School’s Climate and Culture Influence on Success

I worked with a school that experienced amazing growth. For three years in a row, they achieved the maximum growth points on their school label (B-labeled school). We were analyzing their data to find out what was keeping them from an “A” label. It was revealed that it was the number of students at the benchmark. In Arizona, this is proficient and highly proficient levels.

The school had a lot of students at the bottom level and struggled to achieve proficiency goals. In Arizona, that level is minimally proficient. They achieved their growth goals by moving students into level 2 (Partially proficient). This is a celebration, but they wanted more for their students and began analyzing their data to determine why students struggled to reach higher proficiency. 

After the overall grade/teacher analysis, we also looked at data at the student level. We began asking questions about why students were not achieving benchmark levels. One wise and honest teacher on the team shared that she struggles to meet the needs of students who are struggling with language issues. 

When we looked at the EL subgroup, the teachers who taught the SEI (Structured English Immersion) classes were doing a great job of teaching the language and reclassifying students to proficient within the 3-year expected timeline. They were proficient on the AZELLA test which assesses language proficiency. Because these teachers were reaching AZELLA goals, they didn’t worry about this subgroup. 

I wondered how students who were in the EL program and now classified as proficient on AZELLA were performing on the state assessment. What was discovered was eye-opening for the leaders and the teachers. Students who were in the EL program were bouncing back and forth between partially proficient and proficient. One year they achieved the benchmark, the next year, they fell back. The overall school data flatlined because students were not maintaining proficiency once they reached that level. 

We continued to dig deeper by asking "why" to uncover the root causes of the issue. Our investigation revealed that mainstream teachers outside of the SEI classrooms generally did not implement effective instructional practices for English Learners. But there was one notable exception, we’ll call him Mr. Data. He consistently achieved proficiency goals because he combined content teaching with robust language strategies, equipping students to tackle higher-order thinking questions and grasp the subtleties of the language.

Given that 85% of the school’s population comprised current and reclassified English Learners, the strong language strategies provided in the SEI classrooms ceased to be accessible once students were no longer classified as ELs. As a result, these students struggled to understand language nuances and faced difficulties with advanced questions that required inferences, drawing conclusions, connections, etc. 

Implementing more content strategies might not have addressed their proficiency issue. The solution to their root cause – all classrooms implement strong EL strategies as they teach content. 

Instruction as a Possible Root Cause

Instructional practices are intertwined and complex. Elements of effective instruction include the learning environment, student engagement, complex thinking, clear shared outcomes, practice and feedback, strategies for your specific subgroups, content-specific strategies, etc. There are a lot of factors that need to be considered to meet the needs of the students.

Just as we set up learning outcomes for students, it is also important to identify data metrics to evaluate instruction. The metrics will help you determine if classroom instruction is impacting your SMART Goals and achievement results

Identifying instructional root causes is relatively straightforward when program strategies are absent or ineffective. However, it becomes more challenging to pinpoint instructional needs when everything appears to be functioning well on the surface. To gain deeper insights, leverage your teacher data. Investigate what effective teachers are doing to achieve consistent results. What practices and strategies are they implementing that contribute to their student success?

The next step would be to consider subgroup data. In the story above, the data metric for instruction would need to include the evaluation of teaching EL learning strategies in all classrooms. When the school conducted walkthrough observations focused on this metric, it was evident that SEI teachers were implementing effective strategies and achieving successful reclassification outcomes. In contrast, it became apparent that mainstream classrooms were not incorporating these essential EL strategies, thereby validating the underlying root cause. 

When looking at instructional root causes, consider school walk-through data and informal/formal teacher evaluation data to confirm your root cause. If you find a mismatch between the 2 data sets, it’s time to start asking questions to uncover why. The instructional walkthrough data can help you confirm instructional root causes that are contributing to poor student achievement. 

If your instructional practices are not evident, it is important to put strong instructional practices within a content area first. Once you have a program in place with initial level implementation, the next level for Data Steps 2.0 is to include subgroup data and instructional data to monitor effective instructional strategies for addressing the student needs within that subgroup. Root cause without looking at subgroups might not have uncovered the deeper root cause in the above school example. 

Many schools look at required subgroups based on their state achievement formula. Two groups that I see causing deeper root causes are EL or SPED subgroups. If you are not seeing issues within these subgroups, it is also important to look at subgroups of proficient or gifted performers. In the above school example, the students were no longer classified as EL, therefore they would not have been in the EL subgroup when analyzing the data. However, they were in the proficient subgroup. When looking at the characteristics of this subgroup, it was discovered that many students were from the EL program. This helped them to uncover a deeper instructional root cause. 

Proficient performers represent a subgroup in schools that have transitioned from underperformance to performance. This shift often happens within 1-3 years of implementing a program, particularly if benchmark achievers are overlooked. Once a program is established, there is a tendency for data to plateau or flatline. 

When this happens, it's crucial to not only focus on lower-performing students but also to monitor those at the benchmark. Are there any patterns or characteristics of the students within this group? If so, what instructional strategies are key to addressing those needs? Even if there are no specific characteristics or needs, it is also important to ask what instructional strategies these students need to maintain their benchmark status. This will help you uncover instructional root causes. 

It’s essential to recognize what specifically impacts our students’ learning experiences. Clear, concise, and engaging instructions can make a world of difference in helping students understand what is expected of them. We can have a supportive environment for all learners by reflecting on our teaching methods and making adjustments where needed.

If you are looking for support analyzing your data, conducting root cause analysis, and identifying your instructional root causes, request a FREE consultation call with me. Fill in the Contact Form Link: https://debradurma.com/contact-us 

Type in “Yes” for “Are you Interested in STAR Leadership Data Solutions?” You will receive a follow-up email with the next step to schedule a phone call to discuss your needs and questions.

Are you unhappy with your results or feeling overwhelmed by data? If so, contact me for more information on STAR Leadership School-Student Data Solutions Training. This training will guide you through the 4 data steps and give you a blueprint for achieving results. This training is individualized and tailored to your data, your needs, your staff, your students, and your best route to achieve results.