Literacy for Students who

are Learning English and

Students from Poor Families
in Rural
Washington
State.

Literacy for Students Learning English and Students of

Poverty
in Rural Washington State
Problem: Students in 10 NLA-provided rural elementary schools in rural
central and eastern Washington State were not improving their reading
scores despite NLA site directors, following the admonitions of OSPI and
school buildings, focus on homework completion and efforts to align with the
school-day curriculum.
The issue: Homework in these partner schools was often not well designed
or instructive; it was often poorly described and boring. Slavish attention to
homework did not improve grades and test scores.

Further: Teachers who were overwhelmed with addressing the needs in their
daytime classrooms were neither inclined nor prepared to pass along lessons
to NLA as afterschool providers. While NLA supported teachers assertion
that having students read AR books would improve reading ability, we did
not find that to be true.
WHAT WE KNEW ABOUT OUR STUDENTS: Our students did not decode
words fast enough to get any joy out of reading; they had never read a book
to completion so had no satisfaction from losing themselves in a book. Most
of our students came from English language learning households; at least
one of the adults in the home would prefer to speak a language other than
English predominantly Spanish. Students were not
read to in the home. Students did not read with
fluency; they did not comprehend well; they could not
find character or plot lines.
Further: We were charged with supporting the lowestperforming students in low-performing schools. These
students were often double-dosed with highly scripted
programs like Read 180, using both LAP and Migrant
dollars. Teachers wanted us to continue this practice but
we saw that students were exhausted from those
programs more of the same would not change their
learning.
Our training and education challenges: NLA is assigned to work with
the lowest performing students, in the poorest and lowest performing
schools. In our afterschool program are the lowest readers from each
classroom, usually grades 1 5. There are strengths and challenges with
mixed grade/age classes. In addition, students might be there two and a half
hours each night, or 45 minutes. Students came from Hispanic homes with a
cultural norm of story-telling. Older siblings could read to younger siblings
in the home. Parents were very busy with multiple, poor-paying jobs; most
were not strong readers in either English or Spanish, or Russian for newly
resettled Russians and Ukrainian.
WHAT WE KNEW ABOUT THE LITERACY ENVIRONMENT: The adoption
of Common Core by 44 states in the nation opened up the possibility that
NLA could design our own literacy curriculum. Districts were searching
unsuccessfully for a CCSS-aligned curricula they could adopt. In the interim,
teachers everywhere were designing their own CCSS-aligned lessons.

So could we.
Our Approach: We could reference the Common Core
State Standards, choose a set of competencies that
cover Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking. We
could focus on collaborative learning, and using visual
cues in literacy materials could help students learn
about plot, character and storyline, leaving the focus of
decoding to the school day teacher.

Our Theory of Action:

If students were introduced to books that encouraged reading with a
maximum focus on visual learning and a minimum on complicated text;
if students learned to investigate comprehension based on these visual
cues;
if students were allowed to bring home highly engaging award-winning
books to share with siblings and parents at home;
if some of those books were in the home language (Spanish or Ukrainian,
or bilingual with English) encouraging parents to read at home and honoring
the home language;
if site directors were thoroughly trained in this new
curriculum and observed each other in their teaching
of it;
if we monitored growth in student reading scores and
grades, then
More of our students would read better, more would
read for the joy of learning, and parents would be more
receptive to helping their child read at home and to
come to school-sponsored literacy events at the
school.

Our Curriculum:

NLAs new after-school literacy programming was

initially based on the definition of 21st Century
Literacies as outlined by the National Council of
Teachers of English. Using their definition we
focus on four key aspects of 21st century literacy:
cultural competence, critical thinking, collaboration
and communication.
These four competencies mesh well with the K-12
Common Core Anchor Standards for College and
Career Readiness. Unlike the comprehensive
grade level Common Core standards, the Anchor
Standards are comprised of 32 condensed
statements that cover Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking. While
reading is a main component of the literacy program, speaking standards are
favored over writing in the interest of time after, and because it allows
students an opportunity to learn in a familiar language format.
Reading the Application of Common Core State Standards for English
Language Learners helped us highlight processes like using classroom
discourse, frequent interaction with peers, independent learning, asking
questions, and offering diverse media formats for providing a variety of
immersive language experiences for students. The statement that ELL
students should be able achieve grade level standards without
demonstrating native-like control of convention and vocabulary helped us
envision a literacy program that utilized elements other than written
language to let students study literature. The use of highly interactive visual
content, and opportunities for discourse not only motivate ELL students to
explore literature, but scaffold their language abilities by providing context
and frequent feedback regarding their experiences.
Additionally, we focused on standards that would enhance aspects of
Common Core in supporting 21st century literacies as well as the particular
needs of diverse populations as treated in the Bias and Sensitivity Review of
Common Core State Standards produced by the Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction for Washington State. This document presented
objectives in teaching Common Core that would include family and
community connections, multicultural representations in media,
opportunities for discussing age-appropriate reactions to bias, sharing
individual experiences, promoting balanced and diverse viewpoints and
scaffolding instruction for a variety of student learning types and levels.

___________________________________________________________________________
1. The NCTE Definition of 21st Century Literacies. (2013, February 1).
Retrieved March 2, 2015, from
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stc
2. Common Core Anchor Standards for College and Career Readiness
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/
3. ELL Applications for Common Core
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-for-englishlearners.pdf
4. Bias and Sensitivity Review of the Common Core State Standards in
English Language Arts and Mathematics Implementation
Recommendations Report
http://www.k12.wa.us/corestandards/pubdocs/implementationrecomme
ndationreport.pdf