1. SLLIS Curriculum Review Committee Report
English Literacy Instructional Program Recommendations
Taylor

2. Committee Members
Spanish Program--Ana Lopez (5th); Raul Munoz Rodrigo (5th)
Chinese Program--Tzu-Shan Huang (1st); Nannan Huang (4th)
French Program--Kari Rivers (Kg); Yves Conseant (2nd); Sabrina Poirier (5th)
International Program--Celine Dissel (6-8)
Student Support Services--Renee Martin (Title l Literacy); Taylor Mitchell (SpEd); Christa Braun (ELL/ELA)
Facilitator--Thurma DeLoach
Taylor

3. Charge to the Committee
By April 18th, the SLLIS Curriculum Review Committee will recommend to the SLLIS Board of Education an English Language Arts instructional program that:
Aligns with our SLLIS mission
Aligns with the MO Learning Standards and Grade Level Expectations
Is supported by empirical research as appropriate and effective in developing literacy in all SLLIS learners
Taylor

4. SLLIS Strategic Plan Goal & Objectives--C & I
All students will be proficient or advanced by the end of grade 3, 5, and 8 in communication arts (English Language Arts), mathematics, and science as measured by state tests.
•We will develop grade level curriculum guides and benchmarks
•Convene curriculum committees that represent all grade levels and L2
•Contact high performing schools in St. Louis area to share curriculum materials (e.g. curriculum guides, benchmarks and embedded assessments)—English Language Arts, Math, Science
•Select and recommend model curriculum guide/instructional programs for SLLIS— ELA, Math, Science
•We will define, develop, and organize ourselves to deliver intervention systems: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3
Taylor
Just as a reminder --

5. Our Process: Key Steps Review SLLIS’ current academic achievement data
Analyze characteristics of evidence-based literacy programs
Research high performing schools/districts
Select 3-5 evidence-based programs for potential implementation
Select core English Language Arts program to recommend purchase, training, and implementation for school year
Taylor
Before we began we outlined our process:
First we would review SLLIS’ current academic performance, interpret our mission statement, and dissect MO Learning Standards and Grade Level Expectations
Then, we would research what components were essential to literacy instruction and student achievement in reading and writing
Next we would research high performing schools and districts in the area to see what core programs were being implemented. We also wanted to review the curriculum maps published by these districts to see if we could adopt one and revise to meet SLLIS’ mission
After identifying these programs we wanted to select 3-5 of the most promising for further review. We wanted to make connections with and get feedback from the schools who were using these programs every day. We also wanted to conduct site visits to observe the programs being used in the classroom
Finally we planned to create a standardized program evaluation rubric based on a staff survey of SLLIS’ needs.
After going through this process, we believed that we would be confident in our ability to select a core English Literacy program to recommend for purchase, training, and implementation for the AY.

6. Top Evidence-based Programs Include:
INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT
Big 5 components of reading instruction
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
Explicit and systematic instructional strategies
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Content and methods are derived from and supported by research
Critical skills and strategies that students must acquire to become successful readers and writers
Renee-
When the Curriculum Committee started researching, we kept in mind that top evidence based programs needed to include strong instructional content, design, and empirical evidence of its effectiveness.
We were dedicated to select a curriculum that included all of the Big Five Literacy components: Phonemic awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension.
When researching, the Curriculum Committee also saw the importance of a curriculum that was straightforward and organized for both students and staff.
It was critical that the program we selected was backed up with heavy research as being effective.

7. Narrowing Down to 3 Programs for a Deeper Dive
Narrowed down to Center for the Collaborative Classroom, Open Court, and Benchmark Advance
Phone interviews with districts using Benchmark Advance and Open Court
Site visit to Drummond Elementary (Pattonville) and Premiere Charter School which implement Collaborative Classroom
Staff meeting and staff survey
Renee-
We narrowed down our search to three programs-Center for Collaborative Classroom, Open Court, and Benchmark Advance.
Next, we conducted phone interviews with schools who were using Open Court and Benchmark.
The Curriculum Committee was also able to visit two schools-Drummond Elementary in Pattonville and Premiere Charter which are both made up of similar demographics to SLLIS. Both of these schools implement Collaborative Classroom. We also had material samples from each program sent to our building and we took time to review them. Staff members completed a survey and had a meeting with the Curriculum Committee to discuss what was most important to them when selecting an ELA Curriculum for SLLIS.

8. Selected Publisher Presentations
Open Court→ Monday, March 19
Center for Collaborative Classroom→ Monday, March 19
Benchmark Advance → Wednesday, March 21
Renee-
We had 3 different presentations on the different programs-Open Court, Center for the Collaborative Classroom, and Benchmark Advance. Each presentation lasted about an hour. During and after the presentations, the Curriculum Committee filled out an evaluation form on all three programs. On these forms, we focused on different areas such as: instructional content, instructional delivery, Instructional Materials/Activities, Assessment, Technology, as well as, staff training and support.

9. Recommendation: Benchmark Advance
Kari

10. Key Features of Benchmark Advance
Vertical Alignment of Unit Topics and Essential Questions (Science and Social Studies connections)
User Friendly Teacher Guide that incorporates Foundational Skills
Engaging student materials in a variety of formats (including Write-in Sets, Reader’s Theater)
Extensive ELL and Diverse Learner Support resources
Digital Portal
Online Assessments that mirror standardized tests, with a reporting platform for teachers
Kari-
Vertical alignment: All instruction occurs in the context of 10 content-focused knowledge strands that increase in complexity and build knowledge over time, within a grade level and also across grades K-6.

11. Kari

12. Kari

13. Implementation Considerations for Benchmark
Delivery model: Departmentalized ELA teachers or homeroom model?
Selection of program components--immediate implementation needs, as well as additional resources over time
Initial Professional Development and Implementation Plan
On-going coaching, collaboration and professional development need
Intentional interface with Gomez framework
Kari
-some program components are optional-intervention modules and online assessment platform
-Gomez and Gomez are strategies that we will use with the Benchmark Advance curriculum
(I took out numbers and put bullets for consistency, I can change back if needed)

14. Next steps
Determine appropriate staff to teach ELA at each grade level and within each program and the necessary program components
Finalize purchase pricing with Benchmark Education Co and complete purchase
Create PD plan and calendar for summer and fall 2018
Create plan for writing ELA curriculum document--beginning in summer 2018
Continue process for Math instructional program--decision by end of May
Kari

15. Questions and Comments