debtolliver Web viewAt the beginning of the 2008/2009 school year, Sayles School in Sprague, Connecticut adopted the McGraw-Hill/SRA Imagine It! reading curriculum for grades K-4

Running Head: ANALYSIS OF SRA IMAGINE IT! CURRICULUM AT SAYLES SCHOOL, SPRAGUE, CT1

Analysis of SRA Imagine It! Curriculum at Sayles School, Sprague, CT

Debora L. Tolliver

Eastern Connecticut State University

ANALYSIS OF SRA IMAGINE IT! CURRICULUM AT SAYLES SCHOOL, SPRAGUE, CT 2

At the beginning of the 2008/2009 school year, Sayles School in Sprague, Connecticut adopted the

McGraw-Hill/SRA Imagine It! reading curriculum for grades K-4. The school had previously been using a 2001

edition of Houghton Mifflin’s reading curriculum; and, according to Wierzbinski, the administration “felt it was too

scattered in the way it introduced skills and the quality of literature for students to read was mediocre” (personal

communication, 03/08/11). The school tries to maintain a five year cycle for formally reviewing their

reading/language arts curriculum and it was time. After seeing Imagine It! at a Core Knowledge conference, the

Sayles administration decided to research the program. They found that they really liked it and thought it would be

a great program to implement in their classrooms. They presented their findings to the school board in February

2008 and the board voted for the curriculum to be implemented in September of that same year.

In September 2009, Dr. Edmund Senesac, former Superintendent of Sayles, along with Assistant

Superintendent, Dr. Judy Benson-Clarke, and Principal, Mrs. Jean Wierzbinski, posted a letter on the Sayles school

website announcing the success of their students as reported by the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). In the

previous year one sub-group, the economically disadvantaged, did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP).

However, in 2009 the “incoming 8th graders had the highest reading scores in the State of Connecticut” and

“achieved 100% at or above the state goal. Of the twenty No Child Left Behind (NCLB) proficiency standards

tested (reading, writing, math and science), the third through eighth graders achieved proficiency or higher on

thirteen of those standards” (Sayles School, 2009a). Furthermore, Sayles “students moved from ninth place in their

district reference group (DRG) in 2008 to third in 2009” (Sayles School, 2009a). After only one school year of

using SRA Imagine It!, Sayles was seeing good results. However, CMT scores for one school year alone are not

enough for Sayles to evaluate their reading/language arts curriculum.

”As a one school district, Sayles does not have a district improvement planning committee” to develop,

make recommendations or evaluate curriculum (J. Wierzbinski, personal communication, 04/29/11). They do have

a strategic plan call the Plan for Continuous Improvement in Student Achievement that was last revised in December

2009. The “plan was conceived in order to improve the academic performance of each and every student enrolled at

Sayles School, and then to guide an instructional program that would sustain that performance. An indicator of

success will be individual student growth relative to the goal standards set forth by the CMT” (Sayles School,

2009b). There are “four components” that “serve as the foundation for the action part of the strategic plan: 1)

analyzing test data and revising the instructional program; 2) aligning the curriculum and being consistent in the


instructional program; 3) involving the total school; and 4) project time frames for covering curriculum material and

reporting student progress periodically” (Sayles School, 2009b).

Sayles believes that “tests are fundamental components in the education process” because they “point out

strengths and weaknesses of the school’s educational program and student abilities” (Sayles School, 2009b). The

data that the school receives from the CMT results “confirms their curriculum and forces them to think about their

methods of instruction” (Sayles School, 2009b). The data “forces them to be responsible for teaching their students

the information, skills and thinking processes that are deemed to be essential” (Sayles School, 2009b).

At Sayles, “learning spirals throughout the Pre-K through eighth grade curriculum” (Sayles School, 2009b).

Because “each grade level builds on the work of the previous year’s instruction, an effort to encourage an interactive

relationship between grade levels” is made in the development and alignment of the curriculum (Sayles School,

2009b). Not only is the curriculum primarily aligned by the goals and format of the CMT, so is the staff

professional training activities, better known as professional development.

Sayles does not have a curriculum coordinator; instead, every staff member serves on the school curriculum

committee in an effort to involve the entire school. “Each department and grade level team within the school

program is involved in strengthening student’s ability to meet or exceed goal standards. The superintendent does

not play an active role in curriculum development; however, they are kept aware of that the staff is doing with

curriculum. This might change after July 1, 2011 when Sayles no longer has an interim superintendent and the new

superintendent starts. “The principal is responsible for monitoring curriculum advances generally, nationally and in

the state. The teachers responsibility is to review proposed curriculum, determine whether they find it acceptable,

flush it out in terms of specific activities and materials, and implement it” with differentiation where necessary (J.

Wierzbinski, personal communication, 04/29/11).

It is crucial that the Sayles staff “share the common vision that all students can and will learn at higher

levels and demonstrate academic growth on the CMT” (Sayles School, 2009b). According to the strategic plan, all

staff must

participate in the assessment of individual students and/or the analysis of the overall results of the school’s

CMT data; engage in dialogue and conference with students, colleagues and parents in an effort to create an

understanding of the assessment process and its importance in educating the students; develop and improve


the testing skill of Sayles students; and participate in professional staff development activities in order to

implement appropriate strategies to improve CMT performance. (Sayles School, 2009b)

Their responsibilities are outlined further and every staff member is responsible to

develop common assessment based on specific CMT skills that allow for flexible grouping; be well versed

with the CMT fourth generation mathematics handbook, language arts handbook and the Sprague public

schools language arts, mathematics curriculum and science curriculum; structure teaching to model the

CMT goals and format; and keep accurate records of student progress reports, individually and as a class.

(Sayles School, 2009b).

To support the staff at Sayles to carry out their responsibilities, meetings are held on a regular basis. Once

a week teacher meet by grade level to “discuss individual students or to work out solutions to problems that relate

directly to the instruction program or curriculum” (Sayles School, 2009b). Grade level team meetings are held once

a month with the administration to discuss student progress, any changes in the instructional program, and SMART

(Strategic and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Result-oriented, Timebound) goals.

According to Wierzbinski, they do have “school wide goals that they set every year” but the teachers also

“develop SMART goals based on the DuFour model for implementation in their classroom; so, there is a connection

between the district goals and the teachers’ goals” (personal communication, 04/29/11). To establish

reading/language arts goals for their students, the staff at Sayles examines all the data they have regarding student

progress in that area. That includes not only CMT scores “but, it also includes Developmental Reading Assessment

(DRA) (given in the fall, winter and spring for grades K-2 and in fall and spring for grade 4), AIMSweb testing

(given in early September, mid-January, and mid-May), Blue Ribbon reading assessments (taken in early October,

end of January, and the same week in May as AIMSweb), the lesson assessments from SRA, as well as assessments

from other classroom curricula that teachers use” (J. Wierzbinski, personal communication, 04/29/11).

To determine if their goals are being met, Sayles has “adopted the criteria of proficiency or above on the

CMT. The criteria used are those defined by the state and AYP. They have also adopted some criteria for DRA that

exceed the state criteria” (J. Wierzbinski, personal communication, 04/29/11). Class time at Sayles is really affected

to assist students in meeting proficient AYP goals. The school “spends class time teaching those goals;” however,

they “do still have science, social studies, art, music, PE, Italian, library, and recess for the students in grades six and

under” (J. Wierzbinski, personal communication, 04/29/11).


Because the strategic improvement plan calls for total school involvement, the weaknesses in student

performance in the student body as a whole is evaluated by the administration and the teachers. At the beginning of

the school year they look at CMT results. Three times a year they administer benchmark assessments, AIMSweb,

Blue Ribbon, and DRA. The administration examines the scores of the student body as a whole while the teachers

examine how their particular grade level is progressing. They “review the benchmark assessments in terms of data

teams at the October, February, and June monthly grade level team meetings” and they “look at progress monitoring

data at regular monthly meetings” (J. Wierzbinski, personal communication, 04/29/11). If students are not

progressing as the school would like, they troubleshoot to determine what the issue might be.

Sayles School has a variety of program that they use to “respond to student weakness but teachers certainly

can use their own materials in addition” (J. Wierzbinski, personal communication, 04/29/11). The administration

does try to find additional resources for their teachers. Some programs that they are currently using are Read

Naturally (designed to improve fluency), Kaleidoscope (SRA intervention program designed to help students read

with fluency and understanding), Corrective reading (SRA intensive, sustained direct instruction to address

deficiencies in decoding and comprehension), and My Access (provides practice for improving writing) for seventh

and eighth graders. The administration has also had Nancy Boyles, professor and the graduate reading program

coordinator at Southern Connecticut State University, come and speak to teacher about improving student

performance on various assessments. Although professional development is also provided within the program, the

staff at Sayles “spends a lot of their professional development time looking at assessment results and how their

students are doing and working together as teams to try to improve student performance” (J. Wierzbinski, personal

communication, 04/29/11).

The Sprague school district uses the scientific research-based intervention (SRBI) and a three tier response

to intervention (RTI) model. All students begin in tier I and are universally screened with DRA, AIMSweb and

Blue Ribbon. The goal for this tier is for eighty percent of the students to be at or above grade level. The students

that meet the goal stay in tier I and receive a solid core reading program that includes SRA Imagine It!, Core

Knowledge Sequence and Nancy Boyles Reading/Writing. Those students that do not meet the goal move to tier II

(SRBI) and receive forty five minute reading intervention four times a week for a minimum of six to eight weeks.

For this tier, students’ progress is monitored weekly with AIMSweb Probe, SRA Imagine It! lesson assessments,

universal screening benchmarks, and classroom performance/teacher repots. The intervention programs offered to


these students include Early Reading Tutor for grades K-2, Corrective Reading for grades 3-8, SRA Intervention

Materials for grades K-4, Read Naturally, and LEXIA. For some students, tier II is not enough and they need an

intensive research based reading intervention program. Tier III student progress is monitored the same as tier II and

they use the same intervention programs; however, instead of using the SRA Intervention Materials, they use

Kaleidoscope in grades 3-8. The goal for both tier II and tier III is for student to progress toward target goals. The

minimum stay for both of these tiers is ten to eleven weeks.

Students considered gifted and talented receive enrichment but only some of the teachers are using

materials from Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development at the University of Connecticut.

Wierzbinski said that “this is an area that they have focused on a lot this year and they are hoping to improve it”

(personal communication, 04/29/11). They “have been doing professional development around the revised Blooms

taxonomy and are trying to look at student work and whether or not that work reflects some of those higher order

skills” (J. Wierzbinski, personal communication, 04/29/11).

The 2010/2011 school year is the third year that Sayles has been using the SRA Imagine It! program and

the CMT results for reading have shown student improvement thus far. There are several ways to look at CMT

results; however, one way that Sayles measures change across grades is with the vertical scale scores. Because the

student population at Sayles does not change often, the cohort of students stays relatively the same.

Since 2008 was the year that Sayles started using SRA Imagine It!, looking at the scores prior to that year

would be irrelevant. In 2008 the average score of students in third grade (cohort A) was 423 for the state and 409

(low end of proficient) for Sayles students. Scores below 425 place the students in stage I for their level of

understanding. In stage I “students demonstrate a very limited ability to read and respond to informational and

literary texts and require significant assistance to complete most reading tasks. Students at this level are not able to

use strategies to understand and interpret text” (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2009). In 2009 the state

average was 458 and, as fourth graders, Sayles students scored an average of 446 (mid-level goal) placing them in

stage II for their level of understanding. In this stage students “are likely to demonstrate a limited ability to read and

respond to informational and literary texts, and require assistance to complete many reading tasks…and use some

strategies inconsistently before, during and after reading to understand and interpret text” (Connecticut State

Department of Education, 2009). As fifth graders, they scored an average of 472 (high end of goal) on the 2010

CMT while the state average was 480. The score of 472 bumped them up to stage III. In this stage “students


demonstrate an adequate ability to read and respond to information and literary texts with some assistance…and use

strategies effectively before, during and after reading to understand, interpret and evaluate text” (Connecticut State

Department of Education, 2009). This class of students was below the state average all three years but they did

show steady improvement over the three year span. Since SRA Imagine It! is not taught in fifth grade at Sayles, the

2010 CMT scores should not be used to make curriculum decisions for Imagine It!.

There is one other class (cohort B) that the CMT scores would be relevant for looking at to make decisions

about the SRA curriculum. The 2009 third grade class scored an average of 431 on the CMT which was four points

above the state average. On the 2010 CMT, as fourth graders, the Sayles students scored an average of 456 which

was also the state average. In both years the students scored in the goal range on the CMT. Because the CMT is not

taken until third grade and Sayles does not use SRA Imagine It! beyond fourth grade, there is not enough CMT data

for those results to stand alone in making curriculum decisions about the SRA program.

Like many students across the state of Connecticut, Wierzbinski thinks that Sayles students have not

performed strongly in the area of making connections. However, the content strand results for reading on the CMT

indicate that the students in both cohort A and cohort B may not be performing strongly in other areas as well (see

Table 1 and Table 2).

Table 1. Cohort A - three years: Percent of students achieving mastery by content strand

Reading Comprehension Strand

2008-3rd

State of Connecticut

2008-3rd

Sayles School

2009-4th


2009-4th

Sayles School

2010-5th


2010-5th

Sayles School

Forming a general understanding 66.0 51.5 84.3 83.3 91.7 97.3

Developing interpretation 78.5 78.8 70.9 69.4 83.4 86.5

Making reader/text connections 55.1 57.6 58.8 55.6 79.0 70.3

Examining the content and structure 61.1 54.5 68.3 58.3 88.7 91.9

(eMetric, 2010a, 2010e, & 2010i)

Table 2. Cohort B - 2 years: Percent of students achieving mastery by content strand

Reading Comprehension Strand 2009-3rd

State of Connecticut2009-3rd

Sayles School2010-4th

State of Connecticut2010-4th

Sayles SchoolForming a general understanding 69.1 86.2 83.6 88.5

Developing interpretation 80.4 89.7 70.7 80.8Making reader/text connections 57.4 51.7 43.2 34.6

Examining the content and structure 62.2 48.3 64.6 50.0

(eMetric, 2010b & 2010f)


In 2008, the first year using Imagine It! cohort A (see Table 1) was above state average in developing

interpretations and making connections. However, they were below the state average in forming an understanding

and examining the content and structure. By 2009 the same group of students was below the state average in all four

strands. The one area that they were significantly below average was in examining the content and structure. But,

the following year, 2010, they were above state average in three out of the four strands. The 2010 CMT confirms

what Wierzbinski believes is a weak point for her students. However, there has not been much consistency with this

particular group of students; and, after fourth grade they were no longer using the SRA program. If these scores

were to be used to find areas in the SRA program that students may be struggling with, the scores from the 2008 and

2009 CMTs would be more relevant. Because 2008 was the first year of the program, many teachers were behind in

the program and therefore, the 2008 scores may not be the best to use either. That leaves the scores from 2009 and

they indicate that students did not perform well in examining the content and structure. The CMT results for cohort

B (see Table 2) confirms that Sayles students do not perform strongly in making reader/text connections and

examining the content and structure on the reading CMT.

According to the State of Connecticut Department of Education’s (CSDE) reading comprehension

handbook for the CMT (n.d.b), the making reader/text connections strand assesses students on their ability to

“connect or associate the text with one’s own life” (p. 10). They are assessed in two ways: 1) “by making

connections between the text and outside experiences and knowledge” and 2) by “selecting, synthesizing and/or

using relevant information within the text to write a personal response to the text (synthesize is not tested in grade

3)” (p. 10). The examining content and structure strand assesses students on their ability to

elaborate on the text and make judgments about the text’s quality and themes by: 1) analyzing and

evaluating the author’s craft, including the use of literary devices and textual elements; 2) selecting,

synthesizing and/or using relevant information within the text(s) to extend or evaluate the text(s)

(synthesize is not tested at Grade 3); and 3) demonstrating an awareness of an author’s or character’s

customs and beliefs included in the text (customs are not tested at Grade 3). (State of Connecticut

Department of Education, n.d.b, p. 11)

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts and the CSDE English language arts

curriculum framework show that students as early as kindergarten begin preparing for the two strands of the CMT

that Sayles students have not performed strongly in. In kindergarten students begin making connections. In first


grade, they continue to make connections but they also “identify words and phrases in stories or poems that suggest

feelings or appeal to the senses” and they also “identify the reasons an author give to support points in a text” (CCSS

initiative, 2010, p. 11 & 13). In the second grade, almost every standard in the reading for literature (RL) of the

CCSS prepares students for the making connections and examining the content and structure strands of the CMT.

By the time students get to fifth grade, the two CMT strands have slowly dwindled out of the CCSS. It should be

noted that the SRA Imagine It! program is aligned with the CCSS and there are no gaps in the alignment. So the

question remains, why are students at Sayles not performing strongly in these two areas?

“Studies indicate that when students get off to a poor start in reading, they rarely catch up; and, as they

progress through the grade levels, the academic distance from those who read well grows more pronounced” (Kelly

& Campbell, n.d.). In their article Helping Struggling Readers, Kelly and Campbell (n.d.) give four common causes

for underachievement in reading: 1) reading role models and life experiences, 2) the acquisition of reading skills,

specifically phonics and comprehension, 3) visual processing, and 4) learning disabilities. The first cause listed by

Kelly and Campbell makes the most sense for why Sayles students are not performing strongly on two of the four

strands on the CMT. “Effective role models for children are those who can explain the purposes for reading and can

model fluency, expression, and inflection with Standard English” (Kelly & Campbell, n.d.). Classrooms should be

“saturated with language” to” increase the amount of language children hear and use” (Kelly & Campbell, n.d.).

Teachers can do this by “playing books on tape, conducting read alouds, and using a variety of oral activities” (Kelly

& Campbell, n.d.). Educators need to encourage support at home because “homes that are “print-rich” familiarize

children with language and reinforce the importance of it” (Kelly & Campbell, n.d.).

Classwork often assumes that students have background experiences; but, this is not always the case and

without meaningful experiences, students struggle to make real life connections. For example, “if a child is reading

a story about making cookies, but has only experienced store-bought varieties, they might not understand the

excitement of a character who enjoys the smell of baking cookies” (Kelly & Campbell, n.d.). Teachers can “build

commonly shared background knowledge through real-world experiences, simulations, visuals, or storytelling”

(Kelly & Campbell, n.d.)

The second reason listed by Kelly and Campbell (n.d.), lack of reading skills (specifically phonics and

comprehension), could also be contributing to the achievement of Sayles students. However, SRA Imagine It! is

systematic phonics instruction and according to a report in 1999 by the National Reading Panel (NRP), this type of


instruction significantly benefits students. If lack of phonics skills was a contributing factor, after a couple of years

of using Imagine It! students should be performing better. Comprehension on the other hand may be holding some

students back at Sayles School. According to Kelly & Campbell (n.d.), “some readers often struggle in this area due

to lack of familiarity with the content.” Teachers should provide real-life experiences for their students to build

shared background knowledge. Other things that limit comprehension are ”lack of fluency, inability to transfer

information to new settings, finding the main idea in a story and using context clues while reading” (Kelly &

Campbell, n.d.). To help students in these areas, teachers should

help students develop sight word vocabulary to allow them to construct meaning from their reading; engage

students in listening activities that model fluency, inflection, and correct expression; ask students higher

level questions that relate to the stories that students hear so that they can slowly apply the questions to

their independent reading; teach students word families so that students can use knowledge of a known

word to decode an unfamiliar word with the same letter pattern; model self-questioning during listening

activities to focus students’ attention on the main idea of the text; ask students about a selection before,

during and after reading; use context clues by asking questions like “does that make sense?”; and teach

students skills for monitoring for meaning. (Kelly & Campbell, n.d.)

Douglas Fisher, professor of language and literacy education in the Department of Teacher Education at

Sand Diego State University and the codirector for the Center for the Advancement of Reading at the California

State University Chancellor’s Office, believes that that students’ may struggle with reading and writing across

content areas because of “their lack of exposure to informational texts in elementary school” (Fisher, n.d.). He

believes that “exposing students to informational texts earlier gives them the opportunity to master reading skills and

comprehension strategies at a much earlier age” (Fisher, n.d.). He also states that “a key part of helping students

read for information is to teach them the structures (descriptions, compare/contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution,

and sequence) and features (tables of contents; maps, charts, and graphs; headings and subheadings; and glossaries

and indexes) commonly found in informational texts but rare in narrative texts” (Fisher, n.d.). For students to

succeed in reading for information, teachers need to help students’ master vocabulary. “When students learn

vocabulary and foster word knowledge, they gain much more from informational texts” (Fisher, n.d.). Teaching

comprehension strategies (questioning, summarizing, inference, connections, predicting, and visualizing) is essential


and “students must learn to actively employ a variety of comprehension strategies when they read for information”

(Fisher, n.d.).

If the students at Sayles School are to increase their performance on the CMT, the recommendations of

Fisher, and Kelly and Campbell are strongly recommended (see appendix). In order for students to be successful,

the school community must work together as a whole for what is in the best interest of the students and community.

Without collaboration between all parties, success is far reaching. The responsibility of improving test results rests

with the total school: staff, parents, and children” (Sayles School, 2009b).


References

Biemiller, A. (n.d.). Vocabulary: The missing link between reading and literacy. Retrieved from http://www.imagineitreading.com/NA/documents/Docs/ImgnIt_Vocab_WP_v4.pdf

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Connecticut Parent Information and Resource Center (PIRC). (2008). A family guide: Connecticut framework for RTI. Retrieved from http://ctpirc.org/docs/family-rti.pdf

Connecticut State Board of Education. (2004). Position statement on language arts. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/LIB/sde/pdf/board/language_arts.pdf

Connecticut State Board of Education. (2008). Position statement on English language arts Education. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/LIB/sde/pdf/board/EnglishLangArts.pdf

Connecticut State Board of Education. (2010). CMT Connecticut master test fourth generation: Interpretive guide.Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/curriculum/cali/2010cmtinterpretiveguidefinal.pdf

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2006). 2006 Connecticut English language arts curriculum framework: A guide for the development of prekindergarten – grade 12 literacy. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&q=320866

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2009). Connecticut mastery test vertical scales: Interpretive guide. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/UI/Guides/VSInterpretativeGuide.pdf

Connecticut State Department of Education. (n.d.a). Grades PK-8 comprehension pacing guide (2008)-doc. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&q=320866

Connecticut State Department of Education. (n.d.b). Part II: CMT 4 language arts: Reading comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/curriculum/language_arts/languageartshandbook-part2.pdf

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

eMetric. (2010). Average vertical scale score: Reading. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx

eMetric. (2010a). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2008 Connecticut Mastery Test-Grade 3 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=C42DE71E8155EC270EA6FAE7B9535E8

eMetric. (2010b). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2009 Connecticut Mastery Test-Grade 3 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=245EA01CE103952D0F83D22A356725

eMetric. (2010c). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2010 Connecticut Mastery Test-Grade 3 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=1E94211F15F69B7A654EA97EF2E8BC7

eMetric. (2010d). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2008 Connecticut Mastery Test-Grade 4 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/


cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=5B90A3D01FE14C879BC15F2E464092eMetric. (2010e). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2009 Connecticut Mastery Test-

Grade 4 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=701E89DF5D6686F0AB665431C33583C4

eMetric. (2010f). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2010 Connecticut Mastery Test-Grade 4 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=169FE12AA2A7BD4638DE491894DDE88

eMetric. (2010g). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2008 Connecticut Mastery Test-Grade 5 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=5389CAA99316C6EA97221CDE774859

eMetric. (2010h). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2009 Connecticut Mastery Test-Grade 5 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=5BD58C7E7E3FF6C6578D31B0967CDFC2

eMetric. (2010i). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2010 Connecticut Mastery Test-Grade 5 results by content strand-reading and writing. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=27B5408CEFC76B554C3C53F27765DE4

eMetric. (2010j). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2008 CMT-grade 3 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=8749A16EBAF22A2FF473539841666C88

eMetric. (2010k). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2009 CMT-grade 3 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=507C0EA146FB951D32AA7D25FD66A5

eMetric. (2010l). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2010 CMT-grade 3 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=B6C896B9CDA8ADC9A140BE583E4C9A2

eMetric. (2010m). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2008 CMT-grade 4 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=CD18AEC2F1D22E754E69619096440BA

eMetric. (2010n). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2009 CMT-grade 4 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=B3D10B62E1033AE6F7EFC9B7DE3915

eMetric. (2010o). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2010 CMT-grade 4 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=1213CF46781BB8E14A1730854816A448

eMetric. (2010p). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2008 CMT-grade 5 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=ADF22C366D650D0F38C4FFE92A09E9

eMetric. (2010q). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2009 CMT-grade 5 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=BA666747A826C15EC319D77F4B6E2E1

eMetric. (2010r). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. 2010 CMT-grade 5 overall summary. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx?data=9297A495419EA6E54AE43C1DDA6F62B


eMetric. (2010s). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. State by district/school report-Grade 3-2008-2010. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx

eMetric. (2010t). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. State by district/school report-Grade 4-2008-2010. Retrieved fromhttp://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx

eMetric. (2010u). Data Interaction for Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation. State by district/school report-Grade 5-2008-2010. Retrieved from http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/CMTCode/Report.aspx

Fisher, D. (n.d.). Helping elementary students read for information. ASCD Express. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol4/414-fisher.aspx

Hagaman, J. L., Luschen, K., & Reid, R. (2010). The “RAP” on reading comprehension. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43 (1), 22-29.

Harris, K. R. (n.d.). Helping young students become self-regulated writers. Retrieved from http://www.imagineitreading.com/NA/documents/Docs/ImagineIt-Harris_FNL.pdf

Kelly, C. and Campbell, L. (n.d.). Helping struggling readers. John Hopkins University: School of Education. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved from http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons/strategies/topics/literacy/articles/helping-struggling-readers/index.html

King, M. P. (2005). Direct instruction in phonological awareness. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED490665.pdf. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490665).

Majors, S. (2009). Content analysis of four core basal programs: Focusing on comprehension strategies (story structure, summarizing, and the use of graphic organizers). (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://acumen.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000100/u0015_0000001_0000100.pdf

McGraw-Hill School Education Group. (n.d.). SRA ImagineIt! today’s Open Court: Grades K-6 aligned with Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.imagineitreading.com/NA/documents/Docs/II%20CCSS%20Brochure_LoRes_1110.pdf

McKeough, A. (n.d.). Inquiry as an instructional approach. Retrieved from http://www.imagineitreading.com/NA/documents/Docs/II_Inquiry_WP_v2%20(2).pdf

McRae, D. J. (2002). Test score gains for open court schools in California: Results from three cohorts of schools. Retrieved from http://www.imagineitreading.com/NA/documents/Docs/McRae%20Study.pdf

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.cfm

National Reading Panel (NRP). (2011). About the National Reading Panel (NRP). Retrieved from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/nrpabout/about_nrp.htm

Sayles School. (2009a). Connecticut Mastery Results 2008-2009. Retrieved from http://saylesschool.org/boe/CTMasteryTest08-09.pdf

Sayles School. (2009b). Plan for continuous improvement in student achievement.

Sayles School. (2010). Report Card 2009-2010. Retrieved from http://saylesschool.org/boe/Sprague_Report_Card_09-10.pdf

University of Connecticut. (n.d.). Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Retrieved from


http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/Appendix

Hierarchy of needs based on:

CMT results for Reading Strands “Making Reader/Text Connections” and “Examining the Content and Structure”

Description of needs Teachers Parents Students Administrators

Be effective role models for children by explaining the purposes for reading and modeling fluency, expression, and inflection with Standard English

X X X

Saturate the classroom with language by playing books on tape, conducting read alouds, and using a variety of oral activities X

Participate in oral activities X

Encourage support at home X X

Continue using the phonics based curriculum like SRA Imagine It! X X

Provide real-life experiences so students can build background knowledge X X

Develop sight word vocabulary to allow students to construct meaning from their reading X X X

Engage students in listening activities that model fluency, inflection, and correct expression X X

Ask students higher level questions that relate to the stories that students hear so that they can slowly apply the questions to their independent reading

X

Word families allow students can use knowledge of a known word to decode an unfamiliar word with the same letter pattern X X

Model self-questioning during listening activities to focus students’ attention on the main idea of the text X X

Ask students about a selection before, during and after reading X X

Use context clues by asking questions like “does that make sense?” X X

Skills that monitor for meaning X X

Expose students to informational texts X X

Help students’ master vocabulary X X

Comprehension strategies (questioning, summarizing, inference, connections, predicting, and visualizing) X X

Expose their child to as many things as possible X X

Create a “print-rich” environment for the child X X X

Use Standard English as much as possible X X X X


Encourage communication X X X

Documents

debtolliver Web viewAt the beginning of the 2008/2009 school year, Sayles School in Sprague, Connecticut adopted the McGraw-Hill/SRA Imagine It! reading curriculum for grades K-4