Evaluation of Massachusetts Reading First Reading First Focused Narratives Inquiry into Selected Reading First Schools’ Differentiated Instruction Practices Fall 2006 – Spring 2007 Acknowledgments This report reflects the contributions of a number of very busy professionals and their organizations from across the Commonwealth. The Office of Reading at the Massachusetts Department of Education provided the professional guidance and support needed to bring the project to fruition. Representatives of each of the three schools and their colleagues in the districts gave generously of their time and thinking, sharing reflections and materials that would help to bring their stories to life. For further information regarding this report please contact Dr. Greta Shultz of the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute email: gshultz@donahue.umassp.edu telephone: (413) 587-2406 Contents Overview of the Study ...............................................................................1 Research Design......................................................................................1 Background and Rationale ............................................................................1 Purpose..............................................................................................1 Methodology .........................................................................................2 Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................2 Site Selection ......................................................................................2 The Focal Schools....................................................................................3 Cross-Case Findings .................................................................................4 Case Narrative: Sanders Street School ..............................................................10 Introduction........................................................................................10 Data-collection.....................................................................................10 Findings............................................................................................11 District Support to Literacy Instruction............................................................11 School Culture and Characteristics .................................................................11 Differentiated Instruction in the Framework of the Reading First Model .............................12 The Tiered Model....................................................................................12 Data-Driven Instruction ............................................................................13 Integrated approach to progress monitoring and interventions .......................................13 Data meetings, literacy folders and visual display of data .........................................14 The Reading First Reading Specialist’s Role: “The glue that holds it all together” .................14 Data: Implications and Uses ........................................................................15 Differentiating to address “holes” in the data .....................................................15 Differentiating for parents.........................................................................16 Differentiating for more proficient readers.........................................................16 Widespread effects of differentiating and achieving success ........................................17 MCAS................................................................................................17 Case Narrative: Sullivan Elementary.................................................................18 Introduction........................................................................................18 Data-collection.....................................................................................18 Findings............................................................................................19 District Support for Literacy Instruction...........................................................19 University of Massachusetts School Psychology Department............................................19 IDEAL Consulting....................................................................................19 National and Regional Leaders Influence Grant Implementation at Start-Up ...........................19 Hyper-vigilance: Early Commitment to Reliability of Data, Fidelity of Implementation .....................................................................................20 School Culture, Characteristics and Relevant Practices .............................................20 Differentiated Instruction in the Framework of the Reading First Model .............................21 SRIM, CGLT and IST: Data-driven Decision-making ....................................................21 Use of the Core Curriculum .........................................................................22 Fidelity and Flexibility ...........................................................................22 “Not to Overwhelm” .................................................................................23 Communication and Professional Alignment between Classroom Teachers and Interventionists ...................................................................................24 Common Language through Professional Development ...................................................24 Individual Student Folders..........................................................................25 Reading Intervention Group Update ..................................................................25 Assessment: Efficiency, Sophisticated Scoring, and Progress Monitoring of Every Child.........................................................................................26 Collaboration Enhances the Use of Data for Differentiating Instruction..............................27 MCAS................................................................................................28 Case Narrative: Davis School .......................................................................29 Introduction........................................................................................29 Data-collection.....................................................................................29 Findings............................................................................................29 District Support to Literacy Instruction............................................................29 School Leadership, Climate and Changes in Practice .................................................30 High Expectations and Focus on Data: “No Wasted Time” ..............................................31 Scheduling and Strategic Use of Title I Staff ......................................................32 Differentiated Instruction in the Framework of the Reading First Model .............................33 The Reading First Reading Specialist Role ..........................................................34 The Fluid Folders ..................................................................................35 RFRS’s interactions with teachers ..................................................................39 Data meetings and visual display of data ...........................................................40 The Principal’s Hands-on Involvement with Individual Student Data ..................................42 Engagement with teachers............................................................................43 Engagement with students............................................................................43 Engagement with parents ............................................................................44 Teachers’ Professional Growth and Differentiated Instruction .......................................44 MCAS................................................................................................45 References..........................................................................................46 Appendix A: Research Plan ..........................................................................47 Appendix B: Sanders Street Tiered Model ............................................................48 Appendix C: Summary Sheet...........................................................................49 Appendix D: Nonsense Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency Sheets...................................50 Appendix E: Schoolwide Reading Improvement Model ...................................................51 Appendix F: Sample Grade 2 Planner .................................................................52 Appendix G: Reading Intervention Group Update (Kindergarten) .......................................53 Appendix H: Reading Intervention Group Update (Grades 1-3) .........................................54 Appendix I: Modified DIBELS Scoring Sheet ..........................................................55 Appendix J: Davis School Tiered Model...............................................................56 Appendix K: Week at a Glance of Scott Foresman......................................................57 Appendix L: Mathematics Assessment Timeline.........................................................58 Appendix M: Gains Across Reading Report.............................................................59 Overview of the Study Evaluation of the Massachusetts Reading First plan is organized according to a logic model, which describes the program and its anticipated outcomes. The model associates several key inputs (implementation of tiered instructional models, participation in professional development and support activities, and use of student assessment data) with intermediate outcomes (changes in teachers’ knowledge and skills and changes in teaching practice). The model also relates those intermediate outcomes to changes in students’ acquisition of reading skills and overall proficiency. As a formative activity, the evaluation provides ongoing feedback to support the Massachusetts Department of Education’s1 management of the initiative. This includes documenting the nature, extent and effectiveness of school-level, district-level, and state-level program activities. Complementing the statewide evaluation activities that the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute routinely conducts, the present case narrative study was undertaken during the 2006-2007 school year to examine in more depth certain factors—and relationships between factors— that are associated with effective differentiated instruction practices, in three schools that demonstrate successful teaching and learning. Research Design In this section the study’s purpose, data collection and analysis procedures, and descriptions of the focal schools are presented. The complete Research Plan, including a detailed Methodology section, is attached as Appendix A. Background and Rationale Statewide, Reading First schools have received up to four years of funding and professional support to improve teaching and learning in K-3 reading. The grant has from its inception promoted ongoing assessment and instructional approaches that are targeted to students’ needs. Specifically, the grant has focused on improving professional practice so that students at each level would demonstrate gains, including struggling readers, grade-level and advanced readers. Research and evaluation activities to date have suggested that teachers’ and interventionists’ diagnostic capacity has improved and that the availability of scientifically research-based curriculum materials has further enhanced educators’ ability to offer effective, targeted instruction to students, especially struggling readers. During the 2005-2006 school year, the Institute conducted focused case study research to describe and explain the grant implementation models of three schools that show patterns of promising practice. The 2006-2007 study further investigates promising practices at three additional schools, highlighting their approaches to differentiated instruction. Purpose The study explores selected schools’ current practice with respect to differentiated instruction. Of interest are the ways in which schools implement student monitoring and instructional strategies in the following inter-related categories: 1 The name of the Department was changed to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in 2008. MADOE is retained here to correspond to the study’s 2006-2007 timeframe. .. Data schemes and plans—identification of data sources, timing of data collection, analytical procedures; to include identification of tools, data use and data review procedures, feedback loops with teachers and interventionists Individual student success plans—inventory of procedures and products used to track individual progress and inform instructional planning Classroom management—exploration of the ways in which teachers and others have adapted the differentiated methods introduced/fostered through RF to ongoing practice; to include classroom management issues such as use of staff, selection and use of materials, learning centers, whole group/small group instruction Methodology The study employs a focused case study methodology (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Yin, 1994, 2002; Cresswell, 1994). The method is highly suited to complex instances such as those involving change in school settings; it produces understanding based on description of an instance, viewed both as a whole and in a larger context, and it builds analysis through investigation into the relationships between multiple factors. Discussions and examples of applications of the method to education include Jackson, 1968; Fetterman, 1988; and Merriam, 1988. Data Collection and Analysis Unlike research methods which prescribe discrete, sequential phases of data collection and data analysis, the case study methodology calls for an integrated process; data are analyzed as they become available to permit the identification of emergent themes and patterns. These continually emerging results are used to inform subsequent investigation. In this study, data collection strategies include individual interviews and small-group interviews, conducted onsite at each of the focal schools during 2- to 3-day visits, and document review. A subset of school and district representatives was interviewed at each school, including Reading First reading specialists and implementation facilitators, principals, district coordinators, classroom teachers, special education teachers, Title I teachers, and external partners, such as higher education faculty or other consultants whose work was relevant to the study. Interviews were tape recorded with the interviewees’ consent. As needed, follow-up questions (clarification or probes) were addressed to appropriate informants by telephone and email after the site visits. Additionally, school tours and brief informal classroom visits were conducted to set the findings in context and provide descriptive detail. Interviews were recorded, with the consent of participants, and transcribed. Following standard qualitative research conventions to ensure reliability and trustworthiness of findings (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Denzin and Lincoln, 1994), field notes and transcriptions were analyzed through an iterative process of multiple, close readings of the texts, and findings were confirmed through member checks (the solicitation of research participants’ feedback). A recognized qualitative data management and analysis software package was used to manage, code and further analyze data. Site Selection Effectiveness Indices developed by the Florida Center for Reading Research were used to identify schools with effective practice in planning for and delivering differentiated instruction. The indices were first applied to GRADE assessment data collected during the 2005-2006 school year. Initially, twelve Reading First schools were 2 EI-S (Effectiveness of Instruction - Strategic) is the percentage of students with fall scores in the low average category whose spring scores move into average or strength categories. When rank ordered the top 25 schools all have EI-S indices of at least 77%. 3 EI-I (Effectiveness of Instruction – Intensive) is the percentage of students with fall scores in the weak category whose spring scores move into the low average, average, or strength categories. When rank-ordered, the top 25 schools all have EI-I indices of at least 62%. 4 ECI (Effectiveness of Core Instruction) is the percentage of students with fall scores in the average or strength categories who remain in the average or strength categories. All Reading First schools had ECI indices of at least 80%. More than half the schools had ECI indices of at least 95%. identified that demonstrated both EI-S2 and EI-I3 indices ranked within the top 25 schools and ECI4 indices no lower than 95%. The final selection of case sites was made in collaboration with the MADOE, prioritizing schools with higher rankings on the EI-S measure. The Focal Schools The selected schools were: the Sanders Street School (Athol-Royalston), the Edgar B. Davis Community School (Brockton) and the Sullivan Elementary School (North Adams). .. Sanders Street is a small K-3 school with an annual enrollment of approximately 155 students. It ranked first among Reading First schools on both the EI-S and EI-I indices for the 2005-2006 school year, with 87 percent of students scoring at or above the 5th stanine on the spring 2006 GRADE assessment (ranked 5th among all RF schools) and 54 percent of third grade students attaining proficiency on the 2006 MCAS reading test—just four percentage points below the statewide rate. .. Davis is Brockton’s largest elementary school, with a 2006-2007 K-8 enrollment of approximately 860 students, including about 475 K- 3 students. It ranked among the top 20 Reading First schools on both the EI-S and EI-I indices for the 2005-2006 school year. In addition, 58 percent of Davis’ third grade students attained proficiency on the 2006 MCAS reading test—an increase of 20 percentage points over its 2003 proficiency rate, situating the school as the second most improved among all Reading First schools. .. Sullivan is a small K-5 school, with an enrollment of approximately 225 students. It ranked third among Reading First schools on the EI-S index for the 2005-2006 school year. In addition, 80 percent of Sullivan students scored at or above the 5th stanine on the spring 2006 GRADE assessment. Cross-Case Findings While the specific histories, staff and students of each of the focal schools influence—often to a great extent—the processes and outcomes relative to each school, certain characteristics are notably common to two or even all three schools. Selected commonalities are presented below. Overarching Finding: A tiered system of curriculum delivery has been integrated into regular education. Data drives decisions. Broadly, the cases demonstrate that the Initiative has fostered thinking and practices that reflect an individualized approach to student learning. A fundamental component of Reading First in Massachusetts, the tiered instructional model has helped educators and educational administrators conceptualize and implement a program that allows for the early identification of students’ learning needs coupled with timely and appropriate instructional responses. Through a team approach to instruction, classroom teachers, special educators, Title I teachers, paraprofessionals and others offer their students a consistent set of strategies that pinpoint each child’s specific skills. Drawing on an array of formative assessments that provide continuous snapshots of students’ progress, educators now engage in ongoing professional dialogue that yields decisions grounded in data and focused on finding appropriate strategies for individual children. Tools such as the TestWiz data reporting and analysis mechanisms, introduced through the initiative, have enhanced the capacity of school- and district-based teams to understand their individual students’ needs and differentiate accordingly. Finding I. Schools draw on a legacy of support to early literacy to implement the continuous assessments delineated in their tiered models and to translate the results into practice. Each of the three districts has a long-standing history of support to early literacy, as evidenced by investments such as contractual arrangements with external partners and/or the use of grant-funded opportunities to provide teachers substantial professional development and instructional materials. In particular, teachers have benefited from years of experience learning to conduct formative assessments and to tailor their instruction to meet the needs of individual children, as suggested by the data. Drawing on this legacy, teachers at the three focal schools were well-positioned to implement the student monitoring guidelines that the initiative introduced. They have steadily improved their practice through increasingly sophisticated use of the tools made available. Sanders Street Largely through a contractual arrangement with Ideal Consulting, the Athol-Royalston district has long supported the use of formative assessments and small homogeneous student groupings. Having been trained in the use of—and having had years of experience administering—DIBELS, Sanders Street teachers now conduct increasingly sophisticated scoring of the test (recording children’s omissions at the bottom of the scoring sheet, for example, rather than simply counting errors). Accordingly, the Specialist notes that teachers now come to data meetings with suggestions and ideas as to how to address the needs that individual children present. Teachers are more attuned to the specificity of the results and they rely more on the data and less on subjective interpretation. Sullivan Through a contractual arrangement with the University of Massachusetts School Psychology department, North Adams teachers and interventionists were introduced to DIBELS before the Reading First initiative was launched. The district engaged the department to conduct its student evaluations and has, through the years, maintained a working relationship with UMass. The district hired IDEAL Consulting when the Reading First proposal was approved. Additionally, the district uses a data-based behavior management program, the Student Support Center. The Center staff maintains a database on the involved children, tracking information such as number of visits and time of day so as to identify trends (for example, whether a child is avoiding a particular subject area). The data are shared with school staff, as appropriate, and parents. When the district was awarded the Reading First grant, a district-wide team was assembled to address start-up issues, examine data, and conduct longer-term planning. Consultants and external partners contributed to the team’s work. A long-term substitute teacher with a background in data analysis (who would eventually serve as the district’s Data Specialist) sat on the team and by extension served as a liaison with teachers, alternately bringing their input to the table and encouraging them to attempt change. The team is reported to have started from the perspective that their work would be complex. They took care to articulate their purpose and strategies, keep a close watch on district-wide data, and foster a “hyper-vigilance” with respect to assessment, taking every precaution to ensure that assessments would be conducted with integrity. Additionally, not only the at-risk but also the benchmark students are progress monitored. Classroom teachers test these children monthly to ensure that their progress continues without any setbacks. The district has also modified the standard DIBELS scoring sheets to reflect the needs of their students and to assist teachers with instructional planning. The former Data Specialist created a modified scoring sheet that takes into account at-risk students’ need to follow an intervention program longer than typically anticipated (e.g., 20 weeks) in order to achieve measurable progress. Reasoning that the school year is 38 weeks long, the district adjusted its perspective on data points, and reformulated the scoring sheet to reflect 38 rather than 20 weeks. The graph then allows for a realistic and adjustable Aimline, and has been useful to teachers both in terms of communicating with parents as well as tracking growth over time. The history of interventions provided is recorded on the sheet, and skills that have been acquired, if more slowly than anticipated, are tracked. • Davis Brockton’s senior curriculum leaders possess extensive backgrounds in literacy and reading instruction. For years, they have helped to ensure that schools have had access to the resources necessary to support effective teaching and learning in reading, especially in the early grades. The district has historically provided significant professional development opportunities to teachers and administrators. Since the inception of the Reading First grant, district-wide professional development has focused on Reading First philosophy and practices, including, for example, sessions on the three-tier model, Beck’s vocabulary instruction, and effective use of the core curriculum. Principals and assistant principals meet monthly with district staff and receive parallel training, in an effort to ensure consistency of professional growth across the city. The district has also developed a web-based data program, Edusoft. The program reflects the district’s benchmarks, which are aligned with the state standards. Through Edusoft, the district generates assessments for grades 2–8, two times per year, and makes data available to teachers. Teachers have been trained by the Reading First Reading Specialist to manipulate the program and they have the capacity to generate their own tests for use with their students. Edusoft has replaced the ITBS, which was used by the district for years. Finding II. Administrators and teachers use effective data management strategies that include the visual display of data and ongoing communication about the implications of data for each child. Each of the three schools demonstrates an approach to data management that includes ongoing attention to each individual child’s progress. Through an array of strategies—such as individualized fluid folders, data-based teacher supervision, data meetings with students and color-coded tracking sheets—teachers, interventionists and administrators identify and respond promptly to children’s needs. • Sanders Street The Sanders Street school’s Reading Specialist, who possesses an extensive background in reading instruction and who enjoys high levels of trust with her colleagues, manages student data and makes it available to teachers through formal and informal mechanisms, including individual and grade-level data meetings, hands-on sessions with students and teachers in the computer lab, literacy folders, and colorcoded tracking sheets showing the movement of individual children between risk levels. Immediately following the benchmark testing, the Specialist compiles all the data and makes TestWiz graphs as well as her own color-coded tracking sheets available to teachers. These products are compiled for each teacher in a class literacy folder. Children’s names are recorded on color-coded post-it notes, and teachers, meeting individually with the Specialist, move the children’s names from one category to another to reflect updated results. Additionally, the Specialist maintains individual folders for each student. The Reading Specialist collaborates closely with classroom teachers to ensure that each child’s progress is monitored and that software (such as Lexia and CCC SuccessMaker) is programmed according to each individual child’s rate of progress. To the extent possible, teachers sit with the Specialist and a child as they review the child’s on-screen reports. (Each program generates its own report, but the common feature is that children reach terminal screens when they are ready for new units and/or when they are blocked from continuing until they demonstrate mastery of a targeted skill.) If the teacher is not able to sit for this review, the Specialist communicates the information so that the teacher can develop appropriate instruction for each child. Additionally, teachers rely on individualized reports available through the software to pinpoint children’s difficulties. Typically, the Specialist provides reports to teachers, although a few teachers are comfortable enough with computer technology to generate their own reports. • Sullivan At the Sullivan School, individual folders are maintained for every student. The folders, which include records of curriculum delivered and testing results over time, are stored in baskets that line the walls of the RFRS office. Teachers consult these records as needed, and they are brought to grade-level meetings as well as other formal and informal meetings. Data are recorded in formats that have evolved over time to be user-friendly. In part, staff members attribute the school’s success in differentiating instruction to the use of the fivestage Schoolwide Reading Improvement Model and the consistent implementation of collaborative gradelevel team meetings (CGLTs, pronounced “see-glets”). Using DIBELS and GRADE data, the SRIM is widely believed to be well-suited to the tiered model approach that RF espouses. Grounded in ongoing assessment and attention to individual students, the model groups students into “benchmark,” “strategic” or “intensive” needs categories, with corresponding interventions. CGLTS, originating in Kame’enui’s model, were established during the first year of the grant through the intensive work of the district-wide team and UMass interns. At these grade-level meetings, which are held approximately twice per month, classroom teachers, interventionists, and the RFRS look at individual children’s assessment data and discuss the implications. Teachers appreciate having multiple perspectives on each child. • Davis The principal initiated a K–8 system of collating all data relevant to an individual student’s performance in an easily managed and user-friendly format: the fluid folder. Through a coordinated effort among all staff, assessment results and other records are maintained in a child-specific folder that is accessed continually by classroom teachers, interventionists, the RFRS (K–3 students), the district’s literacy coach, the principal and other members of the Instructional Leadership Team. DIBELS, GRADE, core text assessments, district-wide assessments, MCAS scores and other data such as attendance are recorded in a manila folder that is typically found on the edge of a classroom teacher’s desk, for continual consultation. The fluid folder is one set of documentation that teachers are expected to have on hand routinely. Plan books, which are mandated by the district to be completed electronically, are required by the principal to be downloaded, printed and kept on teachers’ desks. Special education students’ files (Individual Student Success Plans) are required to be kept in a drawer in the desk, and as noted above, teachers are expected to keep fluid folders readily available on top of their desks. (As further indication of teachers’ comprehensive view of students’ progress, DIBELS and GRADE results are recorded on the Individual Student Success Plans.) Teachers then have ready access to a considerable amount of information about their students. The Specialist writes comments for teachers on the fluid folders, giving suggestions, highlighting noteworthy changes in data and reminding teachers when the next round of scores is due. The principal reviews fluid folders on an ongoing basis, writes comments to teachers on the folders, and then directs the RFRS to work with teachers in the areas suggested by the data. One component of data meetings that Davis School teachers resoundingly appreciate is the visual display of data in the RFRS office. Colored post-it notes with children’s names grouped by risk level are attached to the glass pane walls, and teachers routinely move the sticky tabs to reflect changes in children’s data. GRADE data (stanines) are displayed by classroom as well. Teachers report that the visual display emphasizes their children’s movement and helps to underscore the effects of their own efforts. The RFRS finds that teachers have responded to the system enthusiastically, and that they look forward to gathering in her office and moving the sticky tabs. Students, too, are given ample opportunity to examine and understand the gains and dips in their own data, resulting in increased student motivation to improve. The principal conducts individual data meetings with students. She believes in putting responsibility for successful learning on children as well as their teachers, and she finds that, for the most part, students listen and “take up the challenge.” Her goal is to inform them so that they are motivated for success. These conferences are conducted after report cards, CCC lab progress reports, benchmark tests, long composition simulations, and motivational initiatives. Typically, the principal reviews a fluid folder, takes print-outs to the pods and pulls children from the classroom one by one. She sits with each child, shows them their data and attempts to enlist their commitment to improved scores in the future. Additionally, the principal carries out extensive supervision of teachers’ work, monitoring their instructional plans and their class assessment data in a structured and timely manner, so that difficulties can be identified—and addressed—quickly. Her records include, for example, teachers’ lesson planners and matrices that capture not only the timing of assessments but also the skills and concepts addressed by each assessment. The principal also has teachers submit data reports, such as the Edusoft and CCC SuccessMaker reports, which are discussed at grade-level meetings with an eye toward directing teachers’ instruction as suggested by the data. She uses those reports as a basis for assigning individual teachers to work with the RFRS or the IRS on particular areas. Further, the principal holds teachers accountable by expressing consistent expectations for all classrooms, regardless of student composition. She has, for example, printed out fall vs. winter benchmark data and shown it to teachers, including classrooms with disproportionately high special education populations. She finds that regular education teachers are then motivated to surpass the special education classrooms’ performance, and that all teachers understand the message that expectations are uniformly high across the whole school. Finding III. Principals create conditions that foster communication and collaboration between all staff members. School schedules and data review procedures are managed so that instructional time is maximized. At each of the three schools, principals have created conditions that foster communication and collaboration between all members of the teaching team. In these schools, the use of specialized staff such as Title I teachers has been deliberately planned so that children are matched with the appropriate adults and professional expertise is shared among staff. Increasingly, staff find that they speak a common language and employ consistent approaches with all their students. While teachers in the past would likely have expressed broad concern about individual students, they now pinpoint the needs, which change over time, and engage in professional dialogue with interventionists about ongoing and proposed approaches to working with their children. • Sanders Street Title I and Special Education teachers are integrally linked with classroom teachers. The Reading Specialist, Special Education teacher, Title I teacher and classroom teachers routinely meet to discuss individual children’s scores. Classroom teachers are involved in decisions about the delivery of interventions, ensuring that the interventions are closely aligned with classroom teachers’ efforts. Also, the Title I teacher has compiled a class summary sheet that he distributes to teachers a few weeks before report cards are due. • Sullivan Regularly scheduled meetings are held so that interventionists and classroom teachers are able to examine data together and make informed decisions about instruction. Additionally, interventionists submit a Reading Intervention Group Update form to classroom teachers weekly. On this form, each child is identified by grade level, intensive or strategic grouping, and attendance rate, and weekly skills and strategies are recorded. A copy is retained in each child’s folder. One of the tool’s main purposes is to ensure close integration between the classroom teacher’s and the interventionist’s efforts. Additionally, the student folder—in particular, the Reading Intervention Group Update—is used to ensure continuity between interventionists, and provides a data-based structure for decision-making regarding each child’s instructional plan. On arrival at the school, the principal modified the school schedule in order to create a longer and uninterrupted reading period. She reduced the number of lunch periods and reconfigured the use of Title I staff so that all children would be focused on reading during that period. The schedule was further adjusted so that specials teachers (gym, art, music) would be available periodically to go into the classrooms and assist classroom teachers either by providing “an extra set of hands” or implementing integrated lessons (e.g., music and reading or art and reading). • Davis On arrival, the principal found that Title I staff were not being used effectively. In her view, the widespread perception was that Title I was servicing the teachers, not the students. The principal reorganized the schedule so that some classroom teachers teach the long reading block in the morning and others in the afternoon, allowing Title I staff to be available to all children for reading support. Also, the principal has assigned Title I staff to a particular grade level, so that they can “do well what they do,” by maintaining clear focus and not being distracted. Title I staff are now fully integrated into the workings of the grade level, sharing planning time and lunch periods, and attending grade-level meetings and data meetings conducted by the Reading First Reading Specialist. Additionally, the principal changed the timing of data review procedures on arrival at the school, in part to ensure that struggling students would benefit earlier from Title I support. Prior to her arrival, previous year’s data were not analyzed until September, which meant that children were not assigned to intervention groups—and Title I staff were not used—until October. During the first year of her tenure, analysis of the previous year’s data was conducted over the summer, so that at-risk children could be assigned to intervention groups as soon as the school year began. Suddenly, tutors were at work with those children by the third day of school. With the introduction of Reading First, data meetings were conducted immediately after the administration of DIBELS and GRADE. Finding IV. Educators’ attention to individual students’ needs includes not only the struggling reader but also the more proficient reader. Teachers expressed not only an awareness of the needs of their struggling readers but also a commitment to provide appropriate instructional strategies and resources to their more advanced readers. Teachers use center time and draw on significant collections of leveled readers, as well as their own teacher-generated worksheets and published materials that provide extension activities geared toward comprehension, critical thinking and writing. Also, book groups have been instituted in some schools, emphasizing higher order skills such as point of view and synthesizing material. Finding V. Schools experience widespread positive effects from differentiating instruction and supporting students’ success. In all three schools, teachers report that their continued experience of success has provided much-needed reward and positive reinforcement of their efforts. In the face of steadily increasing demands on their time and rising expectations, teachers derive tremendous satisfaction from the gains that their students demonstrate. In particular, success in moving children out of Tier 3 has contributed to sustained momentum and teachers’ continued commitment to higher expectations for all of their students. Given that moving children out of the risk categories means fewer children who need the most intensive services, teachers’ morale is boosted with respect to workload as well as intrinsic pride in their students. Overall, the visual representation of children’s movement from one risk level to another—through post-it notes stuck to a teacher’s summary sheet or charts hung on the wall—makes children’s progress visible to other adults, and thereby contributes further to teachers’ professional satisfaction. Case Narrative: Sanders Street School Introduction A small K–3 school in the Athol-Royalston school district with an enrolment of approximately 155 students, Sanders Street ranked first among Reading First schools on both the EI-S and EI-I indices for the 2005-2006 school year, with 87% of Sanders Street students scoring at or above the 5th stanine on the spring 2006 GRADE assessment (ranked 5th among all RF schools) and 54% of third grade students attaining proficiency on the 2006 MCAS reading test—just four percentage points below the statewide proficiency rate. Data-collection A 3-day site visit was conducted on May 1, May 4, and May 7, 2007. Daily schedules follow: Day 1 9:15–9:30 Observation in Title I room (small group instruction) 9:30–9:45 Observation in Special Education room (small group instruction) 9:45–10:05 Observation in Grade 2, Room 3 (small group instruction) 10:05–10:25 Observation in Grade 3, Room 2 (book groups) 10:30–11:00 Reading First Reading Specialist meeting 11:00–12:00 Principal interview 12:00–12:45 Lunch meeting, Special Education teacher and Title I teacher 1:00–2:30 Interview with district’s Director of Operations 2:30–4:00 Reading First Reading Specialist meeting Day 2 9:15–9:30 Observation in Grade 1, Room 5 (small group instruction) 9:40–10:00 Observation in Grade 1, Room 6 (small group instruction) 10:00–10:45 Interview, Grade 1 teachers 10:45–11:00 Break 11:00–1:45 Interview, Grade 2 teachers 11:45–12:45 Lunch 12:45–1:30 Interview, Grade 3 teachers 1:30–2:00 RFRS review session 2:00–2:45 Interview, Kindergarten teachers Day 3 9:15–9:35 Observation in Kindergarten, Room 8 (whole group instruction and breaking into small groups) 9:45–10:05 Observation, Grade 3 in computer lab (LEXIA and CCC SuccessMaker) 10:10–10:25 Observation in Kindergarten, Room 7 (small group instruction) 10:25–10:45 Break (recess) 10:45–11:05 Observation in Grade 2, Room 4 (small group instruction) 5 Initially, only Title I teachers administered DIBELS with IDEAL consultants; classroom teachers were subsequently trained to administer the tests. 11:05–11:25 Review session with RFRS 11:45–12:45 Lunch with Sanders Street staff 12:45 Wrap-up Additionally, a telephone interview was conducted with Athol-Royalston’s Implementation Facilitator, who was on leave during the Spring 2007 data collection period. Follow-up discussions and clarifying questions were conducted subsequent to the site visit. Findings A number of factors have contributed to the school’s steady patterns of growth in K-3 reading. These are discussed below, moving from historical considerations and system-wide features, to specific strategies that are currently in place at the school. District Support to Literacy Instruction The Athol-Royalston district has long supported the use of data to inform instruction. Through Silber grant and other resources, the district has maintained a contractual arrangement with Ideal Consulting, which fostered classroom teachers’ and interventionists’ familiarity with DIBELS and GRADE years before the Reading First initiative was launched. Long before they were asked to administer the tests, teachers were exposed to the practice of ongoing assessment and the formation of small, homogeneous groups.5 They became accustomed to tailoring instruction to meet the ever-changing needs of their students. Ideal has also provided training for the school in the use of Early Reading Intervention (ERI) and for the district in the Instructional Support Team (IST) model, which contributed to the development of school staffs’ practices of collaborative, data-driven decision-making. Additionally, the district coordinator has a strong background in literacy instruction and has been immersed in Reading First philosophy and practices. The coordinator attended the initial TRA, fosters the dissemination of Reading First practices across the district (e.g., district-wide use of Open Court curriculum, Title I teachers’ use of DIBELS) and seeks funding to support activities district-wide that are congruent with the initiative. The district has provided as well substantial professional development for teachers; teachers have received district-provided training in phonics and phonemic awareness, and the current Reading First Reading Specialist provided training to a large cohort of teachers in Project Read approximately ten years ago. The Specialist continues to provide training to teachers, including special education teachers, across the district. Literacy consultants have over the years provided training in instructional programs and targeted strategies (e.g., learning centers). School Culture and Characteristics Sanders Street School is a small neighborhood school with strong home-school connections and a staff of hardworking, veteran teachers. They share a passion for helping their students—typically, children from economically disadvantaged families who come to school with a very limited set of experiences and who therefore possess much less background knowledge than children from more privileged backgrounds. School staff, students and families share a sense of school pride that is associated with success in reading. The school recently attempted to break the world’s record for the number of people reading the same book (using Charlotte’s Web), and were photographed high up on the school roof for local media coverage of their effort. The school also used the invitation to be included in the present study as a cause for celebration: a whole wall was plastered with gold stars showing the name of each student, under the banner, “Sanders Street School Reading Super Stars.” The school enjoys a high rate of family participation in parent nights and other family events, but even more significantly, families have bought into a school-wide commitment that children will read each night. (Teachers report a nearly 100% compliance rate on parents’ sign-off sheets attesting that children have completed their nightly reading.) “It’s part of the routine here at our school,” said one teacher, describing how children take books home and “practice, practice, practice.” (Taking into account the realities of parents’ availability, teachers have developed a routine of advising students to “read to yourself, read to the refrigerator, then read to an adult.”) Sanders Street teachers have developed strong norms of collaboration, in part as a result of years of teaching together (the two second grade teachers have been working together for 18 years, for example). Teachers share information freely with one another and they have developed habits of informal communication to “check in” on students. More formal collaborations have included, for example, efforts to enhance the alignment between kindergarten and first grade. At the end of May each year, kindergarten and first grade teachers meet so that first grade teachers benefit from the kindergarten teachers’ insights into the children. Teachers have as well been open to piloting research-based approaches to instruction. The school’s adoption of Open Court prior to Reading First contributed to the development of teachers’ comfort and competence with the program. They were prepared to benefit from the opportunities that the grant would provide to engage in professional dialogue about the use of the program to address their students’ needs. Additionally, teachers’ familiarity with the core program reinforces their ability to derive maximum gain from the supplemental and intensive programs, especially Project Read. They feel confident in identifying the sections of Open Court that, in the view of some teachers, introduce too many skills too quickly, and find that they can use Project Read to isolate specific skills. Teachers feel as well that the school has long maintained a strong focus on reading. The school library and classroom libraries are filled with a large supply of decodable and leveled texts, which teachers use to reinforce skills. Also, the school has for years maintained a long reading instructional block (at least 90 minutes and typically up to 120 minutes). Differentiated Instruction in the Framework of the Reading First Model The Reading First Reading Specialist is widely respected by her colleagues, and so was able to launch the grant from a position of trust with classroom teachers and interventionists. While positive in any setting, this factor was critical to the school’s success, given a series of transitions in leadership (assistant superintendent, school principal, IFs) during the grant period and the district’s persistent budgetary constraints, including reductions in Title I support. Colleagues report that the Specialist, drawing on her knowledge of reading instruction, made wise decisions about how to allocate the substantial Reading First funds that were available at grant inception (e.g., purchase of computer hardware and software and other materials) and that her guidance about teachers’ professional development over the course of the grant (e.g., selecting from a panoply of possible trainings) has been effective and appropriate. Her efforts to reinforce areas of needed improvement, such as vocabulary and comprehension are well-received by staff (e.g., school-wide Word of the Week activities per Beck’s model). The Tiered Model The attached model (Appendix B) displays the school’s targeted use of core, supplemental and intensive intervention programs. Unlike some small schools, where staff might tend to adopt ad hoc approaches to instruction as a result of teachers’ confidence that they ‘know’ their (few) children, Sanders Street staff follow a model that is grounded in a team approach to pinpointing and responding to children’s needs, and monitoring their progress closely. The IF cast the distinction in terms of student “profiles,” noting that this small school offers individual children within, for example, Tier 2 instruction, different interventions based on their needs, rather than thinking of these children as “profiles” or “the Tier 2 children.” Guided by the Reading Specialist, classroom teachers, Title I and Special Education teachers follow individual children’s progress—with progress monitoring undertaken as frequently as weekly for the most needy children—and provide instruction based on data. 6One kindergarten teacher suggested that Reading First’s methods of individualized assessment have influenced her practice in fields other than reading. Based on the success that her children have shown in reading, she has begun tracking children’s progress in math and making notes on report cards. Data-Driven Instruction The school employs a team approach to looking at data and making decisions about instruction. Integrated approach to progress monitoring and interventions Sanders Street School’s use of supplemental and intensive programs is enhanced by the integration of Special Education and Title I staff in helping children learn to read, so that the Title I and Special Education staff are integrally linked with classroom teachers. While the Title I program recently suffered a dramatic reduction in funds (the teacher is at the school only 2 days/week in 2006-2007), the Title I teacher provides small-group instruction to Tier 2 children in grades 1-3 using Project Read, Lexia and Sounds and Letters. The district has articulated the goal of differentiating instruction to the extent possible, so schedules are coordinated so that the classroom teacher is facilitating small groups in the classroom when the Title I teacher is conducting his small group. In addition to formal data meetings with classroom teachers and informal conversations, the Title I teacher has compiled a summary sheet (Appendix C) that he distributes to teachers a few weeks before report cards are due. The Special Education teacher (full-time position at the school) implements Wilson and Read Naturally for Tier 2 students as well as Fundations (Wilson) and Lindamood Bell for Tier 3 students. The Special Education paraprofessional implements Read Naturally for Tier 2 students and ERI (grade 1) for Tier 3 students. Additionally, kindergarten teachers administer ERI school-wide, as needed. Teachers feel that kindergarten teachers’ administration of ERI has helped to ensure consistency with the core program. (Also, Language! is available but the teachers have not been trained in its use.) The school has choreographed the movement of students and adults so that progress monitoring is conducted frequently, by a range of staff members, while still minimizing the disruptions or loss of instructional time that could plausibly result. Tier 3 students are progress monitored weekly. The Special Education teacher administers the off-grade DIBELS tests during computer lab so that children are not pulled out of classroom activities. Tier 2 students are tested biweekly. Classroom teachers administer the weekly grade-level DIBELS, sometimes using their lunch or other personal time to administer the test, and the Title I teacher and Special Education teacher administer the off-grade DIBELS. The Title I teacher tends to conduct the testing during Lexia periods, so that he can listen attentively to each child while others are working on the computer. The Reading First Reading Specialist administers the QPS, PPVT and CTOPP, as needed. Kindergarten teachers conduct progress monitoring at the computer lab or during rest time. Kindergarten teachers administer their own assessments as well, to meet the district’s requirement for individual assessments for report cards.6 The Specialist is responsible for testing children who are new to the building. The school’s computer lab is equipped with Lexia and CCC SuccessMaker, and computers in the lab are networked with computers in the classrooms. All children use these programs; at-risk children are scheduled for additional time. The Reading Specialist manages the computer lab, serves as liaison to the technical representatives, and is the general point person for computer lab issues. (The PTO, which has been an active fundraising body for years—having provided the school with WhisperPhones, for example—recently advised the Specialist of their intention to support the purchase of a server.) The Specialist collaborates with teachers to monitor children’s progress and program the software so that children are progressing at their own rate. As a child reaches a terminal screen in one of the programs (either because the child is now ready for a new ‘unit’ or because the child is blocked from continuing further until demonstrating mastery of the targeted skill), the Specialist sits with a child and reviews the on-screen information. Teachers participate in this review whenever possible. In the teacher’s absence, the Specialist communicates the information (e.g., errors, areas needing further reinforcement) to the teacher, so that the teacher is prepared to help the child, especially during small group work. The Specialist notes that one advantage of sitting with the child and reviewing scores is to secure ‘buy-in’ from the child, who is intrinsically motivated to continue to earn ever-higher scores and/or advance through the program. Teachers use the individualized reports generated by these programs to plan instruction. They appreciate the “concrete information” in the reports, and noted that the CCC reports in particular help to pinpoint children’s difficulties. In most cases, the Specialist provides reports to teachers, although a few teachers are comfortable enough with computer technology to generate their own reports. Data meetings, literacy folders and visual display of data Benchmark testing is conducted by classroom teachers, the Title I and Special Education teachers and the Specialist, with the Special Education paraprofessional acting as ‘runner’, escorting children between their rooms and the testing areas. The staff then score the tests and discuss the results, and then return to the classrooms, where children eagerly await an update on their scores. Substitutes are provided for this day, or if funds are lacking, other adults are assigned to coverage in the morning. Soon thereafter, the Specialist compiles all the data and makes Test Wiz graphs as well as her own color-coded tracking sheets available to teachers. These products are compiled for each teacher in a class literacy folder. Appendix D shows an example of one teacher’s Nonsense Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency sheets, representing January benchmark results, which would be included in the literacy folder. Children’s names are recorded on color-coded post-it notes, and teachers, with the Specialist, move the names from one category to another to reflect updated results. In the past, the Specialist conducted more formal, grade-level data meetings with teachers, but as funding for substitutes has dwindled, she has shifted to less formal meetings, typically with individual teachers or in conjunction with the Special Education and/or Title I teacher as appropriate. The Specialist will have reviewed the test results prior to these meetings and prepared suggestions for student groupings or other instructional strategies. Some teachers remarked that when they met more formally to discuss the scores and re-group children, they were not making as many changes to the groups, in part because those meetings were conducted only two or three times per year. With experience and growing confidence, some teachers find that they now trust their own expertise in interpreting results, and so are more comfortable making changes based on “what [they] are seeing” in individual children. “Now, we’re used to doing it and we’re more confident as classroom teachers to make those changes,” said one teacher, reflecting on the children who had recently improved and/or regressed and so been assigned to new reading groups. The Reading Specialist observes that teachers now conduct more sophisticated scoring of the tests and that they are more attuned to the specificity of the results. She reports that teachers rely more on the data and less on subjective interpretation. With DIBELS, teachers now tend to record children’s omissions rather than simply counting an error, for example. The Specialist contrasts this practice to teachers in other buildings with less experience, who merely note whether a word was right or wrong. “With DIBELS and GRADE you can tell what’s missing,” said one Sanders Street teacher. Accordingly, the Specialist notes that teachers now come to data meetings with suggestions and ideas as to how to address the needs that individual children present. The Reading First Reading Specialist’s Role: “The glue that holds it all together” Teachers uniformly express the notion that the Specialist is the ‘go-to’ person for any issues related to reading instruction at the school, and that she represents consistency in terms of philosophy and approach, given the number of transitions in personnel noted above. While she carries out the functions routinely associated with the role (e.g., data management, in-class modeling, providing professional development on the use of new materials), she also maintains a broader support presence in the school, circulating through the building and making herself available to teachers as needed. Staff routinely approach her to discuss the realities they are confronting with their particular children, and together they develop responses. The Specialist respects the expertise that teachers bring to their role (“I trust them…They’re professionals”) and teachers stress that flexibility is a key component of the Specialist’s approach. One kindergarten teacher, for example, recently met with the Specialist to explain that reading groups were not working for the children in her classroom. The teacher asked for and was given authorization to run large group instruction for a few months, reasoning that the children needed to have more direct contact with the teacher. That change met with success, and when the teacher resumed groupings, she managed the groups somewhat differently than with other children, to allow for more movement. “At this school, you work with your groups the best way that it works with your children,” she concluded. Teachers report that this same flexibility characterizes the data meetings, whether grade-level meetings or individual teacher meetings with Title I and Special Education teachers. The Specialist ensures coherence between multiple instructional strategies used across the school as well. Recent staffing reductions reflect the concurrent decrease in funding from both Reading First and Title I budgets, resulting in the Title I teacher’s reduced availability, noted above, as well as the loss of all Title I-funded paraprofessionals. In this light, the school opted to develop a volunteer program, which the Specialist coordinates. She prepares daily packets of materials for the adult and high school volunteers, who conduct hands-on activities, such as flash cards and games, with children. She has developed protocols for volunteer sessions (e.g., no more than two students per volunteer) and manages an extensive inventory of materials that are modified, on an ongoing basis, according to the needs of the children. Additionally, the Specialist provides data that are used to configure second and third grade “Buddy Reading” strategies. Students work with a grade-level partner in second and third grades throughout the week, and then on Fridays are paired with a cross-grade partner. The Reading Specialist provides DIBELS and other data to help pair students most effectively. The Specialist plays other valuable roles in the school—having ordered vast quantities of materials in the past and now organizing and cataloguing them, having recently facilitated a second grade reading group to compensate for staff shortages, taking responsibility for programming the computer software and serving as a link to a broader network of reading professionals. Teachers report that the Specialist is well-equipped to respond to the array of inquiries they bring to her. The Specialist, for her part, cites the value of her professional network, given the limited number of staff at her school and across the district. She routinely consults with resource people across the state, including the IF, consultants and others, seeking answers to the challenges children present. “It makes me crazy when they’re not learning,” she acknowledges. The IF has been helpful, she notes, in working with staff to examine DIBELS data, to use flexible grouping for maximum efficiency and to construct literacy folders and post-it note tracking sheets. Data: Implications and Uses Teachers state that they feel well-prepared to address students’ needs as a result of having access to a wide array of assessment strategies. Largely, they report that the end of unit assessments provided by Open Court help them to tailor their instruction. Teachers find as well that that DIBELS and GRADE data are useful not only for the purposes of reading groups, but also for designing whole group instruction. One teacher commented, for example, “The value of so much testing is just that it keeps you on top of everybody and what they need. It’s even useful for your whole group instruction, because you’re aware of who needs what.” They stress as well that the data allow them to pinpoint not only the needs of struggling readers, but also their more advanced readers. Differentiating to address “holes” in the data Input from the DOE/IF has helped teachers to look at “holes” in their data and acknowledge not only areas of continued growth but also areas of persistent need—such as relatively slower growth at the upper grades and overall comprehension weaknesses—and to adjust instruction accordingly. Teachers largely report feeling comfortable and confident with instruction for fluency. Third grade teachers have resoundingly endorsed their K- 2 colleagues’ success in preparing children in terms of decoding and sight words, and so school-wide efforts to focus somewhat more on comprehension—as suggested by the data—have taken hold. In addition to Word of the Week activities, the IF and the RFRS have modeled vocabulary-building K-3, and teachers report continued enthusiasm for increasing their skills in the area of comprehension. Third grade teachers have, additionally, employed rigorous strategies—coupled with high expectations—to foster children’s vocabulary development, acknowledging that children are not likely to be exposed to rich language at home. In addition, teachers use DIBELS data to help parents understand their child’s strengths and needs (see below), the Special Education teacher brings results to team meetings, Special Education staff use DIBELS off-grade level to better pinpoint needs, and DIBELS data were presented to the district to justify the need for a paraprofessional position in kindergarten. These strategies further demonstrate the school’s commitment to differentiating according to the ever-changing needs of their students. The RFRS and the school’s corps of veteran teachers make effective use of the vast materials available to them. Following a well-articulated skills sequence, they draw on selected components of programs as suggested by data. Their long-standing use of Project Read, supplemented with Wilson materials and a range of additional strategies used in the past (e.g., Phyllis Fischer drills) and the continuing influx of new approaches (e.g., the Specialist’s recent training in Language! and her presentation of some elements of the program for teachers) contribute to the comprehensive approach to assessing and delivering instruction to all of Sanders Street School students. Differentiating for parents As noted above, there are strong home-school connections at Sanders Street, as shown by high participation rates in extracurricular events as well as high rates of compliance with the school’s policy that children will read each night. Parents sign and stamp a form attesting to their child’s completion of reading homework. Parents not only listen to their children reading, they also communicate with teachers by writing comments and questions in a teacher-parent notebook that is continually sent home with children and then returned to the teacher. The notebook serves as a tool for parents to interact with their child’s teacher in a way that is open-ended and allows for child-specific parental involvement. In most classes, children take books home from the school’s ample supply of leveled readers. Teachers report that while the management tasks associated with this practice are not insubstantial (e.g., assuring an adequate number of copies of titles, keeping track of children’s book lists), they have learned that concerns such as whether children repeat a story or read a book that is below their level are less important than the notion that children will “practice, practice, practice.” Differentiating for more proficient readers Efforts to meet the needs of each student are not focused solely on struggling readers; they include as well a school-wide concern that more advanced students not be neglected. As noted, the school’s collection of leveled readers is critical to this strategy. Additionally, teachers rely on a combination of teacher-generated worksheets for individual work and published materials. Challenge Workbooks (Open Court) are widely appreciated, and first grade teachers, in particular, discussed the flexibility of Explode the Code and Primary Phonics. Also, the school recently instituted book groups in third grade to help children move on from fluency to comprehension. Designed to meet the needs of the more advanced readers, these groups, conducted two days per week, emphasize higher order skills such as critical thinking, point of view and synthesizing material. Teachers are pleased that the individualized CCC SuccessMaker lessons allow not only the struggling readers but also the more advanced children to continue to make progress. Readers Workshop, for example, was cited as a useful tool for helping third grade students with vocabulary and comprehension, employing longer passages and targeting inferential skills. Widespread effects of differentiating and achieving success The history of transitions at the district and school level (including the departures of those individuals who were the greatest supporters of the grant), coupled with patterns of decreasing funding have posed challenges that staff at other schools might not have embraced so successfully. Staffing reductions (e.g., the loss of substitutes to cover for grade-level meetings, and cuts to Title I teaching and paraprofessional services) have meant that classroom teachers have been asked to assume greater responsibility (e.g., classroom teachers see their Tier 3 students two times each day). Teachers largely acknowledge that they experience rising expectations in an environment characterized by a shrinking pool of support personnel and uncertainty about the future. Teachers work hard and support one another as much as possible, but they acknowledge school-wide tendencies toward declining morale and perceptions of being “overwhelmed.” In this context, teachers report that their continued experience of success (e.g., seeing their children achieve) has provided much-needed reward and positive reinforcement of their efforts. In particular, success in moving children out of Tier 3 has contributed to sustained momentum and teachers’ continued commitment to higher expectations for all of their students. Given that moving children out of the risk categories means fewer children who need the most intensive services, teachers’ morale is boosted with respect to workload as well as intrinsic pride in their students. The visual representation of children’s movement through the post-it notes system, thereby making children’s progress visible to other adults, further contributes to professional satisfaction and higher expectations. Teachers report that as they see children making gains, their expectations are continually raised. Beyond the movement of individual at-risk children, teachers find that opportunities to observe the effectiveness of their classroom teaching (e.g., GRADE) contribute as well to overall professional motivation. One teacher stated, for example, “Even with GRADE…I can’t wait for the spring now, to see GRADE. We’ve done all the vocabulary, the Readers’ Workshop, the book groups—let’s see if it’s helped.” MCAS During the years under investigation, the school had not pursued strategies explicitly targeting MCAS performance (the principal introduced workbook activities in the Fall of 2006). Staff attribute MCAS achievement to an overall comprehensive set of effective instructional strategies (“it’s just good teaching”). They believe that vocabulary development through the school-wide Word of the Week activities has likely contributed to MCAS improvement, as well as item analysis, using GRADE and MCAS data. Case Narrative: Sullivan Elementary Introduction A small K–5 school with an enrollment of approximately 225 students, the Sullivan Elementary School ranked third among Reading First schools on the EI-S index. In addition, 80% of Sullivan students scored at or above the 5th stanine on the spring 2006 GRADE assessment. Data-collection A 3-day site visit was conducted on January 29, January 31 and February 2, 2007. Daily schedules follow: Day 1 8:30-10:00 Principal 10:00-11:30 Title I/Reading First Coordinator 11:30-12:00 Lunch 12:00-1:30 Tour of School, Visits Grade 1 and Grade 2 with RFRS 1:30-3:30 RFRS Day 2 8:30-9:00 CGLT Meeting (Grade 3) 9:10-11:10 Walk-throughs Grade 3, K, 1/2, 1, 2 11:10-12:10 K and 1 teachers 12:10-12:40 Lunch with principal 12:45-1:45 Grades 2 and 3 teachers and interventionists 1:45-2:30 Debrief with RFRS Day 3 8:30-10:00 RFRS and IF 10:10-11:00 IF 11:00-11:45 UMass Intern 12:00-1:00 Lunch with RFRS 1:00-2:00 IST 2:00-3:00 Wrap-up Follow-up discussions and clarifying questions were conducted with school and district staff subsequent to the site visit. Additionally, a telephone interview was conducted with the district’s [former] Data Specialist, who had recently left the district. 7 UMass faculty and students trained Special Education teachers in the use of data, two years prior to the grant. Findings A number of factors have contributed to the school’s steady patterns of growth in K-3 reading. These factors are discussed below, moving from historical considerations and system-wide features, to specific strategies that are currently in place at the school. District Support for Literacy Instruction The North Adams district has long enjoyed fruitful collaborations with individuals and organizations that represent high levels of expertise in assessment and reading instruction. The district’s Title I/Reading First Coordinator possesses an extensive background in reading, having used with struggling readers many of the intervention programs now in effect, and having been exposed to research and research-based practices for years. The coordinator and district-wide teams are widely credited with having made wise decisions at the time of grant start-up regarding training, materials, and the use of consultants. University of Massachusetts School Psychology Department Through a contractual arrangement with the University of Massachusetts School Psychology department, North Adams teachers and interventionists were introduced to DIBELS before the Reading First (RF) initiative was launched. The district engaged the department to conduct its student evaluations, 7 and has, through the years, maintained a relationship with UMass; graduate students have conducted doctoral research in the schools and UMass faculty have become familiar with the student population and staff. Professor Gary Stoner, who had pursued graduate work at the University of Oregon, was a reader for the North Adams RF proposal; the Schoolwide Reading Improvement Model (Appendix E), from Oregon, was selected as the model for RF implementation. After being awarded the RF grant, the district engaged UMass, among others, to train teachers in the administration and use of DIBELS. The current Implementation Facilitator (IF) completed her doctoral studies in the UMass program. Having worked as an intern in the district; she knows the students and teachers, and has earned the teachers’ trust through years’ of collaboration. (It was, in fact, the IF who, as an intern, conducted a study at Sullivan using DIBELS, which revealed that approximately 70% of kindergarten students were at-risk or some-risk at the end of the year.) UMass is still involved with the district, largely with respect to facilitating the Instructional Support Team (IST) process. Clearly, the North Adams-UMass relationship, which has endured through the RF grant period, has been mutually beneficial. IDEAL Consulting The district hired IDEAL when the Reading First proposal was approved. Like the UMass faculty and students, the degree to which these consultants have contributed to the district’s instructional programs cannot be overestimated. IDEAL has conducted training for teachers on the administration and use of DIBELS and has played a key role in the district’s use of the IST model (a team-based, problem-solving approach to making decisions about students’ academics and behavior using data), having trained teachers and facilitated the process. The district continues to engage IDEAL to monitor and ensure reliability of data, provide ongoing professional development in an array of topics, and contribute to teachers’ and district staff’s ongoing decisions about literacy instruction. National and Regional Leaders Influence Grant Implementation at Start-Up As noted above, the district has pursued substantial support from outside experts to provide technical assistance and other forms of professional development. At the time of grant start-up, the district engaged well-respected scholars to guide their thinking and planning processes. UMass faculty (Stoner, as noted, and John Hintze) were familiar with Kame’enui’s work, and the district brought individuals such as Michael Coyne to consult with start- 8 Additionally, the district Coordinator had recently attended the International Dyslexia Association’s fiftieth conference, where Kame'enui and Coyne were speaking about the Schoolwide Reading Improvement Model and DIBELS up work.8 (The district coordinator was typically described by Sullivan staff as “proactive” and was appreciated for having brought scores of “heavy-hitters” to the district.) Hyper-vigilance: Early Commitment to Reliability of Data, Fidelity of Implementation A district-wide team was assembled to meet weekly, addressing start-up issues, examining data, and conducting longer-term planning. Consultants and external partners contributed to the team’s work. A long-term substitute teacher with a background in data analysis (who would eventually serve as the district’s Data Specialist) sat on the team and by extension served as a liaison with teachers, alternately bringing their input to the table and pushing them to attempt change. One former team member recollected, “We were always listening to teachers, [as to] whether an intervention wasn’t working, or whatever…” The team is reported to have started from the perspective that their work would be complex. They took care to articulate their purpose and strategies, keep a close watch on district-wide data, and foster a “hyper-vigilance” with respect to assessment. The District Coordinator reflected on the early approach to using DIBELS as follows, “…[T]here was this real obsession with using this instrument as well as we could use it, and then recording the data as well as it could be recorded. It isn’t the same in every building. Sullivan took it to a higher art form.” The Data Specialist described the approach similarly (“conducting the assessments with integrity”), explaining that the team and some teachers who had been trained (Title I staff) administered DIBELS benchmarking and progress monitoring so that the data would be reliable. She said, “That first year we said ‘Let’s really go overboard and let’s be sure and then if we want to pull back a little we can but let’s start out being hyper-vigilant.” The Data Specialist recounted as well that the tests were being scored with “sophisticated scoring” (“We actually wrote down the errors”), a practice that would continue through the grant period. “Our hyper-vigilance paid off,” she concluded. School Culture, Characteristics and Relevant Practices Sullivan School is staffed by a largely veteran corps of teachers who have been working together for years and who enjoy collaborative working relationships. The Reading First Reading Specialist (RFRS) has been at the school for 30 years, and is deeply respected and trusted by her colleagues. Class sizes are small and most classrooms are staffed by a teacher and a paraprofessional. Some described the school culture as that of a “family”; teachers share professional collegiality, enjoy high levels of trust and caring for one another, and often spend time together outside of school. Teachers described their working relationships as follows: I just think the camaraderie that we have with all colleagues in this building is huge. I think that says a lot. The chemistry in the building is very important. How people work with each other is big. …[E]ven if I’m not quite sure about something in phonology, I can ask [another teacher]. He can ask me. It’s nice to have colleagues that you can go to and say, “Hey, what do you think about this?” Or, “How does that work for you?” The staff is broadly recognized for hard work and commitment to their students and their families. The principal hired, for example, an aide to be available for early drop-offs for parents who need to be at work. The school’s former principal (Joe Rossi) retired in 2004; Principal Shelley Fachini assumed the position during the 2005-2006 school year. Formerly a student at Sullivan from kindergarten through fourth grade, and a student teacher under the current RFRS, she has long-standing ties to the school. Principal Fachini brought to the position a strong background in Early Childhood and Special Education—skills and expertise that are respected by teachers in relation to pinpointing children’s needs and planning instruction. 9 The district has been working to integrate the SRIM and 3-tiered models, at the DOE’s request. The principal made few changes on arrival to the school, finding staff morale largely positive and student data beginning to show desirable trends. Her concern, which teachers’ comments affirm, was to provide teachers the support they needed to carry out their jobs, and to be sensitive to the kinds and amounts of change that teachers would be asked to pursue (“be careful not to overwhelm them”). She maintains an open-door policy, conducts regular faculty meetings, and has recently begun meeting with paraprofessionals bi-weekly in order to demonstrate her respect for their work and to listen to their concerns. One change that the new principal did initiate was to modify the school schedule in order to create a longer and uninterrupted reading period. She reduced the number of lunch periods and reconfigured the use of Title I staff so that all children would be focused on reading during that period. The schedule was further adjusted so that specials teachers (gym, art, music) would be available periodically to go into the classrooms and assist classroom teachers either by providing “an extra set of hands” or implementing integrated lessons (e.g., music and reading or art and reading). In addition to the IST model, discussed below, the school, like others in the district, maintains a Student Support Center. This behavior management program is designed to provide support to children presenting with behavior management issues and serves as an example of the school’s commitment to collecting, analyzing, and using data to inform decision-making. Rather than taking a punitive approach, the Center is facilitated so that there is close communication between the student, the classroom teacher, and the Center staff member. Children can refer themselves to the Center if they feel they need a break, or they can be sent by a teacher. The Center staff maintains a database on the involved children, tracking information such as number of visits and time of day so as to identify trends (for example, whether a child is avoiding a particular subject area). The data are shared with school staff, as appropriate, and parents. The principal explained: We go to referral with some kids, and you bring that data in and have a little chat about what that means. So I think we’re pretty data-driven everywhere you look, from behavioral interventions to the reading stuff. And it’s been helpful. I mean, you walk into a meeting and you have a stack of, “This is what little Joey has looked like for the past three weeks.” And when you’re talking to a parent, it’s nice to have that in black-and-white to support what you’re trying to convey to the parent. Differentiated Instruction in the Framework of the Reading First Model SRIM, CGLT and IST: Data-driven Decision-making In part, staff members attribute the school’s successful reading instruction to the use of the 5-stage Schoolwide Reading Improvement Model and the consistent implementation of collaborative grade-level team meetings (CGLTs, pronounced “see-glets”). Using DIBELS and GRADE data, the SRIM is widely believed to be wellsuited to the tiered model approach that RF espouses.9 Grounded in ongoing assessment and attention to individual students, the model groups students into “benchmark,” “strategic” or “intensive” needs categories, with corresponding interventions. CGLTS, originating in Kame’enui’s model, were established during the first year of the grant through the intensive work of the district-wide team and UMass interns. At these grade-level meetings, which are held approximately twice per month, classroom teachers, interventionists, and the RFRS look at individual children’s assessment data and discuss the implications. Teachers appreciate having multiple perspectives on each child. Teachers reflected on the CGLTS as follows: I think…the biggest thing that makes it all work, is that we sit down and talk to each other. And [the RFRS] kind of heads things up…[I]if the teacher is saying, “This isn’t working,” or “This is working,” the collaboration is what makes it really come together. It’s that it’s regularly scheduled. You know it’s there and that’s the block that’s set for that. And it’s time to talk about individual kids. Because the kids do change between the benchmark DIBELS tests. And it gives us a chance to see their scores and see exactly how, or if, they’re making progress or not. We bring their GRADE assessments, and their DIBELS assessments, and…at those meetings…I feel that’s very useful. And the DIBELS breaks it right down. And sometimes it’s that somebody is very high in letter naming, but really is not high at all in initial sounds. And so you know right away what to work with, because they’ve really established that. So, of course you do it during the core curriculum, but when you have just that child and just that small group, you know that those kids really need this. So you can target it. And as far as meeting together, sometimes it’ll be something you totally didn’t think of. You’ll be meeting with other teachers, and somebody will say something, and you’ll say, “Well, yeah, that could work.” The IST process was described as follows: “a systematic problem-solving process where we work with teachers in a team-based format to target specific problems that children are having, both academic and behavioral.” Through a team-based process, a child’s difficulties are identified and benchmark data are collected. Following a specific protocol, a plan is then developed by the team, and progress is monitored using curriculum-based measurements (largely, DIBELS) and behavioral observations. Some teachers reported that the IST fits well with the SRIM because it uses data and seeks preventive efforts that include but are not limited to core and supplemental/ intensive interventions. Some staff expressed the belief that because of its focus on an individual student, the IST provides professional development for a teacher, as well. In addition to DIBELS data, participants in an IST, such as interventionists and the RFRS, would potentially encounter the data collected through the Student Support Center for an individual student. Use of the Core Curriculum Prior to the Reading First grant, North Adams teachers were not using a common reading program, and the implementation of programs being used was inconsistent from classroom to classroom. Under the grant, teachers were invited to review multiple reading programs; following broad-based consensus, the Scott Foresman 2004 reading series was acquired. Extensive training was provided to teachers, with an eye toward fidelity of implementation (“hyper-vigilance,” noted above). Teachers now express confidence with and enthusiasm for the program, acknowledging the support they received from the RFRS and a Scott Foresman consultant. The following comment is illustrative: “I think getting a common curriculum, a common reading program for all of us to be using has helped—sticking to that, rather than everyone doing their own thing.” Fidelity and Flexibility While recognizing the value of implementation with fidelity, teachers nonetheless have effectively reasoned that modifications to address the specific needs of their individual students were warranted. Scott Foresman is used off grade-level in second grade, for example, for skills instruction. (Grade-level materials are used for vocabulary and comprehension.) Teachers and the RFRS explained that their efforts to have the implementation modified in this way resulted from their advocacy (“We grumbled and complained that grade-level isn’t best for our kids, and after a lot of grumbling, they finally did give us first-grade materials”). Decisions about the use of off-level materials are typically made at the beginning of the school year, prior to the administration of DIBELS benchmarks. Second grade teachers sit with students individually, and randomly open one of the six first-grade readers. If a child shows difficulty with a particular page, the teacher flips back through previous pages until a comfortable starting point is identified. Acknowledging that the off-grade instruction is atypical, the RFRS commented, “That’s really what they need. So that’s what we’ve done.” Teachers use the end of unit assessments and brief assessments at the end of each week to track children’s progress. Teachers tended to describe the Scott Foresman program as “cohesive.” They noted the importance of maintaining continuity of instruction for children, by using Scott Foresman with struggling readers, even if off-level, rather than scrambling to locate materials from different sources. They have found that once an appropriate starting point is established for a child, the program provides a broad enough range of approaches to help each child succeed. They expressed as well confidence that the multiple assessment strategies in place (core curriculum and teacher-generated assessments, DIBELS, and GRADE) ensure that children are appropriately placed in instructional groups, especially with respect to off-level groupings. They said: In the back of each of the first-grade books, there is a whole list of the sight words that are expected to be known. You’re supposed to know those automatically before you go into the next book. And so…we are able to figure out–plus with DIBELS data, which usually reinforced exactly where we had tentatively placed them anyway, and GRADE data–that these children can’t be in over their head. They’re not going to make [progress]. They’re not going to be successful. But if we back them up to a point that they feel good about themselves, the program is cohesive, because it has the basal, it has the leveled readers, it has the spelling program. And so in my class, there are three different spelling tests, because I have kids in three different levels of reading. But everything is all together. If you go off-level, because of Scott Foresman, you can have everything. You can have the basal, you can have the workbook, you can have the phonics, you can have the spelling, you can have the leveled readers. And I think that’s why our kids are successful, because we’re starting them where they need to be, and we have all the materials that we need. We’re not always hunting for things. It’s all there…And technically, that’s not the Scott Foresman model. But it does work, because our kids make progress, no matter where they start from. They leave a lot better than they came, because we started them at the right point. That’s what I think is important. “Not to Overwhelm” Throughout the grant period, district staff, the RFRS and the newly arrived principal have been careful to help teachers gain confidence and competence with changes in practice and approach (taking care “not to overwhelm teachers”). They have tried to introduce change incrementally, and they have provided training and other supports to enhance the likelihood that anticipated changes would actually be carried out, given the realities of the classroom. From the beginning, the Scott Foresman representative was helpful in terms of prioritizing instructional activities, by, for example, working with teachers to identify segments that could safely be omitted from lessons. Additionally, five-day lesson planners have been introduced (Appendix F, sample grade 2 planner), which help teachers prioritize the core curriculum materials. These planners were developed by teachers in collaboration with district staff, Scott Foresman and IDEAL consultants, and the IF. The RFRS described the tool as follows: …[T]he Scott Foresman consultant…helped to weed out what they absolutely had to do and what they only needed to do once or twice a week. And what could be done in small group, what could be done independently, and what they needed to provide as direct instruction in the whole group. So it’s one thing that they can use to help in their differentiated instruction. 10Note that concern for reliability of data, discussed above, influenced the testing decisions as well as concern for division of labor. Teachers report that the RFRS is continually available to help guide their decision-making with respect to streamlining their instruction. One teacher explained, for example: And I know this year, I’ve had some children who are having a lot of trouble. And [the RFRS] and I sat down one day and just discussed what some of the things were that we could leave out. What things are the most important? What things could I leave out in a day? So she’s always there for us in that sense. And even though you might know it yourself, it kind of gives you a little confidence when you sit down with somebody and say, “Geez, you think this is going to be okay if I do this, and if we spend more time on the fluency and we don’t do so much with something else?” Similarly, the RFRS has learned that teachers prefer being exposed to a limited number of new activities, rather than receiving a large binder that they would be expected to review independently, so she uses a portion of the CGLT meeting times to introduce one or two new activities. Teachers expressed widespread appreciation for these brief professional development components. One teacher said, for example: A lot of the things that I learned in those meetings, I can bring into a small group and use right away. It’s just very easy, it’s very convenient, and a lot of those things that we do in these trainings go with what sources we have here. So it’s not as if they’re brand new…That plays a big part [in our successful differentiated instruction]. Overall, district and school staff have focused on “the big picture”—using the opportunities afforded by the initiative without overemphasizing the role that any individual would be asked to assume. One district staff person remembered, for example, that when DIBELS testing was begun under the grant, classroom teachers were not asked to administer the tests, but were instead free to focus on learning their new curriculum.10 She said: We kind of did things in a kind of incremental way so that—Like when the training started with the testing, they sent Title I staff, because classroom staff were implementing their new Scott Foresman. I mean, you really can’t expect people to do everything all at once. You have to kind of have a little bit at a time. And the way that it’s kind of worked together, and now it’s sort of a teamwork approach. We work together and do everything together. I think that was really important. Communication and Professional Alignment between Classroom Teachers and Interventionists The district’s history of collaborating with outside professionals, as well as its track record of committing substantial resources to professional development for teachers, has yielded a teaching cadre that is well-versed in instructional practices in reading. They share a knowledge base and common language, which enhances the effectiveness of their work with individual students. Because the district has staff who have been trained in the interventions, expertise is available if new staff are hired or if veteran staff need a refresher. Common Language through Professional Development Over the past few years, most classroom teachers were trained in Project Read. This training has helped to ensure consistency with the strategies employed by the interventionists. Teachers complement Scott Foresman with multi-sensory strategies, for example. More broadly, teachers are well-equipped to discuss their individual students’ progress with interventionists. Teachers described their exchanges with interventionists as follows: [An] other thing that’s nice is that, as teachers, we’re allowed to go to workshops that maybe some schools just let the interventionists go to. I mean, almost all of us have been trained in Project Read, and linguistics, and story form, and report form. A lot—well, some people have been trained in Wilson. So even the classroom teachers have the LETRS training…We have a lot of trainings behind us. …Even if we don’t use [the programs] this year, or if we haven’t used them yet, we have the background. We have the materials. We have— And that way, if we talk to them about it, we know what we’re talking about. I know what they’re talking about. The district spent a lot of money on the trainings. But it was money well spent. It gave us sort of a common language we can use. And the training that we’ve had in phonology, in all the different components…we can, all of us can deliver it and use it. So if someone needs to go into [my colleague’s] group, or his kids need to come to my group because it’s better for them, you know, we’re doing the same things. The kids have heard those things before. It’s not like they’re going into a foreign land. And those skills that we’ve gotten out of those trainings, they’re good skills to have to work with children that are struggling with reading. And I really think the biggest thing that we do here is we look at the individual child. And if that child is struggling, we try to come up with a plan. We figure out, you know, what can we give them. What’s going to be best for them. Individual Student Folders Folders are maintained for every student, which include records of curriculum delivered and testing results over time. The folders are stored in baskets that line the walls of the RFRS office; teachers consult these records as needed, and they are brought to CGLTs, ISTs, and other formal and informal meetings. Data are recorded in formats that have evolved over time to be user-friendly. Reading Intervention Group Update The Reading Intervention Group Update (Appendix G, Appendix H) is a form that interventionists complete and submit to classroom teachers weekly. Each child is identified by grade level, intensive or strategic grouping, and attendance rate. Interventionists record skills and strategies for each week. The form is submitted to the RFRS on Fridays, and is distributed to classroom teachers and other adults who are involved with individual children. A copy is retained in each child’s folder. One of the tool’s main purposes is to ensure close integration between the classroom teacher’s and the interventionist’s efforts. The RFRS described the tool as follows: …[T]he classroom teacher would know what the interventionist worked on, what they used from Project Read or whatever system they used. So if they were also using it in the classroom, if the teacher used Sound Packs and sentence dictation and finger spelling, then they might want to do LETRS and spell tabs, or just something different. And it tells what Bonnie Kline stories they used, and what they used them for. And anything else that they did. It’s a good way for teachers to simply know—for classroom teachers to know what the kids had done so that they could then, if they wanted to, in their differentiated group the next week, work on the same thing. The Specialist stressed as well the importance of tracking children’s attendance, casting the issue as one of accountability. She said: I think that’s one of the things that we’re going to be accountable for in our intervention logs. I think attendance and time—time actually spent. I mean, we could say that X has intervention five times a week, but three days of the week he’s late, and only is there half the time. So he doesn’t actually have it. Additionally, the student folder—in particular, the Reading Intervention Group Update—is used to ensure continuity between interventionists, and provides a data-based structure for decision-making regarding each child’s instructional plan. (These data are also consulted at IST meetings, as appropriate; they inform planning for each child that extends beyond reading instruction.) Interventionists offered the following reflections: So, say a student–if we’re deciding if it’s best for that student to move to another group with another interventionist, that interventionist knows what’s been covered. And they know it’s been covered with integrity. And they know they can pick up where the other one left off. The teachers can look at it to know what they’ve done. And like [my colleague] said, if it’s not working, we can also say, “OK, this kid’s had all of these units in phonology. He’s not making much progress. What can we do about it? What can we change? Can we try a different intervention?” And that way, if the child is then taken to IST, they can take that folder and see. They have that information. Teachers and interventionists carry copies of the Reading Intervention Group Update with them in order to tailor their instruction to the needs of their students. One teacher said, for example, “That little paper—you just bring it right along to sit with you. You bring it to your little reading group…And it makes it so easy to know what to zero in on.” Assessment: Efficiency, Sophisticated Scoring, and Progress Monitoring of Every Child Consistent with the commitment to obtaining reliable data that was evident from the time of grant start-up, classroom teachers do not administer DIBELS benchmark testing. Rather, benchmarking is conducted by Title I teachers, while classroom teachers conduct progress monitoring. Resoundingly, school and district staff feel confident that this strategy yields more valid data, since the Title I staff have received significant training and possess considerable skill in administering the tests. Classroom teachers receive the DIBELS results for their children quite promptly—routinely, the same day. Additionally, not only the at-risk but also the benchmark students are progress monitored. Classroom teachers test these children monthly to ensure that their progress continues without any setbacks. Records are maintained for these children and incorporated into the individual student folders, which are retained by classroom teachers. District staff, teachers, and interventionists stress the importance of sophisticated scoring of assessments, so as to derive detailed and complex information about each child’s particular strengths and needs and subsequently tailor instruction. When conducting, scoring, and interpreting the results of assessments, staff draw on their own years of experience working with children, their experience with a range of tools (in particular, running records), the formal trainings they were offered under Reading First, and their collaborations with consultants and other experts. Examples of the pinpointed assessment strategies that teachers and interventionists employ include miscue analysis, the creation of probes, and tabulating the number of blends and stages of blending (especially in first grade). Teachers and interventionists described their practices as follows: The progress monitoring really guides me in planning my teaching. Because when I do monitoring—take, for example, the oral reading—I don’t just slash the word that’s wrong. I always write in what they said, so I can go back and use that and see where they’re making most of their mistakes. So I do something like a running record at the same time that I do the progress monitoring. And then I can pick up if they’re always missing long vowels, or some other skill. So I really use that progress monitoring to guide their instruction…[That practice] came from my training doing running records and just experience over the thirty years. During progress monitoring, we do our own probes. We take the letters that they know. We talk with the classroom teacher and establish [baselines]. We do this at IST sometimes, but sometimes we don’t wait that long. And little Emily that we’re working with now, maybe knows E, M, O, X, and T. So we make a probe that just has those letters. And then next week, we’ll incorporate one more letter. And it really gives them some self-confidence, that they know something, rather than putting a sheet of paper in front of them every week where they don’t know anything…And it shows their growth. Even though at their level the growth is not equal to their peers, it shows their own personal growth. And that, I think, is really successful. In the beginning [of the grant], we had an issue with the blending and not counting the blends. And we thought, “Wow, they’re getting these huge scores on nonsense words, but they’re not blending anything.” We were with [the IDEAL consultant] a lot and we talked about those issues and were able to modify things. Now we count their blends, because if they are not blending by the middle of first grade, then they’re not going to make progress, even if they get those sounds. The district has also modified the standard DIBELS scoring sheets to reflect the needs of their students and to assist teachers with instructional planning. The former Data Specialist created a modified scoring sheet (Appendix I) that takes into account at-risk students’ need to follow an intervention program longer than typically anticipated (e.g., 20 weeks) in order to achieve measurable progress. Reasoning that the school year is 38 weeks, the district adjusted its perspective on data points, and reformulated the scoring sheet to reflect 38 rather than 20 weeks. “Now January is just a point in time, it’s not the whole big Benchmark,” the Specialist explained. The graph then allows for a realistic and adjustable Aimline, and has been useful to teachers both in terms of communicating with parents as well as tracking growth over time. The history of interventions provided is recorded on the sheet, and skills that have been acquired, if more slowly than anticipated, are tracked. Collaboration Enhances the Use of Data for Differentiating Instruction As noted, Sullivan School staff enjoy collaborative relationships grounded in years of working together. Relying on formal mechanisms as well as extensive informal communication, they share their perspectives on students’ growth, as reflected in data, on an ongoing basis. Student groupings are reconfigured as needed, and teachers are aware of one another’s work so that they can provide a cohesive set of strategies to assist each child. The following exchange is illustrative: Title I staff meets regularly with the classroom teachers, and we discuss how the students are doing, and we look at the data, and we just plan from there. So we have that cooperation, which in this building is really, I think, one of the key factors—That we really work together. And we look at those test scores, and see where the weaknesses are, and plan our instruction from there, and our groupings from there. And even besides the CGLT meetings, sometimes just informally we’ll talk about, “You know Tony’s not doing so well in that group, I think we need to–” At any time we can be flexible about grouping, so it’s got to help them. You know, not wait until report card time or something like that, or until the next DIBELS testing, or whatever. Given a wide range of materials available, and the flexibility to adapt instruction (as noted above) based on the needs of their students, teachers are well-equipped to pinpoint their instruction. One interventionist described her work as follows: The program which I mostly use is Project Read—the different strands, the different grade levels. And the lower grade is the Project Read phonology. And I use that. That’s my core program for the intervention, and then of course I supplement it with other materials, too. But that’s what I basically follow. But at the same time, I also talk to the classroom teachers to see where they are with Scott Foresman, to make sure I’m reinforcing what they’re doing and giving the children more practice. So again, it’s that cooperation with– And not even formally at the meetings. Just like going across the hall and saying, “What are you working on now?” and things like that. So we correlate that Project Read with what they’re doing with Scott Foresman. And that seems to be working pretty well…[T]he children seem to be responding to that quite well. There’s so much available to use, I don’t feel like I have to stay to a certain thing. I feel like there’s plenty of activities that are brought in, so I can teach a different skill a different way. In addition to addressing the needs of at-risk students, Sullivan School staff also expressed a commitment to serving their more proficient readers. Teachers commonly described their use of the extension activities in the Scott Foresman program to challenge and engage their more advanced reading groups. MCAS Several factors contribute to the school’s growth in MCAS results. One staff member commented that MCAS performance simply reflects the broader approaches to teaching and learning that are in place at the school: “As for differentiated instruction, we’re differentiating everything…When you do all of that, MCAS takes care of itself.” In addition to ongoing assessment under the Reading First grant, specific MCAS-prep work is carried out throughout the school year and across grade levels. The IF has worked with third grade teachers to help prepare students for open-response questions, using CGLT time to identify aspects of Scott Foresman that could be used for this purpose (e.g., Response to Reading sections). Third grade teachers have also generated their own texts, including longer passages and questions that foster drawing inferences. Third grade teachers increase students’ homework assignments as the year progresses, to encourage practice at home, and they tend to intensify the reading and writing assignments in the content areas as MCAS approaches. Second grade teachers rely largely on the LINKS materials to jump-start students’ familiarity with different question types (multiple choice and open response) and to reinforce vocabulary and comprehension skills. Second grade teachers begin introducing test-taking strategies as well, such as restating the question in the answer. Additionally, the district recognizes the potential correlations between GRADE and MCAS. Going beyond the stanines and grade equivalency analyses, staff conduct diagnostic analyses which include the coding of items and examination of implications for instruction (e.g., students’ strengths and weaknesses with respect to questioning, clarifying, summarizing, or predicting functions). Case Narrative: Davis School Introduction Brockton’s largest elementary school, with a 2006-2007 K–8 enrolment of approximately 860 students, including approximately 475 K- 3 students, the Edgar B. Davis Community School ranked among the top 20 Reading First schools on both the EI-S and EI-I indices. In addition, 58% of Davis’ third grade students attained proficiency on the 2006 MCAS reading test—an increase of 20 percentage points over its 2003 proficiency rate, situating the school as the second most improved among all Reading First schools. Data-collection A 2-day site visit was conducted on February 5 and February 7, 2007. Daily schedules follow: Day 1 8:30-9:45 District Coordinators, IF, Principal 9:50-12:00 Instructional Leadership Team, IF, Principal 12:00-12:30 Lunch 12:30-1:00 Tour of School 1:00-3:30 RFRS Day 2 8:30-9:00 ILT Team 9:00-10:45 Classroom visits 10:45-11:15 Data meeting (Grade 3) 11:20-12:00 Kindergarten and Grade 1 teachers 12:00-12:30 Lunch 12:30-1:15 Grades 2 and 3 Teachers and IRS 1:20-2:10 Interventionists and IRS 2:10 Wrap-up with Principal and RFRS Follow-up discussions and clarifying questions were conducted subsequent to the site visit. Findings A number of factors contribute to the Davis School staff’s ability to differentiate instruction based on the needs of individual children. These are discussed below, moving from historical considerations and system-wide features, to specific strategies that are currently in place at the school. District Support to Literacy Instruction Brockton’s senior curriculum leaders hold extensive backgrounds in literacy and reading instruction. For years, they have helped to ensure that schools have had access to the resources necessary to support effective teaching and learning in reading, especially in the early grades. The district provides to its schools instructional staff who serve as members of building-based Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs.) These district-supported staff include a Reading Resource Specialist and an Instructional Resource Specialist (IRS), who tends to focus on math and science. The IRS at the Davis possesses, additionally, a strong background in reading instruction. ILTs include the principal, associate principal(s), Reading Resource Specialist and Instructional Resource Specialist. In Reading First schools, the Reading First Reading Specialist (RFRS) sits on the ILT. Meetings between the building-based specialists and the elementary district coordinators are held monthly; these meetings typically include professional development components. Reading Resource Specialists and Instructional Resource Specialists also meet with their peers periodically to plan and/or share knowledge and expertise. The district has historically provided significant professional development opportunities to teachers and administrators. Since the inception of the Reading First grant, district-wide professional development has focused on Reading First philosophy and practices, including, for example, sessions on the three-tier model, Beck’s vocabulary instruction, and effective use of the core curriculum. Principals and assistant principals meet monthly with district staff and receive parallel training, in an effort to ensure consistency of professional growth across the city. Computer labs and a lab manager are provided to schools. The lab manager, with the RFRS in RF schools, administers CCC Success Maker, an individualized math and software program; those data are routinely made available to teachers. A city-wide pacing guide has been developed to help teachers plan their instruction. The district has also developed a web-based data program, Edusoft, that reflects the district’s benchmarks, which are aligned with the state standards. Through Edusoft, the district generates assessments for grades 2–8, two times per year, and makes data available to teachers. Teachers have been trained by the RFRS to manipulate the program and they have the capacity to generate their own tests for use with their students. Edusoft has replaced the ITBS, which was used by the district for years. The district has also demonstrated use of research-based curricula in reading. Prior to the Reading First grant, the district had been using the Scott-Foresman 2000 series. Notified that they had been awarded the Reading First grant late in 2003, the district continued use of Scott Foresman 2000, rather than hurriedly purchase a new core curriculum during that abbreviated first year. Also, district representatives were aware that Scott Foresman would soon be launching a new program, so they waited for its release before committing to a purchase. Because of the late award notice, the district did not attend the first TRA in 2003. Rather, their first TRA was conducted on-site by DOE staff in Feb. 2004. The district learned from the DOE staff that the Scott-Foresman series tended to be weak in phonics and phonemic awareness, so they immediately devoted professional development to those areas. In 2004, selected elements of the Scott-Foresman 2004 series were introduced, and in 2005-2006 the Scott- Foresman Reading Streets 2007 program was adopted. The Links to Reading First component and Sidewalks, the intervention program, were acquired as well. As the attached Davis School 3-tier model (Appendix J) shows, Sidewalks complements ERI, which was originally mandated by the district for grade 1. Currently, ERI is used for kindergarten and Sidewalks is used for the most intensive students in grades 1–3. District-wide, the kindergarten program has been shifting from half-day to full-day. The district used its kindergarten grant (NAEYC) funds to purchase the kindergarten component of Scott Foresman for the new full-day programs. Prior to the Reading First grant, the district had provided literacy and literacy-related support to schools, including the Davis, such as professional development in the areas of differentiated instruction, literacy centers, and classroom management (Responsive Classroom). Since 2002, consultant services were provided to Davis School staff in guided reading, vocabulary development, word walls, and fluency through a variety of professional development grants. School Leadership, Climate and Changes in Practice Principal Darlene Campbell came to the Davis in 2001, having held previous positions in Brockton including math teacher, Instructional Resource Specialist, and assistant principal. Additionally, she has worked with a private professional development provider, focusing on differentiated instruction, ELA and math instruction, and motivational strategies. Principal Campbell arrived at the school to find an unproductive climate and a fractured, demoralized staff. She recounts now having instituted some changes fairly quickly. Among those immediate changes was the re-organization of the school’s physical layout so that grade-level colleagues would work in close proximity to one another. She explained: The end of my first year, I moved thirty-three people. This building was everybody everywhere. Third grades weren’t together, fourth grades weren’t together, first grades were in four different places around the building. So we made, we came in on weekends and made dollies so that all the teachers—I would take—The team would take with me a hundred kids, and we’d be doing motivation with them while the teachers in June were able to move their classrooms and things like that…physically moving their stuff…But I didn’t want them to have to do it after school closed, because that would have left a sour taste in their mouth. Because you don’t end school and then you’ve got to stay and do everything. High Expectations and Focus on Data: “No Wasted Time” The principal reportedly set a new tone in the building, featuring high and clear expectations of students and teachers and demands for accountability. While some staff members left during the transition, some stayed, and those who stayed were those who had reportedly “…bought in—they knew what they were signing up for,” as current staff members recollect. The principal then hired some staff members to come to the school and work with her. These were trusted, experienced colleagues. Reflecting back on the school’s success over the past few years, the principal is quick to cite the value of having skilled professionals on her team. She said: Having those folks as support gave me the courage to do what I had to do because I knew these folks were out there…I couldn’t have done this alone. No way!…Like they say, every good leader surrounds themselves with folks that are a lot smarter than they are. And I have done that. I have done that. These folks, I rely on them like you would not believe because of their expertise. Teachers report that they are held accountable to the principal (e.g., weekly lesson plans are submitted for her review; she attends monthly grade-level meetings). The principal’s oversight reflects, in part, her commitment to bringing uniformity to the design and delivery of instruction across the school. Teachers note that prior to Principal Campbell’s arrival, “Everyone was doing their own thing.” They acknowledge as well that they benefit from substantial support from the principal and the ILT, and that they respect the work ethic that the principal demonstrates. She states, “I come from good Italian stock…‘Whatever you do, do whatever it takes to do it well.’” Teachers’ respect is suggested, for example, by a nearly 100% rate of teachers’ attendance at summer institutes, which are not mandated. Teachers note as well that that the principal conducts frequent informal classroom observations, and they are aware that one characteristic she is looking for is effective use of time (e.g., she has insisted that teachers manage morning time skillfully and “not take 20 minutes to take attendance and get lunch orders”). In addition to motivation, drive and a commitment to teachers’ and students’ success, the principal brought to the school a clear focus on data. Teachers feel that the principal is “’on top of’” the data, knows which students are struggling, and that “…she cracks that whip and you do it.” They report that she reacts immediately to changes in the data. One teacher said: She doesn’t waste time. You know, if there’s a tiny dip in scores…there’s many factors why, but she’s tackled it. “What can we do? What can we do to improve it? That’s not going to happen again.” She looked at our model. She looked at the degree of interventions. She looked at the support staff. She just tackled it immediately. Scheduling and Strategic Use of Title I Staff Principal Campbell made scheduling changes designed to enhance interaction between teachers and between teachers and students. The school has long had in effect grade-level meetings—dating from its participation in the Silber early reading initiative—but the principal arranged the schedule so that grade-level teachers would also have the same lunch period, in an effort to promote collaboration and shared thinking. Teachers report that they do routinely use this time for collective problem-solving. The principal has, in addition, made a staff person available to the teachers for tasks such as photocopying so that they are free to spend as much of their time talking together as possible. Broadly, the principal found that Title I staff were not being effectively used prior to her arrival. The widespread perception was that Title I was servicing the teachers, not the students. She explained: When I first came here, Title I was so different because the teachers all wanted their share of Title I. And it was, “Well, I get Title I for this many minutes a day, and she gets it for this many minutes.” So it was all even-steven. And what they weren’t focusing on was the children, and that Title I was here for the children, not for the teacher. The principal reorganized the schedule so that some classroom teachers teach the long reading block in the morning and others in the afternoon, allowing Title I staff to be available to all children for reading support. Also the principal has assigned Title I staff to a particular grade level, so that they can “do well what they do,” by maintaining clear focus and not being distracted. They are fully integrated into the workings of the grade level, sharing planning time and lunch periods, and attending grade-level meetings and data meetings conducted by the RFRS. Members of the ILT described the use of Title I staff as follows: They attend the data meetings. They attend for all teachers in the data meetings. They sit for all of them, because they work with all the teachers. So in third grade, when [the RFRS] meets with six teachers, that Title I person sits for each of those six meetings, because she’s the global person… As well as the special ed teacher. She’s the global person that moves through and also sees who she might be picking up, because she’s the most versatile with when the groups change. “So-and-so can come out. This one has to come in. You’ll be doing this. We’re going to move this and that.” [She’s] right there, in on it from the get go…She’s not being told. It’s a discussion. Additionally, Principal Campbell changed the timing of data review procedures, in part to ensure that struggling students would benefit earlier from Title I support. Prior to her arrival, previous year’s data were not analyzed until September, which meant that children were not assigned to intervention groups—and Title I staff were not effectively used—until some time in October. The principal described her reaction to this practice as follows: …[C]oming from just out of the classroom, I said, “You’re telling me that Title I’s going to…work with these children, that’s great. But they’re not going to start until mid-October. So now I’ve got my children in a schedule, and a daily routine, and it’s going to change come mid-October, which is the sixth week of school that the children have already become accustomed to. I said, “We’re going to fix this so that the third day of school, the teachers know that at this time is guided reading, or center time, or resource time, or whatever, so the children are in a routine right away. Nothing is changed, maybe some tweaking, but nothing is changed drastically… One veteran staff member described the prevailing ethos as, “You heard…years ago, it was ‘We’ll review in September and school kind of starts in October.’” During the first year of Principal Campbell’s tenure, analysis of the previous year’s data was conducted over the summer, so that at-risk children could be assigned to intervention groups as soon as the school year began. Tutors were at work with those children by the third day of school. With the introduction of Reading First, data meetings were conducted immediately after the administration of DIBELS and GRADE, teachers gave input on tweaking that might have been needed, and Title I staff were working with intervention groups by the third week of school. The principal commented, “In three weeks, after we re-look at the data, if you want to tweak, you tweak. But you are starting to work, because we’re not going to waste the whole month of September.” Teachers’ reactions to such changes in timing and use of Title I staff were uniformly positive. They were bettersituated to meet the expectations articulated in the district’s pacing charts, and they realized that their students would benefit. The principal commented: The teachers were like, “Wow. I can start this right away. I know that this particular teacher is going to be in my room at this time.” And the scheduling from their perspective was like, “This is so much better than having to—come October—flip everything around and say, okay, now we’re starting Title I, now we’re starting intervention.” Differentiated Instruction in the Framework of the Reading First Model The Davis school model clearly demonstrates a commitment to helping each and every child succeed. The reading period is scheduled for two hours (120 minutes), but typically runs closer to 2.5 hours (150 minutes). In the initial stages of the grant, an assessment team conducted benchmarking and progress monitoring, with an explicit commitment to reliability and consistency of data. Teachers report that they were adequately supported as they gradually assumed these responsibilities. A member of the ILT describes the approach that was used to build comfort and confidence with testing: I think that, initially, when students had to be tested and we were throwing around things like the DIBELS, we-—as a team—did the first DIBELS with the Title I folks. We trained them, so that we didn’t have teachers go in over their head right away. Then we started training the teachers. And then, to build a collegiality, I had them going so that they were working diagonally [across classrooms]. “You test my kids, and I test your kids.” I wanted to make sure that they tasted all ends of the spectrum. [It wasn’t a matter of] “My class isn’t a bad class,” or “My class isn’t a good class.” That didn’t matter. It was, “What can we show for this youngster who has gone from where to where?” Currently, teachers administer their own benchmarking and progress monitoring assessments. At-risk children are monitored every two weeks, and some some-risk children are monitored as frequently as every two weeks, to ensure that potential learning struggles are identified quickly. Palm Pilots were purchased, and as of 2006-2007, many teachers—supported by the RFRS— were using the Wireless Generation software, although not all teachers possess the technical capacity to manipulate the device. In addition to the official core and supplemental curricular programs (Scott Foresman series, Leap Track, Great Leaps, ERI, Recipe for Reading), teachers draw on an abundance of materials that had in the past been acquired through CSRD funds, in particular leveled readers (commonly described as the “literacy closet”). Classroom teachers and interventionists find as well that they adapt materials and strategies from prior programs, guided by the implications of data and concerned with preventing problems or addressing them before they have intensified. Members of the ILT cited an example, as follows: Last year we used Early Success. Early Success in second grade, and Soar to Success in third grade. And what I found this year with the third grade Title I and the tutors, is that they’re using some of the strategies from the Soar to Success program, and they’re bringing it in and using it with the Sidewalks. So they’re taking all those comprehension strategies. There’s some other teaching, and they’re joining it with the Sidewalks program with the phonics and the making words and all of that. ILT members stressed that the Title I and tutoring staff would have determined at data meetings that such approaches were appropriate. One person stated that she sees “a lot of prevention going on in the classroom before remediation.” She said, “I find that they look at the data to try to prevent the problems from becoming problems.” Teachers report that they rely on a range of assessment tools. In addition to DIBELS, GRADE, Scott Foresman unit tests, SuccessMaker tests and reports, and Edusoft tests and reports, veteran teachers find that they also administer running records in some situations. Typically, they use the running record with at-risk students to complement DIBELS (fluency) data and provide another view of the challenges facing students (e.g., miscues), especially in the area of comprehension. Some teachers administer a brief DRA on Fridays during the same time period that they are conducting progress monitoring. One group of teachers discussed the practice as follows: …[O]n Fridays, a lot of times, I’ll have the children work independently or do buddy reading with each other or work from one of the stories, and I’ll call up a child and test him on the sight words, the highfrequency words, to make sure that they’re grasping the words. When you go to that [evaluation] meeting, they’re always asking us, “What assessments do you have? What documentation do you have?” So you may do a running record. I like that still in the DRA, because that can tell you other things that you might be looking for, where they’re struggling. So it’s totally up to the teacher. We’re not mandated to do that. But you still pull from your old bag of tricks that worked, too, and that might be when you use that. …And like you said, the running record—Is the issue the meaning, that they’re not getting the word? Are they using the visual cues? What are they doing when they read? And it’s just that whole reading strategy thing. Are they re-reading? Are they not re-reading? That is a piece that you want to work with that particular child in. Right. Because after you progress monitor, you’re saying, “Okay, the child isn’t reaching that benchmark. Why?” You know, that DIBELS didn’t give me all that information. But the running record, a very informal running record which I do just sitting listening to them during flexible grouping, I don’t even need the words in front of me, I just do the running record. I can say, “Oh, boy! This is where they’re missing out. This is what they’re great at. This is what I need to work on.” So I think it’s a combination of things that work together. The Reading First Reading Specialist Role The current RFRS came to the school as a first grade teacher the first year of the grant. Certified in special education as well as reading, she brought to the school experience with Reading First practices such as learning centers and guided reading. She has also received training in the use of computers, and she comments that she is not afraid of a computer. (She is often called on to troubleshoot computer issues around the school.) The then-first grade teacher was invited by the principal to apply for the RFRS role when it became available, and she assumed that role in 2005-2006. She had already participated in Reading First professional development, was familiar with the 3-tier model, and enjoyed an effective transition with the outgoing RFRS. She notes that she has been supported by the RFRS at the district’s other Reading First school, especially in areas such as the use of Test Wiz to manipulate student data. Some staff find that the RFRS’s background in special education has helped her to make connections with the special education staff and to successfully involve them in the initiative, especially with regard to understanding and developing a commitment to the interventions. The RFRS is known as well for respecting teachers. They remarked that she addresses children’s learning issues in collaboration with teachers rather than unilaterally. The Specialist acknowledges that she takes into account teachers’ suggestions and concerns, as well as the observations that teachers offer from the classroom perspective. The RFRS and the RRS work closely with teachers to help ensure that data drive instructional planning and that teachers’ efforts are used to yield the most gain. They created a planning tool, for example—‘Week at a Glance of Scott Foresman’ (Appendix K)—that teachers cite for its usefulness and accessibility. The Fluid Folders The principal initiated a K–8 system of collating all data relevant to an individual student’s performance in an easily managed and user-friendly format. Through a coordinated effort among all staff, assessment results and other records are maintained in a child-specific folder—termed “fluid folder”—that is accessed continually by classroom teachers, interventionists, the RFRS (K–3 students) and RRS, the principal and other members of the ILT. DIBELS, GRADE, core text assessments, district-wide assessments, MCAS scores and other data such as attendance are recorded in a manila folder that is typically found on the edge of a classroom teacher’s desk, for continual referral. Figure I and Figure II present Math and ELA fluid folders, respectively. Figure I Fluid folder showing Math performance for a Davis School student Figure II Fluid folder showing ELA performance for a Davis School second grader Members of the ILT have found that teachers reacted positively to the creation of the fluid folder process because the folders showed the growth that students were achieving, in a comprehensive and up-to-date manner. Through ongoing review of the data captured in the folders, teachers’ enthusiasm and professional satisfaction increased. Teachers report that the folders reflect “a philosophy that is held at the school—that children are not all going to be at the same place at the same time.” They tend to describe the value of the data in terms of support to their own professional judgment. One teacher said, for example: The value of having so much data is to support your professional judgment as to what individual children are experiencing, either to justify bringing a child up for evaluation or to justify postponing additional steps (e.g., if it is shown that a child is progressing). For a teacher, it is preferable to going to a team meeting without any information. Teachers cite having used DIBELS data and other data collected in the folders in meetings with parents, saying, “Well, this is where a child is weak and this is where they are strong.” Teachers bring fluid folders to grade level meetings, as well. The RRS described a recent example of grade-level use of the folders, as follows: 11 As further indication of teachers’ comprehensive view of students’ progress, Reading First assessments (DIBELS and GRADE) are recorded on the Individual Student Success Plans. They know that [the fluid folder] is something that we all look to, that they bring to grade-level meetings, and we’ve looked at them with them. Like at this last [faculty meeting], I said, “Please pull down individual reports…Because then you’ll be able to [look at the reports again] after the second Edusoft, individual reports, and see where the change has been, and see what emergencies you have. You know what I mean? What children have reached and attained things. So we’re constantly looking at [the data], and then requesting that they target [their instruction]. It has to be. The fluid folder is one set of documentation that, like other materials, teachers are expected to have on hand routinely. Plan books, which are mandated by the district to be completed electronically are required by the principal to be downloaded and printed out and kept on teachers’ desks. Special education students’ files (Individual Student Success Plans) are required to be kept in a drawer in the desk, and as noted above, teachers are expected to keep fluid folders readily available on top of their desks.11 The ILT explained that teachers then have ready access to a considerable amount of information about their students. The team explained: [Teachers have that information] right there—who is in which group, who is servicing that group, what time that group comes in, all that information is right there for them. They’ve got it all. So they have a good handle on which of their youngsters are being serviced in what capacity for what reason. We’ve organized for it. They’re very, very well informed. The Specialist writes comments for teachers on the fluid folders, giving suggestions, highlighting noteworthy changes in data and reminding teachers when the next round of scores is due. She notes that teachers comply readily with the established testing schedule. As teachers have become increasingly informed about their children’s progress, they have been better able to provide the supports that their children need, in the classroom, through strategies they have learned under the grant. Teachers have, similarly, become more engaged with interventionists who deliver supplemental and intensive instruction. While teachers in the past would likely have expressed broad concern about individual students, they now pinpoint the needs, which change over time, and engage in professional dialogue with interventionists about ongoing and proposed approaches to working with their children. The following excerpt from the ILT’s discussion illustrates the value of teachers being informed about their children: [Being very informed] makes them part of the whole process. And that’s key, too, so that, [when they say], “You know, gee, I’m worried about Joey, Janey, and Jimmy,” [we say], “Well, that’s okay, because I just slid them over into this group because of what we noticed. So they’re going to get four days of such-and-such. We’re going to try that for three weeks, I’ll progress monitor them. We have to do a DIBELS and then we’ll see where we’re at.” So the teacher then knows. You know what I mean? And that happens classroom after classroom after classroom. I think when you talk to teachers, you’ll see that they’ll say, “We are—It’s constantly changing.” I mean, when we met several years ago, and we just started this, I said, “You know, years ago when we taught, we had the Bluebirds, the Sparrows, and the Pigeons. And whatever you were in September, you were in June.” I said, “Those days are gone. That’s why we call them “fluid.” Your kids are constantly going to move, constantly going to change because of their needs, which is differentiating instruction. We’ve done a lot of work with, and a lot of professional development with centers. Because they’re not just busy-work areas, and that’s not what they should be. We did a lot of work on teachers becoming proficient with guided reading, and how a good guided reading is supposed to be. It’s not that you sit at a hushed table and every child gets a chance to read. I mean, that’s not the purpose of guided reading. So teachers have really been taught by [the RFRS] and the ILT through professional development, elements that they need to incorporate, and this is how you do it. RFRS’s interactions with teachers The RFRS engages with teachers and interventionists through a variety of mechanisms, including formal and informal meetings, individual and small-group meetings, and written communication. She typically attends monthly grade-level meetings, and she schedules data meetings as needed, meeting individually with teachers or with teams if they team-teach, and including Title I and special education staff as appropriate. These meetings generally last about one half-hour per teacher and are often attended by members of the ILT. Teachers inform her of needs on an ongoing basis and she arranges to meet with them as quickly as possible. She tends, also, to provide more support to newer teachers. Most of her interactions consist of informal meetings, responding to teachers’ requests as they emerge. Also, an internal schedule of meetings is established, to the extent that the RFRS and the teachers are continually monitoring the effects of their instructional decisions. For example, the RFRS tends to check in approximately two weeks after having implemented a new strategy (e.g., child placement in a group). A member of the ILT described the process as follows: …[A] lot of times when something is put in place, Lisa will give it two weeks to see if the change is [helping] a youngster having some difficulty. She’ll say, “Well, how about if we put him in this group for this? And I’ll be by in two weeks. We’ll see if there’s been a change. If it is and it’s working, then we’ll continue for another week. If not, we’ll change it to something else.” The RFRS initiates contact as well with teachers who are receiving students newly arrived at the school, and she obtains data for new children as soon as she has their relevant information. The school maintains a system whereby the school secretary leaves a note in the RFRS’s mailbox advising her of the date that a teacher is receiving a new student. The RFRS then collects as much data as possible about that student. She explained: We have a system set up in the office, that when a new student comes in, the secretary will put a note in my box saying, “So-and-so is getting a new student on this particular day.” Which is a huge help, because then I can go right in, put them in the Palm, [find out if] they are coming from a Read[ing] First school. And a lot of them have come from a Read[ing] First school, which makes it so much easier. Then I can just contact that school, get their DIBELS scores. So the teachers right away have a good picture of what’s going on with this child. Have they been EVT’d? Do they have an Ed plan? That kind of thing. That’s one thing that this year, I’ve been all over about that. As noted above, interventionists are kept in the loop through attendance at formal and informal meetings. Additionally, interventionists track attendance daily and submit their records to the RFRS monthly. Data meetings and visual display of data One component of data meetings that Davis School teachers resoundingly appreciate is the visual display of data in the RFRS office. Colored post-it notes with children’s names grouped by risk level are attached to the glass pane walls, and teachers routinely move the sticky tabs to reflect changes in children’s data. GRADE data (stanines) are displayed by classroom as well. Figures III and IV show student groupings as they are represented with colored post-it notes. Figure III Postings of names and scores in the RFRS office Figure IV Names grouped by risk level posted in the RFRS office Teachers report that the visual display emphasizes their children’s movement and helps to underscore the effects of their own efforts. The RFRS finds that teachers have responded to the system enthusiastically, and that they look forward to gathering in her office and moving the sticky tabs. Teachers discussed the system as follows: We can chart it out ourselves on the paper. But to see it up there I think is very enlightening. It’s rewarding… I’m a visual person. I took the post-it notes to paper so I have it, and I open it up, and I look at it when I’m getting—But when you see the movement, and sometimes it’s backward movement, but there’s movement. And it is rewarding to say, “Geez. What I’m doing is making a difference for most of them.” You can see which ones need help where. Right. You know if they’re still on that– They haven’t moved up. [So you say], “Well, this is what I need to get them to this point.” The researcher was invited to attend a grade-level data meeting in the course of the site visit. The meeting demonstrated the extent to which the RFRS and the Reading Resource Specialist, who was also in attendance, collaborate with teachers to understand the implications of student data and to provide instructional support so that students’ needs, as revealed through the data, are effectively addressed. A brief description of the meeting follows. Teachers checked the most recent progress monitoring results against the most recent benchmark scores, and then moved students’ post-it notes to reflect new categories. There was discussion of individual children as teachers took note of students’ recent movement. The RFRS then followed up on recent suggestions she had offered to teachers in the area of comprehension. She asked the teachers which strategies had worked and what additional support they needed. The staff expressed interest in more work on context cues; the RFRS offered to conduct some ‘make and take’ sessions and made a note to see the principal to get them scheduled. The RFRS distributed a Reading checklist provided by the district (on the importance of a print-rich environment, helping teachers to be meta-cognitively aware of their teaching). The Specialist asked the teachers, “What else do you need?” They responded that they would like additional work on open-response questions (following up on professional development that the IF had provided) and fluency. In the course of this discussion, which largely revolved around MCAS guidance, the IRS reminded teachers to follow guidance from the district and use the parts of speech (“noun,” “verb”) when interacting with children. Members of the ILT reflected on the evolution of the data meetings, reporting that, originally, teachers anticipated the meetings with anxiety and suspicion, but that their perceptions changed after they had been through the process. They said: Teachers innately think that when you have a meeting, you’re pointing a finger. And we made sure that it was, “Look, we’re looking at child-by-child. This is the first time you’re going to get a look at, child-bychild, where your kids are, who falls into what categories, and where their weaknesses are.” And then, of course, teachers usually think, “Well, you’re going to drop it in our laps, but we have to fix it.” Well, that’s not the case, because [the RFRS] would then say, “Okay. These youngsters at high risk are going to be working with this tutor in this intervention program at this time.” You know, so the fix was there, and it was latch-key. “So this is what you need to do with guided reading. So-and-so is going to take them for the intervention piece, somebody else—Title I—is going to take these kids that are at medium risk for such-and-such.” So the teachers are saying, “Good. Okay, this is where my class is.” And then [the RFRS] would always predict. “If we do this, the scores are going to go up.” And after the first time, when they saw, “This is where you were…” We’d put everything in place. They were an integral part of it, and then it was working, because they saw how their [at-risk] color had shrunk. Now the excitement! Now we had them on board. It was like, train them, get them through the first data meetings, and then we were pretty much home free because they knew that we had the fixes, and that they worked, and that they weren’t alone, and that they didn’t have to come up with ways of fixing things. We were using proven programs. I wish we had it for math. The Principal’s Hands-on Involvement with Individual Student Data Principal Campbell is widely recognized for her exceptional knowledge of individual student performance at her (large) school. Not only does she command an up-to-date understanding of individual children’s progress, she also orchestrates a comprehensive set of strategies to ensure that her staff works efficiently to adapt to the implications of the ever-changing data. Her administrative procedures and ongoing substantive communications with the RFRS, teachers, members of her ILT and with individual students are all designed to ensure that, collectively, the school community is working to bring about the best possible outcome for every child. Engagement with teachers The principal reviews fluid folders on an ongoing basis, writes comments to teachers on the folders, and then directs the RFRS to work with teachers in the areas suggested by the data. She also carries out extensive supervision of teachers’ work, monitoring their instructional plans and their class assessment data in a structured and timely manner, so that difficulties can be identified—and addressed—quickly. Her records include, for example, teachers’ lesson planners, as noted above, and matrices that capture not only the timing of assessments but also the skills and concepts addressed by each assessment. (See Appendix L, Mathematics Assessment Timeline, for one example.) One member of the ILT described the process as follows: “We keep records of the teachers and who has done what, just in case somebody gets behind. We want to check with that teacher and find out what the reason may be.” The principal also has teachers submit data reports, such as the Edusoft and CCC SuccessMaker reports, which are discussed at grade-level meetings with an eye toward directing teachers’ instruction as suggested by the data. She also uses those reports as a basis for asking individual teachers to work with the RFRS or the IRS on particular areas. One member of the ILT stated, “Teachers are not wasting their time when they pass something in, when we require things to be passed in.” Additionally, the principal holds teachers accountable by expressing consistent expectations for all classrooms, regardless of student composition. She has, for example, printed out fall vs. winter benchmark data and shown it to teachers, including classrooms with disproportionately high special education populations. She finds that regular ed. teachers are then motivated, to ensure that they surpass the special education classrooms’ performance, and that all teachers understand the message that expectations are uniformly high across the whole school. The principal has found that, in third grade, for example, one teacher has most of the children on IEPs and one teacher has most of the SEI children, and those teachers serve to motivate their peers. “No one wants to be lower than the kids on IEPs,” she explained. Engagement with students The principal meets with students to review their progress. She believes in putting responsibility for successful learning on children as well as their teachers, and she finds that, for the most part, students listen and “take up the challenge.” Her goal is to inform them so that they are motivated for success. She conducts individual conferences with students after having reviewed their data reports. These conferences are conducted after report cards, CCC lab progress reports, benchmark tests, long composition simulations, and motivational initiatives. Typically, the principal reviews a fluid folder, looking at, for example, bi-weekly CCC SuccessMaker print-outs (Appendix M, “Gains Across Reading Report”). She takes these and other print-outs to the pods and takes children from the classroom one by one. She sits with each child, shows them their data and attempts to enlist their commitment to improved scores in the future. The principal described the process as follows: I meet with them just for a few minutes. I go down to the pod and I’ll sit at a desk, and I have my printouts…So I expose their score, and I’ll say, “Okay, here you are in ELA, here you are in math. What does this mean?” And I’ll see if they’re in third grade and they’re 1.9. And I say, “Okay, now, where are you?” And they’ll say, “Third grade.” And I said, “So the first number should be a three.” And the second number is months. So like, in October when I was meeting with them, I’d say, “Well, it should be two. So you should be 3.2. So if you’re 2.6, what does that tell you?” And they’ll say, “Six months second grade.” And I say, “Okay, so does that mean you’re ahead of the game, or you’re behind the eight ball?” And they’ll say, “I’m behind.” I’ll say, “Right. So what do you think you need to do?” I said, “How about if I come back in a month? Do you think if you try a little bit harder I can see that go up?” And they’ll shake their head yes. I say, “Okay. I’m counting on you. My money’s on you.” …It only takes a few minutes, but at least they see. Especially the higher you go. Because I’ve said to sixth graders, “You can’t be on fifth-grade level. You’re going into seventh grade. You’re going to take this more seriously. Look, you did this in ELA, but you didn’t do this in math.” Additionally, the principal and associate principal are visible presences in classrooms. They frequently participate in classroom activities, and interact with students, for example, by posing “what,” “where” and “why” questions. The goal of administration’s presence in classrooms is to foster students’ initiative, increase students’ productivity, and help them take responsibility for their own progress and success. The principal holds the belief that if children are well informed, they are capable of a better work ethic. Engagement with parents It was widely reported at the school that parents are exposed to the assessment results that indicate their children’s ongoing strengths and needs. Teachers use report print-outs to show parents specific evidence of their children’s progress over time. Parents understand, as well, that the principal is attuned to their child’s progress. In addition to discussions with students, the principal frequently signs students’ tests, which are then taken home and in many cases, shown to parents. Teachers’ Professional Growth and Differentiated Instruction The Davis School is staffed by a veteran corps of teachers, including staff who have years’ of experience teaching reading. To a great extent, these teachers, and the building-based and district-level reading resource staff—report that their expertise has only increased as the Reading First initiative has evolved. They work in close collaboration with the RRS and the RFRS, and so they benefit from professional mentoring that is geared to the needs of their particular children. The principal described the staff’s continual professional growth as follows: With [the RFRS and IF’s] guidance, these teachers are really becoming expert reading teachers, all of them. They really are. I’m so impressed with what the teachers are learning, and their knowledge. They now take their own DIBELS and their own progress monitoring and they’re feeling really empowered about that…[T]hey’re comfortable enough now to go to [the RFRS] with, “Yep. This worked. I did suchand- such.” Or, “Gee, can you check on this, because this concerns me.” So we’ve got it down to one child at a time. Teachers and others reported that teachers’ attention to data has only increased, and that their focus has increasingly shifted toward finding appropriate strategies for individual children. The RFRS described a recent encounter with a group of second and third grade teachers, as follows: This morning…I went in and met with third grade. And they were like, “We progress monitored on Friday. Did you download my data? Did you see it? I hot-synched and it’s already there. Did you look at it yet?” I’m like, “No, I was away this weekend. I’m so sorry.” They were so excited. And they said, “Oh, you know, I noticed this with this particular child, I think this is a problem. What should I do, how can I fix it?” And we quickly chatted about it, “Let’s try this.” And so, I’ll go back at the end of the day and say, “How did it work? Did you check on this child?” And yeah, but that’s how we started out our day in third grade today. After I went from second, I went to third to check on them. And they were really eager. They were kind of disappointed that I didn’t [uncharacteristically] check my…data over the weekend. Teachers have, accordingly, adopted the practice of sharing data with students. As their own confidence and competence has increased, they have joined the principal in enlisting students’ engagement in their own success. One group of teachers described the process as follows: I share information with the children…I’ll say, “See where you were? And look how far you’ve come.” Or, “Look, you’ve regressed a little. What can we do?” So then, “Okay. I don’t have any books at home.” “Okay, well then, let’s come over here and we’ll get you some books.” They can also tell us, “Why do you think you’re not making any progress?” When they come out of that computer lab and go to the bathroom, and they line up. “Do you want to know your grade?” You know, “This is what you got, this is what you—” “Oh. Not a good day today.” We’ll show them with graphics. So those kids, they know right away how they’ve done. Overall, teachers find that the professional development, curricular and human resources, and assessments provided under the Reading First grant have equipped them to provide ever-improved services to their children. Teachers appreciate the abundance of materials at the school, including the literacy closet, books on tape, aprons and center materials purchased under the grant. One teacher said, for example, “The things that we were receiving center-wise from the Reading First grant, were just so wonderful, all the different centers that they were providing us. It was helpful, because you could see this is where the children need help, this is a great activity for them to do to boost them up.” Some note that their prior experience with older versions of the Scott Foresman series also added to their skills base, to the extent that they moved incrementally through the versions, rather than shifting from one program to another. They find as well that the multiple assessment strategies in place at the school provide them ample perspectives on the challenges and strengths that children encounter. One teacher commented, for example: Now, with DIBELS, SME, and all the data we have, it’s that now we really have a place to take these at-risk kids, where before you knew who was in trouble, but you really didn’t have the answer to it. We did what we thought was our best. And we certainly moved children, but not like the programs do now. Teachers and other staff demonstrated an awareness of the needs of their more proficient students as well as their struggling readers. One Title I staff member has been assigned to work not only with at-risk children but also grade-level children, and classroom teachers described the practice of using center time and reading groups to ensure that the needs of the more proficient readers are not neglected. MCAS Several factors contribute to the school’s growth in MCAS results. Consistent with her sharp focus on data, the principal monitors closely MCAS data and proactively seeks explanations for any dips in performance. Also, a school-wide motivational program contributes to students’ motivation and self-confidence with respect to the test. Teachers also administer simulations and practice with MCAS-type questions in the classroom. Additionally, the district’s Edusoft test is closely aligned with state standards. Teachers manipulate the program, generate their own tests, compare results with previous years’ MCAS results and other results (e.g., DIBELS) and proceed with instructional planning so as to target specific skills. References Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cresswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fetterman, D.M. (Ed.). (1988). Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education. New York: Praeger. Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Appendix A: Research Plan FOCUSED NARRATIVES: INQUIRY INTO SELECTED READING FIRST SCHOOLS’ DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION PRACTICES As the statewide evaluator for the Massachusetts Reading First plan, the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute provides ongoing feedback to support the Massachusetts Department of Education’s management of the initiative. This includes documenting the nature, extent and effectiveness of school-level, district-level, and state-level program activities. Complementing the statewide evaluation activities that the Institute routinely conducts, the Institute will conduct a study during the 2006-2007 school year to examine in more depth certain factors—and relationships between factors—that are associated with effective differentiated instruction practices, in three schools that demonstrate successful teaching and learning. Background and Rationale for the Proposed Research Activity Statewide, Reading First schools have received up to 4 years of funding and professional support to improve teaching and learning in K-3 reading. The grant has from its inception promoted ongoing assessment and instructional approaches that are targeted to students’ needs. Specifically, the grant has focused on improving professional practice so that students at each level would demonstrate gains, including struggling readers, grade-level and advanced readers. Research and evaluation activities to date have suggested that teachers’ and interventionists’ diagnostic capacity has improved and that the availability of scientifically research-based curriculum materials has further enhanced educators’ ability to offer effective, targeted instruction to students, especially struggling readers. During the 2005-2006 school year, the Institute conducted focused case study research to describe and explain the grant implementation models of three schools that show patterns of promising practice. The 2006-2007 study will further investigate promising practices at three additional schools, highlighting their approaches to differentiated instruction. The research activity will document promising practices, challenges and lessons learned that would potentially be of interest to teachers, administrators and others across the Commonwealth. Overview of the Proposed Research Activity The research will explore selected schools’ current practice with respect to differentiated instruction. Of interest are the ways in which schools implement student monitoring and instructional strategies in the following inter-related categories: .. Data schemes and plans—identification of data sources, timing of data collection, analytical procedures; to include identification of tools, data use and data review procedures, feedback loops with teachers and interventionists .. Individual student success plans—inventory of procedures and products used to track individual progress and inform instructional planning .. Classroom management—exploration of the ways in which teachers and others have adapted the differentiated methods introduced/fostered through RF to ongoing practice; to include classroom management issues such as use of staff, selection and use of materials, learning centers, whole group/small group instruction 12 EI-S (Effectiveness of Instruction - Strategic) is the percentage of students with fall scores in the low average category whose spring scores move into average or strength categories. When rank ordered the top 25 schools all have EI-S indices of at least 77%. 13 EI-I (Effectiveness of Instruction – Intensive) is the percentage of students with fall scores in the weak category whose spring scores move into the low average, average, or strength categories. When rank ordered the top 25 schools all have EI-I indices of at least 62%. 14 ECI (Effectiveness of Core Instruction) is the percentage of students with fall scores in the average or strength categories who remain in the average or strength categories. All Reading First schools had ECI indices of at least 80%. More than half the schools had ECI indices of at least 95%. Methodology Data collection strategies will include individual interviews and small group interviews to be conducted on-site at each of the focal schools, and document review. School tours and brief informal classroom visits will be conducted to set the findings in context and provide descriptive detail. Site Selection As a first step in the site selection process, we applied the Effectiveness Indices developed by the Florida Center for Reading Research to GRADE assessment data collected during the 2005-2006 school year. We have identified 12 Reading First schools with both EI-S12 and EI-I13 indices ranked within the top 25 schools and ECI14 indices no lower than 95%. Those schools are: School 05-06 K-3 Enrollment EI-S EI-I ECI % Rank % Rank % Athol-Royalston/Sanders St 154 95% 1 88% 1 96% Westfield/Moseley 122 94% 2 82% 2 98% North Adams/Sullivan 162 93% 3 64% 19 96% Plymouth/West 236 91% 4 71% 12 98% Haverhill/Walnut Sq (K-2) 128 90% 5 75% 6 100% Brockton/Davis 608 84% 12 67% 18 100% Malden/Ferryway 358 83% 14 73% 9 97% Chicopee/Stefanik 264 83% 15 76% 4 95% Neighborhood House 141 80% 17 71% 13 95% Methuen/Tenney 596 79% 18 69% 15 96% Lowell/Greenhalge 300 78% 19 70% 14 99% Boston/Otis 170 77% 20 67% 16 98% In order to ensure a rich and informative set of participating schools we will work collaboratively with the Office of Reading staff to identify three of these schools to participate in this aspect of the evaluation. Factors to be considered may include: .. Implementation Facilitator’s knowledge of schools’ differentiated instruction practices .. School size and other contextual factors .. Potential exclusion of districts or schools that have been previously highlighted through case study work and/or the Targeted Assistance Grant awards Conduct of the Study The study will be implemented in three phases: Planning and Site Selection, Data Collection and Analysis, and Reporting. Phase I: Planning and Site Selection December 2006 – January 2007 In this initial phase, the research team will collaborate with the MA DOE Director of Reading and Language Arts to a) develop a shared understanding of the conceptual and practical elements of the study and b) delineate each party’s role in the conduct of the study. Collaboration will take the forms of face-to-face meetings, email exchanges and telephone conversations, as needed. Also during this phase, the research team will collaborate with the MA DOE to identify the schools slated for study. Through a mutually determined process, selection criteria will be articulated and a set of schools meeting the criteria will be identified. That resulting subset will be reviewed with an eye toward estimated responsiveness to the demands of the study and ease of access. Three focal schools will be studied. Throughout Phase I, the team will work with the MA DOE to draft, revise and finalize all necessary research protocols, such as explanatory documents for study participants, approaches to confidentiality and identification of participants, and semi-structured interview guides. Toward the end of this first phase, the MA DOE and the research team will carry out their respective responsibilities (per initial discussions) to secure access to the sites and ensure successful data collection procedures (e.g., letters of introduction; scheduling of individual and small-group interviews, either on-site or via telephone and email; procurement of documents). Phase II: Data Collection and Analysis January 2007 – April 2007 Unlike research methods which prescribe discrete, sequential phases of data collection and data analysis, the case study methodology calls for an integrated process. Data collection and analysis will be conducted concurrently. That is, the research team will analyze data as they become available, seeking emergent themes and patterns. These continually emerging results will be used to inform subsequent investigation (e.g., to refine interview guides). Data collection methods will include individual and small-group interviews, document review and brief classroom visits. The research team will conduct 2- to 3-day site visits at each of the focal schools, in order to facilitate the following: 1) Individual interviews and meetings with each school’s Reading Specialist 2) Individual and/or small group interviews with classroom teachers and interventionists (Interviews of approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour duration are anticipated.) Additionally, while on-site, researchers will conduct brief visits to classrooms in order to capture detailed examples of practice. Implementation Facilitators will be interviewed prior to the school site visits, and will participate in meetings and interviews conducted on-site, as appropriate. Review of selected documents will provide background and contextual data about each school. Additionally, the use of school- and district-level RF documents will enhance the research team’s understanding of each school’s differentiated instruction practices. Individual interviews with school- and district-level instructional leaders will be conducted as appropriate, to provide background and contextual data. Potential interviewees include principals, District Reading Coordinators and Superintendents. Interviews will be tape recorded with the interviewees’ consent. As needed, follow-up questions (clarification or probes) will be addressed to appropriate informants by telephone and email after the site visits. Data collection timeline While schedules will necessarily be finalized in collaboration with study participants, site visits are anticipated as follows: School #1: January 2007 School #2 February 2007 School #3: March 2007 Phase III: Reporting February 2007 – September 2007 The research team will keep the MA DOE apprised of the progress of the study as well as preliminary and final results through informal and formal communication. Informal Communication The research team will communicate with MA DOE on an ongoing basis via telephone and email with respect to implementation progress, troubleshooting, emergent findings and other logistical or analytical issues that may arise. Progress/Analytical Memos and Reports Progress/Analytical memos will detail implementation status (e.g., #’s of study participants contacted, #’s of interviews conducted, dates) and preliminary results of data collection and analysis activities. Progress/Analytical memos will be submitted as follows: Memo #1 re School #1 February 9, 2007 Memo #2 re School #2 March 9, 2007 Memo #3 re School #3 May 11, 2007 Draft reports will be submitted to MA DOE for review as follows: School #1 Narrative March 16, 2007 School #2 Narrative April 13, 2007 School #3 Narrative June 15, 2007 Per research protocols (to be developed in Phase I), the research team will submit one copy of each school’s draft report to one point person at each school for comments. Schools will be allotted an approximate 2-week period for review and comments. Upon receipt of feedback from schools and MA DOE, final versions of school reports will be submitted to MA DOE. A draft version of the summary report will be submitted to MA DOE by September 14, 2007. Upon receipt of feedback, a final version of the report will be submitted to MA DOE by September 27, 2007. Appendix B: Sanders Street Tiered Model Appendix C: Summary Sheet Appendix D: Nonsense Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency Sheets Appendix E: Schoolwide Reading Improvement Model Appendix F: Sample Grade 2 Planner Appendix G: Reading Intervention Group Update (Kindergarten) Appendix H: Reading Intervention Group Update (Grades 1-3) Appendix I: Modified DIBELS Scoring Sheet Appendix J: Davis School Tiered Model Appendix K: Week at a Glance of Scott Foresman Appendix L: Mathematics Assessment Timeline Appendix M: Gains Across Reading Report