literacy leadership -...
TRANSCRIPT
Literacy Leadership:District Level and Building LevelSupport of CLC
Suzanne RobinsonExecutive Director, Strategic Learning Center
Associate Professor, University of Kansas
Ann SouthworthAssistant Superintendent, Chief Academic Officer
Ann FerriterStriving Readers Implementation Officer
Springfield Public School District, Springfield, MA
CLC Framework
• Researchers at KU – CRL developed a framework called theContent Literacy Continuum (CLC; Lenz & Ehren, 1999).
• This structure provides a vehicle for
(a) considering the factors that influence the success ofsecondary literacy efforts.
(b) leveraging the talents of secondary school faculty.
(c) organizing instruction to increase in intensity as the deficitsthat certain subgroups of students demonstrate become evident.
A Continuum of Literacy Instruction
Level 1: Enhanced content instruction (strategic teaching to ensure
mastery of critical content for all regardless of literacy levels)
Level 2: Embedded strategy instruction (routinely weave learning
strategies within and across courses as part of large-group instruction)
Level 3: Intensive strategy instruction (ensure mastery of specific
strategies via research-based instruction in small groups and in tutoring)
Level 4: Intensive basic skill instruction (mastery of entry-level
literacy skills below the 4th grade level)
Level 5: Therapeutic intervention (mastery of language underpinnings
related to curriculum content, learning strategies, and entry level skills)
Level 1: Enhanced content instruction
Level 2: Embedded strategy instruction
Level 3: Intensive strategy instruction
Level 4: Intensive basic-skill instruction
Level 5: Therapeutic intervention
Strategic Intervention
Intensive Intervention
A Continuum of Literacy Instruction
Challenges of a secondary schoolliteracy initiative
1. Close the gap for struggling readers asquickly as possible - change the trajectoryof reading skills acquisition.
2. Raise the bar for all - address how to attainhigh achievement outcomes for all studentsregardless of incoming literacy levels.
3. Acknowledge and address resistance tochange.
Challenge #1Challenge #1((““Close the GapClose the Gap””))
61% 61% of struggling adolescentreaders in urban settings scoredat significantly lower levels onword level and readingcomprehension skills.
Challenge #2 Challenge #2 ((““Raise the BarRaise the Bar””))
Standardized tests for adolescents
• Require students to be proficient in…– Complex thinking (inference, summarization)
– Vocabulary
– Background knowledge
• Increase in– Length
– Question number and complexity
Challenge #3 Challenge #3 (Resistance to Change)(Resistance to Change)
1) Staff express suspicion of new initiatives.
2) Staff are asked to abandon personal resources/materials.
3) Some teachers find sharing instructional practices and materials threatening.
4) Teachers feel they have too much to cover already. 5) Teachers experience uncertainty about their role in CLC.
What administrators need to knowabout CLC implementation
• During stages of CLC implementation,actions taken around
– Vision
– Responses to challenges
– Leadership and collaborative problem-solving
– Support for professional growth
– Structures for professional development andcoaching
– Support for planning and collaboration
– Allocation of resources
What administrators need to knowabout CLC implementation
• During stages of CLC implementation,actions taken around
– Curriculum planning
– Support for professional development
– Support for CLC
– Support for continuum of literacy instruction
– Building commitment
– Accountability
– Use of data
– Promote responsibility
District level challenges
• Align district initiatives: find out how initiativesconnect to one another to create a supportsystem.
• Respect individual school characteristics,school improvement goals as appropriate.
• Manage inevitable “tensions” that arise duringsystems change.
• Identify resources to support literacy initiative.
• Collect and use data for decision-making.
Building level challenges
• Align literacy initiative with building initiatives.
• Align building initiatives and district initiatives.
• Coordinate resources to support initiativesthrough school governance structure.
• Coordinate and support implementation ofliteracy interventions.
• Coordinate and sustain implementation ofliteracy interventions.
• Collect and use data for decision-making.
District level strategies
• Curriculum alignment around adoptions andsupport programs
• Integration of literacy interventions into curriculumdissemination systems (e.g., websites, electroniccurriculum resource banks, pacing guides, etc.)
• Coordination and financial support of professionaldevelopment and professional collaboration
• Resolution of potential union and other systemissues
Building level strategies
• Instructional leadership by principal
• Literacy coaches
• Literacy leadership teams
• Classroom observation strategies– Informal walk throughs
– Observation tools
– Integration with teacher evaluation process
Striving Readers
Criteria– Title 1 School District
– School-wide literacy intervention
– Targeted intervention for striving readers
– Randomized group research design
Eight Projects– Springfield/Chicopee, MA
– Portland, OR
– Danville, KY
– Chicago, IL
– Newark, NJ
– Ohio Dept of Youth Services, San Diego, CA
– Memphis, TN
Springfield-Chicopee Striving Readers
• KEY INFORMATION:• 5-year, $16.6 million grant:• Focused on improving the performance of struggling readers (2 or more years
below grade level down to 4th grade level) and school-wide teaching in supportof reading.
• Interventions:• Two targeted interventions for struggling population: Read 180 Enterprise
Edition and the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) Xtreme Reading Program
• A whole school intervention: SIM Content Enhancement Routines for Teachers(CERT)
• There is one literacy coach per high school whose sole task is to support theuse of the whole school intervention.
• 5 participating high schools:• Springfield: HS of Science &Tech, HS of Commerce, Putnam Voc-Tech HS
• Chicopee: Chicopee HS and Chicopee Comprehensive HS
• Grant design requirements:• Strict randomized control trial evaluated by Brown University.
• Randomization is done for students, teachers and both interventions
Springfield-Chicopee Demographics
Total in SR 280Total in SR 630
White 69.9%White 16.8%
Hispanic 23.9%Hispanic 52.9%
Asian 1.3%Asian 2.1%
African Amer. 2.9%African Amer. 24.0%
Total HS 2625Total HS 6952
Total students: 7754Total students: 25233
CPSSPS
Springfield-Chicopee Selected Populations
15.1SPED23.2SPED
51.6Low-Income78.5Low-Income
4.5Limited English
Proficiency13Limited English
Proficiency
13.6First Language
Not English23.3First Language
Not English
%TITLE%TITLE
ChicopeeSpringfield
Springfield-Chicopee Indicators
72.153.8Graduation Rate
13.415.3Out-of-school
08.1In-School Suspensions
11.816.3Avg. Days Absent
92.9%89.9%Attendance Rate
6%10.9%Dropout Rate
ChicopeeSpringfield
Teacher Data
12.8 to 111.6 to 1Student/Teacher Ratio
94.480.7% Highly Qualified
5181,792Total in Core Subjects
9686.1% Licensed in Content
6032,215Total Teachers
ChicopeeSpringfield
MA Striving Readers ProjectDistrict Challenges
• Grant timeline and vendor contracts
• Challenges of random control model
• Fidelity of delivery, and adherence to programmodels and specifications
• Different schedules and classes acrossschools/districts
Vocational school schedule
• Buy-in/ownership of Content Enhancement
MA Striving Readers ProjectDistrict Strategies
• Engagement of Academic Directors
• Involvement of Instructional LeadershipSpecialists with Literacy Coaches
• Paid professional development
• Striving Readers newsletter
• Advisory and steering committees
• School committee presentations
• Communication with Congressmen
MA Striving Readers ProjectBuilding Level Challenges
• Changes in building leadership
• Student engagement in grant testing
and randomization
• CERT roll-out
• Intervention teacher turn-over
• Making striving readers’ success a
building priority
MA Striving Readers ProjectBuilding Level Strategies
• Literacy Leadership Teams
• Principal’s monthly meetings with CERTteachers
• Learning Walks in SIM/CERT classes
• Faculty meeting reports
• Parental communication
• Sharing of student testimonials
• Celebrations!
Successes
• Administrators have successfullyimplemented in all 5 schools
• Teachers have embraced the models
• Districts have delivered quality PD
• Districts’ leadership engaged and supportive
• Middle schools testing successfully
• CERT strategies adopted on the MS level
• Brown’s evaluation the gold standard
Conclusionthoughts on facilitating change
1. Urgency- the pull between the need to get “up to
speed” while addressing calendar constraints
2. Intervening at many levels of a school system
3. Getting “the right people on the bus”
4. Bumping up against limits of resources and time
5. Addressing unexpected obstacles
6. What are we not attending to that we need to
attend to? - The importance of vigilance!
Conclusion
Presentation and handouts available at:
http://www.kucrl.org/library/presentations.shtml
View more about CLC at:
http://www.preservice.kucrl.org/ (Look at DVD
Resources Instructional Support)
http://www.clc.kucrl.org