Data-based Decisions: A year in review

1. Data-based Decisions:A year in review Sharon Walpole University of Delaware

2. Goals • Show real DIBELS data, over one year, from a struggling school • Modeling my thinking about the instructional program based on the data

3. Fall, 2002, Kindergarten

4. Inferences • Almost all children are starting off ready for explicit, systematic grade-level instruction • Work on fidelity to core instruction, with whole group, small groups, and practice • Four children need more phonemic awareness instruction • Give them intervention, at the same time, while the other children are practicing

5. Fall, 2002, First Grade

6. Inferences • Last year’s kindergarten program was effective for about 2/3 of cohort; these children are ready for explicit, systematic grade-level core instruction • Specify what that means in terms of time and groupings

7. Inferences • Some children are at risk in the areas of phonemic awareness and phonics. Meet with first grade team to consider these options • Increase needs-based time for these children with core materials in these areas. Provide more modeling, more practice, and more feedback during this instruction. • Use core-aligned supplemental program during needs-based time for these children

8. Inferences • 3 children have more significant needs • Include them in needs-based instruction with other children • Provide a short additional sessions each day (20 minutes?) with an intervention provider using a more explicit program • During centers time? • Outside of the core block?

9. Fall, 2002, Second Grade

10. Inferences • The first grade program last year was relatively unsuccessful. Only 38% of children are ready for the phonics instruction in the second grade program • Rethink instructional time in second grade • Teach vocabulary and comprehension whole group • Teach phonics and fluency in needs-based groups

11. Inferences • Meet with second grade team to consider these options for needs-based time • Use core materials with more explicit strategies (more modeling, more practice, and more feedback) • Use core-aligned supplemental program during needs-based time for these children • Use first-grade core materials during needs based time • Carefully choose starting point • Double or triple pace

12. Inferences • Start to think about interventions • Check to see whether the high risk children are high risk in both NWF and ORF; if they are, consider interventions that target phonics and fluency • Schedule additional instructional time for these students as one small group

13. Fall, 2002, Third Grade

14. Inferences • The second grade program last year was relatively unsuccessful. Only 48% of children are ready fluency portion of the third grade program • Rethink instructional time in third grade • Teach vocabulary and comprehension whole group • Teach fluency in needs-based groups

15. Inferences • Meet with third grade team to consider these options for needs-based time • Use core materials with more explicit strategies (more modeling, more practice, and more feedback) • Use core-aligned supplemental program during needs-based time for these children • Use second-grade core materials during needs based time • Carefully choose starting point • Double or triple pace

16. Inferences • Start to think about interventions for at-risk group • Investigate potential explanations of low ORF for these children: Lack of reading practice? Weak phonics knowledge? • Schedule additional instructional time for these students as one small group • For those weak in phonics knowledge, choose an intervention program that targets that area

17. General Conclusions • At each successive grade level, fewer children are beginning the year at low risk • If they are not transfer students, this is telling • What are the characteristics of our instructional program that might explain that? • Are the curriculum materials themselves weak? • Are we implementing them ineffectively? • Are we neglecting opportunities to provide needs-based instruction?

18. General Conclusions • Scheduling and planning for needs-based time is especially important beginning in first grade • Are these children distributed among all classrooms? • Can we use the same materials but different strategies? • Are there other materials either provided in our core or closely aligned with instruction in our core that could be used? • How can teachers manage instruction so that there is adequate time for needs-based instruction and also provide meaningful, connected reading practice for other students?

19. Winter, 2003, Kindergarten

20. Inferences • We have lost ground with phonemic awareness in this cohort • ISF from 85% low risk to 54% low risk • But it’s difficult to explain why more students are low risk in phonemic segmentation. Isn’t that a more challenging task? • Our core-based strategies are only working for half of the cohort; we need to add an intervention piece for PA in K

21. Inferences • Meet with the K team to select an intervention program • Consider evidence of effectiveness • Consider time it takes (15 minutes/day?) • Consider cost: program cost, training cost, cost in personnel • Rework instructional schedules so that this time is provided

22. Winter, 2003, First Grade

23. Inferences • We have gained ground in the cohort for PSF • 75% low risk to 86% low risk • We have lost ground in NWF • 71% low risk to 54% low risk • We are making a good start in ORF • 75% likely to be on target with core instruction

24. Inferences • We need to do a better job with phonics instruction during needs-based time. How can we do it? • Can we make it more engaged and interactive by using more examples, more manipulatives and more spelling tasks? • Can we make it more explicit by returning to the scope and sequence, reteaching, and working together on our instructional language? • Can we make it more connected by doing a better job using phonics-controlled texts? • Do we need to consider a supplemental program for use during this time?

25. Winter, 2003, Second Grade

26. Inferences • We have lost significant ground in ORF • Only 39% of students are likely to benefit from the core oral reading fluency tasks as designed • The low risk category decreased by 18% and the high risk category increased by 21% • Results for ORF in winter are consistent with results for NWF in fall. Is there a connection?

27. Inferences • Students needs are not being met within our current structure • Are we making good use of needs-based time? How can we improve it? • Are the materials adequate to the needs of the children? Do we need to use different strategies with those materials? • Do we need to consider additional materials?

28. Winter, 2003, Third Grade

29. Inferences • We have lost significant ground in ORF • Only 29% of students are likely to benefit from the core oral reading fluency tasks as designed • The low risk category decreased by 16% and the high risk category increased by 17%

30. Inferences • Students needs are not being met within our current structure • Are we making good use of needs-based time? How can we improve it? • Are the materials adequate to the needs of the children? Do we need to use different strategies with those materials? • Do we need to consider additional materials?

31. General Conclusions • We have to reconsider our instructional pacing. For children who are low risk, we are not maintaining growth over time. • We have to reconsider our use of needs-based time. Current materials and/or strategies are insufficient.

32. Spring, 2003, Kindergarten

33. Inferences • We did not maintain growth in LNF from the winter • 93% low risk to 68% low risk • We lost ground in PSF • 10% increase in the at-risk category • We lost ground in NWF • 32% decrease in the low-risk category

34. Inferences • We need to extend time before first grade for some-risk and at-risk kindergarteners • For some-risk, preview first month of first grade program; it is designed to review kindergarten • For at-risk, preview first month of first grade intervention; it is designed to be more explicit • We need to review our instructional and curriculum decisions before next fall

35. Spring, 2003, First Grade

36. Inferences • PSF at 100%! Hoorah! • Movement in NWF • 12% from some risk to no risk • Lost ground in ORF • 16% decrease in low risk

37. Inferences • Across all measures, about 60% success with our current strategies • We need to extend time before first grade for some-risk and at-risk kindergarteners • For some-risk, preview first month of second grade program; it is designed to review first grade • For at-risk, preview first month of second grade intervention; it is designed to be more explicit • We need to review our instructional and curriculum decisions before next fall

38. Spring, 2003, Second Grade

39. Spring, 2003, Third Grade

40. Inferences • These programs were a failure for many children • Steady decrease in the low-risk category • Steady increase in the high-risk category • Dramatic differences between winter and spring testing

41. Inferences • We need a several small groups of second and third graders in summer school • Specific program for fluency building • Small groups with dynamic instruction • We need to research external reviews of our curriculum • We need to consider supplemental and intervention programs for next year • We need to plan needs-based instruction next year very carefully

42. General Conclusions • We have evidence of both the strengths and weaknesses of our current reading program Materials Times Groupings • We have work to do to prepare for next year!