To meet the constantly changing needs of schools and diverse learners, educators must frequently monitor student learning, revise curricula, and improve instruction. Consequently, it is critical that careful analyses of student performance data are ongoing components of curriculum decision-making processes. The primary purpose of this study is to demonstrate the application of panel study longitudinal analysis techniques to inform curricula and instructional improvement efforts using actual data retrieved from state accountability reports of a Texas school district.
AdamsM. J. (2011). Advancing our students’ language and literacy: The challenge of complex text. American Educator, 34, 3-11.
2.
BestJ. W.KahnJ. V. (2006). Research in education (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
Darling-HammondL.Ramos-BebanN.AltamiranoR. P.HylerM. E. (2016). Be the change: Reinventing school for student success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
4.
FullanM. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
5.
GallM. D.GallJ. P.BorgW. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
GomezL. M.GomezK. (2007). Reading for learning: Literacy supports for the 21st century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 224-228.
7.
GravesM. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
GravesM. F.AugustD.Mancilla-MartinezJ. (2013). Teaching vocabulary to English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
GravetterF. J.WallnauL. B. (1996). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
10.
GroenM. (2012). NCLB: The educational accountability paradigm in historical perspective. American Educational History Journal, 39, 1-14.
HapgoodS.PalincsarA. S. (2006). Where literacy and science intersect. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 56-61.
13.
HuntJ. W. (2008). A nation at risk and No Child Left Behind: Déjà vu for administrators?Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 580-585.
14.
McConachieS.HallM.ResnickL.RaviA. K.BillV. L.BintzJ.TaylorJ. A. (2006). Task, text, and talk. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 8-14.
15.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.BlakeR. K. (2009). Rethinking reading instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218-253.
16.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the sub-groups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Clearinghouse.
NeumanS. B.WrightT. S. (2013). All about words: Increasing vocabulary in the Common Core classroom, PreK-Grade 2. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20.
PearsonP. D.RaphaelT. E.BensonV. L.MaddaC. L. (2007). Balance in comprehensive literacy instruction: Then and now. In L. B. GambrellMorrowL. M.PressleyM. (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 30-54). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
PressleyM. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. KamilMosentahlP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
RoskosK.NeumanS. B. (2014). Best practices in reading: A 21st century skill update. The Reading Teacher, 67, 507-511.
