Welcome:

Welcome to the February issue of Intervention News. In this issue you will find information regarding the use of data to inform instruction, positive news regarding the number of children identified as learning disabled, a profile of three schools using data effectively, and instructional tips on managing informal observations and student self assessment.

Research Corner: Effectively Using Data to Inform Instruction

“One of the most powerful interventions that allows educators to be more effective in teaching is the graphing of student performance and the visual analysis of the data on a regular basis, with appropriate adjustments to teaching procedures as indicated by the data” (Kennedy, 2005, p.193).

The collection, recording, and analysis of student data can be a challenging task for schools, but it is a critical component to an effective reading program. In this article, we will highlight some of the most critical components of this process that are frequently identified in research on ‘data driven instruction.’

Collaboration and shared vision

It is important to start the year with a clear, shared vision and create a school environment where continuous school improvement is part of daily conversations. This ‘data culture’ can be fostered by establishing grade level team meetings that are separate from the data analysis meetings. These meetings can be seen as a time to benefit from a ‘collaborative intelligence’ or a sharing of ideas (Fox, 2004). Once the data have been analyzed and student needs identified, it is often necessary to brainstorm about how those needs will be met. Teachers meeting together in grade level team meetings can learn from each other’s experiences with the use of strategies and intervention programs in the classroom. It is helpful to establish a common vocabulary for these discussions by generating ‘user-friendly’ definitions for frequently used data terms (e.g. benchmark, percentile, criterion-referenced, etc.). Teaching students who struggle in learning to read is a challenging task, and collaboration and mutual support within grade level team meetings are two ways to improve everyone’s effectiveness in meeting this challenge.

Visual representation of data

The saying, ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ is very appropriate when discussing analysis of student data. Data is often presented in table form with columns of numbers which can be time consuming to analyze. Repackaging those tables into charts and graphs will help teachers and administrators more easily identify patterns in the data and patterns of learning. These patterns can be analyzed to see what skills or concepts were not understood by a majority of the students. Once the common ‘learner problems’ are identified, these problems can be changed into ‘problems of practice.’ When what is actually happening in the classroom is compared to what needs to be happening, data can truly begin to drive instruction (Boudett, City, & Murnane, 2006). Graphs and charts are also helpful tools to be used at parent teacher conferences to demonstrate student progress or identify areas in need of intervention and extra support.

Follow-up and carry over into classroom

One of the most vital steps to data analysis is the follow up and carry over into the classroom. If there is no system in place to follow-up on the decisions made in the data analysis meetings, then the impact of your efforts will be greatly reduced. After student performance patterns have been identified, action plans are often developed as a guide to the next steps. When these plans are created, it is important to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities for follow-up (i.e. who will observe the teachers; provide feedback, and help teachers evaluate their own instruction?). A follow-up plan helps establish a sense of internal accountability for both administrators and teachers. Part of every action plan should be a plan for determining whether the actions are carried out in an effective way. The follow-up plan might be broken into goals for student achievement as well as methods for monitoring new instructional practices. Some example questions that might be part of a follow-up plan are:

1. Are our students learning more under the new plan?
2. Is the intervention being provided for the specified amount of time in a group of the specified size?
3. Is the student actually spending the agreed amount of time on computer based support activities?
4. Did the planned professional development or teacher support from the coach or other teacher actually take place?
5. Has instructional time within the classroom in the targeted area actually been increased?
6. Are the new materials provided to enhance instruction actually being used?

The role of school leaders

Principals need to set the tone and model appropriate use of data. By arranging schedules to allow teachers to meet as grade level teams, attending regular data meetings, and making school level decisions based on data, the principal is demonstrating that data is important in the decision making process. The role of the school leader also involves providing support to teachers and staff. If the data show that more intervention teachers are needed in one area or grade level then it is the principal’s responsibility to shift and focus those resources where they are needed most. The principal may also be involved in helping to arrange additional professional development in areas where it is needed, or arrange for teachers to observe their co-workers putting instructional strategies into practice. Based on student data, the principal may also be involved in helping to secure additional instructional materials or resources (i.e. computers) to strengthen instruction in needed areas. School leaders need to be closely involved in helping to create and follow-through on action plans.

Discussion Questions

• Follow up and carry over are crucial. Identify the steps your school takes once a learner problem/problem of practice is identified. Do you compare actual classroom instruction to what is needed? Are there clear responsibilities established? How does instruction change (e.g. intensity, frequency, format)? What supports are in place to help the classroom teacher? What techniques do you use to assess if your action plan is working?

•As principal and reading coach: How have you supported ‘collaborative intelligence’ among your staff? What professional development could you provide to further the staff’s ability to interpret data? What is your role in follow-up and carry over to the classroom?

•Think about the data meetings at your school, do you analyze the data in a visual format or in tables or lists? Do you have a common vocabulary or language when discussing the data? Are you able to identify trends in the data and ‘problems of practice’ using your current format of data? If not, how could you change?

References

Alper, T.G., & White, O.R. (1971). Precision teaching: A tool for the school psychologist and teacher. Journal of School Psychology, 9, 445-454.

Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). The “Data wise” improvement process: Eight steps for using test data to improve teaching and learning. Harvard Education Letter, 22, 1-3.

Fox, D. (2004). Making the most of reading assessments. Leadership, 34, 30-34.

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lindsley, O. R. (1991). Precision teaching’s unique legacy from B.F. Skinner. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 253-266.

Decrease in Learning Disability (LD) Numbers

Reading First has had a significant impact on the percent of students identified with learning disabilities in grades K-3.

Data from schools that have been participating in Reading First for three years show a dramatic reduction in the percent of students being identified with learning disabilities. Since the most common reason for students to be identified as learning disabled in the primary grades is difficulty learning to read, these findings are consistent with the efforts in Reading First to develop greater capacity outside of special education to prevent the development of reading disabilities. Table 1 shows the percentage of students identified as learning disabled in grades K-3 in each of the last three years for schools that began their implementation of Reading First in 2003-2004.

The same trend is also being shown in schools that began implementation of Reading First in 2004-2005. The results for these schools are given in the table below:

We think it is likely that these reduced percentages of students identified with learning disabilities reflect two changes in Reading First schools. First, schools are seeing a real reduction in the percentage of students who have serious reading difficulties at the end of each grade level. Second, teachers, coaches, and principals may have become more confident in their ability to meet the needs of young students who struggle with reading so that they do not feel as much need to refer them for special education. We want to congratulate all of the teachers, coaches, and principals who have been working so hard the past several years to build classroom and school instructional systems to meet the diverse learning needs of our students. Your work is definitely having an impact!

School Profile: Three Miami-Dade Schools Using Data Effectively

This article will highlight three Miami-Dade schools that are using their data to inform instruction. Mrs. Olga Figueras is the principal of Fienberg-Fisher Elementary School located in South Beach, Ms. Cathleen McGinnis is the principal of Frederick Douglass Elementary in downtown Miami, and Dr. Sharon M. Lopez is the principal of Riverside Elementary located in Little Havana. The schools’ demographics including the percentages of minority students, those qualifying for free and reduced lunch (FRL), and those who are English Language Learners (ELL) are listed in the chart below.

Each school had their own style for their data meetings, but they all focused on similar themes: trends, surprises, instruction, intervention, support needs, and grouping using visual reports from PMRN and students’ DIBELS probes. Another common characteristic of these meetings was ‘conversation’ about the students guided by the data; the coach or the principal was not telling the teachers what their data said. The teachers had previewed their data, made notes or changes to instructional groups and came prepared to discuss their students’ progress. All members of the team were using a common vocabulary that focused on instruction and progress. Conversation did not get bogged down in explanations of how to interpret the graphs or instructional levels.

The number and role of participants in the data meetings differed across schools, and different team members took the lead at different times, but all of the meetings revolved around student data. All three schools used reports from the PMRN, namely the Class Status Report and the Recommended Level of Instruction Report. The schools also had designed worksheets for their teachers to help with discussing effectiveness of instruction, groupings, instructional focus and a place for follow-up action points for both the teacher and the reading coach or principal.

The Class Status Report was used to look at a student’s individual scores on each measurement rather than only focusing on the ‘color’ of the score. Often times, the principal or reading coach would look back to the previous assessment’s status report to see what gains the student had made, again in raw score form versus instructional level. It was important to them to note those students who did not move up an instructional level, but who had made significant gains in their raw score. This report was also used to note any students who had lower performance on the second assessment. Those students were recorded on a teacher worksheet and the skill area was noted as an instructional focus for working with that student in small groups. Classroom trends were also identified using this report by looking at each measurement and noting patterns. For example, if teachers noticed that quite a few of their students struggled in oral reading fluency (ORF) this was taken as a sign that they needed to include more activities to improve fluency skills at the classroom level (e.g., repeated readings, readers theatre, poetry, etc.).

The principal or coach frequently asked the teachers if they had any ‘surprises.’ Surprises were the students that performed better or worse than expected based on observations in class, other testing or data from ongoing progress monitoring assessments. If surprises were identified, possible reasons for the surprises and potential solutions were discussed. At this point, the DIBELS probes were also examined for further explanations. For example, if a student only named six letters on Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) the probe was examined to identify which letters were known and to determine why the score was low. One possible area to investigate would be the student’s intervention. If the student was receiving extra support, then the intervention was reviewed both for instructional focus and intensity to determine if either of these areas needed adjustment. Another area they examined was the student’s attendance rate. If the teacher reported the student was absent or tardy several days, the school counselor or parent liaison was informed.

The Recommended Level of Instruction Report was used to help examine the effectiveness of whole class instruction, supplemental instruction and intervention. The worksheets used with this report noted the number of students who had started at each level and how many moved, providing a percentage of effectiveness. Once the percentages were identified, specific students who did not move up in level or who went down in level were noted and discussed. Again, instructional focus and intensity were analyzed and decisions were made as to future steps for that student. Several of the teachers had already completed this process before arriving at the meeting. In these discussions around instructional focus and intensity, the principals and coaches were always asking, “What do you need from us?” The meetings were not adjourned until the team members understood their tasks as well as the plan for follow-up.

The membership of students in specific intervention groups was another topic discussed using data from this report. Once the students who stayed ‘intensive’ or ‘strategic’ or those who had dropped in levels were identified, intervention groups were reviewed. Frequently, teachers and coaches discussed the option of students staying in an intervention group even though their scores indicated that perhaps they no longer needed extra intervention. In most cases, as long as the intervention groups still remained small and the teachers or coaches explained their reasoning, the students were kept in the intervention. If the students were not able to attend the pullout intervention program due to the size of the groups, they would receive small group instruction more than once a day with the classroom teacher.

One of the worksheets used at all of the schools focused on analyzing instructional effectiveness and recording follow-up tasks, while the other included information about membership in instructional groups and the focus of those groups. The sheet with the area for “Teacher will…” or “Reading Coach will…” provided a written record of items that were discussed that needed follow-up by the principal, coach or other team members. The instructional changes that were made at the data meetings were followed up on in weekly grade level team meetings as well as during classroom walkthroughs.

The most striking things about all of these meetings were the ‘conversational’ style of the meetings, the preparedness of the team including printed graphs and charts, and the decision making that took place during the meeting. Groupings were changed, instructional intensity modified, parent and home connections identified and a plan for following up on all decisions was made. It was clear that the literacy teams at all three schools understood their students’ academic, behavioral and social needs and were making the adjustments necessary to help them reach their academic potential.

Instructional Tips

Here is an easy to use tip to help you keep track of informal observations that often get lost on sticky notes or scrap pieces of paper: use mailing labels. Most teachers keep a manila folder on each child where permanent records and other key data are kept. In this folder, you can add a blank template that would be the permanent home for these mailing labels. The labels will serve as your ‘sticky notes’ and then can be placed in the folder so they will not get lost. On each mailing label, you can record the student’s initials or first name and last initial, the date and then one or two lines about your observation. For example, Tom B. 1/23/07, read 10/15 CVC words with short /e/ and /a/ or J. A. 1/23/07, read (the story of the week) fluently with 3 errors – may also include a WPM score. Keep clipboards with sheets of blank mailing labels on them at your small group instruction table, by your whole group instruction meeting area, and at your desk so they will always be at your fingertips.

Gibson, V. & Hasbrouck, J. (in press). Differentiated instruction: Grouping for success. New York: McGraw-Hill (available in May, 2007).

A tip to use with older children, or younger children with proper scaffolding, is a self-assessment procedure using a windshield metaphor. After completing an interactive group lesson, a 3rd grade teacher had her students assess their knowledge about the objective of the lesson (e.g., using a compare/contrast graphic organizer). She asked how many children were as clear as glass about the concept, how many had bugs on their windshield, and how many students had a windshield covered in mud. Based on their responses, she divided the class into three groups and assigned them to three different follow up activities. At the beginning of the year, the teacher and her students had established the criteria for each level of understanding. With modeling and repeated practice, the teacher found this technique to be very effective.

Brimijoin, K., Marquissee, E., & Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Using data to differentiate instruction. Educational Leadership, 60, 70-73.

What's New?

Assessment Team at FCRR

• Outcome Measures Guides and Training CDs have been distributed to the district contacts in each Reading First district. The names of each reading coach who should receive sets of these materials were included in the shipment. If you have any questions about these materials, please send an email to assessments@fcrr.org.



• The Assessment office has received numerous questions about the number of Florida Oral Reading Fluency (FORF) passages that are to be administered to students in middle and high school during each assessment period. Examiners will administer two FORF passages to each student and use the mean (or average) as your score.

Curriculum and Instruction Team at FCRR

• For the past 1½ years, the C&I team has been working in collaboration with the Department of Education and reading experts from across the state to update and revise the reading sections of the Florida teacher certification tests. The following tests have been completed and underwent their first administration in October 2006: Professional Education, Reading K-12, Prekindergarten/Primary PK-3, Elementary Education K-6, and Educational Media Specialist PK-12. To view the new 11th edition competencies and skills visit the certification & testing website at http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/ftce/ftcecomp.htm.

PMRN Update

• SY0607 has three assessment periods where all previous years had four. Assessment 2 now falls one-half of the way between the previous years’ assessments 2 and 3. Since the current assessment 2 does not correspond with previous assessment periods, historical reports comparing progress monitoring scores are not valid. The first assessment will align with the first assessment of previous years and the last assessment will align with the fourth assessment from previous years (1:1 and 4:3). Thus, there will be historical reports for the first and last assessment.



• The PMRN provides a letter designed to be sent to parents stating what is being assessed, how the student performed on different reading assessments, and suggestions for activities that can be done at home. The parent letter can be accessed through the Student Grade Summary Report.

Just Read, Florida!

• The Florida Department of Education is proud to announce the release of the NEW Sunshine State Standards. Please visit http://etc.usf.edu/flstandards/index.html for more details.

RFPD Update

Regional Coordinators have been presenting the third quarterly professional development training for reading coaches throughout the state during the months of January and February, 2007. The trainings have focused primarily on the following:

• Helping reading coaches feel more confident in the knowledge base of at least two alternative lesson structures: guided reading and skills-focused lessons;
  
  
• Offering opportunities for coaches to practice describing and analyzing literacy needs and strengths to inform the coaching process with the two alternative lesson structures;
  
  
• Strengthening coaches’ ability to be instructional strategists as they work alongside teachers;
  
  
• Engaging in collective problem-solving around specific challenges of practice with the goal of providing powerful instruction for all students.

The fourth and final quarterly professional development training of the year will be presented to coaches throughout the state in April.

Links