Transcript The Memphis Striving Readers Project

The Memphis Striving Readers
Project
Presented by
Research for Better Schools
Striving Readers Conference
March 13 - 14, 2008
Washington D.C.
Motivation behind MSRP
• Memphis is one of the cities with the highest educational need in
the U.S.
–
–
–
–
24.3% of adults has less than a HS education
36.7% have HS diploma or equivalent
30.5% has an Associate’s degree or some college
8.5% has at least a Bachelor’s degree
• MCS is 21st largest K12 district in US >116,000 students
–
–
–
–
–
Over 95% of MCS’ 196 schools are Title I schools
71% of MCS students qualify for free/reduced price lunch
MCS students are 87% African American; 9% White; 4% “other”
In 85% of MCS schools, 33% of students change schools during year
71.5% of students in grades 6 - 8 scored below the 50th percentile on TCAP
(Reading/Language Arts)
Memphis Schools:
Comparisons with Schools Nationwide
Overall MSRP Goals
To determine:
1.
The effects of MCLA on core subject teachers’ knowledge and use of
SBRR
2.
The separate and combined effects of MCLA and Read 180 on students’
reading achievement levels, especially students who are identified as
struggling readers
3.
The separate and combined effects of MCLA and Read 180 on students’
achievement in core subjects, especially students who are identified as
struggling readers
Rationale for Memphis Content Literacy
Academy
(MCLA; Cooter & Cooter, 2003)
Refined and
Expanded
Capacity
Practice with
Coaching
Deeper Learning with
Limited Capacity
First
Exposure
No
Knowledge
Emphasis: “Deep Training”
(180 hours over two years) …
Expertise
& Ability
to Coach
Others
MCLA: Random Assignment of Schools
Demographic Characteristics of Year 1 MCLA
Student Sample
Student Characteristic
Controla
Treatment a
All Schools a
Enrolled in Grade 6
817 (31.6%)
690 (28.4%) 1507 (30.1%)
Enrolled in Grade 7
945 (36.6%)
883 (36.3%) 1828 (36.5%)
Enrolled in Grade 8
821 (31.8%)
857 (35.3%) 1678 (33.5%)
Female
1295 (50.1%)
1291 (53.1%) 2586 (51.6%)
Male
1288 (49.9%)
1139 (46.9%) 2427 (48.4%)
African-American
2375 (91.9%)
2374 (97.7%) 4749 (94.7%)
Hispanic
193
(7.5%)
49
(2.0%)
242
(4.8%)
Free or Reduced Lunch
2235 (86.5%)
2175 (89.5%) 4410 (88.0%)
English Language Learner
143
(5.5%)
27
(1.1%)
170
(3.4%)
Total
2583 (100%)
2430 (100%) 5013 (100%)
a
P ercentages are based on the total numbers of students in control, treatment, or all schools.
MCLA Program Logic Model
Inputs
Funding, staff, curriculum resource
center, facilities, incentives, research
materials
Activities
Principals
Attend 45-hour sessions/yr (2 yrs)
Participate in motivational, recruitment
and celebratory events
Discuss MCLA at faculty meetings
Outputs
Principals
45 hours of Principal Fellowship
participation
100% of principals incorporate
plan for using MCLA strategies in
SIP
100% attendance of key MCLA
events
80% of principals report actively
supporting the program
100% of MCLA schools have
allocated space for the CRC
Conduct walkthrough observations
Provide opptys for teacher collab
Allocate space for CRC materials
Teachers
Attend 30 weekly 3-hour MCLA
training sessions/yr (2 years)
Develop and implement 8 CAPs per
year in collab content-area groups
Meet with coaches for feedback to
improve impl of MCLA strategies
Learn to use of leveled texts to support
SR content literacy needs
Students
Learn to use MCLA strategies to
read/react to content related text (
Teachers
90 of hours of MCLA training/yr
for 2 years (180 hours)
Engage in weekly coaching
sessions or as needed to meet
teachers’ differentiated needs
8 CAP “cycles” completed each
year for two years
100% of teachers complete
performance measures identifying
supplemental resources
available/those necessary to
support content area instruction
Short–term Outcomes
Principals
Awareness of and interest in staff
implementation of MCLA concepts
and strategies
Increased advocacy for school-wide
use of MCLA strategies
Teachers
Increased knowledge about MCLA
strategies
Improved preparedness to use
research-based literacy strategies to
teach core academic content
Increased use of direct, explicit
instruction to teach research-based
comprehension, fluency, and
vocabulary strategies in content area
classes
Integrated use of multiple MCLA
strategies to support ongoing
development of content-related
instructional units
Students
Increased familiarity with and use of
MCLA strategies when engaging
with text
Students
Increased internalization of
literacy strategies
50% of students attend 4 classes
taught daily by teachers
participating in MCLA
Increased confidence engaging with
content related texts
Students learn to use 7 of 8
MCLA CAP strategies
Increased interest in school/learning
Long-term Outcomes
Principals
Improved school climate
School-wide plans include focus on
content literacy
Improved instructional leadership
Teachers
Increased effectiveness supporting
students’ content literacy
development
Continued collaboration among
community of teachers to develop
and implement CAPs
Students
Improved reading achievement and
content literacy:
10% increase in students scoring
proficient in Reading/LA and other
subject areas of TCAP
mean increase of five NCEs on ITBS
Increased performance on gateway
and EOC exams
Higher Quality Teaching
Higher Student Achievement
MCLA Innovation Configuration Map Framework
MCLA:
Roles/Responsibilities & Training
Roles/Responsibilities
Training
MCS Administrators:
• Participate in Principal’s Fellowship
• Support recruitment and retention efforts
• Link MCLA w/School Improvement Plan
• Observe MCLA teachers
(once/marking period)
• Allocate space for CRC materials
• Protect/respect role of coach
Provided by the Developer:
• 3-hour weekly principal meetings
(fall;Year 1)
• 3-hour weekly teacher training sessions
per content area (180 hours over 2 years)*
• PD for coaches in
Developer:
• Design MCLA curricula
(for teachers & principals)
•
•
•
Facilitate writing team activities
Meet weekly w/instructors (& coaches)
Disseminate research about adolescent SR
Mentorship; Urban education; Adolescent lit
Provided by MCS (coaches):
• On-site observation of CAPs
• Model/co-teach strategies
• Feedback
• Supplemental resources
*has included coaches since spring 2007
MCLA Classroom Model
•
Gradual release of responsibility
(teacher modeling, guided practice, independent practice, independent use)
•
Integration of 12 literacy strategies (before, during, and after reading text)
(vocabulary, fluency & comprehension)
•
Development of Classroom Action Plans (CAPs)
(content area lesson plans for strategy implementation including procedures for
student assessment)
•
On-site support provided by coaches
•
Use of Curriculum Resource Center (CRC) materials
MCLA: Implementation Barriers/Changes
Barriers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Limited development/planning time
Need for coaches with disciplinary content knowledge and/or literacy education expertise
Challenges in establishing a critical mass of enrolled teachers at each school
CRC materials not received until spring 2007
Pressure to focus on TCAP test preparation (spring)
Difficulty maintaining principal attendance at weekly meetings
Teacher mobility during training (reassignments, personal moves)
Conflicting school district initiatives affecting training time and motivation
Changes:
•
•
•
•
•
Adoption of CREDE (UC-Berkeley) JPA instructional model
Reduction in the number of CAPs required of teachers
Shortened class schedule/more intensive work with coaches (in Year 2)
Inclusion of special education teachers among those eligible to enroll
Restructured Principal Fellowship
(includes other school leaders; meets monthly)
MCLA: Counterfactual
• Teachers participate in PD on a variety of topics provided by the district,
school and/or others, or at professional conferences (including READ 180
training)
*Note: Prior to SR, MCS engaged in a three-year district-wide comprehensive
literacy program (CLP) in which several SR schools (both conditions)
participated.
READ 180 Classroom Model
READ 180: Enrolled Students
Demographic Characteristics of the Year 1 Read 180 ITT Sample
Student Characteristic
Enrolled in Grade 6
Enrolled in Grade 7
Enrolled in Grade 8
Female
Male
African-American
Hispanic
Free or Reduced Lunch
English Language Learner
Total
Controla
392 (37.6%)
370 (35.5%)
280 (26.9%)
465 (44.6%)
577 (55.4%)
955 (91.7%)
86
(8.3%)
931 (89.3%)
83
(8.0%)
1042 (100%)
Treatment a
239 (34.2%)
233 (33.4%)
226 (32.4%)
286 (41.0%)
412 (59.0%)
657 (94.1%)
40 (5.7%)
619 (88.7%)
34 (4.9%)
698 (100%)
Total a
631 (36.3%)
603 (34.7%)
506 (29.1%)
751 (43.2%)
989 (56.8%)
1612 (92.6%)
126 (7.2%)
1550 (89.1%)
117 (6.7%)
1740 (100%)
READ 180: Roles/Responsibilities & Training
Roles/Responsibilities
Training
MCS Administrators:
• Purchase equipment & supplies
• Hire/assign READ 180 teachers
• Arrange schedule (90 minute)
• Roster randomly assigned students
Developer:
• 2 full days of teacher PD*
• 7 two-hour network meetings*
• PD for principals & technology
coordinator
• On-site technical support, as needed
• Online Red Course
(teachers & coaches)
Developer:
• Technical implementation check
(within 4 weeks)
• One year unlimited (limited) support
• Review MCS data & provide
recommendations
Provided by MCS:
• Classroom support, as requested
*includes coaches
READ 180: Implementation
Changes & Barriers
Changes:
• First day of teacher training divided into two groups
• Followup training was 2 days
• Year One training for administrators and implementation support were not provided
• Substituted boom boxes for CD players
Cross-Site Variation:
• Differential school-level participation in PD
• Special education students not rostered for READ 180 at some schools
• Adherence to 90-minute model; daily use of materials
Barriers:
• Equipment delays
• Evaluation “Firewall” (implementation)
• Teacher contracts prevent MCS from requiring attendance of meetings held after
hours