Presentation atPresentation at

Taking Charge of Taking Charge of ChangeChange

Effective Practices to Close Effective Practices to Close Gaps and Raise AchievementGaps and Raise Achievement

The Education Trust National ConferenceThe Education Trust National ConferenceNovember 4-6, 2010November 4-6, 2010

Arlington, VAArlington, VA

Raising Reading Levels: Raising Reading Levels: lessons from a high-lessons from a high-poverty high schoolpoverty high school

Presented by William S Presented by William S Roulston & Ricardo LeBlanc-Roulston & Ricardo LeBlanc-

EsparzaEsparza

We were a struggling high We were a struggling high schoolschool

Ricardo did his first evaluation of an Ricardo did his first evaluation of an English teacher in a freshman class. She English teacher in a freshman class. She was passionate, prepared and she cared. was passionate, prepared and she cared. Her students were not and did not.Her students were not and did not.

18 of 21 students were failing the class.

“How can I teach them Romeo and Juliet?” she asked. “They can’t read.”

Look at the skill level of her Look at the skill level of her students:students:

When her freshmen had taken our statewide WASL test just a year and a half earlier in April of their 7th grade year, these were their skill levels. Was it any wonder why this teacher was frustrated? Why our students were frustrated?

A high school depends on elementary and middle A high school depends on elementary and middle schoolsschools

Academic History of Our Students: Reading

11.1

29.8

2.2

37.8

11.5

0.00.0

17.9 20.4

31.9

10.0 10.815.6

8.1

21.4 21.2

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

*200

3

*200

420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

10

Graduating Class

% M

et

Sta

nd

ard

on

WA

SL

Reading 4th Grade

Reading 7th Grade

* 4th grade testing began with class of 2005

We had a single elementary & middle school that fed our high school. Until Ricardo’s 8th year, they never sent us a class with more than 30% proficiency in reading. Our students were often 4 to 5 years or more behind.

The writing skills of our incoming students were The writing skills of our incoming students were also low.also low.

Academic History of Our Students: Writing

0.0

9.7

2.8 4.6 6.4

27.6

2.27.0

14.5

31.3

18.6 17.222.2

12.2

0.0

19.8

0102030405060708090

100

*200

3

*200

420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

10

Graduating Class

% M

et

Sta

nd

ard

on

WA

SL

Writing 4th Grade

Writing 7th Grade

* 4th grade testing began with class of 2005

One thing is clear by our scores: we had a lot of work to do to try to help our students gain the literacy skills they needed. Blaming the schools that sent them to us would not get the job done.

We began to implement strategic We began to implement strategic interventions based on core interventions based on core

beliefsbeliefs

We had from September of our students’ We had from September of our students’ freshman year until April or March of their freshman year until April or March of their sophomore year to prepare them for the sophomore year to prepare them for the Washington Assessment of Student Washington Assessment of Student Learning.Learning.

We implemented:We implemented:– A locally developed reading intervention A locally developed reading intervention – An emphasis on reading practiceAn emphasis on reading practice– Strategies for reading and writing across the Strategies for reading and writing across the

curriculumcurriculum

Here are our results in readingHere are our results in reading

Turnaround School Performance on Washington Assessment of Student Learning: Reading

Scores

20

34 3847

6169

77 77

1812

30

20

32

11

38

16

210 11 8

21 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

*2003 *2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

A comparison of reading scores between graduating classes from 2003-2010

Pe

rce

nt

Me

eti

ng

Sta

nd

ard

4th Grade

7th Grade

10th Grade

Here’s how we compared to Here’s how we compared to the State of Washington in readingthe State of Washington in reading

Granger High School Reading Scores Compared to Washington State Average

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Pe

rce

nt

me

eti

ng

WA

SL

sta

nd

ard

GHS

State

Our demographics were 90% free and reduced lunch and 90% students of color: we were the poster child for the Achievement Gap. But we effectively closed the gap between our students and the state average.

Our results in writingOur results in writing4th, 7th & 10th Grade Writing Scores

28

27

15

31

19 1722

11

24

37

52 51

67 66 67

103

5 6 12

20

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

*2003 *2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

A comparison of Writing scores between graduating classes 2003-2010

Pe

rce

nt

me

eti

ng

sta

nd

ard

4th Grade

7th Grade

10th Grade

But one other important factor needs to be considered in our improvement scores…

Our students kept Our students kept improving!improving!

Beginning with the class of 2008, our state Beginning with the class of 2008, our state required that students pass the reading required that students pass the reading and writing proficiency tests in order to and writing proficiency tests in order to receive a diploma.receive a diploma.

Students who failed the test as Students who failed the test as sophomores were encouraged to keep sophomores were encouraged to keep working and try again. working and try again.

We kept working with the students to help We kept working with the students to help them improve their skills.them improve their skills.

Students had up to 5 more opportunities Students had up to 5 more opportunities to retake the test during their junior and to retake the test during their junior and senior years.senior years.

And the results?And the results?Percentage of Class of 2008 meeting state

standards at the 4th, 7th, 10th & 12th grades.

30

6

2117

6769

89* 87*

0

20

40

60

80

100

Reading Writing

*this is the total percentage of students in the class who met the proficiency standards by passing the WASL in 2006, 2007 or 2008 and were thus eligible for a

high school diploma if they had also met credit requirements

Per

cen

t M

eeti

ng

S

tan

dar

d

4th Grade (2000)

7th Grade (2003)

10th Grade (2006)

12th Grade (2008)

In other words…In other words… When they were 4When they were 4thth graders, only 30 % of graders, only 30 % of

our students could meet 4our students could meet 4thth grade reading grade reading standards and only 6% were on-level in standards and only 6% were on-level in writing.writing.

As 7As 7thth graders, only 21% of them could meet graders, only 21% of them could meet 77thth grade reading standards and only 17% grade reading standards and only 17% were on-level in writing.were on-level in writing.

By the time they graduated, nearly 90% of By the time they graduated, nearly 90% of our students met 10our students met 10thth grade standards in grade standards in reading & writing.reading & writing.

Our graduation rate had also improved from Our graduation rate had also improved from roughly 38% to a five-year average of 90%.roughly 38% to a five-year average of 90%.

Intervention

Read-a-Lot Info-Text

Make reading easier Change negative beliefs/attitudes

Develop broad vocabulary, knowledge & language

Create lifelong learners

Teach strategies to unlock difficult text

Develop specific vocabulary, knowledge & language

How did we do it?How did we do it?

We followed a 3-pronged approach

to turn around our students

Our strategies and the decisions Our strategies and the decisions we made were based on core we made were based on core

beliefs about how to best teach beliefs about how to best teach reading to struggling high school reading to struggling high school

students.students.

Core Beliefs about Struggling High School ReadersCore Beliefs about Struggling High School Readers

Affective is as important as cognitiveAffective is as important as cognitive– Discouraged learners have negative beliefs, attitudes Discouraged learners have negative beliefs, attitudes

and habits that affect their ability to improve their and habits that affect their ability to improve their reading and writing and we have to take that into reading and writing and we have to take that into account when working with them.account when working with them.

People avoid doing what they are not good atPeople avoid doing what they are not good at– Thus our students have avoidance behaviors towards Thus our students have avoidance behaviors towards

reading that must be overcome.reading that must be overcome.

You get good at whatever you do a lotYou get good at whatever you do a lot– If you don’t spend a lot of time reading, you won’t get If you don’t spend a lot of time reading, you won’t get

good at it, which is hard to do if you don’t like it.good at it, which is hard to do if you don’t like it.

Core beliefs for literacy turnaround (cont)Core beliefs for literacy turnaround (cont)

We have to use strategies that look We have to use strategies that look different than what students have seen different than what students have seen beforebefore– Students become inoculated against Students become inoculated against

instruction that hasn’t worked in the past, if instruction that hasn’t worked in the past, if not cognitively, then certainly psychologically. not cognitively, then certainly psychologically.

Reading has to be realReading has to be real– Good readers choose to read for two reasons: Good readers choose to read for two reasons:

pleasure or power (knowledge). Struggling pleasure or power (knowledge). Struggling readers haven’t experienced that, so we need readers haven’t experienced that, so we need to give them a big dose consistently.to give them a big dose consistently.

Core beliefs for literacy turnaround (cont)Core beliefs for literacy turnaround (cont)

To improve reading skill you have to improve To improve reading skill you have to improve language skilllanguage skill– Poor readers have typically read less and have been exposed Poor readers have typically read less and have been exposed

less to the elegant language and specific vocabulary of higher less to the elegant language and specific vocabulary of higher level books than good readers have. It’s not enough to provide level books than good readers have. It’s not enough to provide word-recognition assistance or comprehension strategies. We word-recognition assistance or comprehension strategies. We must recognize the impoverished language and need for must recognize the impoverished language and need for vocabulary building (background knowledge) of our poor vocabulary building (background knowledge) of our poor readers. readers.

Reading is best taught by humansReading is best taught by humans– Language skill is developed through interaction and modeling. Language skill is developed through interaction and modeling.

Computers are far less enriching than human conversations. Computers are far less enriching than human conversations. Computers are good for discrete tasks, not connected, free-Computers are good for discrete tasks, not connected, free-flowing, responsive-to-the-moment talk.flowing, responsive-to-the-moment talk.

Real change needs real results, not hope and pretty words.Real change needs real results, not hope and pretty words.– Discouraged kids need to see fast results. Consistently. Then Discouraged kids need to see fast results. Consistently. Then

they will believe they can do this hard job that only they can they will believe they can do this hard job that only they can do. (PS teachers need to see results, too!)do. (PS teachers need to see results, too!)

Prong 1: Our primary Prong 1: Our primary intervention intervention

Second Shot ReadingSecond Shot Reading Locally-developed modelLocally-developed model Small group instructionSmall group instruction Centered around Centered around

– fluency timingfluency timing– modeled reading modeled reading – discussiondiscussion– repeated readingsrepeated readings– summary writingsummary writing– individual helpindividual help

Second Shot (cont)Second Shot (cont)

Groups led by teacher or Groups led by teacher or paraeducatorsparaeducators

Held in English 1 and 2 classesHeld in English 1 and 2 classes

Activity: Demonstration of Second Shot

English CurriculumEnglish Curriculum We decided to attack the reading We decided to attack the reading

problem first through our English problem first through our English coursescourses– English 1: 9English 1: 9thth and 10 and 10thth graders reading below graders reading below

55thth grade level grade level– English 2: 9English 2: 9thth and 10 and 10thth graders reading between graders reading between

55thth and 8 and 8thth grade level grade level– English 3: above grade level.English 3: above grade level.

Students were expected to improve 2 Students were expected to improve 2 reading levels in one year’s time. We reading levels in one year’s time. We moved them to next class as soon as moved them to next class as soon as they had improved their skills.they had improved their skills.

An incredible program, An incredible program, but…but…

As one large research study of the As one large research study of the effectiveness of reading programs put it:effectiveness of reading programs put it:

“…“…multiple studies conducted by multiple researchers multiple studies conducted by multiple researchers across the nation provided no clear evidence of the across the nation provided no clear evidence of the

superiority of any one reading series or any particular superiority of any one reading series or any particular approach to teaching reading.” -approach to teaching reading.” -Bond & Dykstra (1967)Bond & Dykstra (1967)

““In other words, nothing worked everywhere In other words, nothing worked everywhere and everything worked somewhere.”and everything worked somewhere.”

-Dr. Richard Allington (2002),-Dr. Richard Allington (2002), commenting on Bond & Dykstra’s resultscommenting on Bond & Dykstra’s results

Bond, G.L. & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(4), 5-142.

Allington, R.L. (2002). Troubling times: a short historical perspective. Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: how ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. p. 16

Do programs teach reading?Do programs teach reading?““If the concentrated effort of highly competent and well-If the concentrated effort of highly competent and well-funded sponsors with a few sites cannot produce uniform funded sponsors with a few sites cannot produce uniform results from locality to locality, it seems doubtful that any results from locality to locality, it seems doubtful that any

model program could.”model program could.”House, Glass, McLean & Walker (1978)House, Glass, McLean & Walker (1978)

“…“…one consistent finding in educational research: Programs one consistent finding in educational research: Programs don’t teach, teachers do.”don’t teach, teachers do.”

-Allington (2002) commenting on House, Glass McLean & -Allington (2002) commenting on House, Glass McLean & WalkerWalker

As good as we think Second Shot Reading is, we don’t think of it as a magic program.

House, E.R., Glass, G.V., McLean, L. & Walker, D. (1978). No simple answers: critique of the Follow Through evaluations. Harvard Educational Review, 48. 128-160.

The real magic of Second The real magic of Second Shot:Shot:

Our position is that Second Shot Reading Our position is that Second Shot Reading provided the structure for our teachers and provided the structure for our teachers and paraeducators to help students experience paraeducators to help students experience immediate success. Then, it kept students immediate success. Then, it kept students

engaged in real reading while our engaged in real reading while our instructors gained more expertise in helping instructors gained more expertise in helping individual students overcome the obstacles individual students overcome the obstacles

that hindered them from becoming that hindered them from becoming excellent readers. The better we became at excellent readers. The better we became at teaching reading, the better our students teaching reading, the better our students

became.became.

Prong 2: Read-a-lotProng 2: Read-a-lot

We used Sustained Silent Reading in advisory We used Sustained Silent Reading in advisory classes to get our students reading more.classes to get our students reading more.

We used Accelerated Reader in English 1 & 2 We used Accelerated Reader in English 1 & 2 classes to encourage reading.classes to encourage reading.

We made clear to students that reading We made clear to students that reading intervention was not enough. They had to intervention was not enough. They had to read a lot if they wanted to improve.read a lot if they wanted to improve.

We beefed up the library budget through We beefed up the library budget through special levies and built up classroom special levies and built up classroom libraries, too.libraries, too.

Prong 3: Info-TextProng 3: Info-Text

We used our once-weekly staff We used our once-weekly staff development time to explore content development time to explore content area reading strategies and practiced area reading strategies and practiced implementing them in our classrooms.implementing them in our classrooms.

We used books and Will’s expertise We used books and Will’s expertise rather than bring in outside consultants.rather than bring in outside consultants.

Later, we worked on writing across the Later, we worked on writing across the curriculum in the same way. (Reading & curriculum in the same way. (Reading & writing are intimately connected!)writing are intimately connected!)

Our secret weapon: the Our secret weapon: the principalprincipal

Ricardo knew all students’ reading levels and Ricardo knew all students’ reading levels and talked to them about what they were reading talked to them about what they were reading and how they were improving… even at and how they were improving… even at lunch!lunch!

He did informal fluency test with new He did informal fluency test with new students and families when they first enrolled students and families when they first enrolled & talked to them about the importance of & talked to them about the importance of reading.reading.

He set up challenges to read more and did He set up challenges to read more and did things like climb a 14,000 foot mountain when things like climb a 14,000 foot mountain when the school read 14,000 books.the school read 14,000 books.

Final PointsFinal Points

Our literacy turnaround was part of a Our literacy turnaround was part of a comprehensive turnaround (detailed comprehensive turnaround (detailed in our upcoming Solution Tree Press in our upcoming Solution Tree Press book). It’s hard for us to isolate book). It’s hard for us to isolate which elements made the difference. which elements made the difference. In our view, everything was In our view, everything was necessary. It was synergistic.necessary. It was synergistic.

Final Points (cont)Final Points (cont)

We’re “still crazy We’re “still crazy learninglearning after all after all these years.” Keep updated and these years.” Keep updated and share in our learning at share in our learning at www.turnaroundschoolbook.ning.com

Despite the title of this Despite the title of this presentation…presentation…

Raising reading scores is not as important as Raising reading scores is not as important as raising readers. –raising readers. –Will RoulstonWill Roulston

If we teach reading skills, but don’t teach If we teach reading skills, but don’t teach students to love reading, it doesn’t really students to love reading, it doesn’t really matter if they pass state tests. What matter if they pass state tests. What matters is that they become self-matters is that they become self-sustaining learners who use reading for sustaining learners who use reading for their own pleasure and power. We must their own pleasure and power. We must never forget this.never forget this.

ContactContact Will RoulstonWill Roulston willroulston@gmail.com Will is a literacy & language acquisition specialist who helped set Will is a literacy & language acquisition specialist who helped set

up the literacy program at Granger High School and then joined up the literacy program at Granger High School and then joined the staff for several years as a lead-teacher.the staff for several years as a lead-teacher.

Ricardo LeBlanc-EsparzaRicardo LeBlanc-Esparza leblanc-esparza@gmail.com Ricardo is an administrator who led the turnaround at Granger Ricardo is an administrator who led the turnaround at Granger

High School from 1999-2008. He is currently a principal at a High School from 1999-2008. He is currently a principal at a turnaround elementary school in Denver, CO & completing his turnaround elementary school in Denver, CO & completing his doctorate. He and Will are co-authors of an upcoming book doctorate. He and Will are co-authors of an upcoming book (Solution Tree Press, 2011) on how the turnaround at Granger was (Solution Tree Press, 2011) on how the turnaround at Granger was accomplished. accomplished.