Strengthening
Student
Educational
Outcomes
Technical Report on Best Practices
and Strategies for English
Language Arts
Randy I. Dorn
State Superintendent of
Public Instruction
July 2014
OSPI provides equal access to all programs and services without discrimination based on sex, race, creed,
religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation
including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the
use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Questions and complaints of
alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at (360) 725-6162 or P.O.
Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200.
Strengthening Student
Educational Outcomes
Technical Report on Best Practices and Strategies for English
Language Arts
Prepared by
Gayle Pauley, Director of Title I/LAP and Consolidated Program Review
Liisa Moilanen Potts, Director of K–12 English/Language Arts
Special Programs and Federal Accountability
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Dr. Gil Mendoza, Assistant Superintendent
Teaching and Learning
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Jessica Vavrus, Assistant Superintendent
Randy I. Dorn
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Ken Kanikeberg
Chief of Staff
Alan Burke, Ed.D.
Deputy Superintendent, K–12 Education
July 2014
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 6
Background ......................................................................................................... 9
Learning to Read and Reading to Learn in Washington .................................... 9
2013 Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5946–Strengthening Student
Educational Outcomes .................................................................................... 12
Companion Legislation .................................................................................... 12
Learning Assistance Program (LAP) Overview ............................................... 13
Allowable Program Activities and Services ..................................................... 14
2013–14 Usage of LAP Service Categories .................................................... 15
What Stays the Same ...................................................................................... 16
ELA Expert Panel .............................................................................................. 17
Panel Review Process ...................................................................................... 18
Menu of Best Practices and Strategies ........................................................... 20
Overview ......................................................................................................... 20
Tutoring ........................................................................................................... 22
Adult Tutoring .............................................................................................. 23
Peer Tutoring ............................................................................................... 26
Extended Learning Time ................................................................................. 29
Extended Day–Out of School Time.............................................................. 30
Extended Year–Academics (Summer Programs) ........................................ 31
Professional Development .............................................................................. 33
Targeted Professional Development ............................................................ 33
Consultant Teachers ....................................................................................... 38
Instructional Coaches .................................................................................. 38
Instructional Coaches Instructional Coaches—Literacy Coaches ................ 40
Instructional Coaches Instructional Coaches—English Language
Development Coaches ................................................................................ 42
Outreach Activities .......................................................................................... 44
Family Involvement Outside of School ......................................................... 44
Family Involvement at School ...................................................................... 46
Community Partnerships ................................................................................. 48
i
Community Based Student Mentoring ......................................................... 48
Instructional Frameworks and Models ............................................................. 50
Direct Instruction .......................................................................................... 52
Constructivism ............................................................................................. 53
Services Under RCW 28A.320.190—Extendend Learning Opportunities
Program .......................................................................................................... 57
Promising Practices ......................................................................................... 58
Extended Learning Time ................................................................................. 59
Additional Instruction Time........................................................................... 59
Summer Book Programs ............................................................................. 60
Professional Development .............................................................................. 62
Professional Learning Communities ............................................................ 62
Services under RCW 28A.320.190— Extendend Learning Opportunities
Program .......................................................................................................... 64
Credit Retrieval ............................................................................................ 65
Outreach Activities .......................................................................................... 67
Transition-Based Family Involvement .......................................................... 67
Instructional Models ........................................................................................ 69
Multi-Tiered System of Support Framework (MTSS) ................................... 69
Other Promising Practices ............................................................................... 72
Language Development for English Language Learners ............................. 72
Content Acceleration ................................................................................... 75
Oral Language Focus .................................................................................. 77
Conclusion and Next Steps.............................................................................. 80
Next Steps ................................................................................................... 80
Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 82
Appendices ..................................................................................................... 104
Appendix A: Expert Panel Members ............................................................. 104
Appendix B: Panel Session Topics ............................................................... 111
Appendix C: Acknowledgements .................................................................. 114
Appendix D: List of Acronyms ....................................................................... 117
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5946,1 passed the state Legislature in
2013. It required the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to
convene an English language arts (ELA) panel of experts. This panel developed
a menu of best practices and strategies to help students in grades K–4 as well as
low-achieving students in grades K–12 served by the state’s Learning Assistance
Program (LAP), to improve their ELA performance.
In addition to ELA, the Legislature also requested that OSPI convene panels of
experts to develop menus of best practices and strategies in math and behavior
for low-achieving students served by LAP in grades K–12. Those menus will be
released in 2015.
The ELA menu is designed to support districts as they:



help students who struggle with reading to reach grade level by the end of
fourth grade;
improve the reading and literacy of
English language learners (ELL); and
strengthen systems to improve reading
instruction for all students.
Practices must be
The ELA panel of experts determined that the
work required for ELA in section 106 and 203 of
the bill should be combined. They agreed that
the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies
would contain many, if not all, of the same ELA
best practices and strategies for instruction of
all students in grades K–4 and low-achieving
students in grades K–12. Specific
considerations for grades K–4 are included
within each of the best practice and strategies
sections.
School districts in Washington are expected to
use practices from this menu starting with the
2015–16 school year. If they don’t they must
provide data that show the practices they are
using instead are effective.
The ELA Menu of Best Practices and
Strategies builds on state and federal
investments since the early 2000s that have
sought to increase early and adolescent literacy
1
Also see Chapter 28A.165 RCW and WAC 392-162.
6
designed to meet
the diverse needs
of all students

The linguistic and cultural
needs of ELLs must be
integrated into all
instructional and
professional development
offerings.
Instruction should be
provided to ELL students
in their primary language
whenever feasible.
skills [e.g., Reading First (federal), and Washington Reading Corps (state),
Striving Readers (federal)], the state has provided supplemental funds via LAP to
districts for many years to provide supports for struggling students. However,
since outcomes have been uneven across the state, this 2014 menu of best
practices and strategies, focused on K–12 ELA, seeks to identify proven
practices that strengthen student outcomes for all students in the state. The ELA
Panel collaborated with the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)
in the development of the menu. As required in separate legislation WSIPP will
provide a companion report which identifies research-based and evidence-based
practices, strategies and programs that are shown to improve student outcomes.
Many of the best practices and strategies identified for inclusion in the panel’s
menu will also be included in the WSIPP report. In addition, the WSIPP
companion report will identify an average effect-size for identified interventions
and perform a cost-benefit analysis.
It is important to note that the existence of an ELA Menu of Best Practices and
Strategies is not sufficient to ensure all students will succeed. Instruction and
intervention are complex. Not all instructional strategies work all the time with all
students. The expert panel, in their deliberations, strongly voiced the importance
of ensuring that each of the instructional strategies and best practices described
in the menu be designed to meet the diverse needs of all students. Furthermore,
the panel expressed the importance of integrating the linguistic and cultural
needs of English language learners (ELL) students into all instructional and
professional development offerings described in this document; and that
instruction should be provided to ELL students in their primary language
whenever feasible.
Finally, the expert panel offered three significant and critical success factors that
must be considered with every instructional
strategy and best practice:
1. Fidelity of program implementation within
a multi-tiered system of support
Fidelity of
framework that addresses core reading
instruction for every student (in their
implementation is
primary language) and that strategically
the #1 success
targets interventions based on data for
students that need additional support.
factor
Even the most proven intervention
strategy can fail to achieve outcomes if it

is implemented poorly.
According to the expert
2. Degree of improvement expected or
panel, even the most
obtained from implementing an
proven intervention
intervention can vary–and sometimes
strategy can fail to
interventions take more time than
achieve outcomes if it is
expected to show results. There are
implemented poorly.
potentially many effective practices that
are not on the menu. Districts that use
7
practices not on the menu should be sure they align with the criteria used
for considering the practices within the menu.
3. Support for students through initial instruction, assessment processes,
and interventions should be provided in their primary language, whenever
possible.
Districts can continue to use other intervention strategies, but they must provide
data that describes the effectiveness of interventions not on the ELA menu,
starting with the 2015–16 school year.
Educators must engage in a process of observation, analysis, and take informed
action in their classrooms regardless of the interventions chosen. This action
research helps solve problems as they arise, and can ensure that the
interventions chosen by the teacher or district have a greater chance of
succeeding.
This ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies is organized by type, based
upon the currently allowed LAP service categories. The report also contains a
section describing promising practices—those practices identified by the ELA
panel of experts as showing signs of effectiveness, but lacking sufficient research
to be considered a “best practice” as of June 2014. OSPI is charged with
updating the menu annually by July 1st, and will seek input from districts and the
expert panel on newly identified research on both best and promising practices.
8
BACKGROUND
Learning to Read and Reading to Learn in Washington
Washington’s literacy-teaching landscape is as diverse as the 1.1 million children
in our 295 public school districts. Across the state, educators work diligently to
provide support in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language for all
children. OSPI and statewide partners work to support literacy instruction by
continually revising and improving the supports and systems available for
building strong literacy skills in schools.
OSPI’s vision for education is for every student in the state to be ready for
careers, college, and life. To achieve this vision, the State must provide a robust
system for reading and literacy support
throughout K–12 starting in the early years.
Literacy is…
Washington’s Birth through 12th Grade
Comprehensive Literacy Plan (CLP) defines

literacy as … an on-going cognitive process that
… an on-going cognitive
begins at birth. It involves the integration of
process that begins at birth.
listening, speaking, reading, writing and critical
It involves the integration of
thinking. Literacy also includes the knowledge
listening, speaking, reading,
that enables the speaker, writer or reader to
writing and critical thinking.
Literacy also includes the
recognize and use language appropriate to a
knowledge that enables the
situation in an increasingly complex literate
speaker, writer or reader to
environment. Active literacy allows people to
recognize and use language
think, create, question, solve problems and reflect
appropriate to a situation in
an increasingly complex
in order to participate effectively in a democratic,
literate environment. Active
multicultural society (p. 2, CLP 2012).
The overarching goal of the CLP is grounded in
state learning standards for all students, and is
based on the foundation that literacy
encompasses all developmental phases. We
must address the different abilities and needs of
children through instruction, assessment, and
intervention in each student’s primary language.
The CLP and its associated resources recognize
student diversity by incorporating strategies that
are relevant to cultural and linguistic differences,
as well as different learning styles.
In July 2011, Washington adopted the Common
Core State Standards for English Language Arts
(CCSS-ELA) to replace the state’s 2005 Reading,
9
literacy allows people to
think, create, question, solve
problems and reflect in order
to participate effectively in a
democratic, multicultural
society.
– Washington State Birth to
12th Grade Comprehensive
Literacy Plan, 2012
Writing, and Communication Learning Standards (Grade Level Expectations or
GLEs). The CCSS-ELA are built on an intentional progression of the skills and
knowledge necessary for all students to be ready for careers, college, and life
when they exit high school. For kindergarten through grade four students, the
CCSS-ELA provides targeted focus on learning to read and reading to learn
across all grade levels. [For more information on this approach, see Chall’s
foundational Stages of Reading Development (1983), which found that children
first learn to read and then read to learn.]
Focus of instruction for students in these grades is based upon the findings of the
National Reading Panel Report, Teaching
Children to Read. Students must be provided
instruction in their early years that addresses
Evidence-Based
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
Teaching Practices
vocabulary development, and comprehension.
The CCSS set the Reading Standards:

Foundational Skills for grades K–5 which build
…include explicit
upon the National Reading Panel’s findings.
instruction, modeling and
These standards are directed at building a
scaffolding instruction,
student’s ability to read and to comprehend
dynamic and flexible
what is read. The menu of best practices and
grouping, increased
strategies includes a specific focus on
reading time, discussion,
supporting K–4 students in meeting these
oral and silent reading
practice.
standards, and is informed by scientifically
supported, foundational practices for teaching
– Jones, et al., 2012
reading to students in kindergarten through
fourth grade. Evidence-based teaching
practices for effective K–4 reading instruction
include explicit instruction, modeling and
scaffolding instruction, dynamic and flexible
grouping, increased reading time, discussion,
and oral and silent reading practice (Jones et al., 2012). Effective K–4 reading
teachers must also differentiate and adapt instruction according to multiple points
of formative and interim student assessment, as well as carefully monitor student
progress and reteach as necessary (Denton, 2009).The ultimate goal for all K–12
students is for each student to possess the skills to “comprehend texts across a
range of types and disciplines” (CCSS-ELA).
In addition to the CCSS-ELA as the state’s learning standards for ELA, OSPI
adopted new English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards for Washington in
December 2013 that were developed in 2012 and 2013 to address the increased
rigor and language demands of these career and college ready standards and
10
that align with the CCSS-ELA and CCSS for
Mathematics. ELL students make up nine percent
(9%) of the student population in Washington.
Washington’s
That’s more than 94,000 students are in the
Comprehensive
process of learning a new language while
Literacy Plan
simultaneously engaging in content to meet
rigorous career and college ready standards. With

both the ELL specialist and the content area
…emphasizes instruction
teacher in mind, the 2013 ELP standards provide
in student’s primary
the language bridge to move students toward full
language, cognitive
engagement and academic success. The 2013
processes, and integration
ELP standards make it clear that language
of skills. Such integration
learning and literacy encompass more than just
will take our students
beyond the classroom and
grammar and vocabulary, and that they include
into career and college
refocus on receptive, productive, and interactive
ready to face the
modalities for instruction of ELLs. With the
challenges of their future.
revisions in the 2013 ELP standards, English
language development goes hand in hand with
our state’s 2012 expanded definition of literacy as
found in Washington’s CLP, giving a greater
emphasis on instruction in student’s primary language, cognitive processes, and
integration of skills. Such integration will take our students beyond the classroom
and into career and college ready to face the challenges of their future.
With the adoption of the CCSS-ELA and associated ELP standards as
Washington K–12 Learning Standards for ELA and English Language Proficiency
and the refinement of the state’s CLP, state literacy partners are poised to
provide comprehensive and coherent professional learning for educators to
better support improved student learning outcomes. OSPI and literacy experts
(including experts in K–4 literacy) in each of the nine Educational Service
Districts (ESDs) have jointly developed professional learning opportunities
(common across all regions) to support strong implementation of the CCSS-ELA
and early literacy instruction. ESSB 5946 provides additional targeted resources
to each ESD region to improve K–4 ELA support for teachers and students. The
work of these “regional literacy coordinators” is grounded in the CCSS-ELA, the
CLP, and will serve as an excellent support system for districts as they consider
and integrate the best practices and strategies identified within the expert panel’s
ELA menu.
11
2013 Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5946–Strengthening Student
Educational Outcomes
Washington’s 2013 Legislature passed ESSB 5946 in the 2nd Special Legislative
session in June 2013. The overall bill sets forth a vision for improving educational
support systems for every student in grades K–12. The first Section of Part 1
references the importance of collaborative partnerships essential to supporting
students; using research and evidence-based programs for all students,
especially in the early years for grades K–4; and providing statewide models to
support school district in implementing a multi-tiered system of support. Part 2 of
the bill references the LAP’s focus on evidence-based support for students
struggling in reading (with primary emphasis on grades K–4), mathematics, and
behavior across grades K–12. The thread that binds together the bill is the
expectation set forth that OSPI will convene “expert panels” that will develop
menus of best practices and strategies for ELA (K–4 and K–12), mathematics
(K–12), and behavior (K–12). As articulated in the bill, the ELA menu will be
specifically designed to:



help students who struggle with reading to reach grade level by the
end of fourth grade;
improve the reading and literacy of ELL students; and
strengthen systems to improve reading instruction for all students.
The ELA expert panel determined that the work required for ELA in both sections
106 and 203 of the bill should be combined. They agreed that the ELA Menu of
Best Practices and Strategies would contain many, if not all, of the same ELA
best practices and strategies for instruction of all students in grades K–4 and low
achieving students in grades K–12. Specific considerations for grades K–4 are
included within each of the best practice sections.
Portions of the bill specifically related to the ELA panel of experts and ELA Menu
of Best Practices and Strategies are highlighted in Appendix A. See ESSB 5946
for the full text of the bill.
Companion Legislation
In addition to direction to OSPI per ESSB 5946, the 2013 Legislature also
directed the WSIPP to “prepare an inventory of evidence-based and researchbased effective practices, activities and programs for use by school districts in
the learning assistance program” (Senate Bill 5034, Section 610). The WSIPP
report will classify LAP strategies as evidence-based, research-based or
promising according to average effect-sizes for identified interventions, a costbenefit analysis, and other criteria.
12
Both OSPI and WSIPP consider the two reports to be companion pieces, and are
coordinating to ensure that the content of both reports are consistent while still
adhering to the unique directives given to each agency.
WSIPP Assistant Director Annie Pennucci and Research Associate Matt Lemon
are key participants in the expert panel sessions as non-voting members. They
are providing important research references to the panel members, and soliciting
panel member input regarding effective practices.
Both agencies collaborated on identifying topics for consideration for best
practices and strategies. The two agencies then followed different,
complimentary processes for identifying practices for the WSIPP inventory and
best practices and strategies for inclusion in the Menu of Best Practices and
Strategies for ELA. WSIPP, as noted above, conducted a rigorous meta-analysis
of each potential practice, and identified evidence and research-based practices
for the WSIPP report according to the average effect-size and a cost-benefit
analysis of each practice. The identification of best practices and strategies in the
OSPI report was informed by WSIPP’s findings and ultimately determined by the
Expert Panel. OSPI will include notation indicating whether the menu practices
are evidence-based and/or research-based, as determined by WSIPP. The items
noted with an asterisk in the menu have been identified by WSIPP as evidencebased or research-based (see Table 2). Additional practices and strategies are
included in the menu based on research reviewed by the ELA panel.
Learning Assistance Program (LAP) Overview
LAP provides funds for school districts to provide interventions to struggling
students. With regard to reading, LAP has the following purposes.
1. Focus on K–4 reading—Districts must first focus on K–4 students who
struggle with reading or who do not have the readiness skills that will
improve their ability to read. Districts must comply with this new
requirement beginning with the 2014–15 school year. Every school where
40 percent or more students scored at basic or below basic on the third
grade state ELA assessment in the previous school year, must integrate
intensive reading and literacy best practices and strategies—across
grades K–4.
2. Use data to inform program development—Districts must use student
data to develop effective programs that help underachieving students and
reduce disruptive behaviors in the classroom.
3. Integrate effective best practices and strategies—OSPI will convene
panels of experts to develop menus of best practices and strategies able
to a) guide districts toward effective practices—ELA and mathematics—
designed to support supplemental instruction/services that target
underachieving students; and b) reduce disruptive behavior in the
classroom.
13
Allowable Program Activities and Services
According to Section 204 of ESSB 5946, districts must expend LAP funds on
activities and services consistent with Section 106 of ESSB 5946. These
activities and services must be based on best practices and strategies—
demonstrated through research—to increase student achievement.







Extended opportunities for learning that occur:
o Before or after regular school hours.
o On Saturday.
o Beyond the regular school year.
Services under RCW 28A.320.190—Extended Learning Opportunities
Program.
Professional development for certificated and classified staff that
focuses on:
o Needs of a diverse student population.
o Best practices and strategies for reading literacy, and
mathematics content and instruction.
o Use of student work to guide effective instruction.
Consultant teachers able to assist classroom teachers integrate
effective instructional practices that meet the learning needs of LAPserved students.
Tutoring support for LAP-served students:
o Able to provide instructional support to LAP-served students
who participate in extended learning opportunities–for example,
push-in/pull-out interventions and opportunities for learning that
extend regular school hours.
Outreach activities and parental support, which could include
employing parent and family engagement coordinators.
Districts can use up to five percent of their LAP allocation to develop
partnerships with community-based organizations, ESDs and other
local agencies. These partnerships must be able to deliver academic
and non-academic support to LAP-served students at risk of not
meeting local and state graduation requirements. Districts should focus
their partnership goals and activities on these three priorities:
o Reduce barriers to learning.
o Increase student engagement.
o Enhance readiness to learn.
14
Figure 1: Current LAP Service Categories and Examples
Needs of diverse students
Professional
Development
focusing on:
Content and instructional
strategies
Use of student work
Before/after school
Consultant
Teachers
Extended
Learning Time
Saturday
Beyond regular
school year
Family
Involvement
Strengthening
Student Educational
Outcomes
Tutoring
Individual/group instruction
Exit exam assistance
Community
Partnerships
for academic
and
nonacademic
supports
Credit retrieval
Community –
based
organizations
Special Assistance
for 8th/11th/12th
Graders
(RCW 28A.320.190)
ESDs
Reading improvement
specialists
Attendance at alt. HS/SC
Center
Local agencies
Remediation programs
Language development
for ELLs
The expert panel offered additional considerations to OSPI with regard to specific
priorities within the parameters of allowable LAP funding, specifically that the
linguistic and cultural needs of ELLs be integrated into all of the LAP-approved
instructional and professional development offerings described in this document;
and that LAP services be provided to ELL students in their primary language
whenever feasible.
2013–14 Usage of LAP Service Categories
The following table shows how districts are currently using LAP funds to provide
services to struggling students.
15
Table 1: Number and Percent of Districts Using Various LAP Service
Categories
115
98
Percent of
those
Instituting
Practice
61.5%
52.4%
123
90
111
79
65.8%
48.1%
59.4%
42.2%
78
60
41.7%
32.1%
Number of
Districts
Reporting
Practice/Strategy
Extended Learning Time
Services Under RCW
28A.320.190—Extended
Learning Opportunities
Program
Professional Development
Consultant Teachers
Tutoring Support
Outreach Activities to Support
Parents
Partnerships
Readiness to Learn
What Stays the Same
 LAP remains supplemental to core instruction. Districts can use LAP
money to provide supplemental reading, writing, mathematics, as well
as readiness interventions that serve these core subjects.
 LAP can fund supplemental instructional services across K–12, and
fund academic support programs for students in grades 8, 11, and 12
who are at risk of not meeting local and state graduation requirements.
16
ELA EXPERT PANEL
Panel members were appointed by the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction. Panel applicants were solicited through several professional
channels. Candidates were nominated from OSPI, Educational Services Districts,
school districts, and state educational associations. Educators were drawn from
existing OSPI advisory groups, such as the Curriculum Advisory and Review
Committee, the Bilingual Education Advisory Council, and the Special Education
Advisory Committee. Nominations were collected and reviewed by OSPI’s
Strengthening Student Educational Outcomes Team. OSPI sought leaders
nationally and within Washington possessing expertise and experience with
multi-tiered systems of support frameworks (such as Response to Intervention),
state learning standards (CCSS-ELA), and broad assessment systems that use
data to make instructional decisions.
Candidates were nominated and selected based on evidence of their expertise in
one or more of the following criteria:
 ELA classroom and/or district leadership experience.
 Classroom and system expertise in supporting struggling readers K–4.
 Classroom and system expertise in supporting struggling readers K–12.
 Educational research expertise and experience in implementing new
strategies.
 Knowledge of research best practices and strategies in working with
diverse student populations, including ELLs and students with disabilities.
 Representatives from high poverty school districts that range in size from
urban to rural with large populations of struggling ELA students.
 Representatives that reflect the diversity of the state’s student population.
 Involvement with national ELA research on and implementation of
effective instruction.
After a review of all candidates, OSPI’s team recommended panel candidates to
the state superintendent for his consideration. See Appendix A for a list of panel
member biographies.
The cross-disciplinary panel reflects a wide range of experience and professional
expertise within the K–20 environment. The state Legislature has charged the
panel to “assist in the development of a menu of best practices and strategies
that will provide guidance to districts as they work to impact student ELA
academic achievement.”
17
PANEL REVIEW PROCESS
There were five work sessions held over a five month period in 2014. Three were
face to face sessions held in the SeaTac area. The other two sessions were
interactive webinars, typically lasting four or more hours. Significant research,
writing and collaboration happened outside the formal panel meetings. OSPI
provided a project SharePoint site and discussion group to help facilitate
collaboration and access to information.
The following work plan outlines the work of the expert panel over the five
scheduled sessions. Panelists were asked to find and/or review research
literature in advance of each session, and to share that research with the whole
group. The panelists received selected articles before each session. WSIPP
maintained a folder of selected research articles on the OSPI SharePoint site
related to effective practices and strategies within the allowable LAP service
categories.
Panelists provided written descriptions of the proposed practices, citing evidence
of effectiveness. See Bibliography for the articles reviewed and used by the
expert panel in the course of their work.
In the figure below, the two gray boxes (February 21 and April 18) represent
web-based meetings, and the blue boxes represent face-to-face work sessions.
Figure 2: High-Level Work Plan for the Expert Panel
18
The work sessions were organized around the framework of the currently allowed
LAP service categories, with one key addition of identifying emerging or
promising practices that might not fit into the currently allowed categories, as
shown below.
Figure 3 indicates currently allowed LAP practices (shown in gray), with
examples noted. The graphic also includes a focus on promising practices
(shown in red). Districts may select a promising practice as long as they can
demonstrate a positive outcome on student achievement.
Figure 3: Currently Allowed LAP Practices
Needs of diverse students
Professional
Development
focusing on:
Innovative,
Emerging or
Promising
Practices
Use of student work
Before/after school
Consultant
Teachers
Family
Involvement
Content and instructional
strategies
Extended
Learning
Time
Strengthening
Student Educational
Outcomes
Tutoring
Saturday
Beyond regular
school year
Individual/group
instruction
Exit exam assistance
Community
Partnerships
for academic
and
nonacademic
supports
Credit retrieval
Community –
based
organizations
Special Assistance
for 8th/11th/12th
Graders
(RCW
28A.320.190)
ESDs
Local agencies
Reading improvement
specialists
Attendance at alt. HS/SC
Center
Remediation programs
Language development
for ELLs
19
MENU OF BEST PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES
Overview
Over the five sessions convened by OSPI, the expert panel worked together to
develop a comprehensive menu of best practices and strategies based on the
most current evidence and rigorous research available. Additional best practices
and strategies will be identified during 2014–15 as the ELA panel reviews the
2013–14 ELA menu. (It was not possible to determine in some instances whether
or not a practice was evidence- or research- based by the initial report deadline.)
WSIPP was charged with making that determination, which they did by carefully
and systematically evaluating the quality of the aggregate work and ensuring that
the studies had valid comparison groups and measure outcomes of interest, such
as test scores and graduation rates. Each entry indicates whether the practice is
evidence-based and/or research-based.
Panelists concurred with WSIPP to use the following definitions for evidencebased and research-based studies.
Evidence-based
 Multiple randomized and/or statistically controlled evaluations, or one
large multiple-site randomized and/or statistically controlled evaluation.
 Where the weight of the evidence from a systematic review
demonstrates sustained improvements in outcomes: ELA test scores.
 When possible, has been determined to be cost-beneficial.
Research-based
 Tested with a single randomized and/or statistically-controlled
evaluation demonstrating sustained desirable outcomes.
The ELA menu lists evidence based practices and strategies that have been
shown to support reading/literacy improvement for struggling learners. Many of
these strategies and practices are used in commercially available supplemental
programs that districts can acquire and use. It is important to note that the work
of the expert panel was to identify proven general practices and strategies, not
specifically branded programs that might employ those practices. Districts that
are contemplating acquisition or use of one or more branded programs are
encouraged to determine if the strategies and practices included in the menu are
utilized by the branded programs.
The table below shows a quick summary of the practices that are proven to be
effective in strengthening student educational outcomes, as determined by the
expert panel. Each practice is described in more detail later in the report.
20
Table 2: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies
Best Practice/
Strategies
EvidenceBased
ResearchBased
Panel Opinion
K–4
K–12
Tutoring
Adult Tutoring*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Peer Tutoring*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Extended Learning
Time
Extended Day–
Out of School
Time*
Extended Year2 Academics
(Summer
Programs)*
Professional
Development
Targeted
Professional
Development*
Yes
Mentoring
Consultant
Teachers
Instructional
Coaches3*
Yes
Yes
Outreach Activities
Family
Involvement
Outside School
Family
Involvement at
School
Community
Partnerships
Community Based
Student
Mentoring*
Instructional
Models
Yes
Direct Instruction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Constructivism
Yes
Yes
Yes
Services Under RCW 28A.320.190— (Shown in Promising Practices Section)
Extended Learning Opportunities Program
* These practices have been identified by WSIPP as evidence-based or research-based.
2 Extended Year includes Summer Programs, Saturdays, use of school breaks and an extension of the
standard school year.
3 Instructional Coaches also includes Literacy Coaches and English Language Development Coaches.
21
Tutoring
Tutoring is defined as any interaction with a trained individual using an explicit,
well-designed program or practice that is match to a student’s needs. The
administrator of a tutoring program should provide training to the tutors that
include error correction procedures, student response protocols, and
engagement practices for content and instruction. Successful tutoring programs
begin with clearly defined goals, which use consistent schedules of formative
assessment and on-going progress monitoring. As an instructional delivery
model, tutoring is considered a best practice when training is provided, small
group or individual instruction is used, and the data is monitored in a systematic
way.
Tutors specializing in the ELA can include educators, paraeducators, parents,
and both same age peers and cross age peers, or volunteers who are interested
in furthering the literacy development within a school. In literacy development,
volunteers must be familiar with concepts associated with the critical components
of reading such as: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension (Birsch, 2005). For example, early literacy tutors should be
trained to provide instruction with respect to alphabetic sounds, both consonants
and vowels; word recognition skills, blending letters, and decoding unfamiliar
words (Birsch, 2005). Tutors must also be well-versed in strategies to engage
students in dialogue about reading and error correction processes, as well as
strategies for redirecting off-task behavior, and supporting the classroom teacher.
Tutors can also play an essential role in supporting literacy learning via primary
language instruction.
Tutors are valuable to the system when they are involved in instructional
practices that improve reading skills for students. A strong system-wide process
that exemplifies organization can be effective in helping the tutors collect
important data that helps monitor the progress of the students. In turn, the data
can be used to facilitate goal-setting by the student and the teacher; continual
development of reading skills, a schedule for assessing and reviewing student
progress.
Adult Tutoring
Adult tutors, who receive specialized instruction in facilitating reading are an
asset to the development of a comprehensive literacy program. Carefully
selected adult tutors can include specifically trained teachers, intervention
specialists, paraeducators, other classified personnel, and volunteers. Research
has consistently shown that tutoring programs contribute to the academic growth
22
of students if it is well-structured and includes professional training centered on
the best practices in literacy development.
It would be ideal for each school to have specifically trained teachers to work with
students who have difficulties in reading; however, since the teachers who have
the credentials usually work with large groups of students, the tutoring usually
utilizes paraeducator, other classified personnel or adult volunteers.
Paraeducators or other adult volunteers can be as effective as experts with
advanced degrees if they receive trainings that support scientifically researched
principles of reading instruction (Glaser, 2005; Elbaum et al., 2000). The tutoring
sessions should be provided in conjunction with the regularly scheduled core
classroom instruction. Shorter sessions, multiple times a week allow the students
who need more intensive instruction to become proficient in the relevant concept
or topic. With evidence-based, reliable, and replicable interventions specific to
the diagnostic information provided by assessments administered at the
beginning and throughout the program, the students in the tutoring program have
been known to improve their reading skills. From one-to-one instruction to small
group instruction the tutors can build literacy skills in areas that present
difficulties. Through carefully orchestrated processes and organized system-wide
structures students who require more intensive literacy instruction will develop
proficiency.
Students who require the most intensive instruction would benefit from one-toone adult tutoring. The next best scenario would be small group tutoring
consisting of three (3) to six (6) students (Glaser, 2005; WSIPP ELA Inventory,
2014). This practice will require the program administrator to thoughtfully
organize student groupings in order to facilitate increased instructional time ontask, peer interaction and grade-level literacy skills. Benefits are greater when
the students receive instruction that is based on their needs, which a trained and
skilled tutor can administer.
Adult Tutoring—Intervention Specialists
Literacy Intervention Specialists working in one-on-one and small group contexts
supplemental to core classroom instruction must be highly trained and pursue
continuing professional development. If we want to accelerate struggling readers’
development, we must plan our interventions so that the teachers who are
experts on reading instruction deliver those lessons. Expecting less well trained
adults in the school to provide powerful instruction to the most difficult-to-teach
students has little basis in theory or research. Good teaching is adaptive
teaching. A reading specialist with advanced training in reading theory and
instruction, specific diagnostic assessment, and matching targeted lessons to the
identified needs of students, lessons the need to use highly scripted, commercial
23
instructional programs because the expert adult can construct effective, tailored
intervention activity settings. Scripted instructional packages cannot always
attend to learner differences and provide instruction informed by the child’s
responses. Good teachers take charge of extensive professional knowledge,
manipulate it, and adapt it to changing instructional situations (Allington, 2002).
Though procedures and routines within a predictable structure are crucial to
success, no two lessons will be identical, because all students are different even
within a small group. This teaching requires a deep knowledge of content,
instructional pedagogy, and the concepts embedded in various practices.
Reading intervention specialists must be able to draw on their discipline-specific
expertise to intentionally select those practices that best match the needs of the
specific reader or readers and the learning goals. They must be able teach for
the transfer of skills and strategies necessary for successful classroom
achievement. Our students who are served in intervention deserve no less that
the absolute best instruction that is available and there is no substitute for
specialized teacher expertise.
K–4 Considerations
 All literacy tutors and adult volunteers must be trained to provide
literacy instruction based on the needs of the children they are serving.
Studies have indicated that trained, noncertified tutors can improve
reading fluency which will result in improved comprehension (Elbaum
et al., 2000; Shinn, Deno & Fuchs, 2002).
 One-to-one and small group tutoring, consisting of three (3) to six (6)
students is instrumental in improving grade-level reading among
struggling readers.
 Literacy interventions should focus on the foundational reading skills
that include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension (Birsch, 2005).
Implementation Success Factors
 Select a scientifically research based tutoring program that utilizes
individualized, short diagnostic tests to design appropriate
developmental lessons for students (Gordon, 2007).
 Design and implement a highly structured program where knowledge is
constructed from the integration of previously learned and newly
acquired skill sets (Gordon, 2007).
 Teach tutors observation and correction techniques. Tutors should
utilize consistent error correction, and adherence to the program
protocols to improve student growth in literacy.
 Provide tutors with professional development opportunities and
specialized training to ensure that students are supported at all levels
of learning (Gordon, 2007).
 Ensuring an educational atmosphere or setting plays an important role
in the results of tutoring programs (Gordon, 2007). A quiet, well-lit area
24

that provides ample seating for the participants and the leader is
essential. Ensuring a setting were minimal distractions occur is
essential for helping the tutor understand each child’s learning ability
(Gordon, 2007).
Throughout the tutoring the tutor must collaborate with the classroom
teacher or program administrator to demonstrate short term and long
term improvement (Gordon, 2007). A continuation of communication
should extend to each stakeholder in the individual child’s education
including the parents/guardians.
References/Resources
Barley, Z. L. (2002). Helping at-risk students meet standards: A synthesis of
evidence-based practices. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Birsch, J. R. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company.
Bixby, K. E., Gordon, E. E., Gozali-Lee, E., Akyea, S. G., & Nippolt, P. L. (2011).
Best practices for tutoring programs: A guide to quality. Saint Paul, MN:
Saint Paul Public Schools Foundation.
Center for Prevention Research and Development. (2009). Background research:
Tutoring programs. Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention Research and
Development, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of
Illinois.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective are oneto-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for
reading railure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605-619.
Gordon, E. E. (2009). 5 ways to improve tutoring programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 90
(6), 440-445.
Department of Education. (2001). Evidence that tutoring works. Planning and
Evaluation Service, Corporation for National Service. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Shinn, M. R., Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L.S. (2002). Using curriculum-based
measurements in a problem-solving model. New York: Guilford.
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-toone tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly,
28(2), 179-200.
25


Majority Opinion
Significant evidence exists
that adult, one-to-one
tutoring, when implemented
with fidelity, is one of the most
effective ways to provide
intervention to struggling
students and increase
academic outcomes.
The best adult tutor is
generally a person highly
trained and certified in the
field of study. There are
concerns about using
teachers outside the
disciplinary area being taught,
paraeducators, or trained
volunteers. Tutors must have
effective supervision by the
teacher to ensure quality of
delivery.
Minority Opinion
None noted.
Peer Tutoring
Peer tutoring can be classified in a number of ways. Peer tutors includes
students who are the same class or age group, in the same small reading group,
reciprocal literacy groups, or cross-age tutors. Peer tutoring is a comprehensive,
instructional approach based on turn-taking in which the whole group is actively
engaged. Like adult tutors, peer tutoring can be effective if the peer is trained in
practices such as following directions, using prompting and reinforcement,
providing effective feedback, and systematic error correction (Center for
Prevention Research and Development, 2009). The practice of peer tutoring is
widely supported, including by the expert panel, because it improves the learning
for both the tutor and the student receiving the tutoring (Topping, 2008). As
Hattie notes, research demonstrates that peer tutoring has numerous “academic
and social benefits for both those tutoring and those being tutored” (Hattie, 2009;
Cook et al., 1985). Peer tutoring is in fact especially effective in improving peer
relationship, personal development, and motivation (Topping, 2008). As noted in
the What Works Clearinghouse evaluation of a model of peer tutoring detailed in
Fuchs, Fuchs, Kazdan, & Allen (1999) and Mathes & Babyak (2001), in effective
peer tutoring programs, students “work in pairs on reading activities intended to
improve reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Students in the pairs—
who alternately take on the role of tutor and tutee—read aloud, listen to their
partner read, and provide feedback during various structured activities.” (What
26
Works Clearinghouse, 2012). In such a program, students are trained in
strategies such as: “passage reading with partners, paragraph ‘shrinking’ (or
describing the main idea), and prediction relay (predicting what is likely to
happen next in the passage)” (What Works Clearinghouse, 2012). As noted by
Greenwood, Kamps, Terry and Linebarger (2007), research indicates that peer
tutoring programs that implement these strategies have a positive impact on the
achievement of a wide range of students, including those in kindergarten through
4th grade.
In addition to one-to-one peer tutoring or cross-age peer tutoring, in which the
roles of tutor and tutee are static and defined by ability or age, reciprocal peer
tutoring can also be used to increase the learning time and opportunities within a
classroom. It is an intervention strategy where students alternate between the
tutor and the tutee. Whenever reciprocal peer tutoring is used, keeping the group
small is important. The lead teacher or tutor should determine the selection of
tutoring groups based on the goal of the activities, the activities, and the daily
schedule. Most importantly, when implementing reciprocal tutoring arrangements
administrators should combine organized structures, foundational skills in
reading instruction, and group-reward contingencies to experience positive
results (Fantuzzo and Rohrbeck, 1992).
K–4 Considerations
 If peer tutors are carefully placed, according to the program
administrator, they can help foster a relationship with another student
that can lead to improved peer relationships, personal development,
and motivation (Topping, 2008).
 Utilize a variety of students of different ages and different abilities
working together for greater results.
 Practice time for both the tutor and the tutee is increased when
consistent tutoring schedules are adhered to (Bixby et al., 2011).
 Trained adult supervisors should be in control of constructing the peer
partnerships. Direct leadership on behalf of the program coordinator
must be exercised to ensure the peer tutoring is meeting literacy goals.
 It is recommended to use peer tutoring with upper-level elementary
students.
Implementation Success Factors
 As with adult tutors, peer tutors must receive opportunities for
developing their skills as a tutor. Peer tutoring can be effective if the
peer is trained in practices such as following directions, using
prompting and reinforcement, providing effective feedback, and
systematic error correction (Center for Prevention Research and
Development, 2009). They must be versed in content, skills, and
cultural competencies (Bixby et al., 2011; Barley et al., 2002; Center
for Prevention Research and Development, 2009).
27



Programs that use peer tutors, or students teaching other students,
must be facilitated with structures that are put in place by a qualified
teacher or trained coordinator.
Student tutors should be trained to model study skills, communication
skills, work habits, questioning skills, and other helpful educational
behaviors.
Tutors should be trained not only in reading skill implementation, but
also in social behaviors that allow for an appropriate, effective learning
environment.
References/Resources
Barley, Z. L. (2002). Helping at-risk students meet standards: A synthesis of
evidence-based practices. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Fantuzzo, J. W., & Rohrbeck, C. A. (1992). Self-managed groups: Fitting selfmanagement approaches into classroom systems. School Psychology
Review, 21(2), 255-263.
Glaser, D. (2005). ParaReading: A training guide for tutors. Boston: Sopris West
Educational Services.
National Education Association. (n.d.). NEA - Research spotlight on peer
tutoring. Retrieved March 27, 2014, from
http://www.nea.org/tools/35542.htm
Terry, B. P. (n.d.). Instruction/class wide peer tutoring | Special connections.
Retrieved March 27, 2014, from
http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/?q=instruction/classwide_peer_tutor
ing
Topping, K. (2008). Peer-assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers.
Newton, MA: Brookline Books.
Majority Opinion
 Works with students
of different ages
and abilities.
 Can be used in
multiple content
areas.
 Beginning readers
Minority Opinion
 Students must be
trained in tutoring to
be effective,
otherwise it may be
detrimental to
academic
achievement.
28
Majority Opinion
can use this
process.
 Increases practice
time among
students.
 Low or no cost.
 Low to moderate
effort from teacher.
Minority Opinion
 Students must be
monitored to ensure
appropriate learning
is taking place.
Extended Learning Time
Extending learning time encompasses multiple facets of educational learning
opportunities designed to provide pathways for continual learning. Extending
learning time may consist of before or after school programs, longer school days,
year-round school, summer school, and/or a combination of programs.
For the intent of this report, the LAP allowable practices for extended learning
under consideration are shown below.
1. Summer School
2. Before/After School
a. Instructional After School
b. Homework Club
c. Book Programs
d. Computer-Based/Online
e. Saturday Programs
3. Extended Time
a. School Day
b. School Year
Research indicates that achieving success with extended learning involves
several key components: teacher quality and pedagogy, effective use of data,
curriculum that addresses student ability, and explicit and systematic
implementation. Extended learning is not more of the same, but emphasizes
more time on specific student needs as determined through assessment.
Evidence tells us that expanding time during the day and over the academic
year, particularly in high-poverty and low-performing schools, can improve
student achievement (McCombs, 2012). Additionally, numerous studies correlate
summer learning with reading outside of school and improvements in general
reading ability (Anderson, Wilson & Fielding, 1998).
29
References/Resources
Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T., & Fielding, L. G. (1998). Growth in reading and
how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23(3), 285-303.
McCombs, J.S. (2012). Making extended learning time worth the investment.
Rand.org. Retrieved April 9, 2014, from http://www.rand.org/blog.
Stone, Z., Barron, K. & Finch, N. (2012). Effective and promising practices for
closing the achievement gaps. Appalachia Regional Comprehensive
Center at Edvantia.
Extended Day–Out of School Time
Extended Day is defined as time for students outside the regular instructional
day. It could include a longer day by adding instruction time before or after
school, or use of break times during the day.
K–4 Considerations
 The amount of time needs to be adjusted to the age of the student.
 Instruction needs to include activity to engage students beyond the
school day.
 Staff need to be consistent.
 Align to regular day curriculum and assessment.
 Amount of time needs to be consistent; over a significant amount of
time.
 Individual/group data should be used to target instruction.
Implementation Success Factors
All work during the extended day should be closely aligned to the Washington
State standards which form the core learning targets for students. Collaboration
time among teachers must be provided to develop clarity and coherence among
the general education teachers and the staff members providing the extended
learning time for students to meet the State standards. The intervention team (all
the adults serving the student) will determine the instructional and assessment
plans for each student to meet the instructional targets. Students should be able
to articulate the purpose for learning.
Ongoing progress monitoring and student self-assessment should be conducted
during any extended learning time aligned to the Washington State standards
and the ELA standards. Refer to the best practices and strategies regarding oneto-one and small group tutoring.
Students should receive services until they meet the targets identified for them by
the instructional team.
30
References/Resources
Mathematica Policy Research. (2009, July). Structuring out of school time to
improve academic achievement. Retrieved from Institute of Education
Science What Works Clearinghouse:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=10
National Education Association. (n.d.). Closing the gap through extended
learning opportunities. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from NEA Policy
Briefings:
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_PB04_ExtendedLearning.pdf
ECONorthwest. (2008). A review of research on extended learning time in k-12
schools. Portland: ChalkBoard Project. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from
http://chalkboardproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ExtendedLearning-2.pdf
Extended Year–Academics (Summer Programs)
Summer programs serve multiple purposes for students, families, educators, and
communities. Summer programs may be designed to promote students who
have failed or been retained, accelerate learning, prevent future academic
problems, improve student and parent attitudes towards school performance, and
provide academic enrichment. Borman’s research indicates that summer learning
may be the primary intervention through which educators prevent the cumulative
widening of the reading achievement gap (Borman, 2000, p. 24). Local schools
and districts should use data to design, develop, and evaluate programs.
Programs must be designed to serve different student groups, including ELLs
and/or students with disabilities at various grade levels from entering
kindergarteners through 12th grade. Research conducted by Roderick, et al.
(1999), demonstrates that participation in a summer program, in addition to the
regular academic school year’s curriculum, provides students with at least a
short-term gain in standardized test scores (Roderick, Bryk, Jacob, Easton, &
Allensworth, 1999).
According to Duffy (2001), summer school programs have the potential to
accelerate the reading development of struggling readers in particular. In this
study by Duffy (2001) of second grade students in a summer school program,
students improved in word identification, fluency, comprehension, perceptions of
themselves as readers, attitudes toward reading, and instructional reading levels.
This summer school program was implemented according to the constructs of
balanced literacy instruction, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching.
Duffy (2001) warns, though, that summer school as a short-term intervention
should not be viewed as a quick fix for all struggling readers. Some students will
need ongoing support to meet grade-level goals and sustain their learning.
31
K–4 Considerations
 Capture enough time every day for multiple weeks to make a
difference.
 Align to regular year curriculum, assessment, and evaluation.
 Follow the progress of these students intentionally; make adjustments
to program based on this information.
 Provide transportation, breakfast, and lunch.
 Intentionally engage parents.
 Promote the love of reading.
Implementation Success Factors
 Summer programs should support connection to core instructional
strategies and content, which in turn must be articulated within the
system.
 Summer programs must be staffed by highly qualified and trained staff.
 Students must have access to materials that match instructional levels.
 Program evaluation is a critical component to ensure the summer
program is effective at improving student outcomes (Newhouse, et al.
2012). Evaluations should use observational data; youth, parent and
staff input; and student academic data. Evaluations should measure
quality, engagement, student academic and behavioral outcomes, and
how well the gains are sustained.
References/Resources
Borman, G. (2000, February). The effects of summer school: Questions
answered, questions raised. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 119-127. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-5834.00069/abstract
Duffy, A. M. (2001). Balance, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching in a
summer school literacy program for elementary school struggling readers.
Reading Research and Instruction 40(2), p. 67-100.
Newhouse, C., Neely, P., Freese, J., Lo, J., & Willis, S. (2012). Summer matters:
How summer learning strengthens students' success. Oakland: Public
Profit, supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Retrieved
March 14, 2014, from http://summermatters2you.net/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/Summer-Matters-How-Summer-LearningStrengthens-Students-Success.pdf
Roderick, M., Bryk, A.S., Jacob, B.A., Easton, J.Q., & Allensworth, E. (1999).
Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago, IL:
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved August 9, 2002, from
www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/p0g04.html.
32

Majority Opinion
Summer programs may
address multiple
components of the
education of the whole
child–behavior,
attendance, motivation,
sense of belonging–
depending on the focus
of the program.
Minority Opinion
None noted.
Professional Development
Targeted Professional Development
Research suggests that targeted professional development can positively impact
student outcomes. In fact, according to one study (Scanlon, et al., 2009),
extensive, targeted professional development for teachers on reading instruction
was shown to have a greater impact on student achievement in reading than
one-on-one tutoring. As a recent review of the most current research on best
practices in professional development “Professional Learning in the Learning
Profession,” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009) notes, professional development is
most effective when it is targeted to address specific content that has been
explicitly tied to goals for student achievement and school improvement.
Professional development shown to improve student achievement is focused on
“the concrete, everyday challenges involved in teaching and learning specific
academic subject matter, rather than focusing on abstract educational principles
or teaching methods taken out of context” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009, p. 10).
Further, effective professional development should be aligned to learning
standards and/or instructional strategies and must be aligned to the needs of
learners. Data analysis should be utilized to help define a clear set of learning
goals. Evidence suggests that, in order to positively impact student achievement,
professional development must be contextualized and sustained; that is, effective
professional development must be provided as an ongoing, systematic process
informed by evaluation of student, teacher, and school needs, and embedded
within a comprehensive plan for school improvement (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2009; Yoon et al., 2007; Garet et al, 2001). As noted by McREL’s (Snow-Renner
& Lauer, 2005) report “Professional Development Analysis,” professional
development that is long-lasting, content-focused, and based on student and
teacher performance data, takes more time and effort to implement when
compared to less effective types of professional development. But as Garet et al.
state (2001), “[a] professional development activity is more likely to be effective in
33
improving teachers' knowledge and skills if it forms a coherent part of a wider set
of opportunities for teacher learning and development” (p. 927).
As a group, adult learners are self-directed, ready to learn, experienced, taskcentered, and intrinsically motivated (Knowles, 1983). As Knowles notes,
“professional development should engage an educator in an ongoing cycle of
reflection and ultimately, support the transfer of new knowledge into the
classroom and daily practice.” Effective professional development for teachers
supports teacher motivation and commitment to the learning process. It
combines the needs of individuals with school or district goals. According to
Joyce and Showers (2002), professional development should consist of a
continuum in which participants receive a presentation of the theory, see
demonstrations, practice and receive feedback around an applied practice, and
are ultimately provided with coaching or other classroom supports to selfevaluate with the goal of positive growth (Joyce, 2002). Professional
development may be supported by activities such as courses, workshops,
institutes, networks, or conferences. It may be delivered in-person or through an
online format.
Best practices in professional development must be ultimately focused on
improving student achievement. As Knowles (1983) suggests, effective
professional development involves teachers in shared learning opportunities that
are job-embedded, focused on instruction, and ongoing.
Professional Development on the Use of Data to Guide Instruction
A number of recent studies have demonstrated that professional development on
the use of student data to guide instruction has a positive impact on student
achievement. This research suggests that it is essential that teachers are trained
to collect data on student performance and use this data to develop learning
goals and inform instructional practices. Professional development that is
focused on supporting teachers in these kinds of practices has been shown to
make instruction more effective and improve student learning. For example, in Al
Otaiba et al. (2011), a randomized controlled study demonstrated that teachers
provided more effective differentiated instruction after being trained to use data to
develop and provide individualized instruction. According to the study, this
improved instruction resulted in higher student achievement. Another large scale
study, involving randomly selected 59 districts in seven states, by Slavin et al.
(2013), reported that a long-term, systematic effort to train district and building
leaders, as well as teachers, in the use of state data to guide instruction resulted
in positive effects on reading outcomes in the participating districts. Further,
WSIPP’s meta-analysis of all available studies found an overall positive effect of
this practice on student academic outcomes.
34
Coaching
Coaching is a LAP allowable form of professional development. For more on
coaching as a best practice, see the section on Consultant Teachers.
Mentoring
Richard Ingersoll and Michael Strong (2011) reviewed 15 empirical studies on
the effects of induction programs for beginning teachers. Their review and
analysis suggests that assistance for beginning teachers had a positive impact
on teacher commitment and retention, instructional practices, and student
achievement (Ingersoll and Strong, 2011).
Washington State Induction Phase for the Beginning Teacher
As with all states, Washington has laws that designate activities that a new
teacher must complete to earn a Professional Certificate (WAC 181-78A-505).
These activities include assistance by mentor teachers who will provide a source
of continuing and sustained support, develop a Professional Growth Plan, and
demonstrate a “positive impact on student learning and meet provisional status”
(RCW 28A.405-220).
K–4 Considerations
When determining the professional development needs of teachers the following
topics need to be given specific consideration:




Needs of diverse learners, to include ELLs and students with
disabilities.
Content specific to the needs of K–4 ELA standards.
Instructional strategies to support struggling learners.
Use of data and student work guide instructional planning and decision
making.
Implementation Success Factors
Planning for professional development should be systematic, explicit, and based
upon rigorous data analysis. Effective professional development should be jobembedded, which provides context and focus for the learning (Knowles, 1983).
Collaborative teaming structures, such as professional learning communities,
may support teachers’ professional learning goals.
Effective professional development is:


Of considerable duration–time spent in theory, demonstration, practice
and feedback, and classroom support (Yoon et al., 2007; DarlingHammond et al., 2009).
Focused on specific content and/or instructional strategies rather than
a general approach (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).
35



Part of a coherent program clearly aligned with school improvement
goals and student achievement standards (Yoon et al., 2007; DarlingHammond et al., 2009).
Focused on the modeling of strategies for teachers and opportunities
for “hands-on” work that builds knowledge of content (Yoon et al.,
2007; Garet et al., 2001; Supovitz, Mayer & Kahle, 2000).
Collaborative; it involves building of relationships among teachers
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).
References/Resources
Al Otaiba, S. C. (2011). Assessment data-informed guidance to individualize
kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized
control field trial. The Elementary School, 111(4), 535-560.
Allington, R., & Cunningham, P. (2007). Schools that work: Where all children
read and write (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A. S., & Dexter, E. R. (2010). Assessing the value-added
effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student
learning. The elementary school journal, 111(1), 7-34.
Blachowicz, C. L., Obrochta, C., & Fogelberg, E. (2005). Literacy coaching for
change. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 55-58.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S.
(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC:
National Staff Development Council.
Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., & al., e. (2008). The impact of two
professional development interventions on early reading instruction and
achievement. Institute of Education Science, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington, DC:
Department of Education.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national
sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4).
Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher
retention: What the research says. Denver, CO: Education Commission of
the States.
Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring
programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review
of Education Research, 81(2), 201-233. Retrieved from
36
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=gse
_pubs
Joyce, B. R. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff
development. ASCD.
Knowles, M. (1983). Adults are not grown up children as learners. Community
Services Catalyst, 13(4), 4-8.
Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L. M., Vellutino, F. R., Schatschneider, C., &
Sweeney, J. M. (2010). Reducing the incidence of early reading
difficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers versus direct
interventions for children. In P. H. Johnston (Ed.), RTI in literacy:
Responsive and comprehensive (pp. 257–291). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Holmes, G. C., Madden, N. A., & Chamberlain, A.
(2013). Effects of a data-driven district reform model on state assessment
outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 371-396.
Snow-Renner, R. &. (2005). McREL insights: Professional development analysis.
Aurora, CO: McREL.
Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry based
instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development
in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy 14(3), 331-356.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007).
Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects
student achievement (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007-No 033).
Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Majority Opinion
 Structure, coherence
and consistency are
going to make a
difference for teacher
learning.
37
Minority Opinion
None noted.
Consultant Teachers
In most of Washington’s 295 school districts, there exist staff members who
support reading and literacy instruction for students in addition to the core
classroom teacher. There is no standardized identifying title, classification, nor
name for these educators; they may even be identified by different titles within a
district (e.g., consultants, coaches, instructional coaches, literacy coaches,
literacy specialists, reading expert, and others). Knowing this, schools and
districts are encouraged to correlate their reading “support staff” using the
definitions outlined, rather than relying solely on the heading, as they make
choices around this section. For the purpose of this menu, literacy coaches and
English Language Development coaches are categorized as types of
instructional coaches, as generally described in the following entry.
LAP funds may only be used in support of students identified for LAP funds.
However, a consultant teacher’s role may extend to include non-identified
students in concert with LAP-identified students.
Instructional Coaches
Instructional coaches focus on personalized and team-focused professional
learning development, often embedded in teachers’ school days. To increase
student achievement, coaches support staff and leadership identification of
needs around components of the school day (e.g., instructional materials
choices, data analysis/formative assessment, technology integration,
instructional/pedagogical strategies…).
Coaching may be in a 1:1 setting with small groups, or in larger cross-content
groups. Coaching may include modeling best practice with students and classes,
conducting learning walks, engaging in book studies, or other focused actions
that reflect the data-driven needs for the learners in the building.
K–4 Considerations
The Instructional Coach should be knowledgeable and proficient with K–4
standards, instructional practices, programs, and assessments to the degree to
which they can plan lessons and model lesson with teachers (Biancarosa, 2010).
Strong knowledge of the Reading Foundational Skills, diagnostic assessments,
differentiation, and methods for acceleration are critical to support teachers
working with struggling readers.
Implementation Success Factors
To ensure credibility with novice as well veteran teachers, an Instructional Coach
should have demonstrated a successful teaching history. Along with the requisite
38
knowledge of standards, instructional practices, and assessments, an
Instructional Coach must also have a deep understanding of the components of
effective coaching (L'Allier et al., 2010; Shanklin, 2006). The knowledge, skills,
and dispositions of coaching specifically for Instructional Coaches is strongly
recommended (Biancarosa, 2010).
To ensure a successful Instructional Coaching model, the building principal
intentionally structures a professional learning culture to support Instructional
Coaching. The principal closely monitors the role of the Instructional Coach to
ensure the activities support teachers in improving their practice. “[S]tudies
suggest that coaching may need to be embedded in broader efforts to build
professional knowledge if it is to be most useful” (Darling-Hammond, et al. 2009,
p. 12).
References/Resources
Allington, R., & Cunningham, P. (2007). Schools that work: Where all children
read and write (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A. S., & Dexter, E. R. (2010). Assessing the value-added
effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student
learning. The elementary school journal, 111(1), 7-34.
Blachowicz, C. L., Obrochta, C., & Fogelberg, E. (2005). Literacy coaching for
change. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 55-58.
Committee on How People Learn. (2005). How Students Learn: History,
Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. National Academies Press.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for
renaissance schools (3rd ed.). Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S.
(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC:
National Staff Development Council.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving
instruction. New York: Corwin.
Knight, J. (2010). Unmistakable impact: A partnership approach for dramatically
improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
39
L'Allier, S., Elish‐Piper, L., & Bean, R. M. (2010). What matters for elementary
literacy coaching? Guiding principles for instructional improvement and
student achievement. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 544-554.
Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Frey, N. (2003). Dual role of the urban reading
specialist. Journal of Staff Development, 24(2), 33-37.
Lipton, L., Wellman, B., & Humbard, C. (2003). Mentoring matters: A practical
guide to learning focused relationships (2nd ed.). Miravia, LLC.
Marzano, R. (2002-2003). What works in schools: Translating research into
action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
ASCD.
Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional
development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional
practices. American educational research journal, 46(2), 532-566.
Shanklin, N. (2006). What are the characteristics of effective literacy coaching.
Retrieved April 2014, from Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse:
http://www.literacycoachingonline.org
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs
of ALL learners. Hawker-Brownlow Education.
Instructional Coaches—Literacy Coaches
Student success in reading and writing improvement is dependent on teachers’
ability to employ reading strategies and interventions that meet the differentiated
needs of all learners. The National Reading Panel describes this simply as “a
complex task” that necessitates much professional training. The term “literacy
coach” refers to one who has specialized knowledge/training in literacy
instruction, which may encompass specific intervention with reading and/or
writing instruction. The focus of work is to support acceleration of student
achievement in literacy, via working with the classroom teacher and collaborating
with teams.
Literacy coaches must have specialized knowledge that goes beyond teaching
reading. Literacy coaches must know how to work well with adults. These
coaches should spend a majority of their time with teachers observing, modeling,
40
conferencing, and co-teaching. Literacy coaches must be skilled at building
collaborative and trusting relationships that honors confidentiality and effective
communications. Literacy coaches should support a core set of literacy activities
that deepens understanding of literacy and foundational reading skills and
teachers’ instructional practice. Finally, literacy coaches must help set the goals
and direction of the literacy program and support the structural changes
necessary for buildings/districts to achieve increased literacy outcomes (L'Allier,
2010).
K–4 Considerations
Literacy coaches at the K–4 level need an in-depth knowledge of reading
foundational skills, learning progressions for reading development, and
diagnostic skills to pinpoint gaps in students’ learning. These professionals
should also be adept at developing and supporting instructional activities that are
developmentally appropriate.
Implementation Success Factors
According to the International Reading Association, “Reading [Literacy] coaching
is a powerful intervention with great potential; however, that potential will be
unfulfilled if reading coaches do not have sufficient depth of knowledge and
range of skills to perform adequately in the coaching role” (International Reading
Association, 2004, p. 4).
To have positive impact on student achievement, Literacy Coaches will have
deep training and experience in research- and evidence-based literacy
instruction, including intervention and assessment strategies. Additionally,
Literacy Coaches will work with teachers most of the time, in order to impact the
maximum number of children. Literacy coaches are collaborative members of the
larger faculty, and work cohesively among staff to provide rich support for
struggling readers.
School and district leadership will provide support and guidance regarding the
short- and long-term planning of Literacy Coaches. Ensuring that the work is
aligned to the broader vision of the school and the multi-tiered supports in the
building, school leaders provide the foundation upon which the Literacy Coach
can improve, enhance, and develop teachers’ efficacy in reading instruction.
References/Resources
Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2008). Research on Coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.),
Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
41
L’Allier, S.K., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R.M. (2010). What matters for elementary
literacy coaching? A Guiding principles for instructional improvement and
student achievement. The Reading Teacher, 63, 544-554.
Instructional Coaches—English Language Development Coaches
Like other instructional coaches, English Language Development (ELD) coaches
collaborate with classroom teachers to maximize student learning and
achievement. Specific details surrounding the general professional duties of
coaching are outlined above in the section on “Instructional Coaches.” That said,
ELD coaches are also faced with a variety of unique demands that aren't typically
encountered by content specific coaches. Examples of such demands include
(but are not limited to):







Designing instructional approaches within a framework of second
language acquisition processes.
Assessing students' language needs according to the English
language proficiency standards.
Identifying techniques for supporting students from varying language
proficiency levels.
Accommodating the needs of students from multiple linguistic and
cultural backgrounds.
Working with teachers from multiple content areas and grade levels.
Finding resources for primary language support.
Acting as cultural brokers between home and school interactions.
Stemming from these demands, ELD coaches are best supported when provided
with explicit professional development opportunities that cater to their
professional contexts (Burkins & Ritchie, 2007). Specific areas for ELD coaching
professional development include:










Explicit English Language Learner (ELL) instruction techniques (Hill &
Flynn, 2006).
Effective language scaffolding methods (Gibbons, 2002).
Language demands across content areas (Egbert & Ernst-Slavit,
2010).
Sheltering instruction for increased comprehension (Echevarria et al.,
2012; Hanan, 2009).
Establishing effective collaborations with colleagues (West, 2012).
Increasing knowledge of differentiated instruction techniques (Bean &
Isler, 2008).
Creating meaningful language opportunities (Freeman & Freeman,
1998).
Integrating primary language instruction (Thomas & Collier, 1997).
Family engagement strategies (Auerbach, 2012).
Building on ELL students' funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 2005).
42
Effective ELD coaching also involves working closely with school literacy
coaches, though being mindful of supporting ELLs through linguistically and
culturally appropriate ways. Of particular importance for ELD coaches is helping
classroom teachers draw on their students' cultural background and promote the
use of their primary language in learning activities (Escamilla, 2007).
References/Resources
Auerbach, S. (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community
partnerships. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bean, R., & Isler, W. (2008). The school board wants to know: Why literacy
coaching? Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse, July 26, 1-3.
Burkins, J.M., & Ritchie, S. (2007). Coaches coaching coaches. Journal of
Language and Literacy Education, 3(1), 32-47.
Echevarria, J.J., Vogt, M.E., & Short, D. (2012). Making content comprehensible
for English learners: The SIOP model. New York, NY: Pearson.
Egbert, J.L., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2010). Access to academics: Planning instruction
for k-12 classrooms with ELLs. New York, NY: Pearson
Escamilla, K. (2007). Considerations for literacy coaches in classrooms with
English Language Learners. Retrieved April 2014, from Literacy Coaching
Clearinghouse: http://www. literacycoachingonline.org
Freeman, Y.S., & Freeman, D.E. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for
success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005a). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Hanan, A. (2009). Modeling and observing sheltered instruction charts: Lesson
planning and note-taking tools for ESL/ELL coaches. Literacy Coaching
Clearinghouse, April 20, 1-5.
Hill, J.D., & Flynn, K.M. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English
language learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
43
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority
students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
West, C.S. (2012). Effective coaching strategies for increased use of researchbased instructional strategies for linguistically diverse classrooms.
Master's Thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Outreach Activities
Family involvement in the education of children has been shown to be a
modifying factor that has a positive effect on student achievement (Jeynes, 2003;
Jeynes, 2013). Several approaches to engaging parents and enhancing family
involvement are listed and described below.
Family Involvement Outside of School
Schools must recognize that many best practices for supporting family
engagement are those which occur outside the walls of the school and the school
day and ultimately support increased student achievement (Flamboyan
Foundation, 2011). Outside of school activities may include visiting libraries,
museums, and family resource centers, and engaging in home learning activities
such as shared reading activities.
Academic supports in the early years have long lasting effects on students
reading achievement. For example, a family literacy program for migrant families
that instructed parents on how to support learning at home for kindergarten
students showed significant academic gains for these students at the end of first
grade as well as at the end of 5th and 6th grade (St. Clair et al., 2012).
K–4 Considerations
According to Henderson and Mapp (2002), family involvement outside of school
for elementary students should include helping with reading skills and checking
homework, monitoring how students spend their time outside of school, and
talking about school and what children are learning.
Implementation Success Factors
A Family/Community Liaison can work to explicitly connect and communicate
with families the resources within the community. When considering training
programs specific to activities tied to academic learning routines and/or support
for students, the following elements should be included in the planning and
implementation (Epstein, 2005).
Leadership
o Principal
44
o Family representation
o Teacher
Goal Setting
Action Steps
o Training
o Follow up
Evaluation
References/Resources
Epstein, J. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the
children we share. In J. L. Epstein, K. Coates, M. Salinas, M. Sanders, &
B. Simon, School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook
for Action (3rd ed., pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L. (2005). Developing and sustaining research-based programs of
school, family and community partnerships. Baltimore, MD: National
Network of Partnership Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
Jeynes, W. H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of
parental involvement programs for urban students. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Family Research Project.
Flamboyan Foundation. (2011, January). What kinds of family engagement are
most effective? Retrieved March 31, 2014, from
www.flamboyanfoundation.org: http://flamboyanfoundation.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/What-kinds-of-family-engagement-matter-1-282011.pdf.
Halgunseth, L. C., Peterson, A., Stark, D. R., & Moodie, S. (2009). Family
engagement, diverse families, and early childhood education programs:
An integrated review of the literature. National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Henderson, A., & Berla (Eds.), N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The
family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National
Committee for Citizens in Education.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of
school, family and community. Austin, TX: Southwest Education
Development Laboratory.
St. Clair, L., Jackson, B., & Zweiback, R. (2012). Six years later: Effect of family
involvement training on the language skills of children from migrant
families. School Community Journal, 22(1), p. 9-19.
45
Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., Lloyd, C. M., & Leuong, T. (2013).
The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8:
A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional
skills. New York, NY: Center on School, Family and Community
Partnerships, MDRC.
Majority Opinion
None noted.
Minority Opinion
 While family
involvement is critical,
the practice is highly
varied and it is difficult
to show that sufficient
evidence of
effectiveness is
available.
Family Involvement at School
Parents have significant influence on their children. There is compelling evidence
that reveals a strong connection between parent and family involvement in
schools and a child’s academic achievement, attendance, attitude and continued
education (Henderson & Berla, 1994).
Highlights from multiple research studies indicate that:



Helping children understand the importance of education matters most.
These practices include families having high expectation for their child,
discussing aspiration for the future, fostering child accountability for
learning and talking about the value of education.
Parenting style, supporting child reading, providing supervision, and
engaging in home learning activities are all important in supporting a
child’s success.
Parent and families engage in schools differently. Efforts need to be
made to move from traditional forms of involvement like attending
school events or conferences to actually interacting with school staff
about the academic needs of students. (Flamboyan Foundation, 2011).
K–4 Considerations
 Family Involvement in school is critical from the start. This early
involvement sets the stage for the rest of a child’s academic career.
 A welcoming environment in the school is an essential component of
building relationships that will impact students throughout their time in
school and ease the transition to an academic setting.
46
Implementation Success Factors
Factors may impact the successful implementation and ultimately positively
impact outcomes include:



“Relationships: Among family, community members, and school staff
that foster trust and collaboration.
Recognition: Of families’ needs, class, and cultural differences that
encourage greater understanding and respect among all involved.
Involvement: Of all stakeholders in shared partnerships and mutual
responsibility that supports student learning” (Ferguson et al., 2008).
References/Resources
Chavkin, N.F., & Williams, D. L. (1989). Low-income parents’ attitudes toward
parent involvement in education. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,
16(3), 17-28.
Epstein, J. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the
children we share. In J. L. Epstein, K. Coates, M. Salinas, M. Sanders, &
B. Simon, School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook
for Action (3rd ed., pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ferguson, C., Ramos, M., Rudo, Z., & Wood, L. (2008). The school-family
connection: Looking at the larger picture. Austin, TX: National Center for
Family and Community Connections with Schools.
Flamboyan Foundation. (2011, January). What kinds of family engagement are
most effective? Retrieved March 31, 2014, from
www.flamboyanfoundation.org: http://flamboyanfoundation.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/What-kinds-of-family-engagement-matter-1-282011.pdf.
Henderson, A., & Berla (Eds.), N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The
family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National
Committee for Citizens in Education.
Hill, N.E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school
readiness: The roles of ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(4), 686-697.
47
Community Partnerships
According to the Ohio Department of Education, the “definition of a community
partnership includes every formal arrangement a school can make with an
individual, association, private sector organization or public institution to provide
a program, service or resource that will help support student achievement” (n.d.,
p. 2). Effective community engagement initiatives must be comprehensive,
integrated and developed to address the unique needs of the student population.
Community Based Student Mentoring
Mentoring is defined as a positive relationship between a non-parental adult or
older youth to a younger child or youth (Gordon et al., 2009). Mentoring
programs may be broadly categorized as school-based or community-based. In
school-based mentoring, mentors typically meet
with mentees one-on-one during or after the
school day and engage in both academic and
Engagement is a
nonacademic activities. Community-based
shared
mentoring occurs outside of the school context.
Community-based mentoring sessions are
responsibility
typically longer than school-based mentoring
activities and community-based mentor-mentee

relationships often are longer in duration than
Engagement is a shared
school-based matches (Herrera, 2011).
responsibility of families,
schools, and communities
Mentoring experiences can take many forms.
for student learning and
The structure of the mentoring experience is
achievement; it is
continuous from birth to
often influenced by the goals of the mentoring
young adulthood; and it
program and may include a variety of social,
occurs across multiple
cultural, and academic activities. Activities may
settings where children
include visiting a museum, studying for an
learn.
exam, watching a movie, or playing a board
-Weiss et al., 2010
game. Mentors and mentees may also spend
time navigating issues for the mentee such as
problems with time management, conflicts with
a teacher, relationship issues, or family problems (Larose et al., 2010). The types
of activities may vary, however, based on the age and needs of the mentee. “In
late adolescents, activities focused on personal and professional identity,
autonomy, time and relationship management, and skills development are
believed to meet the needs shared by many young people. Mentoring program
managers must ensure that the objectives of their programs and the nature of the
activities in these programs strongly reflect the developmental needs of their
clientele” (Larose et al., 2010, p. 138).
48
Both school-based and community-based mentoring have been found to have a
positive effect on student academic outcomes. In a study of middle school
African American students, researchers found an Afrocentric mentoring program
to be effective in fostering academic achievement and success in the
participating mentees (Gordon et al., 2009). In a five-month Big Brothers Big
Sisters school-based mentoring program, mentees experienced modest shortterm academic gains (Herrera at al., 2011).
K–4 Considerations
 Activities should be developmentally appropriate (Larose et al., 2010).
 Elementary school-based mentor programs should seek parent
permission and parents should be informed of the goals of the program
and possible activities (Ryan et al., 2002).
Implementation Success Factors
 “Mentors and mentees need opportunities to meet and participate in
shared activities on a regular basis over an extended period of time”
(Ryan et al., 2002, p. 134).
 Mentoring programs should carefully screen mentors, thoughtfully
match mentors and mentees, and provide training for the mentors
(Ryan et al., 2002).
 Mentor programs should utilize a paid mentor coordinator who
coordinates activities, communicates with families, and
recruits/trains/supports mentors (Ryan et al., 2002).
Majority Opinion
 Student mentoring
programs need to be
highly structured with
potential protocols for
adults to use. This
practice has the
potential to have
highly variable
outcomes if not
supported well.
Minority Opinion
None noted.
References/Resources
Gordon, D.M., Iwamoto, D. K., Ward, N., Potts, R., & Boyd, E. (2009). Mentoring
urban black middle school male students: Implications for academic
achievement. The Journal of Negro Education 78(3), 277-289.
49
Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in
schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based
mentoring. Child Development 82(1), 346-361.
Larose, S., Cyrenne, D., Garceau, O., Brodeur, P., & Tarabulsy, G. M. (2010).
The structure of effective academic mentoring in late adolescence. New
Directions for Youth Development 126, 123-140.
Ryan, S., Whittaker, C.R., & Pinckney, J. (2002). A school-based elementary
mentoring program. Preventing School Failure 46(3), 133-138.
Instructional Frameworks and Models
This section includes description of critical
structures and instructional models that impact
student learning in positive ways. The
instructional models presented must be
considered carefully when creating a balanced
system for supporting every student. In
addition, it is critical that within each model
presented, consideration be made to
accommodate the needs of all students
including those from multiple linguistic and
cultural backgrounds.
Instructional
Models

…must be considered
carefully when creating a
balanced system for
supporting every student.
Direct Instruction
Direct instruction is a highly structured approach to teaching that involves
chunking content into manageable parts that are presented in a logical sequence
(Archer & Huges, 2011). Direct instruction strategies are efficient and effective for
achieving content mastery of fundamental facts, rules, and action sequences
essential to future learning (Borich, 2011). Different types of learning require
differing degrees of teacher direction, but the key to direct instruction is “the
active communication and interaction between teacher and student” (Rupley et
al., 2009, p. 127). In practice, direct instruction includes a review of previous
work, presentation of new material, guided practice, independent practice,
feedback, and review. The direct instruction approach incorporates many
components of effective instruction, including connecting new content to previous
learning, eliciting student interest, clear explanations, scaffolding, and modeling.
Gradually releasing responsibility to the students is an important component of
direct instruction and teachers who intervene when students begin to struggle are
50
more effective than teachers who simply assign additional practice (Rupley et al.,
2009).
Direct instruction is well supported by a large body of research. In a metaanalysis of studies reviewing the achievement effects of 29 different
comprehensive school reform models, direct instruction was cited as one of
models with the strongest evidence of effectiveness (Borman et al., 2003). Direct
instruction has also specifically been shown to be effective in “learning and
teaching the major components of the reading process—phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension” (Rupley et al., 2009, p. 125126). Direct instruction practices for reading instruction typically focus on one
strategy at a time and may include strategies to identify unknown words with
contextual clues, draw inferences, and summarize (Ryder et al., 2006). In a study
conducted by Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish (1991), direct instruction involving
teacher presentation of comprehension and metacomprehension strategies, and
student practice of the strategies with teacher guidance and feedback, resulted in
significant positive effects on student achievement. In a study of ELLs,
researchers found that reading and reading-related skills improved significantly
following direct instruction in sight-word automaticity, vocabulary knowledge,
syntactic awareness, and reading comprehension strategies (Van Staden, 2011).
“Five years of research on fostering reading growth showed that reading skills
and strategies can be taught effectively and efficiently in preschool and
elementary school reading programs when instruction is systematic and explicit”
(Rupley et al., 2009, p. 126). Direct instruction is also effective for students with
dyslexia as these students require language concepts and skills to be presented
sequentially (Wadlington, E., 2000). Direct instruction is particularly effective for
teaching phonics rules and their applications to students with dyslexia.
K–4 Considerations
Direct instruction strategies have positive effects for students in all grade levels.
Implementation Success Factors
Direct instruction on specific reading comprehensions strategies should be paired
with metacognitive monitoring strategies to aid students in selecting appropriate
reading strategies (Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, 1991).
References/Resources
Archer, A. L. & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient
teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Borich, G. D. (2011). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice (7th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
51
Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R, & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction
for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading &
Writing Quarterly 25(2-3), 125–138.
Ryder, R. J., Burton, J. L., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal study of direct
instruction effects from first through third grades. Journal of Educational
Research, 99(3), 180-191.
Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. (2005). A
comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle
school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 175-182.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative
learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on
main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8-16.
Van Staden, A. (2011). Put reading first: Positive effects of direct instruction and
scaffolding for ESL learners struggling with reading. Perspectives in
Education, 29(4), 10-21.
Wadlington, E. (2000). Effective language arts instruction for students with
dyslexia. Preventing School Failure (44)2.
Majority Opinion
 Direct instruction
“has a long history of
effective results for
at-risk students and
students with
disabilities…[S]tudent
s at risk for reading
failure tend to differ
from their averageachieving peers in
the areas of
language processing,
memory, learning
strategies, and
vocabulary and,
therefore, benefit
from intensive, wellsequenced, and
teacher-directed
instruction” (Shippen
52
Minority Opinion
 Significant
opportunity for
practice is a key
element of direct
instruction;
however, some
educators, such as
Alfie Kohn, have
raised concern over
the use of repeated
practice as this may
limit the opportunity
for students to
construct their own
knowledge and
develop critical
thinking strategies
(Archer & Hughes,
2011).
 There are many
Majority Opinion
et al., 2005, p. 177)
Minority Opinion
instructional models
available. Selecting
a few for inclusion in
the menu does a
disservice to other
models not
included.
Constructivism
Constructivism describes a broad theoretical approach to learning and teaching
that informs a range of approaches to instruction such as inquiry learning and
problem-based learning. Constructivist learning and teaching stresses that the
student herself constructs knowledge through interaction with her environment
and the active engagement with that which is to be learned (Kamii et al., 1991).
Danielson, in her widely used and cited Enhancing Professional Practice: A
Framework for Teaching (2007), notes that constructivism is “now acknowledged
by cognitive psychologists as providing the most powerful framework for
understanding how children (and adults) learn” (p. 15).
Constructivist instruction promotes knowledge building through student
engagement in learning activities that are contextualized and authentic. A
constructivist instructional model incorporates a diverse range of classroom
practices designed to facilitate the student’s engagement with and practice of
that which needs to be learned, including the use of active modeling, scaffolding,
explicit articulation of learning processes, cooperative learning, and problem
posing (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2006; Cambourne, 2002; Savery & Duffy, 2002).
While constructivist instruction is often seen as the opposite of direct instruction,
constructivism is an instructional model that, in fact, includes the use direct
instruction, as well as explicit goal setting and scaffolding. In other words,
constructivism is commonly misrepresented and misunderstood as a “hands-off,”
passive approach to teaching, often termed “unguided discovery” (Hmelo-Silver
et al., 2006). Hmelo-Silver et al.’s (2006) work, however, suggests that examples
of constructivist pedagogy such as inquiry learning and problem-based learning
should not be conflated with “unguided discovery,” because both approaches
extensively utilize scaffolding, a key component of constructivist teaching
(Wilkinson and Silliman, 2000).
The positive impacts on student achievement of a constructivist approach to
instruction have been demonstrated by a number of meta-analyses, including a
meta-analysis in Educational Psychologist focused on the effectiveness of
constructivist approaches generally (Schmidt et al., 2009), as well as meta53
analyses focused on instructional models based on constructivism, such as
problem-based learning (Dochy et al., 2003), learner-centered education
(Cornelius-White, 2007), and collaborative learning (Springer et al., 1999,
Johnson et al., 2002). These findings demonstrate that constructivism is an
evidence-based instructional model that can be used to positively impact student
learning.
A constructivist approach to reading instruction suggests that language cannot
be comprehended outside of the context that surrounds it and that literacy
learning must take place via authentic interactions with texts (Kamii et al., 1991;
Wilkinson and Silliman, 2000). Brian Cambourne’s (2002) chapter in What the
Research Says About Reading Instruction asserts that constructivist literacy
instruction must use explicit instruction to make the implicit processes of reading
visible to learners. Cambourne (2002) articulates five principles that constructivist
reading instruction should follow; these principles are paraphrased below:





Classroom culture encourages engagement with demonstrations of
effective reading behavior.
Teaching activities are a mix of explicitness, systematicity, mindfulness
and contextualization.
Learning activities should create continuous intellectual unrest.
Metatexual awareness of processes implicit in effective reading
behavior is developed.
Tasks involve the authentic use of processes and understanding in
effective reading behavior (Cambourne, 2002, p. 30).
Cambourne’s work suggests that teachers using a constructivist approach to
reading instruction must use explicit instruction and explicit modeling to help
students recognize and understand their own learning process (Cambourne,
2002; Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000). Constructivist reading instruction emphasizes
engaging students with models and the practice of the effective reading behavior
that students must learn. Likewise, Wilkinson & Silliman (2000) note that
“supportive scaffolding” is a key feature of effective constructivist language arts
instruction. Cambourne (2002) also asserts that constructivist teaching requires a
high degree of systematicity; that is, such teaching must be systematically
planned (p. 32-33), noting that data indicates that more successful teachers are
more systematic in their approach to planning and implementation. Further, he
stresses that constructivist teachers must be mindful and reflective, and that they
must also contextualize learning “so that it makes sense to the learner” in
contrast to learning that is “automatic, rigid [or] mindless” (2002, p. 32-34).
Many of principles of ineffective and effective reading instruction based on
research and expert opinion identified in “A Focus on Struggling Readers: A
Comparative Analysis of Expert Opinions and Empirical Research
54
Recommendations,” (Jones et al., 2012) align with the literature on constructivist
approaches to literacy education. These constructivist-aligned approaches are
based on an extensive analysis of the research and an effort to find common
ground among reading experts:
Effective Reading Instruction (Jones et al., 2012, p. 282-286)




Modeling and Scaffolding Instruction
Discussion and Dialogue About Reading
Integrated Instruction
Student Motivation
Constructivist literacy instruction prescribes the use of modeling and scaffolding
(Cambourne 2002, 1995; Willkinson and Silliman, 2000) and discussion and
dialogue about reading (Palinscar and David, 2014). Further, constructivism
suggests an approach to literacy that integrates reading instruction alongside the
learning and practice of writing, speaking and listening skills (Kamii et al., 1991)
and, finally, student engagement and motivation is an essential component of
effective constructivist reading instruction (Cambourne, 2002). Further, this
analysis of research and expert opinion on literacy instruction noted several
approaches that constructivist literature also suggests are not effective for the
teaching of reading such as “Isolated Instruction,” “Skill Drill and Mastery,” and
“Exclusive Teacher Control” (Jones et al., 2012, p. 278-279). These ineffective
approaches are counter to the constructivist approach to education, which insists
that learning and teaching must be a contextualized and collaborative process.
K–4 Considerations
 According to the National Reading Panel report (2000), a balance
between direct instruction and a contextualized, authentic, and
integrated approach to reading instruction is necessary for K–4 reading
students.
 Scaffolding and explicit modeling of effective reading behavior are key
constructivist approaches to literacy instruction for K–4 learners.
 K–4 classroom culture must encourage engagement with effective
reading behaviors.
Implementation Success Factors
 Systematic planning, based on student learning goals, is essential to
effective constructivist reading instruction (Cambourne, 2002).
Constructivist learning needs to engage the student through the use of
highly structured learning activities that include supportive scaffolding,
explicit modeling, collaboration, and contextualized, authentic reading
practice. Effective constructivist learning should not be unguided or
unstructured.
55


Development and implementation of constructivist reading instruction
must be tied to the articulation and assessment of students on the
basis of clearly defined learning goals. Constructivist lessons must
involve the explicit articulation of these learning goals to students and
opportunities for metacognitive engagement with the learning process
(Wilkinson and Silliman, 2000; Savery & Duffy, 1995).
Reflective teaching is a key component of constructivist teaching and
student achievement (Hillocks, 1999; Cambourne 1995, 2002).
References/Resources
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy
learning: Twenty years of inquiry. Reading Teacher, 49, 182-182.
Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to reading and language
arts instruction: The constructivist framework of an instructional theory.
What research has to say about reading instruction, 3, 25-47.
Jones, C., Reutzel, D., & Smith, J. (2011). A focus on struggling readers: A
comparative analysis of expert opinion and empirical research
recommendations. In R. Flippo (Ed.), Reading Researchers in Search of
Common Ground (2nd ed., pp. 274-303). New York: Routledge.
Hiebert, E. (1991). Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and
policies. Teachers College Press.
Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and
achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99107.
Kamii, C., Manning, M., & Manning, G. (1991). Early literacy: A constructivist
foundation for whole language. National Education Association.
Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (2014). Promoting literacy through classroom
dialogue. Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and
policies, 122-140.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive
structures. (Trans A. Rosin). Viking.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
56
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional
model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 3138.
vonGlaserfeld, E.(1989) Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching.
Synthese, 80, 121-140.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilkinson, L., & Stillman, E. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning.
Handbook of Reading Research, 3, 337-360.
Majority Opinion
None noted.
Minority Opinion
 There are many
instructional models
available. Selecting a
few for inclusion in the
menu does a
disservice to other
models not included.
Services Under RCW 28A.320.190—Extended Learning Opportunities
Program
See the section on page 64 under Promising Practices for descriptions of
identified practices. The services under RCW28A.320.190 are included in that
section because they didn’t meet the standards for being identified as evidencebased or research-based.
57
PROMISING PRACTICES
Promising practices are defined as those practices that do not have research or
evidence to show they are best practices and strategies, but still show potential
for improving student outcomes. The practices defined in this section are
considered part of the menu, and can be used by districts. They are selected and
described based upon the professional opinions of the expert panel members.
Districts who choose to use any of the promising practices in this section or any
other strategies not on the menu must provide evidence of effective outcomes,
starting with the 2016–2017 school year.
It is important to note that this is not a comprehensive list of all emerging or
promising practices, but rather a sample of practices that have the potential to be
effective.
Table 3: Menu of Promising Practices
Promising Practice
Panel Opinion
K–4
K–12
Additional Instruction
Time
Yes
Yes
Summer Book Programs
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Language Development
for ELLs
Yes
Yes
Content Acceleration
Yes
Yes
Oral Language Focus
Yes
Yes
Extended Learning Time
Professional Development
Professional Learning
Communities
Services Under RCW
28A.320.190—Extended
Learning Opportunities
Program
Credit Retrieval
Outreach Activities
Transition-Based Family
Involvement
Instructional Models
Multi-Tiered Systems of
Support
Other Promising Practices
58
Extended Learning Time
Additional Instruction Time
Extended content time is defined as additional content time that enhances core
instruction within the regular instructional day. An IES (2008) panel’s review of
evidence on the use Response to Intervention to support students in students
overcoming reading struggles resulted in the recommendation to: “Provide
intensive instruction on a daily basis that promotes the development of the
various components of reading proficiency to students who show minimal
progress after reasonable time.” This may include:



An extra period during the day provided for students to get a more time
working on reading skills, with a focus on their specific instructional
literacy needs.
An additional staff member providing targeted literacy support
resources during the core instruction time, (e.g. a tutor working with a
group of students while the general education teacher works with
another group).
A system-wide multi-tiered assessment and intervention that builds
upon core instruction to enhance the achievement of targeted
students.
As an example of an extra period during the day for literacy instruction, Mazzolini
and Morely (2006) describe such a reading class as beneficial to middle and high
school students reading one or more years below grade level. This class
regularly utilized a vocabulary activity, a mini-lesson, a read-aloud, and
independent reading practice. Students experienced growth in reading
achievement and reported increased motivation to read and self-efficacy.
K–4 Considerations
Considerations for younger students would include knowledge of the student’s
skill levels, fatigue levels, ability to sustain focused concentration over longer
periods, oral language development, ability to follow directions and social skills.
Parents or guardians need to be clearly informed of the need for intervention and
how they can support their child. Additional considerations would include
frequent progress monitoring, use of evidence-based interventions, training for
staff members implementing interventions and use of evidence-based
interventions.
Implementation Success Factors
All work during the extended time should be closely aligned to the Washington
State standards which form the core learning targets for students. Collaboration
time among teachers must be provided to develop clarity and coherence among
the general education teachers and the staff members providing the extended
59
content time for students to meet the state standards. The intervention team (all
the adults serving the student) should determine the instructional and
assessment plans for each student to meet the instructional targets. Students
should be able to articulate the purpose for their interaction with their learning,
practicing and growing their agency in their own achievement.
Ongoing progress monitoring and student self-assessment should be conducted
during any extended learning time aligned to the Washington State standards
and the state’s English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards.
Students should receive services until they meet the targets identified for them by
the instructional team.
References/Resources
ECONorthwest. (2008). A review of research on extended learning time in k-12
schools. Portland: ChalkBoard Project. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from
http://chalkboardproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ExtendedLearning-2.pdf
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson,
S., & Tilly, W. (2009, February). Assisting struggling students with reading:
Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the
primary grades. Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf
#page=25
Mathematica Policy Research. (2009, July). Structuring out of school time to
improve academic achievement. Retrieved from Institute of Education
Science What Works Clearinghouse:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=10
Mazzolini, B., & Morley, S. (2006). A double-dose of reading class at the middle
and high school levels. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 34(3), 9-24.
National Education Association. (n.d.). Closing the gap through extended
learning opportunities. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from NEA Policy
Briefings:
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_PB04_ExtendedLearning.pdf
Summer Book Programs
Summer book programs promote students reading during the days they are not
in school. Books are provided to students to read at home and in many cases
parents are provided with enrichment activities that they can use with their
children. Research shows that children who do not read in the summer can lose
60
two to three months of reading development while those who do read tend to
gain a month of reading proficiency (Allington, McGill-Franzen, 2003). Reading
just 5 books over the summer can prevent summer learning loss. (Heyns, 1978).
In a study by Allington et al. (2010), elementary students self-selected twelve
books each spring for a voluntary summer reading program over three
consecutive years. Students who received books in this study “reported more
often engaging in voluntary summer reading and had significantly higher reading
achievement than the control group….[T]he reading gains of students from the
most economically disadvantaged families in the study were found to be larger,
perhaps because these students have the most restricted access to books” (p.
422).
K–4 Considerations
 Primary students who are not independent readers need guided
reading or shared reading experiences.
 Student self-selection of books increases reading motivation.
 Students should be encouraged to read a wide selection of genres.
Implementation Success Factors
 Engagement of parents/guardians is critical. Effective summer reading
programs provide families with meaningful strategies and resources
that can be carried over and implemented in their home, which ensures
continuity of summer reading programs throughout year, after the
intervention has concluded (Timmons, 2008).
 Collaboration with community libraries is important, especially with
connecting students with public library summer reading programs.
 External motivators can help with engagement.
References/Resources
Allington et al. (2010). Addressing summer reading setback among economically
disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31, p. 411-427.
Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003). The impact of summer setback on the
reading achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 68-75.
Heyns, Barbara. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Timmons, V. (2008). Challenges in researching family literacy programs.
Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 96–102.
Majority Opinion
 When structured well
this makes a
difference for kids.
61
Minority Opinion
None noted.
Majority Opinion
Follow-up with
students during the
summer to check that
actual reading is
occurring, getting
books into the hands
of children also very
important.
Minority Opinion
Professional Development
Professional Learning Communities
A large body of rigorous research suggests that the most effective professional
development should involve relationship-building among teachers. While this
research does not involve comparison-group studies, evidence in support of
professional learning communities (PLCs) is credible, large-scale, longitudinal,
and empirical (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Hord, 1997; Darling-Hammond et al.,
2009). In fact, in Learning Forward’s (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009) recent
review and analysis of the most credible research on effective professional
development, “collaboration” is one of four identified characteristics of the kind of
professional development that positively impacts student achievement. As the
authors of the report write, “[a] number of large-scale studies have identified
specific ways in which professional community-building can deepen teachers’
knowledge, build their skills, and improve instruction” (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2009, p. 11). The development and utilization of professional learning
communities as a strategy for professional development capitalizes on the
positive effects of collaborative learning.
A professional learning community, or PLC, can be defined as a group of
teachers, administrators, coaches, or school staff (or a combination of people in
these roles) that meets on a regular, planned basis with the goal of
collaboratively improving practices in the classroom and school in order to
improve student learning outcomes. Shirley Hord (1997) provides a simple
definition: “[p]rofessionals coming together in a group—a community—to learn.”
As Richard DuFour (2008) notes, however, effective PLCs must be developed
and implemented on the basis of clearly articulated shared goals for student
achievement and school improvement. According to DuFour (2008), an effective
professional learning community is more than just a given group of educators. A
PLC needs to work collaboratively as part of a coherent, comprehensive
improvement plan, developed in response to an evaluation of student learning
62
data, focused on a shared vision, and in the service of a clear set of goals for
improved student achievement.
K–4 Considerations
When establishing and implementing professional learning communities, the
following topics need to be given specific consideration:




Needs of diverse learners, to include ELLs and students with
disabilities.
Content specific to the needs of K–4 ELA standards.
Instructional strategies to support struggling learners.
Use of data and student work guide instructional planning and decision
making.
Implementation Success Factors
 Clear and shared mission, vision, values, and goals (DuFour, 2008):
Teachers, paraeducators and administrators share a vision focused on
student learning and a commitment to improvement (Reichstetter,
2006).
 Collaborative culture: “A PLC is composed of collaborative teams
whose members work interdependently to achieve common goals—
goals linked to the purpose of learning for all—for which members are
held mutually accountable” (DuFour, 2008, p. 15).
 Focus on examining outcomes to improve student learning: A central
component of PLCs is a focus on continuous improvement that is
driven by outcome data. Data is continually scrutinized and
improvements to teacher practice are made when growth in student
outcomes is not demonstrated (Louis, 2006).
 Action orientation: PLCs have a strong focus on bridging the knowingdoing gap. As DuFour (2008) notes, within PLCs, “aspirations are
turned into action and visions into reality” (DuFour, 2008, p. 16). Using
the continuous improvement model, each action is evaluated for
effectiveness. The central question is whether this action resulted in
improved outcomes for students.
References/Resources
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating
and sustaining professional learning communities. Retrieved from
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/Creating%20and%20Sustain
ing%20PLCs_tcm4-631034.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S.
(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on
teacher development in the United States and abroad. Stanford University.
Palo Alto, CA: National Staff Development Council and the School
Redesign Network.
63
DuFour, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: What they are and why are
they important? Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Library.
Louis, K. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community,
organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5),
477-489.
Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to
the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring
of Schools. Madison, WI: Document Service, Wisconsin Center for
Education Research.
Reichstetter, R. (2006). Defining a professional learning community: A literature
review. E&R Research Alert.
Majority Opinion
 This is an important
way for teachers to
learn if structured
well. It is not about
teachers just getting
together and calling
themselves a PLC.
Data, student work,
goals and instruction
must be a part of the
PLC work.
Minority Opinion
None noted.
Services Under RCW 28A.320.190—Extended Learning Opportunities
Program
Services under RCW 28A.320.190 generally fall within the broad category of
extended learning opportunities. The law was created for eligible eighth,
eleventh, and twelfth grade students who are not on track to meet local or state
graduation requirements, as well as eighth grade students who need additional
assistance in order to have the opportunity for a successful entry into high
school. To the extent funds are available, after meeting requirements for K–4
reading instruction, LAP funds can be used for services outlined under the law,
including but not limited to:
64
1. Individual or small group instruction.
2. Instruction in ELA and/or mathematics that eligible students need to pass
all or part of the Washington assessment of student learning.
3. Attendance in a public high school or public alternative school classes or
at a skill center.
4. Inclusion in remediation programs, including summer school.
5. Language development instruction for ELLs.
6. Online curriculum and instructional support, including programs for credit
retrieval and Washington assessment of student learning preparatory
classes.
7. Reading improvement specialists available at the educational service
districts to serve eighth, eleventh, and twelfth grade educators through
professional development in accordance with RCW 28A.415.350. The
reading improvement specialist may also provide direct services to eligible
students and those students electing to continue a fifth year in a high
school program who are still struggling with basic reading skills.
The following promising practices are examples of services under RCW
28A.320.190—Extended Learning Opportunities Program, but are not an
exhaustive list of allowed services.
Credit Retrieval
Credit retrieval, or credit recovery, refers to a course that is retaken after a
student has completed the course without earning credit for the course on the
initial attempt. Reasons for a student not earning credit for a course may include
unsatisfactory grades and/or insufficient attendance. Credit retrieval programs
are often used to keep students in school and on track for graduation (Watson
and Gemin, 2008). Credit recovery courses may be offered at an alternate time,
such as after school or during the summer (D’Agustino, 2013). Credit retrieval
programs may also be offered in a variety of formats such as online, face-to-face,
and through a blended approach.
Online credit retrieval programs may pose challenges for some learners,
although the experience of online learning can be valuable. As Franco and Patel
(2011) note, “Key features of success for high school students in virtual learning
programs are the development of self-regulative strategies and the ability to
guide their own learning. Unfortunately, many of the students engaged in online
programs have not sufficiently developed these attributes, making it more difficult
for them to be successful” (p. 18). Online components of credit retrieval
programs, however, can offer benefits to struggling students, as Watson and
Gemin (2008) suggest: “The blended approach is important because it provides
65
expanded student support and face-to-face contact. The online component—
whether fully online or blended—provides 21st century skills to a group of
students who often have less than average exposure to computers and
technology” (p. 15).
K–4 Considerations
These services are not available to K–4 students.
Implementation Success Factors
 Early identification of students who may be at risk of not graduating
(Archambault et al., 2010).
 Rolling enrollment in credit retrieval courses (Archambault et al., 2010).
 Counseling services for students in credit retrieval courses (Franco &
Patel, 2011).
 Curriculum must be rigorous to ensure that students are learning the
material and not simply moving through the course (Watson and
Gemin, 2008).
 Diagnostic testing should allow students to demonstrate mastery of the
elements of a subject that they learned in their previous attempt to
pass the course, and to move on to the parts of the course that they
need to master (Watson and Gemin, 2008).
 Strong technological infrastructure for online and blended programs
(D’Agustino, 2013).
References/Resources
Archambault, L. D.-A.-C. (2010). Research committee issues brief: An
exploration of at-risk learners and online education. International
Association for K–12 Online Learning .
D’Agustino, S. (2013). Providing innovative opportunities and options for credit
recovery through afterschool and summer learning programs. In T. K.
Peterson, Expanding minds and opportunities: Leveraging the power of
afterschool and summer learning for student success.
Franco, M. S. & Patel, N. H. (2011). An interim report on a pilot credit recovery
program in a large suburban Midwestern high school. Education 132(1),
15- 27.
Watson, J. a. (2008). Using online learning for at-risk students and credit
recovery: Promising practices in online learning. Retrieved April 2014,
from North American Council for Online Learning:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509625.pdf
66
Outreach Activities
Transition-Based Family Involvement
Transition is the movement of all students from one school setting to the next, or
from out of school into school. School systems can support a successful
transition for all students. Involving parents in a meaningful manner at any point
at which a student may face additional challenges is important. “Parents gain
confidence from helping their children adjust to new schools when schools or
teachers reach out to inform and engage parents and children in activities to
smooth the transition” (Van Voorhis, et al. 2013). Struggling students often need
additional support and care when transitioning.
Changing learning environments present new challenges for parents, families
and the student. There are multiple and significant changes that include new
academic expectations, different school structures, and new social interactions
with peers or adults. This transition can be a time of uncertainty and heightened
concern about the unknown. Students transitioning have reported concerns in
three areas:



Academic (new teachers, and expectations, more homework, and
difficult coursework).
Procedural (layout of the new school, developing organization
techniques needed to manage multiple classes and teachers).
Social (new classmates, making new friends and learning the social
expectations within the school) (Uvaas and McKevitt citing Akos &
Galassi, 2004).
Preparing all stakeholders for changes to the learning environment minimizes
lost learning time, increases confidence, and starts the new experience on a
positive note.
Support for Transitions
“Work in this area requires (1) programs to establish a welcoming and socially
supportive community (especially for new arrivals), (2) programs for articulation
(for each new step in formal education, vocational and college counseling),
support in moving from programs for students with limited English proficiency,
support in moving to and from special education, support in moving to post
school living and work, (3) before and after-school programs (including
intersession) to enrich learning and provide recreation in a safe environment, and
(4) relevant education for stakeholders” (Adelman & Taylor, 2012, p. 39).
The grade level at which this transition support takes place depends on the
circumstances of each district or school. For example, in districts that have K–5
67
and 6–8 schools, the transition support would take place between fifth and sixth
grades. A critical transition point is from middle school/junior high to high school,
mostly between the 8th and 9th grades in Washington. The other critical transition
point that needs to be considered is the youth who has dropped out and reenrolls
in a school or diploma program.
K–4 Considerations
Student entry into the public school system for the first time is a big transition.
Students are leaving their familiar home environments to enter a completely new
environment. This demands understanding and patience as children adapt
emotionally, behaviorally, and academically.
“When teachers reach out to inform and engage parents and children in activities
to smooth the transition from preschool to kindergarten, more parents gain
confidence about helping their children adjust to the new school” (Van Voorhis et
al., 2013, p. 117).
Implementation Success Factors
 Must be initiated early.
 Must be tailored to the cultural, linguistic and learning needs of
individual and their families.
 Share academic expectations and child’s assessment data.
References/Resources
Adelman, H. &. (2008). Addressing barriers to student learning: Closing gaps in
school community practice. Los Angeles: Center for Mental Health in
Schools, UCLA. Retrieved from
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/barriers/closinggaps.pdf
National Center on Parent, Family, and Community Engagement. (2013). Family
engagement in transitions: Transition to kindergarten. Cambridge, MA.
Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ttasystem/family/docs/transitions-kindergarten.pdf
Olson, C. B., Collins, P., Scarcella, R., Land, R., van Dyk, D., Kim, J., & Gersten,
R. (2011). The pathway project: A cognitive strategies approach to reading
and writing instruction for teachers of secondary English Language
Learners. Irvine, CA: Institute of Education Sciences.
Habeeb, S. (2013). The Ninth Grade Challenge. Principal Leadership, 18-22.
Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., Lloyd, C. M., & Leuong, T. (2013).
The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8:
A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional
68
skills. New York, NY: Center on School, Family and Community
Partnerships, MDRC.
Instructional Models
Multi-Tiered System of Support Framework (MTSS)
MTSS is a term that is being used with increasing frequency across the country
as a proactive prevention framework that organizes district and building-level
resources to provide early identification of learning and behavior challenges. This
early identification allows for timely intervention for students who are at risk for
poor learning outcomes. A Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) framework is
an integrated, multi-tiered system of instruction, assessment and intervention
designed to meet the achievement and behavioral needs of all students.
Although not all MTSS structures use three tiers, is it easy to think of “All” (Core)
students, “Some” (Supplemental) students and “Few” (Intensive) students. An
MTSS framework is an evidenced based process that emphasizes data-based
decision making. The instruction, assessment and intervention is delivered to
students with varying intensity based upon student need. As an Issue Brief from
NCLD notes, “Research and current practices show that schools and districts
engaging in aligning resources, promoting greater collaboration, and striving to
serve students through a rigorous MTSS when they first struggle academically
and behaviorally leads to gains in reading… scores for all students” (p. 1).
Further, a meta-analytic study of four approaches to MTSS (Appleton, et al.,
2005) indicated that this kind of instructional framework has a positive effect on
student achievement.
Many existing terms and initiatives share the common elements of an MTSS and
this has caused some confusion among educators. It is not uncommon for to
hear the terms Response-to-Intervention (RTI) and MTSS used interchangeably.
Other initiatives that share similar characteristics with MTSS include Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and Data-Based Decision Making.
Another example is The National Center on Intensive Interventions development
of a comprehensive series of professional development activities on Data-Based
Individualization (DBI).
Another point of confusion is that, some educators believe that RTI is only
designed to deal with academic concerns. This belief has resulted in buildings
and districts launching an initiative such as PBIS to address behavioral concerns.
Several states have moved to reduce the confusion and lack of common
language. Kansas has adopted the MTSS name as their overall term to describe
the initiative; Michigan calls their MTSS model, “Integrated Behavior and
69
Learning Support Initiative.” A review of their respective web sites and resources
indicates use of the essential components as outlined below.
Evidenced-based Practices/Curriculum/Instructional Materials
An effective MTSS system is grounded in starting with strong core instruction
meeting the instructional needs of at least 80% of students. Further, evidence
exists that the materials and the instructional methods below have been used
successfully with struggling students:







IES Practice Guides.
US Department of Education: Doing What Works.
Best Evidence Encyclopedia.
National Center for Response to Intervention (NCRTI) Tools Chart.
Florida Center for Reading Research.
90 minute block for core reading instruction for K–3.
Intervention time in addition to the core instruction.
Data-Based Decision Making
Decisions are based upon evidence. This includes decisions about individual
students and how the MTSS is developed and implemented. There needs to be
feedback process developed that routinely reviews the effectiveness of MTSS.
Comprehensive Assessment System
A good MTSS includes strong initial instruction with ongoing and frequent
monitoring of student progress through a comprehensive assessment system.
MTSS components include universal screening (benchmark assessments),
progress monitoring, diagnostic assessments, and strong formative assessment
processes. For each of these components, it is important that established
protocols are followed for all formal assessments, that decision rules are in place
for students not making satisfactory progress, and that instructional/data teams
receive sufficient training to support for implementing all components of the
process and associated assessments. This comprehensive assessment system
should include:




Universal screening.
Regular progress monitoring.
Diagnostic assessments of the child’s strengths and weaknesses are
in place for students who are not making satisfactory progress.
Formative assessment processes: As per the National Advisory Panel
convened by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, formative
assessment, “…is a deliberate process used by teachers and students
during instruction that provides actionable feedback that is used to
adjust ongoing teaching and learning strategies to improve students’
attainment of curricular learning targets/goals.” The formative
assessment process should consist of four critical attributes that
70
operate in a cyclical process: 1) clarification of intended learning; 2)
elicitation of evidence; 3) interpretation of evidence; 4) acting on
evidence.
K–4 Considerations
 An effective MTSS can be instrumental in the development of a
systematic approach to supporting struggling readers.
 MTSS offers a framework for coordinating core and supplemental
instruction, based on evidence based practices, to suit the needs of
individual students who are struggling to learn to read.
 MTSS incorporates ongoing evaluation, assessment and adaptive
instruction into all efforts to increase the achievement of students in
reading.
Implementation Success Factors
 Intervention is well defined.
 Use of a treatment manual.
 Training for implementers.
 Supervision for implementers.
 Measure of fidelity.
 Reliability of fidelity.
 Use of fidelity data (in written report).
Fidelity of implementation addresses the question of whether the
intervention/instruction was delivered as it was intended. The components of
fidelity include intensity, duration and frequency. Fidelity has been increasingly
emphasized and is now viewed as an essential component in intervention
research. Without fidelity, “it cannot be determined whether the outcomes are
attributable to the intervention, influences of unknown variables or the failure to
implement the intervention as designed” (Dumas et al., 2001). Additionally there
is increasingly clear evidence that interventions implemented with fidelity are
associated with better outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008).
References/Resources
Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of
responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and
research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 23(4), 381-394.
Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high
school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. National High School
Center.
Dumas, J. E., Lynch, A. M., Laughlin, J. E., Phillips Smith, E., & Prinz, R. J.
(2001, January). Promoting intervention fidelity. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 20(1), 38-47. Retrieved from
71
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(00)002725/fulltext?refuid=S0749-3797(09)00546-7&refissn=0749-3797
Durlak, J. (2013). The importance of quality implementation for research,
practice, and policy: ASPE Research Brief. US Department of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved May 2014, from US Department of Health and
Human Services: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541356.pdf
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (n.d.) Issue brief: Multi-tiered systems of
support.
Other Promising Practices
Language Development for English Language Learners
ELLs are students who have acquired their primary listening and speaking skills
in a language other than English. These students encounter greater challenges
in school because they are faced with simultaneously acquiring English and
learning academic content. To address this challenge, educators need to
understand the different levels of language acquisition within oral and literacy
language domains. Educators must also be aware of how oral and literacy skills
develop across different contexts (both in and out of school) as well as across
the different academic content areas. It is important to note that language
proficiency levels vary greatly, both across grade levels as well as with the same
age/grade level. Given these understandings, ALL teachers need to create
learning environments where students are taught and expected to use the
appropriate content vocabulary of grade level curriculum. Instruction should have
an explicit focus on:




Conceptual and language development.
Learning contextualized and grounded in students’ prior knowledge.
Explicit teaching of academic strategies, expectations, and norms.
Engaging in collaborative and authentic/meaningful activities (Walqui,
2000b).
To the greatest extent possible, the students' primary language and cultural
background should be integrated into instructional practices to enhance
comprehension and conceptual development. When feasible, bilingual instruction
programs should be offered to strengthen the students' literacy skills in both
English and the primary language. Recommendations for success for secondary
English learners also highlight the importance of student identity, identity groups,
and the creation of a community of learners (Faltis & Coulter, 2008; FloresGonzalez, 2002; Walqui, 2000b).
72
K–4 Considerations
Of the approximately 107,000 students who are currently learning English in
Washington, 68 percent are in grades K–4. It is, therefore, imperative that a solid
foundation of English language development be in place for these students in the
early grades in order to foster academic success in the English speaking
classroom. As students begin school and start to develop literacy in a language
that is not their own, it is important to build upon the language strengths that
students bring with them from their home language and culture. Fostering an
atmosphere of success that acknowledges what students bring to the learning
experience is an essential component of long-term success.
As ELLs in the early grades are learning the foundations of literacy alongside
their native English speaking peers, they are simultaneously and additionally
developing the vocabulary, syntax, and pragmatics of an entirely new language
system. As Pauline Gibbons notes “many approaches and mainstream reading
programs do not take into account the needs of ELLs, since most are based on
the assumption that learners are already familiar with the spoken form of the
language” (2009, p. 83). For this reason, developing literacy with ELLs must take
into account and address the development of the student’s oral language skills in
English. When students lack an oral base to serve as a foundation for literacy
development, research has shown that reading interventions have a minimal
effect. A study by Klingner and Vaughn (1996) indicated “children with the
potential to benefit most from the [reading] intervention had some initial reading
ability and fairly high levels of second-language oral proficiency” (In August, et
al., 2008, p. 163).
Implementation Success Factors
 Draw on student’s background and strengths in their home language to
develop English.
 Employ knowledge of the student’s current level of language
acquisition.
 Provide ample opportunity for verbal interaction with the target
language.
 Provide learning opportunities that integrate language across subject
areas thus increasing both depth and frequency of language use.
 Use a variety of visual support, realia, and experiential learning to help
build vocabulary.
 Include specific instruction to develop English language skills.
 Utilize collaborative and cooperative learning opportunities that allow
students to interact with both native English speakers and English
language learning peers.
 Special efforts need to be made to ensure that students do not
characterize themselves as an incompetent learner.
73











First language and home culture are recognized as strengths and
integrated into classroom practices.
Staff need to know a student’s current language level to make
appropriate language development goals to target the needs of the
student.
A distinction must be made between New ELLs and Long Term ELLs.
Staff use the English Language Proficiency standards in planning.
Staff use a multi-modal approach to instruction.
Students hear excellent models of English; including word choice,
language structure, and grammar usage in increasingly more complex
texts.
Students are provided multiple opportunities to practice English.
Students are given sufficient response time. First students must solidify
the answer, then consider the appropriate English words to use.
Specific English Language Instruction may be needed. This Instruction
needs to be of sufficient intensity and of long enough duration to
achieve accelerated growth.
A range of learning opportunities should be considered; including
online learning, electronic translations, additional one-to-one support,
primary language instruction, etc.
Professional Development and additional collaboration time is needed
to address the needs of these students.
References/Resources
August, D., Beck, I., Calderon, M., Francis, D. L., Shanahan, T., & al., e. (2008).
Developing reading and writing in second-language learners. In D. August,
& T. Shanahan, Instruction and professional development (pp. 131-250).
New York: Routledge.
Faltis, C., & Coulter, C. (2008). Teaching English Learners and immigrant
students in secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids/street kids: Identity development in
latino students. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners academic literacy and thinking. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Walqui, A. (2000). Strategies for success: Engaging immigrant students in
secondary schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Washington English Language Proficiency Standards,
http://www.k12.wa.us/migrantbilingual/eld.aspx
74
Content Acceleration
Content acceleration is a strategy for achieving accelerated learning in which the
amount of learning is increased in a given time period. An increase in learning
may refer to more learning at a given level of difficulty and/or learning at a higher
level of difficulty (Levin, 1988). The goal of content acceleration is to bring
students up to grade level via a curriculum characterized by high expectations
and objectives rather than “pull out” interventions (Levin, 1987).
Accelerated learning seeks to improve student achievement by providing
enriched learning experiences, and deeply engaging students, rather than
slowing down instruction via a remediation model. This approach doesn’t
necessarily equate to a focus on “faster” learning; Finnan and Chasin (2007)
argue that accelerated learning should focus on engagement and depth of
coverage as opposed to speed of coverage. In contrast to an approach focused
on speed, Finnan and Swanson (2000) define accelerated learning as “learning
that is of high intellectual quality; it is substantive, authentic, and relevant.
Accelerated learning is continuous and connected; it is grounded in high
standards. Accelerated learning occurs when students are active and
responsible, involved in intellectual pursuits with other students, and turned on to
learning” (p. 11). Acceleration has a long history in gifted education, but evidence
suggests positive outcomes for at-risk students as well (Finnan & Chasin, 2007).
As a strategy for improving the achievement of struggling learners, accelerated
learning operates in contrast to remedial instruction. Henry Levin, founder of the
Stanford Accelerated Schools Project, has found that remediation actually slows
students’ progress. Levin’s research suggests that such intervention models
reduce learning expectations and marginalize students: once students are
assigned to remedial interventions, their learning slows and the achievement
gap, therefore, widens (Levin, 1987). Levin notes that the opposite needs to
happen: “To close the achievement gap, disadvantaged students must learn at a
faster rate than other children. …[S]chooling interventions for the educationally
disadvantaged must be based upon principles of accelerating their learning
beyond their normal rate” (Levin, 1988, p. 3). In 1986, Dr. Levin founded the
Accelerated Schools Project for economically disadvantaged students based on
the principle that by “providing equal access to and deeper engagement with
enriched learning experiences, schools could alter many students’ rate of
learning” (Byrd & Finnan, 2003, p. 49). Accelerated schools are most typically
utilized at the elementary level to advance at-risk students to the academic
mainstream by the end of elementary school (Byrd and Finnan, 2003; Levin &
Hopfenberg, 1991).
75
Literacy Acceleration
Research on defining and assessing the effectiveness of literacy acceleration
parallels the literature on accelerated learning. Ann Duffy (2000) defines literacy
acceleration “as instruction that enables struggling readers to make rapid
progress and read as well as or better than their peers not struggling in reading,
as opposed to ‘remedial’ instruction which often slows down and
decontextualizes instruction, resulting in struggling readers making little
progress” (p. 3). Marie Clay (1993), echoing Levin, notes that the struggling
reader has to make faster progress than her classmates in order to become an
average-progress reader, and suggests that “Acceleration is achieved as the
child takes over the learning process and works independently, discovering new
things for himself inside and outside the lessons” (p. 8-9). Approaches to literacy
acceleration include one-on-one tutoring (Clay, 1993; Duffy, 2000), small group
interventions (Duffy, 2000) and summer interventions (Jacobsen et al., 2002).
Each of these models can be deployed in remedial programs of literacy
instruction; an accelerated literacy approach is distinguished by its insistence on
a shared focus on reaching high standards via reflective instruction, enrichment
and engagement (Finnan & Chasin, 2007; Clay, 1991; Duffy, 2000).
K–4 Considerations
 Learning acceleration is particularly well suited to the K–4 classroom,
as it is most frequently utilized in order to get students up to standard
before the end of elementary school (Levin, 1988).
 Accelerated learning strategies and standards for K–4 readers must be
informed by the five core components of evidence-based literacy
instruction (National Reading Panel 2000).
 As noted above, student engagement is a key to accelerated learning
(Levin, 1988; Byrd & Finnan, 2003; Duffy 2000); unique practices and
strategies that will effectively engage and motivate young children
must be considered.
Implementation Success Factors
 Acceleration strategies should focus on ways to increase intrinsic
attractiveness of learning activities and extrinsic rewards for putting
effort into learning (Levin, 1988).
 Reflective teaching is essential. Accelerated learning “happens when
teachers… learn alongside their students and engage in meaningful
discussion and dialogue with them. They are reflective in their practice
and care about all students” (Finnan and Chasin, 2007).
 Learning acceleration requires a shared commitment to high
expectations and quality instruction (Levin, 1988; Duffy 2000). Further,
learning acceleration is ideally implemented as a systematic effort
involving a unity of purpose that involves administrators, teachers,
parents and students “in pursuit of a common vision” (Levin &
Hopfenberg, 1991).
76
References/Resources
Byrd, S., & Finnan, C. (2003). Expanding expectations for students through
accelerated schools. Journal of Staff Development, 24(4), 48-52.
DeBlois, R., & Place, P. (2007). Alternatives for struggling learners. Principal
Leadership: High School Edition, 7(8), 38-42.
Duffy, A. (2000). Balance, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching in a
summer school literacy program for elementary school struggling readers.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 40(2), 67-100.
Finnan, C., & Chasin, G. (2007). Accelerating the learning of low-achieving
students: The transformation of a dropout. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 625629.
Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. (2000). Accelerating the learning of all students:
Cultivating culture change in schools, classrooms and individuals.
Westview Press.
Jacobsen, C., Bonds, M., Medders, K., Saenz, C., Stasch, K., & Sullivan, J.
(2002). An intersession model for accelerated literacy learning. Reading
and Writing Quarterly, 18(2), 151-173.
Levin, H. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students. Educational
Leadership, 44(6), 19.
Levin, H. (1988). Accelerated schools for at-risk students. CPRE. Retrieved from
http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rr-10.pdf
Levin, H., & Hopfenberg, W. (1991). Accelerated schools for at-risk students.
Education Digest, 56(9), 47-50.
Oral Language Focus
Research has demonstrated that oral language ability impacts children’s success
in learning to read, as well as in academic success overall (Coll, 2005; Storch &
Whitehurst, 2002). The oral language ability of children as they enter school
varies widely and may be impacted by socioeconomic and cultural factors
(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Crawford-Brooke, 2013).
Factors affecting English oral language development include:
 Limited exposure to language and print.
 A lack of opportunity to expand their background experiences.
 A second language spoken in the home.
Early gaps in reading ability and language development that result from a weak
foundation in English oral language can continue throughout a student’s
77
academic experience (Crawford-Brooke, 2013; Fielding et al., 2007; Juel,
Biancarosa, Coker & Deffes, 2003).
Research indicates that oral language is an integral part of learning to read and
write (Coll, 2005; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Crawford-Brooke, 2013); literacy
instruction must therefore incorporate a focus on oral language for ELLs and
native English students alike. Beginning readers use their oral vocabulary to
make sense of the words they see in print. Older readers must know what most
of the words mean before they can understand what they are reading. Thus,
students need to have purposeful interaction using oral language; both listening
and speaking. Because students’ vocabularies are an essential factor in student
success in school and beyond (Beck & McKeown, 2007), students also need to
be exposed to a wide variety of words and texts. The goal is that students
develop an expansive personal warehouse of words and have a sense of
multiple genre structures.
According to Kirkland and Patterson (2005), the development of oral language
may be facilitated through an authentic environment for students to engage in
conversations and thoughtfully planned oral language activities. For example,
classrooms should be print-rich and include student work. Print on the walls
should be functional and signs for routine activities, such as marking lunch
choices, should be accompanied by picture clues. Time should be scheduled for
routine opportunities for students to converse with each other, such as a ritual
class meeting at the end of the day for students to discuss challenges and
successes of the day. Thoughtfully planned oral language activities may include
read-alouds, think-alouds, shared reading, reader’s theater, daily news, and
show and tell. “Teachers can no longer afford to squeeze a read aloud book
between lunchtime and bathroom break. Because reading aloud is so important
to language development, we must systematically and explicitly plan for its use in
the daily routine (Kirkland & Patterson, 2005, p. 393).
K–4 Considerations
 Classroom environment is supportive and nurturing.
 Designated time needs to be given for listening and speaking activities
starting in kindergarten.
 Students need to talk, talk, talk; using the precise language of the content.
 Students benefit from rehearsing their thinking out loud before attempting
to write.
 Development of language needs to be simultaneous to content learning.
Implementation Success Factors
 Students need to hear excellent models of English; including word choice,
language structure, grammar usage in increasing more complex text.
 Oral language can be enhanced by exploring and playing with language.
 Oral language can be expanded by the use of quality questions.
 Explicit instruction of targeted vocabulary and frequent exposure to
targeted words is critical.
78
References/Resources
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low‐income children’s
oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The
Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251-271.
Coll, C. G. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the
transition to reading.
Crawford-Brooke, E. (2013). The Critical Role of Oral Language in Reading for
Title I Students and English Language Learners. Lexia. Retrived from
http://lexialearning.com/lexiaresearch/whitepapers/oral-languagewhitepaper
Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catchup growth for those who are behind. Kennewick, WA: The New
Foundation Press, Inc.
Juel, C., Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., & Deffes, R. (2003). Walking with Rosie: A
cautionary tale of early reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 60,
12-18.
Kirkland, L. D., & Patterson, J. (2005). Developing oral language in primary
classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 391-395.
National Reading Technical Assistance Group. (2010). A review of the current
research on vocabulary instruction. RMC Research Corp. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/rmcfinal1.pdf
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related
precursors to reading: evidence from a longitudinal structural model.
Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934.
79
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
This work is significant because it has the potential to improve student outcomes
across the state. Historically, even with similar funding levels, student outcomes
by district have been uneven. The Legislature, with ESSB 5946, directs districts
to use proven ELA practices to help struggling students. Even with proven
practices, it is critically important to ensure they are implemented with fidelity
because the best practices and strategies, when implemented poorly, can fail to
raise student outcomes.
All districts are required to focus first on K–4 reading, because this is a
fundamental skill that predicts success not only in other academic pursuits, but
throughout life. In the 2015–16 school year, every school in which 40 percent or
more students scored at basic or below basic on the third grade state ELA
assessment, and/or for any student who received a score of basic or below basic
on the third grade statewide student assessment in ELA in the previous school
year and every year following—must integrate best practices and strategies
proven to increase ELA literacy across grades K–4. The interventions must be
selected from the list of best practices and strategies included in the ELA menu.
This menu of best practices and strategies will be refreshed annually, no later
than July 1 each calendar year. Interested stakeholders are invited to submit
recommendations for intervention practices, along with related research
references, for consideration by the expert panel and possible inclusion in
subsequent menus. It is important to note that if new research emerges that
disproves the effectiveness of a practice that has historically been included in this
report, the practice may be removed and no longer be allowed under LAP
guidelines. Public comment forms are available on the project web page on the
OSPI website, at http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleI/LAP/ELA_Panel.aspx.
Next Steps
The ELA panel of experts recognizes that there are a number of next steps to
ensure that the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies are implemented
across the state. Following are a list of activities that will be carried out in the
2014–15 school year:
1. The ELA panel will continue their work which includes the following:
a.
Examine proposed best practices and strategies that the
committee chose to table for future consideration for
placement on the updated July 1, 2015 ELA Menu of Best
Practices and Strategies.
80
b.
Address public comments that suggest additional practices
and strategies for inclusion in the July 1, 2015 ELA Menu of
Best Practices and Strategies.
c.
Vet potential ELA best practices and strategies
recommended by districts and others.
2. Distribute the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies to
stakeholders through a variety of avenues including:
a.
Electronic distribution.
b.
Workshops and trainings provided in partnership with OSPI,
Educational Service Districts and districts to educators
across the state.
3. Prepare and distribute data collection instruments that districts will
be required to submit to meet the reporting requirements within
parts 1 and 2 of ESSB 5946.
81
BIBLIOGRAPHY
August, D., Beck, I., Calderon, M., Francis, D. L., Shanahan, T., & al., e. (2008).
Developing reading and writing in second-language learners. In D. August,
& T. Shanahan, Instruction and professional development (pp. 131-250).
New York: Routledge.
Barley, Z. L. (2002). Helping at-risk students meet standards: A synthesis of
evidence-based practices. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Barone Schneider, R., & Barone, D. (1997). Cross-age tutoring. Childhood
Education, 73(3), 136-143.
Bean, R. (2008, July). The school board wants to know: Why literacy coaching?
Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low‐income children’s
oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The
Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251-271.
Biancarosa, G. A. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy
collaborative professional development on student learning. The
Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7-34.
Bice, T. (2013). A Unified and Comprehensive System of Learning Supports for
Alabama Students: Design Document. Retrieved from
http://web.alsde.edu/general/ALDOEDesignDocument.pdf
Birsch, J. R. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (Second ed.).
Bixby, K. E., Gordon, E. E., Gozali-Lee, E., Akyea, S. G., & Nippolt, P. L. (2011).
Best practices for tutoring programs: A guide to quality. Saint Paul, MN:
Saint Paul Public Schools Foundation.
Blachowicz, C. L. (2005). Literacy coaching for change. Educational Leadership,
62(6), 55-58.
Blank, R. K., & de las Alas, N. (2009). Effects of teacher professional
development on gains in student achievement. Washington, DC: Council
of Chief State School Officers.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating
and sustaining professional learning communities. Retrieved from
82
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/Creating%20and%20Sustain
ing%20PLCs_tcm4-631034.pdf
Borich, G. (2011). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice (7th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Borman, G. (2000, February). The effects of summer school: Questions
answered, questions raised. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 119-127. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-5834.00069/abstract
Burkins, J. &. (2007). Coaches coaching coaches. Journal of Language and
Literacy Education, 3(1), 32-47.
Burns, M. K. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention
research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 381-394.
Byrd, S., & Finnan, C. (2003). Expanding expectations for students through
accelerated schools. Journal of Staff Development, 24(4), 48-52.
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy
learning: Twenty Years of Inquiry. Reading Teacher, 49, 182-182.
Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to reading and language
arts instruction: The constructivist framework of an instructional theory.
What Research has to Say About Reading Instruction, 3, 25-47.
Carroll, J. B. (1989, January). The Carroll model: A 25-Year retrospective and
prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31. Retrieved from
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/1/26.short
Ceballo, R., Maurizi, L. K., Suarez, G. A., & Aretakis, M. T. (2014). Gift and
sacrifice: Parental involvement in latino adolescents' education. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(1), 116-127.
Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2006). School-community
partnerships: A guide. Retrieved from
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/guides/schoolcomm.pdf
Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2008). Addressing barriers to
student learning: Closing gaps in school/community policy and practice.
Retrieved from Retrieved from
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/barriers/closinggaps.pdf
83
Center for Prevention Research and Development. (2009). Background research:
Tutoring programs. Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention Research and
Development, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of
Illinois.
Chall, A. (1983). Stages in reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chang, S. H. (2011). Grade level and gender differences in a school-based
reading tutoring Program. Reading Horizons, 51(1), 63-80.
Chavkin, N. F. (2005). Strategies for preparing educators to enhance the
involvement of diverse families in their children's education. Multicultural
Education, 16-20.
Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1989). Low-income parents' attitudes toward parent
involvement in education. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 16(3),
17-28.
Coll, C. G. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the
transition to reading.
Committee on How People Learn. (2005). How students learn: History,
mathematics, and science in the classroom. National Academies Press.
Connor, C. M., Alberto, P. A., Compton, D. L., & O'Connor, R. E. (2014,
February). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for
reading disabilities. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from Institute of Education
Sciences: http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20143000/pdf/20143000.pdf
Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2008). Research on coaching. In J. Knight, Coaching:
Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for
renaissance schools (3rd ed.). Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Crawford-Brooke, E. (2013). The Critical Role of Oral Language in Reading for
Title I Students and English Language Learners. Lexia. Retrived from
http://lexialearning.com/lexiaresearch/whitepapers/oral-languagewhitepaper
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Ontario, CA:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
D’Agustino, S. (2013). Providing innovative opportunities and options for credit
recovery through afterschool and summer learning programs. In T. K.
84
Peterson, Expanding minds and opportunities: Leveraging the power of
afterschool and summer learning for student success.
Dangel, J. R., & Hooper, S. (2010). Researching pedagogy in a professional
development school. School-University Partnerships, 4(1), 88-100.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S.
(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on
teacher development in the United States and abroad. Stanford University.
Palo Alto, CA: National Staff Development Council and the School
Redesign Network.
Davis, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for
evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45 – 52.
DeBlois, R. &. (2007). Alternatives for struggling learners. Principal Leadership:
High School Edition , 38-42.
Denton, C. (2009). Classroom reading instruction that supports struggling
readers: Key components for effective teaching. Houston, TX: Children's
Learning Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center.
Department of Education. (2001). Evidence that tutoring works. Planning and
Evaluation Service, Corporation for National Service. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Duffy, A. M. (2001). Balance, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching in a
summer school literacy program for elementary school struggling readers.
Reading Research and Instruction, 40(2), 67-100.
Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high
school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. National High School
Center.
DuFour, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R. (2011, February). Work together: But only if you want to. Phi Delta
Kappan, 92(5), 57-61.
Dumas, J. E., Lynch, A. M., Laughlin, J. E., Phillips Smith, E., & Prinz, R. J.
(2001, January). Promoting intervention fidelity. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 20(1), 38-47. Retrieved from
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(00)002725/fulltext?refuid=S0749-3797(09)00546-7&refissn=0749-3797
85
Durlak, J. (2013). The Importance of Quality Implementation for Research,
Practice, and Policy. ASPE Research Brief. US Department of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved May 2014, from US Department of Health and
Human Services: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541356.pdf
Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008, June). Implementation matters: A review of the
research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and
the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 41(3-4), 327-350. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18322790
Echevarria, J. V. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English learners:
The SIOP model. New York, NY: Pearson.
ECONorthwest. (2008). A Review of research on extended learning time in K-12
schools. Portland: ChalkBoard Project. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from
http://chalkboardproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ExtendedLearning-2.pdf
Education Northwest. (2012, June 21). What the research says (and doesn't
say): Expanded learning time. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from
http://educationnorthwest.org/news/2467
Egbert, J. &.-S. (2010). Access to academics: Planning instruction for K-12
classrooms with ELLs. New York, NY.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective are oneto-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for
reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605-619.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School Reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Epstein, J. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the
children we share. In J. L. Epstein, K. Coates, M. Salinas, M. Sanders, &
B. Simon, School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for
action (3rd ed., pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L. (2005). Developing and sustaining research-based programs of
school, family and community partnerships. Baltimore, MD: National
Network of Partnership Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997).
Epstein's Framework of Six Types of Involvement. In School, family, and
86
community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Escamilla, K. (2007). Considerations for literacy coaches in classrooms with
English language learners. Retrieved April 2014, from Literacy Coaching
Clearinghouse: http://www. literacycoachingonline.org
Faltis, C., & Coulter, C. (2008). Teaching English learners and immigrant
students in secondary schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Fantuzzo, J., & Rohrbeck, C. (1992). Self-managed groups: Fitting selfmanagement approaches into classroom systems. School Psychology
Review, 21(2), 255-263.
Ferguson, C., Ramos, M., Rudo, Z., & Wood, L. (2008). The school-family
connection: Looking at the larger picture. Austin, TX: National Center for
Family and Community Connections with Schools.
Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catchup growth for those who are behind. Kennewick, WA: The New
Foundation Press, Inc.
Finnan, C., & Chasin, G. (2007). Accelerating the learning of low-achieving
students: The transformation of a dropout. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 625629.
Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. (2000). Accelerating the learning of all students:
Cultivating culture change in schools, classrooms and individuals.
Westview Press.
Fixsen, D. L. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature.
Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental
Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI
Publication #231).
Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social
Work Practice, 19(5), 531-540.
Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Intensive technical assistance: Scaling-up brief number 2.
Retrieved May 2014, from FPG Child Development Institute:
http://sisep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/sisep.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/SISEPBrief2-Intensive-TA-02-2009.pdf
Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Readiness for change: Scaling-up brief number 3. Retrieved
May 2014, from FPG Child Development Institute:
87
http://sisep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/sisep.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/SISEPBrief3-ReadinessForChange-09-2013.pdf
Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Scaling up evidence-based practices in education: Scalingup brief number 1. Retrieved May 2014, from Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Institute: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507440.pdf
Flamboyan Foundation. (2011, January). What kinds of family engagement are
most effective? Retrieved March 31, 2014, from
www.flamboyanfoundation.org: http://flamboyanfoundation.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/What-kinds-of-family-engagement-matter-1-282011.pdf
Flipping the classroom. (2013). Retrieved May 30, 2014, from Center for
Teaching and Learning, University of Washington:
http://www.washington.edu/teaching/teaching-resources/flipping-theclassroom/
Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids/street kids: Identity development in
latino students. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Franco, M. S. (2011). An interim report on a pilot recovery program in a large,
suburban midwestern high school. Education, 132(1).
Freeman, Y. &. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009).
Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education
implications of school-based inquiry teams. The Elementary School
Journal, 109(5), 537-553.
Garet, e. a. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on
early reading instruction and achievement. National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Garet, M. P. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results
from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4).
Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., & al., e. (2008). The impact of two
professional development interventions on early reading instruction and
achievement. Institute of Education Science, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington, DC:
Department of Education.
88
Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., Walters, K.,
Doolittle, F. (2001). Two-year findings from the middle school mathematics
professional development impact study. Institute of Education Sciences,
US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Garrett, K. (2012). Community schools: It takes a village. Education Digest:
Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 78(3), 14-17.
Gaustad, J. (1993, March). Peer and cross-age tutoring. Retrieved from
ericdigests.org: http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/peer.htm
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson,
S., & Tilly, W. (2009, February). Assisting struggling students with reading:
Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the
primary grades. Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf
#page=25
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners academic literacy and thinking. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Gibbs, S. (n.d.). Effective tutoring: Assembling the pieces. Retrieved March 4,
2014, from
https://www.mheonline.com/assets/sra_download/EarlyReadingTutor/Mor
eInfo/TutoringWhitePaper_FNL.pdf
Glaser, D. (2005). ParaReading: A training guide for tutors. Boston: Sopris West
Educational Services.
González, N. M. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms. . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Research says: Evidence on flipped classrooms
is still coming in. Technology-Rich Learning, 70(6), 78-80.
Gordon, D. M. (2009). Mentoring urban black middle school male students:
Implications for academic achievement. The Journal of Negro Education,
78(3), 277-289.
89
Gordon, E. E. (2009, February). 5 ways to improve tutoring programs. Phi Delta
Kappan, 90(6), 440-445.
Great Schools Partnership. (2013). Expanded learining time definition. Retrieved
March 28, 2014, from The Glossary of Education Reform:
http://edglossary.org/expanded-learning-time/
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.
Gwynne, J. A. (2012). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in
Chicago Public Schools: A focus on English Language Learners. Chicago:
Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Habeeb, S. (2013). The ninth grade challenge. Principal Leadership, 18-22.
Halgunseth, L. C., Peterson, A., Stark, D. R., & Moodie, S. (2009). Family
engagement, diverse families, and early childhood education programs:
An integrated review of the literature. National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Hanan, A. (2009). Modeling and observing sheltered instruction charts: Lesson
planning and note-taking tools for ESL/ELL coaches. Literacy Coaching
Clearinghouse.
Hanewald, R. (2013). Transition between primary and secondary school: Why it
is important and how it can be supported. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 38(1). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol38/iss1/5.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student
achievement. Jounal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 798-812.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating
to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Henderson, A., & Berla (Eds.), N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The
family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National
Committee for Citizens in Education.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of
school, family and community. Austin, TX: Southwest Education
Development Laboratory.
Hennessy, S. R. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject
teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 2, 155-192.
90
Heritage, M., Jones, B., Tobiason, G., & Chang, S. (2013). Fundamentals of
learning: Resource #2. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from National Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing; University of
California, Los Angles:
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/downloads/files/LearningFundamentals_FINAL.pd
f
Herrera, C. G. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big
Sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346-361.
Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Hiebert, E. (1991). Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices and
policies. Teachers College Press.
Hill, J. &. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language
learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hill, N. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school
readiness: The roles of ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(4), 686-697.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A metaanalytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement.
Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740-763.
Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement
in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller,
and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hollifield, J. (1987). Ability grouping in elementary schools. ERIC Digests.
Hopkins, G. (2006). Alternative school calendars: Smart idea or senseless
experiment? Retrieved April 2014, from Education World:
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin126.shtml
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: What they are and why are
they important? Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Library.
Hott, B., Walker, J., & Sahni, J. (2012, April). CLD - Peer tutoring. Retrieved
March 4, 2014, from
http://www.cldinternational.org/InfoSheets/PeerTutoring.asp
91
Hough, T. T., Peyton, D., Geier, C., & Petrie, B. (2007). Adolescent literacy
tutoring: Face-to-face and via webcam technology. Reading Psychology,
28(1), 283-300.
Ingersoll, R. &. (2004). The impact of mentoring on reacher retention: What the
research says. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring
programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review
of Education Research, 81(2), 201-233. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=gse
_pubs
International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle and high school
literacy coaches. Newark, DE: Carnegie Corporation.
Iowa School Boards Foundation. (2007). Family, school and community
connections: Improving student learning. Des Moines, IA: Iowa School
Boards Foundation.
Ishimaru, A. (2013). Involvement to collaboration: Next practices in parent/family
engagement. Transition District Family Engagement Workshop, (pp. 1-33).
Spokane. Retrieved from
http://www.spokaneschools.org/cms/lib/WA01000970/Centricity/Domain/3
930/Collaborating%20wFamilies_IshimaruFin.pdf
J., C. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.
Jacobsen, C., Bonds, M., Medders, K., Saenz, C., Stasch, K., & Sullivan, J.
(2002). An intersession model for accelerated literacy learning. Reading
and Writing Quarterly, 18(2), 151-173.
Jeynes, W. H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of
parental involvement programs for urban students. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Family Research Project.
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). A Study of the effect of
sustained, whole-school professional development on student
achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6),
775-786.
Jones, C., Reutzel, D., & Smith, J. (2011). A focus on struggling readers: A
comparative analysis of expert opinion and empirical research
recommendations. In R. Flippo (Ed.), Reading Researchers in Search of
Common Ground (2nd ed., pp. 274-303). New York: Routledge.
92
Joyce, B. R. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. ASCD.
Juel, C., Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., & Deffes, R. (2003). Walking with rosie: A
cautionary tale of early reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 60,
12-18.
Kalkowski, P. (1995, March). School improvement research series. Retrieved
from education northwest:
http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/peer-and-cross-agetutoring.pdf
Kamii, C., Manning, M., & Manning, G. (1991). Early literacy: A constructivist
foundation for wholelLanguage. National Education Association.
Kaplan, C., & Chan, R. (2011). Time well spent: Eight powerful practices of
successful, expanded-time schools. Boston: National Center on Time &
Learning.
Kennelly, L. a. (2007). Easing the transition to high school: Research and best
practices designed to support high school learning. National High School
Center.
Kennelly, L., & Monrad, M. (2007). Easing the transitions to high school:
Research and best practices designed to support high school learning.
National High School Center.
Kirkland, L. D., & Patterson, J. (2005). Developing oral language in primary
classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 391-395.
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving
Instruction. New York: Corwin.
Knight, J. (2010). Unmistakable impact: A partnership approach for dramatically
improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Knowles, M. (1983). Adults are not grown up children as learners. Community
Service Catalyst, 13(4), 4-8.
Kober, N. (2006). State high school exit exams: A challenging year. Washington
D.C.: Center on Education Policy.
Kowal, J., & Steiner, L. (2007). Instructional coaching. Washington, DC: The
Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.
93
L'Allier, S. L.‐P. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching? Guiding
principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. The
Reading Teacher, 63(7), 544-554.
Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Frey, N. (2003). Dual role of the urban reading
specialist. Journal of Staff Development, 24(2), 33-37.
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Education, B. I. (2010). Eight essentials for
project-based learning. ASCD. Retrieved from
http://groups.ascd.org/resource/documents/122463CCSS_PBL_Handout_3_8_Essentials.pdf
Larose, S. C. (2010). The structure of effective academic mentoring in late
adolescence. New Directions for Youth Development, 126, 123-140.
Levin, H. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students. Educational
Leadership, 44(6), 19.
Levin, H. (1988). Accelerated schools for at-risk students. CPRE. Retrieved from
http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rr-10.pdf
Levin, H., & Hopfenberg, W. (1991). Accelerated schools for at-risk students.
Education Digest, 56(9), 47-50.
Lipton, L., Wellman, B., & Humbard, C. (2003). Mentoring matters: A practical
guide to learning focused relationships (2nd ed.). Miravia, LLC.
Louis, K. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community,
organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5),
477-489.
Lowell Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the
research. 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Atlanta:
American Society for Engineering Education.
Malone, H. J. (2008). Educating the whole child: Could community schools hold
an answer? education digest: essential readings condensed for quick
review, 74(2), 6-8.
Marzano, R. (2002-2003). What works in schools: Translating research into
action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
ASCD.
94
Mass 2020. (2010). More time for learning: Promising practices and lessons
learned. Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time Initiative. Retrieved
March 14, 2014, from
http://mass2020.org/sites/default/files/2010_mass_2020_progress_report.
pdf
Mathematica Policy Research. (2009, July). Structuring out of school time to
improve academic achievement. Retrieved from institute of education
science what works clearinghouse:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=10
Matthews, P. H. (2012). Shaping aspirations, awareness, academics, and action
outcomes of summer enrichment programs for English-learning secondary
students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 105-124.
Mazzolini, B., & Morley, S. (2006). A double-dose of reading class at the middle
and high school levels. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 34(3), 9-24.
Morrison, I., Everton, T., Rudduck, J., Cannie, J., & Strommen, L. (2000). Pupils
helping other pupils with their learning: Cross-age tutoring in a primary
and secondary school. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,
8(3), 187-200.
Mowbray, C. T. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and
validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315-340.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (n.d.). Issue brief: Multi-tiered systems
of support.
National Center on Parent, Family, and Community Engagement. (2013). Family
engagement in transitions: Transition to kindergarten. Cambridge, MA.
Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ttasystem/family/docs/transitions-kindergarten.pdf
National Education Association. (n.d.). Closing the gap through extended
learning opportunities. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from NEA Policy
Briefings:
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_PB04_ExtendedLearning.pdf
National Education Association. (n.d.). NEA - research spotlight on peer tutoring.
Retrieved March 27, 2014, from http://www.nea.org/tools/35542.htm
National Education Association Policy and Practice Department. (2007). Parent,
family, community involvement in education. Washington, DC: National
Education Association, Center for Great Public Schools.
95
National Implementation Research Network. (2013). The hexagon tool. Retrieved
May 2014, from The Active Implementation Hub:
http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/sites/implementation.fpg.unc.edu/files/re
sources/NIRN-TheHexagonTool_0.pdf
National Reading Technical Assistance Group. (2010). A review of the current
research on vocabulary instruction. RMC Research Corp. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/rmcfinal1.pdf
Neuman, S., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development
and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices.
American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 532-566.
Newhouse, C., Neely, P., Freese, J., Lo, J., & Willis, S. (2012). Summer matters:
How summer learning strengthens students' success. Oakland: Public
Profit, supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Retrieved
March 14, 2014, from http://summermatters2you.net/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/Summer-Matters-How-Summer-LearningStrengthens-Students-Success.pdf
Newmann, F. W. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison, WI: Center
on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
O'Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005, October). Layers of
reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in
teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5),
440-455. Retrieved from
http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/38/5/440.full.pdf+html?ijkey=70S1U9.09gh
oY&keytype=ref&siteid=spldx
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2012, June). Washington state
comprehensive literacy plan. Retrieved March 2014, from OSPI English
Language Arts: https://www.k12.wa.us/ELA/pubdocs/CLP.pdf
Ohio Department of Education. (n.d.). Community partnerships implementation
guide, version 2. Ohio community collaboration model for school
improvement.
Olson, C. B., Collins, P., Scarcella, R., Land, R., van Dyk, D., Kim, J., & Gersten,
R. (2011). The pathway project: A cognitive strategies approach to reading
and writing instruction for teachers of secondary English language
learners. Irvine, CA: Institute of Education Sciences.
96
Palincsar, A., & David, Y. (1991). Promoting literacy through classroom dialogue.
in literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices and policies (pp.
122-140).
Paterson, P. O., & Elliott, L. N. (2006, February). Struggling reader to struggling
reader: High school students' responses to a cross-age tutoring program.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(5), 378-389.
Pennucci, A. (2014, February 19). What is an "effect size"? Olympia: Washington
Institute for Public Policy.
Pennucci, A. L. (2012). How does Washington state's learning assistance
program impact student outcomes? Final Report. Olympia: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy. doi:12-08-2201
Peterson, T. K. (2013). Expanding minds and opportunities: Leverage the power
of afterschool and summer learning for student success. Washington D.C.:
Collaborate Communications Group.
Phelps, G., Corey, D., DeMonte, J., Harrison, D., & Loewenberg Ball, D. (2012,
September). How much English language arts and mathematics
instruction do students receive? Investigating Variation in Instructional
Time. Educational Policy, 26(5), 631-662. Retrieved from
http://epx.sagepub.com/content/26/5/631.abstract
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive
structures. Viking.
R., D., & Place, P. (2007). Alternatives for struggling learners. Principal
Leadership: High School Edition, 7(8), 38-42.
Reichstetter, R. (2006). Defining a professional learning community: A literature
review. E&R Research Alert.
Rieckhoff, B. S., & Larsen, C. (2011). The impact of a professional development
network on leadership development and school improvement goals.
School-University Partnerships, 5(1), 57-73.
Rieckhoff, B., & Larsen, C. (2012). The impact of a professional development
network on leadership development and school improvement goals. (K.
Zenkov, Ed.) School-University Partnerships: The Journal of the National
Association for Professional Development Schools, 5(1), 57-73. Retrieved
March 14, 2014
97
Robinson, D. R., Ward Schofield, J., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005, December).
Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their implications.
Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 327-362.
Roman, S., & Fiore, C. D. (2010). Do public library summer reading programs
close the achievement gap? Children and Libraries, 27-31.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Rupley, W., Blair, T., & Nichols, W. (2009). Effective reading instruction for
struggling readers: The Role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 25(2-3), 125-138.
Ryan, S. W. (2002). A school-based elementary mentoring program. Preventing
School Failure, 46(3), 133-138.
Ryder, R., Burton, J., & Silberg, A. (n.d.). Longitudinal study of direct instruction
effects from first through third grades. Journal of Education Research,
99(3).
Sanders, M. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a
community-based organization support and sustain school, family and
community partnerships. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1693-1712.
Santagata, R., Kersting, N., Givvin, K. B., & Stigler, J. W. (2011). Problem
implementation as a lever for change: An experimental study of the effects
of a professional development program on students' mathematics
learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(1), 1-24.
Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model
and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.
Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007).
Extensive reading interventions in grades k-3. Portsmouth, NH: Center on
Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/extensivereading-interventions-in-grades-k-3-from-research-to-practice
Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L. M., Vellutino, F. R., Schatschneider, C., &
Sweeney, J. M. (2010). Reducing the incidence of early reading
difficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers versus direct
interventions for children. In P. H. Johnston (Ed.), RTI in literacy:
Responsive and comprehensive (pp. 257–291). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
98
Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2005, May). Learning when school is not in session: a
reading summer day-camp intervention to improve the achievement of
exiting first-grade students who are economically disadvantaged. Journal
of Research in Reading, 28(2), 158-169.
Shaha, S. V. (2004). Evaluating professional development. Journal of Research
in Professional Learning, 1-18.
Shanahan, T. K. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten
through 3rd grade: IES Practice guide. Retrieved March 2014, from What
Works Clearinghouse: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512029.pdf
Shanklin, N. (2006). What are the characteristics of effective literacy coaching.
Retrieved April 2014, from Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse:
http://www.literacycoachingonline.org
Shinn, M. R. (2002). Using curriculum-based measurements in a problem-solving
model. New York: Guilford.
Shippen, M. E. (2005). A comparison of two direct instruction reading programs
for urban middle school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3),
175-182.
Slavin, R. (1986). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary
schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research
on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Slavin, R. E. (n.d.). Effects of a data-driven district reform model on state
assessment outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2),
371-396.
Smith, K. C. (2010). Beyond compliance: Scaling up a successful statewide
initiative. In K. B. Sharon Harsh, Capacity Building Technical Assistance
(p. 121). Charleston, WV: Edvantia.
Snow-Renner, R. &. (2005). McREL insights: Professional development analysis.
Aurora, CO: McREL.
Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers
and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
99
St. Clair, L., Jackson, B., & Zweiback. (2012). Six years later: Effect of family
involvement training on the language skills of children from migrant
families. School Community Journal, 22(1), 9-19.
Stevens, R., Slavin, R., & Farnish, A. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning
and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea
information. Journal of Education Psychology, 83(1), 8-16.
Stillwater School District. (2012). Flipped classroom. Retrieved May 30, 2014,
from http://www.stillwater.k12.mn.us/departments/technology/technologyaround-district/flipped-classroom
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related
precursors to reading: evidence from a longitudinal structural model.
Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934.
Strengthening Student Educational Outcomes. (2013, June 30). Retrieved
January 27, 2014, from Washington State Legislature:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/201314/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5946-S.SL.pdf
Supovitz, J. A. (2000). Promoting inquiry based instructional practice: The
longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic
reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356.
Terry, B. P. (n.d.). Instruction/classwide peer tutoring, Special Connections.
Retrieved March 27, 2014, from
http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/?q=instruction/classwide_peer_tutor
ing
Thomas, W. &. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students.
Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Timmons, V. (2008). Challenges in researching family literacy programs.
Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 96-102.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs
of ALL learners. Hawker-Brownlow Education.
Topping, K. (2008). Peer-assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers.
Newton, MA: Brookline Books.
Troen, V., & Boles, K. C. (2011, November/December). Rating your teacher
team: Five conditions for effective teams. Harvard Education Letter, 27(6).
100
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacitybuilding framework for family-school partnerships. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/documents/family-community/partners-education.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference.
Retrieved from Retrieved from
https://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page.html
US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2003, December).
Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous
evidence: A user friendly guide. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from U.S.
Department of Education:
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/rigorousevid.pdf
Van Staden, A. (2011). Put reading first: Positive effects of direct instruction and
scaffolding for ESL learners struggling with reading. Perspectives in
Education, 29(4), 10-21.
Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., Lloyd, C. M., & Leuong, T. (2013).
The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8:
A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional
skills. New York, NY: Center on School, Family and Community
Partnerships, MDRC.
Vega, V. (2012). Project-based learning research review: Evidence-based
components of success. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pblresearch-evidence-based-components
vonGlaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching.
Synthese, 80, 121-140.
Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wadlington, E. (2000). Effective language arts instruction for students with
dyslexia. Preventing School Failure, 44(2).
Walqui, A. (2000). Strategies for success: Engaging immigrant students in
secondary schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Warren, M., Hong, S., Rubin, C., & Uy, P. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A
community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools.
Teachers College Record.
101
Washington English Language Proficiency Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from
OSPI: http://www.k12.wa.us/migrantbilingual/eld.aspx
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-toone tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly,
28(2), 179-200.
Watson, J. a. (2008). Using online learning for at-risk students and credit
recovery. Promising Practices in Online Learning. Retrieved April 2014,
from North American Council for Online Learning:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509625.pdf
Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. In N. Webb, Peer
Interaction, Problems Solving and Cognition: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives (pp. 21-29). New York: Pergamon Press.
Weisen, N. (2014, February). Flipping the classroom for students with learning
disabilities. Retrieved from Scientific Learning:
http://www.scilearn.com/blog/flipping-the-classroom-for-students-withlearning-disabilties.php
Weiss, H., Lopez, M., & Rosenberg, H. (2011). Beyond random acts: Family,
school and community engagement as an integral part of education
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from
Retrieved from http://www.nationalpirc.org
/engagement_forum/beyond_random_acts.pdf
West, C. (2012). Effective coaching strategies for increased use of researchbased instructional strategies for linguistically diverse classrooms.
Master's Thesis. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Westmoreland, H., Rosenberg, H. M., Lopez, E., & Weiss, H. (2009). Seeing is
believing: Promising practices for how schools promote family
engagement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
Wilkinson, L., & Stillman, E. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning.
Handbook of Reading Research, 3, 337-360.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007).
Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects
student achievement (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007-No 033).
Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
102
Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
103
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Expert Panel Members
Alice Murner, M. Ed., Principal of Neah Bay Elementary School, Cape Flattery
School District. Alice Murner has worked for the Cape Flattery School District
since 1997 both as a teacher and principal. She received her Bachelor of Arts in
elementary education from Western Washington University with an emphasis in
K-12 special education and her Master’s Degree in P-12 administration from City
University. Alice has been highly successful as a teacher and administrator on
the Neah Bay Campus. Neah Bay Elementary has the distinct opportunity to
serve a 95 percent Native American population. Under Alice’s leadership not only
have the academic scores reached the state average and above, but she has
also been instrumental in working with the community to bring formal Makah
Language and cultural classes into the school. The Neah Bay Elementary has a
long list of accomplishments under Alice’s leadership including but not limited to:
State and National Title I Awards, three School of Distinction Awards, and most
recently the 2013 Golden Apple Award.
Annie Pennucci has conducted applied policy research for the state Legislature
for over 12 years, specializing in education (spanning early childhood, K–12, and
higher education topics). In her K–12 studies, she has examined educational
services for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, English Language
Learners, recent immigrants, and in foster care; the Learning Assistance
Program; academic assessments; education finance; and innovative schools in
Washington State. She has experience as a fiscal analyst for the K–12 capital
budget in the state House of Representatives and as an evaluator for a nonprofit
that provides social services to adults. Annie holds a certificate from the Senior
Executives in State and Local Government program at Harvard’s Kennedy
School of Government and an M.P.A. from New Mexico State University.
Cheryl Vance, Capital Regional Educational Service District 113 (CRESD113).
She spent 18 years in rural, elementary classrooms where she taught
kindergarten, first and second grades. She received her Master’s in educational
technology from City University. Cheryl began her leadership journey by being a
part of a statewide literacy group led by OSPI and Margaret Mooney. She left the
classroom to work for CRESD113 in 2000 beginning as a content specialist and
now serves as the K4 Regional Literacy Coordinator. She also supports
elementary mathematics and science. Cheryl provides on-going technical
support to schools in the instructional improvement process. Additionally, she
helps provide student-focused data analysis, curriculum adoption support,
program implementation, and alignment to CCSS and support for understanding
104
the new assessment system. Cheryl is a certified LETRS and Early LETRS
trainer, DIBELS Mentor, 6 Trait Writing trainer, and has presented at numerous
conferences and institutes in Washington State. Cheryl also served as president
of WORD, which is the state branch of the International Reading Association.
She will be adding a new leadership opportunity next year by co-leading the state
Regional Literacy Coordinators.
David Tudor, MAT Special Education, Curriculum Director, Washougal School
District. David received his Master’s in special education from Pacific University.
He spent seven years in the classroom where he taught students with emotional
and behavioral disabilities at the high school level and resource room at the
middle school level. David left the classroom to work for OSPI. He was a
Program Supervisor in the Special Education department. He supported districts
with learning improvement for mathematics and reading. He also served as the
RTI coordinator for a year before moving to the School Improvement department.
For the next two years, David helped to conduct system and program reviews
and provide targeted supports to schools and districts in working with struggling
learners. Currently, David works as the Curriculum Director in the Washougal
School District.
Debra Knesal, M. Ed., Principal of Central Avenue Elementary, Franklin Pierce
School District. Debra has 40 years of experience in K–12 public education. Her
first twenty years was spent in the field of special education as a teacher, teacher
trainer, and Special Education Director for ESD #114 in Bremerton. Debra has
spent the last twenty years of her career working with students at risk for school
failure with an emphasis on reading research and translating that research into
best practices in the classroom. Under Debra’s ten year leadership of Central
Avenue Elementary, they have been recognized for being a School of Distinction
for the 2008–2009, 2009–2010, 2010–2011, 2011–2012 school years and
recipient of Title I, Part A Improvement Award for 2010 and again in 2011.
Central Avenue recently was the recipient of the first ever English Language
Acquisition Award from The Washington State Board of Education. This award
was recognition of ELL students making the greatest progress toward the goal of
becoming proficient in English. Debra has been an Adjunct Instructor for
University of Washington-Tacoma and has presented throughout the state on
reading, special education issues and RTI (Response to Intervention) in reading,
math, and behavior.
Eric J. Johnson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Bilingual/ESL Education,
Washington State University Tri-Cities. Dr. Johnson received his Ph.D. in Cultural
Anthropology from Arizona State University, where he conducted research on the
effects of anti-bilingual education policies on immigrant students and English
105
Language Learners (ELLs) in public schools. He currently teaches courses on
language policy, sociolinguistics, and bilingual education methods in the College
of Education at Washington State University Tri-Cities. His areas of expertise
include: language policies in K–12 school systems, cultural factors in language
and literacy education, parent engagement strategies, poverty and education,
funds of knowledge, and immigration policies and education. Dr. Johnson has
published multiple research journal articles on these and other topics related to
improving educational opportunities for language-minority students and their
families. For a current list of publications, see:
http://education.wsu.edu/directory/faculty/johnsone
Erin Chaplin, M. Ed, Director of Instruction, Yakima School District. Erin
received her Master’s and undergraduate degrees from Central Washington
University. She spent eleven years in the classroom where she taught first,
second, and fourth grades, successfully closing the achievement gap for at risk
learners. For the next six years Erin worked for OSPI in the capacity of a
Reading First Regional Coordinator. In this work Erin provided on-going sitebased consultation and technical support to schools to support in the instructional
improvement process. Additionally, she helped provide student-focused data
analysis, program implementation, instructional and intervention design. Erin is a
certified Regional LETRS trainer, DIBELS Mentor, and has presented at
numerous OSPI Summer Institutes. Erin is currently the Director of Instruction for
the Yakima School District where one of her many responsibilities is the
coordination, implementation and the alignment of the transition to the Common
Core State Standards.
Glenda Sederstrom, M. Ed, Special Education, Northeast Washington ESD 101,
Spokane, Washington where she is the Coordinator for The Center for Special
Education Services. Ms. Sederstrom received her degrees from Gonzaga
University. She provides technical assistance to the districts within the ESD
region for special education practice, collaboration, data analysis, interventions,
and compliance as well as Instructional Coaching. She is a certified Right
Response De-Escalation Trainer. She is a vetted regional trainer for Response to
Intervention and co-developed the Implementation Integrity Rubric Training for
the State of Washington based on the National Center for Response to
Intervention Integrity Rubric. She served on the evaluation cadre for two state
initiatives: Improving Core Subject Instruction for All Students pilot project and
Re-tooling Instruction through Response to Intervention. Before coming to the
ESD, she worked as a middle school special education teacher for most of her
career. She was a self-contained Resource Room teacher, a Behavior
intervention teacher and an inclusion model co-teacher. She also worked for five
years as an Instructional Coach with the focus of literacy across content areas.
106
John A. Mitchell, M. Ed., Principal of Oakwood Elementary School, Clover Park
School District. John received his master’s degree from Heritage College and
undergraduate degree from Rocky Mountain College. He has taught third, fourth
and fifth grades and was a district reading specialist prior to becoming a
principal. John has worked successfully as a high school and intermediate school
principal and is currently a principal in a grade P-5 school. Under John’s
leadership, Oakwood Elementary School has been recognized for being a School
of Distinction for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years and, in December of
2013, was honored with a state award as a Distinguished Title I, Part A School of
Distinction for Closing the Gap in reading. For the 2014–15 school year, John will
serve as the principal of Southgate Elementary School, preparing for a merge
with Oakwood Elementary in the 2015–16 school year. Both schools will relocate
to a state-of-the-art, new Four Heroes Elementary School, which is named after
the four fallen Lakewood police officers.
Kathy Shoop, Ed.D. earned both her bachelor’s in English/Theater/Speech
Education and master’s degree in Curriculum and Instructional Leadership at
Western Washington University. Her doctorate in Educational Leadership is from
Seattle Pacific University, where her dissertation focus was on self-reflection and
its effect on student achievement. She has 32 years’ experience teaching K–12,
six years’ experience teaching college-level education classes at the bachelor’s
and master’s levels, and has been an Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and
Learning at the Northwest Educational Service District. She retains professional
memberships in Phi Delta Kappa, ASCD, WSASCD, WASA, and WERA.
Linda Wert earned a Bachelor of Arts in Social Work and a Master’s Degree in
Applied Psychology from Eastern Washington University. She holds general and
special education teaching certification jointly from Central, Eastern and
Washington State Universities. She also received a school counseling certificate
from Eastern Washington University, Reading Recovery certification from Seattle
University and Comprehensive Literacy and Intervention District Coach
Certification from the Center for Literacy at the University of Arkansas at Little
Rock. She has also been trained by the State of Washington Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction in dyslexia and the training modules
developed for professional development in intervention best practices. She is
currently completing dissertation work for a PhD. In Reading from the University
of Arkansas at Little Rock under the Chairmanship of Dr. Linda Dorn. Ms. Wert
has been in the field of education for 28 years in multiple capacities within special
and general education including teaching, literacy coaching, and intervention for
struggling learners. She is currently the district coordinator for K–6 intervention in
English and Language Arts for Spokane Public schools in Spokane,
Washington.
107
Matt Lemon conducts applied policy research for the state Legislature with a
focus in education. His work in K-12 policy includes studies of innovative schools
in Washington and the Learning Assistance Program, which provides academic
support to struggling students. His work in higher education has examined a
scholarship program for foster youth (Passport to College Promise) and the
Washington State Need Grant for low-income undergraduate students. In
addition to his research, Matt is a member of the K-12 Data Governance group
that oversees the development and implementation of an education data system
in Washington State. Matt graduated magna cum laude from Western
Washington University with a BA in political science and received a M.P.A. from
The Evergreen State College.
Mike Jacobsen has 32 years’ experience in K-12 public education in
Washington in school psychology, special education and central office
administration. He was an invited participant to the National Summit on
Interventions sponsored by the National Center on Intensive Interventions,
Washington DC in February 2014. Mr. Jacobsen is a Past President of the
Washington State Association of School Psychologists, as well as School
Psychologist of the Year. For the National Association of School Psychologists,
he was State Delegate, Western Regional Director and national Ethics Chair. He
has been an Adjunct instructor for Seattle University, University of Washington
and University of Washington-Tacoma in Educational Research, Assessment in
Special Education, Cognitive Assessment, and Curriculum-Based Measurement
of Reading. His current position is Director of Assessment and Curriculum for the
White River School District. He has Train-the-Trainer status for the Office of
Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) in Response to Intervention. He has
been on the Executive Board of the Washington Association of Educational
Research, (2009-2012) and Conference Co-Chair (2010), and invited member of
OSPI’s, State Technical Advisory Committee (2009-current). Author or co-author
on the following publications: Stage, S. A., and Jacobsen, M. D., (2001)
Predicting student success on a state-mandated assessment using oral reading
fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407-419; Jacobsen, M. D., Bolton, J.,
and Hinshaw, G., (2000) Evaluation of reading on a school-wide basis:
Implementation of curriculum-based measurement, Curriculum in Context, 27, 69; Jacobsen, M. D., (2012) Use of general outcome measures to assess
academic growth, The WERA Educational Journal, 4, 13-15.
Nancy Duffey, Director of State and Federal Program, Wenatchee School
District. Nancy received her BA in Education, specializing in Child Development
and a minor in Reading in 1978. A Masters in Education in Curriculum and
Instruction with a specialization in Literacy was obtained in 2000. Principal
credentials were completed in June 2006, from Washington State University.
108
Nancy taught 10 years before becoming a Title/Lap Reading Specialist,
specializing in Reading Recovery and direct instruction with small groups. Nancy
served as a Title/LAP coordinator for 6 years before moving to her current
position in 2005. Nancy has been directly involved with the district’s
implementation of full day kindergarten, the state 2nd grade oral fluency
assessment, summer school & after school intervention programs, collaborations
with Headstart and EPIC, planning with schools in improvement as well as
overseeing program specific supplemental interventions. Nancy is directly
involved with creating and maintaining building and district RTI structures. This
includes developing an assessment system, finding and implementing specific
intervention resources; tracking district data to monitor program, building
effectiveness and individual student growth and providing professional
development about struggling learners. In addition, Nancy has been involved in
multiple state committees addressing the issues around instruction for struggling
learners, instruction for ELL learners and parent involvement.
Pam Pottle, Bellingham School District, has spent her career as an educator in
the Bellingham School District developing and refining her knowledge and skills
as a highly effective instructional leader. She has taught primary students for
twenty two years and a district learning facilitator, coach, Teacher on Special
Assignment for ten years. Pam was selected to be part of a statewide literacy
group led by OSPI and Margaret Mooney. She continued that work consulting
with the Learning Network throughout Washington and the United States. Pam
has provided instruction for both City University and Western Washington
University educating pre-service teachers in foundations of education, effective
literacy practices and critical pedagogy. In addition to her skillful leadership at a
building, district and university level, Pam has been President of the North Sound
Reading Council. Currently, she is serving as the President of the Washington
State Organization for Reading Development (WORD), which is a branch of the
International Reading Association. Pam will be continuing in her district-wide
leadership role next year with a focus on facilitating student growth collaborations
K–8, mentoring new teachers, coaching and facilitating learning of all educators
K–8 and attending the University of Washington as Danforth Educational
Leadership candidate.
Roger Chow has been in public education for over 15 years. He has served as
an 8th grade Reading Specialist for Denver Public Schools and Team Leader for
the Cole Middle School “Turn Around Project.” The Turn Around plan was
accepted and implemented by the Denver School Board. He also served as
Secondary Literacy Coordinator for Denver public Schools helping to align 6–12
curriculums from a failing model to an inquiry based instruction platform. Roger
was part of Denver’s district ELL model which transformed static professional
109
development to a blended on-line learning process. He has served as an
administrator for two high schools and implemented unifying strategies to
transform both literacy and math instruction by focusing eliminating of teacher
isolation and fostering collaborative communities. Currently Roger is the Director
of Tacoma Public Schools where he continues to align curriculum and foster
collaboration. He graduated from Middlebury College with a BA in American
Studies. He is completing master’s work and doctoral studies at City University in
Seattle.
Saundra Hill, JD has been Pasco School District’s Superintendent since 2002,
but her roots in the community reach back three decades. She came to Pasco in
1982 to work as a Migrant Resource Teacher at Longfellow Elementary. She has
also served as an instructional coach to support teachers working with migrant
and bilingual students, as Migrant Night School social studies teacher, Migrant
Summer School principal, Bilingual Program Administrator, Director of Staff
Development and Evaluation, and Director of Special Programs. Prior to
beginning in Pasco, Saundra taught in Pe Ell, Washington, where she worked as
a Reading Specialist and primary teacher and in Bickleton, Washington, teaching
a K–2 combo classroom. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Education from
the University of Puget Sound, a Master of Arts in Education from Central
Washington University in reading and literacy, and a Juris Doctorate from the
University of Washington School Of Law. In 2010–11 she was chosen by her
peers to serve as president of the Washington Association of School
Administrators. She was also selected as the 2013 Washington State
Superintendent of the Year. A fierce advocate for all students and families, she
has been recognized with several awards and honors from various community
groups representing Latino and African American students.
110
Appendix B: Panel Session Topics
Session 1: Orientation
1. Meet participants, understand roles
2. Set norms for group
3. Identify and practice with collaboration tools
4. Identify charge to group
a. Discuss relationship to WSIPP project
b. Expert panel can recommend practices beyond research/evidence
based list.
5. Identify boundaries and areas of overlap with other programs (Bilingual
Education, Title I, Special Education, Office of Student and School
Success, etc.)
6. Discuss branded programs versus core strategies
7. Establish framework for identification of best practices
8. Discuss approach to consensus/majority/minority opinions
9. Brainstorm potential universe of practices to consider
a. Tutoring
b. Extended learning time
Session 2: Tutoring and Extended Learning Time
1. What will the menu look like? Provide feedback
a. How will we evaluate potential best practices and strategies for
inclusion?
b. Should we prioritize, rank or rate the best practices and strategies?
2. Acknowledge overlap between ELT and Tutoring
3. Identify and describe potential practices and strategies to be considered
a. Tutoring
b. Extended learning time
4. Where branded programs are listed, identify core success strategies/best
practices
5. Straw-vote on identified best practices and strategies
6. Clarify majority/minority opinion where appropriate
7. Identify potential practices and strategies to consider within the following
categories:
a. Consultant Teachers
b. Professional Development
c. Family Outreach
d. Special Assistance for 8th/11th/12th Graders
Session 3: K–4 Focus, Research Review
1. Review public comments from Sessions 1 & 2
111
2. Discuss focus on K–4 reading in the law and how we should address it in
the report
3. Solicit feedback on draft report
4. Identify potential practices and strategies to be considered
a. Professional Development
b. Family Involvement
5. Identify research-based or evidence-based practices and strategies
6. Develop initial opinions about inclusion in menu
7. Discuss boundaries for innovative, emerging or promising practices to be
considered at next meeting
8. Identify potential practices to be considered
9. Identify writing and editing assignments
Session 4: Other Allowable Categories and Promising Practices
1. Review public comments from Session 3
2. Discuss WSIPP preliminary findings and meta-analysis
3. Clarify difference between best and promising practices
4. Discuss best practices for all K–4 students, all struggling students
5. Identify best practices and strategies involving
a. Professional Development
b. Family Involvement
c. Consultant Teachers
d. Community Partnerships
e. Services Under RCW 28a.320.190—Extended Learning
Opportunities Program
6. Identify and examine practices outside LAP framework that show promise
7. Determine what and how to include promising practices in report
8. Identify writers for selected best and promising practices
Session 5: Comprehensive Review of Best Practices and Strategies
1. Review public comments from Session 4
2. Review recommendations in core categories
a. Tutoring
b. Extended Learning Time
c. Family Involvement
d. Consultant Teachers
e. Professional Development
f. Community Partnerships
g. Instructional Models
h. Promising Practices
3. Identify level of support for each recommendation
4. Clarify majority/minority opinion where necessary
112
5. Discuss strategies for disseminating and implementing the menu, and
providing technical assistance to districts
6. Reflect on the process used to develop the ELA menu and provide
suggestions for process improvement for developing the math and
behavior menus
113
Appendix C: Acknowledgements
OSPI is indebted to the volunteers and staff who thoughtfully assisted in
conducting the 2014 review of ELA best practices and strategies for
strengthening student educational outcomes. The panel members strove to find
proven practices that were research and/or evidence based that were shown to
improve student outcomes. The panel members and support staff were
committed to providing a quality resource to school districts looking for guidance.
They devoted many hours out of their busy schedules to do this work. We are
grateful for their efforts.
Members of the ELA Expert Panel
Name
Chaplin, Erin
Chow, Roger
Duffey, Nancy
Fixsen, Dean
Hill, Saundra
Jacobsen,
Mike
Johnson, Eric
Kamil, Michael
Knesal, Debra
Lemon,
Matthew
Mitchell, John
Murner, Alice
Pennucci,
Annie
Pottle, Pamela
Sederstrom,
Glenda
Organization
Yakima School
District
Tacoma School
District
Wenatchee
School District
State
Implementation &
Scaling up of
Evidence-based
Practices
Pasco School
District
White River
School District
Washington State
University TriCities
Stanford
University
Central Avenue
Elementary
Washington State
Institute for Public
Policy (WSIPP)
Oakwood
Elementary
Neah Bay
Elementary
Washington State
Institute for Public
Policy (WSIPP)
Bellingham School
District
Northeast
Washington ESD
Title
P–12 Instruction Director
Curriculum and
Instruction Director
Director of State and
Federal Programs
Co-director
Superintendent
Curriculum Director
Assistant Professor of
Bilingual/ESL Education
Role
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Advisor
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Advisor
Principal
Research Associate
Principal
Principal
Associate Director
ELA Coach
Coordinator for the
Center for Special
114
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Non-voting
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Non-voting
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Name
Shoop, Kathy
Tudor, David
Vance, Cheryl
Ward, Caryn
Wert, Linda
Organization
101
Northwest ESD
189
Washougal School
District
ESD 113
State
Implementation &
Scaling up of
Evidence-based
Practices
Spokane School
District
Consultants and OSPI Staff
Name
Organization
BaunsgardOSPI
Heusser, Amy
Bresko, John
OSPI
Came, Deb
OSPI
Cobb, Andrea
OSPI
Everson,
Porsche
Flores, Maria
Relevant
Strategies
OSPI
Gallagher,
Anne
Green, Jordyn
Iwaszuk,
Wendy
OSPI
Lewis, Jess
OSPI
Malagon,
Helen
Mendoza, Gil
OSPI
Moilanen
Potts, Liisa
Mosby, Judith
OSPI
OSPI
OSPI
OSPI
OSPI
Title
Education Services
Assistant Superintendent
Curriculum Director
Regional Literacy
Coordinator
Senior Implementation
Specialist
Coordinator of Special
Programs
Role
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Expert Panel
Member
Advisor
Expert Panel
Member
Title
P12 Literacy Specialist
Role
Project Support
Program Supervisor,
Special Education
Director, Student
Information
Policy and Research
Analyst and State
Transformation Specialist
President
Project Support
Accountability and
Research Program
Manager
Director, Teaching and
Learning Mathematics
Data Analyst
Program Supervisor and
State Transformation
Specialist
Program Supervisor,
Behavior and Discipline
Director, Migrant and
Bilingual Education
Assistant Superintendent,
Special Programs and
Federal Accountability
Director, Teaching and
Learning ELA
Director, Student and
School Success, Reading
Project Support
115
Project Support
Project Support
Report Editor
Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Lead
Project Support
Project Support
Name
Organization
Munson, Robin
OSPI
Pauley, Gayle
OSPI
Peterson, Jami
Smith,
LaWonda
OSPI
OSPI
Vaughn, Amy
OSPI
Vavrus,
Jessica
Williamson,
Greg
Young, Justin
OSPI
OSPI
OSPI
Title
Instruction, Assessment
and Implementation
Assistant Superintendent,
Assessment and Student
Information
Director, Title I/LAP and
Consolidated Program
Review
Executive Assistant
Program Manager, Title
I/LAP and Consolidated
Program Reviews
Program Manager, LAP
Mathematics and
Research
Assistant Superintendent,
Teaching and Learning
Director, Student Support
Role
Program Manager, Title
I/LAP ELA and Research
Project Support
116
Project Support
Project Lead
Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Lead
Project Support
Appendix D: List of Acronyms
Acronym
CCSS-ELA
CLP
ELA
ELD
ELL
ELP
ESD
ESSB
LAP
MTSS
OSPI
WSIPP
Definition
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
Washington State Birth through 12th Grade Comprehensive Literacy
Plan
English Language Arts
English Language Development [Coaches]
English Language Learner
Washington State English Language Proficiency Standards
Educational Service District
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill
Learning Assistance Program
Multi-Tiered System of Support Framework
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
117
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
For more information about the contents
of this document, please contact:
Gayle Pauley, OSPI
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (360) 725-6100
To order more copies of this document,
please call 1-888-59-LEARN (I-888-595-3276)
or visit our Web site at http://www.k12.wa.us/publications
Please refer to the document number below for quicker service:
14-0032
This document is available online at:
http://www.k12.wa.us/
This material is available in alternative format upon request.
Contact the Resource Center at (888) 595-3276, TTY (360) 664-3631.
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
2014