Who is in the driver’s seat?

A publication of the Association of California School Administrators

Using data to drive instructional practices that improve literacy

By Sharon Dunn | September | October 2024

Can you imagine what it would be like in our schools if most of our students were proficient readers? What if the school-to-prison pipeline were diminished due to increased reading proficiency? Just imagine the ripple effect in your community. Ensuring students read with accuracy, fluency and comprehension is the most fundamental responsibility we have as school principals. Reading proficiency is the ultimate equity outcome. The ability to read proficiently and with understanding provides students with access to opportunity for life.

Essential early literacy skills The National Reading Panel Report (2000) identified five key concepts or basic early literacy skills for reading proficiency: Phonemic awareness, phonics, text reading fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension. Assessing student performance on these essential literacy skills can help differentiate students who are on track to become successful readers from students who are likely to struggle.

Evidence shows these skills are the basic building blocks every child must master to become a proficient reader (Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Research Council, 1998). Evidence also shows these skills can be improved with instruction. Improving reading outcomes by preventing reading failure is a very solvable problem (Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons, & Coyne, 2002; Simmons & Kame’enui, 1998; Torgesen, et al., 1999).

As a school principal, do you know exactly how many and which students at each grade level are reading accurately, fluently and with comprehension? If not, why not? This is precisely where you want to begin. It takes the right kind of assessments to answer these literacy questions. The right assessment data can be your best guide to drive instructional practices to prevent reading failure at your school.

The right assessments What exactly are those right assessments? This was the main question I wrestled with as an elementary principal of a school serving 88 percent under-resourced students. There are far too many “reading” assessments we deal with as principals and district leaders, such as common formative assessments, curriculum assessments, adaptive reading assessments and/or standards-based assessments. I found these assessments did not provide the information necessary to gauge if students were on track for reading proficiency. Only 21 percent of students at my school met or exceeded standards on the end-of-the-year state assessment — Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium — for English language arts. What I lacked was accurate data measuring the essential early literacy skills needed to create proficient readers. Without accurate data reflecting these essential early literacy skills, it was nearly impossible to improve reading outcomes. We were spinning our wheels with a variety of reading assessments, and we had an ad-hoc approach to reading intervention. I needed to fix the reading problem — there was no time to waste.

I followed the science of reading research. The research led me to select assessments that were valid, reliable and efficient in assessing the skills that every child must master to become a proficient reader. You may be surprised; it takes fewer assessments than you think.

Universal screening At our school, we began with valid and reliable universal screening and progress monitoring assessments that measured the acquisition of early literacy skills from kindergarten through sixth grade. We selected Acadience Reading. Acadience Reading is comprised of six brief measures that function as indicators of the essential early literacy skills that every child must master to become a proficient reader.

I loved the fact it provided research-based benchmark goals for interpreting results. This allowed us to see right away which students and systems were at risk. The universal screener is given at the beginning, middle and end of the year. The Progress Monitoring assessment (from Acadience) is a brief (one to three minutes) assessment given to at-risk students biweekly or weekly. This data told us if instruction was working or not and allowed for quick adjustments based on response to instruction. It is important to understand that these measures are used to regularly monitor the development of early literacy skills in order to provide timely instructional support and prevent the occurrence of later reading difficulties. Acadience measures are highly correlated with reading comprehension. For grades 3-6 the correlation between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension is very strong (e.g., Shinn et al., 1992) and the Acadience end-of-the-year composite score for grades 3 through 5 is predictive of how many students will meet or exceed the SBAC ELA achievement standard.

Diagnostic assessment Next, we selected a diagnostic assessment. This assessment showed us exactly where readers were struggling with their phonics and decoding skills. It was given to students at risk of reading failure (identified through the universal screener) and pinpointed the lowest skill deficits and what should be taught next for students to become accurate and fluent readers who read with understanding.

Diagnostic assessment is key in problem solving for differentiated instruction and intervention. A good diagnostic assessment will assess multiple subskills, assess skills in order of difficulty, keep indicator scores separate, provide guidance on skill by grade levels and be brief to administer. At my school, we selected 95 Percent Group diagnostic assessments. This was a true game changer in improving reading outcomes for us. It helped determine where to begin each student’s intervention, grouped students with similar needs, and was used to inform when to move students out of one skill into another. It also helped us differentiate small group instruction during Tier 1 (classroom reading instruction) for struggling readers. Information from the diagnostic eliminated guessing and lead directly to intensifying instruction in a Tier 2 or Tier 3 group for focused intervention instruction.

Why are the universal screener, progress monitoring assessments and diagnostic screener so pivotal? Because it is the closest thing to a crystal ball we have when it comes to improving reading outcomes. These assessments tell us who is at risk of reading difficulties, identifies skills to target for instructional support and provides progress monitoring measures for at-risk students while they receive additional, targeted instruction to close achievement gaps. One of the best features from these assessments is the early identification of struggling readers in kindergarten and first grade. As Joe Torgesen stated, “The best solution to the problem of reading failure is to allocate resources for early identification and prevention” (Torgesen., et al 1999).

As a school principal, do you know exactly how many and which students at each grade level are reading accurately, fluently, and with comprehension? If not, why not?

Data-based decision making All this to say, it was utilizing the right assessment data that helped us examine the effectiveness of our school-wide literacy supports, identify the literacy needs of all our students and build an effective, multi-tiered system of supports to improve reading outcomes. The data set us on the right course. The data led us to equipping ourselves with ongoing professional learning in the science of reading research, which led us to selecting evidence-based materials and processes. Through the data, the literacy team (me included) and grade levels effectively utilized the collaborative problem-solving process to efficiently match the instruction to the needs of the students at each grade level. The data provided the real-time guidance we needed to allow us to respond to the instructional needs of our struggling readers. Achievement test results Lastly, there is the outcome evaluation assessment. This is the end-of-the-year state assessment, and it is one of the strongest indicators in bringing to light if we have truly fixed the reading problem in our schools. It shows if we have done our job in utilizing our assessment data to drive and adjust instruction in Tier 1 (core), Tier 2 (intervention) and Tier 3 (intensive support). When students can read accurately, fluently and with comprehension, it frees up the brain space to become a skilled reader who is increasingly strategic with vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, background knowledge and literacy knowledge. The end-of-the-year state assessment highlights a student’s ability to integrate knowledge and skills across multiple standards, a key component of college and career readiness. When the right data began to drive the instruction at our school, it literally changed everything regarding improving reading outcomes. The proof is in the achievement test results. Our school went from 21 percent of students who met or exceeded the achievement standard to nearly 60 percent of students who met or exceeded the achievement standard on the SBAC English Language Arts assessment in a four-year time span. I knew we were on the right track to fixing the reading problem and providing hope for the future of our students. Reading proficiency is one of the greatest equity issues of our time. The principal is the driving force when it comes to improving reading outcomes and preventing reading failure for all learners at their school. Effectively utilizing the right reading assessment data equips the principal to successfully drive the instruction, remove barriers and pave the way to create accurate, fluent readers who read with understanding. We can get reading right, and we must — kids’ lives are at stake. Principal leadership takes courage, the courage to decide that allowing reading failure is no longer an option. It is realizing that what you have is not a product of the way things should be, but how you’ve allowed them to unfold. As principals, the onus is ours. It is up to us to prevent reading failure. With the right assessments, we are well on our way to accomplishing this. References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2004). Improving Beginning Reading Instruction and Intervention for Students with LD: Reconciling “All” with “Each”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(3), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370030801 National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. National Research Council. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/6023. Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D., et al. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 459–479. Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs : bases and basics. Erlbaum. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579 Sharon Dunn is a former principal and a founding board member of The Reading League California. She supports schools/districts with instructional leadership for improved reading outcomes as a MTSS Leadership Consultant.