1. Model Demonstration Projects
California State University, Northridge
Michigan Department of Education
University of Texas, Austin/University of Maryland
Model Demonstration Projects
Improving Literacy Instruction for Adolescents with Disabilities
Presented at the OSEP Project Director’s Conference
July, 2018

2. Agenda Purpose of model demonstration projects
Introduction to project sites
Effective classroom practices and intensive interventions for adolescents
Outcomes
This work is supported by the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, through Model Demonstration Grants awarded to California State University, Northridge, the Michigan Department of Education, and The University of Texas at Austin/University of Maryland.
Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Dept. of Education.

3. 1.0 Purpose of Model Demonstration Projects

4. Purpose of Model Demonstration Projects
To establish and operate model demonstration projects designed to improve adolescent literacy for students with disabilities in middle and high school who score below grade level in reading

5. Model Demonstration Priorities
Improving adolescent literacy
Skills needed to locate, read, understand, interpret, evaluate, and use written information across multiple content areas
Improving classroom practices to address the needs of struggling students
Improving access to interventions
Providing professional learning and coaching for teachers to successfully use effective classroom practices and interventions
Replicating implementation and effects across multiple sites

6. 2.0 Introductions to Project Sites

7. Three Projects Awarded
LA Intervention Project
California State University, Northridge
Three high schools in a large urban district in Southern California
Promoting Adolescent Reading Success (PARS)
Michigan Department of Education
Three middle schools in three different districts
Adolescent Literacy Model for Students with Disabilities
University of Texas at Austin/University of Maryland
Four middle schools in an urban Mid-Atlantic district

8. 3.0 Effective Classroom Practices and Intensive Intervention

9. Effective Classroom Practices
Explicit vocabulary instruction
Comprehension strategy instruction
Opportunities for extended discussion of text
Student motivation and engagement
Intensive intervention
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices. A Practice Guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

10. Intensive Intervention
Word study
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Motivation
Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosanovich, M. (2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

11. 4.0 Professional Development and Coaching

12. Professional Learning and Coaching: Summary of Key Features
Distributed over time (e.g., cohorts)
Workshops used to increase teacher knowledge
School-based
Interactive
Teacher practice time
Teacher preparation time
Multi-tiered system of support coaching used to increase implementation

13. 5.0 Summary of Outcomes

14. Outcomes Michigan Department of Education (MIBLSI):
60% of the students receiving special education services that have been in the intervention scope and sequence for at least 2 years met their reading progress monitoring goals. 
Teachers who achieved fidelity are sustaining the use of the content area reading strategies beyond 2.5 years of coaching supports
Intervention fidelity, intervention intensification, coupled with the use of content area reading strategies has led to more students with disabilities meeting their end of year progress monitoring strategies
University of Texas at Austin / University of Maryland:
91% of middle school teachers rated the school wide literacy model as highly useful and relevant.
Teachers at two middle schools received 6,675 minutes of coaching support. Implementation frequency and quality increased across the school year.
83% of teachers reported sustaining PACT Plus practices during the year following intensive support from researchers

15. Outcomes (cont.) California State University, Northridge:
In years one and two of the program,  87% of the students in the intervention program showed a statistically significant increase on at least one of the following reading assessments: GORT-5, TOWRE, TOSREC.  
100% of the program educators attended at least six program PD workshops, and 100% of them reported that the sessions were relevant and useful to their practice.
100% of content area teachers were observed implementing the essential elements of comprehension strategy instruction and/or vocabulary instruction. The time spent reading in the classroom ranged from 20 to 60 minutes in a 90- minute period. 
Overall average student engagement in the intervention classes was rated as 3.7, medium on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) engagement.     

16. Contact Information
LA Intervention Project
Promoting Adolescent Reading Success (PARS): Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MIBLSI)
Kim St. Martin, Ph.D.
University of Texas Project