reading academies pilot orientation · 2020. 4. 24. · slide 1 . reading academies pilot...

Reading Academies Pilot Orientation

March 17, 2020

Hi, this is Michael Barnes, from the Texas Education Agency. I am the Operations Manager for Reading Academies. We are excited to have you with us today and for *volunteering* your time and talents as educators throughout this pilot program. As a first point, I want to note that we are fully operational though virtual in the face of COVID-19, and on target to meet all of our Reading Academies deadlines. With the caveat that anything that was originally intended to be in-person, will now be fully remote and online (virtual).

2

Agenda

Intro and Overview Pilot Overview, Norms and Expectations Planning for Time – Sample Schedule Access to Canvas – Process Q&A Closing and Next Steps

WebinarAgenda

Today we will give a brief overview and background on the HB3 Reading Academies, for those that haven’t seen our amazing videos on the topic. We will then move into describing the Pilot program and the role for you, the Pilot participant, including norms and expectations, how to plan for and schedule your work, and how you will access your course content (Canvas), as well as Q&A and next steps. Let me take a moment to thank you again for applying and being accepted to this amazing program!

Intro and Overview

First up, intro and overview, to HB 3 Reading Academies, and the Pilot program.

Since 2007, Texas' reading scores have flatlined and declined compared to national averages as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Why Does Texas Need to Focus on Literacy?

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

20172015201320112009200720052003200219981994

Percent of Students Meeting Standard in 4th Grade Reading

TAAS

TAKS

NAEP

STAAR

As we can see, measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reading scores for Texas students have flatlined and declined! Specifically, this chart shows that STAAR performance from 2013 to 2017 was worse for 4th grade readers relative to the NAEP than TAAS (1994-200) and TAKS (2003-2011). In HB 3, the legislature asked that we re-invest in supporting teachers in delivering high-quality reading instruction and supports to K-3 students, as well as Pre-K and beyond. This meant expanding the scope of the original reading academies under our READ Grant. For the purpose of HB3 Reading Academies, we are focusing on the mandate to support all K-3 teachers and principals. But we are all here today to focus on how to help teachers best support Texas’ students in demonstrating greater competency in reading!

5

x =Language

ComprehensionAbility to understand

spoken language

Reading Comprehension

DecodingAbility to apply sound-symbol relationships to

read words

Simple View of Reading

How Do Children Learn To Read?

*Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986)

To review, a research-based view of reading is one that combines the elements of decoding with language comprehension to arrive at reading comprehension. In this image, we see that Decoding and Language Comprehension together help students develop Reading Comprehension. We do acknowledge that professionals within the field of reading and the science of teaching reading, see some variance in their findings. The Reading Academies intends to represent the general consensus of the field with respect to research-based practices to develop Reading Comprehension. A small citation on the slide is listed as a footnote, which refers to the 1986 article “Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability,” by Philip B. Gough and William E. Tunmer. This article is part of the research-base to which we refer.

Competencies and TEKS

6

Overview of STR Competencies

• Competency 003: Oral Language Foundations of Reading Development• Competency 004: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness• Competency 005: Print Concepts and Alphabet Knowledge• Competency 006: Phonics and Other Word Identification Skills• Competency 007: Syllabication and Morphemic Analysis Skills• Competency 008: Reading Fluency

• Competency 009: Vocabulary Development• Competency 010: Comprehension Development• Competency 011: Comprehension of Literary Texts• Competency 012: Comprehension of Informational Texts

• Competency 013: Analysis and Response

• Competency 001: Foundations of the Science of Teaching Reading• Competency 002: Foundations of Reading Assessment

TEKS Strands

Strand 1: Foundational Language Skills

Strand 2: Comprehension Skills

Strand 3: Response Skills

Strand 4: Multiple Genres

Strand 5: Author’s Purpose and Craft

Strand 6: Composition

Strand 7: Inquiry and Research

The content for Reading Academies is linked closely to both the Science of Teaching Reading Competencies (STR) and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Notice there are 13 STR competencies that represent what *teachers should know and be able to do to provide high-quality, scientifically based reading instruction. In this image we see the 13 STR competencies. These are:

• Competency 001: Foundations of the Science of Teaching Reading • Competency 002: Foundations of Reading Assessment • Competency 003: Oral Language Foundations of Reading Development • Competency 004: Phonological and Phonemic Awareness • Competency 005: Print Concepts and Alphabet Knowledge • Competency 006: Phonics and Other Word Identification Skills • Competency 007: Syllabication and Morphemic Analysis Skills • Competency 008: Reading Fluency • Competency 009: Vocabulary Development • Competency 010: Comprehension Development • Competency 011: Comprehension of Literary Texts • Competency 012: Comprehension of Informational Texts • Competency 013: Analysis and Response

The TEKS strands contain expectations for what *students should know and be able to do.

In this image we see the 7 related TEKS strands. These are: Strand 1: Foundational Language Skills Strand 2: Comprehension Skills Strand 3: Response Skills Strand 4: Multiple Genres Strand 5: Author’s Purpose and Craft Strand 6: Composition Strand 7: Inquiry and Research

7

Reading Academies

This is a recording of a teacher explicitly teaching elements of decoding in an engaging way, in the context of a reading lesson. This represents how decoding and language comprehension can combine in a classroom setting, as an application of the science of teaching reading. The teacher begins by asking students to listen for the di-graph in each of her words. She reminds them that a di-graph represents two letters that make one sound. Students are asked to identify whether the di-graph falls at the beginning, middle, or end of her words. They will identify the location of the di-graph by putting out a hand on the left (beginning), on their head (middle), or on the right (end). Students may also answer out loud, and will start by “echoing” the word. Teacher says: Clashing. Students echo: Clashing. Teacher: Where’s the di-graph? Most Students: [pat their heads] Middle. Teacher: Good job. [Next word] Shadow.

Students echo: Shadow Teacher: Where’s the di-graph? Most Students: [left hand out] Beginning. This represents the end of the video.

Reading Academies

Content Focus Active Learning

Authentic Collaboration Effective Practice

Real-time Coaching Ongoing Feedback

Reflection and Support From Experts

We expect our Reading Academies to provide holistic support to teachers. This image has four quadrants that represent components of the cycle of holistic support. We want to create great content is accessible by all adult learners – educators and principals in particular – but also requires that they be actively engaged, which is represented by the “learn” segment in the image above. However, we then expect educators and principals to be able to authentically demonstrate techniques and strategies both through collaborating with adult peers during the Reading Academies, as well as in their classrooms and campus contexts. These ideas are reflected in the “practice” segment in the image above. This leads us to implementation, which also includes support from peers, proper coaching and evaluation from Principals and other administrative team members, as well as professors or staff working in pre-service teacher programs. This process of ongoing feedback is represented by the “implement” segment in the image above. Lastly, reflection and support from experts really means to gather data, both quantitative and qualitative, about reading outcomes in educators classrooms, and to evaluate whether progress is being made, or whether the educator would benefit from additional supports. This is represented by the “reflect” segment in the image above.

To achieve this holistic vision, we benefit from an array of partners, including Region 11 ESC and Canvas (Instructure), among others. As a pilot participant, you will have an opportunity to test and evaluate whether we uphold these expectations!

Documents to Support Decision Making

9

Reading Academy Implementation Information (PDF)

Before we look specifically at the pilot participant role, it is helpful to know what other kinds of roles might we be hearing about, and how do they differ. The image outlines some key roles in relation to one another. Authorized Providers are *authorized by TEA to oversee the administration of specific cohorts of the Reading Academies. They consist of all 20 Regional Education Service Centers (ESCs), as well as other non-profit or University partners. Local Education Agencies (LEAs) or “districts” may contract with an Authorized Provider to manage Reading Academies and to meet their expectations under the HB3 mandate. Local Implementation is a model whereby an LEA or district takes on more responsibility, while still operating under a legal agreement called a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with an Authorized Provider. For example, districts under local implementation pay for and manage the Cohort Leader Role. One major role is the Cohort Leader, which is actually a broad category that includes both the roles of “Blended Facilitator” and “Comprehensive Coach.” Cohort Leaders are effectively the lead instructors of the actual Reading Academies cohorts. A Cohort Leader is a paid employee working for an Authorized Provider, or an LEA/district under an MOU. Note: Pilot Participants may *also serve in another role related to Reading Academies.

There is more information located online at tea.texas.gov/reading. This model allows for local decision making. One key decision: Blended (online) vs. Comprehensive (on-site, manually intensive). LEAs/districts that choose local implementation may aspire to be more hands on and have more control and ownership over the implementation of Reading Academies, and often provide extensive additional supports to reinforce the mastery of the Science of Teaching Reading among their educators and administrators.

Reading Academies Paths

General and special education teachers – “GenEd” (English Language Arts)

Bilingual general and bilingual special education teachers (Biliteracy)

Administrators

To help make sure you understand the structure of Reading Academies, we should highlight 3 distinct tracks, which are listed in the image. The “GenEd” or General and Special Education Teachers (English Language Arts) Track, is best for educators who focus on the Science of Teaching Reading in an English-speaking context. The “Biliteracy” track is best for educators who seek to cultivate bilingual reading fluency (biliteracy) among their students, often formally through one-way and two-way dual language instruction. These educators are seeking to create strong readers in English and Spanish. The “Administrative” track is streamlined – which means acceleration of the overall experience, and removal of unrelated content - to account for the needs of administrators, who are primarily *evaluating the effective use of the Science of Teaching Reading in a classroom context. Note: Administrators can also join educators in either the GenEd or Biliteracy tracks, but will have the exact same experience as educators in those tracks.

11

Module Title1 Introduction, Overview, Scope and Sequence2 Science of Teaching Reading3 Establishing a Literacy Community4 Using Assessment Data to Inform Instruction5 Oral Language and Vocabulary6 Phonological Awareness7 Alphabet Knowledge, Print Concepts, and Handwriting8 Decoding, Encoding, and Word Study9 Reading Fluency

10 Reading Comprehension11 Composition12 Tiered Supports and Reading Difficulties

Proposed Scope and Sequence

Modules within each path will include supports for English learners and students with learning differences.Specific stand-alone modules within the biliteracy path (4, 6, 7, 8, and 11) will include significant content specific to Spanish literacy as well as English language development.

This scope and sequence is a draft for feedback. Each unit is linked the Science of Teaching Reading Competencies and Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. Orange colored rows represent modules that have so much distinct biliteracy content, that they have become stand-alone biliteracy modules that represent different experiences during Reading Academies, depending on the participants’ track. The image lists 12 modules which are shared as text here. In parenthesis below I’ve added the word “biliteracy” beside each module shaded “orange” in the picture.

1 Introduction, Overview, Scope and Sequence

2 Science of Teaching Reading

3 Establishing a Literacy Community

4 Using Assessment Data to Inform Instruction (Biliteracy)

5 Oral Language and Vocabulary

6 Phonological Awareness (Biliteracy)

7 Alphabet Knowledge, Print Concepts, and Handwriting (Biliteracy)

8 Decoding, Encoding, and Word Study (Biliteracy)

9 Reading Fluency

10 Reading Comprehension

11 Composition (Biliteracy)

12 Tiered Supports and Reading Difficulties

12

Proposed Scope and Sequence – *Estimated Hours

Module Title HoursBiliteracy Content

EmbeddedDedicated

Module

1 Introduction 2 Yes

2 The Science of Teaching Reading 4 Yes

3 Establishing Literacy Communities 3 Yes

4 Using Assessment Data to Inform Instruction 3 Yes

5 Oral Language and Vocabulary 6 Yes

**6 Phonological Awareness 6 Yes

7 Alphabet Knowledge 6 Yes

**8 Decoding, Encoding, and Word Study 12 Yes

*9 Reading Fluency 3 Yes

*10 Reading Comprehension 6 Yes

*11 Composition 6 Yes

12 Tiered Supports 3 Yes

TOTAL60

Hours

7 Modules: Embedded Biliteracy Content

5 Dedicated Biliteracy Modules

This scope and sequence is a draft for feedback. Each unit is linked the Science of Teaching Reading Competencies and Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. Here we share both a projection of the “hours” or seat time required to complete a module. This will be important because we expect pilot participants to compare our predicted seat time, with their actual seat time. Not the total seat time is 60 hours, which equates to 10 full days of professional development. As well, we acknowledge that in every module there is consideration for bilingual learners (biliteracy content), but in many modules (7 of 12) that content is embedded in one module that is the same in each track. In some modules (5 of 12), the biliteracy content is so distinct that a stand alone or dedicated biliteracy module is created that will only be accessible to adult learners in the biliteracy track. This chart above shows where those tracks diverge, specifically in modules 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11. In your survey you will be asked to express a preference for Modules 1 – 12.

Module Title Hours Biliteracy Content

Embedded Dedicated Module

1 Introduction 2 Yes 2 The Science of Teaching Reading 4 Yes 3 Establishing Literacy Communities 3 Yes


5 Oral Language and Vocabulary 6 Yes **6 Phonological Awareness 6 Yes



*9 Reading Fluency 3 Yes *10 Reading Comprehension 6 Yes *11 Composition 6 Yes 12 Tiered Supports 3 Yes

TOTAL 60 Hours



Who should enroll in the Biliteracy Path? • This course is appropriate for bilingual teachers and bilingual special

education teachers in one or two-way dual language and early or late-exit transitional Spanish-English bilingual program settings.

• Administrators who lead campuses with Spanish-English bilingual programming and who have some proficiency in Spanish will also benefit from enrolling in the Bilingual Path.

The Biliteracy Path is not appropriate for:• Bilingual teachers in bilingual language programs other than Spanish (e.g.,

Vietnamese, Arabic, etc.). • ESL Teachers or general English teachers with English learners from a variety

of language backgrounds. Specific considerations for English learners in addition to second language acquisition information are provided in the general English modules.

The Biliteracy Path - Audience

Because there is a significant divergence between the biliteracy and the GenEd tracks, it is important for LEAs/districts to decide which track is best for different segments of their educator and administrator population. Later you will be asked to consider whether you are prepared to review a biliteracy module, and this same guidance may be helpful to you. As the image shares: Who should enroll in the Biliteracy Path?

• This course is appropriate for bilingual teachers and bilingual special education teachers in one or two-way dual language and early or late-exit transitional Spanish-English bilingual program settings.

• Administrators who lead campuses with Spanish-English bilingual programming and who have some proficiency in Spanish will also benefit from enrolling in the Bilingual Path.

The Biliteracy Path is not appropriate for: • Bilingual teachers in bilingual language programs other than Spanish (e.g.,

Vietnamese, Arabic, etc.). • ESL Teachers or general English teachers with English learners from a variety of

language backgrounds. Specific considerations for English learners in addition to second language acquisition information are provided in the general English modules.

Participants will master both Spanish and English literacy pedagogy and do not need to take additional coursework in English. This content provides instruction in Spanish literacy, cross-linguistic

connections, and skills that do not transfer to English. Spanish literacy instruction is specific to Spanish and is not a

translation of the English modules or English instructional practices. The content is not delivered in Spanish, but instructional examples

and resources are provided in Spanish. The stand-alone biliteracy modules are slightly longer than the

general English modules but require approximately the same amount of time to complete.

The Biliteracy Path - Content

This information adds more context to what is included in the biliteracy path. As the image shares: Participants will master both Spanish and English literacy pedagogy and do not need to

take additional coursework in English. This content provides instruction in Spanish literacy, cross-linguistic connections, and

skills that do not transfer to English. Spanish literacy instruction is specific to Spanish and is not a translation of the English

modules or English instructional practices. The content is not delivered in Spanish, but instructional examples and resources are

provided in Spanish. The stand-alone biliteracy modules are slightly longer than the general English modules

but require approximately the same amount of time to complete.

Statewide Blended Projections

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

ELA Grade K ELA Grade 1 ELA Grade 2 ELA Grade 3 BIL Grade K BIL Grade 1 BIL Grade 2 BIL Grade 3 Administrator Other Staff

Year_2021 Year_2022 Year_2023

15

Districts plan to send 34,003 participants

through the Blended Model this year.

To highlight the importance of the pilot, consider the following survey data collected from more than 1,000 of our districts statewide. It’s possible that more than 34,000 educators, administrators, and other adult learners will take the *blended version of reading academies in this first year. The above chart shows numbers of predicted attendees for years one (2020-2021) to three (2022-2023), broken down by sub group. We will depend upon our Pilot Participants to help us improve the overall experience for these adult learners.

Statewide Comprehensive Projections

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

ELA Grade K ELA Grade 1 ELA Grade 2 ELA Grade 3 BIL Grade K BIL Grade 1 BIL Grade 2 BIL Grade 3 Administrator Other Staff

Year_2021 Year_2022 Year_2023

16

Districts plan to send 17,842 participants through the

Comprehensive Model this year.

Consider the following survey data collected from more than 1,000 of our districts statewide. It’s possible that more than 17,000 educators, administrators, and other adult learners will take the *comprehensive version of reading academies in this first year. The above chart shows numbers of predicted attendees for years one (2020-2021) to three (2022-2023), broken down by sub group. We will depend upon our Pilot Participants to help us improve the overall experience for these adult learners.

Reading Academies Total Anticipated Participants

17

97,975

17,842

34,003

16,624

39,992

12,267

23,980

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

Comprehensive Model

Blended Model

2020-21 2021-22 2022-23

46,733

To highlight the importance of the pilot, consider the following survey data collected from more than 1,000 of our districts statewide. It’s possible that more than 150,000 educators, administrators, and other adult learners will take reading academies over three years. The above chart shows numbers of predicted attendees for years one (2020-2021) to three (2022-2023), broken down by blended and comprehensive models. We will depend upon our Pilot Participants to help us improve the overall experience for these adult learners.

Pilot Overview

Now let’s review the Pilot Participant role.

19

Opportunity for a group of experts and practitioners to participate in modules, and provide feedback prior to the full-implementation of Reading Academies.

Pilot Participants will receive: Access to the draft Reading Academies content at no cost

(including digital and/or interactive tools). The opportunity to review, evaluate, and suggest edits for the early

Reading Academies prototype materials and influence the final statewide product offered to all K-3 Texas teachers and principals. Free coaching and professional learning to support the content provided.

Thank You for Volunteering Your Time!

Interested applicants apply directly. While there is no compensation for the pilot, participants will get: • Access to the draft Reading Academies content at no cost (including digital and/or interactive

tools). • The opportunity to review, edit and evaluate the early Reading Academies prototype

materials and influence the final statewide product offered to all K-3 Texas teachers and principals.

• Free coaching and professional learning to support the content provided.

Norms and Expectations

Let’s review Norms and Expectations of Pilot Participants

21

Norms and Expectations

Professionalism Do NOT Screenshot or share access Modules are “Beta” (Draft) and Imperfect You may only see part of a module Timeliness: 2-3 week (~3 week) target for

module completion Be Direct: “Radical Honesty” Others? (Q&A)

The image below highlights some basic norms: Professionalism Do NOT Screenshot or share access Modules are “Beta” (Draft) and Imperfect You may only see part of a module Timeliness: 2-3 week (~3 week) target for module completion Be Direct: “Radical Honesty” Others? (Q&A)

On timeliness: When you receive content in the form of a module, or part of a module, please be sure to be diligent in spending at least 1 hour per session and 2 sessions per week, so you can complete the course content within about 2 weeks, and be best positioned to give feedback to our content authors and digital designers.

22

Pilot Roles

Your Role: Educator in a Blended Model Please provide feedback like you are a participant

engaging with this content.

TEA Staff Role: Proxy Cohort Leader While TEA will serve the role of cohort leader for

the pilot, you will not be led by an actual cohort leader.

R11 ESC Role: Canvas Technical Partner

Pilot participants can imagine they are a participant in a “blended” or fully-online and remote (virtual) course. Note: You can log-out and come back to the course at any time, and your progress will be saved. This allows you, for example, to space out your participation into smaller blocks of time over one or more weeks. Also our Canvas Technical Partner is Region 11 ESC. Experiencing technical concerns with Canvas? There is a Canvas help desk you can ask for technical support within the course that is available 24/7/365. If that Canvas team does not successfully resolve your issue, email: [email protected]

Planning for Time –Sample Schedule

23

How best to plan for your schedule.

3/27/2020

Review Sessions: time spent in session content as a participant, engaging at pace, capturing notes to share through surveys and focus groups

Focus Groups: interactive web sessions to discuss key topics in the session, from content to learning transfer

Surveys: standardized way to collect feedback on key session elements, including rankings on particular indicators such as engagement.

Artifact Completion (as needed): time spent crafting materials based on guidance

Engagement During the Pilot

These are a few types of feedback we may ask you to give. The image shares four types: Review Sessions: time spent in session content as a participant, engaging at pace, capturing notes to share through surveys and focus groups Surveys: standardized way to collect feedback on key session elements, including rankings on particular indicators such as engagement. Focus Groups: interactive web sessions to discuss key topics in the session, from content to learning transfer Artifact Completion (as needed): time spent crafting materials based on guidance You may or may not be asked to complete these different types of feedback.

25

Review and Editing Activity *Maximum Cadence *Maximum Time:Review sessions 2x per week 2 hours per week

16 hours total*Guidance = 2-3 weeks

Artifact Completion 4x per pilot 1 hour per artifact4 hours total

Reading Academies Feedback Surveys

1x per week 30 minutes per week4 hours total

Implementation and Professional Learning Survey

2x per pilot 1 hour per survey2 hours total

60-minute virtual Review and Editing focus group

2x per pilot 1 hour per group2 hours total

90-minute post-pilot debrief 1x per pilot 90 minutes overall1.5 hours total

TOTAL -- < 30 hours total

Pilot Participants

This chart gives more specific detail on the types of feedback expected of Pilot Participants, but reinforces that the total time should be less than 30 hours, over an 8-week period, and sometimes substantially less. The text from the table is shared below:

Review and Editing Activity *Maximum Cadence *Maximum Time:

Review sessions 2x per week 2 hours per week 16 hours total *Guidance = 2-3 weeks

Artifact Completion 4x per pilot 1 hour per artifact 4 hours total

Reading Academies Feedback Surveys

1x per week 30 minutes per week 4 hours total

Implementation and Professional Learning Survey

2x per pilot 1 hour per survey 2 hours total

60-minute virtual Review and Editing focus group

2x per pilot 1 hour per group 2 hours total

90-minute post-pilot debrief 1x per pilot 90 minutes overall 1.5 hours total

TOTAL -- < 30 hours total

Pilot participants will be assigned to modules based on preferences indicated in our registration survey While the number of modules might

vary (1-3), the total time commitment will be roughly the same (< 30 hrs.) Different modules may be run on

different timelines

Pilot Schedule

Congratulations – this survey is your gateway to actually piloting content! Pilot participants will be assigned to modules based on preferences indicated in our

registration survey While the number of modules might vary (1-3), the total time commitment will be

roughly the same (< 30 hrs.) Different modules may be run on different timelines

27

Proposed Scope and Sequence – *Estimated Hours

Module Title HoursBiliteracy Content

EmbeddedDedicated

Module

1 Introduction 2 Yes

2 The Science of Teaching Reading 4 Yes

3 Establishing Literacy Communities 3 Yes


5 Oral Language and Vocabulary 6 Yes

**6 Phonological Awareness 6 Yes



*9 Reading Fluency 3 Yes

*10 Reading Comprehension 6 Yes

*11 Composition 6 Yes

12 Tiered Supports 3 Yes

TOTAL60

Hours



This scope and sequence is a draft for feedback. Each unit is linked the Science of Teaching Reading Competencies and Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. This image repeats the same 12 modules shared in a previous slide. In your preferences survey, you can identify which of these “modules” (1-12) you wish to evaluate. We cannot guarantee which modules you will evaluate, but we will honor your preferences whenever possible.

*Sample Rolling Access Dates

Access Date Target Date – Completion of First Module Close Date

March 30 April 13 - April 20 May 25

April 6 April 20 - April 27 June 1

April 13 April 27 - May 4 June 8

April 20 May 4 – May 11 June 15


May 4 May 18 – May 25 June 29

May 11 May 25 – June 1 July 6

In your preferences survey, you can identify which of these “access dates” best represents your earliest start date for evaluating content. Selecting an access date does not guarantee you will receive access to content on that date, but that we will try to make sure you receive an invitation to evaluate content sometime after that date passes. Please do not email to ask about your assignment (I’ll just refer you back here); we will deploy content for pilot review continuously over this timeframe, from March to May, and beyond. The image contains a table whose text is included below:

Access Date Target Date – Completion of First Module Close Date

March 30 April 13 - April 20 May 25

April 6 April 20 - April 27 June 1

April 13 April 27 - May 4 June 8



May 4 May 18 – May 25 June 29

May 11 May 25 – June 1 July 6

Sample Schedule

Engagement Type FrequencyExample 1 Example 2 Total

#11. Composition #11B. Composition -Biliteracy

2 Modules

Review Sessions 2 hrs. / week 6 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 6 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 12 hrs.

Artifact Completion 1 hr. / artifact 1 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 1 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 2 hrs.

RA Feedback Surveys 0.5 hrs. / week 1.5 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 1.5 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 3 hrs.

Implementation & Prof. Learning Surveys

2 hrs. / total 1 hr. / after ~3 weeks 1 hr. / after ~3 weeks 2 hrs.

60 min. virtual review 2 hrs. / total 1 hr. / after ~3 weeks 1 hr. / after ~3 weeks 2 hrs.

90-min. Post-pilot debrief

1.5 hrs. / total - - 1.5 hrs.

TOTAL 22.5 hours

This is a sample schedule and shows that a pilot assignment might involve notable less than 30 hours of time to complete. The image contains a table whose text is included below:

Engagement Type Frequency

Example 1 Example 2 Total

#11. Composition #11B. Composition - Biliteracy

2 Modules

Review Sessions 2 hrs. / week 6 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 6 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 12 hrs.

Artifact Completion 1 hr. / artifact 1 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 1 hrs. / over ~3 weeks 2 hrs.

RA Feedback Surveys 0.5 hrs. / week 1.5 hrs. / over ~3 weeks

1.5 hrs. / over ~3 weeks

3 hrs.

Implementation & Prof. Learning Surveys

2 hrs. / total 1 hr. / after ~3 weeks 1 hr. / after ~3 weeks 2 hrs.

60 min. virtual review 2 hrs. / total 1 hr. / after ~3 weeks 1 hr. / after ~3 weeks 2 hrs.

90-min. Post-pilot debrief

1.5 hrs. / total - - 1.5 hrs.

TOTAL 22.5 hours

Next Steps

Next steps.

Access to Canvas –Process

This slide and the following focus on “next steps” and specifically “access to the Canvas portal” process.

31

Access to Canvas – Process

Your Next Step: Complete a registration form indicating preferences

TEA Staff Next Step: Email Login Instructions, and Password

R11 ESC Next Step: Canvas Technical Partner

You should receive the registration form soon. After that, next steps include: Your Next Step: Complete a registration form indicating preferences TEA Staff Next Step: Email Login Instructions, and Password R11 ESC Next Step: Canvas Technical Partner

32

Prepare for Registration

When is best for your to start reviewing? What modules do you feel best prepared to

review, or most eager to review? Are you a good fit for a biliteracy module?

These are questions you should be able to answer ahead of your survey form. When is best for your to start reviewing? What modules do you feel best prepared to review, or most eager to review? Are you a good fit for a biliteracy module?

Next Steps

Next steps.

34

Questions?

Any questions? You can email [email protected]

For updates, visit: tea.texas.gov/reading

Or visit tea.texas.gov/reading

36

Additional information for public stakeholders at tea.texas.gov/reading Reading Practices

newsletter is live – sign up for updates. Email

[email protected] questions, concerns, and suggestions.

Communications

Or sign up for our reading practices newsletter!

37

Thank you!

Thank you for all of your support of Texas public education.