1. Literacy achievement of the C olumbus H earing I mpaired P rogram (CHIP) for The Ohio 8 Summit May 5, 2005 Presenter: Terri Gampp, M.A. R esource E ducator of A ssessment & D evelopment Columbus Public Schools tgampp@columbus.k12.oh.us

2. Focused Monitoring How CHIP is closing the achievement gap in Literacy Instruction in Columbus Public Schools

3. Columbus Hearing Impaired Program Students Served Early Identification Program = 42 =Birth to age 3 Preschool 1 and 2 = 51 =Ages 3, 4, 5 Grades K-5= 96 Grades 6-12= 79 Total children served: = 268

4. History of CPS Reading Programs 1999 to 2005

5. Columbus Public Schools Reading Initiative L.A.C.E.S. L iteracy A cross C olumbus E lementary S chools 2003-04 2004-05

6. L.A.C.E.S Aligned with current Ohio English Language Arts Academic Content Standards GLIs at each grade level are fully embedded into every lesson Currently utilized at Grades K, 1, 2, 3 in 31 schools (2004-05), ( 60+ in 2005-06) Expanding to grades 4 & 5 in 2005-06

7. Ohio ELA Content Standards Based on National Reading Panel Report (2000) 5 major Standards of instruction: Reading –Phonemic Awareness, Word Recognition, Fluency (includes Phonics instruction) – Vocabulary –Reading process: Concept of print, Comprehension, Self-Monitoring –Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text –Reading Applications: Literary Text (includes genres) 5 major Standards of instruction: Writing

8. Components of L.A.C.E.S. Literacy Board Read Alouds Guided Reading Enrichment and Re-teaching Daily Language and Oral Reading Analysis

9. Literacy Board Focus: To provide explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. Components of Literacy Board Phonemic Awareness Word Study & Spelling Letter Formation Fluency Word Wall High Frequency Words Phonics

10. Data Collection within CHIP Development Reading Assessment data (DRA) has been collected 1999 to present Began collecting Dominie Reading Assessment data in 2003-04. –New areas of assessment data: Phonemic Awareness Phonics Spelling Writing

11. Progress for Reading Levels

12. First Semester Comparison Phonemic Awareness Skills: Kindergarten 2004-05 DATA September, 2004January, 2005 OralTCTotalOralTCTotal Student Demographics (# K students) 6131961319 Average % accuracy per student Phonemic Awareness Skills: Segmenting & Deleting 8%3%5%38%17%27% % Improvement 30%14%22% # Students showing improvement: 5510 53% # Students showing NO improvement: 189 47% Range of Individual Student Accuracy: Highest % accuracy received: 20%13% 77%47% Lowest % accuracy received: 0% 6%0%  Progress for Phonemic Awareness using NO or limited visual accommodations

13. Progress over time for all Language Arts Areas

14. Accommodations in assessment Train the tasks of segmenting and deleting sounds in phonemic awareness skills Post assessment: add visual information to phonics tasks of onsets (beginning sounds) and rimes (word families) to see if it was within the realm of possibility for instruction Identify and define weaknesses to make program changes

15. Findings Could train 64% of K/1 students (23 out of 36) to complete segmenting task with minimal amount of accuracy with speech reading and fingerspelling Could train 28% of K/1 students (10 out of 36) to complete deletion task with minimal amount of accuracy with speech reading and fingerspelling When visual hand/sound cues (Visual Phonics) were added to phonics instruction, task accuracy increased substantially

16. Accommodations in instruction: We use data to identify gaps…and to Make changes in front line instruction for all students collectively Determine need for-- and targeting groups for-- extended after school tutoring in reading (grades 3 and 4) Address specific areas of weaknesses of individual students Address needs for staff professional development and training

17. Significant overall determination from data: Need for visual information to be added to front line instruction for PA and Phonics

18. Implement closing the gap Sought experts in Visual Phonics for partnerships in training: –Arranged for outreach courses for staff development from The Ohio State University –Formed partnership for cooperative research project at two levels of instruction with Visual Phonics = Kindergarten and Middle School Began process of adding Visual Phonics as accommodation to PA and Phonics instructional tool on daily basis

19. Other example implementations: READ assists classroom teachers in designing daily written work to match format of high stakes testing in content and in format –Types of questions –Design of graphic organizers –Format of questions Formed committees of teachers at PreK level to determine/implement instructional strategies for preparing preschoolers for test formats Implemented Morning Message in PreK classrooms to model writing/reading on daily basis

20. Teachers willing to work cooperatively with each other. Teachers closely observing literacy behaviors and tracking progress. Teachers willing to serve on committees and attend training. Parents willing to lend a hand. Closing the gap depends on…

21. Focused Monitoring How CHIP is closing the achievement gap in Literacy Instruction in Columbus Public Schools