Transcript Making Use of DIBELS data In

Making Use of DIBELS data
In Effective New Mexico Reading
First schools
Education Development Center:
Naomi Hupert & Lauren Bates
New Mexico Public Education Department,
Director of Reading First, Dr. Lana Paolillio
New Mexico Reading First
This presentation draws on findings from the 3.5 year evaluation
of Reading First schools in New Mexico. During the 2006-07
school year researchers collected qualitative data from schools
demonstrating positive impact on students as measured by the
DIBELS.
Site visits between September 2006 and January, 2007.
Districts
Visited
Schools
Visited
Observations
conducted during . . .
School Staff Interviewed
11
22
38
75
Reading Block
Administrative Staff *
Teac hers
27
49
26
3
Kindergarten
8
1st grade
17
Principals
8
2nd grade
26
Reading Coaches,
Interventionists
4
3rd grade
2
4
Mixed grades
Interventions
11
Conducted by Reading Coach,
Teacher or Interventionist
8
District Coordinators
Other
NM DIBELS performance
All students at Benchmark f rom 03 - 07
Percentage at Benchmark
80
70
60
Kinder
50
First
40
Second
30
Third
20
10
0
Year Year 1c Year Year 2c Year Year 3c Year Year 4c
1a
2a
3a
4a
BOY and EOY for 03 - 07
(17,233 students assessed in September of 2007)
NM DIBELS performance
All students at Intensive f rom 03-07
Percentage at Intensive
40
35
30
Kinder
25
First
20
Second
15
Third
10
5
0
Year
1a
Year
1c
Year
2a
Year
2c
Year
3a
Year
3c
Year
4a
Year
4c
BOY and EOY for 03 - 07
(17,233 students assessed in September of 2007)
School level • State level
• What is happening at the school level - are schools
showing greater growth doing something different
than those showing less growth?
– Schools making use of data in novel ways
– Administrators, coaches, interventionists engaged in
work with assessment data
• At the state level - are there recommendations the
state could be making based on state-wide trends?
– Using data to address challenges
Our Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
70% or more of students attain Benchmark support
status in April, 2006
70% or more of third grade students reach Benchmark
status in April, 2006
Students at Benchmark status increase by 20% or
more between September 2005 and April 2006
Students at Intensive status decrease by 15% or more
between September 2005 and April 2006
90% or more of students at Benchmark status in
September 2005 maintain their Benchmark status in
April 2006
Effective Schools Found
Three NMRF schools met all five criteria:
• Alcalde Elementary (Española)
• Rio Costilla Elementary (Questa)
• Gallina Elementary (Jemez Mountain)
These schools had several traits in common:
• Rural settings
• Small student populations
• Small class sizes
Alcalde Elementary
Española Public Schools
• District geography: The town of Española
(~10,000 residents) and nearby smaller towns,
including some within Native American
reservations.
• School K-3 Student population: 91
• Student:teacher ratio: 15.4 students per teacher
(district wide)
• The main school building has been condemned
and all classrooms and offices are now portables.
Rio Costilla Elementary
Questa Independent Schools
• District geography: The town of Questa (~2,000
residents) and surrounding villages.
• School K-3 Student population: 26
• Student:teacher ratio: 12.7 students per teacher
(district wide)
• In this small district, the district RF coordinator
doubles as a reading coach in one of the schools.
Teachers are residents of NM and of nearby
Colorado.
Gallina Elementary
Jemez Mountain Public Schools
• District geography: The village of Gallina (~500
residents) and other nearby villages.
• School K-3 Student population: 27
• Student:teacher ratio: 10.3 students per teacher
(district wide)
• Although none of the district’s schools are on
reservations, Jemez Mountain has one of the
state’s highest percentages of Native American
students.
Another Effective School
Since NM also has large, urban schools, we decided
to find the state’s most effective large school.
Lavaland Elementary (Albuquerque Public
Schools) met three of our criteria:
• Students at Benchmark status increased by 20% or
more between September 2005 and April 2006
• Students at Intensive status decreased by 15% or
more between September 2005 and April 2006
• 90% or more of students at Benchmark status in
September 2005 maintained their Benchmark
status in April 2006
Lavaland Elementary
Albuquerque Public Schools
• District geography: The largest city in NM
(~500,000 residents).
• School K-3 Student population: 431
• Student:teacher ratio: 14.6 students per teacher
(district wide)
• This is the second largest RF school in the state.
2005/2006 was the principal’s second year and the
reading coach’s first.
Range of common themes
among schools
Commonalities between the sites revealed a sophisticated
implementation of the program, as well as several other
unexpected factors:
– All adopted their core programs at least one year prior to joining Reading
First;
– All had Spanish bilingual programs for the entire student body;
– All engaged in district-wide communication between reading coaches and
coordinators;
– All shared data not only with teachers and administrators, but also with
students and parents;
– All exhibited constant analysis and adjustment regardless of previous
successes;
– All used the “walk to intervention” model, during which at-risk students
met with a reading coach or interventionist in ability level groups;
– All had close relationships with their PED regional specialists.
District-Wide Communication
• In Albuquerque, the district coordinator and reading coaches from all
RF schools met twice every month. Principals also attended the
meeting on a monthly basis.
• At the Questa district, the district coordinator is also a reading coach
based out of one of the two RF schools. The coordinator/coach
traveled between the schools every week, teaching at each site and
meeting with the other reading coach and interventionist.
• Española’s coordinator and reading coaches met monthly to present
ideas and address RF issues.
• In Jemez Mountain, the reading coach, district coordinator, regional
specialist, and entire K-3 staff met monthly at Gallina Elementary to
discuss data and individual student progress.
Sharing data with students and parents
•
•
•
•
At all 4 schools DIBELS assessment results are posted either in a public
area or in the reading resource room.
Teachers at these schools keep folders or binders of their class’ DIBELS
data, which includes DIBELS data and “academic profiles” of students.
Reading coach, principal and interventionist have accountability binders
that house data, testing schedules, and other relevant assessment
information.
Students at all four schools have a degree of ownership over their own data.
Whether they literally move a data point on the school’s DIBELS display
(Rio Costilla), track their scores in data folders (Alcalde and Lavaland) or
complete graphs of their data (Alcalde, Lavaland and Gallina), they become
familiar with their own results. All interviewees stated that student
familiarity with data is important and helpful. One interventionist said that
the data has “impacted the students because for the first time, I’m seeing
kids who are really involved in their learning because they’re part of the
process. They’re understanding that your goal is to read, to read fluently and
to understand the reading.” She also speculated that data use has “caused a
level of involvement and investment among teachers and students I’ve never
seen before.”
Students and Parents (continued)
• Parents are included in discussion about assessment data.
• Teachers in all schools discuss DIBELS scores during
parent/teacher conferences. Parents at Rio Costilla also
receive a demonstration of the DIBELS test on a handheld.
At both Alcalde and Gallina, they send home DIBELS data
reports for all students. At Alcalde, they also give a
presentation on the DIBELS at the school’s Open House
held during the beginning of the year. One reading coach
shared, “The whole language at our school, the parents
understand it. If we say progress monitoring, they know
what that is. Our community language is different.”
According to one teacher, keeping parents aware of student
progress assists him to “get help from home” for struggling
readers.
Analysis and adjustment
Data collection and presentation, though important, are but the first
steps in implementing data-driven instruction.
At all of the schools visited, the staff discussed and modeled a
committed to analyzing data, reflecting on the results, and adjusting
instructional practice accordingly.
– Alcalde implemented the Walk to Read model in the second grade and
administrators added a replacement core program and increased
intervention times,
– Lavaland tested a Kindergarten-Plus class and extended the reading block
to 120 minutes for second and third grades. An administrator at explained
that the school plans to “push the envelope a little more. We are looking at
grouping and how we can do appropriate activities based on data.”
– Gallina’s reading coach credited Reading First’s impact with the
elimination of SPED referrals this year, but noted that she is still adjusting
intervention groups to foster student success.
A Final Interesting Case: Lake
Arthur
Lake Arthur Elementary has staged one of the most dramatic
turnarounds in NM:
– At the end of its first year of Reading First implementation
(2004-05), Lake Arthur was identified as one of the poorest
performing schools in the state.
– In April 2005, the school/district was one of three districts in
the state that documented an increased the percentage of
students needing Intensive support, and a decrease the
percentage of students at Benchmark.
– By January 2006, Lake Arthur was one of seven districts
where the percentage of students at Benchmark increased by
more than 20% during one semester. It was also one of five
districts where the percentage of Intensive students decreased
by more than 15%.
Lake Arthur Data
By April 2006, Lake Arthur was one of the highest
performing schools in the state:
• 70% or more of third graders at Benchmark
• 20% or more increase in the percentage of students at
Benchmark during 2005/2006
• 15% or more decrease in the percentage of students at
Intensive during 2005/2006
• Moved at least 75% of students out of Strategic (100% of
those went to Benchmark)
• 90% or more of students at Benchmark in September
remained at Benchmark in April
Frequent Data Meetings
Lake Arthur used data in a few unique ways:
• The school has a Literacy Instructional Strategy
Team meeting every day, including teachers K-5,
during which the team discussed data and
strategies.
• The school also held in-depth data meetings three
times a year.
“Backwards Testing”
• The reading coach did “backwards testing”
on the DIBELS and TPRI: “If [students]
show up Strategic in third grade, I’ll assess
them at the second grade level until I find
where they are showing a Benchmark
performance.” This served to “determine
our initial concentration for Intensive kids,
then on kids who aren’t progressing to aim
line, or are progressing sideways.”
Integrating Several Data
Sources
• In addition to DIBELS and TPRI data, the
reading coach used data from a phonics
inventory he developed to determine the
specific areas of need for at-risk students.
• At-risk students must “demonstrate
proficiency a number of times and in a
number of ways” before moving to new
skills or intervention groups.
Student Directed Conferences
• Students led parent/teacher conferences and had to
explain their DIBELS results to their parents.
• Students rated themselves on dimensions such as
“I complete my assignments every day” and “I
attend school regularly.”
• The student, parents, and teacher complete a
“Learning Expectation Form.” The student and the
parents write their plans for the child’s success,
the teacher responds to them, and then adds her
own strategies for helping the student.
District Level Trends
What the data show: a 1st grade “drop-off”
Many students who are identified at Benchmark in September of 1st
grade are identified as needing either Intensive or Strategic support by
January of 1st grade.
What we have found: fragile literacy skills
If a student enters Kindergarten reading below Benchmark, then makes
great gains over the course of the year and is identified as Benchmark
in September of 1st grade, he or she has a very high chance of
performing below Benchmark by January of 1st grade.
% at Benchmark % at Strategic
in Sept of
in Sept of
Kindergart en
Kindergart en
First graders at
Benchmarkin
Sept and Jan
First graders at
Benchmarkin
Sept but not Jan
% at Int ensive
in Sept of
Kindergart en
42.6
38.8
18.6
13.5
53.7
32.8
Implications
• This suggests that students entering Kindergarten below
Benchmark are receiving a high level of intervention,
and many of them are moving quickly to Benchmark.
• However, these students appear unable to sustain their
performance at this support recommendation.
• We suggest that these students have “fragile” reading
skills. They have a command of the skills necessary to
be at grade level at the beginning of first grade, but
because they have acquired these skills over a short time
they have not had adequate time to practice and
consolidate them and make use of them in the context of
reading a passage, as required by the ORF test.
Implications (continued)
What does this mean for schools?
• We suggest that ongoing intervention be provided to
Kindergarten students who entered K below Benchmark,
even if they have achieved Benchmark during the year.
• We suggest that first grade students who start the year at
Benchmark, but who arrived in K below Benchmark, be
provided with intervention instruction between
September and January that focuses on using discrete
skills in the context of reading text, and have multiple
opportunities for reading and practicing oral reading
fluency.
Conclusions
• Schools where students are demonstrating positive
growth in reading, as measured by the DIBELS, employ
a common set of expectations towards the role that
assessment data will and should play in the planning and
provision of instruction. These include sharing
assessment information widely, inviting all members of
the education community to view and interpret data
(parents, teachers, students, administrators), and
anticipate that changes will be made as a result of
findings from data.
• Similar expectations at the state level can help to foster
this approach to the use of assessment data across all
schools.
Ongoing questions we would
love to explore and discuss:
• Why are smaller schools more able to demonstrate
positive change?
• Why are single grade schools more able to do so?
• Are these trends evident in other states, and/or
other programs?
• Does who administers the DIBELS make a
difference in teachers’ use of the data?
• Why do schools with universal dual language
programs appear to be doing so well?
Thank you
For more information or questions about this
presentation, please contact:
Naomi Hupert
[email protected]
www.edc.org/CCT/