Oregon Department of Education & Oregon Reading First Cohort A District Team Leader Sustainability Meeting April 8, 2008 (C) 2008 by the Oregon Reading

Oregon Department of Education &

Oregon Reading First

Cohort A District Team Leader

Sustainability Meeting

April 8, 2008

(C) 2008 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching and Learning

AgendaApril 8, 2008

Time Topic Presenters

9:00-10:00 Welcome

Guest Speaker: Pat Burk, Chief Policy Officer for ODE

Reading First Success Stories: 5 Years Worth of Data

Joni Gilles

Hank Fien

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-11:00 Update on Sustainability and Survey

Sustainability Documents / 2008-2009 Funding / Cohort A Sustainability Study

Cohort A Supports for 2008-2009 and Future Projects

Stan Paine

Joni Gilles

Trish Travers

11:00-12:00 Oregon K-12 Literacy Framework Update

Hillsboro District Literacy Plan / School Literacy Plan Update / HAWD? Report

Carrie Thomas-Beck

Hillsboro DTLs / Pat Nash

12:00-12:40 Networking Lunch

12:40-1:00 Beacon Schools Carrie Thomas-Beck

Reading First Success Stories

5 Years Worth of Data

Cohort A Projectwide Data: Reviewing Outcomes

(Winter 2004-Winter 2008)

Grade/Measure

Percent at Established / Low Risk

Winter 2004

(Year 1)

Winter 2005

(Year 2)

Winter 2006

(Year 3)

Winter 2007

(Year 4)

Winter 2008

(Year 5)

Kindergarten - PSF 44% 49% (+5) 62% (+18) 69% (+25) 74% (+30)

Kindergarten - NWF 38% 42% (+4) 53% (+15) 60% (+22) 66% (+28)

First Grade - NWF 32% 43% (+11) 51% (+19) 59% (+27) 65% (+33)

First Grade - ORF 32% 39% (+7) 44% (+12) 48% (+16) 51% (+19)

Second Grade - ORF 39% 44% (+5) 52% (+13) 54% (+15) 57% (+18)

Third Grade - ORF 34% 38% (+4) 42% (+8) 47% (+13) 49% (+15)Note: Number in parentheses indicate the % increase or decrease as compared to Year 1 outcomes

Cohort A Projectwide Data: Reviewing Outcomes

(Winter 2004-Winter 2008)

Grade/Measure

Percent at Deficit/ At Risk

Winter 2004

(Year 1)

Winter 2005

(Year 2)

Winter 2006

(Year 3)

Winter 2007

(Year 4)

Winter 2008

(Year 5)

Kindergarten - PSF 30% 25% (-5) 16% (-14) 14% (-16) 11% (-19)

Kindergarten - NWF 38% 34% (-4) 23% (-15) 17% (-21) 14% (-24)

First Grade - NWF 27% 23% (-4) 14% (-13) 12% (-15) 10% (-17)

First Grade - ORF 33% 27% (-6) 23% (-10) 19% (-14) 16% (-17)

Second Grade - ORF 48% 42% (-6) 33% (-15) 32% (-16) 31% (-17)

Third Grade - ORF 42% 40% (-2) 33% (-9) 29% (-13) 27% (-15)Note: Number in parentheses indicate the % increase or decrease as compared to Year 1 outcomes

Cohort A Years 3-5 vs. Cohort B Years 1-3

Grade/Measure

Percent at Established / Low Risk

Winter 2006 Winter 2007 Winter 2008

Cohort A (Year 3)

Cohort B (Year 1)

Cohort A (Year 4)

Cohort B (Year 2)

Cohort A (Year 5)

Cohort B (Year 3)

Kindergarten-PSF 62% 47% 69% 50% 74% 70%

Kindergarten-NWF 53% 38% 60% 45% 66% 60%

First Grade-NWF 51% 34% 59% 48% 65% 52%

First Grade-ORF 44% 31% 48% 40% 51% 41%

Second Grade-ORF 52% 42% 54% 49% 57% 53%

Third Grade-ORF 42% 30% 47% 34% 49% 47%

Cohort A Years 3-5 vs. Cohort B Years 1-3

Grade/Measure

Percent at Deficit / At Risk

Winter 2006 Winter 2007 Winter 2008

Cohort A (Year 3)

Cohort B (Year 1)

Cohort A (Year 4)

Cohort B (Year 2)

Cohort A (Year 5)

Cohort B (Year

3)

Kindergarten-PSF 16% 27% 14% 24% 11% 11%

Kindergarten-NWF 23% 39% 17% 30% 14% 16%

First Grade-NWF 14% 27% 12% 18% 10% 15%

First Grade-ORF 23% 34% 19% 24% 16% 23%

Second Grade-ORF 33% 45% 32% 36% 31% 30%

Third Grade-ORF 33% 45% 29% 40% 27% 28%

NOTES: The dotted lines represent the 75th and 25th percentiles for the percent of students making AP based on all Oregon schools collecting DIBELS in 2004-05.Intact refers to students who have data in both fall and winter. Challenge contexts are based on the percent of kindergarteners identified as intensive in the fall. The least challenging context includes schools with fewer than 33% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, the moderate context includes schools with between 34 and 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive, and the most challenging context includes schools with more than 46% of kindergarteners identified as intensive.






School Success StoriesGreatest Increase of Students at Low Risk

Kindergarten - NWF

Woodlawn Elementary

Spring 2004 Spring 2007 Percent Change

Percent of Students at Low Risk 30% 97% + 67%

Percent of Students at Some Risk 36% 3% -33%

Percent of Students At Risk 33% 0% -33%

School Success StoriesSchools with a 40% or greater increase in the percent of students at Low Risk from Spring 2004 to Spring 2007

Kindergarten - NWF

50% or greater increase!

School Percent Change

Mooberry +57%

West Powellhurst +54%

Lent +50%

40% or greater increase!


David Hill +49%

Scott +45%

Lot Whitcomb +44%

Cherry Park +43%

Sunrise +43%

Alameda +42%

Lincoln +40%

May Roberts +40%

School Success StoriesSchools with 80% or more of their students at Low Risk in

Spring 2004 Kindergarten - NWF

School

Percent of Students at Low Risk

Oak Grove 84%

Boise-Eliot 82%

Howard 81%

School Success StoriesGreatest Decrease of Students at At Risk

Kindergarten - NWF

W. L. Henry Elementary


Percent of Students at Low Risk 27% 84% +57%



School Success Stories

Schools with a 30% or greater decrease in the percent of students at risk from Spring 2004 to Spring 2007

Kindergarten - NWF

30% or greater decrease!

School Percent Change School Percent Change

West Powellhurst -38% Cherry Park -32%

Lot Whitcomb -35% Lent -32%

Sunrise -33% May Roberts -32%

Woodlawn -33% Lincoln Park -31%

Alameda -32% David Hill -30%

School Success StoriesSchools with 10% or less of their students At Risk in Spring 2004

Kindergarten - NWF

School

Percent of Students At Risk

Howard 2%

Jackson 4%

Jefferson 4%

Oak Grove 6%

Boise Eliot 7%

Humboldt 7%

Whitman 9%

Myrtle Creek 9%


ANDGreatest Decrease of Students at Risk

First Grade - ORF

David Hill ElementarySpring 2004 Spring 2007 Percent

Change





Schools with a 30% or greater increase in the percent of students at Low Risk from Spring 2004 to Spring 2007

First Grade - ORF


Washington +40%

Jefferson +38%

Grove/Freewater +37%

Cherry Park +33%

Jackson +32%

Lincoln Park +32%

Ventura Park +30%


Schools with a 30% or greater decrease in the percent of students At Risk from Spring 2004 to Spring 2007

First Grade - ORF


Washington -34%

Humboldt -32%

Tri City -30%


Second Grade - ORF

Humboldt Elementary






Second Grade - ORF


Grove/Freewater +36%

David Hill +33%

Lincoln Park +33%

Whitman +32%

Ventura Park +30%

School Success StoriesGreatest Decrease of Students At Risk

Second Grade - ORF

Humboldt Elementary & Woodlawn Elementary







Percent of Students at Some Risk 14% 25% +11%


Humboldt Elementary

Woodlawn Elementary

School Success StoriesSchools with a 30% or greater decrease in the percent of

students At Risk from Spring 2004 to Spring 2007 Second Grade - ORF


Jefferson -35%

Lincoln Park -31%

Sunrise -31%


Third Grade - ORF

Scott Elementary






Third Grade - ORF


Lincoln Park +43%

Lent +41%

Cherry Park +39%

Whitman +34%

Humboldt +32%

School Success StoriesGreatest Decrease of Students At Risk

Third Grade - ORF

May Roberts Elementary



Percent of Students at Some Risk 17% 33% +16%


School Success StoriesSchools with a 30% or greater decrease in the percent of

students At Risk from Spring 2004 to Spring 2007 Third Grade - ORF


Lent -34%

Humboldt -32%

Summary• At the Project-level, we are:

– Increasing the percentage of students reaching proficiency on important formative and summative goals

– Decreasing the percentage of students significantly below proficiency levels

• At the district-level:– We have a solid foundation and a replicable model

to support positive achievement for children.

• At the School-level, we have:– Many shining examples across and within each of

our districts.

Summary

• Most importantly, at the student level:– Each year more students are reaching the

highest levels of proficiency’– Each year dramatically less students are at

the highest levels of risk that would typically forecast chronically negative outcomes.

However, we still have work to do!

Effect Sizes for Large Scale Longitudinal Interventions

(Borman et al., 2003)

0.170.14 0.15 0.13

0.25 0.23

0.39

0.50

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

1 Year 2 Year 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8-14Years

Years of Implementation

Adjusted Effect Sizes

Update on Sustainability

• Update on Sustainability and Survey

• Sustainability Documents

• 2008-2009 Funding

• Cohort A Sustainability Project

Cohort A Supports for 2008-2009 and Future Projects

• Statewide Outreach Sessions• Cohort B WebEx Training Sessions• DIBELS Project-level Data and Redesign

Updates• Zones of Growth Updates• Invitation to Participate in Monthly Brown Bag

Sessions• Access to Web-Based LPR System• Monthly Newsletters• Oregon Reading First Center Website

Oregon K-12 Literacy Framework Update

Progress Report on the Oregon K-12 Literacy

FrameworkCohort A Sustainability Meeting

April 8, 2008

Goals Assessment Instruction LeadershipProfessionalDevelopment Commitment

School

District

State

A 3 X 6 Matrix

Implementation of the Oregon Literacy Framework

District Support for Implementation of the Oregon Literacy Framework

State-Level Initiatives to Support Districts/Schools in Implementation of the Oregon Literacy Framework

At the School Level (K-3)

• Preamble• Chapters 1-6• IN DRAFT FORM• Provide conceptual understanding and

practical examples• Literature referenced in footnotes• Resources and tools referenced in text and in

footnotes

At the District LevelExpectations for District Literacy Leaders

In Sustaining the Oregon Literacy Framework - DRAFT

Elements of OLF Strategies and Actions

1. Goals, Objectives, Priorities

• Establish clear, quantifiable district-level reading goals across K-3 that at minimum are linked to the five essential elements of early reading achievement and state standards.• Focus reading improvement efforts on scientifically-based practices that have demonstrated effectiveness.• Ensure that district policies, procedures, and actions are aligned with and support reading goals.• Review school level action plans to determine alignment with district goals. Modify school plans as necessary.• Utilize data on how well students are doing in relation to district reading goals to improve districtwide reading efforts. After each major data collection period, determine necessary actions and document in district action plan.• Provide positive attention, recognition, and support for schools throughout the district that are making progress in meeting district goals. Showcase those schools as model demonstration sites.

Revisions to K-3

• A new preface drafted• Addition of a RtI section to the assessment

chapter• Commitment chapter streamlined with new

main ideas identified• Addition of a parent/community involvement

section to the commitment chapter• Incorporation of Tim Shanahan’s feedback

Addition of 4-12

• Met twice with a work group of 4-12 experts from across the state

• Outlined the major content in 4-12 across the 6 components

• Focused primarily on school-level issues

GOALS

Grade K-3 School Based Application Grade 4-12 School Based Application

1) Reading Goals anchor a school’s comprehensive

literacy plan

a) Five essential areas tied to NRP;

b) linked to State Standards;

c) goals should be measurable;

d) performance should guide reading instruction

2) The primary reading goal is grade level reading by

grade 3 – measured by Oregon Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)

3) Formative reading goals are set throughout K-3 to

indicate student performance in essential areas of

reading

a) Kindergarten—phonological awareness and

phonics; G1—phonics and reading fluency; G2

& G3—reading fluency

b) Vocabulary and comprehension are key areas

of instruction throughout K-3, even though

formative goals are not as available.

4) S tudents not mee ting e ssentia l reading g oa ls

(prima ry or forma tive) sho uld b e provided w ith

inte rven tions to imp rove rea ding

1) Ove ra rching goa l a s pe r Oregon D iploma is

for ea ch student to dem onstra te “the

knowledge a nd s kills n ece ssary to trans ition

success fully to their next s teps : adva nced

learning , work, and citizenship.”

2) Reading g oa ls linked to (a ) S ta te S tandards

and (b) Es sential Skills (i.e ., 21st cen tury

skills ne eded for succes s in college , the

workplace , and c ivic life ).

3) P rima ry reading go al is grade level re ading /

proficient reading (i.e ., “Mee ts Proficiency”)

on Oregon Asses sme nt of Knowledg e an d

Skills – Re ading and Languag e Arts T est.

(“Proficien t rea ding across c ontent area

texts” a nd “proficient read ers o f grade lev el

content” are othe r wa ys of describing

intention o f “grade level re ading”).

4) P roficient read ing for grades 4 -12 me ans:

a) Foundationa l reading skills; a nd

b) Application o f s trateg ies a nd s kills

neces sa ry to rea d proficiently in specific

subjects a reas (e .g., s cience ,

mathem atics , socia l s tudie s).

5) S tudents not rea ding at grade leve l e ither (a )

have insufficient foun da tiona l read ing s kills;

and/or (b) are un able to apply reading

s tra tegie s and skills for re ading in spec ific

content area s. Students a re provided with

instruction al suppo rt to improve reading

proficiency:

a) Support ta rgets d evelopm ent of

found ational re ading proficiency

b) Support ta rgets d evelopm ent of read ing

proficiency neces sa ry for subject

specific re ading

ASSESSMENT


1) A comprehensive assessment system

specific to K-3 should determine:

a) If students have met important K-3

reading goals;

b) If students are on track to meet K-3

reading goals;

c) Provide information about instructional

supports necessary to maintain or

reach grade level reading proficiency


should be linked explicitly to primary and

formative reading goals.


should map onto five essential elements of

reading.


should be used for specific purposes.

There should be documented reliability and

validity evidence for each intended

purpose:

a) Screening students for reading

problems;

b) Monitoring progress over time;

c) Diagnosing sources of reading

difficulty for those students who have

not responded adequately to well-

designed and implemented

interventions;

d) Determine if students have met

important reading goals.

1) Students should be screened for reading

problems throughout grades 4-12.

a) Universal screening three times per

year is recommended for grades 4-8.

b) In high school – grades 9-12 –

screening is necessary in grade 9 at a

minimum. Schools can look carefully at

eighth grade spring scores on OAKS to

determine students who not reading at

grade level or requires further

screening assessment. Schools may

also want to consider screening

students for reading problems in

grades 10-12.

2) Multiple sources of evidence should be

used for screening purposes: Below

proficiency on OAKS is a major source of

screening evidence. When screening in the

fall, schools can review OAKS scores from

the previous spring.

3) Additional sources of evidence include the

following:

a) Reading fluency – The fourth grade

fluency benchmark is a rate of 115-140

cwpm read aloud from unpracticed

grade-level text (EL.04.RE.01). The

fifth grade fluency benchmark is a rate

of 125-150 cwpm (EL.05.RE.01).

Schools can utilize district and national

norms to identify fluency targets for

grades 6 and up.

b) Comprehension assessments (e.g.,

CBM Maze assessments)

c) Grades/Failure of Classes

ASSESSMENT continued


1) Data from reading assessments should be

used to make instructional decisions

about groups of students and individual

students:

a) Data should address effectiveness of

“systems” of instruction support for

groups of students;

b) Data shou ld add res s effectivene ss o f

instruc tion su ppor t for individual

s tuden ts

a) Tea che r reco mmenda tions – wh en

tea cher s suspec t there is a pro blem

an d, in par ticu lar, to he lp iden tify

spec ific problem area s (e .g. , us e of

compreh ens ion s tra teg ies) when o the r

screen ing da ta su gges t there is a

prob lem.

b) Importan t to rule ou t motiva tion

prob lems .

4) Screen ing da ta sh ould be use d to org anize

s tuden ts into thre e gener al group s – (a)

grade lev el or a bove ; (b) somew hat be low

grade lev el (1-2 ye ars be low gra de leve l);

(c) we ll be low grade leve l (2 or more y ear s

be low grad e leve l).

5) For s tuden ts we ll be low grade leve l (i.e ., a t

high risk), further diag nos tic a sse ssments

may be needed to pinpo int pre cise pr oblem

areas for ins tructiona l purpose s.

a) Adminis tra tion of program placemen t

tes ts is one form of diagno stic

asse ssment.

b) Diagnostic a sses sments sho uld be

condu cted in close c ons ulta tion with

clas sroo m teach er and u sing cla ssr oom

da ta .

6) Sch ools will need t o mon itor progres s of

s tuden ts we ll be low grade lev el thro ughou t

the ye ar.

INSTRUCTION


High quality reading instruction involves the

integration of four major components. These

components should be addressed explicitly in

each school’s K-3 reading plan.

1) Sufficient time allocated and used for

reading instruction.

a) 90 minutes per day for all students;

b) Greater than 90 minutes for students

who have not met reading goals; time

beyond 90 should be based on student

need.

c) For ELLs, independent of their meeting

reading goals, extra time should be

provided targeting vocabulary and

comprehension instruction.

d) All students should receive some small-

group instruction each day.

i) At least 30 minutes per day for

students who have not met reading

goals.

ii) Group size should be based on

need.

iii) Extra time for ELLs to receive

instruction in small groups focusing

on vocabulary and comprehension.

iv) Group co mpos itions s hou ld be fluid

an d rev ised reg ularly ba sed on

s tuden t progr es s .

1) High qua lity read ing instruc tion in gra des

4-12 i s pro vided in two fundamen ta l way s:

a) Read ing ins truction is ta ugh t a s a

separ ate sub ject for the purpo se of

de ve lop ing foun dat iona l read ing skills ,

including the s tra teg ies a nd skills

ne cessa ry for read ing in spec ific

conten t a rea s; and

b) Read ing s trate gies and s kills are

taugh t within con ten t-a rea s ubjec ts , so

s tuden ts de ve lop rea ding proficien cy

in the con text of spe cific con ten t a rea s

(e.g ., lea rning to read s cien ce, h istory,

an d ma the matics textbook s and o ther

documen ts ).

2) Through midd le s choo l (a nd perh aps

grade 9) , all s tuden ts sh ould have a

separ ate r ead ing cla ss foc us ing on the

de ve lopment of foun dat iona l read ing

s trate gies and skills :

a) Ins truction should be tar get ed to mee t

the need s of group of s tuden ts and

ind ividua l s tude nts , ba sed on

screen ing da ta and other sour ces o f

da ta (clas sroo m pe rforman ce dat a,

diag nos tic a sse ssment da ta) ;

INSTRUCTION continued


1) Research-based programs and materials

targeting essential reading content.

a) Essential content: (i) phonological

awareness; (ii) alphabetic

understanding (phonics); (iii) reading

fluency; (iv) vocabulary; (v)

comprehension.

b) Research-based programs and

materials include: (i) a schoolwide core

reading program; (ii) supplemental

programs for “deeper” instruction and

additional practice; (iii) intervention

programs—intense reading programs

for students well below grade level

reading goals.

2) Differentiated instruction based on student

need

a) Instruction is differentiated based on

the instruction students need to reach

reading goals.

b) Organizing how to differentiate

instruction can be accomplished

though tiers of instructional support.

i) Tier 1 is for students a low risk for

reading difficulties—a common

approach is 90 minutes of daily

instruction in the core program.

ii) Tier II is for students who are at

moderate risk for reading

difficulties—these students may

receive the core program for 90

minutes plus extra instructional

time to each day to accelerate

progress.

3) In high school (especially grades 9/10), a

separate reading class should be provided

to students who are well below grade level

in reading.

a) This type of reading instruction (a

separate class) may also be organized

by the number of minutes per week (to

address school scheduling

considerations);

b) Highly effective teachers – ideally the

strongest instructional staff available –

should work with the poorest readers;

c) Integration of content area text into the

reading period is recommended to

facilitate the transition of reading skills

to content area courses.

d) Goal is to have high school students

who are somewhat below grade level

be taught within content-area classes

with emphasis on strategies for reading

content area text and accessing the

content.

4) Recommendations for instructional time

(reading class):

a) 60 minutes daily minimum for 4th and

5th grade

b) 40-60 minutes daily for 6th, 7th, and

8th grade.

c) 200-300 minutes per week for grades

9-12.

d) 90 minutes per day of reading

instruction for students with the most

intensive needs.

INSTRUCTION continued


i) Tier III is for students who are at high

risk for reading difficulties—these

students may require replacement core

reading program.

4) Effective teacher delivery. Including:

a) Modeling, explicit instruction, meaningful

interactions with language, opportunities for

student practices, providing corrective

feedback, encouraging effort, engaging

student during instruction, engaging student

during independent work, facilitating student

success.

5) For students somewhat below grade level, and

well below grade level, effective ways to

increase the intensity of reading instruction

should be the most important focus.

a) Should be based on research;

b) May entail the use of specific supplemental

and intervention reading programs;

c) May entail small group instructional

formats and other procedures to increase

intensity – (e.g., increasing opportunities

to respond for students at high risk.)

6) All content-area instruction – either during

separate times of the day in elementary grades

(e.g., grades 4-5) or in separate classes in

middle and high school – should include a

specific and significant component of each

lesson targeting explicit instruction in the

reading strategies and skills students need to

read proficiently in the specific content domain.

(SEE ACCESS EXAMPLE)

7) Content-area instruction also must include

explicit instruction in essential content,

designed in particularly for those students who

do not have the reading skills necessary to

learn this content from independent reading of

textbooks and other material used as part of

classroom instruction (e.g., primary source

documents)

a) All students need access to content in

every subject;

b) Teachers need to understand content-

specific literacy skills and teach these

effectively to students.

STRAND STRATEGY TECHNIQUEA. ENSURING CONTENT Previewing 1-2-3 Plan COMPREHENSION • Encourages students to observe text organization and text features

• Helps students to anticipate new content I Observe-I Wonder

Activating Prior Knowledge List-Group-Label• Prepares students to engage actively in new learning• Helps students remember relevant knowledgeUnderstanding Relationships• Strengthens students' abilities to categorize and classify

B. USING CONTENT Developing Word Power Power Words VOCABULARY • Builds background knowledge

• Connects to prior knowledge New Word Meanings• Helps students practice new vocabulary frequently and in rich contexts

Quick WordsC. READING TEXT FLUENTLYD. IDENTIFYING DIFFICULT Learning High-Utility Words Working with Words WORDS • Helps students pronounce difficult content words accurately

• Helps students pronounce difficult content words quicklyUnderstanding Relationships Working with Word Families• Helps students establish connections among words

STRAND STRATEGY TECHNIQUEA. ENSURING CONTENT Increasing Thinking and Memory Skills Graphic Organizers: COMPREHENSION • Builds cognition and metacognition Mapping & Retell

• Helps students learn how to remember new information• Helps students develop and see relationships among ideas Interspersed Questions

Marking Key Points

Paired ReviewsB. USING CONTENT Understanding Relationships Semantic Feature Analysis VOCABULARY • Helps students conceptualize new knowledge and relate it to prior knowledge

• Allows students to organize and compare and contrast informationC. READING TEXT Improving Passage Reading Cloze Reading FLUENTLY • Gives students practice so they develop facility in reading passages for meaning

• Gives students oral reading practice Choral Reading• Gives teacher feedback on students' fluency

D. IDENTIFYING DIFFICULT

WORDS

STRAND STRATEGY TECHNIQUEA. ENSURING CONTENT Answering Comprehension Questions Think-Pair-Share (for COMPREHENSION • Focuses on the essence of the question written questions)

• Helps students answer the question accurately and succinctly

Pass the Paper

Multiple Choice

Summarizing Quick Writes• Increases factual recall and conceptual understanding of content information

B. USING CONTENT Using New Vocabulary in Context Original Sentences VOCABULARY • Helps students practice using vocabulary appropriately and/or accurately

• Helps students embed new vocabulary into a larger context Quick Words (if also used

• Helps students integrate background knowledge with new knowledge before the lesson)

Yes/No/Why

Completion ActivityC. READING TEXT

FLUENTLYD. IDENTIFYING DIFFICULT WORDS

ACCESS Toolkit (second edition), copyright 2008 by Mary M. Gleason, Ginger Kowalko, and Lori Smith

ACCESS TOOLKIT

BEFORE THE LESSON

DURING THE LESSON

AFTER THE LESSON

Working with Words

Materials• A Section of Text• A List of 7 to 8 Words from the Text• Optional: An Overhead Transparency of the Working with Words Template

Steps: 1. Select a selection of the text that the students will read. 2. Preview the text and list 7-8 words that may be difficult for some of the students to read or pronounce on the overhead transparency. (Alternative: Ask students to identify the words that their peers may find difficult. Walk around the room and write the words on an overhead transparency.) 3. Divide the words into “Tell” words, which are irregular or unique, and “Strategy” words, which are those with prefixes or suffices that appear frequently, especially in the content areas. 4. Write the words on the transparency with “Tell” words in the top section and “Strategy” words in the bottom section. 5. Prior to reading the passage, show the overhead transparency to the students.

For the “Tell” words, state, “This word is _________. What word?” Have students respond by saying the word. then, explain the term. Repeat these steps for all “Tell” words.

For the “Strategy” words, loop under each part of the word and ask the students to read the word “part by part.” Then, ask “What word?” Have students respond by saying the word. 6. Go back to the top of each word list and ask the class to read the words.

(Optional: Ask individuals to read selected words.)

Strand: Identifying Difficult WordsStrategy: Learning High-Utility WordsWhen: Before the Lesson

Research Basis: Working to ensure students can pronounce difficult content words accurately and quickly allows them to use their cognitive resources for content comprehension.

Cloze Readings

Materials• A Section of Text

Steps: 1. Select a section of text to read aloud and direct students to follow along. Monitor that students are tracking in their books. Model reading with fluency and expression, and read only slightly faster than students might read aloud. 2. As you read each sentence, omit a significant word and wait for students to supply the missing word before continuing. Have students read the missing words in unison.

Strand: Reading Text FluentlyStrategy: Improving Passage ReadingWhen: During the Lesson

Research Basis: Having students practice reading orally develops fluency. When students read fluently, decoding requires less attention. Attention can then be directed to comprehension.

Power Words

Materials• A List of Key Terms or Vocabulary Words from the Lesson• An Overhead Transparency of the Power Words Template• A Power Words Template for Each Student

Steps: 1. Identify 4 or 5 vocabulary words or key terms from the lesson and write them on the overhead transparency or on the board. 2. Direct students to read the words and then write them on the lines on the left side of their paper. 3. Ask students to rate their understanding of each word according to the scale at the top of the page. Students should underline the appropriate rating. (Teacher will want to explain that this part of the task will not be graded and students should be honest.) 4. Ask the class to share words they are familiar with. 5. Define each word or point out to students where they can find the definition in the text. Students record this information in the Notes section under each word. 6. After the lesson, ask students to re-rate their understanding by circling the appropriate rating. Teacher can check in with students to see if more explanation is needed. 7. Have students keep their “Power Words” pages in a binder. Words from previous lessons should be reviewed periodically.

Strand: Using Content VocabularyStrategy: Developing Word PowerWhen: Before the Lesson

Research Basis: By using content vocabulary, students build necessary background knowledge, connect this new learning to prior knowledge, and increase the frequency of practice of the new vocabulary in rich context.

1-2-3 Plan

Materials• Selected Text (textbook, unit, or large chapter)• A Sheet of Paper for Each Student or• Optional: A 1-2-3 Plan Template for Each Student• Scholastic or Similar Type Magazine for Introductory Lesson

Steps 1. Explain to students that text features (titles, headings, bolded print, font type and size, boxed items, diagrams, and illustrations, etc.) serve to draw our attention to important information. 2. Pass out magazines. Have students make notes of all text features that they notice. Have students compare their list with a partner. 3. Ask students to number the features 1, 2, and 3 in the order in which they would notice them. Have students compare their top 3 selections with those of their partner. 4. Discuss with the class the idea of planning where someone might read first, second, and third in order to maximize information gained. Point out that this order might change for each book or magazine they look at. 5. Have students turn to the first page of a chapter or section in their textbook. Ask them to examine text features and make note of their “1-2-3 Plan” for noticing important information. 6. Point out to students the text features unique to their textbook and explain the benefit of using 1-2-3 Plan to preview pages or chapters in their book.

Comments: This is an introductory lesson about text features and may be used for the first few days or weeks of school, and for each new unit. After this lesson, teachers can continue to remind students about the important features in their textbooks.

Strand: Ensuring Content ComprehensionStrategy: PreviewingWhen: Before the Lesson

Research Basis: Textbooks contain many graphics that can be either helpful or distracting. Teaching students to observe text features and graphic information supports content-area comprehension by allowing students to anticipate new content and actively engage in new learning.

LEADERSHIP


1) Leadership prioritizes attainment of reading

goals for all students.

2) Leadership exist at multiple levels –

principal, mentor coach, early reading

team, grade-level teams – to maintain

focus on reading instruction priorities.

3) Administrators and leadership teams are

knowledgeable of state standards,

essential reading skills and strategies,

assessment measures and practices, and

instructional programs and materials.

4) Administrators and leadership teams

create a coherent plan for reading

instruction to attain school reading goals.


maximize and protect instructional time.


organize resources and personnel to

support reading instruction.

7) Adminis tra tors and leade rship tea ms

en sure tha t ins truction in spec ia l progra ms

(e.g ., Title, Spec ial Educat ion, ELL) is

coord inat ed with ge nera l edu ca tion rea ding

instruc tion .

1) Leader ship empha size s importan ce of

major read ing goals:

a) Studen ts re ading at grade lev el or

ab ove ( i.e ., proficient reade rs of g rade

leve l con ten t);

b) Studen ts de ve lop ing the rea ding

s trate gies and skills nee ded fo r

proficien cy in read ing con ten t-a rea

tex tbooks a nd other ma te ria l (i.e .,

proficien t read ing across c ontent a rea

tex ts ).

2) Leader ship ex ist a t multiple lev els –

principa l, vice princ ipal, rea ding spe cia lis t

or coa ch, g rade- leve l teams , depar tmen ts ,

spec ia lists ( e .g. , sp ecia l edu ca tion

tea cher s , Eng lish lea rner tea cher s) to

mainta in focus on:

a) High qua lity read ing clas ses;

b) High qua lity read ing instruc tion within

conten t-ar ea clas ses .

3) Adminis tra tors and leade rship tea ms a re

knowledgeab le of stat e s tandar ds ,

e sse ntia l re ading skills a nd s tra teg ies ,

a sse ssment mea sure s and pra ctices , and

instruc tiona l progra ms a nd ma te ria ls .


crea te a coheren t plan s for:

a) High qua lity read ing clas ses to meet

ne eds o f s tuden ts ;

b) High qua lity read ing instruc tion taugh t

within co nte nt-are a clas ses .


maximize and pro tect instructiona l time .

LEADERSHIP continued


6) Administrators and leadership teams organize

resources and personnel to support:

a) Reading classes for students;

b) Reading instruction within content-area

classes.

7) Administrators and leadership teams ensure

that instruction in special programs (e.g., Title,

Special Education, ELL) is coordinated with:

a) Reading instruction provided in separate

reading classes;

b) Reading instruction provided during

content-area classes.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT


1) PD is focused on attaining school reading

goals and is guided by assessment data.

2) PD is explicitly linked to practices and

programs implemented at the school that

are research-based.

3) PD systematically allocates time for

educators to plan, reflect on, and refine

instruction.

4) PD is multifaceted, coordinated, and

ongoing to support teachers and

instructional staff on the assessment and

instruction of reading priorities.

5) PD is differentiated by position and need.

6) PD re sults in tho rough un der sta nding of,

an d a bility to implement, read ing priorities

an d e ffec tive prac tices .

1) PD is focused on at ta ining sch ool read ing

goals and is gu ide d by as ses sm en t dat a.

2) PD is ex plicitly linked t o prac tices and

progra ms impleme nted at the schoo l tha t

a re res ear ch-b ased .

3) PD sys tematica lly a lloca tes time for

ed uca tors to p lan , re flec t on , a nd re fine

instruc tion .

4) PD is multifac ete d, c oord inate d, and

ongoing to suppo rt teac her s and

instruc tiona l s ta ff on the as ses sm en t and

instruc tion of read ing priorities .

5) PD is diffe ren tiate d by pos ition and ne ed.

6) PD re sults in tho rough un der sta nding of,

an d a bility to implement, read ing priorities

an d e ffec tive prac tices .

7) Disc ipline s pec ific learning teams w ithin

ea ch s ch o ol ca n be us ed to organize

and p lan ho w rea ding s trateg ies and

instr uction will be integrated within

con ten t-area i ns truct ion .

8) Cros s con tent literacy t eams t o m ake

dec is ion s regarding PD nee ds – this

faci litates buy in .

9) Tea ch ers nee d to und ers tand what the

literacy demands are o f the ir disc ipline

and ho w to give st udents acce s s. U s e

Bethe l’s A CCESS Too lkit/training a s an

ex ample o f ho w to format PD.

10) Schoo ls will nee d to pro vide PD for

interv en tion teac hers . Idea lly will target

s taff w ith rea ding e ndo rs eme nts o r

s pecial educat ors .

School-Level Matrix for Oregon K-12 Literacy Framework

COMMITMENT


1) Developing a School Literacy Plan

2) Action Planning to promote continuous school improvement

3) Providing regular reports on progress to stakeholders

4) Effectively using staff and resources

5) Promoting a culture of shared responsibility

6) See king active involve ment of paren ts an d community mem ber s

Application of the Framework at the District Level

Next Steps at the State Level

• continued revision/refinement of K-3 • continued development of 4-12 • inclusion of reading/writing/speaking in framework• COSA presentations in June - school level, district

level, state level.• LLSSC meets again June 26, 2008• LLSSC applauds the specificity of the framework,

wants to get it out to the field• “recommended model” versus required model• wants to discuss policy issues in June

Oregon Beacon Schools

Beacon Schools

“The Reading First Center will identify Beacon Schools from the first 30-35 Reading First Schools in Cohort A - based on exceptional student performance and effective implementation of research-based reading practices. These Beacon Schools will serve as laboratory schools of research-based reading implementation for other Reading First schools, Pathfinder schools, state and private Colleges of Education, and interested elementary schools.”

Oregon Reading First Application, p. 125

Announcing Beacon Schools!

• The Oregon Department of Education and Oregon Reading First Center have identified three Beacon Schools to serve as demonstration sites for schools throughout the state:

• Humboldt Elementary (Portland) (April 2008)• Jefferson Elementary (Medford) (Fall 2008)• David Hill Elementary (Hillsboro) (Winter 2009)

• Beacon Schools were selected on the basis of the progress they made in demonstrating high quality implementation of effective reading practices and strong student outcomes.

Beacon Schools

• “Hope for Humboldt”

• What will happen on a visit?

• How can we schedule a visit?

• For more information please check the Oregon Reading First Center website (http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu)

http://oregonreading/

Humboldt Elementary,

Portland Public Schools

4915 N. Gantenbein

Portland, OR 97217

(503) 916-5468

Principal: Jamila Williams

Coach: Mary Peake

OPEN TO VISITORS IN APRIL 2008Humboldt Elementary

To schedule a visit, please contact: Mary Peake ([email protected])

Jefferson Elementary,

Medford School District

333 Holmes Ave.

Medford, OR 97501

(541) 842-3800

Principal: Susan Inman

Coach: Kathy Staller

OPEN TO VISITORS IN FALL 2008Jefferson Elementary

To schedule a visit, please contact: Kathy Staller ([email protected]

David Hill Elementary

Hillsboro School District

440 SE Oak St.

Hillsboro, OR 97123

(503) 844-1680

Principal: Toni Crummett

Coach: Connie Robertson

OPEN TO VISITORS IN JANUARY 2009at Lincoln Street Elementary

To schedule a visit, please contact: TBD