N A O M I N O R M A N H O L L Y H E A V I L A N D

W A S H T E N A W I N T E R M E D I A T E S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

L I V I N G S T O N E D U C A T I O N A L S E R V I C E A G E N C Y

Creating and Sustaining an Exemplary Regional Adolescent

Literacy Initiative

Doing What Works

Implementation Award

Michigan Association of School Boards Award

I3 Validation Grant

Need to Knows

Agenda   The Challenge   The Context   The Process   The Plan   The Implementation   The Data   The Future

  Core of the plan   Literacy across content   Keeping current   Adolescent   Data—what was most

important? Valuable vs less valuable to demonstrate effectiveness

Washtenaw & Livingston Counties

Washtenaw County Livingston County

  45,000 Students   10 School districts   16 High schools   17 Middle schools   Urban/suburban/rural

  30,000 Students   5 School districts   5 High schools   7 Middle schools   Rural/suburban

Demographics

The Challenge

2004 MEAP Grade 7 Reading

2004 MEAP Grade 11 Reading

2004 MEAP Grade 7 Reading -- %

Proficient

2004 MEAP Grade 11 Reading -- % Proficient

The Context

THE BIG IDEAS

  Personalized Learning   Effective Instructional Practices (Workgroup)   Multiple Assessments (Workgroup)   Teaching and Learning Teams   Early Childhood/Family Support

Washtenaw County Learning Expectations

1.  Literacy

2.  Mathematical Knowledge and Application

3.  Identifying and Accessing Resources

4.  Content Knowledge

5.  Complex Thinking

6.  Communication

7.  Personal and Interpersonal Skills

8.  Habits of Mind

The Process

Superintendents’ Association

Instruction and Assessment Workgroup

Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee

Literacy Committee

Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee • 35 people • Diverse and representative group: 3 people from each district (teacher, district admin, bldg admin) • University representation: U-M, EMU

Thinking Team •  10 people •  The best thinkers we could

find related to literacy (principals, researchers, consultants)

Planing Team •  3 people •  ISD literacy consultant,

committee chairs

•  Adolescent literacy definition

•  Reading Next – making it pertinent to Washtenaw County

•  Further reading on the elements chosen

•  Development of the blueprint

Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee Work

•  One year – 4 all-day meetings with clear outcomes

•  Coordinated with national speaker presentations, University symposium on literacy, ad hoc conversations with literacy gurus

Vital Instructional Components

Areas of Literacy

Vital Infrastructure Components

Reading Comprehension!

Writing!

Oral Language!

 Effective instructional principles embedded in content!

 Direct, explicit literacy instruction within content areas!

 Text-based collaborative learning !

 Focus on metacognition!

 Ongoing formative assessment !

 Motivation/engagement!

 Technology component!

 Use of diverse texts!

 Intensive writing!

 Extended time for literacy!

 Professional development!

 Ongoing summative assessment of students and programs!

 Teacher teams!

 Instructionally-focused leadership and leadership teams!

 Comprehensive and coordinated literacy program!

!

Adolescent Literacy Focus

Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy (2004)

The Optimal Mix

15 – 3 = 0 Without:

  professional development

  ongoing formative assessment of students

  ongoing summative assessment of students

and programs

Joyce and Showers Model

Training Method How do we achieve it?

Level of Impact Evidence of Impact What does this look like?

Didactic presentation of theory & concepts

Awareness Participant can articulate general concept & identify problems.

Modeling/demonstration (i.e. live, video)

Conceptual Understanding

Participant can articulate concepts clearly & describe appropriate actions.

Practice in simulated situations with feedback (i.e. role play, written

exercises

Skill Acquisition Participant can begin to use skills in structured or simulated

situations.

Coaching & supervision during application

Application of Skills Participant can use skills flexibly in actual settings.

Training Methods & Levels of Impact Joyce & Showers (1980)

Knowing Doing

The Plan

Engaging Students in Literate Thinking:

A Blueprint for Adolescent Literacy Success In Washtenaw County

This plan outlined: •  The specific literacy instructional framework •  The professional development system for touching ALL

secondary teachers in all subjects •  Alignment of county resources and activities •  Multiple-year phased approach •  Need for formative and summative evaluation

Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee, a subcommittee of the Effective Practices/Assessment Workgroup, Washtenaw County Intermediate School District, March 2006 !

Blueprint for Engaging Students in Literate Thinking in Washtenaw County!Key Elements of Blueprint for Engaging Students in Literate Thinking!

County Approach to Adolescent Literacy !

System and Individual Capabilities that Support Effective Literacy Instruction!

Initiatives to Support Effective Literacy Instruction!

Hoped-for Outcomes!

!

Purposes!

Align processes and procedures! Leadership team! Assessment processes! Teacher collaboration! Literacy plans! Professional development! Coordination of outside support!

Framing ideas:! Common Expectations for literacy! Personalizing learning! Multiple forms of assessment! Effective instructional practices! Teaming !

Align infrastructure ! Extended time for literacy ! Creation of classroom libraries! Intensive academic literacy class!

 Increase in student agency and thinking skills!

 Increase in student reading comprehension and writing skills!

 Decrease in the gap between low performing students and others!

 Increase in teacher collaborative practices!

 Increase in cross-district collaboration!

 Alignment of district, building and ISD literacy goals!

Syst

em C

apab

ilitie

s!Te

ache

r Cap

abili

ties!

Focus efforts on strengthening classroom instructional practices in the areas of:!Metacognition!Literate thinking (reading comprehension, oral language, writing)!Student voice and choice!Relationships with students!!Through!Deepenign teacher content knowledge, apprenticing students within each content area!Ongoing, collaborative, and !!

Coordinated Professional Development!

Form county cohort of trainers and team facilitators with content area focus using existing models such as!• Reading Apprenticeship!• Writing Apprenticeship!• HI-Class!• Critical Friends Groups!

County-wide steering committee!Building level literacy teams!

Coordinate training of tutors, other school support in same literacy instruction!!Classroom Libraries!!Utilizing University faculty to deepen content area thinking !!Insensive acadectic literacy class!Apprenticing students in their sense of agency!Scaffolding!

Knowledge of literacy!Insight into student learning"Teacher repertoire of effective literacy practices within their subject area"Building teacher�s professional judgment!

Strengthening student, teacher and system capabilities to support the development of �literate thinkers�.!

Utilizing a metacognitive model that builds agency and efficacy in students so they can fully access the curriculum. (Giving students the tools to be thinkers.) !

Apprenticing students in discipline-specific reading, writing, and oral language instruction.!

Building strong teacher collaborative processes.!

Strengthen Leadership and Collaboration Capabilities! Facilitating change process! Collaborative group techniques!

Strengthen Instructional Capabilities! Conceptual understanding of importance of literate thinking! Develop skills and knowledge ! Application of effective literacy-related instructional practices! Facilitator�s Network!

Support a cross-county network of literacy facilitators for training, collaboration, and leadership purposes.!

Leadership & Design Teams!Focus leadership and design team model on supporting building leadership teams address literacy professional development needs.!

Leadership Support!Support development of building-level literacy teams!

Support building and district leadership!

Develop and maintain working relationships with community partners!

Reading Apprenticeship

  Strategic Literacy Initiative from WestEd   Developed by Schoenbach, Greenleaf, Cziko, Hurwitz

A partnership of expertise between the teacher and student, drawing on what content area teachers know and do as skilled discipline-based readers and on adolescents’ unique and often underestimated strengths.

Reading Apprenticeship

• Content Area teachers are the �experts� in knowing how to read their text

• Make the invisible visible

• Students being aware of the way they think and understand – metacognition

• Reading, writing and discourse are all linked – content area specific

•  County-wide alignment and support •  Nested teams •  Cross-district collaboration and support •  Multi-year •  Systems change support •  Instructional change support •  Teaming and collaboration support

Professional Development Plan

Scaling Cycle

  Engaging students in literate thinking

Faciliator trained in literacy strategies and facilitation skills

Small team trained in literacy strategies and teaming skills

Teams build skills throughout year and debrief and learn from each other

New faciliatators and teams come on board

County support for facilitator

County cadre of trainers to support the training of building staff and teams L&D teams

Nested Teams

Milan Symons

5th Grade Teachers

Milan MS

Team of Content Teachers

Milan HS

Team of Content Teachers

2007-2008 • June �07 – training of teachers • Monthly meetings • Sharing student work • Peer observation • Modeling of strategies

2 trainers working together

Milan Symons

5th Grade Teachers

Milan MS

2 Teams of Content Teachers

Milan HS

2 teams of Content Teachers

2008-2009 • June �08 – training of teachers • Monthly meetings • Building/district every other month • Or content area MS/HS • Sharing student work • Peer observation • Modeling of strategies

Each trainer facilitates a team

2009-2010 • June �09 – training of teachers • Grade level training • Grade level or content area meetings • Sharing student work • Peer observation • Modeling of strategies

Milan Symons 4th Grade Teachers

Milan Symons 5th Grade Teachers

Milan MS

6th Grade Teachers

Milan MS

7th Grade Teachers

Milan HS

9th Grate Teachers

Milan HS

10th Grade Teachers

Trainers support facilitators of meetings

Phase 1!Phase 2!

Phase 3!Phase 4!

Engaging Students in �Literate Thinking�!

Form County-wideSteering Committee!

 Develop a shared vision!

 Articulate vital components of effective literacy instruction and infrastructure!

 Determine county-wide implementation plan!

Cou

nty!

Dist

rict!

Scho

ol!

Cla

ssro

om!

Develop County-wide Literacy Facilitator Group!

 Develop and practice strong literacy, leadership and collaboration skils!

 Provide training for building and district leadership teams!

Form cross-district literacy team!

 Develop a shared vision!

 Articulate vital components of district literacy work in terms of instruction and infrastructure!

 Coordinate literacy work across buildings with attention to transition years!

Maintain c ross-district literacy team!

 Monitor progress toward a coordinated literacy program within district!

 Review data!

Sustain County-wide Literacy Facilitator Network!

 Provide training and support across districts in literacy and teacher collaboration!

 Provide support for building leaders and leadership teams!

Participate in County-streering committee!

!

Participate in district literacy team!

Develop literacy facilitators and organize small learning teams!

 Two teachers attend summer training and ongoing training throughout year to become formal facilitators within building, district and county!

 Teachers form a small, literacy leadership team within school and train team members in literacy and collaboration strategies!

Measurable change in instruction in literacy leaders� classroom (2 classrooms)!

Provide school-wide training in literacy skills and provide learning teams with further skill development!

 Provide formal literacy training for entire school staff!

 Form additional small learning teams to focus on instructional strategies and assessments related to literacy !

Measurable change in instruction in the classrooms of the literacy team members (4-6 classrooms)!

Evaluation

  Big Idea: Data collected to help improve instruction scaled to provide programmatic evaluation

  Evaluation Tools:   Degrees of Reading Power/Scholastic Reading Inventory (pre

and post-test all students)   Student surveys, focus groups   Teacher journals – turned in 2x monthly   Teacher pre and post survey   Teacher focus groups

The Implementation

Washtenaw County Livingston County

Timeline

Year Activity

2004-05 Workgroup request & subgroup work

2005-06 Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee

2006-07 1st year of implementation

2007-08 2nd year of implementation

2008-09 3rd year of implementation

2009-10 4th year of implementation

2010-11 institutionalization

Year Activity

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07 Discussion of literacy need

2007-08 1st year of implementation

2008-09 2nd year of implementation

2009-10 3rd year of implementation

2010-11 Institutionalization

Teachers Trained by County

18

117

258

400

25

92

220

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Year 1 (2006-2007)

Year 2 (2007-2008)

Year 3 (2008-2009)

Year 4 (2009-2010)

Washtenaw

Livingston

•  Support classroom-level work •  Model facilitation skills and allow teachers time to practice them •  Share issues of practice – successes and challenges •  Support personal growth •  Make classroom observations •  Continually reflect on the dimensions/theory behind the work •  Examine formative and summative measures •  Plan building-level meetings •  Meet and plan with administrators for the upcoming year

Regional Monthly Meetings

•  Share issues of practice – successes and challenges

•  Support personal growth •  Make classroom

observations •  Continually reflect on the

dimensions/theory behind the work

•  Examine formative and summative measures

Local Structured Collaboration:

0 – Awareness Little concern about or involvement in the innovation is indicated.

1 - Informational There is general awareness of the innovation and increased interest in details.

2 – Personal Uncertain of demands of innovation; concerns regarding how innovation will affect self.

3 – Management Attention is focused on process and task of using innovation and most efficient use of time, resources, etc.

4 – Consequence Focus is on impact innovation will have on students.

5 – Collaboration Concern about coordinating and collaborating with others regarding innovation.

6 – Refocusing Exploration of additional benefits for students, including modifying or replacing innovation.

Educational Change Process Gene Hall & Shirley Hord (1987)

Initiation process leading to the decision to implement change Implementation process of putting the change into action Institutionalization process of stabilizing/continuing change (Fullan, 1991)

Expansion to Livingston County

  Superintendents reviewed outcome data, discussed literacy options and requested the expansion

  Bypassed the mistakes   Culture and readiness for the collaborative work

already existed   Implemented much faster   Use of ARRA funding to bring to scale more quickly   Addition of instructional coaching

Expansion Successes

  Leadership turnover at regional and local levels did not end initiative

  Two counties combined in to one RAT group in year 5

  Redefined high quality professional development   Maintained student reading comprehension growth

over first three years   Maintained funding & focus for 5 years

Expansion Challenges

  All teachers trained, but are they all implementing?   Finding time for ongoing collaboration   Leadership turnover locally   Scaling an implementation when in later years

  Different teachers need different kinds of support   Teachers with less skill trained in later years and they needed

additional supports   Haven�t figured out how to maintain high standards for RA while

personalizing to the needs of reluctant or less skilled teachers

  Evolution of initiative   Loss of local RATs provides sustainability challenge

Impact on the System

  Demand for high quality professional development   Expectations for co-constructing professional

development initiatives   Boundary-spanning with intertwined goals   Leveraging teacher voice and instructional

leadership   Common literacy model and language around

instructional practice across 34 schools in two counties

E m b e d d e d e v a l u a t i o n m o d e l f o r f o r m a t i v e a n d s u m m a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n

Data

Collaboration Matters

. . . . as I was contemplating the results of our DRP scores, and considering how to best meet the needs of our students . . . .

. . . I decided to try the partner quiz idea. I spent time last evening carefully choosing the partner groups - connecting my struggling readers with stronger ones - considering personalities that I thought would work together well – and in some cases putting 2 students who tend to slack off together so that they would each have to step up to the plate to complete the task. The assessment was from the textbook materials, so the format was familiar to the students, and nothing was too tricky. But like the earlier lessons, the quiz involved a good deal of reading and comprehending the questions and the tasks.

Teacher Reflection Journal Entries

Benefits for Students

Improved Comprehension

Making the invisible, visible

Deeper discussions

Peers� sense making Repair Strategies

Recognizing meaning breakdowns

Critical thinking

Increased Engagement

Include more students by taking the time

Reluctant readers to readers

Strong readers struggle too

Increased productivity

Appreciate points of view

Increased confidence

Expanded Strategy Use

Increased Self-Direction

Responsible for own learning

Intrinsic motivation to read

Liking reading more

TttT enhances discussions

High readers benefit too

Making strategies explicit to peers

W e s t E d r e c e i v e d I 3 g r a n t o f $ 2 2 . 6 M S c a l e u p i n M i c h i g a n , I n d i a n a , U t a h , P e n n s y l v a n i a

B i o l o g y , H i s t o r y , E L A F i v e y e a r s

W i l l d e v e l o p a d d i t i o n a l t o o l s a n d r e s o u r c e s f o r t e a c h e r s

I3 Grant –Validation Award