Reading Strategies
Program Review and Selection
Timeline of Tasks
February 2016 / March 2016 / April 2016 / May 2016 / June 2016Research and select researched-based program options for Reading Strategies curriculum components / Create comparison chart of varying options available (description of program, effect size, costs, etc) / Review Committee-participate in vendor presentation or exploration of sample items.
April 5th tentative
1/2 Day (Subs Needed) / Submit Strategies program recommendations and requests to Dr. Perez and Dr. Adair. / Upon program approval, contact vendors about scheduling PD in early fall with Reading Strategies
Research Edgenuity and Compass Learning resources and use for applicable elements / Initial Committee Meeting
March 10 or 11 -
4:30 – 5:30 p.m.
Background on Curriculum and Review process
Select programs to review
Finalize Checklist / Share sample products with middle school teachers for review and feedback using rubric / Reader’s Workshop and Reading Strategies curriculum roll out June 23, 2016
A second data in late Summer will need to be scheduled per principal request.
Create Reading Strategies Review Committee (Teachers, ALTs, administrators) / Compile committee review, teacher review, and budget information to make recommendation on programs for Read Strategies
Programs Undergoing Initial Department Review for Consideration (Incomplete – still in process)
Evidenced-Based / Sample or Vendor Presentation / Cost Rating – (1 Low 5 High)Phonemic Awareness
Corrective Reading – McGraw Hill / / Scheduled 3/1 / 4
LLI Kits – Heinemann Publishers / dept research pending / Scheduled 3/4 / 5
Phonics Blitz – Really Great Reading / dept research pending / Sample ordered / 3
Reading Horizons Direct Instruction Teacher Tool Kit - Horizons / / 2/25 / 2
REWARDS - Voyager SOPRIS / dept research pending / Sample ordered / 4
SpellRead – ProEd Publishers / / Sample ordered / 3
Words H – Readlly Great Reading / dept research pending / Sample ordered / 3
Fluency
Jamestown Reading Fluency - McGrawHill / dept research pending / Scheduled 3/1 / 1
LLI Kits – Heinemann Publishers / / Scheduled 3/4 / 5
REWARDS - Voyager SOPRIS / / Sample ordered / 4
SpellRead – ProEd Publishers / / Sample ordered / 3
Partner Read Fluency TALA - TEA / / Sample at hand / 1
Vocabulary
Level 12 Words – Barton Program / dept research pending / dept review pending / Research pending
LLI Kits – Heinemann Publishers / dept research pending / Scheduled 3/4 / 5
Morphemic Analysis TALA - TEA / / Sample at hand / 1
REWARDS - Voyager SOPRIS / / Sample Ordered / 4
Comprehension
Rally Read by Skill Sets – Rally Education / dept research pending / 2/23 / 2
Rally Read Station Cards – Rally Education / dept research pending / 2/23 / 2
Rally Read Comprehension Instruction Modeled Readings – Rally Education / dept research pending / 2/23 / 1
BOLDPRINT – Literacy Curriculum – Houghton Mifflin Harcourt / dept research pending / Sample Ordered / 3
Corrective Reading – McGrawHill / / Scheduled 3/1 / 4
LLI Kits – Heinemann Publishers / dept research pending / Scheduled 3/4 / 5
Computer-Based Instructional Learning (possible options)
Compass Learning – Accelerated Instruction Pathway / / dept review pending / Free
Edgenuity Intervention Course / dept research pending / dept review pending / unknown
Programs to Move Forward to Committee Review
Proposed Proram Comparison Template
(List Finalized prior to March Committee Meeting)
Program / Research Source and Impact
(1 Low 5 high) / Cost Rating – (1 Low 5 High)
Phonemic Awareness
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Committee Selection and Tasks Plan
Reading Strategies Committee Members (To Be Finalized March 2016)
- We will be seeking 1-2 campus representatives which include reading teachers and ALTs.
- We will be inviting Principals or APs to join the process.
- We will include specialists and coordinator.
March meeting – (after school)
Introduction to Reading Strategies revised curriculum and district philosophy
Introduction to program and instructional materials review process
Introduction to vetted programs that meet evidence-based research and curriculum alignment criteria
Comparisons of possible programs to select the appropriate, viable options to move forward in review and selection process (3-5 considered based on alignment, costs, research, etc)
Finalization of Rubric for program review (Proposal is included in this proposal)
April Meeting – Morning Session – Subs will be needed
Vendor presentations of proposed programs that meet fluency, phonemic skills, vocabulary, and/or comprehension development components of curriculum
Rating of each program using finalized criteria and rubric
Reviewing samples and discussing next steps
Choosing 1-2 program samples to implement with a small group in the month of April to provide feedback in Google Doc. Invitation to all reading strategies in all MS to do the same.
Understanding that committee selection of teacher and student resources will be combined with cost-effectiveness ranking in district selection of curriculum resources for Reading Strategies
Committee Members – ALTs and Campus Principals will be asked to provide campus representation. Any principal will be invited to attend as well.
Campus
/Name
/Position
/Name
/Position
Atascocita MS
Creekwood MS
Humble MS
Kingwood MS
Riverwood MS
Ross Sterling MS
Timerberood MS
Woodcreek MS
Program Review Rubric
(Proposed, to be finalized with Committee Members in March 2016)
Name of Program:______
Reviewer’s Name:School:
Program Component: (Check all that apply)
□ Decoding/Phonemic Awareness □ Fluency □ Vocabulary □ Comprehension
For each item identified below, circle the number to the right that best fits your
judgment of its quality. Use the rating scale to select the quality number.
Scale
Poor
/Good
/Excellent
Survey Item
1.This program is research-based, valid, and reliable. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 52.This program does not require extensive training for
classroom implementation. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
3.This program addresses the needs of student populations in Reading courses. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
4.Thisprogram allows for student differentiation based on need or reading ability. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
5.This program allows teachers to easily gauge progress/mastery of skills. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
6.This program can be easily implemented in whole or small group instruction or independent reading stations. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
7.This program aligns with the Humble ISD Literacy Plan and Reading Strategies curriculum. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
8.I believe this tool is highly appropriate for Humble ISD. / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Total Score:______
Additional Comments:
References to be cited during program-specific vetting, research, and selection -
Alvermann, D. E. (2002).Effective literacy instruction for adolescents.Journal of Literacy Research,34(2), 189-208.
Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, 2009.
Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E.J., Tarver, S.G., & Jungjohann, K. (2006).Teaching struggling and at-risk readers: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Denton, C., Bryan, D., Wexler, J., Reed, D., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Effective Instruction for Middle School Students with Reading Difficulties. University of Texas System & Texas Education Agency.
Deshler, D., Schumaker, B., Lenz, K., Bulgren, J., Hock, M., Knight, J., & Ehren, B. (2001).Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning materials that work.Nebrasksa: Brookline Books.
Guerin, A., & Murphy, B. (2015). Repeated Reading as a Method to Improve Reading Fluency for Struggling Adolescent Readers.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,58(7), 551-560.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007).Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement. Stenhouse Publishers.
Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices.National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, 2008.
International Reading Association.(2006).Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches.Newark, DE: IRA.
Lingo, A. S., Slaton, D. B., & Jolivette, K. (2006).Effects of corrective reading on the reading abilities and classroom behaviors of middle school students with reading deficits and challenging behavior.Behavioral Disorders, 265-283.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Graetz, J. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers.Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 103-116.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers.Reading Research Quarterly,40(2), 148-182.
Moats, L. (2001).When older kids can't read.Educational Leadership, 58(6), 36-46.
Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001).The Effectiveness of a Group Reading Instruction Program with Poor Readers in Multiple Grades.Learning Disability Quarterly,24(2), 119-34.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings.The reading teacher, 403-408.
Snow, C. E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003).Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do we know and where do we go from here?. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice.Current issues in comparative education,5(2), 77-91.