1. No category

How to catch kids before they fall:
A multi-year system of supports for state reading policies
Eileen M. Lucas
Laurie E. Borkon
Policy Brief
About the authors
Laurie Borkon is Vice President of Educational Partnerships at Renaissance Learning. For over a decade she has
played a key role in helping educators translate state and federal education policy into effective classroom practice.
She holds a Bachelor’s degree in elementary education and a Master’s degree in curriculum and instruction, with
training as a reading specialist. Both degrees are from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prior to Renaissance
Learning, Laurie spent several years working at the middle-school level. She started her career as a staff researcher at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Eileen Lucas earned a Bachelor’s degree in Communications Arts and Sciences from Western Illinois University
and Elementary Education certification from University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. She taught Title I (1-8), grade 5
(Language Arts specialty), and middle school social studies over a period of nearly ten years. She has worked as a
freelance writer of children’s nonfiction informational text and has had 25 books published (a number of which have
won regional awards) across grade levels (early readers through young adult) and with a number of publishers. Titles
include Peace on the Playground: Nonviolent Ways of Problem Solving, Cracking the Wall: The Struggles of the Little
Rock Nine, Contemporary Human Rights Activists, The Aaron Burr Treason Trial, and more. She has been working at
Renaissance Learning as a writer for over five years.
© 2014 by Renaissance Learning, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. All logos, designs, and brand names for
Renaissance Learning’s products and services, including but not limited to Renaissance Learning, STAR Early Literacy, and STAR Reading, are
trademarks of Renaissance Learning, Inc., and its subsidiaries, registered, common law, or pending registration in the United States and
other countries.
This publication is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. It is unlawful to duplicate or reproduce any copyrighted material without
authorization from the copyright holder. For more information, contact:
RENAISSANCE LEARNING
P.O. Box 8036
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495-8036
(800) 338-4204
www.renlearn.com
[email protected]
01/14
Executive summary
Daily, we read new articles expressing concern for the below-grade-level reading
scores of too many students in the United States. We hear the grim statistics: only
one-third of American kids scored at a proficient level of reading on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2011.
We also know that most third-graders reading below grade level will continue
to fall further behind as the content of their classwork becomes increasingly
difficult. Without the cornerstone skill of reading, skills in all other academic areas
are compromised.
Additionally, we know that struggling readers are much more likely to drop out of
school than students who are proficient in reading, and that students who drop out
of school are likely to face “lifelong barriers to success.” (National Governor’s Association, 2013) We have cause to
worry about the future of these kids, and that of our nation.
Across the country there is a growing awareness of the role of policy makers in addressing this issue. State
legislatures and departments of education are developing mandates and initiatives with names such as
“Third-Grade Reading Guarantee” and “Move On When Reading.” There are many voices suggesting possible
solutions. A shared thread is that the number of kids reading proficiently at all grade levels must increase. This paper
describes a common pathway for implementing a system of supports to prevent students from falling behind and
supporting them as they make progress toward reading proficiency.
Renaissance Learning’s mission is to accelerate learning for all. We do this by providing educational practice and
assessment tools that generate data to guide effective instruction. We do this by providing research-based
professional services that help teachers put data to best use. We do this by never losing sight of the faces and
the voices of the teachers and the students behind the data.
John J. Lynch, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Renaissance Learning
i
ii
Using data to screen, intervene, and monitor progress in the development
of reading skills
The problem is clear, and has been for some time. Since the publication of the Nation at Risk report in 1983—and
even before—U.S. educators and the nation at large have been aware of the critical need for students to master early
reading skills.
This policy brief describes a
multi-year system of supports
and safeguards, built on a solid
instructional foundation and
following a common pathway,
to catch kids before they fall.
In 1997, the U.S. Congress noted that a large number of
children were reading far below grade level. It directed the
National Reading Panel to study the research and provide
a roadmap for addressing this problem. Their final report,
“Teaching Children to Read,” released April 13, 2000,
provided evidence that the need was still great, was still
largely unmet, but could be attained with best practices
reflecting what was known about how to teach children
to read (National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000).
As stated in the Education Commission of the States (ECS) 2012 paper, A Problem Still in Search of a Solution, “Forty
years of well-meaning state and national reading initiatives have not produced significantly higher student mastery.”
States have developed systemic plans to improve early reading proficiency, but translating these plans into
actionable strategies has proven to be a challenge (Christie & Rose, 2012). As ECS has provided a “State Policy
Roadmap,” this paper will describe data-driven actions to reach the goal of significantly higher student mastery.
Figure 1: Framework for a system
of supports
Catching kids before they fall
1. Assess kindergarten readiness.
Support reading readiness as early as
possible.
2. Screen regularly to identify those in
need of support.
3. Support data literacy among
educators. Convene data teams
regularly to examine and analyze
assessment results.
4. Provide personalized instruction and
intervention tailored to the needs of
individual students.
5. Use data to establish goals, monitor
progress, inform instruction, and
guide intervention.
6. Engage parents as partners
throughout the system of support.
These (relatively) sequential steps are critical to the
implementation of a multi-year system of supports.
Reading is a foundational skill for all academic learning, and
the critical importance of this skill becomes apparent very early.
Research shows that a child’s third-grade reading level is closely
related to future educational performance. One 2011 study found
that one-in-six children who are not reading proficiently in third
grade do not graduate from high school on time, a rate four times
greater than that for proficient readers (Hernandez, 2011). And
sadly, according to the 2011 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), one third of all fourth-grade students, and half of
African American and Hispanic fourth graders, fail to demonstrate
even a basic level of reading proficiency (West, 2012).
The negative consequences for the learning trajectories of nonproficient readers are well documented. Researchers have noted
that, “Students who are above grade level in third grade graduated
high school and attended college at higher rates than their peers
who were at or below grade level. Of the students who were below
grade level in third grade, about 40 percent were also below grade
level in eighth grade” (Lesnick, George, & Smithgall, 2010).
States are taking action to improve levels of reading proficiency.
As of August 2012, the Education Commission of the States (ECS)
reported that 32 states plus the District of Columbia had policies
aimed at improving literacy levels by the end of grade 3. As
of August 2013, 23 of the states’ policies included a
“performance-based promotion” provision, which required
students to be proficient in reading by a certain grade level in
1
order to advance to the next grade. Further, in
September 2013, the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortia issued guidelines that would prohibit
read-aloud support for students in grades 3–5 for
text passages on the Common Core assessments
developed by the group (National Center on
Educational Outcomes, 2013).
As a country, we have the
knowledge base to teach nearly
every child to read by the end of
third grade. The reading laws
passed in most states demonstrate
we also have the will. This policy
brief outlines the data-driven
actions to realize this goal.
What follows is a brief look at some of the ways states
are attempting to raise literacy levels by the end of the
primary grades. Although reading policies vary from
state to state, they also have common threads. In
general terms, state reading policies include some
form of early identification and intervention strategies
to remedy student deficiencies before they escalate—in other words, to “catch kids before they fall.” The two most
common approaches are 1) screening students early and regularly, and 2) intervening as soon as difficulties are
identified. Interventions vary, with some states requiring assignment to an academic improvement program (AIP)
and others suggesting involvement of a reading specialist, summer school, and/or individualized instruction.
This policy brief describes a process for implementing a multi-year system of preventative supports and
safeguards, built on a solid instructional foundation to prevent the escalation of difficulties and alleviate the
need for high-stake consequences (e.g. retention). It is intended to provide state legislators and other education
policymakers, as well as school, district, and state department of education leadership, with the information they
need to help ensure that all students can read. As a country, we have the will to teach nearly every child to read by
the end of third grade. The reading laws passed in most states demonstrate that we recognize the critical need for
grade-level reading proficiency. This policy brief outlines the data-driven actions to realize this goal.
2
Translating research and policy into data-driven best practices
Current trends in grade-level reading-guarantee policies—or “promotion when proficient”—coincide with a
nationwide movement to develop systematic early intervention models, or frameworks, that support all students,
and especially target students struggling to reach proficiency. The challenge is to turn research and policy into
practice by ensuring that students receive quality instruction and support to gain the skills they need as they
progress through the educational system.
As has been stated, most state policies contain some supports, but there is little continuity and they are not easily
comparable across states. Drawing on our extensive database of assessment results and more than two decades of
classroom experience and in partnership with a panel of experts, we’ve culled the list of strategies shown in Table 1
for the implementation of a research-based system of supports in conjunction with state-legislated reading policies.
They are action steps to follow to help kids succeed.
Before we take a closer look at the key components of a system of support (as shown in Figure 1), it is important to
note that a sound instructional foundation is the critical precursor to this system of supports. Reading instruction
in the primary grades that helps young children develop decoding (e.g. phonological awareness, letter knowledge,
concepts about print) and comprehension skills (e.g. robust vocabulary, drawing inferences, listening
comprehension), helps lay this foundation (Barnett, Epstein, Friedman, Sansanelli, & Hustedt, 2009).
In order to support explicit instruction in the skills base of this foundation, many states have initiated earlychildhood standards and policies. The federally funded Institute of Education Research (IES) has provided a report
synthesizing a great deal of research on early intervention in early-childhood education. The report suggests that
screening tests that can reliably show which children may benefit from supplemental or specialized interventions
can help boost literacy skills development right from the start. The report also describes research focused on the use
of progress monitoring and data-based decision making tools to improve teachers’ instructional practice (Diamond,
Justice, Siegler & Snyder, 2013). Meanwhile, in their white paper entitled, “Getting All Students Reading by Third
Grade,” the National Governors Association (NGA) suggests that improving outcomes for students requires a
“broader, systemic effort to bridge the gaps between research and current policies” (National Governor’s
Association, 2013).
3
Table 1. Critical Components of a Multi-Year System of Supports
Kindergarten Readiness
Assess kindergarten readiness and growth. All entering kindergarteners should be assessed so that
instruction can be tailored to their needs right from the start. Exit assessment at the end of the year
will identify students at risk as they enter grade 1.
Regular Screening
Screen all students three times each year—fall, winter, and spring. Screening students at the beginning
of the school year provides baseline data for identifying who is above or below benchmark, and by
how much. This data helps determine allocation of resources. Winter screening provides insight into
response to intervention, progress that has been made, and where extra support is needed.
End-of-year screening provides similar data as well as informing plans for the next year.
Data Literacy, Data Teams
Ensure that teachers understand assessment scores and how to interpret data. Data teams meet
regularly, including after each screening, to discuss intervention plans, make adjustments to
instruction and intervention, and continuing allocation of resources. Data team meetings provide
a collaborative framework for using student data to continuously improve the core instructional
program and spread successful strategies throughout the school.
Personalized Intervention
and Instruction
Understand where a student is in the learning continuum by use of a robust learning progression
aligned with the assessment. Learning progressions provide additional insight into the skills students
have mastered, and the skills they are ready to learn next. They provide powerful information for
educators when coupled with explicit, systematic instruction.
Goal Setting and
Progress Monitoring
Set research-based growth targets, or goals, for all students, but especially for students receiving
intervention. This facilitates the tracking of improvement, which is motivating for both teachers and
students, and helps keep everyone focused on the main goal. Teachers look for trends and growth
patterns and discuss results within data teams.
Engaged Parents
Provide parents with support for working with their children at home. Engage parents as partners in
the implementation of the system of supports described here. Parental support of the school, and
school support of the parents, can especially benefit children coming from low income environments.
Communicate with parents regularly, including after each screening.
These strategies are the action steps to translate state reading policies into practice.
4
Kindergarten readiness
Research indicates that children who enter school with the requisite body of knowledge and skills are more likely
to be successful than those who don’t. A July 2013 poll commissioned by the First Five Years Fund reported that
70 percent of respondents said that we should be doing more in the United States to ensure that children start
kindergarten with the skills they need to be successful. This is a nonpartisan issue; this opinion was held by a
majority of respondents regardless of their political affiliations (Samuels, 2013).
A Utah state board of education member stated that “one of the biggest increased efforts [to increase grade-level
reading proficiency] would be found in increased preschool opportunities, especially for the disadvantaged”
(Parker, 2013). The longitudinal study of Hart and Risley found that children’s academic success at ages nine and
ten can be attributed to the amount of talk they hear from birth to age three (Hart & Risley, 1995).
The bottom line is that children enter school with widely varying backgrounds and schools accept students as they
are when they arrive on that first day of kindergarten (or first grade). Once the children have a chance to acclimate to
the school environment, schools should commence universal screening. This will provide the baseline data that will
inform instructional decisions to get all students on track right from the start.
Many states have policies for determining entering kindergarteners’ knowledge and skills. Table 2 lists some of the
early literacy skills that may be assessed at this first screening. Students with skills such as these in place are most
likely to become successful readers (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2013).
Equally as important as the kindergarten entry assessment is the exit assessment. With a multi-year system as
described in this policy brief, data will indicate whether students have reached Kindergarten benchmarks by the end
of that school year. This will equip grade 1 teachers to meet their students where they are, and keep them on the
trajectory to proficiency.
Table 2. Sample Kindergarten Literacy Readiness Indicators
Associate words with pictorial
representations
Hold a book upright and know that
printed text is read from left to right
Distinguish letters from numbers
Identify the letters of the alphabet
Recognize and produce rhyming sounds
in words
Identify the primary sounds most
frequently represented by initial
consonants of written words
Identify and produce groups of words
that begin with the same initial sound
With support, identify, blend, and
segment syllables in spoken words
Recognize own name in print
Screening assessments at the beginning and end of kindergarten provide early identification of student mastery of literacy readiness skills, such
as the ones identified in the table above.
5
Regular screening
Figure 2: Sample Screening Report
Within state reading policies, screening is one
of the most consistent elements. Of all the supports,
screening is seen by many as the most important. It
is seminal; it is foundational. All of the other supports
are built on a solid base of sound screening data.
Screening Report
1 of 2
School Benchmark
Printed Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:21:18 PM
School: Oakwood Elementary School
Reporting Period: 09/08/2011-09/12/2011
(Fall Screening)
Class: Mrs. Rowley's Class
Teacher: Rowley, C.
Grade 1
750
700
STAR Early Literacy Scaled Score
Screening students near the beginning of the school
year provides the necessary baseline data for
identifying who is above or below benchmark, and
by how much. In the example of a screening report
shown here, the black horizontal line represents
the benchmark score. The color-coded data
indicate screening categories (in this case,
At/Above Benchmark, On Watch, Intervention,
Urgent Intervention).
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
Students
Benchmark
Categories / Levels
Scaled Score
Percentile Rank
Students
Number
Percent
At/Above Benchmark
At/Above 560 SS
At/Above 40 PR
8
8
On Watch
Below 560 SS
Below 40 PR
1
7%
Intervention
Below 517 SS
Below 25 PR
3
27%
Urgent Intervention
Category Total
Below 462 SS
Below 10 PR
3
7
7%
47%
At/Above Benchmark
Category Total
Fall screening data help inform instructional
planning strategies. Teachers can use this report for
grade-level planning, identifying the students that
need the most help, and allocating resources.
Mid-year and end-of-year screenings help measure
the progress students have made and provide
guideposts for next steps.
60%
53%
Below Benchmark
Students Tested
15
Key questions to ask based on this and other information: Are you satisfied with the number of students at the highest
level of performance? Next, consider the level or score that indicates proficiency. Which students just above proficiency are
you "worried about" and what support within or beyond core instruction is warranted? What support is needed for students
just below? Do all students represented by your lowest level need urgent intervention?
The spring screening not only shows growth over
the current school year, but helps teachers and
An effective system of support is built on a solid base of screening data.
administrators plan for the next year. Screening scores
inform grouping of students, lesson planning, and
differentiated instruction. They assist administrators with planning the allocation of resources and generally help
teachers match instruction to the skill development of each learner. Screening scores do not replace educator
judgment; instead they provide educators additional information with which to make decisions while saving
classroom time and ensuring uniformity of treatment. This information facilitates conversations between teachers
as well as between school and home and invites collaboration to meet each student’s needs.
Researchers recommend an integrated school calendar with universal screenings for the year pre-scheduled. Many
schools conduct universal screening each fall, winter, and spring. Due to the number of students involved, the use of
computer technology increases the efficiency of the screening process—teacher-administered screening takes a lot
of time. Technology-based computer-adaptive screening assessments linked to learning progressions provide
diagnostic information as well, in considerably less time than multiple testing sessions with various instruments.
6
Data literacy, data teams
Figure 3: Fostering a data-driven culture
Researchers and practitioners have found that teachers
working in isolation is the prime reason for disparities in
effective teaching within and across schools. Schools that
show dramatic improvement find organizing teachers in
collaborative groups—grade-level teams in elementary
schools and content or course teams in high schools—and
having those collaborative groups use student data to
improve instruction, is a powerful way to improve student
achievement. Such collaboration leads to improved
instructional practice and spreads effective instructional
strategies more uniformly throughout the school (Odden &
Picus, 2014; Raudenbush, 2009).
It is this ongoing dialogue about the data that drives the
multi-year system of support and provides the vehicle for
careful watching over student progress. Many schools and
districts have established various forms of professional
learning communities (PLCs) to perform this function.
In our many years of working with educators
and with schools across the nation,
Renaissance Learning has witnessed that
a data-driven culture begins with the
fundamental skill of understanding data.
When all educators in the school have
acquired a depth of knowledge pertaining
to data, comfort with the language of data
grows, and educators begin to share ideas,
using data to shape their thoughts, their
instructional planning, and their lesson
creation. Once fluently working with data,
with principals and teachers speaking the
same language and sharing this language
with students and families, cultural shifts in
schools happen naturally.
Dr. Gene Kerns
Chief Academic Officer
Renaissance Learning
Data teams are a particular type of PLC established to do
what the name implies—collect and analyze data to inform
instruction in the classroom. Data teams can become the
engine of good teaching. They provide a collaborative
framework for using student data to continuously improve the core instructional program. Data teams meet
regularly—at least after each screening, and more frequently as needed. Fall screening provides baseline data for
identifying who is above or below benchmark, and by how much. Winter screening results contain a wealth of
information about progress that has been (or has not been) made, and where extra support is needed. End-of-year
screening provides similar data as well as informing plans for the next year (and perhaps including requirements
such as summer school for students below benchmark).
Increasing assessment literacy in the school culture via data teams provides a forum for practicing how to
interpret data. Fostering a culture of data means that educators become comfortable with answering
questions such as the following:
• What do our assessment results mean?
• Have students who were not doing well previously shown improvement? If not, why might this be?
• Have students who were previously doing well slipped? What can we do to get them back on track?
• How do we use the data to improve the core instructional program?
• What does the data tell us about the goals and targets we have set?
The work of data teams varies throughout the year, as indicated above. After the fall screening, data teams
examine screening reports, analyzing the data that will help prioritize student needs. They look first at the overall
situation, considering the general level of achievement and the effectiveness of the core curriculum. Team members
then look at the number of students below benchmark to consider next steps for support and possible intervention.
In some states, reading proficiency legislation mandates that students receive intervention if screening results
indicate that they are “not reading at grade level” (Oklahoma Reading Sufficiency Act) or “not on track” (Ohio
Reading Guarantee). After subsequent screenings and progress-monitoring assessments, new data is examined to
determine results as well as identify trends and patterns.
7
The data team is charged with evaluating the resources
available and considering how they will be allocated.
Between screenings, data teams provide a professional,
collegial forum to review student progress-monitoring
data and provide additional data-driven support. After the
mid-year and end-of-year screenings, the data team will
compare results from earlier screenings to identify possible
course corrections in core instruction, review results from
students in intervention, and look for additional students in
need of intervention services. Throughout the year they provide
a setting for discussing student achievement and making databased decisions on the allocation of resources.
Regardless of the purpose of
the assessment, it is a good
rule of thumb to test only when
educators are prepared to act
on the data the test provides.
Data teams are most effective when led by an instructional leader who can model and demonstrate the analytical
questions that drive the team’s work. Instructional leaders and more experienced team members can share their
own experiences with student assessment results to guide the data analysis and interpretation process.
8
Personalized intervention and instruction
Attention to research-based interventions has greatly increased in recent decades. On at least one state website,
scientific, research-based intervention is described as “a way to provide support and instruction to children who
are struggling to learn. A child’s progress is studied and findings are used to make decisions about teaching and
other learning supports” (Connecticut Parent Information and Resource Center, 2008). An academic intervention is a
strategy used to teach a skill, build fluency in a skill, or encourage a child to apply a skill to new situations or settings
(Wright, 2011). According to the National Center on Intensive Interventions (NCII), even more intensive intervention
is intended to help students with severe and persistent learning (or behavioral) needs (U.S. Department of
Education: National Center on Intensive Intervention, 2013 http://www.intensiveintervention.org/). A key
concept in the understanding of intervention is that it is meant to augment—not replace—core instruction.
Intervention-focused instruction supports students in reaching grade-level standards.
Empirically validated learning progressions have contributed in recent years to the field of personalized instruction
and intervention. Leaders in the field of learning progressions have identified and mapped the prerequisite skills that
allow educators to fill in student learning gaps. Further, learning progressions help educators drill-down and zero-in
on where instruction should be focused. Assessment results linked to a learning progression along the educational
continuum can help pinpoint gaps in knowledge that require further instruction to fill. This “backwards mapping” to
prerequisite skills is especially critical in states (such as Texas) where there are multiple grade levels (i.e. 5th and 8th
grades) or gateway points for below-grade-level scores.
9
A robust learning progression also helps educators look forward,
providing an accelerated learning pathway for individual students or
groups of kids with similar learning characteristics. The concept of
progressions implies a coherent and continuous pathway along which
students move incrementally through phases of increasing competence
in the various domains. Setting a learning pathway does not necessarily
mean, however, that desired outcomes are inevitable. Successful learning
is dependent on good curriculum and excellent instruction.
Data helps manifest
patterns in the learning
process, and in these
patterns there is promise.
In other words, a well-constructed learning progression serves as a bridge between assessment and instruction.
When aligned to standards, a learning progression provides the following: valuable information in an efficient
manner to assist teachers with instructional decisions; diagnostic information for instructional planning; and
identification of the continuum of concepts, strategies, and skills students need to meet grade-level expectations
from emergent reading through the level required for college and career. Note that just as intervention does not
replace core instruction, a learning progression, no matter how robust, is not, in and of itself, an intervention.
Figure 4: Learning progression
Analyzing
Evaluatin Argument and
g Text
Understand
ing Author
’s Craft
Analyzing Lit
erary Text
Comprehension
and ConstructingStrategies
Meaning
Grade 12
Grade 11
Grade 10
Grade 9
Grade 8
Grade 7
Grade 6
Grade 5
Grade 4
Grade 3
Grade 2
Grade 1
Kindergarten
and Skills
Pre-Kindergarten
Word Knowledge
The learning progression for reading is a research-based continuum to guide teaching and learning over time so that
student competence in reading can be advanced coherently and continuously.
An evidence-based learning progression such as the one shown here provides a bridge between assessment and instruction.
10
Goal setting and progress monitoring
The practice of individualized instructional intervention includes setting goals for students to achieve, monitoring
progress toward those goals, and adapting instruction accordingly. Setting growth targets facilitates the tracking of
improvement, which is motivating for both teachers and students, and helps keep everyone focused on the main
goal. Computer-based assessments with goal-setting tools help educators select a challenging but achievable
expected growth rate that is personalized for each student (i.e. based on the student’s starting score). Such tools
have become essential components of many schools’ data-driven instructional strategies and intervention
efforts (Ysseldyke & McLeod, 2007). With computer technology, educators become skilled in setting short-term,
personalized targets for each student receiving intervention. They then monitor each student’s progress toward
his or her individual target for the explicit purpose of measuring the student’s response to the intervention. After
four-to-six data points have been collected, teachers typically begin to bring this progress-monitoring data to the
data team for discussion.
Figure 5: Sample Progress Monitoring Report
Student Progress Monitoring Report
1 of 2
Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:29:18 PM
School: Lincoln Elementary School
Samaniego, Marisol
Grade: 3
ID: 32485
Reporting Period: 9/3/2013-1/23/2014
(Semester 1)
Class: Grade 3 (Green)
Teacher: Green, N.
500
450
STAR Reading Scaled Score
Noting whether or not students reach their
designated targets is useful only to the extent that
the target was appropriately set. If the target is not
reached, is it because the student did not grow and
learn adequately, or was the target too high? This
is where the nationwide database discussed earlier
(see page 9) proves invaluable. With large numbers
of assessment results, psychometrically sound
research-based expectations for growth based on the
student’s starting score and national growth patterns
are available to educators.
With this process in mind, setting the target point at
the most appropriate place becomes critical. Several
approaches may be considered:
400
350
300
250
200
1. Teachers use their professional judgment and
observations of student work to set targets.
Sep-13
Oct-13
Nov-13
Dec-13
Jan-14
Enterprise Test
Trend line is statistically calculated after four or more tests to show the direction the scores are moving.
Goal line represents the student's expected growth path toward the goal.
2. Teachers use scientifically sound growth-model
data generated by a computer-based assessment
system to inform their professional judgment
when selecting a growth rate for students.
Star represents the student's current goal.
Intervention line identifies the start date of an intervention program.
Marisol's Current Goal
Goal: 284 SS / 22 PR (Moderate)
Goal End Date: 1/23/2014
Expected Growth Rate: 3.3 SS/Week
Fluctuation of scores is typical with any test administered multiple times within a short period. Focus on the general direction emerging after
multiple administrations of the test rather than on the ups and downs between individual scores.
Progress monitoring is accomplished with short,
efficient, frequent assessments to measure both
the level of achievement (compared to expected
achievement) and the rate of growth (how that rate
In the sample Progress Monitoring Report shown here, the student
compares to growth required to reach a proficiency
begins making progress after the intervention is changed (after the
benchmark). Progress monitoring tends to increase in
second red line).
frequency with the intensity of the intervention. On the
sample progress-monitoring report shown here, the
student’s progress-monitoring data (and trend line) is plotted in comparison to the aim line. The student’s scores
in relation to the goal (represented by the yellow star) and after a change in intervention (the second red line)
are shown.
11
Engaged parents
Figure 6: Parent communication
Regardless of whether or not a specific state
policy includes a parent component, as many
do, successful implementation of the system of
supports described in this paper includes the
engagement and involvement of parents with
their child’s data. This includes sharing ongoing
screening and progress monitoring data with
parents early and often as well as school support
for skills that parents can work on with their children
at home.
If your child is reading below grade level, the
school will let you know exactly what type of
reading difficulty your child is having.
The school will then develop a plan to provide
special instruction in reading. The law requires
schools to develop a progress monitoring plan
(PMP) for each struggling reader.
Key communication points with families may include
1) after each screening and 2) whenever instruction is
significantly differentiated, regardless of whether this
takes place in the general education classroom
or outside of it. For students receiving intervention,
documenting and communicating the intervention
process to parents and sharing progress
information is critical.
The goal of frequent communication with parents is to
keep everyone informed of any need for intervention
or extra support and to keep an eye on the results of
that intervention and support. With this component of
the system of support in place, there are no surprises
for any of the stakeholders.
The PMP describes the child’s specific reading
difficulties. It also describes the intensive
teaching practices that will be used to help the
child catch up in reading. We are not going to
give up on struggling students; we are going to
invest in them.
Excerpt from a 3rd Grade Reading Policy letter to parents
All parents can benefit from information that helps them support their child’s literacy development, but this support
can be especially beneficial for children coming from low-income environments (Hernandez, 2011). In addition, the
support for parents should be sustained and engaging enough to help parents develop the capacity and motivation
to continue their efforts on an ongoing basis (National Governors Association, 2013). General information regarding
the support programs the school offers can be shared through school newsletters and on the school’s website.
Parents can be supported by encouraging them to read with their kids at home, ask open-ended questions to
promote discussion, set aside a time and place for homework, etc.
12
Conclusion
When discussing state reading policies, there is often confusion between using assessment data throughout the
school year for preventive purposes (e.g. screening and progress monitoring) as opposed to using such data for
high-stakes decisions (e.g. retention). They are related, but different, purposes for data.
That said, in an era of high-stakes accountability, the use of data in a multi-year system of support takes on more
importance than ever. Early identification of struggling learners is even more critical, as is making sure that valid
and reliable data are used for ongoing checks and progress monitoring. Getting instructional plans and intervention
decisions right has always been part of the fabric of support. Now, it can ameliorate the need for holding
children back.
Virtually all state reading policies do, in fact, include some
of the preventative measures described in this paper.
However, there is little consistency or comparability in the
supports across states. What this paper has stressed is a
common pathway for implementing a system of supports
to prevent students from falling behind and supporting
them as they make progress toward reading proficiency.
This paper suggests that the goals
of state reading policies can be
best accomplished by supporting
instruction with ongoing data
gathering and analysis via a
multi-year system of supports.
These support systems help prevent the escalation of
reading difficulties so that students don’t fall farther and
farther behind with each passing year. The systems of
support should rely on real-time, actionable data to identify struggling students early, direct educators to
evidence-based interventions, and monitor progress and growth. These data can best be provided by a sound
assessment system that includes such characteristics as those listed in Figure 7 (as found in Baum, 2012).
Figure 7: Characteristics of a sound
assessment system
Assessment system characteristics
• Frequent administration
• Flexible testing dates
• Explicit instructional guidance
• Versatile reporting
• Vertically equated scale for reporting
and comparison
• Efficient testing
• Data aggregation
• Alignment to standards
A sound assessment system provides the data that drives an
effective system of supports.
In conclusion, this paper suggests that the goals of state
reading policies can be best accomplished by supporting
instruction with ongoing data gathering and analysis.
The multi-year system of supports described herein is not
intended as a regimented, prescriptive “first do exactly
this; then do exactly that” sort of process. It is more like
a treatment protocol, based on 21st-century understanding of
the learning process, that helps ensure early identification of
problems so that students who need support get the very best
help available. In other words, it is a process for
catching students before they fall.
Whatever the components of specific, state-level reading
promotion policies, what is universally agreed upon across
all political and educational ideologies is that the number of
students with proficient reading skills at all grade levels must
be significantly increased. As a country, we have the knowledge
base to teach nearly every child to read by the end of third
grade. The reading laws passed in most states demonstrate we
also have the will. This policy brief outlined data-driven actions
to realize this goal.
13
Bibliography
Barnett, W.S., Epstein, D.J., Friedman, A.H., Sansanelli, R.A., and Hustedt, J.T. (2009). The State of Preschool 2009. National Institute for Early
Education Research. Rutgers Graduate School of Education.
Baum, M. (2012). Using Short-Cycle Interim Assessment to Improve Educator Evaluation, Educator Effectiveness, and Student
Achievement. Renaissance Learning. Wisconsin Rapids WI.
Connecticut Parent Information and Resource Center. (2008). Connecticut’s framework for RTI: A family guide. Middletown, CT: Author.
Retrieved from http://ctpirc.org/docs/family-rti.pdf
Christie, K. & Rose, S. (2012). A Problem Still in Search of a Solution: A state policy roadmap for improving early reading proficiency.
Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Diamond, K.E., Justice, L.M., Siegler, R.S., & Snyder, P.A. (2013). Sythesis of IES Research on Early Intervention and Early Childhood
Education. (NCSER 2013-3001). Washington DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education
Services, U.S. Department of Education.
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes Publishing.
Hass, L. B., Stickney, E. M., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2013). Use of goal setting wizard in individualized instructional interventions
with struggling students. Unpublished manuscript.
Hernandez, D. (2011). Double Jeopardy: How third grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Baltimore, MD:
The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Lesnick, J., George, R., Smithgall, C. (2010). Reading on Grade Level in Third Grade. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Mathematica Policy Research. (2010). Improving Reading Comprehension in Third Grade. Washington, DC: What Works Clearing House
Practice Guide. Available online at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=14
National Center for Learning Disabilities, Inc. Get Ready to Read! Website. Kindergarten Readiness Indicators Checklist.
http://www.getreadytoread.org/images/content/downloads/Kindergarten_Readiness_Toolkit/03_kindergarten_readiness_
checklist.pdf. Retrieved 9/2/2013.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (September 11, 2013). Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: Usability, Accessibility,
and Accommodations Guidelines. Available online at:
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SmarterBalanced_Guidelines_091113.pdf
National Governors Association. (2013). A Governor’s Guide to Early Literacy: Getting All Students Reading by Third Grade.
Waschington D.C: The NGA Center for Best Practices.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children
to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. (NIH Publications No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Odden, A. R. & Picus, L. O. (2014). School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 5th edition, McGraw Hill.
Parker, R. (August 10, 2013). “Utah lawmakers raise reading stakes for elementary schools.” Salt Lake City, UT: The Salt Lake Tribune.
Raudenbusch, S. (2009). The Brown Legacy and the O’Connor Challenge: Transforming Schools in the Images of Children’s
Potential. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 169-180.
Renaissance Learning. (2013). Kindergarten Literacy Readiness Indicators. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. Available online from
http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R0056677DBCE9EC2.pdf
Samuels, C. (July 31, 2013). “Poll Findings Reveal Bipartisan Support for Early Learning”. Education Weekly.
Sparks, S.D. (November 9, 2011). “Swift Growth Found for ‘Early Warning’ Data Systems.” Education Week. 31(11).
U.S. Department of Education: National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for
intensive intervention. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/DBI%20a%20Framework%20for%20Intensive%20Intervention.pdf
14
West, M.R. (2012). Is Retaining Students in the Early Grades Self-Defeating? Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families at Brookings.
West, T.C. (2013). Just the Right Mix: Using an Early Warning Indicators Approach to Identify Potential Dropouts Across All Grades.
Baltimore: School of Education at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Ysseldyke, J.E. & McLeod, S. (2007) Using technology tools to monitor response to intervention. In S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burns, and
A.M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention. New York: Springer.
15
Acknowledgements
Renaissance Learning sincerely thanks the following individuals for lending their expertise in reviewing this paper.
Kathy Christie is Vice
President, Knowledge
Management & Dissemination
for the Education Commission of
the States (ECS). In addition, she
co-directs the work of the ECS
Clearinghouse, where staff work
on matters relating to educational problems and how
they are being met in states across the nation.
Alexa Posny, Ph.D., is former
Assistant Secretary of the Office
of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services in the
U.S. Department of Education.
She is currently Senior Vice
President of State and Federal
Programs for Renaissance Learning.
Allan Odden, Ph.D., is
professor emeritus of
educational leadership and
policy analysis at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison and
Principal Partner in Picus,
Odden and Associates, a
school finance consulting firm.
Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D., is the
H.E. Hartfelder/ Southland
Regents Chair and Executive
Director of The Meadows Center
for Preventing Educational Risk
at The University of Texas at
Austin. She is the author of
more than 10 books and over 100 articles that
address issues related to research and practice
with learning problems.
Renaissance Learning™
P.O. Box 8036 Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495-8036
(800) 338-4204 www.renlearn.com
L2898.0214.LG.1M
R57303