Michigan’s Statewide Comprehensive Literacy Plan

(MiLit Plan)

Literacy for Equity, Literacy for Prosperity, Literacy for Society

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 3

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ……………………………………………………… 4

Background and Purpose: Literacy for Equity Expanded View of Literacy for the 21st Century: Literacy for

Prosperity, Literacy for Society State Literacy Team: MiLit Plan Goals and Action Steps

II. Background and Status of Michigan Literacy

Trends ………………………….……………………………………… 13 III. Review of Literacy Research for MiLit Plan … 20 IV. Michigan Statewide Comprehensive Literacy Plan

The MiLitPlan ………………………………………………………… 39 V. Appendices

Appendix 1: MiLit Plan: Phase 1 2011-2016……………………. 43 Appendix 2: Regional Plan Template…………………………….….. 46 Appendix 3: Literacy Assessment Achievement Reports… 47 Appendix 4: Research Recommendations………………………… 48 Appendix 5: References ……………………………………………………. 52

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 4

I. Introduction Once you learn to read, you will be forever free - Frederick Douglas, 1845

Background and Purpose: Literacy for Equity

Over a century of educational and literacy reforms have sought to address

deeply entrenched U.S. educational and opportunity divides (Ravitch, 2000).

Historically, economically disadvantaged, African-American, and Hispanic students

have scored significantly below their more privileged Caucasian counterparts in

reading and writing achievement (Frankenberg, 2004; NAEP, 2010; Wong, 2003).

There has also been a recent demographic shift in U.S. schools and neighborhoods

coined “re-segregation.” Re-segregation trends since the mid-1990s have resulted

in more racially and economically polarized schools than have been seen in forty

years, according to the Harvard Civil Rights Project (2003). Kozol (2005) refers to

this phenomenon as “the new apartheid” of our education system, indicting both

the school-of-choice and voucher movements. The historic divides, as well as the

more recent demographic trends reflect the legacy of U.S. slavery and racial

discrimination, which have hindered minorities from obtaining educational and

economic equity for over 200 years.

More recent state and federal literacy reforms can be viewed through the

lens of President Johnson’s “Great Society” agenda of the 1960s, which sought to

ameliorate persistent inequities for poor and minority Americans. Johnson’s

platform included the first major educational federal funding for poor children, the

1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). To date, the No Child Left

Behind Act (2001) and its Reading First legislation have represented the most

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 5

ambitious attempts in the continuing federal effort to reduce long-standing

achievement gaps for poor and minority children, gaps that some fear may actually

increase with re-segregation and school-of-choice trends (Anyon, 1997; Darling-

Hammond, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Wong, 2003).

The federal call, therefore, for statewide comprehensive literacy programs in

2011 is more urgent and necessary than ever. While national trends and Michigan

outcomes demonstrate limited progress in closing reading achievement gaps over

the last decade (Michigan Educational Assessment Program [MEAP], 2010; NAEP,

2010), the progress has been slow and uneven (CEP, 2010). It is time for Michigan

shareholders to share responsibility for the persistent, significant, and

unconscionable gaps in the state’s literacy achievement. For the first time in its

history, the Michigan Statewide Comprehensive Literacy Plan (MiLit Plan or Plan)

provides a platform for Michigan literacy leaders to work in concert for the shared

goal of increased and sustained literacy achievement for all Michigan citizens from

cradle to career. The time has come for Michiganians to drive this work together as

we shift gear for 21st Century growth and demands.

Expanded View of Literacy for the 21st Century: Literacy for Prosperity, Literacy for Society

Literacy does not concern only individuals, as a rights and capabilities

framework may suggest; it “also has a critical social dimension” (UNESCO, Literacy

for Life, 2006). The 21st Century has brought new dimension to the needs of society

and the economy, which are naturally reflected in our schools and other social

organizations. The rapid development, application, and pervasiveness of

technology, as well as an influx of English language learners (ELLs), require that

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 6

our conception of and approach to teaching literacy evolve. As the nation and the

world work to emerge from the financial crisis of the last three years, the rebuilding

is uniquely challenging for Michigan. As two of the Big Three Automakers, from the

industry that had sustained Michigan for the last century, fell into bankruptcy,

good-paying, low-education jobs became essentially a relic of the past. Michigan’s

labor force has shrunk by nearly 400,000 workers over the past decade while

unemployment has risen from a low of 3.3% in 2000 to a high of 14.5% in 2010

(U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010).

In these challenging economic times, a renewed focus on ensuring that all

citizens are literate is essential. Literacy has the potential to meet people’s “most

vital needs and to stimulate social, cultural, political, and economic participation,

especially on the part of disadvantaged groups” (UNESCO, Literacy for Life, 2006).

As Michigan transitions to a knowledge-based economy for its path to prosperity

(Glazer, 2010), it is with the understanding that the foundation for this new

economy is our literate citizenry.

Expanded Definitions of Literacy

The MiLit Plan defines literacy generally as: the ability to read, write, speak,

and listen in order to comprehend and communicate common meaning in various

settings; our extended definition includes oral, written, visual, and digital forms of

expression. The MiLit Plan further underscores that the function of literacy is to

enable individuals to achieve their goals, develop their knowledge and potential,

and participate fully in their community and wider society (see UNESCO, 2003).

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 7

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), adopted by Michigan in June

2010, set a rigorous bar for college and career readiness in literacy – a level that all

Michigan students, regardless of current levels of performance, will be prepared to

meet in order to build a strong, prosperous, and democratic state. As the CCSS in

English Language Arts articulate, a literate person in the 21st Century must

demonstrate independence; build strong content knowledge; respond to the

varying demands of audience, task, purpose, and discipline; comprehend as well as

critique; value evidence; use technology and digital media strategically and

capably; and come to understand other perspectives and cultures

(www.corestandards.org). These expanded definitions underscore MiLit Plan’s vision

statement: Literacy for Equity, Literacy for Prosperity, Literacy for Society.

State Literacy Team, MiLit Plan Goals and Action Steps

The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) convened a group of 50

literacy experts from across the state in May 2010 to begin the work of developing

the Michigan Statewide Comprehensive Literacy Plan (MiLit Plan). The larger State

Literacy Team (Team) includes 86 members of shareholders representing K-12

education, public libraries, higher education, early childhood education, English

language learners, students with disabilities, community and nonprofit

organizations, and the various geographic regions across the state. The Team will

work cooperatively to oversee the implementation of the MiLit Plan through the

establishment of MiLit Regional Teams and the MiLit Network website (see Section

IV). The Team’s work will be guided by the Plan’s goals, action steps, and core

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 8

components. The Plan will be implemented over a five-year period beginning in

September 2011 with full implementation by 2016.

MiLit Plan Goals

1. Ensure that all students enter kindergarten and remain on-track to achieve college and career readiness (CCR) standards in literacy by the completion of the 12th grade. Birth to Kindergarten • Ensure that all children have opportunities to experience many learning

environments, including supports from home, early childhood programs, and the community, as necessary to maximize literacy development.

Kindergarten to 12th Grade • Ensure support for effective core instruction. • Ensure early and appropriate interventions for students who are not meeting

CCR benchmarks. • Eliminate existing literacy achievement gaps.

2. Ensure that all learners experience supports from the education and regional

communities as necessary to maximize continued literacy development for citizenship and successful careers. Ensure that parents understand how to support their children’s literacy development.

MiLit Plan Action Steps

1. Promote high standards for literacy instruction for all learners. • Develop school and district literacy plans with highly effective core literacy

instruction and multi-tiered instructional supports aligned with the Common Core State Standards.

• Develop a system of data collection, evaluation, and program accountability, including assessments to inform instruction.

• Measure progress in early and adolescent literacy at the school, district, and state levels.

2. Build teacher/literacy leader expertise.

• Empower teachers to make decisions based on assessment of students’ strengths and needs.

• Provide high-quality professional development opportunities through a comprehensive literacy training plan that allows for individualization of programs at the local level within a tiered instructional framework. Teachers will have access to systematic, sustained, high-quality, job-embedded professional development.

• Review (and revise if needed) teacher preparation program standards to better prepare teachers to provide instruction for meeting state literacy standards (Early Childhood Standards and CCSS).

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 9

3. Create MiLit Regional Teams of shareholders working together through a virtual MiLit Network to improve and sustain literacy achievement across Michigan.

MiLit Plan Core Components

1. Shared Leadership: Establish MiLit Regional Teams and Regional MiLit Plans to organize an effective approach to increase and sustain literacy achievement regionally and statewide.

2. Academic Standards: Disseminate information about existing standards such as

Michigan’s Early Childhood Standards of Quality for Infant and Toddler Care Programs, the Early Childhood Standards of Quality for Prekindergarten, the Common Core State Standards, and Teacher Preparation Standards.

3. Instruction, Intervention and Assessment: Establish systems of support and

examine their effectiveness. 4. Professional Learning: Develop professional learning opportunities, web

resources through the establishment of the MiLit Network website, and initiatives that enhance literacy learning for all educators and shareholders.

5. Technology: Utilize innovative technology, including the MiLit Network, to

enhance, support, and re-imagine dissemination of knowledge, access to resources, and the connection of all citizens to resources and educators.

Supporting MiLit Plan Goals: Current and Recommended Strategies and Programs

Literacy development must begin at birth, extend beyond the primary

grades, and continue through and beyond high school. From the health of a child in

the womb to the first learning environment at home, there are a multitude of

factors that play into a child’s physical and emotional readiness to learn. For many

of these factors literacy shareholders and educators have no control; however,

through messaging and networking, shareholders can work together to reach

families and influence the factors that affect children early on to improve conditions

for optimal development. Parenting programs provide support and education for

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 10

those who choose to attend. When children are placed in licensed childcare and pre-

schools or meet the requirements for and participate in Head Start and Early Head

Start programs, more direct influences can be made. Michigan’s commitment to

ensuring that students enter kindergarten and remain on-track is evidenced in the

following initiatives:

• Michigan READY kits for parents

• Early Childhood Standards of Quality for Pre-kindergarten (Michigan State Board of Education, March 2005)

• Childhood Standards of Quality for Infant and Toddler Programs (Michigan

State Board of Education)

• Great Start programs such as Head Start, Early Start, and Even Start

• Grade Level Content Expectations and High School Content Expectations

• Michigan Reads! program for birth through 8 through public libraries, and Head Start

• Other public library programs – Summer Reading, lap-sit programs, and

story hours

Closing the achievement gap among Michigan learners is the concern of

educators as well as the public. The Education Trust-Midwest is dedicated to closing

gaps in opportunity and achievement for all Michigan children, particularly low-

income students and students of color. In their report “Becoming a Leader in

Education: An Agenda for Michigan,” Ed Trust-Midwest presents evidence of poor

academic results statewide:

“Michigan is among the nation’s lowest performing states on national school assessments, a reality masked by the fact that the vast majority of Michigan children—about four out of every five elementary and middle schoolers—are meeting less-rigorous state standards. Higher income students as well as lower income students score substantially behind their peers in other states” (EdTrust-Midwest, 2010).

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 11

The report calls for Michigan to begin implementing long-overdue strategies

to dramatically improve student achievement across our state. The MiLit Plan

recognizes this urgency and outlines numerous areas where promising strategies

have been and can be further developed for promoting effective literacy instruction

and for closing the achievement gaps among learners.

Promote high standards for literacy instruction for all learners Current Michigan programs or initiatives

• Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC), a rigorous set of statewide graduation requirements

• Adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for kindergarten through grade 12. In fall 2010, the Michigan Department of Education began rolling out the new standards to school districts. Schools will transition to the CCSS for full implementation in 2014.

• Development of rigorous content standards in Science, Social Studies, and the Arts

• Instruction – Teaching for Learning Framework • Assessments – formative and summative • Continuous School Improvement – School Improvement Framework • Intervention in the state’s Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools – SSRRO • Targeted Support for High Priority Schools – Statewide System of Support • Out-of-the-box programs/materials for libraries to incorporate into their early

and family literacy programs that can lead into/link to Headstart/K-12 programs

Provide early and appropriate literacy interventions Current literacy intervention supports

• School Improvement/Response to Intervention Framework • Reading First measures and programs, e.g., DIBELS and Open Court • Success For All Schools (SFA) • Reading Recovery • Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) • Special Education Literacy Connections Training (SELCT) • RtI programs, e.g., MiBLSi

Build teacher/ literacy leader expertise Current and proposed programs and initiatives

• Professional Learning opportunities • Collaboration with statewide networks and professional organizations for

communication, professional development, and resources • Teacher Preparation Standards

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 12

• Teacher Preparation Programs that prepare teachers to provide highly effective literacy instruction for all students (pre-service training and professional development)

• Administrator leadership training to adequately prepare administrators to provide leadership and support effective literacy instruction for all students

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 13

II. Background and Status of Michigan Literacy Trends Michigan has a rich history of valuing and supporting literacy. In 1985,

collaborative efforts by MDE and Michigan educators produced Michigan’s New

Definition of Reading (Wixson, et.al. 1987), which continues as a basis for our

expanding view of literacy and provides instructional resources for educators. In

1998, Governor John Engler released a Reading Plan for Michigan (MDE, 1998)

which provided READY kits for parents, and the Michigan Literacy Progress Profile

(MLPP) for educators for the purpose of diagnosing, recording, and reporting the

literacy progress of Pre-K through grade 3 students, and has since expanded to

grades 3-6. Regional Literacy Training Centers (RLTCs) were created to build the

capacity of literacy leaders and experts statewide. In 2002, Michigan implemented

the literacy principles outlined in the federal Reading First Program in eligible

schools with highly trained teachers, coaches, and facilitators. Grade Level Content

Expectations (GLCE, 2004) and High School Content Expectations (HSCE, 2006)

were developed and adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) as the

curricular standards for Michigan, with literacy domains at the forefront serving as

assessable expectations for the MEAP and Michigan Merit Exam (MME)

assessments.

Early Childhood and Poverty in Michigan

Equity is an issue of poverty for many Michigan citizens. Throughout the

state children are born into poverty. The Kids Count data for 2009 indicate that

23% of children ages 0-17 live in poverty in Michigan (Kids Count, 2009). Several

studies suggest that children’s potential for employment and success in life is

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 14

directly related to the mother’s level of education (Stipek and Ryan, 1997). Children

whose mothers are not completing high school can be caught in the same poverty

cycle. Poverty is not centralized to Detroit or other urban areas; there are

impoverished children throughout the two-peninsula state. A related factor that

links success to home environment is the number of age-appropriate books

available in the home. Recent studies (Neuman and Dickenson, 2006) indicate a

correlation between the number of books in the home and a child’s future success

in school. Neuman and Dickenson discussed that while in middle-income

neighborhoods the ratio of books per child is 13 to 1, in low-income neighborhoods,

the ratio is 1 age-appropriate book for every 300 children.

Michigan Literacy Achievement Trends

In 2009, the Education Trust published an Education Watch State Report for

Michigan. This report provided an array of data to show how well Michigan schools

are serving Michigan’s students, including various subgroups. The data in the report

included on-time high school graduation rates, public college graduation rates, and

reading and math proficiency results from the 2007 Michigan Educational

Assessment Program (MEAP) and the 2007 National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP). A summary of the data revealed the following disturbing patterns

in Michigan’s schools: educational performance is too low; big gaps separate low-

income students and students of color from others; and improvement, while real, is

far too slow. Although data used in the Education Watch State Report were taken

from 2007 assessments, current assessment data continue to show the same

trends (Education Trust, 2009).

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 15

Overview of Michigan Statewide Assessments Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)

The MEAP is administered in grades 3-9. In math and reading, students are

tested on curriculum standards, known as Grade Level Content Expectations. MEAP

scores are categorized into four performance levels: Not Proficient, Partially

Proficient, Proficient, and Advanced. Proficiency measures a student at a basic level

of knowledge in a given curriculum area. Each October, Michigan students are

tested on skills learned through the end of the previous year. The following graphs

show 8th grade reading data from the MEAP that confirm gaps in reading

achievement.

0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10

Grade 8 MEAP Reading Achievement Gaps

Black

Detroit

ED

Hispanic

LEP

SWD

(Martineau, 2010)

Assessment of reading achievement in Michigan shows that the proportion of

students proficient in reading declines as they transition from elementary and

middle school to high school. In 2009, MEAP Reading results suggest that 80% or

more of students in grades 3-5 scored as proficient or above. MEAP Reading results

for 2009 suggest that 72% or more of students in grades 6-8 scored as proficient

or above.

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0100.0

2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 College Ready

Statewide Grade 8 MEAP Reading Performance

All

Black

Detroit

ED

Hispanic

LEP

SWD

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 16

MI-Access and MEAP-Access

While a majority of students in Michigan participate in the MEAP, it is not

appropriate for some students with disabilities. For that reason, the state developed

two alternative assessment programs: MI-Access and MEAP-Access.

MI-Access is Michigan’s alternate assessment for students with cognitive

impairments whose Individualized Education Program Team (IEPT) has

determined that MEAP assessments, even with accommodations, are not

appropriate.

MEAP-Access bridges the gap between the MI-Access assessments and the

MEAP for students with disabilities. MEAP-Access is based on Grade Level

Content Expectations and assesses Reading/Writing and Mathematics for

students in grades 3-8.

National Assessment of Educational Progress

A representative sampling of Michigan’s students takes the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP assessments provide a

snapshot of student achievement with about 5% of 4th grade students and 4% of

8th grade students tested in reading and mathematics every 2 years. The results

are reported in terms of subject-matter achievement for populations of students in

grades 4, 8, and 12 (although not all subjects and grades are assessed each time),

and groups within those populations (e.g., female students, Hispanic students).

Since NAEP assessments are administered uniformly using the same sets of test

booklets across the nation, NAEP results serve as a common metric for all states

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 17

and selected urban districts. The following chart demonstrates how MEAP

proficiency rates compare to those on the NAEP exam in the year 2007.

(Table from The Education Trust, April 2009) A Closer Look at Detroit

Detroit was selected by the National Assessment Governing Board from

among 10 applicants to take place in a voluntary study that measured student

performance city-wide on reading, math, writing, and science for the past 6 years.

Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) districts must be within a city with a

population of 250,000 or more, have a district population that is at least half

African-American or Hispanic, or eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. This is a

trial to expand NAEP to allow the nation’s biggest school districts to have a more

detailed look at how their students perform compared to peers in other urban

districts. The graph below compares 8th grade reading scores in Detroit to other

large cities in the country and to the nation as a whole.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 18

Summary of Michigan’s status in literacy achievement

Michigan’s assessment measures indicate the harsh reality of unacceptable

achievement gaps and overall low performance for too many of our students. MDE

acknowledges that inequalities may begin in the years before formal schooling and

that many inequities are lived and perpetuated outside the walls of the school

building. Students at even greater disadvantage may be English language learners

and students with disabilities. However, we know from both research and

experience that these obstacles can be overcome within the school building and

classroom setting. It is vital that Michigan’s shareholders unite by underscoring

literacy as a foundational vehicle for equitable achievement outcomes, statewide

economic growth, and an engaged and prosperous citizenry. The MiLit Plan provides

the platform for both leveraging current connections and capacity, and engendering

changes needed through the network of Regional Teams and the virtual MiLit

Network website (see Section IV).

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 19

There is a large body of research studies that the MiLit Plan will draw from to

improve literacy instruction and achievement. These studies are addressed at

length in Section III.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 20

III. Review of Literacy Research for MiLit Plan Early Childhood

“What happens to children in their first three years of life shapes every year thereafter. It is the period of the most rapid growth and development and the period in which having the most responsive caregiving from family members and other caregivers is critical to the development of well-being, trusting relationships, and a growing knowledge about their world.” (Michigan State Board of Education, 2006).

A report from the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child states

that cognitive, emotional, and social capabilities are intertwined. For example, a

single factor such as oral acquisition depends on adequate hearing, the ability to

differentiate sounds, and the capacity to link meaning to specific words. At the

same time it relies on the ability to concentrate, pay attention, and engage in

meaningful social interaction. Emotional well-being and social competence provide a

foundation for emerging cognitive capabilities and for human development.

Emotional health, social skills, and cognitive-linguistic capacities emerge in the

early years and are important prerequisites for success in school, in the workplace,

and in the community.

Quality environments, as defined by NAEYC (2003), include elements that

are necessary for supporting early literacy including:

• Supportive, positive relationships between adults and children • High-quality conversations and language opportunities between children and

between children and adults • High-quality supported play • Multiple opportunities with books (using them, hearing them, telling and

retelling them, acting them out) • Predictable routine • Reliable and consistent caregivers/adults • Engaging opportunities for motor development (strong connection between

physical and intellectual development) • Experiences to support the development of the entire child (social, emotional,

physical, intellectual, language) • Playing/exploring/using child-created print to share ideas

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 21

Early life experiences can have powerful long-term consequences. People are

resilient and capable of learning throughout life. Some children have early

experiences that are not ideal for optimum growth. Michigan must strengthen its

resolve to ensure that all children have the benefit of positive early experiences.

Regardless of prior learning, childcare providers, preschools, and schools have the

responsibility to educate all children. Investing in this approach early on is the most

beneficial way of supporting all students in reaching for literacy proficiency.

Early Literacy: Kindergarten through Third Grade

Disruptions to early childhood development increase the possibility of reading

delays. Many of the problems that adolescent and adult readers face could be

prevented, avoided, and resolved in the early childhood years. Michigan’s

stakeholders must become acutely aware of the measures that can be made at the

primary grade levels to close and prevent further achievement gaps.

Michigan has adopted the Common Core State Standards that determine

MDE’s work in literacy. The CCSS define literacy focus through these key features of

reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language.

Reading

The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) addresses instruction in the five

components of reading as:

• Phonemic Awareness: The ability to manipulate sounds in words

• Phonics: Knowledge of relationships between written words and sounds

• Fluency: Ability to read rapidly

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 22

• Vocabulary: Understanding the meaning of words in reading and in written

and spoken language

• Comprehension: Ability to gain meaning when reading

Prevention begins with excellent literacy instruction in the primary grades.

In the report Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Snow, et al,

recommend the following reading accomplishments: the alphabetic principle,

reading sight words, reading words by mapping speech sounds to parts of words,

achieving fluency, and comprehension. Learners should experience explicit

instruction in a range of comprehension competencies, as well as opportunities for

reading a variety of interesting and appropriate texts. Effective instruction requires

coordinating and integrating the teaching of word-identification skills,

comprehension, spelling, and writing. To do this, primary-level teachers need

extensive knowledge and skills for teaching children to read. Schools of education

must provide prospective teachers with adequate preparation for meeting the

diverse needs of students.

For early readers, strong comprehension skills are central for academic and

professional success and ultimately for a productive social and civic life.

Comprehension skills allow learners to learn independently, absorb information on

varying topics, enjoy reading, and experience literature on a deeper level. The

development of comprehension skills is the focus of the reading strand of the

Common Core State Standards. The panel of experts that developed the IES

Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice

Guide defines comprehension as “the process of simultaneously extracting and

constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language.”

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 23

The report provides 5 recommendations for improving reading comprehension for

kindergarten through grade 3.

• Teach students how to use reading comprehension strategies.

• Teach students to identify and use the text’s organizational structure to

comprehend, learn, and remember content.

• Guide students through focused, high-quality discussion on the meaning of

text.

• Select texts purposefully to support comprehension development.

• Establish an engaging and motivating context in which to learn reading

comprehension.

Writing

Writing is a complex task and is a combination of motor and mental

activities. For children in the early grades, mastering automaticity of writing letters

is the best predictor of composition length and quality of writing in the later grades

(Beringer, 2008). Having students write about a text they are reading enhances

how well they comprehend it. The same result occurs when students write about a

text from different content areas, such as science and social studies (Graham and

Herbert, 2010). The recommendations from the Carnegie report, Writing to Read

include:

• Have students write about what they read by responding to text in writing, writing summaries and notes about the text, and answering questions about the text in writing.

• Teach students the writing skills and processes that go into creating text by

teaching the process, text structures, paragraph and sentence skills, as well as spelling skills. These tasks help students with reading comprehension, fluency, and word reading skills).

• Increase how much students write to improve reading comprehension.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 24

Speaking and Listening

Research indicates that elementary students’ reading levels are limited by

their listening vocabulary (Beimiller, 2003). Language grows during the elementary

years through interaction with people and text that introduces new vocabulary,

concepts, and language structure. At this age level most children are not reading

content that is at the same level as their oral language, and most of the language

growth continues from non-print sources like parents, teachers, and television. ELL

students have a greater disadvantage for listening comprehension in English-

speaking schools.

Language

Aspects of language need direct instruction. As children begin school they

encounter words and phrases that are academic and domain-specific compared to

everyday speaking language. This “academic vocabulary” must be systematically

and explicitly taught. Economically disadvantaged students are likely to come to

kindergarten with smaller vocabularies than more affluent children (Hart and Risley,

1995). To close this gap students need to have a vocabulary of words built up.

Students must know a word by definition, in context, and have morphological

awareness of a word (Nagy and Scott, 2000). Knowledge about words contributes

to a student’s reading comprehension.

The International Reading Association and the National Association for

Education of Young Children have united to produce a position paper called

Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young

Children. The work summarizes what research reveals about a young child’s path to

literacy. These revelations include an understanding that children take steps early

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 25

in their lives toward learning to read and write, yet careful planning and instruction

are necessary for providing experiences that shape growth. Continuous assessment

of a child’s skills and abilities help educators provide effective instruction. The

instruction should be based on current research and on the individual needs of the

child. The work in the primary grades around phonemic awareness, letter

recognition, segmenting words into sounds, and decoding printed text supports

later reading competence. In addition, children who are learning English as a

second language will become literate more easily if they have a strong foundation

in their first language.

Along with the research revelations, NAEYC and IRA compiled a list of

recommended policies for improving literacy experiences. The recommendations

include:

• Establishing a comprehensive and consistent early childhood professional

preparation system

• Ensuring small class sizes and small child-teacher ratios

• Providing extensive literacy resources including high-quality books,

educational software, and technology tools

• Providing resources that promote literacy progress for those who are at risk

for achievement

• Promoting appropriate assessment strategies

• Providing access to regular, ongoing healthcare

• Increasing public investment in high-quality early education

When students are on summer vacation, equity discrepancies widen the

achievement gap. Underprivileged students lacking their own reading material and

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 26

opportunities to engage in reading activities over the summer months fail to

increase their reading skills. Public libraries that offer summer reading programs

offer resources to close this equity gap. Research indicates that “providing easy

access to self-selected books for summer reading over successive years does, in

fact, limit summer reading setback.” (Allington, et al, 2010)

Preventing achievement gaps is more effective, efficient, and less costly than

remediation. Prevention is easiest to address in the earliest stages of literacy when

the learning and achieving gaps are smallest. Prevention requires differentiation,

systematic and explicit instruction, and extended teaching and learning for students

with reading difficulties.

Adolescent (4-12)

“Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21st Century will read and write more than at any other time in human history. They will need advanced levels of literacy to perform their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct their personal lives. They will need literacy to cope with the flood of information they will find everywhere they turn. They will need literacy to feed their imaginations so they can create the world of the future. In a complex and sometimes even dangerous world, their ability to read will be crucial. Continual instruction beyond the early grades is needed.” — International Reading Association

America is experiencing an adolescent literacy crisis. Addressing this crisis has

been the focus of numerous research and policy reports. The reports cite similar

indicators to describe the crisis and make recommendations for improving adolescent

literacy. The recent Improving Adolescent Literacy: A Trends in America Special Report

summarizes the research findings and policy recommendations of the last ten years.

“Many middle and high school students lack the literacy skills necessary to be

successful in their classes and beyond high school. Only 29 percent of America’s 8th

grade public school students meet the National Assessment of Educational Progress

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 27

standard of reading proficiency for their grade level, according to the U.S. Department

of Education. That’s important because poor reading skills are considered a key factor

in the decision by many students to drop out of school.

“Poor literacy skills impact society in many ways. One study reveals that one-

third of all juvenile offenders read below the fourth-grade level. Research also

concludes that one-third of high school graduates are not ready to succeed in an

introductory-level college writing course. Eight percent of entering college students are

required to take at least one remedial reading course. According to the Council on

Competitiveness, an organization comprised of business, labor, and university leaders

working to ensure U.S. prosperity, employers believe more than half of recent high

school graduates are weak in literacy skills.

“While America’s 4th grade reading scores are among the best in the world,

by the time they reach 10th grade, U.S. students score among the lowest in the

world, according to a report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and

Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics. A Carnegie Corporation of New York

report, Time to Act, concludes adolescents in grades 4 to 12 are not receiving

adequate literacy training in all subject areas and many teachers lack the

preparation and skills necessary to teach literacy skills.” (Weldon, 2010)

Another recent Carnegie Corporation report, Writing to Read: Evidence of How

Writing Can Improve Reading, cites causes for concern and summarizes earlier reports

and recommendations.

“CAUSE FOR CONCERN

• Forty percent of high school graduates lack the literacy skills employers seek.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 28

• Lack of basic skills costs universities and businesses as much as $16 billion

annually.

• Poor writing skills cost businesses $3.1 billion annually.

• Only one out of three students is a proficient reader.

• Only one out of four twelfth-grade students is a proficient writer.

• One out of every five college freshman must take a remedial reading course.

• Nearly one-third of high school graduates are not ready for college-level English

composition courses.

• Three out of ten high school students do not graduate on time.

• Over half of adults scoring at the lowest literacy levels are dropouts.

“The financial and social costs of poor literacy have been well documented. The

consequences of poor reading and writing skills not only threaten the well-being of

individual Americans, but the country as a whole. Globalization and technological

advances have changed the nature of the workplace. Reading and writing are now

essential skills in most white- and blue-collar jobs. Ensuring that adolescents become

skilled readers and writers is not merely an option for America, it is an absolute

necessity.” (Carnegie, 2010)

“’The skills that students learn up until fourth grade are absolutely critical to later success, but they are simply not enough. Adolescent literacy is a shifting landscape where the heights get higher, the inclines steeper and the terrain rockier…”

-- Time to Act (Carnegie, 2010)

Literacy demands change and intensifies quickly after third grade. Upper

elementary and secondary students are expected to learn new words, new facts,

and new ideas from reading, as well as to interpret, critique, and summarize the

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 29

texts they read. These tasks, combining literacy skills and content knowledge

require a high level of sophistication.

Time to Act describes the changes students encounter as they progress from

primary to secondary grades:

Texts become longer – Students need to develop reading stamina. Word complexity increases – Students need to develop technical and all-

purpose academic vocabularies, with increasing demands on word recognition, pronunciation, fluency, and meaning-making.

Sentence complexity increases – Students need to understand complex relationships among ideas signaled through connective words set in long and complicated sentences.

Structural complexity increases – Students need to recognize and use text structure to identify several logical relationships between ideas.

Graphic representations become more important – Students must synthesize information from graphs, charts, tables, illustrations, and equations, with written text to grasp the full meaning of content-area texts.

Conceptual challenge increases – Students must synthesize from one task to another and from one set of concepts to another, and also build logical relationships across multiple aspects of a given conceptual domain with the information they glean from texts.

The MiLit Plan addresses these new literacy demands, recognizing wide

variation among adolescent students in literacy skills and knowledge. Students may

be excellent readers of narrative, but perhaps challenged and/or unmotivated by

the content of science, math, or social studies texts. Many must contend not only

with the normal challenges of adolescent development, but also with the additional

challenges of minority and/or immigrant status, acquiring English, or coping with

disabilities. The Mi Lit Plan portrays an understanding that -

literacy development extends well beyond the primary grades;

instructional resources focused on literacy development in grades four through twelve are crucial;

while interventions for the most severely struggling readers should be

delivered by teachers who specialize in reading, all content-area teachers need to promote literacy skills.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 30

Adolescent Literacy Research and Policy Reports The MiLit Plan incorporates the recommendations from the reports summarized here. Improving Adolescent Literacy: A Trends in America Special Report

The Council of State Governments summarized the findings and

recommendations of recent research and policy reports, including Time to Act: An

Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for College and Career Success; Reading to

Achieve: A Governor’s Guide to Adolescent Literacy; and From Policy to Practice:

Improving Adolescent Literacy for All Students (described below).

Time to Act: An Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for College and Career Success

The Carnegie Corporation Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy report

shares a knowledge base for understanding adolescent literacy and what it takes to

implement this knowledge in secondary schools. Describing a vision of literacy for all--

a challenge that details the specific literacy needs of adolescent learners; keys to

successful school reform; an agenda for re-engineering change at all levels; and a call

to action that summarizes steps for school leaders and policymakers--the report

suggests that now is the time to act on what has been learned. Time to Act calls for

ensuring “that all students receive the support they need for active citizenship, college

and career readiness, gainful employment in the global knowledge economy, and

lifelong learning.” Time to Act calls for comprehensive literacy instruction that

addresses all components of the CCSS, including building a strong foundation in

reading comprehension and fluency, writing, oral language, and vocabulary during the

K-3 years; continuing with literacy instruction through grade 12; to reach college and

career readiness as described in the CCSS. The report incorporates the findings and

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 31

recommendations of three recent reports to the Carnegie Corporation, Reading Next

(Biancarosa, 2004), Writing Next (Graham, 2007), and Writing to Read (Graham,

2010). The recommendations of these reports are included in Appendix 4.

Reading to Achieve: A Governor’s Guide to Adolescent Literacy

The National Governors Association bluntly stated: “Unfortunately, for too many

students, literacy instruction ends in third grade.” (National Governors Association

2005, 1) The NGA report identifies five essential steps for improving adolescent

literacy:

• Build support for a state focus on adolescent literacy

• Raise literacy expectations across grades and curricula

• Encourage and support school and district literacy plans

• Build educators’ capacity to provide adolescent literacy instruction

• Measure progress in adolescent literacy at the school, district, and state levels

The report includes recommendations for strengthening content teacher

licensure and preparation requirements regarding literacy instruction, noting that “an

excellent starting point for developing a school literacy plan is to provide all students

with reading comprehension instruction and embed literacy instruction in content-area

classes.” (National Governors Association 2005, 17)

From State Policy to Classroom Practice: Improving Literacy Instruction for All Students http://www.nasbe.org/index.php/educational-issues/all-educational-issues/func-finishdown/219/

The National Association of State Boards of Education report explains how states

and districts can exercise policy levers and leadership to generate improvement in

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 32

literacy instruction. It describes the problem of low literacy levels, effective literacy

instruction, and issues regarding resistance to change; promotes implementing a

comprehensive, state-local approach to improving literacy instruction; and

recommends state action steps to improve adolescent literacy and drive instructional

improvements in the classroom.

“Effective Literacy Instruction (p.3)

Transforming middle and high school content learning will require policymakers

and administrators to attend closely to what we know about:

• The importance of student engagement and motivation in literacy development; • Integrating specific literacy strategies throughout all content areas to maximize

learning; • The interconnectedness of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking; • Using data to identify student needs and adjusting instruction accordingly; and • Implementing research-based literacy strategies for teaching and learning.

“State Literacy Plans should include guidance for districts and schools on providing time, resources, and tools to build the capacity of educators to:

• Identify struggling readers early and provide a continuum of interventions and supports;

• Infuse literacy instruction throughout the curriculum; • Ensure the necessary training and supports to help teachers gain the knowledge

and skills to provide effective, content-based literacy instruction; and • Provide resources and dedicated staff at district and school levels. (p. 7)

“State Action Steps to Improve Adolescent Literacy (p.7-8)

• Develop coordinated state leadership to set the vision and ensure coherence of goals for improving adolescent literacy statewide.

• Design a state literacy plan that builds instructional capacity and sustains continuous improvements in adolescent literacy.

• Create literacy standards for students and teachers—raising literacy expectations across the curriculum for all students in all grades.

• Ensure comprehensive assessment and alignment with anchor literacy standards and core curricula.

• Provide flexibility and supports at the district level to localize the initiative. • Invest in teachers by ensuring that they have the preparation, professional

development, and supports to provide effective, content-based literacy instruction.”

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 33

Reading Between the Lines: What the ACT Reveals about College Readiness in Reading

This American College Test (ACT) analysis of high school students’ preparation

for college-level reading revealed that only 51 percent of those students taking the

ACT reading assessment demonstrated the ability to meet college reading demands.

Furthermore, the ACT study detected declines as students move through high school,

as the report noted that “more students are on track to being ready for college-level

reading in eighth and tenth grade than are actually ready by the time they reach

twelfth grade.” (ACT, 2006)

Currently, Michigan students take the ACT in the spring of grade 11 as a

component of the Michigan Merit Exam. The characteristics of complex text described

in Reading Between the Lines have been incorporated in the Unit Framework that

describes Michigan Merit Curriculum English Language Arts high school credit; they

form the basis of the qualitative text complexity measures in the CCSS.

Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century (Kamil, Alliance for Excellent Education, 2003) http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/AdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf

In this Alliance for Excellent Education report, Kamil examines the reliable,

empirical research that existed in 2003 on how to improve the literacy of children in

grades 4-12. After describing the adolescent literacy crisis, the available research,

and the need for additional research, Kamil shares four general conclusions

embraced in the MiLit Plan:

Methods of maximizing motivation and engagement in adolescents should be a major focus when designing adolescent literacy programs. One such focus should include the integration of computer technologies into literacy instruction.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 34

While the focus of much concern in adolescent literacy is on comprehension, at least 10 percent of adolescents still have difficulties with word analysis and related skills. Therefore, policies should encourage the careful assessment of reading skills to be certain that individualized instruction is provided to each student.

English language learners face additional, unique challenges. Policies that

guide instruction need to reflect the research that examines the transfer from first language to second language and English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching strategies.

Research shows that a teacher’s professional development can positively

affect student achievement, which is sufficiently suggestive to warrant policies that encourage sustained, imbedded professional development for teachers in secondary schools.

Guidelines for Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well: Six Features of Effective Instruction (Langer, National Research Center on Learning and Achievement, 2000) http://cela.albany.edu/publication/brochure/guidelines.pdf

In an analysis of instructional practices across sets of middle and high school

English classrooms, researchers at the National Research Center on English

Learning and Achievement (CELA) identified and validated six interrelated features

of instruction that make a difference in student performance. They found that

higher performing schools exhibited all six characteristics and stressed that

“although addressing one feature may bring about improved student performance,

it is the integration of all the features that will effect the most improvement.”

Students learn skills and knowledge in multiple lesson types. Teachers integrate test preparation into instruction. Teachers make connections across instruction, curriculum, and life. Students learn strategies for doing the work. Students are expected to be generative thinkers. Classrooms foster cognitive collaboration.

English Language Learners (ELL) and Students with Disabilities (SWD) – Embracing Diversity and Equity in the MiLit Plan

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 35

The MiLit Plan promotes high standards of literacy instruction for all learners,

including those who face barriers to the acquisition of literacy skills. It portrays an

understanding that literacy acquisition is an active, engaging, enjoyable, and

creative process for all learners that draws on their prior knowledge, home and

community language, and experiences inside and outside of school. Effective

literacy instruction includes integrated reading, writing, listening, speaking,

viewing, and representing experiences; addresses a variety of real world texts and

meaningful content from diverse cultures, perspectives, and disciplines.

• As a part of the MiLit Plan, the entire (school) community assumes the responsibility for the literacy performance of all (students) learners.

• Since what works for some learners may not work for others, the MiLit Plan

supports the development of literacy expertise among educators (teachers and decision makers) in meeting the academic needs of diverse learners, addressing issues of special needs and accessiblility (diversity, English lanuage learners, students with disabilities).

• The Plan acknowledges that schools and communities benefit from the

diverse wisdom, knowledge, and experiences of English language learners and communities.

• All students/learners will experience opportunities for learning by equitable

distribution of support and resources (financial, material, and professional development).

• District school improvement plans will incorporate the district literacy plan,

ensuring effective literacy instruction and assessment.

• Rather than merely identifying interventions for struggling learners, teachers/leaders will identify the specific scaffolds necessary for struggling students to reach instruction and assessment targets.

• Students will have equal access to technology to ensure acquisition of

necessary literacies demanded in the 21st Century workforce and citizenship. • The Plan ensures that all students are college and career ready.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 36

No Child Left Behind holds states accountable for teaching English language

proficiency and academic content knowledge to English language learners. The ELL

subgroup must demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

States and districts have been increasingly assessing the progress of English

learners. Although there is limited research on improving the quality of literacy

instruction for English learners, there has been a group of studies suggesting that

specific instructional practices do produce significantly better academic outcomes

with English learners. The What Works Clearinghouse analyzed and reviewed the

data and determined that all English learners must have intensive, interactive

instruction in English language development. The Institute of Education Sciences

“provides five recommendations, integrated into a coherent and comprehensive

approach for improving the reading achievement and English language

development of English learners in the elementary grades.”

• Screen for reading problems and monitor progress • Provide intensive small-group reading interventions • Provide extensive and varied vocabulary instruction • Develop academic language • Schedule regular peer-assisted learning opportunities

Although the practice guide focused on elementary grades only,

acknowledging that “schools face very different issues in designing instruction for

students who enter school when they are young, and who enter in grades 6 through

12 and often are making a transition to another language and another education

system,” it also stresses the importance of intensive, interactive English language

development instruction for all English learners. In the report Double the work:

Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent

English language learners, The Center for Applied Linguists brought together a

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 37

panel of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to focus on academic literacy.

The report suggested that six institutional challenges must be acknowledged for

program and policy change. These include:

• Lack of common criteria for identifying ELLs and tracking their academic performance

• Lack of appropriate assessments • Inadequate educator capacity for improving literacy in ELLs • Lack of appropriate and flexible program options • Limited use of research-based instructional practices • Lack of a strong and coherent research agenda for adolescent ELL Literacy

All students benefit when a system-wide model of Response to

Intervention (RtI) is implemented. Included are the three instructional tiers and

components that are common to most systems such as universal screening,

progress monitoring, systematic instruction, and differentiation based on data. In

the age of preventing learning problems before they exist, RtI assists by providing

students who show early signs of struggling with learning to read additional

instruction and time for mastery of skills. RtI systems are becoming more common

as the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

encourages states to use RtI to help prevent reading difficulties and to identify

students with learning disabilities.

Special education classes are to be considered only for students who fail to

respond to evidence-based interventions. Two reports released in 2002 supported

the development of RtI models. One, the “President’s Commission on Excellence in

Special Education,” revealed that special education puts too much emphasis on

paperwork and too little on instruction. This report recommended that educators

spend more energy on monitoring student progress. An additional report from the

National Academy of Sciences examined the overrepresentation of students from

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 38

minority subgroups in special education. This report encouraged schools to provide

services to students struggling in reading within general education classes before

referring them to special education. Using an RtI model holds potential for

strengthening the coordination between general and special education.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 39

IV. Michigan Statewide Comprehensive Literacy Plan: The MiLit Plan

Five Core Components of the MiLit Plan

Shared Leadership

All shareholders must play a role in enhancing literacy instruction. Across the

state, diverse teams of shareholders including librarians, teachers, professors, early

childhood caregivers and educators, and other community shareholders must be

involved in the discussion, planning, and implementation of regional literacy plans.

In partnership these teams have the capacity to build collective expertise from a

broad range of perspectives. Based on the needs of the regions, these teams will

craft literacy plans that incorporate the recommendations of the MiLit Plan. The

teams will collaborate to streamline their supports and their funding to improve the

status of their communities.

Regional MiLit Teams – A Working Network of Literacy Shareholders

The MiLit Plan requires collaboration among all literacy shareholders

committed to statewide achievement. The vision is for existing collaboratives,

organizations, schools, libraries, and others to unite around the work of literacy,

both at the regional and state levels. The Plan provides the vehicle for existing

partnerships to be strengthened and new partnerships formed.

To allow for flexibility at the regional level in developing plans to meet the

literacy demands of the CCSS, each Regional Team∗ will be responsible for:

∗ See Appendix 2 for Regional Plan Template.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 40

• Meeting with members of the team representing districts across the region; forming a regional literacy advisory board of representatives from family, school, and community stakeholders.

• Assessing the needs (professional development, intervention support, etc.) of

the intermediate and local districts and schools in the region.

• Developing a regional plan that summarizes the literacy plans, programs, and professional development needs of its member districts.

• Reporting the professional development that will be offered by the regional

center.

• Providing trainer-of-trainer professional development that addresses a broad range of research-based instructional strategies in the areas of differentiated core instruction and interventions to meet the identified needs of the region.

• Developing literacy experts/leaders (literacy specialists, coaches, leaders),

and empowering teachers to make instructional decisions based on assessment of students’ strengths and needs.

• Providing information to support parents in learning how to support and

enhance their children’s literacy development.

• Working with the Michigan Literacy Leadership Management Team to develop statewide programs and to share information.

• Collaborating with professional organizations such as Michigan Reading

Association, English Language Arts Intermediate School District Network, National Writing Projects of Michigan, and the Michigan Assessment Consortium for purposes of communication, professional development, and resource sharing.

• Sharing regional information on the MiLit Network site (communication

committee). Academic Standards

The MiLit Plan calls for dissemination of information about and support for

implementing existing standards such as Michigan’s Early Childhood Standards of

Quality for Infant and Toddler Care Programs, the Early Childhood Standards of

Quality for Prekindergarten, the Common Core State Standards, and Teacher

Preparation Standards.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 41

Instruction, Intervention, and Assessment

To meet the individual literacy needs of Michigan, all shareholders must

identify and accept their roles in the system of support. Systems of intervention

must focus on instruction for all students including English language learners,

students with disabilities, and emerging and advanced literacy learners. Students

deserve to receive high-quality instruction, evidence-based practices and

interventions as part of their learning experience. Effective core instruction should

include ongoing formative assessment that allows for swift and appropriate

intervention to prevent and/or close achievement gaps.

Professional Learning

To meet the literacy needs of Michigan, a rich compendium of professional

learning opportunities, resources, and tools must be available so that all

shareholders are prepared to deliver high-quality, differentiated literacy instruction.

Administrators, principals, teachers, library media specialists, instructional coaches,

professional support staff, child care providers, and parents must have access to

materials and opportunities that continue to foster their skills as literacy leaders

and agents of change. The MiLit Plan makes recommendations for developing

professional learning opportunities, web resources through the establishment of the

MiLit Network website, and initiatives that enhance literacy learning for all

educators and shareholders.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 42

Technology

The MiLit Plan utilizes innovative technology, including the MiLit Network,

to enhance, support, and re-imagine dissemination of knowledge, access to

resources, and the connection of all citizens to resources and educators.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 43

V. Appendices

Appendix 1: MiLit Plan: Phase 1 2011-2016 MiLit Plan: Phase 1A 2011-2012

The MiLit Plan will be implemented over a 5-year period in Phase 1. Below is

Table I indicating the steps intended for the State Management Team, the State

Literacy Team, and the Regional Teams for the first year of Phase 1A. Below this

Table is a Rubric for Regional Teams Literacy Plan and Regional Annual Report.

Table 1. MiLit Phase 1A - Year 1 of Implementation 2011-2012

Year 1 2011-2012

State Management Team

(Management Team)

State Literacy Team

(MiLit Team)

Regional MiLit Teams

(Regional Teams) February-March 2011

Coordinate distribution and survey of Plan draft to State Team on NING; complete USED Competitive Grant; continue work on MiLit Network website.

Provide feedback on Plan draft; Zoomerang Survey on MiLit NING site.

April-June 2011

Complete work on MiLit Network website. Hold the 2nd Annual May 24-25 MiLit Team meeting in Detroit, Michigan: all 86+ members are invited (each year the annual meeting is held in a different region). RLTC reps and regional members meet with Management Team at the May meeting to discuss the formation of 2 Regional Teams per RLTC and Regional Plan rubric. Determine guidelines for developing

Join the MiLit Network. RLTC reps meet w/Management Team to discuss the formation of 2 Regional Teams per RLTC and Regional Plan rubric. Identify and coordinate regional literacy resources and partnerships of groups such as local literacy councils, libraries, Great Start and local intermediate school districts.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 44

Regional Teams and provide support for the formation and the work of Regional Teams.

July-December 2011

Create, disseminate, and monitor the MiLit literacy message and Plan at the state level. Provide support for the formation and the work of Regional Teams.

RLTC reps meet with regional literacy resources and partnerships of groups such as local literacy councils, libraries, Great Start and local intermediate school districts to begin the formation of Regional Teams.

Identify and invite literacy leaders and community shareholders to participate in the Regional Literacy Team. Create team (see Regional Plan Rubric below) and begin Regional Literacy Plan (Regional Plan). Incorporating the components of the MiLit Plan, create a Regional Plan based on the needs of the local region (see Regional Plan Rubric). Participate in the use of the MiLit Network for communicating with members of the Regional Team. Consult the MiLit Network clearinghouse of resources when creating a Regional Plan.

January-April 2012

Provide technical assistance for using the MiLit Network to engage Regional Teams in communication. Continue support for the formation and the work of Regional Teams. Collect Regional

Participate in the use of the MiLit Network for communicating with members of the State Team. Consult the MiLit Network clearinghouse of resources and updates.

Complete annual regional report. Participate in the use of the MiLit Network for communicating with members of the Regional Team. Consult the MiLit Network clearinghouse of resources when creating a Regional

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 45

reports and prepare MiLit State Annual report. Develop and implement technical assistance to support literacy plans at the regional level.

Plan.

May-September 2012

Hold the 3rd Annual May 24-25 MiLit Team meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan: all 86+ members are invited (each year the annual meeting is held in a different region). Each Regional Team presents its annual regional report: successes and lessons learned.

Participate in the May Annual meeting. Report out by Regional Teams. Other reports of State Team.

Participate in the May Annual meeting. Report out by Regional Teams.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 46

Appendix 2: Regional Plan Template

Regional Literacy Team Regional Team members and area of expertise 1. 2. 3. Background and Regional Literacy Achievement Trends:……………….. Research and Resources for improvement in achievement and instruction ………………………………………….………………………………………….MiLit Goals Status Inventory Goal 1 Goal for growth: Year 1…… Goal 2 Goal for growth: Year 1…… Goal 3 Goal for growth: Year 1….. 5 Components of Regional Plan 1. Shared Leadership….. 2. Academic Standards: 3. Instruction, Intervention & Assessment ……………… 4. Professional Learning…….. 5. Technology………………

Date of 1st Meeting Complete Rubric and Return to Management team by Date……… Annual Report due By Date……………….. Goals for Year 1 for three MiLit goals Who will monitor growth and what kinds of assessments will be used?

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 47

Appendix 3: Literacy Assessment Achievement Reports

EdTrust Education Watch State Report http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/Michigan_0.pdf NAEP Report http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ MEAP Report http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/01__FALL_2009_STATEWIDE_MEAP_RESULTS_314207_7.doc ACT Report http://www.act.org/news/data/09/pdf/states/Michigan.pdf Michigan Merit Exam Report http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/MME_Statewide_Results_Chart__Spring_2010_328533_7.pdf NAEP TUDA Detroit Report http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/dst2009/2010459.pdf

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 48

Appendix 4: Research Recommendations

IES Practice Guide Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf

This IES Practice Guide makes five recommendations for improving reading comprehension and provides strategies for implementing the recommendations.

Recommendation 1 Teach students how to use reading comprehension strategies.

• Teach students how to use several research-based reading comprehension strategies.

• Teach reading comprehension strategies individually or in combination. • Teach reading comprehension strategies by using a gradual release of

responsibility.

Recommendation 2 Teach students to identify and use the text’s organizational structure to comprehend, learn, and remember content.

• Explain how to identify and connect the parts of narrative texts. • Provide instruction on common structures of informational texts.

Recommendation 3 Guide students through focused, high-quality discussion on the meaning of text.

• Structure the discussion to complement the text, the instructional purpose, and the readers’ ability and grade level.

• Develop discussion questions that require students to think deeply about text. • Ask follow-up questions to encourage and facilitate discussion. • Have students lead structured small-group discussions.

Recommendation 4 Select texts purposefully to support comprehension development.

• Teach reading comprehension with multiple genres of text. • Choose texts of high quality with richness and depth of ideas and information. • Choose texts with word recognition and comprehension difficulty appropriate

for the students’ reading ability and the instructional activity. • Use texts that support the purpose of instruction.

Recommendation 5 Establish an engaging and motivating context in which to teach reading comprehension.

• Help students discover the purpose and benefits of reading. • Create opportunities for students to see themselves as successful readers. • Give students reading choices. • Give students the opportunity to learn by collaborating with their peers.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 49

IES Practice Guide Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/adlit_pg_082608.pdf This IES Practice Guide makes five recommendations for improving adolescent literacy and provides strategies for implementing the recommendations.

Recommendation 1 Provide explicit vocabulary instruction.

• Dedicate a portion of regular classroom lessons to explicit vocabulary instruction.

• Provide repeated exposure to new words in multiple contexts, and allow sufficient practice sessions in vocabulary instruction.

• Give sufficient opportunities to use new vocabulary in a variety of contexts through activities such as discussion, writing, and extended reading.

• Provide students with strategies to make them independent vocabulary learners.

Recommendation 2 Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction.

• Select carefully the text to use when beginning to teach a given strategy. • Show students how to apply the strategies they are learning to different texts. • Make sure that the text is appropriate for the reading level of students. • Use a direct and explicit instruction lesson plan for teaching students how to

use comprehension strategies. • Provide the appropriate amount of guided practice depending on the difficulty

level of the strategies that students are learning. • Talk about comprehension strategies while teaching them.

Recommendation 3 Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation.

• Carefully prepare for the discussion by selecting engaging materials and developing stimulating questions.

• Ask follow-up questions that help provide continuity and extend the discussion. • Provide a task or discussion format that students can follow when they discuss

text in small groups. • Develop and practice the use of a specific “discussion protocol.”

Recommendation 4 Increase student motivation and engagement in literacy learning.

• Establish meaningful and engaging content learning goals around the essential ideas of a discipline as well as around the specific learning processes used to access those ideas.

• Provide a positive learning environment that promotes student autonomy in learning.

• Make literacy experiences more relevant to student interests, everyday life, or important current events.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 50

• Build classroom conditions to promote higher reading engagement and conceptual learning through such strategies as goal setting, self-directed learning, and collaborative learning.

Recommendation 5 Make available intensive individualized interventions for struggling readers that can be provided by qualified specialists.

• Use reliable screening assessments to identify students with reading difficulties and follow up with formal and informal assessments to pinpoint each student’s instructional needs.

• Select an intervention that provides an explicit instructional focus to meet each student’s identified learning needs.

• Provide interventions where intensiveness matches student needs: the greater the instructional need, the more intensive the intervention. Assuming a high level of instructional quality, the intensity of interventions is related most directly to the size of instructional groups and amount of instructional time.

Reading Next – A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy: A Report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York http://www.all4ed.org/files/ReadingNext.pdf This research synthesis describes fifteen elements of effective adolescent literacy programs:

• direct, explicit comprehension instruction • effective instructional principles embedded in content • motivation and self-directed learning • text-based collaborative learning • strategic tutoring • diverse texts • intensive writing • a technology component • ongoing formative assessment of students • extended time for literacy • professional development • ongoing summative assessment of students and program • teacher teams • leadership • a comprehensive and coordinated literacy program

Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High School http://www.all4ed.org/files/WritingNext.pdf This research synthesis emphasizes the need to integrate writing skill development into adolescent literacy instruction. The report details eleven key elements that can be combined in flexible ways to strengthen literacy development for middle and high school students.

Eleven Elements of Effective Adolescent Writing Instruction • Teaching writing strategies

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 51

• Systematically teaching summarization • Employing collaborative writing instruction • Setting specific product goals • Using word processing and technology as instructional supports for writing • Teaching sentences combining and strategies for constructing more complex,

sophisticated sentences • Using prewriting to generate and organize ideas • Engaging students in inquiry activities to analyze data and develop ideas • Incorporating a process writing approach • Studying models of good writing (mentor texts) • Using writing as a tool for learning content material

Writing to Read: Evidence of How Writing Can Improve Reading http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/WritingToRead_01.pdf Writing to Read builds on Writing Next by providing evidence for how writing can improve reading. It describes the ability to read, comprehend, and write— the ability to organize information into knowledge—as tantamount to a survival skill and recommends a cluster of closely related writing practices shown to be effective in improving students’ reading.

Recommendation 1 Have students write about the texts they read – Text comprehension is improved when students write about what they read.

• Respond to a text in writing • Write text summaries • Write notes about a text • Answer questions about a text in writing, or create and answer written

questions about a text

Recommendation 2 Teach students the writing skills and processes that go into creating text – Students’ reading skills and comprehension are improved by learning the skills and processes that go into creating text, specifically when teachers

• Teach the process of writing, text structures for writing, paragraph or sentence construction

• Teach spelling and sentence construction skills (improves reading fluency) • Teach spelling skills (improves word reading skills)

Recommendation 3 Increase how much students write – Students’ reading comprehension is improved by having them increase how often they produce their own texts.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 52

Appendix 5: References ACT, Inc. (2010). A first look at the common core and college and career readiness. Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/FirstLook.pdf ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness and reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/reading_report.pdf The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center. datacenter.kidscount.org. Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Education pays: the benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Washington, D.C.: The College Board. Beringer, V. (2008). Evidence-based written language instruction during early and middle school. In R. Morris & N. Mather (Eds.), Evidence-based intervention for students with learning and behavioral challenges. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berman, I., & Biancarosa, G. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices. Bernstein, R.J. (1991). Beyond objectivism and relativism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next – A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York, NY: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://www.all4ed.org/files/ReadingNext.pdf Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://carnegie.org/publications/search-publications/pub/195/ Connecticut State Department of Education (2000). Connecticut’s Blueprint for Reading Achievement, The Report of the Early Reading Success Panel. Education Trust, The (2009). Education Watch State Report. Washington D.C.: The Education Trust. Gabbard, C. (1998). Windows of opportunity for early brain and motor development. JOPERD—Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance 69: 54–55, 61.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 53

Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella R. (2007). Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in Elementary Grades: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades, A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045) Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee. Graham, S., and Herbert, M.A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence of how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/WritingToRead_01.pdf Graham, S., and Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools – A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://www.all4ed.org/files/WritingNext.pdf Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Hayes, M. (2007). From State Policy to Classroom Practice: Improving Literacy Instruction for All Students. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://www.nasbe.org/index.php/educational-issues/all-educational-issues/func-finishdown/219/ Hirsh, Stephanie (2009). A New Definition. JSD Fall 2009. National Staff Development Council. Institute of Education Sciences (2010). Doing What Works. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Institute of Eeducation Sciences (2010). What Works Clearinghouse. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Joint Committee on Testing Practices (2004). Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education. Washington, DC Kamil, M.L., Borman, G.D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Togresen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 54

practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/adlit_pg_082608.pdf Kamil, M.L. (2003). Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/AdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf Knight, J. (2002). Partnership learning fieldbook. The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning: Lawrence, KS. Martineau, Joseph (2010). MEAP and MME Trends: 2005-2009. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education, OEAA. Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing, MI. (2006). Early childhood standards of quality for pre-kindergarten. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing, MI. (2005). Early childhood standards of quality for infant and toddler programs. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Michigan State Board of Education (2008). Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing, MI (2006). Leading educational transformation of for today’s global society: State of Michigan educational technology plan. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., et al. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.

Nagy, W.E., & Scott, J.A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Peason, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Volume III, pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

NAEYC. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. A joint position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (1998). Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, A joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Washington, DC: Young Children, July 1998, 53 (4): 30–46.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 55

National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The nation’s report card: State profiles. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ National Council of Teachers of English (2005). Professional Communities at Work: Engaging Media-Savvy Students: Exploring Multimodal Literacies through Popular Culture and Technology. Topical Resource Kit. Urbana, IL: NCTE. National Council for the Teachers of English (2007). Adolescent Literacy: A Policy Research Brief. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/AdolLitResearchBrief.pdf National Governor’s Association (2009). Common Core State Standards. Washington DC: National Governor’s Association. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Report of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2007). The Science of Early Childhood Development: Closing the Gap Between What We Know and What We Do. Harvard University. Neuman, Susan B., et al. (2001). Access for All: Closing the Book Gap for Children in Early Education. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (2009). Fall 2009 Statewide Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Results. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee. Short, D.J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2006). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Snow, C., Burns, F., Griffin P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

DRAFT v.01.31.2011 56

Snow, C., Martin T., Berman I. (2008). State Literacy Plans: Incorporating Adolescent Literacy. Danvers, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Stipek, D.J. & Ryan, R.H. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to learn but further to go. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 711-723. United States Department of Education (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology, National Education Technology Plan 2010. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. UNESCO (2006). Literacy Initiative for Empowerment, LIFE. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Weldon, T. (2010). Improving Adolescent Literacy: A Trends in America Special Report. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://www.csg.org/policy/documents/TIA_FocusOn_AdolescentLiteracy.pdf Wixson, K., Peters, C., Weber, E., and Roeber E. (1987). New Directions in Statewide Reading Assessment. In The State of Assessment in Reading. The Reading Teacher (Vol. 40, No. 8, pp. 749-754).