1 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 1 Report September 22, 2009 HIGHLIGHTS Research and Policy Support Group FOR PRESS OFFICE.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reading Instruction for Hearing Impaired Children in an Auditory Oral Setting Michelle Scotino Supervised by Dr. Ann Geers.
Advertisements

RtI Response to Intervention
PAYS FOR: Literacy Coach, Power Hour Aides, LTM's, Literacy Trainings, Kindergarten Teacher Training, Materials.
Briefing: NYU Education Policy Breakfast on Teacher Quality November 4, 2011 Dennis M. Walcott Chancellor NYC Department of Education.
Research-Based Instruction in Reading Dr. Bonnie B. Armbruster University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Archived Information.
Understanding the Common Core Shifts and the K-2 New York Language Arts Program by Core Knowledge ® Revised by: Colleen Ferrone Staff.
Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day. Oregon Response to Intervention Vision: Every child.
Planning Differentiated Instruction Sharon Walpole University of Delaware.
Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention.
11 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 3 Report Research and Policy Support Group February 2012.
Learning Disabled or Curriculum Casualty? The importance of phonemic awareness in reading.
Elementary Literacy Audit Kindergarten – 5th Grade
Student Growth Developing Quality Growth Goals II
Cathy Mrla Jen Mahan-Deitte
Assessment: Purpose, Process, and Use HMR Kindergarten.
Balanced Literacy J McIntyre Belize.
Tools for Classroom Teachers Scaffolding Vocabulary activities Graphic organizers Phonics games Comprehension activities Literature circles.
1 Overview Training Cohort B June 23, 2005 Houghton Mifflin Barbara Low
Report of the National Reading Panel TEACHING CHILDREN TO READ: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its.
Early Grade Reading: Egypt Case Dr. Reda Abouserie First Deputy to Minister of Education Egypt All Children Reading by 2015: From Assessment to Action.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
Keystone State Reading Conference October 29, 2012 Dr. Deb Carr, King’s College.
Key Components in Improving Reading Development Oral Language Phonological Awareness Print and Book Knowledge Alphabetic Principle Fluency Comprehension.
Literacy Coaching as a Component of Professional Development Joanne F. Carlisle, PhD Coauthors: Kai Cortina, Dan Berebitsky (University of Michigan), and.
School’s Cool in Childcare Settings
Adolescent Literacy – Professional Development
11 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 2 Report Research and Policy Support Group CONFIDENTIAL – PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.
Year 7 Transition Project. AIMS To provide support in literacy and study skills for year 7 pupils. The Helen Arkell Centre are providing twice weekly.
The Idaho State Department of Education Presents: “ELLA” Early Learning Literacy Activities This program is designed to support the most important early.
CRIOP Professional Development: Program Evaluation Evaluatio Susan Chambers Cantrell, Ed.D. Pamela Correll, M.A. Victor Malo-Juvera, Ed.D.
Wisconsin’s New Kindergarten Screener A training for the administration and scoring of the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screener.
School’s Cool in Kindergarten for the Kindergarten Teacher School’s Cool Makes a Difference!
Hanmer School – Margaret Zacchei Highcrest School – Maresa Harvey Webb School – Michael Verderame Emerson-Williams School – Neela Thakur Charles Wright.
To Think Or Not To Think: That Is The Question Abstract Year after year, teachers recognize that many of their students lack critical thinking skills or.
Lincoln Spanish Immersion Parent Presentation. General Information Approved on May 21, 2012 First day of school September 4, 2012 K-1 classroom 21 students.
What is Reading First This “program” focuses on putting proven methods of early reading instruction in classrooms. Through Reading First, states and districts.
The Impact of the Maine Learning Technology Initiative on Teachers, Students, and Learning Maine’s Middle School 1-to-1 Laptop Program Dr. David L. Silvernail.
Literacy Achievement for Secondary Students Exemplary teaching behavior Domains of expertise Anne G Liguori.
REWARDS In the Trenches Sycamore Elementary School K-5 School Enrollment: 335 and growing Free and Reduced Lunch Percentage: 27% 98% Caucasian.
Welcome to Curriculum Night Tate Elementary School.
The Impact of the MMP on Student Achievement Cindy M. Walker, PhD Jacqueline Gosz, MS University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.
GETTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S BUY-IN: Target Language Only Mandarin Chinese Classes.
Marie Murray Spring  Learning to read is a complex, multi-faceted process.  Children must understand comprehension is the main goal.  Children.
+ Third Party Evaluation – Interim Report Presentation for Early Childhood Advisory Council December 19, 2013.
Southern Regional Education Board Florida Leadership Academy for Innovation and Improvement US DOE Communication Hub Meeting Albuquerque, NM September.
DIBELS Data: From Dabbling to Digging Interpreting data for instructional decision-making.
1 The Oregon Reading First Model: A Blueprint for Success Scott K. Baker Eugene Research Institute/ University of Oregon Orientation Session Portland,
Teacher Performance Evaluation System Data Sources.
Class Action Research: Treatment for the Nonresponsive Student IL510 Kim Vivanco July 15, 2009
4. (8 -10 min.) Introduce Oral Vocabulary – T.E. Pgs. _____________ Words: _________________________________________ ________________________________________.
Primary.  There was a greater level of improvement in Literacy than Numeracy for both FSME and Non-FSME pupils.  Boys showed a greater level of.
Projects #9, 17, 29, and 32 Mentor: Helga Bernard, Ph. D. Clark County School District School Improvement and Research.
The Story of how one urban district has begun to embark on having Librarians support Social Studies Teaching and Learning November 18, 2015.
Where Do You Stand? Using Data to Size Up Your School’s Progress Michael C. McKenna University of Virginia.
A Parent’s Guide to Balanced Literacy. Balanced Literacy is a framework designed to help all students learn to read and write effectively.
Literacy Assessments Literacy Workgroup Marcia Atwood Michelle Boutwell Sue Locke-Scott Rae Lynn McCarthy.
Professional Learning Project Update: Winter 2011.
The State of the School’s Reading First Program Fall, 2005.
Knowledge Transfer Centres Improving Reading Practice Hazel Community Primary School Highfields Primary School Kestrals’ Field Primary School Whitehall.
Knowledge-Building and Instructional Practice in Georgia Reading First.
FALL 2015 MIRAMAR COLLEGE LAURA MURPHY COLLEGE- WIDE OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT FACILITATOR ISLO Assessment Summary.
Reading Champions Conference Wednesday 1 st October 2014 Key Changes to Ofsted Framework.
1 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Language Arts Pilot: Summary of Kindergarten and Grade 1 Results HIGHLIGHTS Research and Policy Support Group.
DIBELS.
Interview Responses: Job Satisfaction
English Language Arts Office Planning and Evaluation
Gary Carlin, CFN 603 September, 2012
DIBELS: An Overview Kelli Anderson Early Intervention Specialist - ECC
Strategies Knowledge Habits of learning
Louisiana Early Literacy Commission October 14, 2019
Presentation transcript:

1 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 1 Report September 22, 2009 HIGHLIGHTS Research and Policy Support Group FOR PRESS OFFICE – SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

2 Summary of Findings  By all measures, Core Knowledge Reading (CKR) students made significantly greater gains in early literacy than peer students.  Compared to peers, kindergarteners taught with the CKR program made more progress in all areas of reading tested: spelling, phonemic awareness, decoding, and comprehension.  Surveys and case studies indicate overall high levels of administrator and teacher satisfaction with the CKR Pilot, while also offering guidance for year 2 implementation and evaluation work.  Administrators would recommend program to others; teachers rate CKR more favorably than other programs.  Administrators report change in teacher practice: more data- driven instruction & teacher collaboration.  Teachers and administrators feel more positively about the Skills Strand than the Listening and Learning Strand, particularly regarding student engagement.  Teachers may need more support addressing needs of struggling readers with CKR & managing time to complete lessons.

3 Methodology: A multi-method, longitudinal research design YEAR 1 Literacy Assessments (at 10 CKR schools & 10 comparison schools) Pre- and post-test of literacy skills Additional tests of literacy skills at end of each year Periodic assessments throughout the year (DIBELS) Teacher and Administrator Surveys (at 10 CKR schools): Assesses satisfaction with and impact of CKR Case studies (at 3 CKR schools): Classroom observations, administrator & teacher interviews Hypothesis: Kindergarteners taught with the Core Knowledge Reading (CKR) Program will gain reading competencies at a faster rate than their peers. Focus of the Evaluation

4 Similar Demographics at CKR and Comparison Schools CKR Schools (N = 584) Comparison Schools Note: These and other data were used to select comparison schools (data as of school year). Percent of Students (Number of Students for School Size) (N = 307)* * N = the number of students for whom both fall and spring data were available.

5 Evaluation of Literacy Gains

6 Different Literacy Domains: Greater Gains & Higher Spring Scores for CKR Students than Comparison Students in All Literacy Domains CKR Schools Compared with Compariso n Schools Basic Reading Skills W-J Letter Word Identification Oral Reading Comp- rehension W-J Passage Comprehension Decoding W-J Word Attack Written Spelling W-J Spelling of Sounds Oral Reading Comp- rehension, Vocabulary, Basic Reading, Decoding Terra Nova Reading Comparison Schools CKR Sig. Greater Gains/ Spring Scores CKR Sig. Greater Gains/ Spring Scores CKR Sig. Higher Spring Scores CKR Sig. Higher Spring Scores CKR Sig. Higher Spring Scores W-J Brief Reading

7 6X Greater Literacy Gains for CKR Students than Students at Demographically Similar Comparison Schools Average Fall-Spring Gain in Scale Score Points Woodcock-Johnson (Brief Reading Test) CKR Students Significantly Higher p <.001

8 Significantly Higher End of Year Performance on Decoding and Spelling Average Spring Scores in Woodcock-Johnson Scale Score Points CKR Students Significantly Higher p <.0001 Word Attack Subtest Spelling of Sounds Subtest

9 CKR Schools Comparison Schools Average Fall-Spring Gain in Scale Score Points Woodcock-Johnson (Brief Reading Test) At All Achievement Levels, Greater Literacy Gains for CKR Students than Students at Comparison

10 Significantly Higher Scores on End of Year Terra Nova Reading Test Average Spring Scale Score for TerraNova Overall Reading Battery CKR Students Significantly Higher p <.0001

11 Spring Surveys & Case Studies 11

12 Administrators Report Satisfaction with Program No 8 4 Yes 1 12 Will your Kindergarten classrooms be using the CK Reading program next year? (n = 9*) Do you plan to purchase the CK Reading program when it becomes commercially available? (n = 9*) Would you recommend the CK Reading curriculum to other administrators you know? (n = 9*) Not Sure 5 Yes 1 Not Sure 8 Yes Administrators’ overall satisfaction with CK Reading (n = 10) Very Somewhat Satisfied 3 7 * One administrator did not respond to most of the survey questions.

13 Teachers Report Satisfaction with Curriculum Teachers’ overall satisfaction with CK Reading (n = 30) a Percent of Respondents 66.7% 86.7% Much Better Somewhat Better Teachers’ overall opinion of CK Reading compared with other K reading programs (n = 30) b Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Teachers’ Views: “The Skills Strand is really very good for the students. Their reading levels are higher this year than last year.” At first, I felt that many teachers did not know if they agreed with teaching sounds before letter names. But by January, when teachers started to see their children reading, they became believers.” “The Skills Strand has exceeded my expectations. I think it is the best reading program I have ever used. We are thrilled with the results. I hope it is introduced into more schools. We plan to change the sequence of the Listening Strand.” “After seeing how well Core Knowledge Skills worked for teaching my children to read, I would have a hard time teaching any other way.” Number of teachers selecting the “neutral” response: question a = 3 (10%); question b = 4 (13.3%).

% 66.7% Somewhat More Than Last Year Much More than Last Year Administrators Perceive Change in Teacher Methods Using assessment data to drive instruction (n = 9) a Discussing/ sharing ideas on teaching strategies w/ other K teachers (n = 9) b Administrators’ Views: “This year with Core Knowledge Reading, all of the teachers are communicating more, they discuss the pacing and delivery strategies.” “The CK pilot has honed the professional conversation.” “There was resistance and suspicion on the teachers part in the beginning but they are ecstatic over the results— the children are reading! “ Percent of Respondents Number of teachers selecting the “about the same as last year” response: question a n= 0; question b n = 2 (22.2%).

15 Teachers Have Differing Views on Strands: Teachers Feel More Positively About Skills than Listening & Learning Strand Goals of lessons are clear (n = 30) a I have enough time to complete daily lesson (n = 30) c Students find activities engaging (n = 30) b 43.3% 96.7% 73.3% Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Goals of lessons are clear (n = 30) d I have enough time to complete daily lesson (n = 29) f Students find activities engaging (n = 30) e 46.7% 80.0% 44.8% Skills Strand Listening and Learning Strand Percent of Respondents Number of teachers selecting the “neutral” response: question a n = 0; question b n = 3 (10%); question c n = 7 (23.3%); question d n = 2 (6.7%); question e n = 6 (20%); question f n = 5 (17.2%).

16 Teachers Compare CKR with Other Programs 72.4% 71.4% 69.0% Somewhat Better Much Better 41.3% 55.2% 62.9% Accommo- dations for different learning needs (n = 29) f Ability to engage students and spark enthusiasm for reading (n = 29) e Comprehen- siveness of program (n = 27) d Teaching content/ background knowledge (n = 29) c Teaching decoding skills (n = 29) a Sequence of instruction (n = 28) b Percent of Respondents Number of teachers selecting the “about the same” response: question a n = 3 (10.3%); question b n = 2 (7.1%); question c n = 2 (6.9%); question d n = 7 (25.9%); question e n = 6 (20.7%); question f n = 4 (13.8%).