Running Head: LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

Literacy Program Evaluation

Stephanie E. Hilton
University of Kentucky

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

A. Description of School
This school is in the Fayette County District. Fayette County has a total population of
287,537. Of that population, 78.7% is classified as white, 13.55% as African American/black,
5.89% as Hispanic or Latino, 3.14% as Asian, and .18% as American Indian or Alaskan native.
The median household income is $46,874 a year, and the mean household income is $65,770 a
year. 17% of the population is below the poverty line. 3.7% of the population is unemployed.
This school has an enrollment of 588 students. It is labeled as a Title 1 Schoolwide School. It is a
Magnet school in a suburban area where a lottery process of students living in the assigned
attendance area determines acceptance into the school. The school is made up of prekindergarten to fifth grade. 57% of the school is classified as white, 25.7% as African
American/black, 8.8% as Hispanic, 2.2% as Asian, .3% as Alaskan Native, and 6% as two or
more classifications. 50.7% of the school population is male, while 49.3% is female. 51.7% of
the school population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. The schools attendance rate is at
96.3%. The school is made up of 17% first graders (100 students), 17.7% second graders (104
students), 16.3% third graders (96 students), 17% fourth graders (100 students), 15.6% fifth
graders (92 students), and 16.3% pre-kindergarten and kindergarteners (96 students). The
average class size is approximately 24.5 students. 7% of the schools students are classified as
English language learners. The School has an open complex layout where four classrooms are in
one large room. Each classroom has their own space, but the room is open and all of the other
classes in the room are visible from anywhere in the room. Last school year, this school was in
the 43rd percentile in the state of Kentucky and classified as Needs Improvement. This year, the
school is in the 80th percentile in the state of Kentucky and classified as Proficient/Progressing.
The schools prior year AMO score was 56.1. The goal set for the following year was 57.1. The

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

Current Overall score is 65.3 with the AMO goal having been met for this year. Of the 286
students tested in K-PREP, in reading, 21.7% were classified as Novice, 25.2% were classified as
Apprentice, 35.3% were classified as Proficient, and 17.8% were classified as Distinguished.
B. In-depth Description of the Reading Program.
This schools reading program is mix of different research based programs/resources,
non-negotiables, and teacher choices.
A variety of research based programs and resources are utilized in this reading program.
The principal of the school provides a variety of professional development tools for the staff.
Using what they learn, teachers and staff work to filter out what is the most useful and
meaningful to their students. Using that information, the teams will implement certain aspects
into their curriculum. For example, the principal recently brought in Kim Cooper to train the staff
in Orton Gillingham. After the training, the literacy specialists developed a new phonics program
using what they learned in the Orton Gillingham training as the foundation of the program. This
program was then provided to the teachers. In team meeting, the teachers decided what parts they
needed to implement and where to implement them into their curriculum. Second grade decided
to use the program in some whole group mini-lessons as well as in some of their small group
stations. While Basil Programs are not taught or utilized in the curriculum, the Reading Street
Basil is provided for each student for teachers to use as needed in their instruction.
There is a leadership retreat at the beginning of each school year where the nonnegotiables list is created. This is a list of tasks that absolutely must be implemented into each
teachers reading program. This list includes, small groups, flexible grouping, assessment driven
instruction, whole group instruction, interventions for tier 2 and tier 3 students, and other such
essential elements. These are the things that the staff feels are the most important elements of

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

reading instruction and therefore must be in the reading curriculum. I found that teachers in the
school had no problem with the non-negotiables and agreed with the leadership team that these
should be implemented into the reading program.
The rest of the program is made up of teacher choices. Teachers are trained and given
resources and they are provided with the list of non-negotiables. After all that, it is entirely up to
each individual teacher to choose how to implement them into the classroom. This freedom
allows teachers to be creative, differentiate their instruction based on the needs of their learners,
and always stay flexible and attentive to the ever changing cultural, linguistic, and learning needs
of their class. During my interview with a second grade teacher, I found that this was one of her
favorite parts of the reading program. She explained that the pieces are all there for you, so you
arent just creating your own program alone and without support. The pieces provide a sense of
structure, but you still have the freedom to create the program that works best for your learners.
C. Evaluation of the Reading Program Using IRAs 10 Exemplary Reading Program
Guidelines.
1. The reading program is consistent in sound theory, research, and practices.
During my interviews and observations, I found that the school does use current research
in their reading program. The school was using Orton Gillingham and the Daily 5 as part of their
reading program instruction. The school utilized small group and whole group instruction to
meet the needs of their students based on a variety of assessment data including Map scores, KPREP scores, DRA, Orton Gillingham, formative assessment, anecdotal notes, and other such
data. Orton Gillingham is one of the main programs they use in the classroom. The principal
explained to me that the afterschool program provides funds to allow teachers time to research,
plan, and look at data to improve their reading program. A second grade teacher told me that

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

there is time allotted during every faculty meeting for teacher to share anything they feel would
be important to the group. For the most part, faculty and staff are expected to be researching on
their own, but professional development is frequently provided to the faculty in order to share
valid research and current practices with them.
A literary review of Orton Gillingham found that most studies in the review found that
Orton Gillingham was more effective than their control program (Ritchey & Goeke, 2007).
While the article did say more research needed to be done, its hard to ignore the large jump from
last years K-PREP scores to this years when Orton Gillingham was implemented this year for
the first time. I did notice that no needs assessments were sent out to the teachers. That is one
thing I feel would help any literacy program. Even if they were sent out by email once a month,
teachers would have that line of communication open to express any needs they may have related
to their literacy block. I also noticed that teachers were expected to do a great deal of research on
their own. Researching new programs and their effectiveness is considered by current researchers
to be a sign of a good literacy program (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004). This made me
wonder if there could be an open forum for teachers to post helpful research they find. I feel like
any new teacher may feel overwhelmed by the expectation of doing research and an open forum
to exchange ideas could help integrate new teachers into the program more effectively.
2. The reading program facilitates student learning.
Literacy needs of the students are based on assessment data collected including, Map
scores, K-PREP scores, DRA, Orton Gillingham, formative assessment, anecdotal notes, etc.
Based on these scores, the schools leadership team will meet and decide how to put together
parts of the literacy program. The literacy team will research professional development and
current strategies. They will then introduce what they feel could enhance the program to the

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

teachers. The teachers have regular professional development to empower them in the teacher
decision-making part of the literacy program. The non-negotiables are basics that have been
tested and proven time and time again to work, such as whole group and small group instruction
and assessment driven instruction. The teachers choice part of the Literacy program is where
teachers can individualize their instruction based on the needs of their students. The principal
uses fund raised from the after school program specifically to allow teacher time to plan, assess,
research, and attend professional development outside of school.
I think an outside perspective can really help when you want to look critically at your
literacy program. This school seemed to be on top of getting outsiders perspectives on what they
do. The principal told me she frequently asks other schools what they do that is effective. She
also seems to bring in a lot of professional development to give the teachers very in-depth
training. I do think a needs assessment is necessary to enhance this program. Especially if the
needs assessment was sent out to the teachers, collected, and then discussed over a meeting
specifically for addressing the needs of the teachers. Checking in with teachers periodically to
find out any needs or just to offer words of encouragement could help the program out
(Hasbrouck & Carolyn, 2005).
3. Students have access to a wide variety of reading materials.
All books in the school are leveled base on the Lexile system. All books are given a
Lexile number and color-coded based on that number. Students are continually assessed on their
reading level and also given a color on their bookshelf. They are allowed to check out five books
per week. Four must be picture books, and one may be a chapter book. One of the five books can
be any color (Lexile level) for fun. This is intended to encourage students to read books
completely and read books that will not frustrate them, while still providing a challenge. These

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

books are kept at home and in the classroom so students may read during independent reading
time or during free time after school. The schools main library and the teachers personal
classroom library, (about three bookshelves worth of books) which is already leveled and colorcoded, are both easily accessible to the students. Teacher read aloud time is a regular occurrence
in the reading curriculum. 8,000 to 10,000 dollars was allocated for the library to increase its
book collection this year.
While I did hear the principal talk about ten or more programs a year to bring parents into
the school, she did not specify as to whether or not those programs were literacy specific. I think
a literacy event would really enhance the program. An event where teachers and administrators
shared their favorite books and/or the books they are currently reading. Such an event could
show the students that reading isnt about getting a grade and isnt something that is done in
school only. I feel that it is important for students to learn early on that reading is a lifelong
journey; something you always have with you. This could be beneficial to both students and
parents, and possibly help increase reading motivation in the school. It was not shown or
explained to me exactly how the students access the books in the library. The students did have
cubbies filled with library books though.
4. Students demonstrate success in reading.
The reading program is data driven. Data is continuously collected and assessed so that
the teachers know how to adjust reading levels, instruction, future assessments, and teaching
strategies. If a child is scoring low on certain assessment, that student is pulled for diagnostic
assessment during the literacy block in class. The assessments used are ongoing throughout the
year. Teachers and faculty are continuously looking at the data and adjusting instruction and
intervention accordingly.

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

A Reading Attitude Assessment is one assessment I did not see or hear about during my
visit. I like using these assessments because they arent graded and you can usually get honest
answers from kids. It could be in the form of a survey and sent out to the parents. This would
give the teacher a great idea as to the reading environment each student goes home to. An easier
way to do this would be to just do a quick assessment after the reading lesson. The teacher could
ask how the students were feeling about their own reading with a thumb up, thumb down, or a
thumb at the side. This quick assessment could be an easy and useful indicator of where each
student feels like they are at in their reading progress.
5. Comprehension strategies are taught and applied across the curriculum.
During my interview with the reading specialist, she mentioned that literacy is integrated
throughout both the science and social studies curricula. One of the non-negotiables of the
literacy program is small group time. One of the stations I saw in my observation was a
comprehension specific station. The station changes strategies based on what is being taught in
whole group time, but the station is always reserved for comprehension strategies. Within the
classroom I observed, the comprehension station was only open to the top two reading groups.
The lower two groups were pulled out for intervention during the comprehension specific station
time.
I saw no evidence of comprehension strategies being integrated into the other subjects,
although I only observed a literacy lesson block. I did see many comprehension strategies being
taught and discussed in the literacy block. The students seemed comfortable talking about the
strategies and using the strategies, which led me to believe that they must be using them all the
time and not just in those two hours of the day.
6. Listening, speaking, viewing, and writing are integrated and support the reading program.

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

During my observation I saw children at a writing station where they were writing about
what they were reading. I also saw students at a station where they would take a card out of a
deck. The card would have a way to talk. (Example: pirate, British, southern, etc) The students
would read a passage to a friend in whichever dialect they drew. The friend would listen, and
then read in a different dialect to them. The school has a non-negotiable reading block of time,
which ends up being a little less than two hours. Basil programs are not used in the school. Basils
are provided to every child, but are provided as a supplement, not as the basis of the literacy
program.
I loved seeing the many examples of listening, speaking, viewing, and writing in the
classroom during my observation. Using so many effective activities in the small group time
ensure that learning is being supported in many ways (Pinnell, 1999). The teacher integrated
them into the small groups in such creative ways. While I did see a creative writing station,
students seemed to be practicing summarizing more than constructing their own stories. This was
a second grade classroom and creating and writing original stories seems like more of an
advanced skill. All Tier 1 students were involved in extended activities that pushed them a little
further and challenged them a little more. I would have liked to see more examples of this sort of
differentiation in the small groups.
7. Administrators and teachers provide leadership and vision for the building and/or district
reading program.
The administrators and teachers all have time allocated in their schedules specifically for
assessing data, and then planning based on that data. The principal and reading specialists are
continuously looking for professional development opportunities that may further their literacy

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

10

program. Both teachers and administrators attend faculty meetings. This time is used to set
goals, assess data, plan, and find out the needs of everyone in the building.
The one thing I would have really liked to see and hear about is the principal getting
physically involved in the literacy block. If the principal came into the classrooms every now and
again to teach a lesson, read a story, or participate in the small group, I feel like she would get a
completely different understanding of the literacy program. Its not an effective strategy always
to view the program from you own outside perspective only. Viewing it from the teachers or
students perspective would help the principal to have a more well rounded idea of the strengths
and weaknesses of the program as a whole.
8. The school and/or district offer(s) support services to the program.
Students in Tiers 2 and 3 must have interventions. During small group time, these
students are pulled for specialized help with reading, such as one-on-one instruction,
assessments, or other individualized work. This happens every day for no less than twenty
minutes. There is one reading specialist for kindergarten and first grade, and another for second
grade through fifth grade. Certified special education teachers are also used in the intervention
with the lower tier students. While the bottom tier students are pulled for interventions, the upper
tier students participate in extra small group stations designed just for them. The one I observed
was a creative writing station.
I did feel like early intervention was a huge goal for this program. With one reading
specialist solely devoted to kindergarten and first grade, she is more likely to identify struggling
readers early on and have more time to work with them in an intervention. While I saw how all
the main players in the school work together to enhance the literacy program, I didnt really
get an idea of what the district does for the program. The only mention I heard of the district was

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

11

when budget was discussed. It may be beneficial to have a more actively involved district. If they
see things working well at one school, they could share the ideas and research behind them with
the other schools. Great ideas could get to the people that need them faster.
9. Literacy activities occur outside of school.
Students are allowed to freely bring books to and from school. The classroom had a
homework station where students could turn in homework by subject. Reading was included on
the homework station.
I did not see much further indication of literacy activities occurring outside of the school.
Other than a quick walkthrough the library, I didnt get a great sense of how it plays into the
program. When are students allowed to check out books? How long can they keep books? What
library skills are taught to the students? Does the library encourage the students to participate in
literacy activities outside the school? These are all important questions you would think would
be answered during an interview, but I never heard much about the library other than hearing
about its color-coding system. It may be helpful if the teachers and librarian worked closely
together to encourage out-of-school literacy activities.
10. The community, including parents, is involved in the reading program.
The principal mentioned that there are no less than ten programs throughout the year to
bring parents into the school. It was not specified as to whether or not the programs were literacy
focused. During my observation, I saw parents coming in and out of the classrooms to view
lessons. I also saw many parents signing into the front office to go read to their childs
classroom.
This is clearly the area this literacy program struggles with the most. I would have loved
to see a literacy team in the school with active parent and community members. I think

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

12

something like that would be extremely beneficial to any literacy program. Advice and insight
from outside of the school would help the school think critically about the program and always
be informed about what needs improving and adapting. I feel that extensive parent and
community involvement would take this program to the next level. Effective literacy is situated
in meaningful experiences that can help transfer new learning to other settings including the
home. According to current research, this is why parent and community involvement is so vital
to an effective literacy program (Vogt & Shearer, 2011).
D. Recommendations
My recommendations for this program are as follows: (1) putting together a Literacy Team, (2)
creating a Literacy Newsletter to be sent to parents to inform them of their childs progress and
where they may need work, (3) a needs assessments regularly sent out to teachers with
discussion meetings afterwards, (4) getting teachers helpful research in an open forum, and (5)
creating a Literacy event/night possibly twice a year.
A literacy team would be able to come together once a month to discuss how the program
is doing, what needs work, new research based practices, what teachers may need help, and a
multitude of other topics that could benefit the program. This program is struggling most with
engaging the community and parents, which is something that this team could focus on. A strong
connection with parents and the community at large is essential to maximize a literacy programs
effectiveness.
A literacy newsletter for parents could be sent out once a month just to show the progress
that each student is making. This would also bring in more parent and community support to the
program. Good newsletters could motivate families to bring more literacy time into the home.

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

13

A huge need I found in the school is a needs assessment for teachers and staff. The only
way to share needs with other is by email or finding them in the school, which can be extremely
difficult at times. If a needs assessment was sent out to teachers and staff once a month before a
faculty meeting, school administrators could open a dialog during or after faculty meetings to
solve problems as a group. This would encourage teachers and other faculty members to open up
about problems they are having and to collaborate with the rest of the faculty in finding creative
and effective ways to solve the identified problems.
Some kind of open forum to share new research/research based practices would be
extremely helpful to this schools program. If there was an online group where teachers could
link interesting articles they have read, or where the principal could send out a research practice
she finds interesting, teachers may become more motivated to go out and research and share
what they find. Putting this online would make it more accessible to the teachers, who are most
likely online to do their research in the first place.
Lastly, creating a huge literacy night for students and their families would be extremely
effective in encouraging and motivating parents and community members to get involved in the
schools literacy program. Teachers and other staff could share some of their favorite books and
books they are currently reading, so students could see that adults read for enjoyment and that
even teachers and the principal enjoy reading. This could also act as a forum to talk to parents
about volunteering to read to the class, coming in to observe a literacy block, or even joining the
literacy team. As I have previously stated, I feel that this schools biggest struggle is with parent
and community involvement in the program and an event such as this could potentially bring in a
vast amount of community support and involvement.
E. Reflections

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

14

The process of evaluating a literacy program is far more in-depth than I ever thought it
would be. It took so much more time, effort, and reflection than I had originally anticipated, but I
feel like I will think more critically about programs that I encounter in the future. Throughout the
process, three things seemed to jump out at me as the most important pieces to successfully
evaluating a literacy program: evidence gathering, researching, and reflection.
I was beyond surprised at the amount of evidence you really need to gather in order to
thoroughly evaluate an entire program. You need interviews with the main players or people
involved, you need multiple observations, and you need multiple artifacts. I thought my main
players were just the principal, literacy specialist, and a teacher. Looking back now, I wish I had
included interviews with the special education teacher who pulled students for intervention,
another teacher, and the librarian. All of these people have such an impact on the programs
success or failure, and all have amazing and unique insight into how the program functions that
speaking to them would be invaluable in fully evaluating the program. I was surprised at the
amount of information that can be gathered from an interview. Talking to the principal for less
than an hour revealed how motivated she is to reach the goals she has for herself and the school
and how amazing she is at finding relevant and helpful professional development for her school.
Asking opened ended questions revealed so much more than I thought it would. I thoroughly
enjoyed how passionate and willing to talk each individual I interviewed was.
Another thing I am surprised at is the vast amount of research that goes into a program
and into evaluating a program. I can say, for example, that Program A works better than Program
B, but if I have no research to back it up, no one would believe me. Also, someone can tell you
how amazing one program is, but an evaluator always needs to be mindful of checking research
to back up the claims. Any program can make fabulous claims that make you want it in your

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

15

school immediately, but without proper and thorough investigation, a school could spend a lot of
valuable time, money, and effort on a program that winds up falling flat. The research that goes
into evaluating a plan is intense. While I was putting together all my evidence, I found myself
wondering if this strategy really does work, or if this program really does all that it claims to do.
I had to research a lot more than I had originally thought I would. The more research I did, the
more I thought critically about what I was looking at.
Lastly, and it seems odd to say this in a refection, but I was surprised at how much I
reflected on the entire process of evaluating. I was in a constant state of reflection throughout
this entire project. I was always trying to improve on what I did previously. I stopped several
times during my writing to reflect on what I saw, how it worked, what I heard, and how
everything came together. It was so much information to process in a span of a few days in the
school that I was constantly reflecting on all the information I was gathering and how I felt about
it. I think that mindset helped me along the way though. I felt extremely ready to write down my
thoughts when the time came. I had everything in my head and in notes I had taken at the school.
Its odd to think of the things you see and hear during the evaluation that seem so meaningless at
the time, yet when you go back to reflect, end up being the things that provide the best insight
into the program.
This evaluation taught me to think so much more critically about what I see and hear in
schools about their literacy program. It also got me in the mindset to seek out alternatives and
other programs that work well for other schools. It seems like one program style can work for so
long until your population of students changes and you have to adapt. With students constantly
changing, programs need to be fluid, and adapt with grace to the many changes that come. The
same can be said about programs that work amazingly for one school, but may be terrible for

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

16

another school. It seems like the key is focusing on the needs of the students rather than the
program itself.
F. Reference List
Alliance for Excellent, E. (2004). How to Know a Good Adolescent Literacy Program
When You See One: Quality Criteria to Consider. Issue Brief. Alliance For
Excellent Education,
Hasbrouck, J., & Carolyn, D. (2005). The reading coach. Longmont, CO: Sopris West
Educational Services.
Pinnell, G. S. (1999). Effective literacy programs. classroom connections. Council Connections,
9-11.
Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2007). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading
instruction: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171-183.
Vogt, M., & Shearer, B. A. (2011). Reading specialists and literacy coaches in the real world.
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
G. Appendices
Observation
Teacher: Holly
Grade: Second
Date: Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
Time: 8:00am-10:00am-Literacy block
Lesson: Point of View
~Whole Group
-Teacher begins lesson with Flashback. Class reviews reading strategies from last lesson.

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

17

-Students read out todays learning objectives as a class.

-Teacher goes over what they will be learning for today.
-Teacher reads short story aloud and prompts students to think about text connections and point
of view.
-Teacher allows discussion on connections and point of view.
-Teacher reads another short story.
-Teacher asks students to identify point of view clue words.
-Teacher ties point of view to previous class activities, other books they have read as a class,
videos they have viewed as a class, etc.
-Students provide their own examples.
-Teacher discusses reading with expression with students.
-Students are given clipboards, paper, and pencils write down one text-to-text connection they
find during the following read aloud.
-Teacher does think aloud to model what she wants the students to be thinking about during the
read aloud.
-Students make predictions about the read aloud.
-Teacher begins interactive read aloud while pointing out when she is reading with expression.
-Students prompted to make inferences during the read aloud.
-After read aloud, teacher discusses how she read with expression based on the characters point
of view.
~Small Groups
-Students disperse into their four pre-determined reading small groups for Readers Workshop.
-Students are ability grouped based on Map scores, DRA, and Orton Gillingham.

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

18

-These groups are described as flexible allowing the teacher to arrange them as she sees fit based
on new assessment and observations.
-Centers are located around the room.
-There are four 20-minute rotations.
(LOW)

Red

Rotation 1
Teacher

Rotation 2
Mr. Churchill

Rotation 3
Mr.

Rotation 4
Lexia

(MED

Group
Yellow

Lexia

Teacher

Churchill
Word work

Ms. Nona

LOW)
(MED

Group
Blue

Word work

Comprehensio

Teacher

Writing

HIGH)
(HIGH)

Group
Green

Comprehensio

n
Word work

Writing

Teacher

Group

-Teacher=Small group time with the teacher where she works on certain skill based on the needs
of the group
-Mr. Churchill=Special Education teacher/Intervention
-Lexia=Computer comprehension and phonics games
-Word work= phonics, vocabulary, etc
-Ms. Nona=Small intervention with lower groups
-Comprehension=activities designed to help with comprehension
-Writing=activities designed to develop writing skills
Principal Interview
1. Can you give me a general description of the reading and literacy program in your school?
-Blend of 5 components of reading in K-3
-As needed in 4-5
-Extensive professional development

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

19

-Reading street available but not aligned with standards, used as supplement
-10-20 minutes whole group
-Small groups (scaffolded based on child)
-Tier System= Tier one- 100% student body Tier two- bottom 25% Tier three- bottom 15%
-Each Tier has specific recourses and for 2 and 3, interventions.
-Aimsweb assessment is used to adjust assessment once a week and check trends every 4 weeks
2. What are the desired outcomes of this program? What are the goals? What is the school trying
to accomplish within the next years (vision)?
-100% proficiency=personal goal
-80% proficiency=school goal within the next few years
-70% proficiency=school goal this year
-Co-teaching
-Give child choices in reading
-Every child literate before leaving 3rd grade
3. What is your role in ensuring the school achieves those outcomes?
-Currently curriculum coach, but moving towards getting everyone coaching each other
-Empowering others to build building capacity
-Finding the needs of the building
-Support
-Removing barriers
-Research
-Finding professional development
-Networking (finding what is successful for others)
-Creating a culture where its okay to fail in order to become successful
4. What are your biggest obstacles?
-Fidelity
-Interpretation
-Skill level of teachers
-Spinning so many plates
-Keeping up with changes
5. What resources are available to grow the library and media collections at the school?
-Made a plan for $8,000-10,000 to grow library
-Media Specialist creates print-out of circulation of books and what it will take to reach goals,
keeps books current, and collaborates with teachers
6. What indicates that the school is making progress toward the desired outcomes?
-Map scores
-K-Prep
-Unit assessments
-Background planning
-Assessments lead instruction
-Formative assessments
7. What research and current practices are used to enhance the program?
-Always evolving and everyone learning
8. How do teachers and staff learn about research and current practices?

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

20

-On their own

-Shared among the entire staff
9. Does the school provide in-house training for teachers and staff?
-Yes, the afterschool program brings in money to give teachers time to look at data and plan
-Brings in lots of professional development (ongoing)
10. How is the community involved in the program?
-10 events are year designed to pull in parents
-Clubs
11. How are decisions made in the school about literacy?
-Instructional Leadership team made up of principal, assistant principal, ESL teachers, Reading
Recovery team, Literacy specialist, etc
-No adult centered decisions, must be right for the children
Reading Professional Interview Guide
1. Can you give me a general description of the reading and literacy program in your school?
-Reading based on common core standards, lots of data collection through exit slips, notes,
assessments, DRA, Map data, Orton Gillingham (Using OG, formed own phonics program), end
of unit assessment
-Flexible intervention groups formed using data
-Literacy integrated into science and social studies curriculum
2. What is the approach to teaching reading (literacy instruction)?
-Big 5 with whole group and small group instruction
3. What are the desired outcomes of this program? What are the goals? What is the school trying
to accomplish within the next years (vision)?
-Student success
-Students moving to Tier 1
-Confident readers
-Strong literacy foundations in K-2
4. What does the school do to reach those outcomes?
-Knowing your kids so you can differentiate your instruction
5. What is your role in ensuring the school achieves those outcomes?
-Intervention and aligning instruction and assessment with standards
6. What are your biggest obstacles?
-TIME!
7. How do you define literacy? How does your definition match the vision of the school?
-Spoken and Unspoken
-Visual to text to writing
-To be successful learners they must do their best
8. What kinds of training/professional development/degrees do you have related to
reading/literacy?
-Masters in Literacy (K-12) and well over 1,000 hours in literacy professional development

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

21

9. How are decisions made about literacy in the school? (Is there a literacy team? Who is on the
team? What are their roles?)
-Instructional Leadership Teams
-Team lead meetings
-Team meetings
10. How do you view your role?
-Many roles
11. What else is important to know about the literacy program at this school?
-Always working to improve
-Know your resources
-Integrate technology
-Orton Gillingham works for all learners
Classroom Teacher Interview Guide
1. Can you give me a general description of the reading and literacy program in your school?
-No basils
-Training in daily 5 and Orton Gillingham
-Reading whole group instruction and small groups
-Students on a 3-tier system (tier 2 and 3 must have intervention)
2. What is the approach to teaching reading (literacy instruction)?
-Whole group mini lesson then small group stations
-A lot of vertical planning done together with the other teachers
-List of non-negotiables (small groups, interventions, etc); teacher chooses how to teach it
-Planning under the assumption that no single program works for everyone and everything
3. What are the desired outcomes of this program? What are the goals? What is the school trying
to accomplish within the next years (vision)?
-Building a love of reading (motivated readers)
-Helping the students become well rounded readers
-All the students on or above grade level and moving towards becoming independent readers
-School goal is 70% proficiency
4. What does the school do to reach those outcomes?
-Lots of professional development
-Structured meetings
5. What is your role in ensuring the school achieves those outcomes?
-Constantly adapting to reach kids

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

22

-Taking important parts of professional development training and research and applying them in
the classroom
-Assessment driven instruction and constant reflection
6. What are your biggest obstacles?
-Meeting the diverse needs of students
7. What indicates that the school is making progress towards the desired outcomes?
-Weekly assessment in the form of Aimsweb
8. What research and current practices are used to enhance the program?
-Orton Gillingham
-Daily 5
-Reading books with meaning
-Not teaching to one single program
-Strongly disfavors Basils, but will use them if they enhance a lesson
9. How do you learn about research and current practices?
-Professional development
-Kentucky Reading Conference
10. Where do you go for assistance when you have a child who really struggles with reading?
-First grade teachers
-Heather Brooks (Literacy Specialist)
-SITS (online program/tutorials to get ideas)
11. What kinds of training/professional development have you had related to reading/literacy?
-Kim Cooper
-Orton Gillingham
-Daily 5
-5 Components of Literacy
12. How are decisions made about literacy in the school?
-Leadership retreat once a year to determine non-negotiables
-Team meetings
-Lots of communication
13. What else should I know about your literacy program?
-Library is leveled and color-coded based on Lexile levels. All students are given a color based
on their level. They are able to check out 4 picture books and 1 chapter book a week. All books
must be on level except one, which can be on any level for fun. This is to ensure students are
reading completely and on their level.

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

23

Artifa
ct 1. Literacy Specialists Daily Schedule

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

24

Artifa

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

ct 2. Tier Level Resources k-1

25

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

26

Artif

LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION

act 3. Tier Level Resources 2-5

27