Randy I. Dorn • State Superintendent

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Old Capitol Building • P.O. Box 47200

Olympia, WA 98504-7200

Strengthening Student Educational

Outcomes: Best Practices and

Strategies for English Language Arts 2014

Authorizing legislation: RCW 28A.655.235

(http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28A.655.235)

Special Programs and Federal Accountability

Dr. Gil Mendoza, Assistant Superintendent

Teaching and Learning

Jessica Vavrus, Assistant Superintendent

Prepared by: Gayle Pauley, Director of Title I/LAP and Consolidated Program Review

(gayle.pauley@k12.wa.us, 360-725-6100)

Liisa Moilanen Potts, Director of K–12 English/Language Arts

(liisa.moilanenpotts@k12.wa.us, 360-725-6228)

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendices Appendix A: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies ................................................................................... 10

Appendix B: Promising Practices and Strategies ......................................................................................... 12

Appendix C: Expert Panel ............................................................................................................................ 13

Appendix D: Panel Review Process ............................................................................................................. 16

Appendix E: References/Resources ............................................................................................................ 17

List of Tables Table 1: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies.......................................................................................... 11

Table 2: Menu of Promising Practices ........................................................................................................ 12

List of Figures Figure 1: High-Level Work Plan for the Expert Panel .................................................................................. 16

3

Executive Summary Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5946,1 passed the state Legislature in 2013. It required the

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to convene an English language arts (ELA)

panel of experts. This panel developed a menu of best practices and strategies to help students in

grades K–4 as well as low-achieving students in grades K–12 served by the state's Learning

Assistance Program (LAP), to improve their ELA performance.

In addition to ELA, the Legislature also requested that OSPI convene panels of experts to develop

menus of best practices and strategies in math and behavior for low-achieving students served by

LAP in grades K–12. Those menus will be released in 2015.

The ELA menu is designed to support districts as they:

help students who struggle with reading to reach grade level by the end of fourth grade; improve the reading and literacy of English language learners (ELL); and strengthen systems to improve reading instruction for all students.

The ELA panel of experts determined that the work required for ELA in section 106 and 203 of

the bill should be combined. They agreed that the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies would

contain many, if not all, of the same ELA best practices and strategies for instruction of all students

in grades K–4 and low-achieving students in grade K–12. Specific considerations for grades K–4 are

included within appropriate best practice and strategy sections.

School districts in Washington are expected to use practices from this menu starting with the 2015–

16 school year. If they don’t, they must provide data that show the practices they are using instead

are effective.

This ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies is organized by type, based on the currently allowed

LAP service categories. The report contains a section describing promising practices—those

practices identified by the ELA panel of experts as showing signs of effectiveness, but lacking

sufficient research to be considered a “best practice” as of June 2014. OSPI is charged with updating

the menu annually by July 1st, and will seek input from districts and the expert panel on newly

identified research on both best and promising practices.

Each practice is described in more detail in the panel’s technical report: Strengthening Student

Educational Outcomes: Technical Report on Best Practices and Strategies for English Language Arts

1 Also see Chapter 28A.165 RCW and WAC 392-162.

4

Introduction Washington’s literacy-teaching landscape is as diverse as the 1.1 million children in our 295 public

school districts. Across the state, educators work diligently to provide support in reading, writing,

speaking, listening, and language for all children. OSPI and statewide partners work to support

literacy instruction by continually revising and improving the supports and systems available for

building strong literacy skills in schools.

OSPI’s vision for education is for every student in the state to be ready for careers, college, and life.

To achieve this vision, the State must provide a robust system for reading and literacy support

throughout K–12, starting in the early years. Washington’s Birth through 12th Grade Comprehensive

Literacy Plan (CLP) defines literacy as an on-going cognitive process that begins at birth. It involves

the integration of listening, speaking, reading, writing and critical thinking. Literacy also includes

the knowledge that enables the speaker, writer, or reader to recognize and use language

appropriate to a situation in an increasingly complex literate environment. Active literacy allows

people to think, create, question, solve problems, and reflect in order to participate effectively in a

democratic, multicultural society (p. 2, CLP 2012).

The overarching goal of the CLP is grounded in state learning standards for all students, and is

based on the foundation that literacy encompasses all developmental phases. We must address the

different abilities and needs of children through instruction, assessment, and intervention in each

student’s primary language. The CLP and its associated resources recognize student diversity by

incorporating strategies that are relevant to cultural and linguistic differences, as well as different

learning styles.

In 2013, the Legislature directed OSPI to convene an expert panel to develop a menu of best

practices and strategies for English language arts (ELA) to complement the State’s continuing

efforts to improve outcomes in literacy for all students. The ELA Menu of Best Practices and

Strategies builds on state and federal investments since the early 2000’s that have sought to

increase early and adolescent literacy skills [e.g., Reading First (federal), and Washington Reading

Corps (state), Striving Readers (federal)]; the State has provided supplemental funds via the

Learning Assistance Program (LAP) to districts for many years to help struggling students.

However, because outcomes have been uneven across the state, this 2014 menu of best practices

and strategies, focused on K–12 ELA, seeks to identify proven practices that strengthen student

outcomes for all students in the state. The ELA panel collaborated with the Washington Institute for

Public Policy (WSIPP) to develop the menu. As required in separate legislation, WSIPP will provide

a companion report, due August 1, 2014, which will identify research-based and evidence-based

practices, strategies, and programs that are shown to improve student outcomes. Many of the best

practices and strategies identified for inclusion in the panel’s menu will also be included in the

WSIPP report. In addition, the WSIPP companion report will identify an average effect-size for

identified interventions and perform a cost-benefit analysis.

5

It is important to note that the existence of an ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies is not

sufficient to ensure that all students will succeed. Instruction and intervention work are complex.

Not all instructional strategies work all the time with all students. The expert panel, in their

deliberations, strongly voiced the importance of ensuring that each of the instructional

strategies and best practices described in the menu be designed to meet the diverse needs of

all students. Furthermore, the panel expressed the importance of integrating the linguistic

and cultural needs of English language learners (ELL) into all instructional and professional

development offerings described in this document, and that instruction be provided to ELL

students in their primary language whenever feasible. Finally, the expert panel offered three

significant and critical success factors that must be considered with every instructional strategy

and best practice:

1. Fidelity of program implementation within a multi-tiered system of support framework that

addresses core reading instruction for every student (when possible in their primary

language) and that strategically targets interventions based on data for students that need

additional support. Even the most proven intervention strategy can fail to achieve outcomes

if it is implemented poorly.

2. Degree of improvement expected or obtained from implementing an intervention –

sometimes interventions take more time than expected to show results. There are

potentially many effective practices that are not on the menu. Districts that use practices

not on the menu should be sure they align with the criteria used for considering the

practices within the menu.

3. Support for students through initial instruction, assessment processes, and interventions be

provided in their primary language, whenever possible.

Districts can continue to use other intervention strategies, but they must provide data that

describes the effectiveness of interventions not on the ELA menu, starting with the 2015–16 school

year.

Educators must engage in a process of observation, analysis, and take informed action in their

classrooms regardless of the intervention(s) chosen. This action research helps solve problems as

they arise, and can ensure that the interventions chosen by the teacher or district have a greater

chance of succeeding.

Learning to Read, Reading to Learn In July 2011, Washington adopted the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts

(CCSS-ELA) to replace the state’s 2005 Reading, Writing, and Communication Learning Standards

(Grade Level Expectations or GLEs). The CCSS-ELA are built on an intentional progression of the

skills and knowledge necessary for all students to be ready for careers, college, and life when they

exit high school. For kindergarten through grade four students, the CCSS-ELA provides targeted

focus on learning to read and reading to learn across all grade levels. According to Jeanne Chall in

6

her book, Stages of Reading Development (1983), “children first learn to read and then read to

learn”.

Focus of instruction for kindergarten through fourth grade students is based upon the findings of

the National Reading Panel Report, Teaching Children to Read. Students must be provided

instruction in their early years that addresses phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary

development, and comprehension. The CCSS set the Reading Standards: Foundational Skills for

grades K–5 which build upon the National Reading Panel’s findings. These standards are directed at

building a student’s ability to read and to comprehend what is read. The menu of best practices

includes a specific focus on supporting K–4 students in meeting these standards, and is informed by

scientifically supported, foundational practices for teaching reading to students in kindergarten

through fourth grade. Evidence-based teaching practices for effective K–4 reading instruction

include explicit instruction, modeling and scaffolding instruction, dynamic and flexible grouping,

increased reading time, discussion, and oral and silent reading practice (Jones et al., 2012). Effective

K–4 reading teachers must also differentiate and adapt instruction according to multiple points of

formative and interim student assessment, as well as carefully monitor student progress and

reteach as necessary (Denton, 2009).The ultimate goal for all K–12 students is for each student to

possess the skills to “comprehend texts across a range of types and disciplines”(CCSS-ELA).

In addition to the CCSS-ELA as the state’s learning standards for ELA, OSPI adopted new English

Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards for Washington in December 2013 that were developed in

2012 and 2013 to address the increased rigor and language demands of these career and college

ready standards and that align with the CCSS-ELA and CCSS for Mathematics. ELL students make up

nine percent (9%) of the student population in Washington. That’s more than 94,000 students are

in the process of learning a new language while simultaneously engaging in content to meet

rigorous career and college ready standards. With both the ELL specialist and the content area

teacher in mind, the 2013 ELP standards provide the language bridge to move students toward full

engagement and academic success. The 2013 ELP standards make it clear that language learning

and literacy encompass more than just grammar and vocabulary, and that they include refocus on

receptive, productive, and interactive modalities for instruction of ELLs. With the revisions in the

2013 ELP standards, English language development goes hand in hand with our state’s 2012

expanded definition of literacy as found in Washington Comprehensive Literacy Plan (CLP), giving a

greater emphasis on instruction in student’s primary language, cognitive processes, and integration

of skills. Such integration will take our students beyond the classroom and into career and college

ready to face the challenges of their futures.

With the adoption of the CCSS-ELA and associated ELP standards as Washington State’s K–12

Learning Standards for ELA and English Language Proficiency and the refinement of the state’s CLP,

state literacy partners are poised to provide comprehensive and coherent professional learning for

educators to better support improved student learning outcomes. OSPI and literacy experts

(including experts in K–4 literacy) in each of the nine Educational Service Districts (ESDs) have

jointly developed professional learning opportunities (common across all regions) to support

strong implementation of the CCSS-ELA and early literacy instruction. ESSB 5946 provides

additional targeted resources to each ESD region to improve K–4 ELA support for teachers and

7

students. The work of these “regional literacy coordinators” is grounded in the CCSS-ELA, the CLP,

and will serve as an excellent support system for districts as they consider and integrate the best

practices and strategies identified within the expert panel’s ELA menu.

2013 Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5946 – Strengthening Student

Educational Outcomes Washington’s 2013 Legislature passed ESSB 5946 in the 2nd Special Legislative session in June

2013. The overall bill sets forth a vision for improving educational support systems for every

student in grades K–12. The first Section of Part 1 references the importance of collaborative

partnerships essential to supporting students; using research and evidence-based programs for all

students, especially in the early years for grades K–4; and providing statewide models to support

school district in implementing a multi-tiered system of support. Part 2 of the bill references the

Learning Assistance Program’s focus on evidence-based support for students struggling in reading

(with primary emphasis on grades K–4), mathematics, and behavior across grades K–12. The

thread that binds together the bill is the expectation set forth that OSPI will convene “expert panels”

that will develop menus of best practices and strategies for ELA (K–4 and K–12), mathematics (K–

12), and behavior (K–12). As articulated in the bill, the ELA menu specifically will be designed to:

help students who struggle with reading to reach grade level by the end of fourth grade;

improve the reading and literacy of ELL students; and

strengthen systems to improve reading instruction for all students.

The ELA expert panel determined that the work required for ELA in both sections 106 and 203

of the bill should be combined. They agreed that the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies

would contain many, if not all, of the same ELA best practices and strategies for instruction of all

students in grades K–4 and low-achieving students in grades K–12. Specific considerations for

grades K–4 are included within each of the best practice sections. Portions of the bill specifically

related to the ELA expert panel and menu of best practices and strategies are highlighted in

Appendix A. See ESSB 5946 for the full text of the bill.

Companion Legislation In addition to direction to OSPI per ESSB 5946, the 2013 Legislature also directed the Washington

State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to “prepare an inventory of evidence-based and research-

based effective practices, activities and programs for use by school districts in the learning

assistance program” (Senate Bill 5034, Section 610). The WSIPP report will also identify an average

effect-size for identified interventions and perform a cost-benefit analysis.

Both OSPI and WSIPP consider the two reports to be companion pieces, and are coordinating to

ensure that the content of both reports are consistent while still adhering to the unique directives

given to each agency. The WSIPP report is due to the Legislature by August 1, 2014

WSIPP Assistant Director Annie Pennucci and Research Associate Matthew Lemon are key

participants in the expert panel sessions as non-voting members. They are providing important

8

research references to the panel members, and soliciting panel member input regarding effective

practices.

Both agencies collaborate on identifying topics for consideration for best practices. OSPI will

include notation indicating whether the menu practices are evidence-based and/or research-based,

as determined by WSIPP.

Conclusion This work is significant because it has the potential to improve student outcomes across the state.

Historically, even with similar funding levels, student outcomes by district have been uneven. The

Legislature, with ESSB 5946, directs districts to use proven ELA practices to help struggling

students. Even with proven practices, it is critically important to ensure they are implemented with

fidelity because the best practices, when implemented poorly, can fail to raise student outcomes.

All districts are required to focus first on K–4 reading, because this is a fundamental skill that

predicts success not only in other academic pursuits, but throughout life. In the 2015–16 school

year, every school in which 40 percent or more students scored at basic or below basic on the third

grade state ELA assessment, and/or for any student who received a score of basic or below basic on

the third grade statewide student assessment in ELA in the previous school year and every year

following—must integrate best practices and strategies proven to increase ELA literacy across

grades K–4. The interventions must be selected from the list of best practices and strategies

included in the ELA menu.

This menu of best practices will be refreshed annually, no later than July 1 each calendar year.

Interested stakeholders are invited to submit recommendations for intervention practices, along

with related research references, for consideration by the expert panel and possible inclusion in

subsequent menus. It is important to note that if new research emerges that disproves the

effectiveness of a practice that has historically been included in this report, the practice may be

removed and no longer be allowed under LAP guidelines. Public comment forms are available on

the project web page on the OSPI website, at http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleI/LAP/ELA_Panel.aspx.

Next Steps The ELA panel of experts recognizes that there are a number of next steps to ensure that the ELA

Menu of Best Practices and Strategies are implemented across the state. Following are a list of

activities that will be carried out in the 2014–15 school year.

1. The ELA Panel will continue their work which includes the following:

a. Examine proposed best practices and strategies that the committee chose to table

for future consideration for placement on the updated July 1, 2015 ELA Menu of

Best Practices and Strategies.

b. Address public comments that suggest additional practices and strategies for

inclusion in the July 1, 2015 ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies.

9

c. Vet potential ELA best practices and strategies recommended by districts and

others.

2. Distribute the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies to stakeholders through a variety

of avenues including:

a. Electronic distribution.

b. Workshops and trainings provided in partnership with OSPI, Educational Service

Districts, and districts to educators across the state.

3. Prepare and distribute data collection instruments that districts will be required to submit

to meet the reporting requirements within parts 1 and 2 of ESSB 5946.

Acknowledgments OSPI is indebted to the volunteers who thoughtfully assisted in conducting the 2014 review of ELA

best practices for strengthening student educational outcomes. They provided expertise in the use

of research data to inform the panel members’ decisions. The panel members endeavored to find

proven practices that were research and/or evidence based that were shown to improve student

outcomes. The panel members and support staff were committed to providing a quality resource to

school districts looking for guidance. They devoted many hours out of their busy schedules to do

this work. We also appreciate the assistance in the panel’s work of Annie Pennucci and Matthew

Lemon from WSIPP. We send a huge thank you to Porsche Everson from Relevant Strategies for her

expertise in facilitation. We are grateful for the work and dedication of each person assisting OSPI

in the production of the 2014-15 ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies.

10

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies Over the five sessions convened by OSPI, the expert panel worked together to develop a

comprehensive menu of best practices based on the most current evidence and rigorous research

available. Additional best practices will be identified during 2014–15 as the ELA panel reviews the

2013–14 ELA menu. (In some instances, it was not possible to determine whether or not a practice

was evidence- or research- based by the initial report deadline.) WSIPP was charged with making

that determination, which they did by carefully and systematically evaluating the quality of the

aggregate work and ensuring that the studies had valid comparison groups and measure outcomes

of interest, such as test scores and graduation rates. Each entry indicates whether the practice is

evidence-based and/or research-based. Panelists concurred with WSIPP to use the following

definitions for evidence-based and research-based studies.

Evidence-based:

Multiple randomized and/or statistically controlled evaluations, or one large multiple-site

randomized and/or statistically controlled evaluation;

Where the weight of the evidence from a systematic review demonstrates sustained

improvements in outcomes: ELA test scores;

When possible, had been determined to be cost-beneficial.

Research-based:

Tested with a single randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluation demonstrating

sustained desirable outcomes.

The ELA menu lists evidence based practices and strategies that have been shown to support

reading/literacy improvement for struggling learners. Many of these strategies and practices are

used in commercially available supplemental programs that districts can acquire and use. It is

important to note that the work of the expert panel was to identify proven general practices and

strategies, not specifically branded programs that might employ those practices. Districts that are

contemplating acquisition or use of one or more branded programs are encouraged to determine if

the strategies and practices included in the menu are utilized by the branded programs. The table

below shows a quick summary of the practices that are proven to be effective in strengthening

student educational outcomes, as determined by the expert panel. Each practice is described in

more detail in the panel’s technical report: Strengthening Student Educational Outcomes: Technical

Report on Best Practices and Strategies for English Language Arts.

11

Table 1: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies Best Practice/

Strategies

Evidence-

Based

Research-

Based Panel Opinion K–4 K–12

Tutoring

Adult Tutoring Yes

Yes Yes

Peer Tutoring Yes

Yes Yes

Extended Learning

Time

Extended Day – Out

of School Time Yes

Yes Yes

Extended Year2 -

Academics (Summer

Programs)

Yes

Yes Yes

Professional

Development

Targeted

Professional

Development

Yes

Yes Yes

Mentoring Yes

Yes Yes

Consultant Teachers

Instructional

Coaches3 Yes

Yes Yes

Outreach Activities

Family Involvement

Outside School Yes

Yes Yes

Family Involvement

at School Yes

Yes Yes

Community

Partnerships

Community Based

Student Mentoring Yes

Yes Yes

Instructional Models

Direct Instruction Yes

Yes Yes

Constructivism Yes

Yes Yes

Services under RCW 28A.320.190— (Shown in Promising Practices Section)

Extended Learning Opportunities

Program

2 Extended Year includes Summer Programs, Saturdays, use of school breaks, and an extension of the standard school year. 3 Instructional Coaches also includes Literacy Coaches and English Language Development Coaches.

12

Appendix B: Promising Practices and Strategies Promising practices are defined as those practices that do not have research or evidence to show

they are best practices, but still show potential for improving student outcomes. The practices

defined in this section are considered part of the menu and can be used by districts. They are

selected and described based upon the professional opinions of the expert panel members.

Districts who choose to use any of the promising practices in this section or any other strategies not

on the menu must provide evidence of effective outcomes, starting with the 2016-17 school year.

It is important to note that this is not a comprehensive list of all emerging or promising practices,

but rather a sample of practices that have the potential to be effective.

Table 2: Menu of Promising Practices Promising Practice Panel Opinion K–4 K–12

Extended Learning Time

Additional Instruction Time

Yes Yes

Summer Book Programs

Yes Yes

Professional Development

Professional Learning

Communities

Yes Yes

Services under RCW

28A.320.190

Credit Retrieval

No Yes

Outreach Activities

Transition-Based Family

Involvement

Yes Yes

Instructional Models

Multi-Tiered Systems of

Support

Yes Yes

Other Promising Practices

Language Development for

ELLs

Yes Yes

Content Acceleration

Yes Yes

Oral Language Focus

Yes Yes

13

Appendix C: Expert Panel Panel members were appointed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Panel applicants

were solicited through several professional channels. Candidates were nominated from OSPI,

Educational Service Districts, school districts, and state educational associations. Educators were

drawn from existing OSPI advisory groups, such as Curriculum Advisory and Review Committee,

the Bilingual Education Advisory Council, and the Special Education Advisory Committee.

Nominations were collected and reviewed by OSPI’s Strengthening Student Educational Outcomes

Team. OSPI sought leaders nationally and within Washington possessing expertise and experience

with multi-tiered systems of support, response to intervention, Common Core State Standards, and

assessments.

Candidates were nominated and selected based on evidence of their expertise in one or more of the

following criteria:

ELA classroom and/or district leadership experience;

Classroom and system expertise in supporting struggling readers K–4;

Classroom and system expertise in supporting struggling readers 5–12;

Educational research expertise and experience in implementing new strategies;

Knowledge of research-based best practices and strategies in working with diverse student

populations, including ELL students and students with disabilities;

Representatives from high poverty school districts that range in size from urban to rural

with large populations of struggling ELA students; and

Representatives who reflect the diversity of the state’s student population.

After a review of all candidates, OSPI’s team recommended panel candidates to the state

superintendent for his consideration.

The cross-disciplinary panel reflects a wide range of experience and professional expertise within

the K–20 environment. The state Legislature has charged the panel to “assist in the development of

a menu of best practices and strategies that will provide guidance to districts as they work to

impact student ELA academic achievement.”

14

Members of the ELA Expert Panel Name Organization Title Role Chaplin, Erin Yakima School

District P–12 Instruction Director Expert Panel Member

Chow, Roger Tacoma School District

Curriculum and Instruction Director

Expert Panel Member

Duffey, Nancy Wenatchee School District

Director of State and Federal Programs

Expert Panel Member

Fixsen, Dean State Implementation & Scaling up of Evidenced-based Practices Center

Co-director Advisor

Hill, Saundra Pasco School District

Superintendent Expert Panel Member

Jacobsen, Mike White River School District

Curriculum Director Expert Panel Member

Johnson, Eric Washington State University Tri-Cities

Assistant Professor of Bilingual/ESL Education

Expert Panel Member

Kamil, Michael Stanford University Advisor Knesal, Debra Central Avenue

Elementary Principal Expert Panel Member

Lemon, Matthew

Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)

Research Associate Expert Panel Member Non-voting

Mitchell, John Oakwood Elementary

Principal Expert Panel Member

Murner, Alice Neah Bay Elementary

Principal Expert Panel Member

Pennucci, Annie Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)

Associate Director Expert Panel Member Non-voting

Pottle, Pamela Bellingham School District

ELA Coach Expert Panel Member

Sederstrom, Glenda

Northeast Washington ESD 101

Coordinator for the Center for Special Education Services

Expert Panel Member

Shoop, Kathy Northwest ESD 189 Assistant Superintendent Expert Panel Member Tudor, David Washougal School

District Curriculum Director Expert Panel Member

Vance, Cheryl ESD 113 Regional Literacy Coordinator Expert Panel Member Ward, Caryn State

Implementation & Scaling up of Evidenced-based Practices Center

Senior Implementation Specialist

Advisor

Wert, Linda Spokane School District

Coordinator of Special Programs

Expert Panel Member

15

Consultant and OSPI Staff Name Organization Title Role Baunsgard- Heusser, Amy

OSPI P12 Literacy Specialist Project Support

Bresko, John OSPI Program Supervisor, Special Education

Project Support

Came, Deb OSPI Director, Student Information Project Support Cobb, Andrea OSPI Policy and Research Analyst

and State Transformation Specialist

Project Support

Everson, Porsche Relevant Strategies President Report Editor Flores, Maria OSPI Accountability and Research

Program Manager Project Support

Gallagher, Anne OSPI Director, Teaching and Learning Mathematics

Project Support

Green, Jordyn OSPI Data Analyst Project Support Iwaszuk, Wendy OSPI Program Supervisor and State

Transformation Specialist Project Support

Lewis, Jess OSPI Program Supervisor, Behavior and Discipline

Project Support

Malagon, Helen OSPI Director, Migrant and Bilingual Education

Project Support

Mendoza, Gil OSPI Assistant Superintendent, Special Programs and Federal Accountability

Project Lead

Moilanen Potts, Liisa

OSPI Director, Teaching and Learning ELA

Project Support

Mosby, Judith OSPI Director, Student and School Success, Reading Instruction, Assessment and Implementation

Project Support

Munson, Robin OSPI Assistant Superintendent, Assessment and Student Information

Project Support

Pauley, Gayle OSPI Director, Title I/LAP and Consolidated Program Review

Project Lead

Peterson, Jami OSPI Executive Assistant Project Support Smith, LaWonda OSPI Program Manager, Title I/LAP

and Consolidated Program Reviews

Project Support

Vaughn, Amy OSPI Program Manager, LAP Mathematics and Research

Project Support

Vavrus, Jessica OSPI Assistant Superintendent, Teaching and Learning

Project Lead

Williamson, Greg OSPI Director, Student Support Project Support Young, Justin OSPI Program Manager, Title I/LAP

ELA and Research Project Support

16

Appendix D: Panel Review Process There were five work sessions held over a five-month period in 2014. Three were face to face

sessions held in the SeaTac area. The other two sessions were interactive webinars, typically lasting

four or more hours. Significant research, writing, and collaboration happened outside the formal

panel meetings. OSPI provided a project SharePoint site and discussion group to help facilitate

collaboration and access to information.

Figure 1: High-Level Work Plan for the Expert Panel

The work sessions were organized around the framework of the currently allowed LAP service

categories, with one key addition of identifying emerging or promising practices that might not fit

into the currently allowed categories. The following work plan outlines the work of the expert panel

over the five scheduled sessions. Panelists were asked to find and/or review research literature in

advance of each session and to share that research with the whole group. The panelists received

selected articles before each session. WSIPP maintained a folder of selected research articles on the

OSPI SharePoint site related to effective practices and strategies within the allowable LAP service

categories.

Panelists provided written descriptions of the proposed practices, citing evidence of effectiveness.

See Appendix E for articles reviewed and used by the expert panel in the course of their work.

17

Appendix E: References/Resources August, D., Beck, I., Calderon, M., Francis, D. L., Shanahan, T., & al., e. (2008). Developing reading and

writing in second-language learners. In D. August, & T. Shanahan, Instruction and

professional development (pp. 131-250). New York: Routledge.

Barley, Z. L. (2002). Helping at-risk students meet standards: A synthesis of evidence-based practices.

Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Barone Schneider, R., & Barone, D. (1997). Cross-age tutoring. Childhood Education, 73(3), 136-143.

Bean, R. (2008, July). The school board wants to know: Why literacy coaching? Literacy Coaching

Clearinghouse.

Biancarosa, G. A. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional

development on student learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7-34.

Bice, T. (2013). A Unified and Comprehensive System of Learning Supports for Alabama Students:

Design Document. Retrieved from

http://web.alsde.edu/general/ALDOEDesignDocument.pdf.

Birsch, J. R. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (Second ed.).

Bixby, K. E., Gordon, E. E., Gozali-Lee, E., Akyea, S. G., & Nippolt, P. L. (2011). Best practices for

tutoring programs: A guide to quality. Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul Public Schools Foundation.

Blachowicz, C. L. (2005). Literacy coaching for change. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 55-58.

Blank, R. K., & de las Alas, N. (2009). Effects of teacher professional development on gains in student

achievement. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining

professional learning communities. Retrieved from

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/Creating%20and%20Sustaining%20PLCs_t

cm4-631034.pdf.

Borich, G. (2011). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice (7th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education Inc.

Borman, G. (2000, February). The effects of summer school: Questions answered, questions raised.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 119-127. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-5834.00069/abstract.

Burkins, J. &. (2007). Coaches coaching coaches. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 3(1),

32-47.

18

Burns, M. K. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining

field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,

23(4), 381-394.

Byrd, S., & Finnan, C. (2003). Expanding expectations for students through accelerated schools.

Journal of Staff Development, 24(4), 48-52.

Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty Years

of Inquiry. Reading Teacher, 49, 182-182.

Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to reading and language arts instruction: The

constructivist framework of an instructional theory. What Research has to Say About

Reading Instruction, 3, 25-47.

Carroll, J. B. (1989, January). The Carroll model: A 25-Year retrospective and prospective view.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31. Retrieved from

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/1/26.short.

Ceballo, R., Maurizi, L. K., Suarez, G. A., & Aretakis, M. T. (2014). Gift and sacrifice: Parental

involvement in latino adolescents' education. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, 20(1), 116-127.

Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2006). School-community partnerships: A guide.

Retrieved from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/guides/schoolcomm.pdf.

Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2008). Addressing barriers to student learning: Closing

gaps in school/community policy and practice. Retrieved from Retrieved from

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/barriers/closinggaps.pdf.

Center for Prevention Research and Development. (2009). Background research: Tutoring

programs. Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention Research and Development, Institute of

Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois.

Chall, A. (1983). Stages in reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Chang, S. H. (2011). Grade level and gender differences in a school-based reading tutoring Program.

Reading Horizons, 51(1), 63-80.

Chavkin, N. F. (2005). Strategies for preparing educators to enhance the involvement of diverse

families in their children's education. Multicultural Education, 16-20.

Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1989). Low-income parents' attitudes toward parent involvement in

education. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 16(3), 17-28.

Committee on How People Learn. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in

the classroom. National Academies Press.

19

Connor, C. M., Alberto, P. A., Compton, D. L., & O'Connor, R. E. (2014, February). Improving reading

outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from

Institute of Education Sciences:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20143000/pdf/20143000.pdf.

Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2008). Research on coaching. In J. Knight, Coaching: Approaches and

perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (3rd

ed.). Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Ontario, CA: Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education.

D’Agustino, S. (2013). Providing innovative opportunities and options for credit recovery through

afterschool and summer learning programs. In T. K. Peterson, Expanding minds and

opportunities: Leveraging the power of afterschool and summer learning for student success.

Dangel, J. R., & Hooper, S. (2010). Researching pedagogy in a professional development school.

School-University Partnerships, 4(1), 88-100.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional

learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United

States and abroad. Stanford University. Palo Alto, CA: National Staff Development Council

and the School Redesign Network.

Davis, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational

technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45 – 52.

DeBlois, R. &. (2007). Alternatives for struggling learners. Principal Leadership: High School Edition ,

38-42.

Denton, C. (2009). Classroom reading instruction that supports struggling readers: Key components

for effective teaching. Houston, TX: Children's Learning Institute, University of Texas Health

Science Center.

Department of Education. (2001). Evidence that tutoring works. Planning and Evaluation Service,

Corporation for National Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Duffy, A. M. (2001). Balance, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching in a summer school

literacy program for elementary school struggling readers. Reading Research and

Instruction, 40(2), 67-100.

Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at

approaches to tiered intervention. National High School Center.

DuFour, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution

Tree.

20

DuFour, R. (2011, February). Work together: But only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57-

61.

Dumas, J. E., Lynch, A. M., Laughlin, J. E., Phillips Smith, E., & Prinz, R. J. (2001, January). Promoting

intervention fidelity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(1), 38-47. Retrieved from

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(00)00272-5/fulltext?refuid=S0749-

3797(09)00546-7&refissn=0749-3797.

Durlak, J. (2013). The Importance of Quality Implementation for Research, Practice, and Policy. ASPE

Research Brief. US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved May 2014, from US

Department of Health and Human Services: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541356.pdf.

Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008, June). Implementation matters: A review of the research on the

influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting

implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 327-350. Retrieved

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18322790.

Echevarria, J. V. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. New

York, NY: Pearson.

ECONorthwest. (2008). A Review of research on extended learning time in K-12 schools. Portland:

ChalkBoard Project. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from http://chalkboardproject.org/wp-

content/uploads/2010/12/Extended-Learning-2.pdf.

Education Northwest. (2012, June 21). What the research says (and doesn't say): Expanded learning

time. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from http://educationnorthwest.org/news/2467.

Egbert, J. &.-S. (2010). Access to academics: Planning instruction for K-12 classrooms with ELLs. New

York, NY.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring

programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of

the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605-619.

Elmore, R. F. (2004). School Reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.

Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Epstein, J. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. In

J. L. Epstein, K. Coates, M. Salinas, M. Sanders, & B. Simon, School, family, and community

partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed., pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Epstein, J. L. (2005). Developing and sustaining research-based programs of school, family and

community partnerships. Baltimore, MD: National Network of Partnership Schools, Johns

Hopkins University.

21

Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997). Epstein's Framework of Six

Types of Involvement. In School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for

action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Escamilla, K. (2007). Considerations for literacy coaches in classrooms with English language

learners. Retrieved April 2014, from Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse: http://www.

literacycoachingonline.org.

Faltis, C., & Coulter, C. (2008). Teaching English learners and immigrant students in secondary

schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Fantuzzo, J., & Rohrbeck, C. (1992). Self-managed groups: Fitting self-management approaches into

classroom systems. School Psychology Review, 21(2), 255-263.

Ferguson, C., Ramos, M., Rudo, Z., & Wood, L. (2008). The school-family connection: Looking at the

larger picture. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections with

Schools.

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catch-up growth for those

who are behind. Kennewick, WA: The New Foundation Press, Inc.

Finnan, C., & Chasin, G. (2007). Accelerating the learning of low-achieving students: The

transformation of a dropout. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 625-629.

Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. (2000). Accelerating the learning of all students: Cultivating culture change

in schools, classrooms and individuals. Westview Press.

Fixsen, D. L. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of

South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National

Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5),

531-540.

Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Intensive technical assistance: Scaling-up brief number 2. Retrieved May 2014,

from FPG Child Development Institute:

http://sisep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/sisep.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/SISEP-Brief2-Intensive-

TA-02-2009.pdf.

Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Readiness for change: Scaling-up brief number 3. Retrieved May 2014, from FPG

Child Development Institute:

http://sisep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/sisep.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/SISEP-Brief3-

ReadinessForChange-09-2013.pdf.

Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Scaling up evidence-based practices in education: Scaling-up brief number 1.

Retrieved May 2014, from Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute:

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507440.pdf.

22

Flamboyan Foundation. (2011, January). What kinds of family engagement are most effective?

Retrieved March 31, 2014, from www.flamboyanfoundation.org:

http://flamboyanfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/What-kinds-of-family-

engagement-matter-1-28-2011.pdf.

Flipping the classroom. (2013). Retrieved May 30, 2014, from Center for Teaching and Learning,

University of Washington: http://www.washington.edu/teaching/teaching-

resources/flipping-the-classroom/.

Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids/street kids: Identity development in latino students. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Franco, M. S. (2011). An interim report on a pilot recovery program in a large, suburban

midwestern high school. Education, 132(1).

Freeman, Y. &. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of

teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams.

The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.

Garet, e. a. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading

instruction and achievement. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional

Assistance.

Garet, M. P. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national

sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4).

Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., & al., e. (2008). The impact of two professional

development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. Institute of

Education Science, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., Walters, K., Doolittle, F. (2001). Two-

year findings from the middle school mathematics professional development impact study.

Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Garrett, K. (2012). Community schools: It takes a village. Education Digest: Essential Readings

Condensed for Quick Review, 78(3), 14-17.

Gaustad, J. (1993, March). Peer and cross-age tutoring. Retrieved from ericdigests.org:

http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/peer.htm.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. (2009,

February). Assisting struggling students with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier

intervention for reading in the primary grades. Retrieved from Institute of Education

23

Sciences:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf#page=25.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in

the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners academic literacy and thinking. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Gibbs, S. (n.d.). Effective tutoring: Assembling the pieces. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from

https://www.mheonline.com/assets/sra_download/EarlyReadingTutor/MoreInfo/Tutorin

gWhitePaper_FNL.pdf.

Glaser, D. (2005). ParaReading: A training guide for tutors. Boston: Sopris West Educational

Services.

González, N. M. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and

classrooms. . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Research says: Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in.

Technology-Rich Learning, 70(6), 78-80.

Gordon, D. M. (2009). Mentoring urban black middle school male students: Implications for

academic achievement. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(3), 277-289.

Gordon, E. E. (2009, February). 5 ways to improve tutoring programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(6), 440-

445.

Great Schools Partnership. (2013). Expanded learning time definition. Retrieved March 28, 2014,

from The Glossary of Education Reform: http://edglossary.org/expanded-learning-time/.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.

Gwynne, J. A. (2012). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago Public Schools: A

focus on English Language Learners. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Habeeb, S. (2013). The ninth grade challenge. Principal Leadership, 18-22.

Halgunseth, L. C., Peterson, A., Stark, D. R., & Moodie, S. (2009). Family engagement, diverse families,

and early childhood education programs: An integrated review of the literature. National

Association for the Education of Young Children.

Hanan, A. (2009). Modeling and observing sheltered instruction charts: Lesson planning and note-

taking tools for ESL/ELL coaches. Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse.

Hanewald, R. (2013). Transition between primary and secondary school: Why it is important and

how it can be supported. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1). Retrieved from

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol38/iss1/5.

24

Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Jounal

of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 798-812.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New

York: Routledge.

Henderson, A., & Berla (Eds.), N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to

student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and

community. Austin, TX: Southwest Education Development Laboratory.

Hennessy, S. R. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment,

constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2, 155-192.

Heritage, M., Jones, B., Tobiason, G., & Chang, S. (2013). Fundamentals of learning: Resource #2.

Retrieved March 31, 2014, from National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and

Student Testing; University of California, Los Angles:

http://www.cse.ucla.edu/downloads/files/LearningFundamentals_FINAL.pdf.

Herrera, C. G. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-

based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346-361.

Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Hiebert, E. (1991). Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices and policies. Teachers College

Press.

Hill, J. &. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

Hill, N. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school readiness: The roles of

ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 686-697.

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment

of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740-763.

Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and

inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational

Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Hollifield, J. (1987). Ability grouping in elementary schools. ERIC Digests.

Hopkins, G. (2006). Alternative school calendars: Smart idea or senseless experiment? Retrieved April

2014, from Education World:

http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin126.shtml.

25

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: What they are and why are they important?

Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Library.

Hott, B., Walker, J., & Sahni, J. (2012, April). CLD - Peer tutoring. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from

http://www.cldinternational.org/InfoSheets/PeerTutoring.asp.

Hough, T. T., Peyton, D., Geier, C., & Petrie, B. (2007). Adolescent literacy tutoring: Face-to-face and

via webcam technology. Reading Psychology, 28(1), 283-300.

Ingersoll, R. &. (2004). The impact of mentoring on reacher retention: What the research says.

Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning

teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Education Research, 81(2), 201-233.

Retrieved from

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=gse_pubs.

International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches.

Newark, DE: Carnegie Corporation.

Iowa School Boards Foundation. (2007). Family, school and community connections: Improving

student learning. Des Moines, IA: Iowa School Boards Foundation.

Ishimaru, A. (2013). Involvement to collaboration: Next practices in parent/family engagement.

Transition District Family Engagement Workshop, (pp. 1-33). Spokane. Retrieved from

http://www.spokaneschools.org/cms/lib/WA01000970/Centricity/Domain/3930/Collabo

rating%20wFamilies_IshimaruFin.pdf.

J., C. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.

Jacobsen, C., Bonds, M., Medders, K., Saenz, C., Stasch, K., & Sullivan, J. (2002). An intersession model

for accelerated literacy learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18(2), 151-173.

Jeynes, W. H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement

programs for urban students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). A Study of the effect of sustained, whole-school

professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 44(6), 775-786.

Jones, C., Reutzel, D., & Smith, J. (2011). A focus on struggling readers: A comparative analysis of

expert opinion and empirical research recommendations. In R. Flippo (Ed.), Reading

Researchers in Search of Common Ground (2nd ed., pp. 274-303). New York: Routledge.

Joyce, B. R. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. ASCD.

Juel, C., Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., & Deffes, R. (2003). Walking with rosie: A cautionary tale of early

reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 60, 12-18.

26

Kalkowski, P. (1995, March). School improvement research series. Retrieved from education

northwest: http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/peer-and-cross-age-

tutoring.pdf.

Kamii, C., Manning, M., & Manning, G. (1991). Early literacy: A constructivist foundation for whole

language. National Education Association.

Kaplan, C., & Chan, R. (2011). Time well spent: Eight powerful practices of successful, expanded-time

schools. Boston: National Center on Time & Learning.

Kennelly, L. a. (2007). Easing the transition to high school: Research and best practices designed to

support high school learning. National High School Center.

Kennelly, L., & Monrad, M. (2007). Easing the transitions to high school: Research and best practices

designed to support high school learning. National High School Center.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction. New

York: Corwin.

Knight, J. (2010). Unmistakable impact: A partnership approach for dramatically improving

instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Knowles, M. (1983). Adults are not grown up children as learners. Community Service Catalyst,

13(4), 4-8.

Kober, N. (2006). State high school exit exams: A challenging year. Washington D.C.: Center on

Education Policy.

Kowal, J., & Steiner, L. (2007). Instructional coaching. Washington, DC: The Center for

Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

L'Allier, S. L.‐P. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching? guiding principles for

instructional improvement and student achievement. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 544-554.

Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Frey, N. (2003). Dual role of the urban reading specialist. Journal of

Staff Development, 24(2), 33-37.

Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Education, B. I. (2010). Eight essentials for project-based learning.

ASCD. Retrieved from http://groups.ascd.org/resource/documents/122463-

CCSS_PBL_Handout_3_8_Essentials.pdf.

Larose, S. C. (2010). The structure of effective academic mentoring in late adolescence. New

Directions for Youth Development, 126, 123-140.

Levin, H. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 19.

Levin, H. (1988). Accelerated schools for at-risk students. CPRE. Retrieved from

http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rr-10.pdf.

27

Levin, H., & Hopfenberg, W. (1991). Accelerated schools for at-risk students. Education Digest,

56(9), 47-50.

Lipton, L., Wellman, B., & Humbard, C. (2003). Mentoring matters: A practical guide to learning

focused relationships (2nd ed.). Miravia, LLC.

Louis, K. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational learning,

and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 477-489.

Lowell Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 120th

ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Atlanta: American Society for Engineering Education.

Malone, H. J. (2008). Educating the whole child: Could community schools hold an answer?

education digest: essential readings condensed for quick review, 74(2), 6-8.

Marzano, R. (2002-2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based

strategies for increasing student achievement. ASCD.

Mass 2020. (2010). More time for learning: Promising practices and lessons learned. Massachusetts

Expanded Learning Time Initiative. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from

http://mass2020.org/sites/default/files/2010_mass_2020_progress_report.pdf.

Mathematica Policy Research. (2009, July). Structuring out of school time to improve academic

achievement. retrieved from institute of education science what works clearinghouse:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=10.

Matthews, P. H. (2012). Shaping aspirations, awareness, academics, and action outcomes of summer

enrichment programs for english-learning secondary students. Journal of Advanced

Academics, 23(2), 105-124.

Mazzolini, B., & Morley, S. (2006). A double-dose of reading class at the middle and high school

levels. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 34(3), 9-24.

Morrison, I., Everton, T., Rudduck, J., Cannie, J., & Strommen, L. (2000). Pupils helping other pupils

with their learning: Cross-age tutoring in a primary and secondary school. Mentoring and

Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 8(3), 187-200.

Mowbray, C. T. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American

Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315-340.

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (n.d.). Issue brief: Multi-tiered systems of support.

National Center on Parent, Family, and Community Engagement. (2013). Family engagement in

transitions: Transition to kindergarten. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from

http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/family/docs/transitions-kindergarten.pdf.

28

National Education Association. (n.d.). Closing the gap through extended learning opportunities.

Retrieved March 28, 2014, from NEA Policy Briefings:

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_PB04_ExtendedLearning.pdf.

National Education Association. (n.d.). NEA - research spotlight on peer tutoring. Retrieved March

27, 2014, from http://www.nea.org/tools/35542.htm.

National Education Association Policy and Practice Department. (2007). Parent, family, community

involvement in education. Washington, DC: National Education Association, Center for Great

Public Schools.

National Implementation Research Network. (2013). The hexagon tool. Retrieved May 2014, from

The Active Implementation Hub:

http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/sites/implementation.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIR

N-TheHexagonTool_0.pdf.

National Reading Technical Assistance Group. (2010). A review of the current research on

vocabulary instruction. RMC Research Corp. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/rmcfinal1.pdf.

Neuman, S., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on

early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal,

46(2), 532-566.

Newhouse, C., Neely, P., Freese, J., Lo, J., & Willis, S. (2012). Summer matters: How summer learning

strengthens students' success. Oakland: Public Profit, supported by the David and Lucile

Packard Foundation. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from http://summermatters2you.net/wp-

content/uploads/2013/05/Summer-Matters-How-Summer-Learning-Strengthens-

Students-Success.pdf.

Newmann, F. W. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and

Restructuring of Schools.

O'Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005, October). Layers of reading intervention

in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 440-455. Retrieved from

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/38/5/440.full.pdf+html?ijkey=70S1U9.09ghoY&keytype=

ref&siteid=spldx.

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2012, June). Washington state comprehensive

literacy plan. Retrieved March 2014, from OSPI English Language Arts:

https://www.k12.wa.us/ELA/pubdocs/CLP.pdf.

Ohio Department of Education . (n.d.). Community partnerships implementation guide, version 2.

Ohio community collaboration model for school improvement.

29

Olson, C. B., Collins, P., Scarcella, R., Land, R., van Dyk, D., Kim, J., & Gersten, R. (2011). The pathway

project: A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for teachers of

secondary English language learners. Irvine, CA: Institute of Education Sciences.

Palincsar, A., & David, Y. (1991). Promoting literacy through classroom dialogue. in literacy for a

diverse society: Perspectives, practices and policies (pp. 122-140).

Paterson, P. O., & Elliott, L. N. (2006, February). Struggling reader to struggling reader: High school

students' responses to a cross-age tutoring program. Journal of Adolescent and Adult

Literacy, 49(5), 378-389.

Pennucci, A. (2014, February 19). What is an "effect size"? Olympia: Washington Institute for Public

Policy.

Pennucci, A. L. (2012). How does Washington state's learning assistance program impact student

outcomes? Final Report. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. doi:12-08-

2201.

Peterson, T. K. (2013). Expanding minds and opportunities: Leverage the power of afterschool and

summer learning for student success. Washington D.C.: Collaborate Communications Group.

Phelps, G., Corey, D., DeMonte, J., Harrison, D., & Loewenberg Ball, D. (2012, September). How much

english language arts and mathematics instruction do students receive? Investigating

Variation in Instructional Time. Educational Policy, 26(5), 631-662. Retrieved from

http://epx.sagepub.com/content/26/5/631.abstract.

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking.

R., D., & Place, P. (2007). Alternatives for struggling learners. Principal Leadership: High School

Edition, 7(8), 38-42.

Reichstetter, R. (2006). Defining a professional learning community: A literature review. E&R

Research Alert.

Rieckhoff, B. S., & Larsen, C. (2011). The impact of a professional development network on

leadership development and school improvement goals. School-University Partnerships,

5(1), 57-73.

Rieckhoff, B., & Larsen, C. (2012). The impact of a professional development network on leadership

development and school improvement goals. (K. Zenkov, Ed.) School-University

Partnerships: The Journal of the National Association for Professional Development Schools,

5(1), 57-73. Retrieved March 14, 2014.

Robinson, D. R., Ward Schofield, J., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005, December). Peer and cross-age

tutoring in math: Outcomes and their implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4),

327-362.

30

Roman, S., & Fiore, C. D. (2010). Do public library summer reading programs close the achievement

gap? Children and Libraries, 27-31.

Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Rupley, W., Blair, T., & Nichols, W. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling readers: The

Role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 125-138.

Ryan, S. W. (2002). A school-based elementary mentoring program. Preventing School Failure,

46(3), 133-138.

Ryder, R., Burton, J., & Silberg, A. (n.d.). Longitudinal study of direct instruction effects from first

through third grades. Journal of Education Research, 99(3).

Sanders, M. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-based

organization support and sustain school, family and community partnerships. Teachers

College Record, 111(7), 1693-1712.

Santagata, R., Kersting, N., Givvin, K. B., & Stigler, J. W. (2011). Problem implementation as a lever

for change: An experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on

students' mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(1), 1-24.

Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist

framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.

Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Extensive reading

interventions in grades k-3. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction. Retrieved from

http://www.centeroninstruction.org/extensive-reading-interventions-in-grades-k-3-from-

research-to-practice.

Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2005, May). Learning when school is not in session: a reading summer day-

camp intervention to improve the achievement of exiting first-grade students who are

economically disadvantaged. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 158-169.

Shaha, S. V. (2004). Evaluating professional development. Journal of Research in Professional

Learning, 1-18.

Shanahan, T. K. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: IES

Practice guide. Retrieved March 2014, from What Works Clearinghouse:

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512029.pdf

Shanklin, N. (2006). What are the characteristics of effective literacy coaching. Retrieved April

2014, from Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse: http://www.literacycoachingonline.org.

Shinn, M. R. (2002). Using curriculum-based measurements in a problem-solving model. New York:

Guilford.

31

Shippen, M. E. (2005). A comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle

school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 175-182.

Slavin, R. (1986). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence

synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

Slavin, R. E. (n.d.). Effects of a data-driven district reform model on state assessment outcomes.

American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 371-396.

Smith, K. C. (2010). Beyond compliance: Scaling up a successful statewide initiative. In K. B. Sharon

Harsh, Capacity Building Technical Assistance (p. 121). Charleston, WV: Edvantia.

Snow-Renner, R. &. (2005). McREL insights: Professional development analysis. Aurora, CO: McREL.

Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford,

OH: National Staff Development Council.

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

St. Clair, L., Jackson, B., & Zweiback. (2012). Six years later: Effect of family involvement training on

the language skills of children from migrant families. School Community Journal, 22(1), 9-19.

Stevens, R., Slavin, R., & Farnish, A. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction

in reading comprehension strategies on main idea information. Journal of Education

Psychology, 83(1), 8-16.

Stillwater School District. (2012). Flipped classroom. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from

http://www.stillwater.k12.mn.us/departments/technology/technology-around-

district/flipped-classroom.

Strengthening Student Educational Outcomes. (2013, June 30). Retrieved January 27, 2014, from

Washington State Legislature: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-

14/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5946-S.SL.pdf.

Supovitz, J. A. (2000). Promoting inquiry based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of

professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-

356.

Terry, B. P. (n.d.). Instruction/classwide peer tutoring, Special Connections. Retrieved March 27,

2014, from http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/?q=instruction/classwide_peer_tutoring

Thomas, W. &. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, D.C.:

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Timmons, V. (2008). Challenges in researching family literacy programs. Canadian Psychology,

49(2), 96-102.

32

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of ALL learners.

Hawker-Brownlow Education.

Topping, K. (2008). Peer-assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers. Newton, MA: Brookline

Books.

Troen, V., & Boles, K. C. (2011, November/December). Rating your teacher team: Five conditions for

effective teams. Harvard Education Letter, 27(6).

U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for

family-school partnerships. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/documents/family-

community/partners-education.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference. Retrieved from

Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page.html.

US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2003, December). Identifying and implementing

educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Retrieved March

4, 2014, from U.S. Department of Education:

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/rigorousevid.pdf.

Van Staden, A. (2011). Put reading first: Positive effects of direct instruction and scaffolding for ESL

learners struggling with reading. Perspectives in Education, 29(4), 10-21.

Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., Lloyd, C. M., & Leuong, T. (2013). The impact of family

involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A focus on literacy and math

achievement outcomes and social-emotional skills. New York, NY: Center on School, Family

and Community Partnerships, MDRC.

Vega, V. (2012). Project-based learning research review: Evidence-based components of success.

Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pbl-research-evidence-based-components.

vonGlaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.

Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Wadlington, E. (2000). Effective language arts instruction for students with dyslexia. Preventing

School Failure, 44(2).

Walqui, A. (2000). Strategies for success: Engaging immigrant students in secondary schools.

Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Warren, M., Hong, S., Rubin, C., & Uy, P. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational

approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record.

33

Washington English Language Proficiency Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from OSPI:

http://www.k12.wa.us/migrantbilingual/eld.aspx.

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A

review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 179-200.

Watson, J. a. (2008). Using online learning for at-risk students and credit recovery. Promising

Practices in Online Learning. Retrieved April 2014, from North American Council for Online

Learning: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509625.pdf.

Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. In N. Webb, Peer Interaction,

Problems Solving and Cognition: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 21-29). New York:

Pergamon Press.

Weisen, N. (2014, February). Flipping the classroom for students with learning disabilities. Retrieved

from Scientific Learning: http://www.scilearn.com/blog/flipping-the-classroom-for-

students-with-learning-disabilties.php.

Weiss, H., Lopez, M., & Rosenberg, H. (2011). Beyond random acts: Family, school and community

engagement as an integral part of education reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family

Research Project. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.nationalpirc.org

/engagement_forum/beyond_random_acts.pdf.

West, C. (2012). Effective coaching strategies for increased use of research-based instructional

strategies for linguistically diverse classrooms. Master's Thesis. University of Nebraska-

Lincoln.

Westmoreland, H., Rosenberg, H. M., Lopez, E., & Weiss, H. (2009). Seeing is believing: Promising

practices for how schools promote family engagement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family

Research Project.

Wilkinson, L., & Stillman, E. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. Handbook of Reading

Research, 3, 337-360.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on

how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues and Answers

Report, REL 2007-No 033). Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from Retrieved from

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

34

OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race, creed,

religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation

including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability,

or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Questions and

complaints of alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at

(360) 725-6162 or P.O. Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200.

Download this material in PDF at http://www.k12.wa.us/LegisGov/Reports.aspx. This material is

available in alternative format upon request. Contact the Resource Center at (888) 595-3276, TTY (360)

664-3631. Please refer to this document number for quicker service: 14-0033

Randy I. Dorn • State Superintendent

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Old Capitol Building • P.O. Box 47200

Olympia, WA 98504-7200