Questions re CPS ELA Curriculum Proposal

Questions:

1. What rubrics are utilized by the CPS Admin to evaluate the alignment between the
CPS ELA Curriculum with the anchor learning standards mandated by the CCSS
(Connecticut Common State Standards) and the Common Core, as well as the college and
career readiness standards expected by State Board of Education?

The CPS curriculum committee, composed of teachers, instructional coaches, reading
specialists, and administrators, selected CCSS as the priority focus for each grade level.
The process began at the secondary level utilizing entry criteria to English 101 classes at
both Eastern Connecticut State University and UConn, two of the schools attended most
frequently by BA students. The committee worked backwards to scaffold CCSS to ensure
alignment across grade levels. The committee analyzed historic student data and “target
areas” for student performance on standardized tests (Smarter Balanced and SAT). With
this information, the committee was able to plan the scaffolding of curriculum standards
with awareness of the expectations of external assessments.

2. What rubrics were used in the past? What were the results?

I am not able to speak to rubrics used in the past because no curriculum committee
member was an employee of CPS when the 2013 curriculum review process of the 9-12
English curriculum occurred. There was no documentation regarding an ELA curriculum
revision process. The review process for this curriculum, as well as other curricula in
CPS, begins with a program evaluation and discussions with teachers and coaches. The
curriculum committee also utilizes this draft ​checklist​ to lead the process of development.
In the future, curriculum committees will also use evaluative rubrics to determine the
rigor level of the curriculum. This rubric is being designed from the research.

3. What curricular goals were listed in the previous Colchester BOE ELA curricular
review? Which goals were achieved? What obstacles and innovations were discovered?
How did these discoveries impact the ELA 2020 curriculum?

I am unsure when the ELA curriculum goals were set. The goals that I did have a copy of
were general focus statements for learning and were not accompanied by any sub-goals
that could be objectively measured. In the curriculum ​program evaluation​ for ELA, it was
discovered that there was a clear lack of alignment in priority standards at each grade
level (grade level standards were structured to build upon one another), redundant content
(books may have been read at multiple grade levels), and a lack of clarity about whether
teachers were required to teach the Teachers College Units of Study. These three areas of
concern were the focus for improvement during this curriculum design process.

4. What books were proposed in the previous BOE ELA curricular review? What books
were eventually used? What books were used since then?
Again, there was very little information about the design process for the previous
curriculum. It is my belief that with the inclusion of the CCSS in 2010 and the use of
Teachers College Units of Study starting around 2014, a formalized revision process,
including a proposed book list, never occurred.

5. Do the Barnes and Noble book lists provided in the proposed curricular documents
represent the books purchased or just invoiced?

The book lists provided as a part of this curriculum are proposals based upon the
WJJMS’ curriculum committee’s recommendations. Other selections can be found within
the ​curriculum implementation budget document​. Book title selections at the K-8 grades
are influenced by the recommendations from ​Columbia University’s Teachers College
Reading and Writing Project​. Secondary book lists were influenced by the ​CCSS Text
Exemplars List: Appendix B​, as well as recommendations from other sources (e.g.,
TED​). Curriculum committee members were encouraged to begin utilizing the ​text
complexity tool​ for new purchases. Over time, it is expected that teams begin reviewing
the texts they use with students utilizing this tool.

6. What books and book sets currently exist in the CPS inventory? Which sets are
complete? Regarding the incomplete sets, would it be appropriate to purchase books to
complete some of them? If so, which incomplete sets should be completed?

Over the past two years, CES and JJIS texts for ELA have been supplemented by the
Title I grant to include leveled readers that support the interest of students at varying
levels of reading at and below grade level. These texts are purchased each year by the
instructional coach at each building. In addition, coaches have compiled libraries of
independent reading books that classroom teachers can utilize to support independent
reading. These reading books were purchased using building-based funds.

At CES, most independent reading occurs throughout the day, and students “shop” the
collection of texts at their respective reading level. Teachers instruct via shared reading
with a text that is at or slightly above the reading level of the class so that students can
analyze a text together to develop their skills. At JJIS, the core reading text used in the
classroom are selections from the Reading Street program. This program has been
supplemented over the years with texts (i.e., articles, essays, poems, digital media, etc.)
selected by instructional coaches and teacher teams. WJ is working to purchase mentor
texts where appropriate (e.g., Freak the Mighty); however, there is less of a focus on
“whole-class” reading of one text, and more of a focus on students working in reading
groups to analyze and critique multiple texts. Bacon Academy is following a similar
approach to WJ in that they are using reading circles to understand literary devices and
develop their understanding of an author's craft. For this reason, the BA curriculum
committee is recommending the purchase of a number of texts less than the number of
students at a grade level (e.g., 45 copies of ​The Hate U Give​).

If the Board would like a complete inventory of any of these texts, this can be arranged.
7. What are the literary and informative reading and writing distributions across each
grade, including ELA courses and other courses that incorporate these activities? Is there
common subject matter and/or a set of student learning outcomes across a specific grade,
grade band, or school?

With the completion of a social studies curriculum in 2018, a science curriculum in 2019,
and the proposed ELA curriculum, building-based teams can now start to work across
disciplines to implement instructional strategies to support student progress towards
common standards. For example, the reading leadership team at BA is composed of the
teacher leaders of science, English, and social studies. They have worked together to
identify students lagging in reading using our universal screener, STAR. They have
aligned the identified student weakness to the priority standards that exist within each of
their respective curriculums. Teacher leaders then work with their grade level teams to
devise disciplinary literacy strategies to support students strengthen reading and writing
skills. In essence, they’re all working together to support a grade level’s reading
proficiency. At CES and JJIS, the instructional coaches have supported teachers to blend
reading and writing instruction with social studies and science units. For example, the
non-fiction grade 1 unit focused on developing students’ non-fiction reading skills
compliments the science unit on plant shapes. Teachers work with students on non-fiction
reading skills during reading time, and support students in applying those skills while
learning about science. Future work at the elementary level is to support teachers in
identifying ​content​ that is taught across curricula in an effort to tighten alignment.
Teachers will be able to pace their instruction and develop a knowledge rich curriculum.

8. Regarding state board assessments, is there a comprehensive data set available that
includes every year since the last BOE ELA curriculum evaluation? Does this data set
include assessments for more specific learning benchmarks? Aside from the percentage
of district students meeting general benchmarks and the percentage of students meeting
their target benchmarks, what other interpretative methods were or are utilized to
understand this data? How are previous and current interpretations of this data informing
current and future ELA curricular policy?

The State has utilized the Smarter Balanced (SB) assessment for grades 3-8 for the last
few years. This is the only assessment that has been administered consistently across
grade levels and across different groups of students. Data from these assessments allow
us to track long-term performance of students. In addition to the SB assessment, the
District utilizes a diagnostic standardized assessment (DIBELS), standardized universal
screeners (STAR), and, when possible, support teams analyze student work samples. In
recent years, reading leadership teams have been trained to cross-walk results from the
SB and STAR assessments to identify similar trends in student achievement. Professional
Learning Communities (PLC) then use diagnostic assessments or student work samples
to support inferences drawn from the analysis of standardized assessments. PLCs develop
solutions to respond to identified student weaknesses that include a change in
instructional methods, texts, or resources. This continuous improvement process occurs
multiple times throughout the academic year, and has been supported by the addition of
early release times adopted by the Board.

9. Does the current CPS ELA curricular proposal include plans for IDEA compliance?
Does the proposal include practices that meet the expectations for an inclusive learning
environment as defined by the state?

The proposed curriculum has been developed as the tier 1, or core curriculum, from
which Individualized Education Plans (IEP) will be designed to support students with
special needs to access. Essentially, the proposed curriculum is the grade level standard
that SPED teams and case managers will use in order to design interventions and
supports. The proposed curriculum identifies what should be taught to and learned by
students. It is each teacher’s responsibility to determine how best to support students
access a curriculum and reach curricular goals. The District will support individual
teachers with professional development opportunities that align with the curriculum, and
support intervention teams with research-based strategies to support students along the
continuum of skill proficiency.

10. Does the language of questionnaires and templates distributed to teachers reflect the
language used in the CCSS and Common Core? Other CT educational laws and
standards?

The State does not dictate how districts should engage their teachers in the evaluation of
curricula. The State has provided guidance to districts in the process of curriculum
design, but has relied upon national frameworks to support curriculum teams develop
local curricula (e.g., ​CT Social Studies Framework​). Only recently has new leadership
started to assess the need for content area specialists at the State. Prior to, there had been
very little staff at the State to lead districts in the design of curriculum (e.g., there is only
one full-time coordinator at the State for science). Over the past few years, Colchester has
developed its own curriculum tools that are based on the existing theory and research
regarding curriculum design.

11. What plans are there for teachers to access professional education and curricular
training?

The ELA curriculum is unique in that reading and writing is at the core of each schools’
academic program. Disciplines such as science compliment core skill development at the
elementary level, whereas it becomes a separate discipline at the secondary level. As a
result, each building has a standing reading leadership team that supports curriculum
implementation at each school, and works at the district level to monitor the success of
curriculum implementation. This team has identified goals for future professional
development (PD). Those goals have been communicated to a variety of PD providers
with whom CPS is looking to contract (Literacy How, HILL for Literacy, WestEd,
Teachers College). These providers will work with teachers to implement the curriculum
and supplement their instructional practice with research-based strategies. This
implementation will be supported and further developed with the support of our
instructional coaches and teacher leaders at each building.


12. ​Would you provide what methods Dr. Hewes utilized to assess the previous
    Curriculum enacted 5 years ago?
Each CPS curriculum is evaluated first using a basic ​program evaluation​ template. This
template guides building-based teams in the evaluation of the existing program,
attempting to cover not only the curriculum, but the support structures and systems that
impact student learning outcomes. For example, a building may identify that the content
and structure of the curriculum is effective; however, there is not enough staff or
allocation of instruction time during the academic day, which results in a limited impact
on student learning outcomes. Building-based curriculum teams usually consist of one
teacher per grade level, instructional coaches or specialists, and administration. Where
available, programs are also evaluated by a ​review of research​ or reviews provided by
external educational agencies (e.g., ​Louisiana Believes​). The program evaluation and
results from the review of research provide direction for the curricular improvement
process.

13. Also, what were the specific goals that students were expected to meet as part of
    assessing the previous Curriculum?

There were no specific goals outlined in the previous curriculum documents for ELA.
Moreover, the assessment system in place when the previous curriculum was written was
the CMT and CAPT. These legacy assessments were replaced in 2014 by the Smarter
Balanced Assessment for grades 3-8 and the CT-SAT for grade 11.

14. With this updated/revised Curriculum, what are the measurable goals moving
    forward? Do they align with all of the Connecticut Core State Standards?

Typically, curricular goals are written in a holistic manner, providing flexibility at
the grade level to articulate grade-level goals. For example, the current ELA
curriculum goal number 5 aims to support students to develop their stamina to read,
write, and revise a large volume of work. This is not a measurable goal, but this
can provide grade level teams the opportunity to articulate an appropriate goal for
all students at a grade level. Measurable grade-level goals can then be scaffolded
across grade levels to provide a progression of anticipated student learning
outcomes. These specific and measurable goals have not yet been set by grade level
teams. The exception to this method of goal writing is goal 1, which indicates that
students will master foundational skills. We can measure students' foundational
reading skills by proctoring a diagnostic reading assessment. Once students master
foundational skills, the goals we will support students to achieve are more
enduring, and will be set based upon the grade level and complexity of the text and
task. Grade level teams will write specific and measurable goals that are aligned
with the CCSSs because our grade level priority standards are CCSSs.
15. How does the English and Language Arts Curriculum meet the standards for
    reading in History/Social studies,Science and Technical subjects?
In grades PreK-5, teachers who teach reading and writing also teach science and
social studies. The scope and sequence of topics illustrate how teachers of these
grade levels are increasingly aligning reading units with science and social studies
units. Students build knowledge and skill more effectively when they are asked to
transfer skills to new and unfamiliar contexts. By aligning the ELA units to build
upon the science and social studies units, we feel that students will be more
effective at developing disciplinary reading and writing skills. In grades 6-12,
reading leadership teams at each building consist of teacher leaders from ELA,
social studies, and science. These teams review student learning data up to four
times per year to identify areas where the students are struggling. This team works
collaboratively to develop strategies within their disciplinary PLCs to make
adjustments in curriculum and instruction to support a common literacy goal for
students.

16. How will this Curriculum address "Language Progressive Skills" as described
    in ELA - Literacy/Language Common Core be implemented and measured
    given it progresses from Grade 3 - Grade 12.
The CCSS Language Progressive Skills sequence is one of many available
scaffolds designed to support the development of language skills. Our ELA
curriculum committee members have selected specific language skills to include in
the list of priority standards at each grade level that are both robust and enduring.
In other words, this curriculum is based upon the philosophy that written and oral
language is used to communicate and develop ideas. This is different from other
curriculums that might support explicit teaching of all language skills. There are
certain language skills that are critical to developing a student’s ability to
effectively communicate, and our curriculum committee has identified and added
those “Language Progressive Skills” to our curriculum documents. Teachers may
expose students to all language skills, but the critical skills that provide students
with the greatest capacity to develop and communicate ideas will be taught more
explicitly, and with a greater emphasis in this curriculum.

17. What methods will CPS utilize to assess this (entire) proposed ELA
    Curriculum? .
Once grade level goals are established, PLCs will continuously review student
learning data and samples of student work to determine whether students are
reaching grade level goals. When the curriculum enters year 4 of implementation,
the curriculum team and PLCs will be able to provide extensive data to indicate
where students have been successful and where they have not been successful in
achieving the goals, which will support the redesign of the next curriculum.