Equal Access to Rigor:Middle School ELA

BOARD PRESENTATIONFebruary 10, 2020

Teachers and Administrators Presenting

Lauren Wolter, ELA 7, 7th Grade Teacher, Longfellow MS

Heidi Lippe, ELA 8, Content Team Leader, 8th Grade Teacher, Whitman MS

Clint Grochowski, Principal, Whitman MS

Seth Larson, Ph.D., Principal, Longfellow MS

Mark Carter, Director of Secondary Education

Willie Garrison, Supervisor of Equity; Student and Family Services

Therese Kwiatkowski, Supervisor of Special Education

David Dentinger, Supervisor of Secondary Education

ELA (English Language Arts) CURRICULUM REVIEW

We are in the process of a curriculum review for our K-12 ELA programming. This review began in the 2018-19 school year, supported by an audit conducted by CESA #1. Their audit culminated in a written report delivered to the School Board on June 10, 2019.

CESA #1 AUDIT PROCESSThe audit conducted by CESA #1 was made up of the following work.

The team:

● Examined related national standards and educational research● Conducted classroom observations● Sent out surveys: administrators, teachers, parents, students● Held listening sessions: students, teachers, administrators● Reviewed our student testing data and local assessments ● Reviewed our curricular materials and resources

DISTRICT VISIONWauwatosa School District Goals #3

1. All students are prepared for post high-school education, careers, and citizenship.

2. The Wauwatosa School District is a place where every school welcomes and supports all children, staff and families.

3. In the Wauwatosa School District, underrepresented students excel.

FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS and the DISTRICT VISION The Audit conducted by the team from CESA #1 culminated in 5 recommendations for our district.

1. Instruction - Foster high levels of student engagement, choice and rigor into authentic practices in reading, writing, speaking, and listening, and language study. (Core Principles of Teaching and Learning & Instructional Framework)

2. ELA Curriculum/Schedule - Strategically phase out ELA tracking to support a more, equitable, rigorous, and collaborative ELA curriculum for all students. (Policy 5440, Equity Plan)

3. Resources - Build, use, and maintain robust instructional materials and classroom libraries. (Curriculum Review Process)

4. Professional Learning - Develop a multi-year professional development plan that focuses on differentiation, scaffolding, and best literacy pedagogy for both teachers and students. (Professional Learning Committee and Professional Learning Plan)

5. Assessment - Develop rigorous, valid, and reliable student assessments and rubrics aligned to standards, and implement more effective practices that promote reliability and empower students as responsive learners. (Professional Learning Communities, Common Summative Assessments)

RECOMMENDATION #2

“Strategically phase out ELA tracking … to promote equity, ensure high expectations for all students, and provide universal access to rigorous curriculum.”

DD

Unpacking Recommendation #2

● All students should be challenged with high expectations.

● All students should have access to rigor.● All our courses should be culturally responsive.

“Culturally Responsive Course Structures”The current structure of middle school ELA courses for grades 7 and 8 does not align with our district’s vision that all students should have equitable access to high levels of learning. The two levels of ELA (Advanced and Regular) are not proportional by race, ability level, or economic status, as seen by these data from 2018. (Grade 8, Longfellow and Whitman, 2018)

Students of ColorRegular ELA 51% Advanced ELA 20% MS Proportional 41%

Students with DisabilitiesRegular ELA 14% Advanced ELA 1% Proportional 13%

Students Who Are Economically ChallengedRegular ELA 32%Advanced ELA 10%Proportional 30%

“Challenging All Students with High Expectations”

“Challenging All Students with High Expectations”

“Access to Rigor for All Students”The gaps we see in student access to rigorous courses in middle school persist into high school. These data show the percent of students going into AP English classes their junior year (2018). A student from Advanced English is almost 3 times more likely to take an AP English class junior year than a student from Regular English 10.

Students from ADV English 10 41%

Students from REG English 10 15%

Forward Exam ELA Opportunity Gaps (6-8)

Forward Exam ELA Opportunity Gaps (Gr 6-8)

Special Education ServicesStudents With Disabilities (SWD) participating in general education classes with access to general education curriculum

Co-Planning and Co-Serving between General Education and Special Education teachers

● Shift co-plan/co-serve from regular ELA into advanced ELA● Allow access to advanced ELA for SWD ● Benefits to other students--what's good for some could be

beneficial to many

Environmental Scan: Tracking in MS ELA● A survey was sent out to school districts in SE WI, asking which districts tracked middle school ELA (or who had

more than one level of ELA). ● Many districts that do not track reported that they did so previously but had moved away from that practice. ● No districts report having student performance data related to detracking their programs. ● Over a third of the schools reported that they use the workshop model to support their ELA programs.

ProposalAfter having examined CESA #1’s recommendations and validating them with our district’s vision, and after having analyzed our students’ data and conducted an environmental scan, we propose the following: ● Currently in middle school, for grades 7 and 8, there are two levels of

ELA (English Language Arts): Advanced ELA and Regular ELA. Grade 6 currently has only one level.

● The Middle Schools (ELA teachers and administrators) and the Teaching and Learning Department are recommending that, beginning 2020-21, all students receive the Advanced ELA curriculum and that there be only one level for grades 7 and 8.

Teacher FeedbackIn meeting with our middle school teachers over a number of sessions, we held discussions related to the proposal. These are comments that represent the feedback gathered at those meetings.

❖ “What we’re doing is morally reprehensible.” ❖ “We need to de-track yesterday.” ❖ “We can absolutely do this [have all students take the

advanced level] if we work together.” ❖ “Tracking in ELA implicitly tracks kids everywhere else!”❖ “This change can work if we (teachers) get the help we

need.”

Teacher SupportMiddle School ELA teachers have expressed a desire for the following supports in having all students take one level of ELA.

TIME Time to prepare for the change; time during the school year forplanning, work and collaboration

TRAINING Professional development (e.g., differentiation, universal design forlearning, workshop model (a curricular model aligned with equitable

achievement for all students: low floor / high ceiling), foundationalliteracy skills

SUPPORT Co-Plan/Co-Serve Model (collaboration with Special Ed Teachers),instructional coaches, interventionists

“How We Got Here...and How We Can Change”● Ten years ago, confronted with a wide range of students the perceived

solution was tracking.● The model we implemented has evolved into something that is not productive;

it is, in fact, harmful.● Today we know we can address a wide range of diverse learners using

instructional frameworks and strategies that we weren’t aware of ten years ago--for example, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), co-planning/co-serving, scaffolding, differentiation, and the workshop model, to name a few.

Equal Access to Rigor Promotes High Levels of Student Achievement: 6th Grade ELA

In our sixth grade ELA program, all students are in one level.

● The academic performance in sixth grade is higher than in seventh or eighth grade.

● There are significantly fewer referrals for discipline in sixth grade than in seventh, which has two levels.

Equal Access to Rigor Promotes High Levels of Student Achievement: AP Human Geography

● Sophomore year all students take AP Human Geography [APHG], a college level course. After the first year, approximately half of the students in APHG took the AP test in May 2019 and 70% of those test-takers received a 3 or higher--a percentage surpassing the state average. The mean score of our students also surpassed the state’s mean score.

● In tracking students’ grades in making the transition from Global Studies to AP Human Geography, there was no significant change in all students’ grades.

Writers/Readers Workshop Model Districts

Districts reporting that they have used the workshop model to support having one level of MS ELA: Cedarburg, Elmbrook, Merton, Oconomowoc, Pewaukee, Port Washington-Saukville, St. Francis, Sun Prairie, Waukesha, Whitnall

Comments from these districts:

● We have done away with all ‘levels’ and are relying more heavily on book choice and the workshop model for more effective differentiation.

● We use the Teacher College Workshop philosophy so we don't do any tracking in MS ELA.● We do not level our students and use the workshop model.● We use the workshop model in middle school—reduces any need for tracking.● No leveling because we use the workshop model.● No leveling at the middle school because the workshop model is in place.● We have one literacy option at each grade level so we use a workshop framework with lots of book

choice, strategy groups and literature discussion groups.

THE WORKSHOP MODEL

Writers/Readers Workshop Model

● What does the workshop model look like in a classroom?● Routine (helps discipline): I do, we do, you do … wrap up● Individualized, self-paced, differentiated, choice, voice,

autonomy ● Collaboration, student discourse -- flexible grouping ● Goal setting● 21st learning: podcasts, blogs, TED talk● Self-efficacy, motivation and engagement: discipline

DIFFERENTIATION / AUTONOMYA glimpse of one day in Writer’s Workshop

End of Unit Assessment for Learning: Students will create a narrative that has realistic characters, tension, change and conveys an idea, lesson or theme. Teaching Point: Writers develop the setting and the character’s relationship to the setting.

Student ABelow Grade Level Skills

Student BGrade Level Skills

Student CAbove Grade Level Skills

Student A is writing a narrative based on a situation or experience that occurred in their personal life. Student A is recalling details of the setting in this prior moment and using precise details and figurative language to better describe the setting and show how this place / time affected the people/characters.

Student B is writing a narrative based on a storyline he/she wishes existed. Today, Student B is working to implement precise details and figurative language within their short story to better describe the setting and shows how the character relates to the setting in a way that matters to the plot.

Student C will take a cross-curricular approach and synthesize Social Studies content about an ancient civilization with the plot of a historical fiction novel to create a narrative. Student C will develop the setting based off of their understanding of Ancient India through precise details and figurative language and shows how a character evolves in this setting.

ELA Middle School: What Goes On in a Workshop Based Classroom

Watch a teacher explain the workshop model:Workshop Model- teaching

Watch a teacher conference with a middle school student:A Reading Conference: Teaching Intertextuality to a Student (5-8)

Watch two students discuss the books they are reading:Partners Discuss the Different Perspectives of Characters in a Text (5-8)

Watch a teacher use Writer’s Workshop to differentiate instruction:Differentiating Instruction through Writer’s Workshop

Readers/Writers Workshop ModelThe Readers Writers Workshop Model supports Recommendation #2 from

CESA #1 to “strategically phase out ELA tracking…” by focusing on:

challenging all students with high expectations

We currently use Writers Workshop with positive results and RWWM is used by many surrounding districts with positive results.

providing all students access to rigor

RWWM incorporates differentiation, “voice and choice,” collaboration skills, low-floor/high-ceiling, all of which promote high levels of engagement and success

insuring our courses are culturally responsive.

RWWM uses rich, diverse texts and a variety of strategies honoring a wide range of learners

Ongoing Professional Development: WHOOur district began a comprehensive K-12 ELA review in 2018-19, which will continue into the 2020-21 school year. Professional development is an integral part of this review. We have worked--or will be working--with the following consultants, presenters and resources:● Dr. Colleen Pennell, Carroll University● Sharmae Roberts, Heidi Erstad, Coordinators for WI RTI Center● Stephanie Witte-Leonard, Superintendent/TCW Literacy Trainer, Sun Prairie ● Michelle Anderson, Data Analyst, Wauwatosa Schools● Jeni Berthold, Reading Specialist, Wauwatosa Schools● Darla Brink, Literacy Specialist ● CESA #1 Literacy Review Team: Darcy Budnik, et al● American Reading Company● Teachers College Readers/Writers Workshop Model● Perfection Learning● Ed Reports

Ongoing Professional Development: WHATOur district began a comprehensive K-12 ELA review in 2018-19, which will continue into the 2020-21 school year. Professional development is an integral part of this review. We have worked on--or will work on--the following areas.

● English Language Arts Curricular Resources● Best Practice in Literacy● Educational Research in Reading and Writing● Engaging, Rigorous Classroom Instruction● Differentiation, Student Autonomy (voice/choice)● Readers and Writers Workshop Models● Assessing Student Literacy: Rubrics, Testing, Calibration ● Vision/Mission/Values● Culturally Responsive Literacy Instruction: Windows, Mirrors and Sliding

Doors

PLANS for MONITORING the CHANGE

● Forward Test Scores● Surveys: Student, Parent, Teacher● Common Summative Assessments● Classroom Observations: External and Internal with “Look

For” Documents● Monitoring Teacher and Student Discipline Data

Community ConcernsWe have met with a variety of stakeholders, including parents, teachers, administrators,and students, and these are the most common recurring concerns:

● Increasing the range of learners for teachers● Lowering standards● Dealing with potential discipline issues (disruptions)● Supporting teachers & students● Communication

Range of learners leading to a lowering of standards

7th Forward Exam Scale Scores (Range of Learners)

Advanced Regular Majority

520-710 490-710 580-680

Range of Learners

Maintaining High StandardsThrough Shared Responsibility

● Co-plan/Co-serve - proactively planning for the success of the lesson before it is taught (content teachers & special education teachers)

● Instructional Equity Coach - insuring teacher support● Interventionists - ● Gifted and Talented Coordinator ● ELL Teacher

DISCIPLINE ELA DATA

Longfellow and Whitman combined ELA data 2019-2020 (2/6/20)

ELA 2019-2020 Total number of referrals from class

6th Grade one level 4

7th Grade regular 7th Grade advanced

11 1

8th Grade regular 8th Grade advanced

40

2018-2019 - In All A.P. Human Geography Classes

12 total referrals

2019-2020 (2/6/20) - In All A.P. Human Geography Classes

2 total referrals

DISCIPLINE DATA AP HUMAN GEOGRAPHYEAST/WEST HIGH SCHOOL: Referral Count

Teacher SupportMiddle School ELA teachers have expressed a desire for the following supports in having all students take one level of ELA.

TIME Time to prepare for the change; time during the school year forplanning, work and collaboration

TRAINING Professional development (e.g., differentiation, universal design forlearning, workshop model (a curricular model aligned with equitable

achievement for all students: low floor / high ceiling), foundationalliteracy skills

SUPPORT Co-Plan/Co-Serve Model (collaboration with Special Ed Teachers),instructional coaches, interventionists

Proposal

● Currently in middle school, for grades 7 and 8, there are two levels of ELA (English Language Arts): Advanced ELA and Regular ELA. Grade 6 currently has only one level.

● The Middle Schools (ELA teachers and administrators) and the Teaching and Learning Department are recommending that, beginning 2020-21, all students receive the Advanced ELA curriculum and that there be only one level for grades 7 and 8.

ENDResearch findings follow.

RESEARCH FINDINGS 1 of 5➢ Tracking between classrooms at the middle school level increases inequality in

high-school without increasing achievement (Carbonaro, 2005; Gamoran, 1987; Montt, 2011; Shavit & Müller, 2000; Van de Werfhorst & Mijs, 2010)

➢ Tracking may influence teachers’ approach to instruction due to implicit bias created by “tracking” label (Pallas, Entwisle, Alexander, & Stluka, 2004).

➢ A study of sixth‐grade teachers in Texas revealed that expectations were lower and teachers created less demanding assignments for students in their non‐advanced classes (Worthy, 2010).

➢ Researchers found that teaching was more disjointed and rote in low-track than high-track classes. 8th grade students in low-track classes received 40% more lecture than students in high-track; discussion time was half that of high-track groups. 9th grade students engaged in seatwork nearly 4 times as much as students in high-track classes. (Nystrand & Gamoran 1997)

RESEARCH FINDINGS 2 of 5➢ The benefits of between-class grouping (separating students from the same grade into

high-, average-, and low-achieving classes) were negligible. (“Summary: What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K-12 Student Academic Achievement”)

➢ When non-gifted Black and Latino students are placed in gifted classes, they show major gains in reading. (Card, Giuliano, 2016)

➢ When students who are typically performing below grade level are given texts above grade level and work with a more proficient peer, they make significant gains. (Morgan et al, 2000; Brown et al, 2017)

➢ LINK: International studies show that the United States is one of the most tracked education

systems in the world, but tracking hasn’t led to high achievement for the country. Instead, it

has brought about stark racial divisions in opportunity and achievement. (Boaler, 2019)

RESEARCH FINDINGS 3 of 5➢ In American education, students in classes of predominantly white students

are given more educational advantages than their Black and Latino peers: over fifty percent more grade-level assignments, four times more grade-level lessons, and over 20% more lessons viewed as engaging. (The New Teacher Project’s National Report, 2018)

➢ When struggling students are exposed to grade-level tasks their performance increases by almost one academic school year. (The New Teacher Project’s National Report, 2018)

➢ The practice of tracking in U.S. schools, the sorting and grouping of students by perceived ability has long been critiqued by educational researchers. Tracking resegregated schools and provide an inferior education for students in the lower tracks (Wheelock, 1992, Slavin, 1993).

RESEARCH FINDINGS 4 of 5➢ Higher performance in advanced science course work (e.g., AP) in high

school is related to higher first-year GPA and higher first-year science GPA; as such, teachers should encourage students to participate in advanced high school science course work when planning their curriculum for science learning (Does the Level of Rigor of a High School Science Course Matter? Pamela K. Kaliski and Kelly E. Godfrey, 2014)

➢ High expectations for all students, sufficient resources and a commitment to the belief that students can achieve when they have access to enriched curriculum, it can be an effective strategy to help students reach high learning standards. Burris, Carol Corbett; Wiley, Ed; Welner, Kevin; Murphy, John.Teachers College Record Vol. 110, Iss. 3, (Mar 2008)

RESEARCH FINDINGS 5 of 5➢ Low-track classes tend to be primarily composed of low-income students, usually minorities,

while upper-track classes are usually dominated by students from socioeconomically successful groups (Highland, 2006).

➢ Studies theorize that the disproportionate placement of poor and minority students into low tracks does not reflect their actual learning abilities (Oakes, 1987; 2005).

➢ Teachers of the high-track courses were found to be more enthusiastic in teaching, better at providing explanations and more organized than teachers of low-track courses(Oakes, 2005).

➢ While the enrichment and/or acceleration of curricula is considered to be a major benefit to gifted and talented students (Roger, 2002), lessons taught in low-track classes often lack the engagement and comprehensiveness of the high-track lessons, reflecting their more remedial nature. This put low-track students at a disadvantage for college acceptance because they often do not gain the knowledge and skills of the upper- track students, presuming they could and would if not taught under a tracked system (Abiola, 2016).