Multiple Pathways to Student Success: English Language

Multiple Pathways to Student Success:

English Language Arts (ELA)

Lori Silver, ELA SupervisorDepartment of Teaching and

Learning

January 16, 2020

1

Agenda

Making Connections to 2018‐24 APS Strategic Plan

Review of overall Data Collection relevant to English Language Arts (ELA)• Standards of Learning (SOL) Data• Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) Data• Rapid Automatic Naming (RAN) Screener Information and Data• Reading Inventory (RI) Data

Sharing:• Barcroft and Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary Schools• Dorothy Hamm and Kenmore Middle Schools

ELA Next Steps and Professional Learning Plans

Alignment of Program Evaluation Recommendations

Key Takeaways

2

Top Priority

Transforming “A System of Schools to a School System”

Build on the existing initiatives to increase consistency across schools through a system of support and communication from the ELA office to schools, to streamline processes and build capacity to impact student success and well being.

3

Student Success

4


• To provide high quality curriculum and instruction, utilizing a variety of differentiated and high‐impact instructional strategies, to meet the needs of all APS students.

• To increase achievement for all reporting groups on district and state assessments, and to show progress toward eliminating the opportunity gap.

Connections to APS Strategic Plan

EngagedWorkforce

Connections to Strategic Plan

5

• To provide teachers with professional learning and training that focuses on student success in the area of literacy.

Data Collection for ELA

6

Method Description

PALS(Grades K‐3)

PALS Plus(Grades 4‐8)

PALS (Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening) is a universal screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring tool for measuring fundamental components of literacy. It is used as a growth metricin APS.

The literacy needs of students vary from one stage to the next, and one grade level to the next, with benchmarks set for each grade level. Students who do not meet the benchmarks are identified within the PALS system as needing additional instructional support in the skills demonstrated to be weak.

RAN Screener(Rapid Automatic Naming)

Implemented:SY 2018‐19SY 2019‐20

Dr. Sandman‐Hurley, APS’s Dyslexia Consultant, recommended a rapid automatic naming screener to be used as a supplement to PALS.

RAN tests: measure serial naming speed for one of four types of symbols (letters, numbers, colors, and common objects)

Data Collection for ELA

7

Method Description

Reading Inventory(Grades 6‐9)

The Reading Inventory (RI) is a computer‐adaptive reading assessment and growth metric that measures reading comprehension using Lexile measures. Lexile measures indicate a student’s reading level and can be used to match readers with appropriately leveled texts.

Standards of Learning Assessments

Reading:Grades 3‐8EOC

Writing:Grade 8EOC

The Standards of Learning (SOL) for Virginia public schools establish minimum expectations for what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade or course in English. It is used as a proficiency metric.

Students in Virginia take the Reading Standards of Learning (SOL) exam each year between 3rd and 8th grade, and as an end of course assessment in high school, typically in 11th grade.

Students in Virginia take the Writing Standards of Learning (SOL) exam in 8th grade, and as an End of Course (EOC) assessment in high school, typically in 11th grade. They also participate in a 5th grade alternative writing test, which is administered and scored locally.

SOL Data

The Standards of Learning (SOL) for Virginia public schools establish minimum expectations for what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade or course in English. The VA SOL assessments serve as our proficiency metrics.

8

SOL Data ‐ Elementary Reading

9

78%81%

84%

71%

85%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

2019 Elementary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐ All Students

APS Pass Rate State Pass Rate

SOL Data ‐ Secondary Reading

10

84% 85% 84% 87%

77% 79% 78%86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 End of Course (EOC)Reading

2019 Secondary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐ All Students


SOL Data ‐ Secondary Writing

11

86% 87%

70%

81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 8 End of Course (EOC) Writing

2019 Writing SOL Pass Rates ‐ All Students


SOL Data – English Learner

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELP 1 ELP 2 ELP 3 ELP 4 ELP 6 Proficient Non EL

Pass Rate on 2017‐18 to 2018‐19 Reading SOLby English Learner Type

2017‐18 2018‐19

16/160 55/318 230/671 444/787 1478/1698 536/570 8688/938915/130 44/307 273/827 1507/1760 515/536 8847/9687273/827

SOL Data ‐ Black Students

13

78% 81% 84%

65%72%

77%

57%62%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Elementary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐Black Students

APS Overall

APS Black Students

State Pass Rate for Black Students

84% 85% 84% 87%

74% 77%

66%74%

64% 67%62%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 EOC Reading

2019 Secondary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐Black Students

APS Overall

APS Black Students

State Pass Rate for Black Students

SOL Data ‐ Black Students

14

86% 87%

63%

74%

53%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 8 EOC Writing

2019 Writing SOL Pass Rates ‐Black Students

APS Overall APS Black Students State Pass Rate for Black Students

SOL Data – Hispanic Students

15

78% 81% 84%

56%60%

65%

55%

64% 67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Elementary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐Hispanic Students

APS Overall

APS Hispanic Students

State Pass Rate for Hispanic Students

84% 85% 84% 87%

67%71% 68%

75%

66% 69%65%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Secondary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐Hispanic Students

APS Overall

APS Hispanic Students

State Pass Rate for Hispanic Students

SOL Data – Hispanic Students

16

86% 87%

73%76%

63%

71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 8 EOC Writing

2019 Writing SOL Pass Rates ‐ Hispanic Students

APS Overall APS Hispanic Students State Pass Rate for Hispanic Students

SOL Data ‐ Students with Disabilities (SWD)

17

78% 81% 84%

54%49% 50%

44% 47% 49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Elementary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐Students with Disabilities (SWD)

APS Overall APS SWD State Pass Rate for SWD

84% 85% 84% 87%

52%56%

51%

69%

45% 47%42%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Secondary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐Students with Disabilities (SWD)


SOL Data ‐ Students with Disabilities (SWD)

18

86% 87%

48%

66%

31%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 8 EOC Writing

2019 Writing SOL Pass Rates ‐Students with Disabilities (SWD)


SOL Data ‐ Economically Disadvantaged (ED)

19

78%81%

84%

54%58%

65%

57%63%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Elementary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐Economically Disadvantaged (ED)

APS Overall APS ED State Pass Rate for ED

84% 85% 84%87%

65% 67%62%

72%

65% 67%62%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Secondary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐Economically Disadvantaged (ED)


SOL Data ‐ Economically Disadvantaged (ED)

20

86% 87%

67%

73%

55%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 8 EOC Writing

2019 Writing SOL Pass Rates ‐Economically Disadvantaged (ED)


SOL Data ‐ English Learners*

21

78%81%

84%

45% 47%

36%41%

45%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Elementary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐English Learners

APS Overall

APS EL Students

State Pass Rate for EL Students

84% 85% 84%87%

24% 25% 25%

36%

24% 25%21%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2019 Secondary Reading SOL Pass Rates ‐English Learners

APS Overall

APS EL Students

State Pass Rate for EL Students

*This data includes only ELP Levels 1‐4.

SOL Data ‐ English Learners*

22

86% 87%

29%

36%

25%22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 8 EOC Writing

2019 Writing SOL Pass Rates ‐English Learners

APS Overall APS EL Students State Pass Rate for EL Students

*This data includes only ELP Levels 1‐4.

PALS Data

23

PALS (Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening) is a universal screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring tool for measuring fundamental components of literacy. It is used as a growth metric in APS.

PALS is administered every fall, for every grade level, PreK‐5. It indicates students’ readiness to learn grade level instruction and indicates if students are at‐risk for not making a year’s gain in reading.

PALS Data

24

93%89%

84%90%

85% 84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2

Percentage of Students Meeting PALS Benchmark

Fall 2018 Spring 2019

PALS Data

25

41%

74%

90%

97% 98%

91%

33%

52%

74%

91%

99%

89%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELP 1 ELP 2 ELP 3 ELP 4 ELP 6 NonEL

Percentage of English Learners by ELP Level Meeting PALSBenchmark in Grades 1&2

Spring Grade 1 Spring Grade 2

Following a Cohort of Students

Tracking the PALS Data (Growth Metric) fromFall to Spring SY 2018‐19 (Kindergarten)

26

5% 5% 2%

87%

Spring 2019 ‐ Kindergarten PALS (N=2,139)

Remains as Not Meeting Benchmark

Newly Identified (Does not Meet Benchmark)

Now meets Benchmark (2%)

Continues to Meet Benchmark

93%

7%Fall 2018 ‐ Kindergarten PALS (N=2,139)

Met Benchmark Does Not Meet Benchmark

Following a Cohort of Students

Tracking the PALS Data (Growth Data) fromSpring 2018 to Spring 2019: Kindergarten to First Grade

27

5% 9%2%

84%

Spring 2019 ‐ First Grade PALS (N=1,947)

Remains as Not Meeting Benchmark

Newly Identified (Does not Meet Benchmark)

Now meets Benchmark (2%)

Continues to Meet Benchmark

93%

7%Spring 2018 ‐ Kindergarten PALS (N=1,947)

Met Benchmark Does Not Meet Benchmark

PALS Data ‐ Kindergarten

28

82%

95%

18%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hispanic Students (N=559) Black Students (N=197)

PALS Fall 2018 ‐ Kindergarten

% Met Benchmark % Did Not Meet Benchmark

79%84%

21%16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hispanic Students (N=577) Black Students (N=208)

PALS Spring 2019 ‐ Kindergarten


PALS Data – Grade 1

29

79%

87%

21%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hispanic (N=584) Black (N=194)

PALS Fall 2018 – Grade 1


70%

82%

30%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


PALS Spring 2019 – Grade 1


PALS Data – Grade 2

30

73%

80%

27%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


PALS Fall 2018 – Grade 2


72%

81%

28%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


PALS Spring 2019 ‐ Grade 2


PALS Data

31

We connect the PALS results to instruction, by reporting data with attention to:● Testing windows● Specific schools● Grade levels● English Language Learners’ proficiency levels● Race/Ethnicity● Students with Disabilities● Specific benchmark areas of PALS

This data is shared with principals and teachers, as well as across departments in APS.

Subtypes of Reading Difficulties

32

From Moats, L. C., & Tolman, C. A. (2019). LETRS. Dallas, TX: Voyager‐Sopris Learning.

Why Rapid Automatic Naming?

• ATSS/ELA followed downward data trends with PALS and wanted to investigate a possible reason for why this was occurring.

• Research indicates that both phonemic awareness and rapid naming are the earliest predictors of reading success. Rapid Automatic Naming (RAN) tests measure serial naming speed for one of four types of symbols (letters, numbers, colors, and common objects).

• Dr. Sandman‐Hurley, the Dyslexia Consultant for APS, recommended that a rapid automatic screener be used to supplement the PALS.

• A rapid automatic naming screener allows us to “capture” an additional group of students who might have gone un‐discovered (using solely PALS), as being potentially at‐risk for having reading difficulties.

33

RAN Screener

34

Implementation ‐ Year OneSY 2018‐19

Implementation ‐ Year TwoSY 2019‐20

Arlington Science FocusArlington Traditional SchoolBarcroftDiscoveryNottinghamOakridgeTaylor

Arlington Science FocusArlington Traditional SchoolBarcroftDiscoveryNottinghamOakridgeTaylor

New schools:Dr. Charles R. DrewGlebe (Kindergarten and 1st grade)Tuckahoe

RAN Information

• The assessment requires 5‐7 minutes to administer, per student.

• APS purchased assessment kits for schools, as well as provided training to school‐level teams (classroom teachers, and English Learner, Special Education, and reading teachers).

• Schools receive support from individuals from DTL, who check in monthly with 1st grade teams to assist with instructional planning, and to follow‐up with data collection and analysis.

• APS uses the RAN screener to flag rapid naming needs.

35

RAN Data

36

RAN Data For Fall, SY 2018‐19

~756 first graders were assessed

15% (108) students who met the overall PALS benchmark scored very poor, poor, or below average in Rapid Naming in Letters

21% (150) students who met the overall PALS benchmark scored very poor, poor, or below average in Rapid Naming in Numbers

What We Are LearningThere are many considerations and implications regarding RAN:

• The number of initiatives for Grade 1 teachers

• The yearlong formative assessment calendar, and testing demands

• The cost of scaling RAN for participating elementary schools (training of teams, support of Grade 1 teams from DTL, data collection)

• The importance of linking the screener to resources for instruction in phonemic awareness (Heggerty Phonemic Awareness)

• At least six more elementary schools will participate in administering RAN in SY20‐21

37

We are examining our RAN data for trends and determining its impact on instruction and interventions for students.

Reading Inventory (RI)

The Reading Inventory (RI) is a computer‐adaptive reading assessment and growth metricthat measures reading comprehension using Lexile measures. Lexile measures indicate a student’s reading level and can be used to match readers with appropriately leveled texts.

The Reading Inventory is administered in Grades 6‐9.

38

Reading Inventory (RI): Grade 6

39

38%

23%

24%

15%

Reading Inventory (RI) Grade 6:Fall 2018 (N=2073)

Advanced % Proficient % Basic % Below Basic %

50%

17%

17%

16%

Reading Inventory (RI) Grade 6:Spring 2019 (N=1199)



40

52%

20%

15%

13%



59%16%

14%

11%




41

56%

20%

14%

10%



62%

18%

11%

9%



42

Reading Inventory (RI): Black Students

40%

25%

21%

14%

Reading Inventory (RI) SY2018‐19 Grade 6: Black Students (N= 213)

Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

46%

21%

19%

14%

Reading Inventory (RI) SY 2018‐19Grade 7: Black Students (N=198)

Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

38%

26%

25%

11%

Reading Inventory (RI) SY 2018‐19Grade 8: Black Students (N=176)

Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

43

Reading Inventory (RI): Hispanic Students

26%

24%27%

23%

Reading Inventory (RI) SY 2018‐19Grade 6: Hispanic Students (N=622)

Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

36%

23%

21%

20%


Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

33%

24%

23%

20%


Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

44

Reading Inventory (RI): Students With Disabilities (SWD)

23%

15%

25%

37%

Reading Inventory (RI) SY 2018‐19Grade 6: Students with Disabilities

Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

29%

17%25%

29%


Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

27%

18%29%

26%


Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

45

Reading Inventory (RI): English Learners (ELs)

15%

18%

33%

34%

Reading Inventory (RI) SY 2018‐19Grade 6: English Learners

Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

16%

20%

30%

34%


Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

10%

19%

31%

40%


Advanced Proficient

Basic Below Basic

Secondary Data ‐ RI

46

*Average Growth is 75 Lexiles or Higher

51% 52%48%

52%

62%

49% 51%49%

36% 37% 36% 35%38%

22%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Asian (74)

Black (123

)

Hispan

ic (3

68)

Other (5

4)

White (5

33)

Asian (106

)

Black (142

)

Hispan

ic (4

15)

Other (9

1)

White (5

51)

Asian (149

)

Black (147

)

Hispan

ic (4

28)

Other (1

21)

White (9

07)

06 07 08

2018‐19 Reading Inventory:% Students Who Met Average Growth

Secondary Data ‐ RI

47

*Average Growth is 75 Lexiles or Higher

59%

49%

38%

55%

30%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Non EL (769) EL (383) Non EL (895) EL (410) Non EL (1411) EL (341)


2018‐19 Reading Inventory:% Students Who Met Average Growth

SOL Data ‐ Reading

48

2017‐2019 Elementary Reading SOL Pass Rates

87%83% 81%

78% 76% 75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019

APS VA

91%87% 84%

79%73%

70%72%

64%61%

93%91% 90%

95%94% 93%

87%83% 81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019

Asian Black Hispanic

Other White APS

87%83% 81%

71%

61% 59%

72%

63%60%

62%

51% 49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019

APS Econ Dis EL SWD


49

2017‐2019 Secondary Reading SOL Pass Rates

86% 85% 85%

81% 81% 79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019

APS VA

88% 86% 86%

74% 73%73%

73%69% 70%

94% 95% 94%

95% 96% 95%

86% 85% 85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019


Other White APS

86% 85% 85%

66%65% 66%

63% 59% 60%55%

54%55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019

APS Econ Dis EL SWD


50

2017‐2019 Writing SOL Pass Rates

87% 86% 86%

79% 78%76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019

APS VA

91% 89% 89%

72%

74%

68%

76%

72%

75%

92% 92% 93%

95% 94% 95%

87% 86%86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019


Other White APS

87% 86% 86%

70% 71% 70%

64%

60% 60%

56%50%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019

APS Econ Dis EL SWD

Sharing and Bright Spots

• Elementary Schools:• Barcroft Elementary School• Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary School

• Middle Schools:• Dorothy Hamm Middle School

51

ELA Elementary Literacy Moving Forward

• To establish professional learning requirements to provide teachers with support of direct, systematic, and explicit instructional strategies in the area of phonics, K‐5.

• To improve core instruction in grades K‐5 and ensure that students receive reading/writing interventions as indicated by their needs.

• To support teachers’ knowledge of APS‐approved interventions, and systematic implementation with students, K‐8.

52

ELA Elementary Literacy Moving Forward

• To continue providing support to teachers regarding the implementation of phonemic awareness routines in Kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2.

• To provide training to Grade 1 and 2 teachers on phonemic awareness resources. Kindergarten teachers were trained in the fall of 2019.

• To consider an expansion of the use of the RAN screener, with budgetary and instructional implications in mind.

53

ELA Secondary Literacy Moving Forward

54

• To continue to supplement the grades 6‐12 APS English curriculum, with content and high impact instructional strategies for our Reading and Reading Strategies courses.

• To continue the English 8: Storytelling pilot (a course choice for students).

• To provide support and training to intervention teachers regarding foundational knowledge in research‐based instructional practices for struggling readers (which includes phonemic awareness and phonics).

• To provide professional learning opportunities to teachers in the area of writing, particularly in the area of assessing student writing and providing feedback.

• To continue to update resources and texts to be relevant, and to promote student voice and choice with literacy.

Alignment to Recommendations

55

Recommendations from ELA Program Evaluation

56

Recommendation #1: Provide growth and leadership opportunities for all staff by providing meaningful, high‐quality, and relevant professional learning opportunities in order to support retaining and advancing high‐quality employees.

Action Steps: Current: Future Steps:

Increasing the level of teachers’ content knowledge as it applies to the area of foundational reading development, as well as the areas of best practices and personalized reading instruction.

ELA provides division‐wide online and in‐person training for:● Phonemic Awareness● Phonics and Word Study● Reading Workshop● Writing Workshop● Content Area Literacy● Interventions● On‐demand requests from

school administrators

As well as:● School specific coaching and

consultation● CLT support● Observations and walk‐

throughs● Literacy Leadership Academy

● This planning is on‐going and requires strategic long‐range planning to coordinate with program evaluation recommendations from Special Education and Office of English Learners.

● ATSS and ELA recommend LETRS training to be scaled out for K‐1 teachers, as well as interventionists, resource teachers, and special education coordinators (K‐12).

● ELA would like consideration of literacy coaches for K‐8 (to match the model of APS Math coaches).

Recommendations from Program Evaluation

57

Recommendation #2: Adapt curriculum and instruction to the needs of each student through an increase in access to reading specialists for high school students.


To improve reading skills of students who need additional support (with regard to phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension), and to refine foundational literacy skills with support of reading specialists at the secondary levels (6‐12).

● We are examining the feasibility of allocating staffing for a dedicated reading specialist position in grades 9‐12 for the general student population to access.

● We are utilizing APS resources to provide professional learning opportunities and support for secondary reading specialists.

● The planning is on‐going and requires strategic long‐range planning to coordinate with program evaluation recommendations from Special Education and Office of English Learners, to ensure that high quality staff are in place to support students.

Recommendations from Program Evaluation

58

Recommendation #3: Manage resources to ensure consistency in students’ access to high quality texts within ELA classrooms.


To provide a budget line item for the purchase of authentic texts as part of the yearly updates to K‐12 classroom libraries. This allows teachers to differentiate texts for students based upon the full spectrum of reading developmental continuums, levels, and interests.

This is outside of the instructional allocation process.

● When possible, and within budgetary constraints, the ELA office purchases texts for classrooms and schools based upon school administrator requests.

● This year, ELA was able to purchase additional texts for Dorothy Hamm Middle School and Gunston Middle School due to a reallocation of funding from other departments.

● We will continue to examine the feasibility of such funding, and to consider the long‐range budgetary implications of supplementing classroom libraries and school book rooms so they may remain up‐to‐date and relevant.

Key Takeaways

1. To implement and enforce research‐based priority practices in the area of literacy. This includes coaching models of support.

2. To provide consistent support of literacy practices regarding the time allotted to reading, writing, and phonics instruction, the instructional models used, and APS curriculum and resources.

3. To contribute to documented district‐wide policies and universal professional learning opportunities as they relate to providing high‐quality literacy instruction to all students.

4. To provide principals and school‐based staff ongoing training in foundational literacy.

5. To offer more quality opportunities for sustained talk and reciprocal interactions regarding literacy in APS.

59

60

“An approximate answer to the right problem is worth a good deal more than an exact answer to an approximate problem.”~John Tukey


English Language Arts (ELA)

Lori Silver, ELA SupervisorDepartment of Teaching and

Learning

January 16, 2020

61

Documents

Multiple Pathways to Student Success: English Language