Language Arts Literacy Program Assessment

1
Language Arts Literacy Program Assessment

• June 21, 2004

2
Committee Members

• Parent/Community Representatives
• Rowland Bennett
• Shira Birnbaum
• Tracy Carroll
• Cathrine Evans
• Rhonda Pope Stephens
• Kerry Tilden
• Sharon Williams

3
Committee Members

• Teachers
• Pieta Belizia
• Robert Cohen
• Katie Costello
• Michelle Harth
• Beth Johnson
• Eve Kingsbury
• Marci Koltenuk
• Tina Lehn

4
Committee Members

• Teachers
• Line Marshall
• Christy Lisiura
• Jane Rauen
• Suzanne Ryan
• Alice Solomon
• Anna Mae Stefanelli
• Connie Trautman
• Lisa Winkler
• Nancy Gagnier
• Kristopher Harrison

5
Committee Members

• Board of Education Liaisons
• Nancy Gagnier
• Shelley Slafkes
• Administrators
• Patricia Barker
• Marilyn Davenport
• Kristopher Harrison
• Jim Memoli
• Bill Rhinehart
• Susan Wilson
• Robert Young

6
Mission Statement

• The primary purpose of the Language Arts
  Literacy Program is to enable all students to
  become effective learners and communicators by
  equipping them with the communication skills,
  strategies, habits, and attitudes needed to be
  successful in their careers and daily lives.

7
Program Goals

• Students will
• Understand and apply the knowledge of
  sounds,letters, and words in written English
  become independent and fluent readers read a
  variety of materials and texts with
  comprehension and understand the value of
  reading as a life-long commitment.

8
Program Goals

• Students will
• Write in clear, concise, organized language that
  varies in content and form for different
  audiences and purposes.
• Speak in clear, concise, organized language that
  varies in content and form for different
  audiences and purposes.

9
Program Goals

• Students will
• Listen actively to information from a variety of
  sources in a variety of situations.
• Access, view, evaluate, and respond to print,
  non-print, and electronic texts and resources.

10
Program Goals

• Students will
• Think critically and creatively about ideas and
  explore the connections among language arts
  components.
• Develop an increasing awareness of their own
  thinking and share in the responsibility for
  their learning.

11
Program Structure

• Curriculum
• Consistent with State Standards
• Learning Objectives
• Content Outline
• Sequence
• Scope
• Assessment

12
Program Structure

• Instructional Materials
• Program Delivery
• Instructional Time
• Kindergarten 60 minutes per day
• Grades 1-5 120 minutes per day
• Grades 6-8 240 minutes per week
• Grades 9-12 212-215 minutes per week

13
Program Structure

• Meeting Student Needs
• Differentiated Instruction
• Individual Needs
• Special Education Replacement
• Project Ahead (grades 1-8)
• Enrichment (grades 4 and 5)
• Transition (grade 6)
• Reading Writing Seminar (grades 6 7)
• HSPA Prep (CHS)
• English Electives (CHS)

14
Methods of Assessment

• GRADES K-5
• Grade K-2 Multiple Measures
• Grades 3, 4, 5 Progress Reports
• Grades 1-7 Project Ahead Data
• Grade 4 ESPA/NJASK4

15
Methods of Assessment

• GRADES 6-8
• Grades 3 and 6 Terra Nova
• Grades 6-7 Project Ahead Data
• GEPA

16
Methods of Assessment

• GRADES 9-12
• CHS AP Scores
• HSPA
• The Achievement Gap
• ESPA/NJASK4
• GEPA
• HSPA

17
Methods of Assessment

• GRADES K-12
• Student Surveys
• Grades 5, 8, 11
• Teacher Surveys
• Grades K-5, 6-12
• Parent Surveys
• Grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8

18
Results

• Grades K-2 Multiple Measures
• At the K-2 level, multiple measures of assessment
  are used to indicate student progress and student
  needs.
• Grades 3, 4, 5 Progress Reports
• Based on the 3-5 Progress Report indicators for
  language arts students are demonstrating progress
  from one grade level to the next in mastering the
  learning objectives of the language arts
  curriculum.

19
Results

• Grades 1-7 Project Ahead Data
• 77 of Project Ahead Language Arts students in
  grades 1-7 exit after two years of service
• Impact of raising the cut-off to lt50NP
• Effect of changing the district registration
  cut-off from November 30 to October 1

20
ResultsESPA/NJASK4 (3 year trends)

• Total percentage of students at the proficient
  level or higher has remained fairly stable over
  the last three years (84, 86, 82).
• Our district scores are consistently higher than
  the State in all three years.
• Our Advanced Proficient scores are close to the
  DFG (I) average.
• These scores indicate that over 80 of our grade
  4 students have achieved mastery of the State
  Standards.

21
ResultsGrades 3/6 Terra NovaCohort
AnalysisReading

• 83 of students either maintained their score or
  improved their score from the grade 3 to the
  grade 6 TerraNova in reading
• 39 of students who were in the top quartile on
  the grade 3 test remained in the top quartile on
  the grade 6 test

22
ResultsGrades 3/6 Terra NovaCohort
AnalysisReading

• 77 of students scored above grade level on the
  grade 6 TerraNova as compared to 73 on the grade
  3 test
• Of the 10 of the students who scored in the
  lowest quartile on the grade 3 TerraNova, only 4
  remained in the lowest quartile in grade 6.

23
ResultsGEPA (3 year trends)

• Total percentage of students at the proficient
  level or higher has remained fairly stable over
  the last three years (76, 79, 78).
• Our Advanced Proficient scores are consistently
  higher than the State in all three years.
• Our Advanced Proficient scores are close to the
  DFG (I) average.
• These scores indicate that over 79 of our grade
  8 students have achieved mastery of the State
  Standards

24
ResultsCHS ADVANCED PLACEMENT SCORES

• Of those students taking the AP Language and
  Composition Exam and the AP Literature and
  Composition Exam over the last three years, 90
  to 100 of these students score at least a 3 or
  better.

25
ResultsHSPA (2 year trends)

• 87 of our students pass this assessment after
  the first administration in the spring of their
  junior year.
• The percentage of students in the Advanced
  Proficient range is higher than the State
  average.
• 95 pass during the second administration.
• The remaining students go through the SRA process
  to graduate.

26
ResultsESPA/NJASK4
27
ResultsGEPA
28
ResultsHSPA
29
(No Transcript)
30
ResultsStudent Surveys Grades 5, 8, 11950
students responded (65)

• 80 enjoy reading
• 45 like to read when they have time
• 91 are comfortable with their ability to
  understand what they read, and the majority of
  students indicated that the books they read are
  at the just right level.
• 88 are comfortable with their ability to
  communicate in writing
• 88 felt prepared for State Tests

31
ResultsStudent Surveys Grades 5, 8, 11

• 69 indicated literature circles help them to
  understand what they read in their LA classroom
• 56 indicated that using reading strategies aids
  their understanding
• 54 feel that using the 6 1 Writing Traits
  helps them improve their writing
• 60 feel that peer-editing sessions in class
  helps with their writing
• 86 state they get helpful feedback from their
  teacher about their writing

32
ResultsTeacher Surveys Grades K-12

• Satisfaction with the curriculum
• K-2 49 (12 neutral)
• 3-5 13 (7 neutral)
• 6-8 37 (26 neutral)
• 9-12 69 (31 neutral)

33
ResultsTeacher Surveys Grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8,
9-12Written Comments Made With Some Frequency

• Strengths of the LA Curriculum
• Differentiation in instruction (K-2)
• Reformatted K-2 curriculum document
• Engaging promotes love of reading/writing (K-2)
• Teachers empowerment/flexibility to meet needs
  (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12)
• Rich literature (K-2)
• Sample lessons (K-2)
• Word Journeys (K-2)
• Respect for developmental stages (K-2)
• Allows for creativity (K-2)

34
ResultsTeacher Surveys Grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8,
9-12 Written Comments Made With Some Frequency

• Strengths of the LA Curriculum
• Balanced literacy (3-5)
• Six 1 Writing Traits Tool Kit (3-5)
• Departmental meetings where ideas are shared
  (6-8)
• Literature circles and writing circles in the
  classroom (6-8)
• Choices of reading materials (9-12)
• Elective courses for grades 11 and 12
• Competency of the teaching staff (9-12)
• Leadership of the subject chair (9-12)
• Strength of the HSPA Supplemental
• Program and its success (9-12)

35
ResultsTeacher Surveys Grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8,
9-12 Written Comments Made With Some Frequency

• Weaknesses of the LA Curriculum
• Need for more training (K-2)
• More direct instruction for weak readers needed
  (K-2)
• More sample lessons needed (K-2)
• Need for materials/programs that are more
  structured/systematic in nature to differentiate
  instruction for all students, especially weak
  readers and writers (K-2, 3-5)
• Not consistent across the District (K-2)
• K-2 Progress Report (time, process, etc.)
• Lacks clear, systematic organization (3-5)
• Not user friendly (3-5, 6-8)

36
ResultsTeacher Surveys Grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8,
9-12 Written Comments Made With Some Frequency

• Weaknesses of the LA Curriculum
• Need for clear-cut objectives and little scope
  and sequence for conventions to be taught (6-8)
• Disconnect between special education and language
  arts programs in terms of co-teaching
• Spelling program (Word Journeys) too time
  consuming (3-5)
• Lack of time to grade student essays and to
  interact with colleagues regarding professional
  issues (9-12)
• Need to infuse more work throughout the entire
  curriculum regarding the teaching of non-fiction
  writing (9-12)
• Not enough emphasis on grammar and vocabulary
  development (9-12)

37
ResultsParent Surveys Grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
8

• 900 parents responded
• (27 of total parents at these grade levels)
• Satisfaction with the
• Language Arts Program
• 20 of parents indicated some degree of
  dissatisfaction with the language arts program,
  while 80 expressed satisfaction or indicated
  they were neutral.

38
ResultsParent Surveys Grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
8

• 80 of parents indicated they are satisfied with
  their childrens progress in reading
• 63 of parents indicated they were satisfied with
  their childrens progress in writing
• 74 indicated that the teacher provides their
  children written feedback about their writing
• 84 indicated that their childrens spelling is
  improving

39
ResultsParent Surveys Grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
8

• 50 of parents are satisfied with the materials
  their children bring home to assist them in
  language arts
• 60 of parents indicated that their childrens
  needs and strengths are being addressed
• 52 of parents state that their children have
  been taught to revise/edit their writing
• 76 state their children use correct punctuation,
  79 use correct capitalization, and 77 use
  correct grammar for their grade level

40
ResultsParent Surveys Grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
8

• Parent Comments
• General satisfaction with the reading program at
  all grade levels
• Mostly pleased with the quality and quantity of
  reading materials available to their children
• Praise for teachers, teacher creativity, and
  teacher sensitivity to individual needs
• Widespread dissatisfaction with the writing
  program especially in grades 4 and 5.
• Parents want more consistent feedback for writing
  not only in terms of corrected grammar and
  conventions but also in terms of intellectual
  rigor and creativity.
• Parents want feedback that will keep them more
  informed of what children are actually learning
  day by day and that the work is targeted at
  building both a love of reading and writing and
  a clear set of writing skills.

41
Recommendations

• Review and revise, where appropriate, the
  following components of the Language Arts
  Program
• ü The K-12 curriculum content for structure and
  consistency
• ü The grades 3-8 curriculum guides to improve
  their
• organization and make them more user
  friendly
• ü The process for monitoring the implementation
  of the
• curriculum district wide
• ü The grades 3-8 writing component and its
  implementation
• ü The availability and quantity of a wide range
  of student
• materials grades K-12
• ü The implementation of the grades 6-8 Middle
  School Style
• Sheet and the grades 9-12 CHS Style Manual
• ü The grades 3-5 handwriting component and its
  implementation
• ü The word study program regarding its
  effectiveness in assisting students in grades
  K-5 with decoding, in grades K-2 with spelling,
  and in providing enrichment spelling activities
  for all students, especially those in grade 3.

42
Recommendations

• Identify additional effective approaches/strategie
  s/materials to address the needs of struggling
  and highly able readers and writers in order to
  improve their performance.
•  Investigate assessment tools to provide teachers
  with more comprehensive means to identify student
  needs and differentiate instruction, especially
  at grades K-8.

43
Recommendations

• Better align the grades 3-5 language arts
  progress report with the language arts curriculum
  objectives.
• Investigate ways to make communication between
  teachers and parents more effective, especially
  regarding the grades K-2 component of the
  language arts literacy program and the grades 3-8
  writing component.

44
Recommendations

• Provide professional development for all teachers
  so that they can more readily use the curriculum
  in their daily planning and implement it
  effectively (e.g. reading strategies to deal with
  special education and ESL students
  differentiated instruction word study 61
  Traits literature circles).
• Examine the language arts component of Project
  Ahead to determine if more time is needed for the
  delivery of these services, and if the use of
  different approaches and materials may better
  meet student needs. Strategies to better
  coordinate instruction for Project Ahead students
  between classroom teachers and Project Ahead
  teachers must also be addressed.
•  
•      

45
Recommendations

• Improve articulation among grade level clusters,
  (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12) to smooth the
  transition students make between kindergarten and
  grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3, grade 5 and grade
  6, and grade 8 and grade 9.
• Coordinate and integrate the special education
  and language arts programs (e.g. professional
  development, materials, curriculum).

46
Recommendations

• Work with administrators at the elementary level
  (grades 1-5) to provide 120 minutes daily of
  uninterrupted language arts instruction, and work
  with administrators at the middle school level
  (grades 6-8) to increase daily language arts
  instruction from 60 minutes to 90 minutes.

47
Recommendations

• Create a position of K-5 Supervisor of Language
  Arts Literacy beginning with the 2005-2006 school
  year due to the critical nature of language arts
  instruction at these grade levels. There is a
  need for the delivery of professional development
  to support curriculum implementation, on-going
  curriculum development and assessment, and
  day-to-day support in the classroom to maintain
  program consistency across the district.
• Explore the feasibility of a full-day
  kindergarten program to provide future
  kindergarten students entering the district more
  time to learn and develop the basic skills needed
  to become proficient readers and writers.

48
Recommendations

• Raise the reading cut-off score for Project Ahead
  from lt35 to lt50 for entrance into Project Ahead
  Language arts in grades 4-8 in order to identify
  additional students who need assistance to
  perform on grade level.
• Examine in greater detail the data and other
  indicators related to K-4 students who are
  struggling readers and writers in order to
  identify causes of failure.
•   

49
Language Arts LiteracyProgram Assessment

• June 21, 2004

50
ResultsESPA/NJASK4
51
ResultsESPA/NJASK4
52
ResultsGEPA
53
ResultsGEPA
54
ResultsCHS ADVANCED PLACEMENT SCORES
55
ResultsCHS ADVANCED PLACEMENT SCORES
56
ResultsHSPA
57
ResultsHSPA