Interpreting Reading Data for Effective Instructional Grouping at

the Middle and High School

Kim Hosford and Moira K. McKennaRTI Specialists/School Psychologists, SOESD

NWPBIS Conference, Corvallis, OregonMarch 8, 2010

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success

3

EBISSEBISSEffective Behavioral and Instructional Support Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Small Group/Individual students •Assessment-based•High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (some risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Academic & Behavior Support: Inter-related Domains

Illiteracy linked to increased rates of high school drop out

Outcomes◦ 80% employed in labor force with a bachelor’s degree ◦ 65% employed with high school degree ◦ 43% of high school drop outs who are 25 yrs and older

(1998)

Low levels of literacy and high levels of violence – interwoven issues

Academic & Behavior Support

• Integrated Systems of prevention and remediation (Walker & Shinn, 2002)

• Requires changing norms and expectations around aggressive behavior and how we relate to each other interpersonally

Academic & Behavior Support

Address known risk factors associated with future violence, and build upon known protective factors by targeting and intervening early, prior to patterns of antisocial behavior becoming established (Eddy, Reid,& Curry, 2002)

“Zero-Tolerance” policies doomed to failure◦ At best, maintains status-quo (Walker & Shinn, 2002)

Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Definition and Evidence-Base

• CBM is a brief, standardized assessment that documents student achievement through a systematic sampling of skills that represent the annual curriculum (Fuchs, 2004; Shinn, 2002, 1998, 1989; Deno, 1986)

• Alternate passages are of equivalent difficulty, whereby each measure is represented by the same level of complexity, gaining an accurate measure of student growth

• Growth is measured by Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring

Types of CBM • General Outcome Measures (GOM)– application of skill to independent task – leveled passages that can be used for progress

monitoring• Skills-Based Measures (SBM)– leveled measures that assess proficiency on a specific

set of skills that students are expected to perform per grade-level standards

– Most commonly seen in mathematics/mixed math computation

• Mastery Measures (MM)– Focuses on student attainment of finite skills– not appropriate for progress monitoring

Utility of CBMs

• Screening Decisions– identify which students may need instructional

support• Progress Monitoring Decisions– decide when to modify instruction, teach new skills,

and/or revise goals• Diagnostic Decisions– to target specific skill(s) for support

• Outcome Decisions– to modify instruction, change intervention, or

reintegrate back into general education support

CBM as Convergent Data

• Technically reliable and valid GOMs and SBMs will be used for Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring of student performance

• MM will be used to determine if a student is able to present skills taught in a lesson or unit

• Student performance measures from these, and other relevant sources of information, will be used to determine student growth as aligned with standards

Jumping into Data CollectionEasiest– Obtain AIMSweb Maze or other Maze

comprehension screener– Distribute to all teachers who teach 1st period– Principal directs the assessment during the first 10

minutes of 1st period• Tell students to put materials away and get out a pencil• Tell teachers to pass out Maze face down• Tell students to turn to the first page and walk through

example• Read standardized prompt and complete Maze• Teachers collect papers

Maze Scoring OptionsOption 1

Each teacher scores the class they administeredOption 2

A group of teachers is paid to stay after school to scoreOption 3

EA’s scoreOption 4

Language Arts teachers score during prepOther Options

Anything that works for your building

After Maze is ScoredThe data needs to be entered into a data

management system– The most likely person for this task is someone

familiar with entering data– If you have AIMSweb, familiarity with this system

is helpful– If you are going to use an Excel spreadsheet,

familiarity with Excel is helpful– Data must be entered accurately or you could

incorrectly identify students

Sorting Maze Data

We recommend– All students earning a score of 15 or lower on

AIMSweb should be assessed with ORF– Current scores for Maze 25th percentile in

Fall/Winter/Spring from AIMSweb for grades 6-12 are as follows:

FALL WINTER SPRING6th 14 19 197th 15 17 20

Maze norms continuedFALL WINTER SPRING

8TH 16 15 199TH 15 14 1810TH 15 12 1711TH 15 13 1812TH 16 13 13

Given that fewer and fewer students in grades 10-12 are included in the data set, a score of 15 is relatively stable and should indicate those in need of further attention.

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)• In order to add greater clarity and confidence for

instructional grouping, ORF needs to be administered for students who perform below the 25th percentile

• Options for administering ORF to those identified– Obtain class lists and call students out of their

Language Arts period one-by-one– Organize a group trained to administer ORF, set them

up in a single location, and flood with students– The fewer individuals administering, the more likely

your results will be accurate

Data Review• DATA TEAM– Principal, School Psychologist, Language Arts, Special

Education, ELL, Reading Specialist or Coach• Sort Data– Calculate accuracy (# words read correctly ÷ total #

words read = % accuracy)– If accuracy at or above 97%, problem is most likely

fluency, consider programs like • Six Minute Solution – through gr. 9, 6 minutes of

instruction; primary, intermediate, secondary levels• Great Leaps – all grades; 10-15 minutes of instruction• Read Naturally – all grades; 3-30 minute sessions/wk• See fcrr.org for other programs to address fluency

Data Review… Continued • If accuracy between 95-97% look for error patterns,

if sight word substitutions or omissions, consider re-administering ORF with a pep talk; if student reads with acceptable accuracy, consider fluency intervention

• If primarily multisyllabic word problem, student has mastered 2nd grade phonics skills; teach syllabication and/or use a program that targets multi-syllabic words such as REWARDS Secondary (grades 6-12)• Particularly in middle school, it may be very

relevant to teach skills of syllabication to all students in Language Arts classes

Data Review & Instructional Grouping• If patterns undetectable, administer a phonics

screener and target error correction through instruction and practice

• May require a phonics program, such as: • Phonics for Reading• 40-50 minutes daily or split the lesson over 2 days• Inexpensive in comparison to other programs

• Discover Intensive Phonics for Yourself aka Reading Horizons – computer plus DI

• 30-40 minutes, 3 days/wk minimum on computer; 1-6 stations. $999, 7-14 stations approx. $899

• www.phonicstraining.com for program demo

Data Review…Continued

• If accuracy between 92-95% administer phonics screener and sort students by instructional need; more explicit programming is likely to be required

• It is unlikely that students below 92% accuracy understand what is being read due to lack of decoding skills

• These students are also likely to have language needs, specifically vocabulary deficits

Data Review & Instructional Grouping

• For these students, a robust reading program is recommended, such as:

• Corrective Reading Decoding and Comprehension– Research employing experimental design found

significantly positive gains in word reading and fluency (Decoding), reading comprehension scores and demonstration of comprehension skills (Comprehension)

– Small group (15 or less), 45-55 minutes, daily• Language!– Two daily lessons that total 90 minutes– Whole-class, center-based program with flexible grouping

and small group instruction provided by teacher

Logistics for Intervention Delivery• With schedules, timing is an important and substantial

consideration • Once programming for skill instruction is aligned, the

following questions will want to have already been answered:– Intervention curricula and programs are in-house– Teacher for intervention and progress monitor is

identified– Schedule for data review by the data team is in place– If not completed in the spring, an approach to

changing student schedules is defined

Strengthening Core Classes• Expectations for instruction across content areas • Vocabulary– Specific word instruction embedded in lessons with

multiple opportunities to use language in context– Word learning instruction for words encountered in

text• Comprehension– What strategies do we expect students to know and

perform, and at what grade-level?– Alignment of when strategies are taught, at what grade

level and at what time of year – Use of strategies embedded in lesson plans and

explicitly referenced

Instructional Grouping Take Home Points

• Use instructional recommendations as a guide; do not go by instructional recommendation alone

• Look more closely at the data and specific skill areas of deficit and proficiency; be discerning

• Leave meetings with a plan that addresses the needs of all students

• Think creatively, outside of the box

• Identify the smallest change that can be made to make the biggest impact in student performance

ResourcesCenter on Teaching and Learning

Improving Adolescent Literacy-Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices, US Dept. of Ed. Institute of Educational Sciences Recommendations

http://ctl.uoregon.edu/pd/cf09/strands/adolescent_literacy

Topics: Explicit vocabulary instructionExplicit comprehension strategy instructionStudent motivation and engagement in literacy

learningIndividualized interventions for struggling

readers

Thank you for supporting student literacy!