"WRITINGS" ON PROGRAM EVALUATION -LITERACYWritings on Program EvaluationLiteracy Formal Program EvaluationsLiteracy 1. PreK-3 Literacy Plan (with needs assessment, see pp. 12-26), June 1999 2. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, June 24, 1999, requesting their review of the proposed PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan 3. Report on Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers, May 10, 2000 4. Definition of Proficient for the Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2, May 2000 5. Report on Spring 2000 Developmental Reading Assessment, Percent At or Above Readiness 6. Correlation StudyAmount of Training Hours and Student Achievement on the Developmental Reading Assessment, Spring 2000 7. Correlation StudyMultiple Comparisons of Effect of Four Approaches to Literacy Development, Spring 2000 8. Executive Summary, Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, July 2000 9. Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, August 2000 10. Updated Draft of Title I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation, December 2000 11. Progress Report on Elementary Literacy Plan to Board of Education, January 2001 12. Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, June 2001, presented to Board of Education 13. Copies of slide presentation to Board of Education on PreK-3 Literacy Program, June 2001 <^7 14. E-mail to principals and Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of the formal Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan to the Board of Education, plus the Highlights documents, and a copy of the presentation slides. 15. E-mail to elementary principals and other staff from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching tables of DRA results by middle school feeder pattern.Formal Program EvaluationsSuccess for All 16. Evaluation of Success for All Programs, Little Rock School District, Year 1: 1997-98 by Steve Ross, Mary McNelis, Tracey Lewis, and Steve Loomis, University of Memphis 17. Evaluation of Success for All Program, Little Rock School District, Year 2: 1998-99 by Weipling Want and Steven Ross, University of Memphis, July 1999 Success for All 18. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 1, 1999, Learning Links, assigning supervision of the Success for All program in the Division of Instruction for greater effectiveness 19. Memorandum to Kathy Lease from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 31, 1999, attaching a copy of a contract for the evaluation of the Success for All program 20. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA staff, Oct. 8, 1999, setting up training on Success for All 21. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 11, 1999, providing to them copies of their contracts with the University of Memphis for SFA services ^^7 22. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 15, 1999, providing them a study on SFA effectiveness
attached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, by Jeanne Weiler, ERIC. 23. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, suggesting that data analysis indicates SFA not being effective in their schools
attached tables. 24. Report on Success for All Inservice activities, 1999-2000 School Year 25. Reports from eight-week assessments in Success for All schools, 1999-2000. ^35 26. Success for All Implementation Report for December 1, 1999 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice aimually) 27. Success for All Implementation Reports for Spring 2001 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) ^^5Formal Program Evaluations-English as a Second Language 28. Executive Summary, English as a Second Language Program Evaluation, July 2000 29. English as a Second Language Program Evaluation (submitted to Office of Civil Rights), October 2000Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Little Rock School District Division of Instruction June 1999 In short, literacy is key. to success in school and beyond, for effective participation in the workforce, the community, and the body politic. This was true in the pasteven more true in the future, (p. 1, Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. NREL, 1998)Table of Contents Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan 1 1 Background The Strategic Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Campus Leadership Plan The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative Title I Other Special Populations Summary 2 2 3 5 5 6 7 8 Methodology Core Committee Members 8 11 Involvement and Communication 11 Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests SAT9 Implications for Social Promotion Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) Professional Community Support for Students Conclusions 12 12 12 12 14 15 21 22 23 Review of Research 24 Plan Goals 26 PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Organizational Changes HIPPY Title I Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios 29 30 30 30 32^Minimized/Eliminoted Pullouts J\lo New Programs Program Abandonment Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers Waiver Application Requirements Curriculum and Instruction Alignment Daily Schedule Technology in PreK-3 Limited-English Proficient Students Special Education and 504 Students Gifted/Talented Students Frequent Assessment and Regrouping Phonemic Awareness Early Literacy Learning (ELLA) Effective Literacy Thematic Instruction The Social Nature of Learning Role of the Library/Media Center Supplemental Reading Materials Assessment/Srading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment New Elementary Report Card PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation Professional Development ELLA Effective Literacy Success for All Smart Start Professional Development School-Level Professional Development Principal Development Interventions Success for All Reading Recovery Direct Instruction English-as-a-Second Language Reading Clinic ^^Summer School 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 IParent Education/Involvement Par^|-School Compacts Parent Education Conclusions Timelines 48 48 48 49 51Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Little Rock School District June 1999 Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff, interested parents, consulting colleagues, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School District students. This 1996 undertaking became the first of an array of important planning efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 21^ century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the District's desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, was literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue that has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSD is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement, professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. 10^ 4 Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. Strategy 2" of that plan is as follows
In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. I The Action Plan designed to achieve Strategy 2" delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. "Strategy 3" speaks to the importance of improved student achievement
We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50^^ percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The Strategy 3" Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3: a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction
expansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills
2the development of an intervention team at each schooj which provides systemic support including professional dev^pment for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3
and promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the District's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the District's attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Section 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level
LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. b. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page
Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences
c. Promote thematic instruction
d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills
3z. f. g- h. i. j- k. I. A^nitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to_ochieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms
e Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction
Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices
Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students
Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences
Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms
Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day
and Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. e 4jSWo 2.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs ... after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2,12.2 LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the District's Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas
( 51. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and mathematics. 2. Staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. 3. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. 4. Accountability - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs conducted during 1998-99 included training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the state's Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4, and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams were continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the District's Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the District's elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students "acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the 6challenging State performance standards developed for all children." federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: The a. Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards
b. Providing children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. c. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences
d. Significantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development
e. Coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources, f. Affording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school
9- Improving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children
and h. Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all catecories of so-called "at-risk" students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students for special programs and services. 7Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSD Strategic Plan
Section 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
academic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan
Smart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability
Title I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I
and the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with oil the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the District's Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court-approved Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School District has established as a goal that "by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page." District personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSD 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the Division of Instruction
1 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Oy' / 821. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching "best practices" within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above
the committee first identified and then completed the following action steps: 1. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. 2. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. 3. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. 9I 4. Identified all "supplemental'' reading programs currently in use in the District's primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative
also determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. 5. Compared District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of District curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. 6. Drew conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. 7. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. 10Early Literacy Core CoH^ittee Members: Pat Price, Early Childhood Sene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Suldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement had already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy before the work of this specific plan. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities occurred during March, April, May, and early June 1999 to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee began a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Copies of the draft plan were sent to every elementary principal and every PreK-3 teacher in the Little Rock School District for their review and discussion, and numerous presentations were made to various groups. The June 2-3-4 inservice focused in large part on discussions of the plan. Once the review and input process was completed and the committee had had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal was presented to the Board of Education for their review in June 1999. 11Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the District are performing at the "Below Basic" level on the Arkansas criterion- referenced tests, and far too few students are performing at the "Proficient" or "Advanced" levels. These data are one indication that current practices are not as effective as they must be to achieve District goals relating to student achievement. Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy Summary Report, Spring 1998 LRSb District 42^0 Below Basic 28% Basic 28% Proficient 2%. Advanced Region 34% Below Basic 29% Basic 34% Proficient 2% Advanced State 33% Below Basic 30% Basic 35% Proficient 2% Advanced An area of concern is that 48 percent of grade 4 males performed at the "Below Basic" level, compared to 35 percent of females. Fifty-three percent of African American grade 4 students performed at the "Below Basic" level, compared to 20 percent of white students. These gaps are, of course, unacceptable and are indicators that current practice is not effective. Only minor improvements occurred in the Spring 1999 results. Sixty-eight percent performed at the "Below Basic" and "Basic" levels, and 32 percent performed at the "Proficient" and "Advanced" levels. SAT9, Grade 3 Reading (Stanford Achievement Test) Data from the Fall 1998 administration of the grade 3 SAT9 also confirm that too many students are not learning how to read well by grade 3. SAT9 reports student performance in four categories or levels
0 12e Level 1 indicates little or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills (roughly equating to the Below Basic" level on the state tests). Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for satisfactory work (roughly equating to "Basic" level on the state tests). Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade (roughly equating to Proficient" level on the state tests). Level 4 signifies performance beyond grade level mastery (roughly equating to "Advanced" level on the state tests). LRSD posted the following percentages at each level of performance on the grade 3 reading subtest of the SAT9 in fall 1998
Subtests________ Total Reading____ Word Study Skills Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Language________ Spelling_________ Listening________ % Level 1 23 19 20 31 22 15 13 % Level 2 43 46 38 39 40 39 45 % Level 3 28 22 31 23 30 28 32 To Level 4 7 13 11 7 8 18 10 The grade 3 Reading Comprehension subtest of SAT9 is most like the Arkansas reading test in terms of difficulty. In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the "Proficient" or "Advanced" levels (Levels 3 and 4), again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3. The states proposed new accountability system, ACTAAP, states that 100 percent of the students are expected to perform at the "Proficient" level or above. Another indicator of need is that a large majority of all the schools participating in the Title I program in 1998-99 were identified for "School Improvement," indicating that they had failed to make acceptable growth gains for two consecutive years. In such a case the District is mandated by the State and the federal regulations to intervene with "corrective actions" 13 to assist schools in improving performance. An analysis of those schools' programs revealea#hat not only were their Title I programs not be^' effective, but neither was the regular education program effective. Implications for Social Promotion The issue of social promotion is a concern throughout the country and in Arkansas. Social promotion is the long-standing practice of administrative placement of overage students at the next grade level even though the student is most likely not academically prepared to be successful at that next grade level. Citizens all over the country are calling for an end to this practice, and LRSD must respond to that call. To do so, however, without changes in programs, practices, and opportunities to learn, the District would simply be punishing the under-prepared, overage student. In the early grades, failure to achieve grade-level expectations in reading is the primary reason for retention. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 267) This PreK-3 Literacy Plan, therefore, includes provisions for the following: Changes in curriculum through the newly developed local academic content standards and grade-level benchmarks
Changes in instruction through the adoption of research-based instructional strategies and professional development programs
Changes in assessment through the addition of research-based assessment strategies at kindergarten and grade 1 designed to both diagnose reading difficulties and to assess progress at the student, school, and District levels
Early interventions for students at risk of not learning to read through the HIPPY program changes, pre-kindergarten program, ESL program, and an emphasis on the reading clinic at grade 1, followed by summer school for K-1 students who are not performing at grade level. 14 Changes in the District's promotion and retention policy that would end social promotion for LRSD students, startin^U^ith grade 1 in 1999-2000. Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) There are several quality management needs that are addressed in this plan. The first relates to what W. Edward Deming called "constancy of purpose.' For instance, it is difficult to describe or to assess the effectiveness of the current LRSD prek-3 curriculum since what is taught differs not only from school to school, but from teacher to teacher in the same school teaching the same grade level. Such fragmentation and lack of defined curriculum are especially harmful to low-performing, mobile children. Every time the family moves, the young child not only has to adjust to a new environment, a new school, a new teacher or teachers, and new peers, but also, in many cases, a totally different curriculum and approach to instruction. About the time he/she begins to be comfortable, the family may move again, and the confusion returns to the extent that the child may feel that school and confusion are one and the same. These events tend to de-motivate the student to learn and to lessen his/her sense of efficacybelief that he/she can learn. The LRSD Board of Directors approved new Reading/Language Arts Standards for grades kindergarten through grade six in April 1998. Additional work has been done on these standards to ensure that they are precisely aligned with the revised Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and with the intent of the new statewide Smart Start Initiative. Also, specific grade-level benchmarks have been developed in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies so that teachers, students, and parents may be as clear as possible about what it is that students are expected to know and be able to do. These grade level benchmarks will serve as the basis for designing quarterly criterion-referenced tests to be used to check individual student progress in relation to achievement of each grade level standard. Secondly, there is in several schools a proliferation of disparate "programs," and both reviews of those lists and interviews with the principal and teachers of those schools reveal many times a lack of understanding of how 15 the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are intendec^^solve (lack of alignment). The LRSD Title I plan filed with the Arkansas Department of Education, for example, reveals this problem of lack of "constancy of purpose" with its long list of Title I programs by school. Many different supplemental programs/philosophies are being used in the elementary schools. Three of these are technology programs
Jostens, New Century, and the Computer Curriculum Corporation Program. The remaining reading and/or language arts programs/methods include the following: Reading Recovery, ELLA, Success for All, Accelerated Reader, Open Court, Shurley Method, Metro Phonics Program, Carbo Reading Styles, McRat, Writing to Read, Companion Reading, Writing to Write, SRA Labs, High Action Reading Program, Discovery Phonics, Junior Great Books, Reading Is Fundamental, DISTAR, and HOSTS. The duration of implementation of these programs varies from one semester to one to four years per school. As many as eight supplemental reading/language arts programs have been implemented at the same time in some schools. For example, four elementary schools are implementing one program, ten schools are implementing two programs, ten schools are implementing three programs, three schools are implementing four programs, four schools are implementing five programs, three schools are implementing six programs, and one school is implementing eight. The program descriptions for the most popular programs are as follows
Jostens, New Century, and Computer Curriculum Corporation {CCC} These systems are computer-based instructional programs. All three are integrated learning systems that provide lessons. practice, and assessment in reading, language arts, and mathematics. A management system for each one provides individualized instruction for students along with a reporting system on student progress. Jostens and CCC include lessons for grades K-6. New Century is appropriate for grades 3-6. it 16 Reading Recovery. This intensive early-intervention literacy program features the following
1. One to one tutoring program 2. Individualized instruction 3. Specially trained teachers 4. Literacy support groups 5. Home/school reading connection 6. Ongoing assessment Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA). This is a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. The content of the staff development consists of the following
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction Reading process Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding 6. Phonemic awareness 7. Letter discrimination/recognition 8. Letter/sound relationship 9. Recognizing high frequency words 10. Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis 11. Vocabulary development 12. Comprehension strategies 13. Classroom management and organization 14. Parent involvement 15. Authentic assessment/standardized test. Success for All. This program restructures elementary schools to make certain every child learns to read in the early grades. It provides specific curricula and instructional strategies for teaching reading. Primary features are as follows. 1. School-wide reading curriculum 2. Cooperative learning 173. Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessment every 8 weeks) 4. 5. Tutoring for students in need of extra assist Family support team. ice Accelerated Reader. This individualized program allows each student to move at his or her own pace and level of ability. This program's strength is the development of fluency/automaticity and the improvement of comprehension skills. Parental involvement is crucial to the success of this program. Primary features are as follows: 1, 2. 3. Students choice of books from a list of carefully selected books Individualized reading that allow students to move at his or her own pace Computerized tests that measures student comprehension 4. Parental Involvement. Open Court. This phonics program centers on student drill, using a wall sound card chart. Shurley Method. This program is a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions through jingles. Metro Phonics Program. This phonics program uses student drills and worksheets and reading exercises. Direct Instruction. This program includes teacher development and carefully organized reading sequences. Through teacher training and in-class coaching, teachers in the lower grades learn to present highly interactive lessons to small groups. Primary features are as follows: 181. Field-tested reading, language arts, and mathematics curricula 2. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training. Carbo Reading Styles. This program is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the student's preferred style of reading. Primary features include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Teachers diagnosing students' strengths and accommodating them with a range of effective reading strategies Carbo Recorded - Book method Comfortable, relaxed settings Individual and small group work. HOSTS (Help One Student to Succeed! This structured mentoring program in language arts/reading, mathematics, and Spanish language arts is an instructional strategy that is tailored to a state's, district's, and school's language arts/reading objectives and philosophies. Primary features as follows: are 1. Database and software programs aligned with the school and district's curriculum 2. Students matched with trained parents, businesses, community volunteer mentors, who work to strengthen students' reading, writing, vocabulary development, study skills, and higher-order thinking skills 3. Mentors provide role models of successful people who motivate, support, and provide individual student attention. McRat. This two-year staff development process helps teachers infuse higher-order thinking, multicultural concepts, and performance-based assessment into the existing curriculum. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 192. 3. 4. Instruction focused on four higher-order thinking skillsanalysis, comparison, inference, and eyc^Oation that students can use in all academic subjects and transfer to practical life situations. Reading and writing skills and strategies that are taught through real reading and writing experiences. Assessment involving performance-based techniques with emphasis on pre- and post-writing assignments. Portfolios used as systematic organized collections of evidence to monitor student growth in skill development. Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. This program is an additional program/philosophy connected with Smart Start and is being pursued by some elementary schools. This program features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers. The content of the staff development consists of the following components
( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation Reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing 10. Classroom management and organization 11. Assessment 12. Parental involvement. Thirdly, there is currently a lack of alignment in the design of the general education and Title I programs with each other or with the State's curriculum frameworks and its new Smart Start initiative or with what is tested. In a curriculum mapping activity early in 1998-99, the staff found major gaps in what had previously been established as the District's^ 20 curriculum standards and what was actually being tested on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT9) or the State's criterion-referenced tes
^that are aligned with State academic standards. An obvious conclusion is that it is entirely possible that a major reason for some schools' low performance is that they are not exposing the children to the curriculum on which tests are based. Past implementation of District curriculum, in summary, has been inconsistent from school to school due to a variety of factors. These include time allotted to reading/language arts instruction, pull-out programs, lack of comprehensive teacher training, lack of staff to monitor and assist all schools, incompatible supplemental programs, lack of consistent use of district-adopted reading program, lack of cohesive ongoing assessment, and lack of sufficient funding aimed at achieving continuity of effort from grade level to grade level within each school and from school to school within the district. Additional curriculum coordination is needed to ensure continuity of effort and appropriate transition from experiential learning to skill acquisition among Pre-K, K, and primary level literacy education efforts across the District. Professional Community Research on what works in school restructuring finds that successful and effective schools are those with several identifiable characteristics, including strong professional learning communities. Such schools have a staff who, due to their shared beliefs about student learning and their shared commitment to improvement, engage in ongoing professional development. Their learning is embedded in their work and is totally focused on improvement of every child's academic performance. It will take the form of team meetings where teachers collaboratively plan lessons and thematic units, where they learn and practice effective teaching strategies, and where they collaboratively write and administer assessments and then evaluate student work in the team, not privately. If observing a professional community, one would expect to see ongoing action research, data analysis, discussions of individual and group performance of students, inquiry, reflection, and rich dialogue. 21In speaking with principals and teachers, one would find inconsistent evidence of thes^(|Etivities. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that at least some of the staff do not understand why the school has in place the programs that it has. There is in those schools a lack of opportunities for professional development, lack of research on what works, lack of a theory base, lack of data analysis and program evaluation, and lack of structures and organization that facilitate and make the time for teachers to engage in the very activities that would enhance student achievement. Support for Students Quality management principles insist that processes and procedures should be examined on an ongoing basis so that if students are failing to learn at an acceptable level, then adjustments and modifications must be made immediately to prevent as much failure at the end of the year as possible. End-of-year inspectionstest administrationsare too expensive and too late to modify the practices that led to the failure to start with, and so the cycle begins again with another group of children, many of whom will also fail. Although teachers currently assess on an ongoing basis as a part of their day-to-day work, these assessments do not necessarily lead to changes in school or teacher practices at all or in any change in what the student is experiencing. In other words, those frequent assessments are used more frequently to label students than they are to inform teacher practice, and then at the end of the school year, the school declares many students to be failures. The Arkansas criterion-referenced examinations are administered near the end of the year and only to grade 4 at the elementary level. If schools wait until grade 4 to identify a low-performing student, then the problem is almost beyond solution. SAT9 examinations are administered in the fall, but by the time teachers receive the data and have opportunities to conduct analyses, they are well into the school year and routines/ programs are already set. Students may have already failed one or two quarters, and the results at this point are not very helpful in diagnosing individual student needs. At the end of the year there are currently only three options for a failing K- 3 student
to be retained in grade
to attend summer school to earn promotion
or to be promoted to the next grade without requisite knowledge and skills to be Successful at that level. Only a few elementary schools are 22n currently using their funds for extended day programs, and there does not appear even in some of these a well-designed or articulated program. Clearly, then, the District must put into place the structures and practices that predict student success and prevent failure to every extent possible. In addition, there must be processes in every school to identify as early as possible any learning difficulties, to make immediate adjustments and modifications in instruction, and to provide extended time to learn through pre-school programs and during the school year. Conclusions In terms of quality management, then, the District has reviewed its processes and identified several challenging needs
improve student achievement and end the practice of social promotion
ensure curriculum/instruction alignment and coherence
provide research-based curriculum and instruction
provide professional development for administrators, teachers, and other staff and create professional learning communities in each school
improve assessment practices and the use of data
provide appropriate prevention and intervention programs to support student success
improve communication with and involvement of parents/guardians.
23Review of Research 5 This plan reflects the very latest research available on early childhood education, emergent literacy, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someone's reading skill at the end of grade 3. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 31) The following are common characteristics that make a practice a best practice" (from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 1998, Heinemann). These are the underlying threads that tie together any successful effort in teaching reading and language arts, and the committee endeavored to ensure that each was included in the program design for the PreK-3 Literacy Program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reading means getting meaning from print. Reading is a process. Hearing books read aloud is the beginning of learning to read. Beginning reading instruction should provide children with many opportunities to interact with print. Reading is the best practice for learning to read. An effective reading program exposes students to a wide and rich array of print and goes beyond the use of the basal. Choice is an integral part of literate behavior. Teachers should model reading. Effective teachers of reading help children actively use reading and writing as tools for learning. 10. Children learn reading best in a low-risk environment. 11. Young children should have well-structured instruction in phonics. However, phonics is not a subject in itself, but rather a tool. 2412. Teachers should provide daily opportunities for children to share and discuss what they have been reading and writing. 13. In an effective reading program, students spend less time completing workbooks and skill sheets. 14. Writing experiences are provided at all grade levels. 15. Reading assessment should match classroom practice. 16. Schools that are effective in teaching reading have an ethos that supports reading. .. .the performance of kindergartners on tests of phonological awareness is a strong predictor of their future reading achievement. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 54)_________________________________________ .,. the arguments for including spelling instruction as a major component of the reading program are strong. Learning about spelling reinforces children's knowledge about common letter sequences. It also reinforces their knowledge about spelling-sound relationships and may help children become aware of word parts. Because of this, spelling practice enhances reading proficiency. (Beginning to Read: Thinking Qnd Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 103) According to research and analysis of the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress results on the grade 4 reading examination ( Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able To Do" by Linda Darling Hammond and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, 1997, in Implementing Academic Standards, p. D-7), there are several teacher characteristics that are highly correlated with student success in reading
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Teachers having coursework in literature-based instruction Teachers having coursework in integrated approaches to teaching language arts and reading Teachers having coursework in phonics Teachers having coursework in study strategies Teachers having coursework in motivational strategies. 25Zemelman, Daniels^ and Hyde also have synthesized the research on *^st practice" in teachi^^jwriting. The exemplary writing activities are as^> follows
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. All children can and should write. Teachers must help students find real purposes to write. Students need to take ownership and responsibility. Effective writing programs involve the complete writing process. Teachers can help students get started. Teachers help students draft and revise. Grammar and mechanics are best learned in the context of actual writing. Students need real audiences and a classroom context of shared learning. Writing should extend throughout the curriculum. ! 10. Effective teachers use evaluation constructively and efficiently. ... for young or uncertain readers, the potential contribution of writing to reading runs deeper than any concern of form or style. In particular, as children become authors, as they struggle to express, refine, and reach audiences through their own writing, they actively come to grips with the most important reading insights of all. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 104) Plan Goals The Superintendent and the staff of the Little Rock School District propose this PreK-3 Literacy Plan to achieve the following goals
1. To end the practice of "social promotion" (admin itrative placement of students to the next grade) in the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators
Revised Board policy on social promotion Focus of resources on extended day, summer school, and other appropriate interventions to prevent failure at K-1 262. To put into place at grades PreK-3 (and then to phase in at higher grades) the curriculum, instruction, and assessments, plus necessary supports for students so that increasing percentages of children meet the rigorous academic standards established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators: Increasing percentages of students at kindergarten and grades 1-3 who are performing at grade level on literacy measures adopted by the District Increasing percentages of students performing at the "Proficient" and Advanced" levels on the grade 4 Arkansas benchmark literacy examination 3. To ensure that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. Performance Indicators: Increasing percentages of students performing at grade level on grade 3 reading assessment Increasing percentages of students performing above the 50^ percentile on the grade 3 norm-referenced test 4. To improve student achievement in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking as measured by norm- and criterion- referenced tests determined by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators: See #2 and #3 above. 5. To prevent, to the extent possible, the need for special education and 504 referrals and services for reading disabilities. Performance Indicators
Decreasing percentages of students at grades k-4 referred for special education or 504 identification due to reading disabilities 276. To improve communication with and the involvement of parents of PreK-3 children, including those who speak a language other than English. Performance Indicators: Results of parent surveys Records of new communication strategies 7. To meet the obligations and commitments made to the community in the District's Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to align with the State's Smart Start Initiative and Title I regulations. Performance Indicators
Work Plan Reports Compliance Reports Title I reports 8. To improve, over time, the overall academic success and graduation rates of students in the Little Rock School District. Performance Indicators
Building-level report cards Accountability reports, local and state Effective early reading instruction is crucial to all children. All children must learn to read so that they can read to learn. Since all future learning is predicated on the ability to read, every child requires the best possible foundation in reading. (Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 2) 28PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Many of the ingredients for success are already in place at the District level. The new reading/language arts standards and benchmarks are based on the best thinking within the discipline and are aligned with state and national reading education entities. These standards call for rigorous learning experiences for all students that are focused, comprehensive, and designed to result in maximum reader competency by not limiting students to basic skills alone. The multicultural emphasis on learning district-wide affords all students with access to meaningful and relevant learning experiences that lead to learning mastery. Many LRSD schools, as well, have already pieces of a research-based PreK-3 literacy program in place. Others do not, so the pace of full implementation for all schools will differ. Another determiner of pace will be fundinghow quickly a school can align its School Improvement Plan and Title I budgets, for instance. The PreK-3 Literacy Committee believes, after reviewing current practices in the LRSD elementary schools and after identifying the many supplemental reading programs currently in usesome of which are used in place of the District curriculum, that the bold action necessary for improvement requires a thoughtful, deliberate elimination of "too much stuff." Teachers and students in PreK-3 classrooms across the District have so much to do that the real focus for learning is in many instances lost entirely or, at best, obscured. The learning goals are clear, but the challenge remains how to clear the learning path of the debris that becomes a daily obstacle for teachers trying to teach and students trying to learn. Allowing schools to choose how to address district learning goals and district curriculum is difficult. To successfully allow such autonomy requires clear guidelines and thoughtful district/school partnerships, as well as clear understanding and singular vision about desired results. In a district the size of the LRSD, the choice made by one school can and does dramatically impact the entire district. Continuity is essential as students and staff 29move from school to school. Patrons across the District expect and deserve the same focus and the same quality, regardless of which school their
children attend. Hl This committee has studied the final report submitted by the Curriculum Work Group to the District on August 4,1997, which provided direction for writing the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concur with the sixteen recommendations made by that group for K-3 reading education. The following summary of key components of those recommendations conveys what we believe is most critical in PreK through grade 3 reading education to achieving the goal that by completion of grade three all students will be reading independently. An outline of program design components, including those reflected in the Curriculum Work Group's report, follows
Organizational Changes { Hippy, The HIPPY program shall change its focus of service from four- and five-year olds to three- and four-year olds, given that almost all five-year-olds now attend kindergarten. The HIPPY program staff shall report to the Director of Early Childhood Education under this plan, effective fall 1999. HIPPY is a home-based program in which parents serve as the child's first teacher. The program provides children with school readiness skills and makes reading one of many activities parents and children do together. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998,144) Title I. The District shall restructure its Title I program and budgets in conformance with federal and state regulations to support the implementation of the PreK-3 literacy program and all children's success in achieving the academic standards and benchmarks. Components of the restructuring shall include the following: 301. 2. 3. 4. 5. Alignment of Title I programs and services with general education and Smart Start in order to support student success in achieving the rigorous academic standards and benchmarks established by the State and LRSD, Decentralization of decision-making relating to Title I plans and budgets to principals and their Campus Leadership Teams. Embedding the Title I accountability requirements in the LRSD Quality Index. Provision for PreK-3 literacy/mathematics program evaluation under the leadership of the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Establishing the following priorities for school-level Title I funding
a. b. c. d. Professional developmentbuilding the capacity of existing staff to ensure that all students learn to read by grade 3 Technology to support student success Supplemental instructional materials and supplies, especially for those at risk of failure to learn to read Extended-day interventions to support students at risk of failure e. Parent education and involvement f. Focus of programs and services on grades PreK-3 at the elementary level. Schools ore expressly discouraged from continuing to use the vast majority of their Title I funding simply to employ extra staffunless such staff are absolutely necessary for the implementation of this program, e.g., Reading Recovery or Success for All teachers
teachers for extended day Reading Clinics
etc. Principals wishing to transfer current Title I employees to the regular budget and programs must collaborate with the department of Human Resources to ensure compliance with the PN agreement. 31-WRi--------------------------------------------------------- .,JAontview Elementary eliminated remedial reading teachers as part of its schoolwide Title I program, directing its resources instead to professional learning... . Montview's results are noteworthy.... As a result of the school's hard work, its language arts scores exceeded those in the district's more prosperous, stable schools, (from "Meeting the Reading Challenge in Low-Income Schools" by Dennis Sparks, Education Week. Nov. 11, 1998) i Schools are further discouraged from including travel to conferences in their Title I budgets since the District will have already provided awareness-level training in all the components of this design. Travel will be approved only for visits to exemplary schools implementing a similar design or for in-depth training and development not available in Little Rock or somewhere within the State. #1 Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios for Reading/Language Arts Instruction. Each school is encouraged to lower student-to- adult ratio to a maximum of 15:1 through the use of all certified personnel in the school during reading instruction. Further, each school is encouraged to explore and identify effective ways to strengthen teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships and to ensure instructional continuity through such strategies as looping, multiage classrooms, etc. The abilities and opportunities of teachers to closely observe and facilitate the literacy learning of diverse groups of children are certainly influenced by the numbers of children they deal with. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998. 229) 32Closeness in the teacher-child relationship was * associated with better readiness performance. Closeness is an index of warmth and open communication in the teacher-child relationship. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998,130) Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts. Schools must minimize or eliminate entirely pullouts from the classroom during instruction in language arts and mathematics, especially, in PreK-3. No New Programs. The District declares a moratorium on additional new supplemental reading/language arts programs at the PreK-3 levels for at least three years or until the implementation of these changes can be both formatively and summatively evaluated to determine their effectiveness with the diversity of students in the Little Rock School District. Program Abandonment. In order for the District and each school to be successful in the implementation of these program components, many former programs and practices must be abandoned. The mobility of our students requires us to be consistent in our curriculum and instruction. The importance of coherence requires us to have a common research and theory base for the program components. Also, limitations on teacher time and energy require us to abandon some old programs and practices to make room for the new. Fir-ally, in order to fund these new program components, both District budgets and Title I budgets must be reallocated to fund the teacher development, new teaching materials, and interventions now required. Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers. Schools are encouraged to schedule supplemental teachers differently from the traditional school day in order to fund some of the extended- day interventions that will be critical to success. For instance. 33 instead of a Title I teacher working during regular school hours, she/h^could come in at 10:00 a.m. and then work two hours at the end of the day with identified students who require extra time to learn. Waiver Application Requirements. The District provides the opportunity for schools to apply for a waiver from State and District policies, regulations, and programs, if they can demonstrate that their plan has the potential to be more effective with the students in their school. Waivers will continue as a possibility for PreK-3 literacy programs. Schools must, however, address the student mobility factor in their application since a powerful reason for consistency across all the schools in the district is the importance of this consistency for mobile students. i Supplemental reading/language arts programs initiated at the school level must meet the criteria of universally accepted characteristics of "best practice" in reading. Curriculum and Instruction Alignment. The PreK-3 LRSb language arts curriculum at each school shall be tightly aligned with the Arkansas and LRSb curriculum frameworks and the LRSb grade-level benchmarks. By combining aspects of phonics and whole language instruction, teachers can explicitly teach students the relationship between letters and sounds while increasing their comprehension skills and enthusiasm for reading by exposing them to interesting stories and real literature. In so doing, educators can actively address the major obstacles to effective readingdifficulty with the alphabetic principle, failure to acquire and use comprehension skills, and lack of motivation. ("Beginning Reading Instruction
Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998. 5) 34Daily Sch&^le. All schools shall schedule and keep sacred a minimum of two and one-half hours daily for uninterrupted instruction in reading/ language arts. The following time allocations are not rigid. Rather, they are guidelines for teachers to use in planning how students should spend their timeboth to ensure that all the critical components are included and to ensure adequate time for student engagement in the activities. Twenty minutes ~ The teacher reads good literature aloud. The single most important activity for building the knowledge and skills eventually required for reading appears to be reading aloud to children regularly and interactively. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary-building, and word study (word sorts, word walls, word families, spelling patterns) Letter recognition skills are strong predictors of reading success. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in shared reading (teacher-guided discussions of reading, including language experience stories, big books, other literature) Children learn a great deal about both the nature and function of print through thoughtful interactions with adults. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 124) Thirty minutes - Students are engaged in independent reading at child's fluency level (wordless books, picture books, chapter books) 35Children should be given as much opportunity ang encouragement as possible to practice their reading. Beyond the basics, children's reading facility, as well as their vocabulary and conceptual growth, depends strongly on the amount of text they read. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 127) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in writing (journal keeping, stories, responding to literature
using age- appropriate developmental spelling and drawing) Independent writing activities are a means of developing children's deeper appreciation of the nature of text and its comprehension. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 126) Forty minutes - Students are engaged in guided reading instruction (small group in which teacher provides support for development of reading strategies within student's zone of proximal development). The instructional level is the highest level at which the child can do satisfactory reading provided that he or she receives preparation and supervision from a teacher: errors in word recognition are not frequent, and comprehension and recall are satisfactory. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 213) To nudge" the children toward new understandings about reading, we want to provide assistance so that children can rehearse the text at a level that is just above where they function on their own. (Emerging Readers and Writers" by Martha Combs, in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996,29) ? II 36Throughout the day, everydayStudents are engaged in activities designed to develop and to provide practice in enhancing their communication and social skills in the classroom, in the cafeteria, in before- and after-school activities, and on the playground. Additional time in language arts is also provided in the other content areas. For example, students should read and write within the context of a thematic unit at other times during the day. ... it is not only the time allocated for reading that is important. How that time is spent is also important. Low achievers generally are given less classroom time to read text than their higher achieving peers. When low achievers are asked to read, the reading tends to be oral, round-robin style, with the consequence that they read far fewer words, stories and books. (Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams, 118) Technology in PreK-3 , As with any resource, the teacher is the key to the successful integration of technology into an effective literacy plan. Instructional technology can be an extremely effective tool to engage, motivate, enhance, and accelerate learning if it is correlated to the goals and objectives being taught in the language arts curriculum and if it is seen as an integral part of the instructional day. Instructional technology is rarely effective if it does not meet those criteria. In the LRSD Literacy Plan, technology is to be used as a tool for achieving the teacher's instructional reading goals as planned by the teacher, not as a substitute for instruction by the teacher. Activities utilizing technology must also be consistent with the teaching strategies and principles outlined in the state's ELLA and Effective Literacy programs. 37If computer assisted instructional programs are used,^achers must be able to customize the instruction to include only the stories, concepts, or objectives that they are introducing during the 2 | hour instructional block. Computer assisted software can be used for whole group instruction, small group instruction, or individual instruction. Examples of appropriate use of this type of computer instruction are shared reading, familiar reading, art, music, spelling, language, and writing activities. Some appropriate examples of technology that can be used to enhance literacy skills are computers, video tapes, digital cameras, laser disk players, tape players, CD players, listening centers, TV/PC converters, scanners, camcorders, AlphaSmarts, and Talking Books. Limited-English Proficient Students. The District shall restructure its programs and services for limited-English proficient students in grades PreK-3 to align with this program design and to address the recommendations of the Office of Civil Rights as a result of their compliance review in April 1999. Many studies support the notion of a balanced literacy program as appropriate for students whose first language is not English, that is, programs that provide a balance of explicit instruction and student-directed activities that incorporate aspects of both traditional and meaningbased curricula. (Building a Knowledge Base in Reading by Jone Braunger and Jon Lewis, 1998, 25) Special Education and 504 Students. The diverse needs of special education and Section 504 children are included in this design, and the successful implementation of this plan is expected to reduce the numbers and percentages of children referred for special education or 504 programs and services relating to reading disabilities. 38Gifted/Talented Students. The needs of gifted/talented students are also included in this design. The ongoing^^ assessment of student performance and the regrouping of students for instruction shall enable advanced students to continue their own growth in all areas of the language arts. Each school is expected not only to decrease the percent of students performing at the lower levels, but also dramatically to increase the percent of students performing at the "Proficient" and "Advanced" levels. Frequent Assessment ond Regrouping for Instruction. Each school is encouraged to create a schedule to facilitate necessary changes and to design a grouping/re-grouping strategy, such as the regrouping strategies employed in Success for All or the modified Joplin plan to customize/ personalize guided reading activities. Tracking of students is unacceptable practice in the Little Rock School District, but short-term, flexible grouping based on individual student needs is a research-based, effective instructional strategy. Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups are strongly encouraged in all subject areas. Some research has found that long-term grouping of students by achievement or ability level is less effective than more flexible grouping based on specific, current skills of students. Such flexible grouping arrangements require that problem readers be monitored frequently on critical reading indicators, so that groups and instruction can be adjusted to their current needs, (p. 5, "Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Phonemic Awareness. All kindergarten teachers shall receive professional development to teach Animated Literacy, an effective, research-based phonemic awareness component that is compatible with the planned overall reading/language arts program. Training for teachers and the necessary instructional materials for this intervention may be funded through the school's Title I budget. As schools acquire technology, there 39 are a,/miTiber of software systems that would also achieve this goal that the Campus Leadership Team may wish to consider. There are basic skills all students must acquire to read effectively. These skills include phonemic awareness, decoding strategies, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies. ("Beginning Reading Instruction
Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998. 2) Early Literacy Learning (ELLA). The centerpiece of the K-2 literacy program shall be Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), which includes a balanced literacy program, the reading process, writing strategies, assessment, spelling/phonics development, classroom management strategies, and word building. The instruction of the most effective teachers included attention to explicit teaching of skills, an emphasis on literature, and much reading and writing. The National Research Council synthesis also confirms that the best method for teaching children to read is coherent instruction that combines a variety of approaches. ("Beginning Reading Instruction
Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Serieg, 1998, 5) Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. The Little Rock School District will also promote Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 through its professional development program. Instructional strategies developed through this training include those that help all students become fluent readers and writers. Components include
balanced literacy, reading, writing, phonetic skills and strategies, recognizing high frequency words, word attack skills, vocabulary development, comprehension skills and strategies, independent reading and 40 writing, class, management and organization, assessment, and parent involvement. Thematic Instruction, Thematic instruction is promoted and encouraged. Schools should provide for professional development, materials and supplies, and collaborative planning time for teachers to develop thematic units and to design assessments. The Social Nature of Learning. Given that learning is a social act, each teacher must acquire the skills to facilitate cooperative learning and other small group strategies so that student learning is mediated not only by the teacher, but also by peers. Additionally, the school must foster social interactions between and among children and between and among children and adults at every reasonable opportunityin classrooms, on the playground, in the cafeteria, and in before- and after-school programs. In this light, the practice of maintaining "silent" cafeterias is inappropriate. ... the fact that you learn to talk by talking implies that children should simply be allowed to talk far more than they currently do in school. The school norm of silent classrooms must be abolished
ironically, when teachers enforce the standard of silence, they are in a very real - sense making learning illegal. (Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 14) Young children should engage in reading and writing experiences that integrate language and action in a social context. It is in the social context of literacy activity that children are able to interpret their literacy experiences and internalize knowledge about reading and writing. ("Emerging Readers and Writers" by Martha Combs in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996, 26) 41Role of the Library/Media Center. Each school shall ensjjre students' easy and frequent access (no fewer than one wo visits weekly) to the library/media center, and all students shall be encouraged through school-wide strategies to read as many books as possible for pleasure. Summer, winter-break, and spring break reading lists will be distributed to all LRSD children, beginning summer 1999. The library media specialist will collaborate with classroom teachers to make a connection between classroom activities and the library media program. Library media center activities will provide opportunities for students that involve reading, viewing, listening, writing and communicating. The library media program encourages and engages students in reading, viewing, and listening for understanding and enjoyment. (Information Power
Building Partnerships for Learning, American Association of School Librarians, 1998, 66) Supplemental Reading Materials. Each school shall conduct an inventory of its PreK-3 classroom reading materials. Regular budgets and Title I funds may be used to acquire additional support materials, such as classroom literature sets and other sets of books to help teachers help students meet the curriculum standards and benchmarks in ways that address the needs of individual students, particularly those students functioning below the proficiency level. Comprehensive beginning reading programs are supported by adequate resources. ("Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 3) 42Asscssment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment. The District, in collaboration with the schools, shall create a systematic assessment system for grades PreK-3 so that student progress can be frequently monitored and aligned with LRSD benchmarks and Arkansas criterion-referenced tests and appropriate modifications made to the instructional program. The assessment components shall include a minimum of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Running Records, etc., grades K-1 (diagnostic/prescriptive) LRSD Phonemic Awareness Assessment - K-1 (readiness profile) LRSD CRT - Criterion Reference Test - grades 2-3 Individual Reading Inventory, grades K-3 (as needed basis) Student portfolios to examine growth over time, grades K-3. Adequate progress in learning to read beyond the initial level depends on: having a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically
getting sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of text
having sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to render written texts meaningful and interesting
acquiring control over strategies for monitoring comprehension and repairing misunderstandings
and maintaining interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes. ("Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998^4^ New Elementary Report Card. The District shall form a representative committee of staff and parents no later than June 1999 to redesign the elementary report card so that it reflects the standards-based approach to teaching and learning 43 and so that it provides more accurate and specific information to parents regarding their child's progress in meeting academic content standards of LRSD. b PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Professional Development Teachers who teach reading must receive better training and engage in ongoing professional development in reading instruction. ("Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998, 4) ELLA Troininq. ELLA training for K-2 teachers will begin in summer 1999 and continue through the school-year 1999-2000 until all teachers receive the basic training. The District will use a training for trainers model in order to accelerate the training and to build the capacity of teachers in each school to provide training and coaching to colleagues in order to ensure effective implementation. Funding has been requested to provide release time for at least three additional elementary reading specialists, who will provide initial training and then be in each school a minimum of one day per week to monitor and provide in-classroom coaching. Effective Literacy Troininq. As resources permit, training for grade 2-4 teachers will begin in the implementation of Effective Literacy. Success for All. Schools implementing Success for All hove been advised to include their training costs in their Title I budgets for 1999-2000. This training is provided by staff at the University of Memphis, with follow-up conducted locally. .T- ! 44Smart Start Professional Development. The District and each school should leverage as much as possible the profe,ssional development opportunities provided by ADE for Smart Start implementation, since the LRSD literacy plan is tightly aligned with Smart Start, which also promotes ELLA and Effective Literacy as recommended language arts programs. School-Level Professional Development. The District and each school shall create a professional development plan that reflects the standards for elementary school professional development (from the National Council for Staff Development) and which reflects the priorities in the School Improvement Plan (including the school's Title I plan), especially the implementation of ELLA. Each school's Campus Leadership Team is charged with the responsibility to create collaborative cultures to support change through activities associated with a professional learning community
(1) collegial planning/teaming and assessment of student work
(2) collective responsibility for results
(3) ongoing, job-embedded learning
(4) action research and inquiry
(5) continuous improvement
(6) empowerment through the activities of the Campus Leadership program. Principal Development. The District shall design and implement a professional development program for elementary principals and other administrators that is aligned with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan components. 45A report published by the Consortium on Reading Excellence advocates that inservice professional development should: include current theory and research provide training in assessment and instruction for phonemic awareness convey dynamic methods to teach phonics and make use of connected texts demonstrate effective ways to teach spelling that will reinforce reading include a diagnostic tool kit that will enable teachers to teach what children need include whole language strategies and powerful uses of literature provide practice with children in a clinical setting with ample opportunity for feedback and support
and assist teachers to effectively implement balanced literacy programs. ("Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998,6) Interventions Success for All. Schools currently implementing Success for All may continue, provided that the curriculum includes the Arkansas and LRSD academic standards and benchmarks. Student performance data should be thoroughly analyzed to determine the success of current practices, and then, if necessary, the program should be modified for improved results or abandoned. 7 46Reading Recovery. Schools implementing Reading Recovery may continue to do so with their Title I funding. Other schools may choose to redirect their Title I funding to this grade 1 intervention if the Campus Leadership Team makes this decision. Direct Instruction. Schools currently implementing Direct Instruction must seek a waiver to continue this program. Direct Instruction differs significantly in philosophy and methodology from the LRSD Literacy Plan, so consideration must be given to the implications for mobile students. Enqlish-as-g-Second Language (ESL). English-as-a-Second Language programs and services will be provided in the four Newcomer Centers for students who are limited-English proficient. These students need similar instruction as that required for other children to learn reading/language arts, but they will also require some extended time to become proficient in English. Limited-English proficient students attending other schools must also receive the necessary instruction, services, and support to move them as quickly as possible into English proficiency. Reading Clinic Intervention. Each school shall include in its Title I budget the funding for an after-school Reading Clinic or another research-based intervention to prevent reading failures before the end of the school year. Although volunteer tutors can provide very valuable practice and motivational support for children learning to read, the research does not show that they are effective in providing primary reading instruction or in helping children with serious learning difficulties. ("Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice," The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998,4^ 47srschool. The District shall !:* funding of summer school programs around the needs of grades K- students. The District shall design on intensive summ reading program patterned after the Reading Clinic approach. / Early identification and intervention are vital. Some children have more difficulty learning to read than others. Therefore, effective methods for preventing and addressing these difficulties must be included in any comprehensive Instruction instructional plan, f Beginning Hooding Research and Practice,' The FRS Informed Educator Series, 1998,4) Parent Education/Involvement Parent- strategies to .School Compacts. Each school is encouraged to identify embed the Title I mandated parent-school this vehicle as a compact in the culture of the school and to use P of improving school-to-parent communication and parent LRSD academic standards and benchmar s means 1 understanding of the and ways they can support their child's success. - J District shall align its parent education/ -3. including those involving Title I parents, ,iK-3 levels with the components of this PreK-3 Plan and with the PreK-3 provisions for mathematics the National Science Foundation project. Also. include the Strategy 2 Action Plan activities Parent Education. The involvement programs at the PreK-3 Literacy and science in this component will recently approved as amendments to the Strategic Plan. Title I parent involvement staff will be moved to the Volunteers in Public schools team so thatthey-con^b e I ,T,uen. .ul In the work of the Collaborative Action T^m, an initiative that will be developed in 1999-2000 with the influential in southwest Educational Development Lobjn Austin, Texas. Title I parent involvement will move more I 48with a concentration on building the capacity of schools to involve parents meaningfully in their children's education. Hess and Holloway (1984) identified five broad areas of family functioning that may influence reading development. They are
1. Value placed on literacy
by reading themselves and encouraging children to read, parents can demonstrate that they value reading. 2. Press for achievement
by expressing their expectations for achievement by their children, providing reading instruction, and responding to the children's reading initiations and interest, parents can create a press for achievement. 3. Availability and instrumental use of reading materials
literacy experiences are more likely to occur in homes that contain children's books and other reading and writing materials. 4. Reading with children
parents can read to preschoolers at bedtime or other times and can listen to schoolchildren's oral reading, providing assistance as needed. 5. Opportunities for verbal interaction
a lower quality of verbal interaction constitutes a risk factor primarily in that it relates closely to lowered child vocabulary scores. (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998, 121- 122) Conclusions These recommendations are the result of extensive study, collaboration, and thoughtful deliberation over more than two years and intensively during the last ten months. They convey a practical, meaningful, and doable framework for action that can and will, if properly sanctioned, lead to realization of the goal that all LRSD students will read independently by the end of the third grade. The committee recognizes that recommendations made by well- 49 meaning people often become unrealized hopes or dreams. We are committed to acti on these recommendations and, therefore, see^lie support of all in the implementation. We have agreed to continue to work together as a committee to oversee implementation of the recommendations. We will meet monthly to review progress and to ensure the cohesiveness of each action component. To help manage the tasks that lie ahead, we have developed a timeline that we believe should be immediately incorporated into the Division of Instruction's work plan for the remainder of the school year. Significant implementation tasks will be included in the 1999-2000 Work Plan of the Division of Instruction. In conclusion, to set as a goal that the District will ensure that all students are reading independently by the end of the third grade is ambitious, at the very least. Such a goal, however, is one that must be achieved, if all students are to have equitable access to an education that prepares them for productive adult lives in the twenty-first century. It is, therefore, imperative that the District provide unwavering support for the clearly focused, best-practice based, district-wide PreK-3 reading/language arts curriculum and program we believe our recommendations will provide. Such support requires dedication of all necessary resources to the effort, whether the resources are school-based or district based, district-funded or Title I supplemental. Campus-based decision making must be based on clear district guidelines and, if necessary, policy so that all schools in the LRSD exemplify "best practice" in the delivery of this critically important program. e 50Timelines Activities_______________________________ 1. Plan summer school curriculum, instructional focus, and professional development for summer 1999
also complete student selection process. 2, Identify timeline for delivery of training modules
schedule dates, sites.______________ 3. bevelop criteria matrix for supplemental reading programs.________________________ 4. Conduct awareness sessions with elementary principals and teachers on the PreK-3 Literacy Plan.___________________________________ 5. Write guidelines/regulations for schools to follow when scheduling at grades PreK-3.______ 6. Write guidelines/teacher manual for two and one-half hour language arts block (make grade specific
include how to/what to do/why do it/troubleshooting sections)._______________ 7. besign classroom profile rubrics (make grade specific
format status quo to most desirable matrix)._______________________________ 8. besign teacher practice rubrics._________ 9. besign criteria for materials selection (identify required materials
development guidelines for additional materials)._________ 10. Complete PreK-3 standards, benchmarks, curriculum maps
publish for teachers and parents._______________________________ 11, bevelop guidelines for thematic instruction. 12. bevelop assessment plan.______________ 13. bevelop training modules for each component part of plan.___________________ 14. Write guidelines for school implementation of After-School Reading Clinics. bate February 1999 February April April April April May May May May May May April and ongoing May 5 51Activities_________________________ 15. Begin module-based teacher training. 16. Order and distribute ELLA materials. 17. Reorganize HIPPY programs and services to be appropriate for age three and four students. 18. Provide to principals their projected Title I budgets, planning requirements, and other information related to the restructuring of Title I programs.__________________________ 19. Establish criteria for approval of Title I plans and communicate to principals and Campus Leadership Teams.______________________ 20. Compile lists of recommended reading for PreK-3 students for summer
post in businesses and libraries around the community and provide to parents.________________________-______ 21. Review and approve Title I plans._________ 22. Plan and implement staff development for principals on the administration of the new plan. 23. Design, produce, and publish for fall distribution a parent brochure on the PreK-3 plan, including all components (such as Title I, Smart Start, etc.)._______________________ 24. Redesign the PreK-3 report cards so that communication with parents is improved._______ 25. Design the program evaluation study and set up data-collection procedures. bate June and ongoing June and July June April May May June June June July July 52LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 June 24,1999 To: Board of Education From: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,'Associate Superintendent for Instruction Through: Dr. Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Subject: Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Attached for the Boards information is a copy of the final draft of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The draft presented earlier to the Board of Education has been extensively K .'-.u elementary principal and PreK-3 teacher received his or her own copy, and there have been multiple opportunities for all to provide reviewed over a three-month period. input, including during the June 2-3-4 inservice. In addition, the plan has been reviewed bv rrQenprrQeCsQenn+tantiiivuAeos orx-ff ODM, 1U I AA LI R, AA Dr-ifE, a__n__d_ i o_atih__e__r education colleagues, as well as by paren*t representatives. As a result of all this feedback, we confidently present this final draft. Responses have been nearly unanimously supportive. They applaud a well-designed, coherent District plan that is clearly aligned with the Arkansas literacy curriculum framework. Smart Start, and Title I regulations and that includes professional development and program evaluation components. All are supportive of doing whatever it takes to improve student achievement. Early implementors of the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), the centerpiece of the K-2 design, and Effective Literacy, the program for grades 3-4, were Dodd Elementary and Gibbs Elementary. The results of the spring 1999 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination for these two schools are extremely encouraging and predict what we as a District can do if we implement well the components of our plan. levels. In W97-98 only 22 percent of Dodd grade 4 students scored at the "Proficient or Advanced" -------- This year, 1998-99, 35 percent scored at those levelsan improvement of 13 percentage points! ) Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Two Gibbs posted even greater gains. In 1997-98 they had 28 percent scoring at the "Proficient or Advanced levels. Their score jumped to 49 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 21 percentage points! The PreK-3 Literacy Plan also allows for the continuation of Success for All, provided that those schools are posting improved performance. Romine Elementary has been a leader in Success for All implementation. Their performance jumped from 13 percent at Proficient or Advanced" levels in 1997-98 to 48 percent in 1998-99an improvement of a very impressive 35 percentage points! Notable also is that Dodd decreased the percentage of students performing at the Below Basic level from 50 percent in 1997-98 to 30 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 20 percentage points. Gibbs reduced their percentage of "Below Basic" performers from 52 percent in 1997-98 to 22 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 30 percentage points. And Romine reduced the percentage of students at the "Below Basic level from 58 percent in 1997-98 to 32 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 26 percentage points. These very dramatic gains are indicators of the soundness of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan design. To achieve these kinds of results at the District level will require our commitment, focus, and determination, as well as an alignment of our energy and resources behind the implementation. This final draft includes only a few changes from the earlier one reviewed by the Board of Education in March. The following are most significant: Update of section on Involvement and Communication to include March, April, May, and June activities (p. 11)
Update of section on Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests to include spring 1999 results (p. 12)
Addition of paragraph on schools identified for school improvement for Title I (p. 13)
Addition of suggested performance indicators under Plan Goals (p. 26)
Addition of section on "Technology in PreK-3 in response to questions regarding role of computer labs in current use (p. 37)
Addition of section on Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4 to show its place in the overall plan (p. 40)
Addition of section on Role of the Library/Media Center to clarify expectations and involvement (p. 42)
Addition of more specific information on plans for ELLA training (p. 44)
Addition of a paragraph clarifying need for waiver to implement Direct Instruction (p. 47).Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Three Remaining changes were those relating to format, editing, and clarifying the original language. Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is already in progress and will continue intensely throughout the summer in preparation for next fall. BAL/adg1 Io Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers in the Little Rock School District 1 Teacher A. Outlaw C.Johnson D. Brooks D, McGowan A. Hesselbein A. McLennan K K 1 1 2 2 School Badgett D 1 X XX X X X D2 X X X XX X D 3 D4 D 5 D6 D 7 D 8 D 9 DIO D11 D12 I I i I M. Hotto K. Rosby K. Shute C. Brown K. Cole T. Littell K K K 1 1 1 Bale L. Cunningham 2 H. Talley M. Balenko 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X r S. Clevenger Lamb B. Love B. Deaton B. Garner M. James C. Sharp B. Thomas D. Neal K K K1 1 1 2 2 Baseline X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Teacher,. Grade K. Bierbaum K School Booker Day 1 Day 2 Day3 Day4 Days Day6 Day7 Day8 Day9 Day10Day11 Day12 V. Jeffries J. Post T. Sexton B. Walls Y. Davis A. Jones J. Taylor J. Wolfe M. McGill D. Fair T. Higdon K. Lang M. Rhines K K K K 1 1 1 1 RR 2 2 2 2 D. Washington 2 F. Dugan P. Jones I. Tolbert M. Griggs S. Rose M. Wood G. Cromedy B. Koon G. Shells K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Brady S. Daniel A. Doyne M. Hooker K K K Carver X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X XX X X XX X X X X X XX X XXX X y X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX X XX X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX 72 72 '72 X X K X XX XX XX X X X I X XX X X X X X X X X X X X 72 y X X X XX X 72 X X X X X X X X I X X X X X f X Teacher P. Ruehr H. House D. Moix K 1 1 T. Richardson 1 E. Skubal J.Joseph T. Moore H. Shields 1 2 2 2 L. Yarbrough 2 J. Crum______I L. Glenn_____1 D. Runion R R R School Carver 1 X X X X XX X X X X X X 2 X X X X X X X X X X XX 3 X X X X X X X X 4 X X 5 X X 6 X X 7 X ^2 8X9 10 11 12 X X XX X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X 72 X XX X P. Kerr S. Mims D. Sabo L. Baker P. Teeter K. Chu K Hicks S. Eans L. Neal K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Chicot X XXXX X X XX XXX XXXX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J. Wells J. Burgin I. Baird 2 T1 Chicot V. Gershner T1 K. Murph ESL X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X I I I f J Teacher______ B. Epperson K School Cloverdale M. McClain S. Rolax G. Cokeley S. Hall K. Shuffield D.Johnson G. Miller A. Vanecko K. Wine K K1 1 1 2 2 2 S. Blue V. Hare A. Raines K K 1 S. Chambers 1 J. Meeks K. Palmer C. Price T. Knapp 2 2 3 S. Schouweiler J. Yeager RR David ODodd R, Brown L. Lewis M. Delozier R. Powell T. Goacher B. Corbin O. Rice K K 1 1 2 7. Fair Park D 1 X X XX X X X D2 X XX X XX X D 3 D4 D5 D6 D 7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 f I I X X X XXXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X 1 X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XXX XXX XX XXX XX X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X XX XXXX X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X r Teacher A. Riley Grade T1 School Fair Park D 1 X D2 X D 3 X D4 X D5 X D6 X D7 X D8 X D9 X D10 X D11 X D12 C. Moore C. Signaigo S. White C. Wenger D. Williams K. Isroff S. Bauman L. Gwin J, Ghent J. Hall K K K 1 1 1 2 2 R Forest Park X X X X X X X X XX X X X , X X X XX X X f M. Holley Z. Madison A. Myrick M. Moore T. Anderson B. Butler C. Simpson M. Watson S. Campbell L. Gray Y Stuckey D. Strozyk K K K K1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Franklin P. Washington RR S.Jackson RR X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X XX X X XX XX X X XX X X X XX X X X X XX XX XX X X X X X X X X XX XX XX X X X X X X X X XX X XX X X XX XX X X XX XXXXX X 72 X 72 X X D. Cooper K Fulbright X X X b X X X X XX X X XX X XX X X X X X X X X X XX I I I Teacher L. Fausett J. Hurd______ G. Wyatt B. Westlake M. Henthorne R. Dukes P. Gray_____ C. Penn____ M. Neikirk B. Hipp RR K K K 1 1 12 2 2 School Fullbright D 1 X X X X X X X X X X D2 X XXXX X X X X X D 3 X XX X X D4 XX XX X D 5 X XX X X D 6 X X XX X D 7 XXX X X D 8 X X X X X D 9 D10 D11 D12 I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X C. Goss K. Holloway T. Arnold April Chandler K. Armstrong E. Miller S. Sims K K1 1 2 T1 2 Garland XX XXX X X X S. Lee______ P. Puckett P. Ross S. Cole K. Ray_____ Gentry Hardesty J. Dumas S. Talley F. Thompson Geyer Springs K K1 1 2 2 RR K K Gibbs X X X X X XX X XX X XX XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X 72 X X X X X I f Teacher A. Walters C. Biome ~ M. Miller T. Skarda S. Hestir K. Huffman Ann Hurd School K. Brotherton B. Dorman S. Richardson S. Hawk B. Ramsey Y. Luckadue M. Lankford B. Muench J. Thornton E. Miller R. Stone J. Lloyd T. Courtney M. Darr ~ G. Glasco J. Pence D, Lawson T. Fleming C. Sanders K 1 1 1 2 2 RR K K K1 1 12 22 RR Sp Ed PK nr K K K K 1 1 Jefferson M L. King D 1 X X X X X X X D2 X XX XX X X D 3 X X D4 XX D5 XX D 6 X X D 7 X X D8 X X D9 X X D10 X X D11 D12 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X I 1 + l X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X __ X X X X X X X X Teacher R. Thorrias 1 School King K. Ashcraft Sp. Ed N. Bohannon J. Brooks M. Cooper L. Fletcher "B. Harris 2 2 2 2 2 D. Finkbeiner CC I. Betton R C. Hansen D. Hudgens K. Whittaker C. Durham M. Jascuzzi S. Pinkerton J. Kathon J. Moore K. Witt L. Spencer K K K1 1 1 2 2 2 R M. Greenwood K E. ONeal G. Sanders P, Doan S. Thompson D. Willis N. Downing E. James K K1 1 12 2 Mabelvale McDermott D 1 X X XXX X X X X D2 X XX XXX X X X D 3 X D4 X D5 X D6 X D7 X D 8 X D 9 DIO D11 D12 I X X X X 72 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XXX XX X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X f X X X XX X XA I I I I I-Teacher________ M. Washington 2 M. Butts D. Morgan J. Mason K. Thomas L. Bishop K. Burgess K K 1 1 2 2 School McDermott Meadowcliff D 1 X D2 X D3 X D4 X D 5 X D 6 X D 7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 I X X X X X X X X X X K. Potter T. Shorter S. Heffern G. Marshall P. Allen R. Harshaw K K1 1 2 2 Mitchell X XX X X X Ettatricia Hall V. Hall D, Howard K. Vaughn D, Broyles T. Cole_____ V. Mitchell S. Courtois L. Hayes K K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Otter Creek X XXX XX X X T. DeClue J. Neal_____ N. Massanelli KK 1 Pulaski Heights X XX X . X X XXX X X X X X XX XX XX XX XX X X X X XX XX XXX X X X XX X X X X XX X X XX XXX X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X I X X X Teacher,, Y. Petterson School 1 E. Maeweather 2 J. Matheny 2 D 1 X XX D2 X X X D3 D4 D5 D6 D 7 D 8 D9 D10 D11 D12 F. Dodson J. Reb J. Irby B. Fincher S. Walker K K 1 2 2 Rightsell XX X X X X X X X X A. Atwood V. Butts G. Glover C. Blackwell D, Gross J.May_____ B. Kuhlmann P. Maddox H. Williams K K K 1 1 1 2 7. 7 Rockefeller X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X r XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X XI X I I A. Inman M. Jackson L. Nauden P. King C. Twaddle K K K 1 1 D. Waldrop ESL K. Brooks J. Gall J. Moore 2 2 2 Romine X XX X X XX X X X X X XX Teacher. A, Filiatreau Grubbs V. Harkin 7.. Madison B. Gwatney J. Holmes J. Alley A. Batt G. Hoffman A. Moore L. Gilliam M. Meachum B. Samler S. Smelco H. Pruett M. Rowe K iC K K K K 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 ESL R School Terry D 1 X IT XX X D 2 X X X X D 3 X X~ D4 X D 5 X X~ D 6 X T D 7 X D8 X D 9 D10 D11 D12 X X X X X X XXX X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X f X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X 72 M Banks B. Batnes L. Hickerson J. Berry B. Stuart M. Branch J. Manley J. Stage K K K 1 1 1 2 2 Wakefield G. Washington 2 D. Davis B. Thomas R. Broussard R PreK K Washington X XX XX XX X X X X X XXX X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X XXX XX X X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X I X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X I I r I I Teacher. H. Brown M. Sellers R, Steward N. Thomas Lori Jeffrey C. McClain S. Speaks T. Sproles B. Brown K. Bujarski D. Conine M. Smith L. Umerah K. Worsham K K K K 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 School Washington D 1 X X D2 X X D3 D4 D5. D 6 D7 D 8 D 9 D10 D11 D12 K. Bull N. David J. Thomas E. Dupre L. Reed M. Sharpe B. Baggett M. Dawson C. Fox K K K1 1 1 2 2 7. Watson L. Pugh V. Webb M. Thomas J. Welborn K K1 1 Western Hills X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X .. / r Teacher- T. Klaus S. Thomas 2 2 School_____ Western Hills D 1 X X D2 X X D3 D4 D 5 D6 D7 D8 D 9 D10 D11 D12 F. Babbs R, Pulinski M. Bradberry K. Church E. Mobley T. Stoelzing B. Bowden K. Latch F. Martin Lynn Haney K K K 1 1 1 2 2 2 RR Williams X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X I I X X X X X X X X X X L. Carpenter E. Davis M. Dorsey K K K Wilson S. Krannichfeld 1 P. Lemon K. Reeves S. West 1 2 SpED E. Schoemakerljl A. Finn_____ M. Mitchell M. Thomas L. Tygart E. Brooks F. Williamson K K 1 1 2 2 Woodruff X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1/2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 Deflnition of Proflcient $ The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows us to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. 9 To gauge which level on the DRA is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency,' the staff used national reading standards for each grade level and then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: SfaiffeTjeveT Kindergarten Children at the aid of kindagarten should understand that eyery word in a text says somahing specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seat before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and getting most of them correct. ft'S Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a Grade 1 By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to
read Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 pacent or betta accuracy of wad recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first gradas to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level 1 books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. repeated word or sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects fem iliar to primary children and highly support the text. One ar two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges from ten to thirty-six._______________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond childrens personal expadences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stades. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Gradel By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or better accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond childrens personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath die illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Districtwide 1 2 Below 544 27.8% 908 46.4% 620 32.5% At or above 1414 72.2% 1048 53.6% 1289 67.5% Total 1958 100% 1956 100% 1909 100% K Badgett 1 2 29 78.4% 32 94.1% 30 88.2% 8 21.6% 2 5.9% 4 11.8% 37 100% 34 100% 34 100% K Bale 1 2 22 41.5% 16 33.3% 12 27.9% 31 58.5% 32 66.7% 31 72.1% 53 100% 48 100% 43 100% K Baseline 1 2 22 48.9% 38 70.4% 18 52.9% 23 51.1% 16 29.6% 16 47.1% 45 100% 54 100% 34 100% K Booker 1 2 15 19% 27 30.7% 18 20.2% 64 81% 61 69.3% 71 79.8% 79 100% 88 100% 89 100% K Brady 1 2 9 23.1% 41 65.1% 14 29.2% 30 76.9% 22 34.9% 34 70.8% 39 100% 63 100% 48 100% i. * Cutoff scores: K = 2, 1st = 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2 by School 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Carver 1 2 Below 15 19.5% 16 23.9% 16 18.2% At or above 62 80.5% 51 76.1% 72 81.8% Total 77 100% 67 100% 88 100% K Chicot 1 2 36 43.9% 60 73.2% 43 61.4% 46 56.1% 22 26.8% 27 38.6% 82 100% 82 100% 70 100% K Cloverdale 1 2 24 43.6% 48 71.6% 24 42.1% 31 56.4% 19 28.4% 33 57.9% 55 100% 81 100%, 57 100% K Dodd 1 2 5 13.5% 10 41.7% 14 48.3% 32 86.5% 14 58.3% 15 51.7% 87 100%, 24 100% 29 100% K Fair Park 1 2 13 31.7% 12 37.5% 13 37.1% 28 68.3% 20 62.5% 22 62.9% 41 100% 32 100% 35 100% K Forest Park 1 2 23 44.2% 16 30.2% 5 10.4% 29 55.8% 37 69.8% 43 89.6% 52 100% 53 100% 48 100% * Cutoff scores: K = 2,1st - 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2 by School 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Franklin 1 2 Below 25 35.7% 28 42.4% 13 78.8% At or above 45 64.3% 38 57.6% 56 87.2% Total 70 700% 66 700% 69 100%, K Fulbright 1 2 3 5.5% 23 39% 12 20.7% 52 94.5% 36 67% 46 79.3% 55 700% 59 700% 58 700% K Garland 1 2 29 59.2% 28 76.5% 33 68.8% 20 40.8% 8 23.5% 15 37.3% 49 700% 34 100% 48 100% K Geyer Springs 1 2 7 14.9%, 25 53.2% 11 27.5% 40 85.7% 22 46.8% 29 72.5% 47 700% 47 700% 40 700% K Gibbs 1 2 4 70.8% 15 34.7% 8 79.5% 33 89.2% 29 65.9% 33 80.5%, 37 100%, 44 700% 41 100% K Jefferson 1 2 6 10.5%, 17 30.9% 22 28.9% 51 89.5% 38 69.7% 54 77.7% 57 700% 55 700% 78 100%, It * Cutoff scores: K-2, 1st= 16, 2nd ~ 24 DRA2 by Schoch 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K King 1 2 Below 32 36.4% 46 43.4% 19 79.2% At or above 56 63.6% 60 56.6% 80 80.8% Total 88 700% 106 700% 99 700% K Mabelvale Elem 1 2 23 39% 30 49.2% 30 50.6% 36 67% 31 50.8% 23 43.4% 59 700% 61 700% 53 100% K McDermott 1 2 3 5.2% 11 79.6% 23 32.9% 55 94.8% 45 80.4% 47 67.7% 58 100% 56 100% 70 100%, K Meadowcliff 1 2 7 22.6% 12 30% 16 42.7% 24 77.4% 28 70% 22 57.9% 31 700% 40 700% 38 700% K Mitchell 1 2 3 9.4% 27 75% 19 57.4% 29 90.6% 9 25% 18 48.6% 32 100% 36 100% 37 700% K Otter Creek 1 2 7 9.6% 21 32.3% 5 72.8% 66 90.4% 44 6Z.1% 34 87.2% 73 100% 65 100% 39 700% 'I < * Cutoff scores: K = 2, 1st = 16, 2nd - 24 DRA2 by School imioo Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* K Pulaski Hgts Elem 1 2 Below 7 17.5% 24 50% 23 54.8% At or above 33 82.5% 24 50% 19 45.2% Total 40 100% 48 100%, 42 100%, K Rightsell 1 2 3 7.9% 27 64.3% 2 5.3% 35 93.1% 15 35.7% 36 94.7%, 38 100% 42 100% 38 100%, K Rockefeller 1 2 16 24.2% 14 23.7% 16 28.6% 50 75.8% 45 76.3% 40 71.4% 66 100% 59 100% 56 roo% K Romine 1 2 21 33.3% 19 40.4% 15 31.3% 42 66.7% 28 59.6% 33 68.8% 63 100% 47 100% 48 100% K Terry 1 2 8 8.1% 45 52.9% 16 18.8% 91 91.9%, 40 47.1% 69 81.2% 99 100% 85 100% 85 100% K Wakefield 1 2 33 53.2% 46 78% 30 60% 29 46.8% 13 22% 20 40% 62 100% 59 100%, 50 100%, * Cutoff scores: K~2, 1st 16, 2nd = 24 DRA2bySchoot 7/19/00 Little Rock School District (Zeroes included, missing data excluded) SY1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment Students At or Above Readiness Level By School Spring Reading Assessment School Grade Readiness Score Cutoff* Below I At or above Total K Washington 1 2 13 18.8% 49 64.5% 29 36.7% 56 81.2% 27 35.5% 50 63.3% 66 100% 76 100% 79 100% K Watson 1 2 34 43.6% 55 75.3% 31 45.6% 44 56.4% 18 24.7% 37 54.4% 78 100%, 73 100% 68 100% K WeSeht+iills 1 2 8 25% 8 18.8%, 4 10.5%, 24 75% 35 81.4% 34 89.5% 32 100% 43 100%, 38 100%, K-Williams 1 2 6 10.9%, 10 15.9% 7 10.3%, 49 89.1% 53 84.1% 61 89.7% 55 100%, 63 100%, 68 100%, K Wilson 1 2 19 33.3% 7 17.1%, 19 39.6% 38 66.7% 34 82.9% 29 60.4% 57 100% 41 100%, 48 100%, K Woodruff 1 2 12 30.8% 6 IS.8%, 10 21.7% 27 69.2% 32 84.2%, 36 78.3% 39 100% 38 roo% 46 100% * Cutoff scores: K-2, 1st = 16, 2nd - 24 DRA2 by Schoo/ .Correlations Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Kindergarten Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours ftSAej ftEAD_S' DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours --------TW 379 -.145' .006 358 -.223' .000 352 -.137* .029 254 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Kindergarten READ_F ------7^3' .006 358 1.000 373 .625* .000 353 .142* .021 265 READ_S ------ 7523' .000 352 .625*'' .000 353 1.000 380 .860' .000 265 DRA Change
Fall to Spring 7T37 .029 254 .142* .021 265 .860* .000 265 1.000 265 Intervention = Success for All, Grade = First Grade Correlations Amount of I raining Hours READ_F REAC.S DRA Change
Fall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours --------TW 433 -.130' .009 406 -.181' .000 396 ** -.118* .027 354 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant al the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = First Grade READ_F ----- TW .009 406 1.000 TP* 406 .573' .000 372 -.011 .830 354 lirii READ_S ------TfTF' .000 396 .573**' .000 372 1.000 399 .840 .000 354 I** DRA Change
Fall to Spring 7713^ .027 354 -.011 .830 354 .840*' .000 354 1.000 354 Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Second Grade Pagel Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount of I raining Hours T5EA'CrS DPa Change: Fall to Spring Hearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours n!!3U' 390 -.216 .000 376 -.234 .000 354 .104 .065 314 READ F .000 376 1.000 376 .857 .000 344 -.071 .208 314 READ_S ------723^' .000 354 ,857*' .000 344 1.000 356 .475 .000 314 DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- jnjT .065 314 -.071 .208 314 .475 .000 314 1.000 314 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Success for All, Grade = Second Grade Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Kindergarten Correlations Amount of I raining Hours 'REAC)_P ^aD_S' DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours ------- 384 -.071 .167 378 -.007 .892 377 .025 .648 338 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Kindergarten READ F ----- TUTT .167 378 1.000 381 .835' .000 377 .569 .000 340 READ_S ------TDCT .892 377 .835 .000 377 1.000 380 .928 .000 340 DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- .648 338 .569* .000 340 .928*' .000 340 1.000 340 Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = First Grade Page 2 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours RaD_F DRA Change: Fall to Spring Hearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 378 .061 .247 363 .182 .001 357 .213 .000 343 I *4 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = First Grade READ_F -------TiST .247 363 1.000 364 .604** .000 349 -.027 .618 343 READ_S ------- .001 357 .604**' .000 349 1.000 359 .784 .000 343 Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Second Grade Correlations Amount ot I raining Hours READ_F READ_S DRA Change: Fall to Spring Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 378 -.266' .000 354 -.102 .059 347 .154' .010 282 READ_F ----- 7555" .000 354 1.000 355 .739 .000 328 -.384 .000 283- **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Early Literacy Model, Grade = Second Grade READ_S ----- <137 .059 347 .739 .000 328 1.000 349 .291 .000 283 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Kindergarten DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------- 713^ .000 343 -.027 .618 343 .784* .000 343 1.000 343 DRA Change: Fall to Spring -------------13^ .010 282 -.384* .000 283 .291* .000 283 1.000 283 Page 3 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations Amount of I raining Hours F^6AO_F ReAb_S DRA Change: Fall to Spring Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours -------TW 69 .108 .380 68 .010 .934 65 -.092 .495 57 READ_F .380 68 1.000 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Kindergarten 68 .695**' .000 65 .403** .002 57 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = First Grade Amount ot I raining Hours 'read_p RAD_S CRA Change: Fall to Spring Correlations Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Amount of Training Hours nw 75 -.088 .498 62 -.028 .833 60 .004 .978 59 READ_F ----- TCST .498 62 1.000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = First Grade 62 .816* .000 60 .593' .000 59 READ_S W .934 65 .695' .000 65 1.000 65 .947' .000 57 *4 READ_S nw .833 60 .816 .000 60 1.000 60 .950 .000 59 Intervention = Direct Instruction, Grade = Second Grade DRA Change: Fall to Spring ------------Tcsr .495 57 .403*" .002 __________57_ .947* .000 __________5^ 1.000 57 DRA Change: Fall to Spring -------------"W .978 --------------- 5_9_ .593* .000 59 .950* .000 59 1.000 59 Page 4 Draft 8/15/00 Correlations^ Am
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.