I. IMPROVING READING INSTRUCTION IN ALABAMA

This proposal is organized according to the Reading First Criteria for Review of State Applications. Part I addresses Alabama’s need and Alabama’s plan for improving reading instruction by applying scientifically based reading research (SBRR) to reading instruction. Part II describes Alabama’s leadership and management plan. Part III describes Alabama’s plan for regularly evaluating and reporting the progress participating local education agencies (LEAs) are making. Part IV summarizes how the Alabama Reading First Initiative (ARFI) will impact K-3 classroom reading instruction in targeted LEAs and statewide.

Part I, Improving Reading Instruction in Alabama, begins with a description of current reading initiatives and identified gaps (pages 1-14). Part I proceeds with a broad vision of how, over the next six years, Alabama will use ARFI to solve the identified gaps and to integrate current reading efforts into a coherent statewide plan to improve reading achievement statewide, particularly in grades K-3 in ARFI targeted schools (pages 15-16). Next, Part I outlines Alabama’s rationale for using SBRR and connects this research to plans for improving K-3 reading instruction (pages 17-40). Then, Alabama’s subgrant competition is described, including the definition of eligibility, the selection criteria, and the process to be used for awarding subgrants (pages 40-61). Part I concludes with a sketch of Alabama’s state professional development plan and a description of the integration of ARFI with Reading Excellence Act (REA) activities (pages 61-69).

I A. Current Reading Efforts and Identified Gaps

The Alabama Reading Initiative

The Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) is a statewide effort directed by the State Department of Education (SEA) to improve reading instruction significantly and ultimately to achieve 100 percent literacy for public school students grades K-12. The initiative started in 1998 after a year-long, comprehensive review of research conducted by the Alabama Reading Panel, a broad-based group of teachers, principals, university professors, business and industry representatives, community leaders, and representatives of advocacy groups (e.g., Alabama Eagle Forum and the A+ Education Foundation), that historically had not agreed on many things. Two products of that initial panel, a Report on the Review of the Research (Alabama Department of Education, 1998b) and Knowledge and Skills Teachers Need to Deliver Effective Reading Instruction (Alabama Department of Education, 1998a), formed the basis of the teacher-development program that is the heart and soul of the initiative. (These documents are found in Appendices A and B, respectively). Similar to the National Academy of Sciences’ Preventing Reading Difficulty in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), these publications called for an integrated approach to reading instruction that emphasizes: phonemic awareness; systematic, explicit phonics instruction; explicit reading comprehension instruction; language and vocabulary development; a reading/writing connection; fluency instruction; ongoing assessment of student progress; and provisions for intervention based on SBRR.

Initially, 16 public schools (one K-2 school, 13 elementary schools, one middle school, one high school) were identified and were required to meet five criteria:

Version: 6/02 1

1. The school community had to set a goal of 100% reading on grade level.2. At least 85% of the teachers (including the principal) had to attend an initial

10-day summer institute on instructional practices related to SBRR.3. Faculty had to agree to adjust reading instruction to reflect SBRR.4. Faculty had to be willing to model scientifically based reading instruction and practices

to visitors from other public schools.5. The school community had to be willing to undergo outside evaluation.

Faculty members from Colleges of Education were actively involved in the ARI by serving as partners to teachers at participating schools and by contributing to the development and revision of the ARI training modules which are used in the 10-day institutes. The first two summer institutes (1998 and 1999) were funded through donations from businesses, professional organizations, and government officials (approximately $1,500,000). When outside evaluation data (see Table 1 on next page) attested to the effectiveness of the ARI for creating teacher change, prompting school-wide reform, and increasing student achievement, a newly elected Governor named the ARI as a major item in his FY2000 budget and pledged full funding during his administration. As a result, the ARI grew from 16 schools in 1998-1999 to 81 schools in 1999-2000 to 267 in 2000-2001 and 424 schools in 2001-2002. Of the 424 participating schools, approximately 329 are elementary schools.

The ARI is in its fourth year of implementation. It has benefited from three external evaluations, conducted by three different evaluators, that have established its effectiveness and promise (Center for Educational Accountability, 2000; Center for Educational Accountability, 2001; Moscovitch, 2002). Summaries of the findings of these evaluations are listed in Table 1 found on the next page.

Version: 6/02 2

Table 1: Findings from Evaluations of the Alabama Reading Initiative After Years 1, 2, & 3

Findings Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Students in participating schools made greater gainsthan did students in non-participating schools. X X X

The vast majority of participating schools are making progress toward 100% literacy, but there is variability. X X X

Discipline referrals are decreasing. X X

Special Education referrals are decreasing. X X

Professional development efforts are effective for changing teacher practice in most teachers. X X X

Overall, teachers express increased skill, enthusiasm, andconfidence following training and implementation. X X X

Several factors discriminate higher- from lower-performing participating schools:Implementation of all SBRR components XPrincipal leadership X XHighly skilled reading specialist X XOutside support (e.g., higher ed, ARI staff, Regional Inservice Center reading specialist) X X XFrequent progress monitoring XSmall-group instruction XSchool working as a team X XSustained professional development efforts X X

Higher education involvement prompted change in pre-service and graduate standards and syllabi. X X

The ARI potential for transforming reading instruction and revitalizing schools has prompted two states (Massachusetts and Florida) to establish pilot initiatives modeled after the ARI and to use the training modules we developed for the summer institutes as a basis for their professional development efforts. Other indications of the success and promise of the ARI include the following:

Version: 6/02 3

The director was invited to tell the story of the initiative in Teaching and Change, a publication of the National Education Association (Mitchell, 1999).

The ARI was the only statewide reading initiative featured at the May 16-17, 2000 organizing meeting of the Connecticut Reading Panel.

Alabama was awarded one of the initial 17 United States Department of Education (USDOE) Reading Excellence Act (REA) grants.

The ARI was featured in the Galef Institute keynote address in March 2001 as a promising school wide middle school reform initiative.

The ARI was one of three statewide literacy initiatives featured at the 2001 National Council of State Legislators Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas.

The ARI won the Little Red School House Award in 2000 for “a significant curriculum and instruction program”, an award made by the Council for Leaders in Alabama Schools on only four occasions during the past 30 years.

The ARI was awarded the 2002 Education Commission of the States (ECS) Innovation Award. This award recognizes a state for excellence in the policy area of literacy, the current ECS chairman’s area of emphasis.

Gaps in the Alabama Reading Initiative

Although the ARI can point to gains in hundreds of schools, some schools are floundering. Characteristics of these schools are:

The school fails to implement a complete scientifically based approach to teaching reading.

There are gaps in the expertise of the reading specialists. The reading specialist is only part-time. Teachers are not consistent with progress monitoring. Teachers do not provide small group instruction. The principals have skipped some of the training opportunities. On-going professional development has not been sufficient to address the high

turnover rates among teachers and principals (Moscovitch, 2002).The most glaring programmatic needs of the ARI are identified in Table 2 on the next page.

This table summarizes the recommendations of the three external evaluations of the ARI (Center for Educational Accountability, 2000; Center for Educational Accountability, 2001; Moscovitch, 2002).

Version: 6/02 4

Table 2: Recommendations from Evaluations of Years 1, 2, & 3 of the Alabama Reading Initiative

Recommendations Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Place greater emphasis on the development of instructional leadership in principals.

X X

Work to increase the effectiveness of all reading specialists. X X

Develop strategies to increase the direct involvement of higher education.

X X

Provide ongoing professional development and support beyond the initial 10-day institute.

X X

Increase capacity to assess progress of students in grades K-2. X X X

Develop a uniform, computerized mechanism to assess the progress of students that informs teachers of the specific needs of individual students.

X X

Identify alternatives to the currently used assessment instruments for measuring progress in struggling readers.

X X

Fund a full-time reading specialist in every ARI school. X

Increase the state reading staff to adequately support expansion of ARI.

X

Each of the needs identified in Table 2 are addressed in the Alabama Reading First Initiative (ARFI). In addition to the needs identified through external evaluation, the ARI staff identified the following gaps:

The isolation of the ARI from other literacy-related activities within the Alabama Department of Education is detrimental. Examples of important literacy-related activities that are minimally connected (if connected at all) to the ARI are: the development of reading standards, the development/purchase of reading assessments, the use of federal funds, the professional development provided through the Beginning Reading Model, Alabama’s statewide professional development plan, and the technical assistance provided to low-performing schools. It is clear that the Alabama Department of Education must build one coordinated, coherent approach to reading instruction in the state. This need is addressed throughout the ARFI plan.

Version: 6/02 5

The fact that some schools participating in the ARI have not shown progress is a grave concern. The year three evaluation of the first three cohorts identified 78 out of 267 schools where gains were less than the gains made by non-participating schools. It is clear that the ARI must place more emphasis on long-term, ongoing professional development and provide more frequent, individualized, technical assistance to schools that are not making gains. This need is addressed in the ARFI plan.

In summary, it is important that the ARFI plan builds upon the foundation established by the ARI and promotes the coordination among the other literacy-related reform efforts which is needed to achieve comprehensive reading-related reform in Alabama.

Reading Efforts Directed By Special Education Services

The Alabama State Department of Education Special Education Services was awarded a State Improvement Grant from the USDOE for a five-year period to accomplish four goals, three of which are related to reading. Those are:

To improve reading skills of students with disabilities; To reduce the number of students with disabilities who drop out; and To prevent reading failure in grades K-3 and, thereby, reduce referrals to special education.

To achieve the goals mentioned above, the Special Education Services staff uses a variety of systems change models that incorporate research-based training strategies to impact educational outcomes and build capacity for improved academic performance. One model utilized for accomplishing this goal is the Beginning Reading Model (BRM). The BRM is a nationwide effort to build the infrastructure and capacity of schools to improve reading performance for students in K-3. It is a six-day professional development effort designed to build reading instruction, assessment, and intervention capacity at the school level. Training emphasizes the five essential components of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The model was largely developed by Drs. Deborah Simmons and Edward Kame'enui at the University of Oregon.

The BRM is a commitment to implementing scientifically based research in reading. The prevention and intervention The BRM prompts a commitment to implement advocated by the BRM are based on scientific evidence and include the following: A school-wide audit of current reading instruction and practices, and the development of a

school reading action plan. A review of current core reading programs, assessment tools, and intervention programs. A collection of reading performance data three times a year on all K-3 students, using the

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment, an instrument developed by researchers at the University of Oregon (Good & Kaminski, 2001).

A set of curriculum maps that display the month-by-month instructional priorities in Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3 that enable schools to meet their instructional goals.

Grouping and instructional procedures that allow schools to be responsive to progress monitoring data, to differentiate instruction, and to intervene early with students who are not on track to become proficient readers.

Version: 6/02 6

As a part of the BRM training each participating school must send a team of educators (grades K-3, including the principal) to a four-day training workshop. Those teams then return to their respective schools and are responsible for training their faculties. In the first year of implementing the BRM, nine schools were selected to participate in the training, implementation, and data collection. Sixteen schools were selected in the second year. Initial four-day training sessions were held in July 2000 for year one schools and June 2001 for year two schools. These sessions were followed by two additional days following data collection in the fall and in the winter to review the assessment data and to help connect these data to instructional decisions.

During the 2001-2002 school year, the 24 participating school teams attended two additional professional development sessions and supervised the K-3 teachers in their schools who served 15,000 students in the BRM. As a result of the follow-up training, school teams refined action plans.

Twenty-five additional school teams will be trained in the BRM during the summer 2002. These 25 teams will include 25 principals and approximately 250 teachers. The 25 new schools are estimated to impact an additional 15,000 students in this model to prevent reading failure for young children in grades K-3.

The BRM utilizes the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) as its assessment instrument. DIBELS provides information to determine which students are non-readers, emerging readers and established readers. This is accomplished through various measures of phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle, and fluency with connected text.

One of the outcomes expected as a result of implementing the BRM is a decrease in referrals to special education programs as students progress through the early grades. Table 3 shows a decline in special education referrals in several schools when comparing the number of students referred in 2000-2001 (after implementation) to the number of referrals prior to implementation. The decline in referrals for schools reported in the table is approaching 50% and represents a very desirable outcome. These data show what can happen in good situations.

Table 3: Reduction in referrals due to the introduction of the Beginning Reading Model

Schools Referrals – Prior Referrals - After Percent decline of referralsA 17 10 41.2%B 27 8 70.4%C 11 3 72.7%D 45 34 24.4%E 14 8 42.9%F 128 61 52.3%

Total 242 124 48.8%

Gaps in the Programs Directed by Special Education Services

The reading activities directed by Special Education Services (SES) staff provide evidence that Alabama has developed readiness for substantial improvement in the state as a whole and particularly in the LEAs and schools targeted for the Reading First funding. Expansion and fortification of the effective practices implemented through these efforts will enable Alabama to

Version: 6/02 7

expand the teacher and administrator learning necessary to support long-term systemic change that dramatically and positively affects student reading achievement.

Even so, gaps have been identified in the BRM which need to be addressed: The curriculum maps used in the model are currently unrelated to the state standards. The DIBELS assessment utilized by the model is unrelated to the recent statewide

assessment system utilized in kindergarten, first grade and second grade. The professional development effort is currently uncoordinated with the state professional

development plan and the professional development provided through the ARI. The ability to provide sufficient support, technical assistance, and implementation monitoring

is severely limited due to staff size.Each of these programmatic gaps will be addressed in the ARFI plan.

Alabama's Reading Excellence Act (REA) Program

In July 1999, Alabama was awarded an REA grant in the first round of competition. Thirty LEAs were eligible to apply for funds. As a result of two subgrant competitions, 67 schools in 19 LEAs were awarded funds. Of the 67 schools receiving funding, 51 schools received a Local Reading Improvement Subgrant and 16 schools received a Tutorial Assistance Subgrant.

Data from a progress report describing reading gains following the first year of implementation in REA schools caused concern. Overall, reading comprehension scores (NCE scores) on the Stanford Achievement Test for Grade 3 decreased from 49.22 to 48.70 in the 2000-2001 school year (Shannon, 2002). The evaluator commented that changes in REA and non-REA schools were parallel, as both REA and non-REA schools experienced declines in the 2000-2001 school year. School-level analysis revealed considerable variability in the school-level performance. Eight schools were identified as having made significant gains and nine were identified as having the largest declines. The complete report can be located on the ARI website at www.alsde.edu.

Gaps in the REA Program

Although it is understandable that gains from the Year 1 implementation in Grade 3 may not reveal progress, the report prompted analysis, adjustments, and resolve to use Reading First funds differently. Analysis of why gains were not apparent in Year 1 revealed the following:

Alabama did not require LEAs to select reading programs aligned with SBRR from a list of approved programs. Although a few schools did elect to spend REA funds on comprehensive programs such as Direct Instruction and Open Court, many schools spent their funds on intervention programs or supplemental materials. To date, some of the REA schools do not have a comprehensive reading program based on SBRR.

Alabama did not require attendance at the ARI 10-day Summer Institute. Instead, participants from REA schools were guaranteed a place in the ARI 10-day institute if they chose that option and had a commitment of 85 percent of the faculty to attend. Forty-two (42) out of the 51 schools that received local school improvement subgrants attended the 10-day Summer Institute.

Because of gaps in local capacity, schools that face the greatest challenges (such as the REA schools) require frequent visits from knowledgeable reading experts to help teachers identify

Version: 6/02 8

what components are missing in their implementation and make improvements in their teaching. During the 2000-2001 school year, REA schools did not receive the technical assistance and ongoing professional development needed to change practice. And, while teachers returned from their ARI Summer Institutes excited, they were overwhelmed (Moscovitch, 2002).

The Alabama REA proposal had envisioned that SEA staff members would assist eligible REA schools in writing effective proposals and in implementing coherent, research-based reading programs. While staff members did assist during the proposal writing phase of Alabama’s REA Program, sufficient professional development related to reading was not provided to help teachers implement scientifically based programs and scientifically based instruction. In short, REA schools did not receive sufficient support from reading experts during their first year of implementation.

The $7,102,500 REA funds available to LEAs in Alabama were divided among 67 schools. This distribution resulted in an average grant of approximately $104,000 available to each school to support work over a three-year period. The funds simply were not sufficiently targeted to ensure that LEAs received adequate funding and support.

The ARFI plan described in this proposal carefully avoids all of these problems.

Other Literacy-Related Efforts

Classroom Improvement

The State Department of Education (SEA) Classroom Improvement Section is responsible for developing standards for all subject areas K-12, facilitating textbook selection and adoption processes, overseeing the state assessment and accountability programs, providing technical assistance to low-performing schools, and guiding professional development activities. All of these activities will interface with the ARFI.

Content standards for each subject are defined in Alabama’s courses of study. These documents define what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade level or course at both the elementary and secondary levels in all subject areas. Once the courses of study are adopted by the State Board of Education, they are provided to all LEAs for use in the development of local curriculum guides, the selection of textbooks, the supervision of instructional programs, the development of lesson plans, and other related instructional activities.

Alabama's student assessment program reflects the firm belief that schools are accountable for student achievement. The intent of the statewide student assessment program is to provide valid and reliable measures of student achievement throughout K-12 education and to use these data to help inform instruction. An anchor of the assessment program in 1999 and 2000 was the inclusion of reading measures in every grade.

In 1998 Alabama developed early childhood assessments of reading development for kindergarten, first grade, and second grade. Components of these early childhood assessments include measures for phonemic awareness, phonics, oral language expression, and reading and listening comprehension. These tests were administered statewide in the fall of 1999 and 2000. The tests were discontinued, however, in the fall of 2001 because of proration of the state budget.

Version: 6/02 9

Federal Programs

The primary responsibility of the Federal Programs Section is to provide administrative oversight and management for use of federal funds. These funds are intended to promote high quality and effective teaching and learning that results in improved student achievement among all students, particularly those who are the intended program beneficiaries (e.g., children who are identified as high poverty, limited-English proficient, migrant, homeless, neglected or delinquent children, and students with disabilities).

The following are sources of federal funds that most commonly are used to support reading and literacy programs in schools:

Title I, Part A Title I, Part B, Even Start Family Literacy Comprehensive School Reform Title II (for professional development) Title V, Part A (innovative education programs) Reading Excellence

In years past, the SEA has provided little guidance toward adoption and implementation of SBRR programs. In the name of “local control,” LEAs and schools have been allowed to implement programs and to utilize materials so long as those programs and materials reflected and were supportive of content standards included in the state courses of study. Only recently, with implementation of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program and the REA program, have schools/LEAs been required to adopt and implement programs that are research-based.

Programs most frequently funded with federal funds include Direct Instruction, Writing to Read, and Success for All. These programs have a track record of success when implemented as designed; yet, the student achievement results attained have been variable, and state evaluation activities have yielded valuable information that will guide Reading First activities.

Gaps in Other Literacy-Related Efforts

Currently there are programmatic needs related to Alabama’s reading standards and the state assessment program. While state courses of study have been developed and aligned with national standards, they

are not aligned with state assessments. A second programmatic need related to reading standards is in the area of clearly defined benchmarks. Even though Alabama’s course of study standards are grade specific, they do not contain statements of knowledge or skill that students should acquire by specific points in their schooling. A third gap related to Alabama’s assessment program is the lack of consistency in the administration of reading assessments in kindergarten, first, and second grade. Because these assessments were not part of the state accountability system, they were the first to be discontinued during time of proration of the education budget.

Evaluation activities have revealed programmatic needs in federally funded reading efforts related to assessment and the implementation of commercial programs:

Version: 6/02 10

Related to assessment is the lack of consistently administered statewide K-2 assessments. Without assessments that screen, identify, and diagnose reading difficulty, there is little hope that early intervention and targeted teaching can begin early enough to meet the goal of having each child read at grade level or above no later than the end of Grade 3.

Alabama’s ongoing evaluation and monitoring of selected federally funded reading-related programs has identified implementation problems related to the use of commercial programs. An award that stems from a competitive program (e.g., REA) can be translated at the school level to mean a “separate” program. Hence, reading programs purchased with these funds are often viewed as “in addition to” programs and are never implemented for their intended purposes.

Additionally, Federal Programs State staff who have been assigned to provide technical assistance have noted that the addition of yet another program often compounds or becomes a part of the problem rather than the solution. Some of the lowest-performing schools have many more materials, commercial programs/products, and state initiatives than they can possibly implement in a coherent, cohesive, and coordinated manner.

Toward Solving Some of the Identified Gaps

Toward alleviating the gaps identified above, Alabama is already involved in ongoing attempts to address programmatic needs in its current reading initiatives. The following section describes these efforts. Additionally, the major components of ARFI have grown out of gaps and programmatic needs identified in the first 11 pages of this proposal. The major components of ARFI are presented in the section titled Reading First’s Role in Closing the Gap found on pages 12-14.

Ongoing Efforts to Close Gaps

Based on the analysis of gaps in Alabama’s literacy related initiatives (described on pages 1-11 of this proposal), Alabama has already taken actions to address some of the programmatic needs identified. These actions include the following: The directors from the State Department of Education have worked with personnel from the

USDOE to develop an action plan for a compliance agreement that addresses curriculum and assessment gaps. This agreement lays out a timeline to review and revise Alabama’s content standards in language arts and mathematics by the end of July 2002. By August 1, 2002, the English Language Arts Course of Study committee will be reconvened and directed to agree on the critical content to be benchmarked. The plan calls for Alabama to adopt an assessment system that will be aligned to state standards. While this system is being developed, Alabama will administer a new norm-referenced test in Grade 3, beginning in April 2003. Plans are for the ARFI staff to be part of this process to ensure that the essential components of reading instruction in K-3 are prominent in the standards and that the benchmarks have a basis in scientific research.

A conference that featured a refresher course on the five essential components of the Reading First Legislation was held on March 18-19, 2002. This conference was designed to support REA program schools and to introduce the major components of the Reading First legislation, since many of the REA LEAs will be eligible to apply for Reading First subgrants.

Version: 6/02 11

The State Board of Education agreed to temporarily halt the rapid expansion of the ARI in order to “recertify” the original 16 ARI schools and to “retool” the 78 ARI schools that were not making progress. This action from the State Board of Education and the SEA leadership conveys that Alabama is serious about its pursuit of all children reading on grade level and its resolve to be responsive to ongoing evaluations of Alabama’s efforts to have all students read well.

Both “recertifying” and “retooling” ARI schools will have five days of ongoing professional development during the Summer of 2002. This professional development will provide the type of ongoing assistance that is needed to sustain change and increase student achievement in schools that face the greatest challenges. The use of Put Reading First (CIERA, 2001) as the primary text for these sessions is a major step in integrating ARI, REA, and subsequent ARFI training in a coherent fashion.

Alabama has developed the capacity to disaggregate its achievement data. (See page 20 for an example.) Reporting data in a disaggregated manner will increase the capacity to hold teachers, schools, LEAs, and the state accountable for the reading achievement of all of our students.

Reading First’s Role in Closing the Gap

Other actions prompted by Reading First will allow Alabama to further close gaps identified in the first 11 pages of this proposal. These actions include the following: Reading First has provided the incentive to the SEA to reduce the isolation of literacy-related

activities within the Alabama State Department of Education. Persons from all of the major literacy-related activities (described on the previous pages) attended the Secretary’s Leadership Academy. A Department Management Team representing each of the major literacy-related programs (ARI, REA, BRM, Classroom Improvement, and Federal Programs) has met weekly since February 2002 and has coordinated the development of this proposal.

Reading First schools will utilize assessments that accomplish four purposes:1. Outcome assessments that provide a bottom-line evaluation of the LEA/school

effectiveness2. Screening assessments that determine which students are at risk for reading difficulty

and who will need additional help3. Diagnostic assessments to help teachers adjust instruction to meet students'

instructional skills and needs4. Progress monitoring assessments to determine if students are making adequate

progress or need more intervention to achieve grade level reading outcomesProminent among the assessment instruments to be used in ARFI schools, and eventually statewide is the DIBELS.The use of the DIBELS will provide a compelling, public report of reading outcomes.

The assessments will answer the questions: Do students meet state standards on the current assessment? Are students predicted to meet state standards on the next state assessment? How do the data inform instruction to help teachers to enable students to reach important reading outcomes? This type of accountability assessment has not been available in Alabama schools. Moreover, progress monitoring data provided by the DIBELS will be immediately

Version: 6/02 12

available to the participating teachers and ARFI staff, allowing a rapid technical assistance response for modifications in instruction.

Alabama’s statewide professional development plan described on pages 61-67 will provide professional development related to SBRR for all K-3 general education and special education teachers over the next four years. Although Alabama has been seriously and substantially preparing teachers in selected schools to implement SBRR over the past four years, the use of the Teacher Reading Academies, developed by the Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts and customized to Alabama’s reading standards will result in an unprecedented level of uniformity in all of Alabama’s reading activities.

Reading First grants of sufficient size will allow ARFI schools to purchase a scientifically based comprehensive reading program from a short list of programs to be approved by the SEA for use in ARFI schools. A scientifically based reading program will be a tremendous support for teachers learning to employ scientifically based reading instruction in ARFI schools.

Reading First funds will allow the SEA to hire nine additional reading specialists1 for Alabama’s Regional Inservice Centers to work only with the ARFI-eligible LEAs in 2002 and the selected ARFI schools in 2003. The addition of these experts in SBRR will bring to ARFI schools the level of support and technical assistance needed to change practice in schools that face the greatest difficulties.

Reading First grants of approximately $200,000 in the first year to each selected ARFI school will be sufficient to provide every ARFI school with its own reading coach. This building-level support in every ARFI school will provide the type of assistance identified in three evaluations of the ARI as necessary for ongoing growth in student achievement.

Twice monthly professional development meetings for the ARFI reading coaches will build SBRR expertise in every ARFI school. This ongoing professional development is twice that provided ARI reading specialists in the past three years and will help fill gaps in the expertise of ARFI reading coaches.

A school budget requirement of approximately $1,000 annually per teacher for ongoing professional development will further build SBRR expertise in every ARFI school. This will allow ARFI schools to design a variety of approaches to ongoing professional development such as school-based workshops; periodic grade-level and cross-grade-level meetings; visits to highly successful schools; and coursework for teachers pursuing advanced reading certification in schools of education that provide scientifically based reading preparation.

Requiring 10 days of initial professional development will provide the kind of substantial initial training necessary for ARFI schools to get off to a good start. Five of these days will be devoted to the skillful implementation of the school’s scientifically based comprehensive program. Five of these days will deal with other scientifically based “big ideas” in early reading instruction, such as how to implement flexible, small grouping practices; the importance of progress monitoring; how to use classroom assessment data to keep the focus on the essential components of reading instruction; and securing a substantial, daily, protected time for reading instruction.

Daily coaching and assistance from the school reading coach and twice-monthly school visits by a regional inservice center reading coach will provide the ongoing technical assistance

1 “Reading Specialist” is the term that has been used in conjunction with the ARI. We anticipate switching to the term “coach” and reserving the word “specialist” for persons who earn Reading Specialist certification. Throughout this proposal, we will use the term “reading coach” when referring to future activities.

Version: 6/02 13

critical to successful implementation of what will be taught in the initial professional development experiences.

Initial preparation of ARFI principals, reading coaches, and district reading coordinators in the spring of 2003 will prepare these leaders to assume their instructional leadership roles in ARFI LEAs and schools. Additionally, participation of these local leaders in all initial professional development activities in the summer of 2003, quarterly professional development meetings for ARFI principals, monthly development of the district leadership, and twice-monthly development for the reading coaches will systematically build the local infrastructure and expertise needed to substantially impact reading achievement in ARFI LEAs.

The dedication of the equivalent of two full-time senior ARI staff to ARFI will guarantee full strength to the ARFI staff from the time of the receipt of Reading First funds. The ratio of one State staff to approximately 30 ARFI schools represents a substantial improvement over the current ratio of one ARI staff member to approximately 85 ARI schools.

The designation of Dr. Katherine Mitchell as Director of the ARFI and as Chief Reading Scientist for Alabama will guarantee SBRR expertise in the leadership of ARFI and in all reading-related activities statewide.

The following graphic will serve to summarize Alabama’s current reading efforts and where Reading First fits. Fueled by the requirements and funding provided by Reading First, this graphic represents a broad summary of where Alabama is headed in the next four or five years. The sections that follow this graphic provide details for ARFI’s plan for the first two years of implementation (July 2002-September 2004).

Version: 6/02 14

WHERE ALABAMA IS HEADED WITH ARFI

Activities that ImpactARFI Schools

Activities that Impact ARFI Statewide

Other Reading Activities Coordinated with ARFI

2002 Summer Announce Reading First Subgrant

Competition Hire Regional Reading Specialists to

provide technical assistance to eligible LEAs

Train 37 ARFI eligible LEAs to administer the DIBELS

Hold Proposal Preparation Workshop #1 for all eligible LEAs

Complete revision of state reading standards

Recertify 16 Cohort 1 ARI schools Retool 78 ARI schools not making

progress Train 25 new BRM schools Train approximately 400 BRM and

ARI schools to administer the DIBELS

2002-2003 Hold Proposal Preparation

Workshop #2 Hold Proposal Preparation

Workshop #3 Provide initial training to ARFI

reading coaches, principals, and district leaders in scientifically based reading research(SBRR)

Provide technical assistance to ARFI schools to: Select a comprehensive reading

program Administer DIBELS assessment

Train building level reading coaches Provide 10 day initial training for

K-3 general ed teachers and K-12 special ed teachers in Cohort A ARFI schools

Review and select comprehensive programs for SEA approved “short list”

Provide 5 day training based on SBRR for all Kindergarten general ed and special ed teachers

Train remaining K-3 schools to administer the DIBELS

Train new BRM schools and new ARI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

Train 4th and 5th grades at BRM and ARFI schools through the ARI to provide instruction based on SBRR

Recertify Cohort 2 ARI schools. (Any “retooling” occurs during recertification and statewide training of all K-3 teachers)

2003-2004 Administer DIBELS in ARFI

schools Begin implementation of ARFI

school plans Provide ongoing technical assistance

to ARFI schools Provide 5 day advanced summer

training and/or retooling for Cohort A schools

Provide 10 days of initial summer training for Cohort B ARFI schools

Conduct Cohort B ARFI subgrant competition

Provide 5 day training based on SBRR for all First Grade general ed and special ed teachers

Provide 5 day summer training based on SBRR for any new hires in kindergarten

Administer the DIBELS statewide

Train new BRM and new ARI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

Train 4th and 5th grades at new BRM and new ARFI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

Recertify Cohort 3 ARI schools. (Any “retooling” occurs during recertification and statewide training of all K-3 teachers)

Note: Cohort 1, 2, 3,etc. refers to ARI schools Cohort A, B, C, etc. refers to ARFI schools

(See p. 61 for explanation of ARFI Cohorts.)

Version: 6/02 15

ARFI – Alabama’s Reading First InitiativeARI – Alabama Reading InitiativeBRM – Beginning Reading ModelDIBELS – Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early

Literacy SkillsSBRR – Scientifically Based Reading Research

Activities that ImpactARFI Schools

Activities that Impact ARFI Statewide

Other Reading Activities Coordinated with ARFI

2004-2005 Begin implementation in Cohort B

ARFI school Provide ongoing technical

assistance to Cohort A and Cohort B schools

Provide 5 day advanced summer training and/or retooling for Cohort B schools

Provide 10 day initial summer training for Cohort C ARFI schools

Conduct Cohort C ARFI subgrant competition

Provide 5 day initial training based on SBRR for all Second Grade general ed and special ed teachers

Provide 5 day summer training based on SBRR for any new hires in kindergarten or first grade

Administer the DIBELS statewide

Train new ARI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

Train 4th and 5th grades at new ARFI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

Recertify Cohort 4 ARI schools, (Any “retooling” occurs during recertification and statewide training of all K-3 teachers)

2005-2006 Begin implementation in Cohort C

ARFI schools Provide ongoing technical

assistance to Cohort A, B, and C schools

Provide 5 day advanced summer training and/or retooling for Cohort C schools

Provide 10 day initial summer training for Cohort D ARFI schools

Conduct Cohort D ARFI subgrant competition

Provide 5 day training based on SBRR for all Third Grade general ed and special ed teachers

Provide 5 day summer training based on SBRR for any new hires in K-2

Administer the DIBELS statewide

Train new ARI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

Train 4th and 5th grades at new BRM and new ARFI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

2006-2008 Begin implementation in any new

ARFI schools Provide ongoing technical

assistance to all ARFI schools Provide 5-day advanced summer

training to ARFI schools following their first year of implementation

Provide 10-day initial summer training for any new ARFI schools

Conduct subgrant competition for any remaining eligible schools

Provide 5 day training based on SBRR for any new hires in K-3 general education and special education

Administer the DIBELS statewide

Train new ARI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

Train 4th and 5th grades at any new ARFI schools to provide instruction based on SBRR

Recertify any Cohort 6 schools. (Any “retooling” occurs during recertification and statewide training of all K-3 teachers)

Note: Cohort 1, 2, 3, etc. refers to ARI schools Cohort A, B, C, etc. refers to ARFI schools

(See p. 56 for explanation of ARFI Cohorts.)

Version: 6/02 16

ARFI – Alabama Reading First InitiativeARI – Alabama Reading InitiativeBRM – Beginning Reading ModelDIBELS – Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early

Literacy SkillsSBRR – Scientifically Based Reading Research

I B. State Outline and Rationale for Using Scientifically Based Reading Research

The Alabama Reading First Initiative (ARFI) is designed to provide eligible LEAs with the means to improve reading instruction for about 24,000 children between the ages of 5 and 9 years old. This will be the result of a fully effective subgrant cycle of proposal preparation, technical assistance workshops, competition, expert review, and award. Upon award of the subgrants and implementation, ARFI staff will guarantee extensive, ongoing, high-quality professional development; ensure frequent on-site technical assistance; guide LEA selection of SBRR comprehensive reading programs and instructional materials; monitor ongoing implementation and adjustments; and ensure the effective use of assessments which, taken together, will support LEAs in coming progressively and substantially closer to their goal of having all students read proficiently by the end of Grade 3. ARFI will begin funding for operation at the local level in January 2003. Implementation as intended will develop local capacity and build momentum to continue Alabama’s resolve to have all third graders read on grade level.

Alabama has devised its ARFI plan and rationale in response to a persistent student need for improved reading achievement and a substantial teacher need for professional development grounded in SBRR. Following a description of this need (pages 17-23), the proposal systematically summarizes the SBRR and connects this research to plans and activities for improving K-3 reading instruction in Alabama. The ARFI plan is organized into sections dealing with scientifically based reading instruction (pages 23-25), scientifically based programs and materials (pages 25-28), professional development for teachers and instructional leaders (pages 28-33), and reading assessments (pages 33-40).

Student Need

Reading achievement in Alabama has lagged behind performance in other content areas since the inception of statewide assessment in the 1950s. Most recently, the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Report Card, released on March 4, 1999, revealed that Alabama’s fourth and eighth grade students read below the national average. Table 4 reports the NAEP scores of fourth and eighth graders. Only 1 in 5 students are reading at the proficient level or better. This is not sufficient preparation for achieving academic success, exercising full citizenship, or playing a meaningful role in the economy.

Table 4: NAEP 1998 Alabama Students’ Reading Data

Score 4th Grade 8th Gradebelow basic 44% 34%basic 32% 45%proficient 19% 20%advanced 5% 1%

Further disaggregation of NAEP data for several categories including gender, race/ethnicity, and low-income revealed the following:

Version: 6/02 17

Gender : In 1998, the percent of Grade 4 females and males who reached Proficient levels of performance did not differ significantly. In Grade 8, however, only 18 % of males and 25 % of females performed at or above the Proficient level. These percentages were significantly different.

Race/Ethnicity : In Grade 4, 34% of Anglo students performed at or above the Proficient level compared to 8% of African American students and 4% of Hispanic students. Similarly, in Grade 8, 28% of Anglo students performed at or above the Proficient level compared to 7% of African American students and 12% of Hispanic students.

Low-Income : In Alabama in Grade 4, 10% of students who were eligible for the free/reduced-price lunch program and 38% of students who were not eligible for this service performed at or above the Proficient level. These percentages were significantly different. In Grade 8, 10% of students who were eligible for the free/reduced-price lunch program and 29% of students who were not eligible performed at or above the Proficient level. Again, these differences were significant (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999).

Moreover, according to the NAEP, the graph of improved reading achievement in Alabama is relatively flat over time. (See Graph 1.) The percent of students performing at or above the Proficient level in Alabama did not differ significantly in 1998 from that in 1992 or in 1994. In terms of achievement levels for public school students in central cities, urban fringes/large towns, and rural areas/small towns, performance on NAEP did not differ significantly (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999).

Graph 1: NAEP Reading Over Time

Student test scores in Alabama have shown reading to be the area of lowest achievement for as long as the state has administered a norm-referenced test. The 1998 Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, has been administered statewide in Alabama in grades 3-11 from 1996 through 2001. An examination of Stanford Achievement Test scores in Grade 3 for the most recent three years is displayed in Table 5 on the next page. Analysis of data from Grade 3 reveals that scores in reading (along with social science in 1999 and 2001) are lower than in other content areas and that overall gains have not been apparent in the last three years.

Version: 6/02 18

Table 5: Alabama Grade 3 Percentile Ranks by Content Area

Subtest 1999 2000 2001Reading 50 49 50Mathematics 57 57 56Language 58 58 58Science 55 55 54Social Science 50 51 50

Given that struggling readers rarely “catch up” after Grade 3 (Francis et al., 1994), it is not surprising that in 1998, 12% of Alabama’s high school seniors failed the state’s exit exam in reading after five tries, even though the passages on the exam did not exceed an eighth grade level of difficulty. Further analysis of Grade 3 disaggregated Stanford percentile ranks are displayed in Tables 6 and 7 on the next page.

Version: 6/02 19

Table 6: Alabama Grade 3 Stanford Scores Disaggregated For Special Education, Major Racial/Ethnic Groups and Gender

State of AlabamaDepartment of EducationStanford Achievement Test 2001 – Disaggregated Percentile Ranks by Grade and Subtest

CSSO Report Categories Ethnicity GenderCategory All Students General Ed. Special Ed. African

AmericanAnglo Asian Hispanic American

IndianUnknown Male Female

GRADE 03Complete Battery

55 58 25 41 63 70 46 59 54 52 56

Language 58 61 26 46 64 73 49 60 62 53 62Math 56 59 23 45 61 77 51 58 61 52 58Science 54 57 25 37 63 69 44 59 62 53 53Social Science 50 54 22 37 63 68 44 59 60 49 51Total Reading 50 53 19 36 60 60 39 55 53 48 52

Table 7: Alabama Grade 3 Stanford Scores Disaggregated for Lunch Status, LEP, and Migrant Populations

State of AlabamaDepartment of EducationStanford Achievement Test 2001 – Disaggregated Percentile Ranks by Grade and Subtest

CSSO Report Categories Poverty Indicator Limited English Proficiency

Migrant Population

Category All students General Special Ed Regular Lunch

Reduced Lunch Free Lunch LEP Non-LEP Migrant Non-Migrant

GRADE 03Complete Battery

55 58 25 62 46 33 28 55 48 55

Language 58 61 26 68 53 41 39 58 37 58Math 56 59 23 64 52 42 40 55 40 56Science 54 57 25 66 51 37 33 54 37 53Social Science 50 54 22 62 46 34 32 50 32 50Total Reading 50 53 19 62 47 34 28 50 32 50

Version: 6/02

I-2

20

Analysis of Tables 6 and 7 reveals the following: Reading percentile scores for major ethnic groups in

Alabama range from a high of 60 for Anglo and Asian students to a low of 39 for Hispanic and 36 for African American students.

On average, female students out-perform male students in Grade 3 by four percentile points (52nd percentile as compared to 48th percentile).

General education students in Alabama’s third grade have an average reading score at the 53rd percentile, as compared with an average score at the 19th percentile for special education students.

Students in Alabama’s third grade from lower income families have average reading percentile scores of 34 (free lunch) and 47 (reduced lunch), as compared with 62 for children of higher income families.

LEP students have average reading scores at the 28th percentile as compared with average scores of non-LEP students who score at the national average (50th percentile).

Children from migrant families score significantly lower (32nd percentile) than non-migrant children on the third grade Stanford reading test.

In summary, these data mirror trends found in the national sample. Large gaps between the performance of Anglo, economically advantaged children and low socio-economic status African American children are blatantly obvious.

Teacher Need

Alabama teachers currently enter the profession with limited knowledge of scientifically based reading research (SBRR) and with limited preparation for implementing instruction grounded in this research. The teacher certification standards were rewritten in 1999 to reflect the most current research in reading instruction; however, ideologies still get in the way of full implementation of the 1999 revised standards. While some higher education faculty members do not dispute the SBRR, many have a strong bias toward other types of research and toward their own philosophies, which continue to be their main focus in teacher preparation classes. Even if the standards were being fully implemented, only a small number of the current K-3 teaching force would have graduated in programs that were implementing the new standards. Consequently, many K-3 teachers in Alabama classrooms have limited, if any, knowledge of SBRR.

A recent survey of 2,856 new and inexperienced teachers in Alabama found that the majority of respondents reported a high need, but a low rate of success, for obtaining assistance (Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, October 24, 2001). The study also revealed a mismatch between a desire for mentor teachers and the actual availability of quality mentors in Alabama schools. More than 80% of responding teachers considered assistance from professional development activities and from an assigned mentor teacher to be most valuable.

Alabama has approximately 12,000 teachers in grades K-3. Most of these primary teachers are responsible for teaching reading. Of this number, 1,121 are currently teaching out of field. Where there are paraprofessionals working in schools, they provide extra help for students under the supervision of a certified teacher and they do not provide core reading instruction.

Version: 6/02 21

Currently, only 4 % of all K-3 teachers in the state hold advanced certification in reading. From 1997 until 2000, it was impossible to get advanced reading certification in Alabama. The

Version: 6/02 22

master’s level reading certificate was reinstated in January 2000 and is currently being offered at only eight universities across the state. Without this certification opportunity, those teachers who hold other advanced degrees have had few advanced reading classes to prepare them to be expert reading teachers.

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) may provide professional development opportunities related to reading, but these rarely focus on SBRR. Alabama LEAs adopt new textbooks every six years, but there has been a great deal of freedom in textbook choices. Whether or not the series is based on scientific research is usually not of great importance to teachers in their selection or in their orientation to the new materials. When a school or an LEA adopts a new reading series, the publisher provides very little professional development. In larger LEAs, a sales pitch or brief orientation session is more common than true professional development. These brief orientation sessions most often include an introduction to the materials provided in the program and an overview of the suggested management and delivery system. Some LEAs provide additional training sessions conducted by classroom teachers who share their own ideas for implementation. Often teachers are required to attend the introductory training session, but any follow-up sessions are optional. Other professional development opportunities provided by LEAs or by vendors often focus on popular topics and trends such as guided reading, literature circles, or learning/reading styles.

In sharp contrast, over the past four years, the Alabama Reading Initiative has provided professional development based on SBRR to teachers, principals, and central office staff in those schools selected to become Literacy Demonstration Sites. Since 1998, the faculty members of 424 elementary and secondary schools have attended a 10-day summer training institute. Participants received 60 hours of professional development to introduce them to SBRR. An outside evaluation was conducted at the end of each of the first three years. Surveys, interviews, and classroom observations yielded data supporting the impact of this training on teacher knowledge and practice and on student achievement (Center for Educational Accountability, 2000; Center for Educational Accountability, 2001; Moscovitch, 2002).

According to the three third-party evaluations, professional development provided by the ARI has had a positive impact on teacher practice. Through a self-report survey administered in the year one evaluation of 1998-1999, 84% of the teachers reported they felt prepared to implement the SBRR practices they had learned. In January, 73% of the teachers still felt prepared. Teachers at sites that had strong support from a higher education mentor and/or took advantage of additional professional development opportunities during the fall term reported feeling more prepared in January. A teacher survey conducted as part of the year two evaluation reported that training had a positive impact on teaching and on student learning. Teachers cited specific examples such as the use of research based strategies, increases in time dedicated to student reading, increased confidence and enthusiasm toward reading instruction, increased awareness of struggling readers, and positive schoolwide change in the learning environment. Teacher interviews conducted during the year three evaluation included the following quotes:

“I learned more in the two weeks of Alabama Reading Initiative training about teaching children to read than I learned in four years of college.”

“The Reading Initiative is the best professional development in all my years of teaching.”

“Now I know how to meet the needs of those behind in reading.”

Version: 6/02 23

In spite of the overall positive response to the training, the evaluations for each of the three years showed that teachers in some participating schools needed ongoing support and additional professional development to fully implement the research based strategies that they had learned in the two-week summer session. Based on these data, the staff from the ARI is currently planning for additional professional development opportunities for schools that are not showing marked increases in student achievement. Five-day “retooling” sessions for 78 schools that are not making progress will occur during the summer of 2002. Experience in schools participating in state and federally funded programs (e.g., ARI and REA) highlights the need for ongoing professional development focused on SBRR and adjusted to the different levels of teacher expertise in individual schools. In summary, even if all of the funded programs (ARI, BRM, REA) had been100% successful, less than 50% of approximately 12,000 K-3 Alabama teachers have would have benefited from training based on SBRR. We must assume that the other K-3 Alabama teachers lack sufficient knowledge of SBRR to impact their practice. Additionally, teachers in only 96 of the 168 eligible Reading First schools have attended training offered through other programs (e.g., ARI, BRM). Of the 95 who have attended ARI training, 47 need additional assistance in implementation as evidenced by their agreement to attend the “retooling” sessions planned for the summer of 2002. And, based on the number of Reading First eligible LEAs who have received prior training, student performance data indicate that they are not implementing what they have been taught.

Scientifically Based Reading Research

While the ARFI staff intends to work diligently to prepare the LEAs to succeed in their applications, the process will adhere to the strict standards set forth in the Reading First legislation and guidance and in the ARFI subgrant applications. Successful LEA applications will demonstrate their understanding of SBRR.

The term “scientifically based reading research” means the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties. Since 1997, Alabama has indicated its commitment to translating SBRR into effective instruction and improved student achievement. First, the Alabama Reading Panel published Report on the Review of the Research, (Alabama Department of Education, 1998b) and launched the ARI with funds from private contributors. With the REA plan, Alabama has demonstrated its determination to translate research into practice that yields proficient reading achievement for all of its students in its lowest performing schools. Alabama’s Reading First plan, however, allows Alabama to benefit from four years of implementation of the ARI, the REA, and the BRM and the lessons learned from those successful, but still improving efforts.

Alabama’s progress can be seen in its plan that applies SBRR to the following areas: Instructional strategies. Reading programs and materials. Professional development for teachers and instructional leaders. Reading assessments that serve screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome

functions.

Version: 6/02 24

Scientifically Based Reading Research Applied to Instructional Strategies

Effective reading instruction is the systematic and explicit teaching of beginning reading knowledge and skills that stems from a coordinated, coherent program that delivers purposeful, engaging classroom reading and writing activities to learners. It is planned, visible, appropriately sequenced and paced, and guided by frequent progress monitoring. It includes research-based content and research-based strategies.

The Essential Components of Reading Instruction Based on SBRR

The goal of beginning reading instruction is to enable children to read connected text quickly and accurately so that they understand what they read (Adams, 1990). The beginning of comprehension is the decoding of individual words (Pressley, 2000), phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principal, and decoding strategies that lead to accurate and automatic word recognition and fluent reading of sentences and passages (National Reading Panel, 2000). Numerous research studies have identified phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary as the essential components of beginning reading instruction. (Learning First Alliance, 2000; CIERA, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Research Council, 1998.)

The ARI is in its third iteration of professional development modules that attest to the state’s emphasis on these essential components of reading instruction. In all reading-related professional development activities delivered since the summer of 1998, the ARI, through a cadre of 645 certified professional developers, have emphasized the essential components of reading instruction. These professional development modules are available on the ARI website at www.alsde.edu, and have served as the foundation of professional development modules used in Florida and Massachusetts. Minor adjustments are currently underway to bring the ARI professional development modules more in line with the emphases and terminology used in recent publications such as Put Reading First, the National Reading Panel Report, and the Secretary’s Reading Leadership Academy Notebook (USDOE, 2002). For example, an emphasis on fluency instruction is currently located in the ARI Conceptual Framework, the Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Instruction modules, and in the Effective Intervention modules. The development of a training videotape on fluency and the emphasis on fluency as a separate component in recent training efforts attest to continuous improvement of these modules and Alabama’s resolve to remain current in its emphasis on scientifically based reading instruction.

All teachers from ARFI funded schools will be required to complete 10 days of initial professional development. Five of those days will be devoted to training on the essential components of reading instruction found in the ARI modules and in Put Reading First. This training will be provided by ARI certified trainers who have proven their effectiveness in teaching kindergarten, first, second, and third grade teachers. Additionally, the statewide Teacher Reading Academies materials, adapted to Alabama’s standards, will provide extensive teaching on the essential components of reading instruction to all K-3 general and special education teachers over the next four years. (See pages 61-67 for Alabama’s statewide professional development plan.)

Version: 6/02 25

Instructional Strategies Based on SBRR

Effective reading strategies are those procedures that are identified by scientific research as resulting in significant gains in reading achievement. These features include alternative grouping formats (e.g., one-on-one, pairs, small group) that are suited to specific purposes, responsive to students’ needs, and provide opportunities for students to belong to several small groups. Effective grouping procedures include flexible grouping that is guided by ongoing progress monitoring and that allows for periodic regrouping that is based on students’ knowledge and skills (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, & Schumm, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, & Elbaum, 2001; Vaughn, Thompson, Kouzekanani, Bryant, & Dickson, 2001).

Effective reading strategies maximize student learning. They include procedures such as varying presentation and format of lessons to maximize the ways that students participate. They include reduced teacher talk and increased opportunities for students to demonstrate how their learning is progressing. Effective reading strategies allow teachers to adapt their pacing, content, and emphases to the needs of the learners (National Reading Panel, 2000; National Research Council, 1998; Rosenshine, 1997; Simmons & Kame’enui, 1998).

The ARI 2002 retooling summer institutes will give emphasis to important instructional strategies such as alternate, flexible, grouping formats; protected periods for reading instruction; interpretation and response to progress monitoring data; and instructional techniques that maximize student engagement in the learning tasks. While only 47 of the 168 eligible ARFI schools will be included in the ARI 2002 retooling summer institutes, the new emphases are important for integrating training provided by the ARI, REA, BRM and ARFI, as well as for perfecting new ways of preparing teachers to deliver effective instructional strategies. In the summer of 2003, all teachers from ARFI schools will participate in similar professional development opportunities that draw attention to the critical importance of scientifically based instructional strategies. Additionally, these important instructional strategies will be part of the statewide K-3 training that will occur in 2003-2006.

Scientifically Based Reading Research Applied to Programs and Materials

Commercially-developed reading programs and instructional materials represent the primary tool K-3 classroom teachers use to teach reading. Estimates suggest, in fact, that textbooks serve as the foundation for 75 to 90 percent of classroom instruction (Farr, Tulley, & Powell, 1987; Miller, 1986; Tyson & Woodward, 1989). Comprehensive reading programs are called comprehensive because their intent is to provide a complete set of instructional materials for teachers who are teaching children to read and write. Because of the convergence of scientific findings about reading, comprehensive programs can now make it easier than ever before for teachers to use scientifically based instruction in their classrooms. Such research-based instruction will significantly increase the potential for higher reading achievement.

Version: 6/02 26

Content of the Reading Programs Based on SBRR

The Reading First legislation has as its purpose to assist state education agencies and local education agencies in establishing K-3 reading programs that are based on scientifically based reading research. Such programs must include substantial and appropriate emphasis on the essential components of reading: phonemic awareness instruction; systematic explicit phonics instruction; fluency instruction; vocabulary instruction; and text comprehension instruction. Evaluation of comprehensive programs should focus on the content such as that named in the next paragraph.

Phonemic awareness instruction includes activities that ask children to identify phonemes, categorize phonemes; blend phonemes to build words; segment words into phonemes; delete or add phonemes to form new words; and substitute phonemes to form new words. The instruction should focus on blending and segmenting and use the letters of the alphabet to assist students in their manipulations. The phonics instruction included in comprehensive reading programs should follow a planned sequence of letter-sound relationships. The programs must include specific instructions about how teachers are to teach those relationships. Effective phonics programs provide ample opportunities for children to apply what they are learning about letters and sounds to the reading of words, sentences, and stories. Comprehensive reading programs must dedicate sufficient amounts of activity to the development of fluency, or the ability of children to read connected text accurately, quickly, and with expression. Programs should recommend techniques such as: repeated and monitored oral reading; modeled fluent reading; and the use of audiotapes, tutors, and peer guidance to increase fluency practice. Teachers’ manuals in comprehensive programs should alert teachers to the importance of: 1)having students exhibit accurate reading before they begin rereading to develop fluency and 2) of using materials in which the readers are approximately 95% accurate. Comprehensive reading programs that include effective vocabulary instruction will suggest ways that to enhance students’ ability to learn vocabulary indirectly through activities such as conversations with adults, by being read to, and through reading extensively on their own. Directions in both the teacher and student materials will provide activities for teaching specific words. Teachers’ guides will advocate activities such as: teaching specific words before reading; extended instruction that requires learners to work actively with the new words; and repeated exposures to new vocabulary in different contexts. Comprehensive reading programs must teach word learning strategies such as how to use dictionaries, word parts, and context to figure out new words. To be consistent with scientifically based reading research, comprehension instruction in comprehensive programs must help readers use specific comprehension strategies such as monitoring comprehension, using graphic and semantic organizers, generating questions, recognizing story structure, and summarizing. Effective comprehension activities teach children to use these strategies flexibly and in combination. Teachers’ guides need to show teachers how to use questioning techniques, explicit teaching techniques, and cooperative learning to enhance students’ comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000; CIERA, 2001).

Design of Comprehensive Programs Based on SBRR

In considering the scientific research base of comprehensive reading programs, there must be a rigorous review of instructional design as well as a review of the content. Instructional design focuses on how the program components are organized and how the lessons are arranged.

Version: 6/02 27

Critical organizational features include: explicit instructional strategies, coordinated and logical instructional sequences, ample practice opportunities, and aligned student materials. It is important, for example, for teachers’ manuals to direct teachers to model the sound for each phoneme (an explicit strategy) and to sequence material in such a way that students first practice oral blending of a phoneme, then learn to connect that phoneme to a grapheme, then read words which include the new sound along with other letter/sound correspondences (planned, logical sequence). It also is important for comprehensive programs to include sufficient practice material and practice exercises to promote fluency on a daily basis (ample practice opportunities) and to include decodable texts which provide opportunities for students to practice letter/sound correspondences recently learned (aligned student materials).

ARFI will use subgrant selection procedures that will result in LEAs and schools using reading programs that support the teaching of the five essential components of reading, promote teacher use of explicit instructional strategies, exhibit a coordinated instructional sequence, and have ample student practice material that is aligned with instruction. LEAs will be required to implement instructional programs from a relatively short list of options prepared by the SEA that are based on scientifically based reading research and meet rigorous review standards. The process for identifying the approved comprehensive reading programs is detailed below.

1. Alabama will seek programs that are consistent with scientifically based reading research in both instructional content and design.

2. The programs on Alabama’s short list of “approved” programs will be categorized as either comprehensive, intervention, or supplemental.

3. Alabama will use a process for determining the short list of approved programs similar to that used by the State of Washington in determining their list of programs acceptable for use by REA schools (conversations with Jo Robinson, Director of Washington’s REA program).

4. Alabama will start with an existing instrument that has been validated for use in reviewing reading textbooks for consistency with scientifically based reading research (e.g., Consumer’s Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program developed by Simmons and Kame’enui for the National Center to Improve the Tools of Education and the Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement).

5. The chosen instrument will be cross-referenced to the findings from the National Reading Panel to give emphasis to items such as the five essential components of reading instruction; clear modeling; explicit instruction; and ample, aligned student practice material.

6. A small committee of knowledgeable experts in scientifically based reading research will apply the instrument to reading materials and other items requested of vendors (e.g., information on the amount and type of professional development and support that the vendor will provide).

7. Mrs. Jean Osborn (author of Put Reading First) and Dr. Marcy Stein (Development Team Leader for the Reading Programs Committee of the Secretary’s Reading Academy) have agreed to assist Alabama in implementing this process.

8. Alabama will accept the list of recommended programs from Washington for inclusion in Alabama’s list of approved programs. Then, Alabama will update the list for programs published in and after 2000. (See Appendix C for the current list of Washington’s approved programs.)

9. Alabama will adjust slightly the process outlined above if it becomes possible to develop a short list of scientifically based reading programs in conjunction with other states and/or

Version: 6/02 28

other nationally-recognized reading experts in scientifically based reading research. Two possibilities are described in items 10 and 11 below.

10. If logistically possible, Alabama would prefer to update Washington’s approved list in conjunction with experts from Washington. Conversations with Jo Robinson, Director of Washington’s REA and Reading First Programs, indicate that Washington would also like such an arrangement, if our timelines can be made compatible.

11. A conversation with Marcy Stein indicated that a few states, in addition to Alabama and Washington, have expressed interest in conducting a joint review and/or in using the same evaluation instrument and procedures for making the evaluations. Alabama would like to be included in such arrangements if logistically possible and if compatible with Alabama’s timeline. Alabama’s timeline gives preference to completing the development of the short list of approved programs by October 1, 2002, but this timeline could be stretched until December 2002 if it were possible to work with another state and/or states.

12. Alabama places a high value on grassroots choice of comprehensive reading programs. Consequently, when ARFI schools choose a new comprehensive program, they will be required to visit places that are currently using the program successfully and to give evidence of substantial teacher input into the selection of the program from Alabama’s short list.

Alabama breaks new ground in its decision to develop a short list of scientifically based reading programs that are approved for use in ARFI schools and approved for purchase with ARFI funds. The Department Management Team is unanimous in its agreement that use of a scientifically based, comprehensive reading program in concert with professional development, effective instructional strategies, ongoing progress monitoring assessment, and good instructional leadership will dramatically improve reading achievement in ARFI schools. Moreover, anticipated student achievement increases in ARFI schools will prompt the use of comprehensive programs based on SBRR in all Alabama schools.

Scientifically Based Reading Research Applied to Professional Development

Reading programs do not teach children to read. Teachers do. Moreover, a plethora of research findings attest to the positive impact of quality teaching on student achievement (Wharton, et al., 1998; Brophy & Good 1984; Taylor, et al., in press). Therefore, no part of the ARFI program is more important than professional development. Until we provide children with access to larger quantities of substantially enhanced instruction, we will fail to have all of our students read proficiently.

The goals of the ARFI professional development programs are: to improve students’ reading achievement; to enable teachers to implement research-based reading programs, reading instruction, and reading-related practices; and to build reading leaders, coaches, and experts at the school and LEA levels. According to researchers in the area of professional development, and reading professional development particularly, effectiveness depends upon extended time for initial development that includes discussions of how children learn to read as well as instruction on specific instructional strategies. Effective professional development requires extensive follow-up in classrooms and ongoing consultation with experts. Effective professional development must be viewed as ongoing, a never-ending process that involves the entire school staff (Learning First Alliance, 2000).

Version: 6/02 29

The National Staff Development Council divides effective professional development into the categories of context, content, and process (National Staff Development Council, 2001). The sections that follow outline the plan for delivery of professional development which is guided by scientifically based reading research.

.Context and Process.

Educating teachers about scientifically based reading instruction must involve all school personnel, if it is to be successful. The entire faculty will participate in a few learning experiences together (e.g., the framework for how all aspects of ARFI fit together, what science has established as effective reading instruction), but smaller groups within the faculty will have unique offerings (e.g., phonemic awareness instruction expertise for kindergarten and first grade teachers). The entire faculty must clearly understand the state performance standards, the goal of all students reading proficiently, the ways that the comprehensive reading program supports scientific research in reading, and the assessment data that will drive decision making and ongoing adjustments in implementation. All faculty members must understand the relationships among these aspects of ARFI.

The faculty in an ARFI school will be required to engage in a varied and full range of professional development experiences and to budget financial and human resources sufficient to support expenditures that include items such as the following: Teacher stipends and consultant fees for 10 days of initial development in the summer of

2003. The initial preparation will include 3-5 days of training on their comprehensive reading program, 1-2 days on the DIBELS assessment, and 3-5 days from the updated and integrated training materials taken from the ARI, BRM, and Teachers’ Reading Academies materials. These materials will emphasize the essential components of reading instruction, scientifically based instruction and practices (e.g., explicit instruction, small group instruction, and progress monitoring procedures).

Teacher stipends for attending any professional development activities conducted on days outside of the teachers’ contracts.

The employment of a qualified reading coach who is an experienced teacher with proven ability to teach reading, to coach others in implementing the selected comprehensive reading program, and to work with other teachers in a supportive, professional manner. This coach will be expected to attend regional ARFI professional development sessions at least twice a month, to lead grade-level meetings with teachers in their schools, and to provide demonstration lessons for teachers.

The judicious use of substitute teachers to provide classroom teachers with a series of extended (up to ½ day) monthly grade-level meetings in which the classroom teachers focus on progress monitoring data and adjustments needed to make their instruction more effective. Use of substitute teachers could provide classroom teachers with time to observe and consult with other classroom teachers in their own schools and in highly successful schools with similar demographics.

Consultant fees to pay certified professional development providers to conduct full day updates and extension workshops on the LEA professional development days in areas identified as needs.

Version: 6/02 30

Other monetary incentives for teachers to complete follow-up activities offered through certified professional developers and/or tuition for SBRR course work offered throughout the school year and during the summer of 2004.

Content

The participants from ARFI schools will learn about the essential components of reading instruction, including phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, fluency instruction, vocabulary development, and comprehension instruction. They will learn: how the essential components of reading are related; strategies and techniques for increasing student achievement with each component; and how to assess each component. ARFI school participants will learn important management and organizational skills such as daily routines and schedules that maximize the use of instructional time, grouping strategies that help to meet the needs of diverse learners, positive behavior management, and effective spatial arrangements of classrooms.

Alabama brings to the ARFI a wealth of resources related to professional development. Specifically, professional development modules exist in the following areas: A Conceptual Framework that relates the essential reading components to each other Informal Assessment for K-1 (to be revised in light of changes in the statewide assessment

program and DIBELS) Informal Assessment for Grade 2 (to be revised in light of changes in the statewide

assessment program and DIBELS) Informal Assessment for Grade 3 (to be revised in light of changes in the statewide

assessment program and DIBELS) Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Instruction for K-1 (that includes an emphasis on spelling

and fluency) Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Instruction for 2-3 (that includes an emphasis on spelling

and fluency) Oral Language Development and Vocabulary Development for K-1 Oral Language Development and Vocabulary Development for 2-3 Comprehension Strategies for K-1 Comprehension Strategies for 2-3 Effective Intervention for K-3

These modules are being reviewed so that professional development sessions offered in the 2002 summer “retooling” institutes will be more in keeping with the emphases found in Put Reading First. For example (as mentioned earlier on page 24) the ARI staff has developed a videotape that includes fluency lessons with different groups of first graders to bring more attention to fluency instruction.

In addition the ARI staff has approximately 421 K-3 certified trainers who can serve as professional developers in the essential components of reading. Just as important, the ARI has established the expectation that initial professional development activities must be of sufficient length (currently 10 days), include the entire faculty (at least 85 percent required), and require the active participation of the principal and central office representative. Ongoing professional development will need to be guided by progress monitoring and outcome assessment data and include a full-range of offerings. The budget requirements for ARFI schools will direct each

Version: 6/02 31

school to allocate approximately $1,000 per teacher per year to accomplish the kinds of initial and ongoing professional development needed to substantially impact reading achievement.

Another resource that Alabama brings to the ARFI program is that 24 schools have been trained in the DIBELS assessment and the Beginning Reading Model (BRM). Selected experts from these schools will be certified to provide professional development on the DIBELS assessment, the instructional adjustments that stem logically from the data, and the teaching of the five essential components of reading.

Principles that will guide the content of professional development activities carried out by selected ARFI schools include all of those mentioned above under context and process as well as the following: Eligible LEAs and schools have participated in an orientation to the DIBELS and have been

invited to training offered during the summer of 2002, even before the ARFI schools make application and final selections are made.

Six days of technical assistance will be provided to eligible LEAs and schools related to how to write their proposals. These six days will include all aspects of making application and will focus on effective reading instruction (including the essential five components of reading, grouping, maximizing student learning, and effective interventions). The technical assistance will additionally concentrate on the process and instruments that the ARFI staff will use to determine whether or not reading programs belong on the short list approved for use in ARFI schools.

During the 2002-2003 school year, the ARFI program will invite a team of national experts to join expert Alabama professional development providers to review the existing ARI modules, the Beginning Reading Model training materials, and the Professional Development for Teachers of Reading and Writing: Knowledge, Skills, and Learning Activities as modified by Louisa Moats from Learning First Alliance’s Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide (2001). Based on the recommendations of this team, a three-year plan of professional development will be outlined to include the following: Approximately 10 days of initial training in the summer of 2003; Ongoing offerings to include a varied menu of content for teachers, principals, and

reading coaches during the first year of implementation; Approximately five days of ongoing development during the summer of 2004 that will be

responsive to assessment data and to findings from self-studies and on-site visits; and Review of data from evaluations, assessments, on-site visits, and self-studies to determine

the types of professional development activities needed during the second and subsequent years of implementation of ARFI activities.

Dr. Louisa Moats has indicated, though email correspondence, an interest in assisting Alabama in this effort. It is envisioned that other national experts who have worked with the ongoing development of reading coaches (e.g., Dr. Isabel Beck) will also play a role in this review, update, and coordination of Alabama’s current reading-related professional development materials.

Instructional Leadership

The improvement of any kind of instruction, but particularly reading instruction, is dependent upon strong leadership. In the National Research Council’s Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, findings indicated weak reading programs often reflected the leadership of

Version: 6/02 32

principals who were uninformed and uninvolved. ARFI principals will be expected to commit to focused, instructional leadership that improves teaching and raises student achievement. The principal must be transformed from the 1950s model of “school administrator” into today’s “leader of a learning community”. Therefore, ARFI has identified the principal as the keystone to building significant improvement in reading instruction.

Principals must support a school culture in which high expectations for learning are a visible and vital core value. Effective principals actively reflect on their own beliefs and practice about school leadership, self-assess, and commit to personal improvement (Alabama Leadership Academy, November 2001). ARFI principals must learn to use new strategies and tools to engage all members of the faculty in committing to improved student learning. To that end, ARFI principals will make the following critical commitments:

1. Attend training in improving instructional leadership Topics will include instruction in content such as:

Redefining the principal’s role; Raising expectations for all learners; Organizing schools into learning communities; and Refining strategies for leading communities of learning.

2. Attend training in scientifically based reading instruction. Topics will include instruction in content such as: Content and features of effective reading instruction, including alignment of reading

curriculum to state standards; The five critical components of reading and the effective instructional strategies that

need to be included in kindergarten through third grade curricula and programs as identified by the Reading First legislation; and

Use of assessment to inform the evaluation, selection, and implementation of instructional programs and professional development.

The ARI has worked for two years to provide reading-related professional development to principals in ARI schools. A training module for principals is in its second iteration. Through the ARI, principals have participated in quarterly regional meetings. This regional network of principals serves as a conduit for continuing dialog and learning.

In the 2001 Alabama Leadership Academy (ALA), sponsored by the Classroom Improvements Section of the SEA, a network of principals from low-performing schools, actively engaged in increasing their instructional leadership skills. State staff for the ARI principal development efforts (Mrs. Sherrill Parris) and from the ALA (Mr. John Bell), have united in the development of this proposal and in envisioning the future development of ARFI principals through the ALA and through the ARI existing regional networks.

To provide professional development to ARFI principals, Alabama will require the following:

1. ARFI principals will participate in all training activities with their faculties (e.g., 10-day initial professional development).

2. ARFI principals will participate in an initial orientation with school reading coaches and LEA reading coordinators in the spring of 2003.

3. ARI principals will participate in quarterly principals’ networking meetings held in central locations. Principals will collaborate to share best practices in instructional

Version: 6/02 33

leadership, problems, and solutions. Networking will facilitate the release of old ideas and strategies and the construction and acceptance of new ones. Principals will make commitments to one another to build a web of “lateral accountability” (Evans and Mohr, March 1999). To support and continue to build capacity, a collection of the best practices resulting from network dialog will be compiled into a notebook and distributed to network participants each year.

4. Efforts will be made to link ARFI principals with a colleague who will serve as a peer model, collaborator, and “critical friend” (National School Reform Faculty, December 2000) during a year-long partnership. State staff from the ARI and ALA will be responsible for the selection of peer mentors. Peer mentors will be principals with recent exemplary success in increasing reading achievement in their schools.

5. ARFI principals will visit ARI Gold Star Schools, buildings established and supported by ARI funds to be a training site for principals.

These professional development activities for principals are described further in Part II in the description of ongoing technical assistance to be provided to ARFI schools (pages 73-74).

ARFI Reading Coordinator

The ARFI LEA subgrant must support instructional improvement in reading by appointing a staff person with a background in reading instruction to be the ARFI Reading Coordinator. This person will represent the central office in the coordination of continuous progress on the local level. This ARFI Reading Coordinator will be trained with the ARFI principals and will represent the best interests of Reading First when decisions are made at the local level. To minimize the negative effects of personnel turnovers, this ARFI Reading Coordinator will ensure capacity and continuity in ARFI schools.

We know from ARI evaluations (Moscovitch, 2002) that the central office must support reading reform. Through their Reading First subgrant, LEA reading coordinators will work actively in its implementation. By working with the superintendent to evaluate local reading improvement, the reading coordinator will also be able to assist ARFI principals in the implementation of needed changes indicated by periodic assessment.

The ARFI plan for instructional leadership addresses each of the foundational pillars for district success (commitment, accountability, sharing, and leadership) as identified by Phyllis Hunter (Reading First Conference, 2002). Implementation of this plan using Reading First funds will provide a cohesive, comprehensive support system for principals that will offer training in instructional best practices and in research based reading components, facilitate sharing through the mentoring program and the principals’ network, and ensure accountability through the central office.

Scientifically Based Reading Research Applied to Reading Assessment

Alabama has one of the most comprehensive student assessment programs in the country. For example, the Stanford Achievement test has measured reading achievement of Alabama students in grades 3-8 for the past six years. In addition, a direct outgrowth of the ARI and the recent national emphasis on early intervention for struggling readers was the development of three primary assessments that were administered statewide in the fall of 1999 and 2000. The

Version: 6/02 34

Alabama Early Learning Inventory (for kindergarten), the Alabama Reading Assessment for Grade 1, and the Alabama Reading Assessment for Grade 2 include measures of phonemic awareness, concepts of print, expressive language, graphophonemic knowledge, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension. These assessments are not part of the state’s accountability system; and, because of proration, these assessments were not administered in the fall of 2001. While the K-2 assessment instruments served an important purpose in raising awareness of the important skills in beginning reading (especially phonemic awareness and phonics), these instruments do not meet the statutory requirements for assessment in Reading First. Following considerable discussion among the SEA Management team, the state of Alabama has chosen to discontinue its K-2 assessments and to make the DIBELS assessment available in 2002-2003 to ARFI eligible schools, the ARI schools with grades K-3, and the 49 BRM schools. These schools will serve as “pilot” sites for what we believe will become a statewide administration of the DIBELS beginning in the 2003-2004 school year.

The ARFI program will include reading assessments to accomplish four purposes: accountability, screening, diagnosis, and progress monitoring. Faculties at ARFI schools will be taught to use data from these assessments to identify students who may be at risk for reading failure and who are having difficulty reading. Faculties will learn to use information from assessments with proven validity and reliability to make instructional decisions.

Minimum Assessment Schedule

All beginning reading skills are not equally important at each grade level. For example, measures of phonemic awareness, phonics, and vocabulary are important in kindergarten and first grade. Reading comprehension and fluency skills are important about the middle of Grade 1 and continue to be important in grades 2 and 3. The Assessment Framework found in Table 8 forms the minimum assessment schedule for ARFI schools and coincides with the minimum assessment schedule recommended in the Secretary’s Reading Academy Notebook (Accountability Section, pages 12-15).

LEAs that are awarded a Reading First subgrant may assess more frequently and/or in more skill areas than indicated in Table 8. The minimum assessment schedule simply provides an overview of which beginning reading skills must be assessed in kindergarten through Grade 3.

Table 8: Assessment Framework

Kindergarten Beginning Middle EndPhonemic Awareness X X X

Phonics X X

Fluency

Comprehension

Vocabulary X X X

Grade 1 Beginning Middle EndPhonemic Awareness X X X

Phonics X X X

Version: 6/02 35

Fluency X X

Comprehension X

Vocabulary X X X

Grade 2 Beginning Middle EndPhonemic Awareness

Phonics X

Fluency X X X

Comprehension X X X

Vocabulary X X X

Grade 3 Beginning Middle EndPhonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency X X X

Comprehension X X X

Vocabulary X X X

An effective, comprehensive reading program includes reading assessments to accomplish four purposes: accountability, screening, diagnosis, and progress monitoring. All pieces of the system need to be in place and need to work together to support reading outcomes in schools. To assist ARFI schools in applying SBRR to instructional assessment, the ARFI Department Management Team has made several decisions:

1. The DIBELS assessment will be used in all ARFI schools and will serve the purposes of screening, progress monitoring, and accountability assessment. The DIBELS currently provides valid and reliable data related to the following essential content: Phonemic awareness and phonics in kindergarten (Initial Sound Fluency, Phoneme

Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Letter Naming Fluency) Phonemic awareness, phonics, and oral reading fluency in Grade 1 (Phoneme

Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Letter Naming Fluency) Oral reading fluency in grades 2 and 3 (Oral Reading Fluency)The decision to move toward statewide administration of DIBELS is based on lessons learned from the ARI about the critical importance of progress monitoring in influencing classroom instruction and student achievement. Specifically, the Department Management Team has found the DIBELS to be an instrument that is substantially inclusive, time efficient, and cost effective for serving this important progress monitoring function, as well as the screening and accountability purposes. Additionally, the use of the DIBELS in all ARFI schools will provide needed focus for guiding instruction. Finally, administration of the DIBELS in all ARFI schools will make available consistent data in important beginning reading skills that the ARFI staff needs to monitor school implementation of SBRR instruction and to direct early technical assistance provided to ARFI schools.

Version: 6/02 36

2. The DIBELS does not assess all important early reading skills. Currently, it includes no vocabulary and comprehension measures. Consequently, the Alabama plan calls for LEAs to describe in their subgrant applications how they will assess vocabulary in grades K-3 and how they will assess comprehension in grades 1-3. Pages 43-44 detail the criteria for evaluating the scientific base of assessments selected at the local level as well as the criteria for evaluating how local assessments will be coordinated with the DIBELS. The LEA selections, however, must be taken from the Reading First Assessment Team Report, An Analysis of Reading Assessment Instruments for K-3 (www.idea.uoregon.edu).

3. The Department Management Team places a high value on providing technical assistance to ARFI-eligible LEAs related to scientifically based reading instruction and assessment. Consequently, the ARFI staff will devote a minimum of one full day to scientifically based assessment in the proposal preparation workshops. During this time, the ARFI staff will distribute the Reading First Assessment Team Report on valid and reliable assessments for K-3. The ARFI staff will require ARFI-eligible LEAs to choose assessments named in the Reading First Assessment Team Report as meeting the validity and reliability criteria for their intended purposes. Additionally, the ARFI staff will arrange for a few instruments named in the report to be featured during the proposal preparation workshop that focuses on assessment. Among the featured assessments will be those that provide valid and reliable measures of comprehension and vocabulary and that can assist LEAs in building a complete assessment system that complements the assessment data provided by the DIBELS.

4. The DIBELS does not meet validity and reliability criteria for use as a diagnostic instrument. Consequently, at the proposal preparation workshop that focuses on assessment, diagnostic assessment instruments will also be featured. The ARFI staff will arrange for a few diagnostic instruments named in the Reading First Assessment Team Report to be featured at the proposal preparation workshop for ARFI-eligible LEAs. The diagnostic instruments featured will include those judged to be best aligned with and complementary to accountability, screening, and progress monitoring assessments provided by DIBELS and the vocabulary and comprehension measures of reading that have been and will continue to be used statewide in Grade 3. Examples of diagnostic assessments that could be featured are: Woodcock-Johnson III, Gray Oral Reading Test IV, and the Texas Primary Reading Inventory.

5. The ARFI staff will contract with a person highly knowledgeable with respect to the application of scientifically based instructional assessment to help design the content of the proposal preparation workshop that focuses on assessment and to be present at that workshop on assessment. The overarching purpose of the assessment proposal preparation workshop will be to equip ARFI-eligible LEAs to design local assessment systems that appropriately assess all essential components of reading instruction and that are coordinated with and complement the DIBELS assessment. The ARFI staff will obtain the services of one of the members of the assessment team that prepared the material for the Secretary’s Leadership Academy, or a person recommended by this team, to provide the consultant services for the Alabama proposal preparation workshop on assessment. The $9,000 set aside for “additional national/state expert consultant” shown in the budget on page 96 will be used for this purpose.

Version: 6/02 37

The sections that follow provide additional details related to Alabama’s plan for applying scientifically based research to instructional assessments.

Accountability Assessment

Accountability is crucial to the ARFI Plan. The purpose of accountability assessment is to support school systems to achieve important reading outcomes. Currently, Alabama’s mandated accountability system begins in Grade 3. The SEA Management Team has concluded that delaying accountability assessment until third grade is too late to support schools in changing reading outcomes. Longitudinal studies have shown that approximately 74 percent of the students who are reading disabled in the third grade continue to read significantly below grade level in the ninth grade (Lyon, 1996a). The research strongly suggests that children at risk for reading failure must be provided early diagnosis and early intervention if the efforts are to have the greatest chance for success (Juel, 1998; Lyon, 1996b; Lyon & Alexander, 1996/1997).

The ARFI plan is based on the assumption that K-2 accountability can be accomplished by public reporting of kindergarten, first grade, and second grade outcomes in ways that are clear and compelling. Such reporting can: lead to celebrations when early literacy goals are achieved; prompt increased professional development and technical assistance for schools that are struggling most; and give the ARFI State staff and LEA leaders the information necessary for them to make responsible decisions and take responsible actions.

SBRR has identified phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary development as the crucial early literacy skills that students must learn to be on track for third grade reading proficiency (Adams & Bruck, 1995; Adams, Treiman & Pressley, 1998; Chall, 1967; Chall, 1983; Learning First Alliance, 2000; Liberman & Liberman, 1990; Lyon & Alexander, 1996/97; Lyon & Kame’enui, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Research Council, 1998; Pressley, 2000; Share & Stanovich, 1995; Stanovitch, 1993/94; Vellutino, 1991). Research has established that students who achieve grade-level skill in these areas are on track to achieving reading proficiency in Grade 3 (Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001). Consequently, it is essential to assess early literacy outcomes on these essential components in kindergarten through third grade and to hold schools accountable for teaching these crucial early literacy skills well.

Accountability assessment should focus on outcomes in the important beginning reading areas. The assessment framework in Table 8 (pages 34-35) specifies the minimum beginning reading skill areas to be assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3.

At the end of each year, reports for each ARFI school will include the number and percent of children who are at grade level, need additional intervention, and need substantial intervention. Additionally, the reports will include the percent of children who are at grade level by racial and ethnic status, by free/reduced lunch status, by LEP, and Special Education. Finally, the report will include the change in percent of the children who are at grade level as compared to the beginning of the current year and as compared to the end of the previous year.

As indicated earlier, the ARFI program proposes to use the DIBELS as its outcome measure. A major factor driving this decision is the fact that four ARI schools are using the DIBELS, and 24 BRM schools are currently utilizing DIBELS. Approximately 450 new schools (25 BRM, 329 ARI, and 100 ARFI-eligible) will become DIBELS users in 2002-2003. The validity of the

Version: 6/02 38

DIBELS is established (Good, Simmons, and Kame’enui, 2001). The focus of DIBELS reliability has been on alternate-form reliability over one to four weeks using different data collectors. This type of alternate-form reliability provides information about generalization to different scorers, times, and items (E-mail correspondence with Roland Good, author of DIBELS).

Test security is another issue in outcome assessment. Because about 30 alternate forms are available with DIBELS, a form can be selected at random for each assessment.

Finally, outcome assessment in K-3 will give LEAs the information necessary for them to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. Reading is a multi-year agenda. What we do in kindergarten has implications for children's reading skills at the end of first grade. We need accountability assessment that will help teachers and schools make the connection between instructional decisions and reading outcomes.

The single biggest issue in deciding whether to use DIBELS is not about the reliability, validity, cut scores, or adaptations. Training is the major issue and barrier. Web sites (www.dibels.uoregon.edu and www.reading.uoregon.edu ) will provide important assistance to ARFI schools and later in potential statewide training. Moreover, the important foundation Alabama has with the ARI and BRM schools will be an asset in training on the importance of and the assessment of phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency with connected text. The training will serve two purposes: 1) it will enable an assessment of important outcomes for accountability and 2) it will build the skill and knowledge base of teachers, principals, and central office staff around the essential core components of beginning reading.

ARFI plans to administer the DIBELS assessment to students in all ARFI schools. Eligible LEAs have already attended an orientation to DIBELS held on April 16, 2002, and have been invited to participate in DIBELS training during the summer of 2002. This optional training on the DIBELS for all ARFI eligible LEAs will give candidates an opportunity to understand how screening and progress monitoring assessment is related to accountability assessment, as well as several critical components of early reading instruction. It will serve as preparation for writing their subgrants and impact reading instruction in all eligible LEAs, even those that will not be successful in receiving ARFI subgrants.

Screening And Progress Monitoring Assessments

The ARFI program will embark on a grand mission to change Alabama reading outcomes dramatically. The decision to use the DIBELS in ARFI schools is an important decision. Its cost ($1 per student per year) makes feasible its consideration for a statewide accountability vehicle. Additionally, DIBELS provides a link between outcomes assessment for accountability, screening assessment to determine which children may need additional instructional support to achieve those outcomes, and progress monitoring assessment to tell if we are making necessary progress on a student-by-student basis as well as a school-by-school basis.

Screening assessments are those that are administered early in the school year to determine which children are at risk for reading difficulty and who will need additional intervention. The DIBELS has been named in the Reading First Assessment Team Report as a valid and reliable screening instrument for phonemic awareness, phonics, and oral reading fluency at selected grade levels. LEAs will describe in their subgrant applications which of the instruments named in the Assessment Team Report, and featured at the proposal preparation workshop on

Version: 6/02 39

assessment, they will use for screening related to vocabulary and comprehension at appropriate grade levels.

Progress monitoring assessments are administered periodically throughout the school year to determine if students are making adequate progress or need more intervention to achieve grade level reading outcomes. Progress monitoring assessment provides ongoing formative information that can be used to evaluate and adjust instructional plans. The DIBELS has been named in the Reading First Assessment Team Report as a valid and reliable progress monitoring instrument for phonemic awareness, phonics, and oral reading fluency at selected grade levels. LEAs will describe in their subgrant applications which of the instruments named in the Assessment Team Report, and featured at the proposal preparation workshop on assessment, they will use for progress monitoring related to vocabulary and comprehension at appropriate grade levels. See pages 43-44 for the criteria to be used to evaluate the scientific base of screening and progress monitoring assessments selected at the local level.

Diagnostic Assessments

The purpose of diagnostic assessment is to provide more in-depth information on students’ skills and instructional needs so that appropriate instruction can be planned. Diagnostic assessment answers questions such as: On which of the important beginning reading skill areas are the students on track, and on

which do they need additional instructional intervention? Which specific beginning reading skills within an essential reading component have the

students mastered? For example, if students are having difficulty in phonemic awareness, is it because they cannot identify initial, medial, or final sounds?

How much instructional intervention are students likely to need (e.g., moderate or substantial amounts)?

Which students have similar instructional needs and might be grouped for instructional purposes?

Diagnostic assessments aligned with screening and accountability measures support the development of intervention plans for students who are at risk for reading difficulty.

The DIBELS does not meet the validity and reliability criteria for use as a diagnostic instrument. Hence, all diagnostic assessment will be selected at the local level from among those named in the Reading First Assessment Team Report and featured at the proposal preparation workshop. LEAs will describe in their subgrant applications how they will provide diagnostic assessment for the essential reading components at appropriate grade levels. To help them select diagnostic instruments with a scientific base, ARFI-eligible LEAs will be introduced to selected diagnostic instruments included in the Reading First Assessment Team Report and judged to be aligned with and complementary to the DIBELS at the proposal preparation workshop designated for assessment. See pages 43-44 for the criteria to be used to evaluate the scientific base of diagnostic assessments selected at the local level.

Version: 6/02 40

I C. State Definition of Subgrant Eligibility

Local education agencies (LEAs) that meet the following criteria are eligible to apply for Reading First funds:

1. The LEA has 50% or more of its third grade students, or at least 1,000 students, scoring in stanines 1-4 on the Stanford 9 (SAT-9) and has more than 20% of its students counted for allocations under Title I, Part A.

Or

2. The LEA has 45% or more of its third grade students, or at least 1,000 students, scoring in stanines 1-4 on the SAT-9 and has more than 35% of its students counted for allocations under Title I, Part A.

Or

3. The LEA has 45% or more of its third grade students, or at least 1,000 students, scoring in stanines 1-4 on the SAT-9 and has jurisdiction over a geographic area that includes an enterprise community.

We chose to use stanines 1-4 to identify LEAs in the state with the highest number or percentages of Grade 3 students reading below grade level for three reasons. First, the Secretary’s Reading Academy Notebook, on pages 17-21 of the Assessment Section, defines “at grade level” in several ways, including a normative standing at the 40th percentile. The Notebook states: “Students scoring at the 40th percentile or higher are at grade level.” (page 19 of the Assessment Section.) Secondly, the ARI has, for the past four years, established high expectations for grade level reading achievement, by using the 5th stanine (starting at the 40th percentile) and above as an indicator of “grade level performance.” Finally, defining the 40th percentile (or beginning at the 5th stanine) as “at grade level” is consistent with the state accountability system, as well as the Secretary’s Reading Academy Notebook, that distinguishes students who may need additional intervention (scores between the 20th percentile and 39th percentile) and students who score in the lowest 20 percent (almost stanines 1-3) and most likely need substantial intervention (Assessment Section, pages 20 and 21). Alabama believes that using stanines 1-4 to identify LEAs with the lowest performing students is sufficiently restrictive because these LEAs are the same LEAs that have a concentration of students scoring in the bottom three stanines. While using stanines 1-4 as a criterion for identifying ARFI-eligible LEAs, Alabama will maintain its emphasis on identifying the lowest performing readers (students scoring in the lowest 20 percent) in each eligible school as those who need substantial intervention and students scoring between the 20th and 39th percentile as likely needing some additional intervention. Moreover, while it is true that some average or proficient students could score in stanine 4 on a single measure, additional screening and diagnostic assessment will confirm exactly which students are in need of additional intervention and which students are in need of substantial intervention.

These criteria provide an applicant pool that is broad enough to ensure that LEAs that face the greatest challenges have the opportunity to apply for ARFI funds. From this pool, we will

Version: 6/02 41

identify proposals that show the most promise for raising student achievement and for successful implementation, especially at the classroom level.

Based on these criteria, 28% of all LEAs (36 from a total of 129) are eligible to apply for funds. Table 9 provides information on the eligible LEAs which are distributed across the central and southern regions of the state. The eligible LEAs represent urban and rural areas. The 11 city systems generally represent the urban districts and the 25 county systems generally represent the more rural districts. Birmingham City is the largest urban district. Two of the county systems (Mobile and Montgomery) include the other two largest cities in Alabama as well as rural areas. Therefore, in these two county systems, there would be schools considered to be urban as well as rural.

LEAs that receive Reading First subgrants may only distribute funds to schools within that LEA that are both:

1. Among the schools in the LEA with the highest percentages or numbers of students in kindergarten through grade 3 reading below grade level, based on the most current data available

And

2. Identified for school improvement under Title I, Part A or have the highest percentages or numbers of children counted for allocations under Title I, Part A.

Achievement data from the 36 ARFI-eligible LEAs identified approximately 165 schools that have more than 50% of the Grade 3 students scoring in stanines 1-4. This list will be provided to ARFI-eligible LEAs. The ARFI-eligible LEAs will be directed to select schools that:

1. Meet the statutory requirements described on this page, and 2. Can be adequately funded from the LEA award.

The LEA proposal will identify the schools to be served and the criteria used by the LEA in making the selections.

Version: 6/02 42

Table 9: LEAs Eligible for Reading First Funds

LEA # Grade 3 Students in Stanines 1-4

% Grade 3 Students in Stanines 1-4

% Students Counted

for Title I, Part A

School Improvement

Enterprise or

Empower-ment

# Eligible Schools

Barbour Co 82 65.6 35.04 X 4Bullock Co 74 46 35.59 2Butler Co 151 57.4 31.18 2

Chambers Co 151 45.6 21.89 X 2Choctaw Co 110 67.1 29.64 4Clarke Co 176 60.3 28.02 3

Conecuh Co 74 46 37.35 2Coosa Co 95 66.9 22.83 X 3

Crenshaw Co 118 57.6 29.81 2Dallas Co 184 52 36.79 4Greene Co 92 59.7 42.87 X 2Hale Co 128 58.4 34.08 4

Lowndes Co 119 63 41.72 4Macon Co 170 54 39.20 4

Marengo Co 90 64.7 32.23 X 3Mobile Co 2075 44.6 27.24 X 27Monroe Co 188 54.5 29.11 3

Montgomery Co 1279 53.2 24.18 X 21Perry Co 98 62.4 44.11 2Pike Co 104 65.4 30.86 3

Russell Co 169 51.1 24.50 X 4Sumter Co 158 67.8 39.76 X X 3

Tallapoosa Co 131 50.6 22.25 2Washington Co 152 53.9 25.04 2

Wilcox Co 122 58.4 43.02 4Anniston City 137 61.4 41.14 X 4Bessemer City 244 65.6 36.08 5

Birmingham City 1495 52.4 31.21 X X 11Eufaula City 121 50.4 25.64 2Fairfield City 96 54.5 24.07 2Gadsden City 220 50.7 33.36 X 6Linden City 23 53.5 31.95 1

Roanoke City 57 50.4 28.22 1Selma City 232 65.5 38.57 X 7Tarrant City 45 52.9 20.25 1

Tuscaloosa City 379 50.5 28.65 X 7

Version: 6/02 43

I D. Selection Criteria for Awarding Subgrants

The subgrant selection criteria will be aligned to the subgrant application. (See Appendix D for a draft.) The subgrant application is envisioned as a project narrative that addresses 11 parts. Each part relates to a vital Reading First activity. What follows on pages 43 to 52 is a draft of the questions eligible LEAs must address in their subgrants. The subgrant selection criteria are presented in bold print for each of the 11 parts.

The rubric to be sent to the evaluators (draft on pages 54-59) specifies that each of the 11 parts must receive a score in the Meets Standard or Exemplary Plan range for the application to be funded.

Part i: SCHOOLS TO BE SERVED (5 points maximum)

Criterion: The State Department of Education (SEA) will give each LEA a list of schools that have at least 50% of all third graders scoring in stanines 1-4 on the SAT-9. The LEA will establish school eligibility by listing those schools that have BOTH: a) the highest numbers or percentages of students scoring in stanines 1-4 on SAT-9 AND either b) are identified for school improvement OR c) have the highest numbers or percentages of students counted for allocations under Title I, Part A. From this list of eligible schools, the LEA will select only the number of schools that can be adequately funded from the LEA award. They will describe the criteria used to make the school selections.

1. From the list of eligible schools in your LEA, which schools will be selected to receive Reading First grant funds? Describe the criteria used to make your choice.

2. Describe your plan for addressing the needs of eligible schools that will not be selected to receive Reading First funds. Describe the factors that most influenced your decision not to select these schools.

3. Describe how the number of selected schools is sufficiently targeted to ensure that each school receives adequate funding to make significant progress toward increasing student achievement in reading.

4. Describe your plan to leverage existing resources to coordinate Reading First activities with all local literacy efforts in grades K-3.

Part ii: INSTRUCTIONAL ASSESSMENTS (15 points maximum)

Criterion: The SEA will require ARFI schools to use the DIBELS for screening, progress monitoring, and outcome purposes. This instrument is named as a valid and reliable measure of phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency in appropriate grade levels. LEAs must choose assessment instruments for vocabulary and comprehension in appropriate grade levels from among those listed in the Reading First Assessment Team Report and featured at the proposal preparation workshop on assessment. Additionally, LEAs must select all diagnostic measures from among those listed in the Reading First Assessment Team Report and featured at the proposal preparation workshop on assessment. Answers to the questions below must verify that assessments selected at the local level have a scientific base and are aligned and coordinated with the DIBELS. Answers must also verify when assessments will be administered and how they will be coordinated with the instructional program.

Version: 6/02 44

1. The purpose of screening assessment is for early identification of children who are at risk for reading difficulty.

a. What screening assessments do you plan to use at each grade level?b. Which of the important beginning reading skills will be assessed with the screening

instruments identified for each grade level?c. How will DIBELS be coordinated with other screening assessments selected at the

local level?d. Which students are targeted for screening assessments?e. How will the data collected from these screening assessments be used?f. Verify the validity and reliability of each selected screening assessment.

2. The purpose of diagnostic assessment is to help teachers plan instruction by providing in-depth information about students’ skills and instructional needs.

a. What diagnostic assessments do you plan to use in each grade level?b. Describe the content to be measured by each diagnostic assessment administered

locally.c. How will DIBELS be coordinated with diagnostic assessments selected at the local

level?d. Which students are targeted for diagnostic assessments?e. How will the data collected from these diagnostic assessments be used to make

instructional decisions?f. How will the data be used to inform decisions about appropriate interventions?g. Verify the validity and reliability of each selected diagnostic instrument.

3. The purpose of progress monitoring assessment is to determine if students are making adequate progress or need more intervention to achieve grade level reading outcomes.

a. What progress monitoring assessments do you plan to use at each grade level?b. Which of the important beginning reading skills will be assessed with progress

monitoring instruments administered locally?c. How will DIBELS be coordinated with other monitoring assessments selected at the

local level?d. Which students are targeted for progress monitoring assessments?e. How will the data collected from progress monitoring assessments be used to make

instructional decisions?f. How will the data be used to inform decisions about appropriate interventions?g. Verify the validity and reliability of each progress monitoring assessment.

4. Provide a yearly assessment schedule by grade level, which includes the name of the assessment to be used, its purpose (screening, diagnostic or progress monitoring), the skills that will be assessed, and the month when the assessment will be administered.

5. Describe how the assessments to be used are aligned with the instructional program.6. Describe how the assessments to be used complement the DIBELS and together form an

assessment system that targets important reading outcomes.7. Describe the assessment plan for local schools with K-3 programs that do not receive ARFI

funds.

Part iii: INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS (15 points maximum)

Criterion: The SEA will provide a short list of “approved” scientifically based reading programs. Each school that receives Reading First funds will be required to fully

Version: 6/02 45

implement one of the approved comprehensive programs from this list. Describe your plans to fully implement scientifically based reading programs.

1. If selected schools are currently using a program from the approved list, discuss your plan for full implementation.

a. Identify the comprehensive program.b. Describe the degree of implementation at each grade level.c. Describe the amount and the content of any training you have had in the use of

this program.d. List any additional needs for materials and for training.

2. If you are not currently using a comprehensive program from the approved list, discuss your selection of a scientifically based reading program.

a. Describe the process and timeline you plan to use in selecting a program from the SEA approved program list.

b. Which factors are most important in influencing your decision?c. Explain how faculty members will be involved in the selection of a

comprehensive reading program.d. How will the final selection of a scientifically based reading program be made?

3. How will you assess the degree to which the chosen comprehensive reading program aligns with state standards?

4. In addition to the technical assistance provided by the SEA, how will the LEA provide for full implementation of the reading program:

a. How many days will be provided for initial and ongoing training on the program?b. What provisions will the LEA make to ensure that selected schools have the

necessary materials prior to summer training?c. Describe your plan for orienting schools to the new reading program prior to the

summer training.d. How will the LEA monitor and support the implementation of the reading

program to ensure that it will best meet the instructional needs of students?

5. How will the school and LEA monitor to ensure that the comprehensive reading program is fully implemented and not layered on top of non-research programs already in use?

6. How will the assessment program be aligned with the comprehensive reading program to maximize student achievement? What procedures will be in place to monitor the progress of struggling readers?

7. Describe the degree to which the LEA will require:a. Flexible groupingb. Intervention based on SBRRc. Scheduling that includes a protected, uninterrupted time for reading of at least 90

minutes per day.

Version: 6/02 46

8. What is your LEA’s plan for implementing scientifically based reading instruction in all schools that have grades K-3?

Part iv: INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS (5 points maximum)

Criterion: All instructional materials beyond the comprehensive reading program must be based on scientifically based reading research and should be coordinated with the comprehensive reading program. Instructional materials can best be described as those programs and materials that serve supplemental or intervention purposes in addition to the comprehensive program. In answering the questions below, indicate how the LEA will ensure that instructional materials are coordinated with the comprehensive reading programs and used for their intended purposes.

1. List any instructional materials that your LEA intends to purchase.a. Indicate how the instructional materials support the teaching of the five

components of reading. b. Describe their most effective program elements (e.g., explicit instructional

strategies for teaching comprehension).c. List their purposes (e.g., supplemental or intervention).d. Describe their uses.

2. How will the LEA ensure that selected schools align all instructional materials with the comprehensive reading program?

3. Describe your LEA’s plan for monitoring the selection and use of instructional materials. How will the LEA ensure that the instructional materials are used for their intended purposes?

4. How will the LEA guide selected schools to make the best use of new technologies that are based on the best available scientific research?

5. What is your LEA’s plan for monitoring, selecting and implementing scientifically based instructional materials in all schools that have grades K-3?

Part v: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP (10 points maximum)

Criterion: Each LEA and each selected school will guarantee leaders with sufficient time and expertise to provide the instructional leadership needed to ensure the success of ARFI activities and to achieve the goal of all students becoming proficient readers. Answers to the questions below name the LEA and school leaders, detail their duties and responsibilities, and describe their training.

1. Who at the LEA will be responsible for coordinating ARFI activities?a. How was the person selected?

Version: 6/02 47

b. Describe the duties and responsibilities of this person.c. What evidence is there that this individual is knowledgeable about scientifically

based reading instruction?

2. Describe the training for the LEA reading coordinator and other LEA personnel and how this training will improve their knowledge and skills related to scientifically based reading research and improving reading instruction.

3. Who at each building level will serve as principal and reading coach? If the reading coach has not been selected, describe how this will be done to ensure that the individual is knowledgeable about scientifically based reading instruction.

4. Describe the training and ongoing support for principals and reading coaches as it relates to their role in:

a. Understanding the essential components of reading and their application to instructional programs and materials.

b. Implementing SBRR programs and instruction.c. Providing progress monitoring related to these programs.

5. Describe your LEA’s commitment to ensuring continuity of instructional leadership at the school level.

6. What is your plan for training principals at non-ARFI schools regarding implementation of scientifically based reading instruction?

Part vi: DISTRICT- AND SCHOOL-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (15 points maximum)

Criterion: Professional development must be provided to prepare teachers and administrators in all the essential components of reading instruction and to use the selected instructional materials. This professional development must be substantial in the beginning and must be ongoing. The delivery mechanisms should include the use of coaches and other reading teachers who provide the feedback and support necessary to ensure that new instructional strategies are implemented in the classroom. Answers to the questions below should describe how the professional development activities planned for the LEA and ARFI schools are sufficiently intensive, focused, sustained, and of sufficient duration to impact classroom practice.

1. How will you assess the specific professional development needs of K-3 teachers and K-12 special education teachers in selected schools? How will assessment data be used to develop a district plan to address the identified needs?

2. Explain how the content of your professional development activities will address identified teacher needs in the following areas:

a. The essential components of reading instruction including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension and their classroom implementation

b. Implementing scientifically based instructional materials, programs, and strategies

Version: 6/02 48

c. Screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based instructional assessments and their appropriate classroom use

d. State reading standards and assessments3. Explain how you would structure the classroom follow-up to professional development

activities to enhance classroom implementation of new strategies.a. How will the expectations for classroom implementation be established and

communicated for each professional development activity?b. How will you provide both initial preparation and sufficient ongoing support to

maximize classroom implementation of what has been learned in professional development activities?

c. How will ongoing support of implementation include time for activities such as ongoing study, observation of others implementing a new strategy, practice implementing a new strategy, practice with feedback from an expert, and ongoing refinement of implementation?

d. How will principals, reading coaches, and central office staff provide feedback, encouragement, and guidance to teachers regarding classroom implementation of what has been learned in professional development activities?

e. How will you provide targeted professional development for teachers who need additional assistance with classroom implementation of new skills and strategies related to improving reading instruction?

4. Describe how you will identify and secure professional development providers who are highly knowledgeable of scientifically based reading instruction and experienced in program implementation.

5. Describe ways that you will encourage and extend the ongoing development and support provided to those serving as reading coaches and trainers in your LEA.

6. Describe the different contexts in which this professional development will be delivered to teachers initially as well as during the school year and outside the school year. Address any plans for activities such as the following:

a. Intensive institutesb. Whole and half day in-service trainingc. Grade level team meetingsd. Across grade level meetingse. Online coursesf. Study groupsg. Traditional college courses for credit and/or specially created college courses to

focus on identified issues relating to the ARFIh. In class coaching and teaching

7. How will you ensure that local professional development activities are coordinated with other state and local activities related to improving reading achievement?

8. How will the professional development activities in selected schools impact the professional development in all schools that have grades K-3?

Version: 6/02 49

Part vii: DISTRICT BASED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (10 points maximum)

Criterion: The SEA will provide technical assistance to the LEA, through state ARFI staff and Regional Inservice Center (RIC) reading coaches. The LEA must also provide technical assistance to the selected schools to ensure their success. Answers to the questions below describe how the LEA will provide high quality technical assistance to ARFI schools on topics such as identifying professional development needs, setting goals, determining benchmarks, and budgeting.

1. Describe how the LEA will coordinate high quality local assistance related to the implementation with the technical assistance provided by the State ARFI staff and RIC reading coaches.

2. Describe how the LEA will assist selected schools in identifying professional development needs.

a. How will system-wide activities be adjusted to respond to the identified needs of local schools? of individual teachers?

b. What assistance will be given to local schools in planning and budgeting for local professional development needs?

c. What assistance will be given to local schools in evaluating the effectiveness of professional development?

3. Describe how the LEA will assist the selected schools in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of their ARFI programs.

a. What assistance will be given in setting goals and benchmarks?b. What assistance will be given in progress monitoring?c. What assistance will be given in interpreting benchmark data?d. What assistance will be given in adjusting programs in response to benchmark

data?e. What assistance will be given in adjusting the budget to make the necessary

program changes?

4. What assistance will be given to non-ARFI schools that want to implement a scientifically based reading program in grades K-3?

Part viii: EVALUATION STRATEGIES (5 points maximum)

Criterion: Evaluation strategies must include the use of valid and reliable measures to assess the effectiveness of local Reading First activities for individual schools and for the district as a whole. In answering the questions below, indicate how the LEA will use valid and reliable measures to evaluate and report the effectiveness of ARFI schools.

1. If you have already administered the DIBELS assessment, describe how you report and review the data at the classroom level, at the school level, and at the LEA level.

Version: 6/02 50

2. The goal of the ARFI is to have every student reading at the proficient level on third grade outcome assessment. In order to reach this third grade goal, schools must set goals for each grade level prior to third.

a. What are the outcome goals for kindergarten? Indicate when these will be measured.

b. What are the outcome goals for first grade? Indicate when these will be measured.

c. What are the outcome goals for second grade? Indicate when these will be measured.

d. Describe how third grade outcomes will be measured.

3. Achievement data from state outcome measures will be disaggregated by low income, major racial/ethnic groups, LEP, and special education students in K-3. How will you report any additional achievement data from kindergarten, first, second, and third grades in a disaggregated manner?

4. Explain how you will use the outcome data to document the effectiveness of local Reading First activities for individual schools and the LEA as a whole.

5. Progress monitoring can indicate which students are not on track to meet outcome goals. Describe your plan for working with selected schools to establish benchmarks for progress toward the goals for each grade level.

a. What benchmarks will be set for kindergarten? Describe how these benchmarks will be measured.

b. What benchmarks will be set for first grade? Describe how these benchmarks will be measured.

c. What benchmarks will be set for second grade? Describe how these benchmarks will be measured.

d. What benchmarks will be set for third grade? Describe how these benchmarks will be measured.

6. Describe how you will work with each selected school to devise a modified instructional plan for those students who do not meet benchmark and/or outcome goals. List the interventions that will be included in this plan including alternative materials, strategies, and assessments.

7. The state intends to exercise its option to discontinue funding if schools do not demonstrate continued progress in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Describe your LEAs plan for working with those schools that do not show significant progress. List the interventions that you will implement to ensure steady improvement. (e.g., additional support, professional development).

8. Describe any plans to set similar goals and benchmarks in all local schools in the LEA that have grades K-3.

Part ix: ACCESS TO PRINT MATERIALS (5 points maximum)

Criterion: In order for students to become proficient readers, they must have access to a wide variety of engaging reading materials on appropriate levels. Answers to the questions

Version: 6/02 51

below must describe how the LEA will provide student access to a wide array of engaging reading materials.

1. Describe how you will assist selected schools in obtaining access to a wide array of engaging reading materials including both expository and narrative texts:

a. in classroom libraries.b. in book rooms.c. in school libraries.

2. Describe any federal, state, or local programs that will be coordinated with Reading First programs to increase student access to a variety of engaging reading materials.

3. Describe any local library programs that will be coordinated to promote greater access to print materials.

4. How will the LEA assist all local schools in increasing student access to a variety of engaging reading materials?

Part x: ADDITIONAL CRITERIA (5 points maximum)

Criterion: All Reading First funds must be used for activities that are based on scientifically based reading instruction and which are coordinated with the LEAs overall ARFI plan. The budget, budget narrative, and answers to questions below detail all additional uses of local Reading First funding. All uses of funds are based on SBRR and are coordinated with the overall Reading First program.

1. Describe any other activities that are based on SBRR and that strengthen the LEA proposal (e.g., requiring an extended, protected time for reading).

2. Complete the budget found at the end of this application. Other than the activities already discussed in this application, detail any other uses of local ARFI funds.

a. Describe how the funds will be used.b. Describe how these activities are based on scientific research.c. Describe how these activities are aligned with other Reading First activities.

Part xi: COMPETITIVE PRIORITIES (10 points maximum)

Criterion: A competitive edge will be given to those LEAs that can demonstrate progress in implementing reading programs and strategies based on SBRR. In awarding subgrants, priority will be given to LEAs that leverage existing resources with ARFI funds and in increasing the number of students reading at the proficient level.

Note: Because all eligible LEAs have at least 20% of the students counted for Title I, Part A, the Alabama subgrant selection process will assure that the required priority is met. (See eligibility requirements on pages 40-42.) All ARFI-eligible LEAs have at least 15% of their students from families with incomes below the poverty line. Hence, since all ARFI-eligible LEAs meet the required priority, there is no need to award points for the required priority.

Version: 6/02 52

1. To demonstrate the LEAs commitment to improving reading achievement, complete the table below by filling in the names of selected schools and marking all current state reading initiative activities in which the school is participating. Write a brief summary of the benefits and lessons learned from participation.

Name of School BeginningReadingModel

DIBELSAssessment

Reading Excellence

Grant

Alabama Reading Initiative

Alabama Reading Initiative

“Retooling”

2. Describe how you will leverage any existing resources with ARFI activities.

3. Report any data obtained from valid and reliable measures that document reading progress.

4. Give evidence of strong LEA involvement and support to local school intervention efforts (e.g., extra funding or funding a reading specialist for each school).

5. Describe any unusual funding needs in the selected schools and how these needs will be met with funds other than those from ARFI.

6. The SEA will train all K-3 classroom teachers and all special education teachers in scientifically based reading instruction during the summers of 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, starting with kindergarten teachers in 2003. What is the LEA’s plan to support SEA efforts to train all kindergarten teachers in scientifically based reading instruction during the 2003-2004 school year?

I E. Process for Awarding Subgrants

Pages 89-92 of this application provide a timeline for the process related to awarding subgrants. Eligible LEAs will be notified in July 2002 of the subgrant availability through a letter to superintendents from State Superintendent, Dr. Ed Richardson. This letter will explain the purposes of the Reading First Grant and the application and award process. The letter will announce the minimum subgrant award for each eligible LEA and explain that this minimum amount is not less than the percentage that the LEA received of the total Title I, Part A funds received by all LEAs in Alabama for the preceding fiscal year. At the same time, the letter will advise that awards to schools in successful LEAs will be substantial (approximately $200,000 per school). The letter will also announce the dates for three proposal preparation workshops.

Version: 6/02 53

The first workshop will be held in August, the second in September, and the third in October. Regional inservice center reading coaches will provide technical assistance to individual LEAs as needed during the preparation period. Applications are due on November 1, 2002.

If every eligible LEA in the state applies, there will be 36 LEA applications. The application review will be a two-tier process: 1) expert reviewers will evaluate and score the applications; and 2) the State Reading Leadership Team will make necessary policy decisions regarding the awards.

In the first stage of the review process, expert reviewers will evaluate each of the applications. The reviewers will be identified by Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Director of ARFI, and a researcher at the Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts, who is a trainer of trainers for the Teacher Reading Academy professional development materials. All reviewers will meet the following qualification:

Be knowledgeable of SBRR as verified by one of the chairpersons of the subcommittees of the Secretary's Reading Leadership Academy materials (i.e., Dr. Edward Kame'enui, Dr. Sharon Vaughn, Dr. Louisa Moats, and Dr. Douglas Carnine)

We believe that this qualification is sufficient to guarantee that reviewers will be knowledgeable of SBRR and sufficiently acquainted with Reading First. Additionally, it is anticipated that reviewers will have other qualifications verifying their expertise in SBRR such as the following:

Have served on one of the subcommittees of the Secretary's Reading Leadership Academy (e.g., Mrs. Phyllis Hunter)

Have published scientifically based research articles and/or contributed to recognized summaries of scientific reading research (e.g., Mrs. Jean Osborn)

Have completed an advanced degree in reading under the supervision one of the persons serving on the Secretary's Reading Leadership Academy (e.g., Dr. Shari Levy who earned a Ph.D. at the University of Texas under the supervision of Dr. Sharon Vaughn)

Be one of the trained reviewers for state Reading First applications (e.g., Dr. Rebecca Felton)

Have years of experience implementing and training others to implement SBRR (e.g., Dr. Pam Bell Morris at the Texas Center for Reading)

Each application will be read and evaluated by two different reviewers using the rubric provided (See Figure A on pages 54-59). The rubric specifies that each of the eleven parts must be evaluated and scored separately. Each of the parts must receive a numerical score that falls in the Meets Standard or Exemplary Plan range in order for the applicant to receive a subgrant award. The total number of points awarded for all questions will be used to further distinguish relative strengths of the applications. Along with the numerical score, each reviewer will list the strengths and weaknesses of the responses to each part.

Rubric for Evaluating Subgrants

The rubric for evaluating subgrants is envisioned as an instrument such as the one that follows. National experts will be asked to rate the proposal on each of the 11 parts as described on the pages that follow.

Version: 6/02 54

Figure A: Rubric For Evaluating Subgrants

Evaluate each of the 11 parts separately. Indicate whether the proposal Does Not Meet Standard, Meets Standard, or describes an Exemplary Plan. Give each question a total number of points that reflects the evaluation. In bullet form, list the strengths and the weaknesses of each part.

IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR AN AWARD, EACH OF THE ELEVEN PARTS MUST RECEIVE A NUMERICAL SCORE WITHIN THE MEETS STANDARD CATEGORY OR THE EXEMPLARY PLAN CATEGORY.

Part i. Schools to be Served (5 points maximum)The LEA: Identifies schools to be served Provides selection criteria Selects a number of schools consistent with the LEAs ability to adequately support them Uses a selection strategy that considers each school’s commitment to improvement

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-2 3-4 5

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Part ii. Instructional Assessments (15 points maximum)The LEA: Names assessment instruments to be used Correctly matches instrument to its intended purpose Documents validity and reliability of each instrument Describes alignment of assessment instruments to instructional program Describes how information will be used to inform instruction and make instructional

decisions

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-7 8-12 13-15

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Version: 6/02 55

Part iii. Instructional Strategies and Programs (15 points maximum)The LEA: Names the scientifically based comprehensive program to be used in all K-3 classrooms Describes 3-5 days of initial training in summer 2003 and provides dates and plans for

ongoing implementation training in 2003-2004 Addresses how layering will be avoided Addresses alignment with state standards Describes in detail how the selection process will be coordinated Includes provisions for a daily, protected, dedicated block of time for reading instruction

of at least 90 minutes

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-7 8-12 13-15

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Part iv. Instructional Materials (5 points maximum)The LEA: Names any materials that they plan to purchase in addition to the comprehensive program Describes how these materials are aligned with the comprehensive program Describes how coordination with supplemental and intervention programs will be

achieved Describes inclusion of five essential components and design features (e.g., coordinated

sequence, ample practice opportunities) Describes the purpose for these additional materials Explains how the additional materials will be used

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-2 3-4 5

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Part v. Instructional Leadership (10 points maximum) The LEA:

Names the LEA representative who will coordinate ARFI activities Describes the duties and responsibilities of this person/persons

Version: 6/02 56

Describes the training that will be provided to principals and building leaders in the essential components of reading, the implementation of instructional programs, and progress monitoring

Describes the training that will be provided to LEA personnel in scientifically based reading instruction

Describes the plan for improving instructional leadership at the building level

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-4 5-8 9-10

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Part vi. District and School Based Professional Development (15 points maximum)The LEA: Describes a plan for assessing the specific professional development needs of K-3

teachers and K-12 special education teachers and for delivering professional development activities for these teachers

Specifies the content for the professional development activities (i.e., essential components of reading instruction, implementation of scientifically based reading programs, use of screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based assessments)

Describes activities for enhancing classroom implementation of what has been learned during professional development activities

Describes the provision for targeted professional development for teachers who need additional assistance with implementation of new skills and strategies

Describes the process for selecting professional development providers who are knowledgeable of scientifically based reading research and experienced in program implementation

Gives assurance that the LEA will encourage and extend the ongoing development and support provided those serving as reading coaches and trainers

Describes the plan for offering a varied and full range of professional development experiences that impact teaching practices

Describes how local professional development activities will be coordinated with state activities

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-7 8-12 13-15

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Version: 6/02 57

Part vii. District Based Technical Assistance (10 points maximum)The LEA:

Describes how it will coordinate local assistance with the assistance provided by the SEA and regional inservice center (RIC) reading coaches

Describes how it will assist local schools in identifying and addressing professional development needs

Describes how it will assist local schools in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of ARFI activities

Describes how it will assist local schools in budgeting for ARFI activities

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-4 5-8 9-10

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Part viii. Evaluation Strategies (5 points maximum)The LEA:

Details any use of DIBELS including reporting and review of the data Identifies grade level outcome goals and the plan for measuring these goals Describes the plan for progress monitoring toward these outcome goals Describes the plan for working with schools to develop intervention strategies for

students who are not on track for meeting outcome goals Describes the plan for reporting disaggregated achievement data at the local and district

level Describes the plan for analyzing achievement data to evaluate the effectiveness of ARFI

activities at the school and district level Details the plan for intervention with schools who are not making significant progress

(e.g., support, professional development)

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-2 3-4 5

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Version: 6/02 58

Part ix. Access to Print Materials (5 points maximum)The LEA: Describes how it will assist schools in obtaining access to a wide variety of engaging

print materials Names any federal, state, or local reading or library programs which will be coordinated

with ARFI programs to increase access to both narrative and expository reading materials

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-2 3-4 5

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Part x. Additional Criteria (5 points)The LEA:

Details all additional uses of ARFI funds which have not already been discussed in the proposal

Explains how these activities are based on scientifically based reading research Explains how these activities are aligned with other ARFI activities

Does Not Meet Standard Meets Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-2 3-4 5

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Version: 6/02 59

Part xi. Competitive Priorities (10 points maximum)The LEA:

Gives evidence of successful implementation of instructional strategies and programs based on scientifically based reading research

Documents any leadership capacity and commitment to raising student achievement Demonstrates the need for ARFI funds in the specific schools to be served Explains how the LEA will leverage any existing resources with ARFI funds Documents any use of valid and reliable measures to assess reading progress

Does Not Meet Standard Meet Standard Exemplary Plan Total0-4 5-8 9-10

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Budget for LEA Subgrant Application

LEAs will be asked to record their budget on a form similar to the one found on the next page. This sample budget sets the parameters for the LEA budget by specifying which items are required (e.g., reading coach, comprehensive reading program based on SBRR). The budget has features that allow a school to vary the size of its budget in keeping with the size of the faculty (e.g., $1,000 per teacher per year for professional development). Finally the envisioned budget will allow LEAs to plan for personnel and activities unique to their LEA (e.g., an LEA reading coordinator). Along with the budget, LEAs will be required to provide a detailed budget narrative.

Version: 6/02 60

Sample Budget Summary for Each Selected School

Category Description Project Year I Year IIPersonnel Reading Coach (per 30 teachers)

Salary Fringe Benefits Training Stipend for Summer Work Equipment (computer,

printer, internet access) Conferences

Approximate Total - $ 55,000Professional Development Meetings, Conferences

School staff Professional Development – Allocate approximately $1,000 per teacher (e.g., stipends, materials, state conferences, room rental)

Approximate Total - $ 25,000Consultants

Approximate Total - $5,000Materials Comprehensive Program

Approximately $100 per studentClassroom and Library Materials Approximately $100 per studentAssessment Materials Approximately $10 per student

Approximate Total - $ 84,000 (based on 400 students)

*It is estimated that this item will be substantially reduced in subsequent years.

Other Additional Personnel

Additional Materials (e.g., professional)

OtherTotal - $

* The purchase of a comprehensive reading program, intervention program, and supplemental materials is viewed as a substantial cost in Year 1. After the first year, this item will be reduced considerably. At which time, funds no longer needed for materials will be used to fund Cohort B ARFI schools.

Version: 6/02 61

Role of State Reading Leadership Team in Awarding Subgrants

In the second stage of the review process, the State Leadership Team, familiar with the state context for reading and literacy improvement, will review each application, taking into account the ratings and written reviews of the expert reviewers. The State Leadership Team will then be separated into small groups to review a subset of applications. Each application and its written reviews will be assigned to one of the groups. They will discuss it and make preliminary recommendations for awards of funds. The State Leadership Team will decide if a site visit would be helpful and feasible to make a better evaluation of the application. If so, representative members of the team, with the assistance of the ARFI staff, will conduct the site visit before the next meeting of the State Leadership Team. Team members will present to the whole group their preliminary findings. The State Leadership Team will reach consensus on the recommendations to be made to ARFI staff regarding the number of subgrants to be funded initially. We estimate that most grants will be approximately $200,000 per school, depending on the size of the schools selected and whether or not the selected school already has a comprehensive program from the SEA approved list. Additionally, the State Reading Leadership Team will guarantee that no LEA will receive an award that is less than the percentage that the LEA received of the total Title I, Part A for the preceding fiscal year.

Depending on the number of subgrants awarded following the first competition, a second competition may be required. If so, it would be announced in August or September of 2003 and would follow the same procedures.

After the first year of implementation, 2003-2004, Cohort A schools will have their materials in place. This will reduce the amount of Reading First funds needed in Cohort A schools. This materials money can then be used to fund another smaller subgrant competition to select Cohort B ARFI schools. This subgrant competition will follow similar procedures and timeline. We plan to continue to add new ARFI schools as funds are made available, either through an increase in the state Reading First allocation or through the materials funds no longer needed after the first year of implementation. All subsequent subgrant awards, however, must comply with the minimum subgrant requirements stated in the first paragraph of this page.

I F. State Professional Development Plan

The Alabama Reading First Initiative (ARFI) will be implemented in the context of a state professional development plan for reading that offers a varied and full range of professional development experiences to all K-3 general and special education teachers in both ARFI and non-ARFI schools. Those offerings will emphasize: preparation in the critical components of reading including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension; information on instructional strategies, programs, and materials based on SBRR; and instruction in the use of screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based instructional assessments. Persons highly knowledgeable about scientifically based reading instruction will conduct these professional development sessions.

The State Professional Development Plan for K-3 general and special education teachers will consist of several varied activities offered over the next four years that, when taken together, allow teachers adequate time for learning about and implementing scientifically-based reading instruction. These activities are described in the sections titled: Continued Expansion of the Alabama Reading Initiative (page 62); Training for All K-3 General Education and Special Education Teachers (page 63); Statewide Training on the DIBELS (page 63); and A Unified Approach to Reading Instruction

Version: 6/02 62

(pages 63-64). The final section in Alabama’s State Professional Development Plan addresses Strengthening and Enhancing Teacher Preparation Programs (pages 65-67).

Continued Expansion of the ARI

In 1998, the ARI introduced a new model and a new standard for professional development in Alabama. This initiative, described in detail in other sections of this proposal, is essentially a teacher-development initiative. With the exception of approximately $700,000 that supports five professional and three clerical positions and their offices, travel, and equipment, the entire FY02 allocation of $11,300,000 is devoted to professional development activities such as ongoing development and revision of training modules, and ongoing development of a pool of certified professional development providers, salaries for LEA and regional inservice center reading coaches, and LEA grants for initial and ongoing professional development in its 424 schools. The ARI is a powerful model for professional development because it has produced results, and it is based on SBRR (Center for Educational Accountability, 2000; Center for Educational Accountability, 2001; and Moscovitch, 2002). The characteristics of the professional development model meet many of the tenets of quality professional development as described by the National Staff Development Council (2001) in that it: Prompts faculties to organize into learning communities (e.g., requiring schoolwide

participation in some professional development activities, including the initial 10-day institute and encourages job-embedded follow-up activities during the school year)

Encourages skillful school and district leaders to guide instruction (e.g., requiring principals and LEA leaders to participate in the initial 10-day professional development and to regularly monitor progress during implementation)

Requires multiple sources of student data to monitor progress, determine learning priorities, sustain continuous improvement, guide instruction, drive decision making, and demonstrate impact (e.g., using outcome measures in each of its yearly evaluations and ongoing progress-monitoring data to prompt classrooms and school decisions)

Requires 10 days of intensive initial development Provides $1,800 per school annually for school-based ongoing professional development Offer “recertification” and “retooling” workshops following initial training Funds a reading coach for each LEA and encourages schools to utilize local and federal

funds for reading coaches in every school Emphasizes schoolwide collaboration (e.g., in faculty meetings during the initial institute, in

self-studies that preceded “retooling” and “recertification” workshops, in frequent grade-level meetings, in regional networking meeting)

Holds high expectations for student achievement (e.g., continuous monitoring of school progress toward the goal of all students reading on grade level)

Deepens educators’ content knowledge (e.g., scientifically based instruction on essential reading components and assessments and proven practices such as small group instruction, progress monitoring, protected time for reading instruction).

Still, relatively few K-3 teachers in Alabama have access to professional development that meets high standards, is developed from SBRR, and will make a difference in how teachers teach and students learn. Only 329 of Alabama’s 943 elementary schools have participated in the ARI. The ARI, which serves K-12, will continue to be offered as in the past but fortified and adjusted

Version: 6/02 63

to meet the gaps identified on page 4-6 of this proposal and to meet the recommendations as outlined in three outside evaluations described on page 5 of this proposal.

Training For All K-3 General and Special Education Teachers

Alabama’s Reading First Initiative (ARFI) will provide funds to train all kindergarten classroom teachers and special education teachers on critical components of reading instruction related to SBRR in Year 1 through professional development trainers at the 11 regional inservice centers. These trainers have been training teachers in participating schools for the ARI and are familiar with the critical elements of reading instruction. For every year funded, teachers from grades K-3 will be trained respectively in the consecutive years. For example, all Kindergarten general and special education teachers will be trained in 2003 and all first grade general and special education teachers will be trained in 2004.

This professional development will utilize the Teacher Reading Academies, developed by the Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts. Specifically, the professional development academies provide in depth training on scientifically based components that include explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Furthermore, the training stresses the importance of monitoring student progress to inform instruction, using a variety of grouping formats to address learning outcomes, and providing interventions for struggling readers. The initial professional development academies, provided by three State trainers to 66 master trainers from the 11 regional inservice centers (six trainers from each region), will occur over five consecutive days. After training, the 66 trainers will go back to their regions and provide the training for classroom teachers over five consecutive days. Pages 89-92 provide a comprehensive timeline of all of the activities related to ARFI in funding Year 1.

Statewide Training on the DIBELS

All K-3 teachers that have not already received training on the DIBELS during the summer of 2002 will be provided statewide professional development on this screening, diagnostic, and classroom assessment. The DIBELS can provide ongoing progress monitoring of students and can guide classroom instruction and effective intervention that is responsive to the data provided through DIBELS. ARFI funds will be devoted to developing a pool of certified trainers and to developing the capacity to take this training statewide to K-3 teachers by the summer of 2003.

A Unified Approach to Reading Instruction

The greatest challenge regarding statewide professional development in the area of reading is to promote coordination among and strengthen the message of all programs in the SEA that promote effective reading instruction. The thrust of all SEA reading-related activity must be to infuse the principles of SBRR into all activities, to leverage funds from state and federal sources, and to avoid duplication of these programs and ARFI efforts. To accomplish this, the SEA has already made four decisions: The State Reading Leadership Team has members from all programs that impact literacy:

the ARI, the Special Education Services, the Federal Programs Section, the Classroom Improvement Section, the Teacher Education Section, and the Student Assessment Program.

Version: 6/02 64

The Deputy State Superintendent appointed a Department Management Team, composed of representatives from all programs named in the previous bullet except the Teacher Education Section. This team attended the Secretary’s Leadership Academy in Washington, D.C. and has written the ARFI proposal.

The Department Management Team is committed to a vision that will develop one coordinated, coherent, early reading focus.

Lastly, the Department Management Team, in conjunction with the Deputy State Superintendent of Education who supervises all instructional programs in the State Department of Education, has agreed to conduct a “Mega” Conference during the summer of 2003. This conference will demonstrate Alabama’s commitment to 100 percent literacy by focusing totally on scientifically based reading instruction and strategies. Members of the Department Management Team will plan the conference jointly and model the kind of coordinated, coherent leadership needed to bring SBRR to all statewide reading activities. If ARFI activities occur a this conference (e.g., training for DIBELS), ARFI funds will be utilized. The SEA will supplement ARFI funds as needed to accomplish other purposes (e.g, training on the BRM). The “Mega” conference will have as its theme something like “Guaranteeing Success by Putting Reading First.” The “Mega” Conference will be a four- to five-day conference and will include sessions related to all aspects of the ARFI programs such as:

Grade-level specific preparation in the five essential components of reading Grade-level specific instruction on scientifically-based instructional strategies,

programs, and materials, including a report on the procedures used to identify the short list of comprehensive, intervention, and supplemental programs approved for use in ARFI schools

Testimonials from schools in Alabama and in the nation that have successfully used scientifically based reading programs and practices to substantially increase the reading achievement of their students

Opportunities for training on the DIBELS assessment and any other assessments approved for use in ARFI schools

Opportunities for training on the BRM Leadership development sessions for principals, central office leaders, and reading

coaches related to their roles in substantially improving reading achievement in their schools

All of these sessions will be conducted by individuals highly knowledgeable about SBRR.

Version: 6/02 65

Strengthening and Enhancing Teacher Preparation Programs

Building the human resources and infrastructure for substantially improved reading achievement requires also that the ARFI strengthen teacher preparation in SBRR practices at the public institutions of higher education. Several actions have been taken and will continute to be taken to accomplish these goals.

Past Involvement of Faculty from Teacher Preparation Programs

The Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) has a five-year history of collaboration with Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) to significantly improve reading achievement in our state. Examples of past involvement of IHEs in Alabama's efforts to increase the use of scientifically based reading research (SBRR) in classrooms include: Participating in the development of the founding documents of the ARI, The Report on the

Review of the Research and Knowledge and Skills Teachers Need to Deliver Effective Reading Instruction found in Appendix A and B, respectively;

Serving as mentors to the initial 16 (Cohort 1) and to the 65 Cohort 2 ARI schools; Attending a weeklong Higher Education seminar (paid for by BellSouth) that focused on

Preventing Reading Difficulty in Young Children and its application to the ARI training modules; and

Assisting in the revision of the teacher education standards in 1999 to bring them more in line with SBRR.

Additionally, the ARI has a three-year history of collaboration with the Alabama Commission on Higher Education’s Eisenhower Program to leverage efforts that promote SBRR in Alabama’s public schools and in the colleges of education. In the first two years of implementing the ARI, the Commission’s Eisenhower funds were used to: evaluate the success of the ARI in increasing student achievement; assess the impact of higher education support of the first ARI schools; and judge the impact on pre-service and graduate standards and syllabi in teacher education programs where faculty members had served as mentors to participating ARI schools.

More recently, during the 2001-2002 school year, the Commission’s Eisenhower program funded the creation of the Alabama Reading Initiative Collaborative (the Collaborative). The Collaborative is guided by the same overall purpose that provides direction to the ARI: to ensure that every student in an Alabama public school becomes a competent reader and writer. The Collaborative is addressing this goal through a pilot program that pairs literacy professors from IHEs in Alabama and experienced, practicing reading specialists for the purpose of providing sustained, substantial, advanced professional development to less experienced reading specialists. This professional development has caused a shift in teacher practice in the classroom and, we believe, will result in increased student performance in reading in the spring 2002 administration of the Stanford.

The success of the Collaborative has been tremendous. It has been described as a win, win situation. The 250 current reading specialists who received approximately 50 hours of professional development during 2001-2002 school year describe the meetings by using terms such as “life saving,” “practical,” and “the best ever.” Moreover, reading coaches received graduate credit toward Class A certification in reading if they were enrolled in one of the seven universities approved to offer this credential. The recognized value of the Collaborative has already resulted in additional outside funding for the ARI. The State Department of Education

Version: 6/02 66

received another grant from the Commission’s Eisenhower program to offer classroom teachers the advanced professional development in reading provided to reading specialists during the 2001-2002 school year. This grant will begin in the summer of 2002 and continue into the 2002-2003 school year.

Strengthening and Enhancing Made Possible through Reading First Funds

This history of collaboration between the Alabama Department of Education and IHEs in the pursuit of achieving proficient reading for all of Alabama's public school students is important in establishing Alabama's rationale for strengthening and enhancing pre-service education. In summary, since a collaborative relationship already exists, Alabama's plan consists of those actions that will update faculty members’ knowledge of SBRR. Additionally, Alabama's plan includes a mechanism for reviewing course syllabi through the ongoing review cycle of teacher education programs conducted by the SEA. The specific activities for strengthening are listed below.

1. The major strategy for strengthening teacher preparation programs will be to update the Knowledge and Skills Teachers Need to Deliver Effective Reading Instruction. This document is referenced by name in the standards for pre-service teacher education programs, but it has not been updated since its original publication in 1998. Topics to be emphasized in the revision include the following: The essential components of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,

vocabulary development, and comprehension. Features of reading instruction based on SBRR to include small group instruction,

effective intervention, and ongoing monitoring of student progress. Outcome, screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments that are aligned

with the essential components of reading instruction.During the revision process, we will consult "A Blueprint for Professional Development

for Teachers of Reading: Knowledge, Skills, and Learning Activities," a document modified and adapted by Louisa Moats from the Learning First Alliance's, Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide (2001). This document was included in the Secretary's Reading Leadership Academy Notebook, 2002. Dr. Moats has expressed interest in working with Alabama on this project. Additionally, Dr. Sharon Vaughn has agreed to provide Alabama with four days of consulting during the 2002-2003 school year. It is anticipated that Dr. Vaughn will be involved in updating the teacher education standards through revision of its foundational document, Knowledge and Skills Teachers Need to Deliver Effective Reading Instruction.

The committee appointed to update the Knowledge and Skills Teachers Need to Deliver Effective Reading Instruction will consist of nationally-recognized experts in SBRR, state representatives of teacher education programs, practicing classroom teachers, reading specialists who are certified trainers for the ARI, and Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Director of ARFI.

As part of the ongoing SEA monitoring of teacher education programs, course syllabi are reviewed. This monitoring mechanism will assess the degree to which SBRR standards are appropriately and sufficiently addressed in course content in pre-service teacher education programs. Programs are not approved by the State Board of Education until compliance with all standards has been documented.

Version: 6/02 67

2. Faculty members from teacher education responsible for teaching reading courses will be involved in all aspects of Reading First, including the following: The revision of the state standards for reading The revision of the Knowledge and Skills Teachers Need to Deliver Effective Reading

Instruction The development of the short list of approved comprehensive reading programs that are

based on SBRR3. Faculty members responsible for reading courses in preservice programs will be invited to

participate in all statewide professional development activities associated with Reading First. This includes training on the DIBELS and the statewide training to be offered to general and special education teachers in kindergarten, first, second, and third grade, where the Teacher Reading Academies material will be used.

4. Since Alabama has allocated all Reading First funds available for statewide professional development to general and special education teachers in grades K-3, we will seek additional funding from partners such as the Alabama Commission on Higher Education and corporate partners, like BellSouth, to offer faculty in IHEs professional development on improving reading instruction and strengthening the alignment between teacher preparation and classroom instruction. Funds of this nature may be used also for the types of intense collaboration described on pages 65 and 66 that are so powerful for influencing not only preservice curriculum but also the quality of instruction that is provided in preservice reading courses.

5. As Director of ARFI, Dr. Katherine Mitchell will communicate directly with Deans of the teacher preparation programs to keep them informed about all ARFI activities, particularly as those that impact the IHEs. The first of these meetings will occur at the first quarterly Deans' Meeting that occurs after we are successful in receiving Reading First funding.

I G. Integration of Proposed Reading First Activities with REA Activities

Alabama’s Reading Excellence Program (REA) is in its third and final year of implementation. For this reason, schools funded by REA will be among the first schools to be integrated into Alabama’s unified approach to having all students read on grade level by the end of Grade 3. Alabama’s rigorous analysis of REA activities to date is contained in an earlier section of this proposal (pages 8-9). To summarize, 51 of the 67 schools funded through the REA are among the 424 Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) schools. As such, these 51 REA schools are and will continue to be part of the ongoing funding and professional development provided through the ARI. In many cases, REA schools receive preferential treatment from the ARI. For example, the summer of 2002 is dedicated to “recertifying” Cohort 1 ARI schools and “retooling” selected ARI schools that are not making noticeable gains. In the case of the 51 REA schools included among the ARI schools, each was invited to participate in the week-long “retooling” professional development activities to be offered during the summer of 2002, because of their REA status and because the SEA understands that those schools face the greatest challenges to achieving proficient reading for all of their students. Forty of the 51 invited REA schools accepted this invitation. All expenses are to be paid through the ARI program.

Another example of the ongoing support that is being (and will continue to be) provided REA schools through the ARI is that they are all among the Cohort 3 group of ARI schools. As such, they will become eligible for “recertification” in the summer of 2004. This is another

Version: 6/02 68

week-long professional development requirement for ARI schools that allows schools to design a program of study, paid for by ARI funds, that concentrates on SBRR but that specifically addresses individual school needs. Because the ARI provides the vehicle for ongoing funding, technical assistance, and professional development in Alabama, all schools that are currently funded through a variety of sources (e.g., BRM, ARFI) will, in time, be added to the Alabama Reading Initiative schools and benefit from the ongoing services. Hence, a high priority for the 2002-2003 school year is to persuade the remaining 17 REA schools that have not participated in the initial 10-day ARI training to do so.

All 17 LEAs that received REA funding are eligible for ARFI funding. Just as staff at the SEA benefited from lessons learned from implementing REA, it is believed that LEAs will do the same. That is, LEAs will dramatically improve their proposals, and, if funded , will significantly improve implementation of activities aimed at having all of their children read at grade level by the end of Grade 3. As recently as a month ago, a statewide conference for REA personnel updated their focus on SBRR by providing training for teachers, principals, and reading specialists on Put Reading First. On April 16, 2002, ARFI eligible LEAs (that include the 17 REA LEAs) attended a one-day overview of the DIBELS. This overview and a follow-up training day in July will provide REA schools an opportunity to administer the DIBELS during the 2002-2003 school year. Both training sessions and the administration of the DIBELS in 2002-2003 are funded through ARI and BRM sources and attest to Alabama’s resolve to provide continued support to REA schools. Moreover, the use of the DIBELS in 2002-2003 and implementation of a successful REA program will give LEAs a competitive edge in the Reading First proposal review process. (See item 11 in the rubric to be used to review ARFI proposals.)

Alabama received notice on April 9, 2002, that the USDOE had approved its request for a waiver for REA three-year limit, no-cost extension. The extension requested was largely to accommodate LEAs that did not need to disrupt personnel assignments during the 2001-2002 school year. In the next two months, the SEA will receive reports from REA schools, describing progress to date, expenditures to date, and plans for amending their budgets for the extended period. Receipt of these reports and subsequent site visits and phone conversations will allow the SEA staff to address with LEAs how they intend to continue, modify, update, and/or discontinue REA activities. The ARFI subgrant will require REA LEAs to describe these plans in detail. (See page 52 of the subgrant criteria contained in this proposal.)

Finally, Alabama is headed toward an integrated approach to all children reading on grade level by the end of grade three. All reading-related programs in the state (e.g., ARI, BRM, ARFI) will: Use a common assessment. Be based on a common vision of what constitutes scientifically based reading instruction. Receive high-quality, professional development in SBRR from highly trained professional

development providers. Be supported by regional inservice center reading coaches and a skillful state staff. Be monitored by state staff that is thoroughly familiar with the state’s integrated approach to

reading.

In summary, the REA schools (by virtue of their final year of implementation) will be the first reading-related program to lose its separate identity and to be integrated into Alabama’s unified program. Discontinuation of the REA program will occur by the end of the 2002-2003 school year. Support to these schools, however, will continue in one or more of three ways:1. They will receive on-going support because they are currently or will become ARI schools.

Version: 6/02 69

2. They will be funded as ARFI schools and consequently qualify for enhanced funding and support.

3. They will be part of the statewide training to be offered to all K-3 general and special education teachers in Alabama over the next four summers (2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006).

Our hope is that most REA schools will continue to be supported in their efforts to have all students be proficient readers by the end of Grade 3 by all three mechanisms described in this proposal and identified specifically in this paragraph.

II. STATE LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

The management plan for the Alabama Reading First Initiative (ARFI) is designed to make sure that the State Department of Education (SEA) has in place a staff of sufficient size, knowledge, and experience. This will help ARFI schools move forward and promote the use of scientifically based reading research (SBRR) across the state. Alabama’s experience with the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) and the Beginning Reading Model (BRM) makes clear that frequent, well-informed guidance from experts outside the school system is a key factor in improving reading achievement in schools. The management plan will put in place a network of trained staff to make sure this help is available, starting as LEAs apply for ARFI funding and continuing with frequent follow-up as selected schools receive and later implement their training in research-based reading instruction.

Through the ARI and the BRM, the SEA already has extensive experience working with local schools and school districts to promote SBRR. Based on this experience, the department has decided to make the area of reading instruction the centerpiece of its efforts to improve performance of Alabama students. Over the next few years, the department proposes to combine the resources provided through the currently separate reading efforts (i.e., ARFI, REA, ARI, and the BRM) into a single system of professional development and technical assistance for schools with students in grades K-3. Of course, the funding streams will be kept separate as required, but the message will be that Alabama has a single vision about how to improve reading instruction. The State Department of Education will not be promoting and implementing three or four separate, competing approaches to reading instruction. Rather, it will have a unified, coordinated approach, with appropriate modifications for the ARI (which includes elementary, middle, and high schools) and for the BRM and ARFI, which are geared to the primary grades.

II A. State Technical Assistance Plan

Through the ARI and the BRM, the Department has been working with local schools and school districts for several years to promote SBRR. When teachers are provided training on the five essential components of reading at the ARI summer institutes, most teachers know some of what is presented; however, few have the whole picture. Based on experiences with both the ARI and BRM, substantial initial training is a necessary condition for program success, but it is far from a sufficient condition. Teachers tell us that they come back from summer training excited about the possibility for improvement but overwhelmed by the magnitude of it. Frequent visits from experts outside the school are critical to success (Moscovitch 2002).

Technical assistance is central to the success not only of ARFI, but to the entire statewide reading effort. State-sponsored professional development and state-sponsored technical

Version: 6/02 70

assistance work hand-in-glove to support teachers, reading coaches, principals, and LEA leaders who are learning to implement SBRR.

Proposal Preparation Workshops

The SEA regards the application process for ARFI funding as an opportunity to initiate technical assistance about research based reading instruction. The department will hold a series of three 2-day workshops for districts eligible for ARFI funding. These workshops will include an introduction to research-based reading instruction and its five essential components, a discussion of what is meant by a coherent instructional design, and the importance of frequent student assessment to successful reading instruction. At the end of the workshop, districts will understand that the ARFI staff and the Alabama Department of Education are serious about SBRR. These workshops will include senior district central office administrators, who, it is hoped, will apply what they learn not only to ARFI-eligible schools but also to all schools in their districts.

Selecting and Implementing Scientifically Based Reading Programs

The proposal preparation workshops will also include an overview of the comprehensive reading programs on the ARFI short list of approved programs. The most effective way to introduce teachers to research-based reading instruction is to embody this instruction in a specific set of curriculum materials. While outstanding teachers may be able to develop their own materials to present phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension, the chances of school-wide success are much greater when teachers are working from a comprehensive scientifically based program. We believe the SEA must provide leadership, not only in providing the foundation and publicizing a coherent view on what constitutes effective reading instruction, but also in recommending a limited number of comprehensive reading programs that embody this research. When ARFI-eligible LEAs finish the six days of proposal preparation workshops, they will have a basic understanding of the best techniques for teaching reading, and they will be able to select one of the approved comprehensive reading programs.

Additionally, by limiting the number of comprehensive programs approved for use in ARFI schools, the regional inservice center reading specialists will be able to become acquainted with the comprehensive reading programs used in their regions. Likewise, members of the ARFI State staff and support staff in the SEA will be trained in the best use of the comprehensive programs and will be able to provide technical assistance in the skillful implementation of each program.

Selecting Screening, Diagnostic, and Classroom-based Instructional Assessments

As part of the effort to pull together separate reading programs into an integrated whole, the Alabama State Department of Education has decided to use the DIBELS as the standard instrument both for student assessment and for reporting student progress. The department’s plans for the DIBELS are described in detail elsewhere in this proposal (pages 15-16). The important point here is that the DIBELS will be an integral part of the ARFI’s technical assistance program.

Technical assistance related to the DIBELS is already underway. The ARI office and the Special Education Services office invited all ARFI-eligible schools to an orientation to the

Version: 6/02 71

DIBELS on April 16, 2002, conducted by Drs. Ed Kame’enui and Deborah Simmons. It is believed that this orientation will result in ARFI-eligible LEAs using the DIBELS during the 2002-2003 school year. There is no technical assistance that is more effective than supervised first-hand implementation of a new activity. Implementation during the 2002-2003 school year, with technical assistance from the regional inservice center reading specialists and State staff from the ARFI office, ARI office, and BRM office, will give ARFI-eligible schools a head-start in using screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based instructional assessments.

In July 2002, DIBELS training will be offered to all schools participating in the ARI. As mentioned earlier in this proposal, the SEA anticipates that participation of approximately 400 schools in DIBELS assessment during the 2002-2003 school year will pave the way for statewide administration of the DIBELS during the 2003-2004 school year.

Expert use of information from the DIBELS will not occur with only one day of training. Consequently, the Department Management Team has outlined a plan to provide follow-up technical assistance to schools beginning to use the DIBELS in September, following the first administration and in January following the mid-year assessment. Another follow-up meeting concerning standardization of the DIBELS administration will occur in August 2002. This cycle of ongoing consultation will occur during the 2002-2003 school year, as well as in the 2003-2004 school year, when DIBELS becomes a requirement for ARFI schools, and hopefully, for all schools in Alabama that have grades K-3.

The SEA plans to use modern computer technology to link DIBELS results to school principals, LEA central offices, and the ARFI staff. As individual teachers complete testing for their classes, their results can be integrated into a school-wide database, helping the principal and reading specialist find areas that need special attention. These may be individual teachers who are having difficulty, or they may be particular areas of reading instruction that are lagging behind.

Electronic linkage of individual school results with the district central offices and the ARFI staff will serve two important purposes. It will facilitate reliable, high-speed reporting of ARFI progress (and difficulties) to the State staff. The ARFI staff will review data with regional inservice center reading specialists and identify not only the schools that are most in need of extra help, but also the particular areas where their students are farthest behind. Since schools will be reporting three times a year to the ARFI staff, and doing so with essentially no reporting delay, the ARFI staff will be able to identify lagging schools early in the process and provide extra technical assistance where it is needed. With this targeted help we expect to minimize the failure rate amongst ARFI schools.

Initial Training for all ARFI Schools

Grants to the successful local districts will be made in January 2003. The ARFI staff plans to use the spring months to provide technical assistance to the successful ARFI applicants in two important areas: The principals and district reading coordinators will have an orientation to their important

roles in choosing a comprehensive reading program and for arranging the initial 3-5 days of training on that program during the summer of 2003.

The school reading coaches will be trained on their important leadership roles in the ARFI schools.

Providing Ongoing Technical Assistance for ARFI Schools

Version: 6/02 72

The kind of change we are looking for in ARFI schools does not come easily. As we have learned from the ARI, the two-week summer training institute is a powerful first-step, but it is by no means sufficient to guarantee success. ARI teachers and principals tell us that ongoing support when they complete their initial 10-day training is a critical element in long-term success. Accordingly, Alabama has built extensive follow-up support into the ARFI program.

The ongoing support will be delivered on four levels. First, we will require (and fund) a highly-trained, full-time reading coach in each ARFI school. This coach will be the first line of technical assistance – an always-present, readily available source of help. The second level of support will come from principals and central office leadership who will lead their faculties and LEAs respectively. Third, highly trained ARFI staff members (called regional inservice center reading coaches) will be stationed in the regional inservice centers around the state in which ARFI schools are located. These regional support people will be available for bi-monthly visits to ARFI schools. The fourth level of assistance will come from the SEA staff in Montgomery, which will be available to work with districts needing special help.

We discuss each of these technical assistance providers in turn:

In-School Reading Coach

Alabama’s experience with the Alabama Reading Initiative suggests that having a full-time reading coach in every school is a critical factor in producing reading gains. The most recent evaluation of the ARI observed that the program’s greatest gains came in the year when state funds were available to assure that each participating school had a reading coach and recommended that funding reading coaches for each ARI school be a top priority even if this meant postponing expansion of the popular program to additional schools.

ARFI will use its grants to local districts to assure that every ARFI school has a coach whose full-time job is to improve reading instruction in the school. These reading coaches will not have direct classroom duties nor will they be burdened with administrative responsibilities outside the reading program. Their duties will include:

Working with other teachers to improve their reading instruction, including modeling lessons and devising strategies for hard-to-reach students.

Helping to administer the DIBELS assessments required of ARFI schools as well as other diagnostic tools used to help track student progress and identify individual student needs.

Helping teachers analyze assessment results and use these results to devise teaching strategies to make sure that no child is left behind.

Working with small groups of students that need highly-skilled, in-depth intervention.

Offering on-going professional development through grade level meetings, coaching services and in-service workshops.

Teachers and reading coaches interviewed as part of the third evaluation of the ARI emphasized the importance of having skilled reading coaches as part of the faculty team in each school, available formally and informally to work with teachers, to keep them abreast of the latest techniques, and to be there for them when they have trouble moving a student forward.

Version: 6/02 73

Although these reading coaches will be employees of participating school districts, they will be a key part of the ARFI’s technical assistance strategy. To make sure they are skilled, ARFI will provide initial training for reading coaches. This training will occur in the spring of 2003 and will include in-depth coverage of the basic elements of SBRR, extensive training in the DIBELS and other assessment vehicles, hands-on instruction techniques to meet a variety of individual student needs, in-depth training in intervention strategies, and visits to successful ARI schools. By the time their schools attend initial training later that summer, these reading coaches will have established peer networks in their region and across the state.

The emphasis on networking will continue in the fall. The regional inservice centers will hold monthly meetings for reading coaches, not only from ARFI schools, but also those working in ARI schools. These meetings will include instruction in the latest techniques and research, as well as ample opportunity for sharing across schools.

Principals and LEA Reading Coordinators

The leadership of a good principal is perhaps the single most important factor in turning schools around. Countless studies have affirmed this. (Center for Educational Accountability, 2000; Center for Educational Accountability, 2001; Moscovitch, 2002). Yet it is easy to forget that this rule applies in the area of reading as well. For this reason, principals at ARFI schools will participate in a major training program early in 2003, shortly after their schools and districts are selected to participate. These programs will also include the central office reading coordinator that each participating district will assign to the program. Attendance at these sessions will be a pre-condition for funding.

The principals’ training will begin with a grounding in the essential elements of research-based reading instruction and include the use of assessment in driving student-oriented educational improvement. The sessions will also focus on leadership skills and the hands-on techniques successful principals use to move their faculties forward. Sadly, many principals have never learned how to inspire or motivate their faculties, or how to deal with a recalcitrant teacher who doesn’t want to change.

The best instruction is peer instruction; as much as possible these sessions will be led by principals from the most successful BRM and ARI schools. The ARI is in the process of establishing “gold-star schools” – outstanding schools given funding for an extra reading coach and/or assistant principal so the school can serve as training sites for principals. As this program is successfully implemented, the ARFI training sessions will include visits to these schools, so the trainee-principals can see examples of success and can discuss together the lessons to be learned.

By the nature of their work, principals are often isolated; the ARFI principal-training program will be designed so that participating principals come away with a peer support network. Down the road, the ability to call one another, ask questions via e-mail, or visit will help principals get by the rough spots.

Participation of central office staff is also important to this program. We’ve seen frequent instances of ARI schools getting off to a good start, only to see progress bog down when the central office sets other priorities or to stop altogether if a supportive principal is replaced by one who has another agenda.

The LEA reading coordinator will be required to participate in all initial training of the ARFI faculty. Moreover, the ARFI reading coordinator will be required to participate in two additional monthly training sessions for ARFI reading coaches and district leadership. One of those sessions will be held for ARFI reading coaches, principals, and reading coordinators only. The

Version: 6/02 74

other training session will be held jointly with other reading coaches from ARI schools in the region. This monthly joint meeting will be another indication that Alabama endorses one unified, coordinated approach to reading instruction, not a series of separate programs. These sessions will be conducted by regional inservice center reading coaches and other SBRR experts as needed.

Regional Inservice Center Reading Coaches

Turning schools around is not easy work. Even the most dedicated faculties and LEA personnel may run out of steam when the going gets tough or may be too close to a problem to see a way out. We’ve learned that some faculties may know in the abstract what they should be doing but not know how actually to get it done. Finally, in any undertaking this ambitious, it’s always helpful to have an outside perspective on what might be missing or what might be done better.

Alabama already has a network of reading coaches, hired by the ARI and located across the state in the 11 regional inservice centers. This network is currently inadequate, consisting of 11 coaches to cover 424 schools. We propose to coordinate the support networks for the ARI schools and the ARFI schools. While particular coaches may work with schools in one particular program, we want to assure a common reliance on scientifically based reading research and to build a common base of knowledge and experience to guide the successful teaching of reading.

We will use ARFI funds to hire nine additional regional inservice center reading coaches in the 2002-2003 school year. These new regional reading coaches will be housed in the regions that have ARFI-eligible LEAs. In 2002-2003, the regional reading coaches will get acquainted with Reading First legislation, assist LEAs in writing proposals, and undergo all training with ARFI-eligible schools. This number of regional inservice center reading coaches will be increased and/or reassigned as needed in 2003-2004 when ARFI schools begin their implementation. This will make it possible for schools to receive visits twice a month from the regional reading coaches beginning in the fall of 2003. As the year progresses, they may cut back visits to some schools and spend one day a week or more in struggling schools.

In addition to visiting schools, the regional inservice center coaches will be responsible for organizing monthly meetings of ARFI reading coaches and LEA reading coordinators in their areas and for promoting as much exchange and sharing across participating schools as possible, including the encouragement of regular visits from one faculty to another. Moreover, the ARFI regional reading coaches will help plan another monthly meeting that will target ongoing development of both the ARFI and ARI reading coaches.

As with the in-school reading coach, training the regional inservice center reading coaches is a key ARFI responsibility. Although we will hire new regional reading coaches from among the most successful ARI reading coaches, preparing these experts to be successful at the regional level will require ongoing development and additional training.

Accordingly, ARFI funds will be used to support the regional meetings of ARFI reading coaches, principals, and district reading coordinators. Specifically, ARFI funds will support the fees and travel expenses of expert professional development providers who (in addition to the regional inservice center reading coach) may be needed during the 2002-2003 school year. ARFI funds will also be used to support and develop the ongoing training of reading coaches, LEA reading coordinators, and principals from July 2002 to September 2003.

State Reading Staff

Version: 6/02 75

It happens that some schools get stalled despite the best efforts of the regional inservice center reading coaches. In these instances, we propose to bring in the top ARFI, ARI and BRM staff from Montgomery. To get the ARFI off to a running start, the SEA will assign current state staff experienced in the BRM and the ARI to administer ARFI. To make sure that the central staff has the capacity to intervene where needed and to organize the extensive training programs needed to staff our technical assistance network, we plan to pay these newly transferred staff with ARFI funds so we can use existing state funding to hire replacements to maintain full strength in our reading administration and leadership.

Providing Certified Professional Development Providers

Finally, the ARI has developed a network of skilled instructors and reading consultants, including a program offering specific certification in the essential components of reading instruction. Alabama will continue to expand this network of certified professional development providers and will put ARFI schools in touch with the skilled consulting help they may need.

When the ARI was established five years ago we realized that Alabama did not have a large corps of teachers familiar with the theory and practice of research-based reading instruction (this problem is not unique to our state). In the long run, the solution to this problem is to work with the schools of education to make sure that their curriculums include extensive SBRR training. But Alabama cannot afford to wait until the schools of education make the necessary adjustments to their curriculums and until they start producing better trained teachers and reading specialists. (It would be about 30 years before all current teachers would be replaced.) Recognizing this, the ARI built its own systematic program to train hundreds of teachers in the essential components of scientifically based reading instruction. Topics for which expert professional development providers exist include phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, comprehension strategies, fluency instruction, oral language development, informal assessment, and effective interventions for struggling readers. Throughout the year, training sessions are held to certify teachers to instruct in these areas. Teachers certified in this way form the backbone of the teaching staff at the ARI summer institutes and become good candidates for school-based and regional inservice center reading coaches.

Monitoring the Progress of ARFI LEAs and Schools

Throughout this description on the State Technical Assistance Plan, we have described how we will monitor the progress of ARFI LEAs and schools. Through bi-monthly contact with the school reading coaches and district leadership and through bi-monthly visits to all ARFI schools, the State staff will have first-hand observation of implementation of SBRR in ARFI schools.

In addition, the use of frequent assessments of student progress, to identify individual student strengths and weaknesses, and to help teachers develop specific strategies for each child will be a central tenet of the ARFI. This principle works not just for teachers and their students, but also for the State staff and its participating schools.

The same DIBELS assessments that keep teachers attuned to their students’ needs will keep the regional inservice center reading coaches and State ARFI staff attuned to the needs of ARFI schools. Through electronic networking, the RIC coaches and the ARFI central staff in Montgomery will be kept up-to-date on individual student results. This information system will be a key part of ongoing monitoring of the progress in ARFI schools.

Finally, monitoring the progress of ARFI LEAs, and schools calls for a program-monitoring component. Federally funded programs such as Reading First must be monitored to make sure

Version: 6/02 76

that they meet federal requirements. This is the function of the Department’s Office of Federal Programs. Inevitably, there is a tendency (not just in Alabama but across the country) for this program monitoring to concentrate on the mundane details at the expense of the broader picture. As part of Alabama’s integrated reading approach, we plan to have the program monitoring staff attend the summer training institutes and become familiar with SBRR, with Reading First, and with our state vision for improved reading instruction. We believe this will allow our program monitoring staff to provide important feedback to the ARFI staff and Department Management Team.

The State Department of Education understands that we cannot expect to turn schools around instantly. Even the best schools need to move one step at a time. Accordingly, ARFI is planning a long-term technical assistance program. We envision working closely with participating schools for at least a three year period. At the midpoint of the evaluation, adjustments will be made, including awarding benefits to high performing schools and adjusting technical assistance and/or discontinuation of funding for non-performing, low-implementing schools.

These important technical assistance functions are included in the Timeline provided at the end of the Leadership and Management Section on pages 89-92.

II B. Building Statewide Infrastructure

Building a Statewide Commitment to Improving K-3 Reading Achievement

Alabama is committed to building upon the strong reading base we have established with the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) and the Beginning Reading Model (BRM) and to use the opportunity provided by Reading First to build a statewide commitment to improving K-3 reading instruction and raising K-3 reading achievement. The Alabama Department of Education (SEA) has already taken several steps to accomplish this.

ARFI Department Management Team

We have organized an ARFI Department Management Team that includes the Director of Special Education, the Coodinator of Federal Programs, and the Director of Classroom Improvement. The Department Management Team is chaired by the Director of the ARI (to be named Alabama’s Chief Reading Scientist), who has 34 years of experience in the field of reading. These four leaders oversee all of the department’s programs that touch on reading. The BRM is run and funded by the Office of Special Education; the Office of Classroom Improvement prepares the state frameworks (including those in reading), runs the statewide testing program (currently using the Stanford 9), and maintains a staff that includes some with expertise in reading. The Federal Programs office oversees use of federal funds. A significant portion of the Federal funds supports local reading efforts.

The ARFI Department Management Team is in existence and has begun its discussions on a common approach to reading improvement. The first fruit of these discussions is the agreement to use the DIBELS, currently used only by the BRM, as the common assessment instrument for the family of integrated reading programs. As the reading improvement effort goes statewide, the department will use the DIBELS as a standard assessment vehicle for K-3 reading all across Alabama.

Version: 6/02 77

The Department Management Team met periodically with the Deputy Superintendent of Education for Instruction, Dr. Joe Morton, to coordinate the development of this proposal and to assure that the ARFI proposal and resulting unified reading approach has support from the top. After the ARFI is approved for funding, the Department Management Team will continue to meet bi-monthly and to meet with Dr. Morton on a monthly basis to monitor implementation activities, to plan jointly, and to make sure that any disputes are resolved in a timely fashion.

The ARFI Department Management Team is in the process of unifying the reading efforts currently scattered throughout the State Department of Education in the ARI, the BRM, the REA program, the Title 1 program, the state standards, and the school assessment and improvement program. As in most states, the Alabama State Department of Education developed a series of separate reading programs over the years. While their content is broadly similar, they are nonetheless often seen in the field as competing initiatives. As a first step toward improving reading instruction across the state, the department is in the process of creating a common, department-wide approach to reading instruction. While the funding streams and eligibility for these programs remain distinct, the department will run them as coordinated, complementary initiatives, united by this common vision and by a shared dedication to SBRR.

To this end, we will name Dr. Katherine Mitchell as Director of ARFI and our Chief Reading Scientist. As Chief Reading Scientist, she will have a major say in everything the State Department of Education does in the area of reading, including revision of the state reading standards, the state assessment programs in reading, the reading professional development programs, and the recommended comprehensive reading programs and other reading-related instructional materials.

Figure B on the following page provides an overview of the SEA leadership that will be dedicated to ARFI and to achieving a unified approach to achieving our goal of all children reading proficiently by the end of Grade 3.

Version: 6/02 78

Chief Reading Scientist

Figure B:

ARFI Management Team

Version: 6/02

StateSuperintendent

Deputy StateSuperintendent

Federal Programs

Classroom Improvement

Special Education Services

Alabama Reading Initiative

State Department Management Team

Support StaffAs Needed

Support StaffAs Needed

ARFI Staff ½ ARFI Director 1 Full-time Staff Member ½ time Staff Member

State Leadership Team (29 members)

Governor

Support StaffAs Needed

79

SEA Leadership Dedicated to ARFI

With this organization chart in mind and with an introduction to the ARFI Department Management Team, we can describe the SEA leadership that will be dedicated to ARFI.

ARFI Director

The director of ARFI will be Dr. Katherine Mitchell. She will be assigned half-time to ARFI and half-time to the Alabama Reading Initiative, which she will also continue to direct. Dr. Mitchell has a national reputation in the field of reading and, specifically, in developing state initiatives to improve reading instruction. In addition, Dr. Mitchell will continue to chair the ARFI Management Team and serve as Alabama’s Chief Reading Scientist. In these capacities, she will make sure that all of the department’s reading activities – including the State standards in reading, the State reading assessments, the State help to faltering schools, the Special Education office’s initiatives to reduce reading-based referrals for special education, the ARI, ARFI, and the state’s Title 1 programs - fit together in a coordinated, cohesive whole.

Dr. Mitchell is a 23-year veteran of the State Department of Education, an expert in reading pedagogy and the scientifically based research that forms the foundation of ARFI. Prior to envisioning, planning for, finding funding for, and building capacity for the Alabama Reading Initiative, she was Administrator for Classroom Improvement and Administrator for the State’s Student Assessment Program. Dr. Mitchell’s major responsibilities will be:

1. Ensuring that all aspects of ARFI fit into a cohesive plan.2. Facilitating adequate communication flow within the SEA, between the Department

Management Team, the State Reading Leadership Team, and among these persons and the LEAs.

3. Guaranteeing that all project activities dovetail to make a coherent whole.4. Facilitating ARFI activities that cut across different sections in the SEA.5. Facilitating meeting of the State Reading Leadership Team and the Department

Management Team.6. Approving all expenditures and monitoring adherence to the budget.7. Overseeing the evaluation activities associated with Reading First.8. Working with the Project Manager to affect quality control and address any problems or

issues.9. Hiring and supervising the regional inservice center reading coaches who will work

directly with the ARFI LEAs and schools.10. Brokering technical assistance to ARFI LEAs and schools from Federal Programs,

Special Education Services, Classroom Improvement, and the regional inservice center reading coaches.

ARFI Project Manager

A senior member of the current ARI staff, Ms. Judith Stone, will be assigned as the full-time, day-to-day manager of ARFI. In corporate terms, this person will be the Chief Operating Officer while Dr. Mitchell is the Chief Executive Officer. Prior to joining the SEA, Ms. Stone was the Reading Specialist at Montevallo Elementary School. Under her leadership, Montevallo Elementary made impressive gains toward 100% literacy and was named a Title I Distinguished School. Ms. Stone is a former Reading Recovery teacher and a certified professional development provider for the Alabama Reading Initiative in the areas of Phonemic Awareness

Version: 6/02 80

and Phonics Instruction, Informal Assessment, Comprehension Strategies, and Effective Intervention. As project manager for ARFI, Ms. Stone’s major responsibilities include:1. Overseeing all project activities.2. Managing the design and development of all ARFI correspondence and products.3. Ensuring that the professional development activities related to reading instruction provided

through the ARFI staff, the ARFI regional inservice center reading coaches, and other service providers is based on SBRR.

4. Ensuring that the three proposal preparation workshops will build LEA capacity to write a proposal for and implement successfully an ARFI program consistent with the goals and parameters of Reading First.

5. Ensuring that all activities associated with ARFI prepare teachers in all the essential components of reading instruction.

6. Guaranteeing immediate ARFI response in case of problems, unexpected demands, or emergencies.

7. Ensuring compliance to project schedules and quality assurance standards.8. Overseeing logistics for meetings and workshops and facilitating those meetings with LEAs.9. Assessing on a regular basis LEA activities to determine whether they have been effective in

achieving the purposes of Reading First.10. Ensuring that subgrants made by the SEA meet the requirements of Reading First.

ARFI Staff

In addition, another senior member of the ARI staff, Ms. Cassandra Wheeler will be assigned half-time to ARFI. Prior to joining the SEA two years ago, Ms. Wheeler was the reading specialist at Morningview Elementary School, one of the original 16 ARI schools. Ms. Wheeler was a first grade teacher prior to assuming the responsibility of reading specialist and is a certified trainer for the ARI in the areas of Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Instruction, Informal Assessment, Effective Intervention, and the Conceptual Framework. Ms. Wheeler’s responsibilities will be to assist the project manager in accomplishing all of the responsibilities assigned to her.

By assigning senior staff currently in place at the closely related ARI, we will assure that ARFI gets off to a solid start, with no danger of losing a couple of months while new leadership is trained. It is clearly our intention that the two programs, while nominally separate, will be operated in close conjunction one with the other.

Résumés of the ARFI staff are located in Appendix E.

Regional Inservice Center Reading Coach

As we emphasized in the State Technical Assistance section (pages 69-76), providing frequent and informed outside assistance to participating schools is critical to program success. The ARI currently has 11 regional inservice center reading coaches, located in the 11 regional inservice centers housed at universities across the state. ARFI will hire nine additional reading coaches, which will allow us to assign no more than four or five ARFI-eligible LEAs to a regional reading coach dedicated to assisting them in preparing their ARFI proposals and preparing for implementing SBRR. In June 2003 after AFRI schools are selected, regional reading coaches will be dismissed, hired, and/or reassigned to achieve a ratio of no more than eight ARFI schools to each regional inservice center reading coach. Because they will be federally funded, the ARFI regional coaches will be nominally separate from the ARI reading

Version: 6/02 81

coaches and will concentrate on ARFI schools. From an operational standpoint, however, the regional inservice center reading coaches (whether ARFI or ARI) will be unified in their promotion of SBRR and will operate under the supervision of Dr. Mitchell.

It makes sense to have the ARI and ARFI regional reading coaches learn from each other, hold at least some of their monthly meetings for school-based reading coaches in common, and encourage the broadest possible communication between participating schools in both programs.

Establishing a State Reading Leadership Team

The Governor and the State Superintendent of Education have appointed the State Reading Leadership Team to set policy for our integrated approach to improving K-3 reading instruction and raising K-3 reading achievement. The State Reading Leadership Team met on April 23, 2002 to give direction to and to approve the Reading First proposal and to develop the mission statement that follows. In the future, the State Reading Leadership Team will assist in the oversight and evaluation of ARFI.

Mission Statement of the State Reading Leadership Team

The mission of the State Reading Leadership Team is to support Alabama’s goal to have all students reading at the proficient level by the end of Grade 3 by bringing the best available scientific research on reading to the service of our children and to the adults who help them in schools. We will work with the Department of Education, the Legislature, local school districts, and important Alabama constituencies to support Alabama’s reading goal. Day to day implementation of the Alabama Reading First Initiative will be the responsibility of the Department of Education and its Department Management Team.

Bringing all students to grade level is an extremely ambitious undertaking that will require cooperation and support between legislative and executive branches of state government, and between state, district, and individual school educators. The mission of the State Reading Leadership Team is to provide broad oversight of Alabama’s pursuit of all students reading on grade level by the end of Grade 3.

Roles and Responsibilities of the State Reading Leadership Team

Our role is to coordinate, support, and improve all efforts that share our mission. We will assist the State Department of Education, with support from Reading First, to develop the capacity of local education agencies to help children learn and teachers teach. We will target our efforts in the LEAs facing the greatest challenges, but we will systematically pursue efforts that provide statewide access to the best that the state and country have to offer in reading research, materials, and personnel.

Specifically, the State Reading Leadership Team will:1. Provide oversight to the development, implementation, and monitoring of a competitive

subgrant process;2. Ensure that LEAs use available resources to increase capacity to implement scientifically

based reading research;3. Oversee SEA and LEA efforts to bring coordination, coherence, and unity to the resources

available for children as they learn to read; and4. Help muster the political support at state and local levels that ARFI will need to succeed.

Version: 6/02 82

The State Reading Leadership Team will serve as a sounding board and broad policy review board as the State Department of Education develops the ARFI and proceeds to integrate Alabama’s reading efforts into a cohesive whole.

An example will help illustrate the role of the State Reading Leadership Team. One of the first activities will be to review the criteria for selecting local school districts for ARFI funding and to ensure that these criteria fit into the broader reading improvement picture. Proposed selection criteria that give preference to districts that find ways to leverage ARFI funding to promote system-wide change are a key tool in achieving the kind of statewide reform the Reading First program is trying to bring about.

The Reading Leadership Team’s review of the criteria for subgrant awards offers a chance for the state’s political and educational leadership to understand – and to comment upon – this critical element of the Reading First program. Once the review is complete, the Leadership Team will be in a better position to provide the support necessary for success.

Members of the State Reading Leadership Team

The membership of the State Reading Leadership Team displays the wide range of abilities that are brought to this mission. The names of the members follow.

The Governor of the State: Don Siegelman

The Chief State School Officer: Ed Richardson

The chairman and the ranking member of each committee of the State Legislature that is responsible for educational policy

Chair, House Ways/Means Committee: Richard J. Lindsey

Chair, Senate Finance/Taxation Committee: Hank Sanders

Ranking Member, House Ways/Means Committee: Tim Parker

Ranking Member, Senate Finance/Taxation Committee: Hinton Mitchum

Representative of an ARFI-Eligible LEA: Tonya Chestnut, Director of Federal Programs, Dallas County. This LEA is located in the Selma geographical area.

Community-Based Organizations Kate Nielsen, President of the Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham, is a strong supporter of literacy efforts in Alabama’s most densely populated metropolitan area.

Lynn Callahan, program trainer of the Better Basics, Inc. program, in Birmingham in north central Alabama. Better Basics is a nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist children experiencing reading difficulties to read at grade level “during the early school years.” Tutors work one-on-one in 16 schools in the metropolitan Birmingham area. Better Basics also operates a reading-for-pleasure program for fourth grade students in several schools and has more requests than the program can accommodate for these and other Better Basics programs. Ms.

Version: 6/02 83

Callahan brings to the Partnership the perspective of an established volunteer organization that has considerable experience with recruiting and training reading volunteers to work in public schools.

State directors of appropriate Federal or State programs that have a strong reading component

State Reading Initiative Director: Katherine Mitchell is Director of the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI). As director of the ARI, she has developed training modules based on scientific research and designed to improve reading achievement. She is coordinating reading professional development for 17,000 teachers in 424 ARI schools. She will be the director of the Alabama Reading First Initiative.

State Classroom Improvement Director: Anita Buckley-Commander is the Director of Classroom Improvement section of the Alabama State Department of Education. She is a former principal in the Decatur City Schools. Her responsibilities include courses of study, the assessment program, statewide curriculum and instruction, and assistance to low-performing schools.

State Federal Programs Administrator: Catherine Moore is the Coordinator of Federal Programs for the Alabama State Department of Education, working within the Department and with local school districts and schools to coordinate federal education funds and programs with other state and local school reform efforts, including the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) programs.

State Special Education Administrator: Mabrey Whetstone is the Director of Special Education for the Alabama State Department of Education that received the 1999 Alabama State Improvement Grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, to reform and improve state systems for providing educational, early intervention, and transition services.

State Teacher Certification Director: Jayne Meyer is Director of Teacher Education and Certification for the Alabama State Department of Education and coordinated the Reading Task Force which recommended changes to the State Board of Education’s (SBE) teacher education program approval standards so that all teachers will be better prepared to teach reading.

A parent of a public or private school student: Lisa Pressley, is an ARI school parent, parent of two struggling readers at Daniel Pratt Elementary, Prattville, a prosperous central Alabama community.

Version: 6/02 84

Teachers, who may be a special education teacher, who successfully teach reading, and other instructional staff members

Cristina Flanagan-Saunders – Special Education Teacher, Vestavia Hills ElementaryBecky O’Neil – ARI School Teacher and Reading Coach at Brewton Elementary School, Brewton City Schools Rechelle Anders – Public School Library Media Specialist at West Blocton Elementary SchoolJennifer Hall – Regional Reading Coach, East Alabama Regional Inservice Center

A Family Literacy Service Provider: Margaret Morton serves as Executive Director of the Sylacauga Alliance for Family Enhancement (S.A.F.E.) Family Services Center in east central Alabama. This community-based collaborative effort works with families and children, ages birth to five, to help them become self-sufficient and capable of fostering resilient, healthy children. The center provides a service model for family literacy support and Mrs. Morton’s experience in establishing and operating a multi-faceted program will be valuable to the State Reading Leadership Team.

School Principal: Teresa Nichols is principal of Montevallo Elementary (Montevallo, Alabama), an ARI school. Montevallo Elementary has been identified as a high-poverty, high-achieving school. As a result of the ARI training, Montevallo Elementary initiated programs to serve struggling readers, added phonemic awareness to the kindergarten and Grade 1 curriculum, and significantly increased the amount of reading through motivational programs.

Local Education Agency Representative: Leonard Duff is Superintendent of Pickens County School, a non-ARFI eligible LEA.

Local Education Agency Representative: Charles Mason is Superintendent of Mountain Brook City schools, a non ARFI-eligible LEA.

Volunteer Organization Involved in Reading: Caroline Novak, President of A+ Education Foundation, has been a catalyst and facilitator of projects that focus on professional development for school administrators and classroom teachers. She also serves on the steering committee of the ARI.

Higher Education Representative: Evelyn Hodge is the director of the Central Alabama Regional Inservice Education Center at Alabama State University in Montgomery.

Private Professional Development Provider: Cathy Gassenheimer is the president of the Alabama Best Practices Center. The Alabama Best Practices Center works to identify and promote promising practices in education with an emphasis on staff development for teachers and administrators.

Business Support Carla Roberson is Director of Volunteer and Community Services for the Alabama Power Foundation, Birmingham. The Foundation supports education through competitive grants for teacher projects and by backing educational entities in the state.

W. Wayne Guy is Senior Vice President of Duckworth Morris Acordia.

Version: 6/02 85

Alabama Education Association: Tyna Davis is Director of Education Policy and Practice of the Alabama Education Association. AEA is an initial supporter and funder of the ARI. The Association has a 90,000 membership and represents all professional educators, pre-professionals, retired and education support personnel.

Figure C: Alabama’s State Reading Leadership Team

POSITION NAMEGovernor Don SiegelmanChief State School Officer Ed RichardsonChair, House Ways / Means Committee Richard J. LindseyChair, Senate Finance/Taxation Comm. Hank SandersRanking Member, House Ways / Means Committee

Tim Parker

Ranking Member, Senate Finance & Taxation Committee

Hinton Mitchum

LEA Representative (non-ARFI Eligible LEA)

Leonard Duff, Superintendent,Pickens County

LEA Representative (ARFI Eligible LEA)

Tonya Chestnut, Director of Federal Programs, Dallas County Schools

Community-based Organization Kate Nielsen, The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham

Community-based Organization Lynn Callahan, Better Basics, Inc.State Reading Initiative Director Katherine MitchellState Classroom Improvement Director Anita Buckley-CommanderState Federal Programs Administrator Catherine MooreState Special Education Director Mabrey WhetstoneState Teacher Certification Director Jayne MeyerParent Lisa Pressley, Daniel Pratt Elementary, Autauga

CountySpecial Education Teacher Cristina Flanagan-Saunders, Vestavia Hill

ElementaryReading Initiative School Teacher and Reading Coach

Becky O’Neil, Brewton Elementary School, Brewton City Schools

Public School Library Media Specialist Rechelle Anders, West Blocton Elementary School, Bibb County Schools

Regional Inservice Center Reading Specialist

Jennifer Hall, East Alabama Regional Inservice Center

Family Literacy Service Provider Margaret Morton, Sylacauga, Alliance for Family Enhancement Family Services Center

School Principal Teresa Nichols, Montevallo Elementary SchoolLEA Rep. (non-ARFI Eligible LEA) Charles Mason, Superintendent, Mountain Brook

City SchoolsVolunteer Organization Involved in Reading

Caroline Novak, A+ Education Foundation

Higher Education Representative Evelyn Hodge, Central Alabama Regional Inservice Education Center

Version: 6/02 86

Alabama Education Association Tyna Davis, Director of Education Policy & Practice

Private Professional Development Provider

Cathy Gassenheimer, Best Practices Center

Business Support Carla Roberson, Alabama Power FoundationBusiness Support W. Wayne Guy, Duckworth Morris Acordia

II C. State Management Plan

A Sufficient and Qualified Staff for ARFI

In the previous section related to Building Statewide Infrastructure, we have described how one full-time and two half-time staff members will administer Alabama’s Reading First program called ARFI.

Working in isolation, no two-person staff could possibly accomplish all that is outlined in this proposal. With the help of nine full-time regional reading coaches and under Alabama’s coordinated, unified approach, however, we believe the task is feasible. As we have indicated above, four senior staff positions will provide leadership to ARFI through the Department Management Team. Additionally, reading support staff located in these four department sections that deal with reading will be provided, as needed, to develop and plan for the unified, coordinated approach to reading improvement that is envisioned. These reading support staff , by virtue of their current positions, will provide required coordination in four critical tasks: Defining and articulating Alabama’s underlying vision for improving reading achievement

and ultimately achieving its goal of all children reading proficiently by the end of grade 3. Designing reading content critical to all of Alabama’s professional development and

technical assistance efforts. Administering a common statewide assessment system in K-3. Carrying out regular program monitoring. Additional staff (called support staff) from the ARI, the BRM, Classroom Improvement, and the Federal Programs Section, working under guidelines set by the Department Management Team, will be assigned as needed to build on and promote coordination among literacy programs in the State, to increase the effectiveness of literacy-related programs, and to avoid duplication of efforts.

We intend to do this in a variety of ways, as described below. Central to all of these strategies, however, is our determination to adopt a unified vision for improved reading instruction, to operate the various programs in our department that touch on reading in an integrated way, and to make sure that the Department speaks with a single voice on reading matters.

For the time being, we do not propose to integrate the support staffs of the Beginning Reading Model, the Classroom Improvement, the Alabama Reading Initiative, the Federal Programs, and the ARFI support staffs. Over the next four to five years, however, we intend to move in that direction. In the meantime, we will look for opportunities to have these support staffs co-operate in major activities prompted by the receipt of Reading First funds. In short, the ARFI will not be run in a vacuum. It will be part of an integrated approach to reading instruction, supported in part by federal funds from the ARFI but also by State funds currently devoted to existing reading-related programs.

With adoption of the ARI five years ago, the State Department of Education set the goal of having every Alabama school child reading on grade level. With 424 participating schools and

Version: 6/02 87

over 17,000 teachers trained, the Alabama Reading Initiative is one of the largest scientifically based reading initiatives in the country. Reading First funds will enable us to take another large step toward this ultimate goal. The department is committed to finding ways to use the Reading First funding to improve reading instruction in as many schools as possible – whether or not they are directly funded by ARFI.

Support Staff to Achieve Coordination Among Reading Activities in the State

Actual Integration of Alabama’s Reading Efforts

The SEA understands that it is easier to talk about program integration than actually to make it happen. We mean to give substance to our vision of an integrated approach to reading improvement by taking four major functional areas of an integrated program – assessment, underlying vision, professional development, and program monitoring – and have them run jointly for all of Alabama’s reading programs. In each case, we will designate a senior person currently working within the Department Management Team to head the combined program and to be responsible for carrying it out. To underscore our determination that the combined programs will draw on the best of all of our existing programs, it is our intention to have each of four members of the Department Management Team contribute support staff to carry out these important functions. For the time being, funding for the reading support staff will come from the existing budgets of their respective offices.

Each of these four integrated functions will operate under policies discussed at – and set by – the Department Management Team. While the four team leaders will continue their current reporting relationships, they will also be subject to oversight from Dr. Mitchell, operating in her capacity as Chief Reading Scientist.

Common Reading Assessment

The easiest place to begin the unified, coordinated approach to reading improvement is with a common reading assessment. In this case, we can take an integrated approach right from the start of the program. Mrs. Cathy Poage, from Classroom Improvement, will be the support staff responsible for administration of the DIBELS; for establishing the electronic means for gathering test results at the SEA and for making them available to the public; for analyzing the results, and sharing this analysis with ARFI staffs and state policy makers; and for providing teachers, principals, and school districts with the software tools to analyze their own data. Setting up the administration of a common assessment within Classroom Improvement underscores our long-term commitment to make the DIBELS the statewide assessment vehicle in grades K-2.

Underlying Vision

Alabama is committed to promoting research-based reading instruction, including not only the five critical components of reading instruction, but also the frequent use of assessment data, small-group instruction, and support to help teachers develop intervention strategies based on assessment results. We are committed to operating all of our reading efforts with this common vision, so each strengthens the other.

This vision cannot be a static one. Rather, it must constantly evolve to keep up with current research and with what we learn from our own extensive experience with SBRR. Our ever-expanding vision for implementing SBRR must inform our statewide reading standards. It clearly must be the basis for our extensive training and technical assistance programs. It must

Version: 6/02 88

inform not only the summer training academies we offer for teachers, but also the ongoing development of reading coaches. Finally, this vision must inform our selection of comprehensive reading programs for Alabama’s short-list of approved programs.

As Chief Reading Scientist, Dr. Mitchell is ultimately responsible for maintaining this vision. Support staff from all reading-related programs, however, will participate in the articulation of this vision.

Content of Professional Development and Technical Assistance

We propose to offer professional development for ARFI, for the ARI, for the BRM, and for all reading-related professional development and technical assistance as different packages that are based on the same body of scientific research. Because each of these initiatives has a slightly different focus and slightly different school targets, some of the instruction will be specific to a particular program. But the bulk of the instruction will be the same – topics such as the five essential components of research-based reading instruction, use of the DIBELS, small-group instruction, and intervention strategies for struggling readers. Similarly, the training for certified consultants will be essentially identical, as will training in leadership skills for principals.

Because of the critical importance and pervasiveness of professional development and technical assistance in ARFI, we will assign five support staff to work on these efforts. To represent the interests of their respective offices, Ms. Cassandra Wheeler from the Alabama Reading Initiative, Mrs. Zoee Barker from the BRM, and Ms. Cyndi Townley from Classroom Improvement will ensure the effectiveness of the State’s professional development and technical assistance efforts. Mrs. Sherrill Parris from the Alabama Reading Initiative and Mr. John Bell from Classroom Improvement will coordinate Alabama’s efforts to develop instructional leadership among school principals and LEA central office staff. (Résumés of the support staff named on pages 82 and 83 are found in Appendix F.)

Program monitoring

Federally funded programs such as Reading First must be monitored to make sure that they meet federal requirements. This is the function of the Department’s Office of Federal Programs. To this end, program monitoring will be under the direction of Dr. Catherine Moore, Administrator of the Federal Programs Section. To achieve the desired unity and coordination envisioned, both Classroom Improvement and Special Education Services will assign support staff to assist with program monitoring as needed.

State Management Plan Timeline

The ARFI staff has created a timetable to ensure successful implementation of each step in the Alabama reading improvement plan. The detailed timeline of activities for carrying out the Reading First program (ARFI) is provided in Figure D that follows. It serves also as a summary of what has been described throughout this proposal.

Version: 6/02 89

Figure D: A Timeline for ARFI’s Plan for Improving Reading Achievement.

Month Activity Person(s) ResponsibleMarch 2002- July 1, 2002

Develop a common vision for reading instruction in Alabama

Department Management Team

Develop a plan for integrating the operation of Alabama’s various reading programs [e.g., Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), Beginning Reading Model (BRM), Reading Excellence Act (REA)]

Department Management Team

Identified the DIBELS as the uniform assessment vehicle for all primary reading programs

Department Management Team

Begin to work toward integrated professional development and assessment

Department Management Team

First meeting of the State Leadership Team Chief Reading ScientistSupport REA program school and introduce major components of the Reading First legislation at the Alabama Reading Excellence Conference on March 18-19, 2002

SEA staff

June 2002 - July 2002

Use Put Reading First as the primary text in the five days of professional development for “recertifying” and “retooling” ARI schools

ARI staff and ARI trainers

July 2002 Prepare outline of ARFI proposal Workshops 1, 2, & 3 ARFI staffGive public notice of availability of subgrants ARFI staffArrange with national experts dates for evaluating comprehensive reading programs and developing approve list

ARFI staff

Prepare training materials for ARFI proposal preparation workshops.

ARFI staff

Review application guidelines presented in proposal and prepare them to be sent to ARFI-eligible districts

ARFI staff

Federal Programs monitoring and Classroom Improvement staff attend ARI and BRM summer training institutes

Classroom Improvement and Federal Programs

Conduct DIBELS training for participating ARFI-eligible schools and participating ARI and BRM schools

Contract with outside consultant/ARFI staff

Hire 2 Alabama Reading Initiative staff to replace personnel assigned to management of ARFI grant

ARI

Hire 9 additional regional inservice center reading coaches to serve ARFI-eligible districts

ARI staff and ARFI staff

Complete revision of reading standards Classroom Improvement Collect grade 3 Stanford 9 reports for all ARFI eligible schools for 2002

ARFI staff

Disaggregate Stanford 9 results for all ARFI eligible ARFI schools to be used during proposal preparation workshops

ARFI staff

August 2002 Hold quarterly meeting of state leadership team ARFI staffConduct standardization meeting for DIBELS administration

ARFI staff

Release ARFI request for proposals to eligible LEAs ARFI staff

Version: 6/02 90

Hold orientation session for superintendents of ARFI eligible LEAs

ARFI staff

Conduct 2 day proposal preparation Workshop 1 for all eligible LEA teams

ARFI staff

Prepare proposal preparation Workshops 2 and 3 ARFI staffArrange outside reviews of LEA proposals (6 reviewers -10 each)

ARFI staff

Provide proposal technical assistance to individual LEAs Reading inservice center reading coaches

September 2002

Establish ” approved “ list of comprehensive reading programs

ARFI staff and Department Management Team

Conduct evaluation of comprehensive reading programs ARFI staff and national experts

Conduct proposal preparation Workshop 2 ARFI staffProvide proposal technical assistance through Regional Inservice Center reading specialists

Reading inservice center reading coaches

Administer DIBELS in participating eligible ARFI schools and other schools in current reading initiatives

Teachers with assistance from ARFI staff and RIC specialists

Conduct DIBELS follow-up training after September administration of assessment

ARFI staff

October 2002 Distribute list of “approved” comprehensive programs and approved lists of supplemental materials

ARFI staff

Conduct proposal preparation Workshop 3 ARFI staffProvide proposal technical assistance to eligible ARFI applicants

Regional Inservice Center staff

November 2002

Receive LEA proposals due November 1 ARFI staff

Evaluate LEA proposals National consultantsReceive advice from national experts on integration of K-3 ARI modules, K-3 BRM training materials, and K-3 training materials from Teacher Reading Academies

National consultants and ARFI staff

December 2002

Review evaluation of outside experts and select X number of awards

State Leadership Team

Make LEA site visits to negotiate terms of award Department Management Team and ARFI staff

Announce LEA awards Director of ARFIAdminister mid-year DIBELS in participating ARFI schools

Teachers with assistance from ARFI staff and Regional inservice center reading coaches

January 2003 Begin implementation of subgrants in ARFI schools LEA and school personnelSend ARFI school personnel to schools using comprehensive materials on the “approved” list

ARFI staff

Conduct DIBELS follow-up training after midyear ARFI staff

Version: 6/02 91

administration of assessmentFebruary 2003 Provide implementation technical assistance to ARFI

schoolsRegional inservice center reading coaches

Prepare 3 state trainers to begin preparation for summer 2003 academies

ARFI staff

March 2003 Provide implementation technical assistance to ARFI schools

Regional inservice center reading coaches

Prepare 66 Master trainers to train all kindergarten general education and special education teachers

3 State trainers

April 2003 Provide technical assistance to ARFI schools Regional inservice center reading coaches

Train reading coaches, principals, and reading coordinators from ARFI schools and LEAs

ARFI and Regional inservice center reading coaches

Administer grade 3 outcome assessment in all Alabama schools

Grade 3 Teachers

May 2003 Provide technical assistance to ARFI schools Regional inservice center reading coaches

Administer end-of-year DIBELS assessment in participating schools.

Participating teachers

Analyze DIBELS data for participating ARFI schools. ARFI and RIC reading coaches

Disaggregate data for ARFI funded schools and use to inform training for specific schools.

Evaluator

June, July 2003

Provide summer training for K general education and special education teachers

Master trainers

Hire and/or release RIC reading coaches as needed to maintain RIC reading coach for every 8 ARFI funded schools

ARFI staff

August, September 2003

Analyze achievement data from outcome assessment and establish the baseline for ARFI schools

Evaluator

Administer DIBELS in all ARFI schools All K-3 teachersPrepare outline of proposal preparation Workshop 1 & 2 for eligible LEAs (Cohort B)

ARFI staff

Conduct proposal preparation Workshop 1 for eligible Cohort B LEAs

ARFI staff

October 2003 Conduct proposal Workshop 2 for eligible Cohort B LEAs

ARRI staff

November 2003

Receive Cohort B LEA proposals due ARFI staff

Review Cohort B LEA proposal by national experts National expertsReceive advice from national experts on advanced professional development needs of Cohort A ARFI schools

ARFI staff and national experts

December Announce Cohort B ARFI awards ARFI staff

Version: 6/02 92

2003Make LEA site visits to negotiate terms of Cohort B awards

ARFI staff and Department Management Team

Administer DIBELS statewide All K-3 teachers

January 2004 Begin implementation in Cohort B ARFI schools Cohort 2 ARFI schoolsSend Cohort B ARFI schools to visit Cohort A ARFI schools

ARFI staff

May 2004 Administer DIBELS in all schools All K-3 teachersAdminister grade 3 outcomes All Grade 3 teachersCompile yearly implementation report for USDOE ARFI staff and evaluator

Sufficient Allocation of Resources and ARFI Budget

By funding approximately 50 to 60 ARFI schools, Alabama will be able to provide about $200,000 per school. Schools that currently have nothing in place in the way of good reading instruction may need this much. But some schools will not need the entire amount. For example, if a school selected for ARFI is using $53,000 in Title 1 funds, in Alabama Reading Initiative funds, or in local funds for a reading coaches, a district can indicate that, should it receive ARFI funding for this coach, the funds freed in this way will be used to support scientifically based reading research elsewhere in the district. Similarly, districts may already be implementing one of the comprehensive reading programs on the approved short list. In these cases, ARFI LEAs may, for example, transfer the funds designated for a comprehensive reading program to other schools in the district for purchasing a SBRR comprehensive reading program.

The funding proposed for ARFI schools far exceeds what the SEA is currently offering to ARI schools and is significantly greater than the expanded funding recommended by our most recent evaluation of the ARI. We are therefore convinced that districts will be able to leverage ARFI grants to provide funding for activities to help ARFI-eligible schools other than those directly funded or to expand district-wide technical assistance for improving reading achievement in the LEA. One possibility would be to open training sessions to all school faculties across the district. Another possibility is to use leveraged funds to hire a reading coach at a second school. A third possibility would be to hire a system-wide reading coordinator who will work with schools across the system to make improved reading instruction a top priority. These ARFI-funded reading coordinators would be expected to attend all summer reading academies and reading coach training sessions and could benefit large LEAs especially.

A detailed state budget follows. This section, along with the description provided throughout Alabama’s proposal, clearly demonstrates the feasibility of Alabama’s plan for improving reading achievement and for ultimately achieving the goal of Reading First: that all students will read at grade level by the end of Grade 3.

Version: 6/02 93

Alabama’s Reading First InitiativeBudget Proposal

State of Alabama Total Allocation $15,586,984

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) Subgrants (80% of the Total Allocation) $12,469,587 (Approximately 60 schools @ $200,000 each)

Funds for State Use (20% of the Total Allocation) $ 3,117,397

State Use for Professional Inservice/Preservice (65% of the 20% Total Allocation = $2,026,308)

DIBELS training in Summer 2002 $ 55,887

Expenses for Team of 7 representatives from 37 ARFI eligible LEAs:

Mileage Expenses: 2 cars x 100 miles x .365 x 37 ARFI eligible LEAs = $2,701

Per diem Expenses: 7 participants x 15 LEAs x $75x 2 days = $15,7507 participants x 22 LEAs x $11.25 x 1 day - $1,733

Trainer Fees and Expenses:Trainer fees: 3 lead trainers x $300/day x 10 days = $9,000

6 trainers x $250/day x 12 days = $18,000Mileage Expenses: 9 trainers x 200 miles x .365/mile

x 4 trips =$2,628Per diem Expenses:3 trainers x $75/day x 11 days = $2,475

6 trainers x $75/day x 8 days = $3,600

Standardization for DIBELS Administration in August 2002 $ 9,606

Participant Expenses:Mileage Expenses: 2 cars x 100 miles x .365/mi

x 37 ARFI eligible LEAs = $2,701Per diem Expenses: 2 x 37 LEAs x $11.25

x 3 locations = $2,498

Trainer Expenses:Trainer fees: 3 lead trainers x $300/day x 1 days = $900

6 trainers x $250/day x 1 days = $1,500Mileage Expenses: 9 trainers x 200 miles x .365/mile

x 1 trip =$657Per diem Expenses: 9 trainers x $75/day x 2 days = $1,350

DIBELS follow-up training after administration of $ 16,502assessment in September 2002

Mileage expenses for participants: 2 cars x 200 miles x .365/mi x 37 ARFI eligible LEAs = $5,402

Version: 6/02 94

Per diem expenses for participants: 59 participants x $75 x 2= $8,850

200 participants x $11.25 = $2,250

DIBELS follow-up training after midyear administration $ 16,502 of assessment

Mileage expenses for participants: 2 cars x 200 miles x .365/mi x 37 ARFI-eligible LEAs = $5,402

Per diem expenses for participants:59 participants x $75 x 2= $8,850

200 participants x $11.25 = $2,250

Statewide training for K teachers in Summer 2003 $1,522,750

Training of 66 Master Trainers : $ 99,000Fee for Master Trainers who are being trained

$200/day x 5 days x 66 = $66,000Mileage and Per Diem expenses for Master Trainers

who are being trained: $500 x 66 = $33,000

Training for Teachers in ARFI schools= $ 371,250Fee for Master Trainers who are training teachers:

$300 x 66 x 3 academies x 5 days = $ 297,000Per diem and mileage expenses for Master Trainers

who are training teachers: $75 per day x 15 days x 66 trainers = $74,250

Materials: 75 Sets of Reading Teacher AcademiesModules: 75 x $700/set = $52,500 $ 52,500

Stipend for teachers: $250 for a 5-day training session. $1,000,000$50 x 5 days x 4,000 = $1,000,000

Statewide Professional Development on DIBELS in Summer 2003 $ 335,461 for all remaining K, 1, 2, and 3 teachers

Participant Expenses: $286,969543 schools x 7 = 3,801 particpants Stipends = 3,801 x $40 = $152,040 Per Diem = 3,801 x $11.25=$42,761 Mileage= 1,629 cars x 150 miles x .365 = $89,188 Materials - $2,980

Trainer Expenses: $48,492Fees = 18 trainers x 6 days x $300 = $32,400Per Diem = 18 trainers x 9 days x $75/day = $12,150Mileage: 18 trainers x 3 trips x 200 miles x .365 = $3,942

Version: 6/02 95

Consultants to help generate the approved list $ 34,800of comprehensive reading programs

National Expert Consultant Fees: 2 consultants x $1,500 x 6 days= $18,000

National Expert Consultant travel: 2 consultants x $1,500 x 2 trips = $6,000

State Consultant Fees: 3 consultants x $400 x 6 days = $7,200State Consultant Travel: 3 consultants x $200 x 6 days = $3,600

Consultants to revise State standards and update $ 34,800 “Knowledge and Skills” document

National Expert Consultant Fees: 2 consultants x $1,500 x 6 days = $18,000

National Expert Consultant Travel Expense: 2 consultants x $1,500 x 2 trips = $6,000

State Consultants Fees: 3 consultants x $400x 6 days = $7,200

State Consultant Travel Expense: 3 consultants x $200 x 6 days = $3,600

State Use for Technical Assistance(25% of the 20% Total Allocation = $779,349)

9 Regional Inservice Center Reading Coaches @ $65,000= $ 585,000

Travel for Regional Inservice Center Reading Coaches: 9 x $6,000= $ 54,000

Proposal Preparation Workshop: Conduct 3 two-day training sessions $ 59,849for 37 ARFI eligible LEAs

Travel Expense: 37 cars x 248 mi. x .365 = $3,349Per diem Expense: 3 participants per 37 LEAs x

$75 x 2 days x 3 workshops= $49,950Room Rental: 6 days x $1,000/day = $6,000Materials: 110 participants x $5 each = $550

Five-day Orientation Meeting of ARFI Reading Coaches, $ 42,500 Principals, and District Reading Coordinators in Spring 2003

Consultant Fee to design content: 6 consultantsx $400/day x 10 days = $24,,000

Consultant Fee for providing training: 6 consultantsx $300/day x 5 days = $9,000

Consultant Travel Expenses: 6 consultantsx $750 = $4,500

Room rental: 5 days x $1,000/day = $5,000

Version: 6/02 96

Development of ARFI Reading Coach Module $38,000A 60 hour training module to be used with ARFI readingcoaches and district reading coordinators in 2003-2004school year. These 60 hours of training will be in addition tothe 60 hours of joint training for ARI and ARFI readingcoaches in the 2003-2004 school year.

Consultant Fee to develop content:80 consultant days x $400/day = $32,000Travel for 2 consultants x $3,000 = $6,000(includes instate and out-of-state travel)

State Use for Grant Administration(10% of the Total Allocation = $311,740)

Salaries and benefits $ 161,591Salaries: $131,110 Educational Professional 0.5

Educational Professional 0.5 Educational Professional 1.0Benefits: $ 30,481

State Leadership Team Travel $ 5,000

Staff Travel (In-state) $ 10,000

Out-of-State Travel $ 9,451ARFI Staff: $4,951Consultants: $4,500

Motorpool (staff) $ 2,000

Professional Services $ 18,0006 Reviewers of 60 LEA subgrants

6 x $1,500 = $9,000Additional National/State Expert Consultant

Fees as needed = 6 x $1,500=$9,000

Evaluation $ 57,400(see details on page 103 )

Data Processing $ 11,000Purchase time from SEA Data Processing Section to set up DIBELS database in ARFI office

Indirect Costs $ 37,298(July-September 2002 = 17.6% October – June 2003 = 12.6%)

Version: 6/02 97

III. STATE REPORTING AND EVALUATION

This section of Alabama’s Reading First Initiative (ARFI) provides an overview of the evaluation plan, including details on the questions, the design, the measures, and the reporting and monitoring mechanisms. A timeline of evaluation activities and budget is included onpage 108, as well as a commitment for involving Alabama in the national evaluation of Reading First. A two-level evaluation is proposed that includes a monitoring component and an impact evaluation component.

The monitoring component will include all Alabama schools participating in ARFI. Its purposes will be to gather and organize data 1) for state-level decision-makers to use in supporting and/or discontinuing funds to LEAs and 2) for ARFI staff to use in reporting state-wide progress in reducing the number of grade 1-3 students reading below grade level and increasing the percentage of students reading at or above grade level. Schools making the largest gains in reading achievement will also be documented.

The impact evaluation will include a randomly selected sample of schools receiving ARFI funds (n = 8) that agree to participate in a more intensive data collection effort and a sample of nonparticipating schools (i.e., non ARFI funded schools) matched on key demographic characteristics. The impact evaluation will be based on theory-driven approaches to program evaluation (Chen, 1990). Process and outcome data will be collected on student-, teacher-, and school-level variables. Factors that potentially mediate the relationship of ARFI-funded activities and student outcomes will be considered and included in the design. Implementation data will be collected at participating schools as well.

III A. Evaluation Strategies

Theory-driven program evaluation is generally characterized by the use of program models. A program model is a tool for understanding the logic that underlies an operating or emerging program. The model for ARFI (on page 100) is based on input from the project’s developers, evaluation reports for years 1 – 3 of the Alabama Reading Initiative (Center for Educational Accountability, 2000; Center for Educational Accountability, 2001; Moscovitch, 2002), and the scholarly and empirical literature related to beginning reading and beginning reading instruction. The model reflects a shared understanding of what the ARFI is, what it does, and why it is thought to work. It includes variables that may influence the implementation of ARFI and the success of Alabama schools, teachers, and students, as well as important intervening variables that may be critical to an increased understanding of the relationship of project activities and outcomes.

The program model represents ARFI. The evaluation questions are a more direct statement of this model. The questions focus attention on important interrelationships amongst the model’s components. The questions outlined in this document are questions that are answerable given the data collected during the evaluation. The questions are presented beginning on pages 101.

To answer the questions, components of the model have to be operationalized, and program participants have to be evaluated on these attributes. This is often the most difficult part of the evaluation. The precision (or the validity) of the measures one chooses will have a direct impact on one’s results. A well-specified model and well-articulated questions may be of little use if measurement of the model’s components is unreliable or invalid. A detailed discussion of the proposed measures begins on page 102.

Version: 6/02 98

Program Model

Several general comments about the program model (Figure E on page 100) may be helpful. First, the model is intended only as a tool for talking about a number of interrelated and exceedingly complex social phenomena (e.g., classroom instruction, student learning, change, etc.). It is not intended as a data analytic tool. Final decisions about analysis will be made once data are collected. If the data are of sufficient quality, more sophisticated types of analysis may be attempted (e.g., hierarchical linear modeling), but program-evaluation data seldom lend themselves to these sorts of analyses, and more forgiving approaches are likely to be of greater use. That said, the model does reflect the nested nature of student achievement data and builds upon elements that are central to the ARFI. The model represents the embeddedness and interrelatedness of important project-related constructs in a way that allows for a systematic and meaningful consideration of each.

The program activities for ARFI are the focus of the bulk of this evaluation. For purposes of discussing the evaluation, program activities refers to the collection of planned activities. (See page 108 for an overview.)

Proximal Outcomes/Mediating Variables

Proximal outcomes/mediating variables include school-, teacher-, and principal-level factors that help to explain the relationship of the ARFI and the desired student and school outcomes. Teacher- and principal-level variables are most closely related to the ARFI activities, and they in turn affect school-level factors. As teachers and principals become more knowledgeable, grow more efficacious, and begin to more highly value systematic and explicit approaches to literacy instruction based on SBRR, classrooms and schools will more closely resemble those that produce young readers (i.e., classrooms described in documents like Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read and summarized in the teacher-level box of proximal/mediating variables).

School-level Mediators

The school-level mediators in Figure E are adapted from several documents, including the NRP Report, Preventing Reading Difficulties, Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read, and the Application for State Grants for Reading First, CDFA Number 84.357. These documents reflect instructional elements and classroom structures that are critical to student achievement in reading, including: 1) full and faithful implementation of a high-quality SBRR program that includes instructional content based on the 5 essential components of reading; 2) full and faithful implementation of an instructional design that includes explicit instructional strategies, coordinated instructional sequences, ample practice opportunities, and aligned student materials; 3) ongoing use of assessments that inform instructional decisions; 4) small, same-ability, flexible groups based on ongoing assessment; 5) dedicated block of time for reading instruction; and 6) high levels of perceived principal instructional leadership.

Version: 6/02 99

Teacher-level and Principal-level Mediators

Teacher- and principal-level mediators are based on Albert Bandura’s social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1973, 1986, 1997). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy are prominent terms in Bandura’s framework. Self-efficacy is the belief that one can successfully carry out a given behavior. This may require a belief in the adequacy of one’s skills, knowledge, or resources, etc. (or some combination of these) depending on the specifics of a given situation. Outcome expectancy refers to one’s belief in the adequacy of a given behavior to achieve a desired or valued outcome (i.e., “…if a person does X, Y will happen”). Regardless of the person’s level of self-efficacy, he or she may choose not to engage in a given behavior if he or she doubts that it will lead to the valued outcome.

For a person to engage successfully in a behavior that results in a desired outcome, he or she must believe 1) that the behavior influences the valued outcome in question (i.e., outcome expectancy) and 2) that he or she is capable of such behavior (i.e., self-efficacy). Within the context of the ARFI, this suggests that the teacher (the person) who wishes to use a given instructional strategy (the behavior) to increase student levels of phonemic awareness (the valued outcome) believes 1) that the instructional strategy in question will increase levels of phonemic awareness and 2) that he or she is capable of doing that instructional strategy. It also assumes that phonemic awareness is an outcome that is valued by the teacher and that the teacher has knowledge of the principles of phonemic awreness and their instruction.

Including substantive theory in a design is one hallmark of theory-driven approaches to program evaluation. Social-cognitive theory is widely used to understand better a number of complex phenomena, including teaching behaviors (Gibson, 1986; Hillman, 1986), student goals and achievement (Schunk, 1998), health behavior and decision-making processes (Stuifbergen, Seraphine & Roberts, 2001), aggressive and violent behavior (Bandura, 1973, 1997), and many others. Including it in the evaluation design for the ARFI provides a framework for understanding why teachers may or may not be heading up classrooms like the ones described by school-level mediators (and why principals may or may not be heading up such schools). Answers may include: because they don’t know about such strategies, because they don’t feel capable of doing such strategies; because they do not believe the strategies will produce increases in phonemic awareness; or because they do not believe that phonemic awareness is a valuable outcome.

Version: 6/02 100

Figure E: Alabama Reading First Initiative: Program Model

Version: 6/02

ALABAMA READING FIRST INITIATIVE

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

TEACHER-LEVEL Increased belief in ability to

use effective beginning reading instructional strategies (i.e., self-efficacy)

Increased belief in the ability of targeted beginning reading instructional strategies to achieve valued outcomes (i.e., outcome expectancy)

Increased knowledge of effective beginning reading instructional strategies

Increased valuing of explicit, structured language approaches (versus implicit whole-language approaches)

STUDENT-LEVEL

Increased phonemic awareness Increased phonics ability Increased fluency Increased vocabulary Increased comprehension

SCHOOL-LEVEL

Full and faithful implementation of high-quality scientifically based reading research program that includes instructional content based on the 5 essential components of reading

Full and faithful implementation of an instructional design that includes explicit instructional strategies, coordinated instructional sequences, ample practice opportunities, and aligned student materials

Ongoing use of assessments that inform instructional decisions

Small, same-ability, flexible groups based on ongoing assessment

Dedicated block of time for reading instruction

High levels of perceived principal instructional leadership

SCHOOL-LEVEL

Reduced number of grades 1-3 students reading below level

Increased percentage of students reading at or above grade level

Overall gains in student reading achievement

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PROXIMAL OUTCOMES/MEDIATING VARIABLES OUTCOMES

PRINCIPAL-LEVEL Increased belief in ability to

promote the use of effective beginning reading instructional strategies (i.e., self-efficacy)

Increased belief in the ability of targeted beginning reading instructional strategies to achieve valued outcomes (i.e., outcome expectancy)

Increased knowledge of effective beginning reading instructional strategies

Increased valuing of explicit, structured language approaches (versus implicit whole-language approaches)

100

Outcomes

The selection of outcomes is based on the Reading First Criteria for Review of State Applications, Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read, and the Application for State Grants for Reading First, CDFA Number 84.357. Student-level outcomes include: 1) increased phonemic awareness, 2) increased phonics ability, 3) increased fluency, 4) increased vocabulary, and 5) increased comprehension. School-level outcomes include: 1) reduced number of grades 1-3 students reading below level, 2) increased percentage of students reading at or above grade level, and 3) overall gains in student reading achievement.

Evaluation Questions

Evaluation questions are based on interrelationships reflected in the program model for ARFI for page 95. Primary questions and secondary questions are included.

Primary evaluation questions are: Did classrooms in ARFI schools implement high quality scientifically based reading

research programs that include instructional content based on the five essential components of reading?

Did classrooms in ARFI schools implement instructional designs that include: explicit instructional strategies; coordinated instructional sequences; ample practice opportunities; aligned student materials; ongoing assessment; small, same-ability, flexible groups; dedicated blocks of reading time; and high levels of perceived principal leadership? Did ARFI schools and comparison schools differ in these respects?

Did students in ARFI schools meet end-of-school-year benchmarks in phonemic awareness, phonics ability, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension? Did students in ARFI schools and students in comparison schools differ in these respects?

Did ARFI schools reduce the number of grades 1-3 students reading below level? Compared to comparison groups? Compared to previous years’ primary-aged students?

Did ARFI schools increase the percentage of grades 1-3 students reading at or above grade level? Compared to comparison groups? Compared to previous years’ primary-aged students?

What was the overall gain in student reading achievement in ARFI schools? How did gains in ARFI schools compare to the overall gains in comparison schools?

Secondary evaluation questions are: Did teachers in ARFI schools experience increased levels of self-efficacy, outcome

expectancy, knowledge, and valuing of phonemic literacy approaches? Compared to teachers in comparison schools?

Were changes in levels of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, knowledge, and valuing of phonemic literacy approaches in ARFI schools related to changes in school-level mediating variables (i.e., instructional designs that include explicit instructional strategies, coordinated instructional sequences, ample practice opportunities, aligned student materials, ongoing assessment, and small, same-ability, flexible groups, dedicated time blocks, high levels of perceived principal leadership)?

Were changes in school-level mediating variables related to changes in student outcomes and/or school outcomes?

Version: 6/02 101

Description of Evaluation Measures

Self Efficacy For Beginning Reading Instruction

Bandura (1997) suggests that self-efficacy be measured by asking participants to respond to statements representing efficacious behavior related to the domain of interest (the use of effective instructional strategies, in this case). Accordingly, teachers in the ARFI will be asked to rate each of a series of statements similar to "how confident are you that you can do the following behavior." A scale ranging from 1 to 100 will be used for responding (Bandura, 1997), where 1 is totally confident that I can not do the behavior and 100 is totally confident that I can do the behavior. The statements (10 - 15) will be developed using project-related materials, such as Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read, and the empirical and scholarly research on effective instruction for beginning readers.

Outcome Expectancy For Beginning Reading Instruction

Outcome expectancy will be measured much like self-efficacy. Participants will be asked to indicate their beliefs about the effectiveness of doing the behaviors outlined in Self-Efficacy For Beginning Reading Instruction. Ten to fifteen statements will be presented along with a scale ranging from 1 to 100, where 1 indicates that the respondent is completely confident that a behavior will not lead to the desired result. A response of 100 means the person is totally confident that a behavior will lead to the result.

Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure Of Language (Mather, Bos, Babur, 2001).

This is a 22-item multiple choice measure of teachers' knowledge of the structure of the English language at both word and sound levels. Items were adapted from several sources by Mather and colleagues. Cronbach’s alpha was .83 in a pilot test of 55 classroom teachers. Sample items include: Which word contains a short vowel sound? 1) treat 2) start 3) slip 4) paw 5) father and How many speech sounds are in the word grass? 1) two 2) three 3) four 4) five.

Teacher Perceptions Toward Early Reading And Spelling (TPERS) (Mather, Bos, Babur, 2001).

This measure is adapted from DeFord's Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (DeFord, 1985), which measures two orientations toward reading: phonics and whole language. The TPERS modified the original labels and a number of the survey items to reflect more contemporary language. The orientations for the TPERS are 1) explicit, code-based instruction and 2) implicit, meaning-based or holistic instruction. The 25 items on the TPERS are scored using a six-point Likert-type scale to indicate level of agreement. Factor analysis of the TPERS' items by the authors confirmed the hypothesized factors. Cronbach alpha for both scales was .74. Sample items include: Ability to rhyme words is a strong predictor of early reading success and A significant increase in oral reading miscues is usually related to a decrease in comprehension.

Version: 6/02 102

Instructional Content Emphasis (ICE) (Edmonds & Briggs, 2002).

The ICE measure (Edmonds & Briggs, 2002) classifies primary reading instruction into four dimensions:

Main Instructional Category Instructional subcategory Grouping Materials

ICE was developed and refined over the course of two evaluations related to a statewide reading initiative. The instrument has content validity for accurately describing what is occurring in primary classrooms. ICE has theoretical validity because it includes category and subcategories of instruction that SBRR has shown to be effective. Reliability for ICE requires that observers are familiar with reading instruction and that they are trained. For the two evaluations during which ICE was developed, an inter-rater reliability rate of 91% was achieved. (See Appendix G for a more detailed description of ICE.)

Dynamic Indicators Of Basic Early Literacy Skills (Good, 1998).

The DIBELS is an individually administered test that assesses students’ basic literacy skills. This is accomplished through various subtests such as those that measure phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle, and fluency with connected text. These foundational reading skills, though not exhaustive, represent valid indicator skills along a continuum in which overlapping stages progress from less complex skills to the ultimate goal of reading and comprehending text. (Simmons & Kame’enui, 1998; Snow, C.E., Burns, S.M. & Griffin, P., 1998.) Scores on the DIBELS provide information about which students are established readers, which are emerging readers, and which are non-readers.

Group Reading Assessment & Diagnostic Evaluation (Grades K-2)

The GRADE is a new product available from American Guidance Services. It is unique in that it is group-administered and can be used with children from Pre-K through 12th grade (about 45 minutes to administer). Normative data from 1999-2000 are based on over 34,000 students from 122 sites across the nation. A variety of derived scores are available, including stanines, percentile rank scores, grade equivalents, standard scores, and normal curve equivalents. The publisher provides data on internal consistency reliability (.95 to .99), alternate forms reliability (median of .89), and test-retest reliability (median of .90). Considerable evidence of criterion-related and construct validity is available in the technical documentation. (See http://www.agsnet.com/ for an overview.) The Reading First legislation was the guiding framework in test construction (http://www.agsnet.com/). The subtests at levels K through 3 reflect the instructional domains advocated by the National Reading Panel (2000) and embedded in the Reading First guidelines.

Perceived Level of Principal Instructional Leadership

This measure is envisioned as a survey to be administered to teachers. It will be developed by the evaluator and the ARFI staff. As a starting point, the evaluator will use items from the

Version: 6/02 103

surveys and structured interview that were part of the Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 evaluations of the ARI.

New Norm-referenced Test for Grade 3

Alabama administered the Stanford Achievement Test – Ninth Edition for the last time in April 2002. A new norm-referenced test will be chosen in the next few months to be administered statewide in Alabama for the first time in April 2003. Tests selected for statewide use in Alabama have established validity and reliability. This new norm-referenced measure will yield outcome data in grade 3 and will be part of the ARFI evaluation.

Answering the evaluation questions requires operationalizing the model’s elements and measuring participants on the operationalized dimensions. Table 10 summarizes the proposed measures and relates each to the model element that it represents.

Table 10: Summary of Measures

MODEL ELEMENT MEASURETeacher- and principal-level mediating variablesIncreased belief in ability to use (for principals, promote the use of) effective beginning reading instructional strategies (i.e., self-efficacy)

Self-efficacy for Beginning Reading Instruction

Increased belief in the ability of targeted beginning reading instructional strategies to achieve valued outcomes (i.e., outcome expectancy)

Outcome Expectancy for Beginning Reading Instruction

Increased knowledge of beginning reading and effective beginning reading instructional strategies

Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure of Language (Mather, Bos, Babur, 2001)

Increased valuing of explicit, structured language approaches (versus implicit whole-language approaches)

Teacher Perceptions Toward Early Reading and Spelling (Mather, Bos, Babur, 2001)

School-level mediating variablesFull and faithful implementation of high-quality scientifically based reading research program that includes instructional content based on the 5 essential components of reading: phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension

Instructional Content Emphasis (ICE) (Edmonds & Briggs, 2002)

Full and faithful implementation of an instructional design that includes explicit instructional strategies, coordinated instructional sequences, ample practice opportunities, and aligned student materials

ICE (Edmonds & Briggs, 2002)

Ongoing use of assessments that inform instructional decisions ICE (Edmonds & Briggs, 2002)

Small, same-ability, flexible groups based on ongoing assessment ICE (Edmonds & Briggs, 2002)

Dedicated block of time for reading instruction ICE (Edmonds & Briggs, 2002)

Perceived level of principal instructional leadership Teacher survey to be developed

Student-level outcome variablesIncreased phonemic awareness DIBELS (Good, 1998)

Version: 6/02 104

Increased phonics ability DIBELS (Good, 1998) Increased fluency DIBELS (Good, 1998) Increased vocabulary New norm-referenced test

(Grade 3)Increased comprehension DIBELS (Good, 2002) School-level outcome variablesReduced number of grades 1-3 students reading below level DIBELS (Grades K-2)

New norm-referenced test (Grade 3)GRADE (Grades K-2)

Increased percentage of students reading at or above grade level DIBELS (Grades K-2)New norm-referenced test (Grade 3)GRADE (Grades K-2)

Overall gains in student reading achievement DIBELS (Grades K-2)New norm-referenced test (Grade 3)GRADE (Grades K-2)

Evaluation Methods and Strategies

Impact Evaluation

The impact evaluation will focus, to the extent possible, on the effect of project activities on teachers, students, and principals. The issue of causality is generally discussed in terms of a study’s internal validity, and while randomized group assignment remains the gold standard for maximizing a study’s internal validity, it is seldom a possibility in cases like this one. There are possibilities short of randomized grouping, however, and the impact evaluation ARFI will make use of several. These include: 1) matching comparison schools to selected Reading First schools; 2) basing evaluation activities on apriori program theory; 3) collecting data on potential mediators of effect; and 4) using multiple indicators of outcomes and mediators.

Evaluation Design

A matched-groups cohort design is planned. The cohort will include students in Kindergarten during the 2003-2004 school year at eight ARFI schools and at eight comparison schools. The cohort will be followed through 3rd grade. Teacher-level and school-level data will be collected within the selected cohort (i.e., Kindergarten teachers will be included in 2003-2004 school year, 1st grade teachers in 2004-2005, etc.).

Selection and Recruitment of Sample

Evaluators will select eight schools participating in the ARFI. Schools will be randomly sampled, although a stratified approach may be used to ensure variability in terms of socio-economic status, achievement levels, ethnicity, urbanicity, etc. Evaluators will work with representatives of the SEA to identify important sampling strata. Selected schools will be invited to participate by letter from an SEA representative. The purpose of the study, its requirements,

Version: 6/02 105

possible risks, and potential benefits will be described, and incentives for participation will be discussed. Schools declining participation will be replaced by random replacement sampling.

Schools not eligible for ARFI will be assigned to the comparison-group sampling frame and classified according to strata used in choosing treatment schools. Comparison schools (n=8) will be randomly selected within each stratum. The degree of match between treatment and comparison schools within strata will be evaluated to ensure a reasonable fit. Selected comparison schools will be contacted in the same manner and at roughly the same point in time as ARFI schools.

Data Collection.

Pretest data for the 2003-2004 school year will be collected in the early fall of 2003. Posttest data will be collected in late spring of 2004. Details are presented in the Timeline for Impact Evaluation on page 108.

Support of Evaluation Activities

The budget for the evaluation (page 108) includes money to pay stipends to 16 evaluation site coordinators. Evaluation site coordinators will be recruited from ARFI and comparison schools. They will coordinate student pretests and posttests (i.e., GRADE) and oversee collection of proximal/mediating teacher-level data (i.e., efficacy, expectancy, knowledge, and valuing). The evaluation consultant and manager will travel to Alabama to administer the classroom observation measures (i.e., the ICE), will coordinate with the University of Oregon to extract DIBELS data, and will work with Alabama SEA officials to gather data from the new norm-referenced test to be administered in grade 3. The evaluation consultant and manager will travel to Alabama as needed to support the collection of data and otherwise assist, as necessary, and will meet together regularly to monitor all evaluation activities. The evaluation consultant will act as liaison to the Alabama SEA.

Monitoring Evaluation

The monitoring evaluation will include all ARFI schools. Reading progress will be followed using in-place data sources and ongoing reporting mechanisms. For students in third grade and above, this will include data from the new norm-referenced instrument. For students in K and grades 1 and 2, DIBELS data will be used. The evaluation consultant will work with Alabama’s SEA and the University of Oregon to gather and organize these data. Reports on student and school progress will be provided to Alabama’s SEA according to a mutually agreed upon schedule. Reports will address the school-level outcomes summarized in the program model on page 100. Shortly after the first reporting period, the evaluation consultant will conduct a focus group of key SEA stakeholders. Participants will be asked to comment on the report’s content, layout, and presentation and to provide guidance on how the continuation criteria for LEAs can be best incorporated into the reporting document. Suggested changes will be included in the next round of reports.

Version: 6/02 106

III B. State Reporting

The evaluation process is carefully designed to provide the data required for an annual report and a midpoint report. The annual report, submitted to the United States Department of Education (USDOE), will include information regarding implementation, achievement gains, program effectiveness, and statewide progress in reducing the number of students reading below grade level.

Annual implementation evidence will document that the SEA has met all program requirements and obligations related to implementation and administration of the Reading First program. We anticipate that this will be a narrative report which will include activities such as conducting the subgrant competition, monitoring and providing technical assistance to LEAs, and building and maintaining statewide capacity to teach all children to read by the end of the third grade. Other relevant data from the outside evaluation may also be included.

Achievement gains will be included in the annual report which will name the LEAs and schools which are making the largest gains in reading achievement as measured by the DIBELS (Good, 1998) in Grades K-2 and by the new norm-referenced test to be selected for Grade 3.

Program effectiveness will be reported in terms of the progress of ARFI LEAs and schools in reducing the number of students in grades 1-3 who are reading below grade level as indicated by DIBELS in Grades 1 and 2 and the new norm-referenced test for Grade 3.

The annual report will describe the SEA’s and LEA’s progress in reducing the percentage of students reading below grade level and increasing the percentages of students reading at grade level or higher. These data will be reported for specific groups to include low-income students, major racial/ethnic groups, LEP students, and special education students. This progress report will be based on data from DIBELS in Grades 1 and 2 (if it is administered statewide in 2003-2004) and the new norm-referenced test for Grade 3. The SEA will submit their outside evaluation to the USDOE as a supplement to the required annual report. All reports will protect the privacy of individuals.

The midpoint progress report will be submitted to the Department of Education within sixty days of the end of the third year of the grant period. This midpoint report will indicate the progress that ARFI LEAs and schools are making in reducing the number of students in grades 1 through 3 who are reading below grade level as measured by DIBELS and the new norm-referenced test for Grade 3. It will also indicate statewide progress in increasing the numbers of students who are reading at grade level or above, including the percentages of low-income students, major racial/ethnic groups, LEP students, and special education students. The mid-point progress report will include names of LEAs and schools making the largest gains cumulatively at the mid-point.

LEAs will be queried by letter about their interest in receiving an annual report of aggregated school-level data. Annual reports to interested LEAs will be provided using the format agreed to by SEA focus-group participants. The evaluation manager and the evaluation consultant will maintain current project-related databases. Additional reports to national stakeholders and policy makers will be available upon request of the SEA.

III C. Participation in National Evaluation

As part of the requirements for receiving ARFI funds, participating LEAs and the SEA will participate in the national evaluation of Reading First.

Version: 6/02 107

III D. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES, TIMELINE, and BUDGET(through Summer 2004)

Timeline for Impact Evaluation through Summer 2004*

Spring 2003 Fall 2003 Spring 2004 Summer 2004 Select/recruit

16 sites (8 treatment and 8 comparison)

Recruit and train evaluation manager

Recruit 16 evaluation site coordinators

Train evaluation site coordinators

Collect first benchmark DIBELS data

Collect time 1 student, teacher, principal, and school data, including classroom observation data

Collect final benchmark DIBELS data

Collect time 2 student, teacher, principal, and school data, including classroom observation data

Report year 1 findings

Conduct focus groups of state-level stakeholders to determine reporting preferences/needs

Adjust subsequent reports accordingly

2003-2004 school year only. Evaluation activities for subsequent years would be similar.

Budget for Impact Evaluation through Summer 2004*

CATEGORY JUSTIFICATION COSTStipend for site coordinators Site coordinators recruited

from local schools will be chosen from among non-teaching professionals in each building

16 @ $1,500/stipend = $24,000

Stipend for evaluation manager

Annual twenty-day commitment by Meaghan Edmonds, research associate with Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts

20 days @ 500/day = $10,000

Stipend for evaluation consultant

Annual ten-day commitment by Greg Roberts, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin; consult on all aspects of the project and supervise the evaluation manager

10 days @ 1,000/day = $10,000

Travel by evaluation manager and consultant to Alabama

Six trips by manager (n=4) and consultant (n=2) to and from Alabama for training, ongoing technical assistance, and data collection

6 trips @ $750/trip = $4,500

Materials, postage, phone, etc. Normal project-related costs to maintain an office; GRADE test materials for students

Estimated at $2,5001600 Students@approx. $4/student = $6,400

TOTAL $57,400*

Version: 6/02 108

* 2003-2004 school year only. Evaluation budget for subsequent years would be comparable.

Version: 6/02 109

IV. CLASSROOM LEVEL IMPACT

In every section of this proposal, we have described how implementation of ARFI will result in classrooms with key characteristics, proven in SBRR to be effective. Key classroom characteristics are those that are most often associated with significant growth in student achievement. These elements will be expected in all Reading First classrooms regardless of the school location and demographics and are summarized below.

IV A. Key Reading First Classroom Characteristics

ARFI classrooms feature high expectations for all students. Outcomes and accountability for each grade level are clearly established. The teacher communicates these expectations for reading achievement, and there are strategies in place for monitoring progress toward that achievement. Lack of progress is not met with blame but with a plan for interventions to accelerate student learning. (See pages 38-40, 44-45, and 54, related to SBRR applied to reading assessment.)

These interventions may be in the form of a specific program but are often adjustments made in instruction. A student who is struggling may need to work in a smaller group or may need more instructional time focused on specific skills. Struggling students need explicit, intensive instruction adapted to their unique strengths and needs. (See pages13 and 25 for instructional strategies based on SBRR.)

There is a protected block of time for reading instruction. This block is a minimum of 90 minutes per day every day without interruptions for programs, announcements, or visits. The teacher is engaged in providing high quality reading instruction, and students are engaged in reading activities based on their needs for reading achievement. (See pages 13, 46, and 55 for examples.)

A comprehensive reading program based on SBRR serves as the basis for reading instruction. The content of this program features the five critical components identified in SBRR including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Other research-based features of the program include: explicit instructional strategies; coordinated instructional sequences; ample practice opportunities; and aligned student materials. Any intervention or supplemental materials are carefully selected to support the comprehensive program. (See pages 25-28, 45-46, and 54-55, related to SBRR applied to programs and materials.)

Instruction is planned and delivered to meet the needs of students at various levels. A significant portion of the day is devoted to small group teacher directed instruction. Students of the same ability level often work together. Ongoing monitoring of progress allows frequent regrouping to reflect students’ knowledge and skills. (See pages 13, 33-39, 43-44, and 55 for examples.)

Flexible grouping strategies are in place. These alternate grouping formats, such as one-on-one, pairs, small group, and whole group, are used for different instructional purposes. Students have the opportunity to be members of more than one group based on instructional needs, prior knowledge, or interests. (See pages 13, 25, and 46 for examples.)

Student learning is maximized by actively engaging children in a variety of reading-based activities. Teachers vary the presentation, format, and ways students can participate during

Version: 6/02 110

instruction. The pace is lively. There is less teacher talk and more opportunity for interaction between students and teacher. Students work with a variety of materials on appropriate levels. The pacing, content, and emphases are adapted to accommodate the needs of individuals or groups of students, especially English language learners and those having difficulty learning to read. (See pages 13, 25, 46, and 55 for examples.)

These effective classroom characteristics will be a major focus of ongoing professional development. They will be introduced at the initial summer institute and expanded in workshops and grade level meetings. Teachers will have the opportunity to visit and observe other model classrooms. They will have support from the reading coach to make these research-based characteristics part of their own classroom practice. (See pages 13 and 69-72 for examples.)

As ARFI teachers experience success in raising student achievement, they will have the opportunity to share successful practices with other teachers in their districts. These key classroom characteristics will become the vehicle for helping make every K-3 student a proficient reader.

IV B. Coherence

Throughout this proposal we have described how ARFI, in concert with already proven statewide literacy initiatives, will be expanded to all K-3 general education and special education teachers an all elementary schools in Alabama over the next six years. (See the chart summarizing “Where Alabama is Headed” on pages 15-16 of this proposal.) From the initial discussions among members of the SEA Department Management Team, the ARFI has been welcomed as the catalyst for bringing together the separate, and sometimes conflicting, literacy efforts in Alabama. In this proposal, we have detailed how we plan to coordinate and strengthen these different efforts in order to achieve our goal of having all Alabama students reading at the proficient level by the end of Grade 3.

Section I (pages 1-69) describes the major literacy efforts in Alabama and the gaps that we have identified in these efforts. Our Reading First plan will provide the financial and human resources to address these gaps. We have explained our subgrant competition procedures for selecting ARFI-eligible LEAs and schools. We present our plan for integrating scientifically based reading research into all reading activities in those targeted schools that receive Reading First funds, in the schools that are already involved in one of our literacy efforts (ARI, BRM, and REA), and in all kindergarten, first, second, and third grade classrooms through our statewide professional development training (detailed in pages 61-67). The chart on pages 15-16 shows how we intend to coordinate current efforts with ARFI over the next six years to ensure that all reading activities in Alabama operate in a coherent fashion.

In Section II (pages 69-97), we identify the leadership and management plan for bringing coherence to ARFI. The Department Management Team is led by veteran members from different sections of the SEA who understand the current reading needs and the climate in local districts and schools. The Department Management Team has already shown its resolve to bring a united approach to scientifically based reading instruction in Alabama through actions such as the decisions to administer the DIBELS statewide and to devote the 2003 Mega Conference to reading. Having ARFI staff members come directly from the ARI staff will ensure coordination between these major reading efforts. Naming Dr. Katherine Mitchell as Chief Reading Scientist and charging her with the responsibility of bringing coordination, coherence, and a scientific

Version: 6/02 111

base to all reading activities in the State, is further evidence of Alabama’s commitment to persistently pursue our goal of proficient reading for all students by the end of Grade 3. Committing Reading First funds for technical assistance at the building, regional, and state levels will provide for the quality initial training and ongoing support that is crucial to substantial changes in teacher practice and student achievement. The ongoing monitoring provided through DIBELS data, regional reading coaches, and the State Federal Programs Section, again ensures consistency and compliance in implementation.

Finally, in Section III (pages 97-108), we indicate how we intend to use the evaluation process to contribute to the development of a coherent reading effort in Alabama. The ARI has been evaluated by a third party each year of implementation, and, as described in this proposal, the ARI has taken steps toward meeting the needs identified in these evaluations. We expect to use the ARFI evaluation process in the same way – as a means of strengthening the ARFI as well as reporting progress. As the figure on page 100 shows, we plan to evaluate our progress at every level – school, principal, teacher, and student – and to take any steps necessary to address the needs at each level in order to reach our goal of having all Alabama students reading at the proficient level.

Beginning with the Alabama Reading Initiative in 1998, Alabama has been committed to the goal of having all students read well. Reading First will strengthen our efforts to achieve that goal; cause us to direct more attention to the prevention of reading difficulty; and ultimately, to enable all Alabama students to read proficiently by the end of Grade 3.

Version: 6/02 112

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adams, M. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the “Great Debate”. American Educator, 19(2), 7, 10-20.

Adams, M. J., Treiman, R., & Pressley, M. (1998). Reading, writing and literacy. In I.E. Sugel and K.A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed). New York: Wiley.

Adams, M. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Word recognition: The interface of educational policies and scientific research. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 113-139.

Alabama Department of Education, (1998a). Knowledge and skills teachers need to know to deliver effective reading instruction.

Alabama Department of Education (1998b). Report on the review of the research .Alabama Leadership Academy (ALA). (November 2001). Alabama Leadership Academy

Notebook. Montgomery, AL: Author.Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman Company.Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1984). Teacher behavior and student achievement. Occasional Paper

No. 73. Michigan State University, East Lansing Institute for Research on Teaching. Center for Educational Accountability. (2000). Evaluation of the Alabama Reading Initiative

1998-1999.Center for Educational Accountability. (2001). Evaluation of the Alabama Reading Initiative

1999-2000.Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA). (2001). Put reading first:

The research building blocks for teaching children to read.Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Chen, Huey-tsyh (1990). Issues in constructing program theory. New Directions for Program

Evaluation, 47, 7-18.DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading. Reading

Research Quarterly, 20, 351-67.Dryden, B. J. (1982). The development of a diagnostic reading attitude assessment for grades

two through five. Reading Improvement, 19(3), 173-82.Edmonds, M. S., & Briggs, K. L. (in progress). Instructional Content Emphasis instrument. In S.

R. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.). Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning. Baltimore: Paul. E. Brookes.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). How reading outcomes of students with disabilities are related to instructional grouping formats: A meta-analytical review. In R. Gersten, E. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research (pp. 107-124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Evans, P. M., & Mohr, N. (1999). Professional development for principals. Phi Delta Kappan, (80)7, 530.

Farr, R., Tulley, M., & Powell, D. (1987). The evaluation and selection of basal readers. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 267-281.

Version: 6/02 113

Francis, D. J., Sharwitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., & Fletcher, J. M. (1994). Measurement of change: Assessing behavior over time and within a developmental context. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 29-58). Baltimore: Brookes.

Gibson, M. I. (1986). Reading with roots. Russian Language Journal, 40(135), 45-5.Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2001). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy

Skills (5th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available: http://dibels.uoregon.edu/.

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Simmons, D., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). Using dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. OSSC Bulletin, 44(1), 1-24.

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257-288.

Group Reading Assessment & Diagnostic Evaluation (Grades K-2). The GRADE is a new product available from American Guidance Services.

Hillman, S. J. (1986). Measuring self-efficacy: Preliminary steps in the development of a multi-dimensional instrument. Publication: U. S. Indiana No. of Pages:54.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Kame’enui, E. J. (2002). An analysis of reading assessment instruments for k-3. Available: www.idea.uoregon.edu.

Kaminski, R. R., & Good, R. H., III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-227.

Kaminski, R. R., & Good, R. H., III (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. (pp. 113-142). New York: Guilford.

Learning First Alliance. (2000). Every child reading: A professional development guide. Available: http://www.learningfirst.org/publications.html

Lieberman, I., & Lieberman, A. M. (1990). Emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, (40), 51-76.

Lyon, G. R. (1996a). Learning disabilities. The future of children, 6(1), 53-76.Lyon, G. R. (1996b, October 27). Progress and promise in understanding reading disabilities.

The Washington Post.Lyon, G. R., & Alexander, D. (1996/97). NICHD research program in learning disabilities. In F.

Horowitz (Ed), Their World (pp. 13-15). New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Lyon, G. R., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Research support the America Reads Challenge. Retrieved January 3, 2002 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) website:http://www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/nichd.html.

Mather, N., Bos, C. S., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 472-482.

Version: 6/02 114

Miller, J. (1986). Evaluation and selection of basal reading programs. The Reading Teacher, 40, 12-18.

Mitchell, K. A. (1999). Translating research into practice: The Alabama Reading Initiative. Teaching and Change 6(2), 219-237.

Moscovitch, E. (2002). Evaluation of the Alabama Reading Initiative: Final report. December 2001.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). NAEP 1998 reading: Report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

National Research Council. (1998). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children’s reading success. Washington, DC: Author.

National School Reform Faculty. (December 2000). Critical friends groups: Teachers helping teachers to improve student learning .Available: http://www.harmonyschool.org/.

National Staff Development Council (NSDC). (2001). NSCD’s Standards for Staff Development, revised.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In Kamil et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama. (October 24, 2001). PARCA Report: Turnover among 1999 novice teachers.

Rosenshine, B. (1997). Advances in research on instruction. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schunk, D. H. (1998). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-82.

Shannon, D. M. (2002). Achievement in REA schools: a progress report.Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development:

Accommodating individual differences into a mode of acquisition. Issues in Education: Contributions From Educational Psychology, 1, 1-57.

Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (Eds.). (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Snow, C. S., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.

Stanovich, K. E. (1993). The developmental history of an illusion. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, no. 1.

Stanovich, K. E. (1993/94). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 280-291.Stuifbergen, A., Seraphine, A., & Roberts, G. (2000). An explanatory model of health promoting

behavior and quality of life for persons with chronic disabling conditions. Nursing Research, 49(3), 122-129.

Stuifbergen, A., Seraphine, A., & Roberts, G. (2000). Maximizing health in the context of chronic illness. In S. Funk, E. Tournquist, J. Leeman, M. Miles, & J. Harrell (Eds.), Key aspects of preventing and managing chronic illness (pp. 195-206). New York: Springer Publishing.

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (in press). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Teaching all children to read. Elementary School Journal.

Version: 6/02 115

Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts. (2002). Teacher reading academies: Preventing reading difficulties in kindergartners, first and second graders. Austin: Author.

Tyson, J., & Woodward, A. (1989). Why students aren’t learning very much from textbooks. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 14-17.

United States Department of Education (USDOE). (2002). Secretary’s reading leadership academy notebook. Washington, DC: Author.

Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Moody, S. W., & Elbaum, B. (2001). Instructional grouping for reading for students with learning disabilities: Implications for practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 131-137.

Vaughn, S., Thompson, S. L., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D., & Dickson, S. (February, 2001). Grouping for reading instruction: Students with reading difficulties who are monolingual English speakers or English language learners. Pacific Coast Research Conference, LaJolla, CA.

Vellutino, E. R. (1991). Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition: Convergent findings on theoretical foundations of code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 437-43.

Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, J., & Hampston, J. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 101-131.

Version: 6/02 116