1

Oregon Reading FirstCohort B-ELL

Coaches’ MeetingApril 25, 2008

© 2008 by the Oregon Reading First CenterCenter on Teaching and Learning

2

Oregon Reading First Cohort B-ELL

Coaches’ Meeting April 25, 2008

TIME

TOPIC PRESENTER

8:30-8:50

Welcome / Announcements

• ELL Practice Guide

Doris /Jorge

8:50-9:45

Being A Critical Consumer of ELL Research:

• Less research on ELLs and Spanish instruction • Focus on multicultural issues and social

justice: research evidence and data?? • Comment on Shanahan’s brown bag

presentation • Follow-up on Jimenez presentation

Doris/Jorge

9:45-10:00 Break

10:00-10:30

Developing 2008-2009 School Action Plans

• Literacy Plan support (e.g., provide big ideas of critical features of literacy plan for BELL schools

Jorge

10:30- 11:15

Cross Year Project Level Analysis B-ELL Data Update

• Differentiation of instruction for ELL students using a School wide/RTI model

Doris

11:15-12:00 Success Stories: Sharing Successes based on data School Success Stories - Narrative from Coaches

All

12:00-12:40

Lunch

3

Any Questions?

Scientifically based reading research Consumer’s Guide

Scientifically researched interventions What Work’s Clearinghouse

What to look for in research studies with ELs Follow up on Tim Shanahan Resources to keep us up to date on research

4

Evaluating Core Programs

1. Does it teach all the relevant essential elements?

2. Are the design and delivery adequate for the majority of learners?

3. Consumer guides: Oregon and Florida Reading First websites provide

information and a review of core reading programs.

4. Other sources: Institute of Education Sciences.

5

Research Studies: Critical Features

Research question/Purpose of study Research design Description of intervention Intervention providers Participants Intervention group Comparison group Measures to determine effectiveness of

intervention Results

6

Research Evidence to Improve Quality Instruction for ELs*

Little relevant instructional research for ELs because of focus on language of instruction.

Systematic and explicit instruction is effective for ELs and for English only students.

Few studies have looked at language of instruction AND instructional variables.

*Baker, S., & Baker, D. L. (2007). ELs and Response to Intervention: Improving Quality of Instruction in General and Special Education. In Grigorenko, E. (Ed.) Educating Individuals with Disabilities: IDEA 2004 and Beyond. NY: Springer Publishing Company (in press).

7

Ramírez Study (1992)

“students are limited in their opportunities to produce language and in their opportunities to produce more complex language. Direct observations reveal that teachers do most of the talking in classrooms, making about twice as many utterances as do students. Students produce language only when they are working directly with a teacher, and then only in response to teacher initiations. . . . Of major concern is that in over half of the interactions that teachers have with students, students do not produce any language as they are only listening or responding with non-verbal gestures or actions. (pp. 9-10)”

8

Gersten & Baker Synthesis (2000)

Gersten and Baker (2000a, 2000b) reviewed 15 studies that described and analyzed actual practices observed during instruction and found that oral language use by ELs in the classroom was consistently low. The most problematic practices were (a) asking questions that required one-and two-word answers, (b) exclusive use of whole-class instruction with no opportunities for students to work in pairs or small groups, and (c) a stress on low cognitive tasks, such as copying, and on surface features of language learning, such as literal comprehension. This was equally true whether the

language of instruction was English or Spanish.

9

Other Research with English Language Learners

Understanding Social Forces in the School community

Multi-cultural Perspective Social Justice Providing English language development

before teaching reading Culturally Diverse Instruction

10

Concerns

Mostly theory driven Little or no data is provided Research Design Talks about the problem, but offers few

viable solutions (based on empirical evidence)

Measures Are students performing better socially and

academically?

11

What do we know about effective interventions?

Extensive structured interventions delivered in a small group.

Follow up assessment is what determines gains that are long lasting.

Essential elements of all successful interventions include the five Big Ideas.

Group size, frequency, and early identification. Emphasis on early intervention (prevention). More research is needed for students who are not

responding to the intervention.

12

What do we know about Spanish interventions?

The five Big Ideas in reading are applicable to Spanish reading instruction.

Systematic and explicit instruction is as important in Spanish as it is in English.

No need to wait until students fully develop language proficiency in their native language.

Not all students learn to read in their native language at the same rate

Independent reading needs to be done at the students instructional level.

Early identification of students helps prevent later reading problems.

Progress monitoring is essential.

13

Debriefing Dr. Jimenez Presentation

Phonological awareness is as important in Spanish as it is in English

The syllable is easy in Spanish. Should we teach it? Initial sounds and deletion are good activities to develop

phonological awareness Print awareness has an effect on word reading Spanish has a transparent orthography. A code-approach

allows children to read text very early Vocabulary development and comprehension should

always follow a decodable activity A psycho-linguistic approach shows the largest effect on

reading

14

Literacy Plan: A SampleReading Plan for Kindergarten

through Third Grade

15

Structural Components of Effective RTI for ELs

English Model Bilingual Model

Tier 1 90 minutes of English reading instruction in core program

90 minutes of Spanish reading instruction and 45 minutes of English reading instruction

Tier 2 Additional 30 minutes of reading instruction using a supplemental program

Re-teaching main part of the lesson in smaller groups in Spanish. Increase time in English; focus on key elements that don’t exist in Spanish.

Tier 3 Substituting the core and providing small group instruction

Re-teaching main part of the lesson in smaller groups in Spanish. Using an intervention program in English.

16

Structural Components in a Bilingual Model

Spanish for ELs English for ELs

Tier 1 90 minutes of Spanish instruction. Focus on vocabulary development and academic language in Spanish.

45 minutes of English instruction using the core program in English. Focus on key phonics elements that do not exist in Spanish, and on development of vocabulary and academic language.

Tier 2 Re-teach key components of core in small groups

Use supplemental program. Focus on key phonics elements that don’t exist in Spanish

Tier 3 “Double-dose.” Use explicit and systematic routines. May use below grade level materials

Use intervention program.

17

Six Critical Components

Goal Assessments Instruction Leadership Professional Development Commitment

18

Goals

Why is reading development one of the most important goals at your school?

Tell us about staff commitment. Why is your primary reading goal to implement the

School-wide Reading Model (SWRM) in Spanish and English at K-3?

For some children, physiological, medical, or attendance issues may interfere with the goal of grade level reading. What will you do about this?

19

Example: Goals Oregon Elementary School is committed to providing English language

learners with the opportunity of becoming bi-literate by the end of third grade. Thus, the goal of the Oregon Elementary School School-wide Beginning Reading Model implies that ELs will be reading at grade level in the native language and in English by the end of third grade. If physiological, medical, or attendance issues interfere with this bilingual goal, every effort will be made to provide ELs with the best reading instruction possible in Spanish and in English. Oregon Elementary School will provide documentation of instruction, and clearly indicate the progress children are making toward this challenging goal.

For English language learners (ELs) achieving grade level reading may depend on the length of time the student has been in the school, length of time the student has been in the country, and reading proficiency in the child’s native language and in the second language. However, our school commitment is to provide these students with all the tools current research indicates will increase students reading proficiency in English or in the native language and in English.

20

Assessment

Reading assessments are necessary to (a) determine if children are reading at grade level, (b) monitor reading progress, and (c) plan instruction.

All children will be assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of the year to determine if they are reading at grade level.

Children not reading at grade level will be assessed regularly to monitor their reading progress.

At the end of the year, all children will be assessed on a standardized reading test to determine if they are reading at grade level.

21

Instruction All children in K-3 will receive 90 minutes of reading instruction each

day. Reading instruction will begin during the first week of school and will continue through the last week of school. Children not reading at grade level will receive more than 90 minutes of reading instruction each day.

A common core reading program will be used in K-3 with children reading at or above grade level.

For children reading below grade level, some combination of the core reading program with additional highly specific supplemental reading materials and intervention programs will be used for reading instruction.

All programs and materials used will be constructed according to principles of scientifically-based reading research.

Effective reading instruction for all children is achieved through differentiated instruction.

22

Leadership Effective leadership is essential in the implementation of our School-

wide Beginning Reading Model. To the greatest degree possible, leadership support will also involve a

reading coach, specialists, and targeted grade level teachers. Our school will operate as one cohesive system where all teachers are

aware of how Spanish and English instruction is taught to best meet the needs of all of our students rather than as a group of isolated programs.

For students receiving Spanish and English instruction, identified building leaders will have a deep knowledge of the transferable and non-transferable skills in English and Spanish. They will ensure that teachers and instructional assistants are using scientifically-based reading programs in both languages, and that all teachers and IAs working with ELs collaborate to ensure that ELs are meeting reading goals in both languages.

23

Professional Development

The effective use of reading assessments and instructional programs and materials requires high quality professional development for teachers and other staff members, including the principal, specialists, instructional assistants, and the reading coach.

The building principal will be responsible for making sure all staff members have the training they need to use reading assessments and instructional materials appropriately.

All Spanish teachers and instructional assistants will participate in all the professional development activities planned school-wide.

Time will be allocated at every grade level team meeting to discuss, monitor, and plan reading instruction and achievement for students participating in the bilingual model (i.e., in Spanish and English).

24

Commitment

As a school, we are committed to making decisions about reading assessments, instructional programs and materials, and professional development on the basis of rigorous scientific research, to the greatest degree possible.

We will ensure continuance of the School-wide culture through the implementation of the above components and through leadership hiring practices that are based on the School-wide Beginning Reading Model.

We are committed to ensuring that ELs will be reading at grade level in Spanish and in English by third grade.

For struggling students who are not reading at grade level in neither language by the end of second grade, we will carefully consider a plan that will help them reach grade level reading performance in English only by the end of third grade.

25

Conclusion

Whether teaching in (a) English or (b) English and Spanish requires high quality instruction in both languages

All schools should be able to provide effective reading instruction in English for English learners• An English-only model requires a carefully developed and

long-term plan for the effective application with ELs Schools with the commitment and resources should be able to

provide effective reading instruction in both Spanish and English for Spanish-speaking ELs • A bilingual model requires a carefully developed and long-

term plan for the effective application with Spanish-speaking English learners (or other languages if applicable)

26

Looking at Data

27

Use of DIBELS for ELs and Non ELsTable 4. Correlations between primary measures for ELL and non-ELL studentsa

KB_LNF KE_PSF KE_NWF 1B_NWF 1E_ORF 2E_ORF 1_SAT10

KE_PSF .14

.27 -

KE_NWF .40 .54

.49

.46 -

1B_NWF .37

.61

.42

.40

.75

.77 -

1E_ORF .43 .62

.42

.36 .70 .71

.73

.76 -

2E_ORF .29

.50

.36

.36

.57

.60

.60

.62

.82

.85 -

1_SAT10 .43 .61

.43

.46 .67 .75

.63

.73 .66 .75

.49

.60 -

2_SAT10 .37

.56

.48

.43

.64

.64

.64

.65

.84

.82

.76

.77

.70

.75

Notes. aThe top number in each cell represents the correlation for ELL students; the bottom number represents the correlation for non-ELL students. KB = beginning of kindergarten; KE = end of kindergarten etc. LNF = Letter Naming Fluency; PSF = Phoneme Segmentation Fluency; NWF = Nonsense Word Fluency; ORF = Oral Reading Fluency; SAT10 = total reading; SATRC = SAT-10 reading comprehension subtest.

28

% of ELs at Benchmark in Spanish in Fall of Year 2 Who Maintained Benchmark Status End of Year 2

100

8581 81 84

78

100

85

0

20

40

60

80

100

% At Benchmark orAbove

K (n = 12) 1 (n = 16) 2 (n = 23) 3 (n = 13)

Grades

Spanish

English

29

% of ELs at Some Risk in Spanish in Fall of Year 2 Who Made Adequate Progress through

End of Year 2

50 5056

47

61

39

19

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

% of Students Who Made Adequate Progress

K (n = 4) 1 (n = 32) 2 (n = 18) 3 (n = 16)

Grades

Spanish

English

30

% of ELs at Risk in Spanish in Fall of Year 2 Who Made Adequate Progress through End of

Year 2

5951 50

40

62

27

3944

0

20

40

60

80

100

% of Students Who Made Adequate Progress

K (n = 85) 1 (n = 38) 2 (n = 34) 3 (n = 39)

Grades

Spanish

English

31

What about ELs who are intensive in both languages?

Consider: How long has the student been in the country and/or in the

bilingual program? What evidence is there that quality of instruction has been strong

in both languages? Can the quality or intensity of instruction (in both languages) be

increased? Is the student receiving many and engaging opportunities to

practice newly learned skills? Is the student’s progress in Spanish and English being measured

regularly on formative assessment? (Progress monitoring)• Are the progress monitoring data being used to plan instruction?

32

Kindergarten EL Performance on NWF in Spring

2526

33

20

30

40

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Year of Implementation

Score on NWF in the Spring

Kindergarten NWF

ES = .02

ES = .44***Y3 - Y1 ES = .46***

33

Grade 1, 2, 3 EL Performance on ORF in Spring

68

76

8489

92

99

3641 42

20

40

60

80

100

120

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Year of Implementation

Score on ORF in the Spring

G1 ORF G2 ORF G3 ORF

ES = .18*** ES = .06

Y3-Y1 ES = .24***

ES = .21***ES = .23***ES = .06

ES = .22***

Y3-Y1 ES = .28***

Y3-Y1 ES = .44***

34

Grade K, 1, 2 EL Performance on SAT-10 in Spring

523528 527

565570

574

462 459465

450

500

550

600

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Year of Implementation

Score on SAT-10 in the Spring

K SAT-10 G1 SAT-10 G2 SAT-10

ES = .07 ES = .16**

Y3-Y1 ES = .09*

ES = .14* ES = .02

ES = .15*ES = .12*

Y3-Y1 ES = .27***

Y3-Y1 ES = .12

35

Grade 3 EL Performance on OAKS in Spring

204

206207

200

210

220

230

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Year of Implementation

Score on OAKS in the Spring

G3 OAKS

ES = .27*** ES = .08

Y3-Y1 ES = .35***

36

Celebrating our Successes!!

37

1. More than 80 percent of ELLs across the 4 B-ELL schools are reading above the 40th percentile in Spanish in first and second grade as measured by Aprenda (the Spanish version of the SAT-10).

32

45

8680 81

92

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% Above 40th Percentile

K 1 2

Grades

Year 1

Year 2

38

After two years of implementation of the B-ELL model, ELLs in the B-ELL schools are doing as well in English as ELLs in Cohort B schools with an English only model even though they are receiving less English reading

instruction

4036 35 34 35 34

2530

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% At Benchmark orAbove

K (NWF>25) 1 ORF>40 2 ORF>90 3 ORF>110

Grades

English only

Bilingual

39

Every single B-ELL school has increased the percent of ELLs who have made adequate progress from fall to winter of third grade from 06-07 to

07-08 in English and Spanish.

21 3

33.3

58.857.1

54.5

13.3

25.0

43.3

60.6

71.468.2

61.1

50.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

(n=30) (n=30) (n=34) (n=33) (n=21) (n=21) (n=22) (n=22) (n=15) (n=18) (n=16) (n=20)

ORF FLO ORF FLO ORF FLO

School and Assessment

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

Mak

ing

Ad

equ

ate

Pro

gre

ssF

all

Inst

ruct

ion

al R

eco

mm

end

atio

n t

o W

inte

r O

RF

(F

LO

) % Adequate Progress 06-07 % Adequate Progress 07-08

40

Mc Nary Heights, a B-ELL school received the 2008 Celebrating Student Success Rising Star School recognition from State Superintendent Susan

Castillo. (Only two RF schools received this recognition).

41

Out of the 50 RF schools, Liberty, a B-ELL school, is the 6th school with the largest percent of students at low risk in the winter of third grade, 2008. (62%). (All other schools that have a larger percent of students at low risk

are cohort A schools.

42

91% of ELs in first grade made adequate progress in Spanish at Fern Hill; 77% are at low risk in Spanish on FLO, 49% are at low risk in English on ORF

43

Rigler has a strong principal that is committed to ensuring student success

Rigler has 59% of all their students at low risk in first grade and 54% of all their students at

low risk in third grade.

44

¡La Lectura es Primero!Reading First!