Guest Blog by Amy Siracusano
When Stephanie asked me to write a guest blog, I thought to myself… I’ve never written a blog in my life. Then I thought, I have to try it. I must branch out and learn a new structure. That is exactly what occurred in the two schools that I will speak about in this blog—we branched out and tried a new structure. And, it worked!
This past school year, I worked in two K - 5 Title I schools. School A served primarily White students in a small rural town in the southeast. School B served primarily Black and Hispanic students in an urban area in the south-central part of the country. Both schools used DIBELS 8th edition for universal screening and progress monitoring, and had less than 80% of their students meet the benchmark on the Reading Composite Score.
School A’s daily schedule included an additional 30 minutes for literacy instruction called WIN block (What I Need time). During WIN, students moved around the building to a WIN instructor, were grouped based on data, and were provided additional literacy instruction to help close gaps or accelerate learning. Our focus for this project was closing foundational literacy gaps.
What I discovered during learning walks with the building coach, was the instruction in students’ regular literacy block and WIN focused on different foundational skills. Students were receiving two different phonics lessons each day that focused on different phonics patterns. This seemed to be one of the reasons why gaps weren’t closing.
I dug into this a bit further with the building coach and school administrator by asking a series of questions:
- What scope and sequence were teachers following?
- What materials and resources were being used?
- Were the materials and resources the same or different?
- What kind of communication occurred between the classroom teacher and the WIN instructor?
- Did everyone have access to the same informal diagnostic data?
- How was mastery measured and communicated?
- How often did students move in and out of groups?
- What happens when progress monitoring data didn’t improve?
A lot was unknown, and we realized there were many disconnects.
Stephanie has explained many times in her talks that Tier I instruction should be provided in skill-based groups, with some students receiving an additional group time during Tier 2 (what my school called WIN). This kind of structure requires planning and all-hands-on-deck. So, this is where we began.
We went back to the data, reviewed the materials and resources, ensured we were all working from the same scope and sequence, made sure to focus on the students’ lowest deficit skills, and ensured communication was in place between staff members that were providing foundational literacy instruction. After we made these changes and adjustments, progress monitoring data started to move in a positive direction toward the goal.
The data moved because we made a change, a change in structure and approach. We learned the key was to provide students with a double dose--additional learning time that focused on the same phonics skill each day rather than students being taught two different skills each day.
This was very successful. In fact, kindergarten went from 16% of students reaching at or above benchmark on beginning-of-year (BOY) screening to 90% of students reaching at or above benchmark by end of year (EOY). First grade moved from 50% at BOY to 76% at EOY. These jumps in scores were huge. It was the intentional shift in planning based on data, using the same scope and sequence, and providing additional learning time, that made the difference.
Now you might say to yourself, I don’t have a school that has a WIN structure in place or several teachers on staff with this kind of instructional knowledge to provide small group phonics instruction to students. That’s okay too. School B was in a very different place.
School B had only two teachers in the building who were ready and who agreed to adjust how they were providing instruction in their classrooms. One teacher taught kindergarten and the other taught first grade. These two teachers agreed to work together and support one another through the changes we (the coaches, administrator, and I) proposed.
Initially, School B provided 60-minute whole group phonics lessons using the core reading program. During learning walks, we noticed a lot of students who were not engaged in the lesson. They were compliant, but unable to read the patterns being taught, or they were sleeping. We also learned that due to how the schedule was set, only 3-5 students were provided 10-15 minutes of small group each day. That meant not everyone received differentiated instruction—the instruction that they needed.
When you break that schedule down mathematically, all the students in these two classrooms were receiving 300 minutes a week on foundational literacy skills from the core reading program--lessons these students were NOT ready for, and a few of the lowest performing students received, at most, a maximum of 60 minutes of differentiated instruction on the skills they needed each week. Does that make any sense? The bottom line was that this schedule and how instruction was delivered created more of a gap. We had to make a change.
The two teachers agreed to stop teaching foundational literacy skills to the whole group and differentiate instruction for all students in the class based on data. Basically, they taught all foundational skills in skill-based groups. Again, it worked!! In eight weeks, both the kindergarten students and the first-grade students went from 40% reading whole words (NOT sound by sound) with short vowels to about 90% of the students reading whole words with short vowels. They used informal diagnostic pre- and post-data to track progress and ensured mastery and automaticity of skills along the way. This was incredible growth, and we celebrated.
When I asked the two educators for feedback regarding teaching in skill-based groups instead of “teaching page by page in the program…” they said, “ it was hard at first, but we would teach this way moving forward because it makes a difference—the kids are much more engaged, and we teach what they need, we ensure they have automatized the skill, we use data, adjust groups, and follow our scope and sequence based on our state standards—.” They taught what the students needed, and it made a huge impact.
My advice here, for other consultants, listen to your clients (educators). Meet them where they are, don’t force a structure or an approach on everyone if they aren’t ready. Chip away where you can and invite others along the way until we get everyone on board doing what is best for the students.
Also, stop teaching page by page of the programs, if your students aren’t ready. Use your data, differentiate, and teach students what they need to mastery and automaticity. Use your scope and sequence to know where to start and where you need to go. Provide systematic and explicit instruction and the right amount of time. And, stop checking a box. Start being client compliant and stop being program compliant. We are teachers; so, let’s teach!
Thank you to the educators and students who teach me every day. Thank you to my mentors for your continued support.
Written by, Amy Siracusano, National Literacy Consultant
July 2024
