Student Learning vs Program Implementation

The staff at Mountain School adopted a new reading program in grades K-6.

Their first year was challenging because of implementation issues. Despite that, the principal continued to support the staff and problem-solve issues as they occurred. The program structure did address the root cause of instructional strategy issues at the school. They were able to see the results in just one year.

By year three, the program was fully implemented by all teachers. The teachers worked hard, and all the components of the program were in place. They were happy with the steady progress forward. 

However, the problem started to occur in their fourth year. Most of the grade levels did not meet their goals and their data started to flatline.  The 4-year average score for Reading State assessment in grades 3-6 were 40% - 51% - 56% - 57%. But despite that, two teachers in grade six consistently met their yearly goals. I will refer to them as Ms. Smith and Mr. Jones.

Together with the administrative team, we conducted a positive root cause analysis to determine why grade 6 had success. We began with instructional observations. Since the implementation looked good in most classrooms, the focus of the observations was on student responses and not on teacher delivery of program components. 

Uncovering Roots from a Positive Viewpoint

Before I move on to Data Step 3, I want to share one more aspect of Root Cause Analysis (RCA). In a complex environment such as a school, it is often difficult to identify one single root cause. There are a variety of causes and factors that contribute to what is working (positive) and what is not working (negative). 

Most of the time, root cause analysis is conducted to find out the problems at a school. It is very rare for schools to do a root cause analysis on the positive aspect to determine what is working and why. Do not be afraid to ask for help when dealing with complex and disjointed school issues and data. Data experts and facilitators can help you focus and save you time and money in the long run.

Here are some examples that can help you with root cause analysis from a “Positive Proactive” viewpoint. You can simply use your most recent test results as the data for these questions. Using that data, identify which teachers are achieving goals and which teachers are not achieving goals. 

Positive, Proactive Instruction Root Causes (teachers who are achieving their school goals):

For this group of teachers, you can discuss the following topic/s: 

What processes, beliefs, attitudes, skills, and/or knowledge do they possess that contribute to their success? What are their strengths?

What instructional strategies do you see most often in direct instruction? In small groups? During guided practice? During independent work? For 1:1 support? (See action guide for specific instructional strategy questions.)

Identify the top 3-5 strategies utilized in the classrooms of teachers who are moving students. Next, walk through the remainder of your classrooms. What percentage of your total staff are using those strategies to move students? 

In response, here are some questions for the administrative team:

• How can you empower and celebrate your successful teachers?
• How can you involve your successful teachers in leadership roles so they can share information with their co-workers?

Summarize your observational data with your administrative team. Identify 3-5 observational data facts to share during your root cause discussion with your teacher leadership team. 

Remember a data fact is a statement about the data you collected. It is not an opinion or judgement about the data. 

For example: 

• During the observation period, 10 teachers used <<list specific strategies>> to support low-performing students.
• During the observation period, 2 teachers used <<list specific strategies>> to support proficient students.
• During the observation period, we did not observe students working independently to solve problems in the 2nd,3rd, and 5th grades. 

Armed with your data facts, you are now ready to look at the real issues in classroom instruction and your deep root causes.

Returning to Mountain K-8 School. After the classroom observations, it was noted that teachers were “teaching the program” and following the lesson guides. However, they were not connecting what they were teaching to individual student responses. 

Smith and Jones used all program tools to address student needs as they surfaced. If you asked these teachers about specific students, they could tell you exactly what those students needed. They reinforced those needs and incorporated them into their teaching strategies. 

The adopted program helped the school achieve results because it solved their initial problems which were classroom strategies. However, to keep moving students forward, they needed to know their students and address specific needs. Once the teachers began to focus on individual student needs, they implemented the same additional program tools as Jones and Smith to address those student needs.

It was the same program, with a change in focus on student learning instead of just program implementation. After this focus, in year 5, most teachers achieved their reading goals. Overall, they achieved 66% proficiency on the state assessment, a 9% increase over the prior year. 

(The school name is fictionalized but the teacher and data are real)

If you are interested in more information or would like assistance analyzing your data and root causes, request a FREE consultation call. Fill in the Contact Form: 

https://debradurma.com/contact-us 

Type in "Request a FREE Consultation" in the "Additional Questions or Information Needed" box. You will receive a follow-up email with the next step to schedule a phone call to discuss your needs and questions.