervention Program Materials
Small Group-Dose # : What is the small group plan?
Instructor’s Name:
Group Size: List Student Names:
Within 90 min?
Outside 90 min?
Start Time
End Time
Total # of
Minutes #Days/Week
What materials will be used during this Small Group instruction (list components/activities)? Core Program Materials Supplemental Program Materials Intervention Program Materials
When will the Grade Level Team revisit this Instructional Plan?
Instructional Focus #1 Description:Students who significantly exceed grade level Benchmarks
based on DIBELS and pass all sections of the Unit/Theme Skills Assessments.
Instructional Focus: Reading material at student’s instructional level, mastery of critical skills at student’s instructional level, strategies from student’s instructional level, advanced vocabulary when appropriate.
High benchmark students will benefit from systematic grade level Core instruction (particularly explicit vocabulary and comprehension instruction) in addition to coordinated and well-planned enrichment reading activities.
Do not remove your students from the grade-level core program!!
Recommended Criteria for Recommended Criteria for Identification of “High” Identification of “High” Benchmark StudentsBenchmark StudentsThe High Benchmark Student has achieved the following data
goals: met the end-of-year DIBELS benchmark goal for their
grade level. passed grade-level sections of a Phonics Screener. passed all previous Unit/Theme Skills Assessments. consistent high performance throughout their years in
school.You may also want to consider: parent input supporting a “high” benchmark status. appropriate classroom behavior skills.
Instructional Focus #2 Description:Students who have been classified with a Benchmark
Instructional Recommendation based on DIBELS and pass all sections of the Unit/Theme Skills Assessments.
Instructional Focus: Mastery of grade-level core program.
Theme Skills AssessmentsTheme Skills AssessmentsDate of Test: October 14, 2008 Small Groups, Whole or Individual:HM Level (theme): 1 Off to Adventure Group Level (strategic, benchmark): benchmark
A B C D E F G I
Sequence of Events
Making Inferences
Cause and
Effect
Information and Study
SkillsBase Words Syllabication
Inflected Endings Vocabulary
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10Alexandra 2 2 2 3 4 0 3 4 44%Avria 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 78%Jennifer 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 84%Andrew 4 4 3 5 0 4 5 8 73%Samuel 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 9 93%Trevor 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 8 84%Macaila 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 82%Jeremy 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 6 78%Joyce 5 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 76%Julissa 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 82%Elena 3 4 3 3 1 3 4 7 62%Emily 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 76%Natsumi 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 6 82%Anh-Kenny 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 6 78%Alec 4 3 3 5 5 5 4 8 82%Justin 4 5 3 4 4 3 4 0 60%Dasha 3 5 3 3 4 5 4 6 73%Angelina 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 82%Brandon 5 3 3 5 5 4 5 7 82%Faith 4 5 3 5 5 5 0 6 73%Francisco 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 84%
Total % Correct 83% 86% 77% 88% 85% 83% 79% 55%
PassNo Pass
Third Grade Theme Test Results
Instructional Focus #3 Description:Students who have been classified with a Benchmark
Instructional Recommendation based on DIBELS and fail one or more sections of the Unit/Theme Skills Assessments.
Instructional Focus: Additional explicitness and practice (pre-teaching and re-teaching) to achieve mastery of grade level Core program.
Instructional Focus #4 Description:Students who have been classified with a Strategic
Instructional Recommendation based on DIBELS and pass all sections of the Phonics/Decoding Screening Assessment.
Instructional Focus: Mastery of grade level Core program with explicit small group fluency, vocabulary and comprehension instruction and practice opportunities.
Using Data to Develop Using Data to Develop Instructional Plans: Phonics Instructional Plans: Phonics ScreenersScreeners
Phonics screening tools are used to identify students’ phonics gaps to better target instruction.
Example: Houghton Mifflin Phonics Decoding Screener
Short Vowels in CVC Words Score sip cat let but hog (real) vop fut dit keb laz (pseudo) /10
Task
5A Comments:
Short Vowels, digraphs, and -tch trigraph Score when chop rich shut match (real) wheck shom thax phitch chud (pseudo) /10
Task
5B Comments:
Consonant blends with short vowels Score stop trap quit spell plan (real) stig brab qued snop dran (pseudo) clip fast sank limp held (real) frep nast wunk kimp jelt (pseudo) /20
Task
5C Comments:
Long-Vowel Spellings Score tape key lute paid feet (real) loe bine joad vay soat (pseudo) /10
Task
5D Comments:
r- and l-Controlled Vowels Score bark horn chirp term cold (real) ferm dall gorf murd char (pseudo) /10
Task
5E Comments:
Instructional Focus #5 Description:Students who have been classified with a Strategic
Instructional Recommendation based on DIBELS and fail one or more sections of the Phonics/Decoding Screening Assessment.
Instructional Focus: Additional explicitness and practice (pre-teaching and re-teaching) to achieve mastery of grade level Core program and explicit small group instruction to re-teach critical deficient decoding skills. Include extra practice to become fluent with the skills once they have been mastered.
Lesson Plans: HM Power Phonics Lessons (For Students who failed HM Phonics Screener Task 5A)
Day:
Phonemic Awareness Warm-Up
Templates 5 or 6
Teach Sound/Spelling
Template 7 Blending Practice
Template 8
Word Reading Regular and
Irregular Template 3
Apply to Decodable Text
Templates 11, 12, 13, 14 Dictation
Lines of Practice (or)
Fluency Practice (1 minute) (2 minutes) (2 minutes) (2 minutes) (15 minutes) (8 minutes) (8 minutes)
Target Skill: Short Vowel a and CVC Blends
Day 1
Card 5 m/a/d f/i/g n/u/t b/e/t t/e/n f/u/n p/a/n s/i/p
Sound/Spelling Card : short a t b n h v c s m r t b n t b n h
sat, sap, Sam, ham bat, tab, van, rat mat, sad, nag, hat
Regular: (same as blending words) Irregular: to, see, I, my my, like, see, to
Phonics Library: Kinder - T5W1D2 Nat, Pat, and Nan
Lines of Practice
Day 2
Card 5 d/o/g c/a/t f/r/o/g h/a/t f/i/n b/e/t b/i/g c/a/b
Sound/Spelling Card : short a p c v h n b t p m s r p c p v h
pat, tap, Nan, van pan, sat, mat, hat bat, mat, vat, cat
Regular: (same as blending words) Irregular: go, and, to, like and, I, see, my like, go, and, to
Phonics Library: Kinder - T5W2D3 Go, Cat!
short a pat tap cat bat pan Nan van
Day 3
Card 5 s/a/m r/a/p p/a/n h/o/t s/i/p m/e s/u/n l/u/v
Sound/Spelling Card : short a g p c v h n b t r s m g p s r g
sag, mat, rat, pat vat, Nat, bat, at hat, ham, sat, bag
Regular: (same as blending words) Irregular: go, I, see, and and, to, like, my my, I, and, go
Phonics Library: Kinder - T5W3D3 Pat and Nan
short a mat pat Nat bat ham bag sag
Kinder HM
Theme 5 Mastery
Assessment
Assess Blending: /h/ /a/ /t/ (hat) /m/ /e/ /n/ (men) /t/ /o/ /p/ (top)
Assess Sounds: /s/ /m/ /r/ /a/ /t/ /b/ /n/ /h/ /v/ /c/ /p/ /g/ /f/
Assess Words: fan pat tag can sag
Assess Words: I see like my to and go
Assessment Notes: 1. Individually assess each student for mastery of skills. 2. Students must read the regular words the fast way
(recoded). 3. If students have not mastered these skills, repeat
Days 1-3 one time and then reassess for mastery. If they fail this assessment a second time, change their instruction.
Instructional Focus #6 Description:Students who have been classified with an Intensive
Instructional Recommendation based on DIBELS
Instructional Focus: Explicit small group instruction to master basic phonemic blending and segmenting, letter/sound associations, basic blending and decoding skills. They will also need vocabulary and comprehension instruction. Include extra practice to become fluent with
the skills once they have been mastered.
Templates Overview/Critical Features Big Ideas When Teaching Templates (1-11) Model, Lead, Test (MLT) One of the best ways to ensure student success is
for teachers to instruct using the MLT format. Why is this important? The MLT format helps students to receive appropriate scaffolding support, before attempting to provide a response to a given stimulus. Students are given an opportunity to hear, practice, and understand new concepts/skills before ultimately providing individual responses.
Continued Clear and Consistent Signal Always remember to use a clear and consistent
signal when instructing. Why is this important? Providing a clear and consistent signal elicits timely responses from students. When signals are inconsistent or altered, students have a difficult time discriminating between when to respond or when to attend to the teacher’s instruction/directions. A clear and consistent signal allows students to focus on concepts and not on irrelevant features.
Continued Error Corrections Everyone needs feedback! It is so much easier to
correct errors as soon as they occur than waiting for prolong periods of time before correcting errors. The more we wait, the longer it will take to correct. Errors should be corrected immediately, swiftly, and with limited teacher talk. Why is this important? This is important because students should always practice academic skills correctly, teachers should always keep in mind to maintain a good pace while teaching (students are more likely to stay on task), and limiting teacher talk ensures more time devoted to teaching and student learning.
Continued Big Ideas When Teaching Templates (12-
17) Teaching fluency “big ideas” Teaching vocabulary “big ideas” Teaching comprehension “big ideas”
B-ELL Report Grade K Students Who Made Adequate Progress on DIBELS/IDEL Measures
Fall to Spring 06-07 & 07-08, by School: Oregon RF Cohort B ELL
59.5
81.8
59.3
38.1
60.6
52.6
18.2
54.557.1
97.1
61.9
52.4
80.0
95.0
37.5
64.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(n=37) (n=35) (n=44) (n=35) (n=27) (n=21) (n=21) (n=21) (n=33) (n=20) (n=19) (n=20) (n=11) (n=16) (n=11) (n=17)
NWF FPS NWF FPS NWF FPS NWF FPS
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School and Assessment
Pe
rce
nt
of
Stu
de
nts
Ma
kin
g A
de
qu
ate
Pro
gre
ss
Adequate Progress 06-07 % Adequate Progress 07-08 %
Figure 1-
Grade 1 Students Who Made Adequate Progress on DIBELS/IDEL MeasuresFall to Spring 06-07 & 07-08, by School: Oregon RF Cohort B ELL
74.2
84.4
50.0
56.5
47.6
42.9 41.7
66.764.3
79.1
40.0
50.0
76.5
70.6
41.7
90.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(n=31) (n=42) (n=32) (n=43) (n=24) (n=20) (n=23) (n=20) (n=21) (n=17) (n=21) (n=17) (n=12) (n=12) (n=12) (n=11)
ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School and Assessment
Pe
rce
nt o
f S
tud
en
ts M
aki
ng
Ad
eq
uat
e P
rog
ress
Adequate Progress 06-07 % Adequate Progress 07-08 %
Figure 1-
Grade 2 Students Who Made Adequate Progress on DIBELS/IDEL MeasuresFall to Spring 06-07 & 07-08, by School: Oregon RF Cohort B ELL
26.5
60.0
65.0
85.0
66.763.6
40.0
63.3
58.8
83.3
42.1
55.0
21.4
57.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(n=34) (n=30) (n=35) (n=30) (n=20) (n=17) (n=20) (n=18) (n=21) (n=19) (n=22) (n=20) (n=na) (n=14) (n=na) (n=14)
ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School and Assessment
Pe
rce
nt
of
Stu
de
nts
Ma
kin
g A
de
qu
ate
Pro
gre
ss
Adequate Progress 06-07 % Adequate Progress 07-08 %
Figure 1-
Grade 3 Students Who Made Adequate Progress on DIBELS/IDEL MeasuresFall to Spring 06-07 & 07-08, by School: Oregon RF Cohort B ELL
48.3
57.6
81.0
59.1
43.8
11.8
57.6
29.4
95.2
50.0
60.0
36.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(n=29) (n=33) (n=33) (n=34) (n=21) (n=21) (n=22) (n=22) (n=16) (n=20) (n=17) (n=19)
ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School and Assessment
Pe
rce
nt
of
Stu
de
nts
Ma
kin
g A
de
qu
ate
Pro
gre
ss
Adequate Progress 06-07 % Adequate Progress 07-08 %
Figure 1-
Grade K Student Performance on NWF and FPS, by School: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL Spring 07 & Spring 08
43.636.1
76.6
91.9
37.9
47.6
23.1 23.8
45.7
69.2
22.7
65.4
18.225.0 27.3
61.1
17.9 36.1
4.3
5.4
27.6
23.8
15.4
33.3
25.7
19.2
22.7
19.2
9.1
25.027.3
11.1
38.5
27.819.1
2.7
34.528.6
61.5
42.9
28.6
11.5
54.5
15.4
72.7
50.045.5
27.8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(n=39) (n=36) (n=47) (n=37) (n=29) (n=21) (n=26) (n=21) (n=35) (n=26) (n=22) (n=26) (n=11) (n=16) (n=11) (n=18)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08
NWF FPS NWF FPS NWF FPS NWF FPS
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% Low Risk % Some Risk % At-Risk
Figure 2-1
Grade 1 Student Performance on ORF and FLO, by School: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL Spring 07 & Spring 08
50.0
61.9 62.567.4
18.5
28.637.0
28.6 29.2
61.9
27.3
47.6
33.3 33.3
46.7
91.7
37.5 14.3
37.523.3
33.3
28.6
25.9
33.3 29.2
14.3
22.7
19.0
6.7
33.3
33.3
8.312.5
23.8
0.0
9.3
48.142.9
37.0 38.141.7
23.8
50.0
33.3
60.0
33.3
20.0
0.0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(n=32) (n=42) (n=32) (n=43) (n=27) (n=21) (n=27) (n=21) (n=24) (n=21) (n=22) (n=21) (n=15) (n=12) (n=15) (n=12)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08
ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% Low Risk % Some Risk % At-Risk
Figure 2-2
Grade 2 Student Performance on ORF and FLO, by School: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL Spring 07 & Spring 08
18.9
38.743.2
59.4 57.1
47.4
71.4
52.6
43.536.8
33.340.0
21.4
50.010.8
12.9
35.1
28.1
9.5
5.3
14.3
26.3
30.4
21.1
45.825.0
28.6
21.470.3
48.4
21.6
12.5
33.3
47.4
14.321.1
26.1
42.1
20.8
35.0
50.0
28.6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(n=37) (n=31) (n=37) (n=32) (n=21) (n=19) (n=21) (n=19) (n=23) (n=19) (n=24) (n=20) (n=14) (n=14)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08
ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% Low Risk % Some Risk % At-Risk
Figure 2-3
Grade 3 Student Performance on ORF and FLO, by School: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL Spring 07 & Spring 08
27.632.4 32.4
17.1
39.1
66.7
39.1 40.9
25.0
40.0
11.8
26.3
34.5
35.3
44.1
48.6
34.8
28.6
30.422.7
25.0
50.0
23.5
21.1
37.932.4
23.5
34.326.1
4.8
30.436.4
50.0
10.0
64.7
52.6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(n=29) (n=34) (n=34) (n=35) (n=23) (n=21) (n=23) (n=22) (n=16) (n=20) (n=17) (n=19)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08
ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% Low Risk % Some Risk % At-Risk
Figure 2-4
Project Wide Student Performance on DIBELS and IDEL, by Grade: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL Spring 07 & Spring 08
40.445.5 47.2
65.7
33.7
51.044.8
57.7
35.8 37.3
47.651.8
30.9
44.0
29.726.3
21.9
27.3
13.2
15.7
29.6
19.8 30.2
22.7
16.0 15.7
32.9 25.9
32.4
37.3
35.134.2
37.7
27.3
39.6
18.6
36.729.2
25.019.6
48.1 47.0
19.5 22.4
36.8
18.7
35.139.5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(n=114) (n=99) (n=106) (n=102) (n=98) (n=96) (n=96) (n=97) (n=81) (n=83) (n=82) (n=85) (n=68) (n=75) (n=74) (n=76)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08
NWF FPS ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Grade | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% Low Risk % Some Risk % At-Risk
Figure 2-5
Grade K Student Performance on SAT-10 and Aprenda, by School: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL 06-07 & 07-08
29.032.4
65.1
78.4
36.0
4.813.6
10.0
30.3
54.2
16.7
29.2 30.038.9
50.0
61.1
45.2 35.1
30.2
13.5
20.0
42.9
40.9
30.0
42.4
25.0
16.7
33.3
20.0
22.2
50.022.2
25.832.4
4.78.1
44.052.4
45.5
60.0
27.320.8
66.7
37.5
50.0
38.9
0.0
16.7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(n=31) (n=37) (n=43) (n=37) (n=25) (n=21) (n=22) (n=20) (n=33) (n=24) (n=18) (n=24) (n=10) (n=18) (n=10) (n=18)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08
SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% At or Above Grade Level % Below Grade Level % Significantly Below Grade Level
Figure 3-1
Grade 1 Student Performance on SAT-10 and Aprenda, by School: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL 06-07 & 07-08
22.6 22.0
96.9 95.2
12.0 9.5
68.0
80.0
0.0
40.0
65.070.0
20.0
33.3
85.7
100.0
22.6
53.7
3.12.4
28.028.6
20.0
15.0
50.0
30.0
25.020.0
26.7
25.0
0.0
0.0
54.8
24.4
0.0 2.2
60.0 61.9
12.05.0
50.0
30.0
10.0 10.0
53.3
41.7
14.7
0.0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(n=31) (n=41) (n=32) (n=42) (n=25) (n=21) (n=25) (n=20) (n=20) (n=20) (n=20) (n=20) (n=15) (n=12) (n=14) (n=12)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08
SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% At or Above Grade Level % Below Grade Level % Significantly Below Grade Level
Figure 3-2
Grade 2 Student Performance on SAT-10 and Aprenda, by School: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL 06-07 & 07-08
22.629.0
97.293.8
50.0
35.3
100.094.7
10.0 10.5
77.3 75.0
0.0
71.425.8 16.1
2.86.3
38.9
47.1
0.05.3
30.0
63.2
22.7
15.0
38.5
28.6
51.6 54.8
0.0 0.0
11.117.6
0.0 0.0
60.0
26.3
0.0
10.0
61.5
0.0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(n=31) (n=31) (n=36) (n=32) (n=18) (n=17) (n=20) (n=19) (n=20) (n=19) (n=22) (n=20) (n=13) (n=14)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 07-08 07-08
SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda
Fern Hill Liberty/South Prairie McNary Heights Rigler
School | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% At or Above Grade Level % Below Grade Level % Significantly Below Grade Level
Figure 3-3
Project Wide Student Performance on SAT-10 and Aprenda, by Grade: Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL 06-07 & 07-08
31.3 33.0
41.949.5
14.3
24.5
80.287.2
26.121.3
92.385.9
35.4 32.0
32.323.2
30.8
39.4
12.1
8.5
30.4 37.5
7.711.8
33.3 35.0
25.8 27.3
54.9
36.2
7.74.3
43.5 41.3
0.0 2.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(n=99) (n=100) (n=93) (n=99) (n=91) (n=94) (n=91) (n=94) (n=69) (n=80) (n=78) (n=85)
06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08
SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda SAT-10 Aprenda
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2
Grade | Assessment | Year
Pe
rce
nt
% At or Above Grade Level % Below Grade Level % Significantly Below Grade Level
Figure 3-4
top related