Aligning Literacy Curriculum Instruction Across the District Summit for Urban Education May 5, 2005 David Bible Helena Dameron Maya 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 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 PartialFallout 4 out of 43 out of 41 or 0 out of 42 out of 4

6 Columbus Public Schools Reading Evaluation of December 2002 Success for All Foundation, Inc. Reading Wings, Editions Correlated to: Ohio Academic Content Standards English Language Arts 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 PartialFallout 4 out of 43 out of 41 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 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 PartialFallout 4 out of 43 out of 41 or 0 out of 42 out of 4

8 Columbus Public Schools Reading Evaluation of December 2002 (continued) Internal Factors:  1999 to 2002 Ohio 4 th Grade Reading Proficiency  Teacher Experience  Mobility Rates  Kindergarten Benchmark Results

9 Ohio 4 th Grade Proficiency Percentage Passing Data reflected from the four programs

10 Mobility Percentages

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 Awareness  Phonics  Fluency  Vocabulary  Comprehension

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 Assessment Criterion Referenced Story Text Assessments 2 nd – 5 th grade assessments modeled after state achievement tests, but are related to the stories that students are reading Cold Text Assessment 2 nd – 5 th 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 Reading Program 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 11625% Four Blocks802029% LACES % Literacy Collaborative 10910% Success for All301121%

24 Quantitative LACES Findings:

25 Planning Phase Write and ReviseImplement Wrote K & 1 Curriculum Phase I Write and ReviseImplement Revised K & 1 met 4 times Wrote 2 & 3 Curriculum Implemented Phase 1 Schools 30 schools grades K & 1 Phase II Write and ReviseImplement Revise 2 & 3 meet 4 times Write 4 & 5 Curriculum Implement Phase 1 Schools 30 schools grades K-3 Phase III Write and ReviseImplement 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 Write and ReviseImplement Implement Phase 2 Schools 38 schools grades 4 & 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 Instruction Kim Reeder Main Elementary

28 LACES Lesson K.2 Manual Week