ELEMENTARY ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

PROGRAM EVALUATION

NOVEMBER 2, 2006

ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of Instruction

English Language Arts OfficeTitle I Office

Mary Zolman, ELA SupervisorGayle Kelley, ELA Reading Specialist David McBride, ELA Project Specialist

Sheryl Leeds, Title I Supervisor

Presentation

• Mission Statement• Objectives• Program Description• Evaluation Design• Results• Recommendations and Next Steps

Mission Statement

• To provide a rich and rigorous program that offers students

– the knowledge and strategies that they need to succeed within and beyond APS, and

– to become literate adults who have the power to choose what they do after high school.

Objectives

• Student Achievement in Elementary English Language Arts– improve student achievement – reduce the achievement gaps

• Classroom instruction– ensure Best Practices Instruction

Objectives

• Curriculum and Materials

– align with the Virginia Standards of Learning– support and sustain high achievement– represent Arlington’s population

Central Office Staff, 2004-2005

• ELA

– 1 supervisor– 2 specialists

• projects• reading

– 2 administrative assistants (reduced to 1, 12/05)

• Title I

– 1 supervisor– 1 Reading

Recovery teacher leader

– 1 administrative assistant

Elementary Reading Teachers2004-2005

• 26 ELA reading teachers

• 22 Title I reading teachers

• 10 of these positions are split ELA/Title I reading positions

• Within ELA & Title I– 17 Reading Recovery

trained teachers

Language Arts Strands

• Oral language– listening and speaking

• Reading– phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,

vocabulary, comprehension

• Writing– composing, written expression,

usage/mechanics

Evaluation Design

• Classroom Observations– outside evaluators

• Test Data– pre-existing data, PALS, DRP, SOL

• Surveys– teachers and administrators– Title I parents

How well did we implement?

• Observations

– Planning for instruction is strong • Students at all grade levels knew

– what to do– how to do it

• Not always clear that students knew why they were completing tasks

– Classroom participation• represents the ethnic diversity of

the classrooms

How well did we implement?

• Kindergarten – Grade Two Students

– Receive a solid foundation in early literacy skills and strategies

• Assessment– PALS – DRP

• Classroom observations– Students were engaged in literacy

activities

How well did we implement?

• Observations

– Reading instruction varies across grade levels

• Extensive small and large group reading

• Guided reading instruction– Lack of specific lesson focus or

teaching point – Lack of before, during and after

reading strategies

How well did we implement?

• Observations

– Oral language instruction• weak across all grade levels• Direct and indirect instruction

– Writing instruction• an area in which continued

professional development is needed

What changes happened for the intended recipients?

• Overall, APS students do well on the SOL and other assessments

• Longitudinal data show – Students who begin and remain

with APS perform better on • PALS• DRP• SOL

What changes occurred in areas that were not the

primary focus of the evaluation?

• Classroom observations – examples of excellent instruction

illustrating features that could serve as models for others

• Arlington’s teachers – greatest resource

If this did not work equally well in all locations, why?

• Guided reading

• Word Study/Vocabulary– Excellent effect in the early grades

• centered on phonology K-2

– Not continued in Grade 4• Lacking upper-level word study, or morphology

How satisfied were the users and clients?

• Materials (teachers)– 83% report satisfaction with

the adopted materials, K–5

• Professional Development Requests– Writing– Word study

How satisfied were the users and clients?

• Title I Parent Survey

– 67% of parents participate in school activities and find them useful

– 65% of respondents believe their children are very interested in reading

– Flyers are the best method of communication

How effectively were systems resources used to

achieve the identified goals?

• ELRT and Title I reading teachers were rated highly

– Classroom observations • Use of best practices• Before, during and after reading strategies

How effectively were systems resources used to

achieve the identified goals?

• Teacher Surveys indicate that reading teachers

−Are successful with students−Coordinate frequently with classroom

teachers−Are helpful in team planning

What are our strengths?

• Overall use of Best Practices Instruction

• Kindergarten – Grade Two instruction

• Expertise of Reading Teachers

• Classroom participation by students of all ethnicities

What are our strengths?2004-2005 SOL, Grade 5

• APS– Reading - 90% – Writing – 93%

• APS Longitudinal Group*– Reading - 95%– Writing – 97%

• Virginia– Reading – 85%– Writing – 91%

*Took all assessments, Grades 2-5

What are our challenges? 2004-2005 SOL, Grade 5

• Achievement Gap in Reading

– White Students• 96.5% Passed

– Black Students• 71.2% Passed, Gap = 25.3%

– Hispanic Students• 87.2%, Gap = 9.3%

What are our challenges? 2004-2005 SOL, Grade 5

• Achievement Gap in Writing

– White Students• 96.9% Passed

– Black Students• 80.9% Passed, Gap = 16%

– Hispanic Students• 91.1%, Gap = 5.8%

What are our challenges?

• Continue to improve instruction

– Reading– Writing– Word Study/Vocabulary– Oral Language

Recommendations:What are we doing now?

ELA Lead Teachers

• Supporting lead teachers in developing professional conversations

– Introducing professional books– Working with schools to facilitate

professional conversations

Recommendations:What are we doing now?

Textbook Review

• ELA, ESOL/HILT & SPED– Core Reading Programs– Writing, K-5– Handwriting– Word Study/Vocabulary– Supplementary/Intervention– Preschool

Recommendations:What are we doing now?

Curriculum

• Resource Notebooks, K-2 & 3-5• Vocabulary Notebooks• Curriculum Framework

Recommendations:What are we doing now?

Professional Development

• Early Reading Strategies Institute (ERSI)– K-2 Comprehensive literacy instruction

• Guided Reading– Grades 1-2

• Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)– Grades 1-2 general education, ESOL/HILT,

special education and reading teachers– Administering, scoring and planning instruction

Recommendations:What are we doing now?

Professional Development• Struggling Readers and Writers

– Grades 3-5– Guided reading technique– Struggling reader and special

education focus• Word Study

– K-5, spelling and vocabulary development

• Northern Virginia Writing Project– Upper elementary and secondary

process writing course - GMU

Recommendations:What are we doing now?

Title I

• Sustained Family Literacy Library Initiative– All Title I Schools– Linked to content areas– Focused on improving

student learning

Recommendations:What do we intend to do?

• Complete the electronic reading card• Include oral language in existing

professional development• Add a guided reading course for

Grades 3-5• Monitor use of differentiated

instruction and materials

Recommendations:What do we intend to do?

• Implement new textbooks in 2007-2008

– Provide ongoing professional development throughout the adoption cycle

In Place

• Support for Professional Development

– ERSI– Word Study– Struggling Readers and Writers– Guided Reading– K-2 Writing PDP

In Place

• Half-time coaches for

– ERSI– Word Study– Struggling Readers and Writers

Thank You

• Overall support for

– ELA– Title I