Leadership is Crucial to “Beating the Odds” in Reading First

Barbara Foorman, Ph.D.

Florida State University and the

Florida Center for Reading Research

www.FCRR.org

Leadership

• The CEO model of leadership• A leader is best when people barely know that

he exists (The Way of Life According to Laotzu)• The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind

him in other men the conviction and the will to carry on…The genius of a good leader is to leave behind him a situation which common sense, without the grace of genius, can deal with successfully (Walter Lippmann, “Roosevelt Has Gone,” April 14, 1945)

Distributed Leadership (Elmore)

• Purpose of leadership is improvement of instructional practice & performance.

• Instructional improvement requires continuous learning.

• Learning requires modeling.• Role/activities of leadership flow from expertise

required for learning & improvement, not from institutional dictates

• Exercise of authority requires reciprocity of accountability and capacity.

Reciprocal accountability…

“My authority to require you to do something you might not otherwise do depends on my capacity to create the opportunity for you to learn how to do it, and to educate me on the process of learning how to do it, so that I become better at enabling you to do it the next time.” (Elmore, 2004, p. 69)

Principals in Beat the Odds Schools

• Have a relentless focus on instruction, coherent curriculum, and teacher development plan that supports curriculum

• Clear vision of what students are supposed to know and do; don’t blame the students

• Distribute leadership very consciously• Celebrate every success• Don’t overdo “test prep”• Have skills & knowledge, not necessarily charisma

Chenoweth, 2007

“Flagship Schools” in Texas were selected according to the following:

• TEA Accountability Ratings• Evidence of an effective early reading

intervention program• Willingness to use TPRI and SAT/ITBS in G2.• Support of the superintendent and campus

site-based decision-making committee• Serve as a demonstration site and mentor

other schools• Commitment to maintain the reading program

for a minimum of two years

Cortez Elementary (634)

Low Income: 60% TAAS Gr. Reading: 99%

Ethnic Distribution:African American 3.5%Hispanic 68%Caucasian 29%

Core Reading Program: Project Read (Decodable text, Basal literature) Reading/Language Arts Block (1½ hours) LEP Instruction Intervention Plan for At-Risk 2nd Graders

Cortez ElementaryReading Intervention Plan:

Project Read strategies in groups of 4-6

2nd Period of Reading Lesson (45 min.)

Evaluation each six-weeks to for progress“Intensive Care” – tutoring before school,

after school, and during recess

RAH (Reading at Home) – English and Spanishliterature provided on cassettes

Townsend Elementary(698 enrollment)

Low Income: 43% TAAS Gr. Reading: 94.2%

Ethnic Distribution: African American 27.8% Hispanic 28.2% Caucasian 41.4%

Core Reading Program: Guided Reading K-5 Literature Circles 3-5 PhonoGraphix PK-5

Townsend Elementary

Reading Intervention Plan: Clinic with 3

small groups of 4

ESL instruction

Reading Recovery withPhonoGraphix

Lindamood-Bell- VV-Visualization/Verbalization for Comprehension- LIPS – Phonemic awareness for severely impaired - Students

Ashton Elementary (enrollment of 523)

Low Income: 87% TAAS Gr. Reading: 92.5%Ethnic Distribution:

African American 21%Hispanic 72%Caucasian 6%

Core Reading Program: Success for All – English Success for All – Spanish (Bilingual Education) Two Language Arts Blocks Intervention Plan for At-Risk 2nd Graders

Ashton Elementary

Reading Intervention Plan:

SFA Tutorial (1:1 – 20 minute intervention)

Reading Intervention teacher works with 1st graders who performed poorly the previous year(uses decodable text and word-attack strategies)

Flexible groups of 6 for an additional 90 minutes ofinstruction. Assessed at 8-week intervals

After-school tutorial for 2nd and above (Lakeshorematerials, oral language & vocabulary development)

Willow Bend Elementary(499 enrollment)

Low Income: 79% TAAS Grade ReadingEthnic Distribution: 1998: 53.7%

African American 94% 1999: 69.8%Hispanic 3% 2000: 89.7%Caucasian 3%

Core Reading Program: Reading Mastery PK-5 Acceleration by advancing students based on

progress on mastery tests, daily lessons, rate and accuracy checks, etc.

Small group instruction Two reading lessons presented daily

Willow Bend Elementary

Reading Intervention Plan• Reading Mastery• Reading Lab—small

groups• At-risk students pulled

out to work with 3 intervention teachers

• 1:1 tutoring during social studies/science

Key to Implementation in Flagship Schools

• Screening for secondary intervention is integrated with ongoing assessment of core reading instruction

• Consequently, there are few special education students

Characteristics of Districts/Schools with Characteristics of Districts/Schools with Outstanding Reading ImprovementOutstanding Reading Improvement

Strong instructional leadership; positive climate Increased amount of time available for reading

instruction (90 min. is a minimum) Strong accountability On-going professional development based on

demonstrably effective reading strategies Continuous monitoring of student achievement Integral parent involvement Strong boards of education & school-based

decision-making teams

Instructional Supports Needed

• Structural support: Mentors, specialists.

• Sensible curricula: those that scaffold work of novice teachers, while giving more skilled teachers latitude.

• Adequate PD: onsite, focus on new practices

• Ongoing teacher engagement: mentors help with assessment-driven instruction; management

• Appropriate incentives

Why Reading Matters?

• Reading is the language of learning and must be acquired in the primary grades if grade level content in 4-12 is to be learned.

• 36% perform below basic on 4th grade NAEP; 17.5% of students nationally are RD. Trends are flat and states’ proficiency levels vary.

• A global economy has higher literacy demands

What Does It Mean to be Proficient?

• W score cutpoints on NAEP and state tests communicate grade-level proficiency or benchmark performance.

• State curriculum standards need to be aligned with benchmarks/proficiency levels.

• Are states’ proficiency levels comparable to NAEP’s?

% Proficient on State vs NAEP Reading 2005

State 4-state 4-NAEP DIFF 8-state 8-NAEP DIFF

ME 53 35 -18 44 38 - 6

MO 35 33 - 2 33 31 - 2

WY 47 34 -13 39 36 - 3

TX 79 29 -50 83 26 -57

GA 87 26 -61 83 25 -58

NC 84 29 -55 89 27 -62

[Porter, 2007]

Most state testing systems do not assess college and work readiness

• 26 states require students to pass an exam before they graduate high school.*

• Yet most states have testing systems that do not measure college and work readiness.**

*Source: Center on Education Policy, State High School Exit Exams: States Try Harder, But Gaps Persist, August 2005.**Source: Achieve Survey/Research, 2006.

Graduation exams in 26 states establish the performance “floor”

Figure reads: Alaska has a mandatory exit exam in 2005 and is withholding diplomas from students based on exam performance. Arizona is phasing in a mandatory exit exam and plans to begin withholding diplomas based on this exam in 2006. Connecticut does not have an exit exam, nor is it scheduled to implement one.

Source: Center on Education Policy, based on information collected from state departments of education, July 2005.

How challenging are state exit exams?

• Achieve conducted a study of graduation exams in six states to determine how high a bar the tests set for students.

• The results show that these tests tend to measure only 8th, 9th or 10th grade content, rather than the skills students needs to succeed in college and the workplace.

The tests Achieve analyzed

StateGrade Given Reading Writing Math

First Graduating Class Facing Requirement

Florida 10th • • 2003

Maryland End of course • • • 2009

Massachusetts 10th • • • 2003

New Jersey 11th • • • 2003

Ohio 10th • • 2007

Texas 11th • • • 2004

Source: Achieve, Inc., Do Graduation Tests Measure Up? A Closer Look at State High School Exit Exams, 2004.

Students can pass state English tests with skills ACT expects of 8th & 9th graders

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FL

MD

MA

NJ

OH

TX

ACT EXPLORE (8th/9th)

ACT PLAN (10th)

ACT (11th/12th)

Source: Achieve, Inc., Do Graduation Tests Measure Up? A Closer Look at State High School Exit Exams, 2004.

% Students Proficient on FCAT(Level 3 and above)

Grade 2001 2006 Difference

3 57 75 18

4 53 66 13

5 52 67 15

6 52 64 12

7 47 62 15

8 43 46 3

9 28 40 12

10 37 32 -5

Is 10th Grade FCAT Too Hard?

• The St. Petersburg Times article (4/15/07) concluded correctly that the 10th Grade FCAT is harder than the 10th grade NRT.

• Conclusion based on fact that Level 3 (proficient) performance is 56th %ile nationally at Gr 7; 80th %ile at Gr 10

• Or “Why wait until high school to implement world class standards?”

Abs

olut

e le

vel o

f re

adin

g pr

ofic

ienc

y

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Absolute level of reading proficiency nationally

Grade level standard on the FCAT

2009 NAEP FrameworkLiterary Text

● Fiction

● Literary Nonfiction

● Poetry

Informational Text● Exposition

● Argumentation and Persuasive Text

● Procedural Text and Documents

Cognitive Targets Distinguished by Text Type

Locate/Recall Integrate/Interpret Critique/Evaluate

2009 NAEP FrameworkEnglish Mathematics History Science

text type

literary informational or technical, symbolic, diagrams

expository, argumentative, persuasive

Informational or technical, diagrams

text

structure

plot, setting, characterization, point of view, verse, rhyme

sequence, cause and effect, problem and solution, supporting ideas and evidence, graphical features

sequence, cause and effect, problem and solution, author’s perspective supporting ideas and evidence, contrasting viewpoints, graphical features

sequence, cause and effect, problem and solution, supporting ideas and evidence, graphical features

author’s craft

diction, dialogue, symbolism, imagery, irony, figurative language

rhetorical structure, examples, logical arguments

figurative language, rhetorical structure, examples, emotional appeal

rhetorical structure, examples, logical arguments

Passage Length in Words

Grade FCAT range FCAT average NAEP range NAEP average

3 100-700 350

4 100-900 400 200-800 500

5 200-900 450

6 200-1000 500

7 300-1100 600

8 300-1100 700 400-1000 700

9 300-1400 800

10 300-1700 900 500-1500 (12) 1000 (12)

% of Passage Types

Grade FCAT Literary Texts

FCAT Informa-tional Texts

NAEP Literary Texts

NAEP Informa-tional Texts

3 60% 40%

4 50% 50% 50% 50%

5 50% 50%

6 50% 50%

7 40% 60%

8 40% 60% 45% 55%

9 30% 70%

10 30% 70% 30% (12) 70% (12)

FCAT Test Design

• Cognitive Complexity (Webb’s Depth of Knowledge)

• Content Categories for Reading- Words & phrases in context- Main idea, plot, & author’s purpose- Comparison; cause/effect- Reference & Research – locate, organize, interpret, synthesize, & evaluate information

Are these categories really independent?

To Make Proficiency Standards Meaningful and Fair

• Agree on target for proficiency (e.g., college readiness)

• Align elementary, middle, and high school targets

• Align curriculum standards

• Evaluate dimensionality of tests and prepare instruction accordingly

• Equate state tests with NAEP to guarantee comparability and equity

The Kennewick Success Story

In Spring, 1995, the Kennewick, WA school board set goal that 90% of third graders would read at or above grade level in 3 yrs. In 2006 they made it!

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual Growth for all students, Catch-UP Growth for those who are behind. Kennewick, WA: The New Foundation Press, Inc.

About Kennewick

• Located in southeastern Washington State.• Urban area has 185,000; Kennewick School

District serves 15,000 students.• Kennewick has 13 elementary schools, 4

middle schools, and 3 high schools, and a regional vocational skill center.

• 25% of students are ethnic minorities; 48% of elementary students are eligible for FRL.

• Operating budget of $119 million.

In Kennewick, Reading Improvement Requires:

• Data: good assessments—benchmark and normative—and expert use of the data

• Increased direct instructional time; additional time for those behind

• Quality instruction in small, fluid, skill groups

• TAG processes; knowledgeable reading specialists

Targeted Accelerated Growth (TAG) Loop

• Diagnostic testing to determine deficient sub-skills of those behind

• Proportional increases in direct instructional time

• Teaching to the deficient sub-skill

• Retesting to assure that adequate catch-up growth actually occurred

Kennewick, WA School District Strategic Plan

Catch-up Growth

• “Students who are behind do not learn more in the same amount of time as students who are ahead.

• Catch-up growth is driven by proportional increases in direct instructional time.

• Catch-up growth is so difficult to achieve that it can be the product only of quality instruction in great quantity.”

[p. 62, Fielding, Kerr, & Rosier (2007)]

Example

Roughly each unit of 13 %ile pts from the 50th %ile equals a year of growth:

State standard in percentiles: 50th %ileStudent X’s G2 status in percentiles: 12th %ileThe difference (in %ile) is: 38 ptsPercentile pt. diff. divided by 13: 2.9 yrs.

Daily Instructional Minutes

• Daily min required for annual G3 growth: 80

• Daily min required for annual G4 growth: 80

• Additional daily min to make 3 yrs of additional growth:240

Total G3 and G4 daily minutes: 400

So, 200 min of direct reading instruction in G3 and in G4 is needed to reach the 50th %ile by the end of G4.

Remediation is NOT the solution

If a student in the 1st to 40th percentile is two years behind on average, and districts spend $5,000 per student per year to create catch-up growth, then the cost of each year of catch-up growth is $32,000 (extra cost per year of $5,000 per student per year times twelve years divided by the two years of catch-up growth equals $30,000) [Fielding et al., 2007, p. 210]

“To achieve 90% at or above standard, elementary schools must create a growth pattern where the majority of students’ achieve annual growth and nearly all students in the lowest quintiles make double annual growth or more….A systemic response requires making assessment and reporting systems available in classrooms that allow teachers to identify initial achievement levels, set growth targets, and measure students’ growth three to four times a year.” (Fielding, Kerr, & Rosier, 2007, pp. 188-189)

Instructional leadership at Kennewick

• Instructional conferences for all administrators (viewing videotaped lessons)

• Learning walks (to observe lesson purpose and rigor and student engagement; debrief)

• The two-ten goal (administrators spend 2 hrs/day or 10 hrs/week on instructionally focused activities)

• Literacy coaches at middle and high school (meet weekly with principal to plan instruction & PD; confer regularly with teachers)

Examples of Effective Schedules in FL Reading First Schools

Reading Blocks• All grades have reading at the same time

• Interventions offered mostly outside the block• The principal uses “special area” teachers to assist during

reading instruction.

• The reading blocks are staggered • The principal rotates his intervention teachers to provide

interventions both in and outside the reading block• The reading coach is able to observe and model lessons in

more classrooms during the reading block

Intervention Schedules in Effective FL Reading First Schools

Intensive InterventionsThe 2 most popular ways of scheduling intensive interventions at the successful schools were:

1. A 90 minute reading block and then 30-45 minutes of time scheduled outside of that block to deliver the interventions. In almost all these cases, the interventions were provided by support personnel other than the regular classroom teacher.

2. An extended reading block of 105-120 minutes in which intensive intervention was included in the block of time designated for reading instruction. In these schedules, the interventions were sometimes provided by the regular classroom teacher, and sometimes by instructional support personnel.

Increasing Instructional Time

• Title 1 provided 30 min extra instructional time• Reading First provides a minimum of 90 min

additional instructional time• Many Title 1 schools are finding that it

requires 2 hrs. (120 min) of daily reading instruction to ensure that 95% of students are reading on grade level by G3.

• Instructional quality predicts reading success above and beyond time on task

Percent Time in Reading/LA Activities in First Grade vs. Second Grade in Houston

Content Percents by Grade in Houston

0

5

10

15

20

25

Per

cent

age

Grade 3 Grade 4

A Hypothetical Model of How Teacher Variables Moderate the Impact of Student’s Initial Reading Ability on Reading and Spelling Outcomes

Initial status + Growth = Outcome

• Correlation of initial achievement and ending achievement is .83-.90.

• Students who start ahead, stay ahead; students who start behind, stay behind.

• Schools don’t create the achievement gap; they inherit it.

13 higher- SES children(professional)

23 middle/lower- SES children(working class)

6 welfare 6 welfare childrenchildren

Age of child in monthsAge of child in months

Cu

mu

lati

ve V

ocab

ula

ry w

ord

sC

um

ula

t ive V

ocab

ula

r y w

ord

s

Hart & Risley, 1995

Esti

mate

d c

um

ula

tive w

ord

s a

dd

ressed

to c

hild

Age of child in months

Language ExperienceLanguage Experience

Professional

Working-class

Welfare

Hart & Risley, 1995

Table 3

Variation in Amount of Independent Reading

% Independent Reading

Minutes Per Day

Words Read Per

Year 98 65.0 4,358,000 90 21.1 1,823,000 80 14.2 1,146,000 70 9.6 622,000 60 6.5 432,000 50 4.6 282,000 40 3.3 200,000 30 1.3 106,000 20 0.7 21,000 10 0.1 8,000

2 0.0 0

Early Learning is Crucial

• Narrowing the achievement gap before kindergarten is a powerful, proactive, and doable task.

• Build oral language and literacy development into pre-K classes

• Have parents read to their children 20 min. a day to expose them to rare vocabulary, complex syntax, and rich discussion.

The End• Chenoweth, K. (2007). It’s being done: Academic success

in unexpected schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Denton, Foorman, & Mathes (2003). Remedial & Special Education, 24, 258-261.

• Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Fielding, L., Kerr, N., Rosier, P. (2007). Annual Growth for all students, Catch-up Growth for those who are behind. Kennewick, WA: The New Foundation Press, Inc.