Transcript A Model for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction

A Model for Comprehensive
Literacy Instruction
Schenk Elementary
Why we are moving in this direction
Not meeting all of our students
needs...1/3 of our students
Significant gaps
Disabilities
ELL
Students of color
Regression after interventions
“If children are apparently
unable to learn, we should
assume that we have not as
yet found the right way to
teach them.” -Marie Clay
From our beliefs...
We believe that it is our responsibility to
reach all kids
We believe in Balanced Literacy
We know that Reading Recovery shows
benefits, but they are not always
sustained
What is missing?
Where is success happening?
The CLM supports our beliefs
Balanced Literacy
Vertical Alignment
Site based PD & coaching
Core is not enough
Clinical nature of systematic observation from RR
Layered 4-Tier Framework
Learning more about it
•Professional Reading
• School site visitations
•
•
Washington Elementary in D.C. Everest School District
•
Lincoln Elementary School in Shawano
•
Mountain Bay Elementary School in Westin
•
Eisenhower Elementary School in Green Bay
Conferences
•
•
CIM in Little Rock, Arkansas; CLM in Pembine, WI
ESAIL survey based upon the 10 criteria
of their model
Synthesizing Our Big Ideas
•
We needed a school-wide systematic
approach to address...
• Core is not enough
• Fidelity is essential
• Progress Monitoring Targets Instruction
Turn & Talk
Core is Not Enough
Past Practice
•Teachers differentiate by
their own creative means
Some have received certain
professional development
while others have not
Systematic Thinking through
CLM
•Specific differentiation from a
menu of choices
We will all continually receive
professional development to add
to our growing knowledge of
how to do this
Core is Not Enough
Past Practice
•
Our classroom
interventions were
creatively designed
• Dependent upon who you
sought for more
information...building
team issue
Systematic Thinking through
CLM
• Specific Tier 1
Interventions from a menu of
choices
•One to one conferences
•Specific Small Group
Interventions
Specific Tier 1 Small Group Interventions
•
Emergent Language & Literacy Group
•
Guided Reading Plus
•
Comprehension Focus Group
•
Assisted Writing Group
•
Writing Process Group
•
Oracy Group
•
Content Strategy Group
Specific Tier 1 Small Group Interventions
•
Emergent Language & Literacy Group
Guided Reading Plus
•
Comprehension Focus Group
•
Assisted Writing Group
•
Writing Process Group
•
Oracy Group
Core is Not Enough
Past Practice
•
•
Interventions beyond the
classroom had become
inconsistent
Often not aligned with
Tier 1 Interventions
and/or Core
Systematic Thinking through
CLM
•Must be receiving Tier 1
•Highly trained specialists
deliver Tiers 2 & 3
•Specific interventions
Specific Interventions
Tier 2 (small groups)
Emergent Language & Literacy Group
Guided Reading Plus
Comprehension Focus Group
Assisted Writing Group
Writing Process Group
Oracy Group
Content Strategy Group
Specific Interventions
Tier 2 (small groups)
Tier 3 (1:1 or 1:2)
Emergent Language & Literacy Group
For students at the Emergent Level who are not in
Special Education
Guided Reading Plus
Comprehension Focus Group
Assisted Writing Group
Writing Process Group
Oracy Group
Content Strategy Group
RR in Grade 1
Reading or Writing Conferences in specific tailored
interventions searching for acceleration
Tier 4 Interventions
Special Education Teacher delivers
Child must be receiving Core instruction
as IEP deems appropriate
Intervention must align with Core
Turn & Talk
Fidelity is Essential
Systematic Thinking
through CLM
Past Practice
•District level PD for Core (not attended by
all)
•IRTs in buildings (not similar in background
knowledge, not able to reach everyone)
•
30 minute weekly GL PD led by IRT
• Horizontal & Vertical Alignment
• Classrooms
Coaching
Cycles,
Observation
& Problem
Solving with
IRT
•
2 hour weekly IS PD led by IRT
• Behind the Glass/Peer Observation
• Coaching & Problem Solving with IRT
•
Whole Day/Once per month CC PD led by IRT
• Study/sharing of Literacy Processing
• Peer Observation, Coaching & Problem
Solving with IRT
•Intervention support not consistent
•Communication
between Core teachers and
between Interventionists not consistent or
aligned
Fidelity is Essential
Past Practice
•Use the state and district standards, as well as
student assessments, to determine instructional
content
•Often done either independently, classroom by
classroom, OR, sometimes, grade level by grade
level
•No consistent expectations throughout the
school in regard to content or student
educational practices
Systematic Thinking through
CLM
•
Horizontal & vertical alignment of
instructional practices, interventions and
formative assessments
•
Horizontal & Vertical alignment, K-5:
•
•
•
•
Genres
Comprehension Strategies
Thoughtful Log & Rubric
Progress Monitoring (formative
& summative)
Progress Monitoring Targets Instruction
Past Practice
•Screening: PLAA
Systematic Thinking
through CLM
•
Screening: PLAA
•
Weekly GL PD meetings will include dialogue
in regard to student progress and
collaboratively designed formative
assessments
•
Progress Monitoring quarterly for the PMW
using TRL & Thoughtful Log Rubric
•
•
•
Weekly PM for Tier 2
•Diagnostic, formative assessments done at
teacher discretion. Rarely shared. Random &
not aligned.
•Progress Monitoring PLAA at Quarter 2 & 3
•Outcome, summative assessments: PLAA,
WKCE, ACCESS
Daily for Tier 3
Core teacher & Interventionist meet for at
least 10 minutes every 2-3 weeks to discuss
student progress
Progress Monitoring Wall
As a school
Progress Monitoring Wall
As a proficiency level
As a grade level
Progress Monitoring Wall
As a student
As a class
After Lunch...
The Tangible Systems
Progress Monitoring Wall
Learning Environment
Vertical Alignment
My Thoughtful Log
Before you leave,
please record any
‘Gots & Wants’ you
may have...
Progress Monitoring Wall
Past Practice
•
Assessment Wall used to capture a “snapshot”
of student proficiency in Reading at various
points in time.
Systematic Thinking through
CLM
•
Progress Monitoring Wall shifts our thinking from a
noun to a verb.
•
Decisions about when to move students on the
AW changed each year.
•
•
Staff meetings: beginning of the year and at each
quarter. Three half hour rotations.
Decisions about what information to put on the
AW changed each year.
•
Vertical alignment of formative and summative
assessment information is agreed upon and
consistently used.
•
Consistent coding system: honors student and
teacher privacy, clearly shows school-wide, grade
level proficiency performance, and intensity of
student service delivery.
•
Decisions about how to share/code information
on the AW changed each year.
•
Decisions about how to use the information to
reduce the achievement gap changed each year.
•
Decisions about who was responsible for
monitoring the use of the AW changed each year
or was neglected and abandoned.
Progress Monitoring Wall
Past Practice
•
•
•
Assessment Wall used to capture a “snapshot”
of student proficiency in Reading at various
points in time.
Systematic Thinking through
CLM
•
Decisions about when to move students on the
AW changed each year.
Decisions about what information to put on the
AW changed each year.
•
Decisions about how to share/code information
on the AW changed each year.
•
Decisions about how to use the information to
reduce the achievement gap changed each year.
•
Decisions about who was responsible for
monitoring the use of the AW changed each year
or was neglected and abandoned.
•
The PMW is used at the:
•
Teacher level to see classroom movement
•
Grade level to see movement and use collective
knowledge of gaps to make decisions with
Interventionists about student services.
School-wide level to see the degree to which the CLM is
effective and made visible through percentages shown for
proficiency levels.IRTs are responsible for
organization.Teachers are responsible for bringing necessary
assessment information at the appointed
time.Interventionists are responsible for reviewing the
movement at a school-wide level to find gaps of student
services.IRT is responsible for facilitating the discussion at
grade level meetings for changes in student services.
Progress Monitoring Wall
Consistent Criteria
Beginning of year:
Fall PLAA TRL testing results used (K exception)
Spring cut scores determine proficiency levels
Quarters 1-4:
Thoughtful Log Rubric Proficiency Level
PLAA Proficiency Level for TRL
Kindergarten:
Beginning of Year and Quarter 1
PLAA LID- UC
PLAA Dictation
Organizing for Literacy
Creating a Climate for Learning
Climate Shares a Relationship with Learning
• Climate refers to the physical conditions,
• such as temperature or the noise level in
the area, and also affective dimensions,
such as how safe the reader feels, how
competent, even how he feels about others
around him or her.
What Does the Research Say?
Marzano and Pickering et al., 1997; McCombs and Barton, 1998)
• Research suggest that students learn best in
a pleasant, friendly climate where they
• feel accepted by their teachers and peers,
• feel a sense of safety and order because
academic expectations, instruction, and the
purpose for assignments are clear;
• feel confident in their ability to complete tasks
successfully; and
• see the value in the learning activities
Workshop Principles
Acceptance
• Children report feeling accepted when their teachers listen
to them and respect their opinions.
Workshop Principles
Acceptance
Teachers communicate acceptance by:
• Showing interest not only in how students perform in class
but also in their extracurricular activities.
• Calling students by their preferred names, and making eye
contact,
• Planning varied activities that address different learning
styles and that capitalize on individual differences,
encouraging even the unassertive students to participate in
discussions.
ALL of these help students feel like they matter!