SBI 1. Provide all students access to a common language arts and reading curriculum that is aligned to state standards.

The Standards-based Instruction (SBI) component of the TSLP includes Action Steps focused on providing effective instruction based on Texas literacy standards and educational research.

Action Step SBI 1 calls for schools to provide an effective reading and language arts curriculum that aligns to the literacy standards in Texas.

Part 1 of this lesson provides an overview of the literacy standards in Texas and discusses ways in which teachers can collaborate to integrate and use standards to provide aligned instruction.

In Part 2, you will examine some techniques to evaluate the alignment of materials, resources, and instruction to literacy standards.

Finally, Part 3 discusses professional development for standards-based instruction and outlines some of the most effective forms of professional development for standards-based literacy instruction.

To get started, download the Implementation Guide for this component and refer to the Action Step for this lesson. Examine the Implementation Indicators for each level of implementation and note the Sample Evidence listed at the bottom of the chart.

State standards provide guidance about what our students should know and be able to do. Three sets of state standards in Texas directly relate to literacy instruction. These sets of standards, represented in the image below, are the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS), the College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS), and the English Language Arts and Reading and Spanish Language Arts and Reading Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (ELAR/SLAR TEKS). For literacy instruction to be truly standards based, it must effectively integrate each of these literacy standards.

The English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) provide a framework for helping English learners (ELs) become proficient in English as they acquire grade-level content. The ELPS apply to instruction for ELs across all grades and in all content areas. They are intended for teachers to use at the student’s level of English proficiency as indicated by the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) or other English proficiency measures. The College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) provide guidance for the skills students need to know and build upon at each grade level to be successful in college or careers after high school graduation.

The English Language Arts and Reading and Spanish Language Arts and Reading Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (ELAR/SLAR TEKS) define what students must know and be able to do with regard to literacy and communication in English and Spanish. The SLAR TEKS are for students in English-Spanish bilingual and dual-language programs from kindergarten through grade 6. These standards align to the ELAR TEKS, with a few exceptions that relate to differences in the languages themselves such as letter sounds and accent marks. The introduction to the SLAR TEKS contains information about Spanish language structure and how native language development supports English language development.

Represented by the five-pointed star below, the ELAR/SLAR TEKS are organized into five related strands: Reading, Writing, Research, Listening and Speaking, and Oral and Written Conventions. Quality standards-based literacy instruction includes all the points of the star.

One way to integrate instruction to include all five strands of the ELAR/SLAR TEKS is for teachers to cluster related or complementary student expectations from different strands into a lesson or unit. The Reading and Writing strands can provide the anchor for such clusters. Look at Clustering Expectations: A Sample to see an example of how a teacher can cluster student expectations for a unit or lesson.

These standards are aligned from prekindergarten through grade 12 and are designed to enable students to engage in activities that build on the knowledge and skills students acquired in previous grades. It is critical, therefore, that these standards are intentionally used to guide literacy instruction in language arts classrooms and in intervention instruction. In addition, it is important that each of these standards guides selection and use of curriculum resources. Research shows that alignment of core reading instruction, intervention instruction, and materials and resources can prepare students to be more successful on end-of-year assessments and in future classes (Fisher & Frey, 2007; Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, & Baker, 2006).

Power of planning collaboratively

While teachers may create powerful lessons working in isolation, research on schools shows that teachers create more engaging, effective, and rich lessons when planning with others (Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015). Action Step SBI 1 calls upon campus-based leadership teams to organize and support time for teachers to plan standards-based instruction together.

Collaboration to support standards-based instruction may take several forms. High-functioning schools employ planning teams at horizontal and vertical levels, such as grade-level teams and departmental teams. At schools with multiple language arts and reading teachers per grade, the grade-level teams typically do the day-to-day work and planning involved in standards-based instruction, while departments can assist in vertically aligning curriculum and instruction across grades. In addition, district-level departmental teams can support the work of campus-level teams by providing guidance in the alignment of curriculum and instruction across schools (horizontal) and grade levels (vertical). While these teams may have slightly different goals, they share the responsibility for implementing a consistent common curriculum that aligns to state standards and leads to student success in building literacy skills for each subsequent grade level. You and your team may want to consider ways to incorporate time for teams to work during the school day.

In addition to planning standards-based literacy instruction, grade-level or department meetings can provide meaningful opportunities to analyze student work, share instructional ideas, mentor less experienced teachers, and collaborate to solve any of the meaningful problems that teachers encounter. Problem solving as a team can lead to superior learning opportunities for students, as well as excellent on-the-job professional growth for the teachers collaborating on the solutions.

The following scenario provides an example of how these teams can work together to align instruction to state standards.

Scenario: Ms. Verona teaches 7th grade at one of the middle schools in a large school district. She meets in a grade-level team with other 7th-grade teachers. They work together to develop lesson plans and share ideas for how to teach the ELAR TEKS, CCRS, and ELPS according to their district framework. She also participates in a campus-level vertical literacy team. While she was concerned at first that the time commitment needed to participate on these teams would be too much, she later realized that much of her collaborative work is work she would have done anyway to be an effective teacher.

The functions of the teams are parallel, with each coordinating the efforts at their level in accordance with one another. For example, when Ms. Verona works with her 7th-grade language arts team to plan instruction for the week, team members collaborate to ensure that they are explicitly supporting their students in mastering the 7th-grade standards. They also review student performance data and discuss recommendations from the campus and district vertical teams at regular intervals.

For the campus-level language arts team, Ms. Verona meets with other middle school language arts teachers. Their focus is the alignment and coordination of literacy instruction for different grade levels. The teachers use a vertical alignment document to review the standards that are being introduced and built upon at each level. All team members invest time in professional development for themselves to ensure a shared, deep understanding of the ELAR standards, what the standards require students to know and be able to do, and ways in which these skills and understandings build across grade levels. The communication among grade levels helps Ms. Verona understand the prior learning of her students and build skills that students will use when they encounter texts and literacy tasks in 8th grade and high school. Ms. Verona then shares this understanding with her fellow teachers on her 7th-grade language arts team.

The following key guidelines are likely to help horizontal and vertical teams collaboratively plan standards-based instruction:

• Operate with shared priorities and tackle tasks in a coordinated fashion.
• Use data to inform analysis and recommend adjustments to instruction and curriculum.
• Arrange for overlapping membership between teams to support communication.
• Maintain communication between teams and allow for ongoing innovation.

To support standards-based instruction, it is also essential to evaluate the alignment of instructional materials to state standards. Core materials such as the adopted textbook form the foundation for language arts curriculum and instruction. Supplemental materials are resources that support the core curriculum and provide enrichment or remediation. They include optional materials from the core program along with materials from other sources, including novels and anthologies.

Evaluating instructional materials

It is unlikely that any one set of instructional materials will fully integrate all of the standards within the ELAR/SLAR TEKS, ELPS, and CCRS. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the core instructional materials to identify the standards that you will need to support with supplemental materials. Evaluating alignment of materials will need to be a continuous cycle and include an ongoing analysis of materials before, during, and after their use in the classroom. You can use the questions below to help guide the process of evaluating materials.

Why are you evaluating materials? The purpose will guide decisions in this process. For example, your campus may evaluate materials to

• adopt new instructional materials;
• determine how well existing instructional materials address literacy standards and support students’ mastery of standards; and
• determine what supplemental materials and support are needed.

Who will be involved? It may be appropriate to include all English language arts and reading (ELAR) and Spanish language arts and reading (SLAR) teachers or specific ELAR and SLAR teacher leaders. You will also want to include an administrator and consider others such as librarians, interventionists, instructional coaches, and specialists. These staff members may have unique perspectives on the needs of specific student populations.

What is your timeline? This will depend on the purpose of the evaluation and any goals related to that purpose. For example, external deadlines for purchasing may influence the timeline. You may also consider when teachers will use new materials, when grade-level planning will occur, and when professional development will take place.

What will you evaluate? Depending on your purpose, there may be different tools or starting points for the evaluation of materials. For example, an evaluation for the purpose of adopting supplemental materials deserves an effort in which staff reviews all materials and activities for alignment. This process may require creating a detailed inventory of existing materials such as textbooks, novels, writing programs, and many other ancillary materials. You and your team can follow up this inventory with an examination of the materials’ contents and a review of how teachers use the materials in classroom instruction. This kind of comprehensive review will give you information you need to determine the degree of alignment with literacy standards.

You might also engage in the materials evaluation process to learn how well supplemental materials target gaps and address standards not explicitly or effectively taught in the core program. You may also review how materials address specific learner characteristics such as dyslexia, giftedness, or limited English proficiency. At other times, you may evaluate materials to use for intervention with students who need additional instruction and practice with certain concepts and skills.

Often the selection of materials—especially core materials—occurs at the district level. Evaluation of core materials at the campus level is still critical in this situation because it will help teachers understand the areas in which gaps may exist between mandated core materials and state standards. For these areas, supplemental materials can support instruction and ensure that students have access to the full curriculum as outlined by the state standards.

How will you evaluate instructional materials? The team conducting the evaluation should use a rubric that matches the purpose for the evaluation, such as adopting new materials, determining gaps in existing materials, selecting supplemental materials for specific skills, or supporting intervention. Whatever tool you choose to evaluate, include the following key elements as part of the criteria you examine:

• Alignment to state literacy standards
• Vertical alignment across grade levels
• Appropriateness for age
• Alignment to all students' needs

The criteria should be specific. Criteria such as “materials are vertically aligned” or “materials address the TEKS” are too broad to serve as useful measures. Instead, it might be useful to include multiple criteria in your rubric for each element. At the same time, the criteria should not be so detailed that they are cumbersome for reviewers. Stephanie Al Otaiba and colleagues (2005) recommend using questions that address specific issues in curriculum evaluation rubrics; for example: Was the order of instruction organized sequentially? Was instruction across components clearly linked? Was instruction explicit and systematic? Ratings on specific elements such as these will provide you and your team with a detailed analysis of the curriculum. You can find more information regarding evaluating instructional materials in the To Learn More section at the end of Part 2.

Evaluating the use of instructional materials

In addition to evaluating the alignment of instructional materials to literacy standards, you and your team may also want to evaluate how materials are used. During this evaluation process, it is important to distinguish between curriculum and instruction. Curriculum includes what skills and content to teach (the scope of content) and the order in which to teach them (the sequence of content). Instruction, by comparison, refers to how the content is delivered. While overlaps exist in these areas, attempting to address an instructional problem by modifying curriculum will likely yield unsatisfactory results. For example, if your data consistently show low performance in the standards related to poetry, the causes could be any of the following:

• Poetry is underrepresented in instruction. This is an issue with the scope of the content.
• Poetry is taught early in the year but not revisited in a systematic way. This could be an issue with sequencing.
• Poetry is taught briefly just before the assessment. This could be a problem with sequencing, pacing, or both.
• Poetry is taught and reinforced throughout the year, but the quality of lesson delivery varies significantly from class to class. This is an issue with instruction.

If poetry is taught too infrequently or sporadically, you should thoroughly investigate the cause before deciding on a course of action. Sending teachers to professional development aimed at improving instruction will not address the root cause if it turns out that poetry is not adequately addressed by the core materials.

Likewise, it may be tempting to seek more materials to address gaps in achievement, but you should first examine all materials available and in use because it is possible that teachers do not use some materials well or at all. Because of this, it is important during your evaluation to ask questions about how teachers are using materials and observe the use of these materials. You may determine that teachers need more support to effectively implement materials. This support might come from professional development, coaching, mentoring, or collaborative planning.

Evaluating sequencing and pacing

When evaluating the use of instructional materials, it is also important to consider how teachers sequence curriculum and pace instruction. A recent study conducted by the National Reading Technical Assistance Center found “that a pacing schedule aligned with the core reading and language arts program increases the appropriate use of instructional time and full coverage of content by year's end. [When teachers use] a grade-level pacing schedule, students are more likely to achieve at higher levels” (Furry & Domaradzki, 2010, p. 1). New teachers are especially in a position to benefit from the structure and direction provided by the sequencing and pacing of a solid curriculum (Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu, & Peske, 2002).

Research on learning indicates that students must learn simpler foundational concepts before learning complex concepts (van Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2010). Curriculum must be sequenced to support this. While curricular materials usually sequence instruction along such a developmental progression from simple concepts to more complex ones, developmental gaps may exist, and you and your team will need to decide how to fill those gaps.

You and your team—or those you designate to examine your language arts curricula and materials—might also check the pacing. For example, it is wise to pace instruction so teachers can spend more time teaching content that is difficult for students to master.

Pacing guides may be provided to create guidance for teachers and help ensure that students master all literacy standards over the course of the year. However, the need for re-teaching and enrichment may differ from class to class. This may cause teachers to vary their pacing of instruction. As campus leaders, you and your team can discuss ways to allow variation in pacing across classrooms while ensuring broad alignment to a common pacing guide.

Think back to the example about poetry instruction. After evaluating the core materials and the use of these materials in the classroom, including the pacing of instruction, your grade-level team or department may determine that it is necessary to adjust the sequencing and pacing of poetry instruction. This adjustment could involve reordering the sequence of instruction so that students learn foundational concepts before complex concepts, spending more or less instructional time on specific poetry skills, or integrating systematic review of previously taught content throughout upcoming units.

Adjusting sequencing and pacing is an ongoing process rather than a one-time attempt to solve a problem. While adjusting sequencing and pacing, you and your team will need to conduct ongoing evaluation to assess the effectiveness of your adjustments. It may be necessary to make additional changes to address persistent gaps.

TO LEARN MORE: For more information about evaluating curriculum and instruction for alignment to literacy standards, you may want to review the following resource:

The Florida Center for Reading Research provides “Principal Reading Walk-Through Checklists” for kindergarten through grade 12. These checklists provide models for you and your team to use as you consider measuring how teachers are using existing curriculum.

For instruction to be standards based, all teachers need comprehensive professional development on the state literacy standards. Professional development should foster growth in knowledge about the state literacy standards and skills in using those standards to guide instruction. Professional development can be formal, such as an extensive training for new teachers or an update session taught by district-level staff. Informal professional development might include collaboratively planning and evaluating student work with the grade-level or department team and instructional coach. You can find a sample protocol for this kind of informal professional development in the To Learn More section of Part 1 (EQuIP Student Work Protocol).

It is also necessary for administrators and other campus leaders to participate in professional development about standards. These educational leaders must have a deep understanding of standards-based instruction in order to monitor and promote its practice and guide improvements.

Before providing professional development, you and your team can conduct a needs assessment related to literacy standards and their instructional implementation. A needs assessment will enable you to discover the areas in which professional development is most necessary for your staff. Hasbrouck and Denton (2005) recommend interviewing teachers, using disaggregated student assessment data (e.g., phonemic awareness, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension), and observing classroom instruction to determine professional development needs.

Many sources of data are available on your campus to help you assess needs. You might begin by measuring the participation of each staff member in professional development focused on state standards. In addition, you could conduct a survey of teachers and administrators to identify their professional development interests and perception of needs. Classroom walk-throughs and lesson plan reviews may also provide information to guide the needs assessment.

You may find that knowledge about standards and skill in using them vary across your staff; in this case, you will need to provide professional development opportunities that are differentiated accordingly. While some instructional staff may benefit from traditional in-service sessions like those designed by the state, others who have already participated in these trainings will gain more from individualized professional development that allows them to build on their prior knowledge. Some other ways that instructional staff and administrators can build capacity for standards-based instruction include

• collaborative lesson or unit planning;
• sharing and analyzing examples of student work;
• guided data analysis sessions; and
• observation and feedback from a consultant, coach, or instructional leader.

Many of these examples of professional development are embedded in teachers’ practices and are not simply events that teachers attend. In this way, professional development is an ongoing process that can be defined broadly as the ways that professionals grow and develop. Because of this, individualized professional development that meets the specific needs of your instructional staff may be more meaningful for the teachers at your campus.

TO LEARN MORE: You may want to review the following sources related to research on professional development and state literacy standards:

Effective professional development

In an Educational Leadership article, Thomas Guskey outlines five critical levels to evaluate professional development. This article provides a framework to help you and your team understand the effects of professional development on your campus and offers some practical tips for collecting data about those effects.

While there are many effective ways to embed professional development in teachers’ practices, one of the most powerful can be teacher-led learning walk-throughs. The Massachusetts Department of Education provides a Learning Walkthrough Implementation Guide to support conducting learning walk-throughs. In the appendices, support documents include organizers, protocols, sample schedules, activities, and trainings.

State developed resources on literacy standards

The support site for the Standards for Ensuring Student Success From Kindergarten to College and Career—English and Spanish Language Arts and Reading provides resources for teachers, trainers, and administrators to support the use of the literacy standards. This includes videos, professional development modules, training toolboxes, and documents comparing standards.

The Texas English Language Learners Portal provides teacher training resources and professional development supporting the use of the English Language Proficiency Standards in ELAR and other content areas.

To learn more about the alignment of the ELAR and SLAR TEKS standards across grade levels, access the ELAR TEKS Handbook, which traces the vertical alignment of student expectations from kindergarten through grade 12.

NEXT STEPS: Depending on your progress in providing all students access to a common language arts and reading curriculum that is aligned to state standards, you may want to consider the following next steps:

• Administer a needs assessment of instructional staff and administrators regarding standards-based instruction.
• Develop a plan for standards-based professional development, keeping in mind the variety of professional development methods.
• Incorporate follow-up into your standards-based instruction professional development plan.
• Establish grade-level teams, campus-level vertical teams, and district-level vertical teams that set and work toward goals and hold regular meetings during the school day.
• Identify a team to lead the systematic process of evaluation and selection of materials; assign roles and responsibilities to team members.
• Identify or develop a rubric for evaluating materials and their use.
• Use the rubric to evaluate current instructional materials and their use.

SBI 1. Provide all students access to a common language arts and reading curriculum that is aligned to state standards.

With your site/campus-based leadership team, review your team’s self-assessed rating for Action Step SBI 1 in the TSLP Implementation Status Ratings document and then respond to the four questions in the assignment.

TSLP Implementation Status Ratings 6-12

In completing your assignment with your team, the following resources and information from this lesson’s content may be useful to you:

• Refer to Part 1 for a review of the three sets of literacy standards.
• Refer to Part 2 for information about evaluating alignment to state literacy standards.
• Refer to Part 3 for a review of best practices in professional development.

Next Steps also contains suggestions that your campus may want to consider when you focus your efforts on this Action Step.

To record your responses, go to the Assignment template for this lesson and follow the instructions.

Al Otaiba, S., Kosanovich-Grek, M. L., Torgesen, J. K., Hassler, L., & Wahl, M. (2005). Reviewing core kindergarten and first-grade reading programs in light of No Child Left Behind: An exploratory study. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Literacy Difficulties, 21(4), 377–400. doi: 10.1080/10573560591002286

Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela, K., & Baker, J. N. (2006). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 309–321.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy framework: Improving achievement in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 32–43.

Furry, A., & Domaradzki, L. (2010). The value of instructional time and pacing schedules for K–3 reading. National Reading Technical Assistance Center (NRTAC), RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/index.html

Hasbrouck, J., & Denton, C. (2005). The reading coach: A how-to manual for success. Boston, MA: Sopris West.

Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “Lost at sea”: New teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273–300.

Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002

van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2010). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2