Reading Intervention A school system hired Edstar to help them compare the effectiveness of their Title 1 interventions during the day, to their after school program for students who read below grade level. They told us they had two different kinds of interventions during the day. One of them served students who had scored Level 1, the lowest proficiency level on standardized reading tests, and a different service for students who scored Level 2, also below grade level, but greater proficiency than the Level 1 students. They had difficulty getting rosters of the students being served. Every Title 1 teacher knew who they served but there was no master list. It took months for them to get the roster for us so that we could create a data set and merge in pre-reading scores. Standardized reading scores are reported in levels. The students also have a scale score, and a range of scale scores constitutes a level. To measure growth at a finer level, we wanted to use the scale scores. Once we had the rosters and student IDs, we asked for the scale scores. No one knew where the reading scores were. There were several schools in this study, and the staff in each of them were very cooperative, yet, had no idea how to get the reading scale scores. They directed us to their Research and Evaluation department for the district. After a few more months, we received a file of the reading scale scores of the students in this study. The reading scores showed that the Title 1 programs that we were told served Level 1 students actually served the full range of Levels, with more than half of those served scoring at grade level proficiency. The same was true of the programs that were described as serving Level 2 students. We interviewed the staff in the schools to determine how they identified the students for these services. We had wondered how they could describe the programs as serving specifically Level 1 or 2 students when none of them knew where to get files of the reading scores. We had assumed they pulled paper records and reviewed them, as we commonly see done. Staff told us they assumed that the students who seem to be the lowest income were Level 1, and who students who seemed not quite as poor were Level 2. They reported that the way they decide just how poor students were was by the bus they rode and what neighborhood it went to, the mother's pocket book, the clothes the student wore, and other such clues. We had started the report to describe the different services students were receiving in the three settings. All of the services were designed to bring poor readers up to grade-level proficiency. When we finally got the reading scores so that we could begin building the data set that we would need for comparing pre and post reading scores, we could see that more than half of the students served in these programs were at or above grade level, with many scoring at the highest level before receiving these services. We met with the administrators and showed them these results. They were stunned. We suggested that when the post reading scores became available, that we compare outcomes separately for the students for whom the programs were designed and the other students. We would then be able to report the effectiveness of the program for the students for whom it was intended. We would not be able to determine whether the goal of bringing students to grade level was achieved for the students who were already at grade level.Which beliefs are influencing his Equity Lens? Click to check your answer. B.1 Cause and Effect B.2 Expert vs. Evidence B.3 What At-Risk Means B.4 Desired Outcomes and Goals B.5 What is STEM and Why We Need to Fill STEM Pipeline Which skills are influencing his Equity Lens? Click to check your answer. S.1 Knowing What Can Be Known S.2 How to Identify Kids to Align Services S.3 How to Classify Things S.4 Working With Data S.5 Understanding Data Details S.6 Understanding Federal Data-Handling Laws BeliefsB.1 Cause and Effect NA B.2 Expert vs. Evidence NA B3. What At-Risk Means They thought they could tell the specific reading level of a student by how poor they thought the student was. They described the students to Edstar in terms of their reading scores because they thought degree of poorness was the same as reading level. We did wonder how they could think this, and also think reading scores could go up without the incomes of the families going up. B.4 Desired Outcomes and Goals NA B.5 What is STEM and Why We Need to Fill STEM Pipelin NA SkillsS.1 Knowing What Can Be Known NA S.2 How to Identify Kids to Align Services They identified students to align services based on things they could observe that they thought told them about the income levels of the students. S.3 How to Classify Things NA S.4 Skill Set Required for Working With Data None of the school staff we were working with had the knowledge or skills for working with standardized reading scores electronically. They did everything on paper. S.5 Understanding Data Details NA S.6 Understanding Federal DATA-Handling Laws NA
