A Model for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction

1. A Model for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction • Schenk Elementary

2. Why we are moving in this direction • Not meeting all of our students needs...1/3 of our students • Significant gaps • Disabilities • ELL • Students of color • Regression after interventions

3. “If children are apparently unable to learn, we should assume that we have not as yet found the right way to teach them.” -Marie Clay

4. From our beliefs... • We believe that it is our responsibility to reach all kids • We believe in Balanced Literacy • We know that Reading Recovery shows benefits, but they are not always sustained • What is missing?

5. Where is success happening? • The CLM supports our beliefs • Balanced Literacy • Vertical Alignment • Site based PD & coaching • Core is not enough • Clinical nature of systematic observation from RR • Layered 4-Tier Framework

7. Learning more about it • Professional Reading • School site visitations • Washington Elementary in D.C. Everest School District • Lincoln Elementary School in Shawano • Mountain Bay Elementary School in Westin • Eisenhower Elementary School in Green Bay • Conferences • CIM in Little Rock, Arkansas; CLM in Pembine, WI • ESAIL survey based upon the 10 criteria of their model

8. Synthesizing Our Big Ideas • We needed a school-wide systematic approach to address... • Core is not enough • Fidelity is essential • Progress Monitoring Targets Instruction

9. Turn & Talk

10. Core is Not Enough • Systematic Thinking through CLM • Specific differentiation from a menu of choices • We will all continually receive professional development to add to our growing knowledge of how to do this • Past Practice • Teachers differentiate by their own creative means • Some have received certain professional development while others have not

12. Core is Not Enough • Systematic Thinking through CLM • Specific Tier 1 Interventions from a menu of choices • One to one conferences • Specific Small Group Interventions • Past Practice • Our classroom interventions were creatively designed • Dependent upon who you sought for more information...building team issue

13. Specific Tier 1 Small Group Interventions • Emergent Language & Literacy Group • Guided Reading Plus • Comprehension Focus Group • Assisted Writing Group • Writing Process Group • Oracy Group • Content Strategy Group

14. Emergent Language & Literacy Group Comprehension Focus Group Assisted Writing Group Writing Process Group Oracy Group Content Strategy Group Specific Tier 1 Small Group Interventions Guided Reading Plus

15. Core is Not Enough • Systematic Thinking through CLM • Must be receiving Tier 1 • Highly trained specialists deliver Tiers 2 & 3 • Specific interventions • Past Practice • Interventions beyond the classroom had become inconsistent • Often not aligned with Tier 1 Interventions and/or Core

16. Specific Interventions Tier 2 (small groups) Emergent Language & Literacy Group Guided Reading Plus Comprehension Focus Group Assisted Writing Group Writing Process Group Oracy Group Content Strategy Group

17. Specific Interventions Tier 3 (1:1 or 1:2) For students at the Emergent Level who are not in Special Education RR in Grade 1 Reading or Writing Conferences in specific tailored interventions searching for acceleration Tier 2 (small groups) Emergent Language & Literacy Group Assisted Writing Group Writing Process Group Content Strategy Group Guided Reading Plus Oracy Group Comprehension Focus Group

18. Tier 4 Interventions • Special Education Teacher delivers • Child must be receiving Core instruction as IEP deems appropriate • Intervention must align with Core

20. Turn & Talk

21. Fidelity is Essential • Systematic Thinking through CLM • Past Practice • District level PD for Core (not attended by all) • IRTs in buildings (not similar in background knowledge, not able to reach everyone) • Intervention support not consistent • Communication between Core teachers and between Interventionists not consistent or aligned • 30 minute weekly GL PD led by IRT • Horizontal & Vertical Alignment • Coaching Cycles, Observation Classrooms & Problem Solving with IRT • 2 hour weekly IS PD led by IRT • Behind the Glass/Peer Observation • Coaching & Problem Solving with IRT • Whole Day/Once per month CC PD led by IRT • Study/sharing of Literacy Processing • Peer Observation, Coaching & Problem Solving with IRT

22. Fidelity is Essential • Systematic Thinking through CLM • Horizontal & vertical alignment of instructional practices, interventions and formative assessments • Horizontal & Vertical alignment, K-5: • Genres • Comprehension Strategies • Thoughtful Log & Rubric • Progress Monitoring (formative & summative) • Past Practice • Use the state and district standards, as well as student assessments, to determine instructional content • Often done either independently, classroom by classroom, OR, sometimes, grade level by grade level • No consistent expectations throughout the school in regard to content or student educational practices

23. Progress Monitoring Targets Instruction • Systematic Thinking through CLM • Past Practice • Screening: PLAA • Diagnostic, formative assessments done at teacher discretion. Rarely shared. Random & not aligned. • Progress Monitoring PLAA at Quarter 2 & 3 • Outcome, summative assessments: PLAA, WKCE, ACCESS • Screening: PLAA • Weekly GL PD meetings will include dialogue in regard to student progress and collaboratively designed formative assessments • Progress Monitoring quarterly for the PMW using TRL & Thoughtful Log Rubric • Weekly PM for Tier 2 • Daily for Tier 3 • Core teacher & Interventionist meet for at least 10 minutes every 2-3 weeks to discuss student progress

24. Progress Monitoring Wall As a school

25. Progress Monitoring Wall As a proficiency level As a grade level

26. Progress Monitoring Wall As a student As a class

27. After Lunch... The Tangible Systems Progress Monitoring Wall Learning Environment Vertical Alignment My Thoughtful Log Before you leave, please record any ‘Gots & Wants’ you may have...

28. Progress Monitoring Wall • Systematic Thinking through CLM Past Practice • Assessment Wall used to capture a “snapshot” of student proficiency in Reading at various points in time. • Decisions about when to move students on the AW changed each year. • Decisions about what information to put on the AW changed each year. • Decisions about how to share/code information on the AW changed each year. • Decisions about how to use the information to reduce the achievement gap changed each year. • Decisions about who was responsible for monitoring the use of the AW changed each year or was neglected and abandoned. • Progress Monitoring Wall shifts our thinking from a noun to a verb. • Staff meetings: beginning of the year and at each quarter. Three half hour rotations. • Vertical alignment of formative and summative assessment information is agreed upon and consistently used. • Consistent coding system: honors student and teacher privacy, clearly shows school-wide, grade level proficiency performance, and intensity of student service delivery.

29. Progress Monitoring Wall Past Practice • Systematic Thinking through CLM • Assessment Wall used to capture a “snapshot” of student proficiency in Reading at various points in time. • Decisions about when to move students on the AW changed each year. • Decisions about what information to put on the AW changed each year. • Decisions about how to share/code information on the AW changed each year. • Decisions about how to use the information to reduce the achievement gap changed each year. • Decisions about who was responsible for monitoring the use of the AW changed each year or was neglected and abandoned. • The PMW is used at the: • Teacher level to see classroom movement • Grade level to see movement and use collective knowledge of gaps to make decisions with Interventionists about student services. • School-wide level to see the degree to which the CLM is effective and made visible through percentages shown for proficiency levels.IRTs are responsible for organization.Teachers are responsible for bringing necessary assessment information at the appointed time.Interventionists are responsible for reviewing the movement at a school-wide level to find gaps of student services.IRT is responsible for facilitating the discussion at grade level meetings for changes in student services.

30. Progress Monitoring Wall Consistent Criteria Beginning of year: Fall PLAA TRL testing results used (K exception) Spring cut scores determine proficiency levels Quarters 1-4: Thoughtful Log Rubric Proficiency Level PLAA Proficiency Level for TRL Kindergarten: Beginning of Year and Quarter 1 PLAA LID- UC PLAA Dictation

31. Organizing for Literacy Creating a Climate for Learning

32. Climate Shares a Relationship with Learning • Climate refers to the physical conditions, • such as temperature or the noise level in the area, and also affective dimensions, such as how safe the reader feels, how competent, even how he feels about others around him or her.

33. What Does the Research Say?Marzano and Pickering et al., 1997; McCombs and Barton, 1998) • Research suggest that students learn best in a pleasant, friendly climate where they • feel accepted by their teachers and peers, • feel a sense of safety and order because academic expectations, instruction, and the purpose for assignments are clear; • feel confident in their ability to complete tasks successfully; and • see the value in the learning activities

34. Workshop Principles Acceptance • Children report feeling accepted when their teachers listen to them and respect their opinions.

35. Workshop Principles Acceptance • Teachers communicate acceptance by: • Showing interest not only in how students perform in class but also in their extracurricular activities. • Calling students by their preferred names, and making eye contact, • Planning varied activities that address different learning styles and that capitalize on individual differences, encouraging even the unassertive students to participate in discussions. • ALL of these help students feel like they matter!