Archived Information

# Introduction

"California is a prism through which the United States is glimpsing its
future"

Kevin Starr, State Librarian

California, the most populous state in the union and the seventh largest
economy in the world, is facing a serious educational issue: an
alarmingly large number of students are not learning to read with
fluency. The largest numbers of these students are located in our
poorest neighborhoods and schools.

California is seeking a Reading Excellence Act grant in order to
increase the capacity of the state's poorest, lowest performing schools
to teach all of their students to read by the end of third grade.

The educational disadvantage to children who cannot read by the end of
third grade is hardly in dispute. Lack of achievement in reading in the
early grades is a reliable predictor of future problems in school. By
not learning to read by third grade, students start falling further
behind. This failure becomes crucial in the fourth grade, when children
first have contact with academic text and must read to learn. The
student never catches up, becomes increasingly frustrated, increasingly
disconnected from school. Studies show that those who do not read
moderately well by third grade are overwhelmingly likely to become high
school dropouts.

As the new California *Reading/Language Arts Framework* points out,
facility in the language arts is the enabling skill that translates into
meaningful educational, personal, social, and economic outcomes for
individuals. Literacy is the key to becoming an independent learner in
all the other disciplines. Society has long recognized the importance of
successful reading. However, only recently have we begun to understand
the profound, enduring consequences of not learning to read well and the
new-found evidence of the critical abbreviated period in which to alter
patterns of reading failure (California Department of Education 1995;
Juel 1988; Lyon and Chhabra 1996). Most important, we recognize the
convergence of evidence to guide instruction in language arts (Committee
on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children 1998).

Students who read early and successfully not only reap the advantages of
early literacy but also accumulate experiences with print that continue
to differentiate good readers from poor readers throughout their
academic careers (Stanovich 1986). Individuals who test at the
least-proficient levels of literacy are often unemployable because even
low-skill jobs today demand adequate ability in reading (Whitman 1995).

The educational disadvantage to those who attend high-poverty schools,
schools with large numbers of poor children is also beyond dispute. On
almost any measure of academic achievement, these children perform
several grade levels below those in low- poverty schools.

For example, while California's scores on the grade four reading section
of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 1998 were
dismal, they were catastrophic for poor children. Statewide, 20 percent
of 4^th^ graders scored at or above the proficient level. However,
**seven percent** of students who were eligible for free or reduced
price lunch (a frequently used indicator of poverty) scored at or above
proficient compared to **30 percent** of those students who were not
eligible for the service. This is an astonishing discrepancy.

## A. Setting the Context for the Reading Excellence Act in California

California may be unique among large states in the number of different
entities that affect education policy and practice. In addition to the
State Legislature, which passes into law an average of over 200
education-related bills a year, and the Governor, who, through both the
legislative and budgetary process, aggressively pursues his own
education agenda, California has an active voter initiative process in
which the general public helps determine education policy. The State
Superintendent of Public Instruction is a statewide elected official and
must try to implement a common vision for education by forging working
relationships with not only the Legislature and the Governor, but also
with a governor-appointed State Board of Education, which has authority
over state education policy. In light of this, one vital function of the
California Department of Education is to help schools, districts, and
parents make sense of this crowded educational environment, translating
the varied results from all of these different policy-making entities
into programs, guidelines, regulations, and implementation strategies.

In California, the decade of the 90's saw an almost unprecedented number
of programs whose major purpose was to improve student achievement in
reading. Poised at the beginning of a new decade, energized by a new
governor who has made improving teaching and learning a priority, the
state is facing another series of reading-related initiatives. The sheer
number of educational reform initiatives, designed to bring about much
needed improvements, instead threatens to overwhelm educators charged
with implementing them while undermining coherent, systematic change.
Just within the last four years, a partial list of initiatives impacting
early reading includes:

-   Class size reduction of 20-1 in kindergarten through third grade;

-   Adoption of statewide standards in English/Language Arts;

-   Over \$120 million in competitive grants available to train teachers
    in these new standards;

-   Statewide implementation of a standardized test, the SAT 9, that,
    together with a set of augmented items known as the standards test,
    serves as the accountability measure used in all schools and
    districts;

-   Passage of several bills seeking to end social promotion and
    establish policies for retention of students---between 2^nd^ and
    3^rd^ and 3^rd^ and 4^th^ grades, the sole factor determining
    retention is reading achievement;

-   Passage of Proposition 227, English Language Education for Immigrant
    Children Act, changing the default educational program for students
    with limited proficiency in English from bilingual education to
    structured English immersion;

-   Passage of several educational reform bills proposed by new governor
    Gray Davis targeting kindergarten through grade four reading
    improvement including intensive professional development for new
    teachers and extended learning options for underachieving students.

## B. The Role of the Reading Excellence Act---Meeting the Needs of High Poverty, Low Performing Schools

Given this rich, albeit often confusing, landscape of resources and
requirements facing educators and families in the state, we in
California see the potential for the Reading Excellence Act (REA) to
play a pivotal role in both shaping and coordinating reading improvement
efforts for young children and serving as an organizing and
informational force for all of the resources that can be brought to bear
on improving reading.

Despite the appearance of numerous resources available for reading
improvement in the state, the schools that are the target for this REA
proposal are, for a variety of reasons, often non-participants in reform
efforts. Activities conducted with REA funds will address the specific
needs of these lowest performing schools, needs that have not been met
with less targeted funding.

In designing California's REA proposal, the following considerations
played a prominent role:

-   How to engage schools that typically do not voluntarily join
    educational improvement efforts in systemic changes necessary to
    improve ongoing reading instruction;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How to assist schools with myriad structural and organizational
    problems to improve Kindergarten through third grade reading
    instruction;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How to translate scientifically based research in reading into
    classroom practice;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How to begin to build the capacity of low performing schools to
    institutionalize consistent and sustained instructional practice in
    reading.

C. California's Reading Excellence Act State Plan

California is proposing a comprehensive plan to increase the capacity of
our state's poorest, lowest performing schools to teach all of their
students to read by the end of third grade. The plan addresses the
following issues shared by these schools:

### C.1 Lack of Coordination

Schools with both high poverty rates and large numbers of low achieving
students are not without resources. In addition to Title I funding,
these schools, and the districts of which they are a part, may receive
resources from many different sources including:

-   Class size reduction

-   Instructional materials aligned with state standards

-   Materials for school libraries

-   Services for students who are retained or who are at risk of being
    retained

-   Professional development in early reading

A major issue for high poverty, low-performing schools is not always a
lack of adequate resources but the inefficient or ineffective use of
available resources. Ineffective and uncoordinated utilization of
resources is a hallmark of these schools. California's REA plan directly
addresses this issue.

#### ***C.2 Low Academic Achievement***

Among the most disturbing issues confronting educators in California is
the persistent achievement gap between poor schools and more affluent
schools. Nationally, in 1996, the average national reading score for
nine-year-olds in high poverty schools was 37 points behind that of
students in more affluent schools on the NAEP. Each 10-point difference
is equivalent to one grade level. Thus, students in high-poverty schools
may be as much as four years behind their low-poverty peers.

Schools with consistently low rates of academic achievement share
certain characteristics. The following were identified in the federal
Department of Education publication *Turning Around Low-Performing
Schools: A Guide for State and Local Leaders* (May 1998):

-   Inadequate facilities, books, and supplies

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Poorly trained teachers

-   More new, inexperienced teachers

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Low teacher expectations of student abilities

-   High teacher and administrator turnover

-   Weak or hostile connections with parents, community

-   High rates of both student and teacher absenteeism

Low-performing schools are often located in poor communities with high
levels of crime and violence, have large numbers of second language
learners, and high levels of student mobility. As Secretary of Education
Richard Riley points out, this combination of poverty, family stress,
poor teacher training, and unsafe learning environments, contributes to
discouragingly low levels of student achievement.

# C.3 Inexperienced Teaching Staff

The legislated class size reduction effort in California, a growing
student population because of immigration and a small "baby boom", and
retirement and attrition in the teaching force, have all combined to
produce an acute shortage of teachers in the state. Estimates call for
an additional 300,000 teachers to be recruited and trained over the next
ten years. High poverty schools have difficulty in attracting and then
retaining experienced teachers.

Because of the "sellers market" in California today, experienced
teachers can pick and choose assignments. Most often, these teachers do
not choose to work in schools that present difficult challenges, such as
those that are the target schools and districts for the REA. State data
show that schools and districts characterized by high poverty and low
student achievement have proportionally greater numbers of teachers
without credentials and teachers with only one-two years of experience.

### D. Effective Practices For School Change

Increasing attention on high-poverty, low-performing schools has
produced a body of research on school improvement efforts that appear to
be effective. The research demonstrates that it is possible to achieve
grade-level outcomes with poor students if schools dramatically change
their instructional and organizational practices. This research has been
incorporated into the design of this project.

A study conducted by the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of
Texas at Austin identified some common characteristics of
high-achieving, high-poverty schools. Among the characteristics they
found were:

-   **A shared mission**, an agreed-upon vision that focused on the
    academic success of every student. Teachers collaborated with each
    other in developing instructional strategies, choosing materials,
    adopting staff development strategies, and budgeting resources,
    based on what they felt would be effective in meeting the specific
    needs of their students.

-   **Proactive efforts to involve parents** in their children's
    learning. Teachers empathized with the difficulties parents faced,
    and they focused on seeking solutions rather than blaming parents
    for academic difficulties that students encountered.

-   **School personnel collaborated** and worked together in teams.

-   **Continuous planning** for improvement.

-   **Creating a culture of learning** in which professional development
    is an integral, ongoing component.

The literature on successful school change strategies (e.g. Michael
Fullan, *Change Forces*, 1993; Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage,
*Successful School Restructuring*, 1995; Peter Senge, *The Fifth
Discipline*, 1990) consistently identifies several key factors:

-   **A shared vision of student learning** among school staff,
    students, and families consisting of high-academic expectations and
    achievement for all students.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Adoption of core content and performance standards**, a
    challenging curriculum, and effective instructional strategies that
    actively engage students, teachers, and families in a learning
    community.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Alignment of the school's organizational structure** to maximize
    the use of time and resources to support student learning and
    teacher collaboration, planning, and professional growth.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proactive steps toward building and maintaining deep and meaningful
    community **partnerships with families and other key stakeholders**.

**E. Effective Practices for Improving Reading**

California's conception of reading is based on scientific research and
is consistent with the Reading Excellence Act definition of reading.
This vision for reading emerged from the creation of the California
Reading Initiative in response to unacceptably low levels of student
performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
In 1995, the California Reading Task Force, convened by Superintendent
Delaine Eastin, stated in their report, *Every Child a Reader*: "It was
determined that a balanced and comprehensive approach to reading must
have:

(1) a strong literature, language, and comprehension program that
    includes a balance of oral and written language;

(2) an organized, explicit skills program that includes phonemic
    awareness (sounds in words), phonics, and decoding skills to address
    the needs of the emergent reader;

(3) ongoing diagnosis that informs teaching and assessment that ensures
    accountability; and

(4) a powerful early intervention program that provides individual
    tutoring for children at risk of reading failure."

The following year *Teaching Reading: A Balanced, Comprehensive Approach
to Teaching Reading in Pre-kindergarten Through Grade Three* was
published in direct response to the recommendations outlined in *Every
Child a Reader.* Its purpose was to provide guidance in the development
and implementation of a balanced, comprehensive reading program and to
support new state legislation requiring that the State Board of
Education adopt materials that include "systematic, explicit phonics,
spelling, and basic computational skills."

**F. California's Reading Excellence Act Plan---A Three Tiered
Approach**

California's state plan, described in the following application, is a
three-tiered approach:

1.  State Level Collaborative Efforts

2.  District Level Participation and Leadership

3.  School Level Capacity Building

At the **state level**, the California Reading Center (CRC) is
established in the California Department of Education (CDE) to provide
statewide project management. Two satellite regional centers are
developed in collaboration with the Region XII Southern California
Comprehensive Assistance Center and the Region XI Northern California
Comprehensive Assistance Center at WestED.

Each of these regional satellite centers is part of the Reading Success
Network, identified by the federal Department of Education as an
exemplary professional development program in reading. The satellite
centers will provide training in instructional practice, assessment, and
coaching to schools and districts receiving an REA subgrant.

A major activity of both the CRC and the satellite centers is to
coordinate support and delivery of services with District Literacy
Coaches.

Each **district** with more than two schools participating in REA hires
a District Literacy Coach or Coaches to provide on-site coaching and
technical assistance at each participating school.

Each **school** in the district participating in the REA has a literacy
team headed by a school site literacy coordinator, who works with and is
trained by the District Literacy Coach.

***F. 1 State Level Collaborative Efforts***

***The California Reading Center (CRC)***

The California Reading Center (CRC) is a collaborative venture between
the California Department of Education (CDE), the Governor's Office of
Education, and partners such as the California Reading and Literature
Project, the Region XII Southern California Comprehensive Assistance
Center and the Region XI Northern California Comprehensive Assistance
Center at WestED.

Located in the Reading and Mathematics Policy and Leadership Office,
CDE, the Center is composed of a Center Director, two
reading/professional development experts, a web master, and support
staff. In addition to day-to-day project management activities, the CRC:

-   Provides overall leadership to the Local Reading Improvement and
    Tutorial Assistance programs;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Manages the development and dissemination of project professional
    development opportunities;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Convenes bi-monthly meeting of all staff and partners of the CRC;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coordinates, with the support of the Reading and Literacy
    Partnership, all subgrant review, award, and management activities;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Oversees, with the help of the Reading and Literacy Partnership, the
    evaluation process;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develops and maintains a set of web pages specifically aimed at REA
    participants and similar schools.

#### ***California Reading Center---Satellite Offices***

Developed in collaboration with the Region XII Southern California
Comprehensive Assistance Center and the Region XI Northern California
Comprehensive Assistance Center at WestED, these satellite centers
provide current staff as Regional Literacy Coordinators to support
participating REA districts. Disseminating the work of the Reading
Success Network, these Regional Literacy Coordinators are located in
eight southern California County Offices of Education and two San
Francisco/Oakland bay area county offices, and thirty other county
offices, representing over 75 percent of the students in eligible
districts.

##### California Reading Center---Statewide Professional Development

In addition to specific professional development opportunities described
later in this proposal, three specific and targeted professional
development activities will be conducted immediately by the CRC, upon
receipt of REA funding:

-   **Two-Day Grant Application Workshop.** Districts and schools
    eligible to apply for REA subgrants will be invited to attend
    two-day workshops to: learn the goals of REA; gain an understanding
    of scientifically based research in reading, including the results
    of the National Reading Panel Report and the fundamentals of
    *Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children*; address issues
    of family literacy and meeting the needs of English learners and
    students with special needs; and receive specific assistance in
    addressing the REA subgrant requirements.

-   **Convene Task Force on Teaching Reading to English Learners**.
    Given the relative scarcity of resources, including research,
    available to address the issues of teaching reading to English
    learners, a task force of program experts will be convened to reach
    a consensus on recommendations for early reading content and
    strategies, including English language development. A subgroup of
    the Reading and Literacy Partnership will help organize and
    participate in this task force.

-   **Reading Leadership Team Support**. Because of the importance of
    principals in school improvement efforts, and their relatively high
    mobility in underperforming schools, it is essential to develop a
    mechanism to provide support and continuity to school site reading
    improvement efforts. The District Literacy Coach, the School Site
    Literacy Coordinator, the library media teacher, and the school
    Principal will function as a reading leadership team and receive
    training and technical assistance together. Establishing
    professional development and support for this leadership team will
    be a priority.

***F.2 District Level Participation and Leadership***

###### District Literacy Coach

> Each participating REA district with two or more schools will hire a
> District Literacy Coach, a reading and professional development expert
> to work directly with each of the participating REA schools. In the
> largest districts, more than one Literacy Coach may be needed. The
> District Literacy Coach will work in cooperation with the Regional
> Literacy Coordinator and the California Reading Center to secure
> resources and technical assistance from REA project management.
>
> The District Literacy Coach will work on-site at REA schools providing
> in-class coaching and observation, training, and guidance to classroom
> teachers and the School Site Literacy Coach. The District Literacy
> Coach will also work collaboratively with the school site Reading
> Leadership Team. A primary responsibility of the District Literacy
> Coach is to build the capacity of the school to institutionalize and
> sustain its reading improvement efforts.

###### K-3 Literacy Plan

Literature on effective practices of schools stresses the importance of
a shared vision on the mission of the school that helps guide decisions
on all aspects of teaching and learning. This requires, among other
things, collaborative reflection about instructional goals at each grade
level and consensus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Through
a planning process, a consistent and cohesive approach to reading
instruction across all grades can be achieved.

Districts will work with participant schools to develop a literacy plan,
incorporating elements of existing district and school plans as
appropriate. The plan will focus on professional development in reading;
use of scientifically based reading research in selecting reading
instruction content, strategies, and materials; family literacy and
early reading experiences, and assessment.

***F.3 School Level Capacity Building***

***School Literacy Teams***

> In order to build the capacity of high-poverty, low-performing schools
> to implement and sustain improvement efforts in reading instruction,
> each school will create a literacy team composed of:

a.  A teacher or teachers from each grade level, kindergarten through
    third;

b.  The principal;

c.  Reading specialists, Special Education resource specialist and
    program specialists as available;

d.  A teacher from each grade level in the school beyond third grade;

e.  The Library media teacher

f.  Other instructional or administrative staff deemed necessary by the
    school.

The presence of a team at each school campus is designed to maintain
continuity of the reading instructional program. Low-performing schools
are often marked by: high states of flux and turmoil; high turnover
rates of both teachers and administrators; high mobility rates of
students; and large numbers of new or inexperienced teachers. A Literacy
Team can institutionalize the philosophy, goals, objectives, and
strategies of a consistent approach to reading instruction. In a sea of
seeming instability and constant change, the Literacy Team can be a rock
of stability.

> ***School Site Literacy Coordinator***

Each participating school will select or hire a Literacy
Coach/Coordinator. It is anticipated that this position will evolve from
the Literacy Team. Each school will develop its own procedure for
selecting a Literacy Coach/Coordinator. The duties are:

-   Facilitate the planning and implementation efforts of the Literacy
    Team;

-   Facilitate the logistics of operating the Literacy Team;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Function as a coach and mentor for teachers implementing reading
    instruction strategies;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coordinate assessment and data collection activities;

-   Work with the principal and the District Literacy Coach to find ways
    to make the focus on early literacy self-sustaining at the school.

The School Site Literacy Coordinator could be a Title I resource
teacher, reading or program specialist, or a teacher leader. REA
subgrant funds may be used to support this position.

####### *School Site Literacy Leadership*

The school principal is a major factor in the success or failure of
school improvement efforts. However, in recognizing the time constraints
placed on principals, it is imperative that REA participating schools
support principals in the reading improvement efforts at their school.
The School Site Literacy Coordinator, the reading specialist, Title I
resource teacher, and the library media teacher will provide that
literacy leadership by working closely with the principal to increase
the capacity of the school to institutionalize early reading
improvement.

# II. Need

The California Reading Excellence Act state plan is designed to address
the specific problems of low performing schools. Among these, described
in Section I, Introduction, are:

-   Lack of coordination of existing resources (C.1);

-   Low academic achievement (C.2);

-   Inexperienced Teaching Staff (C.3).

In responding to the challenge presented by high-poverty, low performing
schools, California confronts an array of issues that influence the
educational enterprise, issues as diverse as its geography, climate, and
economy.

## A. Need for the Program in the State

### Demographics

One out of every eight U.S. residents lives in California. In 1998, the
state's population was 33,252,000. In the 1998-99 school year, more than
5.8 million students were enrolled in California's schools---4 million
in kindergarten through grade eight. Our students attend 8,200 schools
in 1,000 school districts, and receive instruction from 271,000
teachers. Approximately 61 percent of California's students are from
underrepresented groups; 11 percent have disabilities; and 48 percent
are poor.

In line with trends across the nation, the number of children living in
single-parent households has skyrocketed---most of these families headed
by the mother, many living in poverty---the poverty rate being highest
among Hispanic and African American families. More and more fathers are
absent from the home, and the rates of unmarried mothers, divorce, and
children placed in foster homes have all risen significantly in the last
decade.

As mentioned in the Introduction, a number of factors have contributed
to an acute teacher shortage in California. Estimates from the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing indicate that
approximately 300,000 teachers will need to be recruited and trained
over the next ten years.

Statewide, 12 percent of full-time classroom teachers do not have the
appropriate credentials. About 29 percent of the teacher workforce is
composed of less experienced teachers---those with two or fewer years of
experience or without credentials. Districts with sizeable numbers of
poor schools far exceed these averages. For instance, of Los Angeles
County's 75,571 teachers, 30,613 (41 percent) are either first-- or
second--year teachers or are teaching without the appropriate
credentials. Slightly more than 20 percent of Los Angeles' classroom
teachers are not fully credentialed.

Representing the single largest state budget item, K-12 education
expenditures from both state and federal sources total approximately
\$36 billion. Yet, California spends about \$900 less per student than
the national average.

***Diversity***

California's school children are among the most diverse in the nation.
Statewide, our student population is characterized by increasing Latino
enrollment and decreasing Anglo enrollment. Hispanic students currently
comprise 39.7 percent, Caucasian students 39.5 percent, Asian and
Pacific Islanders 11.2 percent, African American students 8.7 percent,
and American Indian students comprise .9 percent of the K-12 population.
Since 1991, there has been no ethnic majority (more than 50 percent) at
any grade level in California. Although this rich diversity presents
wonderful opportunities for learning, it also creates endless
complexities in designing appropriate instruction and assessment.

More than 1.4 million California students are identified as English
language learners; 37 percent speak a language other than English as
their primary language. Approximately, 60-70 percent of all new students
enrolling in public school are English learners. This presents an
enormous challenge to educators. While all students must learn to read
in their primary school years, these children have the added burden of
having to learn to speak, read, and write in a foreign language.

***Title I***

Poverty is a consistently accurate indicator of potential academic risk.
Moreover, poverty is insidious because it undermines the well being of
children and their families on every level. Poor children often arrive
at school hungry and many are consistently under-nourished. Many
children live in inadequate buildings and unsafe neighborhoods.
Thousands are homeless. More students live in poverty in California than
almost any other state. Only Louisiana, Mississippi, and the District of
Columbia have a greater percentage of students receiving free or reduced
price meals than California (48 percent or 2.7 million children).

Approximately 4,800 schools, representing 83 percent of California's
school districts, receive Title I funds to serve their disadvantaged
students. Since 1997, 1,261 Title I schools in 157 districts have been
designated as Program Improvement Schools. In California, to avoid
confusion with the long-standing School Improvement Program (SIP), Title
I School Improvement status is identified as "Program Improvement." A
school is designated for Program Improvement if less than 40 percent of
its students are performing at or above grade level in language arts and
mathematics. The number of Program Improvement schools is expected to
increase as more districts fully implement California's rigorous content
standards and assessment based on those standards.

By 1998, 51 percent of the eligible Title I schools have been authorized
by the California Department of Education for a schoolwide program. An
additional 732 schools have submitted letters of intent to apply for
schoolwide status.

***Educating English Learners (Limited English Proficient)***

In addition to the challenges of poverty, rapid growth, and teacher
shortage, the increasing language diversity of the state's school
population presents a tremendous challenge for educators. According to
the *Report of the Proposition 227 Task Force*:"Children from cultures
in which, collectively, more than 80 different languages are spoken
enter California schools every year" (California Department of Education
\[CDE\]1999). Approximately 1.4 million English learners attend our
schools and, as of 1998, 904 of 1,052 school districts reported the
enrollment of English learners. "In the past decade, the English learner
population in kindergarten through grade twelve has more than doubled,
and over 90 percent of those English learners speak one of five
languages: Spanish, Vietnamese, Hmong, Pilipino, or Cantonese.
Eighty-one percent are Spanish speakers.

"English learners in California are very diverse. Depending on their
previous experiences, English learners at all grade levels may not speak
or understand any English; or they may understand just enough English to
greet others and get basic needs met. Some of these seemingly 'fluent'
students may not read in English or in their first language. Some
students may be nearly proficient in English" (CDE, 1999). Still other
students may not even have oral proficiency in their home language,
having never attended school before in their native country.

"Many students who speak a language other then English live in poverty.
Some English learners attend school regularly, while others may enter
school in mid-semester and attend classes sporadically. Some students
may move and change schools several times during one academic year or
may be placed in classes where they have little opportunity for success.

"In addition, not all English learners are immigrants. A large
population of students who are born in the United States have parents
with little or no fluency in English. Many of these students are English
learners who require assistance in developing proficiency at all levels
of English" (CDE, 1999). Many of these students' parents have had
limited educational opportunities and may not be able to help their
children learn to read. Unfortunately, few school districts have any
type of family literacy program and even fewer have Even Start programs.

Because of Proposition 227, the overwhelming majority of these students
must be taught in structured English immersion classrooms.

Teaching students to read in a language they understand only marginally
is an extremely difficult and complex endeavor. Last year, the
Superintendent of Public Instruction convened the Proposition 227 Task
Force to address the two most pressing challenges in educating English
learners: (1) "bringing English learners to an advanced level of English
language proficiency; and (2) helping them thrive in mainstream
classrooms" (CDE, 1999). A chief concern is that simply teaching these
students conversational English does not close the achievement gap
between them and their native English-speaking peers. "Merely having
reasonable fluency in English is insufficient to achieve high content
standards in reading, mathematics, history-social science, and science"
(CDE, 1999).

Last year, 702,592 English learners were in Structured English Immersion
instructional settings; another 461,909 were in English Language
Mainstream settings; 179,334 were in bilingual education instructional
settings, and another 98,857 were in other instructional settings, in
most cases dual-language immersion programs. With over 1.4 million
English learners receiving the overwhelming majority of their
instruction in their second language, the challenge of teaching these
students to read in English by providing instruction in English is
profound.

***Implementing High Standards and Effective Practices***

Another major challenge California faces in reading is instituting a
standards-based educational system and ensuring that as many students as
possible meet those standards. In 1997, California established a
rigorous set of English-language arts content standards. State law
specifies these standards are advisory, rather than mandatory. However,
districts that choose not to adopt the state standards must employ their
own standards that are aligned with the State's and are at least as
rigorous. Despite the difficulties in establishing a standards-based
instructional system, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction has
set the goal of 90 percent of California's students meeting or exceeding
grade-level standards by 2006.

Helping teachers move from a traditional, curriculum driven pedagogy to
standards-driven classroom practice is not easy. Standards-driven
instructional practice in which everyone is expected to meet the same,
rigorous standards, requires teachers to learn to think differently
about teaching and learning. Chester Finn calls it a shift in emphasis
from educational *inputs* to educational *outputs*.

Traditionally, educators have focused on inputs as measures of
effectiveness---the amounts and kinds of resources expended, the types
of programs and services designed and delivered, the energy and
motivation of individuals.

A standards model forces educators to focus on outputs as measures of
how well they are doing. Outputs are the amount of learning that has
occurred as a *result* of the inputs---have *all* students truly met the
standards? How many of the standards have they met? What have we as
educators done to assist all students to meet the standards?

California intends to use the REA state plan as a way to address meeting
the standards in reading in some of the state's most challenging
classrooms.

## B. Understanding of Scientifically Based Reading Research (SBRR) and High Quality Professional Development

# Implementing Scientifically Based Reading Research in California

###### Two Seminal Documents

California's conception of reading is based on scientific research and
is consistent with the definition of reading stated in the Reading
Excellence Act: "a complex system of deriving meaning from print that
requires all of the following:

A.  The skills and knowledge to understand how phonemes, or speech
    sounds, are connected to print.

B.  The ability to decode unfamiliar words.

C.  The ability to read fluently.

D.  Sufficient background information and vocabulary to foster reading
    comprehension.

E.  The development of appropriate active strategies to construct
    meaning from print.

F.  The development and maintenance of a motivation to read." Section
    2252 (4)

California's vision for reading emerged from the creation of the
California Reading Initiative in response to unacceptably low levels of
student performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). That vision was initially articulated in 1995 by the California
Reading Task Force, convened by Superintendent Delaine Eastin, in the
report, *Every Child a Reader.* The report states: "It was determined
that a balanced and comprehensive approach to reading must have:

(1) a strong literature, language, and comprehension program that
    includes a balance of oral and written language;

(2) an organized, explicit skills program that includes phonemic
    awareness (sounds in words), phonics, and decoding skills to address
    the needs of the emergent reader;

(3) ongoing diagnosis that informs teaching and assessment that ensures
    accountability; and

(4) a powerful early intervention program that provides individual
    tutoring for children at risk of reading failure."

The following year *Teaching Reading: A Balanced, Comprehensive Approach
to Teaching Reading in Pre-kindergarten Through Grade Three* was
published in direct response to the recommendations outlined in *Every
Child a Reader.* Its purpose was to provide guidance in the development
and implementation of a balanced, comprehensive reading program and to
support new state legislation requiring that the State Board of
Education adopt materials that include "systematic, explicit phonics,
spelling, and basic computational skills."

# Professional Development Requirements

Beginning in 1995 funds were made available to school districts and
county offices of education for professional development based on
current research in reading. The authorizing legislation required that
programs of inservice training for teachers of pupils in grades K-3
include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

1.  Phoneme awareness instruction

2.  Systematic, explicit phonics instruction

3.  Decoding instruction and the diagnosis of a pupil's ability to
    decode

4.  Word-attack skills instruction

5.  Spelling and vocabulary instruction

6.  Explicit instruction of comprehension skills

7.  Research on how reading skills are acquired

8.  Effective integration of listening, speaking, reading, and writing

9.  Effective classroom and schoolwide interventions for low-performing
    readers

10. Ways to promote extensive, self-selected independent reading

11. Effective reading instruction for English language learners

12. Planning and delivery of appropriate reading instruction based on
    assessment and evaluation

# Content Standards and Curriculum Framework

Ultimately California's vision for reading was realized by the adoption
of the English­--language arts content standards in 1997 and the
subsequent publication of the *Reading/Language Arts Framework for
California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve* in 1999.
The English--language arts content standards reflect a comprehensive,
specific vision of what California's students actually need to know and
be able to do in the language arts. They outline the content students
must acquire in reading, writing, written and oral English-language
conventions, and listening and speaking by the end of each grade
level---kindergarten through high school. The *Reading/Language Arts
Framework* "...is based on the rigorous English--language arts content
standards adopted by the State Board \[of Education\]...and relies
heavily on the converging research base in beginning reading. It
responds to the charge of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the State Board of Education to ensure that all students can read at
grade level at least by the end of the third grade...The purpose of the
...\[framework\] is to provide a blueprint for organizing instruction so
that every child meets or exceeds the language arts content standards. "
(1999, viii and 1)

Through the California Reading Initiative California has put in place a
system to ensure that all students read fluently by the end of the third
grade. Integral components of that system are the content standards and
framework; well-designed materials, skilled teachers, and a
comprehensive program of assessment complete the system. This effort has
been informed at every step by scientifically based reading research.
The framework is replete with references to the research, statewide
professional development initiatives are driven by research, and newly
adopted criteria for the adoption of instructional materials have been
shaped by it as well.

# Collaborations with Reading Experts

Prominent researchers have collaborated with California in the
development of major documents: Edward J. Kame'enui and Deborah C.
Simmons were principals writers of the *Reading/Language Arts
Framework;* many other scholars contributed to the document or reviewed
it and provided valuable advice, such as John L. Shefelbine, Claude
Goldenberg, Marilyn Jager Adams, and Louisa Moats. Edward Kame'enui and
Claude Goldenberg, it should be noted, were members of the Committee on
the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children which produced
*Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.* Louisa Cook Moats
was also a primary author of a document containing training modules
prepared for the state's Comprehensive Reading Leadership Program,
*Learning to Read: Components of Beginning Reading Instruction, K-8.*
The leadership program was an early effort to disseminate information on
reading research and effective practices to key school leaders across
the state.

California has produced several other documents to support the reading
initiative. *First Class: A Guide for Early Primary Education* (1999)
provides guidance to educators at the preschool, kindergarten, and first
grade levels across the spectrum of early primary education. The section
on reading/language arts for young children is fully aligned with state
standards and the framework. It represents contributions from many
reading professionals, notably Hallie Kay Yopp in the area of phonemic
awareness assessment and instruction.

Another document, *The California Reading Initiative and Special
Education: Critical Ideas Focusing on Meaningful Reform* (1999), is the
result of the work of the state's Special Education Reading Task Force.
The document's express purpose is to provide relevant information
regarding scientifically based reading research to the special education
community and to begin reforming reading instruction for California's
identified special education students. The document, in fact, seeks to
decrease the numbers of students identified as learning disabled by
promoting effective reading instruction and early intervention and
prevention. "Fortunately, research conducted during the last three
decades shows that all students could be far more successful if provided
well-designed, explicit, and systematic instruction" (1999, 3). Experts
who contributed to the development of the document were Douglas Carnine,
Edward J. Kame'enui, G. Reid Lyon, and Lou Vismara. The State Board of
Education determined that this document was so important that it should
be made an addendum to the *Reading/Language Arts Framework.*

# A Closer Look at the Content Standards and Their Alignment with Scientifically Based Reading Research

# 

A closer examination of the English--language arts content standards
reveals the deeper constructs of California's curriculum content and its
alignment with scientifically based reading research. The table that
follows displays the basic structure of the standards---indicating the
domains, strands, and substrands by which the standards are organized
and the grades at which mastery is expected. The full text of the
standards for grades K-3 is contained in Appendix A.

+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| # DOMAIN  | **STRAND**       | **SUBSTRAND**           | * | * | * | * |
|           |                  |                         | * | * | * | * |
|           |                  |                         | K | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|           |                  |                         | * | * | * | * |
|           |                  |                         | * | * | * | * |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| Reading   | Word Analysis,   | Concepts about print    | X | X |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           | Fluency, and     | Phonemic awareness      | X | X |   |   |
|           | Systematic       |                         |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           | Vocabulary\      | Decoding and word       | X | X | X | X |
|           | Development      | recognition             |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           |                  | Vocabulary and concept  | X | X | X | X |
|           |                  | development             |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           | Reading          | Structural features of  | X | X | X | X |
|           | Comprehension    |                         |   |   |   |   |
|           |                  | informational materials |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           |                  | Comprehension and       | X | X | X | X |
|           |                  | analysis of grade-level |   |   |   |   |
|           |                  | appropriate text        |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           | Literary         | Structural features of  |   |   |   | X |
|           | Response and     | literature              |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           | Analysis         | Narrative analysis of   | X | X | X | X |
|           |                  | grade level-appropriate |   |   |   |   |
|           |                  | text                    |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| Writing   | Writing          | Organization and focus  | X | X | X | X |
|           | Strategies       |                         |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           |                  | Penmanship              | X | X | X | X |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           |                  | Research                |   |   | X | X |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           |                  | Evaluation and revision |   |   | X | X |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           | Writing          | Writing applications    |   | X | X | X |
|           | Applications     |                         |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| Written   | Written and Oral | Sentence structure      | X | X | X | X |
| and       |                  |                         |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| Oral      | English-Language | Grammar                 |   |   | X | X |
| English-  |                  |                         |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| Language  | Conventions      | Punctuation             |   | X | X | X |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| Co        |                  | Capitalization          |   | X | X | X |
| nventions |                  |                         |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           |                  | Spelling                |   | X | X | X |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| Listening | Listening and    | Comprehension           | X | X | X | X |
| and       |                  |                         |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| Speaking  | Speaking         | Organization and        |   | X | X | X |
|           | Strategies       | delivery of oral        |   |   |   |   |
|           |                  | communication           |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           |                  | Analysis and evaluation |   |   |   | X |
|           |                  | of oral and media       |   |   |   |   |
|           |                  | communication           |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+
|           | Speaking         | Speaking applications   | X | X | X | X |
|           | Applications     |                         |   |   |   |   |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------------+---+---+---+---+

# A Closer Look at the Framework and Its Alignment with Scientifically Based Reading Research

The *Reading/Language Arts Framework* best captures the research base
informing California's efforts in reading today. Published in 1999, it
was the beneficiary of the work of reading researchers from the last
decade and the specific work of the National Research Council's
Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children.
Happily, the framework's basic tenets are further supported by the
recently published Report of the National Reading Panel, *Teaching
Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific
Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading
Instruction* (2000). Some key elements of the *Reading/Language Arts
Framework* are important in understanding California's concept of
reading and its design of the Reading Excellence Act application and
activities.

### Guiding Principles

The guiding principles of the framework "address the complexity of the
content and context of language arts instruction...and direct the
purpose, design, delivery, and evaluation of instruction." (1999, 4)
According to the guiding principles, the framework:

-   Uses the English--language arts content standards as its curricular
    platform and aligns curriculum, assessment, instruction, and
    organization to provide a comprehensive, coherent structure for
    language arts teaching and learning.

-   Stresses the importance of a balanced, comprehensive program.

-   Emphasizes that students must be fluent readers at least by the end
    of the third grade and that third-grade competence depends on the
    specific and cumulative mastery of skills in kindergarten through
    grade three together with the development of positive attitudes
    toward reading and writing.

-   Describes the important skills, concepts, and strategies that
    students must be able to use after the third grade.

-   Provides guidance to ensure that all educators and learners
    understand that (1) specific skills in reading, writing, speaking,
    and listening must be taught and learned; (2) the language arts are
    related, reciprocal processes that build on and strengthen one
    another; and (3) the language arts can be learned across all
    academic disciplines.

-   Promotes a preventive rather than remedial approach.

-   Assumes that all learners will work toward the same
    standards...\[and that\] intervention strategies must be in place to
    identify students who are not progressing adequately and to
    intervene at all levels as early and as long as necessary.

-   Addresses the full range of learners in classrooms, with specific
    attention being given to language arts instruction and the learning
    needs of English learners, special education students, students with
    reading difficulties, and advanced learners.

-   Assumes that virtually all students can learn to read.

-   Is designed to be useful to a wide range of consumers. (1999, 4-5)

### Key Definitions

The definition of a balanced, comprehensive program is derived from the
research identifying the elements most critical to success in reading
early in the child's school career. "*Balance* is defined as the
strategic selection and scheduling of instruction to ensure that
students meet or exceed ...standards, and *comprehensive* is defined as
the inclusion of all content standards. ...The overall emphasis accorded
to a skill or standard is determined by its priority or importance
relative to students' language and literacy levels and needs. A
comprehensive program ensures that students master foundational skills
as a gateway to using all forms of language as tools for thinking,
learning, and communicating." (1999, 4)

The notion of systematic, explicit instruction is central to the
framework as well. Explicit instruction is defined as "The intentional
design and delivery of information by the teacher to the students. It
begins with (1) the teacher's modeling or demonstration of the skill or
strategy; (2) a structured and substantial opportunity for students to
practice and apply newly taught skills and knowledge under the teacher's
direction and guidance; and (3) an opportunity for feedback." (1999,
276) Systematic instruction is defined as "The strategic design and
delivery of instruction that examines the nature of the objective to be
learned and selects and sequences the essential skill, examples, and
strategies necessary to achieve the objective by (1) allocating
sufficient time to essential skills; (2) scheduling information to
minimize confusion on the part of the learner; (3) introducing
information in manageable and sequential units; (4) identifying
prerequisite skills and building on prior knowledge of the learner; (5)
reviewing previously taught skills; (6) strategically integrating old
knowledge with new knowledge; and (7) progressing from skills in easier,
manageable contexts to more complex contexts." (1999, 280)

# Instructional Materials and Their Alignment with Scientifically Based Reading Research

Full implementation of California's vision is still unfulfilled.
Implementation in the highest poverty schools with the lowest performing
students is the least well established. Moving the system closer to full
implementation will be the adoption and implementation of new
instructional materials for reading/language arts that are aligned with
scientifically based reading research. New criteria for the adoption of
instructional materials were recently approved for a process that will
conclude in January of 2002. An interim adoption of instructional
materials for reading/language arts and mathematics was completed in the
summer of 1999; however, the 2002 adoption of reading/language arts
materials promises to be broader in scope than any adoption previously
attempted in California. The *English--Language Arts Content Standards
for California Public Schools* and the *Reading/Language Arts Framework
for California Public Schools* provide the foundation for the design of
the instructional materials.

The intent is for instructional materials to place a crucial role in
helping students attain mastery of language arts standards and perform
successfully on statewide assessments. Toward that end, California's
instructional materials will be designed to ensure that 1) virtually
every student participates in the regular classroom and has access to
the basic curriculum; and 2) teachers are provided with the support they
need to ensure that all students succeed.

The adoption criteria require that instructional materials address *all*
language arts standards at each grade in a coherent fashion.
Instructional materials are required to describe specific ways for the
teacher to address the learning needs of all students and thereby ensure
access for all students to the basic grade-level materials and
instruction. Within the basic program additional materials and
suggestions are required for students with disabilities or reading
difficulties and for students who are English learners for a period of
30 minutes a day

# Alignment with the Report of the National Reading Panel

# 

# The long awaited report of the National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (2000), offers California another opportunity to review its vision of reading and the research on which it is based. There is striking convergence between the report and the course California has set for itself in reading. The finding that "phonemic awareness instruction is effective under a variety of teaching conditions with a variety of learners" (2000, 2-5) supports the prominence accorded phonemic awareness in the content standards and instructional materials for kindergarten and grade one. The report finds that "systematic phonics instruction makes a bigger contribution to children's growth in reading than alternative programs providing unsystematic or no phonics instruction." (2000, 2-84) This finding supports California's emphasis on phonics in the early grades. The panel does caution that phonemic awareness and phonics instruction are but part of a larger program; these same conditions are echoed in California's framework. 

# The findings in the area of fluency indicate "that classroom practices that encourage repeated oral reading with feedback and guidance leads to meaningful improvements in reading expertise for students." (2000, 3-3) The report holds that teachers should regularly assess fluency and that explicit approaches for improving fluency are powerful; these findings are consistent with recommendations in the California framework. Vocabulary improves, according to the report, as a result of both direct instruction of vocabulary required for a specific text and through incidental learning. Eight kinds of comprehension instruction are found to be effective by the National Reading Panel, including multiple strategy instruction. "A common aspect of individual and multiple-strategy instruction is the active involvement of motivated readers who read more text as a result of the instruction." (2000, 4-6) The suggestions for vocabulary and comprehension instruction in the framework are consistent with the recommended strategies, although not as extensive. 

# Scientifically Based Reading Research for English Learners

The research base for effective early reading instruction for English
learners is problematic. Whereas much research has been conducted in the
area of reading, Durgunoglu, Nagy, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993) comment that
"as yet, second-language reading research does not reflect the influence
of recent first-language reading research that demonstrates the primacy
of bottom-up word recognition processes in skill readers." According to
*Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children,* "With regard to
reading instruction in a second language, there is remarkably little
directly relevant research" (1998). The report cites research that
supports the initial instruction of literacy in the primary language and
recommends that programs for English learners be organized to do so.

In California, because of Proposition 227, only approximately 170,000
children have access to primary language instruction through alternative
courses of study. Other English learner students begin reading
instruction in English from the start of their academic careers. In
fact, in the United States and California, most English learners
historically have not had access to primary language instruction,
because of the lack of resources for the particular language in a region
or because the concentrations of students were too small to operate
effective programs in the primary language.

Emerging research in this area indicates some promising trends for
English learner students learning to read in English. Morgan and Willows
state: "Second language students are able to master
phonemic/phonological and literacy tasks at a very young age---prior to
substantial oral language instruction. This places in question the
widely held view that ESL oral/aural language development in semantic
and syntactic abilities must precede the teaching of literacy skills"
(1997). Similarly Chiappe and Siegel conclude: "Therefore, because the
phonological and reading skills of ESL children do not differ from those
of native speakers of English, the same method of reading instruction is
appropriate for both native and non-native speakers of English" (1997).

Some studies found lags in syntactic understanding and reading
comprehension for the students who had learned to read in English
utilizing a code-based approach. August and Hakuta conclude from their
review of the research that English vocabulary is a "primary
determinant" of reading comprehension for English learners. They state:
"Anderson and Roti (1996) and Gersten (1996), and others argue that
instruction focused on second-language oral proficiency, and in fact
that support of second-language reading comprehension can generate gains
in second-language oral skills."

Recently the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education
and Minority Language Affairs (OBEMLA), sponsored a Reading Research
Symposium calling for papers from a variety of researchers on the topic
of teaching reading to English learners. At the symposium very little
was presented on teaching reading in English before students are fully
proficient in English. Two researchers whose work has particular import
for California are Kathy Escamilla, who is studying early literacy of
bilingual children learning to read and write in both languages, and
Aydin Durgunoglu, who has studied the transfer of phonemic awareness
skills to English. Most promising in this area is the research currently
being sponsored by NICHD on teaching reading to English learners.
California, and the nation, await the results of that research.

Today in California professional consensus within the reading and
bilingual education communities supports the early introduction of
English reading instruction to English learners. Researchers who support
reading instruction in English utilizing a code-based approach (e.g.,
Morgan, Willows, Siegel) universally support oral language instruction
in English as a part of a comprehensive reading program. At question are
the specific features of that oral language instruction and the ways to
support English learners in becoming fully proficient as they learn to
read. At the state level a key REA activity will be to monitor research
as it emerges, to provide advice to REA schools regarding that research
and best practices for English learners, and to work to achieve
professional consensus in this area.

#### ***Professional Development***

California defines high quality professional development as moving
educators away from short-term, inservice training toward a deeper, more
comprehensive approach leading to improvement in teaching and student
learning. The aim of high quality professional development is to
significantly affect what teachers do in the classroom and make a
difference in their ability to help all students reach high standards.
It is based on three guiding principles:

1.  High quality professional development helps teachers to more ably
    address the learning needs of every student, thereby improving the
    learning of all students.

2.  High quality professional development designs will vary in
    accordance with the different phases of a teacher's development.
    Beginning, experienced, and accomplished teachers all need different
    types of support and opportunities for learning and leadership.

3.  Administrators and policymakers who are actively involved in their
    own learning are better able to create and support conditions that
    result in high levels of teacher competency and student achievement.

Professional development rests on a field of knowledge that represents
shared understanding about the complex relationship between teacher
competence and student learning. In the case of reading in California,
the field of knowledge is informed by the English--language arts content
standards, the *Reading/Language Arts Framework,* the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession, and for accomplished teachers,
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

***Content and Context of Professional Development***

To be powerful for students in low-performing schools, the content of
professional development must be addressed within a system of decision
making that ensures that all students are progressing adequately toward
mastery of standards and that appropriate interventions are in place to
support the students who are not. Professional development for REA
schools must possess the elements of effective adult learning and must
support the implementation of a comprehensive program of
reading/language arts; critically important, is professional development
that centers around a system of prevention and intervention that ensures
the success of all students.

Recommendations for improved professional development abound in the
reading reform literature. *Every Child Reading: An Action Plan*
recommends professional development reforms related to research-based
instructional strategies, preservice teacher preparation, ongoing
opportunities for practicing teachers, whole-school reform models,
textbook adoptions, paraprofessionals, and volunteers. (1998, 24-25)
*Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children* proposes many
specific recommendations related to the preparation and professional
support of preschool and primary teachers. The recommendations address a
range of issues including beginning teachers and the necessary knowledge
base for literacy development, ongoing staff development, early
childhood educators, professional reading specialists, and educational
products and inservice development. (1998, 329-334) The National Reading
Panel studied the research on teacher education and reading instruction.
"One clear trend in the data is that where teacher outcomes showed
significant improvement, so did student achievement." (2000, 5-12) "The
research suggests that there is a need, particularly at the inservice
level, for extensive support (both money and time) on a continuing basis
for teacher education efforts. It is also the case that the support must
be continued for an extended period of time." (2000, 5-13)

The themes are consistent---professional development should increase
teacher knowledge, should be long-term, should include coaching,
collaboration, and examination of student data, should be implemented
within the context of school reform models and specific curriculum
programs, and should address the range of professionals who support
children's learning in reading. The path for California in providing
reading programs to its students based on scientific research that yield
high achievement is clear, if not incredibly complex. The foundation of
this effort is teacher knowledge supported by effective programs within
the context of powerful intervention systems. Successfully negotiating
that path for the state's highest poverty and lowest performing schools
will be the contribution of the Reading Excellence Act in California.

## C. Current State Efforts in Reading and Educational Reform and How They Relate to Scientifically Based Research in Reading---The California Reading Initiative

The California Reading Initiative represents a turning point in reading
instruction in the state. It came about in response to the many
challenges facing the state and by several years of low test scores and
poor performance by the school system's youngest students. In 1995, a
broad coalition of educators, parents, members of the community and
state government began to craft a new direction for reading policy in
California.

The result has been a renewed focus on reading as the top priority for
students in kindergarten through third grade, so that all students read
at or above grade level by the end of third grade. Some of the major
components of the California Reading Initiative are:

# [Every Child A Reader, The Report of the Superintendent's Task Force on Reading (1995)]{.underline}

This report recommended that California take a balanced, comprehensive
approach to reading based on scientific research (described in preceding
section).

[Class Size Reduction, K-3.]{.underline}

Class size reduction legislation of 1996 mandates billions of dollars in
education funds to be used to reduce class size in the early grades from
33-1 to 20 or fewer students per certificated teacher. By 1999/2000, all
1^st^ and 2^nd^ grades in the state have 20-1 ratios, 95 percent of
kindergarten, and 90 percent of 3^rd^ grades have 20-1. Class size
reduction exacerbates a chronic teacher shortage. High poverty inner
city and rural schools have trouble retaining and attracting experienced
teachers and have greater numbers of uncredentialed and inexperienced
teachers.

*[Teaching Reading, The Reading Program Advisory (1996)]{.underline}*

This document describes a rationale and a research base for a balanced
and comprehensive approach to the teaching of K-3 reading. Building on
the work of the Superintendent's Reading Task Force, it provided a clear
policy statement on the essential components of a complete program of
early reading instruction, including systematic, explicit skills
instruction, classroom diagnosis, program assessment, and family
literacy interventions.

## [English-Language Arts Content Standards adopted by State Board of Education (1997)]{.underline}

Rigorous standards are established specifying what students should know
and be able to do in language arts in each grade level.

[Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR)]{.underline}

Established in law in 1997, the STAR currently consists of three parts,
a norm-referenced test, a standards test, and a Spanish test. All school
districts in California are required to test each student in grades two
through eleven by May 15 of each year. The State Board of Education
selected the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) 9 as the norm-referenced
test and the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, Second Edition
(SABE/2) is currently being used as the Spanish test. Added in 1999, the
standards test has been developed in alignment with California standards
and is currently being used with the number of items correct being
reported. By 2002, performance levels on this test will be in use.

## [Pupil Promotion and Retention]{.underline}

Three bills were passed in 1998 by the Legislature attempting to end
social promotion. One of the new laws requires all districts to adopt
policies regarding the promotion and retention of students between grade
two and three, three and four, fourth and fifth; between the
intermediate grades and the beginning of middle school and the end of
middle school and the beginning of high school. Another requires direct
systematic and intensive supplemental instruction to students who have
been retained or are at risk of being retained, including summer school,
after school, Saturday, or intersession options.

The sole determinate of retention between 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ grade and
3^rd^ and 4^th^ grade is to be based on reading achievement.

[Proposition 227-English Language Education for Immigrant
Children.]{.underline}

Passed by voters in 1998, Proposition 227 changes the default education
program for English learners (formerly Limited English Proficient) from
bilingual education to English immersion.

## [Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA)]{.underline}

Part of the new Governor Davis's initial educational reform package.
PSAA establishes the Academic Performance Index (API) that uses student
achievement data to rank schools and compare them to similar schools in
the state. School rankings and growth on the API determine eligibility
for rewards or interventions. The API ranking is based upon SAT 9
results.

Another aspect of the Public Schools Accountability Act is the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming School Program in which 430 low ranking
schools are selected to participate. Seventy-seven of these schools have
been awarded Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration grants (CSRD) and
the remaining schools have received \$50,000 planning grants. These
planning schools are required to work with a state-approved external
evaluator to complete a needs assessment and develop an action plan for
reform.

## [Reading Professional Development Institutes]{.underline}

Another part of the Governor's reform effort, these institutes provided
inservice training over the summer and support during the 1999-00 school
year to 6,000 beginning and non-credentialed kindergarten through grade
three teachers. Teams of teachers received intensive professional
development in assessing reading proficiency, monitoring student
progress, and adjusting instructional practice to meet individual
student needs.

## [Elementary School Intensive Reading Program]{.underline}

Part of Governor Davis's education reform package, this program targets
kindergarten through grade four students who are having difficulty
learning to read and provides multiple, intensive reading opportunities.
Emphasizing research based interventions, the program may be offered
before school, after school, on Saturdays, during intersession, or any
combination of these.

## [California Classroom Library Materials Act of 1999]{.underline}

This act appropriates \$10.48 per pupil in grades kindergarten through
grade four to purchase non-textbook fiction and non-fiction books for
classroom libraries.

[AB 2519 Adoption, 1999]{.underline}

AB 2519 specifies requirements for materials that are fully aligned with
the English-Language Arts Standards. An additional \$1 billion is
allocated over a four-year period to standards aligned materials.

The California Reading Initiative continues to describe a consensus in
thinking about reading instruction, professional development, and
teacher preparation; that these efforts must be based on scientific
research that is rigorous, systematic, well-designed, and statistically
valid. This consensus, despite sometimes vigorous differences in
philosophy or approach, continues to be the bedrock of the Initiative.

# III. State Leadership and Oversight

This section describes the design for this project, including the role
of the Reading and Literacy Partnership, project management,
collaboration and coordination elements, and essential features to
ensure the effectiveness of project goals.

The design for the project is derived from several key factors:

-   The challenges facing California from a diverse student population;

-   The specific literacy challenges presented by high poverty, low
    performing schools;

-   The research base on effective reading practice;

-   The need to coordinate the many literacy and school reform
    activities for maximum effectiveness;

-   The role of the Reading Excellence Act grant in shaping responses
    based on these factors.

## A. Reading and Literacy Partnership

Staff from the California Department of Education's Reading and
Mathematics Policy and Leadership Office, representing the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Deputy Secretary for
Education, representing the Governor, have developed a collaborative
working relationship to ensure that implementation of the Reading
Excellence Act (REA) grant program functions in an effective manner.
This began with the selection of the Reading and Literacy Partnership
and extends to every element of the design and implementation of the
project.

In California, the State Superintendent is a statewide elective office,
unlike the other state agencies whose directors are appointed by the
Governor. Also, the California Department of Education (CDE) is a
separate state agency and not represented in the Governor's cabinet.
While nominally a non-partisan office, State Superintendents generally
have easily discerned political affiliations. As California enters the
21^st^ century, we are in a fortunate position in having the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Governor not only from the
same political party, but also aligned in their goals for students.

### A. 1. Composition of the Partnership

Nominations for the Reading and Literacy Partnership were developed from
recommendations made by a broad and diverse cross-section of the
agencies and organizations with a stake in reading and literacy. The
list of nominations was submitted to both the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and the Secretary for Education, representing the Governor.
Additions and modifications were made by both agencies and a final list
was approved.

### Reading and Literacy Partnership

# The Governor Christine Aranda, Deputy Secretary of Education K-12

#  

# The State Superintendent of Public Sonia Hernandez, Deputy Superintendent, 

***Leslie Faussett,** Chief Deputy Superintendent\
California Department of Education*

# The chair and ranking minority Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni

# member of each committee of the Assemblywoman Lynn Leach

# State Legislature responsible for Senator Dede Alpert

# education policy Senator Bruce McPherson

# LEA eligible to receive a subgrant Dr. Jim Sweeney, Superintendent, Sacramento USD

#  

# Maggie Carrillo-Mejia, Superintendent, Montebello USD

#  

# Community-Based Organization Carol Winslow Weinstein, Bay Area Community Resources

### State Directors of Federal or State Larry Jaurequi, Director, Migrant Education

# Programs 

###  Gloria Guzman-Walker, Consultant, Even Start

###  Hanna Walker, Director, Title I

#  

#  Beth Rice, Consultant, Special Education

###  

### Parent Cecelia Mansfield, Vice President, California State Parent Teacher Association

### A teacher and an instructional staff Maureen Begley

### member 

# Linda Smith, Executive Board, California Reading Association

#  

# Family literacy service provider Clinton Pearson, Home Instruction Programs for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) 

> ***Dr. Carol Talan,** Executive Director, State Literacy Resource
> Center, California State Library*

### IHE teacher preparation program Dr. Barbara Schubert, President, California Reading Association

#  

# Dr. Elva Duran, President, California State University, Sacramento

# LEA Dr. Michael Klentschy, Superintendent, El Centro SD

#  

> ***Nancy Giberson**, Assistant Superintendent, San Diego County Office
> of Education*

### Adult education provider Kathy Graham, Coordinator of Special Projects

*Lincoln USD*

### Volunteer organization Marsha Adler, California State University, San Francisco

***School or public library Betty Silva,** President, California School
Library*

> ***Francisca** **Goldsmith,** Senior Librarian, Berkeley Public
> Library*

#  

### Other Ellie Topolovac, Executive Director, California Reads

###  

### Jackie Siminitus, Stakeholder Relations, Pacific Bell

#  Lani Lattin Duke, Director, Reading by 9

*Los Angeles Times*

#  

> ***Sylvia Panetta,** Panetta Institute for Public Policy*

#  California State University, Monterey Bay

#  

#  Nancy Kotowski, Assistant Superintendent

#  Monterey County Office of Education

#  

***Dr. Carol Pugmire,** California Reads*

> ***Jeri Balick,** Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum/Instruction,
> San Bernardino County Office of Education*

# Reading Excellence Act Reviewers Marilyn Astore, Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Support Services, Sacramento County Office of Education

> ***Janie Yuguchi Gates,** Region XII, Southern California.
> Comprehensive Assistance Center*

#  

#  Gretchen Laue, Executive Director

######### *California Reading and Literature Project*

> ***Basha Milhollen,** Region XI, Northern California Comprehensive
> Assistance Center*

***David Muraki,** Deputy Director of Development*

> Commission on Improving Life Through Service

#### ***A. 2. Role of the Partnership in Developing the REA State Plan***

The Reading and Literacy Partnership was initially convened March 8,
1999, to provide input and direction for California's 1999 application
for a Reading Excellence Act grant. The Partnership met again on April
1, 1999, and provided input and recommendations for the application via
FAX and email.

When California's application was not accepted for funding, the Reading
and Literacy Partnership was sent a detailed letter that included a
summary of the reviewer's comments and plans for the 2000 application.
Members were assured that the Partnership would continue and that their
help would be enlisted as the time approached for the 2000 plan
development.

On April 10, 2000 the members of the Reading and Literacy Partnership
received a side-by-side comparison of the 1999 REA application elements
and the proposed changes and modifications for the 2000 application.
Recommendations and suggestions were received via FAX, email, and
telephone. A draft of the proposed 2000 application project design was
sent to members on April 24, 2000, and a meeting of the Partnership was
convened in Sacramento on May 3, 2000.

The Partnership has developed the following mission statement:

> The mission of the Reading and Literacy Partnership is to work with
> the Governor and Superintendent of Public Instruction to dramatically
> improve the ability of our state's neediest and most disadvantaged
> students to read with fluency by the end of third grade; this will
> involve identifying effective uses of resources, developing new
> partnerships and resources, assisting with effective professional
> development programs, and ensuring the active participation of parents
> in the education of their children.

The California Reading and Literacy Partnership provides insight,
direction, and input on the content of the Reading Excellence Act plan
by:

-   Reviewing and commenting upon drafts of the application;

-   Engaging in numerous telephone conversations and consultations with
    CDE staff;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Advising on all aspects of the application process, including
    information on effective practice and research and timelines for
    proposed activities;

.

The members of the Partnership conscientiously contributed to the
development of the final grant application despite an extremely short
timeline and pressing needs because of their leadership positions in
their own organizations.

The grant application represents a consensus from the members of the
Reading and Literacy Partnership (and the constituencies they
represent), the Governor's Office, and the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction on the most effective use of Reading Excellence Act
funds to serve the poorest and most disadvantaged K-3 students in
California.

B. State Education Activities under the Reading Excellence Act

California intends to use the Reading Excellence Act (REA) to focus
attention on those schools that are the least served and have the
highest needs in terms of K-3 literacy. It will serve as a focal point
to assist districts, schools, and families in making optimal use of the
myriad of resources available, and create an impetus for new responses
to improve early literacy.

##### The REA State Plan---A Three Tiered Approach

California's state plan is a three-tiered approach:

1.  State Level Collaborative Efforts

2.  District Level Participation and Leadership

3.  School Level Capacity Building

B. 1. Timeline, Key Activities, Staffing

**State Level Collaborative Efforts**

> **[The California Reading Center (CRC)]{.underline}**
>
> Project management for the REA will be located in the **California
> Reading Center** established in the Reading and Mathematics Policy and
> Leadership Office, the California Department of Education (CDE). The
> CRC is designed as a collaborative effort between the State
> Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Governor, through the
> Governor's Office of Education, and partners such as the California
> Reading and Literature Project, the Region XII Southern California
> Comprehensive Assistance Center and the Western Assessment
> Collaborative, WestED.
>
> The CRC will direct project activities with a staff composed of a
> Center Director, two reading/professional development experts, a web
> master, and support staff. In addition to day-to-day project
> management activities, the CRC:

-   Facilitates the development and dissemination of project
    professional development opportunities;

-   Convenes bi-monthly meeting of all staff and partners of the CRC;

-   Coordinates data collection and analysis and serves as liaison for
    project evaluation activities;

-   Coordinates all subgrant review, award, and management activities;

-   Coordinates with the Reading and Literacy Partnership;

-   Develops and maintains a set of web pages specifically aimed at REA
    participants and similar schools.

-   Supports two satellite centers located in southern and northern
    California;

-   Supports Regional Literacy Coordinators, located in the satellite
    centers.

###### Satellite Offices of the California Reading Center

> Two satellite offices will be established in southern and northern
> California to serve the most populous regions in the state. Serving
> eight southern California County Offices of Education and an
> additional thirty-two out of the San Francisco/Oakland bay area these
> offices reach over 75 percent of the students in eligible districts in
> the state. The CRC main office in Sacramento will serve any remaining
> REA project districts.
>
> The satellite offices will be conducted by the Region XII Southern
> California Comprehensive Assistance Center and the Region XI Northern
> California Comprehensive Assistance Center at WestED. Each of these
> centers has a long history of providing quality professional
> development and technical assistance in the areas of reading,
> literacy, and coaching.
>
> The satellite centers bring the services of the CRC to participating
> REA districts and schools on a regional level by:

-   Disseminating statewide professional development opportunities;

-   Providing professional development in instructional practice and
    assessment based on scientific research and designed to meet the
    specific needs of individual schools and districts;

-   Supporting school site literacy teams;

-   Coaching and mentoring school personnel to develop their leadership
    capacity;

-   Assisting in data collection and analysis for both local program
    evaluation and improvement and statewide project evaluation.

###### Regional Literacy Coordinators

> To support district and school site literacy improvement efforts,
> staff of the CRC and the two satellite centers will serve as Regional
> Literacy Coordinators. There will be a total of twelve Regional
> Literacy Coordinators statewide: eight in Southern California, two in
> the San Francisco/Oakland bay area, and two in Sacramento.
>
> The Regional Literacy Coordinators (RLC) serve as a link between
> project management and development services and participating REA
> school districts. These RLCs provide direct service to district staff
> through inservice training and technical assistance. They provide the
> services outlined above.

***District Level Participation and Leadership***

####### District Literacy Coach

> Each participating REA district with two or more schools will hire a
> District Literacy Coach, a reading and professional development expert
> to work directly with each of the participating REA schools. The
> District Literacy Coach will work in cooperation with the Regional
> Literacy Coordinator, the California Reading Center and its satellite
> offices, to secure resources and technical assistance.
>
> The District Literacy Coach will work on-site at REA schools providing
> in-class coaching and observation, training, and guidance to classroom
> teachers and the School Site Literacy Coach. The District Literacy
> Coach will also work collaboratively with the school site Reading
> Leadership Team. A primary responsibility of the District Literacy
> Coach is to build the capacity of the school to institutionalize and
> sustain its reading improvement efforts.

######## *K-3 Literacy Plan*

> California is engaged in implementing a standards-driven curriculum.
> The adoption of statewide standards for *English-language arts* in
> 1997 and a *Reading/Language Arts Framework* to guide instruction in
> 1998 requires that both districts and schools align curriculum,
> instruction, and assessment in all their classrooms.
>
> Effective schools engage in collaborative planning efforts as a
> natural part of their organization; ineffective schools are more
> chaotic in their organization and approach issues in a more fragmented
> manner. In order to move schools with large numbers of underachieving
> students toward the goal of improving K-3 reading through systematic
> implementation of standards and improved instructional strategies
> based on scientific research in reading, planning is an integral
> feature of this project.
>
> Applicant districts and schools will be required to develop a
> kindergarten through grade three Literacy Plan as part of their grant
> implementation efforts.

The plan focuses on:

-   Improving classroom instruction through targeted professional
    development;

-   Extending learning opportunities for students through tutoring and
    supplemental assistance during non-class times;

-   Involving parents in the education of their children;

-   Providing early literacy intervention;

-   Requiring that all training, instruction, support, and other
    interventions be based on scientifically based research on reading;

-   Identifying students whose difficulties in reading make the
    transition from kindergarten to first grade problematic and the
    process for assisting those students to learn to read by the end of
    first grade;

-   Identifying instructional strategies and methodologies for use with
    students who are English learners;

-   Identifying the assessments used to determine reading levels of
    students at specific intervals and to inform instruction.

> Districts currently engage in numerous planning efforts for Title I,
> school library materials, and other categorical programs. They will
> use the K-3 Literacy Plan as an opportunity to consolidate and
> coordinate the literacy components of these various plans.

***School Level Capacity Building***

###### School Literacy Teams

> In order to build the capacity of high-poverty, low-performing schools
> to implement and sustain improvement efforts in reading instruction,
> each school will create a literacy team composed of:

a.  A teacher or teachers from each grade level, kindergarten through
    third;

b.  The principal;

c.  The reading resource specialist or program specialist;

d.  A teacher from each grade level in the school beyond third grade;

e.  School site library media teacher

f.  Other instructional or administrative staff deemed necessary by the
    school.

> The presence of a team at each school campus is designed to maintain
> continuity of the reading instructional program. Low-performing
> schools are often marked by: high states of flux and turmoil; high
> turnover rates of both teachers and administrators; high mobility
> rates of students; and large numbers of new or inexperienced teachers.
> A Literacy Team can institutionalize the philosophy, goals,
> objectives, and strategies of a consistent approach to reading
> instruction.
>
> The major activities of the Literacy Team are:

-   To develop and maintain a balanced, comprehensive reading
    instruction program based on the statewide *Reading/Language Arts*
    standards and framework;

-   To engage in professional development activities designed to enhance
    their own knowledge and skills in teaching reading;

-   To serve as mentors to other classroom teachers in the area of
    reading;

-   To provide professional development, technical assistance, and
    coaching to instructional staff in an ongoing manner, either
    formally in workshops and by developing a professional development
    plan, or informally in classrooms, staff meetings, small discussion
    groups, peer coaching;

-   To open their classrooms for visits and observations by other
    teachers and instructional staff as part of their professional
    development activities;

-   To assist in the selection of both instructional materials and
    reading materials for students.

-   To work with the principal and other school administrators to align
    the school's organizational structure to maximize the use of time
    and resources to support student learning and teacher collaboration,
    planning, and professional growth.

> School Literacy Teams are essential in helping schools to organize in
> order to assure that all students can read by the end of third grade.
> A collaborative team of teachers, administrators, and other
> instructional staff can increase the capacity of a school to work
> together in forming and maintaining a common purpose in terms of
> reading instruction. By insisting on collaborative planning and
> cohesive implementation of instruction, the Literacy Team can help
> overcome the fragmentation and disorganization that often characterize
> a low-performing school.

######## *School Site Literacy Coordinator*

Each participating school will select a Literacy Coach/Coordinator. It
is anticipated that this position will evolve from the Literacy Team.
Each school will develop its own procedure for selecting a Literacy
Coach/Coordinator. The duties are:

-   Facilitate the planning and implementation efforts of the Literacy
    Team;

-   Facilitate the logistics of operating the Literacy Team;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Function as a coach and mentor for teachers implementing reading
    instruction strategies;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coordinate assessment and data collection activities.

The School Site Literacy Coordinator could be a Title I resource
teacher, reading or program specialist, or a teacher leader.

School Site Literacy Leadership---The Principal and Other Instructional
Leaders

> The school principal is a major factor in the success or failure of
> school improvement efforts. Research supports the idea that a strong,
> involved, and knowledgeable principal is an essential component of
> school success. As more demands are placed on the principal to assume
> responsibility as the instructional leader of the school and to be
> held accountable for student achievement, in addition to the myriad
> other responsibilities and accountabilities, this position is
> experiencing an unusually high degree of attrition.
>
> In recognizing the time constraints placed on principals, it is
> imperative that REA participating schools support principals in the
> reading improvement efforts at their school. The School Site Literacy
> Coordinator, the reading specialist, Title I resource teacher, and the
> library media teacher will provide that literacy leadership by working
> closely with the principal to increase the capacity of the school to
> institutionalize early reading improvement.
>
> Milbrey McLaughlin's 1990 study that revisited The Rand Change Agent
> Study raised several implications about educational change that have
> since been supported by more recent research. Among these was the
> dominance of the idiosyncratic local factors that make school
> improvement efforts problematic. Thus, the success or failure of
> programs to improve K-3 reading achievement depend more strongly upon
> local choices about *how* the program will be implemented than on
> funding levels, program design, technology, or program requirements.
> It is the notion that local capacity, including the motivation to make
> meaningful changes in current practice, is the strongest determinate
> in whether an educational change effort is successful. This has
> resulted in the educational change literature focus on *systemic*
> change, the interconnected elements that influence classroom teaching
> and learning. The principal, because of his or her position as both
> the organizational and instructional leader, is the key individual in
> this systemic change effort.
>
> The principal and the other literacy leaders at school will be
> supported through a web page connecting them with other project
> principals and school site personnel. The web site will feature news,
> information, policy issues, and a bulletin board function for
> questions and answers and resource sharing.
>
> Effective schools research shows principals who participate in
> professional development with their staff are better able to ensure
> successful program implementation efforts at their school. The
> original Rand Change Agent Study found that principal's participation
> in training contributed to the expertise, capacity, and motivation of
> the school, the most critical elements in successful program
> implementation.
>
> All project professional development opportunities for instructional
> staff will also require principal participation for all or a
> significant portion of the activity.
>
> The University of California is developing a Governor's Principal
> Leadership Academy at its Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses. Designed
> to be a two-year administrator preparation program, the California
> Department of Education will collaborate with the University of
> California on adopting appropriate components of the Academy to serve
> the inservice training needs of principals.

TIMELINE FOR STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVIES UNDER REA

+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
|          | **STATE LEVEL ACTIVITIES**    | **LOCAL ACTIVITIES**      |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Summe  | -   State announces Tutorial  | -   Districts post notice |
| r-Winter |     Assistance Grants         |     of availability of    |
| 2000**   |                               |     Tutorial Assistance   |
|          | -   State develops RFAs and   |     Grants                |
|          |     hosts regional            |                           |
|          |     application workshops for | -   Eligible districts    |
|          |     Local Reading Improvement |     discuss application   |
|          |     (LRI) and Tutorial        |     possibility with      |
|          |     Assistance Grants (TAG)   |     eligible schools      |
|          |                               |                           |
|          | -   State provides RFA and    | -   Districts select a    |
|          |     other grant information   |     team to attend        |
|          |     on CDE website            |     application workshop  |
|          |                               |                           |
|          | -   State forms Advisory      | -   District/school team  |
|          |     Group for Teaching        |     prepare and submit    |
|          |     Reading to English        |     district application  |
|          |     Language Learners         |                           |
|          |                               |                           |
|          | -   State convenes first of   |                           |
|          |     quarterly meetings of     |                           |
|          |     California Reading Center |                           |
|          |     and Satellite Centers to  |                           |
|          |     plan ongoing work         |                           |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Spring | -   Grant applications        | -   Grantee districts and |
| 2001**   |     submitted and scored      |     schools do final      |
|          |                               |     planning for grant    |
|          | -   Grants announced and      |     activities            |
|          |     posted on website         |                           |
|          |                               | -   Grantee districts and |
|          | -   State initiates LRI/TAG   |     schools do needs      |
|          |     web site with information |     assessment for        |
|          |     on state adopted          |     professional          |
|          |     materials, professional   |     development           |
|          |     development offerings,    |                           |
|          |     reading research, contact | -   LRI schools identify  |
|          |     information, and meeting  |     ongoing School        |
|          |     dates                     |     Literacy Teams        |
|          |                               |                           |
|          | -   State posts RFP and       | -   Evaluator begins      |
|          |     selects evaluator         |     collection of         |
|          |                               |     baseline data         |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Summer | -   CRC and Satellite Centers | -   Grantee schools send  |
| 2001**   |     (RSN Regional Coaches)    |     teams to 5 day        |
|          |     work with school reading  |     Reading Professional  |
|          |     leadership on developing  |     Development           |
|          |     the K-3 Literacy Plan and |     Institutes            |
|          |     thinking strategically    |                           |
|          |     about creating a literacy | -   LRI schools and       |
|          |     focused school            |     districts hire School |
|          |                               |     Site Coordinators and |
|          | -   School's In and/or        |     District Literacy     |
|          |     regional sessions on      |     Coaches               |
|          |     supporting family         |                           |
|          |     literacy, coordinating    | -   Schools identify      |
|          |     tutoring programs, K-1    |     reading leadership    |
|          |     transition activities,    |     (principal, School    |
|          |     supporting reading for    |     Site Literacy         |
|          |     English language          |     Coordinator, library  |
|          |     learners, and parent      |     media teacher, Title  |
|          |     involvement in reading    |     I resource teacher,   |
|          |     through the               |     and/or reading        |
|          |     *School-Home-Links*,      |     specialist)           |
|          |     motivating students       |                           |
|          |     through California Reads  | -   TAG schools hire      |
|          |     activities, and building  |     coordinator           |
|          |     and using school          |                           |
|          |     libraries                 | -   TAG schools begin     |
|          |                               |     implementation of     |
|          |                               |     site-based tutoring   |
|          |                               |     program, select       |
|          |                               |     tutors and students   |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Fall   | -   CRC and Satellite Centers | -   LRI districts conduct |
| 2001**   |     begin to provide coaching |     materials selection   |
|          |     and similar services for  |     process if            |
|          |     schools that request      |     appropriate           |
|          |     services (topics include  |                           |
|          |     assessing students,       | -   TAG schools identify  |
|          |     research-based            |     and select            |
|          |     instruction, connecting   |     community-based       |
|          |     to families, supporting   |     tutoring projects     |
|          |     English language          |                           |
|          |     learners, and other       | -   TAG schools train     |
|          |     students with special     |     tutors and begin      |
|          |     needs, etc.)              |     operation of          |
|          |                               |     site-based tutoring   |
|          |                               |     programs              |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+

TIMELINE FOR STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVIES UNDER REA\
(continued)

+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Winter | -   CRC and Satellite Centers | -   LRI schools           |
| 2001-**  |     provide ongoing           |     participate in        |
|          |     professional development  |     ongoing Reading       |
| **Spring |     and coaching services on  |     Professional          |
| 2002**   |     various aspects of the    |     Development Institute |
|          |     two programs              |     sessions for 40 hours |
|          |                               |                           |
|          | -   CRC and Satellite Centers | -   LRI schools           |
|          |     continue support for      |     coordinate activities |
|          |     school leadership         |     for family literacy   |
|          |                               |     parent involvement,   |
|          | -   CRC and Satellite Centers |     K-1 transition,       |
|          |     monitor implementation    |     tutoring or other     |
|          |     progress and provide      |     community-based       |
|          |     feedback to schools       |     support               |
|          |                               |                           |
|          |                               | -   TAG schools           |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Summer | -   School's In and/or        | -   LRI schools that have |
| 2002**   |     regional sessions on      |     not sent teams to     |
|          |     supporting family         |     Reading Professional  |
|          |     literacy, coordinating    |     Development Institute |
|          |     tutoring programs, K-1    |     5-day sessions do so  |
|          |     transition activities,    |     now                   |
|          |     supporting reading for    |                           |
|          |     English language          | -   Evaluator collects    |
|          |     learners, parent          |     and processes year    |
|          |     involvement in reading    |     one data              |
|          |     through                   |                           |
|          |     *School-Home-Links*,      |                           |
|          |     motivating students,      |                           |
|          |     California Reads,         |                           |
|          |     building and using school |                           |
|          |     libraries etc.)           |                           |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Fall   | -   CRC and Satellite Centers | -   LRI schools           |
| 200      |     provide professional      |     participate in        |
| 2-Spring |     development and coaching  |     Reading Success       |
| 2003**   |     (topics include assessing |     Network coaching and  |
|          |     students, research-based  |     peer-coaching         |
|          |     instruction, connecting   |     activities            |
|          |     to families, supporting   |                           |
|          |     English language learners | -   TAG schools refine    |
|          |     and other students with   |     operation of tutoring |
|          |     special needs, etc.)      |     programs              |
|          |                               |                           |
|          | -   CRC and Satellite Centers | -   District Literacy     |
|          |     provide peer-coach        |     Coaches and school    |
|          |     development for all       |     leadership teams plan |
|          |     schools                   |     for sustainability of |
|          |                               |     the reading           |
|          | -   CRC and Satellite Centers |                           |
|          |     monitor implementation    | -   Evaluator collects    |
|          |     progress and provide      |     second year data      |
|          |     feedback to schools       |     through site visits,  |
|          |                               |     review of student     |
|          |                               |     assessments and       |
|          |                               |     survey                |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Sum    | -   CRC and Satellite Centers | -   Schools and districts |
| mer-Fall |     collect data on ongoing   |     review progress and   |
| 2003**   |     needs for reading support |     renew plans for site  |
|          |                               |     literacy              |
|          |                               |                           |
|          |                               | -   Evaluator analyzes    |
|          |                               |     data and develops     |
|          |                               |     report                |
+----------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+

B. 2. Statewide Professional Development

> Rationale
>
> The core of California's effort to improve K-3 reading achievement is
> a focus on the classroom, on teaching and learning.
>
> Michael Fullan in his book on educational reform, *Change Forces*,
> makes the case that successful change efforts must concentrate on what
> happens in classrooms. He further states, as one of his eight lessons
> of educational change, that \"You can't mandate what matters." While
> classroom practice must change as a consequence of new standards, a
> new curriculum framework, and improved instructional strategies---all
> informed by scientifically based research in reading---these complex
> goals of change depend on the skills, creative thinking, and committed
> action of the classroom teacher. Successful implementation is reliant
> upon the attitudes, skills, and expertise of the teacher and his or
> her willingness to embrace change.
>
> Interventions aimed at supporting and empowering teachers are at the
> center of statewide professional development efforts in this project.
> Empowering teachers means building their sense of professionalism,
> supporting them in gaining the confidence to examine current practice
> and make necessary changes.
>
> In a 1991 study, *Teacher Empowerment and Professional Knowledge* by
> Liechtenstein, McLaughlin, and Knudsen, the researchers found that
> knowledge was the key to teacher empowerment---professionally relevant
> knowledge. They identified three overlapping areas of essential
> knowledge for teachers:

1.  Knowledge of the professional community---interaction with other
    professionals, networking and sharing ideas, learning about their
    practice, their successes and also failures;

2.  Knowledge of education policy---awareness of the policy debates at
    district, state, and national levels, enlarging their knowledge of
    the broader policy system, of which they are a part;

3.  Knowledge of subject matter---enhances their authority and
    professional discretion, fosters their engagement with the
    discipline, and leads to new and deeper levels of understanding.

> The California Department of Education is in a unique position to
> plan, coordinate, and implement professional development opportunities
> to support and extend the knowledge of participating school and
> district personnel through the Reading and Literacy Partnership,
> formed as part of California's statewide plan for the Reading
> Excellence Act.
>
> Through the collaborative efforts of all the members of the
> Partnership, the CDE will be able to provide regional workshops,
> statewide conferences, summer institutes, and teleconferences,
> publications and advisories to keep project participants informed of
> policy and legislative initiatives affecting reading instruction.
> Members of the Partnership represent:

-   The Governor's Office

-   The Legislature

-   Parents

-   Community-based organizations

-   School and public libraries

-   Professional development providers

-   Colleges and universities

> The specific content of these statewide professional development
> opportunities will have the following goals for participants:

1.  To provide information and training on effective research-based
    instructional strategies and programs for underachieving students;

2.  To set instructional goals and objectives based on the
    *English-Language Arts Standards;*

3.  To develop diagnostic and assessment skills and to use those skills
    to assist underachieving students to progress toward meeting
    instructional goals and objectives;

4.  To be informed of policy and legislative initiatives affecting
    reading instruction and support;

5.  To be informed of the latest research findings in the area of
    reading, reading instruction, and teaching young students with
    reading difficulties;

6.  To develop recognition of the importance of collaborative reflection
    on current practice and analysis of student work as a means to
    improve instruction.

> ***[Pre-Application Technical Assistance]{.underline}***

-   **Two-Day Grant Application Workshop.** Districts and schools
    eligible to apply for REA subgrants will be invited to attend
    two-day workshops to: learn the goals of REA; gain an understanding
    of scientifically based research in reading, including the results
    of the National Reading Panel Report and the fundamentals of
    *Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children*; address issues
    of family literacy and meeting the needs of English learners and
    students with special needs; and receive specific assistance in
    addressing the REA subgrant requirements.

-   **Convene A Task Force on Teaching Reading to English Learners**.
    Given the relative scarcity of resources, including research,
    available to address the issues of teaching reading to English
    learners, a task force of program experts will be convened by
    subgroup of the Reading and Literacy Partnership to reach a
    consensus on recommendations for early reading content and
    strategies, relevant research, and English language development. REA
    resources, together with additional resources from the California
    Department of Education and the Governor's Office of Education will
    be used to develop professional development opportunities for staff
    from participating schools and districts.

######### *Integration With On-Going Professional Development Efforts*

-   The Reading Success Network (RSN). A professional development
    program focusing on improving reading achievement in grades K-3, the
    RSN uses research-based reading strategies, diagnostic and
    assessment instruments, and strategies to use data for instructional
    decision making. Among the activities and resources offered are:

    -   Training in cognitive coaching skills

    -   Reading assessment and data analysis workshops

    -   Early intervention strategies and alternative assessment

    -   Instructional strategies for use with English learners

    -   On-going training and discussion time for principals

    -   Taking a Reading: A Teacher's Guide to Reading Assessment,
        diagnostic and assessment instruments and instructions for
        administration, scoring, and interpreting results

    -   Prevention/Intervention: A Way of Thinking, research-based
        strategies linked to assessment instruments

> The Reading Success Network is disseminated by the Region XII Southern
> California Comprehensive Assistance Center and the Region XI Northern
> California Comprehensive Assistance Center at WestED. These centers,
> in collaboration with REA project management, will serve as the two
> satellite offices of the California Reading Center. Staff of these
> centers, functioning as Regional Literacy Coordinators for the REA
> grant project, will bring the resources of the Reading Success Network
> to participating districts and schools. The RSN will develop a special
> leadership training series for district and school literacy leaders
> who have previously received training through the Reading Professional
> Development Institutes.

-   Reading Professional Development Institutes (RPDI). In 1999, as part
    of educational reform legislation introduced by the Governor, the
    RPDI were established to provide intensive reading instruction for
    K-3 teachers. Designed primarily for new or inexperienced teachers,
    the RPDI provide a five-day summer institute for ten-person teams
    from schools, 40 hours of follow up workshops during the school
    year, and data collection and project evaluation. In 1999, 6,000
    teachers were trained; in 2000, 20,000 will be trained. Schools
    participating in the REA project will be required to send teams to
    the RPDI, if they have not already attended. The components of the
    program are:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The use of standards-linked assessment tools

-   Instructional practices that are grounded in current theory and
    research

-   Efforts to build school teams that analyze student data and adjust
    instruction appropriately

> In addition to training on research based instructional strategies in
> reading, the RPDI train teachers to conduct a reading assessment
> battery called RESULTS. Compatible with the assessment training
> provided by the Reading Success Network, RESULTS trains teachers to
> assess:

-   Phoneme awareness

-   The alphabetic principle

-   Phonics

-   Decoding skills

-   Word attack skills

-   Spelling and vocabulary

-   Fluency

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reading Professional Development Institutes (RPDI) in Spanish.
    Beginning in 2000, the RPDI will present the reading professional
    development institutes and the RESULTS assessment in Spanish, for
    those teachers working in alternative program classrooms. Not only
    will the sessions be conducted in Spanish, but all the materials and
    assessments will be provided in Spanish. While the advent of
    Proposition 227 resulted in a major shift in emphasis in California
    for the education of English learners (limited English proficient)
    to structured English immersion, almost 180,000 students, mostly
    Spanish speaking, are still receiving primary language instruction.
    REA project schools with bilingual programs will be expected to
    attend the Spanish version of the RPDI.

> [Statewide and Regional Professional Development]{.underline}
>
> The following professional development opportunities will be presented
> on a statewide or regional basis. The precise breakdown of
> presentation sites will depend upon the final selection of subgrantees
> and the type of presentation.

-   Reading/Language Arts Frameworks Workshops. The frameworks, which
    contain the English-Language Arts standards, have been presented to
    educators in a series of awareness workshops conducted in 1998-99.
    Educators, particularly classroom teachers, need specific training
    in instructional and assessment practices for standards-driven, K-3
    reading instruction. These workshops will be designed to focus on
    implementation strategies for low-performing schools and complement
    the training REA participant schools will receive from both the
    Reading Success Network provided by the California Reading Center
    and its satellite offices and the Governor's Reading Professional
    Development Institutes.

-   Teaching Reading to English Learners Workshops. Based on the
    recommendations of the task force on educating English learners, the
    California Reading Center will develop and organize delivery of
    presentations designed to clarify best practices in teaching reading
    to students who are simultaneously learning the English language.

-   Instructional Materials Showcases. These professional development
    opportunities will feature sample materials from the AB 2519
    adoption that are based on scientifically based reading research.
    Information will also be provided on materials funding sources.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Symposia on Reading Research. Two statewide symposia will be
    organized, one in southern California and one in the north,
    featuring the most recent research on reading and the use of this
    research in selecting reading instruction content and strategies.

-   Reading Motivation. California Reads, designed by Books and Beyond,
    a former National Diffusion Network program, is currently
    collaborating with the California Department of Education, the
    Eisenhower State Grant Program, the Governor's Reading Award
    Program, and the Reading Excellence Program. California Reads is a
    research-based program that focuses on motivating students to read
    extensively. In its current form, California Reads has provided
    training to approximately 400 schools over the last two years. It
    combines activities that contribute to extensive reading and
    writing, family involvement and family literacy, student motivation,
    support activities such as tutoring, and community partnerships.
    Statewide training sessions will be provided in regional locations
    by California Reads staff with California Department of Education
    support.

-   Parent Connections. School-Home Links Reading Kit is a publication
    of the U.S. Department of Education that provides interactive
    student/parent activities at grades K-3 that promote literacy. In
    California, an English/Spanish version has been produced that is
    aligned with California Standards. This version will be highlighted
    at both the Achieving Schools Conference and the School's In
    Conference during the coming year. In addition, California is
    serving as one of five pilot sites for trainings-of-trainers in how
    best to use School-Home-Links to promote student literacy and parent
    involvement.

-   **Web-Based Professional Development Activities.** The California
    Department of Education web site, cde.ca.gov., will provide links to
    web-based resources for teachers. An example of a particularly
    useful web site for literacy and library resources in the California
    Reads Roundtable site, supported by the California State Library and
    members of the California Reads Roundtable. Web-based resources will
    include:

    -   Best practices in reading instruction

    -   Scientifically based reading research

    -   Teacher/tutor tools

    -   Evaluation and assessment tools

    -   Creating partnerships with community-based organizations

In addition, the California Reading Center will establish a Listserv for
project participants to disseminate research findings, project
information, and other information and project news. This will serve to
further link project participants and create networking opportunities.

# B. 3. Grant Application Technical Assistance & Training

Districts eligible to apply for Reading Improvement (LRI) and Tutorial
Assistance (TAS) grants will be given a competitive priority if they
send a defined team to a two-day Grant Application Workshop held in six
regions throughout the state. The Grant Application Team is to be
composed of the following:

-   District administrators responsible for Title I, Program
    Improvement, and K-3 reading programs, (at least two)

-   Representatives from each school interested in receiving Reading
    Excellence Act funding including at least one from each of the first
    three groups:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Classroom teachers from grades K-3,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reading or program specialists,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The principal or other school administrator,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   And, if appropriate, a parent, the library media teacher,
    representatives from community-based organizations, or others with a
    stake in K-3 literacy.

These teams, composed of district and school staff are designed to:

-   Begin the process of building capacity for change, planning, and
    improvement efforts;

-   Develop buy-in and support at both the district and school level.
    Personnel will begin the planning process, gain insight into the
    scope and purpose of the Reading Excellence Act and what the grant
    process is intended to achieve, and help assure that grant funds
    will be used effectively. Districts unwilling or unable to send
    teams to the Grant Application Workshops may lack the organizational
    readiness and motivation to successfully implement an LRI or TAS
    grant.

-   Begin the process of collaboration and redefinition of working
    relationships and roles between and among district and school staff
    necessary to bring about significant improvement in K-3 reading;

-   Model the collaborative process necessary to create an effective
    application including needs assessment, planning, and goal and
    objective development; the purpose is to discourage the use of the
    district's grant writer working in relative isolation and instead to
    encourage teamwork, cooperative reflection on current practice, and
    needed changes.

The **Grant Application Workshops** will be two-day professional
development opportunities held in six regions throughout the state. The
content will include:

A.  The goals and requirements of the Reading Excellence Act, LRI and
    TAS grants

B.  Elements of a process for becoming a literacy-focused school

-   Literacy planning and leadership

-   Research-based programs and materials

-   Teacher professional development and peer coaching

-   Using school and public libraries

-   Supporting reading success for all students: family literacy, early
    reading experiences, tutoring, support for English language learners
    and other students with special needs

-   Focusing students and families on extensive reading

-   Building commitment and sustainability

C.  Characteristics of a balanced, comprehensive reading program as laid
    out in *Teaching Reading,* California's Reading Program Advisory and
    informed by the research base in reading.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  An organized, explicit skills program that includes phonemic
    awareness; systematic, explicit phonics; and decoding skills to
    address the needs of the emergent reader;

2)  A strong literature, language, and comprehension program that
    includes a balance of oral and written language ( this component
    will include research-based practices such as guided oral reading to
    build fluency, appropriate vocabulary instruction, and explicit
    teaching of comprehension skills);

3)  Ongoing diagnosis that informs teaching and assessment that ensures
    accountability (this component will include analysis of student
    assessments);

4)  A powerful early intervention program that provides individual
    tutoring for children at risk of reading failure (also included here
    are other interventions such as family literacy activities, support
    for students transitioning to first grade who are not ready to read,
    and interventions for English language learners in structured
    English immersion programs).

5)  Not included in *Teaching Learning*, but an important component of a
    complete reading program, a process for motivating and engaging
    readers and their families.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  Presentations on research in instructional strategies and
    professional development, specifically the findings of the National
    Reading Panel Report and *Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young
    Children*

E.  Examples of effective reading programs that meet the requirements of
    the Reading Excellence Act

# B. 3. b. Local Reading Improvement Grant Application Requirements

**(Applications for Tutorial Assistance Grants are discussed in Section
5)**

Application requirements will be tied to research findings. Applicants
will be asked to submit a K-3 Literacy Plan, indicating how they will
address the components of the act at both the district level and the
school level in order to improve the success of students in learning to
read.

## [K-3 Literacy Plan]{.underline}

In order to encourage schools with large numbers of underachieving
students to improve K-3 reading, applicant districts and schools will be
required to develop a K-3 Literacy Plan as part of their grant
application and implementation efforts. The plan focuses on:

-   Improving classroom instruction through targeted professional
    development;

-   Extending learning opportunities for students through tutoring and
    supplemental assistance during non-class times;

-   Involving parents in the education of their children;

-   Providing early literacy intervention;

-   Requiring that all training, instruction, support, and other
    interventions be based on scientifically based research on reading;

-   Identifying students whose difficulties in reading make the
    transition from kindergarten to first grade problematic and the
    process for assisting those students to learn to read by the end of
    first grade;

-   Identifying instructional strategies and methodologies for use with
    students who are English learners;

-   Identifying the assessments used to determine reading levels of
    students at specific intervals and to inform instruction.

Districts should integrate this plan with the existing IASA Program
Improvement Plan in such a manner that the school's resources, from
whatever source, are focused on ensuring that all students learn to read
by third grade. Schools that have developed a schoolwide plan should
also ensure that the K-3 Literacy Plan becomes part of the schoolwide
plan.

***B. 3. c. Scoring and Criteria***

The quality criteria against which Local Reading Improvement Grant
applications will be scored are:

1)  [Readiness for Change]{.underline}: (15 points total, 10 priority
    points for sending a team of five or more to one of the information
    sessions, 5 priority points if this is the third year of program
    improvement for at least one of the proposed schools, thereby
    requiring district corrective action.)

2)  [Processes for Selecting Leadership Personnel]{.underline}: (10
    points) Five points for adequacy of the processes for selecting and
    maintaining the school site literacy team. Five points for adequacy
    of the processes for selecting the School Literacy Coordinator and
    the District Literacy Coach.

3)  [Quality of the Examination of Current District and School Resources
    and Requirements:]{.underline} (15 points) The application provides
    a detailed analysis of all resources, planning efforts, initiatives,
    and requirements that affect K-3 literacy in proposed schools. The
    application clearly describes current reading programs, materials,
    and recent professional development in proposed schools.

4)  [Quality of the Partnership with a Community-Based
    Organization]{.underline}: (15 points) The application provides a
    clear and convincing description of a viable partnership that has
    been formed with a community-based organization of demonstrated
    effectiveness in early childhood literacy and reading readiness,
    reading instruction, and reading achievement, or a convincing
    statement is provided of why such a partnership is not feasible.

5)  [Quality of the Initial Proposal for Meeting Grant
    Requirements]{.underline}: (25 points)\
    The application provides a thoughtful initial proposal for meeting
    the various grant requirements including those for reading program
    and materials, professional development, family literacy, K-1
    transition, and additional support in non-instructional time.

6)  [Quality of Support for English Language Learners and Students
    At-Risk for Special Education:]{.underline} (5 points) The narrative
    presents a convincing discussion of how the grant will be used to
    provide instruction for English language learners and students
    at-risk of being referred for special education and those who have
    been referred but have not been found to possess learning
    disabilities.

7)  [Promotion of Reading Incentive and Library Programs]{.underline}:
    (5 points) The application provides a convincing discussion of how
    reading or library materials that provide access to engaging reading
    material and encourage students to read extensively will be promoted
    and coordinated with the other reading activities within the school.

8)  [Budget Narrative and Justification]{.underline}: (total of 10
    points)\
    5 points - The budget justification lays out a clear rationale for
    the amount and use of funds received under the grant. The proposed
    expenditures are well documented and appropriate.\
    \
    5 points -- The application identifies funding sources for each of
    the major project areas, reading program, professional development,
    family literacy, kindergarten to first grade transition, and
    additional support in non-instructional time. It is clear that each
    portion of the overall program has an adequate source of funding and
    that the district has considered the manner in which all available
    sources of funding that are or can be focused on reading can be used
    most efficiently.

***B. 3. d. District Selection of Schools***

In California, there are over 1300 schools eligible to receive Reading
Excellence Act grants. (This does not include schools in Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities who will be eligible for Tutorial
Assistance Grants.) Approximately 300 of these schools have been
identified for three years. Certain schools within this group are being
targeted for Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program
(IIUSP) planning or implementation funding or other special state reform
monies. About 200 of these schools are not yet receiving additional
reform dollars.

In allocating Local Reading Improvement Grants, priority schools will be
those that are currently identified for Program Improvement (or that
have the highest or second highest number of poor children in the
district, or the highest or second highest percent of poor children in
the district) but have not yet been identified for any special school
reform funding packages. In this manner, Reading Excellence Act and
other reform funds will be distributed to many of the schools in
greatest need.

[Priority]{.underline}: Although districts may select any schools that
meet the REA eligibility criteria, preference points will be given to
districts that propose at least some schools that have been in Program
Improvement status for three years. Districts will be encouraged to
involve as many of these three-year schools as is feasible. Because
districts are required to take corrective action of some type in these
schools, there is an expectation that district personnel will be more
involved than is always the case.

[Limitation]{.underline}: There is a limit on the number of schools that
may participate in each district. Participation is limited to the
greater of: a) two eligible schools, or b) 20 percent of the eligible
schools within the district. Thus a district with 25 eligible schools
could include up to 5 in its application. Districts have the choice of
which two or what 20 percent of eligible schools will be served.

***B. 3. e. The Review Process for Local Reading Improvement Grants and
Tutorial Assistance Grants***

The Reading and Literacy Partnership will provide advice regarding the
selection and review process for the two types of subgrants. The
applications will be read and scored during one or more state scoring
meetings. It is proposed that reviewers of the two types of grants be
separately trained and that reviewers only score one of the two types of
applications in order to avoid confusing the requirements of the two
subgrant processes.

The Reading and Literacy Partnership will also assist the California
Department of Education in identifying and recruiting qualified
reviewers for the grant applications. Reviewers will need to be
knowledgeable about the components of an effective reading program and
the manner in which young children acquire the necessary skills and
knowledge to become successful readers. It is proposed that applications
be scored by a group of three reviewers representing a variety of
backgrounds. For example, a group might consist of a professional
development expert from a county office of education, a reading expert
from a university, and a principal from a high achieving school with a
high percentage of English learners. The reviewers will read the
applications separately and then discuss their scores and impressions to
arrive at a final score. Finally, a subgroup of the Reading and Literacy
Partnership will be consulted on the final distribution of subgrants.

***B. 4. Technical Assistance, Monitoring, and Performance
Measurement***

The structure for provision of technical assistance which uses the
California Reading Center and the Reading Success Network operating
through county office of education and employing dedicated Regional
Literacy Coaches has been described in detail in earlier sections. The
technical assistance that is offered will be ongoing and tailored to the
individual needs of the schools and their personnel.

This structure will also be used for monitoring the progress of grant
participants. Regional Literacy Coaches will engage grantees, both at
the district and school levels, in a process of examining their own
progress for the purpose of adjusting program activities and goals.
Grantees will look at both their implementation progress and student
outcome data as available. Literacy Coaches will be responsible for
organizing the process and reflecting on the district and school
analyses.

Analyses of progress developed in this manner will be available to
evaluators, who may also participate in the monitoring process on
occasion. Evaluators will include data derived from district and school
analyses and the feedback of Literacy Coaches in their evaluation
process.

# B. 5. Other

a\. Use of Technology to Facilitate Program Management, Oversight, and
Professional Development

[Program Management and Grant Oversight]{.underline}:

The California Department of Education web site, cde.ca.gov, will be
used immediately to announce the availability of Tutorial Assistance
Grants and soon thereafter to provide the two Requests for Applications
as well as information on scientifically based reading research. The
Department is currently improving its technological capability to allow
for electronic submission of applications.

As soon as possible following selection of grantees the CDE will develop
an REA/TAG web site that will provide updates on all professional
development activities, information on materials and reading programs,
research updates, tutoring connections, resources for parents including
family literacy activities, and networking opportunities.

[Professional Development]{.underline}:

The REA/TAG web site will provide links to web-based resources for
teachers, parents, and literacy leaders. An example of a particularly
useful web site for literacy and library resources is the California
Reads Roundtable site, supported by the California State Library and
members of the California Reads Roundtable (see Section VII for a list
of members). Examples of web-based resources include:

-   Best practices in reading instruction

-   Scientifically based reading research

-   Teacher/tutor tools

-   Evaluation and assessment tools

-   Information on creating partnerships with community-based
    organizations

-   State approved reading lists

The California Department of Education works collaboratively with county
offices of education to provide satellite television presentations of
various types. This process can be used to offer in-service training
opportunities for teachers, workshops, on-site broadcasting from model
demonstration classrooms, and interactive teleconferencing on vital
issues in reading instruction. It is the intent of the Department to
provide a wide range of reading professional development offerings that
can be downloaded and used for local trainings in an interactive video
mode.

## B.5.b. Teacher Certification Reform -- The Competitive Priority

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Teacher certification changes made already:                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > California has already modified its requirements for elementary     |
| > school teacher certification. This change occurred in July of 1996  |
| > when state law was instituted requiring candidates for multiple     |
| > subject credentials to pass a new Reading Instruction Competence    |
| > Assessment (RICA). Development of the RICA was funded through Goals |
| > 2000.                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > The RICA increased requirements in the area of reading covering     |
| > grades K-3. It did so by assessing the degree to which teachers     |
| > have acquired the knowledge and skills they need to provide         |
| > effective reading instruction in a balanced, comprehensive reading  |
| > program.                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Prior to development of the RICA, new teachers were not formally    |
| > assessed with regard to their reading instruction competency. The   |
| > RICA institutes such an assessment and will be a model for future   |
| > competency assessments. It assesses instructional competence in     |
| > reading assessment and instruction with special attention paid to   |
| > areas identified by reading research such as: phonemic awareness,   |
| > concepts about print, and systematic, explicit phonics. A full      |
| > outline of the assessment follows.                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

California has modified its requirements for elementary school teacher
certification in reading through the institution of the Reading
Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA). Because of the critical
importance of reading instruction in self-contained classrooms (K-8), a
1996 state law requires candidates for initial Multiple Subject Teaching
Credentials to pass the RICA. In the near future special education
candidates will also be required to pass the RICA. The purpose of the
RICA is to ensure that these prospective teachers have acquired the
knowledge and skills they need to provide effective reading instruction
in a balanced, comprehensive program for K-8 students. The RICA tests
the knowledge, skills, and abilities of teacher preparation candidates
to teach reading according to scientifically based reading research.

The RICA assessment is organized as follows:

Outline of RICA Content Domains and Content Areas

*Domain I: Planning and Organizing Reading Instruction Based on Ongoing
Assessment*

(1) Conducting Ongoing Assessment of Reading Development

(2) Planning, Organizing, and Managing Reading Instruction

*Domain II: Developing Phonological and Other Linguistic Processes
Related to Reading*

(3) Phonemic Awareness

(4) Concepts About Print

(5) Systematic, Explicit Phonics and Other Word Identification
    Strategies

(6) Spelling Instruction

*Domain III: Developing Reading Comprehension and Promoting Independent
Reading*

(7) Reading Comprehension

(8) Literary Response and Analysis

(9) Content-Area Literacy

(10) Student Independent Reading

*Domain IV: Supporting Reading Through Oral and Written Language
Development*

(11) Relationships Among Reading, Writing, and Oral Language

(12) Vocabulary Development

(13) Structure of the English Language

Teacher preparation programs approved and certified by the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing have been modified to include
increased training in the domains assessed by the RICA and to emphasize
methods of teaching reading that reflect scientifically based reading
research.

Because of the critical need for Multiple Subject Teaching Credential
candidates to prepare for the RICA, the Commission has, since June 1997,
taken the additional step of reviewing all approved teacher preparation
programs on the basis of a recently-adopted *Standard for the
Preparation of Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Candidates for
Reading, Writing and Related Language Instruction in English.*

***B.5.c. Tutorial Assistance Program Notification Process***

Upon receipt of an REA grant, the California Department of Education
will notify districts, county offices of education, and charter schools
of the availability of the subgrants and of their responsibility to
provide public notice to potential providers of tutorial assistance
operating in the jurisdiction of the LEA and to parents residing in such
jurisdiction within 30 days. They will also be informed that failure to
provide notification will result in loss of eligibility for Title I
funds. Because of the possibility that districts may lose their
eligibility for Title I funds because of lack of staff during the
summer, the California Department of Education will also publish notice
of the Tutorial Assistance Grants and eligible districts in larger
newspapers statewide. It is recommended that districts receiving
notification also publish a statement in smaller local newspapers within
the 30 day timeline to ensure that there is no loss of Title I funding.

C. Staffing -- SEA and Other State-Level or Regional Staff, Consultants,
and Organizations

# C. 1 Staff Roles and Responsibilities and Time Commitment

[California Reading Center]{.underline}: State staff at the CRC will
consist of:

-   Center Director -- (0.5 PY) The manager of the Reading and
    Mathematics Policy and Leadership Office in the California
    Department of Education will direct the CRC. This person will be
    responsible for providing leadership in collaborating with the
    Governor's Office of the Secretary of Education and partners such as
    the California Reading and Literature Project, the Region XI and XII
    Comprehensive Assistance Centers and maintaining the involvement of
    the Reading and Literacy Partnership. This person will be the
    primary manager of the project, ensuring that all grant application,
    grant administration, professional development, and coordination
    activities are carried out in a high quality manner. This individual
    will also participate in the selection of an evaluator and sit on an
    evaluation advisory panel.

-   Grant Coordinator -- (1 PY) A consultant at the California
    Department of Education will be the primary grant coordinator. This
    individual will be responsible for ensuring that all grant
    activities are appropriately carried out. Duties include to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop the Requests for Applications for the two grants;

-   Participate on a team to develop the two-day grant application
    workshops;

-   Recruit and select grant reviewers and arrange scoring meetings;

-   Recommend and notify grantees;

-   Oversee grant administration through the life of the project;

-   Assist in the development and delivery of professional development;

-   Assist in collection and analysis of data.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Professional Development Coordinator ­-- (1 PY) A consultant at the
    California Department of Education will be the primary professional
    development coordinator. This individual will:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Lead a team to develop the two-day grant application workshops;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Convene bi-monthly meetings of all staff and partners of the CRC;

-   Convene a Task Force on Teaching Reading to English learners;

-   Work with staff of the satellite offices and reading experts to
    develop and deliver high quality professional development targeted
    for school needs;

-   Ensure that all activities of the CRC and satellite centers are
    aligned with scientifically based reading research;

-   Assist in the evaluation of professional development activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Technical Analyst-- (0.5 PY) An individual conversant with
    technology use will be hired to provide web-page design and
    maintenance, teleconference support, and maintenance of the
    Listserv. Database support may be provided by this individual as
    well.

-   Support Staff -- (1PY) One office technician will be assigned to
    this project.

[California Reading Center -- Satellite Offices]{.underline}: The
Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center currently operates
the Reading Success Network in eight southern counties with staff
provided by each county office. The Region XI Northern California
Comprehensive Assistance Center at WestEd is implementing a similar
Reading Success Network in thirty-two other counties. Existing staff
have ongoing work that should not be discontinued. Therefore, we propose
to seek additional state funding to support an additional full-time
professional to serve as a Regional Literacy Coordinator in each of the
eight southern counties and as many Bay Area counties as is needed. The
purpose of this distribution is to provide dedicated staff in those
geographical areas that contain the majority of Program Improvement
schools. The exact distribution and time commitment of staff will depend
on two factors, availability of funding, and the distribution of Local
Reading Improvement and Tutorial Assistance Grants. This funding will
not be available in the first year of the grant. Therefore, initial work
such as participation in the two-day grant application workshops will be
carried out by the satellite offices using existing staff.

# C. 2 Resumes of Key Staff

> Resumes for key staff who we anticipate will provide leadership in
> grant activities both at the CRC and at the Reading Success Network
> are provided just prior to the Appendices.

IV\. Local District/School Interventions

Under Local Reading Improvement Subgrants

**A. Overview - What Will Change in California's Classrooms as a Result
of Reading Excellence Act Funds**

For the lowest performing schools in California, the provision of
Reading Excellence Act funds will change classroom instruction in
reading around four key dimensions identified in the first guiding
principle stated in the California *Reading/Language Arts Framework*
(1999, 8)*.* \"The *Reading/Language Arts Framework* uses the
English-language arts content standards as its curricular platform and
aligns curriculum, assessment, instruction, and organization to provide
a comprehensive, coherent structure for language arts teaching and
learning. The standards serve as curricular guideposts for teachers and
provide clear-cut curricular goals for all learners. Genuine alignment
of curriculum, assessment, instruction, and organization rests at the
school level. There the components must be identified, implemented, and
adjusted to fit the conditions and contexts of the school and the needs
of the learners.\"

The quality of all four key dimensions---curriculum, assessment,
instruction, and organization---will increase to create powerful changes
in classroom teaching and learning in reading. Some of the changes will
include:

***Curriculum***

-   Reinforcing the English-language arts content standards as the basis
    of district curriculum

-   Adopting instructional materials aligned with standards

***Assessment***

-   Expanding and refining the types and systems of assessment at the
    classroom and school level to inform instruction

-   Expanding the uses of assessment data within a schoolwide
    intervention model to make school- and grade-level decisions
    relative to scheduling, grouping, and so forth

***Instruction***

-   Increasing the knowledge of teachers of reading instruction and
    English language structure

-   Increasing the knowledge of teachers of state standards and
    framework

-   Increasing the ability of teachers to implement validated programs
    of instructional materials

-   Improving the quality of instruction provided by teachers and
    teaching specialists

-   Reconsidering time allocated to instruction and structure of the
    school day and year

-   Differentiating instruction for English learners and children at
    risk of being referred inappropriately to special education

***Organization***

-   Establishing a schoolwide intervention model to improve the systems
    for preventing reading failure and for intervening with students who
    are not progressing adequately, including tutoring and other
    extended learning opportunities

-   Fostering instructional improvements through long-term, high-quality
    professional development connected to adopted instructional
    materials and state initiatives (e.g., California Professional
    Development Institutes in Reading, Reading Success Network)

-   Establishing leadership structures for reading improvement including
    the school Literacy Plan and Literacy Team, as well as the Site
    Literacy Leadership and Literacy Coach/Coordinator

-   Receiving support and planning assistance from the California
    Reading Center and its satellite offices and from the District
    Literacy Coach

-   Implementing support activities for children and
    families---kindergarten transition and family literacy

California through its standards, framework, and criteria for adopting
instructional materials proposes a vision of exemplary early reading
instruction. In that vision teachers in classrooms base their curriculum
on standards, make effective use of instructional materials, utilize
powerful instructional and management strategies, assess students'
skills and knowledge and plan instruction accordingly, and impart a love
and enthusiasm for reading and writing that captures the hearts and
minds of children and their families. Children in these classrooms are
actively and continuously engaged in instruction, feel efficacy in their
achievements in reading and writing, and interact with their teachers
and other students around specific skills and literary and informational
text. Instruction is characterized by initial teaching, modeling,
appropriate scaffolding, guided practice, feedback, and independent
application of skills and knowledge. Classrooms are vibrant and lively
environments rich with resources in books and all varieties of print,
technology, and other media. At least one hour is devoted to literary
and information text instruction, including reading aloud, writing
processes, vocabulary building, dramatic reading, discussion, and
systematic, explicit instruction of comprehension strategies. At least
one and one-half hours are dedicated to skill instruction, including
word work (phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, phonic
decoding, and recognition of high frequency words), spelling and writing
skills, and practice with skills being taught.

Particularly in high poverty and low performing schools, many of which
will be funded through REA, a schoolwide intervention model (SIM) must
be established to ensure that all students make adequate progress---that
they "catch up and they keep up" with grade level expectations.
California has been informed by the work of Edward Kame'enui and Deborah
Simmons in creating and implementing such models. *Beyond Effective
Practice to School as Host Environments: Building and Sustaining a
School-wide Intervention Model in Beginning Reading* (1998) lays out the
tenets of an effective intervention model and considers the effects of a
variety of contexts, including the school district, school, classroom,
teacher, materials, task, and learners. Consistent with many reform
systems discussed in this application, SIM moves through a variety of
stages, including (1) assessing student performance of big ideas; (2)
analyzing individual performance and planning instructional groupings;
(3) setting reasonable and ambitious goals and monitoring progress
formatively (four week and long-term); (4) analyzing contexts and
designing interventions for groups of students; and (5) evaluating
intervention effectiveness and adjusting instruction.

REA schools must create curriculum, assessment, instruction, and
organizational systems to implement high quality reading programs and
instruction and to ensure that each and every student masters California
standards. The structures put in place through Reading Excellence Act
will provide the stability, technical skill, and commitment to enable
California's lowest performing schools to accomplish these goals.
Results of statewide assessments (STAR and ELD Test) and classroom and
curriculum based measures will indicate that indeed the students in REA
schools are learning to read.

**Reading Instruction**

*B. 1 - Professional Development and Materials for Grades K-3*

**California Professional Development Institutes**

All Reading Excellence Act schools will be expected to send a team to
the California Professional Development Institutes in the first or
second year of their grant if they have not already done so. These
institutes are research-based and designed by university faculty, such
as Marilyn Jager Adams and John Shelfelbine, and practicing classroom
teachers. They are supported by the Governor, and operated by the
California Reading and Literature Project. Teams of approximately 12
teachers from grades K through 3, support specialists, and
administrators will attend a week-long institute during the summer and
participate in an additional 40 hours of continuing education during the
school year. Participants are also expected to meet in school-site and
grade-level teams once a month to look at student assessment data, set
instructional goals, and plan instruction. The Institutes have a
parallel Spanish program and all materials are available in Spanish. The
Institutes will be using the *School-Home-Links* (English/Spanish
edition) for parent-child reading activities. For some schools Institute
activities, perhaps bolstered with professional development tied to new
reading materials, may constitute the bulk of their first-year
professional development activities.

**Reading Success Networks**

Beginning in the first year of the grant and expanding in the second
year, the Reading Success Network and the Department-based CRC will
become the primary support systems. Operating under the auspices of the
Northern and Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Centers, the
Reading Success Network, with staff in each county office of education,
will provide support in the southern eight counties (including Los
Angeles) and thirty-two in the Bay Area, northern and central
California. We estimate that approximately 80 percent of the participant
schools will be located in Reading Success Network counties. The
remaining, more isolated schools will be supported by the CRC both
directly and through specific county offices. County staff operating
under the RSN or the CRC may be referred to elsewhere in this document
as Regional Literacy Coaches.

The Reading Success Network will have two major functions. In the first
year, the RSN will provide training to each school's literacy leadership
personnel including the principal, the School Site Literacy Coordinator,
the library media teacher, the reading specialist and any other site
leaders for literacy. Topics include the components of an effective
early reading program, ways to organize the various parts of the Local
Reading Improvement program such as family literacy and program
selection, or using assessments to plan instruction.

The second major function of the RSN is to provide professional
development and coaching support for all teachers following their
involvement in the Reading Professional Development Institutes. Teachers
will, by then, have had a year of training in how to provide
high-quality reading instruction aligned with current research in
reading. They will also have practiced using and interpreting
assessments aligned with the instruction. The RSN will, however, fill
the gap of long term support for implementation by providing ongoing
reinforcement of what has already been taught and coaching support.

# New Reading Programs and Materials

In 1999, the California State Board of Education, as part of a major
thrust to ensure that all students have up-to-date materials, adopted a
list of additional reading materials that are aligned with state
standards and with a research-based reading instructional approach. At
the K-3 level, these materials focus on phonemic awareness, phonics,
decoding, word-attack skills, spelling, vocabulary, and development of
reading fluency and comprehension skills. Materials identified in this
AB 2519 adoption may be purchased with regular instructional materials
funding, but legislation passed in 1999 authorizes an additional \$1
billion over a four-year period for purchase of materials in various
disciplines that are fully aligned with state standards. Reading
Excellence Act participants are given the choice of purchasing adopted
materials and seeking professional development tied to the materials
either through the publisher or through another source, or selecting a
research-based reading program that uses its own materials that meet
California English-Language Arts Standards.

**Assessing Local Professional Development Needs**

In California, almost all schools have had access to and, to some
extent, participated in, professional development specifically tied to
research-based reading instruction. Approximately \$100 million has been
specifically allocated for such professional development at the K-3
level over the last three years. Most districts and schools have
received awareness level training through these funds. In addition, most
districts have participated in professional development on
English-language arts standards and the *Reading/Language Arts
Framework* offered through the county offices over the past year.
Because the standards and framework were developed with research-based
reading instruction as a central guiding principle, these activities
have contributed to a growing knowledge base about research-based
reading. Nevertheless, schools that have been in Program Improvement
status for two or three years are often so bombarded with a variety of
problems and crises and have such rapid turnover of students and staff
that a focus on reading and instruction is difficult to achieve. These
schools are consistently behind more successful schools in attending to
and improving their delivery of instruction.

[Needs Assessment]{.underline}

As part of the grant application, districts will be asked to report on
the types and frequency of staff development training and implementation
support that have been available in the last three years to eligible
schools. They will also be asked to report on the degree to which the
schools and teachers have availed themselves of these opportunities.
Initial state planning for professional development offerings will be
based on this information.

When the subgrants have been allocated, a more extensive needs
assessment will be done in participant districts by the District
Literacy Coach. This assessment will take into account the reading
program that the district will be using, the professional development
that will be available with the reading program, the prevalence of new
and non-credentialed teachers, the availability of mentors, and current
programs operating within subgrant schools such as the Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment Program (BTSA) which is already providing
extensive support to new teachers. The assessment will also take into
account the extent to which schools are knowledgeable about the various
components of the REA such as family literacy programs and tutoring.

The information from this needs assessment will be used to help develop
the K-3 Literacy Plan.

[Cognitive Coaching]{.underline}

Within each region in which Reading Excellence Act subgrants are made, a
strong cognitive coaching component will be developed through Reading
Success Network training provided by the Region XI and XII Comprehensive
Assistance Centers

[Peer Coaching]{.underline}

A major purpose of the Reading Excellence Act is to build capacity in
low-performing schools. Toward that end, the professional development
support offered to schools will be focused on increasing the capacity of
both administrators and teachers to improve their own systems. Regional
Literacy Coaches, working with District Coaches and School Site
Coordinators will provide a format for the peer coaching activities. The
School Literacy Teams working with the School Site Coordinators will use
that format, modified as needed to become part of the K-3 Literacy Plan,
to implement their own peer coaching systems. Teachers will benefit
greatly from the peer coaching model both immediately and in future
years. If teacher turnover remains high in these schools, as may be
expected, having a strong group of peer coaches will enable the benefits
of the REA to continue.

**Accountability**

Teachers and administrators as well as reading coordinators and other
support personnel will be asked to rate the professional development
experiences as they are completed and results will be used to shape
further offerings. District coaches and site coordinators will also be
asked to reflect on the progress of the professional development and
coaching work in bimonthly or quarterly meetings for the purpose of
formative assessment.

As part of the evaluation process, evaluators will collect information
on the progress of the state and regional level professional development
activities as well as summative information on teacher, administrator,
and coach perceptions of the professional development and coaching
process. Evaluators will also observe coaching and peer coaching
activities in order to develop analyses of their efficacy.

***B. 2. Instruction for English language learners***

Two groups of English learners will be addressed in the Reading
Excellence Act (REA) application:

-   English learners in structured English immersion and other programs
    who receive reading/language arts instruction in English

-   English learners in alternative programs who receive
    reading/language arts instruction in the primary language

REA activities will include professional development for teachers and
the identification or development of successful instructional models and
appropriate materials and assessments.

## Reading/Language Arts Instruction in English

As a result of Proposition 227, most English learners in California are
presented instruction \"overwhelmingly in English.\" In kindergarten
through grade three, children learn to read as they learn the English
language. In order to accomplish this, students must participate in
instructional programs that combine skill and concept development in
both English literacy and the English language.

Teachers need the ability to analyze the language requirements of a
given reading task including vocabulary, usage, sentence structures, and
functions that may be unfamiliar to second language learners. Text and
materials that may be appropriate for native English speakers may
present linguistic complexities for English learners. Therefore
materials and text must provide for both the child\'s instructional
level of reading and level of proficiency in English. For effective
reading instruction that also develops proficiency in English, the
language requirements of each reading standard must be identified,
taught, and practiced within the context of reading and speaking tasks.
Mediating the linguistic complexities of each reading task assures that
English will serve as a vehicle, rather than a barrier, to reading
development.

English language development (ELD) must accompany reading instruction;
ELD requires purposeful daily instruction during specific times, with
organization based on students' proficiency level. While there are many
opportunities during the course of a day in a language-rich classroom
environment for language learning, merely being exposed to, even engaged
in, activity in English is not sufficient to assure the development of
full academic proficiency. English language development must be
deliberately taught and include:

-   Forms---usage, structure, grammar (e.g., nouns, articles, verbs,
    prepositions, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, connecting words,
    sentence structures)

-   Fluency---ease of comprehension (listening and reading) and
    production (speaking and writing)

-   Functions---types of language (e.g., social relations,
    seeking/relating information, conducting research, persuasion)

## Reading/Language Arts Instruction in the Primary Language

Approximately 170,000 of California's 1,442,692 English learners
participate in an alternative course of study and receive instruction in
academic subjects through the primary language and in English language
development. These programs are available to students through a parental
waiver process; Spanish is the primary language in most of these
programs. When literacy is taught in the primary language, students work
to achieve the same standards contained in the *English-Language Arts
Content Standards.* Naturally, appropriate modifications must be made
for the language of instruction in standards for phoneme awareness,
decoding, grammar, and so forth. Teachers within these programs require
the same knowledge of scientifically based reading research and
practices and language structure as do all other teachers. The materials
available to teachers in the primary language should reflect the same
principles as other scientifically based reading programs in English.
The 2002 Reading/Language Arts criteria request publishers to develop
materials in Spanish that are fully aligned with English-Language Arts
standards.

# Teacher Knowledge and Effective Instruction in English Language Development

Teacher knowledge of the linguistic elements of English must be
increased to enable teachers to address the forms, fluency, and
functions of language within English language development. Just as Moats
has proposed a core set of knowledge that teachers must have to teach
reading, the core set of knowledge for teachers of English learners must
be defined. As previously stated, deep knowledge of language structure
is even *more* critical for teachers of English learners, who must also
understand the processes and sequences of second language acquisition
and the specific influences and effects of various primary languages on
reading and writing tasks. Lily Wong Fillmore and Catherine E. Snow have
drafted a paper on the very topic of what teachers need to know about
language. It is safe to assume that many, if not most, teachers of
English learners have not had the preparation to fully understand the
language structures necessary to teach English language development and
literacy to English learners. Robin Scarcella of the University of
California, Irvine, has written of her experiences with entering
freshman who, although at the top of their high school graduating
classes, exhibit serious difficulties in their writing and patterns of
errors consistent with long-term inaccurate English use.

Not unlike the debates that have raged over the best way to teach
reading, the examination of English language teaching practices for
English learners is just beginning to generate heat, as well as light.
There is professional consensus across the state that more attention
must be paid to issues of accuracy in teaching oral and written English.
That discussion is made more complex when issues of initial literacy
instruction, high-level standards, statewide testing, and students who
enter the system after kindergarten or first grade are considered.

# Current California Developments

# Proposition 227

Since the passage of Proposition 227, many policy and program decisions
have been made relative to English learners. It is important to
understand that, while most English learners in the state now
participate in Structured English Immersion or English language
mainstream programs, the primary language is not forbidden in California
classrooms. Structured English Immersion programs require that
instruction be "overwhelmingly" in English, but primary language support
can be offered to assist students in understanding concepts and
acquiring academic knowledge. As noted above, parents may also request
waivers to permit their children to participate in an alternative course
of study utilizing the primary language. According to data collected in
the spring of 1999 English learners participate in programs at the
following rates:

Structured English Immersion 702,592 49%

Alternative Course of Study 179,334 12%

English Language Mainstream 461,909 32%

Other Instructional Settings [98,857]{.underline} 7%

Total 1,442,692

Of these students 1,205,274 receive instruction in English language
development; 472,893 receive primary language support; and 169,440 are
taught academic subjects through the primary language.

Recently the Superintendent's Proposition 227 Task Force issued its
report, *Educating English Learners for the Twenty-First Century.* The
report is intended to clarify the key issues in educating English
learners. The task force members addressed two challenges: (1) bringing
English learners to an advanced level of language proficiency; and (2)
helping them thrive in mainstream classrooms. The task force developed
11 guiding principles and 38 recommendations to guide policymakers and
educators in providing "quality English-language acquisition programs
under the new requirements of state law and existing state and federal
requirements" (1999, 3).

In California, the multiple-subject credential authorizes the holder to
teach in a self-contained classroom, typically at the elementary level.
Teaching credential candidates and current teachers can add either a
Cross-cultural Language Academic Development (CLAD) or Bilingual
Cross-cultural Language Academic Development (BCLAD) emphasis. The CLAD
is required of teachers for Structured English Immersion classrooms, the
BCLAD for bilingual education classrooms, and either can be required in
other program options, depending upon the services needed by the
students.

Program Options: Elements and Staffing

+-----------------+------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Program Options | **Required       | **Permitted        | **Sta     |
|                 | Elements**       | Elements**         | ffing\*** |
+-----------------+------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| **Structured    | # English Lang   | -   **Content      | #### CLAD |
| English         | uage Development |     Instruction**  |           |
| Immersion**     |                  |                    | **BCLAD** |
|                 | -   Instruction  | Specially Designed |           |
| ***English      |     nearly all   |                    | ###       |
| Language***     |     in English   | Academic           | ## SB1969 |
|                 |                  | Instruction in     |           |
| ***Classroom*** | -   Plan for     |                    |           |
|                 |     recouping    | English, Support,  |           |
|                 |     academic     |                    |           |
|                 |     deficits\*\* | Primary Language   |           |
|                 |                  |                    |           |
|                 |                  | Instruction        |           |
|                 |                  |                    |           |
|                 |                  | -   **Language of  |           |
|                 |                  |     Instruction**  |           |
|                 |                  |     overwhelmingly |           |
|                 |                  |     the English    |           |
|                 |                  |     language       |           |
+-----------------+------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| **Additional    | -   English      | -   **Approaches** | #### CLAD |
| and Appropriate |     Language     |                    |           |
| Services**      |                  | ### S              | **BCLAD** |
|                 | ##  Development  | pecially Designed  |           |
| ***English      |                  |                    | *         |
| Language***     | -   Strategies   | > Academic         | *SB1969** |
|                 |     to overcome  | > Instruction in   |           |
| Mainstream      |     academic     | >                  |           |
| Classroom       |                  | > English          |           |
|                 |   deficits\*\*\* | >                  |           |
|                 |                  | > Primary Language |           |
|                 |                  | > Instruction      |           |
|                 |                  | >                  |           |
|                 |                  | > Primary Support  |           |
+-----------------+------------------+--------------------+-----------+
| **Alternative   | -   English      | -   **Approaches** | #### CLAD |
| Course of       |     Language     |                    |           |
| Study:**        |                  | ##  S              | **BCLAD** |
|                 | ##  Development  | pecially Designed  |           |
| 1               |                  |                    | *         |
| )  ***Bilingual | -   Primary      | ## Acade           | *SB1969** |
|                 |     Language     | mic Instruction in |           |
|    Education*** |     Instruction  |                    |           |
|                 |     (for         | ###### English     |           |
| ***Or***        |     bilingual    |                    |           |
|                 |     only)        | > Primary Language |           |
| 2)  ***Other    |                  | > Instruction      |           |
|     methodology | -   Strategies   | >                  |           |
|     permitted   |     to overcome  | > Primary Language |           |
|     by law***   |     academic     | > Support          |           |
|                 |                  |                    |           |
|                 |   deficits\*\*\* |                    |           |
+-----------------+------------------+--------------------+-----------+

Education Code 305-306

\* Depending on the special services needed by English learners, one or
more of these authorizations may be needed

\*\* Only required if students are incurring academic deficits

\*\*\* Only required if students have incurred academic deficits

# Instructional Placement for English Learners

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| # Student's Engl      |                       |                       |
| ish Proficiency Level |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| # Less th             | # Reasonable Fluency  | # Fully Fluent        |
| an Reasonable Fluency |                       |                       |
|                       | (based on district    | (based on district    |
| (based on initial     | criteria              | redesignation         |
| assessment)           |                       | criteria)             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| # Program Options     |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| # Structure           | # English Lang        | # English Lang        |
| d English Immersion\* | uage Mainstream Class | uage Mainstream Class |
|                       |                       |                       |
| **English Language    | -   Additional and    | **Alternative Course  |
| Mainstream Class**    |     Appropriate       | of Study**            |
|                       |     Services          |                       |
| -   Parent Request    |                       |                       |
|                       | **Alternative Course  |                       |
| -   Additional and    | of Study**            |                       |
|     Appropriate       |                       |                       |
|     Services          | -   Parental          |                       |
|                       |     Exception Waiver  |                       |
| **Alternative course  |                       |                       |
| of Study**            |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| -   Parental          |                       |                       |
|     Exception Waiver  |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

##### Education Code 300-340

\*Note: "Structured English Immersion" and Sheltered English Immersion"
are used interchangeably in the statute.

# California English Language Development Test

After the passage of Proposition 227 legislation was enacted to create a
statewide assessment specifically for English language development. The
California English Language Development Test is currently in development
and is scheduled for fielding testing in late 2000 and implementation in
spring 2001. The test will assess student progress in English language
development including listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The
test has many purposes: it will be used to initially identify students
as English learners, to determine students' annual progress, and to
recommend students for redesignation or reclassification as
fluent-English proficient.

The legislation also required that standards be developed for English
language development. The English Language Development Standards were
approved by the State Board of Education in 1999. The standards were
intentionally aligned with the state's English--Language Arts Content
Standards

These standards form the basis of the California English Language
Development Test. This test will be an important addition to
California's system of statewide assessment. It will provide the first
statewide data on the progress of English learners in English language
development and it will ensure that English learners are assessed
against high standards leading to success in English--language arts.

# [Instructional Materials Adoption]{.underline}

In 1996, instructional materials were adopted separately for
English-Language Arts and English Language Development in kindergarten
through grade eight. These adopted programs were not correlated and did
not necessarily help students learn to *read* well in English. For the
2002 adoption, the intent is to integrate specific materials for English
language development with the basic program for reading/language arts.
In order for English learners to master the English­--language arts
content standards, it is important that the students have full access to
the core program of reading instruction and that English language
development instruction support their success in that core program. In
an effort to ensure that English learners participate fully in the basic
program, publishers have been asked to provide at least 30 minutes a day
of additional instruction for all English learners in kindergarten
through grade three.

The aim of these materials will be to help teachers teach English
learners to read, write, comprehend, and speak at personally and
academically proficient levels so that students perform well on
state-required assessments, the ELD Test and the STAR. Lessons will be
systematically connected to the basic reading/language arts program and
support students at various levels of language proficiency. Publishers
are asked to provide specific direction in the teacher's edition
regarding the use of instructional materials that support and develop
key concepts. In addition, publishers are asked to provide a chart
showing how new or difficult sounds and features of the English language
are taught and reinforced. Comparisons with the five or more most common
languages in California will be incorporated as appropriate.
Specifically materials will include ways for teachers to: (1) check for
understanding; (2) pre-teach for upcoming for upcoming lessons; (3)
re-teach previous material; (4) scaffold instruction; (5) provide extra,
targeted practice; (6) and provide opportunities for students to
practice producing language. Additionally a stand-alone program is
authorized for languages other than English for those students
participating in an alternative program.

# California Professional Development Institutes 

### 

Through the Governor's Initiatives, the Reading Professional Development
Institutes addressed English learners in two ways. First, the institutes
provided information on English learners and the instruction necessary
to support them in learning to read in English. Second, the institutes
are offered in Spanish to support teachers who teach in alternative
programs in the primary language. For the Spanish institutes resource
materials and all student assessments are provided in Spanish. The aim
of the institutes for English learners is to:

-   Set goals based on the English--language arts content standards
    using the *Reading/Language Arts Framework*

-   Assess students' reading skills so teachers will know which students
    have and have not met which grade-level standards

-   Work in school-site teams in order to look at assessment data and
    pool resources to meet the common goal of having all students reach
    the standards

-   Use standards-based measures

In concert with these aims, professional development topics within the
institutes related to English learners include:

-   English reading and the English language learner

-   Focused ELD instruction for English language learners in the
    selective cue or logographic phase

-   Focused instruction for English language learners in the
    spelling-sound phase

-   ELD instruction focusing on comprehension and vocabulary for English
    language learners

## REA Activities for English Learners

REA activities will support teachers and children who are learning to
read in English or in primary language programs. At the state level a
task force will be convened to consider issues related to teaching
reading to English learners. The group will recommend content for
professional development opportunities for English learners, will begin
to identify core knowledge for teachers in the area of language, and
work to craft consensus regarding effective strategies for teaching
English language development and early reading in English.

REA schools, by participating in the California Professional Development
Institutes, will engage in professional development specifically
designed to prepare them to teach English learners to read. As schools
adopt and implement validated reading programs, additional support for
English learners will be planned and included in the school's Literacy
Plan. The schoolwide intervention model will be designed to consider the
assessment of skills of English learners and the scheduling of
instruction for the students within the school day, before- and
after-school, and during vacation periods. English learners will
participate in the basic reading/language arts program and will receive
instruction in English language development to support the basic
program; in most cases this will require additional time beyond the
regular school day. Since more comprehensive programs addressing English
language development will not be adopted until 2002, schools will need
to carefully plan instruction in English language development in the
intervening years. Technical support will be provided from both the
state and the regional levels to district and school personnel in
planning appropriate programs for English learners.

***B.3. Instruction for Children At Risk of Being Inappropriately
Referred to Special Education***

According to *Starting Out Right: A Guide to Promoting Children's
Reading Success,* "There are three stumbling blocks that are most likely
to throw children off course on the journey to skilled reading:

1.  Failure to understand or use the alphabetic principle, that is, the
    idea that written spellings systematically represent the sounds of
    spoken words in reading and writing.

2.  Failure to acquire and use comprehension skills and strategies to
    get meaning from text.

3.  Lack of fluency.

These three can combine to decrease children's motivation for learning
how to read." (1999, 127)

Many of the students who fit the profile described above eventually are
identified as learning disabled. In California, when the discrepancy
between a student's performance and "potential" becomes large
enough---usually in third or fourth grade---then he or she qualifies for
assistance through special education. It has been estimated that over 80
percent of all referrals to special education involve reading
difficulties (Kavale and Reese 1992). However, effective prevention and
early intervention programs can increase the reading skills of 85 to 90
of poor readers to average levels (Lyon 1997). Following this line of
thought, many of the students referred for special education are
therefore referred inappropriately---some consider these students to be
"curriculum disabled" as opposed to truly "learning disabled."

[Special Education Reading Task Force]{.underline}

Although the California Reading Initiative (CRI) had been addressing
issues of reading for many years, not all special education
professionals were included in CRI activities or received information
related to scientifically based reading research. The Special Education
Reading Task Force was established in 1998 to clarify the role of
special education professionals and students in the CRI. The document,
*The California Reading Initiative and Special Education: Critical Ideas
Focusing on Meaningful Reform,* published in 1999, is the result. The
document "addresses the importance of the CRI to children who are
struggling readers or who have reading disabilities. It includes
discussion about effective reading instruction, early reading
intervention and prevention, assessment, access to the core curriculum,
and practices linked to research. It also dispels common misconceptions
about reading disabilities and reading instruction." (1999, v) Validated
research is used to contrast what we now know from what we thought. Some
of the key "clarifications" include:

-   Struggling readers become far more successful when carefully taught
    the same fundamental reading skills that all successful readers must
    learn (Fletcher and Lyon 1998; Simmons and Kame'enui 1998; Torgesen
    1998).

-   The vast majority of students with severe reading difficulty have
    substantial weakness in auditory-related skills (Fletcher and Lyon
    1998; Liberman et al. 1998; Lyon 1998; Shaywitz 1996; Torgesen
    1998).

-   Delayed instruction fosters increased failure (Foorman et al. 1997;
    Good et al. 1998).

-   The vast majority of student with reading difficulties can learn to
    read when given intensive instruction using research-validated
    practices (Foorman et al. 1998; Lyon 1997, 1998).

-   Curriculum-based measurement provides more precise guidance for
    instructional decision-making and progress monitoring (Shinn 1998).

-   Successful reading remediation requires keen attention to specific,
    fundamental reading skills and instruction at a proper level of
    difficulty (Kame'enui and Simmons 1998; Orton Dyslexia Society 1997;
    Torgesen 1998; Vaughn 1998).

-   Research that adheres to accepted rules of scientific inquiry
    provides valuable guidance. The research-practice chasm can be
    bridged (Carnine and Meeder 1997; Ellis and Fouts 1997; Grossen
    1996).

The task force report represents just the first step in reforming
reading instruction in California's special education programs.
Providing information to special education professionals, involving them
in CRI professional development and other activities, and
reconceptualizing the work of special education teachers and students
around the English--language arts content standards are all aims of this
reform effort.

[Intervention Models]{.underline}

"The ultimate goal of language arts programs in California is to ensure
access to high-quality curriculum and instruction for all students in
order to meet or exceed the state's English--language arts content
standards." (1999, 225) The framework proposes that universal access to
the language arts curriculum is achieved through careful planning and
consideration of the needs of students. Procedures that are recommended
as useful include:

-   Assess each student's understanding and use the results of
    *assessment* of program placement and planning

-   *Diagnose* the nature and severity of student's difficulty and
    modify accordingly

-   Engage in careful organization of resources and instruction and
    *planning* to adapt to individual needs.

-   *Differentiate* when necessary as to depth, complexity, novelty, or
    pacing and focus on the key concepts within standards.

-   Employ *flexible grouping* strategies.

-   *Enlist help* from others, such as reading specialists,
    diagnosticians and so forth.

All of these procedures, however, must be exercised within the context
of a schoolwide intervention model that informs decisions at the school,
grade, and classroom level.\
As previously discussed, Kame'enui and Simmons (1998) propose a model of
schoolwide intervention that considers the multiple contexts of the
complex school environment. Within that model students are identified in
terms of the severity of their learning needs:

-   *Intensive*--- those students seriously at risk based on extremely
    low performance on one or more performance indicators

-   *Strategic*---those students who need systematic, strategic
    intervention, but whose performance is not as low as students in the
    intensive group

-   *Benchmark*---those students whose performance seems to be on target
    on critical literacy skills

"For children with reading disabilities or at risk of serious reading
difficulty, the SIM is a data-driven model for determining: (a) who to
target for intervention, (b) the magnitude of the problem, (c) the
amount of growth necessary to change early reading trajectories, (d)
essential dimensions of intervention and their contextual fit, (e) the
effectiveness of intervention, and (f) whether children are learning
enough. Based on the methodological integration of knowledge from
general and special education research in assessment, together with
effective instructional design principles, validated methods of early
reading instruction, and intervention models that fit the host
environment, the SIM model can be used to intercept and prevent early
reading risk from becoming long-term and intractable." (Kame'enui and
Simmons 1998, 21)

Simply stated, in order to prevent reading failure, we must "catch
students up and keep them up." REA schools and districts must describe
how such a model will be implemented at school sites and describe the
technical assistance that will be provided to support the implementation
of each of its elements. This is not an individual teacher effort, but
an effort for the entire grade, school, school district---and ultimately
the region and state. It is in this way that California proposes to
prevent students from being inappropriately identified for special
education and to ensure that every student does indeed master reading
standards at each and every grade.

***B.4. Teacher Assessments to Inform Instruction***

[Overview of Assessment Issues]{.underline}

In the report of the Reading Task Force, *Every Child a Reader,* schools
and districts were asked to provide every teacher with a repertoire of
diagnostic tools to monitor and modify reading instruction continuously.
In the *Reading/Language Arts Framework* linkages between the content of
instruction (as defined by the English--language arts content standards)
and assessments are further defined to assist teachers to plan, deliver,
reinforce, and evaluate instruction.

[Uses of Assessment in Kindergarten Through Grade Three]{.underline}

*Entry-level assessment---*These assessments are used to determine the
proficiency of an individual student or groups of students according to
a specific standard or prerequisite skill or knowledge. This
determination informs the teacher what needs to be included in upcoming
lessons or in pre-teaching or reteaching lessons. In some instances
these more discrete assessments will help the teacher locate the level
of the instructional program the students should enter. Entry-level
assessment should not prevent a student from participating in
grade-level instruction. Instead, teachers should use the information
gained from entry-level assessment to offer supplemental instruction in
specific areas while including all students in grade-level instruction.

*Monitoring of progress---*These assessments focus on the general skills
and knowledge students are to acquire according to the standards.
Through measures developed by publishers, teachers, or districts and
arranged as periodic assessments for all students, the domains and
strands of the standards are assessed at the end of lessons and major
sets of lessons. The tests, which are curriculum embedded, should be
administered and scored frequently by the teacher. The results should be
analyzed for each student and classroom on the basis of established
levels that identify 1) who is at mastery; and 2) what percent of
students are at mastery. And the results should influence how teachers
modify or emphasize parts of the curriculum.

# Summative assessment---These assessments include quarterly, midyear, and end-of-the-year tests developed by the publisher and school district. They are used to determine whether the student has mastered the content and to document long-term growth. The state required assessments, STAR, also functions as a summative assessment for grades two and three. Long-term outcomes should be the focus of summative assessment. For instance, blending words enables the long-term outcome of decoding words accurately, in turn oral fluency enables meaningful reading comprehension. Similarly, kindergarten students should be assessed in phoneme awareness. 

[Criteria for Test Selection]{.underline}

Because the predictors and causes of early reading success are well
established, certain measures will be more reliable and valid than
others for locating and correcting reading difficulties. Research
strongly suggests that certain entry-level and screening tests be used
in the middle and end of kindergarten, and several times yearly in first
and second grade (Foorman, Fletcher, Beeler, et al. 1997). These tests
should include measures of phoneme awareness, letter knowledge and
letter-sound knowledge, and the ability to recognize words in lists
organized by pattern and by fluency, spelling, and vocabulary. Fluency
in reading connected text is important as children gain decoding skills.
When children can read words well enough, measures of reasoning and
comprehension skills as well as written expression will help account for
students' reading/language arts achievements. Of course, issues of
reliability (likely to give the same results when repeated), validity
(measures the construct it purports to measure), and efficiency
(reasonable cost and reasonable time frame for administration) must be
considered in test selection as well.

The framework offers suggestions for assessment measures and frequencies
based on the English--language arts content standards (see attached
chart) (1999, 218). The Reading and Literacy Partnership agrees with
these general categories of assessment, with the addition of high
frequency word recognition, for the statewide collection of data for REA
schools. Since all REA schools are strongly encouraged to attend the
California Professional Development Institutes in Reading, many schools
will use the assessments presented in the institutes to report student
progress. However, schools are encouraged to use assessments that are
aligned with their reading program. Regional and District Literacy
Coaches will help schools integrate assessment systems that align with
their reading instruction and that meet the Framework suggestions.

Assessment for the purposes of monitoring student progress will be
ongoing. These measures, while consistent with the general categories
described above, are typically specified within adopted instructional
materials. In the Literacy Plan, schools will describe the processes and
measures used to monitor student progress toward mastery of standards
within lessons and at the end of sets of lessons. Most importantly, the
Literacy Plan will detail the processes used by the teachers to
collaborate in the examination and analysis of student data. Data
analysis is a critical feature of a schoolwide intervention plan.
Students most in need of assistance are assessed more frequently and
decisions are made based on student data regarding instructional time,
grouping, additional practice materials, additional student assistance,
and more.

READING/LANGUAGE ARTS FRAMEWORK

ASSESSMENT ELEMENTS

Grades K-3

+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| **MEASURE**     | # DESCRIPTION                | **GRADE LEVELS**   |
|                 |                              |                    |
|                 |                              | **FOR ASSESSMENT** |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Phoneme         | Detect rhyme\                | K-1 (later if      |
| Awareness       | Count syllables              | needed)            |
|                 |                              |                    |
|                 | > Match initial sounds       |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Count phonemes             |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Phoneme         | > Initial sounds             | K-1 (late if       |
| Deletion        | >                            | needed)            |
|                 | > Final sounds               |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > First sound of a consonant |                    |
|                 | > blend                      |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Embedded sound of a        |                    |
|                 | > consonant blend            |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Phoneme         | > Segment sounds\            | K-1 (later if      |
| Segmentation    | > Count phonemes             | needed)            |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Beginning       | > Alphabet names\            | K-1 (later if      |
| Phonics         | > Consonant sounds           | needed)            |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Phonics         | > Reading of nonsense words\ | Grades 1-2 (later  |
|                 | > Other decoding\            | if needed)         |
|                 | > Spelling                   |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Oral Reading    | > Words correct per minute   | Grades 1-3         |
| Fluency         | > on grade-level text        |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Reading         | > Main idea\                 | Grades 1-3         |
| Comprehension   | > Author's point of view\    |                    |
|                 | > Analysis\                  |                    |
|                 | > Inference                  |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Vocabulary      | > Antonyms\                  | Grades 1-3         |
|                 | > Synonyms\                  |                    |
|                 | > Multiple meanings\         |                    |
|                 | > Context meanings           |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Spelling        | > Unit words\                | Grades 1-3         |
|                 | > Regular/irregular words\   |                    |
|                 | > Word patterns\             |                    |
|                 | > Single and multi-syllabic  |                    |
|                 | > words\                     |                    |
|                 | > Sentence structure         |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Conventions     | > Punctuation                | Grades 1-3         |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Capitalization             |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Grammar                    |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Penmanship                 |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+
| Writing         | > Narratives (fictional and  | Grades 1-3         |
|                 | > autobiographical)          |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Organization/focus         |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Single paragraph           |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Topic sentence             |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Facts/details              |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Expository descriptions    |                    |
|                 | >                            |                    |
|                 | > Friendly letter            |                    |
+-----------------+------------------------------+--------------------+

> **C. Supporting Activities**
>
> *C. 1. Extended learning (tutoring and summer programs)*

Instructional time is identified as a key component of effective
language arts instruction by the California *Reading/Language Arts
Framework.* The recommendations of California's framework and adoption
criteria for instructional materials are to increase instructional time
allocated for language arts to a minimum of one hour in kindergarten and
to two and one-half hours in grades one through three. That
instructional time must be protected from interruption and used wisely
to teach essential reading and literacy skills. Moreover, for students
who are not progressing adequately toward mastery of standards,
*additional* time is strongly recommended. "Students with special
learning needs are provided additional instructional time and support.
Additional time is allocated within the school day, before school, after
school, and during vacation periods as necessary" (1999, 13). "Students
with reading difficulties, however, require increased instructional
time, more precisely sequenced teaching, and more precise and immediate
feedback during learning" (*California Reading Initiative and Special
Education* 1999, 3).

Research supports extended learning opportunities for students early in
their school careers; *Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young
Children* recommends that interventions be offered in first grade (1998,
327). The report also recommends that tutoring be provided by qualified
reading specialists utilizing "materials and techniques that are well
integrated with the with ongoing excellent classroom instruction" (1998,
327). The report continues by stating that "although volunteer tutors
can provide very valuable practice and motivational support for children
learning to read, the committee did not find evidence confirming that
they are able to deal effectively with children who have serious reading
problems. ...The role of well-trained and supervised volunteer tutors
should be to expand children's opportunities for practice reading and
for motivational support but not to provide primary or remedial
instruction" (1998, 328). Promising results are emerging, however, from
California's Student Academic Partnership Program which links elementary
school students with college tutors who are considering becoming
educators; the evaluation of the first two years of the program
indicates advances in student achievement. REA schools may be able to
look to the Student Academic Partnership Program for models of
successful practice.

Extended learning opportunities are an essential element of a schoolwide
intervention plan. The key to operating successful extended learning
programs is the same key for success in daily classroom
instruction---frequent analysis of student data and determination of
appropriate intervention strategies by grade-level teams and school
leaders. Rather than fitting students to the available resources for
intervention, the range of interventions available in a school ,
including extended learning, should be generated by the assessed needs
of the students themselves. REA schools must establish within their
Literacy Plans processes for determining appropriate student
interventions and the ways in which resources will be utilized to offer
the students what they need, when they need it. School structures must
be established to support student learning outside of the regular school
day---space, materials, communication with parents, transportation, and
more. Although complex and time consuming, planning effective
interventions, including extended learning opportunities, is critical to
ensure student success.

# C. 2. Kindergarten Transition

In kindergarten, two areas highly predictive of later reading success
are letter recognition and phonemic awareness. *Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children* recommends that kindergarten instruction
be "designed to provide practice with the sound structure of words, the
recognition and production of letters, knowledge about print concepts,
and familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading and
writing" (1998, 322). The National Reading Panel reports, "Although
conventional wisdom has suggested that kindergarten students might not
be ready for phonics instruction, this assumption was not supported by
the data. The effects of systematic early phonics were significant and
substantial in kindergarten and the 1^st^ grade, indicating that
systematic phonics programs should be implemented at those age and grade
levels" (2000, 10). The instruction was found to enhance kindergartners'
ability to both read and spell.

In addition to the importance of phonemic awareness and phonics
instruction, California's English--language arts content standards call
for children to achieve many other significant milestones in reading
comprehension, literary response and analysis, writing, language
conventions, and listening and speaking by the end of their kindergarten
year. Kindergartners are asked to retell familiar stories; to
distinguish fantasy from realistic text; to identify characters,
settings, and important events in stories; to write uppercase and
lowercase letters; to use complete, coherent sentences when speaking; to
understand and follow one-and two-step oral directions; recite short
poems, rhymes, and songs; and more. Kindergarten has become a very
important time in the life of a young child.

The debate in California about the starting age for kindergartners has
again surfaced; and while requiring children to be five by September 2
was fiercely opposed by many educators 15 years ago, there is little
opposition to the legislation proposed by the Chair of the state's
Assembly Education Committee today. The proposed legislation also
requires---for the first time in the state's history---that kindergarten
attendance be compulsory. In fact in many high-poverty schools, average
daily attendance for kindergartners dips far below that of older
elementary children. As the science and policies of reading reform have
moved kindergarten to the fore, many children and families, as well as
teachers, are not yet prepared to succeed.

Prevention is the most important step in ensuring successful transition
from kindergarten to first grade. Schools need to organize their
kindergarten programs around curricular elements critical to early
reading success and to enlist the support of parents in supporting
instructional time and providing necessary models of reading in the
home. REA schools will be asked to pay special attention to the progress
of their kindergarten children by conducting assessments to determine if
important benchmarks are being reached. The *Reading/Language Arts
Framework,* for example, recommends that all kindergartners be assessed
on phonemic awareness by the middle of the school year. The Reading
RESULTS Project schedules the assessment of oral blending and
rhyming---in addition to writing name, writing letters, and naming
uppercase letters---at the beginning of the year. Additional assessments
are added at the middle and end of the year.

Kindergarten teachers need to plan instruction in response to students'
assessed needs and provide, within the classroom, additional instruction
and increased practice with important skills and concepts. Parents and
family members should be involved in supporting their children with
additional activities at home. One source of such activities is the
*School-Home Links Reading Kit.* The reading kit contains family
activities intended to provide extra opportunities for learning at home.
The *School-Home Links Reading Kit* is published by the U.S. Department
of Education as a companion volume to the *Compact for Reading Guide.*
School-Home Links activities were recently correlated to the California
*English--Language Arts Content Standards* and translated into Spanish.
These newly aligned materials will be debuted at California's Achieving
Schools Conference in May 2000. In fact, California has agreed to be a
pilot state in a U.S. Department of Education effort to provide training
to teachers for the School-Home Links materials and to evaluate their
effectiveness.

As each kindergarten year nears an end, REA must consider interventions
for children who are not making adequate progress. A promising model for
kindergarten transition programs was developed by the San Juan Unified
School District in Sacramento, California. Entitled First Camp*,* this
model is designed as a summer intervention program specifically
targeting entering first graders identified as being at risk of reading
difficulties. First Camp has the following features:

-   Class size is 15 students

-   Each classroom is staffed by a specially trained classroom teacher
    and a reading specialist

-   Teachers must compete to teach First Camp and prepare for the summer
    through special professional development

-   First Camp operates concurrently with the district summer school

-   The entire summer school day is devoted to building students' skills
    in literacy

-   Students are carefully selected for the program from schools across
    the district

-   Students are thoroughly assessed throughout the program and
    instruction is tailored to their needs

-   First Camp instruction is intensive and systematic, while also
    engaging and motivational

-   Student are monitored the following year in first grade to determine
    their long-term progress

Evaluations of First Camp conducted by the district have yielded
positive achievement results.

Successfully transitioning from kindergarten to first grade requires two
critical components: 1) effective initial instruction in kindergarten;
and 2) necessary interventions during the school year and in the
intervening period before first grade. REA schools will describe in
their Literacy Plan how both of these components will be organized and
implemented.

# C.3. Family Literacy

Although California will allow Local Reading Improvement applicants to
meet the requirement for provision of family literacy services in a
variety of ways, applicants will be encouraged to expand the number of
families served by current programs and to establish new programs that
meet the requirements of the Reading Excellence Act. Such programs must
be voluntary and of sufficient duration and intensity to make
sustainable changes in the family. Programs will be required to
integrate all of the following activities:

-   Early childhood education---age-appropriate education to prepare
    children for success in school and life experiences

-   Parent and child together time (PACT)---interactive literacy
    activities between parents and their children

-   Parent education---training for parents regarding how to be the
    primary teacher for their children and full partners in the
    education of their children

-   Adult education---parent literacy training that leads to economic
    self-sufficiency

The goal will be for families in subgrant schools to have the
opportunity to participate in a formal program of family literacy at the
school site or at a partnership site in a nearby area. REA districts and
schools will explore the availability of family literacy programs,
including Even Start, in their application. Even Start is a federally
funded program of family literacy in California with a long history of
successfully serving families with children ages zero to seven in high
poverty areas. Many families in REA schools may already have access to
an Even Start program, or another similarly organized program, such as
Head Start.

In the event that a formal family literacy program is not immediately
available in the school vicinity, the school will consider options for
implementing one or all elements of family literacy programs in a
different way. For example, in many high poverty areas early childhood
programs are available through state-funded preschools, state-funded
childcare and development, Head Start, and other early childhood
providers. Programs of adult education are available in all California
school districts, as well as through many immigrant service centers and
other governmental programs, such as job training through Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The challenge for elementary
schools is to connect parents with available resources. One of the roles
of the School Site Literacy Coordinator will be to provide information
on the availability of such services to families and to encourage their
enrollment.

Parent education and interactive literacy activities between parents and
their children can become the foundation of the applicant school's
parent involvement program required by both federal programs, such as
Title I, and state programs, such as services to English learner
students. Many other agencies also provide these services, including
public libraries and the Women, Infants and Toddlers (WIC) program. In
1988 the state legislature created the Families for Literacy Program
which is a statewide family literacy initiative operated by the State
Library and local public libraries. The Home Instruction Program for
Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) is also available in many areas of
California. HIPPY is a research-based early intervention program that
provides parents with training and materials to engage in daily learning
experiences with their three to five year old children. The program
model involves parent meeting and weekly or biweekly home visits by
paraprofessionals to support parents in the use of development-based
literacy materials.

Again the School Site Literacy Coordinator will provide information to
parents regarding available services in parent education. Schools that
have access to state-funded Healthy Start programs have ready models of
family case management and brokered services for families; REA schools
with Healthy Start funds will have a structure and staffing to
effectively coordinate a range of family literacy services. Applicant
schools will design or refine their parent involvement activities with
the express purpose of supporting parents in being full partners in the
education of their children and in increasing opportunities for parents
and children to interact in literacy activities. By implementing formal
programs of family literacy or various program elements, REA schools
will extend their reach beyond the children in kindergarten through
grade three to those younger siblings ages zero to seven.

REA schools will need assistance in understanding the goals of family
literacy and in organizing services to children and families. Technical
assistance will be available through the state's recently funded Even
Start Statewide Family Literacy Initiative Grant and/or through the Head
Start Family Literacy Project. Both of these efforts will offer regional
workshops and technical assistance to school and family literacy
personnel. One of the strongly recommended activities for the REA
schools will be to send a member of the Literacy Team to family literacy
training sponsored by either of these two groups. The California Family
Literacy Consortium has been established as a part of the Even Start
Statewide Family Literacy Initiative Grant to link to K-12 content
standards, to identify model/mentor family literacy sites, to produce
and deliver training modules, and to coordinate services at a number of
levels, including higher education. REA schools will be linked to the
California Family Literacy Consortium to build their capacity to expand
and implement high quality family literacy programs.

These family literacy efforts are also compatible with other statewide
initiatives in preschool education. Recently Superintendent Eastin
issued the Universal Preschool Task Force report, *Ready to
Learn---Quality Preschools for California in the 21^st^ Century.* This
report offers six recommendations for ensuring that half-day preschool
programs will be available for all three- and four-year-olds in
California by 2008. In addition, California is poised to publish
*Pre-kindergarten Learning and Development Guidelines.* This document
will present guidelines for program foundations and curriculum for
pre-kindergarten. The guidelines align with the English--language arts
content standards, extending beyond the grade-level expectations for
pre-kindergarten specified in the document, *Teaching Reading.* The
guidelines also complement the suggestions offered for literacy in the
document, *First Class: A Guide for Early Primary Education,* and the
requirements for quality and compliance review of child development
programs, *Desired Results.* This year the Governor\'s Education
Initiatives will, for the first time, include the participation of
preschool teachers in the California Professional Development Institutes
in Reading. By defining expectations for pre-kindergarten literacy
programs and providing professional development for pre-kindergarten
staff, California will improve the quality of family literacy programs
and the success of students in kindergarten through grade three.

# 

# C.4 Use of Technology to Support Local Professional Development or Instruction

At the local level, technology will play a minor part in professional
development and instruction with regard to reading. The National Reading
Panel found a very limited body of research in this area, although the
Panel concluded that there is evidence that it is possible to use
computer technology for reading instruction. The Panel did note, among
other things, that the use of computers as word processors may be useful
because of the effectiveness of combining reading and writing
instruction. The Report also noted that research on the incorporation of
Internet applications to reading instruction was not found.

With regard to professional development, California has contracted for a
16 module web-based professional development program for teachers of
students reading at the 4^th^ through 8^th^ grade levels. The project
will be finalized in June of 2000 and a dissemination process will be
undertaken in 2000-2001. California Department of Education is currently
exploring the feasibility of producing or supporting a similar program
at the K-3 grade levels. These programs are designed to be used by staff
developers or preservice instructors in classroom settings, but may also
be used individually by teachers connected to the Internet.

Finally, state level professional development, delivered via satellite
television, may involve group activities for teachers led by Regional or
District Literacy Coaches. Professional development activities of this
nature are currently being used in California and this delivery
mechanism is regarded positively. Such productions may be used either in
a live format with interactive teleconferencing or recorded and used at
more optimal times.

# C. 5. Coordination with Related Programs

## To be successful in teaching all students to read, REA schools will need to coordinate REA-funded activities with all existing funding sources and to seek additional funding, as necessary, to fully implement all REA activities. Schools in high poverty areas are likely to receive significant funding from federal sources, such as Title I, and from state sources, such as the School Improvement Program, Services for English Learner Students, Miller-Unruh Reading, etc. And although these schools are likely to have access to various sources of funding, it is the coordination of that funding around a validated program of reading instruction and a schoolwide model of interventions that make such resources powerful. These schools need the professional development and the technical assistance that REA will provide to make a significant impact on the achievement of their students.

Specifically REA schools will be required to address all of their
available funding sources within their Literacy Plan. There is a variety
of state and other funds available (e.g., Healthy Start, Even Start,
McKinney Homeless Education) on a competitive basis to support
underfunded activities, such as tutoring, extended day programs, and
family literacy. Technical assistance will be provided from the regional
and the state levels to help schools to identify and apply for such
funding in order to fully implement all REA activities. Recent state
initiatives have provided additional funding for instructional
materials, school libraries, classroom library materials, reading
incentive programs, and more. Two new state efforts, Pupil Promotion and
Retention and Elementary School Intensive Reading Program, seek to
identify students having difficulty and provide needed assistance,
specifically in the area of reading. REA schools need to leverage
existing and new sources of funding support their program goals. For
example, the adoption of validated instructional materials requires the
support of the school district to access available state Instructional
Materials Funds.

The state has a responsibility to target schools in high poverty areas
that have the most need, both in terms of academic performance and
availability of funding and systems to support needed interventions.
Schools already participating in the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration Program and its state counterpart, Immediate
Intervention/Underperfoming Schools Program, may already have the
resources necessary to implement effective reading programs in
kindergarten through grade three. Most importantly, schools selected for
REA need to create a powerful structure for teaching all children to
read and intervening with those students who have difficulty. This
structure and all available funding must be thoroughly described in the
school's Literacy Plan.

V. Local District Activities Under Tutorial Assistance Subgrants

California\'s application will provide up to 15 percent of the subgrant
funds or \$8.7 million for tutorial assistance grants. One reason to
take full advantage of the possible allocation for tutoring programs is
the success the state is currently experiencing with tutoring programs.
The California Department of Education has administered 22 tutoring
programs operating in approximately 50 districts over the past two
years. The first-year evaluation of the program has indicated immediate
results in terms of student gains. Stanford Achievement Test (SAT9)
results indicated an average gain of over 6 percentile points in reading
and over 7 percentile points in mathematics between 1998 and 1999
administrations of the test for students who received at least 6 months
of tutoring.

These tutoring programs have in many cases successfully involved
community-based organizations. Components of the tutoring model include:
a tutor supervisor, extensive tutor training including research-based
reading, coordination with the classroom reading program, and primarily
college student tutors with an interest in teaching. Student Academic
Partnership Programs are encouraged to involve AmeriCorps and
AmeriCorps\*VISTA volunteers as program coordinators. In some local
programs, AmeriCorps\*VISTA members serve as tutor coordinators, while
college students engaged as AmeriCorps members provide direct tutoring
services. In cases where AmeriCorps\*VISTA and AmeriCorps members have
been involved in the provision of tutoring, community-based
organizations have been actively engaged in the design and delivery of
tutoring services. California will be expanding its program in
2000-2001.

**A. What is Expected of LEAs?**

# Research on the Efficacy of Tutoring 

A summary of the evidence on tutoring was prepared by the Planning and
Evaluation Service of the U.S. Department of Education in 1997. The
summary finds that "well-designed tutoring programs that use volunteers
and other nonprofessionals as tutors can be effective in improving
children's reading skills. Students with below-average reading skills
who are tutored by volunteers show significant gains in reading skills
when compared with similar students who do not receive tutoring from a
high quality tutoring program." The summary cites, among other studies,
a meta-analysis by Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik (1982) of 65 published
studies that used rigorous evaluation methods to evaluate high-quality
tutoring programs. The meta-analysis found positive, though modest,
achievement effects across all of the studies. The summary also cites
several more recent studies that show substantial effects. For example,
"a British tutoring program involving 2,372 elementary and junior high
students who were tutored by trained parents and peers for an average of
8.6 weeks improved their reading comprehension 4.4 times the normal rate
and word recognition 3.3 times the normal rate. Four months after the
end of tutoring, the average tutee was still improving at twice the
normal rate in both comprehension and word recognition." Topping, K. &
Whitley, M. (1990)

# Research on High-Quality Implementation

The U.S. Department of Education summary also lays out, along with
supporting evidence, six factors that researchers generally agree
generate the most consistently positive achievement for tutees. These
factors are:

1)  Close coordination with the classroom or reading teacher

2)  Intensive and ongoing training of tutors

3)  Well-structured tutoring sessions in which the content and delivery
    of instruction is carefully scripted

4)  Careful monitoring and reinforcement of progress

5)  Frequent and regular tutoring sessions, with each session between 10
    and 60 minutes in length. More sessions per week have resulted in
    greater gains.

6)  Specially designed interventions for the 17 to 20 percent of
    children with severe reading difficulties.

Prominent among the findings that support structured lessons for early
readers and specially designed lessons for students with severe reading
difficulties, are those of Kame\'enui, Adarns, and Lyon (1996). These
researchers point to the importance of developing an awareness of
printed language and the writing system, teaching the alphabet,
developing students' phonological awareness, developing phonemic
awareness, teaching the relationship of sounds and letters, teaching
children how to sound out words, teaching children to spell words, and
helping children to develop fluent, reflective reading.

**Tutorial Assistance Subgrant Requirements\
**Tutorial Assistance Grants will provide monies to eligible Local
Education Agencies to develop and implement tutoring programs to be
conducted during non-instructional time. Tutoring programs must be based
on scientifically based reading research and serve students of eligible
schools in grades K-3 who have difficulty reading. Districts receiving
the funds must offer multiple choices of tutoring programs to parents,
including at least one school-based program (e.g. located at the school
site and overseen by school-based personnel) and one program offered by
a community-based organization. Districts will be required to develop a
Literacy Plan or to incorporate their tutoring program activities into
an existing Local Improvement Plan, or district or site Literacy Plans.

Both school-based programs and programs offered by independent providers
will be required to include [Tutor Coordinators]{.underline} who will
supervise tutors, arrange locations for tutoring, schedule frequent
tutoring sessions, coordinate with classroom teachers, support
monitoring of student progress, and otherwise oversee the program. Tutor
training should be ongoing and may be carried out by the tutor
coordinator, by teachers whose students will be tutored, by university
faculty who supply the tutors, or by REA School Site Coordinators or
District Coordinators. The training programs will be required to include
the elements of research-based reading, strategies for coordinating with
the classroom teacher and the classroom reading program, and approaches
to motivating and involving students in extensive reading. One such
program has been developed by California Reads and grantee schools will
have access to that training program as well as content developed by the
California Department of Education. Programs will be expected to provide
individual or small group tutoring on a frequent basis.

[Tutors]{.underline}.

Tutors should be interested in students and knowledgeable about reading
following the training. It is often best to match students and tutors
with regard to language and background factors. More than 1000 colleges
and universities, many of them in California, have joined the America
Reads/Work-Study Program. Students attending these colleges may be
available to serve as tutors. Governor Davis has also proposed requiring
community service as a condition of graduation from state universities.
If implemented, this requirement could greatly expand the availability
of tutors. Grantees will also be urged to consider seniors as
appropriate tutors. As the fastest growing demographic group in the
state, seniors represent one of the few demographic groups that has time
to tutor. Further, California's seniors will be the healthiest, most
vigorous, and best educated in the state's history. All tutors must be
fingerprinted and their records checked before they begin to work with
students.

Finally, each school will need to have an individual assigned to
communicate with parents. This parent coordinator will be responsible
for notifying parents of the availability of tutoring programs and of
any differences in the programs. All communications, including
notification, must be in a language that is understood by the parent. In
many districts, a substantial number of parents speak only Spanish,
Vietnamese, Hmong, or Cantonese. A process for communicating with
parents in these language groups, if they are present, must be
established.

# What Schools May Participate

Within each eligible district or county office, only eligible schools
that serve students in any of grades K through 3 may participate.
Participant schools must also be in Title I School Improvement status or
have the highest or second highest number of poor children in the
district, or have the highest or second highest percent of poor children
in the district. For the Tutorial Assistance Subgrants, schools located
in an empowerment zone or enterprise community may participate even if
they do not meet any of the other criteria.

[Limitation]{.underline}: There is a limit on the number of schools that
may participate in each district. Participation is limited to the
greater of: a) two eligible schools, or b) 20 percent of the eligible
schools within the district. Thus a district with 25 eligible schools
could include up to 5 in its application. Districts have the choice of
which two or what 20 percent of eligible schools will be served.\
\
[Priority]{.underline}: Although districts may select any schools that
meet the Tutorial Assistance Grant eligibility criteria, 5 preference
points will be given to districts that propose at least one school that
has been in Program Improvement status for three years. Districts will
also be encouraged to involve as many of these three-year schools as is
feasible. Because districts are required to take corrective action of
some type in these schools, there is an expectation that district
personnel will be more involved than is always the case.

# Professional Development Opportunities

Districts that send a team of at least five defined individuals to a
two-day Grant Application Workshop will receive a competitive priority
for funding. This workshop will offer Tutorial Assistance Grant
applicants awareness information about research-based reading provided
by reading professionals. They will also receive information about
developing and supporting a tutoring program provided by individuals
currently running such programs.

Following the award process, participating districts, schools, and
community-based providers will have access to continuing professional
development on reading research, training of tutors, project management
and working with community-based organizations, tutor supervision,
approaches to motivating students, connecting with parents, and
monitoring student progress through assessment.

# Criteria for Determining Eligibility of Tutorial Assistance Providers

Each district participating in the Tutorial Assistance Program will need
to have an assigned individual, either an on-site tutor coordinator or
other administrator whose job it is to select and monitor programs
offered by independent service providers and to ensure that programs
maintain confidentiality regarding student and parent information. The
criteria to be used for selection of Tutorial Assistance Providers are:

a)  The program adheres to the research factors for high quality
    tutoring services listed above;

b)  The providers include individuals who have a track record in the
    area of providing high quality services to juveniles;

c)  The providers agree to keep parents informed of the progress of
    their children and to maintain confidentiality regarding parent and
    student information;

d)  The process for selecting and supporting tutors is appropriate and
    feasible.

# Organizing Multiple Providers and Monitoring Their Services

Each Tutorial Assistance Program will have at least two providers, one
community-based and one school-based. The school-based program may be
provided by the school itself. If not actively run by school personnel,
a school-based program must be overseen by a school official. Programs
other than those run by the school will operate on a contractual basis
for a specific period of time. A district administrator will be
responsible for negotiating or approving such contracts.

All providers will be required to follow the same rules with regard to
selection and monitoring of students, parent involvement, and
maintenance of confidentiality. Providers will meet on a bi-monthly
basis with the Tutor Coordinator to ensure that programs are aligned
with the school program and progressing appropriately.

Each program will be responsible for providing information to parents on
the format and content of its tutoring. In the event that a program is
not desirable to parents it may be redesigned or discontinued and
replaced with a more desirable program.

# D. Process for Selecting Children 

Tutoring programs will be required to give priority in placement to
students who are having difficulty reading, including difficulty
mastering phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, and reading
comprehension. Additional priority is to be given to students in danger
of retention, students who may be referred to special education or who
have been referred but did not qualify for special education programs,
and English language learners who are struggling in English reading
programs. Students most in need of tutorial assistance are to have
priority for services if services cannot be offered to all students
identified for services. If services cannot be provided for those
determined to be equally in need, priority is to be given to those
selected on a random basis.

# Keeping Parents Informed

It is the responsibility of each tutoring program to provide a process
for keeping parents informed. This may be limited to written reports on
student progress or may include parent meetings. It is even feasible
that parents would receive training from the provider on how to tutor
their own children. Providers will be required to allow parents access
to the tutoring sessions if requested. Parents may also request changes
to the tutoring situation and the provider should attempt to provide
satisfactory resolution of these requests. In the event that problems
cannot be resolved, the Tutor Coordinator will have final jurisdiction.

F.  **Ensuring Participant Confidentiality and Privacy for Families**

Contracts with individual providers will be required to contain sections
on confidentiality both with regard to students and their progress and
with regard to family matters. It is the responsibility of the Tutor
Coordinator or district administrator to review such policies and to
serve as mediator if concerns arise. In the event that parents object to
provider actions, they may have their students withdrawn from such
programs. In such an event, every effort should be made to accommodate
these students in other tutoring programs.

# G. Oversight and Monitoring/Administration 

The Tutor Coordinator or a district administrator will be responsible
for oversight of tutoring programs. If the program serves several
schools, it is most appropriate that oversight be provided at the
district level. Monitoring should include review of the ongoing training
program, especially for adherence to appropriate elements of early
reading, a process for ensuring consistency with classroom reading
programs, review of parent information and confidentiality issues, and
evaluation of the program\'s effectiveness. Evaluation should be based
on student achievement as well as parent and student satisfaction with
the program

#  

# VI. Evaluation and Performance Measurement

## Evaluation Design for Outcomes and Implementation Evaluation

[Issues:]{.underline}

Evaluation of the success of activities conducted under the Reading
Excellence Act presents a number of significant problems. The schools in
which programs will operate are those which have been, to date,
extremely unsuccessful in demonstrating student achievement. In
California, a significant effort is being made to address the needs of
these and similar schools. Interventions range from the district being
placed under conservatorship, to schools participating in the
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program. This is the second
year in which the state provides grants in amounts approximating \$200
per student to 430 volunteer schools scoring in the bottom half of the
statewide distribution on an Academic Performance Index (API)[^1]. For
elementary schools, the API will consist of scores on a new test aligned
with California's standards referred to as the SAT 9 Augmented Test in
spring of 1999. In future years, other indicators may be added such as
student and teacher attendance. All schools will be ranked on the API
and school rankings may be used as one indicator of school success.

At the same time, all schools have begun this year to be trained in and
use the *Reading/Language Arts Framework* that is aligned with state
standards and all schools have a substantially greater amount of funding
for instructional materials this year and in the next two years.
Separating the effects of these various influences on low-performing
schools will be difficult. Nevertheless, we intend to use both grade
level scores in participating schools and a comparison of school scores
on the API to obtain a sense of the progress that is being made in
schools participating in the Reading Excellence Act. In addition, all
K-3 students in Reading Excellence Act schools will be assessed with a
battery of assessments covering the areas for K-3 assessment laid out in
the *Reading/Language Arts Framework.* Further information is provided
below.

[Evaluation Principles:]{.underline} In order to evaluate the success of
the Reading Excellence Program within California, the state will operate
under the following principles:

1)  California will participate in and, to the extent possible, provide
    appropriate information for the national evaluation of the Reading
    Excellence Program.

2)  Information sought for the state evaluation will, to the extent
    feasible, be aligned with that sought for the national evaluation
    and useful to local educators for purposes of student assessment. It
    will include data on the implementation of the grant both at the
    state and regional level and at the local level.

3)  The California Department of Education will contract with a
    reputable, independent, external evaluator who is knowledgeable in
    the area of scientifically based reading research in order to carry
    out the state evaluation according to the principles specified in
    this paper and federal guidelines. The evaluator will be expected to
    design a comprehensive evaluation plan, the instrumentation of which
    will include both quantitative and qualitative measures of student,
    teacher, and family outcomes. Evaluators will also be expected to
    make site visits to a portion of the schools in order to develop
    descriptions of these projects and a sense of the depth of
    implementation by interviewing participants, including parents and
    representatives of community-based organizations and to validate
    quantitative data. Finally, evaluators will interview state and
    regional staff members and examine documents in order to determine
    the extent of project leadership and follow through.

The contracted evaluation will include:

> 1\) California requires all students in grades 2 through 12 to take
> the SAT9 augmented version that contains questions designed to measure
> progress towards California\'s content standards. Reading scores of
> students in participating schools at grades 2 and 3 will be compared
> to scores of similar students in the same schools in 2000 and possibly
> 2001, prior to the school\'s receiving and implementing the subgrant.
> Both groups of students will be followed as they move on to grades 4,
> 5, and 6 in order to determine to what extent the effects are lasting.
> Although this evidence may be of limited value due to high levels of
> student mobility, the approach across all participant schools should
> provide some evidence of the added value associated with changes to
> the reading program of the school.
>
> 2\) Unfortunately, this process will not definitively separate effects
> due to reading improvements that may otherwise occur in all schools,
> such as through implementation of the state's new *Reading/Language
> Arts Framework* and new standards-based instructional materials made
> available in a June 1999 state adoption. In order to compensate for
> this situation and to isolate effects associated with the Reading
> Excellence Program, scores of participant schools at the appropriate
> grade levels or school scores on the API will be compared with those
> of other Title I Program Improvement schools that are not
> participating in the Reading Excellence Program, the Comprehensive
> School Reform Demonstration Program, or the volunteer program
> providing \$200 per student to 430 schools. This approach should also
> provide useful information about the effects of this intervention
> versus no intervention.
>
> 3\) An Evaluation Advisory Group composed of members of the Reading
> and Literacy Partnership, contracted evaluators, California Department
> of Education staff, special education resource specialists, and
> reading consultants will develop a set of additional indicators of the
> success of the program in accordance with federal guidelines. The
> advisory group will consider the areas of student achievement,
> specific achievement of English language learners, parent satisfaction
> and involvement, program implementation, program configuration, and
> program or instructional variables which may be effective in teaching
> students how to read.

4)  These indicators will include a battery of common, individual
    reading subtests for students in grades K through 3 such that school
    personnel can obtain reliable information about student progress on
    the components of reading. Such a battery will contain, at different
    grade levels, subtests that provide information on concepts about
    print, phonemic awareness, oral segmenting and oral blending,
    phonetic elements, decoding, oral and written vocabulary, fluency,
    and comprehension. These common tests, together with the SAT9
    Augmented Test will constitute the required student data that
    districts must collect. Evaluators may collect samples of these
    subtests at specific grade levels to supplement other indicators.
    Both the Reading Success Network and the California Reading
    Professional Development Institute have built in assessment systems
    that cover a wide range of reading tasks for the K-3 grade range.
    The majority of participant schools will receive either coaching and
    professional development from the Reading Success Network, or the
    summer institute and 40 hours of ongoing professional development
    including assessment through the California Reading Professional
    development Institute. These assessments include assessments of
    phoneme awareness, a phonics inventory, and other assessments in
    Spanish as well as English as well as diagnostic tools for English
    language learners engaged in English reading.

> 5\) Additional indicators will be approved by the Evaluation Advisory
> Group that will provide information relative to changes in the overall
> focus of the school and required components of the subgrants, such as:
>
> a\) **the program or programs of reading instruction (including
> materials)**--information on program name, components of the reading
> program including components specifically addressing the needs of
> English-language learners, implementation process, satisfaction of
> teachers and parents, student attendance rates, and degree of
> effectiveness of the program according to the "Continuum of
> Effectiveness" provided in federal guidelines.
>
> b\) **professional development**--information on components and
> content of the professional development undertaken at the school,
> providers, participants, duration, teacher assessment of changes in
> classroom practice, teacher retention rates at the school, and degree
> of effectiveness of the program according to the "Continuum of
> Effectiveness" provided in federal guidelines.
>
> c\) **family literacy**--information on program name, community-based
> organizations involved, components, parent language, parent
> satisfaction, and parent reading achievement.
>
> d\) **kindergarten to first grade transition**--the number and percent
> of students identified as in need of assistance, the criteria and
> process for identification, the types of assistance provided, the
> process for informing parents and working with them to ensure the best
> situation for their children, teacher and principal satisfaction with
> the procedures, and assessment of student progress including
> assessment of English-language learners.
>
> e\) **support during non-school hours**--information on training and
> supervision of tutors and other supervised individuals, curriculum,
> program hours of operation, program components, parent and teacher
> satisfaction, and degree of effectiveness of the program according to
> the "Continuum of Effectiveness" provided in federal guidelines.
>
> f\) **overall focus on reading in the school--** number of books
> available to students in the classroom and library, participation in
> reading incentive programs, and student, parent, and teacher
> perceptions of the school's support for students learning to read, and
> progress of subgroups such as English Language Learners in early
> reading.
>
> The data elements so identified will be collected by evaluators for a
> sample of the schools through surveys, telephone interviews, and site
> visits.
>
> 6\) Evaluation of the Tutorial Assistance Grants will be conducted by
> the same evaluator as the Reading Improvement Grants. The evaluation
> will include assessments of reading competency as described above as
> well as analysis of the implementation of the projects. As with the
> Local Reading Improvement Grants, the Evaluation Advisory Group
> composed of members of the Reading and Literacy Partnership,
> contracted evaluators, California Department of Education staff, and
> evaluation and reading consultants will approve a set of additional
> indicators of the success of the program. Such indicators might
> include, student attendance rates, teacher ratings of student
> engagement, parent perceptions of student involvement, estimates of
> program demand, comparisons of school-based and community-based
> programs, and degree of effectiveness of the program according to the
> "Continuum of Effectiveness" provided in federal guidelines.

***Description of the Statewide Assessments\
***

The Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR) that California
will be using statewide consists of three parts: a norm-referenced
assessment, a standards test, and a Spanish assessment. The Stanford
Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Form T (Stanford 9) assessment produced
by Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement is used as the norm-referenced
test. The Stanford 9 has been augmented with additional sections that
provide questions specifically matched to California's reading/language
arts and mathematics content standards. This portion of the STAR test,
also developed by Harcourt Brace, is called the Standards Test. Unlike
the Stanford 9, the augmentation sections will not yield norm-referenced
scores. The augmented items are being reported as number of items
answered correctly out of the number of items possible. Beginning in
2002, the standards test will be reported in terms of NAEP performance
levels.

All students in grade 2 through 11, including limited English speaking
students will be required to take the STAR assessment that will yield
individual student scores reportable to parents. The only students
exempted from STAR testing are students whose Individual Education Plans
(IEPs) specifically exempt them from standardized testing and students
with written parent request to exempt them.

In addition to taking the designated STAR test in English, a primary
language test in Spanish must be taken by limited English proficient
Spanish-speaking students who first enrolled in California public
schools less than 12 months prior to testing. The designated test in
Spanish is the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, Second Edition
(SABE/2), published by CTB McGraw-Hill. The SABE/2 covers reading,
language, mathematics, spelling at grades 2 through 11 and word analysis
at grades 2 and 3.

**B. Timeline for Data Collection**

The California Department of Education (CDE) plans that its evaluation
activities will last for three years. The selection of an evaluator will
take place in early Spring of 2001. During the first year of the
statewide evaluation, beginning in Spring of 2001, the evaluator will
focus on finalizing the evaluation design and collecting and analyzing
baseline data about each participating school and district. In years 2
and 3, the evaluation will shift to documenting program implementation
and assessing changes occurring in participating schools, with emphasis
on both the implementation process and outcomes as depicted by student
achievement results and school performance indicators. A final
evaluation report will be prepared in Fall of 2003.

**C. Criteria for Selection of the Evaluation Contractor**

Standard procedures of the California Department of Education (CDE) will
be used to select the evaluation contractor. Each proposal will be
evaluated to determine responsiveness to the requirements and standards
as described in the Request for Proposals (RFP). The selection process
complies with the requirements for competitive bidding in the State
Public contract code section 10377(b) requiring prospective bidders to
submit their technical proposals and cost/price proposals in separate,
sealed envelopes. The CDE reserves the right to reject any or all
proposals.

**[The Rating, Criteria and Evaluation Form includes several
steps:]{.underline}**

**Step I, Part 1 -- Adherence to Proposal Requirements** (Rated on a
yes/no basis) (This includes the usual technical specifications.)

**Step I, Part 2 -- Minimum Qualifications** (Rated on a yes/no basis)

Did the bidder show clear evidence of meeting the following conditions?

> 1\. The bidder must show clear evidence of a minimum of two years of
> recent experience (one of which must be within the last three years)
> in the development of projects similar to that described in the RFP.
>
> 2\. The project manager assigned to this project must have at least
> two years' recent experience in managing similar projects of
> comparable scope and size.
>
> 3\. The bidder must clearly document experience with, and knowledge
> of:

(a) scientifically based reading research;

(b) quantitative research, especially sampling methodology, and analysis
    and interpretation of standardized test and other student
    achievement data, including for K-1;

(c) educational measurement and assessment, including accountability
    data;

(d) qualitative research, especially survey, observational, interview,
    case study, and focus group methodologies;

(e) performance of research in schools which have been extremely
    unsuccessful in demonstrating student achievement;

(f) student, teacher, and family outcomes; and,

(g) cost benefit and/or cost effectiveness analysis.

**Step I, Part 3 -- Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria (100
points)**

A panel will review the technical proposals on the criteria listed
below. Proposals will be scored based upon the adequacy and thoroughness
of their response to the RFP requirements. Any proposal receiving less
than 90 points will be rejected.

1.  **Understanding of the Project (15 points)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Degree of understanding of the purpose and requirements of the
    California Reading Excellence Program, both the Reading Improvement
    Grants and Tutorial Assistance Grants. (5 points)

b.  Degree of understanding of Program Improvement schools and the needs
    of students in such schools. (5 points)

c.  Degree of understanding of the purpose and scope of the evaluation.
    (5 points)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **Technical Quality of Study Design and Work Plan (55 points)**

    a.  Clarity and feasibility of the work plan and its responsiveness
        to the requirements of the RFP. (10 points)

    b.  Degree to which the methodology is comprehensive and rigorous in
        answering and addressing study questions (20 points)

    c.  Degree to which the sampling design is comprehensive and
        methodologically sound (5 points)

    d.  Degree to which proposed instrumentation is clear, feasible, and
        comprehensive (5 points)

    e.  Degree to which conceptual or methodological problems
        surrounding the project are addressed and the proposed solutions
        are sound (15 points)

3.  **Adequacy of Management and Staffing Plan (10 points)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Quality of the overall management and staffing plan and the degree
    to which it ensures the efficient operation of the project to
    accomplish project tasks (5 points)

b.  The quality and appropriateness of the project management and
    staffing plans and the extent to which they reflect adequate time
    commitment to each task (5 points)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  **Experience and Expertise of Proposed Staff (10 points)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  The appropriateness and applicability of the experience and
    expertise of proposed staff for the design and conduct of this
    project (5 points)

b.  The extent to which the Related Experience section adequately
    describes the experience of the bidder in providing services
    required and the extent to which it addresses the specific
    experience and expertise requirements to meet the Minimum
    Qualifications and Evaluation Criteria described in this RFP (5
    points)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  **Previous Work and References (10 points)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  The quality of the samples of previous work submitted and the
    relevance of the work performed to the scope and complexity required
    for this RFP (5 points)

b.  The strength of client references (5 points)

**D. Role of the Reading and Literacy Partnership**

The Reading and Literacy Partnership will play on ongoing role with
regard to the evaluation process. Representatives of the Partnership
will sit on the Evaluation Advisory Panel and participate in the
selection of the evaluator, the development of additional outcome
indicators, and setting of the final evaluation design. These
representatives will remain on the Advisory Panel through the conduct of
the evaluation, providing advice on data collection and analysis and
reviewing the evaluation report.

**VII. RELATIONSHIP OF REA ACTIVITIES TO OTHER STATE EFFORTS**

**A. How does the state's REA program relate to other state efforts to
improve reading?**

The purpose of REA in California will be not only to increase the
capacity of the poorest and lowest-performing schools to teach their
students to read well by the end of third grade, but also to serve as an
organizing force for all the resources that can be brought to bear on
improving reading. REA will be the state's focal point, a single point
of entry for teachers, administrators, parents, and community partners
seeking to improve reading for young children.

California's REA Program will build on the work begun through the
California Reading Initiative, promoting coordination among literacy,
school improvement, and professional development programs. The
California Department of Education has several mechanisms to promote the
coordination of statewide literacy programs, for example:

1\. **The Reading and Literacy Partnership---First Tier**

> Representatives of major statewide programs including Title I, Even
> Start, Migrant Education, and IDEA Special Education are active
> members of the Reading and Literacy Partnership, and thus, will be
> involved in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of REA
> activities.

2\. **The Reading and Literacy Partnership---Second Tier**

> There are additional programs that, while not official members of the
> Partnership, constitute a second level of supportive involvement in
> reading improvement efforts. Thus far, they have provided input and
> needs assessment data, and will continue to participate as
> dissemination and evaluation of REA activities progresses. These
> partners include the Education for Homeless Children and Youth
> Program, the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program,
> Eisenhower Professional Development, and Adult Education and Family
> Literacy.

3\. **Even Start Statewide Family Literacy Initiative**

> This coalition coordinates family literacy activities throughout the
> state and includes the: (1) CDE Even Start Family Literacy Program,
> (2) CDE Title I Program, (3) CDE Adult Education and Family Literacy
> Offices, (4) California State Library, (5) California Child
> Development Head Start Collaborative Office, (6) California Department
> of Migrant Education, (7) CDE McKinney Homeless Education, and (8)
> local Even Start Family Literacy community-based projects.

4\. **California Reads Roundtable**

> Convened under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education,
> Region IX, the Roundtable includes major, state-level reading and
> literacy organizations, as well as key county and local agencies. The
> Roundtable meets on a regular basis to better coordinate state reading
> activities that support the America Reads Challenge. Members of CDE's
> Reading and Mathematics Policy and Leadership Office represent the
> Department on the Roundtable. Other key member organizations include
> the:

• California Association of Teachers of English

• California Commission on Improving Life Through Service

• California Library Association

• California Reading Association

• California School Boards Association

• California School Library Association

• California State PTA

• California Reads Program

• Corporation for National Service

• Friends of California Libraries

• Pacific Bell Pioneers

• San Francisco State University

• State Literacy Resource Center of California

• Western/Pacific Literacy Information and Communication Network (LINCS)

5\. **CDE Intradepartmental Reading Committee**

> All CDE offices conducting programs with reading or literacy
> components participate on this committee that serves to facilitate
> communication, gather input and data, and participate in planning
> activities for statewide reading improvement. Moreover, through
> participation in the aforementioned groups, the CDE's Reading and
> Mathematics Policy and Leadership Office is connected to virtually all
> reading and literacy programs in the state.

Besides coordinating family literacy services based on programs like
Even Start and HIPPY (Home Instruction Programs for Preschool
Youngsters), REA will orchestrate a massive, concerted state effort to
promote school improvement in the area of reading. The program will
coordinate the state's major research-based, professional development
initiatives in reading---the Reading Professional Development Institutes
and the Reading Success Network---to improve the quality of reading
instruction. The REA Partnership will also provide low-performing
schools with resources to launch recreational reading, parent
involvement, and volunteer tutoring programs. The CDE will use
well-attended forums, such as the annual School's In! Conference to
promote effective practices in all the related areas of reading
improvement---instruction and assessment, tutoring, K-1 transition
activities, supporting reading excellence for English learners, and
family involvement.

**B. What will the REA add to current state efforts? What is the value
added by REA?**

The great value of the Reading Excellence Act Program lies in the fact
that it will provide an overall, statewide framework for building the
capacity of high-poverty, low-performing schools to implement and
sustain improvement efforts in reading. The program will allow the state
to coordinate all key reading efforts and resources, align professional
development activities with the State Standards and Framework, and
provide concentrated assistance to those schools and students most at
risk for reading failure. While the state has been working to this end
for several years, REA offers a mechanism with supporting resources to
bring all efforts together under one "reading improvement umbrella." A
few of the key areas that REA will add to existing state efforts include
the following items. The REA Program will:

 Present the latest research findings in the areas of reading, reading
instruction, and teaching young students with reading difficulties, and
promote instructional practices based upon these findings;

 Help schools improve and align their methods for assessing student
achievement in reading, incorporating the requirements of the State
Standards and Framework, and assessment tools offered by adopted
curricula, the Reading Professional Development Institute, and the
Reading Success Network;

 Put assessment results and other significant data into the hands of
classroom teachers, and empower them to act upon their understanding of
student learning;

 Provide technical assistance to participating schools as they create
and implement comprehensive K-3 Literacy Plans;

 Provide a network of professional development resources and activities
that are based upon empirical evidence of program effectiveness, the
State Standards and Framework, and student assessment data;

 Provide a framework for teaching English learners to read and for
providing scientific, research-based professional development for
teachers of English learners;

 Develop awareness of the importance of collaborative reflection on
current teaching practice and analysis of student work as a means to
improve instruction;

 Coordinate with special educators in promoting best, first instruction
as a means of preventing students from being identified as learning
disabled;

 Expand opportunities for preschool literacy efforts and professional
development and leadership for preschool educators;

 Coordinate parent education and involvement programs, and community
outreach efforts;

-   Gather and disseminate data from participating schools that
    describes effective practices, and as a result, create a network of
    high-performing, high-poverty schools that serve as models of
    excellence for others.

# VIII. Budget

## A. Budget and Details

**\
Justification of Request**

California's application requests the maximum proposed amount of
funding, \$60 million. This request reflects the magnitude of
California's need and is conservatively based on its proportionate share
of the nation's poor children. For example:

[Demographic Need]{.underline}

-   California has a much larger number and percent of immigrant and
    limited English speaking students than the national average. Fully
    24.6 percent of California 5.7 million school children are English
    language learners.

-   Program Improvement schools, those eligible for the grants provided
    by this program, have even higher levels of poverty and language
    limitation than the state at large. For example, in PI schools,
    almost exactly 50 percent of the students are English language
    learners.

-   A disproportionate number of students in California are living in
    poverty. According to NCES data for the 1996-97 school year, 48
    percent of the students in California were receiving free or reduced
    price meals. This concentration of children in need was surpassed
    only by Louisiana (49 percent), Mississippi (56 percent), and the
    District of Columbia (69 percent).

-   Using a stricter set of criteria, the U.S. Census Bureau (1995) data
    indicates that 13.8 percent of the nation's poor children live in
    California. Thirteen and eight/tenths percent of the available
    funding for the Reading Excellence Act is \$69 million.

***[Educational Need]{.underline}\
***

-   California scores near the bottom on national comparisons in
    reading. On both the 1994 and 1998 NAEP Reading Assessments
    California ranked with the two or three lowest performing states.

-   California has over 1500 schools identified for Program Improvement
    (Title I school improvement status). The majority of these are
    elementary schools. Los Angeles Unified School District, alone, has
    over 300 elementary schools in Program Improvement.

[***Readiness for Change***\
]{.underline}

California policymakers and educators are well aware of the need to
improve the quality of reading instruction. The state has poured over
\$200 million into professional development programs to make all
teachers aware of the reading problem we all face and the research-based
approaches to instruction that will change the situation. However, in a
state with over 280,000 teachers, many of them new or employed on
temporary credentials, this level of support does not solve the problem.
While we are seeing some initial successes, long -term, intensive
intervention is needed, particularly in the lowest-performing schools.
Some indications that we are on the right track are:

-   In 1999, the percent of students scoring above the 50^th^ percentile
    on the total reading portion of the statewide Stanford Achievement
    Test is consistently higher for students at grades two through six.

-   This effect is clear and consistent for speakers of English at
    grades two through eight who now exceed national averages on these
    measures. It is also true for English language learners who, though
    scoring well below national and state averages, have shown
    consistent gains at grades two through six.

-   The National Education Goals Panel cited California along with three
    other states and the District of Columbia for their greater than
    expected rates of growth in reading achievement between 4^th^ grade
    in 1994 and 8^th^ grade in 1998. California registered a gain of 56
    scale score points, significantly greater than the 49 point gain for
    the U.S. It should be pointed out that this improvement occurred
    during a period of rapid immigration to the state.

Use of Funds

Of the \$60 million requested, 5 percent or \$3 million will be used to
support the management structure for the grant over a three year period.
Additional funding will be sought from state or outside sources to help
support the two satellite centers by providing dedicated professional
development staff in county offices with numerous grantees. Three
hundred thousand will be used for grant administration of the Tutorial
Assistance grants. The remainder will provide funding for the two types
of local assistance grants, the Local Reading Improvements grants and
the Tutorial Assistance grants.

[Use of State Operations Funding]{.underline}

State monies will primarily be used to provide staff for the CRC for
three years and to support the statewide evaluation which is anticipated
to cost approximately \$700,000 over the three year period. Funds will
also be needed to support the application review process. In the first
year of the grant, the CRC will be developing the RFA, providing grant
application workshops and conducting the application process. In the
second and third years of the grant, the major work will be in the areas
of coaching and other professional development. In those years,
additional funds will be required in both the Department of Education
(CRC) and in the Satellite Centers (primarily in county offices) to
provide Regional Literacy Coordinators for each region or county that
houses several grantees.

## B. Resources per School

# 

# Districts applying for either of the two types of grants may apply for a maximum of two eligible schools or twenty percent of their eligible schools, whichever is larger. 

Applicant districts will propose an amount sufficient to operate the
proposed program for a two-year period, bearing in mind that other
resources should be used for portions of the total program. The amount
requested should be based on the number of participating schools and the
proposed activities to be funded from this source. It is expected that
certain of the required activities under the grant will be funded from
Title I, Even Start, state general fund, and other available sources.

The expected range for the Reading Excellence Grants is \$300,000 to
\$400,000 per school for the two year period. It is anticipated that
this amount will cover salary costs of the School Site Literacy
Coordinator, the District Literacy Coach for districts with three or
more participating schools, and provide for teacher release time, travel
costs, or additional stipends as needed. In addition, these funds will
support a portion of family literacy, and student support activities.
The costs of Reading Professional Development Institutes, coaching
provided by the CRC and Reading Success Network, and technology-based or
ongoing professional development will be largely borne by the state. It
is also expected that schools will have sufficient funding already
available to purchase student reading materials. Using \$400,000 as a
maximum, at least 120 schools will receive Reading Excellence Grants.

The expected range for the \$8.7 million available for Tutorial
Assistance Grants is \$150,000 to \$200,000 per school for the two
years. Such an amount will support the salary of a Tutor Coordinator. It
will also provide additional funding that may be used for paying tutors,
training tutors, communicating with parents, contributing to the costs
incurred by a community-based organization, paying travel costs, and
other appropriate expenditures. It is expected that tutoring activities
will be coordinated with other reading activities at the school and that
funds from other sources such as Title I will be used to augment the REA
money. Applicants are encouraged to consider as tutors, college students
who have work-study funding, parents and senior volunteers, and
AmeriCorps members, who receive ongoing stipends. This proposed level of
funding should allow 45 to 50 schools to participate in the Tutorial
Assistance Program.

**Dual Budgeting**

The districts and schools that will receive Reading Excellence Act
grants are not without funds. Most have Title I and new materials monies
as well as assorted other categorical funds. In order to ensure that a
variety of resources are brought to bear on the improvement of reading,
applications and reporting forms will ask districts to indicate how
other funds are used to support REA purposes.

# Budget Calculations/Justification for State Retained Funds

The figures for individual budget items were computed in the following
manner.

Personnel Half time Director provided by California Department of
Education

2 consultants @ \$73,000 x 3 years = \$438,000

0.5 analyst @ \$44,000 x 3 years = \$66,000

1 support staff @ \$31,500 x 3 years = \$94,500

**Total = \$535,500**

Travel Readers for grant scoring (100 readers x \$500 = \$50,000)

Travel for information sessions (5 presenters x \$500 x 6 trips =
\$15,000)

Travel for technical assistance and program monitoring

(2 x \$500 x 30 trips x 2 years = \$60,000)

Travel for professional development presentations

(3 presenters x \$500 x 11 sessions = \$16,500)

**Total = \$141,500**

Supplies Estimate = \$13,442

**Total = \$13,442**

Fringe Benefits 2 consultants @ \$73,000 x 3 years x 30% = \$131,400

0.5 analyst @ \$44,000 x 3 years x 30% = \$19,800

1 support staff @ \$31,500 x 3 years x 30% = \$28,350

**Total = \$ 179,550**

Equipment 5 staff x \$5,000 = \$30,000

**Total = \$30,000**

Contractual Evaluation Contract = \$700,000

Reading Success Network Regional Literacy Coaches

(\~10 Coaches x \$80,000 = \$800,000)

Technology consultant = \$30,000

Professional development contracts = \$25,000

**Total = \$1,555,000**

Total Direct **\$2,454,992**

Fixed Rate

Indirect Cost \@22.2 % = **\$545,008**

## State Funds Total \$3,000,000

**Subgrant Funds \$57,000,000**

> **TOTAL \$60,000,000**

[^1]: The Academic Performance Index (API) is part of an overall
    accountability process, the Public School Performance Accountability
    Program, authorized by SB1X (Alpert) and signed into law by Governor
    Gray Davis in April of 1999.