June 2 9, 2 0 0 1 ! Literacy plan Literacy for LR pupils raises scores Reading assessment shows improvement BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE I Two years into a new literacy ' program. Little Rock School District officials said Thursday that student achievement appears to be improving as shown by results from a reading assessment given to pupils in kindergarten through second grades. I About three-fourths of last years kindergartners and second-graders and almost two- thirds of first-graders had the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed at the next grade level, according to the results from the Developmental Reading Assessment Im happy to report that the little children in our district are learning to read, Bonnie Lesley, associate superintendent for cim- riculum, told the School Board on Thursday. More than 80 percent of kindergartners scored at or above a satisfactory level this past spring, up 8.5 percentage points from spring 2000. Similarly, 75.4 percent of sec- ond-graders showed they are ready for the third grade, up from 67.5 percent in ^e preceding Continued from Page 1B by each teacher in individual observation sessions with pupils, is one component of the districts literacy program. District officials revamped the literacy program in 1999 to better prepare ^1 pupils to read independently by the time they finish third grade. When the program was started, about 30 percent of children were reading at a proficient or better level. The state goal for reading proficiency at the end of fourth grade is 100 percent. The revised literacy program was designed to create more uniformity in the instruction given in the districts 36 elementary schools, A moratorium was placed on any new supplemental reading programs, and other programs were abandoned. Each school set aside a 2 172 hour daily block of time for language arts and reading. In addition, curriculum standards, teacher training, classroom instruction and student testing were more tightly aligned as a result of the new literacy program. Most primary-grade teachers went through at least one week of the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas training program, Lesley said. The district purchased more than $350,000 in readii^ supplies over two years, and Animated Literacy, a phonics awareness program, was expanded to all kindergartens and will be added to the first grades in coming years. Lesley said the reading results are preliminary. The true measure Little Rock School District Developmental Reading Assessment results Developmental Reading Assessment scores are reported as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the readiness" level. "Readiness'is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. SPRING SPRING 2000 2001 CHANGE of the reading skills will be when year. A total of 63.8 percent of I children who have gone through first-graders scored at the readi- ness level, up from 53.6 percent in spring 2000. "file reading assessment, done See UTERACY, Page 4B the new program take the state- mandated Primary Benchmark Exam at the end of fourth grade. When last springs assessment scores are broken down by race, both black and white children showed gains, but the gains made by black pupils were greater, Lesley said. That means there was a reduction in the achievement disparity between black and white pupils. Kindergarten 72.2% 80.7% 8.5% Grade 2 67.5% 75.4% 7.9% SOURCE
Little Rock School District Arkansas Democrat-Gazette which is a long-standing goal of the district Black pupils averaged gains of 6 percentage points to 9 percentage points over results from 2000, while whites who traditionally score higher on standardized exams averaged gains of 4.1 percentage points to 6.1 percentage points. Stephens, McDermott, Badgett and Baseline elementaries were cited by Lesley and by School Board members for dramatic improvements. At some grades in some schools, results improved by more than 40 percentage points. In some schools, more than 90 percent of children scored at a proficient level The highest performing schools in kindergarten were McDermott, Baseline, Fulbright, Gibbs and Brady schools. The highest performing schools in first grade were Williams, Carver, McDermott, Booker and Forest Park. The highest performing schools in second grade were Carver, Williams, Western Hills, Otter Creek and McDermott 'The district has not prepared parent reports on their childrens assessment results. Lesley said parents can get the school and student results from their childs elementary school. THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 LR literacy coach is teacher of year ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE hosted the Teacher of the Year Debbie Sabo, a literacy coach Recognition Banquet for five at Chicot Elementary School, was years. Staff at each of the dis- named Teacher of the Year for tricts SO schools nominate their the Little Rock School District at colleagues for school and dis- a Tuesday evening ceremony at trict awards. This year, 67 teach- Stephens Elementary School. ers were honored
one from each Sabo, who previously taught elementary school, two each kindergarten for 18 years, was from the middle schools and as presented with numerous gift many as certificates and prizes including schools, airline passes, a computer, print- er, tickets to an athletic event and an athletic club membership. The gifts were donated by companies doing business in Little Rock. The Little Rock district has four from the highKtCBBSa Little Rock School District June 2,1999 The main thing is to keep the main thing the main THING! Dear Colleagues: What a yeai! I hope all of you have the sense of accomplishment that I do! The positive opportunities for the school district continue to develop. We have had great individual and collective accomplishments, but the most exciting aspect of the year has been that the instructional indicators are pointing to very positive future results. A parent and a teacher asked me how that could be true. Hadnt I seen the newspaper story showing results of the 4* grade literacy and math exam? Yes, but when we looked at those we noticed the schools that were pilots of the ELLA program K-3 and math, all had strong gains. Staff development has not been universally accepted or appreciated, primarily because of the many failed promises of programs and quick fix elixirs of the past! But this time this very basic and focused approach appears to be just what the doctor ordered. Most educational reformers who have produced results over time have agreed it is a matter of focuSgetting everyone on the same page with a standard or basic program. All the efforts of parents, students and teachers, regardless of the specialty, are focused to produce progress on a limited set of goals. ELLA training and the focused math training will continue to produce results on basic reading and math achievement goals. And let us not forget district graduates really had no peers when it came to top student awards in a number of state and national academic categories. Student activities have been a very pleasant surprise. The numbers of students participating grew impressively, and I know this helped to produce an improved year in student behavior. Many of you remember when state winners were most often decided within the schools of Little Rock, and Im talking about a variety of co-curricular activities. The district again has asserted itself with impressive performances in music, art, drama speech, debate and athletics. With the implementation of the middle schools and neighborhood schools our students and programs will only become stronger. Without question, the academic reasoning for middle schools and 9-12 high schools will provide academic strength, and it will have a positive impact with increased student participation in career/technical programs and co-curricular activities. (continued) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000A^eh'ti1 I t-ren LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 I I June 24. 1999 To
Board of Education From
Dr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAss!sociate Superintendent for Instruction Through
Subject
Attached Dr. Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan for the Board's 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 reviewed over a three-month period. Every elementary principal and PreK-3 teacher received his or her own copy, and there have been multiple opportunities for all to provide input, including during the June 2-3-4 inservice. In addition, the plan has been reviewed by representatives of ODM, UALR, ADE, and other education colleagues, as well as by parent representatives. As a result of all this feedback, we confidently present thi'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. In 1997-98 only 22 percent of Dodd grade 4 students scored at the Proficient or Advanced levels. 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! 1 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. f I I t 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. i 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). I f j tReview 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/adgi ^n Individual Approach to a World of Yjiowledge RECSVEd August 28, 2001 AUG 3 J 20Q1 DKEGflEGAT(0NM0N(T0fl/N6 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed in this package are three draft copies of our PreK-2 Literacy Program Evaluation, which is scheduled to go to the Board of Education in October. ( At your convenience I would like to schedule a meeting with you, Gene Jones, and Melissa Guilden to discuss the report and to hear your feedback and suggestions. Thanks so much for assisting us with this work. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032 ^4 7^ -J October 12, 2001 'iViS^ fb, A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge" Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capital, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2901 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Ms. Marshall: You will find enclosed a copy of our program evaluation for K-2 literacy: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The report is on the Boards October 25 agenda. As you will recall, Melissa Guilden participated on the design team for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, so we hope that you will share this study with her so that she can see some of the fruits of her labor. Also, Gene Jones read drafts in 1999-2000 of the early literacy program evaluation, so he will probably be interested in this product as well. Although we know that two years is not nearly enough to draw summative conclusions about the effectiveness of our literacy program in the early grades, we are certainly pleased with these early, very positive results. With the careful review that we have conducted not only of the results of the eight different assessments, but also of our program strengths and weaknesses, we feel that we have more direction now for program improvement in 2001-2002. Please let me or Ms. Pat Price know if you have questions. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Enclosure cc: Patricia Price Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032 F John W. Walker, pa. Attorket AiLiW 112Z Bsoadway Rook, akkansas 72206 Tp.T.FtpgnNE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W, WALSER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL donna J. MeHENK? 6210 HaffiiaaoN Hoad LMTiE Sock, Tboke: (BOI) rra-was Fax (SOl) 37^8 October 31,2002 Dr. T. Kenneth James SuperinteodJt of Schods Little Rock School Kstrict 810 West Markham little Rode. AR. 72201 Dear Dr. James: I am renewing my request for the infcnnation in my letter dated October 29, ^02. If I ation that the District has not utilized any understand your response correctly, it is your po^on that the (during each of the past three ye^) < " documents in existence wherry the Kstnct has co^ad and paid for such. your po^on, it seems contrary to your nqxjits to the Court. are no services. Ifthis is if you are not aware who has this information. of such documents, please forward my request to the proper person iiacerety, Joy C. Springer' JCS/ cc: Ms. Ann MarshallLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 1,2002 Ms. Joy Springer Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: In response to your most recent request, you did not understand our response. It is not our position that we have not utilized consultants. Hovi/ever, our response remains the same. We do not have a document or documents to provide in response to your FOIA request, and we are not required to compile information or create a record in response to a FOIA request. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools TKJ/bjg cc
Chris Heller Clay Fendley Ann Marshall 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 447-1002 0 : John W. Walker, PA. Attorney AT Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 I I JOHN W. WALkEB SHaWK CH-IlDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HknuEBSON Road LmLe Rxxac, ASKANB-vs 72210 Prone: (SOI) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 T.X(An.-. mehc2ii7d^ewbeU.nt I Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile 447-1159 November 4,2002 I I I I I Dear Dr. James
let me know the names, addresses and telephone of all persons (from January 1, 1998 throng October 31,2002) that the District has consulted with respect to literacy training (in-service and staff devdopment). Also please let me have copies of their contracts and the pay invoices that they have submitted along evidence of payment to them. Sincerely, JCS/ cc
Mr. John W, Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. ClayFendley Mr. Chris Heller I I e- JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 November 6, 2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 PHONE
(501) 372-3425 Fax (SOI) 372-3426 Email: mehcaiyd^vbclLnet Mr. ClayFendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Redons Center 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV -6 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I . XOM Dear Clay: I am in receipt of your letter dated November 5,2002. My request for information relates directly to the LRSDs proposed compliance plan, item 4
Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2,7. It is my understanding that literacy programs are being utilized to improve African American academic achievement and that the District commits to evaluating these programs I would like to have a better understanding of the literacy programs being implemented including who provided the training, amount paid by the District and the substance of the training provided. I also intend to inquire regarding the other programs identified in 2.7 in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. mcerely, Joy C. Spring! JCS/ cc: Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann MarshallI received JAN 1 3 2004 CREP OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Center for Research in Educational Policy > Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Steven M, Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterbinsky Center tor Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis 325 Browning Hail Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free
1-866-670-6147 November 2003Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.ffidayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE <79-685-2011 FAX 479-685-2147 FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR.. P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON STEVEN L. BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNG. JR. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KIMBERLY A. DICKERSON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870.762-2918 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 PAX 501-244-S344 hllrOfc.nt January 12, 2004 ONtHOllNO W N0li33a3aS3a dOlOHdO Mr. John Walker *1002 s I Nvr JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 aaABoaa Re: Little Rock School District Dear John: Two recent evaluations which were done in compliance with Judge Wilsons Order are enclosed. They are: Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation, November 2003 and An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to December 2003. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns about these evaluations. Yours very truly, CJH/bk ist6pher Heller cc w/enc.: Ms. Ann Marshal Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Morris Holmes* Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program-Draft Little Rock School District Division of Instruction March 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 past- ven more true in the future, (p. 1, Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. NREL, 1998) ( t- Table of Contents Introduction 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 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 6 Methodology Core Committee Members 6 8 Involvement and Communication 8 Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) Implications for Social Promotion Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) Professional Community Support for Students Conclusions 8 8 10 11 16 16 17 Review of Research 17 Plan Goals 20 PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Organizational Changes HIPPY Title I Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts No New Programs Program Abandonment Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers Waiver Application Requirements Curriculum and Instruction Alignment Daily Schedule Limited-English Proficient Students Special Education and 504 Students Gifted/Talented Students 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 27 27 28Frequent Assessment and Regrouping Phonemic Awareness Early Literacy Learning (ELLA) Thematic Instruction The Social Nature of Learning Role of the Library/Media Center Supplemental Reading Materials Assessment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment New Elementary Report Card PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation Professional Development Effective Literacy Smart Start Professional Development School-Level Professional Development Principal Development Interventions Success for All Reading Recovery English-as-a-Second Language Reading Clinic Summer School Parent Education/Involvement Parent-School Compacts Parent Education Conclusions Timelines 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 37Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy ProgramDraft Little Rock School District March 1999 Introduction Beginning of 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, 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 2L 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 Districts desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, is 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 which 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. 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. 1Draft 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 SO'** 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
the development of an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development 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 Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the Districts 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. Sections 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. 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
b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences
2Draft c. d. e. f. g- h. 1. J- k. 1. Promote thematic instruction
Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills
Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms
Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for feading/language arts and mathematics instruction
Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices
Provide parents/guardians with better information about their childs 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. I 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. 2.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs ... after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afncan-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afiican- 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. 32.12.2 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 Districts 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: 1. 2. 3. 4. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and mathematics. 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. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. Accountabilit)' - 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 will be conducted during 1998-99 to include training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the states 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. 4Draft Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams will be 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 Districts Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the Districts 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 challenging State performance standards developed for all children. The federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 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
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. 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
Significantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development
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
Affording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school
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 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 categories 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 of students for special programs and services. 5Draft Summary 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 all 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 Districts 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: 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. 21. 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 6Draft 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 prekindergarten 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. 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. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. Identified all supplemental reading programs currently in use in the Districts 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. 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. Drew conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 7Draft 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. Early Literacy Core Committee Members: Pat Price, Early Childhood Gene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Guldin, 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 have already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy. 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 will occur to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee shall begin 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. Once the review and input process has been completed and the committee has had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal will be presented to the Board of Education for their review and for approval of the proposed budget. Needs 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 8Draft 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 LRSD District 42% 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 Aftican 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. SAT9, Grade 3 Reading (Stanford Achievement Test) Data from the Fall 1998 administration of the grade 3 SAT9 confirm that too many students are not learning how to read well by grade 3. SAT9 reports student performance in four categories or levels: 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: 9Draft Subtests Total Reading Word Study Skills_____ Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Language Spelling Listening % in Level 1 23 19 20 31 22 15 13 % in Level 2 43 46 38 39 40 39 45 % in Level 3 28 22 31 23 30 28 il % in 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, again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3. 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, (p. 267, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) 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 af 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. Changes in the Districts promotion and retention policy that would end social promotion for LRSD students, starting with grade 1 in 1999-2000. 10Draft 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 enviroiunent, 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 efficacy-belief 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 the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are intended to 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, Metra 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. 11Draft 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 fCCC). These systems are computer-based instruction 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. Reading Recovery. This intensive early-intervention literacy program features the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. One to one tutoring program Individualized instruction Specially trained teachers. Literacy support groups Home/school reading connection 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 which support emergent learners. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction Reading process Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding Phonemic awareness Letter discrimination/recognition Letter/sound relationship 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. 12Draft 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. School-wide reading curriculum Cooperative learning Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessment every 8 weeks) Tutoring for students in need of extra assistance Family support team Accelerated Reader. This individualized program allows each student to move at his or her own pace and level of ability. This programs 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. 4. 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 Parental Involvement. Open Court. This phonics program centers on student drill, using a wall sound card chart. Shurlev Method. This program is a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions through jingles. Metra 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: 1. Field-tested reading, language arts, and mathematics curricula 2. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training. 13Draft Carbo Reading Styles. This program is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the students 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 states, districts, and schools language arts/reading objectives and philosophies. Primary features are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Database and software programs aligned with the school and districts curriculum 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 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: 1. 2. 3. 4. Instruction focused on four higher-order thinking skills analysis, comparison, inference, and evaluation 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. 14Draft 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. 10. 11. 12. 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 Classroom management and organization Assessment 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 States 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 Districts curriculum standards and what was actually being tested on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT9) or the States criterion-referenced tests 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. 15Draft 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 childs 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. In speaking with LRSD principals and teachers, one would find inconsistent evidence of these activities. 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. 16Draft At the end of the year there are cunently 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 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. Review of Research 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 someones reading skill at the end of grade 3. (p. 31, National Research Council, 1998) The following are common characteristics that make a practice a best practice (from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas 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. 17Draft 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. 12. 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 readini g- .. .the performance of kindergartners on tests of phonological awareness is a strong predictor of their future reading achievement, (p. 54, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998) ... the arguments for including spelling instruction as a major component of the reading program are strong. Learning about spelling reinforces childrens 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, (p. 103, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 18Draft 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. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde also have synthesized the research on best practice in teaching writing. 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. (p. 104. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 19Plan Goals Draft The Superintendent and the staff of the Little Rock School District propose this PreK-3 Literacy Plan to achieve the following goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To end the practice of social promotion (administrative placement of students to the next grade) in the Little Rock School District. 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. 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. 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. To prevent, to the extent possible, the need for special education and 504 referrals and services for reading disabilities. To improve communication with and the involvement of parents of PreK-3 children, including those who speak a language other than English. 1. To meet the obligations and commitments made to the community in the Districts Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to align with the States Smart Start Initiative. 8. To improve, over time, the overall academic success and graduation rates of students in the Little Rock School District. 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, (p. 2, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 20Draft PreK-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. I 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 move 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. 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 Groups report, follows: 21Draft 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 Coordinator of Early Childhood Education under this plan, effective fall 1999. HIPPY is a home-based program in which parents serve as the childs first teacher. The program provides children with school readiness skills and makes reading one of many activities parents and children do together, (p. 144, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) 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 childrens success in achieving the academic standards and benchmarks. Components of the restructuring shall include the following: 1. 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. e. f. Professional development^building 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 Parent education and involvement Focus of programs and services on grades PreK-3 at the elementary level. 22Draft Schools are 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, Success for All, or Direct Instruction 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. Montview Elementary eliminated remedial reading teachers as part of its schoolwide Title I program, directing its resources instead to professional learning.. .. Montviews results are noteworthy.. .. As a result of the schools hard work, its language arts scores exceeded those in the districts more prosperous, stable schools, (from Meeting the Reading Challenge in Low-Income Schools by Dennis Sparks, Education Week, Nov. 11, 1998) 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. Lower Adult-to-Student Ratios for Reading/Language Arts Instruction. Each school is encouraged to lower adult-student ratio to a maximum of 1:15 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, (p, 229. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998) 23Draft Closeness 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, (p. 130, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council. 1998) 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. Finally, 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, instead of a Title I teacher working during regular school hours, she/he 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. 24Draft 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 LRSD language arts curriculum at each school shall be tightly aligned with the Arkansas and LRSD curriculum frameworks and the LRSD 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, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Daily Schedule. 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, (p. 124, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 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, (p. 124. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 25Draft 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, (p. 124, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Thirty minutes - Students are engaged in independent reading at childs fluency level (wordless books, picture books, chapter books) Children should be given as much opportunity and encouragement as possible to practice their reading. Beyond the basics, childrens reading facility, as well as their vocabulary and conceptual growth, depends strongly on the amount of text they read. (p. 127, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 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 childrens deeper appreciation of the nature of text and its comprehension, (p. 126, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Forty minutes - Students are engaged in guided reading instruction (small group in which teacher provides support for development of reading strategies within students 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, (p. 213, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) 26Draft 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. (p. 29, Emerging Readers and Writers by Martha Combs, in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996) Throughout 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, (p. 118, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 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 meaning-based curricula, (p. 25. Building a Knowledge Base in Reading by Jane Braunger and Jan Lewis, 1998) 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. 27Draft 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, writin
strategies, assessment, spelling/phonics deyelopment, classroom management strategies, and word building. g The instruction of the most effectiye 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 yariety of approaches, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Thematic Instruction. Thematic instruction is promoted and encouraged. Schools should proyide for professional deyelopment, materials and supplies, and collaboratiye planning time for teachers to deyelop thematic units and to design assessments. The Social Nature of Learning. Giyen that learning is a social act, each teacher must acquire the skills to facilitate cooperatiye 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 eyery 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 yery real sense making learning illegal, (p. 14, Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steyen Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde) 29Draft Gifted/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 and 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 schools Title I budget. As schools acquire technology, there are a number 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, (p. 2, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 28Draft 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, (p. 26, Emerging Readers and Writers by Martha Combs in Vygotskv in the Classroom. 1996) Role of the Librarv/Media Center. Each school shall ensure students easy and frequent access (no fewer than one to two visits weekly) to the library/media center, and all students shall be encouraged through schoolwide 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. Supplementary 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, (p. 3, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998) Assessment/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. 30Draft 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, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice. The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 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 and so that it provides more accurate and specific information to parents regarding their childs progress in meeting the academic content standards of LRSD. 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 I Teachers who teach reading must receive better training and engage in ongoing professional development in reading instruction, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 31Draft Effective Literacy. Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers, building on the skills developed in K-2. 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 The 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. Parent involvement Smart Start Professional Development. The District and each school should leverage as much as possible the professional 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 schools Title I plan), especially the implementation of ELLA. Each schools 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 plarming/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. 32Draft A 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, (p. 6, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 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. 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. Reading 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. 33Draft English-as-a-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. Reading Clinic Intervention. Each school shall include in its Title I budget the funding for an after-school Reading Clinic or another researchbased 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, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Summer School. The District shall prioritize its elementary funding of summer school programs around the needs of grades k-1 students. The District shall design an intensive summer 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 instructional plan. (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Parent Education/Involvement Parent-School Compacts. Each school is encouraged to identify strategies to embed the Title I mandated parent-school compact in the culture of the school and to use this vehicle as a means of improving school-to-parent communication and parent understanding of the LRSD academic standards and benchmarks and ways they can support their childs success. 34Draft Parent Education. The District shall align its parent education
' involvement programs, including those involving Title I parents, at the PreK-3 levels with the components of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan and with the PreK-3 provisions for mathematics and science in the National Science Foundation project. Also, this component will include the Strategy 2 Action Plan activities recently approved as amendments to the Strategic Plan. 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 childrens reading initiations and interest, parents can create a press for achievement. 3. 4. 5. Availability and instrumental use of reading materials: literacy experiences are more likely to occur in homes that contain childrens books and other reading and writing materials. Reading with children: parents can read to preschoolers at bedtime or other times and can listen to schoolchildrens oral reading, providing assistance as needed. 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, (p. 121-122, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) Conclusions These recommendations are the result of extensive study, collaboration, and thoughtful deliberation over more than two years and intensively during the last seven 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-meaning people often become unrealized hopes or dreams. We are committed to acting on these recommendations and, therefore, ask for immediate approval to begin their implementation. 35Draft 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 which we believe should be immediately incorporated into the Division of Instructions work plan for the remainder of the school year. The timeline is attached for review, along with the proposed budget. 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-fimded 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. 365 Timelines 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. Develop 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)._____________________________________ 1. Design classroom profile rubrics (make grade specific
format status quo to most desirable matrix). 8. Design teacher practice rubrics.________________ 9. Design 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. Develop guidelines for thematic instruction. 12. Develop assessment plan.____________________ 13. Develop training modules for each component part of plan.___________________________________ 14. Write guidelines for school implementation of After-School Reading Clinics.____________________ 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. Draft Date February 1999 February April April April April May May May May May May April and ongoing May June and ongoing June and July June April 37! I Draft Activities __________________________________ 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. Date May May June June June July July 381 Ji LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 July 7, 1999 TO: Melissa Guldin, ODM Monitor FROM: Pat Price, Coordinator of Early Childhood Education SUBJECT: Revised PreK-3 Literacy Plan Enclosed please find a copy of the revised PreK-3 Literacy Plan, being printed at the print shop now for distribution to the schools. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. PP/adg Enclosure received Jill 1999 OfHCEOf deskresaw,MOM,TOffiXS These arePosition 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. array of important planning This 1996 undertaking became the first of an 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 Districts 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 LRSb 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. 1Background 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. 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 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 school which provides systemic support including professional development 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. 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
b. 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
3e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms
f. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction
g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices
h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students
i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences
j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms
k. 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 I. 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. 42.7.1 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 AAanagement 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 Q, 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 on enriched end 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 c. served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. 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
g- 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 categories 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 all 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: 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. 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. 94. 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 Committee Members'. Pat Price, Earl'y Childhood Gene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Guldin, 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
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.