Search

This document was prepared to assist literacy specialists in the national Regional Comprehensive Center network as they work with states to improve educational policy and practice in the area of adolescent literacy. It comprises three major parts: Part One: "Improving academic literacy instruction for students in grades 4-12." Based on current research in adolescent literacy, this part discusses recommendations to improve literacy instruction in the content areas (e.g., science, social studies, history, literature), instructional recommendations for English language learners, and critical elements of instruction for special reading classes with struggling readers. It addresses three critical goals for academic literacy instruction with adolescents: (1) to improve overall levels of reading proficiency; (2) to (at least) maintain grade level reading skills from the end of third grade through high school; and (3) to accelerate the reading development of students reading below grade level. Part Two: "Advice from experts about improving academic literacy instruction for adolescents." Eight experts with extensive experience conducting research on adolescent literacy were asked to respond to four questions about methods for improving adolescent literacy from the perspective of school- and state-level policy recommendations. They were asked to address both literacy instruction in the content areas and recommendations for struggling readers; they were also asked to recommend additional readings related to these questions. An annotated bibliography of their responses is included. Part Three: "Examples of state activities in support of improved adolescent literacy instruction." This part describes specific activities four states have adopted to improve adolescent literacy, placing the targeted activities in the broader context of each state's efforts to support improved reading instruction. Contact information for each state is included.

This publication helps educators create differentiated reading instruction experiences for their students by showing the relationship between two distinct resources: Student Center Activities (SCAs) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSSs). Reading specialists, reading coaches, and teachers will find this document useful in lesson planning, as it contains crosswalks that map the relationships between each Student Center Activity and a corresponding, grade-specific standard in CCSS. Specifically, this publication illustrates how SCAs relate to standards in English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects K-5 (ELA-Literacy). The SCAs were created by the Florida Center for Reading Research for K-5 classroom teachers as differentiated reading activities for use in small student groups. The activities provide practice and support skill-building in the five components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). They do not constitute a reading program and are not intended to be implemented as initial instruction. Rather, SCAs should be used for independent practice opportunities and reinforcement after the explicit teaching of concepts or skills. SCAs can also be used with struggling readers in intervention and special education settings and with adolescents who need intensive intervention in any of the five components of reading. The SCAs appear in grade span groups: K-1, 2-3 and 4-5.

This resource is a compilation of three documents that support the teaching of spelling in today's schools: a discussion of "Why Spelling Instruction Matters", a checklist for evaluating a spelling program, and tables of Common Core State Standards that are linked to spelling instruction. "Why Spelling Instruction Matters" explains the importance of spelling to students' reading abilities, describes models of spelling development, and explains common approaches to spelling instruction. It offers supporting figures and diagrams as well as appendices with additional information and lists of resources helpful to practitioners. Using the information from "Why Spelling Instruction Matters", the Center on Instruction created two companion documents as tools for administrators and teachers. The items in "A Checklist for Evaluating a Spelling Program" are based on research outlined in the main document and offer a quick reference to the key elements for determining students' spelling abilities and teaching basic and more complex skills. The second companion tool, "Tables of Common Core State Standards Linked to Spelling", connects the information in Why Spelling Instruction Matters to grade-level expectations. The document also includes guidance about how to read and use the information in the tables. Each document contains figures, footnotes and references.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative is a state-led effort that establishes a set of clear educational standards for English language arts and mathematics that states can voluntarily adopt. The standards have been informed by the best available evidence and the highest standards across the country and the world. They have been designed by a diverse group of teachers, experts, parents, and school administrators. The CCSS includes the Reading Standards: Foundational Skills (K-5). These standards foster students' understanding and working knowledge of the concepts of print, the alphabetic principle, and other basic conventions of the English writing system. These foundational skills do not represent an endpoint--they are necessary and important components of an effective, comprehensive reading program designed to develop proficient readers who comprehend texts across a range of types and disciplines (CCSS, 2010).This document serves (a) literacy leaders at the regional level who support state, district, and school administrators and (b) teachers who seek to know and understand the sub-skills, or prerequisites, students need to achieve each of the Foundational Skills (K-5) in the Common Core State Reading Standards. The foundational skills define end-of-year expectations. As with the other standards, the authors have been written this way intentionally to allow teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how to meet these expectations. The foundational skills describe the concepts children must acquire to become proficient in decoding text. Researchers have determined a general progression of how children develop these skills (Vandervelden & Siegel, 1995; Adams, 1996; Ehri, 1998; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). The authors have based this document on an analysis that determined the "sub-skills" students need to achieve each foundational skill. In this document, they define a "sub-skill" as a concept or behavior in which a student needs to be proficient to master the foundational skill. They also include "instructional examples" aligned to the "sub-skills". The "instructional examples" give teachers samples of activity types that facilitate acquisition of the "sub-skills", which can lead to attainment of the Common Core State Standards. This document contains five sections. Each section targets one grade level and includes the following four areas of reading: Print Concepts, Phonological Awareness, Phonics and Word Recognition, and Fluency. Each section centers on one grade level, but the authors have included up to three grade levels on each chart so that educators have access to the "sub-skills" to inform instruction for students who are either struggling and need extra support or intervention, or for students performing above grade level expectations and require enrichment. This also allows a teacher to see which skills should have been mastered in the previous year and what students are preparing for in the upcoming years.

Over the past eight years or so, educators have struggled to make sense of the many views and definitions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and what constitutes quality in STEM practices. The multitude of recent STEM funding opportunities has done little to create a common understanding about how to best engage students, schools, districts, and states in STEM education. This document offers an overview of the role of STEM in current educational improvement efforts. It offers a brief history of STEM initiatives and publications and attempts to capture important trends and dispel confusion over the goals and approaches of STEM initiatives. The authors also present several important considerations for state and district educators developing STEM programs that serve the needs of their students. They do not advocate for one STEM approach, but provide some thinking tools and rationale for states and districts to compare and contrast the available STEM approaches. (Contains 2 figures and 1 footnote.)

The purpose of this "Handbook" is to bolster the effective implementation of the intervention models and strategies outlined in the "2010 School Improvement Grant" (SIG) program--section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--in order to achieve the program's clear goal--rapid improvement of persistently low-achieving schools. The "Handbook" offers succinct and practical explanations of the SIG's required and recommended models and strategies, references to the underlying research, and connections to useful resources. The intended audience for this "Handbook" includes: (1) state education agencies (SEAs); (2) local education agencies (LEAs); (3) charter management organizations (CMOs); (4) education management organizations (EMOs); (5) organizational partners engaged in school improvement; and (6) schools engaged in rapid improvement. The "Handbook" is organized into two parts. Part I frames the purposes of the School Improvement Grants, to classify schools within performance strata and identify the "persistently low-achieving" schools, and offers a framework for diagnosing a school's performance and practice in order to target interventions and supports for rapid improvement. Part II itemizes more than 50 strategies relevant to the School Improvement Grants, connects the strategies with research, cites available resources, and offers action principles for the SEA, the LEA, and the school. Appended to the "Handbook" are: (1) Federal Guidance A:15; (2) Indicators of Effective Practice (School) (CII); (3) Indicators of Effective Practice (District) (CII); (4) Indicators of Effective Practice (Rapid Improvement Leader) (CII); and (5) Eight Elements of High School Improvement (NHSC). (Individual chapters contain references and resources.)

Many states have identified collaboration between general education and special education departments as crucial to the successful implementation of a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework. Equally, the joint ownership of the RTI framework by all involved contributes to successful implementation. Regional Comprehensive Centers (RCCs) are therefore asked frequently to work with general and special education departments at the state level to help support healthy collaboration. In 2010, the Center on Instruction (COI) convened representatives from Regional Comprehensive Centers, Regional Resource Centers, and state departments of education to investigate what is known about supporting collaboration and how RCCs and states can use that knowledge. Participants discussed seven supports for collaboration and developed seven recommendations for fostering collaboration. This document summarizes that meeting's conversation, including how to determine appropriate depths of partnership, and outlines the recommendations and examples generated. It aims to: (1) increase the depth of RCC and state representatives' knowledge about collaboration (and how it differs from cooperation and coordination); and (2) provide RCCs and states with practical guidance for fostering collaboration at the state level. Appended are: (1) Participants at January 2010 Virtual Meeting; and (2) Handouts. (Contains 1 figure, 1 table and 6 footnotes.)

One of the competitive priorities of the U.S. Department of Education's Race to the Top applications addressed science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). States that applied were required to submit plans that addressed rigorous courses of study, cooperative partnerships to prepare and assist teachers in STEM content, and prepare more students, particularly underrepresented groups, for STEM study and careers. This analysis summarizes the proposed STEM activities in twelve awarded Race to the Top applications. The summary is organized into the following sub-sections of the competitive priority: (1) approaches to rigorous courses of study; (2) collaborative approaches to preparing and assisting teachers and applied learning opportunities; and (3) approaches to preparing more students and addressing the needs of under-represented groups. An additional section, not required in the application, is presented on statewide initiatives and/or networks. (Contains 4 tables.)

Since 2007, when this technical report was originally issued, the assessment field has made considerable progress in developing valid and reliable screening measures for early mathematics difficulties. This update includes new research published since 2007. It focuses on valid and reliable screening measures for students in kindergarten and first grade. However, the authors also examined data on screening tests for second and third grades because the goal of screening is to identify students who might struggle to learn mathematics during their initial school years. Appended are: (1) Summary of the Evidence Base on Early Screening Measures as of December 2010; and (2) Procedure for Reviewing the Literature on Early Screening in Mathematics. (Contains 5 tables, 1 figure and 5 footnotes.) [For the first edition, "Screening for Mathematics Difficulties in K-3 Students," see ED521575.]

From classroom teachers to researchers, education professionals have raised questions about how best to assist students who face the significant dual challenge of acquiring the content knowledge necessary for academic success and simultaneously developing their English language competency. This document addresses these questions by looking at key practices in schools with high populations of non-native speakers of English that have achieved exemplary academic success in their second, acquired language. The authors begin with a brief look at some research on language of instruction and literacy programs for English language learners (ELLs). Most of the document describes practices and programs in schools where English language learners have done exceptionally well. It details findings from 49 school principals on nine factors, including school and student characteristics, instructional supports and strategies for ELLs, and barriers to effective instruction for ELLs. The document ends with a consideration of its limitations and implications. Appendices include: (1) School Selection by State; and (2) Survey. (Contains 16 tables and 3 footnotes.)

This document provides research-based guidance on academic literacy instruction in the content areas, specifically focusing on the effective use of text in content areas. It reviews the research evidence about content-area literacy instruction for adolescents and suggests ways teachers can use content-area texts to enable students to understand the vocabulary and concepts they contain. This document also provides a brief synopsis of working with adult learners and the most promising professional development practices identified in research. Intended for use by literacy specialists and other technical assistance providers in their work with states to improve educational policy and practice in adolescent literacy, it describes ways to assist states, districts, and schools in helping teachers develop the kinds of pedagogical skills needed to implement instructional practices that have been shown to improve student literacy outcomes.

This brief distills the research on science learning to inform a common vision of science instruction and to describe the extent to which K-12 science education currently reflects this vision. A final section on implications for policy makers and science education practitioners describes actions that could integrate the findings from research into science education. The methodologies of the large scale national studies referenced in this brief are appended. (Contains 5 footnotes.)

One question frequently arises in the work of the Regional Comprehensive Centers: "What are states, districts, and schools doing about RTI?" This document addresses that question, with particular focus on instruction and the implementation of effective practices. It uses a frequently asked questions (FAQs) format, with answers based on the collective experience, to date, of five (three elementary and two middle) public U.S. schools that are implementing elements of Response to Intervention (RTI), including evidence-based instruction, progress monitoring, structures for regulating the intensity of intervention, and professional development. Information was gathered by phone interviews and site visits during Spring 2007 with the five participating sites. Questions were submitted by Regional Comprehensive Centers and answers developed by the Center on Instruction (COI) in collaboration with key individuals from the visited sites. Before addressing the questions, this document provides a broad overview of Response to Intervention. The primary audiences for the material presented here are the Regional Comprehensive Centers and their client state departments of education. The information may also be of interest to persons working in schools and school districts that are considering RTI or working on its implementation. Appended are: (1) Response to Intervention; (2) Selecting RTI Implementation Sites; (3) RTI Glossary; (4) Site Demographics; and (5) Brief Site Descriptions. (Contains 2 tables and 7 footnotes.)

This publication explores issues and makes recommendations related to meeting the needs of English learners with limited language proficiency or learning disabilities, or both. The authors begin by noting the current federal policy context in which this discussion of reading instruction and interventions for English language learners (ELLs) occurs. Then they discuss how English language learners are identified and classified and raise related assessment issues. They follow that with a discussion of issues in identifying English language learners with disabilities and concerns associated with assessing ELLs' academic achievements and their language proficiency accurately. Finally, they review recent research on instruction and interventions for ELLs and offer recommendations for interventions in the context of the Response to Intervention model. They close with some consideration of professional development issues. Appended are: (1) Studies on interventions for children identified with disabilities; and (2) Intervention for students identified as at risk. (Contains 2 tables and 9 footnotes.)

This summary of nine studies provides information about evidence-based practices for Tier 2 interventions and how to use Response to Intervention (RTI) in mathematics. It gives a critical technical analysis and review of research on RTI and multi-tiered instructional systems. In an earlier Center on Instruction publication, the authors described valid and reliable measures for early screening and identification of students with mathematics disabilities and systems for progress monitoring in mathematics (Gersten, Clarke, & Jordan, 2007). Research articles are often hard to read and filled with irrelevant information. With the reauthorization of IDEA (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act), state and local school officials have been given permission to use Response to Intervention as one way to help students in need of instructional intervention and to identify those students who need further services. Interest in Response to Intervention has increased tremendously as a result, especially in Title I schools. This summary will help inform those who are interested in this field about the most current research available. (Contains 2 footnotes.)

The purpose of this practice brief is to provide schools, districts, and states with background knowledge about best practices for older students who struggle to read. It focuses on the reading skills that adolescents need to more fully access content-area curricula and, in turn, secure a productive future. The authors define adolescent reading as occurring between fourth and 12th grades and as separate from early reading in kindergarten through third grades. [For related reports, see "Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Meta-Analysis with Implications for Practice" (ED521837) and "Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: Professional Development Module. Second Edition. Facilitator's Guide" (ED521838).]

This meta-analysis offers decision-makers research-based guidance for intervening with adolescent struggling readers. The authors outline major implications for practice: (1) Adolescence is not too late to intervene. Interventions do benefit older students; (2) Older students with reading difficulties benefit from interventions focused at both the word and the text level; (3) Older students with reading difficulties benefit from improved knowledge of word meanings and concepts; (4) Word-study interventions are appropriate for older students struggling at the word level; (5) Teachers can provide interventions that are associated with positive effects; (6) Teaching comprehension strategies to older students with reading difficulties is beneficial; (7) Older readers' average gains in reading comprehension are somewhat smaller than those in other reading and reading-related areas studied; (8) Older students with learning disabilities (LD) benefit from reading intervention when it is appropriately focused; and (9) To learn more about instructional conditions that could close the reading gap for struggling readers, individuals will need studies that provide instruction over longer periods of time and assess outcomes with measures more like those schools use to monitor reading progress of all students. This report summarizes aspects of recent research on reading instruction for adolescent struggling readers. It both synthesizes research findings to determine the relative effectiveness of interventions for struggling older readers and outlines the implications of these findings for practice. Its purpose is to advance the knowledge of technical assistance providers working with state departments of education and local education agencies concerning reading-related issues for students with reading difficulties and learning disabilities (LD). While the authors' methods and general findings are described, they are presented in terms of their impact on practice and policy. Specific suggestions for implementing these and other research findings are provided in an accompanying practice brief (ED521836). This report is intended primarily for technical assistance providers at Regional Comprehensive Centers for their use in crafting evidence-based guidance for states and local educational agencies. (Contains 5 tables and 1 footnote and lists 14 resources.) [For related reports, see "Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Practice Brief" (ED521836) and "Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: Professional Development Module. Second Edition. Facilitator's Guide." (ED521838).]

One of the best methods of formative assessment in academic areas and a method that exemplifies the characteristics of good measures is Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM; Deno, 1985). Developed at the University of Minnesota in the early 1970's, CBM has been researched in academic areas including mathematics computation, concepts, and applications; early numeracy; reading; early literacy; writing; spelling; science; and social studies. This paper describes Mathematics-CBM (M-CBM), including a brief history, basic procedures, implications for practice, and further resources. In addition, this paper reviews the research that supports the use of M-CBM. The intended audience is practitioners or researchers who are seeking more information on M-CBM procedures and the research that supports the use of these procedures. Resources for CBM Information are appended. (Contains 4 tables.)

A major advance in the field of reading over the past 15 years has been the development and validation of screening measures that can detect with reasonable accuracy those kindergartners and first graders likely to experience difficulty in learning to read. Increasingly, these students now receive additional instructional support during the critical early years of schooling. The authors believe the field of mathematics is ready for a similar leap forward in identifying and providing intensive support for young students who are experiencing difficulties in learning the fundamentals of mathematics. The field now possesses adequate information on valid early screening measures that could be used by teachers and school personnel to identify these students. Screening tools to identify students at risk for later mathematics difficulties must address a number of critical variables, including predictive validity and content selection. The design of screening instruments also needs to be guided by information from the fields of developmental and cognitive psychology on how children develop an emerging understanding of mathematics. Further, when developing assessment tools, mathematics educators' expertise should be tapped; this would result in screening tools that integrate knowledge bases in both fields. In this report the author describe the aspects of numerical proficiency that seem to emerge consistently as most important to assess in young students and specify areas that seem most fruitful to assess in early screening batteries. (Contains 2 tables.)

The report summarizes relevant high-quality research studies and synthesizes their findings to determine the relative effectiveness of interventions for struggling early readers. Additionally, the authors outline the implications of these findings for practice. Specific suggestions for implementing the findings are discussed in detail beginning on page 29. They are briefly listed as follows: (1) Extensive interventions can be effective even when provided by relatively low-cost implementers when appropriate training is provided and the interventions are fairly structured and delivered one-on-one or in groups of two or three students; (2) In studies that included a follow-up assessment, gains from early extensive interventions appear to be maintained over time, at least into second grade; (3) All of the effective early interventions examined in these studies shared four essential elements: training in phonological awareness, decoding, and word study; guided and independent reading of progressively more difficult texts; writing exercises; and engaging students in practicing comprehension strategies while reading text; (4) Other elements of these interventions that may be related to their success include group size (one-on-one, small group), the daily or near-daily frequency of the intervention sessions, and the early identification (in K or Grade 1) of students in need of intervention. These elements were evident though not directly tested in most relevant research studies; (5) The authors know considerably more about the effectiveness of early interventions than they do about interventions provided at later stages of development; and (6) Considerably more research is needed on students whose response to treatment is relatively low. Most of these implications apply best to students who are judged to be among the 20% to 25% most at risk for reading problems at the beginning of kindergarten, first, or second grade. As the research intervention literature extends to more severely disabled students, these conclusions may need to be modified. (Contains 3 tables.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Lynn Fuchs and Patricia Mathes.]

Professional development sessions are parts of a coherent, focused program designed to elicit a specific outcome. A systematic professional development plan for reading: (1) prepares teachers in all of the essential components of reading instruction; (2) provides information on instructional materials, programs, and strategies based on scientific reading research; (3) enhances teachers' ability to implement early intervention and remediation programs; and (4) facilitates the use of assessment data to inform instruction and meet the needs of all students, especially struggling readers. This report presents getting started on designing a systematic professional development plan for reading.