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 © 2010 Public Consulting Group i 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 © 2010 Public Consulting Group 1 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