Literacy Council Executive Summary

CARVER ELEMENTARY LITERACY CURRICULUM

executive summary A SYNOPSIS OF WORK CONDUCTED BY THE CES LITERACY CURRICULUM COUNCIL TO DEFINE OUR LITERACY EXPERIENCE

MAY 2022

About In 2018, DESE met with assistant superintendents to share studies about highquality curricular options that had been vetted through a national clearinghouse (Ed Reports).

Ed Reports sought to rate programs based on alignment with the Common Core - in literacy the broad indicators were categorized by text complexity and quality, and usability.

In reviewing our core programming in math and reading, we saw that neither Everyday Math nor Reading Street scored highly (both had received a “red” designation, out of red/yellow/green).

Shortly thereafter, McGraw-Hill informed us that Everyday Math would no longer be published nor supported.

We created the CES Math Curriculum Committee and selected the Bridges in Mathematics as our new program starting 2019-2020.

Once math selection was complete, we shifted to reading. Knowing that Reading Street would no longer be published nor supported, we eagerly engaged all teachers, soliciting their input through a whole staff survey in March 2020. We asked for their input on what to prioritize when selecting a new reading model. A curriculum committee convened remotely in June 2020, but work was delayed due to COVID and did not reconvene formally until Spring 2021. This executive summary highlights the robust efforts taken by the committee to research, pilot, and involve the whole faculty in their process and findings.

“ONCE YOU LEARN TO READ, YOU WILL BE FOREVER FREE.” -Frederick Douglass

CES LITERACY CURRICULUM COUNCIL

in this summary SCHOOLWIDE VISION OF LITERACY TIMELINE OF WORK DESIRED COMPONENTS OF A NEW MODEL SYNOPSIS OF THREE PROGRAMS INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS RECOMMENDATION CURRICULUM COUNCIL MEMBERS Sarah Burnie, Katie Chernicki, Christine Thomas, Dave MacEachen, Lindsay Swanton, Cheryl Burr, Katie Lynam, Ann Campopiano, Heather Stagnitta, Caroline Nichols, Naomi Stahl, Brie Wall, Annie Williams, Auna Calef, Kate Moore, Ruby Maestas, Meredith Erickson MAY 2022

CES LITERACY CURRICULUM COUNCIL

schoolwide vision of literacy

“WE READ BOOKS TO FIND OUT WHO WE ARE. WHAT OTHER PEOPLE, REAL OR IMAGINARY, DO AND THINK AND FEEL... IS AN ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE OURSELVES ARE AND MAY BECOME.” -Ursula K. LeGuin

MAY 2022

We believe that all students can achieve success in literacy and become lifelong readers and learners. To attain this goal, our students will build their knowledge and imaginations by reading and listening to rich, complex, and engaging texts; our teachers will foster perseverance, curiosity, and critical thinking skills through developmentallyappropriate student choice and differentiated instruction. With strong foundational skills, these literary experiences will inspire and prepare our students to become informed and active citizens in our everchanging world.

2018

CARVER ELEMENTARY

DESE presented at Assistant Superintendent group and shared studies about high-quality curricular options via a national clearinghouse (Ed Reports) where teachers vet programs to align with the CCSS.

LITERACY CURRICULUM COUNCIL TIMELINE

Neither Everyday Math nor Reading Street scored well, prompting a scaffolded curriculum adoption. The selection of a math program is prioritized due to Everyday Math "sunsetting" and will no longer be available.

MARCH 2020 Whole Staff Survey collecting feedback about what format, components, and qualities were most needed and desired in a new reading model/program.

Research begins in full

2020-21 COVID thwarted our plans to convene as a council Research continues and programs that most closely align with staff feedback are selected

FALL 2021

Preliminary research begins at this time.

JUNE 2020 Representatives from each grade level and special education/reading came together to form the CES Literacy Curriculum Council.

Launch Party laying out August's work

JUNE 2021 3-Day Literacy Curriculum Council convenes to review 3 reading models/programs, meet with vendors for Q&A, and determine various lessons or units to informally pilot over 2021-2022 year

Summary of curriculum work sent to all staff Curriculum council loosely pilots components of the 3 programs and meets routinely to review feedback [ZOOM] Q&A with Dartmouth

WINTER 2022 Schoolwide Faculty Meeting about Reading

APRIL 2022 Site Visits to Bourne Site Visits to see ARC (Bourne) and SWOT Analysis

Ideal Classroom Protocol Site Visits to see Units of Study (Plymouth) and SWOT Analyses

MAY 2022 3 Plans (options) reviewed for 2022-2023; Council votes on options resulting in a formal recommendation

CES LITERACY CURRICULUM COUNCIL

desired components of a new model Generating staff input through the various activities (listed in the right column), the curriculum council was able to distill a list of components that guided our study and evaluation of literacy programs.

Below is a breakdown of who completed our whole staff survey that launched our initial focus for the curriculum council. We had a high response rate with over 80% of the faculty responding (see table, below).

Staff input was generated from: Whole Staff Literacy Survey (2020) Updates from council representatives at monthly PLC meetings (2021-2022) Literacy Update (sent autumn 2021) Literacy Ed Camp (February 2022) Ideal Classroom Protocol (March 2022) Periodic surveys (ongoing 2020-2022)

what you asked for student-centered activities engaging and authentic text flexible options for small group differentiation individualized effective appropriately-challenging aligned with MA Frameworks includes a phonics program that also generates a love of reading balances a clear scope and sequence with some teacher autonomy for matching readers to materials MAY 2022

CES LITERACY CURRICULUM COUNCIL

a synopsis of the

three options

"A READER LIVES A THOUSAND LIVES BEFORE HE DIES. THE MAN WHO NEVER READS LIVES ONLY ONE" - G. R. R. MARTIN

American Reading Corp.

Assessment staircases skills (IRLA) Actual books Less systematic phonics, may add Densely-packed and voluminous teachers manuals (4/year) Required 20 days of PD for first year is not feasible with our resources/calendar

Expeditionary Learning (EL) The "claimed" achievement data seems positive Instructional time will be challenging (2 hours reading + 1 hour phonics) Caters to “at or above grade level” but may be harder for struggling readers Much outside-of-school teacher time may be needed to prepare and launch

Units of Study Major shift in how teachers approach reading Will need PD to build teacher capacity for this model Increased student engagement Highly differentiated but we need training in how to do this Replaces "big box" costs by investing in actual books and teacher training

CES LITERACY CURRICULUM COUNCIL

deeper investigation To dive deeper into the three programs/models, council members were given access to the online versions of ARC and EL. There they could access lessons and units to "try on." Through grant funds, we were also able to buy one UoS kit per grade level, if requested.

Kindergarten, 2nd, and 3rd requested UoS Reading, 1st requested UoS Phonics and grades 4 & 5 requested UoS writing.

Beginning in October, each monthly meeting of the council devoted significant time on the agenda to sharing feedback, wonderings, insights, and concerns about the informal piloting of programs, Additionally, we asked council members to serve as a conduit between the council meetings and grade-level PLCs; members routinely helped communicate feedback garnered through the informal pilots with their grade-level colleagues.

To mirror the experiences of the math curriculum council, site meetings were set up throughout March and April to help council members and other teachers see programs in action.

Expeditionary Learning (EL) was not included in our site visits for two reasons: 1) no district within a reasonable area of Carver has adopted this, and 2) based on our informal pilot, the only requests for site visits were for UoS (Plymouth) and ARC (Bourne). Council members who visited worked with the literacy coach to summarize findings in a SWOT Analysis.

Links to the analyses are available here: UoS 1, UoS 2, ARC.

MAY 2022

and FINDINGS

Based on the ongoing feedback from faculty, the SWOT analysis of site visits, and the feedback from our council members, a number of findings surfaced, including: 1. ARC and EL, while scoring highly on Ed Reports, have significant constraints that would make their implementation a challenge in Carver.

2. ARC's hefty teacher's manual, high expense, lack of phonics, and 20 days of professional development are not feasible in our current system.

3. In observation, ARC lacked focus during small groups and had no opportunity for centers; supplemental curricula would be needed.

4. EL, while often project-based, is built for 3 hours of daily instruction (including 1 hour of phonics). Current research points to the merits of structured phonics that can be done in a 15-30 minute block.

5. EL differentiates for students that are at or above grade level, but there is concern about how to support struggling readers, especially as we support unfinished learning caused by COVID. 6. UoS will be a paradigm shift for our teachers, especially those that expressed that entered the profession in a district that used a basal/box/kit.

7. Phonics "pulls" K-2 reading together.

8. UoS will require tailored professional development to meet the needs of each grade level and will need to be implemented over 2-3 years.

9. UoS will require us to develop a collection with leveled books and decodables.

CES LITERACY CURRICULUM COUNCIL

OUR recommendation MAY 2022

Option II

Option III

Fully adopt UoS in 3 phases over the next 3 years (reading, writing, phonics/word study)

Build model classrooms in UoS (and teachers can opt-in if they desire)

Continue to study and teachers may elect to formally pilot UoS or EL during the 2022-2023 year.

THE COUNCIL VOTED: OPTION I

Option I

With 91.7% of the council voting for Option I (to fully adopt UoS over the next three years), we asked council members to anonymously explain their decision.

“IF YOU DON’T LIKE TO READ, YOU HAVEN’T FOUND THE RIGHT BOOK..”

-J. K. Rowling

COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID: "Time for a change, level of engagement, more cohesive program than now" "I feel it is the best fit for our school."

"I don't like the idea of splitting up with teachers doing different things and I think we need to make a decision to have direction for next year."

"We owe it to the kids! There will be some challenges for us...but all of our decisions should be based on the best interests of our students."

MARCH 2020

we Step Forward We curated feedback from some council members that have spent time and energy piloting lessons and units this year. When asked about how UoS translated to student learning in the classroom, this is what they said:

“Now that my students are reading real, authentic books, I am enjoying my job more now than I have in many years.

It has been a privilege and a delight this year to see the children develop a true love of literature..”

“After completing a few lessons in Units of Study Writing, I only wished that I had used Units of Study all year. The students' writing improved and gave me chills as I read through their final pieces. My students were engaged and excited, in fact, they even asked to stay in for recess to continue to write! My students’ writing progressed to levels I have never seen; they were engaged and enthusiastic about writing.

The teaching approach engages students and offers choices, all while helping children grow as readers. It will help all children see themselves as readers and writers - something that I feel has been missing for a while.”

"Having the flexibility to read novels with students, at their levels, in small groups has made such a difference to their interest level, enthusiasm, and growth.

The children love meeting to talk about their novels.”