1. Wyandotte County Early Reading First Wy-ERF Team Drs. Mary Abbott & Jane Atwater Jeanie Schiefelbusch, Deb Montagna, Younwoo Lee & Liesl Edwards Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Kansas Martha Staker, Amy Herring, Beth Nicholas, Debbie Jones, & Geralyn Sosinski Project EAGLE University of Kansas Med. Center Information in this presentation is available for noncommercial use only. You may use the information provided that: (a) you do not modify or delete any content; (b) you do not redistribute content without identifying the website and author as the source of content; (c) the use of content does not suggest that our ERF project promotes or endorses any third party causes, ideas, Web sites, products or services. For additional permission requests, please contact Dr. Mary Abbott, mabbott@ku.edu

2. WY-ERF Introduction Organizational framework Tier-1 (universal) professional development dosage and topic areas Data sources: Fidelity of implementation/teacher data –Coaching activity reports –Teacher knowledge assessment –Teacher action plans –Teacher evaluation of professional developmen Evaluation of child data

3. PROJECT EAGLE Mentor coaches JUNIPER GARDENS CHILDREN’S PROJECT Wy-ERF project oversight Project coordinator Professional Development plan Tier 1 and 2 instructional plan Tier 2 intervention coaches Evaluation Services SCIENCE-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION EOF HEAD STARTEL CENTRO ACADEMY OF CHILDREN RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTNERS IN WYANDOTTE COUNTY EARLY READING FIRST

4. Instructional Implementation  3 teachers per classroom  Instructionally-sound tiered delivery model  Increased intensity of differentiated instruction identified through data-based decision making  Appropriate for pre-school population  Evidenced-base literacy and oral language components Conceptual Framework Professional Development  High-quality, on-going teacher training  Intensive mentoring-1 primary level mentor for every 3 classrooms + intervention coach  Regular feedback based on frequent monitoring of implementation Student + Environmental Outcomes Student growth in literacy skills Phonological awareness Alphabet knowledge Concepts of print (print awareness) Writing use Student oral language development Expressive Receptive Instructional environment Literacy materials Literacy usage

5. Yearly Tier-1 Professional Development Dosage

6. Teacher Training Topics Training focuses on: Skill content (literacy and language) Environmental content (e.g., room arrangement, praise/reprimand, schedules) Daily content expectations for circle, small group, learning centers, and storybook (e.g., specified activities for 15 minutes of circle time) Instructional strategies for teaching skills –I do it; we do it; you do it (model, guided practice, independent practice)

7. Teacher Mini-Trainings Targeted trainings were provided in individual classrooms at nap time and were based on these data sources: –Weekly mentor coach reports of implementation –Student outcomes Training topics included: –Classroom management –ELL strategies –Literacy activities during center time –Beginning reading instruction

8. Data Sources for Data-Driven Decision-Making Teacher fidelity of implementation results –Conducted 2-3 times per year – criteria goal 80% Classroom environment and child outcomes –Classroom environment – fall and spring –Child outcome measures – fall and spring –Child progress monitoring – fall, winter, and spring Mentor coach reports about implementation –Completed weekly Teacher knowledge assessment Teacher evaluation of professional development

9. Fidelity Content Fidelity of Implementation Checklists addressed the following areas of implementation: Has the activity been planned as evidenced by the lesson plan? Is the lesson plan being followed? Do teachers use appropriate procedures taught during professional development (e.g., circle or center times)? Do the teachers provide appropriate behavior management techniques? Are transition times and methodology appropriate?

10. Teacher Fidelity of Implementation

11. Mentor Coach Weekly Notes Provides various sources of data on Time spent in each classroom (2 ½ weekly hours of instructional time + 1-2 hours of planning) Time spent supporting teachers with materials Focus of coaching activity Teacher activity while coach is embedded in classroom and assisting during planning

12. Teacher Knowledge Assessment Assesses individual teacher knowledge in the areas of Phonological awareness Print knowledge Oral language Instructional strategies

13. ClassroomTeacher Fidelity20 Questions CircleSmallCenterStoryTotalPrePost 1 100%90%61%100%81%75%85% 100%95%67%100%85%45%65% 100%91%67%91%87%75%NA 2 100%78%50%100%74%55% 100%75%36%100%68%85%75% 94%90%61%83%82%90%NA 3 100%64%50% 65%75%55% 100%64%67% 68%55%70% NA 75% 4 90%78%71%81%79%65%70% 90%70%61%100%75%80% 5 100%77%72%69%79%70% 75%73%71%100%75%45%65% 6 100%77%78%56%78%45%65% 100%68%69%100%76%30%25% 7 94%83%64%NA81%NA70% 100%86%72%NA94%70%85% 100%67%57%NA67%55%60% 8 94%77%67%89%81%90%85% 75%61%50%100%61%NA45% NA 57%100%70%40%65% 9 83%50%21%22%42%60%70% 75%67%36%83%60%55%

14. Teacher Action Plans & Professional Development Evaluation During formal Professional Development teachers: Create an action plan that relates to a goal discussed during training (see handout packet) –These goals are rated as a percentage toward completion by the coach. –Used to determine if more training should be provided Provide feedback to the quality of the training (see handout packet) –This feedback is used to modify future training topics content delivery, and food preference.

15. Early Reading First of Wyandotte County Evaluation Data

16. Identifying children who need more intensive intervention to meet language and early literacy benchmarks for their age: TOPEL (Test of Preschool Early Literacy) Subtests: Print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness Children met the TOPEL benchmark if: –Total score (Early Literacy Index) was within or above the typical range (>=90) - OR - –Scores on at least 2 subtests were within or above the typical range (>=90)

17. Percentage of children who did not meet the TOPEL benchmark at the beginning of the school year

18. Monitoring children’s progress over the school year and providing information to teachers: Children who did not meet TOPEL benchmark were assessed monthly. Children at or above benchmark were assessed three times. Progress monitoring measures: –PALS Pre-K – (a) Letter Knowledge and (b) Letter Sound Knowledge –DIBELS – (a) Word Part Fluency for Sounds and Syllables (with separate versions for English and Spanish), (b) First Sound Fluency, and (c) Letter Naming Fluency –Get It, Got It, Go (GGG) – Picture Naming Fluency

19. GGG: Picture Naming Fluency – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark

20. PALS Pre-K: Upper Case Letter Knowledge – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark

21. DIBELS: Word Part Fluency – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark

22. Determining whether children made significant pre-post gains in standardized assessments of language and early literacy: Pre-Test – October/November 2007 Post-Test – April/May 2008 Standardized assessments: –TVIP –PPVT-IV –TVIP Pre-post gains were evaluated with paired sample t- tests.

23. Gains in TOPEL Standard Scores – Children Whose First Language is English *** Gains from pre to post were statistically significant, p <.001. ***

24. Gains in TOPEL Standard Scores – English Language Learners * P <.05 ** p <.01 * **

25. Gains in PPVT and TVIP Standard Scores ** P <.01 *** p <.001 *****

26. Determining whether 4-year-old children met language and early literacy goals to be ready for kindergarten: Children who were age-eligible to enter kindergarten in 2008 Goal for standardized assessments – typical range or above (i.e., scored better than 1 standard deviation below the mean) –TOPEL –PPVT/TVIP Goal for progress monitoring assessments – met or exceeded benchmarks –PALS Pre-K Upper Case Letter Knowledge –DIBELS Word Part Fluency –DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency

27. Percentage of 4-year-old Children Who Met or Exceeded Progress Monitoring Goals by April 2008

28. Percentage of 4-year-old Children Who Scored Within or Above the Typical Range on Standardized Assessments (April 2008)

29. For more information contact: Mary Abbott, PhD Jane Atwater, PhD ERF Director Evaluation Director mabbott@ku.edu janea@ku.edu University of Kansas Juniper Gardens Children’s Project 650 Minnesota 2nd fl. Kansas City, KS 6610