Aligning Literacy Curriculum Instruction

Across the District

Summit for Urban EducationMay 5, 2005

David BibleHelena DameronMaya Marlowe

2

Our Previous Reading Programs Served

Some of Our Children,

We Needed a Program That Would Serve

All of Our Children

3

Overview

Columbus Public Schools Reading Programs Evaluation of December 2002

Data Implications Literacy Framework Assessment Accountability Systems LACES Qualitative and Quantitative

Evaluations Ongoing Modifications

4

Columbus Public Schools Reading Evaluation of December 2002

External Factors:No Child Left Behind Federal Legislation

National Reading Panel report

Alignment with the Ohio Academic Content Standards

5

Columbus Public Schools Reading Evaluation of December 2002 SRA MacMillan/McGraw-Hill Reading Mastery, 1995 Edition

(Direct Instruction Reading Program)Correlated to: Ohio Academic Content Standards English Language Arts

Grade 3

69%

29%

2%

The following factors were considered:

• Lessons match required learning

• Sufficient direct teacher instruction time

• Sufficient student practice time

• Testing matches State test

Absolute High Partial Low Partial Fallout

4 out of 4 3 out of 4 1 or 0 out of 42 out of 4

6

Columbus Public Schools Reading Evaluation of December 2002

Success for All Foundation, Inc. Reading Wings, 1998-2000 EditionsCorrelated to: Ohio Academic Content Standards English Language Arts

Grade 3

61%

33%

4%

2%

The following factors were considered:

• Lessons match required learning

• Sufficient direct teacher instruction time

• Sufficient student practice time

• Testing matches State test

Absolute High Partial Low Partial Fallout

4 out of 4 3 out of 4 1 or 0 out of 42 out of 4

7

Columbus Public Schools Reading Evaluation of December 2002

Harcourt Brace Signatures, 1999 Edition(Literacy Collaborative and Four Blocks Reading Programs)

Correlated to: Ohio Academic Content Standards English Language Arts

Grade 3

18%

54%

23%

5%

The following factors were considered:

• Lessons match required learning

• Sufficient direct teacher instruction time

• Sufficient student practice time

• Testing matches State test

Absolute High Partial Low Partial Fallout

4 out of 4 3 out of 4 1 or 0 out of 42 out of 4

8

Columbus Public Schools Reading Evaluation of December 2002

(continued) Internal Factors:

1999 to 2002 Ohio 4th Grade Reading Proficiency

Teacher Experience

Mobility Rates

Kindergarten Benchmark Results

9

Ohio 4th Grade Proficiency Percentage Passing

Data reflected from the four programs

36.9 37 35.8

45.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1998-1999

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

10

Mobility Percentages

74

53 55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Principals Teachers Students

11

Data Implications

The district needed:An accountability system

A single comprehensive reading program

A reading program aligned with state standards

Ongoing professional development

12

Program Development Criteria

The program must provide lessons that are directly matched with what students must learn.

The program must provide sufficient direct teacher instruction on what students must learn.

The program must provide sufficient student practice on what was taught.

The program must test students in the same way that they will be assessed on the state test.

13

Literacy Framework: Design A 120 minute uninterrupted literacy

block Grade – level indicators taught each

grading period Lessons include explicit instruction,

guided and independent practice Includes fiction, nonfiction and

poetry

14

Literacy Framework: Components

Includes the five components of an effective reading program:

Phonemic AwarenessPhonicsFluencyVocabularyComprehension

15

Literacy Framework: Components(continued)

Literacy Board or Word Analysis 20 – 25 minutes

Read Aloud 10 – 15 minutes

Vocabulary 5 – 10 minutes

Reading Instruction 30 minutes

Enrichment and Reteaching 20 minutes

Response to Text and Oral Reading Analysis 30 minutes

16

AssessmentCriterion Referenced Story Text Assessments 2nd – 5th grade

assessments modeled after state achievement tests, but are related to the stories that students are reading

Cold Text Assessment 2nd – 5th grade assessments modeled after state achievement tests

K/1 Informal Assessments included in manual are based on the grade level indicators

17

Assessment

Norm Referenced -Dominie: Assesses students instructional levels

Students are assessed throughout the school year

Administered in whole groups, small groups and individually

Results inform Enrichment and Reteaching component

18

Literacy Framework: Grouping

Every 9 weeks students are grouped by Instructional Level based upon the results from the Dominie Assessment

Advantages:

Reduces the instructional range for classroom teachers Increases the amount of instruction students receive

Children change classes for the Literacy Block everyday

19

Literacy Framework: Instructional Levels

Thus, every child in the LACES program is instructed at his/her instructional level; this flexibility allows us to meet our students’ needs.

This system allows students who are rapidly advancing to continue the momentum of that advancement.

The system also allows students who are learning at a slower rate to continue to be successful at their rate of learning.

20

LACES Implementation Accountability

Dominie

Implementation Team

Instructional Leader Walk-Throughs

Enrichment and Reteaching

Parent Communication

Parent Consultant Training

Professional Development

21

Qualitative LACES Findings LACES K/1 Curriculum Guides alignment

with Ohio Academic Content Standards:

Kindergarten is 95% aligned

First Grade is 94% aligned

Manuals received 15 out of 15 from Phi Delta Kappa

22

Qualitative LACES Findings

LACES Focus Groups Principals: Literacy Board-most

successful Assessments-most concerned

about

Parents: Children benefit Lack of homework

23

Quantitative LACES Findings: Metropolitan Achievement Test 8

ReadingProgram

Score Increased(Number of

Schools)

Score Remained the Same

(Number of Schools)

Score Decreased(Number of

Schools)

Total Percentage of Schools That

Had an Increase or Remained

the Same

Direct Instruction

1 1 6 25%

Four Blocks 8 0 20 29%

LACES 12 3 15 50%

Literacy Collaborative

1 0 9 10%

Success for All 3 0 11 21%

24

Quantitative LACES Findings:

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

K.A

K.1

K.2

K.3

K.4

1.A

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Instructional Level

LACES Instructional Level ComparisonFirst Grade Pre-Test vs. Post-Test

25

Planning Phase 2002-2003

Write and Revise Implement

Wrote K & 1 Curriculum

Phase I 2003-2004

Write and Revise Implement

Revised K & 1

met 4 times

Wrote 2 & 3 Curriculum

Implemented Phase 1 Schools 30 schools

grades K & 1

Phase II 2004-2005

Write and Revise Implement

Revise 2 & 3

meet 4 times

Write 4 & 5 Curriculum

Implement Phase 1 Schools 30 schools

grades K-3

Phase III 2005-2006

Write and Revise Implement

Revise 4 & 5

meet 4 times

Implement Phase 1 Schools 30 schools

grades K-5

Implement Phase 2 Schools

38 schools grades K-3

Phase IV 2006-2007

Write and Revise Implement

Implement Phase 2 Schools 38 schools

grades 4 & 5

2007 Complete Implementation

K-5 District-wide

26

Ongoing Modifications Phase III

Program Evaluation

Program Refinement

Test Data Analysis

Professional Development

27

LACES Video

Kindergarten Literacy InstructionKim Reeder

Main Elementary

28

LACES Lesson

K.2 ManualWeek