elementary english language arts program evaluation november 2, 2006
DESCRIPTION
ELEMENTARY ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS PROGRAM EVALUATION NOVEMBER 2, 2006. ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of Instruction English Language Arts Office Title I Office. Mary Zolman, ELA Supervisor Gayle Kelley, ELA Reading Specialist David McBride, ELA Project Specialist - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
ELEMENTARY ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
PROGRAM EVALUATION
NOVEMBER 2, 2006
ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of Instruction
English Language Arts OfficeTitle I Office
Mary Zolman, ELA SupervisorGayle Kelley, ELA Reading Specialist David McBride, ELA Project Specialist
Sheryl Leeds, Title I Supervisor
Presentation
• Mission Statement• Objectives• Program Description• Evaluation Design• Results• Recommendations and Next Steps
Mission Statement
• To provide a rich and rigorous program that offers students
– the knowledge and strategies that they need to succeed within and beyond APS, and
– to become literate adults who have the power to choose what they do after high school.
Objectives
• Student Achievement in Elementary English Language Arts– improve student achievement – reduce the achievement gaps
• Classroom instruction– ensure Best Practices Instruction
Objectives
• Curriculum and Materials
– align with the Virginia Standards of Learning– support and sustain high achievement– represent Arlington’s population
Central Office Staff, 2004-2005
• ELA
– 1 supervisor– 2 specialists
• projects• reading
– 2 administrative assistants (reduced to 1, 12/05)
• Title I
– 1 supervisor– 1 Reading
Recovery teacher leader
– 1 administrative assistant
Elementary Reading Teachers2004-2005
• 26 ELA reading teachers
• 22 Title I reading teachers
• 10 of these positions are split ELA/Title I reading positions
• Within ELA & Title I– 17 Reading Recovery
trained teachers
Language Arts Strands
• Oral language– listening and speaking
• Reading– phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, comprehension
• Writing– composing, written expression,
usage/mechanics
Evaluation Design
• Classroom Observations– outside evaluators
• Test Data– pre-existing data, PALS, DRP, SOL
• Surveys– teachers and administrators– Title I parents
How well did we implement?
• Observations
– Planning for instruction is strong • Students at all grade levels knew
– what to do– how to do it
• Not always clear that students knew why they were completing tasks
– Classroom participation• represents the ethnic diversity of
the classrooms
How well did we implement?
• Kindergarten – Grade Two Students
– Receive a solid foundation in early literacy skills and strategies
• Assessment– PALS – DRP
• Classroom observations– Students were engaged in literacy
activities
How well did we implement?
• Observations
– Reading instruction varies across grade levels
• Extensive small and large group reading
• Guided reading instruction– Lack of specific lesson focus or
teaching point – Lack of before, during and after
reading strategies
How well did we implement?
• Observations
– Oral language instruction• weak across all grade levels• Direct and indirect instruction
– Writing instruction• an area in which continued
professional development is needed
What changes happened for the intended recipients?
• Overall, APS students do well on the SOL and other assessments
• Longitudinal data show – Students who begin and remain
with APS perform better on • PALS• DRP• SOL
What changes occurred in areas that were not the
primary focus of the evaluation?
• Classroom observations – examples of excellent instruction
illustrating features that could serve as models for others
• Arlington’s teachers – greatest resource
If this did not work equally well in all locations, why?
• Guided reading
• Word Study/Vocabulary– Excellent effect in the early grades
• centered on phonology K-2
– Not continued in Grade 4• Lacking upper-level word study, or morphology
How satisfied were the users and clients?
• Materials (teachers)– 83% report satisfaction with
the adopted materials, K–5
• Professional Development Requests– Writing– Word study
How satisfied were the users and clients?
• Title I Parent Survey
– 67% of parents participate in school activities and find them useful
– 65% of respondents believe their children are very interested in reading
– Flyers are the best method of communication
How effectively were systems resources used to
achieve the identified goals?
• ELRT and Title I reading teachers were rated highly
– Classroom observations • Use of best practices• Before, during and after reading strategies
How effectively were systems resources used to
achieve the identified goals?
• Teacher Surveys indicate that reading teachers
−Are successful with students−Coordinate frequently with classroom
teachers−Are helpful in team planning
What are our strengths?
• Overall use of Best Practices Instruction
• Kindergarten – Grade Two instruction
• Expertise of Reading Teachers
• Classroom participation by students of all ethnicities
What are our strengths?2004-2005 SOL, Grade 5
• APS– Reading - 90% – Writing – 93%
• APS Longitudinal Group*– Reading - 95%– Writing – 97%
• Virginia– Reading – 85%– Writing – 91%
*Took all assessments, Grades 2-5
What are our challenges? 2004-2005 SOL, Grade 5
• Achievement Gap in Reading
– White Students• 96.5% Passed
– Black Students• 71.2% Passed, Gap = 25.3%
– Hispanic Students• 87.2%, Gap = 9.3%
What are our challenges? 2004-2005 SOL, Grade 5
• Achievement Gap in Writing
– White Students• 96.9% Passed
– Black Students• 80.9% Passed, Gap = 16%
– Hispanic Students• 91.1%, Gap = 5.8%
What are our challenges?
• Continue to improve instruction
– Reading– Writing– Word Study/Vocabulary– Oral Language
Recommendations:What are we doing now?
ELA Lead Teachers
• Supporting lead teachers in developing professional conversations
– Introducing professional books– Working with schools to facilitate
professional conversations
Recommendations:What are we doing now?
Textbook Review
• ELA, ESOL/HILT & SPED– Core Reading Programs– Writing, K-5– Handwriting– Word Study/Vocabulary– Supplementary/Intervention– Preschool
Recommendations:What are we doing now?
Curriculum
• Resource Notebooks, K-2 & 3-5• Vocabulary Notebooks• Curriculum Framework
Recommendations:What are we doing now?
Professional Development
• Early Reading Strategies Institute (ERSI)– K-2 Comprehensive literacy instruction
• Guided Reading– Grades 1-2
• Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)– Grades 1-2 general education, ESOL/HILT,
special education and reading teachers– Administering, scoring and planning instruction
Recommendations:What are we doing now?
Professional Development• Struggling Readers and Writers
– Grades 3-5– Guided reading technique– Struggling reader and special
education focus• Word Study
– K-5, spelling and vocabulary development
• Northern Virginia Writing Project– Upper elementary and secondary
process writing course - GMU
Recommendations:What are we doing now?
Title I
• Sustained Family Literacy Library Initiative– All Title I Schools– Linked to content areas– Focused on improving
student learning
Recommendations:What do we intend to do?
• Complete the electronic reading card• Include oral language in existing
professional development• Add a guided reading course for
Grades 3-5• Monitor use of differentiated
instruction and materials
Recommendations:What do we intend to do?
• Implement new textbooks in 2007-2008
– Provide ongoing professional development throughout the adoption cycle
In Place
• Support for Professional Development
– ERSI– Word Study– Struggling Readers and Writers– Guided Reading– K-2 Writing PDP
In Place
• Half-time coaches for
– ERSI– Word Study– Struggling Readers and Writers
Thank You
• Overall support for
– ELA– Title I