Wyandotte County Early Reading First

Wy-ERF TeamDrs. Mary Abbott & Jane Atwater

Jeanie Schiefelbusch, Deb Montagna, Younwoo Lee & Liesl Edwards Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

University of Kansas

Martha Staker, Amy Herring, Beth Nicholas, Debbie Jones, & Geralyn SosinskiProject EAGLE

University of Kansas Med. Center

Information in this presentation is available for noncommercial use only. You may use the information provided that: (a) you do not modify or delete any content;(b) you do not redistribute content without identifying the website and author as the source of content; (c) the use of content does not suggest that our ERF project promotes or endorses any third party causes, ideas, Web sites, products or services.For additional permission requests, please contact Dr. Mary Abbott, mabbott@ku.edu

WY-ERF Introduction

Organizational frameworkTier-1 (universal) professional development dosage and topic areasData sources:Fidelity of implementation/teacher data – Coaching activity reports– Teacher knowledge assessment– Teacher action plans– Teacher evaluation of professional developmen

Evaluation of child data

PROJECT EAGLEMentor coaches

JUNIPER GARDENSCHILDREN’S PROJECTWy-ERF project oversight

Project coordinatorProfessional Development planTier 1 and 2 instructional plan

Tier 2 intervention coachesEvaluation Services

SCIENCE-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION

EOF HEAD START EL CENTRO ACADEMY OF

CHILDREN

RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTNERS IN WYANDOTTE COUNTY

EARLY READING FIRST

Instructional Implementation3 teachers per classroomInstructionally-sound tiered delivery model Increased intensity of differentiated instruction identified through data-based decision makingAppropriate for pre-school populationEvidenced-base literacy and oral language components

Conceptual FrameworkProfessional Development

High-quality, on-going teacher training Intensive mentoring-1 primary level mentor for every 3 classrooms + intervention coach Regular feedback based on frequent monitoring of implementation

Student + Environmental Outcomes•Student growth in literacy skills•Phonological awareness•Alphabet knowledge•Concepts of print (print awareness)•Writing use

•Student oral language development•Expressive•Receptive

•Instructional environment•Literacy materials•Literacy usage

Yearly Tier-1 Professional Development Dosage

Format Session Frequency

Session Length Time Across School Year

Summer Teacher Workshops

3 8 hrs. 24 hrs.

Weekly Teacher Mentoring Daily 2.5 hrs. 450 hrs.

School Year Teacher Workshops

4 ½ days 4 to 7 hrs. 32 hrs.

Mini-Trainings teachers Periodically 30-60 minutes 20 hrs.

Teacher Training Topics

Training focuses on:• Skill content (literacy and language)• Environmental content (e.g., room arrangement,

praise/reprimand, schedules)• Daily content expectations for circle, small group,

learning centers, and storybook (e.g., specified activities for 15 minutes of circle time)

• Instructional strategies for teaching skills– I do it; we do it; you do it (model, guided

practice, independent practice)

Teacher Mini-Trainings

Targeted trainings were provided in individual classrooms at nap time and were based on these data sources:– Weekly mentor coach reports of implementation– Student outcomes

Training topics included:– Classroom management– ELL strategies– Literacy activities during center time– Beginning reading instruction

Data Sources for Data-Driven Decision-Making

Teacher fidelity of implementation results– Conducted 2-3 times per year – criteria goal 80%

Classroom environment and child outcomes– Classroom environment – fall and spring– Child outcome measures – fall and spring– Child progress monitoring – fall, winter, and spring

Mentor coach reports about implementation– Completed weekly

Teacher knowledge assessmentTeacher evaluation of professional development

Fidelity Content

Fidelity of Implementation Checklists addressed the following areas of implementation:

• Has the activity been planned as evidenced by the lesson plan?

• Is the lesson plan being followed?• Do teachers use appropriate procedures taught during

professional development (e.g., circle or center times)?• Do the teachers provide appropriate behavior management

techniques?• Are transition times and methodology appropriate?

Teacher Fidelity of Implementation

0102030405060708090

100

Fall 2007 Fall 2008

Circle

Center

Storybook

Small Group

Mentor Coach Weekly Notes

Provides various sources of data on Time spent in each classroom (2 ½ weekly hours of instructional time + 1-2 hours of planning)Time spent supporting teachers with materialsFocus of coaching activityTeacher activity while coach is embedded in classroom and assisting during planning

Teacher Knowledge Assessment

Assesses individual teacher knowledge in the areas of

Phonological awareness

Print knowledge

Oral language

Instructional strategies

Classroom TeacherFidelity 20 Questions

Circle Small Center Story Total Pre Post

1

  100% 90% 61% 100% 81% 75% 85%

  100% 95% 67% 100% 85% 45% 65%

  100% 91% 67% 91% 87% 75% NA

2

  100% 78% 50% 100% 74% 55% 55%

  100% 75% 36% 100% 68% 85% 75%

  94% 90% 61% 83% 82% 90% NA

3

  100% 64% 50% 50% 65% 75% 55%

  100% 64% 67% 67% 68% 55% 70%

  NA NA NA NA NA NA 75%

4  90% 78% 71% 81% 79% 65% 70%

  90% 70% 61% 100% 75% 80% 80%

5  100% 77% 72% 69% 79% 70% 70%

  75% 73% 71% 100% 75% 45% 65%

6  100% 77% 78% 56% 78% 45% 65%

  100% 68% 69% 100% 76% 30% 25%

7

  94% 83% 64% NA 81% NA 70%

  100% 86% 72% NA 94% 70% 85%

  100% 67% 57% NA 67% 55% 60%

8

  94% 77% 67% 89% 81% 90% 85%

  75% 61% 50% 100% 61% NA 45%

  NA NA 57% 100% 70% 40% 65%

9  83% 50% 21% 22% 42% 60% 70%

  75% 67% 36% 83% 60% 55% 55%

Teacher Action Plans & Professional Development Evaluation

During formal Professional Development teachers:Create an action plan that relates to a goal discussed

during training (see handout packet) – These goals are rated as a percentage toward completion by

the coach.– Used to determine if more training should be provided

Provide feedback to the quality of the training (see handout packet)

– This feedback is used to modify future training topics content delivery, and food preference.

Early Reading First of Wyandotte County

Evaluation Data

Identifying children who need more intensive intervention to meet language and early

literacy benchmarks for their age:

TOPEL (Test of Preschool Early Literacy)

Subtests: Print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness

Children met the TOPEL benchmark if:– Total score (Early Literacy Index) was within or above the

typical range (>=90) - OR -– Scores on at least 2 subtests were within or above the typical

range (>=90)

Percentage of children who did not meet the TOPEL benchmark at the beginning of the school year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Center 1 Center 2 Center 3 Center 4

English 1st Language ELL

Monitoring children’s progress over the school year and providing information to teachers:

Children who did not meet TOPEL benchmark were assessed monthly.Children at or above benchmark were assessed three times.Progress monitoring measures:– PALS Pre-K – (a) Letter Knowledge and (b) Letter Sound

Knowledge– DIBELS – (a) Word Part Fluency for Sounds and Syllables (with

separate versions for English and Spanish), (b) First Sound Fluency, and (c) Letter Naming Fluency

– Get It, Got It, Go (GGG) – Picture Naming Fluency

GGG: Picture Naming Fluency – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Oct/Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr/May

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

rre

ct R

esp

on

ses

Above - Eng 1st Lang Above - ELL Below - ELL Below - Eng 1st Lang

PALS Pre-K: Upper Case Letter Knowledge – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oct/Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr/May

Up

pe

r C

ase

Le

tte

rs I

de

ntif

ied

Co

rre

ctly

Above - Eng 1st Lang Above - ELL Below - ELL Below - Eng 1st Lang

DIBELS: Word Part Fluency – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Oct/Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr/May

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

rre

ct R

esp

on

ses

Above - Eng 1st Lang Above - ELL Below - ELL Below - Eng 1st Lang

Determining whether children made significant pre-post gains in standardized

assessments of language and early literacy:

Pre-Test – October/November 2007

Post-Test – April/May 2008

Standardized assessments:

– TVIP

– PPVT-IV

– TVIP

Pre-post gains were evaluated with paired sample t-tests.

Gains in TOPEL Standard Scores – Children Whose First Language is English

80

85

90

95

100

Ave

rag

e S

tan

da

rd S

core

Print Knowledge DefinitionalVocabulary

PhonologicalAwareness

Early Literacy Index

Pre Post

*** Gains from pre to post were statistically significant, p < .001.

******

******

Gains in TOPEL Standard Scores – English Language Learners

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Ave

rag

e S

tan

da

rd S

core

Print Knowledge DefinitionalVocabulary

PhonologicalAwareness

Early Literacy Index

Pre Post

* P < .05 ** p < .01

***

Gains in PPVT and TVIP Standard Scores

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Ave

rag

e S

tan

da

rd S

core

PPVT - English 1st Lang TVIP - ELL

Pre Post

** P < .01 *** p < .001

*** **

Determining whether 4-year-old children met language and early literacy goals to be ready for kindergarten:

Children who were age-eligible to enter kindergarten in 2008Goal for standardized assessments – typical range or above (i.e., scored better than 1 standard deviation below the mean)– TOPEL– PPVT/TVIP

Goal for progress monitoring assessments – met or exceeded benchmarks– PALS Pre-K Upper Case Letter Knowledge– DIBELS Word Part Fluency– DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency

Percentage of 4-year-old Children Who Met or Exceeded Progress Monitoring Goals by April 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pe

rce

nta

ge

PALS Pre-K LetterKnowledge (>=18)

DIBELS Letter NamingFluency (>=8)

DIBELS Word SoundFluency (>=7)

English 1st Lang (N=47) ELL (N=9)

Percentage of 4-year-old Children Who Scored Within or Above the Typical Range on Standardized Assessments (April 2008)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pe

rce

nta

ge

TOPEL Early LiteracyIndex (>=90)

PPVT (>=85) TVIP (>=85)

English 1st Lang (N=47) ELL (N=9)

For more information contact:

Mary Abbott, PhD Jane Atwater, PhDERF Director Evaluation Director

mabbott@ku.edu janea@ku.edu

University of Kansas Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

650 Minnesota 2nd fl.Kansas City, KS 6610