1. POSTER TEMPLATE BY: www.PosterPresentations.com Transitions: Preparing for Implementation of Literacy Standards at a Rural Elementary School Joel Bradford Silkwood Rural Elementary School Option 1: Training Schedule References Rural Elementary Staff Introduction Training Options Option Selection For further information, please contact Joel Bradford at joelb@uoregon.edu. Further acknowledgement to an elementary staff which has provided a source of motivation through their dedication to students and desire to seek opportunities to work together to address school operations.joelb@uoregon.edu University of Oregon Common Core State Standards – Changing Expectations Oregon is in the process of moving towards full implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The movement towards the common core includes shifts in expectations for both mathematics and English language arts (ELA). With a basic tenet of college and career readiness, CCSS shifts the role of the elementary educators to provide deeper instruction and assessment of essential skills for students transitioning to the middle and high school grade levels. In the area of literacy the elementary instructor needs to understand the six basic shifts in ELA standards. The elementary staff need a clear understanding of how these shifts are integrated into their instructional practice. See the chart below for a summary of the six shifts (ODE Toolkit, 2011). Six Shifts in Literacy Standards The move towards CCSS involves changes in expectations for teachers at the elementary level through the six shifts in literacy. In addition, elementary teachers in self contained classrooms will need to respond to changes in expectations for both mathematics and English language arts (ELA). Rural elementary educators at smaller schools also face additional responsibilities. Additionally, rural educators are often the only instructor at a single grade level. The opportunities for collaboration with respect to planning and implementation of the standards are limited to non-existent for the rural elementary educator. School improvement through standards based process requires a staff that is prepared to move towards a common goal. Even in 1985, the discussion about standards-based elementary education included leading staff in the work. According to Linda Darling- Hammond and Arthur Wise, known effective elementary leadership allowed for “collective autonomy and responsibility” as well as high standards for students as clients (Darling-Hammond and Wise, 1985). This remains the basic standard for considering options to work with staff preparing for CCSS. Option 1: Systematic Awareness to Transition Activities Staff work as a team to develop an awareness of the essential shifts with implementation of ELA standards. Staff assess ELA progression in the standards and the complete evaluation of needs. Transition activities are completed with a recognition of vertical integration of ELA standards necessary for implementation. Option 2: Immediate Implementation of Standards in Assigned Phases Teachers would be assigned specific groups of standards and asked to develop materials and lesson plans while mapping the standards. Staff work independently on the plans and mapping of standards. The process would bypass the awareness and transition phase of preparation. Option 3: Assign Implementation by Grade Level – No Group Training Each teacher is assigned to complete curriculum mapping for ELA standards at a specific grade level. Teachers of a multi- graded level classroom would address standards and curriculum mapping for the multiple grade levels. Teachers would consult with administrator as needed. Option 4: Direct Assistance from Local Education Service District (ESD) in Training Release staff members as allowable to complete curriculum mapping and implementation activities. Training is completed by ESD staff. Option 5: No Action Until Standards Take Effect No time is taken to prepare for standards other than providing reading materials for teaching staff. Once standards are implemented purchase matching curriculum for staff to use in the classroom. Other Options and Desired Outcomes Below is a framework for training and staff development under for Option 1: Systematic Awareness to Transition Activities. Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Arthur Wise. "Beyond Standardization: State Standards and School Improvement." The Elementary School Journal, 85.3 (1985): 315-336. Gewertz, Catherine. "Standards Writers Wade into Curriculum." Education Week, 30.37 (2011): 1-17. Hill, Heather. "Policy is Not Enough: Language and the Interpretation of State Standards." American Educational Research Journal, 38.2 (2001): 289-318. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40 (3), 103–118. "Balancing Act." State Legislatures, 36.8 (2010): 17-19. Interview with Diane Ravitch Common Core Toolkit, Oregon Department of Education, (2011) http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3430 Contact Information and Acknowledgements Changing Lives Every Day Leading Staff Development Funding Considerations Shift 1 Increase Reading of Informational Texts Shift 4 Develop Ability to Provide Text-Based Answers Shift 2 Increase Text Complexity Shift 5 Write Using Text Sources as a Base Shift 3 Build Academic Vocabulary Shift 6 Expand Literacy Instruction Across Content Areas Introduction to CCSS: Literacy and Mathematics Develop Understanding Of Six Shifts Form ELA Group - Both Schools Apply Initial Classroom-Based Task Initial Task Development Standards Application Activities Review Results/ Standards Application Activities Assess Activity/ Standards Curriculum Activities Standards Curriculum Activities Assess Activity/ Create Plan/Tools Develop Plan and Tools with ELA Team Transition to Implementation Phase Option 1 as the preferred route for training staff in moving from awareness to transition activities. The process allows the work to be developed an driven by a selected group of staff from both schools working together. The team approach is preferred to provide direction while considering the vertical integration of activities for all staff. This is based on the concept of common autonomy and responsibility. The flow chart indicates the directional flow of work to be completed. Rectangular pieces represent whole group work for the staff, while the hexagonal pieces represent the work of the ELA team. The flow of work runs in a repeating cycle of development – group work – feedback/review – development. The process has an ultimate goal of producing the level of staff development to start implementation of standards. Costs associated with the implementation of the plan over the year are as follows: ELA Team Meetings 12 Meetings approximately one hour each 6 Staff members at approximately $40 per hour each 12 hours x 6 staff x $40 = $2880 Full Staff Inservice Meetings 6 Meetings approximately four hours each 6 Staff members at approximately $40 per hour each 4 hours x 6 meetings x 6 staff x $40 = $5760 Materials Copies and samples – Approximately $25 per meeting 18 meetings x $25 = $450 Total Cost $2880 + $5760 + $450 = $9090 Total costs do not include any unforeseen external training including workshops or substitute time. Other Options Other options are possible to meet the goal for the elementary staff. Option 2 provides for the immediate implementation of standards. This can provide an opportunity for staff to start right away on the ultimate work that must be done. The drawback is the system continues the isolation of staff and lacks vertical integration options. This option also does not allow cross collaboration where multi-grade classroom exist. Option 3 contains the same potential and pitfalls, but would allow multi- grade teachers to collaborate if desired. The two remaining options remove a portion of the internal planning piece. The ESD staff would provide the structure and organization for the training. Support from ESD staff can be critical in the process and would be encouraged under Option 1; however, coordination of training for the full staff could be problematic if in-service dates do not coordinate with district calendars. Hiring substitutes for a full staff meeting can be counterproductive to the operation of school Certainly Option 5, taking no action, would be a cost savings but leave the district behind in preparation for implementing CCSS. Desired Outcomes In the end, the plan has these desired outcomes in mind:  Inform staff of the timeline to implement the literacy standards  Develop understanding of six shifts in literacy  Increase staff input into training process  Allow for vertical integration of standards work  Create a continual feedback loop for training process  Provide a systematic approach to CCSS preparation  Move staff from awareness and to transition for CCSS