Snapshot Report – INVESTING FOR SUCCESS 2016 Under the agreement for 2016

McDowall State School received $298,386

Our full 2016 agreement can be found at: www.mcdowallss.eq.edu.au . The above amount is the actual 2016 Investing for Success funding received.

Our school strategies are on track to meet or exceed our targets

During 2016, we have focused on maximising the benefits of this funding for our students. After reviewing our Investing for Success agreement, it is clear that we are on track to meet or exceed our targeted student outcomes. We continue to implement our strategies to ensure that every student succeeds.

Targets and Progress Data

YEARS 3 & 5 … NAPLAN LITERACY, 2016

Yr 3 Data Yr 5 Data National Standard

Reading On track Progressing

98% – 100% of all students.

Writing On track Progressing

Spelling Exceeded Progressing

Grammar and Punctuation

Exceeded

Progressing

Numeracy Progressing Progressing

2016 STRATEGIES

Supplement Investing for Success funding with an additional $76,011.71

Deliver a professional multi-disciplined Year Level teams focus across P-6 in a) Knowing students b) Identifying barriers to learning c) Educational Programme development d) Capability Extension/small group intervention e) Student Learning Goals setting f) Using assessment through use of informed feedback to extend learning g) Specialist training and support for teachers and teacher-aides.

Deliver a strong focus on: phonological awareness, vocabulary acquisition, decoding skills, robust language instruction and the communication skills of : listening, speaking, reading, spelling, grammar and punctuation; and writing.

Resources:

Employing an experienced Speech Language Pathologist for three days each week to work within multi-disciplined teams P-2.

Employing six x Teacher Aides at 30hrs each week to focus on literacy & numeracy instruction while working within multi-disciplined teams P-6.

Employing an Administration Officer at 24hrs each week under Business Services Manager direction in support of the multi-disciplined teams within the school.

Purchase of programme resources and materials – supporting the initiatives.

P-6 ENGLISH … Sem 2, A-E Levels of Achievement 2016

Target 80% A-C (average and above average) Data

Prep Exceeded

Year 1 On track

Year 2 Exceeded

Year 3 Exceeded

Year 4 Exceeded

Year 5 Exceeded

Year 6 Exceeded

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST (SLP)

INTRODUCTION Every student succeeding and the improvement agenda at McDowall State School is the focus of the additional three days per week speech-language therapy support purchased through the Investing for Success Funding in 2016. At the centre of this approach is the collaborative partnership between the speech-language pathologist, the leadership team and teaching staff. Working together the McDowall State School team continues to develop consistent teaching protocols resulting in enhanced engagement and learning in classrooms.

Current research is providing increasing evidence that strong spoken language skills in the early years are needed not only for literacy development, but also for social development, problem solving skills, self-esteem and student functioning at school.

“ Oral language skills in the preschool and early school years are critical to educational success and provide the foundations for the later development of reading comprehension” (Hulme, and Snowling, 2013).

In 2016, two evidence-based programs that optimize spoken language development were chosen for implementation. These were:

Read It Again – FoundationQ!

Structured Tier Two Robust Instruction of Vocabulary The goal of each of these projects is to contribute to creating outstanding learning experiences that maximize student growth for all students through structured, systematic and explicit teaching.

2016 PREPARATORY YEAR

PREP SLP Read It Again – Foundation Q!

Read It Again - PreK was developed by Professors Laura Justice and Anita McGinty and is based on current research regarding how adults can support children’s language and literacy development using systematic and explicit instruction presented in highly meaningful literacy events, such as story book reading. Read it Again is based on high quality research and has evidence to support its efficacy and effectiveness.

Read It Again – Foundation Q is an authorised Queensland version of Read It Again – PreK and was written to support the Australian curriculum and targets students in their foundation year of formal schooling.

It is designed to develop and strengthen student’s early foundations in four key areas of language and literacy: vocabulary, narrative, phonological awareness and print knowledge. Facilitating and supporting the development of spoken language skills in the early years of schooling is critical to educational success and provides the foundations for the later development of reading comprehension.

The Process

McDowall State School initially implemented Foundation Q in 2014. Read It Again-Foundation Q is now implemented in over 80 schools in the Metropolitan Region, in schools across Queensland as well as other Australian states.

In 2015, Read It Again – Foundation Q was used as a universal curriculum support in one Preparatory Year classroom whereas its use was extended to all six Preparatory Year classrooms in 2016. Whole class sessions were delivered by the Speech-Language Pathologist with vocabulary targets followed up by the class teachers. From collected data on the Early Start: On Entry to Prep (Literacy) data, classroom teachers identified students requiring additional support. 47 students were selected to receive small group instruction implemented by a teacher aide, trained and supported by the Speech-Language Pathologist.

Read It Again – Foundation Q! provided systematic, explicit instruction to Preparatory Year students at McDowall State School in 2016. Results and learning outcomes for students in the 2016 program have been positive. The RIA-FQ Fidelity Instrument indicated that the program is administered with high levels of compliance with program design and intent. The program is implemented with appropriately trained personnel, consistent quality of procedures, activities, strategies and explicit instruction.

The Results: Spoken Language

The tables below demonstrate some of the gains made by the 47 students identified after receiving targeted intervention through Read It Again – Foundation Q. The data collected looks at the areas of spoken language (Table 1) and phonological awareness (Table 2).

Table 1.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Term 4

Term 1

Prep: Quick Test of Language- Revised

Below age expectations

Age Appropriate

The Quick Test of Language - Revised measures the ability of children to effectively respond to questions and directions at increasing level of abstraction i.e. spoken discourse skills. The Quick Test of Language – Revised was administered in February and November to examine children’s progress with spoken language skills and to determine whether further intervention and/or a more in-depth assessment of the children’s skills may be required. In Term 1, 52% of identified Preparatory Year students presented with spoken language skills being below age expectations. After receiving targeted support throughout the year only 18% of these identified children presented with spoken language skills being below age expectations. Most of these children have now been referred to the Child Needs team for further data gathering and support. All students made strong relative gains in post testing.

The Results: Phonological Awareness

Table 2 demonstrates the positive gains made in the skill of phonological awareness, which is a key target in Read It Again – Foundation Q. Phonological awareness is a foundational skill needed for students learning to read and is a step towards students learning to read with comprehension.

Table 2.

The results indicate that prior to intervention few of these targeted students had phonemic awareness skills and many had limited rhyme production skills. All students have made significant gains in this important skill area.

05

101520253035404550

RhymeAwareness

RhymeProduction

Initial SoundIdentification

Blending Segmentation

Prep: Phonological Awareness

Term 1

Term 4

Phonemic Awareness Small Groups To monitor the progress of the 47 students selected for Read It Again – Foundation Q, small group instruction the Phonological Awareness Skill Mapping test was administered mid-year. Using this data students with lower scores in blending and segmenting were identified. These students were tested again on these skills to determine suitability for the small group. The group ran once a week over 6 weeks in Term 4, implemented by the Speech Language Pathologist and with focus on the skills blending and segmenting. Phonemic Awareness instruction is most effective when explicit instruction is focused on one or two Phonemic Awareness skills rather than a multi- skilled approach. Blending and segmenting are the most powerful phonemic awareness skills. The Results The tables below illustrate the raw scores of identified students in the phonological awareness groups before intervention and after intervention.

Table 3.

Table 3 looks at students’ abilities to blend sounds together to form a word. 100% of students made significant improvements in this area.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 8

Prep: Blending Results

Pre-test

Post-test

Table 4.

Table 4 shows similar gains made in the phonological awareness skill of segmenting where 87% of students made improvements in this skill. Note that half of students do not have a score in their pre-test column as they received a raw score of 0.

PREP MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM

Explicit Teaching of Megacognitive Strategies in Reading

Preparatory teachers and their multi-disciplinary team, strategically placed a strong emphasis on linking and embedding oral language skills within the explicit teaching of reading (Learning how to read). This was a deliberate strategy to deepen ‘cognitively challenging talk’ (Laura Justice) through ‘levels of comphrenension’ (Blanks, Cameron, Raphael). Teachers drew on key research on ‘Guided Reading and the Gradual Release model of pedagogy’ (Fountas & Pinnell, Archer), and aligned with fundamental Executive Function Skills of ‘Working Memory’, ‘Cogitive Flexibility’ and ‘Inhibitatory Control’ (Kauffman).

With this evidence-base, the team actioned the teaching of ‘Metacognitive Strategies in Reading’: On continuous text, integrating the use of Meaning (vocabulary), Structure (syntax) and Visual Information (phonological and phoniemic awareness, decoding). This developed in students a metacognitive awareness of ‘how to read’ whilst making comprehending before, during and after reading (with a strong focus on narrative retell).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Student 1Student 2Student 3Student 4Student 5Student 6Student 7Student 8

Prep: Segmenting Results

Pre-test

Post-test

The Process Preparatory Year teachers, Child Needs teacher and Preparatory Year teacher aides were trained in the metalanguage of problem solving reading by the Deputy Principal P-1, and this was modelled and shared with them over time. A common poster was co-constructed. Parent seminars were provided in early Term 2. The ‘Real Aloud Program’ was implemented in Term 1 with strong links to oral language. Reading bookmarks were sent home to parents. A common metalanguage and approach was therefore developed through the gradual release model, with a particular focus on Guided Reading, launched for Term 2. A ‘Preparatory Year Guided Reading Placemat’ and a ‘Guided Reading Placemat’ were co-constructed, trialled and established over time. To maximize targeted teaching (zone of proximal development) this was supported by five week blocks of ‘Teacher aide Teams’ working systematically across all six classrooms, for 3 days per week, to support Guided Reading in Terms 3 and 4. The Results The end of year reading results using PM Benchmark levels showed a strong increase in student achievement in reading compared to the previous year’s cohort, as follows:

0

10

20

30

40

50

<NMS NMS Sound U2B

Prep % (2015 and 2016 cohorts)

2015 2016

The end of year reading results using English report card ratings showed a strong increase in student achievement compared to last year’s cohort, as follows:

2016 YEAR 1

YEAR ONE SLP Explicit Teaching of Vocabulary

S.T.R.I.V.E. is the acronym for Structured Tier Two Robust Instruction of Vocabulary Experiences and is an approach to explicitly teaching vocabulary based on the research of Isabel Beck, Margaret McKeown and Linda Kucan. Tier 2 words, or POWer words, are described as high-frequency words that are found in literature, a wide variety of texts and are common to mature language users. Instruction in these words significantly enhances a child’s spoken and written language ability. S.T.R.I.V.E. was first introduced to McDowall State School in 2014 and the explicit teaching of vocabulary has been gradually extended to more classrooms during 2015 and 2016.

0

20

40

60

80

100

2015 2016

Prep % (different cohort)

C and above A-B

The Process In 2016 S.T.R.I.V.E. was used as a universal curriculum support in Year 1 classes. In Semester 1, classroom teachers implemented the S.T.R.I.V.E. approach in the classroom, using materials developed and provided by the speech-language pathologist. In Semester 2, the Speech-Language Pathologist taught POWer words lessons using the S.T.R.I.V.E framework to each Year 1 class once a week while teachers implemented follow up activities throughout the week. The Results Assessment of vocabulary development needs to be varied and meaningful, so more than one approach to test word knowledge was used, e.g. matching words to pictures, matching words to definitions, creating both spoken and written sentences using selected Tier 2 words. Six students from each Year 1 class were randomly selected to determine their progression from the beginning and of the year. This data was combined to a single score for each child.

Table 5.

The data in Table 5 indicates that 94% of students tested made improvements in their vocabulary development. Table 6 below shows the effect size derived from the data. Effect size tells how big of a change was seen in the scores in a study and whether or not the change was meaningful. The average effect size for improvements in published language intervention studies is 0.6. Hattie suggests that most innovations that are introduced in schools have an Effect Size of around 0.4.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Year 1 Vocabulary: Results

Pre-test (T1) Post-test (T4)

Generally, a large effect size is considered to be 0.8 or higher. The vocabulary support provided to Year 1 children during 2016 has led to a large effect size of 1.3.

Table 6.

Mean (Average) 10.81 18.11 Standard Deviation 4.70 6.29 Effect Size 1.3

Narrative Retell

Narrative development is a foundational language skill linked to reading ability. A variety of researchers have determined that narrative proficiency at age 5 is one of the best predictors of future reading comprehension. Understanding and producing narratives involves coordination of various skills such as vocabulary, sentence structure, and story structure skills. Narrative retell skills have been associated with improvements in story comprehension, ability to make inferences and understanding story structure.

The Process

In Term 4, Year 1 teachers identified 4-5 students who would benefit from extra support targeting retell skills. One of the English curriculum units in Term 4 involved a written narrative assessment piece of ‘The Echidna and the Shade Tree’. The spoken retell group focused on story structure (i.e. character, setting, complication, action, ending). The Speech-Language Pathologist explicitly taught story structure and used icons and gestures provided in the McDowall State School ‘Teaching of Retell.’

The Results The data analysed comes from writing samples of narratives written by the children in Term 1 and Term 4. The Term 1 narrative sample is based on the story ‘Mr Gumpy’s Motor Car’ and the Term 4 sample is based on ‘The Echidna and the Shade Tree’. Each student’s retell was analysed to determine the amount of story elements used and then added to a total score. The graph below details results of 13 students across four Year 1 classes. In Term 1, students only used up to three story elements in their written narratives. In Term 4, post small group instruction all students were able to use three or more story elements, with the majority using ‘character’, ‘setting’, ‘complication’ and ‘action’. Year 1 teachers also commented that the students receiving extra support had shown inclusion of more detail and increased comprehension during classroom writing groups.

Table 7.

YEAR ONE MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM

Explicit Teaching of Megacognitive Strategies in Reading – Guided Reading

Year 1 teachers and multi-disciplinary team strategically placed a strong emphasis on linking and embedding oral language skills with the explicit teaching of reading and comprehension (learning how to read and comprehend). This was a deliberate strategy to deepen ‘cognitively challenging talk’ (Laura Justice) through ‘levels of comphrenension’ and the Question, Answer Relationships (QAR) Strategy (Cameron, Raphael). Teachers interacted with key research on the ‘Gradual Release model of pedagogy’ (Archer), and aligned with fundamental Executive Function Skills of ‘Working Memory’, ‘Cogitive Flexibility’ and ‘Inhibitatory Control’ (Kauffman).

Through instructional coaching conversations, mutli-disciplinary Team PD, and Year Level discussions, they transitioned to teaching ‘Metacognitive Strategies in Reading’: On continuous text, integrating the use of Meaning (vocabulary), Structure (syntax) and Visual Information (phonological and phoniemic awareness, decoding). This developed in students a metacognitive awareness of ‘how to read’ whilst making comprehending before, during and after reading (with a strong focus on narrative retell). The Child Needs teacher targeted a Reading Success Program for intervention, and trained a group of parents to support classrooms. QAR initially targeted extension of reading, and was gradually implemented with all students.

0

2

4

6

8

Zero StoryElements

One StoryElement

Two StoryElements

Three StoryElements

Four StoryElements

Five StoryElements

Six StoryElements

Year One: Written Narrative Retell Samples

Term 1, Narrative Sample Term 4, Narrative Sample

The Process To monitor these strategies and reading progress, ‘Class Needs discussions’ were negotiated and implemented between teachers, teaching teams, Child Needs teachers and Deputy Principal. Teachers were released from class by the Head of Curriculum. This collaboration was aimed at deepening understandings, developing capability in teachers, and targeting teaching in response to reading data sets. Teachers understood Guided Reading lessons each week, supported by their Child Needs Teacher and Literacy teacher aides. All developed the use of a common metalanguage. Ongoing Year Level data discussions and responses to data supported these strategies. The Result The end of year reading results using PM Benchmark levels showed significant increase in student achievement in reading compared to the same cohort in 2015.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<NMS NMS Sound U2B

Year 1 % (cohort continuing from Prep)

2015 2016

The end of year reading results using English report card ratings showed specific increase in student achievement compared to the same cohort in 2015, as follows:

2016 YEAR 2

YEAR TWO SLP Explicit Teaching of Vocabulary The S.T.R.I.V.E. approach continued to be implemented in Year 2 classes by classroom teachers in 2016. At the beginning of the year a new teacher aide was appointed to facilitate S.T.R.I.V.E. small groups and was trained by the speech-language pathologist. Students were selected by classroom teachers as needing additional support in this area. Inclusion of spelling and writing the selected words in sentences in the groups, has been integrated this year. Students worked with the trained teacher aide in twice weekly 30 minute groups. All vocabulary targets were taken from classroom texts.

0

20

40

60

80

100

C and above A-B

Year 1 % (cohort continuing from 2015)

2015 2016

The Results In 2014 and 2015, data collection focused on spoken vocabulary development with both years exhibiting excellent progress. It was decided that in 2016 the data collected would examine the children’s ability to integrate Tier 2 words in their writing, specifically in written narrative tasks. Students writing samples from Term 1 and Term 3 were analysed according to the quantity of Tier 2 words accurately used. The vocabulary criteria in the Year 2 Writing Checklist (see Table 8) was used for this task.

Table 8. Criteria Explanation

of Criteria 4 3 2 1

Vocabulary The range and precision of contextually appropriate language choices

Uses many rich and descriptive words such as precise nouns, strong verbs, and vivid adjectives. Applies new vocabulary appropriately in writing.

Uses some rich/descriptive written vocabulary such as precise nouns, strong verbs and vivid adjectives. Some new vocabulary used appropriately in writing.

Attempts to use some richer/descriptive words. Words selected are linked to the purpose of the text. Draws on basic topic related vocabulary.

Little or no evidence of using new vocabulary. Limited choice of vocabulary with some being inappropriate to the task.

The overall results of all students are collated in Table 9.

Table 9.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Term 1 Sample Term 3 Sample

Year Two: Vocabulary Criteria & Tier 2 Words

Vocabulary Criteria & Tier 2Words

As illustrated in Table 9 it can be seen that significant gains in vocabulary development were made from Term 1 to Term 3 samples. This indicates an increased understanding of Tier 2 words and improved ability to apply these into written practice. Table 10 below shows the effect size derived from the data. Effect size tells how big of a change was seen in the scores in a study and whether or not the change was meaningful. Generally, a large effect size is considered to be 0.8 or higher. The vocabulary support provided to Year 2 children during 2016 has led to a large effect size of 1.4.

Table 10. Mean (Average) 4.13 8.42 Standard Deviation 2.97 3.20 Effect Size 1.4

YEAR TWO MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM

Explicit Teaching of QAR in Guided Reading

Year 2 teachers and their multi-disciplinary team strategically placed a strong emphasis on linking the explicit teaching of vocabulary with the explicit teaching of reading comprehension (QAR), in guided reading. This was a deliberate strategy to deepen ‘cognitively challenging talk’ (Laura Justice) through teaching of ‘Question Answer Relationships’ (QAR) strategy. Teachers interacted with key research on the ‘Gradual Release of Responsibility’ (Rafael, Archer), and aligned with the Executive Function Skills of ‘Working Memory’, ‘Cogitive Flexibility’ and ‘Inhibitatory Control’ (Kauffman). Deputy Principals provided PD on QAR for the Multi-Disciplinary team, and supporting teacher aides.

Through instructional coaching conversations with DPs and Child Needs, and multi-disciplinary team collaboration, teachers transitioned to teaching QAR for reading comprehension and Metacognitive Strategies in learning how to read. Students therefore developed a metacognitive awareness of ‘how to comprehend’ before, during and after reading.

Process

To monitor these strategies and reading progress, ‘Class Needs’ discussions were negotiated and implemented with the Deputy Principal. Teachers were released by the Head of Curriculum. This was aimed at deepening conversations, building teacher capability, and targeting teaching in response to reading data sets. Ongoing year level data discussions supported these strategies and response to data.

Results

The end of year reading results using PM Benchmark levels showed a significant increase in student achievement in reading and comprehension compared to the same cohort in 2015, as follows:

The end of year reading results using English report card ratings showed clear increase in student achievement compared to the same cohort in 2015, as follows:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<NMS NMS Sound U2B

Year 2 % (cohort continuing from Yr 1)

2015 2016

0

20

40

60

80

100

C and above A-B

Year 2 % (cohort continuing from 2016)

2015 2016

YEARS THREE TO FIVE SLP Explicit Teaching of Vocabulary During 2016, in collaboration with the Deputy Principal, the S.T.R.I.V.E. approach has been gradually integrated into Year 3 classrooms and within student small groups. In early 2016, the Speech-Language Pathologist provided training to Year 3 teachers and the teachers-aide. Additionally the Master Teacher has been actively involved in supporting S.T.R.I.V.E. in Year 3 classrooms. In Term 4, Year 4 classroom teachers were provided with a modelled lesson using the S.T.R.I.V.E. introduction lessons. These teachers were then provided with the opportunity to use this framework with selected Tier 2 words from C2C texts. Teachers who received this modelled lesson were provided with introduction lessons and follow up activities. The Master Teacher has provided Year 4 classes with POWer word walls. The Speech-Language Pathologist has also provided teachers with a list of POWer words with associated student friendly definitions from their C2C texts. The Speech-Language Pathologist discussed and modelled explicitly teaching vocabulary for the Master Teacher. Following this, in Term 2 the Master Teacher included POWer words within Year 5 literacy rotations. The speech-language pathologist modelled lessons within these rotations and in Term 4 modelled a whole class lesson for one of the Year 5 teachers. In Term 4, the Speech-Language Pathologist worked with the Head of Curriculum to develop a document outlining methods and procedures for teaching vocabulary: the McDowall State School ‘Teaching of Vocabulary.’

2017 PREP-ENTRY INTERVIEWS In Term 4, 2016 the P-1 Deputy Principal requested recommendations of oral language and phonological awareness screeners available to use for Prep-entry interviews. The screeners selected include: the Quick Test of Oral Language – Revised and the School Entry Alphabetic and Phonological Awareness Readiness Test. The Speech-Language Pathologist provided training to Deputy Principals and the Master Teacher in the implementation and interpretation of both tests and assisted in the administration of the test for the first three weeks of Term 4. Additionally, in collaboration with the Deputy Principal, the Speech-Language Pathologist prepared and presented a presentation for parents of Prep-entry students on the importance of oral language and narratives in Term 3.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Build on the current level of knowledge to extend and integrate the Explicit Teaching of Vocabulary across all year levels at McDowall State School.

Provide formal training for Year 4 and 5 classroom teachers on the S.T.R.I.V.E. approach.

Consider implementation of S.T.R.I.V.E. in Year 6 classes.

Continuation of S.T.R.I.V.E. in Years 1-3 classes.

Discuss with Year 1 teachers as to whether small group intervention should be re-

introduced.

Continuation of Read It Again – Foundation Q! in the Preparatory Year.

Support the consistent and explicit teaching of phonological awareness and phonemic awareness across the early years.

Continue to support the consistent and explicit teaching of story retell skills and written narrative skills across the early years.

THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to Bruce Fogarty (PrIncipal) who recognises the importance of current evidence that strong spoken language skills in the early years are vital for literacy development. Also thanks to the Deputy Principals for their support and making the Speech-Language Pathologist feel a valued member of the team at McDowall State School. Their support has allowed these projects to be implemented to a very high standard.

Thanks to the great Preparatory to Year 2 Class Teachers, as well as teachers-aides, who have so diligently engaged in responding to the language learning needs of students.

Special thanks to the Head of Curriculum and Master Teacher, for their friendship, support and generosity in sharing their amazing knowledge and expertise, as well as their room.

And a sincere thanks to all the staff and students who make McDowall State School such a great place to work.

2016 SUMMARY

There is a clear shift across Preparatory, Year 1 and Year 2, toward the use of teaching practices targeting oral language development, metacognitive awareness in the teaching of reading and reading comprehension – creating a common approach across classrooms, and the growing use of a common language by all students. This has resulted in significant progress in skill development, and application to reading and reading comprehension.

The gradual release of teacher responsibility in the teaching of vocabulary and narrative skills in P-2 is visibly within the ‘shared to independent stage’ (Sharratt), given two years of modelling and shared practice with the SLP and Leadership Team.

The gradual release of teacher responsibility in the teaching of metacognitive awareness in reading and reading comprehension in P-2 is visibly within the ‘guided to shared stage’, given one year of modelling and shared practice with the Child Needs and Leadership Teams.

Continued multi-disciplinary collaboration between the SLP, class teachers, teacher aides and Leadership Team will contribute to deepening understandings and professional practice in the teaching of oral language, reading and writing for all students.