Board Study Session

1. Board Study Session Update on English Language Arts (ELA) Improvement Plan Stephanie Smyka, Coordinator of Elementary English Language Arts Diane Boni, Director of English Language Arts December 1, 2009

2. Summary of ELA improvement plan goals • High quality implementation of new elementary assessment system • High quality implementation of early literacy interventions • Increase literacy content knowledge of special education teachers • Greater use of student-centered, assessment-driven literacy instructional practices

3. Fountas and PinnellBenchmark Assessment • Oral Reading Accuracy • Fluency • Comprehension • Within the text • Beyond the text • About the text

4. Comprehension - fiction

5. Comprehension - nonfiction

6. Evidence: Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment Results – Fall 2009

9. Evidence: Monitoring • Walkthroughs • School administrative teams • Collaborative school and district administrative teams: • To date, collaborative walkthroughs have been conducted at 12 of the 13 elementary schools • Professional Development • Focus of elementary principal meetings two times per year • Focus of required reading specialist meetings two times per year • Embedded into BLIC sessions throughout the year • Building Level Monitoring • School principals monitor progress quarterly through regular Student Accountability Meetings • Teachers/administrators utilize resources to continually assess student progress toward instructional level goals monthly and/or quarterly

10. Next Steps • Continue collaborative walkthroughs and reflective conversations • Continued monitoring at the school level through student accountability meetings • Continued monitoring at the school level through the mid-year administration (January-March) • Continue embedding differentiated professional development at the school level

11. Reading Recovery Current Status: Instructional Text Level

12. Evidence: Monitoring • Reading Recovery (RR) teacher monitoring • Students’ literacy knowledge assessed with Marie Clay’s Observation Survey at the commencement of the intervention • RR teachers take a Running Record on each student daily • RR teachers update comprehensive assessment information at 5 week intervals (Independence Checks) • RR teachers monitor student progress longitudinally • Professional Development – Reading Recovery teachers • RR Teachers-in-training take students Behind the Glass 3 times/year • RR teachers-in-training receive a minimum of 3 building-based coaching visits per year from RR teacher leader • RR teachers-in-training attend class weekly on Tuesday evenings

13. Evidence: Monitoring (continued) • Trained RR teachers take students Behind the Glass 1 time/year • Trained RR teachers participate in monthly Continuing Contact sessions • RR teachers participate in district-wide Reading Recovery meetings bi-monthly • Professional Development – Classroom teachers • First grade teachers participated in half-day professional development sessions designed to create and maintain synergy between classroom and intervention instruction • RR teachers and first grade teachers consult regularly to discuss student progress and identify common instructional goals and strategies for the near future

14. Evidence: Monitoring (continued) • Building Level Monitoring • School principals/teachers monitor progress at 5 week intervals through updates related to 5 week Independence Checks • School principals/teachers monitor progress quarterly through regular Student Accountability Meetings • School principals and RR teachers monitor long-term progress of students once their intervention has been completed • School principals attend quarterly district-wide Reading Recovery meetings

16. Evidence of Impact: Reading Recovery Student Work

21. K-Lab • Early literacy intervention provided to Kindergarten students – Title 1 schools • Provided by Reading Recovery teachers and a team of other intervention providers

22. Evidence:K-Lab Impact on Students (Parkland) • 20 students total involved in K-lab (2008-2009) •  5 students moved - either during or after K lab over the summer. • 3 are current Reading Recovery (2009-2010) • 1 student receives AIS-moderate. • 11 students are currently meeting grade level expectations and being monitored for continued progress. 

23. Next Steps • Continue collaboration with classroom teachers to ensure alignment of instructional strategies • Analyze student data to determine factors which may impact discontinuation rates • Continue to implement K-Lab in Title 1 schools; consider how to implement effectively in non-Title schools • Continue longitudinal tracking of student data

24. Leveled Literacy Intervention • Short-term, targeted literacy intervention • Piloting during 2009-2010: • Buckman Heights (special education classes only) • Longridge (general education and special education)

25. Comparison of RR and LLI Lesson Structure Reading Recovery Lesson Components Leveled Literacy Intervention Lesson Components • Reading familiar books • Reading yesterday’s new book/assessment • Letter/Word Work • Writing • Rereading and assembling a cut-up sentence • Reading a new book • Odd-numbered lessons: • Rereading books • Phonics/Word Work • New Book (instructional level) • Letter/Word Work • Even-numbered lessons: • Rereading books/assessment • Phonics/Word Work • Writing About Reading • New Book (easier level) • Letter/Word Work

26. LLI in Action:New Book Introduction • Video Clip

27. Evidence: Monitoring • Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) teacher monitoring • Students’ literacy knowledge assessed with Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment prior to commencement of the intervention • LLI teachers take a Running Record on each student every three days • LLI teachers update comprehensive assessment information at 5 week intervals (Independence Checks) • LLI teachers monitor student progress longitudinally • Professional Development • LLI teacher representatives from BH and LR participated in a 5 day training spanning August through November • LLI teachers videotaped themselves teaching and shared with colleagues to evaluate/reflect on their teaching • LLI teachers will continue to reflect on LLI teaching through quarterly shadow visits to each other

28. Evidence: Monitoring • Building Level Monitoring • School principals/teachers monitor progress quarterly through regular Student Accountability Meetings • School principals and LLI teachers monitor long-term progress of students once their intervention has been completed

29. Evidence: Impact on Students

30. Next Steps • Continue implementation • Continue coaching visits to support teachers with implementation • Continue progress monitoring at 5 week intervals • School principals/teachers monitor progress quarterly through regular Student Accountability Meetings • Consider expanding the implementation of LLI

31. Literacy CoachingEvidence: Impact on Staff

32. Literacy CoachingEvidence: Impact on Staff

33. Evidence: Impact on StudentsBaseline Assessment Data--Elementary

34. Evidence: Impact on StudentsBaseline Assessment Data--Secondary

35. Evidence: Impact on StudentsBaseline Assessment Data--Secondary

36. Evidence: Impact on StaffSample Elementary Literacy Coach Log

37. Evidence: Impact on StaffSample Secondary Literacy Coach Log

38. Evidence: Impact on StaffSample Elementary Progress Monitoring Plan

39. Evidence: Impact on StaffSample Secondary Progress Monitoring Plan

40. Evidence: Administrative Monitoring • Walkthroughs • School administrative teams and/or District Administration • To date, 16 initial walkthroughs involving Stephanie, Renee, Diane, Carol, and Deb • Informal feedback provided to schools • Principal meetings • Regular agenda item at monthly meetings with Assistant Superintendent of Elementary or Secondary • Monthly secondary coach/principal meetings • Monthly special education coordinator meetings • Regular agenda item at Special Education Feeder Pattern Meetings • Biweekly District meetings with coaches • Co-observations of coaches

41. Next Steps • Continued progress monitoring at 5-week intervals • Continuing special education coaching logs • Continuing professional development for coaches • Consolidation of walkthrough data • Survey of teachers working with coaches • Disaggregation of student performance data on CFAs and NYS assessments based on special education, teacher participation in coaching, professional development, etc.