Volume 47 Number 3
Summer 2014
Presidents Message
Ahh Summer, that great time to take satisfaction in all that was accomplished
in the past school year and the wonderful opportunity to plan and prepare for the
fresh start and abundant potential that the coming school year has to offer. Here
at the Learning Disabilities Association of Michigan we have been working to meet
the needs of our membership. Our membership is made up of parents of children
with learning disabilities, professionals who work with children and adults with disabilities, and college students who intend to work in the area of learning disabilities. A driving question that has come to the forefront is, "How can the LDAMI
support people who educate our population?" We have come up with a two-way approach:
First, in April our board met with the Dean of Education at Aquinas College,
Nanette Clatterbuck, and her students in Grand Rapids to learn more about their
STAY pilot program. The STAY pilot program is designed to offer ongoing mentor
support to young educators to guide them as they become established in the
teaching profession. From classroom strategies that work as positive behavior
supports to how to navigate the increasingly important assessment system for students and evaluation process for teachers, the STAY program aims to equip teachers with the tools they need to stay in education. The Aquinas students plan to act
as a model in their collaborative approach of mentorship for other Michigan colleges. This is an exciting project and LDAMI is pleased to be involved with their
initiative.
Another challenge that faces young educators and even those of us who have
been working for years, is the Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP)
which is required for Salary Step Movement (SSM) and Continuing Salary Increases (CSI). Every five years teachers use these PD hours toward their certificate renewal. The Michigan Department of Education allows teachers to use 30
hours per school year for the use of recertification. Check with your own school
district, but in some districts, you may count the hours you work on a professional
board of directors or attend professional meetings. The recertification hours are
called SCECHES. You need 150 PD hours in five years to be able to be recertified. If you choose to combine PD hours and college or university coursework,
you need 180 hours. The bottom line here is that it is to your advantage to become an active part of a professional board. Get involved with LDAMI Serve on
our board. Attend our meetings. Earn the credits you need for your certification
while you work towards common goals with a like-minded cohort.
On the horizon......make plans to attend a one day, Learning Disabilities Association of Michigan Conference to be held on a Saturday in early November at Aquinas College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. We are looking forward to an exciting and
professionally rewarding year ahead!
Annette Lalley,
Co-President
Annette Puleo,
Co-President
Inside this issue:
UnVeg with Reg
2
Accelerating Expository Literacy
3-8
Healthy Children
Project
8-9
Improving Transition
Through Mentorship
9
Page 2
UnVeg with Reg
Summer Simplicity
Tina Turner is a powerhouse – it’s
hard to believe anything ever
brought her down, but her advice
is thought provoking: get rid of
Regina Carey,
Co-Pres. Elect
ANYTHING that is bringing you
down. Whether it’s the clothes that
don’t fit, the weeds that have become an eye sore, the stack of
magazines you will eventually read,
or the furniture that needs refurbishing…get rid of it. Trust that
“Sometimes you've got
there is someone that will really
breath, a cleansing of sorts that
helps us open to new possibilities, a
sense of clarity, and one less thing
to think about, fret about or obsess
over. You can do it!
to let everything go -
benefit from your release. There is
* It is also important for our children to
purge yourself. If you
something as powerful as Tina
see that simplicity is healthier for every-
Turner’s songs when you pack up
one. As you begin your summer fun,
that clothing and drop it off at
clear out that “stuff” that is in your way
Goodwill or give yourself 30 min-
and bringing you down! You will regain
are unhappy with
anything . . . whatever is
bringing you down, get
rid of it. Because you'll
find that when you're
free, your true
creativity, your true self
comes out.” ~ Tina
Turner
utes to pull those weeds and watch
them shrivel. This week, we encourage you to get rid of something. The ridding of things (and
admittedly sometimes even relationships that are toxic to our
health) is a step forward, a deep
some freedom and improve your outlook!
Page 3
Accelerating Expository Literacy in Social Studies
By: Carrie Anna Courtad, Carol Sue Englert, Troy Mariage, Nicole Martin, Cynthia Okolo, Kara Sevensma, and Rebecca Shankland
The adoption of the Common Core State Standards have increased the academic expectations for students in K-12 classrooms (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Students will be expected to
read and learn from texts that show greater text complexity, and students will be expected to read
more deeply and critically (Fisher & Frey, 2012). Increasing emphases will be placed on engaging students in close reading, answering text-dependent questions, identifying textual evidence to support
one’s claims and arguments, and using reading and writing to engage in flexible communication and
collaboration.
Scaffolding text complexity through the provision of language tools and practices can help many
struggling readers to participate in the curriculum more successfully. On the Accelerating Expository
Literacy (ACCEL) Project (Englert, Mariage, Okolo, Sevensma, Martin, Courtad, & Shankland, 2009),
we designed and implemented learning-to-learn tools and practices that were taught by content area
teachers to facilitate the cross-curricular reading performance of their students in the junior high setting. The ACCEL strategies, however, have broader applications to help teachers and students achieve
the Common Core State Standards. In this article, we overview some of the scaffolds that were employed by ACCEL teachers, the literacy strategies they taught, and the results of the intervention on
their students’ performance.
The ACCEL curriculum was conceived as a dual-strand of resources, serving both teachers and students through the provision of resources that supported teachers in implementing an apprenticeship
model of teaching and learning, as well as offering a literacy toolbelt for their students to equip them
with the literacy strategies which they might flexibly employ in the reading and writing process. The
strategies that were taught by teachers included routines that helped students prepare to read and
write, as well as interact with the expository content by annotating and organizing the information to
achieve specific purposes. These tools included prereading/prewriting strategies, during reading and
writing strategies, and after-reading routines designed to help students construct the information and
write a meaningful response. Although we introduce these strategies in sequence, we wish to emphasize that these strategies might be used in any order or used alone based on the reader’s and writer’s
purposes and goals.
To begin a unit of study, teachers used the Plan It strategic routine to prompt students to get ready to
read and to learn by frontloading and priming the reading/writing process as they previewed the text
and applied pre-reading strategies by answering several questions: (1) P urpose: (“Why am I reading/
writing this? What was the author’s purpose in writing this?”); (2) L ist Topics: Preview the text and
list topics (“What is this about?)” (3) Activate background knowledge (“What do I know? Connect to
self, text, and world”); (4) Note your questions (“What do I want to know?”); and (5) Structure
(“How is the material organized? What text structures can I use?”). These prompts primed teachers
and students to identify the possible features and structures in the text, thereby providing a basis for
assimilating the new textual information with students’ background knowledge and experiences
(Fisher & Frey, 2012). The PLAN-It strategy was specifically designed to cue students to preview and
check the text qualities in advance to prepare for the text, thereby mitigating the tendency of teachers and students to launch units without advance preparation.
Second, the HIGHLIGHT-It strategy was used to involve students more deeply in interacting with the
text during reading as they highlighted the main ideas and details of an expository passage on a first
or second reading. Highlighting was an important cognitive step that supported students’ comprehen-
Page 4
sion in getting the gist of the passage. During Highlight-It, students were taught to search for and
highlight the central ideas and relevant details in a multi-step strategy: 1) Think of the reading purpose/goal; 2) Read the text, 3) Highlight the important ideas (main ideas and details, or ideas that answer the question), 4) Reread your Highlighting, and 5) Self-Check by asking three questions (“Does
my highlighting make sense? Did I highlight the important main ideas? Did I highlight the key relevant
details? Did I find information related to the reading purpose/goal?). When this routine was combined
with close reading and rereading, it was intended that students might become more proficient in understanding the central ideas and key supporting details (Fisher & Frey, 2012), and using textual evidence
to answer text-dependent questions that were asked by the teacher or students. To moderate the tendency of struggling readers to highlight without actively processing the content, we encouraged teachers to
guide their struggling students to stop, think, highlight, and summarize after reading smaller chunks of information (one or two paragraphs), and by writing marginal notes in the form of a phrase or keyword that conveyed
what each part was mainly about. This process of summarizing and comprehending smaller chunks of information was repeated, reiterated, and deepened in the other strategic routines in the ACCEL framework.
Third, teachers showed students how to read more closely to annotate and mark-up the text by carrying on an
inner conversation with the text using the Marks-It strategies. Marks-it strategies involved the application of
symbols or marginal notes to indicate what thoughts or reading strategies were constructed by students while
reading, and where those thoughts were formed. This was a more personal and transactional interaction with
the text informed by the reading strategies and inner conversations held by the reader with the textual
ideas. The Marks- It strategies and symbols, for example, included: Summarize (S), Clarify (CL), activate Prior Knowledge (PK), ask Questions (?), Identify Main Ideas (MI) and Details (D), Connect to self,
text or world (C-Self; C-Text, etc.), Predict (P), Infer (I), and Visualize (V). These strategies were developed and personalized by teachers and students based on their reading curriculum and the language
or visual symbols they preferred to attach to specific strategies. A Highlight-It and Marks-It cuecard is
shown in Figure 1. Students either wrote their annotations directly on the texts, or they recorded their
ideas on post-it notes. At the culmination of Marks-It, students had created an annotated or marked-up
text that revealed the text locations where they had generated specific questions and thoughts, and
made strategic responses. These marked-up texts were shared with partners and the class, and used
as part of a larger conversation to debrief and provide feedback to students about reading strategies,
meanings, and the expository content that might be useful in answering the text-dependent questions,
problems, or goals associated with the unit.
Given the fact that many students with disabilities have difficulty in notetaking, the teachers also
taught specific note-taking strategies in a fourth strategic routine that involved the representation of
ideas in a graphical framework. NOTE-It and MAP-It strategies were similar, although they differed in
the organizational format that students were taught to use to represent the information. During NOTEIt, students took notes on an expository passage, using a hierarchical 2-column or double-sided journal
to represent the superordinate-subordinate relationship among the main ideas and details (e.g., bolded
main ideas with bulleted details). The goal of note-taking was to teach students how to summarize and
record important information as part of a process of studying and learning about content-area topics
(Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Brown & Day, 1983; Day, 1986), and more broadly, across
the content subjects in the content-area curriculum. ACCEL teachers emphasized that notetaking externalized the inner organization that readers were creating on the mental plane. That is, good readers
and good writers are always making mental notes about the central ideas and details, and correspondingly, note taking is simply the external record of those mental thoughts, decisions and interactions
with the text. A cuecard for the Note-It strategy is shown in Figure 2. The acronym for the strategy
corresponded to Notice the meaning (“What’s this about?” “Why is the author telling me this idea?”),
Organize (“Find and write the Main Ideas and Details; Use the Mark-It Strategies”). Tell yourself and
someone else (“Write it down.” “Talk about it”). Evaluate (“Do you have the main ideas and details?
Did you annotate and use the Mark-It strategies?”). Self-check yourself and your notes (“Ask Main Idea
Questions.” “Ask Text Structure Questions”, “Ask Clarifying Questions”).
Page 5
In some cases, graphic organizers were better suited as representational forms to record ideas during
note-taking. Several graphic organizers that corresponded to text structures were made available to
students during the reading, writing, and note-taking process. Graphic organizers were especially useful when a written product or report was the final learning outcome, or when students needed to synthesize information from multiple sources, text sets, or multimedia formats (e.g., movies, websites,
texts, trade books, and experiments). In these situations, teachers presented the text structure components, and instructed students to map the text information corresponding to the components using a
graphic organizer. Some of the common text structures that were made available included: comparecontrast or venn diagrams, problem-solution, cause-effect, and sequence or timeline. When graphic
organizers were used, this phase was called Map-It to represent the webbing process. It was stressed
that students could record their notes using different protocols (2-column entries or graphic organizers) based on their purpose, questions, and learning preferences. These processes were especially important because many students with disabilities do not automatically connect or transfer the strategic
processes involved in highlighting or annotating a text with note-taking routines.
Finally, ACCEL teachers used the Writes-It routine that integrated all the prior strategic processes into
an integrated routine that might support students in the inquiry process. We recognized that students
needed to learn the strategies to pursue meaning independently (Boyles, 2013), and this might be
best achieved through research and inquiry units where students asked their own questions, and engaged in close reading, taking notes, and organizing their notes to communicate their fundamental
knowledge about a topic to inform others. Write-It was designed to help students develop competence
in expressing their knowledge and expository ideas (oral and written), and develop their abilities to
coordinate learning-to-learn processes and inquiry. As part of Write-It, it was intended that students
would engage in an inquiry process to study an expository topic, and they applied the Plans-It, ReadsIt, Marks-It, Notes-It, and Maps-It phases as part of an inquiry cycle involving multiple textual
sources. The information that was gathered by students across the various phases in the inquiry cycle
was assembled in a report that was organized to reflect the writers’ questions, purposes, and audience. The publication of reports and the dissemination of the information was considered to be important to the goal of enhancing students’ motivation and their awareness of the authentic purposes for
studying, interpreting, and constructing expository texts. However, it was the case that the Writes-It
strategy was not fully implemented on a sustained basis by seventh-grade teachers in the ACCEL program because of the intense pressure at the district level to cover the curriculum for district and statewide testing.
Although it is beyond the scope of this article, we wish to state that ACCEL offered several scaffolds for
the use of teachers and students. For teachers, there were scripted lessons or catalyst lessons that
could be employed to teach each strategy. These lessons were designed to help teachers explain the
purpose and value of the strategies, and to help teachers make their thoughts and actions public as
they used think-alouds to demonstrate each step of the strategy. To scaffold the gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), teachers provided guided practice by asking students to
jointly perform various aspects of the strategy while thinking-aloud. To deepen students’ strategy
knowledge and mastery, students worked with partners to apply the strategy as they performed the
strategy steps using content area materials. Finally, during independent practice, students applied the
strategy to content area material. Throughout the instructional process, teachers were encouraged to
monitor the students’ performance, debrief students to help them arrive at a better understanding of
the strategy and the expository content, and provide responsive feedback by modeling, prompting or
coaching to ensure a high level of content and strategy knowledge. To support students, ACCEL offered
several procedural facilitators and instructional scaffolds. First, cuecards were made available that contained the specific self-questions, self-talk, and prompts that might guide students’ thoughts and actions as they employed the strategy steps. Each strategy was introduced and supported through the
use of a cuecard that was designed to prompt the strategy steps, and to support students in using the
self-instruction and self-monitoring routine in advance of independent performance.
Page 6
The measure of the effectiveness of any intervention must be experimentally evaluated. We studied
the effectiveness of the ACCEL curricular approach in an investigation that we conducted with the
teachers of 138 typically-developing seventh-grade students in social studies classes. In these classes,
there was an additional group of 41 students with disabilities who were included in the social studies
instruction. We compared the ACCEL students’ performance with another group of 36 seventh-grade
students from the same building who completed the same measures, but who received the district curriculum without the benefit of the ACCEL instruction. We evaluated students’ highlighting, notetaking,
and retelling performance on a series of pretests and posttests that were administered at the beginning
and end of the year, and we compared performance across the groups of participants.
The results of the study indicated that students who received the ACCEL instruction showed significant
improvement in their ability to highlight expository texts, and to highlight the main ideas and details
that were of central importance in the passage. Furthermore, ACCEL students showed a significant improvement relative to comparison students in the organization of their written notes, including their
ability to selectively identify, reduce or paraphrase the passage content, as well as to signal or label
the relationships among the ideas through the use of conceptual labels and graphical chunks. Likewise,
the ACCEL students’ comprehension performance, as measured in terms of their abilities to recall main
ideas and details, showed a significant improvement relative to the performance of the students in the
comparison group. These results suggested that ACCEL students were becoming more attentive to the
textual ideas in the passage, showing an increasing ability to identify, rehearse, and recall the main
ideas and relevant details.
Most surprising, however, was the subsequent comparison of students with disabilities relative to their
general education counterparts who received the standard curriculum. Although students with disabilities performed significantly more poorly than their general education peers in highlighting, notetaking,
and retelling at the start of the study, by the end of the year, ACCEL students with disabilities performed equally as well as their general education counterparts who did not receive the intervention. In
fact, preliminary performance differences had not only disappeared, but favored the students with disabilities in terms of their abilities to selectively highlight the central ideas and relevant details in the
passage. On measures of note-taking, performance differences between general education students
and students with disabilities also had entirely disappeared in terms of students’ abilities to organize
their notes into conceptual relationships that were clearly chunked and labeled. Furthermore, although
the written retellings of general education and special education students were profoundly different on
the pretest, there were no significant differences between the groups’ retellings at the end of the year.
ACCEL students with disabilities were no different than their general education seventh-grade counterparts in their ability to remember and recall main ideas and details from an expository passage. Since
this is an area of great difficulty for students with disabilities, this suggested that students with disabilities who received the ACCEL instruction were making comprehension and performance gains relative to
their general education peers. Large performance gaps in comprehension recall that existed at the start
of the study had largely disappeared over time.
Educational reform efforts targeting students have emphasized the importance of providing literacy instruction that spans the entire school curriculum, and that involves students in a close reading of complex texts to find evidence that answers text-dependent questions. Research suggests that many adolescent readers and writers and students with disabilities will not automatically employ learning-tolearn strategies, and they may not possess the strategies to help them read, understand, annotate,
represent, and compose expository texts. To achieve the Common Core State Standards requires attention to meaning-making strategies related to these processes, and how readers and writers might
coordinate the meaning-making process to answer deeper questions. Fortunately, this study suggests
that literacy instruction can be embedded in content-area subjects to benefit adolescent students enrolled in those subjects. Moreover, the provision of explicit instruction in the learning-to-learn strategies and thought processes associated with close reading can benefit all students, with special implications for instructing students with disabilities in the higher-level thinking processes associated with
Page 7
learning and comprehension. As special education teachers are tasked with helping IEP students gain
access to and demonstrate progress in rigorous general education core content standards, their role as
academic interventionists who might develop and deliver universally designed strategy lessons to all
students is heightened. The ACCEL project provided teachers with a suite of strategies and corresponding instructional scaffolds that could create entry points for building strategic performance. Creating access to curriculum is not an endpoint, but a beginning; it is only when students are able to
demonstrate self-regulated learning that we can be confident that our instruction makes a difference.
References
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331-346).
Boyles, N. (2012/2013). Closing in on close reading. Educational Leadership. 70(40), 36-41.
Brown, A. L., and Day, J. D (1983). Macro rules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C.
Day, J. (1986). Teaching Summarization Skills: Influences of Student Ability Level and Strategy Difficulty. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 193-210.
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2013). Close reading in elementary schools. The Reading Teacher, 66 (3), 179188.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8((3),), 317-344.
Figure 1. Highlight-It and Marks-It Cuecard.
Page 8
Figure 2. Notes-It Cuecard
Healthy Children Project - For a Toxic-Free Future
Co-chairs: Annette Lalley & Lori Parks
Brief Update:
October 29, 2013: National Stroller Brigade in Washington D.C. - A team of individuals from Michigan
participated in a rally on Capitol Hill calling on Congress to protect families form toxic chemicals. Following a press conference featuring actress Jennifer Beals, the Michigan advocates held meetings with
members of Congress and their staffers.
November/December 2013 & January 2014: “Mind the Store” Campaign: Sign--on Letter to Walgreens - The sign-on letter was to Walgreens executives asking them to lead in working to get toxic
chemicals out of the products they sell. The letter is part of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
(SCHF) “Mind the Store” campaign that urges the nation’s top 10 retailers to craft and implement a plan
to reduce the presence of toxic chemicals in consumer goods.
February 14, 2014: Michigan Advocates Talk with Congressman Dingle’s Staff in Washington D.C.
via Phone About Strengthening the Chemical in Commerce Act (CICA)
February 19, 2014: “Toxic Chemicals, Nutrition and Child Development” was presented by Irva
Hertz-Picciotto, M.P.H., Ph.D., at the LDA of America 51st Annual International Conference in
Anaheim
March 2014: LDA of MI received a Healthy Children Project (HCP) Mini-grant to Participate in a
Collaborative Market Campaign Project - The John Merck Fund awarded 7-9 $2500 mini-grants to
LDA of America state affiliates. This project will involve regular planning calls and monthly activities
aimed at urging retailers to take steps to get toxic chemicals out of the products they sell.
April 16, 2014: “Mind the Store” Walgreens Day of Action - On this day, concerned individuals coast
to coast gathered outside nearly 50 Walgreens stores asking them to eliminate unnecessary dangerous
chemicals from their store shelves. A team of Michigan advocates gathered outside the downtown Ann
Arbor Walgreens to return products that had been purchased there and had tested positive for toxic
chemicals.
Page 9
Improving Transition through Mentorship
By: Glenda Hammond
Transitions can become less frightening by creating opportunities for students to develop relationships with mentors. Mentors are individuals, with
similar challenges, who have experienced success
by overcoming obstacles to their learning. Mentors, who are closer in age, can be more effective
in communicating with children than their teachers
or other adults. For this reason, educators should
give consideration to including mentoring as an
essential step in educating students.
Students, usually, require more individual attention to complete various assignments or master
certain academic concepts. They are, also, often
uncomfortable in social situations because they
lack self confidence. Mentors can play an important role in assisting with these challenges.
Where Do We Find Mentors?
There are various levels of mentoring: role models
in the same age range, two or more years older,
college level, and professional. Peer mentoring
can take place in the same classroom. Teachers
can create assignments that would require students to interact to complete the assignments and
share their experiences. We should network with
community organizations with similar interests or
with colleges and universities to provide organized
mentoring opportunities for students who need
internships or service learning credit.
What Should Be the Focus?
Mentors should be expected to focus on the following in their interactions with the students:
goal setting, self-advocacy, self-determination,
requesting accommodations, and study skills.
They may also talk about building social skills and
use of technology. Training should be provided
for the mentors.
How Will the Mentor and Mentee Communicate?
One primary consideration would be based on
communication strengths of the mentor and mentee. This would determine whether communication will be person-to-person, computer based, or
both.
As we examine the ways in which our students
are influenced, we must conclude that media –
face book, twitter, and other social media avenues have the greatest impact on our students’
time. They are communicating with others who
are similar in age. Mentoring is another way of
connecting with youth to provide the education
that is needed in a way that gets their attention
in the 21st Century.
Healthy Children Project—Brief Update (cont’d):
April 29, 2014: LDA of Michigan signed-on to a SCHF letter regarding the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) - The letter was delivered to the Energy and Commerce Committee and entered into
the hearing record prior to the hearing on the bill. It is hoped that the bill will be significantly strengthened to better protect everyone from toxic chemicals.
Resources:
Children’s Environmental Health “wiki”:
http://wiki.mnceh.org/index.php/Introduction
Further Links:
Blog:
http://www.ecocenter.org/blog-entries/2014/04/childrens-environmental-health-wiki-live
Press Release:
http://www.ecocenter.org/newsletters/ecolink/wiki-provide-information-about-protecting-childrenenvironmental-health-hazards
The Learning Disabilities Association of Michigan
1026 N. Washington Avenue
2nd floor
Lansing, MI 48906
LDA MI is the statewide affiliate
of the Learning Disabilities
Association of America.
The mission of the organization
is to enhance the quality of life
for all individuals with learning
disabilities and their families
through advocacy, education,
training, and support of
research.
We’re on the web!
www.LDAofMichigan.org
LDA MI Board of Directors
Officers
Co-Presidents: Annette Lalley, Lowell
& Annette Puleo, East Lansing
Co-President-Elect:
LDA MI officers at a recent meeting at
Aquinas College.
Have a
Great
Summer!
Treasurer: Erin Rooney, Lansing
From top to bottom: Erin Rooney,
Annette Puleo, Annette Lalley & Regina
Carey
Secretary: Bethany Arts, St. Johns
Roseanne Renauer, Lansing
Mary Rivera, Lansing
Vicki White, Lansing
Executive Director:
Mary-Clare Reynolds
National Board
Representatives from MI
Board Members
Glenda Hammond, Lansing
4156 Library Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15234
Phone (412) 341-1515
www.ldaamerica.org
Regina Carey, Okemos &
Kendra Tobes, West Bloomfield
LDA of America
Ed Schlitt, Traverse City
Chapter Presidents
Regina Carey, Okemos
Ruth Berean—Washtenaw County
(MI046)
Lori Parks, Plymouth