1.
A Day With Our Students (DWOS)
Simple Six Data
LTs S2S Talk DIFF ET/ExT CM IBB
Harrah #1 78% 56% 56% 28% 69% 69%
Harrah #2 84% 69% 72% 38% 78% 72%
Harrah #3 75% 47% 69% 31% 75% 72%
Secondary #1 81% 56% 47% 47% 66% 69%
Secondary #2 78% 59% 47% 44% 78% 56%
Secondary #3 75% 53% 38% 38% 66% 66%
Av. Harrah Av. Secondary Av. District
Learning Targets 79% 78% 79%
Student­to­Student Talk 57% 56% 57%
Differentiation 66% 44% 55%
Entry/Exit Tasks 32% 43% 38%
Classroom Management 74% 70% 72%
Instructional BB. 71% 64% 67%
Celebrations
➢ Several areas of consistency between campuses:
○ 8 out of 10 teachers consistently using Learning Targets on both campuses
○ 7 out of 10 teachers demonstrating proper Classroom Management
○ 6 out of 10 teachers using some form of Instructional Bulletin Boards
Areas of Concern
➢ Some comments about IBB described them as “busy” or “overwhelming”

2. ➢ Low evidence of Entry/Exit Tasks and Student­to­Student Talk at both campuses
➢ Low evidence of Differentiation at secondary campus
Analysis
It is possible that the low rate of Entry/Exit Tasks and Differentiation is coincidental, that the timing of walks precluded
those events from being observed at the same rate as other Simple Six indicators. However, the DWOS data seems to
track well with other sources of observation data:
With a combined total of nearly 300 walkthroughs across the district between 8/31 and 12/8, it appears that the trends
demonstrated in the relatively low number of walks on DWOS (n=32) hold up over time. The No Data column represents
those observations where the the Yes/No field on the Simple Six indicator was left blank. Not knowing if this represents a
No or a Yes, we can make the following reasonable calculations:
No Data = No No Data = Yes No Data = 50/50 DWOS Comparison
Learning Targets 73% 84% 78% 79%
S2S Talk 35% 51% 43% 57%
Differentiation 43% 72% 57% 55%
Entry/Exit Tasks 32% 60% 46% 38%

3. Looking at the comparison data, it appears that if the No Data indicators are assumed to be either a No or the total number
of No Data indicators are split 50/50 between Yes/No, the overall walkthrough data (n=274) seems to very closely match
the “Day With Our Students” data (n=32). Assuming they are a Yes provides us with similar data for Learning Targets
and Student­to­Student Talk and higher rates of observed behavior for Differentiation and Entry/Exit Tasks. However, it
seems unlikely that the observation team (building administrators, district administrators, and coaches) would have not
marked clear evidence of those practices on the observation form. Therefore, it is unlikely that the No Data indicators
represent a Yes beyond a few random occurrences.
It is therefore unlikely these results are a fluke, are coincidental, or are the product of insufficient observed data. It is
possible that the higher rates of Differentiation and Student­to­Student Talk on DWOS are the result of the teachers
knowing they would be observed by outside parties (Reactivity/Observer Effect). It is also possible that those higher
numbers may also be the result of improved implementation of Simple Six.
Monthly trend data may reveal which is the case:
Student­to­Student Talk Av. Observed Data Av. Observed+DWOS Data
September 39% 39%
October 41% 41%
November 45% 57%
December (Predicted) 48% 61%
January (Predicted) 51% 69%
February (Predicted) 54% 77%
Using average observation data from September to November for Student­to­Student Talk, we can predict a possible
observation rate of 48% for December, slightly higher than the year­to­date average of 43%. Using the DWOS data in
place of the observed data for November, we get a predicted rate of 61% for December. ​The actual observed rate for
December was 65% over the course of 20 observation​s. If further observations in January reveal a rate around 50%, it
is possible that both the DWOS and the higher December rates are a fluke (due to small​ n​), while a rate around 70% may
reveal an increasing trend due to improved Simple Six implementation.
Replicating this process for the other main components of Simple Six reveals similar predictive trends. Learning Target
and Student­to­Student Talk observed rates track fairly close to the DWOS data predicted trend. The observed data for
Differentiated Instruction is much higher than predicted and the observed data for Entry/Exit Tasks is substantially lower.
Additional walkthrough data in January with a sufficiently high ​n​ should help determine which predictive data set is
accurate.
The following table has the complete trend predictions using the September­November observation data, the DWOS data
in place of the November data, and the actual December results with possible January­February resulting trends:

4.
Suggested Next Steps
➢ Increase overall number of walkthroughs in January to determine Simple Six trends
➢ Continue to work with staff on increased implementation of Student­to­Student Talk, Differentiated Instruction,
and Entry/Exit Tasks
➢ Revisit expectations for Instructional Bulletin Boards (informational versus wall decoration)