Professional Research Article: "Literacies for Life"

Matthew Meader, Hamburg High School, 10 & 12
Grade Level Cohort for DCA: Regents
“Literacies for Life”, Paul Shaker, Educational Leadership, October 2001


As caring teachers, we consistently analyze our position as educators and attempt to improve our personal capacity for delivering the most effective and meaningful education to the students in our classrooms. Paul Shaker, in the article, “Literacies for Life”, points to the growing and changing struggles that face teachers in relation to the growing and changing world around us. Advancement in science and technology has altered the consciousness of today’s young people. We live in a world where “the volume of data has grown exponentially, and information technology has made accessing that data possible by many means” (Shaker 26). All of this advancement coincides with increasing demands on teachers to produce results that meet the growing expectations of policymakers at local, state, and federal levels. What often suffers as a result of any attempt to adequately align curriculum to new fields of study, while meeting the expectations of educational critics, are the practical skills and essential elements of knowledge that connect students to the real world and truly steer them toward success.
Shaker points to three kinds of literacy that, he believes, form the foundation for successful and meaningful education. First there is what he calls “economic literacy.”
Shaker writes that “the least controversial purpose of schooling is to prepare students for economic productivity” (26). The author claims that this goal has been passed on to vocational programs reaching only a small percentage of students. Economic literacy, according to Shaker, has often been neglected in the curricular tradition. Because of this neglect, students lack personal economic skills “including an understanding of credit, real estate ownership, retirement planning, taxation, and investing” (27). These elements of economic literacy undoubtedly shift the balance in regard to the potential for success of so many American families. This neglect is a result of what Shaker sees as a lack of insight into the basic educational principle that “the best intellectual learning occurs in a context that illustrates its practical value” (27).
The second literacy the author focuses on is “social and emotional literacy.” America’s young people face a number of discouraging trends that may result directly from a lack of social and emotional awareness. Decreasing voter participation (which impacts the integrity of our democracy), as well as increasing social struggles (which affect the health and well-being of our citizens) are perhaps related to the disaffection of students who feel unable to influence the world that surrounds and ultimately controls them. If we as educators are willing to take on the responsibility of altering our educational practice in order to address the practical aims of political motivation, family skills, personal health, and a greater understanding of developmental psychology, we may provide students with more options regarding the realities of their futures, even if these practicalities do not perfectly align with an imposed curricular strategy.
The final literacy targeted by Paul Shaker’s article in Educational Leadership is “aesthetic literacy.” The author boldly declares that “art should permeate the school environment through painting, sculpture, poetry, and other forms of expression” (28). He makes the claim that we have shied away from the inspirational and even spiritual nature of art’s presence in the world because of the imagined conflict of interest that exists between the role of the school and the role of such institutions as churches and historical, cultural traditions. Shaker states that “we need the moral courage to push society in alternative directions and to resist the pressures that steer us away from unconventional, higher-order aspirations” (28). We should never underestimate our power to influence, and therefore inspire, life altering recognitions of the beauty that motivates the most essential elements of our humanity. We are, as educators, a direct link to some of the most magnificent creations of mankind. Art should not take a backseat to the television and text-messaging. We must respond to apathy with a commitment to share our personal passion for art, poetry, and the expressions that nurture personal inspiration.
Paul Shaker’s article reminds us of our responsibility and rights as teachers in today’s classrooms. We have to be able to balance the demands of those shaping our stance from the outside with unbendable rights of our students to receive the most meaningful and substantial education available. As teachers, we are capable of motivating, inspiring, and altering the lives of the students we see each day. Unfortunately, far too often we fail to focus on the context of our student’s lives and the practical needs that are not only relevant to our curriculum, but often function as the base upon which our curriculum is built. By identifying methods of tying classroom, testable knowledge to the lifetime, practical knowledge that today’s children need, we better serve our schools, our communities, our country, and most importantly, the individual students we meet in September and send off on “vacation” at the end of the year.

Professional Article Review: "Get Real-- What Are Authentic Assessments?"

Loretta A. Condino-Grupp
Grand Island High School
Grade Level Cohort for DCA: Regents

Martin-Kniep, G.O. (2003 January). VJE. Get Real? What are ‘authentic’ assessments? How and when can teachers best use them? 11-13.

Giselle Martin-Kniep, president of Learner-Centered Initiatives Ltd. and author of Becoming a Better Teacher: Eight Innovations that work, (2003) notes that there are teachers should view use varied learning experiences that display different types of authentic assessments. Authentic assessments can range from portfolio, literacy workshops, acting, to academic essay tests, and efferent reading to answer multiple-choice questions. “What is critical for teachers to consider is that learning is enhanced when we provide students with a wide range of lessons and assessments, some requiring the use of a single skill or the acquisition of basic facts, and others requiring the use and application of a wide range of content and skills” (Martin-Kniep, 2003, p. 11).
Martin-Kniep (2003) also emphasizes the importance of cross-curricular instruction as an integral part of authentic assessment. This validity can be observed in secondary English through the interconnectedness of subject-matter, for example a unit studying Ancient China – Ethics and Literature. The English teacher could have the students participate in a multi-genre project involving folk tales of the country and time period, religious belief systems supported by the Chinese population, political stance of the time, poetry written during that time, and possibly the naturalism found in artwork of the particular Dynasty. From this wealth of material, the teachers could develop a variety of learning experiences in conjunction with each other. It could have a lasting impact on the student as it may traverse the short term memory to the working memory. Over time, change and appreciation may happen to the initial plateau of long term memory capacity.

Professional Research Article: "Upper Grades, Lower Reader Skills"

Elizabeth Dunn
Grand Island Central School District
Grade Level Cohort for DCA: Regents

“Upper Grades, Lower Reading Skills:
Middle, High Schools Find They Must Expand Programs for Older Students”
By Lori Aratani, Washington Post staff writer
Thursday, July 13, 2006; B01


English teachers of all grade levels teach areas of language, grammar, reading and writing. While methodologies change and content becomes more sophisticated, the basis of these elements should remain consistent from Kindergarten through graduation. However, in recent years, middle and high school students have been failing miserably when it comes to reading comprehension on standardized testing. Where is this problem stemming from? Who is it affecting? And how can it be remediated?
The article by Lori Aratani addresses these issues in her Washington Post piece, “Upper Grades, Lower Reading Skills: Middle, High Schools Find They Must Expand Programs for Older Students.” Aratani begins her article by stating that, “Teaching reading has long been considered the job of primary grade teachers.” Many educators still believe this idea to be valid, and others in the middle and high school content areas also believe that the English teacher alone is responsible to teach reading skills and strategies, even though content texts need additional reading strategies from literary texts. Aratani discusses the fact that “only 51 percent [of college-bound students] were prepared for college-level reading,” based on results of the ACT college entrance exam. The findings suggest that the students know how to read the words on paper, but “they lack the ability to explain or analyze what these words mean.” While these results are frightening, the cause of these reading difficulties is still debatable. Many people have blamed “bad teaching, chaotic home lives, low expectations for some students, cultural bias, the fact that older students don’t read enough…and student attitude.”
Not only is this issue prevalent across the nation, it is also found across demographics as well. Aratani lists an affluent, high-achieving school district as finding one in five kids only reading at a basic level upon arriving at the high school.
The key to solving this dilemma lies in teaching older students how to understand and explain what they read, according to Timothy Shanahan, president of the International Reading Association. Educators in middle and high schools, across contents, need to help our students read texts for understanding, not just for decoding. Another source, Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education, uses a metaphor to end the piece: “K-3 is necessary for building a strong foundation, but I wouldn’t be much of a carpenter if I built a foundation but not the rest of the house.”

The nature of this article pertains to the ELA Deep Curriculum Alignment process in a variety of ways. First, the problems with reading comprehension need to be addressed at all grade levels, and all grades need to begin a more consistent collaboration in order to see where gaps in expectations and instruction may be occurring. This is similar to the deep curriculum alignment, since we are all working together, K-12, for a finished product that will fit our individual grade level needs, but will also meet the standards of the state and the comprehensive state tests in reading and writing. Similarly, the high school English Regents exam seems at first glance to largely focus on writing ability, but throughout recent years, a shift has been seen in WNY high schools in recognizing that many of the questions and reading tasks are dense with vocabulary and comprehension issues, which has resulted in more literacy teachers being placed throughout middle and high schools. Thus, our scope and sequence will likely reflect lessons and units incorporating these literacy skills. Finally, despite the fact that the districts involved in this process of deep curriculum deconstruction are varied and diverse, we all recognize the importance of this project for the WNY area, and realize the benefits will hopefully be seen in urban, rural and suburban schools alike.

Professional Research Article: "From Efficient Decoders to Strategic Readers"

Jane Stevens
Ken-Ton District
Grade Level Cohort for DCA: 5-8
“From Efficient Decoders to Strategic Readers,” by Richard T. Vacca, Educational Leadership, November 2002, Volume 60, No. 3, pages 6-11

Some key points in this article were:

Older students are often not given “the support they need to help them grow from fluent decoders into strategic readers – readers who know how to activate prior knowledge before, during, and after reading; decide what’s important in a text; synthesize information; draw inferences during and after reading; ask questions; and self monitor and repair faulty comprehension (Robb, 2000).” (p. 8)

Conversely, it seems “strategic readers know how to think with the text (Vacca & Vacca, 2001.).” (p. 8)

The Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association stated, “Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21st century will read and write more than at any other time in human history.” (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999, p. 3) (p. 8-9)

“As students move into the middle grades and high school, they often receive little or no instruction in how to use reading and writing strategies to learn with texts (Vacca, 1998).” (p. 9)

Reflections on the Article:

Many students appear to be skillful readers because of their decoding skills. However, many students are unable to read textbooks and other required reading in middle school and high school because the skills to move beyond decoding are either assumed or ignored by middle school and high school educators. The article suggests content area literacy instruction is vitally important when helping students develop the different reading and writing skills necessary for success in a subject area. Content area teachers need to “show students how to read and write like a scientist, historian, or mathematician.” (p. 10) The article further stated, “All teachers in all subjects share the responsibility for literacy development in middle and high school.” (p. 10)

Examples of content literary instructional strategies were given for social studies to help illustrate the idea of teaching literacy skills while teaching content. Examples of graphic organizers were shown.

At the end of the article, the author ultimately hoped someday it could be said, “Every teacher, a teacher of reading.” (p. 11)

As content area teachers realize the success of their students in their own subject areas and on their subject area state assessments are directly linked to strong literacy skills, I believe more teachers will be willing to teach these skills while they teach their curriculum. It seems important for all teachers to realize literacy skills are not “someone else’s job” or “something the students should have learned before middle school and high school,” but the responsibility of every teacher at every level to directly teach strategies for literary in all subject areas. It is equally important that teachers be given the training they need to be able to teach effective reading and writing strategies that will help students improve their literacy skills as well as their subject area skills.

Professional Research Article: "What Research Has to Say About Fluency Instruction"

Shonah Hayden
Lancaster Central School District
Grade Level Cohort for DCA: K-4

Book: What Research Has to Say About Fluency Instruction

Editors: S. Jay Samuels & Alan E. Farstrup

Publisher: International Reading Association (2006)

Article from within book: Perspectives on Fluency: English-Language Learners
And Students With Dyslexia P.159-175

By: Theresa J. Palumbo and Jennifer R. Willcut



Since a major goal of this curriculum project is to level the playing field for
all students with high-stakes tests, I feel it is worthwhile to review current information regarding two known groups of students that often struggle in the K-12 spectrum. This article explores why English Language Learners (ELLs) and students with dyslexia struggle with reading fluently. It connects fluency research showing how fluency develops with the instructional needs of the two groups of learners.

Fluency has become a focus of reading instruction prompted by government initiatives such as the National Reading Panel (NRP) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The NRP views a fluent reader as one who can perform multiple tasks. The reader decodes and comprehends simultaneously. The panel feels students need fluency to achieve success with many jobs as they move to the work force.

Dyslexic students and ELLs tend to read slowly, haltingly, and lack expression. Although both groups have similar characteristics, the reasons behind the lack of fluency are different.

· ELLs Fluency Problems : different spoken language, lack of English vocabulary, and cultural mismatch between home and school

· Dyslexic Fluency Problems : recognized as slowed development of learning to read and lack of mastery of spelling skills, processing differences in the brain, and decoding is the biggest roadblock to fluency



The authors listed several factors that can impact the development of reading fluency:

a) Reading Readiness- Concepts of Print (what a book is for, what a book looks like, direction print is read, print = meaning, words are groups of letters between spaces, and letter/sound correspondence) These are essential foundational skills for fluency instruction.

b) Culture – Decoding is a huge task by itself. To understand figures of

speech without the help of cultural background can make comprehension extremely difficult.

c) Oral Language – Oral-language skills impact the ability to map spoken language onto the printed page. It takes ELLs 6-8 years to achieve the same skill level as English-speaking peers. The level of oral and written skills achieved in a first language aids reading fluency in a second language.

d) Vocabulary – Vocabulary knowledge is essential for all learners in order to comprehend what they read.

e) Neurophysiology/Intervention – Functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that the brain activity of struggling (dyslexic) readers is different than fluent readers. It is encouraging to note that fMRIs have also shown that after intensive reading intervention instruction the brain activity of a poor reader can change to reflect that of a good reader.



The article continues by listing three necessary steps for fluency to be achieved by all students. Basic reading skills must be taught until students achieve automatic word recognition. Sufficient practice time is essential to shift from accuracy to reading fluently. Maintaining motivation with the first two steps is critical to achieving fluency.

Many students give up on step one or step two because motivation is missing.

The following methods should be part of reading fluency instruction:

a) Repeated Oral Reading – reread short passages to achieve accuracy, speed, and comprehension

b) Assisted Reading (echo, shared, and choral)

c) Independent Reading (explore personal interests w/ text that is easy)

d) Read to Students – provides exposure to various genres, gives background information, demonstrates fluency w/ expression, expands vocabulary, and introduces grammatical structure

e) Mentoring – Students who overcome great difficulties almost always have at least one person that cares about academic achievement (relative, tutor, coach, teacher).



Materials for reading fluency should include literature and trade books (leveled)

as well as picture dictionaries and word sorts. Texts that include vocabulary definitions near challenging words can increase comprehension. Differentiated materials on the same topic are helpful. Providing many books on the passionate interest of a student allows for the repetition of keywords, phrases, technical vocabulary, etc.



The authors point out that checking comprehension during reading is important to developing fluency skills. Activating prior knowledge, reciprocal teaching components, and metacognitive instruction should be part of the curriculum. Determining the number of words read accurately in a minute is not a sufficient measure of fluency. Retellings should include key ideas of a passage to find out if the reader can respond reflectively and intelligently….with comprehension.



Authors’ Conclusion: Focusing on fluency factors and identifying research to support method effectiveness can outline instruction that benefits ELLs and dyslexic students in developing reading fluency.

Professional Research Article: "How Research Supports Deep Curriculum Alignment"

Kate Ellis
Tonawanda City School District
Grade Level Cohort for DCA: Regents
Works Cited:
Flynn, Mesibov, Vermette, and Smith (2004). Applying Standards-Based
Constructivism: A Two-Step Guide for Motivating Middle and High School
Students. Larchmont, New York: Eye on Education, Inc.

Foote, Vermette, and Battaglia (2001). Constructivist Strategies: Meeting Standards
and Engaging Adolescent Minds. Larchmont, New York: Eye on Education, Inc.

Tomlinson and McTighe (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction + Understanding
by Design: Connecting Content to Kids. Alexandria, Virginia: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).




The NYS Comprehensive English Regents Exam is a performance-based test. At the commencement level students are required to listen and read for information and understanding in session one of the exam. The performance pieces embedded in this first session include answering multiple choice questions to evaluate a student’s level of comprehension and writing pieces that involve a specific situation, audience, and task. Session two evaluates a student’s ability to read and write for literary response and expression. Here too students answer multiple choice questions to assess their level of comprehension, but the writing pieces are much more complicated and require students not only to demonstrate their knowledge of the pieces of literature read, but also to discuss how and why authors use specific literary elements and devices to develop effect and meaning. These tasks are valid and standards-based and the embedded skills and deep thinking required are things we should want for all students at this level. Therefore, building a 9-12 curriculum around these skills and aligning it to the standards and literacy competencies found in this exit exam is only sensible; classroom instruction and activities should call for students to use these embedded skills on a more consistent basis so that the skills are mastered over time and not simply used once or twice a year. It is this belief that has brought us together in this important process of deep curriculum alignment.
If the Comprehensive English Regents Exam is a performance-based test, wouldn’t it also make sense to build activities and performance assessments by using a constructivist approach? Let’s face it; we all know that standardized tests are not a true measurement of a student’s abilities. Why then do so many teachers use multiple choice, matching, and fill in the blank tests as the final assessment of a unit taught? The most common answer is that the same approach worked for us when we were kids. The problem with that answer, however, is that the kids and benchmark tests are different from the ways we learned and were assessed years ago. The approaches and teaching methods that worked with us do not work so well with kids today. There are much better ways to assess our students’ learning and some of the most effective ways to be studied in recent years include Understanding by Design developed by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, Differentiated Instruction made popular by Carol Ann Tomlinson, and Standards-Based Constructivism Using the Two-Step Model developed by Pat Flynn, Don Mesibov, Paul J. Vermette, and R. Michael Smith. NYS Learning Standards and Core Curricula demand that students demonstrate what they know. According to Flynn, Mesibov, Vermette, and Smith, students cannot demonstrate their knowledge and ability to apply their skills if they sit passively in classrooms listening to their teachers’ lectures. Today’s standards call for a different set of teaching practices that can be met through activities based on constructivist theory. But before we can begin to adopt the constructivist approach, we must first change our perception of curriculum. Ask any teacher what their curriculum consists of and they will immediately list the titles read and topics “covered.” This is not curriculum. Curriculum is not the titles and topics we as teachers provide to our students. Rather, curriculum is what the students do with the titles and topics we share and explore with them. Constructivist classrooms allow students opportunities to do meaningful things with the content taught. Constructivism is a theory of learning, based on a body of research, that describes the processes undergone by the learner during the instruction and places greater emphasis on active involvement. “Constructivist classrooms attempt to change the context in which students learn and the manner in which learning is organized and assessed” (Foote, et al 2001). It is not a panacea, but it is an approach that allows students to become actively engaged with the content, apply the skills embedded in the NYS Standards and Literacy Competencies, and demonstrate their knowledge in meaningful and measurable ways.
In recent years, Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe developed the Understanding by Design model that allows teachers to put learning standards at the center of their lessons and ensures that students “truly understand content and can apply it in meaningful ways” (Tomlinson and McTighe 2006). Using this planning model, teachers begin with the end in mind; that is, they decide what it is they need students to do with the content in order to provide them with a meaningful learning experience that allows them to apply the skills embedded in the regents exam. By using this model and the constructivist approach throughout a deeply aligned 9-12 curriculum, teachers insure that students develop, apply, and master the skills needed on a more consistent and continual basis rather than only on a high-stakes test.
The Deep Curriculum Alignment undertaken in this project has painstakingly identified every embedded skill and literacy competency students must demonstrate on the NYS Comprehensive English Regents Exam and aligned each question on every exam given in January, June, and August from the years 2000 through 2006 to the NYS Standards. Next we will undergo the process of collaboratively, as a region, developing curriculum (activities that students will do with the content) that call for students to develop and apply those skills to titles and topics taught in meaningful ways. According to Tomlinson and McTighe, professionals in any field are distinguished by two characteristics. First, they act on the most current knowledge that defines the field and second, they are client centered and adapt to meet the needs of individuals. Understanding by Design, Differentiated Instruction, and constructivist theories including the Two-Step model address both these distinctions making certain develop and apply the skills assessed on the exam. By using these approaches and models in developing our curriculum in this next step in the process we will provide today’s students with appropriate and measurable learning experiences throughout their high school years, thereby removing the stigma of a high stakes test from the commencement level exam.

Professional Research Review: “How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning”

Margaret Stevens
Akron Central School
Grade Level Cohort for DCA: Regents
High School, Grades 9 and 11
“How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning”
Thomas R. Guskey


Guskey’s piece focuses on making assessments useful – for teachers and students. Some of what he says is valid (not new, but valid). Second chances for students, and teachers “testing what they teach” rather than “teaching to the test” are two points I agree with because I do it. Allowing any level student to rewrite an essay after getting back a grade they’re not happy with works (with some conditions).

Guskey, however, predicates his article with comments about teachers’ lack of training in assessing, their construction of assessments in a “haphazard fashion,” and their reliance on assessments provided by the publisher. I doubt that most teachers do this – particularly if they’re dealing with New York State’s “standards” and available training. He talks about our keeping our assessments secret and playing “gotcha” with kids on tests. Teachers I know don’t do this.

People are going to be more willing to consider using Guskey’s premises if they haven’t been insulted in the first paragraphs. Had I started reading at paragraph six, I’d be more receptive to his ideas, even though they’re not innovative.

Professional Research Review: Backward Design for Forward Action, Jay McTigue and Ronald S. Thompson

Submitted by: Margaret Connolly, Sweet Home Central, grades 5
Grades level cohort for DCA: 5-8
Backward Design for Forward Action, Jay McTigue and Ronald S. Thompson
Educational Leadership, vol. 6, no. 5, February 2003


Since we are using the backward design process in this deep curriculum alignment work, and I have seen McTighe speak, I chose to read this article and bounce what we are doing off of the experts.

The three steps in backward design are:

*identify desired results
* analyze data
* create action plans

In our process here at BOCES, we are heavily involved in step one: identify desired results. Our desired result is an ELA curriculum aligned to the New York State standards, as we’ve discussed each time we’ve come together. But what the article highlights as one of the most important aspects of this first steps, is what I think will be the most valuable thing we bring back to our districts, schools and teachers—and that is that we will have “”unpacked” the standards and uncovered key concepts for the people we work with. The article goes on to discuss that this is a crucial point in the step of identifying results because for many teachers, we have been bogged down in and focusing on basic skills instead of content standards. If this DCA group can go back to districts and help the average teacher—novice to veteran-- understand the difference in these ways of focusing their teaching, then we will have gone a long way in improving teaching and learning, and aligning what’s being taught to New York State standards.

Professional Research Review: “The New WWW: Whatever, Whenever, Wherever.” Tom March. Educational Leadership. December 2005-January 2006.

Submitted by:
Jayme Kelly, Sweet Home CSD, Grade 7
Grade Level Cohort for DCA: 5-8

“The New WWW: Whatever, Whenever, Wherever.” Tom March. Educational Leadership. December 2005-January 2006.

Technology is creating an age of instant gratification – we get Whatever we want, Whenever and Wherever we want it. This is the new WWW world we are living in; everything is becoming personalized, interactive, and immediate. The “old” school model can’t compete with this. How will schools react?

The author then quotes a definition of teaching from Maria Harris: “Teaching is the creation of a situation in which subjects, human subjects, are handed over to themselves.” He argues that students need to be engaged in the joys of learning and of making meaning, and that the new WWW can actually help us to achieve this.

Two specific strategies are given. The first one is called a WebQuest. These have been around for years, but not many teachers or districts are integrating them into the classroom. WebQuests can provide rich, authentic learning – something beyond the “cut and paste” internet research too often done by students.

Another strategy is to set up what the author calls a ClassAct Portal. This is a type of web site that allows students to go in depth into a specific subject. Similar to a blog, students can read posts from the teacher, other students, or even experts outside of the classroom; they can also add their own ideas. The author has created a web site http://www.classactportal.com to help educators interested in this strategy.

Reflection on Current Research

As our group continues the tedious task of articulating a deeply aligned curriculum, we continue to encourage thought and discussion around instruction. So many of you have approached us to share the ways in which your perspectives have changed, and how excited you are to begin building "new" pieces for classroom use and sharing the things you already have in place that you know are working well.

Curriculum building is definitely on the near horizon, and in order to ensure that our work is grounded in best practice and valid research, all participants have been encouraged to participate in professional research work this summer.

During our summer sessions, teachers have been asked to select and read a piece of professional research that is relevant to ELA instruction, curriculum-building, or assessment. Each participant will then compose a written reflection of this piece, focusing on the salient points of the work, their relevance to our project, and any other insights that they may wish to share with the group as a whole. These pieces will be posted here as they are submitted.

Please take the time to consider the ideas that will be shared with you over the next several months. We would like you to respond to two of these pieces prior to October 1st and arrive at the fall sessions ready to participate in the discussions that will follow as we move toward the creation of our curriculum.

In order to share your response, simply click on the COMMENTS link at the bottom of your selected entry, and follow the instructions provided.

Update: July Sessions

Participants returned to the RIC this week to complete the deconstruction process, rectify errors, and begin reflecting on the work completed by other groups. During this carousel review process, groups essentially reviewed the work completed by others and captured their reactions---interesting discoveries, items in need of revision, and areas of inconsistecy within the product itself and in the processes groups used.

The August dates will involve grade-level cohort discussion and consensus building. Final changes to the content, context, cognitive load, embedded skills, and links to the CORE will be made, and teachers will be ready to tackle the next frontier in the Deep Curriculum Alignment process: the creation of a scope and sequence around the embedded skills.

Discussing Fluency and Comprehension

At the end of the May 11th session, several teachers began debating how fluency and comprehension would fit into our work. Could we continue that conversation here? It will continue in our next session.

If you would like to comment, please look directly below the last line of this entry. You will see "POSTED BY ANGELA STOCKMAN AT...." just below that, you will see the word "COMMENTS". Please click on this link and share your thoughts.

Thanks!

Update: Session 3

Yesterday's session was incredibly productive. I'm amazed by the amount of work that was accomplished by each of the groups, and so many of you shared incredible insights about the process, the assessments, curriculum, and most importantly, instruction.

It was rewarding to see so many people connecting to the project and beginning to shape their understanding of how teachers might be able to use it.

One of the most interesting points that was raised several times yesterday led to an interesting closing conversation in the 5-8 room. Why didn't SED do this sort of work themselves and share it with us? This is a valid question, and it generated a bit of a discussion, which focused on teacher empowerment and autonomy.

Engaging teachers in this experience, giving teachers tools to make decisions and design strong curriculum is important to all of us. One of the administrators involved in yesterday's work commented on the fact that this project is a "real paradigm shift" in education. I agree.......what do you think?

Reminders for Session 3

Registration for May 11th begins at 8am. We will begin at 8:30 am, and we plan to break for an hour at lunch. You may leave campus if you wish.

This will be a full working day. Please do not plan to leave early.

A list of group members and email addresses will be distributed that day. If you do not wish to be included on this list, please email me by May 5th.

Thanks!
Angela
astockman@e1b.org

Session 2 Parking Lot Items

How will this project be used in districts?

This project will explore historical items from ALL of the Power PIs. The items will be deconstructed, and the PI itself will be articulated more specifically. We will learn much more about the real skills that were needed to be successful when responding to each item, the text structures involved, and the cognitive load of each item.

After this work is completed, we will also build grade-level specific pre-test, post-test, and formative assessment options for each Power PI.

How might teachers USE this information in a specific building?

First, the teachers would need to look at the building’s longitudinal data and determine which Power PI’s their students need the greatest support with. In other words, the group would identify the Power PI's that reflected the largest performance gaps in their district. This may vary significantly between districts--or between buildings within the same district.

Rather than moving from the data right into curriculum building, teachers could use our map to gather much needed information about the embedded skills within those target PIs. As you've learned, without that insight, the written, taught, and tested curriculum are not necessarily the same.

Obviously, you have administrative buy-in, but how do you plan to get teachers to buy into this?

The impact that this project could have on curriculum building is tremendous. We plan to build diagnostic, formative, and post-test items at every grade level for every Power PI that we explore. Teachers in districts would then have ready-made curriculum items to use, should they choose to do so. Or, they can use the map to build additional curriculum options--which we can add to our own. This would save hundreds of teachers an awful lot of time and effort, and it would provide everyone with tools to ensure that students are engaged in meaningful, creative, and authentic learning experiences that will improve performance.

The alternative to this project would involve pulling ELA teachers from classrooms for countless days to deconstruct data, perform gap-analysis, and build a ton of curriculum--one district at a time. This sort of work usually takes years. As staff developers, we spend a good amount of time in many districts doing this sort of work. It's like reinventing the wheel with widely varied success, depending on how invested the teachers are in this difficult and tedious process.

Sue and I were eager to do this part of the work with a small group of willing and capable teachers, first. From here, districts have the choice to bring in any of the coordinators on our team to tailor the work. So many people will benefit from the hard work that all of you are doing.....especially students.

Here's one small example: think of your transient students---kids who are bouncing from one neighborhood to the next. If teachers across the region begin to align local curricula to the findings from this project, chances are, these students will experience a slightly more consistent educational experience.

How can we set skills that should be taught and mastered in pre-k and kindergarten when some children do not attend pre-k or full day kindergarten programs?
The grade level specific performance indicators for pre-k and kindergarten were first published by New York State in the 2006 Core Curriculum. Our task is not to determine what these PI's are. The educators involved in this project are not holding teachers at any grade level accountable for teaching to the standards, but New York State and NCLB certainly are. Our work challenges us to make the Power PI's more specific and "teachable" so that we might collaborate to build useful curriculum resources. This project is intended to assist all ELA teachers in their efforts to align local curricula.

Much attention is being paid to Universal Pre-K programs, but you're right--many of our children enter first grade without the skills provided in pre-k or full day kindergarten. Providing kindergarten and first grade teachers with this map, which will articulate the curriculum in a more specific way and provide useful resources, will help them meet the challenges and bridge the gaps that you refer to.

Who invented the term Power PI?
Dr. Douglas Reeves of the Center for Performance Assessment refers to Power Standards as those standards and indicators that are critical for student success.

Update: Session 2

Today’s session challenged teachers to begin the actual “work” behind the project. During the morning, we reviewed the process for identifying Power Performance Indicators and spent a considerable amount of time learning how to properly deconstruct test items. Sue Rothwell carefully led the group through this training while modeling how the work would be captured in TechPaths. After participants were trained to use the program, they were turned loose to begin tearing items apart.

As we anticipated, today’s session met with mixed reviews. Learning the “how” behind the “why” was significantly more tedious, and some teachers were understandably frustrated by the slower pace that this sort of training required. Their eagerness to “get it done” conflicted a bit with our need to “get it done well.” Ironically, in our efforts to make this process clear and the technology manageable we managed to drive several poor souls to distraction. We’ll work on that for next time---thanks for hanging in there with us and for being so kind. Our next session is a full working day, and you won’t have to endure the sound of our voices for such a long stretch of time. We’re looking forward to stepping away from the podium ourselves as well!

We were thrilled with the work that began during this session. Every group managed to deconstruct at least one item and load it into the Tech Paths map. Several groups were able to tackle many more. Confusions around the technology were minor and handled easily…..thanks to the expertise of Ed Hazen…..and many people commented that they were able to “understand” the process better once they began working with the software. This was all good news!

There were several items added to the parking lot that we did not get to at the end of the session. One of the purposes of this blog is to attend to those issues…..they will be addressed in separate entries over the next several days.
Please check this space prior to our next session. Reminders and updates will be added. Our next session will begin at 8:30 am, at your request. We will also have enough time to break for a longer lunch, and you will be welcome to leave the campus if you wish. A message will go out to IDAB to inform them of this change

Welcome!

This spring, educational professionals from Erie County are joining together to learn more about bolstering student performance in English Language Arts classrooms. Participants in this project will find themselves challenging current assumptions about standards-based instruction, and they will work together to develop a clearly articulated and deeply aligned K-12 ELA curriculum. Upon completion of this work, educators will move forward to develop rich, dynamic options for diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment at each level.

This blog is a shared space, where frequent updates will be communicated, and where participants in the process and administrators from the schools involved may feel free to post comments and share their questions or concerns.

In order to comment, simply click on the "comment" box below and follow the instructions. Please know that messages left in the comments section will be made public. Should you wish to contact Sue or I privately, our emails are listed below.

We are both looking forward to learning from all of you! Thank you for your interest and on-going support of this project.

Angela Stockman and Susan Rothwell
Coordinators, Erie 1 BOCES

astockman@e1b.org
srothwell@e1b.org