Student data: Analysis and Instructional Decisions
Exhibited by:
PLO Attended:
- Data Liaison Series, K-8
Coached by:
- Edward Lam
PLO Goals: I attended this PLO with the following goals in mind: to strengthen my ability to analyze school, grade, and student-level data; to use that data to strategically plan curriculum, choose instructional strategies, and program students; and to identify and provide intervention for at-risk students earlier in their school careers.
PLO Learnings: At the PLO, we learned a variety of ways in which data is collected, measured, and presented (AYP, EAMO, Proficiency, etc.) We learned what data resources are available to school administrators, and how data is presented to the public. We also learned which data resources are helpful for teachers in planning instruction, and talked about how to present this data to teachers in a meaningful way.
Implementation of Techniques and Practices: When we examined the Performance Dashboard, I noticed that our school had a downward trend in ELL progress. This was especially true in relation to the city and to District 2 schools. I brought this information back to our school’s team, and we decided to take a look at some in-house data. We saw that in Grade 1, our ELL students had “flatlined”. We wondered why.
We also noticed that this trend was not only evident in our Grade 1 ELLs, it was across the grade. We don’t expect all students to be on grade level (especially new ELLs) but we do expect progress. While we did see movement in F&P reading levels, it was not very much at all. In fact, some students declined in Performance Level across the year. By June, our Level 1s had increased by over 20%, and our Level 4s had decreased by over 15%. When our teachers met in June, they examined data and articulated student strengths and needs. They then took these noticings and compared them to the goals that they had set for students across the year. Did they align?
Well, not really. Namely, we found that many student goals did not match the needs of the text level, or the students’ needs as readers. We noticed that the students who made the most progress had goals that were rigorous, specific, and high-leverage for that text level. We also noticed that of students who did not move, many had goals that repeated across terms.
Impact: The impact for our school was in some data-driven decisions that we made. We have already begun the process of providing PD and support in setting high-leverage goals. Our service providers will be meeting with classroom teachers to discuss instructional strategies to help struggling learners meet these goals. Our in-house data monitoring sheet is now being revised to include goal tracking (so that teachers can revise goals if they are not being met.)
Conclusion: The results of our decisions will become clearer in the upcoming school year. However, implementing the PLO Learnings has helped us to make some small but strategic changes that we anticipate will result in greater progress for our students. We also believe that although our focus for this study was Grade 1, the benefits of this work will impact other grades.
Next Steps: Our next steps will be to continue to track these students, and consider who makes progress and who needs continued support or investigation. We intend to use this information not just for our struggling readers, but also for those at Levels 3 and 4. We will continue to look for patterns and trends in our data, to make strategic decisions based on this data, and to evaluate our decisions for effectiveness.