Transitions: Preparing for Implementation of Literacy
Standards at a Rural Elementary School
Changing Lives
Every Day
Joel Bradford
University of Oregon
Silkwood Rural Elementary School
Introduction
Common Core State Standards – Changing Expectations
Oregon is in the process of moving towards full implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The movement towards
the common core includes shifts in expectations for both
mathematics and English language arts (ELA). With a basic tenet
of college and career readiness, CCSS shifts the role of the
elementary educators to provide deeper instruction and
assessment of essential skills for students transitioning to the
middle and high school grade levels.
In the area of literacy the elementary instructor needs to
understand the six basic shifts in ELA standards. The elementary
staff need a clear understanding of how these shifts are
integrated into their instructional practice. See the chart below for
a summary of the six shifts (ODE Toolkit, 2011).
Six Shifts in Literacy Standards
Shift 1
Increase Reading
of Informational
Texts
Shift 2
Increase Text
Complexity
Shift 3
Build Academic
Vocabulary
Shift 4
Develop Ability to
Provide Text-Based
Answers
Shift 5
Write Using Text
Sources as a Base
Shift 6
Expand Literacy
Instruction Across
Content Areas
Rural Elementary Staff
The move towards CCSS involves changes in expectations for
teachers at the elementary level through the six shifts in literacy.
In addition, elementary teachers in self contained classrooms
will need to respond to changes in expectations for both
mathematics and English language arts (ELA).
Rural elementary educators at smaller schools also face
additional responsibilities. Additionally, rural educators are often
the only instructor at a single grade level. The opportunities for
collaboration with respect to planning and implementation of the
standards are limited to non-existent for the rural elementary
educator.
Leading Staff Development
School improvement through standards based process requires a
staff that is prepared to move towards a common goal. Even in
1985, the discussion about standards-based elementary education
included leading staff in the work. According to Linda DarlingHammond and Arthur Wise, known effective elementary
leadership allowed for “collective autonomy and responsibility” as
well as high standards for students as clients (Darling-Hammond
and Wise, 1985). This remains the basic standard for considering
options to work with staff preparing for CCSS.
POSTER TEMPLATE BY:
www.PosterPresentations.com
Training Options
Option 1: Training Schedule
Other Options and Desired Outcomes
Option 1: Systematic Awareness to Transition Activities
Staff work as a team to develop an awareness of the essential
shifts with implementation of ELA standards. Staff assess ELA
progression in the standards and the complete evaluation of
needs. Transition activities are completed with a recognition of
vertical integration of ELA standards necessary for
implementation.
Below is a framework for training and staff development under for
Option 1: Systematic Awareness to Transition Activities.
Other Options
Introduction to CCSS:
Literacy and Mathematics
Develop Understanding
Of Six Shifts
Form ELA Group Both Schools
Option 2: Immediate Implementation of Standards in Assigned
Phases
Teachers would be assigned specific groups of standards and
asked to develop materials and lesson plans while mapping the
standards. Staff work independently on the plans and mapping of
standards. The process would bypass the awareness and
transition phase of preparation.
Apply Initial
Classroom-Based Task
Initial Task
Development
Option 3: Assign Implementation by Grade Level – No Group
Training
Each teacher is assigned to complete curriculum mapping for
ELA standards at a specific grade level. Teachers of a multigraded level classroom would address standards and curriculum
mapping for the multiple grade levels. Teachers would consult
with administrator as needed.
Standards Application
Activities
Review Results/
Standards Application
Activities
Standards Curriculum
Activities
Assess Activity/
Standards Curriculum
Activities
Option 4: Direct Assistance from Local Education Service
District (ESD) in Training
Release staff members as allowable to complete curriculum
mapping and implementation activities. Training is completed by
ESD staff.
Option 5: No Action Until Standards Take Effect
No time is taken to prepare for standards other than providing
reading materials for teaching staff. Once standards are
implemented purchase matching curriculum for staff to use in the
classroom.
Option Selection
Option 1 as the preferred route for training staff in moving from
awareness to transition activities. The process allows the work
to be developed an driven by a selected group of staff from both
schools working together. The team approach is preferred to
provide direction while considering the vertical integration of
activities for all staff. This is based on the concept of common
autonomy and responsibility.
The flow chart indicates the directional flow of work to be
completed. Rectangular pieces represent whole group work for
the staff, while the hexagonal pieces represent the work of the
ELA team. The flow of work runs in a repeating cycle of
development – group work – feedback/review – development.
The process has an ultimate goal of producing the level of staff
development to start implementation of standards.
Develop Plan and Tools with
ELA Team
Assess Activity/
Create Plan/Tools
Transition to Implementation
Phase
Other options are possible to meet the goal for the elementary
staff. Option 2 provides for the immediate implementation of
standards. This can provide an opportunity for staff to start right
away on the ultimate work that must be done. The drawback is
the system continues the isolation of staff and lacks vertical
integration options. This option also does not allow cross
collaboration where multi-grade classroom exist. Option 3
contains the same potential and pitfalls, but would allow multigrade teachers to collaborate if desired.
The two remaining options remove a portion of the internal
planning piece. The ESD staff would provide the structure and
organization for the training. Support from ESD staff can be
critical in the process and would be encouraged under Option 1;
however, coordination of training for the full staff could be
problematic if in-service dates do not coordinate with district
calendars. Hiring substitutes for a full staff meeting can be
counterproductive to the operation of school Certainly Option 5,
taking no action, would be a cost savings but leave the district
behind in preparation for implementing CCSS.
Desired Outcomes
In the end, the plan has these desired outcomes in mind:
 Inform staff of the timeline to implement the literacy standards
 Develop understanding of six shifts in literacy
 Increase staff input into training process
Funding Considerations
 Allow for vertical integration of standards work
Costs associated with the implementation of the plan over the
year are as follows:
 Create a continual feedback loop for training process
ELA Team Meetings
• 12 Meetings approximately one hour each
• 6 Staff members at approximately $40 per hour each
• 12 hours x 6 staff x $40 = $2880
Full Staff Inservice Meetings
• 6 Meetings approximately four hours each
• 6 Staff members at approximately $40 per hour each
• 4 hours x 6 meetings x 6 staff x $40 = $5760
Materials
• Copies and samples – Approximately $25 per meeting
• 18 meetings x $25 = $450
Total Cost
$2880 + $5760 + $450 = $9090
Total costs do not include any unforeseen external training
including workshops or substitute time.
Contact Information and Acknowledgements
For further information, please contact Joel Bradford at joelb@uoregon.edu. Further acknowledgement to an elementary staff which has provided a
source of motivation through their dedication to students and desire to seek opportunities to work together to address school operations.
 Provide a systematic approach to CCSS preparation
 Move staff from awareness and to transition for CCSS
References
Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Arthur Wise. "Beyond Standardization: State
Standards and School Improvement." The Elementary School Journal, 85.3 (1985):
315-336.
Gewertz, Catherine. "Standards Writers Wade into Curriculum." Education Week,
30.37 (2011): 1-17.
Hill, Heather. "Policy is Not Enough: Language and the Interpretation of State
Standards." American Educational Research Journal, 38.2 (2001): 289-318.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards:
The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–118.
"Balancing Act." State Legislatures, 36.8 (2010): 17-19. Interview with Diane
Ravitch
Common Core Toolkit, Oregon Department of Education, (2011)
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3430