Action Research: Cardinal Times Interventions

-Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership

and Postsecondary Education
University of Northern Iowa
-In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Advanced Studies Certificate
-by
Tara K. Zehr
Berg Middle School
Newton, IA
(November 2016)
-Professor Benjamin Forsyth

Introduction
My action research project started over a year ago when I first became unsatisfied with
our professional development opportunities. They were not planned out in advance, teacher did
not have any input and there was no differentiation between departments or individuals. At the
time there was little I could do other than make the most of the opportunities I had to work with
the rest of my department.
This requirement came around at the perfect time. We had a complete change in
administration in my building and I realized I had already been thinking about a way to make a
positive change on my school; personalized professional development plans. I became
conversations with my principal and she was completely supportive of my idea. She didnt want
to disrupt what we already had planned for the year, but she encouraged me to experiment on my
mathematics department.
We started conversations in late September outlining our math professional development
goals. Throughout these conversations we kept coming back to the fact that we still had too
many students below the non-proficient line. We worked hard last year to get our school off the
SINA list for math; we had been on the list for seven years, we didnt want our hard work to go
to waste. It didnt take long for me to realize I wanted my focus to change from personalized
professional development to math interventions.
It was difficult for me to make the change from personalized professional development to
math interventions because I really wanted to improve the professional learning opportunities for
my staff. What finally pushed me to put my professional development plans on the back burner
was the fact that the math interventions would be have the quickest impact on student success.
Ive maintained throughout this entire program that my administrative mantra is, Whatever is

best for students and I think its more important to get our interventions in place first and then
work on improving professional development next year.
Therefore, I finally reached my driving questions: How do personalized mathematics
interventions improve student understanding? As a result, can we prove these math interventions
decrease our number of student scoring below proficient on Iowa Assessment?
Review of Related Literature
Our procedures, which I will highlight now and go into greater detail later, were really
driven by our School in Need of Assistance (SINA) team and Area Education Agency (AEA)
consultants. While I did not doubt the advice of our AEA consultants I did want to do a little
research of my own to understand why we were attacking our non-proficient problems the way
we were. I found a report from Hanover Research that examined the best practices in
mathematics. They highlighted some Key Findings from their research that played perfectly
into our process. They found three practices that should be part of all interventions and we were
planning for all three phases: universal screening, explicit and systematic instructional methods,
and databased decision making (page 3). Another three step process their research found that
we were including in our interventions was the dedication of at least 10 minutes to fluent
retrieval of basic arithmetic facts, the development of students systemized approach to all
problem types, and the nurturing of students confidence (page 4).
Let us start with the first item in the Hanover Research universal screening. We were
following the procedures in the Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS). In a report written by
Kansas University they suggested three appropriate tests to use as universal screeners; STAR
math test being one of the recommended assessments (Kansas 2013). Luckily, we had already
decided that we would use the STAR math test and administer it every six weeks.

While searching the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) site for some
actually instruction research I found an article that sadly, we were not able to follow completely.
The article listed six aspects of interventions that needed to be in place for the interventions to
actually make change (NCTM, page 3).

The use of structured peer-assisted learning activities

Systematic and explicit instruction using visual representations
Modifying instruction based on data from formative assessment of students (such as
classroom discussions or quizzes)
Providing opportunities for students to think aloud while they work
Be in a small group of no more than six
Address skills that are necessary for the unit at hand

We were able to allow for most of things with the exception of keeping the group size to six. We
just had too many students in need of intervention and too few of teachers able to provide the
help. I will get into how the students were grouped in the methodology section.
Despite not being able to accommodate to the smaller intervention group sizes, I was
pleased with the research I found. It backed up the decisions we had already made and the steps
we had set to move forward. As stated earlier, I did not doubt the knowledge and decision
making of the AEA consultants; I just wanted to know where some of our decisions were coming
from.
Methodology
This section is going to seem as though we are almost exclusively talking in future tense
and that is because we have not done a lot of the work yet. I have been in my building for six
years and this will be the first time we give the STAR test to all students. In the past we have
only used it to progress monitor our special education students during their mathematics
remediation time. We have had a program called Cardinal Math but students were selected based

off of sixth grade Iowa Assessment scores and we not able to work their way out of the class.
We had some things in place, but with no rhyme or reason.
Here were the steps our team had set to reach our non-proficient students:
1. Select targeted students
2. Assign intervention teachers and schedule time to meet
3. Administer screening test to all students
4. Begin interventions
5. Progress Monitor at the end of agreed upon window
6. Administer Iowa Assessment and study results
The first step was to get the SINA team together with our AEA consultants to analyze our
students. Because we have never given the STAR test to all of our students they only had one
assessment to look at, Iowa Assessment scores from the previous year. Looking through these
numbers pointed out two things: we needed to progress monitor our students more than one time
a year and exactly who our proficient and non-proficient students were. One alarming
realization was the number of seventh grade students we had below the proficient line. In a
building of 460 seventh and eighth grade students we have 15 non-proficient eighth grade
students and 60 non-proficient seventh grade students who were targeted by the SINA team.
Now that we knew how many students we needed to target in our intervention time, we
needed to figure out how and when to teach all of them. We have a time at the end of our day
called Cardinal Time. Basically, this is a school wide study hall. All teachers have
approximately 15 students who they have every day during that time, but the idea is that students
can go to other teachers as needed. The idea is great, but it is extremely difficult to manage. On
a daily basis I will have my 15 Cardinal Time students and another 5-10 students who I have
asked to come in for re-teaching/intervention time. It makes it fairly difficult to get a lot done in
the re-teaching time because there are too many other students in the room.

The SINA team came up with a great solution! Now that we had our targeted students
those teachers who would be leading our intervention time: 3.5 math teachers and 1 instructional
coach would not have a typical Cardinal Time. Instead the 15 students I currently have in
Cardinal Time will get placed somewhere else, for the rest of the year, and I will work with a
portion of the intervention students during Cardinal Time. By using this time for interventions
we were allowing students to keep the same class schedule they had been on all quarter and we
could guarantee we had teachers free at the time. The setbacks were this move added more
students to our other Cardinal Time teachers classes, we would not have a place for our
proficient math students to go if they had questions and we only wanted to provide interventions
Monday through Thursday so intervention teachers could meet together on Friday, but that meant
we did not have anywhere for our intervention students to go on Friday.
One of our eighth grade teachers would take all 15 of the targeted eighth grade students.
The other 60 seventh grade students would be split evenly between our 1.5 (half because one of
the teachers is half math/half science) seventh grade math teachers and our remaining eighth
grade math teacher. By other using our math teachers it left our instructional coach open during
Cardinal Time to combat one of our previously mentioned setbacks. Our instructional coach
would not have a Cardinal Time or an intervention group, instead she would be available for
every other student in the building to visit if they had any questions, needed help on homework
or needed to retake standards. This was not our ideal situation, but at the moment it was the best
we could do to accommodate for our proficient students needs.
That ends what we have already done and from here on out is what we plan to do in the
future. By the time this paper is submitted the SINA team will have met again and will have
scheduled the time to administer the STAR test to all students. We have heard many horror

stories about running the STAR test all at the same time, but we have high hopes for the
assessments. We are currently in our first year as a one to one building, with Chromebooks, and
while we have had typical difficulties with any new endeavor, they have been a positive change
to our building.
Our idea at the moment is to give the STAR test to all students every six weeks. This will
show us how our non-proficient students are keeping up with our proficient students, but it will
also show us if there are any previously proficient students who need to be targeted in our
intervention Cardinal Times. There are definitely arguments against testing students that often,
but at this point so early in our interventions data is extremely important to us. We need to be
able to know if what we are doing is helping and if we are targeting the right students.
After administering the STAR test we will use the following table to figure out exactly
what each of our students needs are (Adapted from Kansas 2013).

Students who fall in the Intensive Range will be the students we target in future interventions.
Currently we are just working off of previous year Iowa Assessment scores and we do not want
to move students in or out of the Intervention Cardinal Times without multiple data points.
Students who fall in the supplemental range will not need additional math instruction outside of
class, but they will need extra help, guidance and possible small group interventions during class.
Finally, the biggest group of students should fall in the On Track Range. Some of those students
may need a little extra help every once in a while, but most will be successful simply by

receiving the Core. One perk of assessing all students that I do not think the SINA team is
thinking about is the chance to figure out our students who need enhanced differentiation. There
is a chance they are sliding by and no one has realized they need pushed further than their typical
peer.
After all students have taken the STAR math test we will begin our Intervention Cardinal
Time. At the moment we are planning on chunking the interventions in six week windows. At
the end of six weeks we will start our progress monitoring steps by giving our STAR math test to
all students.
The Intervention Cardinal Time will have a set structure that will be the same in all
classes. We have 35 minutes to meet with our students Monday through Thursday. Ten minutes
every day will be spent improving our fact fluency. This is something we are all passionate
about and as stated in the research section it is an important piece of math interventions. Fifteen
to twenty minutes a day will be spent on skills to help with the current unit of study. I envision
using this time to re-teach topics from the previous couple days and pre-teach for an upcoming
difficult topic. The remaining time can be used for students to work on homework with the
teacher and with their peers.
These students will meet with the same teacher for the six week period, Monday through
Thursday. They may not have the teacher in class, but there is no way to guarantee an even split
of students and we would rather have balanced class sizes than students aligned with their math
teachers. We are still in the process of trying to figure out a way to allow the intervention
teachers time to meet during Cardinal Time on Fridays, but we do not have a place for our 75
students to go.

As mentioned earlier we plan to give the STAR math test to all students every six weeks.
Personally, I do not envision students moving in and out of Intervention Cardinal Times very
often, but I could be wrong. The SINA teams reasoning for administering the test so often is to
have as much data as possible when making decisions. In the past we have only been able to
place students based off of one score given one time at the end of the year, Iowa Assessment.
Now when we are placing the current seventh grade students into Cardinal Math, math classes
and in Intervention Cardinal Times we will have our Iowa Assessment score and at least four
STAR math scores.
The final step we have planned for each year will be to evaluate the data we receive from
students Iowa Assessment scores. This will be the final piece of data I will need to evaluate if all
this work actually made a difference. We will be able to tell how many proficient students stayed
there and hopefully how many non-proficient scorers moved into the proficient range. I am
hoping we do not have to calculate the number of students who moved from proficient to nonproficient. But what we have learned about standardized testing that will happen and that will be
valuable information for us.
Results, Conclusions and Recommendations
Ill admit I cheated in this section. I paired results with conclusions and
recommendations because I do not have any results yet. As I discussed earlier my research
started with the idea of personalizing professional development. I do not regret the discussion to
transfer my focus to the Intervention Cardinal Times because this will have a greater impact on
student success. Unfortunately, it does mean that everything was a little behind the desired
timeline for this paper and it meant that I was working with a large team of people which
resulted in the process taking longer than planned.

My main conclusion from this entire process is that it should not have taken this long for
this to happen in our building. We should have had these intervention times set long ago; maybe
we could have been off the SINA list much sooner. Another thing I learned or better was
reminded of is the importance of vertical alignment. When I inquired about STAR testing
compared to other options the reasoning was because that is the test the elementary schools in
our district are using. Thats fine and I agree with that decision, but why have we not known that
before. Why have we never seen that information when deciding if students needed to be placed
in Cardinal Math? I am a firm believer that more information is always better and we have been
cheated from doing what is best for students because we havent been given all the information
upfront.
I do not know now if this section should be called recommendation, probably more
appropriately it should be called Future Goals. I should probably have a claimer here that these
goals are not supported by Berg Middle School or the Newton Community School District; these
are simply my goals from here on out. Once we get the Intervention Cardinal Times in order this
year I would like to keep them running strong and then take our work three new directions.
First, we are getting ready to have talks to reconfigure our schedule and I would love to
have conversations about having actually time set aside in our schedule to have intervention
time. Teachers would not missing out on Cardinal Times and students still have their time at the
end of the day to meet with whoever they need, rather than being told they have to go to math.
The first question people have is what to do with all the students who do not need interventions?
I do not know that I completely agree with this answer yet, but I could be persuaded to have that
time correspond with a Genius Hour. Students who do not need interventions work in a Genius
Hour setting, creating, learning or experimenting with anything of their choice. The students

who need interventions are getting it at that time and they are not missing out on instruction.
Again, I am not sure this is the best answer because I do not want lower achieving math students
to always miss out on Genius Hour, but it is an option to consider.
Earlier detection is another aspect of the intervention process we could begin to work on
next year. Because STAR math tests will be used K-8 we could start to have more conversations
about students before they even get into our building. We would be so much better prepared to
meet the needs of all students if we had multiple, data-driven discussions with the sixth grade
teachers.
Finally, and I did save it for last, I think we could come full circle. Meaning, my original
research topic idea was to create a personalized professional development plan and I think we
could use this as a springboard to have a more directed professional development plan. We could
look into training for working with students with disabilities or students in need interventions.
These interventions would not have to be isolated to just the math teachers. We may have
science teachers, for example, who would be interested in providing math interventions as well.
A little professional development on the best way to reach these students would go a long way in
making a difference in student math improvement.
I know this paper does not look like we have accomplished much, but we are definitely
moving in the right direction. We do not have data to dissect or values to point to that our
procedure worked or not, but we are well on our way. My the time we take the Iowa
Assessments in April we will have taken at least four STAR assessments and we should have a
much better idea how our students are going to fair before they even take the test. I know this is
not much and it is nothing that can be measured, but I have a great feeling about the direction our
school is going this year.

References
Effective Strategies for Teaching Students with Difficulties in Mathematics. The National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2007. http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Research
_News_and_Advocacy/Research/Clips_and_Briefs/Research_brief_ 02__Effective
_Strategies.pdf
Hanover Research. (2014). Best Practices in Math Interventions. District Administration
Practice, Washington D.C.
Kansas State Department of Education. (2013). Kansas Multi-Tier System of Supports:
Structuring Guide: Module 2 Mathematics. Topeka, KS: Kansas MTSS Project, Kansas
Technical Assistance System Network.