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 ISFLNF Low Risk85% (n=22) 100% Some Risk12% (n=3) At Risk4% (n=1)

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 LNFPSFNWF Low Risk67% (n=16) 75% (n=18) 71% (n=17) Some Risk25% (n=6) 17% (n=4) 17% (n=4) At Risk8% (n=2) 8% (n=2) 13% (n=3)

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 NWFORF Low Risk38% (n=14) 57% (n=21) Some Risk43% (n=16) 32% (n=12) High Risk19% (n=4) 11% (n=4)

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 ORF Low Risk48% (n=10) Some Risk29% (n=6) High Risk24% (n=5)

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 ISFLNFPSFNWF Low Risk54% (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)

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 PSFNWFORF Low Risk86% (n=24) 54% (n=15) 75% (n=21) Some Risk7% (n=2) 39% (n=4) 21% (n=6) High Risk7% (n=2) 7% (n=2) 4% (n=1)

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 ORF Low Risk39% (n=15) Some Risk29% (n=11) High Risk32% (n=12)

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 ORF Low Risk29% (n=7) Some Risk46% (n=11) High Risk25% (n=6)

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 LNFPSFNWF Low Risk68% (n=19) 68% (n=19) 61% (n=17) Some Risk21% (n=6) 18% (n=5) 11% (n=3) High Risk11% (n=3) 14% (n=4) 29% (n=8)

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 PSFNWFORF Low Risk100% (n=29) 66% (n=19) 59% (n=17) Some Risk28% (n=8) 21% (n=6) High Risk7% (n=2) 21% (n=6)

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 ORF Low Risk20% (n=7) Some Risk20% (n=7) High Risk60% (n=21)

39. Spring, 2003, Third Grade ORF Low Risk13% (n=3) Some Risk46% (n=11) High Risk42% (n=10)

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!