1 / 42

Data-based Decisions: A year in review

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. Inferences.

arion
Download Presentation

Data-based Decisions: A year in review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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!

More Related