reading first designing state level support
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Reading First: Designing State-Level Support

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26

Reading First: Designing State-Level Support - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 62 Views
  • Uploaded on

Reading First: Designing State-Level Support. Sharon Walpole Michael C. McKenna University of Delaware University of Virginia. Overview. Describe our charge as professional development architects for Reading First in Georgia;

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Reading First: Designing State-Level Support' - arnaud


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
reading first designing state level support

Reading First:Designing State-Level Support

Sharon Walpole Michael C. McKenna

University of Delaware University of Virginia

overview
Overview
  • Describe our charge as professional development architects for Reading First in Georgia;
  • Position that work as an ongoing formative experiment;
  • Describe a potentially more powerful design, if Reading First is reauthorized.
some facts about garf
Some Facts about GARF

The state grant was approved in Sept., 2003, and funded at approximately $30 million per year. Currently, we are in year 4 of 5.

In addition to the funded schools, the state provides extensive professional development support to other schools and to individual teachers.

We won a competitive contract to design professional development for the state staff in 2004, and then again in 2007.

All of our work in this project is available for review at our website http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/reading/projects/garf/

some facts about garf4
Some Facts about GARF

The state awarded grants to schools in a competitive process, using a group of individual grant reviewers who were solicited in an open call; these individuals reviewed and scored grants, and then schools were funded based on their recommendations.

The state never issued a list of approved programs for purchase, but required schools to engage in a review and/or to use a review conducted by one of the national technical assistance centers. One vendor complained about this process, as it was not in the state’s original plan.

some facts about garf5
Some Facts about GARF

In January of 2007, the Office of Inspector General issued its final audit report to investigate grant awards. There was one general finding.

“GDOE Did Not Have Written Policies and Procedures and Did Not Adequately Manage the LEA Grant Application Process”

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/areports2007.html

The state drafted new policies and procedures in response to the OIG recommendations.

a pragmatic perspective
A Pragmatic* Perspective

Pragmatic theory directs researchers to address socially-situated problems whose solutions contribute broadly to a more democratic way of life.

Pragmatists allow contributions from research literature and from the world of practice to be combined in the search for solutions to problems.

*Dillon, O’Brien, & Heilman, 2000

a pragmatic perspective7
A Pragmatic* Perspective

The Reading First portion of NCLB is potentially positive for low-performing schools;

Advocacy for good instruction is not inconsistent with the statute;

One way to advocate is to participate directly;

States have very limited infrastructure for making complex design decisions related to reform, but are making good-faith efforts (Sunderman & Orfield, 2006)

Reading First is an opportunity, not fully realized, for the reading research community

*Dillon, O’Brien, & Heilman, 2000

slide8
Our Charge:

Design a professional support system for the Reading First team in Georgia.

slide21
A Policy Seesaw

High High

Low Low

Specificity

of

federal regulations

Flexibility of implementation in state and local contexts

slide22
A Policy Seesaw

High High

Low Low

Specificity

of

federal regulations

Flexibility of implementation in state and local contexts

slide25
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305-336.

Dillon, D. R., O'Brien, D. G., & Heilman, E. E. (2000). Literacy research in the next millennium: From paradigms to pragmatism and practicality. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 10-26.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus., L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368.

Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34-38.

slide26
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2004). Connecting research and practice using formative and design experiments. In N. K. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 149-169). New York: Guilford Press.

Sunderman, G. L., & Orfield, G. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind reforms and state administrative response. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology,8, 317-344.

Tabak, I. (2006). Prospects for change at the nexus of policy and design. Educational Researcher, 35, 24-30.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 11-29). New York: Guilford Press.

ad