Instructional Facilitators for Literacy

Eric Bush- Jackson

x7012

Patricia Burke-Evergreen

x5763

Pat Collins-North

x4907

Loretta Comfort-Center

x4064

Cindy Foster-Eisenhower

x7518

Tasha Lewis-Center

x4071

Tessa O’Connor-Everett

x4437

Deb Ritchhart-Heatherwood x6483

Monte Schultz-Cascade

x6039

Barbara Tibbits-Gateway

x6712

Volume 1 —Issue 5

June 2009

The Instructional Facilita-

tors for Literacy would

like to wish you a relaxing

summer. We have en-

joyed working with you

for the last five years and

know that you will con-

tinue the great work that

we have done together.

Teachers and students us-

ing the Big 6 as their model have

been integrating technology as

they become proficient researchers

this year. Dynamic teacher in-

spired learning activities have

taught students how to be effective

users of information while flexing

their creative research muscles at

the same time.

Sixth Graders

Sixth grade students at

Gateway learned about each step

of the Big 6 research process as

they investigated life in Ancient

Egypt. After defining their topics

and finding resources, they be-

came expert extractors of important

information. They gathered notes

on the roles of men and women in

Ancient Egypt, views on burial and

life after death, pharaohs, and the

construction of pyramids. Once

they had their information, they put

themselves in the shoes of a teen

from Ancient Egypt, creating jour-

nals to record their observations

and way of life. To synthesize

what they learned, students gath-

ered images to support their topics

and narrated their journal entries in

order to create dynamic Photostory

presentations.

Volume 1 —Issue 5

Technology and Research @ Gateway

Technology and Research @ Gateway

Instructional Literacy Facilitators

Eric Bush- Jackson HS

x7195

Patricia Burke-Evergreen MS x5763

Pat Collins-North MS

x4907

Cindy Foster-Eisenhower MS x7518

Tasha Lewis-Center

x4071

Tessa O’Connor-Everett HS x4437

Deb Ritchhart-HWD MS

x6483

Monte Scholz-Cascade HS

x6107

Barbara Tibbits-Gateway MS x6712

Curriculum Specialists

Loretta Comfort-Center

x4064

Jeanne Willard-Center

X4053

A Winning Combination for

6th, 7th, and 8th Grade Students

SPOTLIGHT ON LITERACY

SPOT

DEPA

LIGHT

RTMENT OF CURR

ON

ICULUM A

LITERACY

ND ASSESSMENT

Written and Edited by Instructional Literacy Facilitators and Specialist

(Gateway Research continued on page 2)

---

Opposing Viewpoint

Meanwhile, seventh graders have been busy

looking at opposing viewpoints. Using the

“Opposing Views” on the Gateway Library page,

they researched topics including teen suicide pre-

vention, abuse of animals for fast food, and

chocolate and the slave industry. Once a topic

was selected they took a position on an issue

and delved into further research using both print

and internet sources. Once the information was

gathered, students wrote a persuasive business

letter to a key person within the industry. Stu-

dents then followed-up on their issue by creating

a commercial or participating in a classroom de-

bate.

Multiple Sources

Concurrently, eighth graders were honing

their research skills as they prepared for their

Classroom Based Assessments (CBA). For

them, research was taken to a new level as they

defined their topics based on current issues relat-

ing to the Constitution. In order to find relevant

information they had to go beyond Google and

learn how to access information using databases.

Using key word inquiries, and narrowed topics,

they effectively used Facts on File, Opposing

Viewpoints, and Proquest. They had to think

critically to evaluate information as they looked at

divergent viewpoints to determine their own

stance on their topic. Once they gathered infor-

mation, they wrote persuasively to share their in-

sights on the topic and related it to current

events.

Article submitted by Barbara Tibbits

*******************************************************

A special thanks to all of the IFLs for their contri-

butions to this newsletter and especially to Pat

Collins and Cindy Foster who organized and for-

matted

Spotlight on Literacy.

Page 2

---

Page 3

READ 180

READ 180

—

—

Celebrates Successes

Celebrates Successes

—

—

May PLC, Model Classrooms Visited by

May PLC, Model Classrooms Visited by

Moses Lake, Everett READ180 Applauded by Scholastic

Moses Lake, Everett READ180 Applauded by Scholastic

Continued on page 4

and low points around learning) according to

the degree of success or challenge (+2, + 1, 0,

-2, -1 along the y-axis) they observed or ex-

perienced during a particular month. In small

groups, teachers analyzed the distribution of

successes and challenges related to learning

across the school year.

After analyzing the data, participants

were surprised to see a fairly even horizontal

distribution of high and low points across the

school year, as well as an even vertical distri-

bution of high and low points. Teachers no-

ticed low points tended to cluster before the

SRI windows, and high points tended to cluster

after the SRI windows.

From these observations, each small

group concluded that the SRI may have a sig-

nificant impact on student attitude regarding

individual progress and motivation. This con-

clusion was valuable for teachers, since stu-

dents are currently preparing to complete or in

the process of completing the fourth, and end-

of-year SRI.

(READ180 continued on pg. 4)

May PLC Meeting

May PLC Meeting

Secondary READ 180 teachers met af-

ter school on May 19th in the Eisenhower Mid-

dle School Library for our end-of-year PLC.

Participants completed the end-of-year Zoom-

erang Survey and reflected on successes and

challenges around student and teacher learn-

ing throughout the year.

Data inquiry around successes and chal-

lenges of student and teacher learning dur-

ing the 2008/2009 school year

Using a protocol from

Data-Driven Dia-

logue

, we gathered qualitative data related to

successes and challenges around learning.

Teachers identified three high points

(successes) and three low points (challenges)

related to student learning and/or their own

learning between September and May. High

points were written on yellow sticky notes and

low points were written on blue sticky notes.

Before compiling our high and low points data,

teachers made predictions about the distribu-

tion of the data. Then, on an 8-foot grid, teach-

ers positioned each sticky note (high points

---

Page 4

( READ180... continued from pg. 3)

Applying our learning from data inquiry

The impact of the SRI on

student attitude and moti-

vation, became even more

relevant when Peter Hen-

drickson shared his recent

data analysis of mid-year

SRI growth. Peter’s analy-

sis reveals significant growth among students across

all grade levels who took the SRI in September and

again in March. Upon reflecting on the mid-year SRI

growth presented by Peter, teachers expressed the

importance of providing instruction around

“Academic English” and test-taking strategies so that

struggling readers can access the language of stan-

dardized tests and district assessments.

Moses Lake Public Schools Visits

Moses Lake Public Schools Visits

READ180 Middle and High School

Classrooms

Classrooms

On May 13th, ten teachers, building ad-

ministrators, and program directors from Moses

Lake Public Schools visited three middle school

and three high school READ 180 classrooms.

Five members of the Moses Lake team visited

Carmen Boggs and Ed Glazer at Evergreen

Middle School and Jackie Bosworth at Eisen-

hower Middle School. Cindy Foster, Middle

School IFL, and Monte Scholz, Cascade High

School IFL, assisted in touring our guest around

READ 180 classrooms.

In each classroom, our guests observed

students actively participating in READ 180

Routines such as the Oral Cloze and Think-

Write-Pair-Share routine. Students also partici-

pated in the independent reading rotation or the

instructional software rotation. In debriefing the

classroom visits, each visitor discussed the

strong, consistent implementation witnessed

from classroom to classroom. In addition, they

were impressed with the high level of engage-

ment among all students, whether the stu-

dents were participating in small-group in-

struction, reading independently, or practicing

comprehension skills on the instructional soft-

ware.

Earlier this school year, educators from

Marysville and Seattle Public Schools visited

several READ 180 classrooms and were

equally impressed with student engagement

and our implementation model. The evidence

of extraordinary work produced by our READ

180 students continues to inspire educators

outside and within Everett Public schools.

Scholastic Shows Supports

Scholastic Shows Supports

for READ 180 PLC, Again

for READ 180 PLC, Again

Last month, Abi McNaughton

(Scholastic Account Executive) participated in

our April PLC, and this month Roberta Harri-

son, a newly hired Implementation Consultant

for Scholastic, joined us on behalf of Scholas-

tic to show their appreciation of Everett Public

Schools’ dedication to employing an imple-

mentation model that exceeds Scholastics ex-

pectations and serves as a model for school

districts across Washington State. Roberta

praised teachers on their fidelity to the instruc-

tional model and for the significant SRI growth

among our students.

Tasha Lewis

Facilitator of Learning Support Programs

425-385-4071

---

Page 5

Thanks to the hard work of the district literacy review team listed below and on-going

participation of English department members across the district, we were able to present our

recommended books for adoption (both CORE and Supplemental) to the school board last

week. Our process and selections were well received. Board members were happy with the

variety of texts we chose as well as the focus on issues of diversity and the inclusion of con-

temporary novels and nonfiction. The board members were familiar with many of the books

and appreciated the controversial nature of some of the selected texts. Books will go before

the school board again in two weeks when they will vote on the proposal. The books will be

on public display at the Center from June 16-18. If passed, we are expecting to have 300 cop-

ies each of

Ender’s Game, A Place Where the Sea Remembers

and

The Crucible

in your

buildings by fall. Teacher support materials are to be housed in your libraries. We are in the

process of creating weblinks with resources for each book. An email will be coming out soon

with the website information.

Thanks again to our district team for all of your hard work to make this happen!

These supplemental texts are books that the Literacy Review Committee read, discussed and recommended for

use, not as core texts, but as books that teachers may choose to read with select groups of students or in small

literature circle groups:

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, The Bite of the Mango, The Book Thief,

The Color Purple, Kaffir Boy, Kite Runner, Long Way Gone, Nervous Conditions, Nickel and Dimed, Persepolis,

Secret Life of Bees,

and

High School Literature Review

High School Literature Review

---

Page 6

It started nearly two years ago with an ambitious goal: to get 85% of the class of 2009 to standard on the Argumentative Pa-

per by the end of the school year. Cascade High School’s Junior English Team worked hard to achieve that goal, but ultimately, it was

a dream unrealized. They were not alone. The instructional challenge of implementing the Argumentative Paper requirement, and the

feelings of dissatisfaction at both a student and teacher level, were shared across the district. It was bigger than any one grade-level

team at any one school.

Last summer, members of Cascade’s Grade 11 English Team joined with teacher representatives across the district to col-

lectively problem solve, review and revise Argumentative Paper standards, and strategize instructional approaches based on best

practices. Carole Woods, CHS’s English Department Chairperson and a member of the summer review team, said that by participat-

ing in last summer’s work, “I finally understood the skills we were trying to get the students to learn and demonstrate.”

CHS participants in the district task group brought back other ideas based on their summer work to their building-level col-

leagues, which served to change how argumentation would be taught at Cascade this year.

•

The team would start to chip away at the monolithic perception of

the

Argumentative Paper. Students (and teachers) should

not expect to merely write

one

paper. Woods shared, “Argumentation is part of a comprehensive course in which the targeted

skills are purposefully and intentionally taught and connected to other course content.” Students should have multiple opportuni-

ties to practice and hone their skills over time.

•

Second, the team would de-emphasize the research intensive aspects of the Argumentative Paper. Instead, deeper analyti-

cal skills, synthesis, and elements of argumentation would be the focus. “It is less about the hunt and more about a student’s abil-

ity to connect information across text(s) and use that information to take a stand and defend his or her position,” said Woods.

The self-selected topic aspect of the Argumentative Paper unit would be dropped in favor of a collective, group topic.

•

Since the content focus of Junior English is supposed to be a survey of American Literature, efforts would be made to focus

argumentation through a literary lens. Finally, the team wanted the time to intentionally scaffold the argumentation and writing

skills necessary for student success in meeting standard on the Argumentative Paper, and because students should be provided

multiple opportunities to develop and fine tune those skills, the team decided to wait until third quarter to assess their students on

the full Argumentative Paper Rubric. Since there would be no chance for students to “make up” the graduation requirement if they

failed to meet standard in their junior year, it would be an all or nothing endeavor for both students and teachers to meet their

performance goals.

Students in Woods’ class had already written four (4) argumentation papers by the third quarter and would go on to write at least

two more by the end of the year. “The irony,” Woods said, “is that we’ve done way more writing over the course of the year than when

we focused a whole quarter—sometimes a semester—on the production of just one paper.” There was a greater emphasis on in-class

writing with short turnaround times.

Woods partnered with Bev Nyberg

, who teaches Junior Honors English, to develop argumentative writing prompts con-

nected to the literature they were studying in class. After reading Native American and Slave narratives, accounts of early American

colonists, Washington Irving’s account of Columbus discovering America, and Emma Lazarus’s poem, “The New Colossus”, students

were asked to argue if America was the land of opportunity.

After a unit on Transcendentalism

, students were asked to argue the advantages or disadvantages of being a non-

conformist. Students were asked to defend or attack the decisions of central characters in

The Crucible

and

The Scarlet Letter

.

Woods’ class went on to write arguments linked to the content of

Black Boy

and

A Raisin in the Sun

, while Nyberg’s class took posi-

tions on whether or not

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

should be taught in public school.

Other classes in the junior team

wrote about immigration, monetary policy, and school start times. When asked if they felt

part of the rigor was compromised in not having students research their own topics, both teachers felt that something else was gained.

Woods related that, “Students synthesis and higher level thinking skills greatly improved as well as their confidence. Students get that

‘I can do this’ feeling and are able to talk about argumentation and their learning with more authority.” Nyberg added, “Students’ lack

of research knowledge and skill—something that needs to be addressed way before they get to us in Grade 11—severely limited stu-

dent success in self-selection of topics. Students experience greater connection and relevancy to the topic when it is based on litera-

ture that all students are exposed to. Students are also more engaged critical reviewers of each other’s work because they are all

familiar with the topic and challenge their colleagues’ arguments and evidence in a meaningful way.”

Does writing more papers increase the workload and burden of feedback for the teacher?

Nyberg says that with stu-

dents providing more quality peer feedback, the number of revisions she has to read has decreased. Although Woods says she is

reading and providing feedback on more papers, at least it is not the same paper over and over again. And ultimately, the students

are learning more by producing more.

Final Thoughts

—Both teachers see themselves and their Junior English Team moving ahead next year on embedding in-

struction of argumentation skills and establishing essential questions around more units and lessons in their American Literature

courses. More than being a graduation requirement, deeper reading involving critical analysis and synthesis, taking a position and

developing an argument, and being able to clearly articulate that position and rationale through writing are life skills. Skills that Cas-

cade’s Junior English Team is committed to instilling in each of their students.

Revisioning

Revisioning

The Argumentative Paper

The Argumentative Paper

By Monte Scholz