Data-based Decisions:A year in review

Sharon Walpole

University of Delaware

Goals

• Show real DIBELS data, over one year, from a struggling school

• Modeling my thinking about the instructional program based on the data

Fall, 2002, Kindergarten

ISF LNF

Low Risk 85%

(n=22)

100%

Some Risk 12%

(n=3)

At Risk 4%

(n=1)

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

Fall, 2002, First Grade

LNF PSF NWF

Low Risk 67%

(n=16)

75%

(n=18)

71%

(n=17)

Some Risk 25%

(n=6)

17%

(n=4)

17%

(n=4)

At Risk 8%

(n=2)

8%

(n=2)

13%

(n=3)

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

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

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?

Fall, 2002, Second Grade

NWF ORF

Low Risk 38%

(n=14)

57%

(n=21)

Some Risk 43%

(n=16)

32%

(n=12)

High Risk 19%

(n=4)

11%

(n=4)

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

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

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

Fall, 2002, Third Grade

ORF

Low Risk 48%

(n=10)

Some Risk 29%

(n=6)

High Risk 24%

(n=5)

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

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

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

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?

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?

Winter, 2003, Kindergarten

ISF LNF PSF NWF

Low Risk 54%

(n=15)

93%

(n=26)

64%

(n=18)

93%

(n=26)

Some Risk

46%

(n=13)

7%

(n=2)

32%

(n=9)

4%

(n=1)

High Risk

4%

(n=1)

4%

(n=1)

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

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

Winter, 2003, First Grade

PSF NWF ORF

Low Risk 86%

(n=24)

54%

(n=15)

75%

(n=21)

Some Risk 7%

(n=2)

39%

(n=4)

21%

(n=6)

High Risk 7%

(n=2)

7%

(n=2)

4%

(n=1)

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

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?

Winter, 2003, Second Grade

ORF

Low Risk 39%

(n=15)

Some Risk 29%

(n=11)

High Risk 32%

(n=12)

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?

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?

Winter, 2003, Third Grade

ORF

Low Risk 29%

(n=7)

Some Risk 46%

(n=11)

High Risk 25%

(n=6)

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%

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?

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.

Spring, 2003, Kindergarten

LNF PSF NWF

Low Risk 68%

(n=19)

68%

(n=19)

61%

(n=17)

Some Risk 21%

(n=6)

18%

(n=5)

11%

(n=3)

High Risk 11%

(n=3)

14%

(n=4)

29%

(n=8)

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

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

Spring, 2003, First Grade

PSF NWF ORF

Low Risk 100%

(n=29)

66%

(n=19)

59%

(n=17)

Some Risk 28%

(n=8)

21%

(n=6)

High Risk 7%

(n=2)

21%

(n=6)

Inferences

• PSF at 100%! Hoorah!

• Movement in NWF– 12% from some risk to no risk

• Lost ground in ORF– 16% decrease in low risk

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

Spring, 2003, Second Grade

ORF

Low Risk 20%

(n=7)

Some Risk 20%

(n=7)

High Risk 60%

(n=21)

Spring, 2003, Third Grade

ORF

Low Risk 13%

(n=3)

Some Risk 46%

(n=11)

High Risk 42%

(n=10)

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

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

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!