creating and sustaining an exemplary regional adolescent ... · metacognition! literate thinking...
TRANSCRIPT
N A O M I N O R M A N H O L L Y H E A V I L A N D
W A S H T E N A W I N T E R M E D I A T E S C H O O L D I S T R I C T
L I V I N G S T O N E D U C A T I O N A L S E R V I C E A G E N C Y
Creating and Sustaining an Exemplary Regional Adolescent
Literacy Initiative
Doing What Works
Implementation Award
Michigan Association of School Boards Award
I3 Validation Grant
Need to Knows
Agenda The Challenge The Context The Process The Plan The Implementation The Data The Future
Core of the plan Literacy across content Keeping current Adolescent Data—what was most
important? Valuable vs less valuable to demonstrate effectiveness
Washtenaw & Livingston Counties
Washtenaw County Livingston County
45,000 Students 10 School districts 16 High schools 17 Middle schools Urban/suburban/rural
30,000 Students 5 School districts 5 High schools 7 Middle schools Rural/suburban
Demographics
The Challenge
2004 MEAP Grade 7 Reading
2004 MEAP Grade 11 Reading
2004 MEAP Grade 7 Reading -- %
Proficient
2004 MEAP Grade 11 Reading -- % Proficient
The Context
THE BIG IDEAS
Personalized Learning Effective Instructional Practices (Workgroup) Multiple Assessments (Workgroup) Teaching and Learning Teams Early Childhood/Family Support
Washtenaw County Learning Expectations
1. Literacy
2. Mathematical Knowledge and Application
3. Identifying and Accessing Resources
4. Content Knowledge
5. Complex Thinking
6. Communication
7. Personal and Interpersonal Skills
8. Habits of Mind
The Process
Superintendents’ Association
Instruction and Assessment Workgroup
Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee
Literacy Committee
Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee • 35 people • Diverse and representative group: 3 people from each district (teacher, district admin, bldg admin) • University representation: U-M, EMU
Thinking Team • 10 people • The best thinkers we could
find related to literacy (principals, researchers, consultants)
Planing Team • 3 people • ISD literacy consultant,
committee chairs
• Adolescent literacy definition
• Reading Next – making it pertinent to Washtenaw County
• Further reading on the elements chosen
• Development of the blueprint
Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee Work
• One year – 4 all-day meetings with clear outcomes
• Coordinated with national speaker presentations, University symposium on literacy, ad hoc conversations with literacy gurus
Vital Instructional Components
Areas of Literacy
Vital Infrastructure Components
Reading Comprehension!
Writing!
Oral Language!
Effective instructional principles embedded in content!
Direct, explicit literacy instruction within content areas!
Text-based collaborative learning !
Focus on metacognition!
Ongoing formative assessment !
Motivation/engagement!
Technology component!
Use of diverse texts!
Intensive writing!
Extended time for literacy!
Professional development!
Ongoing summative assessment of students and programs!
Teacher teams!
Instructionally-focused leadership and leadership teams!
Comprehensive and coordinated literacy program!
!
Adolescent Literacy Focus
Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy (2004)
The Optimal Mix
15 – 3 = 0 Without:
professional development
ongoing formative assessment of students
ongoing summative assessment of students
and programs
Joyce and Showers Model
Training Method How do we achieve it?
Level of Impact Evidence of Impact What does this look like?
Didactic presentation of theory & concepts
Awareness Participant can articulate general concept & identify problems.
Modeling/demonstration (i.e. live, video)
Conceptual Understanding
Participant can articulate concepts clearly & describe appropriate actions.
Practice in simulated situations with feedback (i.e. role play, written
exercises
Skill Acquisition Participant can begin to use skills in structured or simulated
situations.
Coaching & supervision during application
Application of Skills Participant can use skills flexibly in actual settings.
Training Methods & Levels of Impact Joyce & Showers (1980)
Knowing Doing
The Plan
Engaging Students in Literate Thinking:
A Blueprint for Adolescent Literacy Success In Washtenaw County
This plan outlined: • The specific literacy instructional framework • The professional development system for touching ALL
secondary teachers in all subjects • Alignment of county resources and activities • Multiple-year phased approach • Need for formative and summative evaluation
Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee, a subcommittee of the Effective Practices/Assessment Workgroup, Washtenaw County Intermediate School District, March 2006 !
Blueprint for Engaging Students in Literate Thinking in Washtenaw County!Key Elements of Blueprint for Engaging Students in Literate Thinking!
County Approach to Adolescent Literacy !
System and Individual Capabilities that Support Effective Literacy Instruction!
Initiatives to Support Effective Literacy Instruction!
Hoped-for Outcomes!
!
Purposes!
Align processes and procedures! Leadership team! Assessment processes! Teacher collaboration! Literacy plans! Professional development! Coordination of outside support!
Framing ideas:! Common Expectations for literacy! Personalizing learning! Multiple forms of assessment! Effective instructional practices! Teaming !
Align infrastructure ! Extended time for literacy ! Creation of classroom libraries! Intensive academic literacy class!
Increase in student agency and thinking skills!
Increase in student reading comprehension and writing skills!
Decrease in the gap between low performing students and others!
Increase in teacher collaborative practices!
Increase in cross-district collaboration!
Alignment of district, building and ISD literacy goals!
Syst
em C
apab
ilitie
s!Te
ache
r Cap
abili
ties!
Focus efforts on strengthening classroom instructional practices in the areas of:!Metacognition!Literate thinking (reading comprehension, oral language, writing)!Student voice and choice!Relationships with students!!Through!Deepenign teacher content knowledge, apprenticing students within each content area!Ongoing, collaborative, and !!
Coordinated Professional Development!
Form county cohort of trainers and team facilitators with content area focus using existing models such as!• Reading Apprenticeship!• Writing Apprenticeship!• HI-Class!• Critical Friends Groups!
County-wide steering committee!Building level literacy teams!
Coordinate training of tutors, other school support in same literacy instruction!!Classroom Libraries!!Utilizing University faculty to deepen content area thinking !!Insensive acadectic literacy class!Apprenticing students in their sense of agency!Scaffolding!
Knowledge of literacy!Insight into student learning"Teacher repertoire of effective literacy practices within their subject area"Building teacher�s professional judgment!
Strengthening student, teacher and system capabilities to support the development of �literate thinkers�.!
Utilizing a metacognitive model that builds agency and efficacy in students so they can fully access the curriculum. (Giving students the tools to be thinkers.) !
Apprenticing students in discipline-specific reading, writing, and oral language instruction.!
Building strong teacher collaborative processes.!
Strengthen Leadership and Collaboration Capabilities! Facilitating change process! Collaborative group techniques!
Strengthen Instructional Capabilities! Conceptual understanding of importance of literate thinking! Develop skills and knowledge ! Application of effective literacy-related instructional practices! Facilitator�s Network!
Support a cross-county network of literacy facilitators for training, collaboration, and leadership purposes.!
Leadership & Design Teams!Focus leadership and design team model on supporting building leadership teams address literacy professional development needs.!
Leadership Support!Support development of building-level literacy teams!
Support building and district leadership!
Develop and maintain working relationships with community partners!
Reading Apprenticeship
Strategic Literacy Initiative from WestEd Developed by Schoenbach, Greenleaf, Cziko, Hurwitz
A partnership of expertise between the teacher and student, drawing on what content area teachers know and do as skilled discipline-based readers and on adolescents’ unique and often underestimated strengths.
Reading Apprenticeship
• Content Area teachers are the �experts� in knowing how to read their text
• Make the invisible visible
• Students being aware of the way they think and understand – metacognition
• Reading, writing and discourse are all linked – content area specific
• County-wide alignment and support • Nested teams • Cross-district collaboration and support • Multi-year • Systems change support • Instructional change support • Teaming and collaboration support
Professional Development Plan
Scaling Cycle
Engaging students in literate thinking
Faciliator trained in literacy strategies and facilitation skills
Small team trained in literacy strategies and teaming skills
Teams build skills throughout year and debrief and learn from each other
New faciliatators and teams come on board
County support for facilitator
County cadre of trainers to support the training of building staff and teams L&D teams
Nested Teams
Milan Symons
5th Grade Teachers
Milan MS
Team of Content Teachers
Milan HS
Team of Content Teachers
2007-2008 • June �07 – training of teachers • Monthly meetings • Sharing student work • Peer observation • Modeling of strategies
2 trainers working together
Milan Symons
5th Grade Teachers
Milan MS
2 Teams of Content Teachers
Milan HS
2 teams of Content Teachers
2008-2009 • June �08 – training of teachers • Monthly meetings • Building/district every other month • Or content area MS/HS • Sharing student work • Peer observation • Modeling of strategies
Each trainer facilitates a team
2009-2010 • June �09 – training of teachers • Grade level training • Grade level or content area meetings • Sharing student work • Peer observation • Modeling of strategies
Milan Symons 4th Grade Teachers
Milan Symons 5th Grade Teachers
Milan MS
6th Grade Teachers
Milan MS
7th Grade Teachers
Milan HS
9th Grate Teachers
Milan HS
10th Grade Teachers
Trainers support facilitators of meetings
Phase 1!Phase 2!
Phase 3!Phase 4!
Engaging Students in �Literate Thinking�!
Form County-wideSteering Committee!
Develop a shared vision!
Articulate vital components of effective literacy instruction and infrastructure!
Determine county-wide implementation plan!
Cou
nty!
Dist
rict!
Scho
ol!
Cla
ssro
om!
Develop County-wide Literacy Facilitator Group!
Develop and practice strong literacy, leadership and collaboration skils!
Provide training for building and district leadership teams!
Form cross-district literacy team!
Develop a shared vision!
Articulate vital components of district literacy work in terms of instruction and infrastructure!
Coordinate literacy work across buildings with attention to transition years!
Maintain c ross-district literacy team!
Monitor progress toward a coordinated literacy program within district!
Review data!
Sustain County-wide Literacy Facilitator Network!
Provide training and support across districts in literacy and teacher collaboration!
Provide support for building leaders and leadership teams!
Participate in County-streering committee!
!
Participate in district literacy team!
Develop literacy facilitators and organize small learning teams!
Two teachers attend summer training and ongoing training throughout year to become formal facilitators within building, district and county!
Teachers form a small, literacy leadership team within school and train team members in literacy and collaboration strategies!
Measurable change in instruction in literacy leaders� classroom (2 classrooms)!
Provide school-wide training in literacy skills and provide learning teams with further skill development!
Provide formal literacy training for entire school staff!
Form additional small learning teams to focus on instructional strategies and assessments related to literacy !
Measurable change in instruction in the classrooms of the literacy team members (4-6 classrooms)!
Evaluation
Big Idea: Data collected to help improve instruction scaled to provide programmatic evaluation
Evaluation Tools: Degrees of Reading Power/Scholastic Reading Inventory (pre
and post-test all students) Student surveys, focus groups Teacher journals – turned in 2x monthly Teacher pre and post survey Teacher focus groups
The Implementation
Washtenaw County Livingston County
Timeline
Year Activity
2004-05 Workgroup request & subgroup work
2005-06 Adolescent Literacy Steering Committee
2006-07 1st year of implementation
2007-08 2nd year of implementation
2008-09 3rd year of implementation
2009-10 4th year of implementation
2010-11 institutionalization
Year Activity
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07 Discussion of literacy need
2007-08 1st year of implementation
2008-09 2nd year of implementation
2009-10 3rd year of implementation
2010-11 Institutionalization
Teachers Trained by County
18
117
258
400
25
92
220
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Year 1 (2006-2007)
Year 2 (2007-2008)
Year 3 (2008-2009)
Year 4 (2009-2010)
Washtenaw
Livingston
• Support classroom-level work • Model facilitation skills and allow teachers time to practice them • Share issues of practice – successes and challenges • Support personal growth • Make classroom observations • Continually reflect on the dimensions/theory behind the work • Examine formative and summative measures • Plan building-level meetings • Meet and plan with administrators for the upcoming year
Regional Monthly Meetings
• Share issues of practice – successes and challenges
• Support personal growth • Make classroom
observations • Continually reflect on the
dimensions/theory behind the work
• Examine formative and summative measures
Local Structured Collaboration:
0 – Awareness Little concern about or involvement in the innovation is indicated.
1 - Informational There is general awareness of the innovation and increased interest in details.
2 – Personal Uncertain of demands of innovation; concerns regarding how innovation will affect self.
3 – Management Attention is focused on process and task of using innovation and most efficient use of time, resources, etc.
4 – Consequence Focus is on impact innovation will have on students.
5 – Collaboration Concern about coordinating and collaborating with others regarding innovation.
6 – Refocusing Exploration of additional benefits for students, including modifying or replacing innovation.
Educational Change Process Gene Hall & Shirley Hord (1987)
Initiation process leading to the decision to implement change Implementation process of putting the change into action Institutionalization process of stabilizing/continuing change (Fullan, 1991)
Expansion to Livingston County
Superintendents reviewed outcome data, discussed literacy options and requested the expansion
Bypassed the mistakes Culture and readiness for the collaborative work
already existed Implemented much faster Use of ARRA funding to bring to scale more quickly Addition of instructional coaching
Expansion Successes
Leadership turnover at regional and local levels did not end initiative
Two counties combined in to one RAT group in year 5
Redefined high quality professional development Maintained student reading comprehension growth
over first three years Maintained funding & focus for 5 years
Expansion Challenges
All teachers trained, but are they all implementing? Finding time for ongoing collaboration Leadership turnover locally Scaling an implementation when in later years
Different teachers need different kinds of support Teachers with less skill trained in later years and they needed
additional supports Haven�t figured out how to maintain high standards for RA while
personalizing to the needs of reluctant or less skilled teachers
Evolution of initiative Loss of local RATs provides sustainability challenge
Impact on the System
Demand for high quality professional development Expectations for co-constructing professional
development initiatives Boundary-spanning with intertwined goals Leveraging teacher voice and instructional
leadership Common literacy model and language around
instructional practice across 34 schools in two counties
E m b e d d e d e v a l u a t i o n m o d e l f o r f o r m a t i v e a n d s u m m a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n
Data
Collaboration Matters
. . . . as I was contemplating the results of our DRP scores, and considering how to best meet the needs of our students . . . .
. . . I decided to try the partner quiz idea. I spent time last evening carefully choosing the partner groups - connecting my struggling readers with stronger ones - considering personalities that I thought would work together well – and in some cases putting 2 students who tend to slack off together so that they would each have to step up to the plate to complete the task. The assessment was from the textbook materials, so the format was familiar to the students, and nothing was too tricky. But like the earlier lessons, the quiz involved a good deal of reading and comprehending the questions and the tasks.
Teacher Reflection Journal Entries
Benefits for Students
Improved Comprehension
Making the invisible, visible
Deeper discussions
Peers� sense making Repair Strategies
Recognizing meaning breakdowns
Critical thinking
Increased Engagement
Include more students by taking the time
Reluctant readers to readers
Strong readers struggle too
Increased productivity
Appreciate points of view
Increased confidence
Expanded Strategy Use
Increased Self-Direction
Responsible for own learning
Intrinsic motivation to read
Liking reading more
TttT enhances discussions
High readers benefit too
Making strategies explicit to peers
W e s t E d r e c e i v e d I 3 g r a n t o f $ 2 2 . 6 M S c a l e u p i n M i c h i g a n , I n d i a n a , U t a h , P e n n s y l v a n i a
B i o l o g y , H i s t o r y , E L A F i v e y e a r s
W i l l d e v e l o p a d d i t i o n a l t o o l s a n d r e s o u r c e s f o r t e a c h e r s
I3 Grant –Validation Award