View
222
Download
4
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Literacy achievement of the Columbus Hearing Impaired Program
(CHIP) for
The Ohio 8 SummitMay 5, 2005
Presenter: Terri Gampp, M.A.
Resource Educator of Assessment & Development Columbus Public Schools
tgampp@columbus.k12.oh.us
Focused Monitoring
How CHIP is closing the achievement gap in Literacy Instruction
in Columbus Public Schools
Columbus Hearing Impaired ProgramStudents Served
• Early Identification Program = 42=Birth to age 3
• Preschool 1 and 2 = 51=Ages 3, 4, 5
• Grades K-5 = 96• Grades 6-12 = 79
Total children served: = 268
History of CPS Reading Programs1999 to 2005
Unified Reading Program:
L.A.C.E.S.Literacy Across Columbus Elementary Schools
Comprehensive Literacy:Four Blocks
CLP
Comprehensive Literacy:Literacy Collaborative
LC
Success For AllSFA
Direct InstructionDI
Columbus Public Schools Reading Initiative
L.A.C.E.S.Literacy Across Columbus Elementary Schools
2003-04
2004-05
L.A.C.E.S
• Aligned with current Ohio English Language Arts Academic Content Standards
• GLIs at each grade level are fully embedded into every lesson
• Currently utilized at Grades K, 1, 2, 3
in 31 schools (2004-05), (60+ in 2005-06)
• Expanding to grades 4 & 5 in 2005-06
Ohio ELA Content StandardsBased on National Reading Panel Report (2000)
• 5 major Standards of instruction: Reading– Phonemic Awareness, Word Recognition, Fluency
(includes Phonics instruction)– Vocabulary– Reading process: Concept of print, Comprehension,
Self-Monitoring– Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and
Persuasive Text– Reading Applications: Literary Text (includes genres)
• 5 major Standards of instruction: Writing
Components of L.A.C.E.S.
• Literacy Board
• Read Alouds
• Guided Reading
• Enrichment and Re-teaching
• Daily Language and Oral Reading Analysis
Literacy BoardFocus: To provide explicit
instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics.
Components of Literacy Board
Phonemic Awareness
Word Study&
Spelling
LetterFormation
Fluency
Word WallHigh
FrequencyWords
Phonics
Data Collection within CHIP
• Development Reading Assessment data (DRA) has been collected 1999 to present
• Began collecting Dominie Reading Assessment data in 2003-04.– New areas of assessment data:
• Phonemic Awareness• Phonics• Spelling• Writing
DOMINIE (LACES) Reading Benchmark Levels 2004-05 Grades K, 1, 2
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
1 1A 1B 2 2A 2B 3 3A 3B 4 4A 4B 5 5A 5B 6 6A 6B 7 7A 7B 8
Dominie Benchmark Levels
September-04
April-05
Grade Level Equivalent: K Grade Level Equivalent: Grade 1 GL Equivalent: Gd 2
Progress for Reading Levels
First Semester Comparison Phonemic Awareness Skills: Kindergarten 2004-05
DATA September, 2004 January, 2005
Oral TC Total Oral TC Total
Student Demographics (# K students) 6 13 19 6 13 19
Average % accuracy per studentPhonemic Awareness Skills: Segmenting & Deleting 8% 3% 5% 38% 17% 27%
% Improvement 30% 14% 22%
# Students showing improvement: 5 5 10 53%
# Students showing NO improvement: 1 8 9 47%
Range of Individual Student Accuracy:
Highest % accuracy received: 20% 13% 77% 47%
Lowest % accuracy received: 0% 0% 6% 0%
Progress for Phonemic Awarenessusing NO or limited visual accommodations
1 1/2 -Year Longitudinal Study of Nine CHIP Students
using LACES September, 2003 to January, 2005
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
40%increase
33%increase
26%increase
36%increase
Language Arts Skill Area
Ave
rag
e %
Acc
ura
cy P
re a
nd
Po
st Writing
05
03
Spelling
Phonics
Phonemic Awareness
03
05
03
05
05
03
Progress over time for all
Language Arts Areas
Accommodations in assessment
• Train the tasks of segmenting and deleting sounds in phonemic awareness skills
• Post assessment: add visual information to phonics tasks of onsets (beginning sounds) and rimes (word families) to see if it was within the realm of possibility for instruction
• Identify and define weaknesses to make program changes
Findings
• Could train 64% of K/1 students (23 out of 36) to complete segmenting task with minimal amount of accuracy with speech reading and fingerspelling
• Could train 28% of K/1 students (10 out of 36) to complete deletion task with minimal amount of accuracy with speech reading and fingerspelling
• When visual hand/sound cues (Visual Phonics) were added to phonics instruction, task accuracy increased substantially
Accommodations in instruction:We use data to identify gaps…and to
• Make changes in front line instruction for all students collectively
• Determine need for-- and targeting groups for-- extended after school tutoring in reading (grades 3 and 4)
• Address specific areas of weaknesses of individual students
• Address needs for staff professional development and training
Significant overall determination from data:
Need for visual information to be added
to front line instruction for PA and Phonics
Implement closing the gap
• Sought experts in Visual Phonics for partnerships in training:– Arranged for outreach courses for staff
development from The Ohio State University– Formed partnership for cooperative research
project at two levels of instruction with Visual Phonics = Kindergarten and Middle School
• Began process of adding Visual Phonics as accommodation to PA and Phonics instructional tool on daily basis
Other example implementations:• READ assists classroom teachers in designing
daily written work to match format of high stakes testing in content and in format– Types of questions– Design of graphic organizers– Format of questions
• Formed committees of teachers at PreK level to determine/implement instructional strategies for preparing preschoolers for test formats
• Implemented Morning Message in PreK classrooms to model writing/reading on daily basis
Teachers willing to work cooperatively with each other. Teachers closely observing literacy
behaviors and tracking progress.
Teachers willing to serve on committees and attend training.
Parents willing to lend a hand.
Closing the gap depends on…
Focused Monitoring
How CHIP is closing the achievement gap in Literacy Instruction
in Columbus Public Schools
Recommended