Assignment 1
OVERVIEW
For this
assignment I have chosen an in-house evaluation our school leadership team
performed on an existing (and continuing) program in our school. Each year
struggling primary students in our school have the opportunity to bring their
reading skills up a number of levels through engaging in a Leveled Literacy
Intervention (LLI) program. The program is delivered by a dedicated staff
member who daily takes small groups (no more than four)of students from grade
1-2 in for 30 minutes of intensive, targeted
instruction. The program is also
overseen by our school’s Literacy Coach who meets regularly with the instructor
and provides feedback and direction. The students are enrolled in the program
for 16-20 weeks. Upon entry they are assessed and given a reading level using
the Fountas and Pinnell system. Following the 16-20 week period the students
are given final assessment and released to their respective classrooms
typically showing improvements of 1-3 reading levels (using the A-Z benchmarks).
In the
evaluation of the program the school based leadership team (Principal,
Assistant Principal, Literacy Coach, and Program Support Teacher) meet
regularly to evaluate the LLI program (and other programs) as well as determine
the effectiveness of the program, as well as to look for ways to improve the
program. In the evaluation of the
program, the team looks at factors such as number of students targeted, level
of increase in reading level, transfer of information back into the classroom
and subsequently the continuation of growth after release from the LLI program.
The leadership team feels that the program is effective, meeting the needs of
the target group, and providing instruction that is instrumental in student
growth. Annually for each of the last
three school years the program has been extended based on its level of success.
EVALUATION
MODEL
In this
case I believe that the evaluation model used is a combination of the Stake –
Countenance Model and the Scriven model. The feedback given by the leadership team (LT)
is anecdotal during weekly and monthly meetings but also relies on written data
from the teacher as well as summative observations given to the
Superintendent’s office. Program
description is given in the evaluation and the team makes judgements based on
student growth. I believe the Scriven
model also comes out in the fact that the program is given regular (formative)
feedback as well as annual (summative) review and recommendations.
Some of the
strengths of the evaluation process is that of ongoing evaluation and
monitoring in order that the teacher can make change as necessary. This may be
anything from changing group dynamics to student release from the program. One
obvious weakness is that the evaluation is conducted in-house, and not by
review from an outside party however there is monitoring of the program by the
school board office in their research practices to ensure best (research
proven) programs are utilized in the schools in the region.
Thanks Craig
ReplyDeleteIt is useful to be able to reflect on a program in your own institution. I am able to gain an understanding of the program through your description. What I would have preferred is a review of an actual program report but this will work. You connect a number of the theoretical models to the process that is undertaken and I agree with your statements. What you share is an excellent example of how non-formal PE is taking place in most schools. What we don't really know is how is the success and failures of the program are formally shared with parents, other teachers and outside administrators. What are the specific goals of the program?
Thank you for your feedback, Jay. As for feedback to parents, this is also given in a formative and summative manner. Parents are notified of their child's level and communicated to through the 16 weeks. When students are exited from the program they are given summative assessments to be shared with the classroom teacher as well as home.
ReplyDeleteAs for specific goals, the intention is to raise student reading levels in order that they can transfer that information back into the regular classroom and hence move along with their age appropriate peers. This is done through daily teaching of phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, and much repetition.
The ultimate goal of the program is to target students who are struggling with reading and bring them up to grade level. This is a lofty goal all the same and therefore we also look at time frame (16-20weeks)and set a specific goal for each group of students (i.e. students in "A" level reading group will increase their reading by 3-4 levels during the course of their acceptance in the LLI program). Following release from the program a related goal is for the classroom teacher to also assist in the transfer back into the regular classroom and support the recent growth.
ReplyDeleteSuccesses and failures are shared with parents, classroom teachers and outside administration in a variety of ways.
-The LLI teacher meets with classroom teachers during weekly meetings to report on student successes, growth and areas for improvement in order that the classroom teacher can support what the student(s) are learning. Areas for further growth are also focused on at this time in order that forseen failures and shortfalls can be proactively approached and the students can be further supported.
-Parents are contacted prior to their child's acceptance into the LLI in order that they can be given an overview of the program as well as ways that they can support their son/daughter during their time in the program. Parents have also been invited into the classroom for information and to answer questions they may have. Unfortunately there are also the times when phone calls have to be made encouraging parents to increase their child's attendance and ultimately follow up letters to indicate that a child has been removed from LLI due to attendance.
Parents/classroom are also given monthly written reports of student success and increases in their reading level-indicating their strengths as well as areas needing attention.
- Annual reports are written and sent to outside administration (School Board) which identify strengths and stretches in the LLI program as well as future focus areas for improvement. A School Board Literacy Coordinator also meets regularly with school admin to provide feedback and suggestions for improvements based on successes in other schools that deliver the LLI program.
Thanks Craig
ReplyDeleteThis certainly fills in the gaps for me in regards to this program. Thanks for taking the time to address my feedback.