EOY DIBELS Benchmark Data for Intervention Programs Oregon Reading First Schools June, 2009 © 2009 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.

EOY DIBELS Benchmark Data for Intervention Programs

Oregon Reading First Schools

June, 2009

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

Purpose:

To examine intervention program pacing and lesson completion at each grade level with DIBELS benchmark data

To assist schools in determining when to begin students in more explicit intervention programs in order to improve reading outcomes for students

Method: The 14 Oregon Reading First schools were asked

to submit intervention program lesson completion information for students in June, 2009

EOY DIBELS scores were used to calculate the number and percentage of these students who met benchmark

Lesson ranges are used in presenting the data, summarizing information

Individual schools may compare their own lesson completion/pacing data with the project-wide data presented here

Method (cont.)

Note: not all students in the intervention programs are in the high-risk or intensive category (some schools place all K students into ERI; schools may use an intervention program, such as RM, as a replacement core)

14 Oregon Reading First schools reported data (13 for Kindergarten and 1st grades); totaling (1,291) K-3 students

Kindergarten EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Early Reading Intervention (11 schools using this program)

Program/Lessons N %

ERI:

Completed < 100 lessons (these students are from 6 schools)

16/54 30%

ERI:

Between lessons 100 - 1120(these students are from 6 schools)

38/56 68%

ERI:

Completed all 126 lessons(these students are from 6 schools)

170/202 84%

Kindergarten EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Reading Mastery: *rec. to complete RM I, 160 lesson by end of K

Program/Lessons N %

RM I:

< lesson 100 (these students are from 4 schools)

7/46 15%

RM I:

Between lessons 100 - 134(these students are from 3 schools)

Between lessons 135 - 160(these students are from 2 schools)

20/39

23/23

51%

100%

RM II:

Between lessons 15 - 77(these students are from 2 schools)

37/37 100%

Kindergarten EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Read Well K (2 schools using RW)

Program/Lessons N %

< 5 units with Open Court 6/8 75%

5 - 15 Units 17/19 89%

15 - 20 Units 15/16 94%

TOTAL of 349/500 STUDENTS AT BENCHMARK = 70%(Data included from 13 Oregon Reading First schools)

1st Grade EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Reading Mastery: *rec. to complete RM II, 160 lessons by end of grade 1

Program/Lessons N meeting EOY ORF Goal (40 wcpm)

%

At or below:

RM I completion

Between:

RM II lessons 5 - 30

RM II lessons 40-100

0/29

1/33

9/62

0%

3%

14%

Between

RM II lessons 100 - 119 5/9 56%

At or above:

RM II lesson 120

35/35 100%

1st Grade EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Horizons: *rec. to complete A by mid 1st grade; B by mid 2nd grade (150 lessons)

Program/Lessons N meeting EOY ORF Goal (40 wcpm)

%

Level A (or Fast Track equivalent):

Completed 75 - 154 lessons 1/50 2%

Level B (or Fast Track equivalent):

Completed 22 - 120 lessons

Completed 138 - 148 lessons (students in Fast Track at one school)

12/28

8/13

48%

62%

Read Well: Units 24 - 26 3/10 30%

ERI: Lesson 105 0/2 0%

TOTAL of 74/268 STUDENTS AT BENCHMARK = 28%(Data included from 13 Oregon Reading First schools)

2nd Grade EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Reading Mastery: *rec. to complete RM II, 160 lessons by end of grade 1 or RM + 2 by mid 2nd grade; RM + 3 by mid 3rd grade

Program/Lessons N meeting EOY ORF Goal (90 wcpm)

%

At or below

RM II Lesson 160 or RM Plus II up to lesson 135 (data from 9 schools)

Between

RM Plus II lessons 135-160

RM Plus III lessons 1-70

0/91

9/25

3/19

0%

36%

16%

At or above:

RM Plus III lesson 120 12/13 92%

2nd Grade EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Horizons: *rec. to complete A/B or B by middle of 2nd grade; C/D by end of 3rd grade (160 lessons

Program/Lessons N meeting EOY ORF Goal (90 wcpm)

%

Level B or A/B completed 7/103 < 1%

Between

Level C/D lessons 15-30 8/17 47%

At or above:

Level C/D lesson 70 4/5 80%

TOTAL of 43/273 STUDENTS AT BENCHMARK = 16%(Data included from 13 Oregon Reading First schools)

3rd Grade EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Reading Mastery: * rec. to complete RM Plus 2 by mid 2nd grade; RM Plus 3 by early-mid 3rd grade

Program/Lessons N meeting EOY ORF Goal (110 wcpm)

%

RM Plus 3

< lesson 140 (includes 0/38 stuents in RM 2 or RM Plus 2)

1/100 1%

RM Plus 4

< lesson 50 22/46 48%

RM Plus 5

< lesson 55 7/7 100%

3rd Grade EOY Intervention Data (June 2009)

Horizons: *rec. to complete C/D by end of 3rd grade (160 lessons)

Program/Lessons N meeting EOY ORF Goal (110 wcpm)

%

Horizons

completed < A/B or B 0/28 0%

Level C/D

Between lessons 11 - 42

Between lessons 52 - 81

1/17

6/36

6%

17%

Corrective Reading

Completed < B-1

Completed < B-2

0/10

0/6

0%

0%

TOTAL of 37/250 STUDENTS AT BENCHMARK = 15%(Data included from 14 Oregon Reading First schools)

Why Is Lesson Pacing Important?

Ensures students are learning the appropriate amount of content in the necessary amount of time At-risk students in intervention programs have to make “catch up” progress Is a critical part of differentiating instruction Is correlated to important reading outcomes (predicts grade level achievement)

How to Achieve Positive Reading Outcomes

Group students according to program placement recommendations

Identify pacing goals for each instructional group to ensure pacing and mastery

Lesson pacing goals CANNOT be met at the expense of mastery

Reteach and retest as indicated Adjust groups as indicated by performance

In-Program Assessment Ensures that students are learning content Identifies students needing additional

instruction Identifies students who may be able to move at

an accelerated pace Informs about the effectiveness of instruction Predicts reading outcomes on other measures

(I.e., DIBELS)

Structural Items

• Schedule adequate; adequate time for the instruction?

• Group size appropriate?

• Students placed correctly?

• Enough staff?

• Double dose?

Implementation

• Lessons implemented with fidelity?

• Pacing appropriate?

• Behavior management in place?

• Increase exposure/repetition?

• Competing programs? (are students receiving non-compatible instruction?)

How do we get back on pace?