By Kate Nelson, International Data Evaluation Center, and Mary Ann McBride, Teacher Leader

Data is critical to making informed instructional decisions that serve the needs of our most struggling readers, and IDEC data offers a wealth of information to support decision-making.

Recently, I met with Teacher-Leader Mary Ann McBride to discuss how she uses data to inform her decisions.  In this blog, we’ll explore how she uses reports to understand how her data compares to national data, how to glean valuable information from site reports, and how to examine lessons per week.

How Do I Stack Up?

When looking at site reports, Mary Ann and I discussed first comparing the data in her own sites to the national data.  Table 3 and Figure 8 are good places to start.

For example, in the table for the site above, in 2022-23 there were higher rates of Accelerated Progress students than the national average (44.9% vs. 36.1%), rates were similar to the national average for Progressed students (13.5% vs. 14.9%), and rates were much lower for students Recommended students (8.1% vs. 17.8%).  However, the site had a higher rate of students with a status of Incomplete than the national average (30.1% vs. 25.6%) which invites more investigation.  So, while this site was generally favorable when compared to national data, a teacher leader may want to look further at on-demand reports to investigate what may contribute to the higher rate of students with a status of Incomplete.

Additionally, Figure 8 provides a useful visual representation of how a site compares to national data. Figure 8 in the site report illustrates the progress in average text reading levels of first and second round Accelerated Progress students compared to first and second round Accelerated Progress students nationally.  Above, the site’s first round Accelerated Progress students were just below the national Accelerated Progress students (19.1% vs. 20.2%), but the site was slightly ahead of the national average for second round Accelerated Progress students (19.6% vs. 19.0%).  Additionally, both first and second round Accelerated Progress students from the site and the nation had much lower averages in the fall than the national random sample but exceeded the random sample text reading level at the end of the year.

_______________

Digging Deeper: Student Data

In my discussion with Mary Ann, Table 5 of the site report was highlighted as a critical table as it reveals students who were on the cusp of Accelerated Progress. Students who ended the school year at text reading levels of 10, 12, or 14 are such students. These students may have been able to achieve Accelerated Progress given additional time in instruction or if adjustments to their instruction had been made.  Table 5 is also helpful in identifying students who ended the school year at high text reading levels but were not given the status of Accelerated Progress.

In the table above, the values marked in yellow represent the number of students who would be considered “cusp” students. Most cusp students fell into the category of Incomplete, a number were made up of Progressed students, and a handful were Recommended students.  Table 5 shows there were seven Progressed students, 12 Incomplete, and 1 Recommended student who ended the school year at a text reading level of 16, and while they were also marked in yellow as cusp students, whether they would be considered on the cusp may depend on the requirements of their district. Values marked in green represent students who achieved high text reading levels at year-end (18 or higher) but were not given the status of Accelerated Progress. For instance, 12 students read at a level 18 at the end of the year but were determined to be Incomplete, while four students read at a level 20 but had a status of Progressed.  Most of the students marked in green had a status of Progressed and Incomplete but two had a status of Recommended.   Examining this table allows teacher leaders to explore ways that instruction may be altered for cusp students to reach acceleration as well as examine practices for determining a student’s exit category.

_____________

Digging Deeper: Teacher Data

When examining the rate of students with a status of Incomplete, or how to find more time for cusp students to reach acceleration, one place to look is lessons per week. In the site report, lessons per week is reported in Table 4.

In the table above, in 2022-23, students in each status category averaged between 3 and 4 lessons per week.  However, this table can hide lower rates for individual students or teachers as it averages the lessons per week across the entire site.  It may be helpful to examine the Student Data Summary on-demand report.  This report lists the students’ names, the number of lessons they received, their number of weeks, the number of missed lessons, average lessons per week, their text reading levels/total scores, and final status.

In the table above, the three students highlighted in yellow had low average lessons per week, ranging from 2.3 to 2.6.  These low averages reveal a deeper problem. In a school year of 180 days, it’s reasonable to expect a teacher to provide about 150 lessons across first and second round, providing approximately 75 lessons per student. This allows for testing and any unexpected events.  This means that a teacher should provide about 600 lessons in a year.  The teacher above provided 316 total lessons, teaching just 51.6% of the time.    It may be helpful to examine this on-demand report to monitor patterns of lessons per week, and any connections to students’ statuses at the end of the intervention or teachers with patterns of low rates.

In conclusion, site reports can be a helpful place to start when digging into data.  Table 5 is a particularly useful table to examine for potential adjustments to instruction.  Another valuable data point to examine is the average lessons per week, both in the site report and on-demand reports.  These reports can help teacher leaders monitor data, modify approaches, and potentially result in more students reaching a status of Accelerated Progress.

Learn more about IDEC data with Kate Nelson and Maryann McBride at the Teacher Leader Institute, where they will present “Digging into Data” on Thursday, June 13, 2024.

Kate Nelson is the IDEC International Data Evaluation Center Manager at The Ohio State University. She has a background in literacy, research, and teaching, and earned her Ph.D. in literacy education from The Ohio State University. At OSU, she received training in Reading Recovery and supervised children with reading difficulties in the university reading clinic. She worked with Dr. Lea McGee and colleagues to investigate first graders’ strategic use of information over time, resulting in a Reading Research Quarterly publication, as well as the International Literacy Association’s Dina Feitelson Research Award. She has experience in data analysis and research, as well as working with teachers in professional development and students in K-12 and higher education.

___________

Maryann McBride is currently a Clinical Faculty and Reading Recovery Teacher Leader at Clemson University Reading Recovery and Early Literacy Center for South Carolina. Before joining the Clemson Reading Recovery Center, Maryann spent 30 years as a classroom teacher, reading specialist, Reading Recovery teacher, and Teacher Leader for Prince George’s County Public Schools.

There has been quite a lot to unpack over the past couple of weeks, and the misinformation is running rampant! If the lies weren’t being spotlighted so publicly, we’d simply go on about our work — helping struggling readers and writers with one-to-one intervention as has been our mission for nearly 40 years. As it is, those with the money and power are insistent on creating distractions and scapegoating, and pushing back against misinformation is the unfortunate reality when the media is bought and sold by Big Business. So we must take a pause to reassure those who still care about supporting children’s literacy that yes, RRCNA remains in the fight.

Hanford’s reporting gets exactly one thing right: RRCNA has less money than it did prior to the APM smear campaign. So what? Unlike Hanford and the profiteers behind her, money isn’t our end game. Supporting children’s literacy is.

I’m reminded of an adage: What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right. We know we are in the right because we remain laser-focused on children’s right to receive well-rounded, evidence-based literacy instruction, and the fact that RRCNA is a nonprofit makes it all the clearer that money isn’t our motivating factor.

You’re likely asking yourself the obvious question: “Why does this tiny volunteer-led nonprofit of minimal means and even less political cache continue to be the target of such a well-funded smear campaign?”

It seems that we’ve struck a nerve! The profiteers behind the Science of Reading (SOR) grift seem to be getting a little antsy that the education community wants proof of their over-hyped claims of silver bullets.

Consider the timing: Here we are in the weeks leading up to the injunction hearing against Gov. Mike DeWine’s illegal Literacy Statute in Ohio, and suddenly Hanford’s podcast rears its ugly head with more tall tales of CRISIS! At the same time, the honorable governor is making public appearances at SOR-sponsored events aimed at solving the crisis-that-isn’t to shape public opinion with half-informed research. Curiously, he seems blind to anything that debunks claims of structured literacy being a settled science, choosing to repeatedly ignore newer, better science — all to the deficit of Ohio’s most vulnerable learners.

Consider the source: A loud minority of noneducators amplified by right-wing supporters like the Fordham Institute, Moms for Liberty, ExcelinED, and multiple pro-charter school reformers, all with the distinct motive for discrediting public education. As concerned as Hanford is with RRCNA’s finances, she seems suspiciously quiet about the hundreds of millions being thrown at large publishers by way of tax-payer funding. And of course, there’s Hanford herself, who has newfound fame and a slew of speaking engagements worldwide.

The profiteers are starting to get nervous we’ve seen through their game and are willing to take the fight to court. As more and more researchers and educators speak out loudly against SOR moves toward one-size-fits-all basals that have been mandated in Ohio and beyond, more people are asking themselves why if Science of Reading policies work so well, why haven’t they, well, worked for the past 10+ years?

Please show the research that proves structured literacy works best for all kids.

• Structured literacy (SOR) has failed in the U.K. despite being mandated for more than a decade.
• New Zealand is starting to get wise to the grift as well.
• Domestically, NAEP scores remain practically unchanged for the past several decades, regardless of the amount of phonics being mandated or where the literacy pendulum was in its swing. NAEP scores have mostly remained flat for several decades, but were at their highest when Balanced Literacy was the rule of the day. That’s certainly no justification for sweeping reform. That alone should be enough to tell you SOR isn’t the silver bullet they promised.

And again we have to ask, why does the popular narrative keep ignoring an entire body of literacy research showing mandated phonics is NOT the answer to our literacy woes? We’ve been asking for proof for decades. Now we’re asking in a court of law. Without the research on their side and with the public getting wise to the grift, all they have left is to attack and scapegoat.

Again I say, so what? Being the scapegoat is nothing when your cause is as important as children’s literacy. I’ve said it before and firmly stand by this belief: Until education experts and real, peer-reviewed research hold more sway than political and corporate interests, those of us who actually care about kids more than money can never stop fighting. While Hanford and her PR machine keep the noise level high, those of us who actually care about the needs of children will keep doing what we do best: serving the child in front of us.

Educators are tired of being lied to and lied about. We know what works best is informed teachers armed with a full toolbox and the autonomy to help ALL children reach their full literacy potential. If you agree, it’s time to stand up, speak out, demand proof, and be part of our mission.

• Join RRCNA, the nonprofit organization dedicated to doing Whatever It Takes to support struggling readers and writers.
• Attend LitCon: National K-8 Literacy Conference, celebrating its 40^th year as the homecoming of literacy leaders in 2025!
• Support professional development and advocacy by donating to the Foundation for Struggling Readers.

Dr. Billy Molasso is the Executive Director of the not-for-profit Reading Recovery Council of North America.

_____________________

Additional resources:

• Fact-Checking the Science of Reading by Robert Tierney and P. David Pearson
• Why a Lawsuit? Why Now? by Billy Molasso
• Phonics isn’t working – for children’s reading to improve, they need to learn to love stories by William Holliman, Cathie Wallace and Gee Macrory
• Schools are using research to improve children’s learning – but it’s not working  by Sally Riordan
• Stories Grounded in Decades of Research: What We Truly Know about the Teaching of Reading by Catherine Compton-Lilly, Lucy K. Spence, Paul L. Thomas, Scott L. Decker
• The Science of Reading and the Media: Is Reporting Biased? By Maren Aukerman, The University of Calgary
• Education Journalism and Education Reform as Industry by Paul Thomas
• Have the Gates Foundation and its Allies Purchased Education Journalism? By Richard P. Phelps
• The Science of Readingpolitik: A Commentary by George G. Hruby
• Legislating Phonics: Settled Science or Political Polemics? By Reinking, D., Hruby, G. G., & Risko, V. J.
• Beyond ‘simplistic’ debates – improving education in New Zealand by Stuart McNaughton and Rebecca Jesson
• Webinar: Toward Comprehensive, Research-Informed Literacy Instruction: Thinking With, Against, and Beyond the Science of Reading with Maren Aukerman
• Webinar: The Politics & Reality of the “Science” of Reading with Uniting to Save our Schools