K–12 Literacy Program Review

200 International Dr., Suite201, Portsmouth, NH 03801 Tel. 603 427 0206 Fax 603 427 6983 PublicConsultingGroup.com

Kʹ12 LITERACY PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT OF FINDINGS

Submitted to

Portland Public School Portland, Maine

November 2010

Kʹ12 LITERACY PROGRAM REVIEW

REPORT OF FINDINGS

Submitted to Portland Public Schools Portland, Maine

November 2010

Prepared by Julie Meltzer Dennis Jackson

PCG Education

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... 1

Introduction ...... 7

Overview of the Methodology for the District Kʹ12 Literacy Review ...... 8 Analysis of Student Performance Data ...... 9 Data Collection Sources ...... 9

District-wide Findings and Implications...... 12 Summary of Student Performance in Reading and Writing in the Portland Public Schools ...... 12 Conclusions ...... 41 District-wide Themes ...... 42

Findings and Recommendations by Educational Level ...... 49 Lower Elementary (Kʹ2) ...... 50 Upper Elementary (3ʹ5) ...... 55 Middle School (6ʹ8)...... 59 High School (9ʹ12) ...... 65

Recommendations for the District ...... 74 Structures and Policies ...... 75 Literacy Assessment and Data Use ...... 77 Standards-based Literacy Curriculum ...... 80 Tiered System of Instruction and Intervention ...... 82 Parent and Community Involvement ...... 85 21st Century Teaching and Learning ...... 87

Conclusions ...... 89

Appendices ...... 91 Student Assessment Displays ...... 92 Kʹ2 Teacher Survey Results ...... 103 Grades 3ʹ5 Teacher Survey Results ...... 110 Middle School Teacher Survey Results ...... 117 High School Teacher Survey Results ...... 125 Elementary School Capacity Profile Results ...... 133 Middle and High School Capacity Profile Results ...... 138 Elementary School Information Checklist ...... 143 Middle and High School Information Checklist ...... 144

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1A. 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Results for Grades 3ʹ5...... 14 Figure 1B. 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Results for Grades 6ʹ8...... 14 Figure 2A. 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Results by Elementary School, Grade Level, and Gender...... 18 Figure 2B. 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Results by Middle School, Grade Level, and Gender...... 19 Figure 3A. 2009 NECAP Reading Results for Grades 3ʹ5 Title I and Non-Title I Students...... 21 Figure 3B. 2009 NECAP Reading Results for Grades 6ʹ8 Title I and Non-Title I Students...... 21 Figure 4A. 2009 NECAP Reading Results for Grades 3ʹ5 LEP and Non-LEP Students...... 24 Figure 4B. 2009 NECAP Reading Results for Grades 6ʹ8 LEP and Non-LEP Students...... 24 Figure 5A. MHSA Critical Reading Results by District and State...... 26 Figure 5B. MHSA Critical Reading Results by High School...... 27 Figure 6A. MHSA Writing Results by District and State...... 28 Figure 6B. MHSA Writing Results by High School...... 29 Figure7A. 2009ʹ10 MHSA Critical Reading and Writing Results by District, State, and Gender...... 30 Figure 7B. 2009ʹ10 MHSA Critical Reading Results by High School and Gender...... 30 Figure 8. NWEA Reading Results for Grades 4 and 5...... 32 Figure 9A. MEA ELAʹReading Results by Elementary School...... 35 Figure 9B. MEA ELAʹReading Results by Middle School...... 37 Figure 10. 2009ʹ10 ACCESS Proficiency Levels by Grade Level Span and Years in Program...... 40

ii Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Kʹ12 LITERACY PROGRAM REVIEW FOR THE PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Executive Summary

NOVEMBER 2010

dŚĞWŽƌƚůĂŶĚWƵďůŝĐ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ;WW^ͿĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚW'ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛Ɛ<ʹ12 literacy programs. The purposes of the Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review include:

Analysis of current student performance in reading using current summative and interim assessment data sources Examination of current literacy instructional and intervention practices and identification of program strengths and challenges, including language and literacy instruction for English learners Recommendations for improvements in literacy instruction throughout the district that build upon current capacity, thereby contributing to increases in the numbers and percentages of students who achieve proficiency on state literacy assessments To address the identified purposes of the Kʹ12 Program Review, PCG Education collected and analyzed data from the following sources:

Multiple assessments of student performance Online teacher surveys completed by 411 teachers throughout the district School capacity profiles completed by teams at each school, totaling 162 team members ^ĐŚŽŽůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚďǇĞĂĐŚƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ Focus groups and interviews with teachers, school and district administrators, teachers of English learners, literacy data specialists, and other stakeholders Review of pertinent district documents Key findings include the following:

1. A substantial number of elementary students are not meeting the NECAP standards for ƉƌŽĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇĂĐƌŽƐƐĂůůŽĨWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŽĨŶŐůŝƐŚlearners, students with special needs, and students who receive Title I services accounts for many discrepancies in performance across disaggregated groups, it does not account for all of the differences across elementary schools. Disaggregated data reveal academic weaknesses at all elementary schools

for one or more subgroups. This finding suggests that struggling readers in the aggregate may benefit from differentiated core instruction and targeted intervention to address identified reading and writing difficulties. 2. While King Middle School and Casco Bay High School demonstrated the strongest performance on available measures, there are wide variations in critical reading and writing skills at all of WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐŵŝĚĚůĞĂŶĚŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘KĨƐƉĞĐŝĂůĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŝs evidence of an increasing gender gap in student performance as students advance from elementary to middle to high school. This finding suggests that male students in middle and high school may benefit from targeted instructional strategies designed specifically to improve their reading and writing performance. It also suggests that the efficacy of the general program as well as interventions should be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that the educational programs being offered support the success of all students. 3. There appears to be some indication, based on the baseline year NECAP data available for analysis, that the current program may support students who are receiving Title I services to close the achievement gap relative to their peers as they move up through the grades. This finding warrants further investigation to identify contributing factors including the impact of particular instructional programs on the performance of subgroups and should be monitored to see if this is a single year phenomena or one which is sustained over time. 4. Across the district, the academic performance of English learners is of concern. Careful consideration must be given to the delivery of language and literacy instruction and intervention for English learners across all schools, identifying programs of instruction that are particularly successful in enabling English learners to achieve proficiency in the English language arts. Further, the district must consider the availability of financial resources for all schools with growing English learner populations as well as ongoing and sustained professional development to ensure that all teachers have the knowledge and skills they need to help English learners access the curriculum across content areas and grade levels. dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐĞƚŽĨƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐƌĞĨĞƌƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇƚŽĞŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ to support a Kʹ12 literacy improvement initiative. These recommendations are based on the data collected for the Literacy Review and align with the research and practice literature. The intent is to provide the Portland Public Schools with research-grounded guidance to implement and sustain a Kʹ12 ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƚŚĂƚƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶ͞ƌĂƉŝĚĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͘͟ Rapid district improvement means that there are:

Dramatic changes in district structures, culture, policies, and process within one to three years of the start of the improvement effort. Evidence of significant improvement in instructional practices and student academic performance within three to four years of the start of the improvement effort.

2 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Evidence that changes and improvements are system-wide and sustainable (Lane, 2009).1

We know that achieving dramatic effects in student achievement is only possible through a relentless focus on specific aspects of instruction (see, for example, the case study on the 90-90-90 schools2 and the What Works in Schools research3). We know that a focus on literacy can serve as a lever for school and district improvement and that successful data-driven school and district literacy improvement initiatives have resulted in positive student learning outcomes across the curriculum.4 We know that high levels of literacy are key to success as a citizen, in the workplace, and in post-secondary settings.5 And, we know that a lack of adequate reading and writing skills result in costs to business and government,6 increased unemployment and poverty,7 and higher likelihood of incarceration.8 Clearly literacy is a core issue for school districts to take on, ensuring that as many students as absolutely possible are graduating with the literacy skills to be college and career ready, able and willing to participate fully as citizens. Given the current success rates of students graduating from the Portland Public Schools as measured by the existing assessments, literacy improvement is an area where increased focus and attention is required on the part of the district. dŚĞŐŽŽĚŶĞǁƐŝƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞWŽƌƚůĂŶĚWƵďůŝĐ^ĐŚŽŽůƐĂƌĞŶŽƚŝŶ͞ĐƌŝƐŝƐ͘͟tŚŝůĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇĂŶĚůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ can be greatly improved, there is leadership, teacher quality, and determination to make this happen. Changes have already been put into place to build on current district capacity, address areas of weakness and inconsistency, review programming, and ensure that changes reflect effective practice.

1 Lane. B. (2009). Exploring the pathway to rapid district improvement. Center on Innovation & Improvement. Available from http://www.centerii.org/survey/downloads/Exploring_the_Pathway_to_Rapid_District_Improvement.pdf 2 Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press. 3 Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 4 See, for example: Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented results in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. See also: http://www.principals.org/Content.aspx?topic=52936; and http://www.westjam.org/Docs/CM/OhioFullReport.pdf 5 See, for example: Act, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. Available from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/reports/reading.html. See also: Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2009). See also Time to Act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Author. Available from http://carnegie.org/publications/search- publications/pub/195/ 6 College Board. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. Report of the EĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽŶtƌŝƚŝŶŐĨŽƌŵĞƌŝĐĂ͛Ɛ&ĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͕^ĐŚŽŽůƐĂŶĚŽůůĞŐĞƐ͘EĞǁzŽƌŬ͗ƵƚŚŽƌ͘ǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨƌŽŵ http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf 7 Wood, W. (2010). Literacy and the entry-level workforce: The role of literacy and policy in labor market success, employment policies institute. Washington D.C.: Employment Policies Institute. Available from http://epionline.org/studies/Wood_10-10.pdf 8 Harris, P. J, Baltodano, H. M., Bal, A., Jolivette, K., & Malcahy, C. (2009, June). Reading achievement of incarcerated youth in three regions. Journal of Correctional Education, 60, 2. Abstract available from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4111/is_200906/ai_n35628945/

To boost the effectiveness of current literacy programming and to ensure the efficacy of efforts and resources being put into place during the 2010ʹ11 school year, PCG Education makes the following recommendations in five key areas to improve literacy instruction in the Portland Public Schools. These are spelled out in greater detail in the body of the report. 1. Structures and Policies Develop a three-year District Literacy Improvement Plan with clear measurable literacy improvement goals, implementation steps, and an associated communication plan that prioritizes and addresses the recommendations in this report. Redefine the role of the Data Literacy Specialist to support the district literacy initiative. Review and align teacher professional development and ensure that all Portland teachers have the knowledge and support to be able to implement high quality research-based differentiated literacy instruction (Kʹ5) and content literacy instruction (6ʹ12) and, where necessary, professional development in the effective implementation of intervention instruction, to assist the district in meeting literacy improvement goals. Consider requiring all Portland teachers to complete a minimum amount of professional learning specifically related to the language and literacy needs of English learners. 2. Literacy Assessment and Data Use Ensure that growth in reading is being monitored through clarifying and systematizing the use of the NWEA MAP Reading test data. Institute district-wide screening/benchmarking in reading and timely identification of students requiring extra support through administering of AIMSweb tests consistently using specific protocols and ensure that teachers understand the resulting data and how it is to be used. Maximize use of formative reading assessments to guide instructional differentiation and examine the use of primary grade reading assessments to ensure that they are providing reliable, usable, non-redundant information. Clarify the purpose and use of district-wide writing prompts and prepare for how the NECAP and MHSA writing assessment data can be used for program feedback and review. Review and make consistent rules for placement of English learners (EL) students to ensure that students are both challenged and supported in their language development. 3. Standards-based Literacy Curriculum Establish vertical alignment of all grade level instruction and content courses with the Common Core English language arts standards and cross-reference expectations with NECAP and MHSA expectations, the content maps from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the NWEA Descartes Continuum in the areas of reading, writing, speaking and listening, and research. By educational level, develop rubrics for writing, research, and presentation aligned with the expectation in the Common Core and the NWEA Descartes Continuum.

4 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Ensure that ELs have access to the standards-based curriculum and are not relegated to less rigorous expectations. 4. Tiered System of Instruction and Intervention Establish and communicate expectations and program review strategies for core literacy instruction in grades Kʹ5 and content literacy instruction in grades 6ʹ12. Define and ensure access to a robust menu of interventions for struggling readers by educational level aligned to appropriate student needs (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development/word study, fluency, reading comprehension, and strategic reading). Develop and implement a process for data gathering, compilation, and analysis related to ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ literacy skill development, content learning skills and strategies as well as the efficacy of Tier 2 and 3 intervention placement, instruction, and programming. 5. Parent and Community Development Brand the literacy improvement initiative and use that message frequently through multiple communication channels with parents and the community to put literacy front and center. ƵŝůĚŽŶƚŚĞWŽƌƚůĂŶĚWƵďůŝĐ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ͛ƐƚƌŽŶŐƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝƉǁŝƚŚparents and community to generate resourcesͶtime, materials, expertiseͶthat will enhance district and school literacy initiatives. Solicit and train volunteers as before- and after-school tutors. The ability to use language and literacy effectively is central to 21st century communication, problem solving, development of new knowledge, and engagement in the demands of global society as an informed citizen. Placing language and literacy skills at the heart of 21st century teaching and learning will enable the Portland Public Schools to help all students graduate with the skills and knowledge that they need for success in college and the 21st century work force.

Introduction

The Portland Public Schools (PPS) has identified the need to review its literacy and English Learner (EL) programs. In the spring of 2010, the district asked Public Consulting Group to conduct a review of its Kʹ 12 Literacy Program. The purposes of this program review were to:

Identify the components of literacy programming currently being implemented in each PPS school in terms of approaches, materials, programs, staffing, and other key areas

Conduct a baseline analysis of student performance in reading using Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) subtests, Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) results, Maine High School Assessment (MHSA)/SAT results, New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) results, Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Determine current literacy instructional practices as well as program strengths and challenges, including instruction of EL students Make recommendations that will build on current capacity and improve literacy instruction throughout the district The literacy demands of the 21st century are greater than humankind has ever faced. To be competitive in the workplace and to successfully participate as a citizen requires high literacy skills. Graduates of our schools need not only to be able to read with understanding and write coherently, but also to:

Communicate clearly and effectively Be self-directed and lifelong learners Problem solve in both creative and practical ways Be responsible and involved citizens Be integrative and informed thinkers They must be able to use 21st century information, communication tools, and technology skills to pursue personal and professional growth. In the workplace, our graduates must be able to work collaboratively to inquire, think critically, make informed decisions, and create new knowledge.

While literacy in the 21st century is more than just reading and writing, reading and writing are the foundation upon which 21st century literacies are built, and consequently, reading and writing are the primary focuses of this review.

The Portland Public Schools is to be commended for its commitment and foresight in conducting this ƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚŝŶŝƚƐƌĞƐŽůǀĞƚŽƚĂŬĞĂĐƚŝŽŶďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁ͛ƐĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘In this era of high stakes testing and a renewed national priority in education, literacy must be central to any district improvement plan.

The Portland Public Schools and the community of Portland, Maine are well positioned to address the development of the literacy capabilities of each and every student. Its teachers want to do a good job

and many have invested considerable time and effort into gaining new skills and strategies that they can use to better meet the needs of ELs and others who struggle with reading and writing.

It should be noted that since this review began in May of 2010, the central office has undergone reorganization, building the capacity of the district to address literacy systemically through the addition of a Chief Academic Officer, a Curriculum Coordinator for the Humanities, and an RtI Coordinator. These individuals have already taken the lead to address ƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĞĨĨŽƌƚƐĂƚŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇĂŶĚůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ at all levels, including the establishment of a district-wide literacy assessment calendar. The timing of this review enables this report to serve a baseline capture of the state of literacy instruction in the Portland Public Schools against which the impact of changes in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and policy can be measured.

Overview of the Methodology for the District Kʹ12 Literacy Review

PCG EĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛ<ʹ12 Literacy Program review is designed to provide districts with an impartial and unbiased review of its literacy instruction program. PCG Education has conducted audits for schools and districts for over 10 years. In addition to literacy, district audits and reviews have focused on areas as diverse as special education, the use of data to inform instruction and guide district improvement, and 21st century teaching and learning.

PCG Education helps schools, school districts, and state departments of education to maximize resources, achieve their performance goals, and improve student outcomes. With nearly 25 years of Kʹ ϭϮĐŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͕W'͛ƐĞǆƉĞƌƚŝƐĞ͕ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͕ĂŶĚƐĐĂůĞŚĞůƉĞĚƵĐĂƚŽƌƐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƚŚĞŝƌĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ- making processes and achieve measurable results.

Since its founding, PCG Education has offered products and services that help districts and schools achieve equity for all students, accountability for results, and continuous improvement. PCG Education staff draw on a wide range of tools and approaches, including PCG Education-developed models, resources, and software to build systemic capacity through the application of research-based knowledge, sustained professional development, cutting-edge technology, and collaborative partnerships.

As part of Public Consulting Group, PCG Education combines expertise in key content areas with a strong set of core competencies to customize a set of services that meet the unique needs of our clients. Our goal is to build the capacity of our clients to improve teaching and learning through data-driven practices, action planning, use of technology, leadership coaching, and professional development.

A district literacy review is both a science and an art. As a science, it involves analysis of quantitative data (e.g., student achievement, survey data) and the presentation of that data in clear, accessible formats that provide new, deep, and actionable understandings.

As an art, a literacy review involves gathering qualitative data from a wide range of perspectives and voices, through interviews, focus groups, and observations and then analyzing that data to determine themes and draw conclusions about actual practice in the district. The analysis of both the qualitative

8 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

and quantitative data gathered throughout a program review to identify themes, implications, conclusions, and recommendations requires experience in the fields of evaluation and education to create a clear, usable, and logical report that brings a complex, multi-faceted picture into focus.

Analysis of Student Performance Data The student performance component of this review incorporated data from multiple sources.

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) Maine Educational Assessment (MEA)

Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)

Maine High School Assessment (MHSA) Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs) NECAP: The program review included a comprehensive analysis of the 2009 NECAP reading assessment for grades 3ʹ8. NECAP analysis examined district and state comparisons and a breakdown by subgroups including grade level, gender, race/ethnicity, students with an IEP, Title I students, and LEP students. The 2009 NECAP writing assessment was a pilot designed to field-test new material; therefore no score reports were produced.

MHSA: At the high school level, MHSA Critical Reading and Writing results were analyzed, including an examination of three-year achievement trends in each high school and a 2010 district to state comparison by gender.

NWEA: Content strands were compiled in grades 4 and 5, examining variations in student achievement from fall 2009 to spring 2010 and spring 2009 to spring 2010. Grades 4 and 5 NWEA RIT results by elementary school were also examined (fall 2009 to spring 2010).

MEA: Outcome analysis included an examination of MEA ELAʹReading cohort trends, which followed achievement patterns across three years of data (school year 2006ʹ07 to 2008ʹ09). MEA ELAʹReading content standards were also analyzed in Literacy Text and Informational Text in school year 2008ʹ09 for grades 3ʹ8.

ACCESS: Kʹ12 EL ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞǁĂƐĂŶĂůǇǌĞĚĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚƌĞĞǇĞĂƌƐŽĨ^^ĚĂƚĂƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ composite performance level trends by grade level and time in EL program from school years 2007ʹ08 to 2009ʹ10.

Data Collection Sources

TEACHER SURVEY Online Teacher Surveys were developed to collect data about teaching and learning practices. The survey content was reviewed by the ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛Ɛdata literacy specialists for clarity and applicability to the district and was modified based on their feedback. Survey items were organized into discrete categories that represent interdependent aspects of school practices related to literacy development.

Kʹ5 Teacher Survey items included:

Reading Writing

Vocabulary Self Directed Learning

Engagement and Choice

Grades 6ʹ12 Teacher Survey items included:

Reading Writing

Vocabulary Speaking and Presenting

Information, Media, and Technology Critical and Inventive Thinking

Self Directed Learning Engagement, Choice, and Authenticity

A total of 411 teachers throughout the district responded to the surveys. In the lower grades, 71 Kindergartenʹgrade 2, 59 grades 3ʹ5, and 3 multi-age classroom teachers completed the Kʹ5 Teacher Survey. In the upper grades, 96 middle and 123 high school content area teachers completed the Grades 6ʹ12 Teacher Survey. Kʹ12 responses also included 4 reading specialist, 26 EL teachers, and 29 special education teachers.

SCHOOL CAPACITY PROFILE In order to identify a ƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐŽǀĞƌĂůůŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶĂůƌĞĂĚŝŶĞƐƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶĚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂŶĚ development, a School Literacy Capacity Profile documenting ƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƉĞƌĐĞƉƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ strengths and barriers to schoolwide literacy was administered. A team from each school completed the School Literacy Capacity Profile. In total, 162 team members (108 elementary including West, 20 middle, and 34 high school including West) participated in the completion of the capacity survey. At each school, team members collaborated using a protocol to individually rate each item on a four-point scale. Each ƚĞĂŵ͛Ɛ responses were summarized to create a collective perception of their ƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͛ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇĨŽƌůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇ support across the following five areas.

SCHOOL CULTUREʹBELIEFS AND EXPECTATIONS ABOUT LITERACY The professional culture and belief systems of a school are an essential foundation for establishing a schoolwide focus on literacy.

SCHOOL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES The complex nature of addressing student literacy requires policies and procedures that can be drawn upon to support a schoolwide, multifaceted approach.

STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FOR LITERACY Research has pointed to several structural supports critical in supporting teacher efforts to improve student literacy across the content areas.

10 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

RESOURCE CAPACITY ƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇŝƐĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚƵƉŽŶ adequate resource support.

FACTORS THAT IMPACT A MULTI-TIERED APPROACH TO READING INTERVENTION (RTI) A system of supports that address the specific needs of students for whom reading is a challenge.

SCHOOL INFORMATION CHECKLIST The School Information Checklist was completed by each school͛Ɛ principal with support from other administrative staff as needed.

FOCUS GROUPS AND INTERVIEWS To ensure that the voice of the teacher was heard in this review, school-based focus groups and interviews were conducted in May and June of 2010 at every school in the district. Over 90 teachers from all grade levels and departments participated in the focus groups and discussed their practice, their challenges, and ways in which the district could support them in building the literacy and learning skills of their students. More than 20 school administrators took part in individual and small group interviews. In addition, extensive data were acquired through phone interviews with district and school level administrators.

Additional focus groups were conducted in August 2010 with EL teachers. Interviews were conducted between July and September 2010 with Data Literacy Specialists, Humanities Curriculum Coordinator, Chief Academic Officer, and many others.

REVIEW OF DISTRICT DOCUMENTS /ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽƵƌƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐŽĨĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĂƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĐƵƌƌĞnt literacy program, we reviewed a number of district print and online documents including the:

District Lau Plan Kʹ2 and 3ʹ5 reading and writing frameworks The RtI resources blog The new district literacy assessment calendar NWEA MAP test growth scores A history of the work done by data literacy specialists to date Additional information provided by the district or posted on the district website

District-wide Findings and Implications

Summary of Student Performance in Reading and Writing in the Portland Public Schools dŽƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌĂƚŚŝƌĚ-party analysis of student performance in the Portland Public Schools, we examined student performance results on the following assessments:

Students who take this What the assessment Name of assessment assessment measures Types of analyses NECAP Reading Students in grades 3ʹ8 Word identification skills Proficiency levels (administered for the first and strategies (grades 3ʹ4 Subgroup analyses time in fall 2009) only) Vocabulary Literary text Informational text (Note: Because Year 1 in Maine was a pilot year, there is no writing data available from fall 2009) SAT/MHSA Critical Students in grade 11 Critical reading Achievement levels Reading and Writing Writing District and state comparison NWEA MAP Reading Students in grades 3ʹ9 Vocabulary Three-year performance Test Comprehension trends Literary texts Growth scores for students Informational and in grades 4 and 5 persuasive texts MEA ELAʹReading Students in grades 3ʹ8 Reading (fiction and non- Percent of average points (not administered past fiction) earned Spring 2009) ACCESS EL students English language Performance indicators in development four grade level clusters and in five different content areas Results by time in program

Note that there is just one assessment at the high school level (grade 11) that is administered consistently, and even that assessment, the MHSA, does not have universal participation. Assessments being used at the Kʹ2 level include Letter Identification and Modified Concepts About Print (14 key concepts), Rigby benchmarking, a Word test (grade 1), and Writing Vocabulary and Dictation (grade 1), but none of these are collected on a district-wide basis and there are no state or national norms for comparison. Therefore, there was no way to provide insight into the performance of students in grades Kʹ2 for this report. This will be remedied when AIMSweb assessments are implemented district-wide beginning with the 2010ʹ11 school year.

12 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Note, too, that there is little information on writing outside of the MHSA. No writing data from the 2009 administration of the NECAP in Maine is available as this was the year for field testing and benchmarking. The district recognizes that writing is an essential component of a literacy program and that non-fiction writing is highly correlated with academic success (Reeves, 2003).9 To that end, the district is currently redesigning its writing assessment process to be more valid, relevant, and reliable.

SUMMARY OF 2009 NECAP DATA FOR GRADES 3ʹ8

NEW ENGLAND COMMON ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Maine joined the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) in the fall of 2009. This assessment is used by participating states to meet No Child Left Behind Act requirements for testing reading and mathematics once each year from grade 3 through grade 8. The states also include a writing assessment administered at grades 5 and 8. According to the Maine Department of Education website, ͞NECAP is designed to assess learning from the prior year (teaching year) at the beginning of the next school year (testing year). Therefore, grades 2ʹ7 reading and mathematics are assessed at the beginning of grades 3ʹ8. Fourth and 7th grade writing is assessed at tŚĞďĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐŽĨŐƌĂĚĞƐϱĂŶĚϴ͘͟ 10

Student performance is reported in four achievement levels in reading: Proficient with Distinction; Proficient; Partially Proficient; and Substantially Below Proficient. Data from the 2009 administration of the NECAP provides a baseline snapshot of student performance in reading and would be a good tool for measuring the effects of a concerted district-wide emphasis on literacy improvement. While it is only a single assessment, the data provide a good picture of student achievement in the district as a whole.

For the purposes oĨĂƐƐĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚŽĨĂĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĐŽƌĞůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ŝƚŝƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚŽ examine the percentage of students who score at the Proficient or Proficient with Distinction levels. According to the national guidance for Response to Instruction and Intervention, a strong core literacy program would support 80ʹ85% of students to be performing at grade level in reading. Assuming that scoring at these levels is equivalent to meeting or exceeding grade level standards, it can be extrapolated that a strong core literacy program would have 80% or more of students scoring at or above the Proficient level in each grade. A moderately strong program would have 60ʹ80% scoring at or above Proficient, while a weak core program would have less than 60% meeting the grade level standard at each grade. While these are only guidelines, it should be pointed out that few districts, including Portland, have adequate resources to provide intervention support for more than 15-20% of their students. Therefore, this becomes a prĂĐƚŝĐĂů͞ůŝƚŵƵƐƚĞƐƚ͟ƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞǁŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĞůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇ programming at Kʹ5 and content literacy programming at 6ʹ12 need to be strengthened to address the needs of the specific student population in the district.

9 Reeves, D. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond. Denver, CO: Center for Performance Assessment. Available from http://www.sabine.k12.la.us/online/leadershipacademy/high%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%20bey ond.pdf 10 Maine Education - New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP). Available from http://www.maine.gov/education/necap/index.html

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 3ʹ5: District and State Comparison

District 17% 17% 52% 15% (N=488) State

Grade 3 Grade 9% 19% 60% 13% (N=13,415) District 21% 20% 43% 16% (N=485) State

Grade 4 Grade 12% 21% 52% 15% (N=13,461) District 9% 18% 52% 21% (N=472) State

Grade 5 Grade 7% 20% 57% 15% (N=13,640)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

Figure 1A. 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Results for Grades 3ʹ5.

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 6ʹ8: District and State Comparison

District 13% 20% 54% 13% (N=494) State

Grade 6 Grade 8% 23% 57% 12% (N=13,942) District 11% 23% 52% 14% (N=497) State

Grade 7 Grade 8% 23% 59% 9% (N=14,004) District 11% 18% 50% 21% (N=494) State

Grade 8 Grade 7% 24% 54% 15% (N=14,100)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

Figure 1B. 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Results for Grades 6ʹ8.

The following observations can be made upon analysis of student performance on the NECAP in the fall of 2009.

14 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Grades 3ʹ5: In the fall of 2009, the aggregate district student data documents the dip in performance from grade 3 to grade 4 and the jump in performance from grade 4 to grade 5 at ƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĂŶĚƐƚĂƚĞůĞǀĞůƐ͘WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƐĐŽƌĞĚďĞůŽǁƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞǁŝƚŚ67% of the ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐŐƌĂĚĞϯƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ;EсϰϴϴͿƐĐŽƌing at Proficient or above compared with 73% of grade 3 students statewide. At grade 4, 59% of students (N=485) scored Proficient or above as compared with 67% statewide. At grade 5, WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƐĐŽƌĞĚƐůŝŐŚƚůǇďĞƚƚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞ͘;73% of students, (N=472) scored Proficient or above compared with 72% statewide. Schools level performance by grade level on the NECAP Reading assessment is included in the Appendix. School level student performance results show the following: o At grade 3, the Hall (88%), Longfellow (81%), Lyseth (87%), Peaks Island (90%), and Presumpscot (73%) elementary schools outperformed the district (67%) percentage of students who were Proficient or above and matched or exceeded statewide performance. At grade 4, the Clifford (61%), Hall (70%) Longfellow (77%), Lyseth (75%), and Presumpscot (70%) elementary schools outperformed the district (59%) percentage of students who were Proficient or above. All but Clifford also outperformed the state (67%) percentage of students scoring proficient and above. o At grade 5, the Hall (81%), Longfellow (80%), Lyseth (93%), and Presumpscot (76%) elementary schools outperformed the district (73%) and the state (72%). o Of note, the Reiche School improved its performance from 44% Proficient or above at grade 3 to 50% Proficient or above at grade 4 and to 64% Proficient or above at grade 5. This suggests that the school is making substantial progress in improving proficiency as students advance from grade 3 to grade 5. Riverton and East End, schools that also demonstrated weak performance in grade 3, showed improvement but continued to demonstrate weak performance in grades 4 and 5. o While the Reiche School saw an increase in performance from grade 3 to grade 4 and the Clifford School maintained its moderate aggregate performance in grades 3 and 4 at 61%, the remaining schools for which there is grade 4 data, saw a dip in aggregate performance at grade 4 on the 2009 NECAP Reading assessment. Of note, none of WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƐĐŚŽŽůƐǁĞƌĞĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝǌĞĚĂƐƐƚƌŽŶŐƉĞƌĨŽrmers at grade 4. However, by grade 5, three schools that had demonstrated strong aggregate performance in grade 3 regained their strong performance: Longfellow (80%), Hall (81%), and Lyseth (93%).

Grades 6ʹϴ͗/ŶϮϬϬϵ͕ϲϳйŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐŐrade 6 students (N=494) scored Proficient or above as compared with 69% of grade 6 students statewide. At grade 7, 66% of students (N=497) scored Proficient or above as compared with 68% statewide. At grade 8, 71% of students (N=494) scored Proficient or above as compared with 69% statewide.

Schools level performance by grade level on the NECAP Reading assessment is included in the Appendix. School level student performance results show the following:

o The King Middle School outperformed the district and the state at grades 6 and 7 and achieved strong performance at grade 8 (with 80% of 8th graders meeting or exceeding the standard). o The Lincoln and Lyman Moore Middle Schools maintained moderate performance across grades 6ʹ8, performing below the district and state levels at each grade. In both schools 32ʹ39% of students in each grade are failing to meet the standard.

POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT Since the core program is the backbone of a literacy program and needs to support students to attain and sustain grade level expectations, and given that district resources are not unlimited, ŝĨƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛Ɛ core literacy program is not consistently supporting 80ʹ85% of students to meet grade level standards, it is important to scrutinize and strengthen the program so that it can meet this requirement. A strong Tier 1 core literacy program is an essential component of an effective district-wide RtI approach. By the ƐĂŵĞƚŽŬĞŶ͕ŝƚŝƐĐůĞĂƌƚŚĂƚWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƐĐŚŽŽůƐƐĞƌǀĞĂĚŝǀĞƌƐĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŵŝǆĞƐof needs. Therefore, literacy programs that appear to increase the number of students who meet or exceed the standard in reading over the course of three years at that school should be noted. This apparent strengthening instead of stagnating or losing ground shows evidence that the programs in that school is working well and meeting the academic needs of many of the students.

The consistent trend of improvement from grade 4 (reflecting the grade 3 program) to grade 5 (reflecting the grade 4 program) across the elementary schools may signal specific strength in the current grade 4 program and warrants more investigation of what is happening consistently across schools in 4th grade. On the other hand, the fact that many students in grades 3 and 4 are scoring below proficient in the fall testing may mean that there are systemic inconsistencies or weaknesses in the primary grade program that should be examined.

DISTRICT CONCERN ABOUT ACHIEVEMENT GAPS A successful Kʹ12 literacy program supports the literacy development of all students by providing a strong core program and accelerating the development of those who struggle with reading and writing so they are able to attain and sustain grade level work. A successful literacy program supports those in the upper quartile to ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽŵĂŬĞĂǇĞĂƌ͛ƐǁŽƌƚŚŽĨƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐĞĂĐŚǇĞĂƌand ensure their readiness to meet the literacy demands of the 21st century. Likewise a strong program ensures that those in the 40thʹ 74th percentile receive purposeful, ongoing literacy support in all content classrooms in alignment with a standards-based curriculum to prevent sliding backward. Finally, a successful literacy program provides targeted interventions to assist and accelerate the literacy development of those scoring in the 40th percentile or below, in addition to the support available in the core program.

Nationally, there is great concern about five achievement gaps in reading:

1. An achievement gap between boys and girls, especially as they progress through the grades 2. An achievement gap between students who are economically challenged and those who are not 3. An achievement gap between Caucasian students and their peers of color

16 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

4. An achievement gap between ELLs and those for whom English is their first language 5. An achievement gap between students who receive special education services and those who do not To determine if these national trends are mirrored in Portland, we probed the NECAP data for evidence to confirm or contradict the concern. Below is a summary of the evidence associated with each of these along with a discussion of possible implications for district literacy programming. Note that many students belong to more than one of the categories of concern and, therefore, may be overrepresented in the discussion below. For a more complete overview of student performance results in reading and writing, please see the district website or the Appendix in this report.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE BY GENDER The picture at the district level masks the differences between the schools in terms of performance by gender. District-wide data show a gap of 10 percentage points between girls and boys in performance in grade 3 gradually closing in grades 4 and 5. The trend of a gap between the performance of girls and boys is evident at some schools and less evident at others. Schools where there appear to be a persistent or growing gap include East End and Hall. Three schools have unusual trends. The Clifford and Longfellow literacy program appears to be supporting the gap between the performance of boys and girls to close and even reverse as students move from grades 3ʹ5. At Riverton, the gap closes significantly from where it starts in grade 3 with the percent of boys who meet or exceed the standard increasing from 29% in grade 3 to 39% in grade 4 and 55% in grade 5. The one school where there is a reverse gap is Presumpscot. This is noticeable because girls seem to be lagging behind in reading performance at all three grade levels. Note that these are different cohorts of students and that the district level results which shows a dip in performance from grade 3 to grade 4 and a jump in performance from grade 4 to grade 5 is largely mirrored in these data as well.

Grades 3-5 Fall 2009 NECAP Reading Percent Proficient or Above by Gender 71% Grade 3 61% 63% Grade 4 57% District 75% Grade 5 72% 67% Grade 3 55% 61% Grade 4 59% Nathan Clifford 71% Grade 5 74% 52% Grade 3 35% 36% Grade 4 31%

EastEnd 57% Grade 5 48% 92% Grade 3 86% 58% Grade 4 56% 86% Fred P. Hall Hall P. Fred Grade 5 76% 87% Grade 3 76% 79% Grade 4 77%

Longfellow 79% Grade 5 82% 88% Grade 3 88% 72% Grade 4 78% Lyseth Harrison 95% Grade 5 91% 68% Grade 3 77% 67% Grade 4 74% Grade 5 70% Presumpscot 82% 43% Grade 3 48% 62% Grade 4 32% Reiche

Howard C. Howard 69% Grade 5 62% 41% Grade 3 29% 35% Grade 4 39%

Riverton 60% Grade 5 55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Female Male

Figure 2A. 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Results by Elementary School, Grade Level, and Gender.

18 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

At the middle school level, girls outperformed boys in all three schools in grades 6, 7, and 8. The trend was the same across the schoolͶboys and girls scored similarly at grade six (reflecting the grade 5 program) but the gaps were wider at grades 7 and 8. This trend parallels national trends and has potential implications for literacy programming at the middle school level including selection and types of reading students are asked to do, the nature of reading assignments, and the need to strategically engage boys with reading so that their ongoing literacy development continues.

Grades 6-8 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Percent Proficient or Above by Gender

69% Grade 6 66%

74% Grade 7 57% District 78% Grade 8 64%

72% Grade 6 68%

Grade 7 81%

King 66%

84% Grade 8 76%

67% Grade 6 61%

68% Grade 7 55% Licoln 70% Grade 8 60%

67% Grade 6 66%

73% Grade 7 50%

Lyman Moore Lyman 79% Grade 8 58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female Male

Figure 2B. 2009 Fall NECAP Reading Results by Middle School, Grade Level, and Gender.

ANALYSIS OF THE PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS RECEIVING TITLE I SERVICES COMPARED WITH THEIR PEERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THESE SERVICES Grades 3ʹ5: In 2009, students receiving Title I services substantially underperformed all other students in grades 3ʹ5 and for the district and state in the aggregate. The performance gap for students receiving Title I services was widest at grades 3 (45% Proficient or above vs. 82% Proficient or above) and grade 4 (46% Proficient or above vs. 72% Proficient or above). Note that the previously identified grade 4 dip is not evident with respect to students receiving Title I services, but it is evident with respect to students who are not receiving Title I services. For students receiving Title I services, the gap begins to close at grade 5 (60% Proficient or above vs. 82% Proficient or above). Nevertheless, the percentage of students who receive Title I services continues to lag behind their peers who do not receive these supports. Grades 6ʹ8: The trend toward closing the gap appears to continue through the middle grades based on performance on the NECAP in the fall of 2009. Fewer students receiving Title I services met or exceeded the standard compared with all other students at grade 6 (62% vs. 71%) but this gap was far smaller than in the earlier grades. At grade 7, Title I students performed at similar levels as all other students (65% vs. 67% met or exceeded the standard). At grade 8, Title I students outperformed their peers not receiving these services (76% vs. 68%). This may indicate that the cumulative supports being put into place in Title I schools are working at the middle school level but ongoing monitoring of this finding should be undertaken to ensure that this was not just a single year phenomenon. It should be cautioned that these are not the same ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐďƵƚƌĞĨůĞĐƚĂƐŝŶŐůĞǇĞĂƌ͛ƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƐĞquential grades. Title I supports should be reviewed to determine which are most successful in accelerating student achievement in reading.

20 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 3ʹ5 by Title I Services

Title I Students 32% 23% 39% 6% (N=209) All Other Students

Grade 3 Grade 6%11% 61% 21% (N=279) Title I Students 30% 24% 41% 5% (N=229) All Other Students

Grade 4 Grade 12% 16% 46% 26% (N=268) Title I Students 16% 23% 47% 13% (N=201) All Other Students

Grade 5 Grade 5%13% 56% 26% (N=283)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

Figure 3A. 2009 NECAP Reading Results for Grades 3ʹ5 Title I and Non-Title I Students.

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 6ʹ8 by Title I Services

Title I Students 15% 24% 45% 17% (N=208) All Other Students

Grade 6 Grade 12% 17% 60% 11% (N=287) Title I Students 12% 23% 41% 24% (N=193) All Other Students

Grade 7 Grade 11% 23% 59% 8% (N=304) Title I Students 9% 15% 47% 29% (N=188) All Other Students

Grade 8 Grade 13% 19% 51% 17% (N=308)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

Figure 3B. 2009 NECAP Reading Results for Grades 6ʹ8 Title I and Non-Title I Students.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE BY RACE/ETHNICITY The data show conclusively that in Portland, students of color are much more likely than their white counterparts to fail to meet grade level standards in reading. However, these data are challenging to interpret because of the specific demographics of students of color in Portland and the overlap of the cohort of students of color with the cohort of students receiving Title I services and English Learners (EL) &ŽƌĞǆĂŵƉůĞ͕ĂďƌŝĞĨŐůĂŶĐĞĂƚƚŚĞĚĂƚĂƐŚŽǁƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŽĨWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƐŝĂŶ͕ůĂĐŬ, and Hispanic students who meet or exceed the proficiency standard in reading lag far behind their white counterparts. But it is impossible to tell if this is because more of these students are ELs or are receiving Title I services. Black students in Portland are more likely to be Somali than African American. Asian students may be the children of university professors or the children of refugees. This complex demographic picture, coupled with extreme differences in the numbers of each group at each grade level, makes interpreting the data hard to do responsibly. While gaps clearly exist, they do not necessarily map to the national trends. Certainly teacher expectations, school policies, and the extent to which literature and topics address multicultural concerns should be examined to determine if there are inherent biases against these groups of students. From the perspective of literacy programming, it is probably best to focus on the services provided through the Title I program and through EL services to support the optimal literacy development of these students. For a chart describing the specific performance of these subgroups, please refer to the Appendix.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE OF ENGLISH LEARNERS AND STUDENTS WHOSE FIRST LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH We examined results of EL students on the NECAP and then, later in this section, on the ACCESS test. Here we compared the performance of ELs with their peers whose first language is English. Note that Limited English Proficient (LEP) is the federal subgroup designation for the EL subgroup. Note, too, that these data represent all levels of ELs, not distinguishing between those born in the United States, those who have come recently to the United States, and the variety of profiles of other ELs whose personal circumstances vary significantly. This underscores the limitation of the data for program planning and monitoring program efficacy because the data represent all who took the test and do not distinguish among differences in length of time in the Portland Public Schools or ACCESS performance levels. Also, it should be noted that as soon as students score at Level 6 on the ACCESS test, they are no longer considered ELs and their scores are no longer part of an analysis of EL subgroup performance. Therefore, by definition, this analysis is of the performance on a standardized test in English of students who are not proficient in English.

Grades 3ʹ5: In 2009, LEP students substantially underperformed all other students in grades 3ʹ5 (grade 3=35% vs. 77% Proficient or above; grade 4=33% vs. 69% Proficient or above; grade 5=37% vs. 81% Proficient or above). The gap at grade 3 narrowed slightly at grade 4, but widened again at grade 5. As a group, LEP students were much more likely to score at the lowest performance level than other students. At some grade levels, ELs make up more than a third of enrolled students. ůĞĂƌůǇ͕>WƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐĞůĞŵĞntary schools are struggling to achieve proficiency in reading in English as measured by the NECAP. This represents a challenge

22 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

for the district to ensure that literacy and language development in English for these students is a priority. Grades 6ʹ8: In 2009, LEP students in grades 6ʹ8 substantially underperformed all other students in grades 6ʹ8 (grade 6=34% vs. 76% Proficient or above; grade 7=31% vs. 75% Proficient or above; grade 8=35% vs. 81% Proficient or above). The gap between the percentages of LEP vs. other students reaching proficiency in reading as measured by the NECAP remained wide over the grade span. As a group, LEP students were much more likely to score at the lowest performance level than other students. It is clear that LEP students in PŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐŵŝĚĚůĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ are struggling to achieve proficiency in reading in English as measured by the NECAP. Again, given that ELs make up a substantial percentage of the overall students enrolled in each grade level, supporting their accelerated development of literacy skills and language fluency in English has to be a district priority.

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 3ʹ5 by LEP Students

Current LEP Students 44% 22% 34% 1% (N=131) All Other Students

Grade 3 Grade 8% 15% 58% 19% (N=354) Current LEP Students 43% 24% 31% 2% (N=137) All Other Students

Grade 4 Grade 12% 19% 48% 21% (N=350) Current LEP Students 27% 36% 34% 3% (N=94) All Other Students

Grade 5 Grade 5%13% 57% 24% (N=384)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

Figure 4A. 2009 NECAP Reading Results for Grades 3ʹ5 LEP and Non-LEP Students.

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 6ʹ8 by LEP Students

Current LEP Students 37% 29% 32% 2% (N=109) All Other Students

Grade 6 Grade 7% 18% 59% 17% (N=375) Current LEP Students 30% 39% 28% 3% (N=112) All Other Students

Grade 7 Grade 6% 19% 58% 17% (N=376) Current LEP Students 38% 28% 32% 3% (N=109) All Other Students

Grade 8 Grade 4%15% 54% 27% (N=379)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

Figure 4B. 2009 NECAP Reading Results for Grades 6ʹ8 LEP and Non-LEP Students.

24 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT IEPS Note: A detailed chart of these results can be found in the Appendix.

Grades 3ʹ5: In 2009, students with an IEP substantially underperformed all other students in grades 3ʹ5 and for the district and state in the aggregate; this is an expected finding. Performance was weak at all grade levels (grade 3=38% Proficient or above, grade 4=25% Proficient or above, grade 5=43% Proficient or above) with little evidence of improvement as students advanced in grade level. We did note that the numbers of students with an IEP increased substantially from grade 3 to grades 4 and 5 (grade 3=62, grade 4=88, grade 5=85). Grades 6ʹ8: In 2009, students with an IEP underperformed all other students in grades 6ʹ8 and for the district and state in the aggregate. This is an expected finding; however, the performance of students with an IEP was weaker for grades 6 and 7 than for grades 3ʹ5 (grade 6=31% Proficient or above; grade 7=26% Proficient or above). The gap widened at grade 6 and 7. While there was some improvement at grade 8 (47% Proficient or above), the performance of middle school students with an IEP confirms that this group of students continues to struggle to achieve state standards in reading. These data are hard to interpret in terms of literacy programming, although certainly if an effective RtI program were put into place, one would hope that a) inappropriate special education referrals for reading issues may decrease, and b) students would be getting more targeted interventions to address specific needs, potentially enabling greater numbers of students to meet grade level standards. Since students with an IEP are an aggregate category of students with multiple types of issues that affect their learning, little of substance can be concluded from this data as it is unclear to the disability categories where students are specifically failing to meet the standard. For example, is current literacy programming supporting students with reading disabilities to make accelerated gains? Also, we are not certain about the transience of this population. A cohort analysis by school may be valuable to conduct with students with a disability in the area of reading. Finally, we are not certain of the extent of the overlap between categories of students. For example, are there a large number of EL students with an IEP? These would all be questions to investigate further.

SUMMARY OF MHSA TREND DATA FOR GRADE 11

MAINE HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT Since the spring of 2006, the Maine High School Assessment (MHSA), consisting of the SAT Reasoning dĞƐƚΡ;^dͿĂŶĚĂƐĐŝĞŶĐĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŚĂƐ been administered for state and federal purposes to students in their third year of high school in place of the (MEA). The move from the MEA to the SAT in grade 11 was made to encourage all students to achieve the goal of attaining college and high-level workplace readiness as well as to measure academic achievement (http://www.maine.gov/education/necap/school_reports.html#n).

For this report we examined three-year aggregate trend results (school years 2007ʹ08 through 2009ʹ 10) for the entire district and by school on the Critical Reading Test and the SAT Writing Test. We also examined results on the two tests overall by gender to see if there was an achievement gap in the

performance of boys vs. girls. Lastly we looked at the achievement gap between English Learners and their peers with English as a first language. Note that proficiency levels are determined by the state of Maine, not by the College Board.

CRITICAL READING TEST District-wide Results

The overall trend for student performance in reading as measured by the SAT reading test is not reassuring. In comparison with the state, Portland students lost ground over the past three years from scoring above the state in the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standard set by Maine to scoring below the state average. In general, state comparisons aside, only about half of Portland students are meeting or exceeding the standard on the critical reading test, a finding with serious implications for secondary literacy programming in the district. Further, over the three years, between 24ʹ29% are scoring in the lowest performance category on the test.

Critical Reading Results Three-Year Trends by District and State 100% 9% 8% 12% 9% 12% 10% 80% 44% 40% 37% 40% 34% 38% 60%

22% 26% 40% 24% 28% 28% 30% 20% 24% 23% 29% 22% 29% 22% Percent of Students of Percent 0% District State District State District State (N=510) (N=14,579) (N=465) (N=14,660) (N=520) (N=13,819)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

Figure 5A. MHSA Critical Reading Results by District and State.

Results by School

School-by-school results may indicate differences in programming and feeder patterns from middle to ŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůďƵƚƚŚŝƐŝƐĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞǁŝƚŚWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƐĐŚŽŽůĐŚŽŝĐĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ͘KĨWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƚŚƌĞĞ high schools, only Casco Bay High School had more than 50% of its students meet or exceed the standard all three years (73%, 56%, 61% respectively). At Deering High School, performance has declined over the three years (53%, 49%, 47%) meeting or exceeding the standard). At Portland High School, 50% or less have met or exceeded the standard each year in reading (46%, 50%, 40%). Of perhaps more concern, is the percentage of students scoring at the lowest performance category at each school. At Casco Bay High School and Deering High School this percentage has risen over the three years to about

26 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

one of every four students scoring at the lowest level on the test. At Portland High School, one of every three students is scoring in the lowest performance category and this trend has stayed steady for three years.

Casco Bay Deering MHSA Critical Reading Results MHSA Critical Reading Results 100% 100% 14% 19% 20% 8% 11% 11% 80% 80% 37% 45% 38% 36% 60% 59% 41% 60%

40% 40% 24% 27% 23% 15% 28% 20% 14% 20% 24% 27% Percent of Students of Percent 21% 26%

13% Students of Percent 19% 0% 0% 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2009ʹ2010 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2009ʹ10 (N=56) (N=52) (N=59) (N=267) (N=263) (N=264) Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

Portland MHSA Critical Reading Results 100% 10% 11% 11% 80% 36% 39% 29% 60% 27% 40% 21% 18%

20% 34% 33% 33% Percent of Students of Percent 0% 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2009ʹ10 (N=187) (N=152) (N=195)

Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

Figure 5B. MHSA Critical Reading Results by High School.

WRITING TEST District-wide Results

District performance on the writing test appears to be on a slight downward trend over the past three years from 50% of students meeting or exceeding the standard to 48% and 46% in successive years. Of equal concern is the fact that in the most recent test administration, the percentage of students scoring at the lowest proficiency level on the test exceeded the state by 2%, although district performance mirrored the state trend in reducing the percentage in that category from school years 2008ʹ09 to

2009-10. Still, the percentages of students not meeting the standard signal that the middle and high school writing program requires close examination.

Writing Results Three-Year Trends by District and State 100% 9% 7% 12% 12% 9% 7% 80% 38% 41% 36% 36% 37% 40% 60%

40% 28% 32% 25% 25% 29% 32% 20% 27% 27% Percent of Students of Percent 23% 23% 24% 22% 0% District State District State District State (N=510) (N=14,581) (N=465) (N=14,663) (N=519) (N=13,819)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

Figure 6A. MHSA Writing Results by District and State.

Results by School

At Casco Bay High School, while performance fluctuated widely, the percent of students scoring at or above the standard met or exceeded the percentages scoring at these levels at the other two high schools. One would expect wider variance because of the small number of students taking the test each year; however, this may be evidence that a greater majority of students are writing as an integral part of their studies, which would be consistent with the Expeditionary Learning approach at the school. The percent of students scoring at the lowest levels of the test also varied widely from year to year (9ʹ21%) but was, overall, quite a lot below the percentage scoring at that level at the other two high schools. At Deering High School, student writing performance hovered consistently around 50%, meeting or exceeding the standard for the past three years, with 21ʹ25% scoring in the lowest performance category. At Portland High School, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standard in writing has been below 50% all three years and dropped significantly from 45%ʹ47% in 2008 and 2009 to 38% in the spring of 2010. This would indicate that the writing program and expectations for writing may be different depending on the course of studies students take. Also at Portland High School, the percentage of students scoring at the lowest performance level stayed constant at around 30%. Portland High School, which claims to provide advanced programming for students, did not have a greater percentage of students score at the highest levels of the test in comparison with the other two high schools.

28 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Casco Bay Deering MHSA Writing Results MHSA Writing Results 100% 8% 100% 14% 19% 9% 11% 11% 80% 80% 40% 30% 49% 38% 39% 60% 55% 60% 40% 40% 30% 31% 25% 28% 27% 20% 21% 20% 21% 25% 22%

Percent of Students of Percent 21%

15% Students of Percent 0% 9% 0% 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2009ʹ2010 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2009ʹ10 (N=56) (N=53) (N=59) (N=267) (N=263) (N=263) Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

Portland MHSA Writing Results 100% 6% 10% 8% 80% 30% 39% 37% 60% 32% 40% 26% 22% 20% 29% 31% 30% Percent of Students of Percent 0% 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2009ʹ10 (N=187) (N=152) (N=195) Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

Figure 6B. MHSA Writing Results by High School.

Results on the MHSA Critical Reading and Writing Tests by Gender

Unlike the state, where there is a slight achievement gap on the critical reading test in favor of girls, the percentage of Portland boys and girls scoring at or above the standard was equal at 46%. There is a slight achievement gap in the performance of Portland girls vs. boys on the writing test where 51% of girls met or exceeded the standard in writing but only 42% of boys did this. Examining the results by school shows that a greater percentage of boys at Casco Bay scored at or above the standard in reading and girls outperformed boys in both reading and writing at Deering High School, with the gender gap in writing being most notable. At Portland High School, the percentage of boys meeting and exceeding the standard in both reading and writing was slightly higher than of girls.

2009ʹ10 MHSA Critical Reading and Writing Percent Meets or Exceeds: District and State by Gender

District 46% 46% Critical Reading State 47% 49%

District 42% 51%

Writing State 40% 53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Male Female

Figure7A. 2009ʹ10 MHSA Critical Reading and Writing Results by District, State, and Gender.

2009ʹ10 MHSA Critical Reading and Writing Percent Meets or Exceeds: School Results by School and Gender

65% Casco Bay 53%

43% Deering 50% Critical Reading 42% Portland 38%

58% Casco Bay 57%

40% Deering 61% Writing 39% Portland 37%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Male Female

Figure 7B. 2009ʹ10 MHSA Critical Reading Results by High School and Gender.

Results on the MHSA Critical Reading and Writing Tests by English Learners

In 2010, 86% of ELs (N=74) in grade 11 scored in the lowest performance category on the critical reading test and 66% did so on the writing test. This summarizes the significant challenge faced by the district in

30 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

preparing older students to meet the standard in reading and writing in English and indicates an urgent need to examine the literacy development supports that ELs are receiving throughout their academic classes in addition to specific English language development services being provided at the high school level. Results on the reading and writing tests by school and gender can be found in the Appendix.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT As measured by trend performance on the MHSA tests in critical reading and writing, there appears to be a good case for focusing attention on improving student literacy skills in grades 9ʹϭϮ͘ĂƐĐŽĂǇ͛Ɛ Expeditionary Learning approach appears to be generating better than expected results in both reading and writing but there remain a consistent percentage of students who are not successful on these outcome measures, suggesting that strengthening the reading and writing components of the program would be helpful. At Deering High School, the program has been markedly consistent in supporting approximately 50% of its students to meet or exceed standards in reading and writing, a result that raises serious questions about the adequacy of program support for struggling readers and writers. Also, girls appear to outperform boys, on average, in both reading and writing, which raises some questions about how to better engage boys with these activities in school. At Portland High School, results seem to indicate that students are losing ground, raising questions about how well all students are being prepared by the teaching and learning approaches to meet the standards in reading and writing. Expectations in tracked classes for reading, writing, and critical thinking at the two large high schools, as well as both integrated and separate supports for struggling readers and writers at all three schools, should be examined. One cannot escape the conclusion that more purposeful systemic literacy programming and integration into all content areas would enable more students to succeed at higher levels than presently is the case.

SUMMARY OF NWEA GROWTH DATA FOR GRADES 4 AND 5

NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (NWEA) MEASURES OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS (MAP) The NWEA MAP Reading Test is a computerized adaptive test ĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞ͛ƐĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂů standards to provide an understanding of student reading ability. Student performance is reported as a RIT score. RIT stands for Rasch unIT, which is a unit of measure that uses individual item difficulty values to estimate student achievement. RIT scores create an equal-interval scale. Equal interval means that the difference between scores is the same regardless of whether a student is at the top, bottom, or middle of the RIT scale; it has the same meaning regardless of grade level. Educators can use the growth and achievement data from MAP tests to develop targeted instructional strategies and to plan school improvement. The Portland Public Schools began implementing the use of the NWEA MAP test as a pre- post measure of reading within the last two years. Starting with the 2010ʹ11 school year, all students in grades 3ʹ9 will be tested at the beginning and end of the year.11

11 NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Basics Overview. Available from http://www.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/resources/MAP%20Basics_Overview.pdf

An in-depth analysis of the NWEA growth scores was not possible given that the NWEA was administered at some schools during the past two years only in the spring. At the middle and high school level, NWEA administration was too spotty to generate any meaningful data to analyze. This serves as another indicator of the need to infuse a culture of data use throughout the district so that collection of reading test data can be meaningfully used to inform instruction and support for individual students as well as a tool for monitoring program efficacy.

NWEA Reading for Grade 4 and Grade 5: Average Number of RIT Point Growth by Strand 15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 4 Grade 5 (N=247) (N=294) (N=353) (N=343)

Fall 09 to Spring 10 Spring 09 to Spring 10

Word Identification (Vocab) Literary Texts (Fiction) Informational Texts(Non-fiction) Comprehension

Figure 8. NWEA Reading Results for Grades 4 and 5.

The district was able to work with NWEA to get growth data for the 4th and 5th graders who were tested either fall to spring or spring to spring.12 In general, the pattern of growth for the two grades was the same, regardless of which group they were in (FʹS or SʹS). Those tested spring to spring made more growth than those tested fall to spring, which is to be expected. Fourth graders on average made more growth than 5th graders, which is worth examining and parallels the finding in the NECAP data. This raises questions related to the amount of reading instruction and practice provided in the general classroom in 5th vs. 4th grade, and the types of support available for struggling readers. In all cohorts, basic comprehension showed the most growth. Fourth graders grew more, on average, in the area of literary vs. informational text, while that result was mixed for 5th graders to a degree that indicates that the schools in each cohort may be offering significantly different curriculum areas of focus. Vocabulary results were mixed as well.

12 This is a graphic representation of the data provided by the district.

32 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

According to the NWEA 2008 Norming Study, the mean RIT score for 4th graders nationally in the fall is 200.1 ĂŶĚŝŶƚŚĞƐƉƌŝŶŐŝƐϮϬϱ͘ϴ͘KŶĞǇĞĂƌ͛ƐŵĞĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŐƌŽǁƚŚĨŽƌϰth graders from fall to spring is 5.7 RIT points. The mean average RIT score for Portland 4th graders in the fall of 2009 was 198.1 and ranged from 188.4 ʹ 214 in schools where five or more students were tested. In Portland, the mean average RIT score for 4th graders tested in the spring of 2010 was 205.6 and ranged from 196 ʹ 218.8 in schools where more than five students were tested. This translates into an average mean growth score for Portland 4th graders of 7.5, which is greater than average but is skewed because the starting score was lower than the national norm. This indicates that, on average, 4th graders made target growth from fall to spring. The mean average RIT score for 4th graders in the spring was just under the national mean average. A table showing the results by school can found in the Appendix.

Schools where more than five students were tested, and a similar number were tested in the fall and the spring, showed a wide range of growth in RIT scores:

Clifford +6.4; Longfellow +9.3; Presumpscot +3.1; Riverton +9.4

The mean national average RIT score for 5th graders in the fall is 206.7 and in the spring is 211.1, resulting in a mean average growth score from fall to spring of 4.4 RIT points. In the Portland schools, 5th ŐƌĂĚĞƌƐ͛ŵĞĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞZ/dƐĐŽƌĞŝŶƚŚĞĨĂůůŽĨϮϬ09 was 210. 2 and in the spring of 2010 was 213.8, resulting in a mean average growth in RIT scores of 3.6, which is lower than the national average. In the Portland Schools, which tested 5 or more students, and approximately the same number of students were tested in the fall and the spring, the mean average RIT score growth varied as follows:

Clifford + 5.6; Longfellow +6.4; Lyseth +4.7; Peaks +2.5; Presumpscot +0.4; Riverton +7.8; West .02

The Portland data shows, on average, 4th grade students appear to ďĞŵĂŬŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶĂǇĞĂƌ͛ƐǁŽƌƚŚ ŽĨŐƌŽǁƚŚŽŶĞĂĐŚƐƵďƚĞƐƚŝŶĂǇĞĂƌ͛ƐƚŝŵĞŝŶĐŽŶƚƌĂƐƚǁŝƚŚϱth grade students, whose results are less uniform and closer to the typical growth for an average year. Because the norms show typical growth at the mean, and because RIT scores are on a cumulative scale, one would expect students who are behind and who receive assistance to make more growth than students at or above grade level. It is not clear this is the case. Further, it appears that, based on this measure alone, different schools are promoting very different growth patterns of 4th and 5th grade students in the areas of reading.

However, this presentation of the results may mask if some students are making little or no growth while others are making significant growth, as well as who these students may be. Also, it appears that not all students in all schools were tested, so it is unclear who this cohort of students actually includes. The results in the subtest areas do not conclusively provide a picture of program strengths and areas of challenge. Finally, this is an estimate at best. A greatly improved understanding of student strengths and challenges in the area of reading and an ability to assess program efficacy on an ongoing basis will be available when the NWEA is administered regularly throughout the district to students in grades 3ʹ9 in the fall and spring. Additional NWEA data by school were provided by the district and are included in the Appendix.

SUMMARY OF MEA COHORT DATA BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Because the NECAP was administered for the first time in 2009, the district requested that we conduct a three year trend analysis of the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) English language arts test data by school to provide a baseline snapshot of how Portland schools have supported students to improve achievement in reading over time. It should be noted that while trend data provide important indicators of a school͛ƐƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝŶƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐƐƚƵĚĞŶƚĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞŶƚ͕ĞĂĐŚschool year represents a slightly different group of students.

At the elementary school level, three-year achievement trends on the MEA ELAʹReading showed a pattern of decline at grade 4 and improvement at grade 5 across all schools. The data show positive results in decreasing the percent of students scoring at the lowest level from grade 3 to grade 5 at all elementary schools except Clifford where the percent increased from 2% to 7% and at Hall where the pattern showed little change (13% to 14%). The largest increase in the percent of students scoring meets or exceeds the standards between grade 4 and grade 5 was seen at Reiche (44% to 63%) followed by Hall (55% to 68%) and Presumpscot (56% to 67%). At East End, Lyseth, and Longfellow, there was little improvement in the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standard in reading from grade 3 to grade 5 At Lyseth and Longfellow, there were decreases in the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standard in reading from grade 3 to grade 5.

Nathan Clifford East End MEA ELAʹReading Results MEA ELAʹReading Results 100% 11% 5% 100% 1% 80% 80% 34% 34% 39%

60% 82% 60% 67% 81% 36% 34% 40% 40% 35% 20% 20% 29% 31% 26% 16% 20% 7% Percent of Students of Percent 0% 3% 2% 7% Students of Percent 0% 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 (N=38) (N=46) (N=43) (N=70) (N=70) (N=66)

34 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Fred P. Hall Longfellow MEA ELAʹReading Results MEA ELAʹReading Results 100% 1% 100% 4% 9% 14% 12% 11% 80% 80% 61% 51% 60% 55% 60% 59% 64% 67% 40% 40% 30% 20% 25% 23% 20% 17% 14% 19% 13% 15% 14% 12% Percent of Students of Percent 0% 0% 7% 4% Percent of Students of Percent 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 (N=87) (N=82) (N=80) (N=56) (N=58) (N=57)

Harrison Lyseth Presumpscot MEA ELAʹReading Results MEA ELAʹReading Results 100% 100% 2% 5% 9% 11% 18% 80% 80% 57% 54% 60% 60% 62% 72% 82% 67% 40% 40% 22% 29% 20% 20% 21% 15% 20% Percent of Students of Percent 13% Students of Percent 15% 12% 0% 1%8% 2% 1% 0% 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 (N=90) (N=93) (N=92) (N=49) (N=41) (N=42)

Howard C. Reiche Riverton MEA ELAʹReading Results MEA ELAʹReading Results 100% 6% 2% 100% 2% 16% 80% 42% 80% 44% 44% 48% 51% 60% 47% 60% 27% 25% 40% 38% 40% 23% 27% 20% 20% 20% 29% 31% 25% Percent of Students of Percent Percent of Students of Percent 19% 19% 16% 0% 0% 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 (N=48) (N=48) (N=49) (N=66) (N=64) (N=65)

Does Not Partically Meets Meet Exceeds

Figure 9A. MEA ELAʹReading Results by Elementary School.

SUMMARY OF MEA COHORT DATA BY MIDDLE SCHOOL

At the middle school level, MEA ELAʹReading trend results for all three schools showed increases from grade 6 to grade 7 in the percent of students meeting or exceeding the standards. However, results from grade 7 to grade 8 showed a decline in performance as the percent of students meeting or exceeding the standards decreased and the percent of students scoring at the lowest levels increased.

Performance from grade 6 to grade 8 can be summarized as follows:

At King Middle School, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standards increased from 63% to 70%. At Lincoln Middle School, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standards increased slightly from 58% to 61%. At Lyman Moore Middle School, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standards increased from 64% to 69%. While it is encouraging to note that all schools steadily increased the percent of students scoring at the highest level, more than 30% of 8th graders at each middle school did not meet the standard in 2008ʹ09. Although improvements or declines in performance may reflect some differences in student populations over the three years, the trends shown in this analysis indicate that reading instruction at all middle schools should be examined to better meet the needs of struggling students.

An analysis of strand performance on the MEA (informational vs. literary text points) does not yield great insight into the literacy program of the district but reinforces that the program supports learning unevenly across the schools. Tables showing performance by school and strand can be found in the Appendix.

36 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

King Lincoln MEA ELAʹReading Results MEA ELAʹReading Results 100% 4% 100% 9% 15% 19% 80% 29% 30% 80% 54% 60% 44% 60% 55% 46% 43% 40% 40% 40% 23% 16% 30% 22% 20% 22% 20% 23% 14% 14% 0% 6% 12% 13% 17% Percent of Students of Percent

Percent of Students of Percent 0% 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 (N=155) (N=153) (N=149) (N=135) (N=141) (N=158) Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

Lyman Moore MEA ELAʹReading Results 100% 7% 20% 22% 80% 60% 57% 55% 47% 40% 24% 20% 18% 20% 12% 8% 11% Percent of Students of Percent 0% 2006ʹ07 2007ʹ08 2008ʹ09 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 (N=161) (N=163) (N=161) Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

Figure 9B. MEA ELAʹReading Results by Middle School.

SUMMARY OF ACCESS DATA FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

ASSESSING COMPREHENSION AND COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH STATE-TO-STATE FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS. (ACCESS FOR ELLS)

ACCESS for ELLs® is a large-scale test that first and foremost addresses the English language development standards that form the core of the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortiums approach to instructing and testing English language learners. These standards incorporate a set of model performance indicators (PIs) that describe the expectations educators have of ELL students at four different grade level clusters and in five different content areas. The WIDA framework recognizes the continuum of language development within the four domains with six English language proficiency levels. Levels 4, 5, and 6 are considered advanced with level 6 considered fluent

and the standard for exiting ELD services and being able to handle academic classes in English without support.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Entering Beginning Developing Expanding Bridging Reaching

2009-10 ACCESS proficiency data show the following:

WƌŽĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇĚĂƚĂŐĞŶĞƌĂůůǇƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƚŚĞŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞůŽŶŐĞƌŶŐůŝƐŚůĞĂƌŶĞƌƐĂƌĞŝŶWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛Ɛ English language development program, the more likely they are to score at levels 4, 5, and 6 on the ACCESS assessment. For Kʹ2 students (N=421), approximately 17% of the students score at level 4 or higher, ranging from 5% of those in the program for one year or less to 31% of those in the program for 2ʹ3 years.

For English learners in grades 3ʹ5 (N=397), 60% score at levels 4, 5 and 6. This ranges from 37% of students in the program for one year or less to 54% of students in the program for 2ʹ3 years, to 68% of students in the program for four years or more. The substantial jump in overall proficiency from the Kʹ2 population to the grades 3ʹ5 population suggests that with this age group, the majority of students can achieve a score of 4 or higher with three years of English language development classes.

For English learners in grades 6ʹ8 (N=384), the overall percentage of students who score at level 4 or higher is similar to that of students in grades 3ʹ5 (60%). However, it appears that proficiency remains stagnant at approximately 37% for students in the program for up to three years before jumping to 62% for students in the program for four or more years. This may reflect the increasing challenge that older ELs face in acquiring academic English. 13 Yet, students in grades 6ʹ8 appear to be largely successful in acquiring English if they have at least four years of English language development classes.

For English learners in grades 9ʹ12 (N=403), the overall percentage of students who score at level 4 or higher seems to drop off slightly to approximately 50%. This ranges from approximately 32% of students in the English language development program for up to three years to 63% of students in the program for four years or more. This may reflect the increasing challenge that older ELs have in

13 ͞It should be understood that adolescent ELLs are second language learners who are still developing their proficiency in academic English. Moreover, they are learning English at the same time they are studying core content areas through English. Thus, English language learners must perform double the work of native English speakers in ƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚƌǇ͛ƐŵŝĚĚůĞĂŶĚŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘And, at the same time, they are being held to the same accountability standards as their native English-ƐƉĞĂŬŝŶŐƉĞĞƌƐ͘͟Ɖ͘ϭ^ŚŽƌƚ͕͕͘Θ&ŝƚǌƐŝŵŵŽŶƐ͕^͘;ϮϬϬϳͿ͘Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners ʹ A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Accessed November 30, 2010 at http://www.all4ed.org/files/DoubleWork.pdf

38 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

acquiring academic English.14 Yet, as with students in grades 6ʹ8, students who are in English language development classes for four years or more are likely to be successful in developing their skills in English. Three-year ACCESS trends are shown in a table in the Appendix. Note: All ACCESS data were provided by the district.

KʹGrade 2: 2009-10 ACCESS Proficiency Levels by Years in Program

All ELL 35% 17% 31% 12% 4% 1% (N=421) Entering Beginning 2ʹ3 Years 4% 17% 48% 21% 8% 2% Developing (n=178) Expanding Years in Program in Years 1 Year or Less 58% 17% 20% 5% Bridging (n= 241) Reaching

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Grades 3ʹ5: 2009-10 ACCESS Proficiency Levels by Years in Program

All ELL 6% 11% 28% 26% 21% 7% Entering (N=397) Beginning 4 Years or More 2%3% 27% 30% 29% 9% (n=207) Developing 2ʹ3 Years 3% 18% 24% 41% 12% 3% Expanding (n=34) Bridging Years in Program in Years 1 Year or Less 12% 21% 31% 18% 13% 6% (n= 156) Reaching

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Grades 6ʹ8: 2009-10 ACCESS Proficiency Levels by Years in Program

All ELL 6% 14% 29% 26% 21% 4% Entering (N=384) Beginning 4 Years or More 1%6% 31% 34% 24% 4% (n=208) Developing Expanding 2ʹ3 Years 2% 25% 37% 13% 19% 5% (n=63) Bridging Years in Program in Years 1 Year or Less 18% 22% 22% 18% 17% 4% Reaching (n=113)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14 Ibid

Grades 9ʹ12: 2009-10 ACCESS Proficiency Levels by Years in Program

All ELL 12% 21% 21% 21% 20% 5% Entering (N=403) Beginning 4 Years or More 7% 10% 21% 27% 29% 7% (n=180) Developing 2ʹ3 Years 20% 29% 18% 14% 12% 7% Expanding (n=84) Bridging Years in Program in Years 1 Year or Less 15% 30% 23% 17% 14%1% (n=139) Reaching

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 10. 2009ʹ10 ACCESS Proficiency Levels by Grade Level Span and Years in Program.

40 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Conclusions The student performance data analyzed for the Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review raise the following points for the district to consider:

At all Portland elementary schools, a significant number of students are not meeting the standard in reading as measured by the NECAP. Analysis of trends on the MEA (grade level refers to current year program) and the aggregate and subtest data from the NECAP (fall grade level refers to prior year program) indicate that the literacy program offered across the district is uneven, and that numbers of ELs and Title I students do not account for all of the differences. The school that appears to be supporting the greatest improvement from year to year is Reiche. Clifford, Hall, Lyseth, Longfellow, and Presumpscot appear to have stronger Kʹ3 programs to the extent this can be revealed by grade 3 scores on the NECAP and the MEA. But it is difficult to assess this without more understanding of a match of resources to population served and a more accurate assessment of KȂ2 reading performance, something that will be possible with the district adoption of AIMSweb. Performance at King Middle School and Casco Bay High School is stronger on available measures than at the other middle and high schools. Still, improvement is needed to serve all students to reach their potential as readers, writers, and critical thinkers. Performance over time at Lincoln and Lyman Moore Middle Schools and Deering and Portland High Schools indicate that significant populations of students are not adequately developing their critical reading and writing skills and that the program being offered will require revamping. Further, there is some concern at these schools about a gender gap that increases for boys vs. girls in the area of reading, and at Deering High School, also in the area of writing. Title I programming appears to be having the overall intended effect of closing the achievement gap in reading as students move up through the grades. This is a positive finding that warrants additional investigation into what specific supports being provided through Title I funding appear to be working to improve student performance in reading. EL performance throughout the district raises concern. There is clearly a need for the district to rethink how to integrate literacy and language development throughout all academic program offerings as well as how to strategically deliver effective EL support at all schools, given the numbers of ELs now served by the district. It appears that schools where Expeditionary Learning and integrated learning are more mature as a program offering, greater percentages of EL students are succeeding to higher levels. This apparent trend warrants further examination and monitoring.

District-wide Themes The following district-wide themes were found throughout the focus group interviews and the interviews with district and school leaders and were further reinforced through the Teacher Survey responses, the School Capacity Profiles, and the School Information Checklists.

NEED TO CLARIFY DISTRICT PRIORITIES AND DIRECTION

A strong theme that echoed throughout the focus group and individual interviews with school and district leaders was a lack of clarity about the district direction and priorities in relation to literacy programming Kʹ12. Prior to the recent district reorganization, responsibility for literacy programming was largely at the school level with some professional development offerings provided through the district for interested teachers or provided for schools participating in specific grant programs, but not for others. People repeated the need for more clarity and greater district direction in terms of goals and priorities, literacy assessment, and literacy programming.

The district lacks focus and consistency. There are opposing philosophies of instruction.

The district needs to establish a clear, concise, consistent curriculum.

We need to all get on the same page, district-wide.

dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐŽŵĂŶǇĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŚĂƚǁĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁǁŚĞƌĞǁĞĂƌĞŐŽŝŶŐ͘

The district has had a corps of data literacy specialists at the elementary level for many years. These individuals have met regularly and have been charged with providing teacher professional development, supporting school-based literacy programming, administering and scoring writing prompts and other literacy assessments, and developing literacy program resources in accordance with the goals established for the specific school year (e.g., RtI resource notebook, primary and intermediate reading and writing frameworks, spelling notebooks). However, because of decisions made at each school site and the differential funding sources being used to support these positions, actual implementation of the ǁŽƌŬĂƚƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůůĞǀĞůŚĂƐǀĂƌŝĞĚǁŝĚĞůǇĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů͛ƐĞǆƉĞƌƚŝƐĞ͕ƚĞĂĐŚŝŶŐ assignments, role definition by the principal, and perception on the part of the data literacy specialist, teachers and administrators as to how the person filling this position should use his/her time.

Until recently, the Multilingual Center has not been included in district literacy planning. The recent Lau report outlines district-wide policies and approaches to be followed and the district is in the process of reorganizing its delivery of services for ELs to support ELs in their neighborhood schools and to provide ELs with ongoing literacy and language instruction through ACCESS level 6 (proficiency in English).

tĞŶĞĞĚƚŽďƌŝŶŐ>ƐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĨĂďƌŝĐŽĨƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͙ĂŶĚƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ.

42 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

NEED FOR IMPROVED PROGRAMMATIC COHERENCE

A long history of site-based school management in the district has resulted in increasing fragmentation in the overall literacy program offered by the Portland Public Schools. While certain sites have taken advantage of strong building leadership and interest to focus on literacy improvement, others have not prioritized literacy in the same way. The result is pockets of excellence and instructional coherence amid general confusion and partially implemented programming, assessments, materials, and approaches layered upon one another. This is not a comment on the quality of individual Portland teachers, many of whom have taken advantage of the districƚ͛ƐƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨĨĞƌŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽ increase and deepen their knowledge and understanding of literacy and language development. However, while individual teachers may be providing literacy-rich instruction, students in the same grades are getting markedly different amounts of fiction and non-fiction reading experience and instruction, writing practice and instruction, and speaking/presenting practice and instruction.

tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞĂŶĂůŝŐŶĞĚĐƵƌƌŝĐƵůƵŵƐŽ/ĂŵŶŽƚƐƵƌĞƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂ͞ǁĞ͘͟

This school is somewhat coordinated on some levels but instruction is not linked from grade to grade.

ŽŶ͛ƚůŽƐĞƚŚĞŐŽŽĚǁŽƌŬďĞŝŶŐĚŽŶĞŝŶƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ tŚŝůĞŵĂŶǇƐƉŽŬĞŽĨƚŚĞĚĞƐŝƌĞƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽ͞ĚŽƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶǁĂǇƚo meet ƚŚĞŝƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ŶĞĞĚƐ͕͟ƚǁŽƚŚĞŵĞƐĞŵĞƌŐĞĚ͗ϭͿƚŚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬǁĂƐƐŽƌĞůǇ ŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽŚĞůƉƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐĐĂůŝďƌĂƚĞĞǆƉĞĐƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƐĂƐƌĞĂĚĞƌƐ͕ writers, and thinkers; and 2) that there was no district-wide literacy curriculum in place to ensure that instruction was either standards-based or that the emphases at specific grade levels were consistent or even similar. Perhaps this would not be an issue if the data showed that more than 80% of the students were reading and writing at grade level. But that is not the case.

Even at the elementary level, where literacy has been a priority, the implementation of various programs and instructional approaches has typically been voluntary or uneven, resulting in the use of different instructional strategies, materials, assessments, and policies and procedures both across and within schools.

Having had children go through the system, there is no consistency in any of the classes.

School by school is very differeŶƚ͙ƚŚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝĞŶƚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŵŽŶŐƐĐŚŽŽůͶƚŚĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐǇŝƐŶ͛ƚ there.

We need more specific grade level guidance and even within content areas. If any other school decides this piece goes in 7th grade, another school decides it goes in 8th grade, but another puts it in 6th ŐƌĂĚĞ͘/ƚ͛ƐŶŽƚĨĂŝƌƚŽƚŚĞŬŝĚƐ͘

The district data literacy specialists developed primary and intermediate grade reading and writing frameworks but it is unclear how closely these are followed. At the elementary level, some common formative and benchmark assessments (e.g., Rigby Benchmark end of grade level) have been agreed upon but these appear to be unevenly implemented at this time and have the further challenge of

lacking national norms, rigorous calibration, or central reporting. This makes it very challenging to assess student progress, to ĂƐĐĞƌƚĂŝŶǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůŽƌĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇĐŽƌĞĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂƌĞ or are not being implemented with fidelity, and to determine where adjustments and refinements are needed to better support the literacy development of all students. It also makes it difficult to support students who change schools and to support vertical transitions from one educational level to another. Lastly it increases the likelihood that ELs and struggling learners are not getting consistent instructional support.

^ĐŚŽŽůďǇƐĐŚŽŽůŝƐǀĞƌǇĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚ͘^ĐŚŽŽůƐŽƉĞƌĂƚĞǀĞƌǇĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͙ƚŚĞƌĞĚŽĞƐ need to be more uniformity.

The district needs to provide a more consistent experience for transient students.

The responses on the School Capacity Profiles, as well as the teacher focus groups and administrator interviews, make it clear that the literacy focus and shared responsibility for students to develop proficiency as readers and writers varies widely across the three middle schools, the three high schools, and the West program. Expectations and supports are unevenly deployed and student experiences appear to greatly depend on the individual instructors they have. One exception to this is King Middle School where the team who completed the capacity profile has strong consensus that they have implemented a culture of teaching and learning where expectations and shared responsibility for literacy development are in place and policies and procedures are aligned in support of these.

UNEVEN INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES ACROSS SCHOOLS

Another theme noted in the interviews with focus groups and school leaders and that was supported by the School Information Checklists was unevenness in four specific resource areas: 1) number of instructional staff; 2) amount of instructional resources; 3) technology access and quality; and 4) amount of support the school could offer to struggling readers, including ELs. There appear to be several underlying causes for the disparities. Gaps between what Title I and non-Title I schools are able to offer, differential funding due to school performance for past participation in grant-funded opportunities, and past decisions of building-based leaders. Schools in Portland compete for limited resources. We need more literacy specialists that are in-house who can actually come into the classrooms. Now our literacy specialist is a half-time position. She gets booked up quickly. Non Title I schools have limited support. There is inequality from downtown schools to suburban schools. Data Literacy Specialists exist at grades Kʹ5 but not at the secondary level. One concrete example is the number of licenses for intervention programs such as READ 180. Another is the fact that some of the elementary schools invested in the Leveled Literacy Intervention program while others did not. A third example is the funding and use of the data literacy specialist positions across the elementary schools. For additional information about the resources available, please refer to the Appendix.

44 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH GROWING ENGLISH LEARNER POPULATION

There were two consistent themes across focus groups and interviews in relation to meeting the needs of English Learners: 1) Educators from schools with large EL populations feel that they are greatly ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƐĞůĞĂƌŶĞƌƐ͛ŶĞĞĚƐ͖ϮͿĚƵĐĂƚŽƌƐĨƌŽŵƐĐŚŽŽůƐǁŝƚŚƐŵĂůů>ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞ the shifting demographics of the city and are fearful that their EL population will increase and that they will not know what to do to successfully support these learners. Many teachers and administrators commented that although more and more Portland teachers have EL students in their classes, they do not have the required background in either language and literacy development or cultural understanding to best serve these learners. The following comment is representative of what we heard: Getting more and more EL students͙ĂƐĂƚĞĂĐŚĞƌ/ĚŽŶ͛ƚĨĞĞůĞƋƵŝƉƉĞĚƚŽŚĞůƉƚŚŽƐĞŬŝĚƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉ into the best they can be. I need more resources and more guidance and more strategies. In addition, it was noted several times that Portland serves a wide variety of types of ELs who come from diverse backgrounds and very different levels of literacy in their home language. This poses additional challenges for teachers, even those with EL backgrounds. The EL support and service delivery models vary substantially across schools and consistent approaches are not used when instructing or assessing ELs. Expertise in the area of literacy and language development for ELs is distributed across the schools unevenly and that expertise is deployed in a variety of ways per the decisions of school administrators. This has meant in the past that in some schools, ELs get more sustained support while oƚŚĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŚĂĚƚŽ͞ƐŝŶŬŽƌƐǁŝŵ͘͟&ŽƌĞǆĂŵƉůĞ͕ƚŚŽƐĞ> students who also struggle with reading may have an intervention instructor who is certified in or has taken courses in serving the needs of ELs, while ELs attending other schools may not. Or students at the middle or high school level may have mainstream content area teachers who have taken classes addressing effective instruction for ELs, while others do not. Instead of being driven by purposeful decision-making or programmatic design, these situatioŶƐƐĞĞŵŵŽƌĞĚĞĨŝŶĞĚďǇ͞ůƵĐŬŽĨƚŚĞĚƌĂǁ͘͟ Our self-contained EL classrooms are often larger than the regular classroomsͶironicͶbut by virtue of the numbers, most of the energy and resources for ELs, by necessity have to be focused on those self-contained classrooms. New policy happenŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŚĂƚƐƚĂĨĨǁĂƐŶ͛ƚĂǁĂƌĞŽĨ͗'ƌĂĚĞ<ŬŝĚƐĐŽŵŝŶŐŝŶĂŶĚ being mainstreamed; previously they all went to designated EL schools. A large number of upper elementary, middle, and high school teachers expressed in the survey their limited use of or emphasis on many instructional approaches that would specifically address some of the literacy and learning needs of ELs in the mainstream classroom, especially the use of collaborative routines and the use of guided practice models. However, other teachers noted that good literacy instruction also serves the needs of EL students and that if teachers were committed to using researched best practices when teaching reading, their EL students would benefit. One area of concern is that while the current program appears successful in supporting EL students to develop phonemic awareness, decoding, and fluency with reading in English, there is a lack of simultaneous focus on comprehension. I see a lot of great decoding but a lack of comprehension in the multi-language students.

With our ELs, we do have that problem where they get decoding but the higher up they go in grade level, the more the lack of comprehension affects them. Their EL student self-confidence drops way down when they go mainstream. dŚĞǇ͛ƌĞĂĨƌĂŝĚƚŽ take risks. They need so much reassurance. ďŝŐĐŚƵŶŬŽĨƚŚĞŝƌůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƚŝŵĞŝƐŝŶZϭϴϬ͕ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚĂĐůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵƚĞĂĐŚĞƌ͘/ƚ͛ƐƚŽƵŐŚƚŽŬŶŽǁ if you are giving them what they need. There was a difference in how EL students were talked about at different schools, reflecting another shift that the district will need to focus upon. In some schools, teachers and administrators talked about >ƐĂƐ͞ŽƵƌŬŝĚƐ͟ĂďŽƵƚǁŚŽŵƚŚĞǇĂƌĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚ͘/ŶŽƚŚĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕>ƐǁĞƌĞcharacterized as a group that causes additional difficulties at the same time that resources are constrained. The inevitability of the diverse population of students being increasingly served at all Portland schools will require that all district staff and programs rise to the challenge of learning how to best serve these learners, reflect on what is and is not working, and reallocate resources (staff, time, materials, etc.) as needed. However, WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƚŽĨƵůůǇŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞ>ƐŝŶƚŽĂůůĂƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐĂŶĚ building on the opportunity to prepare all students to live and work successfully in a global economy is well worth figuring out and appears to be a priority of the new academic team at the district level. The staff at the Multicultural Center is committed to working closely with the schools and has, in fact, been charged to do so by the superintendent. Because the Portland Public Schools serve students and their families who speak 60 languages and who come to Portland with a wide variety of prior schooling and experiences, it is particularly important for the school district to find effective ways to reach out and work with these families. It is hard to communicate with parents. Sometimes you need a translator and ǁĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞ them for every language. You need to reach out to find the right resources. And it can take days or weeks to be able to reach out to a parent. ^ŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌĞŶƚƐĐĂŶ͛ƚƌĞĂĚŽr write in their own language. It is even harder for the kids to catch up. KƵƌďŝŐŐĞƐƚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŝƐ^ŽŵĂůŝďƵƚƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞůŽǁĞƌƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŬŝĚƐĚŽŶ͛ƚĞǀĞŶŚĂǀĞĂŶǇŽŶĞ in the DISTRICT who knows their language. In addition, parent and community outreach to all Portland residents about the rich and varied opportunities available to all students because of the language and cultural diversity in the district is necessary. Yet this is an area where many feel additional attention is needed. According to the School Capacity Profile, many teams did not feel that procedures for working and communicating with parents and the community are in place.

CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH SERVING STRUGGLING READERS

Portland educators recognize that there is a need to provide scaffolding and interventions for struggling readers, including those who have an IEP. There is some awareness of what a Response to Intervention (RtI) approach entails, particularly at the elementary level, but this was uneven. The data literacy specialists assembled a notebook of resources that classroom teachers can use for implementing Tier 1 interventions that is available on a district website (http://blogs.portlandschools.org/rtiblog/), but it is unclear how many access this resource or use the information. While the resources provided are

46 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

valuable, and aligned to areas where struggling readers have difficulty, they are not cast within a clear RtI framework at this time.

Some of the RtI interventions that we have done are working really well. The process of RtI and ƚŚĞƉĂƉĞƌǁŽƌŬŽĨZƚ/ĂƌĞƚŚĞƉƌŽďůĞŵ͙/ƚ͛ƐǀĞƌǇĨƌƵƐƚƌĂƚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ.

The RtI philosophy makes senseͶtoo many kids are identified as special education when some only need a little extra helpͶbut ŝƚ͛ƐŶŽƚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŝŶƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͘

RtI is in the district but ŶŽƚŝŶŽƵƌƐĐŚŽŽů͘/ƚ͛ƐĂŵŽƌƉŚŽƵƐĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ΀^ƚĂĨĨ΁ǁĂŝƚŝŶŐƚŽƐĞĞ how the program works.

Continued support for the RtI process is huge. Make it more clear and more effective with less paperwork. Really getting a clear system in place and giving teachers time to be trained in it and understand the process [is critical].

Up until this year, each school has provided support for its struggling readers based on the priority placed on this by site-based decision makers as opposed to programmatic design, although this appears to be changing. A recent trend has been to purchase intervention programs as opposed to funding staff. Implementation of these programs to date has been uneven in terms of fidelity, criteria for entering and exiting, usage, professional development, technology support, and the qualifications of staff providing the interventions.

LITERACY ASSESSMENT AND DATA USE

Literacy assessment has not been consistent across the district beyond the use of the Marie Clay inventory for kindergarteners. Although there was a belief among the data literacy specialists that there was consistency in the administration and use of additional assessments, conversations with teachers and the School Information Checklists reinforced that, in fact, a variety of assessments are administered, sometimes even at the same grade level at the same school, and that the same assessment may be used for various purposes (e.g., only part may be used, may be used for screening, may be used for corroboration of placement). One example of this, as mentioned before, are the Rigby benchmark tests.

For example, last year, although the NWEA MAP Reading Tests were available to the district, not every school administered the test and not every school administered the test to all students at a grade level, or did a pre-post test to be able to ascertain growth. Another example is lack of use of the PSAT reading ƚĞƐƚǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƐǁŝƚŚǀĂůƵĂďůĞĚĂƚĂĂďŽƵƚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ƌĞĂĚŝŶŐĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐprior to their taking the SAT. Although all 10th graders ostensibly take the test, administrators and teachers have not regularly reviewed the data. At the elementary level, Portland teachers use a wide variety of formal and informal reading assessments such as sight word lists, retellings, running records, and the concepts about print assessment. This may provide good information for tailoring instruction, which is critical, but does not provide any programmatic view of how well students are doing or where additional supports, processes or procedures are needed. For example, at some elementary schools the DRA is being administered but not at others. Most Kʹ2 teachers use the Rigby running records but not allͶand sometimes not all within the same school. Most kindergarten teachers appear to use the Marie Clay Observation Inventory (modified) and the letter identification assessment.

Data is not analyzed on a schoolwide basis in this school.

Emphasis is put on standardized testingͶĂƐĂƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĂƐĂĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚǁĞ͛ƌĞŶŽƚůŽŽŬŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĂƚ and disaggregating the data. What are we missing?

We look at data through spreadsheets and growth charts.

Formative assessment and data use are district-wide issues.

There is not a culture of data use at most of the schools or throughout the district at this time. The district appears to be in transition to a greater appreciation of the potential benefits of having good literacy data and is putting a much more robust literacy data assessment framework in place. To date, there has not been easy access to literacy data, understanding of the benefits associated with use of the data that are available (e.g., NWEA MAP Reading Test), or leadership from the district on how data are expected to be used. Despite this, some of the schools reported that they felt they had a culture of data use.

Ratings on the School Capacity Profile in response to questions about data use were highly variable and reflect that data, in general, is not being used systemically, consistently, or effectively to match students with targeted interventions, monitor progress of individual students, monitor core program effectiveness, monitor intervention effectiveness, group students for instruction, ŽƌĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ instructional needs.

48 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Findings and Recommendations by Educational Level

The findings and associated recommendations in this section of the report are based on the analysis of the student performance data, responses to the Teacher Survey, and the completed School Capacity Profiles and School Information Checklists. Associated implications for the district are summarized. Recommendations are aligned with the research and practice literature, target specific needs identified through the Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review, and build on current district capacity.

First and foremost, the data present an unmistakable message: current K-12 literacy programming is not supporting enough students in the Portland Public Schools to attain and sustain grade level expectations in reading and writing. The schools are not accelerating the progress of enough students who are weak as readers and writers. ELs are not getting the supports they need throughout the curriculum to accelerate the development of their language and literacy skills. Offerings and practicesͶof instruction, assessment, curriculum, interventions, and programsͶare inconsistent and continue, in many cases, based on tradition or preference, not evidence.

To address this reality we recommend that the district establish and support school-based collaborative leadership teams that are charged with improving literacy achievement at their school and have the following responsibilities:

Prioritize development of literacy-rich culture of academic optimism15 in every building Strengthen the core literacy program through attention to content area instruction and alignment with the Common Core English language arts standards Establish data use expectations and practices ĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĞǆƉĞĐƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ Support implementation of a district approved robust menu of interventions along with protocols for using these supports to improve the effectiveness of a tiered system of instruction and intervention All of these efforts must specifically integrate and take into account the needs of ELs and other struggling readers and writers, as well as those students currently performing at or above grade level in reading. A focus on writing, academic vocabulary, and the strategic reading of increasingly complex text throughout the district is needed. The use of technology needs to be further maximized to support student development as readers, writers, researchers, collaborators, and presenters.

15 See: Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J. & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425ʹ446. See also: Irvin, J., Meltzer, J., Mickler, M. J., Phillips, M., & Dean, N. (2009). Meeting the challenge of adolescent literacy: Practical ideas for literacy leaders. (pp. 26ʹ35, What can literacy leaders do when low expectations have a negative impact on student motivation and achievement?). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

of learning. Although consistent implementation of a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) or Responsive Classroom approach does not seem directly connected to literacy, it appears to be a missing link in many Portland schools. Because so many students are entering the Portland schools with varying previous schooling experience, consistent messaging and implementation across classrooms within a school and across schools is needed to support the teaching and learning of appropriate behaviors in an academic setting. Given its demographics, Portland has a unique opportunity to foster the global and cross cultural understandings that will be required for success in business, government, medicine, and a host of other fields in the future. One way to strengthen program offerings, as well as to align with recommendations that U.S. graduates be fluent in more than one language and recent brain research indicating the advantages of bilingualism, is to expand program offerings to include dual language bilingual programming16 at the elementary and middle school level and to offer more language development support in English and in other languages where there are resources in the city to draw upon.

The district will need to continue to improve its outreach to the community and to clearly communicate and celebrate student and teacher accomplishments as it has begun to do. The district also needs to develop plans to address the issues it recognizes. It is the opinion of those writing this report that, upon attention to the following recommendations, and given the capacity of current district and school leadership, the planned upgrades of facilities and infrastructure, and the quality of the teachers in the system, there is no reason that the city of Portland cannot be offering a world class education to its students.

Findings, implications, and recommendations by educational level are followed by targeted recommendations for the district related to improving literacy and learning across levels and schools.

Lower Elementary (Kʹ2) To oversee the recommendations made for lower and upper elementary literacy programming, we recommend that each elementary school establishes a school-based literacy team that is composed of teacher leaders from across grade levels, administrators, and interventionists, including those providing specific support to EL and special education students. First, we recommend that each school team examines the data pertinent to its school contained within this report. Then, we recommend that the team establish improvement goals that are aligned with the district improvement goals but also address literacy needs specific to that school. Finally, we recommend that the team consider and implement the following recommendations with regard to core programming, interventions for struggling readers and writers, and teacher professional development.

16 See Moughamian, A. C., Rivera, M. O., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Instructional models and strategies for teaching English language learners. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction for this and other successful models. Accessed November 30, 2010 at http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Instructional%20Models%20for%20ELLs.pdf

50 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

CORE PROGRAM FINDINGS

Student performance results on the grade 3 Fall 2009 NECAP indicate that the Kʹ2 literacy program may not be supporting all students in the development of strong grade level skills in the area of reading. Only 67% of students across the district scored at or above the proficient level, compared with 73% who met the standard state-wide. This means that one of three Portland students did not met grade level proficiency standards in reading as measured by the NECAP. Variability in the scores from school to school to some degree reflects the percentages of students receiving EL, Title I, and special education services, but not entirely. Since a strong core literacy program should enable 80ʹ85% of its students to attain and sustain grade level success in reading, attention to strengthening the core literacy program in Kʹ2 is needed.

Kʹ2 teacher perceptions of their students as readers appear to correlateͶand would predictͶthese results. On the Teacher Survey, grade Kʹ2 teachers reported the following about their students (N=71):

Kʹ2 Most 75ʹ100% Many 50ʹ74% Some 25ʹ49% Few 0ʹ24% Read and understand grade 46 18 6 1 level appropriate fiction text Read and understand 38 26 6 1 appropriate non- fiction text

The Teacher Survey results provide some indication for a need to implement consistent systematic phonics, word study, and work on fluency throughout the district. While almost all Kʹ2 teachers felt that most (75ʹ100%) of their students could correctly identify all letters and correctly identify or recognize and produce rhyming words, at seven of the eight schools teachers were split as to the percent of their students who can recognize word chunks or parts, easily segment a word into phonemes, fluently read aloud from texts at an appropriate reading level. This means that several teachers at each of these schools felt that only 50ʹ74% of their students can do this. Further, teachers reported different amounts of emphasis on these reading basics, as well as on the amount of time and instruction dedicated to writing and vocabulary.

The Teacher Survey results also indicate a need to focus on vocabulary learning and comprehension strategies beginning in Kʹ2. At seven of the eight elementary schools, teachers were split as to whether many or most students could read and understand grade level appropriate fiction, read and understand grade level appropriate non-fiction, recognize when they read a word incorrectly because it does not make sense in the context, or use reading strategies to solve unknown words and monitor comprehension. This means that several teachers at each of these schools felt that only 50ʹ74% of their students can do this.

Focus group interviews and completed School Capacity Profiles support the finding that 1) Kʹ2 programs are uneven across schools; 2) the majority of Kʹ2 instruction is focused on comprehension for non-ELs

and decoding/phonics for ELs, resulting in a pattern where some non-ELs have difficulty with decoding and some ELs have difficulty with comprehension; and 3) teacher interest, tradition, philosophy, and comfort level may be trumping, in some cases, understanding and practice based on the latest research.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT The combined findings indicate a real need that a strong core literacy program should be put in place within and across schools to ensure that Portland students are successful readers as they enter grade 3. Data use is critical to this effort and the addition of the AIMSweb fluency assessments should be very helpful to teachers in determining whether students are meeting national benchmarks. Successful practices related to the use of specific formative assessments (e.g., running records) should be shared and expanded.

It will be essential for the district to provide clear expectations for the implementation of a core literacy program that provides a daily focus on the five areas of reading emphasized by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness (Kʹ1), phonics/decoding, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary development/word work. Effective core literacy programs differentiate instruction to address identified needs and to accelerate the literacy and learning of struggling learners. Research shows that effective attention, explicit instruction, as well as guided and independent practice are important for all learners but critical for ELs and struggling readers. There appears to be a dedicated literacy block in most of the elementary schools. However, the district may need to provide a clear expectation for how a 90-minute literacy block should be used and ensure that struggling readers are not pulled out of class during the literacy block. dŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐƉƌŝŵĂƌǇƌĞĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚǁƌŝƚŝŶŐĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƌĞĞǆĂŵŝŶĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĞǆƉĞĐƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ are high enough to support all students to meet the Common Core standards for reading (key ideas and details; craft and structure; integration of knowledge and ideas and range of reading and text complexity) and writing (text types and purposes, production, research and range). It is the opinion of our reviewers that the expectations of the current frameworks may be too low. The frameworks should also be examined to assess alignment with the NWEA Descartes Framework and the GLEs tested by the NECAP. Most importantly, the frameworks should be expanded to include a focus on language (conventions, knowledge of language, and vocabulary acquisition and use) and speaking and listening (comprehension and collaboration, presentation of knowledge and ideas). The reexamined and revised framework would guide the expectation of purposeful language and literacy development of all learners in the Portland Public Schools.

The use of the revised framework to guide weekly instructional planning, with explicit expectations for student outcomes for each grade level, is important. We feel it is less important that the same instructional materials are used as that the same outcomes are being addressed and the same opportunities for explicit instruction, guided practice, and modeling are experienced. Therefore, the core Kʹ2 literacy program should include the following components:

1. Universal screening/benchmark assessments that are nationally normed

52 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

2. A core literacy program that focuses on phonemic awareness, systematic phonics instruction, fluency practice, vocabulary development and word work, and comprehension. This program should include: a. Modeling, whole and small group instruction, ample guided and independent practice, differentiated instruction on a daily basis b. Frequent writing and word work in conjunction with reading c. A 50/50 mix of fiction and non-fiction d. Focus on critical thinking and metacognition Given the population being served, it is recommended that there be common resources across schools to provide a systematic focus on word work that emphasizes phonics/decoding through word patterns as part of a rich, book-based literacy block that includes a systematic approach to phonics instruction. Selection of a specific program or resource that would be available across the schools would fill the gap of integrating a phonics approach into the rich literacy instruction currently being provided.

It is essential to link phonics and word work to connected text and meaning making in real contexts. It is recommended that teachers regularly meet to collaboratively look at data and to examine student work, a practice in place at a few, but not all, of the schools. To enhance consistency, a common sight word list should be used (note: the Fountas and Pinnell high frequency word list is currently used at most schools). Science and social studies instruction should always include a focus on literacy and language development, including reading and writing about what is being studied.

Fluency practice should occur multiple times daily through such authentic interactions as partner reading, choral reading, echŽƌĞĂĚŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞĂĚĞƌ͛ƐƚŚĞĂƚƌĞ͘ŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝŽŶƌŽƵƚŝŶĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐŵĂŬŝŶŐ text to self, text to text, and text to world connections, coding of the text, use of compare and contrast and sequencing graphic organizers, and other strategies should be regularly used to support predicting to inferring, summarizing to analyzing, and main idea to supporting evidence. Video and pictures should be used before, during, and after reading text to build background knowledge, pre-teach vocabulary, aid in concept development, and scaffold meaning making.

Elementary principals should understand what a high quality core program looks like at Kʹ2, and be trained to do literacy walkthroughs and to provide guidance and feedback to teachers. An assessment of the strengths of Kʹ2 teĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůĂŶĚĐŽůůĞĐƚŝǀĞĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞƚǇƉĞŽĨŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ described should be conducted and the role of literacy data specialists should be focused to support teachers as they provide this effective literacy instruction for all students.

INTERVENTIONS FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS

A strong RtI program in reading needs to be put in place at the Kʹ2 level, supported by screening and progress monitoring using AIMSweb and additional diagnostic assessment, and coordinated so that in- class instruction supports and reinforces the additional instruction provided in Tiers 2 and 3. Clarification and consistency in protocols for placement, progress monitoring, and exiting need to be put in place. A specific menu of intervention programs might include the following:

Leveled Literacy Interventions (LLI)

There has been success elsewhere in Maine with this program to accelerate the literacy development of ĞŵĞƌŐŝŶŐƌĞĂĚĞƌƐ͘dŚŝƐƐƵĐĐĞƐƐŝƐƉƌŽďĂďůǇĚƵĞƚŽ>>/͛ƐĚĞůŝďĞƌĂƚĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ instruĐƚŝŽŶ͘>>/ŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƵƐĞĚŽƌďĞŝŶŐƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĚďǇƐĞǀĞƌĂůŽĨWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘/ƚŽĨĨĞƌƐ specific guidance for addressing the needs of ELs. Professional development for direct service providers is important.

Great Leaps for Reading

This fluency intervention is being used at two schools. While limited in scope and purpose, it could provide extra reading fluency practice and support and could be a valuable tool in the intervention toolbox.

Earobics

This program is being used at some of PortlanĚ͛ƐĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇƐĐŚŽŽůƐĂŶĚŚĂƐƐŽŵĞƉƌŽŵŝƐŝŶŐƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ showing its effectiveness in accelerating reading development, including that of ELs.

Lexia

The district may want to look into providing the Lexia program to support additional attention to and practice with decoding. With a solid research base behind it, the program provides systematic attention to phonics and decoding skills. This might be an important piece in the intervention support offerings of a robust RtI program. Like any technology based program, it requires oversight and response to data by the teacher.

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

In order to implement the recommendations that will strengthen the core program, we anticipate that many KʹϮƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐĂĐƌŽƐƐWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇƐĐŚŽŽůƐǁŝll need ongoing professional development in the following areas:

Use of data to match instruction to student needs, especially using AIMSweb data for error analysis and grouping

Phonics instruction and training on how to use whatever supplemental phonics programs are chosen by the district

Word work and vocabulary development and strategies that promote English language development, including coaching students on how to talk about text

How to effectively and consistently implement guided reading groups and facilitate a differentiated literacy block that accelerates the progress of struggling readers and writers

Writing instruction and consistent use of a Kʹ2 writing rubric that promotes calibrated expectations across schools and incorporates use of the 6 traits writing approach

54 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Promoting critical thinking with all learners, regardless of grade level and reading ability

Understanding of the English Language Proficiency Standards and instructional strategies they can use to promote attainment for students 17

Intervention teachers also will need professional development to be able to optimize use of the intervention programs with students.

Successful teacher professional development incorporates support/opportunity and accountability. It is recommended that teachers be asked to define a literacy improvement goal and to provide evidence that the goal was achieved. It is also recommended that the content of the teacher professional development be incorporated into literacy walkthroughs and into teacher evaluation processes.

Upper Elementary (3ʹ5)

CORE PROGRAM FINDINGS

As stated earlier, in the fall of 2009, ϱϴйŽĨWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛Ɛϰth graders scored at Proficient or above, compared with 67% statewide, on the NECAP reading test; 72% of 5th graders scored at Proficient or above, compared with 72% statewide; and ϲϳйŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛Ɛϲth graders scored Proficient or above as compared with 69% of students statewide. A strong core literacy program should enable 80ʹ85% of Portland students to attain and sustain success with reading at grade level. This supports the contention that the core literacy program needs to be improved to meet the needs of more students.

On the Teacher Survey, grade 3ʹ5 teachers reported the following about their students (N=59):

Grades 3ʹ5 Most 75ʹ100% Many 50ʹ74% Some 25ʹ49% Few 0ʹ24% Read and understand grade 35 19 5 -- level appropriate fiction text Read and understand 33 18 8 -- appropriate non- fiction text

These responses indicate that while the great majority of teachers believe the core program is supporting their readers to read on grade level, there are a significant number of teachers who perceive that they have anywhere from 25ʹ50% of their students not reading on grade level. These students would benefit from additional support through differentiated instruction in the classroom and targeted interventions.

17 See the WIDA Consortium homepage at http://www.wida.us/standards/elp.aspx

The survey results coupled with the student performance results raise key questions about the current success of the core literacy program in helping students attain and sustain adequate yearly progress. Although most schools report having a dedicated literacy block, it appears that one district-wide issue is lack of a consistent approach to teaching reading in grades 3ʹ5. A second issue is lack of the clear expectation that will teachers use specific approaches throughout their content area teaching to provide students with the support required to be successful readers and learners. The survey responses indicated wide variance in teacher practice and emphasis on the components of a successful reading program, particularly in the area of the explicit teaching of comprehension strategies and the use of collaborative routines such as literature circles. These are important scaffolding techniques that are also effective for ELs. Writing workshop was listed by most teachers as defining their approach to writing instruction. However, teachers reported on the survey that the types of writing students do and the aspects of the writing process emphasized in instruction are quite different across the district. It is challenging to assess the types of writing, amounts of writing, and writing instruction that is typically occurring. Without writing assessment data from either the district or the NECAP, it is important to recognize that evaluating the distrŝĐƚ͛ƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚǁƌŝƚŝŶŐŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŝƐŶŽƚƉŽƐƐŝďůĞĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞ͘

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT /ƚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐŝŶƚĞƌŵĞĚŝĂƚĞƌĞĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚǁƌŝƚŝŶŐĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬƐďĞƌĞĞǆĂŵŝŶĞĚƚŽ ensure that expectations are high enough to support all students to meet the Common Core standards for reading (key ideas and details craft and structure integration of knowledge and ideas, and range of reading and text complexity) and writing (text types and purposes, production, research and range). It is the opinion of our reviewers that the expectations of the current frameworks may be too low. The frameworks should also be examined to assess alignment with the NWEA Descartes Framework and the GLEs tested by the NECAP. Most importantly the frameworks should be expanded to include a focus on language (conventions, knowledge of language and vocabulary acquisition and use) and speaking and listening (comprehension and collaboration, presentation of knowledge and ideas). This reexamined and revised framework would guide the expectation of purposeful language and literacy development of all learners in the Portland Public Schools.

Tier 1: Focus on fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension using a strong core program that includes, on a daily basis, modeling; whole and small group instruction; ample guided and independent practice; differentiated instruction. The core program should also include:

Frequent writing and word work in conjunction with reading A 50/50 mix of fiction and non-fiction Focus on critical thinking, metacognition, strategy instruction, and goal setting Teachers need to define and agree on the types and amounts of reading and writing that will be expected at each grade level across the district as well as the focus and type of reading and writing instruction that teachers will provide. Development and use of common writing and presentation rubrics across the district would be helpful. Literacy instruction at grades 3ʹ5 needs to focus on teaching and practicing collaborative routines to work with fiction (e.g., literature circles) and non-fiction (e.g., Reciprocal Teaching, paired reading and

56 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

summarizing). There also needs to be a focus on teaching students a set of literacy and learning strategies that they can use to make meaning across different types of text. Across all schools, a common set of strategies to support enhanced comprehension should be taught and practiced, ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽƉƌĞĚŝĐƚ͕ŝŶĨĞƌ͕ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƚŚĞƚĞǆƚ͕ĐůĂƌŝĨǇ͕ƐƵŵŵĂƌŝǌĞ͕ǀŝƐƵĂůŝǌĞ͕ƐĞĂƌĐŚ and select, engage in concept development, analyze, and synthesize verbally and in writing. These strategies might include: coding/comprehension monitoring, group summarizing, question and answer relationship (QAR), use of analytical graphic organizers, use of triple entry vocabulary journals, and use of KWL Plus. Specific teacher practices such as modeling through think-alouds and use of interactive word walls should be commonplace. Teachers need to know how to foster high level critical thinking with leveled texts when teaching science and social studies as well as how to scaffold stuĚĞŶƚƐ͞ƵƉƚŽ͟ classroom texts. Developing fluency and building reading stamina should also be foci of the literacy program at this level. &ƌĞƋƵĞŶƚƵƐĞŽĨĨůƵĞŶĐǇƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐZĞĂĚĞƌ͛ƐdŚĞatre, making books on tape, paired reading and summarizing, and other reading practices that are highly motivating and, where possible, serve an authentic purpose. Throughout the year, promote interactive reading of increasingly longer texts. Sustained Silent Reading was listed as a practice at four of the elementary schools. It is important that this time be spent wisely. An effective SSR program design should be aligned with recommendations in the research and practice literature. There should be clear goals for the program and evidence associated with these goals should be examined to determine if the program is successful. Descriptions and evidence of successful SSR programs should be shared among other schools and the district should decide if this is a practice it wants to support, if it should be a school-based decision, or if it is a practice that should be eliminated.

Elementary principals should understand what a high quality core program looks like at grades 3ʹ5, and be trained to conduct literacy walkthroughs and to provide guidance and feedback to teachers. An assessment of the strengths of 3ʹϱƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůĂŶĚĐŽůůĞĐƚŝǀĞĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞƚǇƉĞŽĨ instruction described should be made and the role of literacy data specialists should be to support teachers to provide this type of instruction for all students.

INTERVENTIONS FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS

It is evident that a significant number of students will benefit from additional intervention support in addition to their core reading program. Based on what we understand about the district and what types of additional support students may require, we recommend that the district look closely at current implementation of READ 180 and consider further reading interventions in addition to the following menu of offerings for students needing Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. Clarification and consistency in protocols for placement, progress monitoring, and exiting need to be put in place.

The entrance and exit criteria, credentials, and experience of READ 180 program teachers, fidelity of implementation, characteristics of the population being served, and effectiveness of the READ 180 program offered at each elementary school should be reviewed. Students using this program should be accelerating their development as readers. If program assessments indicate this is not the case,

necessary adjustments should be made, including further diagnostics, if necessary. Students using this program whose first language is not English should be supported by teachers with knowledge of English language development.

Lexia

The district may want to look into providing the Lexia program to support additional instruction and practice with decoding. With a solid research base behind it, the program provides systematic attention to phonics and decoding skills. This can be an important piece in the intervention support offerings of a robust RtI program. As with any technology based program, Lexia requires oversight and response to data by the teacher.

Soar to Success

This program is based on the Reciprocal Teaching model and focuses on intensive strategy instruction and practice. Soar to Success can be a solid addition to the RtI model at the elementary level when comprehension is an issue and READ 180 is not available or not deemed appropriate or effective for particular learners. Because it is language-based and focuses on a research-based collaborative routine, Soar to Success is also appropriate for EL students.

Reading Buddy Program

This is an important program for 3rd to 5th graders, who can participate in both directions. For struggling readers to be put into a position where they prepare and then read frequently to younger readers is a productive way to promote authentic fluency practice. Similarly, having older (high school) role models read to them is a very powerful message.

Wilson Reading System

Since this is already in the district and there appear to be many teachers who have been trained in this approach, it would seem to make sense to use these materials with students still struggling with word level decoding. However, this program should be used with only those whose needs match this narrow focus; student progress should be carefully monitored to ensure that the program results in accelerated development of reading ability.

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

In order to implement the recommendations, we anticipate that many grade 3ʹ5 teachers across WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇƐĐŚŽŽůƐǁŝůůŶĞĞĚŽŶŐŽŝŶŐƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐ͗

Use of data to match instruction to student needs, especially in the area of using AIMSweb fluency and MAZE data Vocabulary development and strategies for promoting English language development

A common set of reading comprehension strategies, collaborative routines, and teacher practices that address areas where many students struggle with comprehension

58 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

How to effectively and consistently implement guided reading groups and facilitate a differentiated literacy block that accelerates the progress of struggling readers and writers

Writing instruction using the 6 traits model and consistent use of a 3ʹ5 writing rubric that promotes calibrated expectations throughout the district

HŽǁƚŽƵƐĞůĞǀĞůĞĚƚĞǆƚƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĐŽŶƚĞŶƚůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŚŽǁƚŽƐĐĂĨĨŽůĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͞ƵƉ͟ƚŽ content texts

Promoting critical thinking with all learners, regardless of grade level and reading ability

Understanding of the English Language Proficiency Standards and instructional strategies they can use to promote attainment for students18

Intervention teachers also will need professional development in order to optimize use of the intervention programs with students.

Middle School (6ʹ8) To oversee the following, we recommend that each middle school establishes a school-based literacy team, composed of teacher leaders from across content areas and teaching teams, administrators, and interventionists, including those providing specific support to EL and special education students. First, we recommend that each school team examines the data pertinent to its school contained in this report. Then, we recommend that the team establish improvement goals that are aligned with the district improvement goals but also address literacy needs specific to that school. Finally, we recommend that the team consider and implement the following recommendations with regard to core programming, interventions for struggling readers and writers, and teacher professional development.

CORE PROGRAM FINDINGS

Middle school student performance results on the Fall 2009 NECAP reading test indicate a need for focused reading instruction. Only 67% of 6th grade students across the district scored at or above the proficient level, compared with 69% who met the standard state-wide. The 7th and 8th grade results showed a similar outcome as 66% and 71% of students scored at or above the proficient level. King Middle School had the largest percent of students scoring at or above proficient and also outperformed students state-wide. Throughout the grades, Lincoln Middle school had the highest percent of students scoring at the lowest level. The district-level MHSA data in the area of critical reading and writing further

18 See the WIDA Consortium homepage at http://www.wida.us/standards/elp.aspx

underscores that a focus on strategic reading and content area writing throughout grades 6-10 will be necessary to improve performance patterns on the state assessment.

In reviewing ACCESS results for grades 6ʹ8, it appears that proficiency remains at approximately 37% for students in the program for up to three years before increasing to 62% for students receiving ELD services for four or more years. This supports the notion that professional development for all content teachers whose students include English learners will be a critical component to support a collective concerted effort to accelerate the literacy development and academic language acquisition of ELs. Since focused attention to language and literacy development benefits many students, this may be an effective recourse to supporting teachers to provide literacy-rich content instruction.

On the Teacher Survey, middle school teachers reported the following about their students:

Reading Most 75ʹ100% Many 50ʹ74% Some 25ʹ49% Few 0ʹ24% Read and understand content related text 17 60 17 1 (N=95) Summarize main ideas 18 45 28 2 from texts (N=93) Draw inferences when 8 29 47 9 reading (N=93) Synthesize information from multiple texts 7 17 48 21 (N=93) ǀĂůƵĂƚĞĂƵƚŚŽƌ͛Ɛ accuracy, bias and point 3 20 36 35 of view (N=94) Writing Most 75ʹ100% Many 50ʹ74% Some 25ʹ49% Few 0ʹ24% Use standard English language correctly when 12 36 38 9 writing (N=95) Write clear and concise 7 29 47 11 summaries (N=94) Support their opinions in writing with logical 8 32 38 15 reasoning or evidence (N=93)

It is clear that the Teacher Survey responses indicate the need for focused reading and writing instruction. Currently, teachers reported widely varying practice in many areas related to content literacy including types and frequency of reading and writing, modeling, and use of a wide range of instructional practices that ELs and struggling readers and writers would find helpful. Writing was seen as an area of weakness for many students, but this makes sense as teachers reported wide variance in the amounts, types and frequency of writing they assigned as well as the amount of emphasis teachers placed on writing. Instructional focus on speaking and presenting and critical thinking and teaching students how to use technology for presentation, synthesis, and research are areas that would benefit

60 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

from attention. While the use of rubrics appears to be fairly common practice, it will be important to develop and implement writing, research, and presentation rubrics that calibrate expectations across the schools and are aligned with the expectations of the Common Core.

Perceptions by the teams completing the School Capacity Profiles indicated weaknesses related to shared teacher beliefs, instruction, structures and policies, staffing and resources to support literacy within and across the three middle schools. The responses of the King Middle School team were typically stronger than the responses of the other two schools, and this is also where there have been comparably stronger results achieved through a distinctive educational approach that integrates reading and writing experiences into all expeditionary learning projects.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT At the middle school, a strong core literacy program depends on effective content literacy instruction that results in 80ʹ85% of learners attaining and sustaining grade level expectations as readers, writers, critical thinkers, researchers, and presenters. While the program may look different in an expeditionary learning school vs. a more traditional middle school, all teachers must agree to full integration of the following into content area instructionͶand principals must hold them accountable:

Each teacher takes responsibility for scaffolding students into being better readers, writers, presenters, and thinkers about the content they are learning A focus on developing academic, technical, and conceptual vocabulary using research-based strategies Opportunities to read, write, research, discuss text, and present in all content classes with and without technology Expectations that students will read, write, and think before, during ĂŶĚĂĨƚĞƌ͞ŚĂŶĚƐ-ŽŶ͟ activities We recommend that the middle school academic program in Portland be thoroughly reviewed with the following in mind:

Standards-based alignment: Reference the Common Core standards for English language arts to determine whether expectations for reading, writing, and speaking are aligned appropriately across all content areas, including expectations related to text complexity. Add grade and content area agreements about where and how these standards will be addressed. Have each teaching team review and decide where significant coaching will be provided to students who need assistance to develop skills in these areas. ŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚ͞ůŽǁĞƌƚƌĂĐŬ͟ĐůĂƐƐĞƐ͕ŝĨŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ͕ provide more opportunities to read, write, and discuss content related text, not fewer. Reference the English Language Proficiency Standards to promote aligned expectations across schools and grade levels for ELs. Use of data: The use of the NWEA in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade can be a powerful tool for middle school educators when used well. Students need to understand what the test will tell about

them as readers and what they need to work onͶand how they can get support from the schoolͶƚŽ͞ŐƌŽǁ͟ƚŚĞŝƌƐĐŽƌĞƐ͘'ŽĂůƐĞƚƚŝŶŐĂŶĚĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶĂďŽƵƚŚŽǁĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƌĞĂĚŝŶŐůĞǀĞůƐ correspond to the Lexile scores of career paths of interest to students should occur with all students in conjunction with taking the test and getting the results. This type of dialogue between teachers and students is essential to getting students to share the responsibility for developing their skills as readers and writers. ACCESS data should be used similarly with EL students to promote goal setting and monitoring of literacy and language development. Enhance the culture of literacy: Educators at each of the three middle schools should consider how to enhance their culture of literacy and establish three common expectations: 1) that content teachers will teach and support students to use a common set of reading comprehension and writing strategies across content areas, thereby establishing a transferable, common language and approach for students to use; 2) that content teachers whenever appropriate will use common writing, research, and presentation rubrics and other tools to promote metacognition when reading, writing, researching, and presenting; and 3) that content teachers will increase the opportunities to, when appropriate, offer a choice of different levels of text around a common topic area or provide video or audio scaffolding before asking students to read complex text. In this way, text level is not a barrier to student engagement in high level critical thinking and problem solving about topics they are learning. Specific focus on academic vocabulary development: Given the diverse population in the three middle schools, it is recommended that the district, in conjunction with the schools, review the Word Generation program (see http://wordgeneration.org/) and consider using it across the schools. It is also recommended that each content area, by grade level, review and determine, ƵƐŝŶŐƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĨƌŽŵEt͕DĂƌǌĂŶŽ͛ƐĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌǇůŝƐƚƐ, and the Academic Word List, to develop sets of key concepts and technical vocabulary that will be taught in conjunction with each unit of study and that students will be expected to use in their writing and presenting. These lists should be posted for students and available to all teachers. Cross school issue: We suggest that the middle schools examine rubrics currently being used and establish some common expectations for students within and across the three middle schools in the area of critical reading, writing, research, and presentation. We also suggest that specific instructional guidelines for teaching the effective use of technology to complete literacy tasks be established. These guidelines should be widely disseminated and discussed by team and department. Middle school administrators should understand what a high quality content literacy program looks like at grades 6ʹ8 and be trained to conduct literacy walkthroughs and to provide guidance and feedback to teachers. An assessment of the capabilities of grade 6ʹ8 teachers to provide the type of instruction described should be made. Instructional facilitators or other professional coaches should support teachers to provide this type of instruction in all content classes.

INTERVENTIONS FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS

The first line of literacy intervention at the middle school level is the content classroom. These approaches in all content classes are essential to support the literacy and language development of

62 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

struggling readers and EL students who are scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 on the ACCESS assessment to be successful in the mainstream classroom. Given the increasing numbers of ELs being served through WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐŵŝĚĚůĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕ƚŚŝƐƐŚŝĨƚŝŶƚŚŝŶŬŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝǌĞĚƚŽŵĂŝŶƐƚƌĞĂŵƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐŝƐ imperative. To that end, if all content classes included a substantial focus on academic, conceptual, and technical vocabulary using research-based vocabulary learning strategies such as analytical graphic organizers, visual representations, word analyses, and word sorts, the learning of struggling readers and writers would be enhanced. Secondly, if content teachers, including those who focus on advanced learners, substantially increase their use of collaborative routines when asking students to work with text, the abilities of all learners to work with increasingly complex text would be supported.

In addition, students reading and writing below grade level in English can benefit from additional supports beyond the typical academic program offerings such as the following. Note that clarification and consistency in protocols for placement, progress monitoring, and exiting need to be put in place.

READ 180 and System 44

The entrance and exit criteria, credentials, and experience of READ 180 and System 44 program teachers, fidelity of implementation, characteristics of the population being served, and effectiveness of the READ 180 and System 44 program offered at Lincoln and Lyman Moore Middle Schools should be extensively reviewed. Students in these programs should be making 2ʹ3 years of progress in one year. If program assessments indicate this is not the case, necessary adjustments should be made, including further diagnostics, if necessary. Students in these programs whose first language is not English should be supported by teachers with knowledge of English language development.

Soar to Success

This program is based on the Reciprocal Teaching model and focuses on more intensive strategy instruction and practice. Soar to Success can be a solid addition to the RtI model at the middle school level if comprehension is an issue and READ 180 is not available or deemed inappropriate or ineffective for particular learners. Because it is language-based and focuses on a research-based collaborative routine, it is also appropriate for ELs. Because the strategies can be easily integrated into project-based classroom instruction, this may be a good choice for King Middle School to offer.

Cross-Age Tutoring Program or the Making of Books on Tape

One potent way to engage struggling readers at the middle school level in improving their reading is to provide structured opportunities to work with or produce literacy related products for younger students. In a district such as Portland, where modeling by older peers from diverse backgrounds may be equally as powerful for the younger readers, this can be a strong program addition. Cross-age tutoring programs, such as Succeeding in Reading, where middle school tutors are provided with specific training in how to teach reading, have been shown to improve the reading scores of both the tutor and the tutee. Making books on tape for younger readers is an authentic service learning project that improves fluency of older readers while providing a sense of purpose beyond just practice in isolation for middle school readers.

Wilson Reading System

As with all interventions, ensure that the students being served actually need this level of decoding support provided by this system and that there is evidence that use of the program is accelerating their skills as readers.

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

To successfully implement the above recommendations, it will be necessary to sƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ perceptions and expectations that all students can improve their literacy skills and academic progress. Research and disseminate findings that show the relationship between teacher expectation and student performance. Because all teachers are Tier 1 teachers, it will be necessary for literacy team members to specifically focus on educating those teachers in the school who believe it is not within their role or capability to make a difference with low-performing students or to provide differentiated or tiered ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƚŽŵĞĞƚĂůůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ŶĞĞĚƐ͘ƌĞĂƚĞĂĐƵůƚƵƌĞŽĨĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐŽƉƚŝŵŝƐŵǁŚĞƌĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ have multiple opportunities to learn that literacy skills are achievable at any age, critical thinking can be ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚǁŝƚŚůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͕ĂŶĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ĂƐƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĂƌĞĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůƚŽ school success and their future plans. Using self-evaluation, goal setting, and career planning can empower students to take initiative for and regulate their learning.

Given that attention to content literacy instruction has not been a consistent focus at the middle school level, and that literacy has, up until now, largely been seen as the purview of the English teachers, some ƌĞŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůďĞŶĞĞĚĞĚĨŽƌŵĂŶǇƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐĂĐƌŽƐƐWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐŵŝĚĚůĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘dĞĂĐŚĞƌƐŶĞĞĚƚŽ understand the literacy demands of their content area, how to diagnose the challenges of texts they assign to be read, which strategies help students to successfully read complex text, and how to teach students content literacy strategies using a gradual release of responsibility model. An assessment of the capabilities of teachers at the middle school level to determine where differentiated professional development is needed would be helpful. In addition to workshops, coaching and peer mentoring/classroom visitations are highly recommended. Topics where all teachers need to be up to speed include:

Administration of NWEA and use of the resulting data

Understanding of content area literacy demands

How to examine and determine the literacy challenges of text

Differentiation using content literacy strategies and leveled text

Teaching and frequent use of a common set of high leverage vocabulary learning, reading comprehension, content writing, and discussion/presentation strategies and collaborative routines across content areas

Content writing instruction using the 6 traits model and consistent use of a 6ʹ8 writing rubric that promotes calibrated expectations throughout the district

64 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

How to promote critical thinking with all learners, regardless of grade level and reading ability

How to support the language development needs of ELs in the content classroom, including understanding of ACCESS data and how to discuss this with EL students to promote goal setting and monitoring of literacy and language achievement and understanding of the English Language Proficiency Standards and instructional strategies they can use to promote attainment for students19

Protocols for sharing and discussing student work and peer mentoring/coaching

Intervention teachers also need professional development to be able to optimize use of the intervention programs with students. Ensure that teachers offering similar supports have the opportunity to meet and discuss best practices.

Establish a literacy professional development resource area where teachers across the high schools can access learning materials related to literacy. Collect teacher lesson plans and examples of student work, organized by strategy or content area that teachers can easily reference as they plan their own lessons. Provide multiple copies of professional development resources that describe research-based strategies to supplement strategies for below or above grade level students who need additional support or heightened challenge. Familiarize teachers with the Lexile measures of reading materials and provide databases to help students and teachers locate differentiated text. Set up a system for regularly distributing all literacy professional development materials across the three middle schools and on the school website for access by parents and students.

High School (9ʹ12) To oversee the following, we recommend that each high school establishes a school-based literacy team that is composed of teacher leaders from across content areas, administrators, and interventionists, including those providing specific support to EL and special education students. First, we recommend that each school team examines the data pertinent to its school provided throughout this report. Then, we recommend that the team establish improvement goals that are aligned with the district improvement goals but also address literacy needs specific to that school. Finally, we recommend that the team consider and implement the following recommendations with regard to core programming, interventions for struggling readers and writers, and teacher professional development.

19 See the WIDA Consortium homepage at http://www.wida.us/standards/elp.aspx

CORE PROGRAM FINDINGS

The Maine High School Assessment (MHSA) in the areas of critical reading and writing show that across the three high schools, there is a lot of room for improvement in program outcomes. If critical reading and writing are core skills all graduates need to have, it is very disturbing that district-wide results indicate that one of every two Portland high school students do not meet the standard in reading and writing as measured by these tests. While Portland students did not score dramatically lower than the ƐƚĂƚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ƚŚŝƐŝƐƐƚŝůůŽĨŐƌĞĂƚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶ͘KĨWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƚŚƌĞĞŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕ŽŶůǇĂƐĐŽĂǇ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů had more than 50% of its students meet or exceed the standard all three years (73%, 56%, 61% respectively). At Deering High School, performance has declined over the three years (53%, 49%, 47% meeting or exceeding the standard). At Portland High School, 50% or less have met or exceeded the standard each year in reading (46%, 50%, 40%). Of perhaps more concern, is the percentage of students scoring at the lowest performance category at each school. At Casco Bay High School and Deering High School this percentage has risen over the three years to about one of every four students scoring at the lowest level on the test. At Portland High School, one of every three students is scoring in the lowest performance category and this trend has stayed steady for three years.

As indicated, writing is also an area of concern and again, trends at the three high schools differed. At Casco Bay High School, while performance fluctuated widely, the percent of students scoring at or above the standard met or exceeded the percentages scoring at these levels at the other two high schools. One would expect wider variance because of the small number of students taking the test each year; however, this may be evidence that a greater majority of students are writing as an integral part of their studies, which would be consistent with the Expeditionary Learning approach at the school. The percent of students scoring at the lowest levels of the test also varied widely from year to year (9ʹ21%) but was, overall, quite a lot below the percentage scoring at that level at the other two high schools. At Deering High School, student writing performance hovered consistently around 50% meeting or exceeding the standard for the past three years with 21ʹ25% scoring in the lowest performance category. At Portland High School, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standard in writing has been below 50% all three years and dropped significantly from 45%ʹ47% in 2008 and 2009 to 38% in the spring of 2010. This would indicate that the writing program and expectations for writing may be different depending on the course of studies students take. Also at Portland High School, the percentage of students scoring at the lowest performance level stayed constant at around 30%. In 2010, 86% of ELs scored at the lowest level on the MHSA Critical Reading test (N=75) and 66% scored at the lowest level on the MHSA Writing test (N=74).The ACCESS performance of ELs at the high school level mirrors that of ELs at the middle school level. 33ʹ37% of high school students in the English language development program for up to three years are at level 4 or above while 62ʹ63% of students in the program for four years or more score at levels 4, 5, or 6. The vast majority of EL students score at the lowest levels on both tests.

66 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

High school teachers indicated on the Teacher Survey that many of their students had difficulty with key reading and writing skills (see below).

Reading Most 75ʹ100% Many 50ʹ74% Some 25ʹ49% Few 0ʹ24% Read and understand content 38 62 18 4 related text (N=122) Summarize main ideas from texts 30 61 23 4 (N=118) Draw inferences when reading 17 47 46 9 (N=119) Synthesize information from 12 32 54 18 multiple texts (N=116) ǀĂůƵĂƚĞĂƵƚŚŽƌ͛Ɛ accuracy, bias and 11 34 45 25 point of view (N=115) Writing Most 75ʹ100% Many 50ʹ74% Some 25ʹ49% Few 0ʹ24% Use standard English language 25 52 33 7 correctly when writing (N=117) Write clear and concise summaries 15 57 39 8 (N=119) Support their opinions in writing with logical 14 54 37 14 reasoning or evidence (N=119)

It is clear that the teacher survey responses indicate the need for focused reading and writing instruction. Currently, high school teachers report widely varying practice in many areas related to content literacy including types and frequency of reading and writing, modeling, and use of a wide range of instructional practices that ELs and struggling readers and writers would find helpful. Writing was seen as an area of weakness for many students, but this makes sense as teachers reported wide variance in the amounts, types, and frequency of writing they assigned as well as the amount of emphasis teachers placed on writing. High school teachers reported wide disparity or low emphasis on speaking and presenting, critical thinking, and teaching students how to use technology for presentation, synthesis, and research. While the use of rubrics appears to be fairly common practice, it will be important to develop and implement writing, research, and presentation rubrics that calibrate expectations across the schools and are aligned with the expectations of the Common Core.

Team responses on the School Capacity Profiles underscore several concerns. Although the high school teams felt that many/most of their colleagues understood the importance of literacy, teams also felt

that not all teachers are committed to the expectation that all students will use reading as a primary method of learning in the core content areas, are committed to the expectation that all students will communicate what they have learned in writing and develop their writing skills in the core content areas, or are committed to identifying and using research-based practices to support student literacy and high academic achievement. The Casco Bay High School team, where results are currently strongest, felt that there were some schoolwide policies and structures in place to support a focus on literacy development. This raises the importance of these policies and structures being in place since these have resulted in the design and implementation of curriculum and instruction that have a high level of reading and writing integrated into all content areas. However, all three high school teams felt there were several areas of weakness in the structures and policies in place to support a focus on literacy development, especially in the areas of data use, existing support personnel, instructional resources, and teacher professional development including coaching and peer mentoring. This gap between belief and practice needs to be addressed if Portland high schools are to impƌŽǀĞƚŚĞŝƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚŶĞƐƐƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇ demands of the 21st century.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT A strong core literacy program ensures that 80ʹ85% of learners attain and sustain grade level expectations as readers, writers, critical thinkers, researchers, and presenters. The design of such a program requires that a) all content classes (not just English language arts) assume the responsibility to teach students to be strong independent learners of the content being presented. This requires coaching students to be able to read, write, research, synthesize, and present that content. While these principles may look different when applied to the various types of academic programming offered in the three high schools, the principles that need to be addressed are the same.

To that end, we recommend that the high school academic program in Portland be thoroughly reviewed with the following in mind:

Review of courses offered: Review all course offerings and examples of current reading and writing assigned in each course offered at the high school level. Clearly delineate the amounts and types of reading, writing, research, and presentation that will be required by each course. Reference the Common Core standards for English language arts to determine if course expectations for reading, writing, and speaking are aligned appropriately across all content areas, including expectations related to text complexity. Add agreements about where and how these standards will be addressed in course descriptions and syllabi. Have each department review and decide where significant coaching will be provided to students who do not have ƐƚƌŽŶŐƐŬŝůůƐŝŶƚŚĞƐĞĂƌĞĂƐ͘ŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚ͞ůŽǁĞƌƚƌĂĐŬ͟ĐůĂƐƐĞƐ͕ŝĨŽĨĨĞƌĞĚ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞmore opportunities to read, write, and discuss content related text, not fewer. Ensure that classes offering practical application require reading and writing and research before, during, and/or after hands-on experiences. Authentic reasons to read and write: The high school curriculum needs to be examined for the types of authentic (beyond turning it in to a teacher) opportunities to read, write, and present. Improving motivation and engagement to read and write is a key factor at the high school level in supporting students to improve in these areas. The types and choices offered to students when reading,

68 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

researching, writing, and presenting should be examined to determine how well these are supporting all students, but especially boys, to engage and grow as readers, writers, and thinkers. The successes in these areas at Casco Bay High School are notable and show the applicability of ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞǆŚŝďŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĨŽƌWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͘ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐƉƵďůŝĐ presentation (in person/online) of learning and research at the other schools. Use of data: The use of the NWEA in 9th and 10th grade can, when used well, be a powerful tool for high school educators. Students need to understand what the test will tell about them as readers and what they need to work onͶand how they can get support from the schoolͶƚŽ͞ŐƌŽǁ͟ƚŚĞŝƌ scores. Goal setting and discussion about how current reading levels correspond to the Lexile scores of career paths of interest should occur with all students in conjunction with taking the test and getting the results. This type of dialogue between teachers and students is essential to getting students on board with the need to develop their skills as readers and writers. Data from the PSATs is also being underutilized and should be analyzed annually by teachers to determine areas for necessary focus across content areas in preparation for the SAT critical reading and writing tests. Finally, ACCESS data could be better used to promote goal setting with students and to engage students with monitoring their achievement in literacy and learning. Enhance the culture of literacy: All of the high schools should consider how to enhance their culture of literacy and establish three common expectations: 1) that content teachers will teach and support students to use a common set of reading comprehension and writing strategies across content areas, thereby establishing a transferable common language and approach for students to use; 2) that content teachers, when appropriate, will use common writing, research, and presentation rubrics and other tools to promote metacognition when reading, writing, researching, and presenting; and 3) that content teachers will increase the opportunities to, when appropriate, offer a choice of different levels of text around a common topic area or provide video or audio scaffolding before asking students to read complex text. This will allow all students to engage in high level critical thinking and problem solving about topics they are learning and text level is not a barrier. Cross school issues: We suggest that the high schools examine rubrics currently being used and establish common district-wide expectations for students in the areas of critical reading, writing, research, and presentation. We also suggest that specific instructional guidelines for teaching how to effectively use technology when completing literacy tasks be established, disseminated, and discussed by department. We recommend that grading policies be reviewed and discussed to ensure that they are promoting, not undermining, student learning and improved skills. High school administrators should understand what a high quality core content literacy program looks like at grades 9ʹ12, and be trained to conduct literacy walkthroughs and to provide guidance and feedback to teachers. An assessment of the capabilities of grade 9ʹ12 teachers to provide the type of instruction described above should be made. Instructional facilitators or other professional coaches should support teachers to provide this type of instruction in all content classes.

INTERVENTIONS FOR STRUGGLING LEARNERS

The first line of literacy intervention at the high school level is the content classroom. These approaches in all content classes are essential to support the literacy and language development of struggling readers and ELs who are scoring at levels 4, 5, and 6 on ACCESS to be successful in the mainstream classroom. 'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐŶƵŵďĞƌƐŽĨ>ƐďĞŝŶŐƐĞƌǀĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐŚŝŐŚ schools, this shift in thinking from specialized to mainstream programming is imperative. To that end, if all content classes included a substantial focus on academic, conceptual, and technical vocabulary using research-based vocabulary learning strategies such as analytical graphic organizers, visual representations, and word analyses and word sorts, the learning of struggling readers and writers would be enhanced. Secondly, if content teachers, including those that focus on advanced learners, substantially increased their use of collaborative routines when asking students to work with text, the abilities of all learners to work with increasingly complex text would be supported.

In addition, students reading and writing below grade level in English may benefit from additional supports beyond the typical academic program offerings such as those that follow. Note that clarification and consistency in protocols for placement, progress monitoring, and exiting need to be put in place.

Consider offering an Academic Literacy Course for 9th Graders

Given the population being served at the two larger high schools and their apparent needs, it may be wise to consider a semester-long or year-long academic literacy course to be offered either in place of or in addition to 9th grade English. An integrated course that would blend the outcomes for English 9 and the need to improve academic literacy skills is the Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy Course curriculum developed by WestEd (see, for example, http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/111).

READ 180 and System 44

The entrance and exit criteria, credentials, and experience of READ 180 and System 44 program teachers, fidelity of implementation, characteristics of the population being served, and effectiveness of the READ 180 and System 44 program offered at Deering High School and at Portland High School should be extensively reviewed. Students in these programs should be making 2ʹ3 years of progress in one year. If program assessments indicate this is not the case, necessary adjustments should be made, including further diagnostics if necessary. Students in these programs whose first language is not English should be supported by teachers with knowledge of English language development.

Cross-Age Tutoring Program or the Making of Books on Tape

One potent way to engage struggling readers at the high school level in improving their reading is to provide structured opportunities to work with or produce literacy related products for younger students. In a district such as Portland, where modeling by older peers from diverse backgrounds may be equally as powerful for the younger readers, this can be a strong program addition. Cross-age tutoring programs, such as Succeeding in Reading, where high school tutors are provided with specific training in how to teach reading, has been shown to improve the reading scores of both the tutor and

70 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

the tutee. Making books on tape for younger readers is an authentic service learning project that improves fluency of older readers while providing a sense of purpose beyond just practice in isolation.

Reading and Writing Lab/Tutoring

Tutoring at the high school level typically focuses on helping students complete the work instead of strategies they can use to become more successful and efficient learner and improve their reading, writing, and critical thinking skills so they can complete work more efficiently and effectively. Sometimes ͞ƐƚƵĚǇƐŬŝůůƐ͟Žƌ͞ĞǆĞĐƵƚŝǀĞƐŬŝůůƐ͟ĐůĂƐƐĞƐĂƌĞŽĨĨĞƌĞĚďƵƚƚŚĞƐĞŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĞǇĂƌĞ accessible to all who need them, successfully evidencing transfer by participants to application elsewhere, and of sufficient interest and relevance for students. A flexible reading/writing lab or strategic tutoring are service offerings that have proven successful at the high school level.

Leveled Texts in Content Classrooms

The use of leveled text in content classrooms can be a powerful literacy intervention when used in ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚďĞƐƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͘^ƚƵĚĞŶƚ͛Ɛ>ĞǆŝůĞůĞǀĞůƐĐĂŶďĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞ^Z/ĂŶĚͬŽƌƚŚĞ NWEA. Teachers can access many resources online that address the issue of a wide range of reading levels in the classroom while requiring the same levels of critical thinking and engagement in collaborative routines even when students read different levels of text. This is a way not to compromise the level of critical thinking students are expected to do while improving their reading skills, a dual goal ǁŚŝĐŚWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐŵƵƐƚĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚŝĨŝƚƐ>ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͕ǁŚŽƐƚƌƵŐŐůŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ reading, are to succeed.

Wilson Reading System

As with all interventions, ensure that the students being served actually need this level of decoding support and that there is evidence that use of the program is accelerating their skills as readers.

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

To successfully implement the above recommendations, it will be necessary to sƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ perceptions and expectations that all students can improve their literacy skills and academic progress. Research and disseminate findings that show the relationship between teacher expectation and student performance. Because all teachers are Tier 1 teachers, it will be necessary for literacy team members to focus on educating those teachers who believe it is not within their role or capability to make a difference with low-performing students or to provide differentiated or tiered literacy instruction to ŵĞĞƚĂůůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ŶĞĞĚƐ͘ĞǀĞůŽƉĂƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐƚŽůĞĂƌŶƚŚĂƚůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƐŬŝůůƐĂƌĞ learnable at any age, critical thinking ĐĂŶďĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚǁŝƚŚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͕ĂŶĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ĂƐƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌ own success are critical to school success and their future plans. Using self-evaluation, goal setting, and career planning can empower students to take initiative for and regulate their learning. In addition, many teachers will benefit from peer mentoring, the opportunity to observe in other classrooms and/or instructional coaching in order to shift existing instructional habits that may not focus on content literacy.

To support implementation of the above recommendations, the following teacher professional development will be necessary for many teachers:

Identify a common set of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing strategies that may be leveraged to provide continued learning support at the high school. Provide professional development for all high school teachers and establish high expectations regarding use and reinforcement of these strategies, emphasizing transfer of strategy use to students. Have the literacy team members or representatives from each content area learn and share applicable strategies connected to content literacy demands with their colleagues. Focus on ensuring all teachers know how to use and reinforce the ƐĐŚŽŽů͛Ɛ common strategies in their content areas across genres and with varied media. Establish the gradual release of responsibility instructional practice as the foundation of literacy strategy instruction.

Provide a teacher professional development series that addresses the following areas:

Administration of NWEA and use of the resulting data Understanding of content area literacy demands

How to examine and determine the literacy challenges of text

Differentiation using content literacy strategies and use of leveled text

Content writing instruction and practice focused on evidence-based argumentation in all subject areas

How to support the language development needs of ELs in the content classroom, including understanding of ACCESS data and how to discuss this with EL students to promote goal setting and monitoring of literacy and language achievement, and understanding of the English Language Proficiency Standards and instructional strategies they can use to promote attainment for students20

How to promote critical thinking with all learners, regardless of grade level and reading ability Protocols for sharing and discussing student work and peer mentoring/coaching

20 See the WIDA Consortium homepage at http://www.wida.us/standards/elp.aspx

72 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Establish a literacy professional development resource area where teachers across the high schools can access learning materials related to literacy. Collect teacher lesson plans and examples of student work, organized by strategy or content area that teachers can easily reference as they plan their own lessons. Provide multiple copies of professional development resources that describe research-based strategies to supplement strategies for below or above grade level students who need additional support or heightened challenge. Familiarize teachers with the Lexile measures of reading materials and provide databases to help students and teachers locate differentiated text. Set up a system for regularly distributing all literacy professional development materials across the three high schools and on the school website for access by parents and students.

Recommendations for the District dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐĞƚŽĨƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐƌĞĨĞƌƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇƚŽĞŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ to support a Kʹ12 literacy improvement initiative. The following recommendations are based on the data collected for the Literacy Review and align with the research and practice literature. Specifically, the recommendations address the key elements of The Framework for District Capacity Building and Improvement (Lane, 2009) 21 as they intersect with the components of the Taking Action Literacy Leadership Model (Irvin, Meltzer & Dukes, 2006). The intent is to provide the Portland Public Schools with research-grounded guidance to implement and sustain a Kʹ12 literacy program that results in ͞ƌĂƉŝĚĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ͘͟ Rapid district improvement means that there are:

Dramatic changes in district structures, culture, policies, and process within one to three years of the start of the improvement effort Evidence of significant improvement in instructional practices and student academic performance within three to four years of the start of the improvement effort

Evidence that changes and improvements are system-wide and sustainable (Lane, 2009)

21 Lane. B. (2009). Exploring the pathway to rapid district improvement. Center on Innovation & Improvement. Available from http://www.centerii.org/survey/downloads/Exploring_the_Pathway_to_Rapid_District_Improvement.pdf 22 Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press. 23 Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 24 See, for example: Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented results in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. See also: http://www.principals.org/Content.aspx?topic=52936; and http://www.westjam.org/Docs/CM/OhioFullReport.pdf 25 See, for example: Act, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. Available from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/reports/reading.html. See also: Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2009). See also Time to Act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Author. Available from http://carnegie.org/publications/search- publications/pub/195/

74 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

government,26 increased unemployment and poverty,27 and higher likelihood of incarceration.28 Clearly literacy is a core issue for school districts to take on, ensuring that as many students as absolutely possible are graduating with the literacy skills to be college and career ready, able and willing to participate fully as citizens. Given the current success rates of students graduating from the Portland Public Schools as measured by the existing assessments, this is an area where increased focus and attention is required on the part of the district. The good news is that the PortlanĚWƵďůŝĐ^ĐŚŽŽůƐĂƌĞŶŽƚŝŶ͞ĐƌŝƐŝƐ͘͟tŚŝůĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇĂŶĚůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ can be greatly improved, there is leadership, teacher quality, and determination to make this happen. Changes have already been put into place to build on current district capacity, address areas of weakness and inconsistency, review programming, and ensure that changes reflect effective practice. To boost the effectiveness of current literacy programming and to ensure the efficacy of efforts and resources being put into place during the 2010ʹ11 school year, the district will want to develop a set of structures and policies as well as implement recommendations related to literacy assessment and data use, curriculum alignment, tiered instruction and intervention, parent and community involvement, and 21st century teaching and learning. Together, if acted upon, these will greatly strengthen the effectiveness of the Kʹ12 Literacy Program in the Portland Public Schools. Structures and Policies

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Develop a three-year District Literacy Improvement Plan to guide district improvement efforts in this essential area. It will be important for the district to institute a collaborative planning process to efficiently and effectively use the recommendations in this report to develop a comprehensive three-year District Literacy Improvement Plan that a) sets clear measurable district literacy improvement goals at each educational level and for English learners; b) prioritizes action steps that should be taken along with detailed guidance for implementation; and, c) ensures that there is equitable access to appropriate supports, assessments, core program resources, interventions, and technology to serve students across the district. It is recommended that a representative Kʹ12 district literacy team be assembled that includes district, school, and teacher leaders. This district literacy team should be comprised of no more than 25 members, include representation from all schools and educational levels (Kʹ2, 3ʹ5, 6ʹ8 and 9ʹ12) and be charged with a) developing the Kʹ12 District Literacy Improvement Plan; b)

26 College Board. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. Report of the EĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽŶtƌŝƚŝŶŐĨŽƌŵĞƌŝĐĂ͛Ɛ&ĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͕^ĐŚŽŽůƐĂŶĚŽůůĞŐĞƐ͘EĞǁzŽƌŬ͗ƵƚŚŽƌ͘ǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨƌŽŵ http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf 27 Wood, W. (2010). Literacy and the entry-level workforce: The role of literacy and policy in labor market success, employment policies institute. Washington D.C.: Employment Policies Institute. Available from http://epionline.org/studies/Wood_10-10.pdf 28 Harris, P. J, Baltodano, H. M., Bal, A., Jolivette, K., & Malcahy, C. (2009, June). Reading achievement of incarcerated youth in three regions. Journal of Correctional Education, 60, 2. Abstract available from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4111/is_200906/ai_n35628945/

monitoring implementation and progress toward goals; c) disseminating the plan and progress being made; and, d) updating and troubleshooting the plan and its implementation. It will be important for the school board to publicly endorse the literacy improvement goals established in the plan and ensure that literacy improvement goals are publicly connected to other district initiatives and priorities while making the case for why this needs to be a focus. 2. Make the District Literacy Improvement Plan public and ensure that it actively guides improvement efforts. The district should publish the three-year District Literacy Improvement Plan, along with the District Literacy Assessment Calendar, the district-established menu of RtI intervention options, and teacher professional development offerings, along with how support will be provided by the district and district accountability measures. It is recommended that district leaders purposefully use multiple channels of communication internally and externally explaining why changes are being made, what supports will be in place, and how effectiveness will be monitored. 3. Support school-based improvement efforts. The district should support and help to further develop collaborative leadership structures at each school, holding school-based leadership accountable for implementing literacy improvement aligned with district goals. a. Require that schools receiving school improvement funding based on failure to meet AYP use this to assist the school to meet the district goals. b. Review existing school-based literacy plans to ensure they are in alignment with the District Literacy Plan and modify with school staff as needed. c. Set up time and protocols for reviewing school-based implementation of efforts designed to contribute to achievement of the district literacy improvement goal. 4. Redefine the roles of the Data Literacy Specialists. It is recommended that the district redefine and clarify the roles of the data literacy specialists and set up a support and accountability system to ensure that their work actively contributes to meeting district literacy improvement goals. Establish parallel roles at the middle and high school levels. Ensure that coaching is a key component of the role. Consider how the reporting structure may need to be changed. 5. Align teacher professional development expectations with district literacy improvement goals. Professional development offerings should be tied to district literacy goals and areas of improvement and also tied to professional improvement goals. Review teacher professional development offerings, formats, and expectations. Establish the expectation that teachers will engage in a continuous improvement cycle of their ability to improve student literacy and learning at all grade levels and in all content areas through a combination of the following: participation in focused workshop series with expectations of implementation, time for collaborative examination of data and review of student work, coaching, peer mentoring, classroom intervisitation, and sharing of strategies and approaches. An appropriate balance of support and accountability for teachers should be put in place. 6. Literacy leadership development. Establish a literacy leadership series for school administrators and teacher leaders that addresses the following topics, among others as needed: RtI 101, what literacy support looks like in an effective content classroom at each level, how to conduct and

76 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

report back the data from literacy walkthroughs, how to implement effective interventions, 21st century teaching and learning, supporting teachers to improve instruction, aligning expectations of effective literacy instruction with teacher evaluation, and how to work effectively with your collaborative leadership team and your data literacy specialist. Consider establishing an elementary literacy leadership series and a content literacy leadership series for middle and high school leaders. 7. Establish a district-wide practice of student-led conferences for students in grades Kʹ12. Student-led conferencing can be an effective strategy for empowering students, increasing parent-teacher-student communication, focusing students on achievement goals and monitoring progress, focusing teachers on standards-based teaching and learning and data use and garnering parent support for instructional improvement initiatives.29. Establish common expectations and protocols for student-led conferences and presentation of work and learning goals in grades Kʹ2, 3ʹ5, 6ʹ8 and 9ʹ12. Provide teacher professional development on how to structure and support effective student conferencing and work to achieve a common vision of effective student-led conferences at each educational level. Have schools currently using this practice share what has worked well. Put structures into place for evaluating the success of student-led conferences and how these data will be used to improve the practice district-wide. Determine a timeline for when student-led conferences will be implemented in all schools.

ESPECIALLY FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

Consider requiring all Portland teachers to increase their knowledge and deepen their understanding of how to address the language and literacy needs of EL students and implement effective instruction for ELs.30 Professional goal setting should be connected to evidence for how teachers will improve language and literacy instruction Kʹ12 in all content areas for EL students.

Literacy Assessment and Data Use Too often, decisions about program implementation and classroom practices are based on preference, tradition, intuition, or unsubstantiated beliefs. Collecting and analyzing data related to initiative implementation, teacher professional development, and student performance and growth in literacy

29 For some resources associated with effective student-led conferencing at all levels, you may want to refer to http://www.middleweb.com/mw/resources/ParentConfs.html and http://quality.cr.k12.ia.us/Tutorials/studentled_conf/student_led_index.html and http://www.asdk12.org/MiddleLink/SLC/about/MSJ_Jan08_Goodman.pdf 30 Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners ʹ A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (see pp. 26ʹ33, Challenge 4, for an overview of the content that middle and high school content teachers should know to best serve their EL students). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Available from http://www.all4ed.org/files/DoubleWork.pdf

will provide leadership with the information needed to make appropriate decisions about how to ĚĞĞƉĞŶĂŶĚĞǆƚĞŶĚƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐƌĞŶĞǁĞĚĨŽĐƵƐŽŶůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇ.31

Since the data gathering process for the Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review began, a more complete Literacy Assessment Framework has been put into place by district leaders and considerable time and effort has been invested in strengthening and improving literacy assessment throughout the district. The need for a comprehensive set of screening, benchmark, progress monitoring and diagnostic assessments, essential for implementing an effective system of tiered instruction and intervention, has been recognized.32 Important steps that have been taken include clarifying expectations for administration of the NWEA assessments for all students in grades 3ʹ9 and beginning consistent administration of the AIMSweb early reading, fluency, and comprehension (MAZE) tests for standardized benchmarking across the district.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Establish district-wide screening and progress monitoring protocols in the area of reading. Consistent benchmarking using the AIMSweb early reading, fluency, and MAZE measures will provide Kʹ5 teachers with a lot of information they can use to inform student placement (screen) and to check the success of instruction and intervention (progress monitor). Since these tests are nationally normed, this will also provide the district with comparison data that is not available at this time, particularly for students in grades Kʹ2. Ensure that AIMSweb tests are administered consistently using specific protocols and that teachers understand the data and how it is expected to be used. Other program aligned assessments with national norms, such as the SRI, should continue to be used as a progress monitoring tool in conjunction with intervention programming, such as the READ 180 program. 2. Measure growth. To measure annual growth in the area of reading, the district has in place the NWEA MAP Reading tests. The district will want to use these data to monitor overall literacy program efficacy. The district can use the growth data from NWEA to determine if the program ŝƐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂůůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĂůůƋƵĂƌƚŝůĞƐ͕ŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŝƌŐƌŽǁƚŚƚĂƌŐĞƚƐ;ŵĂŬĞĂǇĞĂƌ͛Ɛ worth of progƌĞƐƐŝŶĂǇĞĂƌ͛ƐƚŝŵĞͿĂŶĚif core and intervention programming is supporting ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞďŽƚƚŽŵƚǁŽƋƵĂƌƚŝůĞƐƚŽŵĂŬĞŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶĂǇĞĂƌ͛ƐǁŽƌƚŚŽĨŐƌŽǁƚŚŝŶĞĂĐŚƐĐŚŽŽů and across the district. These tests also provide a host of data that teachers can use to guide placement, use of leveled text, and improve understanding of where scaffolding and differentiated focused instruction is needed. For test data to be reliable, the district will need to

31 Irvin, J., Meltzer, J., & Dukes, M. (2007). Taking action on adolescent literacy: An implementation guide for school leaders. Alexandria, VA: ASCD; and Lane, B. (2009). Exploring the pathway to rapid district improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Available from http://www.centerii.org/survey/downloads/Exploring_the_Pathway_to_Rapid_District_Improvement.pdf 32 Meltzer, J., Phillips, M., & Kutno, S. (2010, February). Practical ideas and promising practices for effective district response to instruction/intervention (RtI) initiatives: Data use issues to consider. A PCG Education White Paper. Portsmouth NH: Public Consulting Group. Available from http://www.publicconsultinggroup.com/education/library/white_papers/effective_district_response_to_intervent ion.html

78 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

clarify expectations for administration of the NWEA in terms of why and when and establish protocols for test administration and goal setting with students. To maximize use of this assessment, the district will need to provide teacher professional development on how to read the reports and how to use the Descartes Continuum, how to use Lexile scores to plan instruction, how to group students based on the results, etc. 3. Formative assessment to inform ongoing instructional planning. Examine how formative reading assessments are used throughout the district, particularly at the elementary grades, to determine what information is being provided through use of these assessments. It appears that in some cases, the information may be duplicated by other assessments being put in place district-wide. When these assessments (e.g., Rigby benchmark data, DRA 2 data) are used primarily as benchmark/screening tools, this may not reflect best use because of reliability issues. These assessments require significant teacher time and effort so guidelines for their use should be provided. 4. Writing assessment. As stated earlier in the report, it is clear that the amount and quality of non-fiction writing students do is associated with increased academic achievement across content areas and that writing is a necessary skill for success in most careers.33 The only writing data that was available for this review was the MHSA data at the high school level. In the future, there will be writing data from the NECAP as well as the MHSA. In the past, the district has invested significant time in administering and developing rubrics and scoring district-wide ǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƉƌŽŵƉƚƐ͘dŚŝƐĂƉƉĞĂƌƐƚŽŚĂǀĞƌĞƐƵůƚĞĚŝŶŝƐŽůĂƚĞĚ͞ǁƌŝƚŝŶŐĞǀĞŶƚƐ͟ĂƐŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽ frequent and effective writing instruction and practice. The purpose of a district-wide prompt is to focus and inform instruction and to provide evidence of program efficacy, not to measure year to year growth in writing. If the district is interested in continuing to get district-wide interim data on writing, we recommend the following approach: a. Instead of administering a prompt each year as an isolated event, establish writing prompts/common products for mid-year in grade 2, 4, 6 and beginning of 9th grade to develop calibrated expectations, gain program insight, and focus instruction. Have prompts/products be focused on different types of writing outlined in the Common Core ELA standards (for example, persuasion, narration, exposition and argument). b. Use district established rubrics to score the prompts, not prompt-specific rubrics. Have teachers use these same rubrics as part of their ongoing instruction and assessment of writing and make sure the rubrics are aligned with the Common Core ELA standards for writing. c. Teachers from the grade level and the grade below should examine student writing together and summarize strengths, weaknesses, and areas for instructional focus.

33 Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. (pp. 185ʹ196, Chapter 19: The 90/90/90 schools: A case study). Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Centers, Inc. See also: College Board. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. Report of the National Commission on Writing for America͛Ɛ&ĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͕^ĐŚŽŽůƐĂŶĚŽůůĞŐĞƐ͘EĞǁzŽƌŬ͗ƵƚŚŽƌ͘ǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨƌŽŵ http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf

Connect the results from collaborative examination of student work to strategies for effective writing instruction (see earlier section, Recommendations by Level). d. Over time, establish prediction validity for the district prompts vis a vis the NECAP and MHSA writing prompts. 5. Improve use of PSAT SOAS data to provide program feedback and inform instruction. Establish expectations for how high school administrators, literacy team members, and department members should use PSAT Summary of Answers and Skills (SOAS) data (see http://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/psat/scores/summary). SOAS data are not currently being used optimally to identify where students may be having issues that would preclude meeting or exceeding the standard on the MHSA critical reading and writing tests or to determine program efficacy for grade 9 and 10 students in the area of literacy. This is a rich source of data that all three high schools could be using to improve the literacy instruction being offered to students. 6. Review expectations for student writing/work portfolios. Review and determine the purpose, required content, expected use, and expected format (paper or electronic) of student writing or work portfolios. Portfolio use is currently listed by five elementary schools. Portfolios can be very valuable but their use needs to be purposeful and focused for the benefit to outweigh the time commitment required to use them. If portfolios are expected, portfolio use should be tied to goal setting, Common Core ELA standards, and student-led conferencing, and periodic review of portfolio samples from across schools should be done to determine if expectations are calibrated appropriately.

ESPECIALLY FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

The district should monitor the success of shifting program support to local schools. Protocols for how to adapt the use of assessment protocols for use with ELs needs to be thought about carefully. It is important that EL performance on standard assessments be used in reference with ACCESS data and ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞďĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ͞ƌƵůĞƐ͟ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚĨŽƌƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĞŝƚŚĞƌϭͿƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ languishing too long witŚŽƵƚƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐƚĂƌŐĞƚĞĚŚĞůƉďĞĐĂƵƐĞŝƚŝƐĂƐƐƵŵĞĚƚŚĞǇǁŝůů͞ĐĂƚĐŚƵƉ͟ŽƌϮͿ students being immediately referred for special services when it is an issue of receptive language being ahead of expressive language. Teachers need training on how to interpret running records and assess writing and learning of ELs in relation to stages of English language acquisition (e.g., basic interpersonal communication skills vs. cognitive academic language proficiency), features of their home language as they do or do not align with English (e.g., cognates if applicable; sentence syntax issues; agreement issues), and level of literacy in their home language.

Standards-based Literacy Curriculum Part of the challenge facing the district is that there is no district-wide ELA curriculum, much less an ĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƚĞĚƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞŽĨĐŽƵƌƐĞƐƚŚĂƚƉƵƌƉŽƐĞĨƵůůǇďƵŝůĚƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇĂŶĚůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐŬŝůůƐĂƐĂŶ integrated part of content instruction. This is a critical area for the district to address. Right now it appears that courses may or may not be based on Maine Learning Results and specific materials being used and these are not consistent throughout the district. It also appears that the amount and type of

80 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

content students experience varies across and within buildings, even in the same grade level or course being taught. The district needs to have in place a curriculum that systematically builds literacy development in conjunction with content learning so that students leave the Portland Public Schools with significant skills and adequate guided practice in reading, writing, speaking and presenting, collaboration and problem solving, critical and creative thinking, and research. Enacting the following recommendations will ensure that there is a consistent curriculum that teachers can be held accountable for delivering and a set of core literacy agreements associated with every grade level and every course.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Convene District Humanities and science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) curriculum committees with grade level representation to establish vertical alignment of all grade level instruction and content courses with the Common Core English language arts standards, NECAP, and MHSA expectations, the content maps from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (see http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=504&Itemid=185#maps) and the NWEA Descartes Continuum. Articulate a district curriculum where Kʹ5 classroom instruction and all 6ʹ12 courses build by grade level in terms of the amount and types of reading, writing, speaking and presenting, and research expected and the focus of literacy support provided. This should feed to an online standards-based curriculum mapping that can be connected to resources, etc. for teachers to access and use. It is particularly important that alignment of core courses in addition to ELA (history, math, science) articulate literacy demands, experiences, and alignment. Career-Technical Education (CTE) programming in the schools and at PATHS should be reviewed to ensure that the curriculum experiences also align with the standards and include literacy instruction and active support for literacy development. Note: Tier 1 programming should reflect a focus on vocabulary development and non-fiction writing Kʹ12. 2. Convene a Task Force to develop, by educational level (Kʹ2, 3ʹ5, 6ʹ8 and 9ʹ12), rubrics for writing, research, and presentation aligned with the expectations in the Common Core and the NWEA Descartes Continuum. Review existing rubrics that are currently being used to see if their use should be expanded. Establish expectations for the use of these rubrics as a regular part of instruction across content areas. Provide teacher professional development as to how to use the rubrics to provide key feedback to students, plan instruction, develop calibrated sets of expectations across grades and content areas, and review program efficacy. Additional program options to consider: Portland has already demonstrated that it can develop and sustain successful innovative educational programming. The district will want to look closely at the expeditionary learning opportunities offered by King Middle School and Casco Bay High School to ensure that this type of programming is benefitting students in all subgroups. Data from these schools appear to provide examples of the types of student outcomes that can be achieved by providing high scaffolding coupled with high expectations. Both are featured on the Edutopia website and have been lauded nationally as examples of schools that work well for students. It is hopeful that the elementary offerings of this type of learning approach will also be successful as these schools develop their implementation of expeditionary learning. The fact that these are being increasingly sought by parents

and students as program options indicates that literacy-rich integrated high interest approaches appear to increase student motivation and success and that more such options should be considered. For example: In the 21st century, global perspectives and understanding of other cultures is essential. Portland ŚĂƐƚŚĞĞǆĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞŽĨŚĂǀŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϲϬůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐƐƉŽŬĞŶŝŶƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛Ɛϭϲ schools. Research also shows the benefits to early language learning of second and third languages in terms of brain development. It would be appropriate to explore policies that require fluency in a second language for all/most students. This might incorporate a number of approaches.34 The district should strongly consider selecting and offering multiple vertical strands of dual language programming (English and a limited set of target languages) in some of WŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇƐĐŚŽŽůƐǁŝƚŚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŽĨĨĞƌŝŶŐƐĐŽŶƚŝŶuing into the middle and high school level. The district should think about the possibility of breaking the two larger high schools into smaller learning communities with distinct career academy foci and offering choice by application to a variety of specialized programs. Similar specialized program offerings might be offered at Lyman Moore and Lincoln Middle Schools. There are many examples of how such an approach can increase student graduation rates, academic focus and success, and student motivation and engagement. For example, integrated STEM programming combines high levels of hands-on problem solving, critical thinking, and collaboration and requires high levels of reading, writing, research, and speaking/presenting skills. Such career academies or specialized programs support students to strive harder to work to be successful.

ESPECIALLY FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

Ensure that ELs have access to the standards-based curriculum with adequate scaffolding where necessary and are not relegated to less rigorous expectations in terms of content or critical thinking, even while reading and writing expectations may be differentiated.35 Ensure that there are supports in place to help students accelerate their literacy and learning development and that there are options for older ELs to have more time to become proficient in English and meet academic requirements 36 (see next section).

Tiered System of Instruction and Intervention District leadership recognizes that current implementation of a Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI) approach is not consistent or effective in accelerating the literacy and learning of enough struggling

34 See, for example: Instructional Models and Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners [K-12]. Available from the Center on Instruction at http://www.centeroninstruction.org/resources.cfm?category=ell 35 For examples of a variety of research based scaffolding approaches, refer to the Center on Instruction: ELL: Grades K-12: Resources website http://www.centeroninstruction.org/resources.cfm?category=ell 36 See: Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners ʹ A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Available from http://www.all4ed.org/files/DoubleWork.pdf

82 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

students at this time. General literacy instruction in Kʹ5 and content literacy instruction in grades 6ʹ12 is not currently promoting 80ʹ85% of students to attain or sustain grade level expectations in reading as measured by the assessment tools in place at the time of this review.

To address this situation, the district will need to prioritize and provide direct support for implementation of selected recommendations related to the core literacy program, interventions for struggling readers, and teacher professional development by educational level provided in an earlier section of this report. To align with the emerging research base on effective RtI programs, the district will need to ensure that the implementation of the RtI program includes the following elements: 37

Extensive, ongoing professional development Administrative support at the system and building level Teacher buy-in and willingness to adjust their traditional instructional roles Involvement of all school personnel Adequate meeting time for coordination

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Core (Tier 1) Instruction: The district needs to take the lead in outlining expectations for core literacy instruction in grades Kʹ5 and for content literacy instruction in grades 6ʹ12 and aligning teacher professional development/coaching/instructional resources (support) and professional goal setting/literacy walkthroughs/teacher evaluation (accountability) to these expectations. The district needs to ensure that core instruction reflects access to and use of appropriate data sources and alignment with standards. Refer to the recommendations by educational level provided earlier in this report to prioritize specific actions relative to Tier 1 instruction and teacher professional development. Note: Tier 1 programming should reflect a focus on vocabulary development and non-fiction writing Kʹ12.

2. Tier 2 and 3 Instruction: The district needs to define a robust menu of Tier 2 and Tier 3 options (see recommendations for specific programming earlier in this report) for struggling readers by educational level aligned to targeted needs (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development/word study, fluency, reading comprehension, strategic reading). The district needs to establish clear and consistent expectations and supports for how to link assessment with instruction through use of the screening and benchmarking tools provided by the district for placement, appropriate instructional responses based on specific data targets, and progress monitoring. Access to data and reporting needs to be examined to ensure that those who need the data have appropriate access to it and know how to use it. This is especially important in the case of progress monitoring with the SRI in the READ 180 classrooms as well as use of AIMSweb data. Finally, the district needs to support the RtI effort through ensuring that a) every school

37 See: Hughes, C., & Dexter, D. D. (n. d.). Field studies of RtI programs, revised. Available from RtI Action Network at http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/field-studies-rti-programs

has access to an appropriate set of supports based on the identified needs of students at each building; b) that teachers are expected toͶand provided time toͶcollaborate so that effective intervention support can be provided; c) interventionists have the professional development and training needed to provide quality support with fidelity; and c) outcome data are collected and analyzed to show for whom the core program and intervention programs are and are not working so that adjustments can be made accordingly. Refer to the recommendations by educational level provided earlier in this report to prioritize specific actions relative to interventions for struggling readers.

3. The district needs to develop and implement a plan for data gathering, compilation, and analysis that will monitor the implementation and impact of content learning skills and strategies in classrooms, across schools, and throughout the district. The district also needs to monitor the success of Tier 2 and 3 intervention instruction and programming. Data may include analysis of student performance on standardized assessments, analysis of benchmarking and progress monitoring data, and results of planned and regular walkthroughs.

4. RtI is a complex and new idea requiring a shift in the way schools have typically done business. The district and schools need to clearly communicate internally and with parents and the community how a child-focused instructional intervention program is being provided as a fundamental component of a Kʹ12 education in the Portland Public Schools. Equally important is that all staff are clear about what RtI is, how it works in Portland and roles and responsibilities for implementation, including a clear message that all students are in Tier 1. To support clear communication about RtI, develop and disseminate a description of the purpose of RtI and its base of research, a district Portland Public Schools glossary of terms related to RtI, and a list of assessments and interventions and their purpose and use. Create videos and other ways to highlight and disseminate excellent examples of tiered instruction and intervention and use these in professional development as well as communication with stakeholders.

5. Consider identifying and implementing a computer-based resource that will organize and manage RtI planning and implementation district-wide to relieve instructional staff of the paperwork burden sometimes associated with RtI so they can focus on delivering instruction and intervention and monitoring student progress. This district-wide program would also smooth transitions and minimize loss in supports when students move between schools and levels.

WƌŽǀŝĚĞƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞƐĂůůƐƚĂĨĨƚŽƚŚĞWŽƌƚůĂŶĚWƵďůŝĐ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ͛Zƚ/ philosophy, structure, and tools so that Response to Intervention and Instruction as a core approach to ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŝƐŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŽĞĂĐŚƚĞĂĐŚĞƌ͛ƐĐůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͘ŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƐĐŚŽŽůůĞĂĚĞƌƐ understand their roles and responsibilities in supporting an effective RtI approach.

ESPECIALLY FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

EL students (and other struggling readers and writers) benefit from and deserve additional time to develop literacy and language proficiency in English. A robust RtI menu includes options that specifically address the needs of ELs, many of which may be the same as those offered to their English only peers

84 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

who are struggling with reading. However, Tier 2 and 3 literacy support options need to be delivered by personnel with a background in literacy and language development to be effective.

In many places, pre-school programs, after-school programs and summer programs are showing great promise in helping ELs close the achievement gap. Given the growing EL population in the Portland schools, it makes sense that summer programs and after-school programs are being provided as funding is available. It will be important to provide, and seek additional funding if needed, to provide literacy rich pre-school programming, expanded after school programming, including middle and high school students, and Kʹ8 summer school programming. These experiences should be seen as enrichment, not remedial, and be full of speaking and presenting, reading, and writing about topics of high interest and relevance to the students. Strategy instruction, technology use, and critical and creative thinking should be embedded into the programs. Whenever possible, these programs should provide opportunities to integrate learning with the resources of the larger Portland community. Alternative education and credit recovery options should also be reviewed with these criteria in mind.

Parent and Community Involvement Parents and the general community need to be aware, and frequently reminded and engaged, that literacy improvement is a priority in the district and how they can and should be involved. The district is updating its website and also trying to promote positive programming through various media outlets. 'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĞŵƵůƚŝƉůĞĐƵůƚƵƌĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƐĞƌǀĞĚďǇWŽƌƚůĂŶĚ͛ƐƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕ŝƚǁŝůůďĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚ the Multicultural Center to develop an outreach and welcoming strategy that invites parents to become ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚĂŶĚĐŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŚĞŵŽŶŚŽǁƚŚĞǇĐĂŶƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞŝƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐƐƵĐĐĞƐƐ͘/ƚǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽ help the business community understand the stake they have in ensuring that students graduate with high levels of literacy from the Portland schools and to capitalize on that through providing paid internships for students as well as providing demonstrations in the schools of how jobs require reading, writing, speaking and presenting, critical thinking and collaboration, and self-directed learning skills.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Consider branding the literacy improvement initiative and using that messaging frequently through multiple communication channels with parents and the community to put literacy improvement front and center. Consider combining the literacy and STEM initiatives into a ͞WƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐĂůůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϭst ĐĞŶƚƵƌǇ͟ŝŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞƚŚĂƚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƚƐůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇĂƐĂ critical component. Communicate multiple ways that parents can be supportive and get involved.

2. ƵŝůĚŽŶƚŚĞWŽƌƚůĂŶĚWƵďůŝĐ^ĐŚŽŽůƐ͛ƐƚƌŽŶŐƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝƉƐǁŝƚŚƉĂƌĞŶƚƐ͕ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕ academic institutions, and businesses to generate resourcesͶtime, materials, expertiseͶthat will enhance specific aƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĂŶĚƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͛ůiteracy improvement initiative. Work with the community and business foundations to secure: - resources for teacher professional development - improvements to technology infrastructure - sponsorship of student projects, internships/externships, productions, and publications.

3. Identify a team of teacher leaders and parents who can help create opportunities for building positive relationships between parents and the school faculty and staff.38 The implementation of student-led conferencing should assist with this. Hold a brainstorming session or create a survey to generate ideas on how parents, businesses, and community members can collaborate to align literacy work with career exploration.

4. Solicit and train volunteers for before- and after-school tutors so more struggling students can gain literacy support and personal advocacy from a community member. Focus tutoring on ͞ŚŽǁ-ƚŽ͟ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĨŽƌůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘WƌŽǀŝĚĞĂůŝƐt of questioning prompts for creative and innovative thinking. Establish feedback loops from both students and tutors to inform improvements. Establish tutoring protocols to guide community members in working with students. Provide informational packets containing the high school literacy strategy handouts and any additional strategy materials used across the middle and high schools to all tutors.

5. Consider offering more school sponsored and district sponsored literacy related events such as (at the elementary level) family literacy nights and community reads, (at the middle school level) community reads and Battle of the Books teams and (at the high school level) poetry jams, debates and presentations on issues of interest to the community.

ESPECIALLY FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

Examine all structures offered through the school district to ensure that they are being used in optimal ways to support the literacy development of family members of EL students. For example, review existing Adult Education and community based programs and consider adding family literacy programming into Kʹ2 classrooms in the Portland schools. The success of family literacy programming as an early elementary model, especially in pre-K and kindergarten classrooms, has proven popular and effective in improving intergenerational literacy, family engagement and involvement, and student engagement and motivation.39 Portland already engages parents from various language groups to assist in the schools. Providing these volunteers and staff members with training can be very helpful in enhancing the support they can provide to students.

Having older students get paid to do translations for the school district and having high school students be able to complete community service through translating for non English speakers at community health organizations, government offices, etc. is an important and authentic way for ELs to serve their community and build literacy and language skills in English.

38 For both traditional and nontraditional ways to engage the parents of ELs, see: Arias, M. B., & Morillo-Campbell, M. (2008). Promoting ELL parental involvement: Challenges in contested times. The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice: East Lansing, MI. Available from http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Arias_ELL.pdf 39 For an example of a combined family literacy adult education model, see: Colorado Family Literacy Consortium and the Center for At-Risk Education. (2005, August). Family Literacy Program Model. Available from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeadult/download/pdf/FamLitProgModel0805.pdf.

86 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

21st Century Teaching and Learning According to the district website, there are five technology learning goals that have been established by the district:

1. Students will use technology to create original works and activities 2. Students will use technology to work collaboratively, including at a distance, to support their learning and to help others learn 3. Students will use digital tools to find, evaluate, and use new information 4. Students will use critical thinking and technical knowledge to discern the usefulness, accuracy, and intent of material they find online 5. Students will practice legal and ethical behavior, and demonstrate ways to keep safe while using the Internet and new media The district should ensure that there is leadership related to Instructional Technology and that the technology learning goals are integrated into the District Literacy Improvement Plan. All of the technology learning goals require specific and targeted literacy skills appropriate and necessary for independent learning and success as a citizen, a worker, and a student in the 21st century. To actualize these goals for all students will require more than the planned teacher professional development and technology upgrades although, of course, these will be essential. The district should align the literacy improvement goals to include attainment of these technology learning goals and to directly link these to the grade level literacy agreements and the Common Core standards. Teachers need to know where, when, and how they are accountable for providing all students with literacy-rich technology-rich instruction. If this becomes another initiative where teachers voluntarily decide if they will participate, students will, once again, have inequitable access to core experiences required to develop high level literacy skills. All capstone projects and student exhibitions should require the use of technology as a powerful communication tool for sharing learning. The district should aim to increase the number of classrooms with LCD or other projection capabilities.

Teachers and administrators may want to look at the Curriculum Maps from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills40 for examples for how to integrate content with 21st century skills to develop proficiency with 21st century literacies. It would be too bad if these were seen as separate initiatives and if literacy were limited to attainment of basic standards instead of a set of outcomes that will truly prepare students to face their future.

ESPECIALLY FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

Technology is a primary tool for engaging students, enhancing student literacy development, and teaching skills needed. Make certain that technology is not reserved for advanced students and somehow not utilized as widely by ELs. Through video, access to easier language about complex content,

40 See: The Partnership for 21st Century Skills ʹ Publications, 21st Century Skills Maps. Available from http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=504&Itemid=185#maps

the ability to review and revise, audio, and many other features of technology, ELs can and should be supported in their literacy and language development.

88 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Conclusions

The data reviewed for this report present an unmistakable message: current Kʹ12 literacy programming is not supporting enough students in the Portland Public Schools to attain and sustain grade level expectations in reading and writing. The schools are not accelerating the progress of enough students who are weak as readers and writers. ELs are not getting the supports they need throughout the curriculum to accelerate the development of their language and literacy skills. Offerings and practicesͶ of instruction, assessment, curriculum, interventions, and programsͶare inconsistent and continue, in many cases, based on tradition or preference, not evidence.

To address this reality we recommend that the district establish and support collaborative leadership structures at each school that are charged with improving literacy achievement and have the following responsibilities:

Prioritize development of literacy-rich culture of academic optimism41 in every building Strengthen the core literacy program through attention to content area instruction and alignment with the Common Core English language arts standards Establish data use expectations and practices ĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĞǆƉĞĐƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ Support implementation of a district approved robust menu of interventions along with protocols for using these supports, to improve the effectiveness of a tiered system of instruction and intervention All of these efforts must specifically integrate and take into account the needs of ELs and other struggling readers and writers, as well as those students currently performing at or above grade level in reading. A focus on writing, academic vocabulary, and the strategic reading of increasingly complex text throughout the district is needed. The use of technology needs to be further maximized to support student development as readers, writers, researchers, collaborators, and presenters.

Portland faces the challenges that come with changing student demographics. If viewed as a resource, instead of a problem, this can provide the district with a leading edge. One concern is that the schools across levels do not seem to have similar schoolwide expectations for creating and sustaining a culture of learning. Although consistent implementation of a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) or Responsive Classroom approach does not seem directly connected to literacy, it appears to be a missing link in many Portland schools. Because so many students are entering the Portland schools with varying previous schooling experience, consistent messaging and implementation across classrooms within a school and across schools is needed to support the teaching and learning of appropriate behaviors in an academic setting.

41 See: Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J. & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425ʹ446. See also: Irvin, J., Meltzer, J., Mickler, M. J., Phillips, M., & Dean, N. (2009). Meeting the challenge of adolescent literacy: Practical ideas for literacy leaders. (pp. 26ʹ35, What can literacy leaders do when low expectations have a negative impact on student motivation and achievement?). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Given its demographics, Portland has a unique opportunity to foster the global and cross cultural understandings that will be required for success in business, government, medicine, and a host of other fields in the future. The district will need to continue to improve its outreach to the community and to clearly communicate and celebrate student and teacher accomplishments as it has begun to do. The district also needs to develop plans to address the issues it recognizes.

It is the opinion of those writing this report that, upon attention to the recommendations herein, and given the capacity of current district and school leadership, the planned upgrades of facilities and infrastructure, and the quality of the teachers in the system, there is no reason that the city of Portland cannot be offering a world class education to its students.

90 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Appendices

Student Assessment Displays ...... 92 Kʹ2 Teacher Survey Results ...... 103 Grades 3ʹ5 Teacher Survey Results ...... 110 Middle School Teacher Survey Results ...... 117 High School Teacher Survey Results ...... 125 Elementary School Capacity Profile Results ...... 133 Middle and High School Capacity Profile Results ...... 138 Elementary School Information Checklist ...... 143 Middle and High School Information Checklist ...... 144

Student Assessment Displays NECAP Reading by Grade Level and School

GRADE 3: Fall 2009 NECAP Reading Performance by Elementary School

Substantially Partially Proficient w/ # Below Prof. Proficient Proficient Distinction Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 School N # % # % # % # % Percent of Students Nathan Clifford 44 8 18% 9 20% 22 50% 5 11% 18% 20% 50% 11% East End 63 25 40% 11 17% 24 38% 3 5% 40% 17% 38% 5% Fred P. Hall 78 2 3% 7 9% 57 73% 12 15% 3%9% 73% 15% Longfellow 60 3 5% 8 13% 32 53% 17 28% 5% 13% 53% 28% Harrison Lyseth 82 3 4% 7 9% 52 63% 20 24% 4%9% 63% 24% Peaks Island 10 0 0% 1 10% 4 40% 5 50% 10% 40% 50% Presumpscot 36 4 11% 6 17% 24 67% 2 6% 11% 17% 67% 6% Howard C. Reiche 44 14 32% 10 23% 15 34% 5 11% 32% 23% 34% 11% Riverton 71 25 35% 22 31% 22 31% 2 3% 35% 31% 31% 3% Total District 488 84 17% 81 17% 252 52% 71 15% 17% 17% 52% 15% State 13,415 9% 19% 60% 13% 9% 19% 60% 13% Note: Due to small student population at Cliff Island, school level results are not shown.

GRADE 4: Fall 2009 NECAP Reading Performance by Elementary School

Substantially Partially Proficient w/ # Below Prof. Proficient Proficient Distinction Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 School N # % # % # % # % Percent of Students Nathan Clifford 40 8 20% 8 20% 13 33% 11 28% 20% 20% 33% 28% East End 60 25 42% 15 25% 17 28% 3 5% 42% 25% 28% 5% Fred P. Hall 74 10 14% 12 16% 37 50% 15 20% 14% 16% 50% 20% Longfellow 54 5 9% 7 13% 18 33% 24 44% 9% 13% 33% 44% Harrison Lyseth 83 6 7% 15 18% 48 58% 14 17% 7% 18% 58% 17% Presumpscot 50 5 10% 10 20% 31 62% 4 8% 10% 20% 62% 8% Howard C. Reiche 48 12 25% 12 25% 22 46% 2 4% 25% 25% 46% Riverton 76 29 38% 19 25% 24 32% 4 5% 38% 25% 32% 5% Total District 485 100 21% 98 20% 210 43% 77 16% 21% 20% 43% 16% State 13,461 12% 21% 52% 15% 12% 21% 52% 15% Note: Due to small student populations at Cliff Island and Peaks Island, school level results are not shown.

92 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

GRADE 5: Fall 2009 NECAP Reading Performance by Elementary School

Substantially Partially Proficient w/ # Below Prof. Proficient Proficient Distinction Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 School N # % # % # % # % Percent of Students Nathan Clifford 51 1 2% 13 25% 20 39% 17 33%2% 25% 39% 33% East End 57 9 16% 18 32% 25 44% 5 9% 16% 32% 44% 9% Fred P. Hall 77 4 5% 11 14% 49 64% 13 17% 5% 14% 64% 17% Longfellow 74 5 7% 10 14% 42 57% 17 23% 7% 14% 57% 23% Harrison Lyseth 69 1 1% 4 6% 39 57% 25 36%1%6% 57% 36% Presumpscot 37 1 3% 8 22% 24 65% 4 11% 22% 65% 11% Howard C. Reiche 45 10 22% 6 13% 19 42% 10 22% 22% 13% 42% 22% Riverton 62 12 19% 14 23% 28 45% 8 13% 19% 23% 45% 13% Total District 472 43 9% 84 18% 246 52% 99 21% 9% 18% 52% 21% State 13,640 7% 20% 57% 15% 7% 20% 57% 15% Note: Due to small student populations at Cliff Island and Peaks Island, school level results are not shown.

GRADE 6: Fall 2009 NECAP Reading Performance by Middle School

Substantially Partially Proficient w/ # Below Prof. Proficient Proficient Distinction Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 School N # % # % # % # % Percent of Students King 169 18 11% 33 20% 85 50% 33 20% 11% 20% 50% 20% Lincoln 150 29 19% 25 17% 85 57% 11 7% 19% 17% 57% 7% Lyman Moore 175 18 10% 40 23% 95 54% 22 13% 10% 23% 54% 13% Total District 494 65 13% 98 20% 265 54% 66 13% 13% 20% 54% 13%

State 13,942 8% 23% 57% 12% 8% 23% 57% 12%

GRADE 7: Fall 2009 NECAP Reading Performance by Middle School

Substantially Partially Proficient w/ # Below Prof. Proficient Proficient Distinction Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 School N # % # % # % # % Percent of Students King 165 14 8% 30 18% 75 45% 46 28% 8% 18% 45% 28% Lincoln 151 23 15% 34 23% 82 54% 12 8% 15% 23% 54% 8% Lyman Moore 181 19 10% 51 28% 100 55% 11 6% 10% 28% 55% 6% Total District 497 56 11% 115 23% 257 52% 69 14% 11% 23% 52% 14% State 14,004 8% 23% 59% 9% 8% 23% 59% 9%

GRADE 8: Fall 2009 NECAP Reading Performance by Middle School

Substantially Partially Proficient w/ # Below Prof. Proficient Proficient Distinction Tested Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 School N # % # % # % # % Percent of Students King 172 10 6% 24 14% 84 49% 54 31% 6% 14% 49% 31% Lincoln 145 25 17% 26 18% 74 51% 20 14% 17% 18% 51% 14% Lyman Moore 177 20 11% 38 21% 88 50% 31 18% 11% 21% 50% 18% Total District 494 55 11% 88 18% 246 50% 105 21% 11% 18% 50% 21% State 14,100 7% 24% 54% 15% 7% 24% 54% 15%

94 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

NECAP Reading by Race/Ethnicity

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 3ʹ5 by Race/Ethnicity

Asian 22% 20% 53% 6% (N=51) Black 46% 23% 30% 1% (N=92) Hispanic Grade 3 Grade 44% 33% 22% (N=18) White 7% 13% 59% 20% (N=327) Asian 24% 20% 40% 16% (N=45) Black 42% 24% 31% 4% (N=108) Hispanic Grade 4 Grade 29% 21% 46% 4% (N=28) White 11% 18% 48% 23% (N=315) Asian 16% 27% 43% 14% (N=44) Black 27% 27% 39% 7% (N=82) Hispanic Grade 5 Grade 12% 20% 48% 20% (N=25) White 4% 14% 57% 25% (N=332)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 6ʹ8 by Race/Ethnicity

Asian 22% 22% 49% 7% (N=55)

Black 31% 28% 35% 6% (N=85)

Hispanic Grade 6 Grade 25% 25% 46% 4% (N=24)

White 6% 17% 59% 17% (N=330)

Asian 14% 18% 55% 14% (N=44)

Black 25% 38% 31% 6% (N=107)

Hispanic Grade 7 Grade 21% 38% 33% 8% (N=24)

White 6% 17% 60% 17% (N=319)

Asian 16% 16% 55% 14% (N=44)

Black 30% 29% 34% 6% (N=102)

Hispanic Grade 8 Grade 21% 33% 46% (N=24)

White 4% 13% 54% 29% (N=324)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

96 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

NECAP Reading by Students with an IEP

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 3ʹ5 by Students with an IEP

Students with an IEP (N=62) 23% 39% 32% 6%

Grade 3 Grade All Other Students͙ 16% 13% 54% 16%

Students with an IEP (N=88) 51% 24% 23% 2%

Grade 4 Grade All Other Students͙ 14% 19% 48% 20%

Students with an IEP (N=85) 25% 32% 36% 7%

Grade 5 Grade All Other Students͙6%14% 56% 24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

2009 Fall NECAP Reading Grades 6ʹ8 by Students with an IEP

Students with an IEP (N=78) 27% 42% 31% All Other Students

Grade 6 Grade 11% 16% 58% 16% (N=417) Students with an IEP (N=69) 29% 45% 26% All Other Students

Grade 7 Grade 8% 20% 56% 16% (N=428) Students with an IEP (N=63) 25% 27% 41% 6% All Other Students

Grade 8 Grade 9% 16% 51% 23% (N=433)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Substantially Below Prof. Proficient Proficient w/ Below Prof. Distinction

MHSA Critical Reading and Writing by LEP Students

2009ʹ10 MHSA, Critical Reading Results by LEP Students

Current LEP Students 86% 11% 3% (N=74)

District All Other Students 19% 27% 39% 14% (N=434)

Current LEP Students 76% 17% 7% (N=213)

State All Other Students 22% 30% 38% 10% (N=13,565)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

2009ʹ10 MHSA, Writing Results by LEP Students

Current LEP Students 66% 28% 5% (N=74)

District All Other Students 18% 29% 42% 11% (N=433)

Current LEP Students 65% 30% 5% (N=212)

State All Other Students 21% 32% 40% 7% (N=13,566)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets Exceeds

98 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

MEAʹReading by School and Grade Level

2008-09 Grades 3ʹϱMEA ELAʹZĞĂĚŝŶŐ Results: Content Standards Percent of Average Points Attained, Portland Public School, ME

Reading Total Points Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 State 61.5 65.8 64.2 District 58.7 65.6 63.8 Nathan Clifford 71.1 78.1 69.6 East End 44.6 55.6 51.9 Fred P. Hall 61.3 70.8 64.0 Longfellow 69.3 68.5 68.8 Harrison Lyseth 61.5 71.0 72.7 Peaks Island 78.0 71.5 70.8 Presumpscot 56.1 64.2 63.5 Howard C. Reiche 59.1 59.4 62.3 Riverton 49.8 57.1 55.8

Literary Text Points Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 State 62.2 67.1 62.5 District 59.7 67.1 62.5 Nathan Clifford 70.6 78.8 67.9 East End 45.9 58.3 49.6 Fred P. Hall 62.5 70.8 62.1 Longfellow 69.1 68.8 68.3 Harrison Lyseth 62.5 73.3 70.8 Peaks Island 77.8 70.8 66.7 Presumpscot 57.2 66.3 64.6 Howard C. Reiche 61.3 61.3 62.1 Riverton 51.6 59.2 52.9

Informational Text Points Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 State 60.0 64.6 65.8 District 56.4 64.2 65.4 Nathan Clifford 72.1 77.5 71.3 East End 40.7 52.5 54.2 Fred P. Hall 58.6 70.4 65.8 Longfellow 70.0 68.3 69.2 Harrison Lyseth 59.3 68.8 74.2 Peaks Island 78.6 72.1 75.0 Presumpscot 53.6 61.7 62.5 Howard C. Reiche 53.6 57.5 62.5 Riverton 45.7 55.0 58.3

2008-09 Grades 6ʹϴMEA ELAʹZĞĂĚŝŶŐ Results: Content Standards Percent of Average Points Attained, Portland Public School, ME

Reading Total Points Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 State 60.4 61.4 63.4 District 57.7 61.3 61.6 King 62.3 68.0 64.5 Lincoln 53.0 54.8 58.8 Lyman Moore 58.2 60.5 62.7

Literary Text Points Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 State 59.5 59.0 61.5 District 56.0 59.0 60.5 King 61.5 66.5 63.5 Lincoln 51.0 53.0 57.5 Lyman Moore 56.5 58.0 62.0

Informational Text Points Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 State 60.8 62.8 64.4 District 58.6 62.5 62.2 King 62.8 68.9 65.0 Lincoln 53.9 56.1 59.4 Lyman Moore 59.2 61.7 63.1

100 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

NWEA RIT Results for Grades 4 and 5 by School

NWEA RIT Resutls for Grades 4 and 5: Fall 2009 to Sping 2010 Grade 4 Grade 5 Fall 2009 Spring Fall 2009 Spring Mean 2010 Student Mean 2010 Student Reading Student Mean Count Reading Student Mean Count School RIT Count Fall Reading Spring RIT Count Fall Reading Spring

Cliff Island NA NA 223.5 2 NA NA 212.0 1

Clifford 197.6 42 204.0 39 211.7 50 217.3 49

EECS 178.8 8 198.7 52 188.4 9 203.3 52

Hall 203.0 6 209.9 75 212.3 3 215.6 77

Longfellow 205.8 54 215.1 52 213.9 73 220.3 71

Lyseth 199.3 40 208.5 85 214.1 68 218.8 70

Peaks Island 209.9 9 214.3 9 216.0 8 218.5 8

Presumpscot 202.7 47 205.8 43 213.4 37 213.8 36

Reiche NA NA 201.0 47 NA NA 208.3 41

Riverton 189.1 67 198.5 72 201.2 55 209.0 57

West 190.5 4 196.0 2 195.8 6 196.0 5 Note: Data were provided by the district.

ACCESS Performance Trends

^^ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞWĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ>ĞǀĞůdƌĞŶĚƐ͕ϮϬϬϳʹϮϬϬϴƚŽϮϬϬϵʹϮϬϭϬ Portland Public School, ME 2009-2010 ACCESS Composite Performance Level by Grade and Time in ELL Program N Entering Beginning Developing Expanding Bridging Reaching KʹGrade 2 421 147 35% 72 17% 132 31% 51 12% 16 4% 3 1% 1 year or less 241 139 58% 41 17% 47 20% 13 5% 1 0% 0 0% 2ʹ3 years 178 7 4% 31 17% 85 48% 37 21% 15 8% 3 2% 4 or more 2 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϯʹϱ 397 23 6% 44 11% 112 28% 105 26% 84 21% 29 7% 1 year or less 156 18 12% 32 21% 49 31% 28 18% 20 13% 9 6% 2ʹ3 years 34 1 3% 6 18% 8 24% 14 41% 4 12% 1 3% 4 or more 207 4 2% 6 3% 55 27% 63 30% 60 29% 19 9% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϲʹϴ 384 24 6% 53 14% 112 29% 98 26% 81 21% 16 4% 1 year or less 113 20 18% 25 22% 25 22% 20 18% 19 17% 4 4% 2ʹ3 years 63 1 2% 16 25% 23 37% 8 13% 12 19% 3 5% 4 or more 208 3 1% 12 6% 64 31% 70 34% 50 24% 9 4% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϵʹϭϮ 403 50 12% 84 21% 84 21% 84 21% 81 20% 20 5% 1 year or less 139 21 15% 42 30% 32 23% 23 17% 19 14% 2 1% 2ʹ3 years 84 17 20% 24 29% 15 18% 12 14% 10 12% 6 7% 4 or more 180 12 7% 18 10% 37 21% 49 27% 52 29% 12 7% Total 1605 244 15% 253 16% 440 27% 338 21% 262 16% 68 4%

2008-2009 ACCESS Composite Performance Level by Grade and Time in ELL Program N Entering Beginning Developing Expanding Bridging Reaching KʹGrade 2 383 116 30% 84 22% 125 33% 33 9% 23 6% 2 1% 1 year or less 246 103 42% 58 24% 76 31% 8 3% 1 0% 0 0% 2ʹ3 years 137 13 9% 26 19% 49 36% 25 18% 22 16% 2 1% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϯʹϱ 366 13 4% 47 13% 128 35% 112 31% 46 13% 20 5% 2ʹ3 years 140 3 2% 21 15% 52 37% 48 34% 10 7% 6 4% 4 or more 226 10 4% 26 12% 76 34% 64 28% 36 16% 14 6% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϲʹϴ 337 24 7% 42 12% 99 29% 101 30% 63 19% 8 2% 4 or more 337 24 7% 42 12% 99 29% 101 30% 63 19% 8 2% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϵʹϭϮ 335 33 10% 79 24% 89 27% 56 17% 65 19% 13 4% 4 or more 335 33 10% 79 24% 89 27% 56 17% 65 19% 13 4% Total 1421 186 13% 252 18% 441 31% 302 21% 197 14% 43 3%

2007-2008 ACCESS Composite Performance Level by Grade and Time in ELL Program N Entering Beginning Developing Expanding Bridging Reaching KʹGrade 2 388 93 24% 89 23% 150 39% 38 10% 13 3% 5 1% 1 year or less 387 93 24% 88 23% 150 39% 38 10% 13 3% 5 1% 2ʹ3 years 1 0% 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0 0% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϯʹϱ 325 14 4% 61 19% 109 34% 106 33% 29 9% 6 2% 1 year or less 217 10 5% 46 21% 58 27% 74 34% 24 11% 5 2% 2ʹ3 years 93 2 2% 14 15% 42 45% 31 33% 4 4% 0 0% 4 or more 15 2 13% 1 7% 9 60% 1 7% 1 7% 1 7% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϲʹϴ 301 23 8% 49 16% 72 24% 76 25% 65 22% 16 5% 1 year or less 166 22 13% 32 19% 30 18% 37 22% 34 20% 11 7% 2ʹ3 years 80 1 1% 9 11% 22 28% 22 28% 21 26% 5 6% 4 or more 55 0% 8 15% 20 36% 17 31% 10 18% 0 0% 'ƌĂĚĞƐϵʹϭϮ 300 41 14% 64 21% 78 26% 67 22% 31 10% 19 6% 1 year or less 176 31 18% 41 23% 42 24% 36 20% 16 9% 10 6% 2ʹ3 years 58 7 12% 17 29% 15 26% 12 21% 3 5% 4 7% 4 or more 66 3 5% 6 9% 21 32% 19 29% 12 18% 5 8% Total 1314 171 13% 263 20% 409 31% 287 22% 138 11% 46 4% Note: Data were provided by the district.

102 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Kʹ2 Teacher Survey Results

K-2 - Elementary School Teacher Survey Results: Reading

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.5 Read and understand grade level appropriate fiction text

3.4 Read and understand grade level appropriate non-fiction text

3.3 Ask questions about what they read

3.4 Fluently read aloud from texts at appropriate reading level

3.9 Correctly identify all letters

3.8 Correctly identify or recognize and produce rhyming words

3.7 Identify beginning, middle and ending sounds in words

3.4 /ĚĞŶƚŝĨǇǁŽƌĚ͞ĐŚƵŶŬƐ͟ŽƌƉĂƌƚƐ

3.8 Correctly associate sounds with letters and letters with different sounds

3.4 Easily segment words into phonemes

3.8 Recognize individual words orally and in print

3.2 Determine the meaning of unknown words using a variety of strategies

3.2 Recognize when they read a word incorrectly because it does not make sense

3.8 Demonstrate engagement with text; can identify a favorite book

3.0 Report that one or more people read with or to them at home

3.2 Use reading strategies to solve unknown words and monitor comprehension

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Daily 3.6 Make text-to-self, text-to-text, and text-to-world connections while reading

3.2 Read various types of print materials (e.g., magazines, emails, chapter books)

3.8 Read independently during class

3.6 Read in pairs or small groups during class

2.8 Complete assigned reading for homework

3.4 Have opportunities to respond to reading in multiple ways

3.2 Preview text to determine purpose

3.4 Actively participate in Guided Reading

2.2 Actively participate in Literacy Circles

3.6 Actively participate in Interactive Read-Alouds

3.8 Actively participate in Independent Reading

3.5 Actively participate in Shared Reading

3.2 Actively participate in Paired Reading dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

K-2 - Elementary School Teacher Survey Results: Reading 3. Instructional Practices You Use

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 3.6 Independent reading

3.5 Guided reading

3.3 Shared reading

2.1 Literature circles

3.5 Explicit phonemic awareness instruction

3.5 Explicit phonics instruction

3.4 Explicit phonics within context or real meaning

3.5 Model and teach strategies such as activating prior knowledge

3.6 Model and teach strategies such as making predictions

3.5 Model and teach strategies such as using questions to clarify and focus reading

3.4 Model and teach strategies such as creating visual and sensory images

3.4 Model and teach strategies such as drawing inferences and conclusions

3.3 Model and teach methods of responding to text, such as coding connections

3.4 Help students learn to locate reading material they can read independently

3.6 Frequently and consistently monitor progress

3.3 Provide instruction on a reading strategy or literacy element in each workshop

3.2 Support responses to reading: oral discussion, drawing images, writing, theater

3.3 Group students in different ways for different activities

3.6 Allow students to choose their books for independent reading

3.9 Create a classroom which conveys the importance of reading dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

104 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

<ʹ2 Elementary School Teacher Survey Results: Writing 1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.6 Write short pieces (one page or less)

2.3 Write longer compositions (more than one page)

2.3 Write a coherent paragraph

3.2 Write about what they have learned

3.7 Write about their own interests

2.8 Use writing to express their thinking as they learn

3.1 Write in response to what they read

3.7 Can reread the invented spelling in their writing

2.5 Produce pieces of writing with dialogue, beginnings, and endings

3.2 Use age appropriate Standard English language correctly when writing

3.7 Use a range of strategies, including sound-letter to spell or approximate spelling

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Daily 3.9 Write

3.7 Write short pieces (one page or less)

2.2 Write longer pieces (more than one page)

2.1 Work collaboratively in pairs or small groups

2.1 Use the writing process: plan, draft, revise, edit, and publish

3.0 Maintain a journal or learning log

2.6 Write for audiences other than teachers

2.2 Edit and respond to other students' written work

3.9 Write using invented spelling

2.4 Write before, during, and after reading

3.5 Write for enjoyment and self-expression

3. Instructional Practices You Use

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 3.5 Writing Workshop

2.7 Teach the features and formats of different genres

2.5 6 Traits Writing

3.2 Conference individually with students about their writing

2.6 Model and explain the writing process: plan, draft, revise, edit, and publish

2.8 Provide opportunities for students to revise and edit their writing

3.2 Conduct planned and ad hoc mini-lessons based on individual and group needs

3.2 Share samples of quality student writing

2.5 Explain how to provide feedback to other students during peer revision 3.4 Provide feedback to improve written work dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

<ʹ2 Elementary School Teacher Survey Results: Vocabulary

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

3.2 Restate new vocabulary in their own words

2.6 Determine the meaning of unfamiliar words using word analysis skills

2.9 Determine the meaning of new words using context clues

2.7 Use semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues to determine meaning words

3.1 Retain and use new words over time

2.7 Use new words in their written work

2.9 Use new words in speaking and presentations

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

3.7 Use vocabulary reference sources to understand new vocabulary

2.4 Maintain a record of new words learned

3.1 Interact with new vocabulary multiple times in a variety of ways

3.0 Use new vocabulary in written work

3. Instructional Practices You Use

Minimal/No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis

3.3 Before reading, explain vocabulary students need to understand what they read

3.1 Model and explain how students can independently learn/use new vocabulary

2.9 Model and explicitly teach use of visual representations to learn new vocabulary

3.1 Model the use of and build interactive word walls

2.9 Explicitly teach the elements of word structure

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

106 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

<ʹ2 Elementary School Teacher Survey Results: Self Directed Learning 1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.5 Work independently

3.4 Put materials away and move to next activity when they complete a task

3.0 DŽŶŝƚŽƌƚŚĞŝƌƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƵƐĞ͞ĨŝǆƵƉ͟ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ

3.5 Follow classroom routines without prompting

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Daily 3.7 Share and discuss their thinking and learning with other children

3.1 Use feedback and reflection to learn about how they learn

3.1 Critique the quality or accuracy of their own work

3. Instructional Practices You Use

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 3.8 Model and teach how to complete activities independently and in pairs

3.6 Model how to set a purpose that focuses reading, writing, learning

2.2 Teach the collaborative development of evaluation rubrics

3.1 Model and explicitly teach how to successfully use learning centers

3.8 Model and explicitly teach classroom routines and protocols

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

<ʹ2 Elementary School Teacher Survey Results: Engagement and Choice 1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.4 Are motivated, independent learners

3.5 Learn well from group work

3.8 Learn well through hands-on projects

2.9 Complete their homework

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Daily 3.9 Complete assignments individually, in pairs, and small groups

3.0 Participate in groups of their own choosing

3.7 Participate in teacher-assigned groups

3.4 Work on hands-on projects

2.3 Complete projects on topics they choose

3. Instructional Practices You Use

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 3.1 Give students choices in learning tasks

3.5 Give students choices in reading materials

3.3 Give students choices in writing assignments

2.8 Explore topics identified by students

2.6 Give students choices about how to demonstrate what they learned

2.6 Use technology/media to generate interest

3.3 Use differentiation strategies to actively engage students

3.5 Use strategies to engage diverse learners and support their success

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

108 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

<ʹ2 Literacy Assessment Practices Assessment Practices You Use % Yes

Assessments from published materials 86% (ex.: reading programs) Concepts about print assessment 77% Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) 14% DIBELS 0% Early Screening Inventory 54% Hearing and recording sounds in words 74% Informal reading checks using teacher-selected 93% samples Informal Reading Inventories 73% Learning logs 26% Letter Identification assessment 83% Literacy Portfolio 66% Marie Clay Observation Inventory 64% Observation checklists and anecdotal records 94% Process interviews (metacognition) 33% Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) 7% Questioning following reading 99% Reading and writing journals 90% Record of text level progress 91% Records of independent reading and writing 72% Retellings 97% Rigby Phonemic Awareness 56% Rigby Running Record 99% Running records 84% Sight word test 97% Student conferences with teacher 97% Student self-evaluations 67% Writing Portfolio 85% Writing rubrics 64%

Grades 3ʹ5 Teacher Survey Results

Grades 3ʹ5 Elementary School Teacher Survey Results: Reading

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.5 Read and understand grade level appropriate fiction text

3.4 Read and understand grade level appropriate non-fiction text

3.4 Ask questions about what they read

3.4 Fluently read aloud from texts at appropriate reading level

3.9 Correctly identify all letters

3.9 Correctly identify or recognize and produce rhyming words

3.8 Identify beginning, middle and ending sounds in words

3.8 /ĚĞŶƚŝĨǇǁŽƌĚ͞ĐŚƵŶŬƐ͟ŽƌƉĂƌƚƐ

3.8 Correctly associate sounds with letters and letters with different sounds

3.7 Easily segment words into phonemes

3.8 Recognize individual words orally and in print

3.6 Determine the meaning of unknown words using a variety of strategies

3.6 Recognize when they read a word incorrectly because it does not make sense

3.9 Demonstrate engagement with text; can identify a favorite book

3.0 Report that one or more people read with or to them at home

3.6 Use reading strategies to solve unknown words and monitor comprehension

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Daily 3.7 Make text-to-self, text-to-text, and text-to-world connections while reading

3.6 Read various types of print materials (e.g., magazines, emails, chapter books)

4.0 Read independently during class

3.4 Read in pairs or small groups during class

3.7 Complete assigned reading for homework

3.7 Have opportunities to respond to reading in multiple ways

3.4 Preview text to determine purpose

3.4 Actively participate in Guided Reading

2.6 Actively participate in Literacy Circles

3.4 Actively participate in Interactive Read-Alouds

4.0 Actively participate in Independent Reading

2.9 Actively participate in Shared Reading

2.7 Actively participate in Paired Reading dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

110 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Grades 3ʹ5 Elementary School Teacher Survey Results: Reading 3. Instructional Practices You Use

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 3.8 Independent reading

3.4 Guided reading

2.7 Shared reading

2.6 Literature circles

2.5 Explicit phonemic awareness instruction

2.4 Explicit phonics instruction

2.6 Explicit phonics within context or real meaning

3.7 Model and teach strategies such as activating prior knowledge

3.7 Model and teach strategies such as making predictions

3.7 Model and teach strategies such as using questions to clarify and focus reading

3.6 Model and teach strategies such as creating visual and sensory images

3.6 Model and teach strategies such as drawing inferences and conclusions

3.5 Model and teach methods of responding to text, such as coding connections

3.5 Help students learn to locate reading material they can read independently

3.4 Frequently and consistently monitor progress

3.4 Provide instruction on a reading strategy or literacy element in each workshop

3.5 Support responses to reading: oral discussion, drawing images, writing, theater

3.4 Group students in different ways for different activities

3.9 Allow students to choose their books for independent reading

3.9 Create a classroom which conveys the importance of reading

'ƌĂĚĞƐϯʹϱůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇ^ĐŚŽŽůdĞĂĐŚĞƌ^ƵƌǀĞǇZĞƐƵůƚƐ͗tƌŝƚŝŶŐ

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.9 Write short pieces (one page or less)

3.2 Write longer compositions (more than one page)

3.5 Write a coherent paragraph

3.7 Write about what they have learned

3.8 Write about their own interests

3.4 Use writing to express their thinking as they learn

3.7 Write in response to what they read

3.8 Can reread the invented spelling in their writing

3.4 Produce pieces of writing with dialogue, beginnings, and endings

3.4 Use age appropriate Standard English language correctly when writing

3.7 Use a range of strategies, including sound-letter to spell or approximate spelling

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Daily 3.9 Write

3.6 Write short pieces (one page or less)

2.6 Write longer pieces (more than one page)

2.3 Work collaboratively in pairs or small groups

3.1 Use the writing process: plan, draft, revise, edit, and publish

2.7 Maintain a journal or learning log

2.5 Write for audiences other than teachers

2.4 Edit and respond to other students' written work

3.3 Write using invented spelling

3.2 Write before, during, and after reading

3.1 Write for enjoyment and self-expression

3. Instructional Practices You Use

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 3.3 Writing Workshop

3.3 Teach the features and formats of different genres

2.9 6 Traits Writing

3.1 Conference individually with students about their writing

3.5 Model and explain the writing process: plan, draft, revise, edit, and publish

3.4 Provide opportunities for students to revise and edit their writing

3.3 Conduct planned and ad hoc mini-lessons based on individual and group needs

3.4 Share samples of quality student writing

3.2 Explain how to provide feedback to other students during peer revision 3.4 Provide feedback to improve written work dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁards the 1 and 4 ratings.

112 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

'ƌĂĚĞƐϯʹϱůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇ^ĐŚŽŽůdĞĂĐŚĞƌ^ƵƌǀĞǇZĞƐƵůƚƐ͗sŽĐĂďƵůĂƌǇ

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

3.4 Restate new vocabulary in their own words

3.2 Determine the meaning of unfamiliar words using word analysis skills

3.5 Determine the meaning of new words using context clues

3.3 Use semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues to determine meaning words

3.2 Retain and use new words over time

3.1 Use new words in their written work

3.0 Use new words in speaking and presentations

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

3.6 Use vocabulary reference sources to understand new vocabulary

2.4 Maintain a record of new words learned

2.8 Interact with new vocabulary multiple times in a variety of ways

2.8 Use new vocabulary in written work

3. Instructional Practices You Use

Minimal/No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis

3.4 Before reading, explain vocabulary students need to understand what they read

3.2 Model and explain how students can independently learn/use new vocabulary

3.0 Model and explicitly teach use of visual representations to learn new vocabulary

2.2 Model the use of and build interactive word walls

2.9 Explicitly teach the elements of word structure

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

'ƌĂĚĞƐϯʹϱůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇ^ĐŚŽŽůdĞĂĐŚĞƌ^ƵƌǀĞǇZĞƐƵůƚƐ͗^ĞůĨŝƌĞĐƚĞĚ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.8 Work independently

3.7 Put materials away and move to next activity when they complete a task

3.5 DŽŶŝƚŽƌƚŚĞŝƌƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƵƐĞ͞ĨŝǆƵƉ͟ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ

3.6 Follow classroom routines without prompting

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Daily 3.8 Share and discuss their thinking and learning with other children

3.4 Use feedback and reflection to learn about how they learn

3.3 Critique the quality or accuracy of their own work

3. Instructional Practices You Use

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 3.7 Model and teach how to complete activities independently and in pairs

3.6 Model how to set a purpose that focuses reading, writing, learning

2.9 Teach the collaborative development of evaluation rubrics

2.0 Model and explicitly teach how to successfully use learning centers

3.7 Model and explicitly teach classroom routines and protocols

114 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

'ƌĂĚĞƐϯʹϱůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌǇ^ĐŚŽŽůdĞĂĐŚĞƌ^ƵƌǀĞǇZĞƐƵůƚƐ͗ŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŚŽŝĐĞ

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.5 Are motivated, independent learners

3.6 Learn well from group work

3.8 Learn well through hands-on projects

3.7 Complete their homework

2. What Students Do in Your Classroom

Rarely/Never < > Daily 3.8 Complete assignments individually, in pairs, and small groups

2.7 Participate in groups of their own choosing

3.5 Participate in teacher-assigned groups

3.0 Work on hands-on projects

2.0 Complete projects on topics they choose

3. Instructional Practices You Use

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.9 Give students choices in learning tasks

3.6 Give students choices in reading materials

3.3 Give students choices in writing assignments

2.5 Explore topics identified by students

2.7 Give students choices about how to demonstrate what they learned

2.7 Use technology/media to generate interest

3.3 Use differentiation strategies to actively engage students

3.4 Use strategies to engage diverse learners and support their success

'ƌĂĚĞƐϯʹϱ>ŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ Assessment Practices You Use % Yes

Assessments from published materials 78% (ex.: reading programs) Concepts about print assessment 26% Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) 24% DIBELS 2% Early Screening Inventory 9% Hearing and recording sounds in words 19% Informal reading checks using teacher-selected 93% samples Informal Reading Inventories 72% Learning logs 54% Letter Identification assessment 5% Literacy Portfolio 68% Marie Clay Observation Inventory 0% Observation checklists and anecdotal records 86% Process interviews (metacognition) 42% Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) 45% Questioning following reading 98% Reading and writing journals 90% Record of text level progress 78% Records of independent reading and writing 97% Retellings 78% Rigby Phonemic Awareness 18% Rigby Running Record 66% Running records 63% Sight word test 43% Student conferences with teacher 98% Student self-evaluations 88% Writing Portfolio 80% Writing rubrics 92%

116 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Middle School Teacher Survey Results

MS Teacher Survey Results: Reading

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.0 Read and understand content related text

3.2 Understand text they read for pleasure

2.8 Summarize main ideas from texts

2.5 Analyze relationships in reading (e.g., cause-effect)

2.4 Draw inferences when reading

2.5 Use skimming and scanning strategies when appropriate

2.8 Use text features (e.g., bold print) to understand what is read

2.1 Synthesize information from multiple texts

1.9 ǀĂůƵĂƚĞƚŚĞĂƵƚŚŽƌ͛ƐĂĐĐƵƌĂĐǇ͕ďŝĂƐ͕ĂŶĚƉŽŝŶƚŽĨǀŝĞǁ

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly 2.0 Read from a textbook

3.3 Read from the Internet

2.9 Read other types of print materials (e.g., magazines, newspapers)

2.4 Read independently during class

2.5 Read in pairs or small groups during class

2.3 Complete assigned reading for homework

2.2 Read multiple texts about the same content topic

2.4 Preview text to determine purpose and stimulate inquiry and interest

2.6 Use reading support strategies that help them understand content

2.4 Select reading strategies on their own to learn content

1.7 Use electronic tools to support reading improvement

3.3 Make connections between what is read and real life

2.2 Make connections between what is read and possible careers

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.2 Teach the different features and styles of text

2.5 Model strategies students can use to understand what they read

2.1 Help students learn how to locate and choose reading material

2.3 Give students differentiated content text based on reading levels

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘00 or higher, indicating wide variance towards the 1 and 4 ratings

MS Teacher Survey Results: Writing

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 2.9 Write about content they have learned

3.2 Write about their own interests

2.9 Use writing to express their thinking as they learn

2.5 Use standard English language correctly when writing

2.3 Write clear and concise summaries

2.4 Support their opinions in writing with logical reasoning or evidence

2.5 Write creatively using their own style (e.g., voice, word choice)

2.3 Write an explanation for solving a problem

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly 2.9 Synthesize their content learning in writing

2.7 Use writing as a means to develop their own ideas about the content

2.9 Write short pieces (one page or less) to communicate learning

1.9 Write longer pieces (more than one page) to communicate learning

2.8 Use class time to work on writing

2.3 Write collaboratively in pairs or small groups

2.4 Use the writing process: plan, draft, revise, and edit

1.9 Write a report on a topic they researched

1.7 Use research conventions for research reports

2.1 Write for reading audiences other than teachers (e.g., peers, blogs)

1.8 Write papers on topics related to careers or real life

2.1 ĚŝƚĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽŽƚŚĞƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ǁƌŝƚƚĞŶǁŽƌŬ

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.1 Teach the features of different kinds of texts

2.5 Explain and model strategies for how to write effectively

2.4 Explain and model the writing process: plan, draft, revise, and edit

2.5 Provide opportunities for students to edit and revise original writing

3.0 Communicate expectations for using rubrics or assessment criteria

2.6 Provide samples of quality student writing

2.2 Explain how to give feedback during peer revision and editing

2.7 Provide feedback about the content and structure dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

118 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

MS Teacher Survey Results: Vocabulary

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

3.0 Restate a vocabulary definition in their own words

2.5 Define new vocabulary using word analysis

2.8 Define new vocabulary using context clues

2.6 Solve vocabulary problems as they read

2.8 Retain and use key content vocabulary over time

2.8 Use content vocabulary in their written work

2.8 Use content vocabulary in speaking and presentations

2.5 Connect specific vocabulary to larger concepts

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

3.2 Use vocabulary references to understand new vocabulary

2.8 Work in pairs or small groups to learn new vocabulary

3.0 Interact with vocabulary multiple times in a variety of ways

3.1 Use content-specific vocabulary when speaking, writing, and presenting

2.8 Practice different strategies for learning new vocabulary

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

Minimal/No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis

3.0 Before reading, identify and explain vocabulary terms or concepts

2.8 Teach and model how to identify key words and concepts

2.8 Teach and model strategies for students to learn vocabulary

2.6 Explain and model how to learn new vocabulary independently

2.9 Teach how to use visual representations to learn new vocabulary

2.5 Teach how to use definitions and to restate the definitions

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞr, indicating wide variance towards the 1 and 4 ratings.

MS Teacher Survey Results: Speaking and Presenting

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

2.9 Give complete answers when responding orally to questions

3.0 Use Standard English language correctly

3.0 Present content learning to a given audience

3.0 Present on a topic of interest to a given audience

2.9 Summarize main ideas

2.7 Support their opinions with evidence from texts and resources

2.5 Engage audience when presenting (e.g., eye contact, use of visuals)

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

2.6 Discuss their reading with other students

2.5 Discuss their learning process with other students

2.3 Make a group presentation to the class

2.3 Make an individual presentation to the class

2.7 Present/demonstrate what they have learned using visual materials

2.5 Present what they have learned using technology (e.g., PowerPoint)

1.8 Present what they have learned to authentic audiences

2.1 Provide constructive feedback for individual or group presentations

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.6 Structure discussions to engage students and support learning

2.3 Teach how to communicate opinions via discussion or debate

2.3 Explicitly teach how to plan and organize a speech or presentation

2.2 Teach how to deliver information in a speech or presentation

2.9 Provide rubrics when assigning presentations

2.1 Model authentic presentations that occur in the work place

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

120 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

MS Teacher Survey Results: Information, Media, and Technology

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

3.1 Read and interpret a variety of images

2.7 Identify sources of information on the purpose for learning

3.1 Use the Internet effectively to locate relevant, useful information

2.4 Evaluate sources based on relevant content and credibility

2.1 Evaluate information in the context of related issues

3.5 Create presentations using technology tools and media

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

2.9 Use web-based tools for accessing information

2.9 Use web-based tools for written communication (e.g., blogs, emails)

2.4 Use technology to identify and solve problems in real-world contexts

2.7 Express ideas through a range of media

2.8 Design and produce visual formats to communicate information

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis

2.2 Explicitly teach and model how to evaluate source credibility

2.2 Teach and model how to access online information strategically

2.1 Teach and model how and when to paraphrase text and cite sources

2.3 Demonstrate software and online tools that develop literacy skills

2.7 Provide visual representations of content concepts or ideas

2.4 Explicitly teach and model how to interpret visual information

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚing wide variance towards the 1 and 4 ratings.

MS Teacher Survey Results: Critical/Inventive Thinking

1. About Your Students Few < > Most

2.7 Analyze relationships of ideas, such as cause-effect

2.5 Recognize implied information and ideas

2.3 Evaluate accuracy, point of view, or bias

2.1 Synthesize information from multiple sources

2.6 Solve problems or make decisions based on evidence

2.7 Carry out inquiry based on an area of interest or curiosity

2.6 Take risks while learning (e.g., willingness to make mistakes)

2.5 Apply what they learn in new situations and across contexts

2.4 Generate thoughtful questions to extend understanding

2.3 Respond thoughtfully to questions requiring analysis

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly 2.8 Build concepts from discrete pieces of information

3.0 ŶĂůǇǌĞƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝƉƐͬƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐƚŽƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞ͞ďŝŐƉŝĐƚƵƌĞ͟

2.7 Identify and evaluate varying perspectives about a single topic

3.5 Engage in experiences that stimulate creative and inventive thinking

2.9 Identify problems/issues and their interrelationships

2.8 Brainstorm for solving problems and select the best option(s)

3.0 Draw conclusions from facts, premises, and/or data

2.3 Pose and debate positions using evidence

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.6 Teach how to draw inferences and reach logical conclusions

2.5 Explicitly teach and model how to distinguish facts from opinion

2.6 Explicitly teach how to compare/contrast multiple resources

2.2 Teach criteria to assess the value and limitations of information

2.3 Guide students to ask questions requiring analysis

2.6 Explicitly teach creative techniques for flexible or innovative thinking dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

122 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

MS Teacher Survey Results: Self Directed Learning

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.1 Link prior knowledge to new information

2.9 Set a purpose for reading/writing/learning

2.7 Set goals and create a plan for learning

2.7 Recognize obstacles in the process of learning

2.4 hƐĞ͞ĨŝǆƵƉ͟ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂƐƚŚĞǇƌĞĂĚ͕ǁƌŝƚĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚŝŶŬ

2.7 Assess the process and products that result from their learning

2.8 Recognize and use their strengths as learners

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

3.2 Share and discuss their thinking and learning with other students

3.0 Use feedback to analyze thinking and learning processes

3.2 Critique the quality or accuracy of their own work

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis

2.9 Teach how to activate prior knowledge that links to new learning

2.6 Model setting a purpose that focuses reading/writing/learning

2.7 Teach strategies for overcoming obstacles to comprehension

3.2 Provide rubrics to guide understanding of learning outcomes

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀariance towards the 1 and 4 ratings.

MS Teacher Survey Results: Engagement, Choice, and Authenticity

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 2.9 Are motivated learners

2.9 Learn well from group work

3.4 Learn well through hands-on projects

2.7 Complete their homework

2.7 Understand what they learn in class prepares them for the future

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly 3.2 Complete assignments in pairs or small groups

2.8 Participate in groups of their own choosing

2.9 Participate in teacher-assigned groups

3.3 Work on hands-on projects

3.1 Work on problems that have real-world applications

2.5 Use technology to interact with other students about content learning

2.5 Do assignments on topics they choose related to the content area

2.4 Discuss and connect content learning to careers or real life

3.3 Use technology to advance content learning

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.6 Give students choices in learning tasks

2.2 Design learning tasks that connect to cultural or social backgrounds

2.1 Give students choices in reading materials

2.1 Give students choices in writing assignments

2.9 Explore content topics identified by students

2.7 Organize tasks around questions and problem-based learning

3.2 Give students choices about demonstrating what they have learned

3.1 Use technology/media to generate interest in content

3.2 Use differentiation strategies to actively engage students

E3.10 2.6 Use specific instructional strategies to engage diverse learners dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

124 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

High School Teacher Survey Results

HS Teacher Survey Results: Reading

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.1 Read and understand content related text

3.3 Understand text they read for pleasure

3.0 Summarize main ideas from texts

2.8 Analyze relationships in reading (e.g., cause-effect)

2.6 Draw inferences when reading

2.6 Use skimming and scanning strategies when appropriate

3.0 Use text features (e.g., bold print) to understand what is read

2.3 Synthesize information from multiple texts

2.3 ǀĂůƵĂƚĞƚŚĞĂƵƚŚŽƌ͛ƐĂĐĐƵƌĂĐǇ͕ďŝĂƐ͕ĂŶĚƉŽŝŶƚŽĨǀŝĞǁ

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly 2.9 Read from a textbook

3.2 Read from the Internet

3.1 Read other types of print materials (e.g., magazines, newspapers)

2.8 Read independently during class

2.6 Read in pairs or small groups during class

3.1 Complete assigned reading for homework

2.5 Read multiple texts about the same content topic

2.8 Preview text to determine purpose and stimulate inquiry and interest

2.8 Use reading support strategies that help them understand content

2.3 Select reading strategies on their own to learn content

1.9 Use electronic tools to support reading improvement

3.2 Make connections between what is read and real life

2.3 Make connections between what is read and possible careers

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.4 Teach the different features and styles of text

2.7 Model strategies students can use to understand what they read

2.3 Help students learn how to locate and choose reading material

2.3 Give students differentiated content text based on reading levels

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌ higher, indicating wide variance towards the 1 and 4 ratings.

HS Teacher Survey Results: Writing

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.2 Write about content they have learned

3.2 Write about their own interests

3.0 Use writing to express their thinking as they learn

2.8 Use standard English language correctly when writing

2.7 Write clear and concise summaries

2.6 Support their opinions in writing with logical reasoning or evidence

2.7 Write creatively using their own style (e.g., voice, word choice)

2.5 Write an explanation for solving a problem

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly 3.1 Synthesize their content learning in writing

2.8 Use writing as a means to develop their own ideas about content

3.0 Write short pieces (one page or less) to communicate learning

2.3 Write longer pieces (more than one page) to communicate learning

2.9 Use class time to work on writing

2.5 Write collaboratively in pairs or small groups

2.5 Use the writing process: plan, draft, revise, and edit

2.1 Write a report on a topic they researched

2.0 Use research conventions for research reports

1.8 Write for reading audiences other than teachers (e.g., peers, blogs)

1.8 Write papers on topics related to careers or real life

2.1 ĚŝƚĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽŽƚŚĞƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ǁƌŝƚƚĞŶǁŽƌŬ

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.2 Teach the features of different kinds of texts

2.6 Explain and model strategies for how to write effectively

2.5 Explain and model the writing process: plan, draft, revise, and edit

2.6 Provide opportunities for students to edit and revise original writing

2.9 Communicate expectations for using rubrics or assessment criteria

2.5 Provide samples of quality student writing

2.1 Explain how to give feedback during peer revision and editing

126 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

HS Teacher Survey Results: Vocabulary

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

3.0 Restate a vocabulary definition in their own words

2.5 Define new vocabulary using word analysis

2.8 Define new vocabulary using context clues

2.6 Solve vocabulary problems as they read

2.8 Retain and use key content vocabulary over time

2.8 Use content vocabulary in their written work

2.7 Use content vocabulary in speaking and presentations

2.7 Connect specific vocabulary to larger concepts

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

3.0 Use vocabulary references to understand new vocabulary

2.6 Work in pairs or small groups to learn new vocabulary

2.9 Interact with vocabulary multiple times in a variety of ways

3.2 Use content-specific vocabulary when speaking, writing, and presenting

2.7 Practice different strategies for learning new vocabulary

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

Minimal/No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis

3.1 Before reading, identify and explain vocabulary terms or concepts

2.7 Teach and model how to identify key words and concepts

2.7 Teach and model strategies for students to learn vocabulary

2.5 Explain and model how to learn new vocabulary independently

2.3 Teach how to use visual representations to learn new vocabulary

2.4 Teach how to use definitions and to restate the definitions

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶdicating wide variance towards the 1 and 4 ratings.

HS Teacher Survey Results: Speaking and Presenting

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

3.1 Give complete answers when responding orally to questions

3.1 Use Standard English language correctly

2.9 Present content learning to a given audience

2.9 Present on a topic of interest to a given audience

2.9 Summarize main ideas

2.8 Support their opinions with evidence from texts and resources

2.6 Engage audience when presenting (e.g., eye contact, use of visuals)

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

2.9 Discuss their reading with other students

2.4 Discuss their learning process with other students

2.3 Make a group presentation to the class

2.2 Make an individual presentation to the class

2.5 Present/demonstrate what they have learned using visual materials

2.2 Present what they have learned using technology (e.g., PowerPoint)

1.5 Present what they have learned to authentic audiences

2.1 Provide constructive feedback for individual or group presentations

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.8 Structure discussions to engage students and support learning

2.6 Teach how to communicate opinions via discussion or debate

2.4 Explicitly teach how to plan and organize a speech or presentation

2.3 Teach how to deliver information in a speech or presentation

2.9 Provide rubrics when assigning presentations

2.2 Model authentic presentations that occur in the work place

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

128 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

HS Teacher Survey Results: Information, Media, and Technology

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

3.2 Read and interpret a variety of images

2.8 Identify sources of information on the purpose for learning

3.2 Use the Internet effectively to locate relevant, useful information

2.6 Evaluate sources based on relevant content and credibility

2.4 Evaluate information in the context of related issues

2.9 Create presentations using technology tools and media

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

3.0 Use web-based tools for accessing information

2.9 Use web-based tools for written communication (e.g., blogs, emails)

2.5 Use technology to identify and solve problems in real-world contexts

2.5 Express ideas through a range of media

2.4 Design and produce visual formats to communicate information

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis

2.2 Explicitly teach and model how to evaluate source credibility

2.3 Teach and model how to access online information strategically

2.3 Teach and model how and when to paraphrase text and cite sources

2.1 Demonstrate software and online tools that develop literacy skills

2.5 Provide visual representations of content concepts or ideas

2.5 Explicitly teach and model how to interpret visual information

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁide variance towards the 1 and 4 ratings.

HS Teacher Survey Results: Critical/Inventive Thinking 1. About Your Students

Few < > Most

2.8 Analyze relationships of ideas, such as cause-effect

2.7 Recognize implied information and ideas

2.6 Evaluate accuracy, point of view, or bias

2.5 Synthesize information from multiple sources

2.7 Solve problems or make decisions based on evidence

2.7 Carry out inquiry based on an area of interest or curiosity

2.6 Take risks while learning (e.g., willingness to make mistakes)

2.5 Apply what they learn in new situations and across contexts

2.6 Generate thoughtful questions to extend understanding

C1.10 2.5 Respond thoughtfully to questions requiring analysis

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly 2.9 Build concepts from discrete pieces of information

3.1 ŶĂůǇǌĞƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝƉƐͬƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐƚŽƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞ͞ďŝŐƉŝĐƚƵƌĞ͟

2.8 Identify and evaluate varying perspectives about a single topic

3.1 Engage in experiences that stimulate creative and inventive thinking

2.9 Identify problems/issues and their interrelationships

2.8 Brainstorm for solving problems and select the best option(s)

3.1 Draw conclusions from facts, premises, and/or data

2.5 Pose and debate positions using evidence

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.8 Teach how to draw inferences and reach logical conclusions

2.6 Explicitly teach and model how to distinguish facts from opinion

2.6 Explicitly teach how to compare/contrast multiple resources

2.4 Teach criteria to assess the value and limitations of information

2.6 Guide students to ask questions requiring analysis

130 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

HS Teacher Survey Results: Self Directed Learning

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 3.1 Link prior knowledge to new information

2.7 Set a purpose for reading/writing/learning

2.6 Set goals and create a plan for learning

2.6 Recognize obstacles in the process of learning

2.4 hƐĞ͞ĨŝǆƵƉ͟ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂƐƚŚĞǇƌĞĂĚ͕ǁƌŝƚĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚŝŶŬ

2.6 Assess the process and products that result from their learning

2.7 Recognize and use their strengths as learners

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly

3.2 Share and discuss their thinking and learning with other students

3.0 Use feedback to analyze thinking and learning processes

2.9 Critique the quality or accuracy of their own work

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis

3.1 Teach how to activate prior knowledge that links to new learning

2.7 Model setting a purpose that focuses reading/writing/learning

2.8 Teach strategies for overcoming obstacles to comprehension

3.0 Provide rubrics to guide understanding of learning outcomes

dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶce towards the 1 and 4 ratings.

HS Teacher Survey Results: Engagement/Choice, and Authenticity

1. About Your Students

Few < > Most 2.7 Are motivated learners

2.8 Learn well from group work

3.1 Learn well through hands-on projects

2.7 Complete their homework

2.7 Understand what they learn in class prepares them for the future

2. What Students Do in Your Classes to Learn Content

Rarely/Never < > Weekly 3.3 Complete assignments in pairs or small groups

3.1 Participate in groups of their own choosing

3.0 Participate in teacher-assigned groups

2.9 Work on hands-on projects

3.0 Work on problems that have real-world applications

2.5 Use technology to interact with other students about content learning

2.6 Do assignments on topics they choose related to the content area

2.4 Discuss and connect content learning to careers or real life

3.1 Use technology to advance content learning

3. Instructional Practices You Use for Teaching in Your Content Area

No Emphasis < > Extensive Emphasis 2.5 Give students choices in learning tasks

2.1 Design learning tasks that connect to cultural or social backgrounds

2.2 Give students choices in reading materials

2.1 Give students choices in writing assignments

2.7 Explore content topics identified by students

2.4 Organize tasks around questions and problem-based learning

2.8 Give students choices about demonstrating what they have learned

2.7 Use technology/media to generate interest in content

2.9 Use differentiation strategies to actively engage students

2.5 Use specific instructional strategies to engage diverse learners dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĚĞǀŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐŝƐϭ͘ϬϬŽƌŚŝŐŚĞƌ͕ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŝŶŐǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞϭĂŶĚϰƌĂƚŝŶŐƐ.

132 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Elementary School Capacity Profile Results

The School Culture ʹ Beliefs and Expectations About Literacy In this school, teachers: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Believe they can positively affect the literacy of 3.9 A1. low-performing children.

Are committed to the belief that all children in this school must become competent readers 3.9 A2. and writers, and they need focused support ͙ Understand that reading, writing, and language development require a daily focus on each of 3.6 A3. these three key areas of literacy. Are committed to the expectation that literacy instruction incorporates independent reading 3.6 A4. ĂŶĚǁƌŝƚŝŶŐ͕ŐƵŝĚĞĚƌĞĂĚŝŶŐ͕ƌĞĂĚĞƌƐ͛ĂŶĚ͙ Are committed to the expectation that children will communicate what they have learned in 3.4 A5. writing. Are committed to sharing the responsibility for helping the diverse learners in the school 3.7 A6. develop essential literacy skills.

Believe it is important to develop strong and 4.0 A7. positive relationships with children.

Believe it is important to develop partnerships ǁŝƚŚƉĂƌĞŶƚƐƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞŝƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛Ɛ 3.5 A8. learning and literacy.

Seek opportunities to work with one another to 3.4 A9. improve literacy.

Are committed to identifying and using research-based practices to support literacy 3.4 A10. and academic achievement. Believe children can and should work productively, independently, in pairs, or in 3.7 A11. small groups while the teacher conducts small ͙

Are committed to identifying and relating to 3.4

A12. ĞĂĐŚĐŚŝůĚ͛ƐŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚƐĂŶĚŚŽŵĞĐŽŶƚĞǆƚ͘

Are committed to making instructional decisions about literacy instruction based on 3.6 A13. observations of children performance and use ͙ Are committed to active participation in the culture of a professional learning community as 3.5 A14. a means of improving instructional practices.

Elementary School Mean

School Policies and Procedures In this school: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

There is a schoolwide policy that has established a major focus on literacy learning in 3.3 B1. the school program.

There is a schoolwide policy that emphasizes shared responsibility and accountability for 3.3 B2. ĞĂĐŚĐŚŝůĚ͛ƐůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƵĐĐĞƐƐ͘

There are specific procedures for identifying, assessing, and assisting children who are at risk 3.5 B3. because of poor literacy skills.

Time is regularly scheduled for teachers and specialists to maintain ongoing contact with 2.8 B4. each other to share information about low-͙

There is an individual responsible for coordinating efforts to improve literacy 3.5 B5. throughout the school.

There are procedures that facilitate home- school communication and working 2.9 B6. relationships with parents of low-performing ͙

In addition to tests, many other types of information are used to make decisions about a 3.8 B7. ĐŚŝůĚ͛ƐƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐ͘

The school coordinates across grade levels to address the needs of children with poor 3.1 B8. reading and writing skills.

dŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůĐĞůĞďƌĂƚĞƐĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐǁŽƌŬ͘ǆŚŝďŝƚƐ of quality work are displayed in classrooms and 3.7 B9. in the halls of the school.

A process exists to analyze assessment results at the school and classroom levels for the 3.1 B10. purpose of instructional improvement.

Data-driven decision making has been integrated into the daily life of the school to 2.9 B11. determine what is and is not working.

Elementary School Mean

134 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Structural Supports for Literacy In this school: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Class sizes enable teachers to provide sufficient 2.5 C1. attention to the needs of each child.

In cases where class sizes might be excessive, efforts are made to alleviate the problem (team 2.8 C2. teaching, use of aides or interns).

There is structured support from reading specialists to help teachers assist struggling 3.1 C3. readers and writers.

Common planning time is scheduled for teachers to work together to share strategies 3.4 C4. that support success.

Time is scheduled for teachers to work with a ƌĞĂĚŝŶŐƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚƚŽĚŝĂŐŶŽƐĞĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐŶĞĞĚƐ 2.8 C5. and identify strategies to improve teaching and learning.

Coaching or mentoring support is available to help teachers implement classroom strategies 3.1 C6. that enhance literacy.

The professional development opportunities provided to teachers focus on helping them 3.1 C7. improve literacy.

dŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐďƵĚŐĞƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ allows teachers to recommend and make 2.1 C8. decisions about resource priorities that will support literacy.

dŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƵŶŝŶƚĞƌƌƵƉƚĞĚ 3.1 C9. instructional time during the literacy block.

Elementary School Mean

Resource Capacity In this school: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Decisions about resource allocation, 3.3 D1. scheduling, and staffing are based on data.

Resource allocations are made to ensure access to all materials and resources for improving 2.7 D2. reading and writing skills. Resource allocations in the school budget support professional development 2.7 D3. ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƚŚĂƚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƚĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͛ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ͙

Teachers have access to a wide range of 2.5 D4. materials to support guided reading.

Teachers have access to a wide variety of texts

D5 2.3 to support learning.

There are sufficient numbers of appropriately certified specialists to help teachers improve 2.7 D6. ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƐŬŝůůƐ͕ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐůŽǁ͙ There are sufficient numbers of support personnel (tutors, aides) to assist school staff in 2.4 D7. improving literacy skills.

Resources for learning are regularly evaluated 2.1 D8. and revised to support improved learning.

The resources and expertise of the community 3.0 D9. are used to enhance the educational program.

Parents are provided with information and resources to help their children learn and ideas 2.9 D10. of how they can best support learning. A library or media/information services center is maintained that provides all children with a 3.0 D11. wide array of materials, technology, and ͙

Support staff have sufficient training to assist 2.9

D12. school staff in improving literacy skills.

Elementary School Mean

136 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Factors that Impact Intervention (RtI) Reading support and Intervention: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Our school needs more guidance in the selection and use of literacy 3.1 E1. supports/interventions for struggling readers. Teachers feel overwhelmed by the number of children in the school who need additional 2.5 E2. support in reading. Most of our teachers are not prepared to provide the in-classroom supports that 3.2 E3. struggling readers need.

Teachers need more training on how to 3.2 E4. monitor progress in reading and writing.

Paraprofessionals need more training in using 2.8 E5. specific reading strategies with children.

Literacy coaches/reading specialists do not have sufficient time to support intensive 2.2 E6. reading intervention for children reading ͙ Teachers do not have sufficient time to collaborate in providing additional reading 2.6 E7. support. Our school needs a process and tools to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of reading 3.3 E8. support and intervention. dŚĞƌĞŝƐůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŝŵĞŝŶƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐĚĂŝůǇ schedule to provide additional reading support 3.2 E9. to children.

We do not have a sufficient range of 3.4 E10. assessments to support progress monitoring.

Elementary School Mean

Middle and High School Capacity Profile Results

The School Culture ʹ Beliefs and Expectations About Literacy In this school, teachers: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Believe they can positively affect the learning of 3.0

A1. low-performing students. 3.5

Are committed to the belief that all students in this 3.7 school must become competent readers and A2. 3.8 writers, and they need focused support to͙ Understand that the reading, writing, and language 2.7 development of adolescents requires schoolwide A3. 3.8 attention across the curriculum. Are committed to the expectation that all students 2.7 will use reading as a primary method of learning in A4. 3.3 the core content areas. Are committed to the expectation that all students 2.3 will communicate what they have learned in A5. 3.0 writing and develop their writing skills in the core ͙ Are committed to sharing the responsibility for 2.3 helping all learners in the school develop essential A6. 3.8 literacy skills.

Believe it is important to develop strong and 3.7

A7. positive relationships with students. 3.8

Believe it is important to develop partnerships 3.3

A8. with parents to support student learning. 3.5

Are committed to working with one another to 3.7

A9. improve student learning. 3.3

Are committed to identifying and using research- 2.3 based practices to support student literacy and

A10. 3.3 high academic achievement.

Middle School Mean High School Mean

138 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

School Policies and Procedures In this school: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

There is a schoolwide policy that has established 3.3 an emphasis on literacy as a major focus of B1. 2.5 learning in the school program. There is a schoolwide policy that emphasizes 2.7 shared responsibility and accountability for B2. 2.8 student learning and student success. There are specific procedures to assess, identify, 3.3 and assist students who are at risk academically B3. 3.0 because of poor reading and writing skills. Time is regularly scheduled for teachers and 2.3 specialists to maintain ongoing contact to share B4. 2.5 and record information about low-performing͙ There is a person responsible for coordinating 2.3 efforts to improve literacy across core content B5. 2.0 areas, programs, and classrooms. There are procedures that facilitate homeʹschool 2.3 communication and working relationships with B6. 3.3 parents of low-performing students.

Multiple sources of information are used to make 3.3

B7. decisions about student progress. 3.0

The needs of students with poor reading and 2.7

B8. writing skills are addressed across grade levels. 3.0

Student work is celebrated. Exhibits of quality 3.0 student work are displayed in classrooms and in B9. 3.0 the halls of the school.

Students have been given a voice in school 2.3

B10. governance. 2.5

A procedure is in place to analyze assessment 2.3 results at the school and classroom levels for the

B11. 1.8 purpose of instructional improvement. Data-driven decision-making has been integrated 2.3 into the daily life of the school to determine what

B12. 2.0 is and is not working.

Middle School Mean High School Mean

Structural Supports for Literacy In this school: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Flexible scheduling is used (block scheduling and 3.0 other flexible uses of time) to support student C1. learning and literacy development. 2.3 Reading classes taught by qualified specialists are scheduled to provide additional support to all 2.7

C2. students reading two or more years below grade 1.8 level. Common planning time is scheduled for teachers 4.0 to work together to share strategies that support C3. student success across content areas. 2.5

Reasonable class sizes and course loads enable 3.3 teachers to provide sufficient attention to the C4. needs of all students. 2.8 In cases where class sizes or course loads are excessive, efforts are made to alleviate the 3.0

C5. problem (team teaching; block scheduling; use of 3.0 paraprofessionals or interns).

Specialists with expertise in reading instruction are 3.0

C6. available to support struggling readers and writers. 1.8

Time is scheduled for teachers to work with a reading specialist to diagnose student needs and 1.7

C7. identify strategies to improve teaching and 1.8 learning in different content areas. Coaching/mentoring support is available to help 2.3 teachers implement classroom strategies that C8. enhance student literacy. 2.3 Flexible student groupings are used for learning in the content areas with an emphasis on 3.0

C9. collaborative group learning rather than whole 3.3 group instruction. The professional development opportunities provided to teachers focus on helping them 3.0

C10. improve student literacy (reading, writing, critical 2.8 thinking, and presentation skills) across the ͙ dŚĞƐĐŚŽŽů͛ƐďƵĚŐĞƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂůůŽǁƐ teachers to recommend and make decisions about 2.7

C11. resource priorities that will support literacy 2.0 development.

Middle School Mean High School Mean

140 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Resource Capacity In this school: 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Multiple sources of data are used to make 3.0 decisions about resource allocation, scheduling, D1. 2.5 and staffing. Funds are allocated to ensure teachers and 2.7 students have materials/resources to improve D2. 1.8 ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƐŬŝůůƐ͘ Funds are allocated to ensure teachers have 2.3 ongoing professional development opportunities D3. 2.5 ƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƚŚĞŝƌĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇƚŽƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͙͛

Resources for learning are regularly evaluated and 2.3

D4. revised to support improved student learning. 2.3

There are certified teachers in the core content 4.0 D5 areas. 3.5

There are specialists to help teachers improve 3.0 ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƐŬŝůůƐ͕ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐůŽǁƐƚƵĚĞŶƚ D6. 2.0 proficiency in reading and writing. There are support personnel (paraprofessionals, 3.0 tutors, aides) to assist school staff in improving D7. 2.8 ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͛ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇƐŬŝůůƐ͘ The resources and expertise of the local 3.0 community are used to enhance the educational D8. 3.0 program.

Parents are provided with information and 2.7

D9. resources to help students learn. 2.8

The library/media center has a wide array of 3.3 current materials, technology, and other

D10. 2.8 informational resources to support student ͙ Students and teachers have access to the 3.0 library/media center before, during, and after

D11. 3.0 school. There is a certified librarian/media specialist on 3.3 staff who takes an active role in supporting

D12. 3.0 teachers and students in teaching and learning. A wide range of technology resources, particularly 4.0 computers, are available to support classroom

D13. 3.3 teaching.

Middle School Mean High School Mean

Intervention for Struggling Readers Reading Support and Intervention:

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

A screening assessment is used to identify and 3.7

E1. support struggling readers. 2.8

Teachers understand the benefits of a tiered 3.0

E2. approach to support struggling readers. 3.3

Content area teachers are provided with current 2.3 literacy assessment data about their students E3. 2.5 identified as struggling readers.

Diagnostic assessments and/or problem solving 2.7 processes are used to match struggling readers to E4. 2.0 appropriate supports and interventions.

Content area teachers receive professional 2.3 development on how to provide additional reading E5. 2.3 support in content area classrooms.

Most content area teachers are providing 2.3 differentiated instruction to support struggling E6. 2.7 readers.

Teachers have participated in professional 2.0 development on how to monitor student progress E7. 2.8 in reading and writing within the content area.

Staff who provide additional literacy interventions 2.7 outside the content area classrooms receive E8. 2.3 ongoing professional development in how to use ͙

Staff who provide additional literacy interventions 2.7 use specific reading strategies and interventions to E9. 2.5 support struggling readers outside content area ͙

There is a structured process and tools to monitor 2.0 the ongoing effectiveness of reading support and E10. 2.3 interventions.

Staff who provide additional literacy interventions 2.3 use a set of appropriate assessments to monitor E11. 2.5 the progress of students.

Middle School Mean High School Mean

142 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools

Elementary School Information Checklist

School Literacy Supports by School and Grade Levels Where They Used Non Title 1 Schools Title 1 Schools The Island Clifford Hall Schools Longfellow Lyseth East End Presumpscot Reiche Riverton 1:1 reading support for Tier 3 1 (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3) (1,2) (1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Audio books (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2) (1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K1,2,3,5) Before and/or after school literacy (K,1,2,3,4,5) (1,2,3,4,5) (3,4,5) tutoring/support Computer lab available for class use (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Computer lab available for (K,1,2,3,4,5) (3,4,5) (3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) individual student use Individual laptops for each student (K,1,2,3,4,5) Library available for class use (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Library available for individual (K,1,2,3,4,5) (3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) student use Literacy block (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Mobile laptop cart for classroom use (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Opportunities for authentic reading, (K,1,2,3,4) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) writing, and thinking Resource room/learning center for (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) reading support Resource room/learning center for (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) writing support Sets of nonfiction text at different (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) reading levels Small group reading support (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4) (K,1,2) (K,1,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Small group ELL support (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Student led conferences (3,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Upper/lower grade buddy reading (K,1,2,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) (K,1,2,3,4,5) Please list any other resources Readers Notebooks Reading Home-School READ 180 available and at which grade levels used by grades 3, 4 and mentors for Coordinated grades 3-5 they are used: 5; Science Notebooks grades 2 - 5: Reading used by grades 3, 4 and volunteers Practice K-5 5; Writers' Notebooks from the and Parent used by grade 5; Book community Literacy Night Room that stores come in and K-3 leveled texts with a read with the borrowing system for students once grades K-5 with charts a week of aligned levels from Fountas & Pinnell, DRA, Rigby, etc.

Middle and High School Information Checklist

School Literacy Supports by School and Grade Levels Where They Used Middle School High School King Licoln Moore Casco Deering Portland Audio books (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) Before and/or after school literacy (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) tutoring/support Computer lab available for class use (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) Computer lab available for (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) individual student use Digital databases for accessing (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) leveled texts (e.g., EBSCO host) Individual laptops for each student (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) Library available for class use (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) Library available for individual (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) student use Mobile laptop cart for classroom use (9,10,11,12)

Opportunities for authentic reading, (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) writing, and thinking Resource room/learning center for (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) reading support Resource room/learning center for (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) writing support Sets of nonfiction text at different (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) reading levels Small group reading support (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11) (9,10) Small group ELL support (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) (9,10,11,12) Student led conferences (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (9,10,11,12) Upper/lower grade buddy reading Please list any other resources Some of our neediest available and at which grade levels ELL students access they are used: Read 180 and a Reading Workshop course.

144 Kʹ12 Literacy Program Review ʹ Portland Public Schools