READING 1. History, Development, and Expectations of the … · 2014-04-01 · Elementary Education, English, TESOL/Bilingual Education, and Communication Disorders) who need to gain

1

Graduate Program Prioritization, READING Master of Science

1. History, Development, and Expectations of the Program a. The Graduate Reading Program has been a program at Southern CT State University for more than fifty years. At first it was part of the Reading Department at the University. It was housed for many years in Morrill Hall and served the needs of graduate students seeking a Master’s degree, Sixth Year Certificate, or certification to become a reading specialist. The Reading Department also served the needs of undergraduates who, based on the results from a standardized reading test, were required to take remedial reading courses as they entered their post-secondary education. The department moved to Davis Hall in the late 1980’s. At about the same time, a change in policy at the university caused the required reading testing incoming students to be dropped and the associated undergraduate courses in developmental reading were dropped. From that time on, the Reading Department offered only graduate level courses leading to the Master of Science degree and Sixth Year Certificate. In the early 1990’s with the retirement of one of three full-time faculty members in the Reading Department, it was decided that the department was not large enough (in terms of faculty, not students) to be maintained as a separate department. The Reading Department merged with the Special Education Department. The combined Special Education and Reading Department was the result. The Graduate Reading Program continues to operate as part of the department, continuing to offer a Master of Science degree in Reading as well as a Sixth Year Certificate in Reading.

The Master of Science in Reading provides coursework that fulfills requirements for State of Connecticut Remedial Reading and Remedial Language Arts Specialist certification (102). Since this certification requires previous experience teaching, all students entering this program must be certified teachers. The students tend to have initial, provisional, or professional certification in Early Childhood, Elementary, English, or Special Education. Other certifications are also represented among the Program’s graduate students include art and music, physical education, world languages, and math.

The curriculum of this program has been revised over the years to keep up with new research and developments in the field of literacy education. The curriculum has also been responsive to new state policies and initiatives, as well as federal initiatives. About ten years ago, the program was reorganized conceptually to consider three strands of courses. Courses were arranged into developmental, diagnostic-remedial, and literacy leadership coursework. The Master’s program reorganized its practicum experiences to include one (RDG 568 ) that focuses on a faculty-supervised experience in conducting detailed literacy evaluations and one (RDG 659) that provides a supervised experience in data-based interventions with struggling readers and writers. Over the years, courses were added and some were dropped or evolved significantly to reflect more current practice in the field and to better prepare literacy educators for the demands of schools. For example, courses such as Teaching Reading with the Newspaper were dropped many years ago to

2

make way for courses that were more up-to-date. As the needs became apparent, courses were added to support graduate students in teaching writing (RDG 585), supporting general educators in delivering literacy instruction (RDG 662), understanding the fundamentals of English language structure and literacy (RDG 520), and, most recently, developing the knowledge to teach literacy to English Language Learners (RDG 649). b. The Graduate Reading Program has excellent external relationships with Connecticut public and private schools and families in the community. Our graduates are found in elementary, middle, and high schools throughout the state. Our clinics (RDG 568 and 659) serve children and their families from New Haven and neighboring towns. The Graduate Reading Program has been hosted by both East Lyme and Newtown to provide cohort programs to bring our highly valued programs more conveniently to students in areas of Connecticut that are somewhat distant from New Haven. These cohort programs are popular and bring both recognition and dollars to the University, but they come at a price. The full time faculty is stretched very thin, and currently many adjuncts are needed to staff the various programs at SCSU and the two cohort programs. 2. External Demand for the Program a. The following tables provide information on applicants to the Master of Science program in Reading. The data clearly demonstrate that our average for admissions is well above the university standard of at least 10 per year. Within the past five years, nearly all students who have applied to the Graduate Reading Program met or exceeded criteria for admission and were accepted into the program. For four out of the past five years, we have accepted over 80% of our applications. The anomaly in the data is the 2011-2012 school year. This can be explained, in part, by the difficulties in transition of the application process to the Graduate School Office.

Academic Year Program Applications Accepted Acceptance %

2008-2009 MS-RDG 28 23 82% 2009-2010 MS-RDG 54 45 83%

2010-2011 MS-RDG 42 35 83%

2011-2012 MS-RDG 54 28 52%

2012-2013 MS-RDG 28 26 93%

3

The average GPA for students admitted into the Graduate Reading Program is approximately 3.2. Occasionally, however, candidates who have sought program admission require a grade point average (GPA) waiver. Below is the distribution of GPA waivers over the past three years:

Academic Year Number of GPA waivers 2009-2010 3 2010-2011 2 2011-2012 3

Despite the downturn in the economy, students from all over the state (Danbury, Fairfield, Cheshire, Granby, Morris, etc.) continue to enroll in our Reading program. To broaden our reach for students and eliminate a long commute for many of them, we have developed two cohort sites: East Lyme and Newtown. Both sites continue to grow (East Lyme is setting up to start its fourth cohort and Newtown has its first cohort well under way). Although we are generally satisfied with enrollment in the cohorts, one concern is that systems to advertise the cohorts and when/how they run are not well–established, consistent, and on-going. This issue may have affected the number of students who applied to cohorts in Newtown and East Lyme. Yet, we remain actively committed to the cohort model and anticipate developing additional sites in the future. Our flexibility in managing the cohorts, as well as our willingness to investigate additional sites, is an indicator of the reading program’s adaptability and sensitivity to enrollment trends. b. The merit and logic of the curriculum has always been based on the roles and responsibilities of Reading Specialists in districts across the state. The Master of

28

54

42

54

28

23

45

35

28 26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MS-RDG MS-RDG MS-RDG MS-RDG MS-RDG

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Applications

Accepted

Linear(Applications)

Linear(Accepted)

4

Science in Reading is a certification program. Upon completion of their program, all candidates are eligible for their #102 (Remedial Reading and Language Arts Specialist) based on their academic coursework. As indicated by feedback from alumni and school districts, our graduates are prepared to fulfill roles as reading interventionists and specialists in grades 1-12. This is a result of the broad curriculum that enables students to understand everything from the foundations of literacy to assessment to intervention/remediation to the elements of school-wide literacy leadership. c. Recently, the School of Education re-envisioned its conceptual framework. CALL (Collaborating, Applying, Leading, Learning) explicitly reflects the work reading specialists do within diverse schools. Part of the application process for candidates to our program involves a written essay and personal interview that are both assessed through CALL rubrics. Further, faculty have developed or revised course assessments on the implementation of literacy practices that specifically address the four elements of CALL. The professional dispositions and principles articulated within CALL are the very same constructs that characterize our program. 3. Internal Demand for the Program a. Although the disaggregated data on the number of students from other programs that take reading courses are unavailable, we know that we provide needed courses for various programs. Students from other departments (Special Education, Counseling and School Psychology, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, English, TESOL/Bilingual Education, and Communication Disorders) who need to gain expertise in reading regularly enroll in our courses. b. Many of our students have received their undergraduate degrees from SCSU and return for their graduate degree in Reading. Exploring a more formal pathway from undergraduate programs like Elementary Education, Special Education, and secondary content programs (e.g. English, Science) to the Graduate Reading Program would be worthwhile. Creating a five-year program where students would leave with an additional certification as a remedial reading teacher would make graduates in each of these programs much sought after. The increased rigor of the CCSS has increased the need for all teachers, especially content area high school teachers, to become more knowledgeable about reading. c. Although non-program students take our courses, we are not reliant on these students to reach the number of students needed to offer our courses. In most cases, non-program students tend to enroll in courses that are early in our sequence. The four courses in this developmental strand do not have prerequisites. Because of this (and the broad applicability of course content to a number of other programs), these are the classes for which most non-program students register.

5

d. We currently offer supervised clinics in the diagnosis and remediation of reading problems. This program services children of faculty and students as well as children from New Haven and neighboring school districts. There is usually a waiting list to get into our clinics. In the past, professors in the Reading Program taught remedial reading classes for undergraduates needing support. With additional lines of faculty, this would be possible again, if needed. e. Recognizing that many of our students would like to pursue additional study in literacy, we are exploring the possibility of adding a Sixth Year Certificate Program designed for students who already have a Master’s Degree in Reading. One option is a Reading Sixth Year that only contains courses in reading which are not within our current program (e.g. intergenerational literacy). Another option is an Interdisciplinary Sixth Year, with courses offered by the departments of Communications Disorders, TESOL/Bilingual Education, and Special Education. We are currently discussing our ideas with faculty from these departments and developing a survey to explore student interest. 4. Quality of Program Inputs and Processes

a. Currently, the graduate reading program has three full-time tenured or tenure track faculty who teach a variety of courses within the MS program. In addition, a one year full time temporary position at the instructor level was approved for the 2013-2014 academic year. All full time tenured or tenure track faculty have doctoral degrees, are members of the graduate faculty, have extensive teaching experience in P-12 settings, and regularly consult with area school districts. Each full time faculty member teaches a variety of courses in the program specific to their areas of expertise, e.g. diversity in literacy, assessment and intervention/remediation, content area literacy. In addition, full time faculty members: advise students; develop, revise, administer, and score the comprehensive exam for students in the MS program; provide review sessions related to the recently mandated Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test; participate in department subcommittees as they pertain to the reading program; direct reading clinics; and supervise student research.

The number of part time faculty teaching within the reading programs varies by semester but typically doubles, at least, the number of full time faculty. All part time faculty members are educators and possess at least a sixth year certificate in reading or a closely related curricular area such as elementary education or curriculum and instruction. In addition, many part time faculty members have degrees in school leadership and are currently working as administrators in roles such as district associate superintendent or K-12 district language arts coordinator. Combined, the diversity of experience represented by our part time and full time faculty is a strength of the program. Course evaluations typically include comments that speak to the faculty’s exceptional knowledge and expertise in reading education as well as their commitment to graduate candidates.

6

The ratio for part time to full time faculty is influenced by the three reading cohorts that run in East Lyme and Newtown, Connecticut. Although full time faculty frequently teach at both sites in addition to teaching on campus, the number of classes offered on and off campus is stretching all of the faculty thin and it has become necessary to recruit new adjuncts every semester as their needs and availability change. Full time faculty work closely with part time faculty to discuss issues and topics related to courses taught in common, and faculty relationships are characterized by a high level of respect and collegiality. Questions and concerns are addressed as readily and thoroughly as possible. Yet, of concern is whether part time faculty who teach only in the cohorts receive adequate support to readily navigate university systems and offices (e.g. TK 20, Blackboard, Buley databases, Banner, payroll, HR, etc.). b. The reading program curriculum specifically reflects the state mandated certification requirements for reading specialists. The MS program is made up of ten courses, eight of which are required for certification. These eight courses include study in all dimensions of literacy learning and instruction. Students begin their program taking a band of four courses that trace the developmental aspects of language and literacy from pre-school through high school. Within this band is a writing course that examines the interrelationship between literacy achievement and discourse. The second band includes several courses that build candidates’ knowledge of progress monitoring, assessment of student reading and writing difficulties across different grade levels, and intervention/remediation. Included within program curriculum are several opportunities for field work where students apply their knowledge in ways intended to improve whole class, small group, and individual reading instruction. In addition, students in the MS program complete two supervised practicum: the first is specific to the diagnosis of reading and writing difficulties and the second targets data-driven, age appropriate intervention. Each practicum takes place at SCSU Reading Center where K-12 students from the community receive services in one or both clinics offered through the reading program. Occasionally, clinics are also offered in public school settings. Finally, of particular value to students is a course in the diversity of literacy where our candidates who are primarily monolingual study the linguistic structures of English as well as another language so that they can better identify and address the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students. c. The reading program is most dynamic in its continued revision of current courses to reflect changing trends, new knowledge, and standards within the field. For instance, the Connecticut Department of Education published Connecticut's Blueprint For Reading Achievement and Beyond the Blueprint: Literacy in Grades 4-12 more than ten years ago; these documents articulated the conditions, instruction, and content necessary to maintain and improve reading achievement for all students in Connecticut. Most recently, the adoption of the Common Core State Standards has profoundly influenced the way we prepare educators to teach reading and writing in all grades. Documents like these, along with research and materials published by organizations such as the Institute of Education Sciences, the National

7

Reading Panel, the International Reading Association, the Learning Disabilities Association, and the Literacy Research Association, consistently guide the revision/updating of course content.

Faculty improve their course content by staying current in the field. Our faculty members actively participate in a variety of professional organizations by attending and presenting at conferences, publishing, reviewing proposals, conducting program reviews for IDA accreditation, pursuing grants for research and creative activity, and participating in special projects to advance literacy in K-12 schools (see tables).

Procedures in place for program review begin with course evaluations. Information provided on these forms help faculty better address student concerns as they relate to their experiences in particular courses. From there, procedures such as the Graduate Program Report and the Specialized Program Area Reports (most recently met criteria for full accreditation in 2013) allow us to carefully review strengths of the program as well as areas needing development. For instance, through surveying current students and alumni, we identified a need to better address the needs of emergent bilinguals. This information led to the development of a new course, Diversity in Literacy, in our program.

Publications

Type of Publication 2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

Book, Non-Scholarly-New 0 1 0 0

Book, Non-Scholarly-Revised 0 0 1 0

Journal Article, Academic Journal

2 1 0 2

Other 0 1 0 0

Professional Presentations

Presentation Type 2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

Keynote/Plenary Address 0 4 0 1

Lecture 2 0 0 5

Oral Presentation 1 3 4 1

Paper 1 1 4 3

Poster 0 0 1 0

Professional Conference Participation

Role 2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

Attendee 0 4 8 4

Other 3 1 0 1

8

Contracts, Grants and Sponsored Research

Type 2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

Grant 0 2 1 7

d. The literacy standards initially identified in the Blueprint and Beyond the Blueprint (documents mentioned in 4c) were quite similar to those newly articulated in the Common Core State Standards even if they were not discussed in the same level of detail. This suggests that our department has a relatively long history of working from scientific, research-based models of reading instruction. Anecdotally, candidates have shared that the SCSU reading program has “no fat” in comparison to their experiences in other programs leading to initial certification. They feel confident in their ability to apply knowledge gained through this program in various school settings. Yet, faculty members in the reading program are also eager to engage students in research and professional development activities beyond what can be accomplished in a single class. Providing students with these opportunities is dependent, in part, upon having more faculty available to mentor students. Finally, we have received a number of inquiries asking whether we provide reading services (akin to those available at the SCSU Writing Center) for SCSU students. We believe this may reflect an unmet need. However, without additional faculty, it is unlikely that our program could develop and/or provide such services to adult learners. 5. Quality of Program Outcomes The Graduate Reading Program within the larger Department of Special Education and Reading seeks to prepare graduate students, most of whom are already employed as teachers, to serve as literacy leaders in their schools through certification as a Remedial Reading and Language Arts Specialist or as a Reading Consultant. To this end, there are three over-riding goals for Graduate Reading Program candidates:

The acquisition of research-based knowledge and competencies in developmental literacy, kindergarten through grade 12

The acquisition of research-based knowledge and competencies related to the assessment and remediation of difficulties in reading and language arts

The acquisition of research-based knowledge and skills needed for designing and leading school-wide literacy programs as a resource to both students and staff

By the completion of their program, Graduate Reading Program degree candidates will demonstrate the following competencies in accordance with the IRA 2010 Standards are based on evaluative criteria within course assignments and we recognize that all standards are achieved through multiple measures.

9

STANDARD 1: FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE Candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction.

Elements POSSIBLE indicators Aligned assessments Element 1.1 Candidates understand major

theories and empirical research that

describe the cognitive, linguistic,

motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development,

processes, and components, including word

recognition, language comprehension,

strategic knowledge, and reading–writing

connections.

Interpret major theories of reading and writing processes and development to understand the

needs of all readers in diverse contexts.

Analyze classroom environment quality for fostering individual motivation to read and write (e.g., access to print, choice, challenge,

and interests).

Demonstrate a critical stance toward the scholarship of the profession.

Read and understand the literature and research about

factors that contribute to reading success (e.g., social, cognitive, and physical).

Inform other educators about major theories of reading and writing processes, components,

and development with supporting research evidence, including information about the relationship between the culture and native language of English learners as a

support system in their learning to read and write in English

Early literacy project

(RDG 520, Assessment #2)

Applied Diversity in Literacy


Action Research Report

(RDG 665, Assessment #6-Sixth

Year)

Element 1.2: Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the

profession and changes over time in the

perceptions of reading and writing

development, processes, and components.

Interpret and summarize historically shared knowledge (e.g., instructional strategies and theories) that addresses the needs of all readers.

Inform educators and others about the historically shared

knowledge base in reading and writing and its role in reading education.

Action Research Report (RDG 665, Assessment #6-Sixth

Year)



Element 1.3: Candidates understand the

role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all

students’ reading development and

achievement.

Model fair-mindedness, empathy, and ethical behavior when teaching students and working with other professionals.

Communicate the importance of fair-mindedness, empathy, and

ethical behavior in literacy instruction and professional behavior.



Analysis of Literacy Environment

(RDG 566, Assessment #6-Master’s)

Literacy Intervention Plan (RDG

672, Assessment #7-Sixth year)

10

STANDARD 2: CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION Candidates use instructional approaches, materials, and an integrated, comprehensive, balanced curriculum to support student learning in reading and writing.

Elements POSSIBLE indicators Aligned assessments Element 2.1: Candidates use

foundational knowledge to design or

implement an integrated, comprehensive,

and balanced curriculum.

Demonstrate an understanding of the research and literature that undergirds the reading and

writing curriculum and instruction for all pre-K–12 students.

Develop and implement the curriculum to meet the specific needs of students who struggle

with reading.

Support teachers and other personnel in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the reading and writing curriculum for all students.

Work with teachers and other personnel in developing a literacy curriculum that has vertical and horizontal alignment across pre-K–12.


672, Assessment #7-Sixth year)

Explicit comprehension strategy

instruction


Planning/Implementing

Interventions


Action Research Report (RDG 665, Assessment #6-Sixth

Year)

Element 2.2: Candidates use appropriate and varied instructional approaches, including those

that develop word recognition, language

comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–

writing connections.

Use instructional approaches supported by literature and research for the following areas:

concepts of print, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, critical thinking, motivation, and writing.

Provide appropriate in-depth instruction for all readers and

writers, especially those who struggle with reading and writing.

Support classroom teachers and education support personnel to implement instructional approaches for all students.

As needed, adapt instructional materials and approaches to meet the language-proficiency needs of English learners and students who struggle to learn to read and write.


instruction


Literacy Intervention Plan


year)


Interventions


Workshop Presentation & Conference (RDG 676, Assessment #8-Sixth Year) Applied Diversity in Literacy




Year)

Element 2.3: Candidates use a wide range of texts (e.g., narrative, expository, and poetry) from

traditional print, digital, and online resources.

Demonstrate knowledge of and a critical stance toward a wide variety of quality traditional print, digital, and online resources.

Support classroom teachers in building and using a quality,

accessible classroom library and

Literacy Intervention Plan (Rdg 672,

Assessment #7-Sixth Year)


Interventions (RDG 659, Assessment #5)


11

materials collection that meets the specific needs and abilities of all learners.

Lead collaborative school efforts to evaluate, select, and use a variety of instructional materials

to meet the specific needs and abilities of all learners.

instruction


STANDARD 3: ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading and writing instruction. Diagnostic Portfolio (Rdg 568, Assessment #4)

Elements POSSIBLE indicators Aligned assessments Element 3.1: Candidates understand

types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations.

Demonstrate an understanding of the literature and research related to assessments and their uses and misuses.

Demonstrate an understanding of established purposes for assessing

the performance of all readers, including tools for screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, and measuring outcomes.

Recognize the basic technical adequacy of assessments (e.g.,

reliability, content, and construct validity).

Explain district and state assessment frameworks, proficiency standards, and student benchmarks.

Diagnostic Portfolio (Rdg 568,

Assessment #4)





Year)

Element 3.2: Candidates select, develop,

administer, and interpret assessments,

both traditional print and electronic, for

specific purposes.

Administer and interpret appropriate assessments for

students, especially those who struggle with reading and writing.

Collaborate with and provide support to all teachers in the analysis of data, using the assessment results of all students.

Lead school-wide or larger scale analyses to select assessment tools that provide a systemic framework for assessing the reading, writing, and language growth of all students.

Diagnostic Portfolio (Rdg 568,

Assessment #4)


672, Assessment #7-Sixth Year)


Interventions




Year)

Element 3.3: Candidates use assessment

information to plan and evaluate

instruction.

Use multiple data sources to analyze individual readers’ performance and to plan

instruction and intervention.

Diagnostic Portfolio (RDG 568,

Assessment #4) Literacy Intervention Plan (RDG


12

Analyze and use assessment data to examine the effectiveness of specific intervention practices and students’ responses to instruction.

Lead teachers in analyzing and using classroom, individual, grade-

level, or school-wide assessment data to make instructional decisions.

Plan and evaluate professional development initiatives using assessment data.


Interventions (RDG 659, Assessment #5)



Element 3.4: Candidates communicate

assessment results and implications to a

variety of audiences.

Analyze and report assessment results to a variety of appropriate

audiences for relevant implications, instructional purposes, and accountability.

Demonstrate the ability to communicate results of assessments to various audiences.


Assessment #4)





Year)


Interventions


STANDARD 4: DIVERSITY

Candidates create and engage their students in literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding, respect, and a valuing of differences in our society.

Elements POSSIBLE indicators Aligned assessments Element 4.1: Candidates recognize,

understand, and value the forms of

diversity that exist in society and their

importance in learning to read and write.

Demonstrate an understanding of the ways in which diversity influences the reading and writing

development of all students, especially those who struggle with reading and writing.

Assist teachers in developing reading and writing instruction that is responsive to diversity.

Assist teachers in understanding the relationship between first- and second-language acquisition and literacy development.

Engage the school community in conversations about research on

diversity and how diversity impacts reading and writing development.

Early Literacy Project




13

Element 4.2: Candidates use a literacy curriculum and engage in instructional

practices that positively impact students’

knowledge, beliefs, and engagement with

the features of diversity.

Provide differentiated instruction and instructional materials, including traditional print, digital, and online resources that capitalize on diversity.

Support classroom teachers in providing differentiated instruction and developing students as agents of their own literacy learning.

Support and lead other educators to recognize their own cultures in order to teach in ways that are responsive to students’ diverse backgrounds.

Collaborate with others to build strong home-to-school and school-

to-home literacy connections.

Provide support and leadership to educators, parents and guardians, students, and other members of the school community in valuing the contributions of diverse

people and traditions to literacy learning.

Explicit comprehension strategy instruction



Assessment #4)


Interventions






Element 4.3: Candidates develop and

implement strategies to advocate for equity.

Provide students with linguistic, academic, and cultural experiences that link their communities with the school.

Advocate for change in societal

practices and institutional structures that are inherently biased or prejudiced against certain groups.

Demonstrate how issues of inequity and opportunities for

social justice activism and resiliency can be incorporated into the literacy curriculum.

Collaborate with teachers, parents and guardians, and administrators to implement policies and

instructional practices that promote equity and draw connections between home and community literacy and school literacy.


(RDG 649, Assessment #1)\




Assessment #4)

14

STANDARD 5: LITERATE ENVIRONMENT Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments.

Elements POSSIBLE indicators Aligned assessments Element 5.1: Candidates design the

physical environment to optimize

students’ use of traditional print, digital,

and online resources in reading and

writing instruction.

Arrange instructional areas to

provide easy access to books and other instructional materials for a variety of individual, small-group, and whole-class activities and support teachers in doing the same.

Modify the arrangements to accommodate students’ changing needs.







Element 5.2: Candidates design a social

environment that is low risk and includes choice, motivation, and scaffolded

support to optimize students’

opportunities for learning to read and

write.

Create supportive social environments for all students, especially those who struggle with reading and writing.

Model for and support teachers and other professionals in doing

the same for all students.

Create supportive environments where English learners are encouraged and provided with many opportunities to use English.



Literacy Intervention Plan (RDG 672, Assessment #7-Sixth Year)


Interventions






Element 5.3: Candidates use routines to support reading and writing instruction

(e.g., time allocation, transitions from one

activity to another, discussions, and peer

feedback).

Understand the role of routines in creating and maintaining positive learning environments for reading and writing instruction using traditional print, digital, and online resources.

Create effective routines for all students, especially those who struggle with reading and writing.

Support teachers in doing the same for all readers.




Interventions


Literacy Intervention Plan


Year)



Element 5.4: Candidates use a variety of

classroom configurations (i.e., whole

class, small group, and individual) to differentiate instruction.

Use evidence-based grouping practices to meet the needs of all students, especially those who struggle with reading and writing.

Support teachers in doing the same for all students.






instruction (RDG 566, Assessment #3)



15

STANDARD 6: PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP Candidates recognize the importance of, demonstrate, and facilitate professional learning and leadership as a career-long effort and responsibility.

Elements POSSIBLE indicators Aligned assessments Element 6.1: Candidates demonstrate

foundational knowledge of adult learning

theories and related research about

organizational change, professional development, and school culture.

Use literature and research findings about adult learning, organizational change,

professional development, and school culture in working with teachers and other professionals.

Use knowledge of students and teachers to build effective professional development

programs.

Use the research base to assist in building an effective, school-wide professional development program.

Paraprofessional Project


Workshop Presentation & Conference (RDG 676, Assessment #8-Sixth Year) Explicit comprehension strategy

instruction


Element 6.2: Candidates display positive dispositions related to their own reading and

writing and the teaching of reading and writing,

and pursue the development of individual

professional knowledge and behaviors.

Articulate the research base related to the connections among teacher dispositions, student

learning, and the involvement of parents, guardians, and the community.

Promote the value of reading and writing in and out of school by modeling a positive attitude

toward reading and writing with students, colleagues, administrators, and parents and guardians.

Join and participate in professional literacy

organizations, symposia, conferences, and workshops.

Demonstrate effective interpersonal, communication, and leadership skills.

Demonstrate effective use of technology for improving student

learning.





Workshop Presentation & Conference (RDG 676, Assessment #8-Sixth Year) Applied Diversity in Literacy





Interventions


Element 6.3: Candidates participate in,

design, facilitate, lead, and evaluate

effective and differentiated professional

development programs.

Collaborate in, leading, and

evaluating professional development activities for individuals and groups of teachers. Activities may include working individually with teachers (e.g., modeling, co-

planning, co-teaching, and observing) or with groups (e.g., teacher workshops, group meetings, and online learning).



Workshop Presentation & Conference

(RDG 676, Assessment #8- Sixth Year) Action Research Report


Year)

16

Demonstrate the ability to hold effective conversations (e.g., for planning and reflective problem solving) with individuals and groups of teachers, work collaboratively with teachers and

administrators, and facilitate group meetings.

Support teachers in their efforts to use technology in literacy assessment and instruction.



Element 6.4: Candidates understand and

influence local, state, or national policy

decisions.

Demonstrate an understanding of local, state, and national policies that affect reading and writing

instruction.

Write or assist in writing proposals that enable schools to obtain additional funding to support literacy efforts.

Promote effective communication and collaboration among

stakeholders, including parents and guardians, teachers, administrators, policymakers, and community members.

Advocate with various groups (e.g., administrators, school

boards, and local, state, and federal policymaking bodies) for needed organizational and instructional changes to promote effective literacy instruction.


instruction


Workshop Presentation & Conference (RDG 676, Assessment #8- Sixth Year) Paraprofessional Project






As noted earlier in section 2a, a few students who apply to the program have an undergraduate GPA under 2.7 and require waiver consideration. Once admitted, however, our students do extraordinarily well. The faculty generally “teaches to mastery". This means that we provide the support needed so that as many students as possible master the content taught. We do not want to graduate Reading Specialists who have only learned 80% of the content taught. Our primary concern is that Connecticut children receive the best-prepared Reading Specialists possible. The students' GPA reflects the level of their preparation in this very rigorous program.

MS-RDG

Fall

'08

Spr

'09

Fall

'09

Spr

'10

Fall

'10

Spr

'11

Fall

'11

Spr

'12

Fall

'12

Spr

'13

Fall

Avg

Spring

Avg

Students 97 84 84 87 85 80 76 78 70 64 82 79

Overall GPA 3.92 3.95 3.95 3.97 3.96 3.97 3.96 3.94 3.96 3.98 3.95 3.96

17

Our exit requirements are especially rigorous. The Master of Science in Reading requires the completion of all program requirements including evidence of the following:

Minimum of 30 graduate credits

Overall GPA of 3.0 or higher

Grade of 3.0 or higher on Professional portfolio including program reflection (Culminating Experience Part I)

Passing Grade or higher (P-, P, P+) on all sections of the Comprehensive Exam (Culminating Experience Part II) The comprehensive examination is a 4-hour assessment in essay format. The examination is evaluated by full-time faculty members on a pass/fail basis. Students who do not pass the examination on the first attempt have a chance to take it again that same semester or in the semester immediately following. Students who do not pass the exam are provided with additional review from faculty. No student in the last six years failed the examination twice. We have graduated an average of 31 candidates with master's degrees in each of the last 5 years.

Degrees Conferred AY 08/09 AY 09/10 AY 10/11 AY 11/12 AY 12/13

MS-Reading 36 37 23 33 27 Certification information is presented in the table below. Accordingly, it is clear that the Graduate Reading Program has more than met the University requirement of at least three certifications per year, and it prepares a large number of Reading Specialists who, by and large, serve the children of Connecticut. Over the last 6 years, an annual average of 24 candidates received the Connecticut Certification #102- Remedial Reading and Language Arts Specialist.

Certifications 2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

#102 Reading /Language Arts Specialist

12

16

5

53

15

40

The data from the Student Opinion Surveys (course evaluations) reveal that our candidates are very pleased with the quality of our courses. More than 90% of students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with every item on the course evaluation.

18

Course Information Survey AY 08/09

AY 09/10

AY 10/11

AY 11/12

AY 12/13

Statement SA/A SA/A SA/A SA/A SA/A

Methods of instruction have helped me understand the subject matter. 92% 95% 91% 94% 94%

Reading the assigned material has helped me understand this subject. 93% 94% 92% 92% 93%

Exams and out-of-class assignments have helped me understand the subject matter. 95% 95% 95% 96% 98%

Number of exams & other graded assignments

has been sufficient to evaluate my progress. 95% 97%

My experiences in this class make me want to

learn more about this subject. 92% 93%

I would rate the quality of instruction in this course as high. 91% 92%

I would rate the overall quality of this course as high. 90% 93%

This course helped me meet the learning goals. 97% 97% 98%

This course evaluated how well I met those learning goals. 94% 97% 98%

My experience in this course helped me

appreciate this subject. 94% 96% 95%

The instructor provided regular feedback on my

performance in this course. 93% 96% 95%

The instructor had high standards for student achievement. 96% 97% 97%

The instructor encouraged me to take responsibility for my own learning. 97% 96% 98%

Course evaluation data are corroborated by The Graduate Reading Program Student Survey, which was administered to 114 current students at the conclusion of the Fall semester, 2011 (see table on page 19).

19

CURRENT STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS N = 144

Percentage of Current Graduate Reading Program Students Responding to Each Level of the Scale

Not

applicable

Strongly

agree

Agre

e

Neutral Disagree Strongly

disagree

Faculty members showed an

interest in my academic and

intellectual development

8 59 32 0 0 2

Faculty members created an

atmosphere where open

discussion was encouraged

14 62 21 2 2 0

Faculty demonstrated enthusiasm

about the subject matter

10 65 22 2 2 0

Faculty used a variety of engaging

teaching methods that helped me

to learn

11 40 38 6 5 0

Faculty used a variety of assessment methods

13 56 27 2 3 0

Faculty were up to date in their

field

10 65 24 0 2 0

Faculty communicated well 3 52 40 2 3 0

The sequence of courses was well

organized

3 59 32 3 3 0

Sufficient courses were scheduled

each semester

5 32 30 18 14 0

Necessary courses and

requirements that I needed to earn

my degree were made clear

2 62 27 5 5 0

Requirements for courses were appropriate for learning the

material

3 62 32 2 2 0

The requirements for this program

were academically challenging

3 67 27 2 2 0

Access to faculty was convenient 0 60 32 5 3 0

I had opportunities to discuss my

program experiences with faculty

2 38 43 14 2 2

My advisor considered my background. . when planning my

program

3 46 30 14 5 2

My advisor was knowledgeable and

provided accurate guidance

5 51 25 11 6 2

University provided appropriate

classroom environment

2 40 43 16 0 0

Faculty used university resources

effectively

2 33 49 13 3 0

My program has helped me

accomplish my educational goals

3 68 27 2 0 0

I would recommend this program

to people interested in this field of

study

2 81 13 3 2 0

The program attempted to foster a

sense of community among

students

2 48 37 11 2 2

Further, a systematic survey of perceptions of our program by Graduate Reading Program Alumni from the past 5 years was conducted in winter, 2012. Alumni

20

responded anonymously. The survey and a cover letter were mailed to approximately 200 alumni along with a stamped, addressed return envelope. A total of 63 Program alumni responded to the survey within the three-week window suggested for the reply. Findings from this survey are presented in the chart below.

ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS, N = 63

Percentage of Graduate Reading Program Alumni Responding to Each Level of the Scale Not

applicable

Strongl

y agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

disagree

Faculty members showed an

interest in my academic and

intellectual development

8 59 32 0 0 2

Faculty members created an

atmosphere where open

discussion was encouraged

14 62 21 2 2 0

Faculty demonstrated enthusiasm

about the subject matter

10 65 22 2 2 0

Faculty used a variety of engaging

teaching methods that helped me

to learn

11 40 38 6 5 0

Faculty used a variety of assessment methods

13 56 27 2 3 0

Faculty were up to date in their

field

10 65 24 0 2 0

Faculty communicated well 3 52 40 2 3 0

The sequence of courses was well

organized

3 59 32 3 3 0

Sufficient courses were scheduled

each semester

5 32 30 19 14 0

Necessary courses and

requirements that I needed to earn

my degree were made clear

2 62 27 5 5 0

Requirements for courses were appropriate for learning the

material

3 62 32 2 2 0

The requirements for this program

were academically challenging

3 67 27 2 2 0

Access to faculty was convenient 0 60 32 5 3 0

I had opportunities to discuss my

program experiences with faculty

2 38 43 14 2 2

My advisor considered my background. . when planning my

program

3 46 30 14 5 2

My advisor was knowledgeable and

provided accurate guidance

5 51 25 11 6 2

University provided appropriate

classroom environment

2 40 43 16 0 0

Faculty used university resources

effectively

2 33 49 13 3 0

My program has helped me

accomplish my educational goals

3 68 26 2 0 0

I would recommend this program

to people interested in this field of

study

2 81 13 3 2 0

The program attempted to foster a

sense of community among

students

2 48 37 11 2 2

21

6. Size, Scope, and Productivity of the Program a. Credit hours generated:

Credits Generated

AY

08/09

AY

09/10

AY

10/11

AY

11/12

AY

12/13 Total Academic Credits 1,701 1,704 1,488 1,596 1,566

Major Credits 1,218 1,173 1,095 1,182 1,218

Total Students 567 568 496 532 522

b. Master of Science in Reading – (includes coursework required for Reading Specialist Certification- 102)

c. Number of degrees and/or certificates awarded in the last five years:

Degrees Conferred AY 08/09

AY 09/10

AY 10/11

AY 11/12

AY 12/13

MS-Reading 36 37 23 33 27

d. Faculty have been productive:

Publications

Type of Publication 2009-

2010

2010-

2011

2011-

2012

2012-

2013

Book, Non-Scholarly-New 0 1 0 0

Book, Non-Scholarly-Revised 0 0 1 0

Journal Article, Academic Journal 2 1 0 2

Other 0 1 0 0

Professional Presentations

Presentation Type 2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

Keynote/Plenary Address 0 4 0 1

Lecture 2 0 0 5

Oral Presentation 1 3 4 1

Paper 1 1 4 3

Poster 0 0 1 0

Professional Conference Participation

Role 2009-

2010

2010-

2011

2011-

2012

2012-

2013

Attendee 0 4 8 4

Other 3 1 0 1

22

Contracts, Grants and Sponsored Research

Type 2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

Grant 0 2 1 7

e. At this point, only sixth year certificate students under supervision of a faculty member conduct an action research project and present it at the program’s yearly literacy conference. Yet, MS students who were matriculated prior to fall 2011 may elect to take this course as part of their 30 credits. Projects are developed over one semester; this time constraint makes it difficult to obtain the IRB approval that would allow for further dissemination although many projects are certainly worthy of wider presentation and publication. Because of this, we are proposing a two-semester option for the research course. f. Faculty members continue to work on a variety of projects at the current time. These works in progress vary from the study of adolescent literacy as it relates to a componential view of literacy to literacy learning in emergent bilinguals and children who speak linguistically diverse forms of English. Current and past faculty research, experiences, and interests have informed the development of new courses and the continual updating of courses. In addition to the supervision of student teachers, full-time faculty are involved in numerous projects that bring them into the schools of Connecticut. This, in turn, helps keep faculty stay current with changes in school policies, programs, and culture. Faculty involvement in area schools also raises interest in the graduate reading programs at SCSU and the reading clinics available to children in grades K-12. Ultimately, the variety of expertise among all program faculty (full-time and part-time) has made it possible for students to get excellent instruction and to understand their field from a variety of perspectives. g. Due to budget constraints, the reading program struggles to maintain resources for use in the diagnostic and intervention clinic courses. Although new assessments and intervention materials are purchased each year, we are limited in our ability to build a library that reflects the diversity typical of many schools in Connecticut. We would like to do more in this area and also extend our resources to include greater access to digital materials, hardware (e.g. IPads, e-readers), apps, software, and improved Internet connections so we can purchase appropriate on-line programs.

23

7. Revenue and other resources generated by the program

a. Only the portions of the table in Excel that are specific to revenue are

included here.

Display Orgn Code

Prioritization Pgm for Reports

Fiscal Year

Student Tuition and

Fees

Other Revenue Sources

Grand Total

Revenue

25060 MS-RDG 2010 538,885 28,791 567,676

25060 MS-RDG 2011 516,537 5,323 521,860

25060 MS-RDG 2012 525,478 37,664 563,142 b. None c. None

d. Revenues and resources are necessary for program expansion. Additional resources will allow us to meet the needs of more children and families who wish to attend reading clinics offered through the SCSU Reading Center. The Reading Center needs renovation to improve the use of available space. Also, many of the materials used in the clinics are becoming outdated and should be replaced. Finally, the Reading Center has no technology (hardware/software) to use for the assessment and tutoring of children. Improving students’ ability to read across all modalities is a Common Core Standard that, currently, we are unable to address. e. In 2013, Laura Raynolds and Regine Randall both applied for CSU and faculty development grants to update resources, books and materials used in the SCSU Reading Center. Neither of these micro grants was funded due to limits on how monies could be used as well as the availability of funds in general. Currently, Dr. Raynolds has another grant application under review that may allow us to acquire the revenue to purchase books and other media that include multicultural themes.

24

8. Costs and Other Expenses a. & b. Only the portions of the table in Excel that are specific to total costs (a) and ratio of total costs to revenue (b) are included here.

Employee Compensation

Operating Expenses

Allocated Overhead

and Indirect

Costs

Grand Total Costs

Net Income /

(Loss) Per BCH

Ratio of Costs to Revenue

2010 (218,632)

(4,267)

(196,537)

(419,436)

129.78 0.75 : 1.00

2011 (231,475)

(4,131)

(184,728)

(420,334)

92.08 0.83 : 1.00

2012 (284,182)

(4,832)

(200,042)

(489,056)

65.24 0.88 : 1.00

c. Our program requires additional space for the clinics offered through the Reading Center as well as at least one additional faculty line to allow us to maintain the cohorts and offer additional summer classes for students on campus. In addition, we strongly believe that some level of reading services should be available to any SCSU student in any program who is experiencing difficulty with text. Also of importance is the ability to offer some level of reading services, as needed, to other members of the SCSU community (not students) who seek to advance or diversify their own literacy skills using a variety of media. Yet, neither of these two initiatives can be addressed through our program without a feasibility study and additional faculty. Further, resources to develop a timely and complete website that includes information on all programs are necessary to facilitate and improve communication with students in the cohorts who are scheduled by terms. Their classes do not follow the typical academic calendar, but they still need to be aware of traditional semester deadlines for registration, payments, and other university events such as graduation. d. Recently, we allowed students in the reading program who did not originally sign up with the cohort to take courses in the summer at our East Lyme or Newtown sites if those same classes were not offered on campus. In this way, we are responding to student requests for more summer courses so that they can complete degree requirements in a timely and efficient manner. This accommodation was made because we do not have the faculty to cover additional courses on campus when it is also necessary for us to run at least four summer classes with the cohorts.

25

9. Impact, Justification, and Overall Essentiality of the Program a. The Master of Science program strongly reflects SCSU’s mission statement. The program is rigorous because of the critical importance of excellent literacy educators to serve the essential community need for literacy teachers to be exemplary practitioners and leaders in Connecticut elementary and secondary schools.

An essential tool for social justice, literacy provides the means for access to higher education and jobs. The Graduate Reading Program prepares teachers to work with schools and families to address the literacy needs of a diverse population. The program also prepares teachers to use literature to explore social justice themes with all children. b. Students in our Master of Science Program are certified teachers. Our program is well known for improving the skills of teachers in the classroom and producing highly qualified professionals who serve as Remedial Reading and Remedial Language Arts Specialists in Connecticut’s schools . These professionals serve as leaders in their districts across Connecticut. Critical thinking is at the core of students’ preparation to diagnose literacy problems, provide appropriate intervention for struggling learners, and implement effective classroom reading and writing instruction. The Graduate Reading Program fosters that critical thinking through application assignments in all of its courses. c. The SCSU Graduate Reading Program is one of five traditional programs that prepare teachers to be Remedial Reading/Language Arts Specialists (102 certification) in Connecticut. There is also one noncredit alternative program in the state. Our program distinguishes itself by requiring all graduates to have completed a course in linguistic diversity’s impact on literacy learning and by emphasizing its importance on the structure of oral and written language. Such knowledge makes our students more adept in managing the literacy needs of English language learners. We are strongly committed to the explicit instruction of literacy based on the scientific knowledge base. d. In order to continue to provide high quality education, our program needs more full time faculty. Currently, SCSU’s Graduate Reading Program has fewer faculty members than our sister institution Central Connecticut State University has in this area. The inevitable result is that we experience many challenges in carrying out all the responsibilities to implement the program both on campus and at our cohort sites. Additionally, in order to better prepare teachers in literacy, the program needs more up-to-date access to technology both for teaching and for exposing our students to the technology they are expected to use in today’s schools.

26

10. Opportunity Analysis of the Program a. Our department has always had a strong relationship with New Haven Public Schools. Through our partnership, our students engage in authentic assessment and tutoring situations that broaden their experience and preparedness for assuming a reading teacher position. More recently, the Reading Program has reached out to both ends of the state, which has enabled our candidates to work with a wider range of students. East Lyme, New London, Newtown and Trumbull now partner with the SCSU Reading Program so that we may assist them in providing rich literacy experiences for students in their schools. We seek to bring our graduate students into even more school districts through the collaboration that characterizes the reading cohorts.

Current students and alumni from have an opportunity for their voices to be heard through the Reading Program Surveys. In addition to the information requested on the surveys required by the University, the Graduate Reading Program requested additional program-specific feedback regarding students’ and alumni perceptions of their interaction with faculty, their perceptions of continued academic needs beyond current course offerings, areas of greatest growth, and their “wish list” for the future. This type of feedback enables us to continue to improve the offerings for our students.

Further, we regularly seek and receive program feedback from state-level personnel and School of Education administrators and other university advocates. We have an excellent resource, Georgette Nemr, in the Certification Office at the Connecticut State Department of Education. She has responded efficiently to all of our (many) questions and has demonstrated genuine interest in the Graduate Reading Program at SCSU. We have had similarly positive interactions with personnel from the Department of Higher Education when their input has been needed. b. The Graduate Reading Program engages in both mandated summative evaluations and ongoing formative analysis of our program. Prior to our last mandatory review in 2008 for the submission of our program report to IRA/NCATE, we thoroughly reviewed all courses and reconceptualized our program into three strands: Developmental Literacy, Diagnosis & Intervention, and Literacy Leadership—a framework that continues to help our students scaffold their literacy learning. Such work pays off. Our program is nationally recognized and fully accredited by the IRA and NCATE. We review our program less formally on a regular basis. We meet as a Reading Program faculty once per month for several hours to address current issues and to make curricular changes as needed. If program faculty need to meet more often, they are always willing to put in the time and effort to complete special projects or unexpected work. Input from our adjuncts is also useful so they, too, are invited to share their insights and collaborate with us. Course syllabi are up-dated each semester as new texts become available, new research is published, and the field of literacy moves forward.

27

On campus, we seek guidance from Ken Bungert regarding certification issues and he, too, has helped us navigate terrain that is sometimes bumpy. Lisa Galvin, Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies, has shown over and over not just great efficiency in responding to our questions about students’ degree programs, but also real compassion for the life-realities that sometimes get in the way of students’ programs. Finally, there is no doubt that the quality of our graduate students also strengthens our programs. They have high expectations for themselves and for what they will gain from their experiences in the Graduate Reading Program. Our graduate students motivate us to be the best we can be – everyday, every class.