Randy I. Dorn • State Superintendent
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building • P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200

Strengthening Student Educational
Outcomes: Best Practices and
Strategies for English Language Arts
2014
Authorizing legislation: RCW 28A.655.235
( />Special Programs and Federal Accountability
Dr. Gil Mendoza, Assistant Superintendent
Teaching and Learning
Jessica Vavrus, Assistant Superintendent
Prepared by:



Gayle Pauley, Director of Title I/LAP and Consolidated Program Review
(, 360-725-6100)
Liisa Moilanen Potts, Director of K–12 English/Language Arts
(, 360-725-6228)


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendices
Appendix A: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies ................................................................................... 10
Appendix B: Promising Practices and Strategies......................................................................................... 12
Appendix C: Expert Panel ............................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix D: Panel Review Process ............................................................................................................. 16
Appendix E: References/Resources ............................................................................................................ 17

List of Tables
Table 1: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies.......................................................................................... 11
Table 2: Menu of Promising Practices ........................................................................................................ 12

List of Figures
Figure 1: High-Level Work Plan for the Expert Panel .................................................................................. 16

2


Executive Summary
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5946,1 passed the state Legislature in 2013. It required the
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to convene an English language arts (ELA)
panel of experts. This panel developed a menu of best practices and strategies to help students in
grades K–4 as well as low-achieving students in grades K–12 served by the state's Learning
Assistance Program (LAP), to improve their ELA performance.
In addition to ELA, the Legislature also requested that OSPI convene panels of experts to develop
menus of best practices and strategies in math and behavior for low-achieving students served by
LAP in grades K–12. Those menus will be released in 2015.
The ELA menu is designed to support districts as they:





help students who struggle with reading to reach grade level by the end of fourth grade;
improve the reading and literacy of English language learners (ELL); and
strengthen systems to improve reading instruction for all students.

The ELA panel of experts determined that the work required for ELA in section 106 and 203 of
the bill should be combined. They agreed that the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies would
contain many, if not all, of the same ELA best practices and strategies for instruction of all students
in grades K–4 and low-achieving students in grade K–12. Specific considerations for grades K–4 are
included within appropriate best practice and strategy sections.
School districts in Washington are expected to use practices from this menu starting with the 2015–
16 school year. If they don’t, they must provide data that show the practices they are using instead
are effective.
This ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies is organized by type, based on the currently allowed
LAP service categories. The report contains a section describing promising practices—those
practices identified by the ELA panel of experts as showing signs of effectiveness, but lacking
sufficient research to be considered a “best practice” as of June 2014. OSPI is charged with updating
the menu annually by July 1st, and will seek input from districts and the expert panel on newly
identified research on both best and promising practices.
Each practice is described in more detail in the panel’s technical report: Strengthening Student
Educational Outcomes: Technical Report on Best Practices and Strategies for English Language Arts

1

Also see Chapter 28A.165 RCW and WAC 392-162.

3


Introduction

Washington’s literacy-teaching landscape is as diverse as the 1.1 million children in our 295 public
school districts. Across the state, educators work diligently to provide support in reading, writing,
speaking, listening, and language for all children. OSPI and statewide partners work to support
literacy instruction by continually revising and improving the supports and systems available for
building strong literacy skills in schools.
OSPI’s vision for education is for every student in the state to be ready for careers, college, and life.
To achieve this vision, the State must provide a robust system for reading and literacy support
throughout K–12, starting in the early years. Washington’s Birth through 12th Grade Comprehensive
Literacy Plan (CLP) defines literacy as an on-going cognitive process that begins at birth. It involves
the integration of listening, speaking, reading, writing and critical thinking. Literacy also includes
the knowledge that enables the speaker, writer, or reader to recognize and use language
appropriate to a situation in an increasingly complex literate environment. Active literacy allows
people to think, create, question, solve problems, and reflect in order to participate effectively in a
democratic, multicultural society (p. 2, CLP 2012).
The overarching goal of the CLP is grounded in state learning standards for all students, and is
based on the foundation that literacy encompasses all developmental phases. We must address the
different abilities and needs of children through instruction, assessment, and intervention in each
student’s primary language. The CLP and its associated resources recognize student diversity by
incorporating strategies that are relevant to cultural and linguistic differences, as well as different
learning styles.
In 2013, the Legislature directed OSPI to convene an expert panel to develop a menu of best
practices and strategies for English language arts (ELA) to complement the State’s continuing
efforts to improve outcomes in literacy for all students. The ELA Menu of Best Practices and
Strategies builds on state and federal investments since the early 2000’s that have sought to
increase early and adolescent literacy skills [e.g., Reading First (federal), and Washington Reading
Corps (state), Striving Readers (federal)]; the State has provided supplemental funds via the
Learning Assistance Program (LAP) to districts for many years to help struggling students.
However, because outcomes have been uneven across the state, this 2014 menu of best practices
and strategies, focused on K–12 ELA, seeks to identify proven practices that strengthen student
outcomes for all students in the state. The ELA panel collaborated with the Washington Institute for

Public Policy (WSIPP) to develop the menu. As required in separate legislation, WSIPP will provide
a companion report, due August 1, 2014, which will identify research-based and evidence-based
practices, strategies, and programs that are shown to improve student outcomes. Many of the best
practices and strategies identified for inclusion in the panel’s menu will also be included in the
WSIPP report. In addition, the WSIPP companion report will identify an average effect-size for
identified interventions and perform a cost-benefit analysis.

4


It is important to note that the existence of an ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies is not
sufficient to ensure that all students will succeed. Instruction and intervention work are complex.
Not all instructional strategies work all the time with all students. The expert panel, in their
deliberations, strongly voiced the importance of ensuring that each of the instructional
strategies and best practices described in the menu be designed to meet the diverse needs of
all students. Furthermore, the panel expressed the importance of integrating the linguistic
and cultural needs of English language learners (ELL) into all instructional and professional
development offerings described in this document, and that instruction be provided to ELL
students in their primary language whenever feasible. Finally, the expert panel offered three
significant and critical success factors that must be considered with every instructional strategy
and best practice:
1. Fidelity of program implementation within a multi-tiered system of support framework that
addresses core reading instruction for every student (when possible in their primary
language) and that strategically targets interventions based on data for students that need
additional support. Even the most proven intervention strategy can fail to achieve outcomes
if it is implemented poorly.
2. Degree of improvement expected or obtained from implementing an intervention –
sometimes interventions take more time than expected to show results. There are
potentially many effective practices that are not on the menu. Districts that use practices
not on the menu should be sure they align with the criteria used for considering the

practices within the menu.
3. Support for students through initial instruction, assessment processes, and interventions be
provided in their primary language, whenever possible.
Districts can continue to use other intervention strategies, but they must provide data that
describes the effectiveness of interventions not on the ELA menu, starting with the 2015–16 school
year.
Educators must engage in a process of observation, analysis, and take informed action in their
classrooms regardless of the intervention(s) chosen. This action research helps solve problems as
they arise, and can ensure that the interventions chosen by the teacher or district have a greater
chance of succeeding.

Learning to Read, Reading to Learn
In July 2011, Washington adopted the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
(CCSS-ELA) to replace the state’s 2005 Reading, Writing, and Communication Learning Standards
(Grade Level Expectations or GLEs). The CCSS-ELA are built on an intentional progression of the
skills and knowledge necessary for all students to be ready for careers, college, and life when they
exit high school. For kindergarten through grade four students, the CCSS-ELA provides targeted
focus on learning to read and reading to learn across all grade levels. According to Jeanne Chall in

5


her book, Stages of Reading Development (1983), “children first learn to read and then read to
learn”.
Focus of instruction for kindergarten through fourth grade students is based upon the findings of
the National Reading Panel Report, Teaching Children to Read. Students must be provided
instruction in their early years that addresses phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary
development, and comprehension. The CCSS set the Reading Standards: Foundational Skills for
grades K–5 which build upon the National Reading Panel’s findings. These standards are directed at
building a student’s ability to read and to comprehend what is read. The menu of best practices

includes a specific focus on supporting K–4 students in meeting these standards, and is informed by
scientifically supported, foundational practices for teaching reading to students in kindergarten
through fourth grade. Evidence-based teaching practices for effective K–4 reading instruction
include explicit instruction, modeling and scaffolding instruction, dynamic and flexible grouping,
increased reading time, discussion, and oral and silent reading practice (Jones et al., 2012). Effective
K–4 reading teachers must also differentiate and adapt instruction according to multiple points of
formative and interim student assessment, as well as carefully monitor student progress and
reteach as necessary (Denton, 2009).The ultimate goal for all K–12 students is for each student to
possess the skills to “comprehend texts across a range of types and disciplines”(CCSS-ELA).
In addition to the CCSS-ELA as the state’s learning standards for ELA, OSPI adopted new English
Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards for Washington in December 2013 that were developed in
2012 and 2013 to address the increased rigor and language demands of these career and college
ready standards and that align with the CCSS-ELA and CCSS for Mathematics. ELL students make up
nine percent (9%) of the student population in Washington. That’s more than 94,000 students are
in the process of learning a new language while simultaneously engaging in content to meet
rigorous career and college ready standards. With both the ELL specialist and the content area
teacher in mind, the 2013 ELP standards provide the language bridge to move students toward full
engagement and academic success. The 2013 ELP standards make it clear that language learning
and literacy encompass more than just grammar and vocabulary, and that they include refocus on
receptive, productive, and interactive modalities for instruction of ELLs. With the revisions in the
2013 ELP standards, English language development goes hand in hand with our state’s 2012
expanded definition of literacy as found in Washington Comprehensive Literacy Plan (CLP), giving a
greater emphasis on instruction in student’s primary language, cognitive processes, and integration
of skills. Such integration will take our students beyond the classroom and into career and college
ready to face the challenges of their futures.
With the adoption of the CCSS-ELA and associated ELP standards as Washington State’s K–12
Learning Standards for ELA and English Language Proficiency and the refinement of the state’s CLP,
state literacy partners are poised to provide comprehensive and coherent professional learning for
educators to better support improved student learning outcomes. OSPI and literacy experts
(including experts in K–4 literacy) in each of the nine Educational Service Districts (ESDs) have

jointly developed professional learning opportunities (common across all regions) to support
strong implementation of the CCSS-ELA and early literacy instruction. ESSB 5946 provides
additional targeted resources to each ESD region to improve K–4 ELA support for teachers and

6


students. The work of these “regional literacy coordinators” is grounded in the CCSS-ELA, the CLP,
and will serve as an excellent support system for districts as they consider and integrate the best
practices and strategies identified within the expert panel’s ELA menu.

2013 Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5946 – Strengthening Student
Educational Outcomes
Washington’s 2013 Legislature passed ESSB 5946 in the 2nd Special Legislative session in June
2013. The overall bill sets forth a vision for improving educational support systems for every
student in grades K–12. The first Section of Part 1 references the importance of collaborative
partnerships essential to supporting students; using research and evidence-based programs for all
students, especially in the early years for grades K–4; and providing statewide models to support
school district in implementing a multi-tiered system of support. Part 2 of the bill references the
Learning Assistance Program’s focus on evidence-based support for students struggling in reading
(with primary emphasis on grades K–4), mathematics, and behavior across grades K–12. The
thread that binds together the bill is the expectation set forth that OSPI will convene “expert panels”
that will develop menus of best practices and strategies for ELA (K–4 and K–12), mathematics (K–
12), and behavior (K–12). As articulated in the bill, the ELA menu specifically will be designed to:




help students who struggle with reading to reach grade level by the end of fourth grade;
improve the reading and literacy of ELL students; and

strengthen systems to improve reading instruction for all students.

The ELA expert panel determined that the work required for ELA in both sections 106 and 203
of the bill should be combined. They agreed that the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies
would contain many, if not all, of the same ELA best practices and strategies for instruction of all
students in grades K–4 and low-achieving students in grades K–12. Specific considerations for
grades K–4 are included within each of the best practice sections. Portions of the bill specifically
related to the ELA expert panel and menu of best practices and strategies are highlighted in
Appendix A. See ESSB 5946 for the full text of the bill.

Companion Legislation
In addition to direction to OSPI per ESSB 5946, the 2013 Legislature also directed the Washington
State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to “prepare an inventory of evidence-based and researchbased effective practices, activities and programs for use by school districts in the learning
assistance program” (Senate Bill 5034, Section 610). The WSIPP report will also identify an average
effect-size for identified interventions and perform a cost-benefit analysis.
Both OSPI and WSIPP consider the two reports to be companion pieces, and are coordinating to
ensure that the content of both reports are consistent while still adhering to the unique directives
given to each agency. The WSIPP report is due to the Legislature by August 1, 2014
WSIPP Assistant Director Annie Pennucci and Research Associate Matthew Lemon are key
participants in the expert panel sessions as non-voting members. They are providing important

7


research references to the panel members, and soliciting panel member input regarding effective
practices.
Both agencies collaborate on identifying topics for consideration for best practices. OSPI will
include notation indicating whether the menu practices are evidence-based and/or research-based,
as determined by WSIPP.


Conclusion
This work is significant because it has the potential to improve student outcomes across the state.
Historically, even with similar funding levels, student outcomes by district have been uneven. The
Legislature, with ESSB 5946, directs districts to use proven ELA practices to help struggling
students. Even with proven practices, it is critically important to ensure they are implemented with
fidelity because the best practices, when implemented poorly, can fail to raise student outcomes.
All districts are required to focus first on K–4 reading, because this is a fundamental skill that
predicts success not only in other academic pursuits, but throughout life. In the 2015–16 school
year, every school in which 40 percent or more students scored at basic or below basic on the third
grade state ELA assessment, and/or for any student who received a score of basic or below basic on
the third grade statewide student assessment in ELA in the previous school year and every year
following—must integrate best practices and strategies proven to increase ELA literacy across
grades K–4. The interventions must be selected from the list of best practices and strategies
included in the ELA menu.
This menu of best practices will be refreshed annually, no later than July 1 each calendar year.
Interested stakeholders are invited to submit recommendations for intervention practices, along
with related research references, for consideration by the expert panel and possible inclusion in
subsequent menus. It is important to note that if new research emerges that disproves the
effectiveness of a practice that has historically been included in this report, the practice may be
removed and no longer be allowed under LAP guidelines. Public comment forms are available on
the project web page on the OSPI website, at />
Next Steps
The ELA panel of experts recognizes that there are a number of next steps to ensure that the ELA
Menu of Best Practices and Strategies are implemented across the state. Following are a list of
activities that will be carried out in the 2014–15 school year.
1. The ELA Panel will continue their work which includes the following:
a. Examine proposed best practices and strategies that the committee chose to table
for future consideration for placement on the updated July 1, 2015 ELA Menu of
Best Practices and Strategies.
b. Address public comments that suggest additional practices and strategies for

inclusion in the July 1, 2015 ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies.

8


c. Vet potential ELA best practices and strategies recommended by districts and
others.
2. Distribute the ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies to stakeholders through a variety
of avenues including:
a. Electronic distribution.
b. Workshops and trainings provided in partnership with OSPI, Educational Service
Districts, and districts to educators across the state.
3. Prepare and distribute data collection instruments that districts will be required to submit
to meet the reporting requirements within parts 1 and 2 of ESSB 5946.

Acknowledgments
OSPI is indebted to the volunteers who thoughtfully assisted in conducting the 2014 review of ELA
best practices for strengthening student educational outcomes. They provided expertise in the use
of research data to inform the panel members’ decisions. The panel members endeavored to find
proven practices that were research and/or evidence based that were shown to improve student
outcomes. The panel members and support staff were committed to providing a quality resource to
school districts looking for guidance. They devoted many hours out of their busy schedules to do
this work. We also appreciate the assistance in the panel’s work of Annie Pennucci and Matthew
Lemon from WSIPP. We send a huge thank you to Porsche Everson from Relevant Strategies for her
expertise in facilitation. We are grateful for the work and dedication of each person assisting OSPI
in the production of the 2014-15 ELA Menu of Best Practices and Strategies.

9



APPENDICES
Appendix A: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies
Over the five sessions convened by OSPI, the expert panel worked together to develop a
comprehensive menu of best practices based on the most current evidence and rigorous research
available. Additional best practices will be identified during 2014–15 as the ELA panel reviews the
2013–14 ELA menu. (In some instances, it was not possible to determine whether or not a practice
was evidence- or research- based by the initial report deadline.) WSIPP was charged with making
that determination, which they did by carefully and systematically evaluating the quality of the
aggregate work and ensuring that the studies had valid comparison groups and measure outcomes
of interest, such as test scores and graduation rates. Each entry indicates whether the practice is
evidence-based and/or research-based. Panelists concurred with WSIPP to use the following
definitions for evidence-based and research-based studies.
Evidence-based:


Multiple randomized and/or statistically controlled evaluations, or one large multiple-site
randomized and/or statistically controlled evaluation;



Where the weight of the evidence from a systematic review demonstrates sustained
improvements in outcomes: ELA test scores;



When possible, had been determined to be cost-beneficial.

Research-based:



Tested with a single randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluation demonstrating
sustained desirable outcomes.

The ELA menu lists evidence based practices and strategies that have been shown to support
reading/literacy improvement for struggling learners. Many of these strategies and practices are
used in commercially available supplemental programs that districts can acquire and use. It is
important to note that the work of the expert panel was to identify proven general practices and
strategies, not specifically branded programs that might employ those practices. Districts that are
contemplating acquisition or use of one or more branded programs are encouraged to determine if
the strategies and practices included in the menu are utilized by the branded programs. The table
below shows a quick summary of the practices that are proven to be effective in strengthening
student educational outcomes, as determined by the expert panel. Each practice is described in
more detail in the panel’s technical report: Strengthening Student Educational Outcomes: Technical
Report on Best Practices and Strategies for English Language Arts.

10


Table 1: Menu of Best Practices and Strategies
Best Practice/
Strategies

EvidenceBased

ResearchBased

Panel Opinion

K–4


K–12

Tutoring
Adult Tutoring

Yes

Yes

Yes

Peer Tutoring

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


Yes

Extended Learning
Time
Extended Day – Out
of School Time
Extended Year2 Academics (Summer
Programs)
Professional
Development
Targeted
Professional
Development

Yes

Mentoring
Consultant Teachers
Instructional
Coaches3
Outreach Activities
Family Involvement
Outside School
Family Involvement
at School
Community
Partnerships
Community Based
Student Mentoring


Yes

Instructional Models
Direct Instruction

Yes

Yes

Yes

Constructivism

Yes

Yes

Yes

Services under RCW 28A.320.190—
Extended Learning Opportunities
Program

2
3

(Shown in Promising Practices Section)

Extended Year includes Summer Programs, Saturdays, use of school breaks, and an extension of the standard school year.

Instructional Coaches also includes Literacy Coaches and English Language Development Coaches.

11


Appendix B: Promising Practices and Strategies
Promising practices are defined as those practices that do not have research or evidence to show
they are best practices, but still show potential for improving student outcomes. The practices
defined in this section are considered part of the menu and can be used by districts. They are
selected and described based upon the professional opinions of the expert panel members.
Districts who choose to use any of the promising practices in this section or any other strategies not
on the menu must provide evidence of effective outcomes, starting with the 2016-17 school year.
It is important to note that this is not a comprehensive list of all emerging or promising practices,
but rather a sample of practices that have the potential to be effective.

Table 2: Menu of Promising Practices
Promising Practice

Panel Opinion

K–4

K–12

Additional Instruction Time

Yes

Yes


Summer Book Programs

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Language Development for
ELLs

Yes

Yes

Content Acceleration


Yes

Yes

Oral Language Focus

Yes

Yes

Extended Learning Time

Professional Development
Professional Learning
Communities
Services under RCW
28A.320.190
Credit Retrieval
Outreach Activities
Transition-Based Family
Involvement
Instructional Models
Multi-Tiered Systems of
Support
Other Promising Practices

12



Appendix C: Expert Panel
Panel members were appointed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Panel applicants
were solicited through several professional channels. Candidates were nominated from OSPI,
Educational Service Districts, school districts, and state educational associations. Educators were
drawn from existing OSPI advisory groups, such as Curriculum Advisory and Review Committee,
the Bilingual Education Advisory Council, and the Special Education Advisory Committee.
Nominations were collected and reviewed by OSPI’s Strengthening Student Educational Outcomes
Team. OSPI sought leaders nationally and within Washington possessing expertise and experience
with multi-tiered systems of support, response to intervention, Common Core State Standards, and
assessments.
Candidates were nominated and selected based on evidence of their expertise in one or more of the
following criteria:


ELA classroom and/or district leadership experience;



Classroom and system expertise in supporting struggling readers K–4;



Classroom and system expertise in supporting struggling readers 5–12;



Educational research expertise and experience in implementing new strategies;




Knowledge of research-based best practices and strategies in working with diverse student
populations, including ELL students and students with disabilities;



Representatives from high poverty school districts that range in size from urban to rural
with large populations of struggling ELA students; and



Representatives who reflect the diversity of the state’s student population.

After a review of all candidates, OSPI’s team recommended panel candidates to the state
superintendent for his consideration.
The cross-disciplinary panel reflects a wide range of experience and professional expertise within
the K–20 environment. The state Legislature has charged the panel to “assist in the development of
a menu of best practices and strategies that will provide guidance to districts as they work to
impact student ELA academic achievement.”

13


Members of the ELA Expert Panel
Name
Chaplin, Erin
Chow, Roger
Duffey, Nancy
Fixsen, Dean

Hill, Saundra

Jacobsen, Mike
Johnson, Eric
Kamil, Michael
Knesal, Debra
Lemon,
Matthew
Mitchell, John
Murner, Alice
Pennucci, Annie
Pottle, Pamela
Sederstrom,
Glenda
Shoop, Kathy
Tudor, David
Vance, Cheryl
Ward, Caryn

Wert, Linda

Organization
Yakima School
District
Tacoma School
District
Wenatchee School
District
State
Implementation &
Scaling up of
Evidenced-based

Practices Center
Pasco School
District
White River School
District
Washington State
University Tri-Cities
Stanford University
Central Avenue
Elementary
Washington State
Institute for Public
Policy (WSIPP)
Oakwood
Elementary
Neah Bay
Elementary
Washington State
Institute for Public
Policy (WSIPP)
Bellingham School
District
Northeast
Washington ESD
101
Northwest ESD 189
Washougal School
District
ESD 113
State

Implementation &
Scaling up of
Evidenced-based
Practices Center
Spokane School
District

Title
P–12 Instruction Director

Role
Expert Panel Member

Curriculum and Instruction
Director
Director of State and Federal
Programs
Co-director

Expert Panel Member

Superintendent

Expert Panel Member

Curriculum Director

Expert Panel Member

Assistant Professor of

Bilingual/ESL Education

Expert Panel Member

Principal

Expert Panel Member
Advisor

Advisor
Expert Panel Member

Research Associate

Expert Panel Member
Non-voting

Principal

Expert Panel Member

Principal

Expert Panel Member

Associate Director

Expert Panel Member
Non-voting


ELA Coach

Expert Panel Member

Coordinator for the Center for
Special Education Services

Expert Panel Member

Assistant Superintendent
Curriculum Director

Expert Panel Member
Expert Panel Member

Regional Literacy Coordinator
Senior Implementation
Specialist

Expert Panel Member
Advisor

Coordinator of Special
Programs

Expert Panel Member

14



Consultant and OSPI Staff
Name
BaunsgardHeusser, Amy
Bresko, John

Organization
OSPI

Title
P12 Literacy Specialist

Role
Project Support

OSPI

Project Support

Came, Deb
Cobb, Andrea

OSPI
OSPI

Everson, Porsche
Flores, Maria

Relevant Strategies
OSPI


Gallagher, Anne

OSPI

Green, Jordyn
Iwaszuk, Wendy

OSPI
OSPI

Lewis, Jess

OSPI

Malagon, Helen

OSPI

Mendoza, Gil

OSPI

Moilanen Potts,
Liisa
Mosby, Judith

OSPI

Munson, Robin


OSPI

Pauley, Gayle

OSPI

Peterson, Jami
Smith, LaWonda

OSPI
OSPI

Vaughn, Amy

OSPI

Vavrus, Jessica

OSPI

Williamson, Greg
Young, Justin

OSPI
OSPI

Program Supervisor, Special
Education
Director, Student Information
Policy and Research Analyst

and State Transformation
Specialist
President
Accountability and Research
Program Manager
Director, Teaching and
Learning Mathematics
Data Analyst
Program Supervisor and State
Transformation Specialist
Program Supervisor,
Behavior and Discipline
Director, Migrant and
Bilingual Education
Assistant Superintendent,
Special Programs and Federal
Accountability
Director, Teaching and
Learning ELA
Director, Student and School
Success, Reading Instruction,
Assessment and
Implementation
Assistant Superintendent,
Assessment and Student
Information
Director, Title I/LAP and
Consolidated Program
Review
Executive Assistant

Program Manager, Title I/LAP
and Consolidated Program
Reviews
Program Manager, LAP
Mathematics and Research
Assistant Superintendent,
Teaching and Learning
Director, Student Support
Program Manager, Title I/LAP
ELA and Research

OSPI

15

Project Support
Project Support
Report Editor
Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Lead
Project Support
Project Support

Project Support
Project Lead

Project Support
Project Support
Project Support
Project Lead
Project Support
Project Support


Appendix D: Panel Review Process
There were five work sessions held over a five-month period in 2014. Three were face to face
sessions held in the SeaTac area. The other two sessions were interactive webinars, typically lasting
four or more hours. Significant research, writing, and collaboration happened outside the formal
panel meetings. OSPI provided a project SharePoint site and discussion group to help facilitate
collaboration and access to information.

Figure 1: High-Level Work Plan for the Expert Panel

The work sessions were organized around the framework of the currently allowed LAP service
categories, with one key addition of identifying emerging or promising practices that might not fit
into the currently allowed categories. The following work plan outlines the work of the expert panel
over the five scheduled sessions. Panelists were asked to find and/or review research literature in
advance of each session and to share that research with the whole group. The panelists received
selected articles before each session. WSIPP maintained a folder of selected research articles on the
OSPI SharePoint site related to effective practices and strategies within the allowable LAP service
categories.
Panelists provided written descriptions of the proposed practices, citing evidence of effectiveness.
See Appendix E for articles reviewed and used by the expert panel in the course of their work.

16



Appendix E: References/Resources
August, D., Beck, I., Calderon, M., Francis, D. L., Shanahan, T., & al., e. (2008). Developing reading and
writing in second-language learners. In D. August, & T. Shanahan, Instruction and
professional development (pp. 131-250). New York: Routledge.
Barley, Z. L. (2002). Helping at-risk students meet standards: A synthesis of evidence-based practices.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Barone Schneider, R., & Barone, D. (1997). Cross-age tutoring. Childhood Education, 73(3), 136-143.
Bean, R. (2008, July). The school board wants to know: Why literacy coaching? Literacy Coaching
Clearinghouse.
Biancarosa, G. A. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional
development on student learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7-34.
Bice, T. (2013). A Unified and Comprehensive System of Learning Supports for Alabama Students:
Design Document. Retrieved from
/>Birsch, J. R. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (Second ed.).
Bixby, K. E., Gordon, E. E., Gozali-Lee, E., Akyea, S. G., & Nippolt, P. L. (2011). Best practices for
tutoring programs: A guide to quality. Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul Public Schools Foundation.
Blachowicz, C. L. (2005). Literacy coaching for change. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 55-58.
Blank, R. K., & de las Alas, N. (2009). Effects of teacher professional development on gains in student
achievement. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining
professional learning communities. Retrieved from
/>cm4-631034.pdf.
Borich, G. (2011). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education Inc.
Borman, G. (2000, February). The effects of summer school: Questions answered, questions raised.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 119-127. Retrieved from
/>Burkins, J. &. (2007). Coaches coaching coaches. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 3(1),
32-47.


17


Burns, M. K. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining
field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
23(4), 381-394.
Byrd, S., & Finnan, C. (2003). Expanding expectations for students through accelerated schools.
Journal of Staff Development, 24(4), 48-52.
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty Years
of Inquiry. Reading Teacher, 49, 182-182.
Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to reading and language arts instruction: The
constructivist framework of an instructional theory. What Research has to Say About
Reading Instruction, 3, 25-47.
Carroll, J. B. (1989, January). The Carroll model: A 25-Year retrospective and prospective view.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31. Retrieved from
/>Ceballo, R., Maurizi, L. K., Suarez, G. A., & Aretakis, M. T. (2014). Gift and sacrifice: Parental
involvement in latino adolescents' education. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 20(1), 116-127.
Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2006). School-community partnerships: A guide.
Retrieved from />Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2008). Addressing barriers to student learning: Closing
gaps in school/community policy and practice. Retrieved from Retrieved from
/>Center for Prevention Research and Development. (2009). Background research: Tutoring
programs. Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention Research and Development, Institute of
Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois.
Chall, A. (1983). Stages in reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chang, S. H. (2011). Grade level and gender differences in a school-based reading tutoring Program.
Reading Horizons, 51(1), 63-80.
Chavkin, N. F. (2005). Strategies for preparing educators to enhance the involvement of diverse
families in their children's education. Multicultural Education, 16-20.
Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1989). Low-income parents' attitudes toward parent involvement in

education. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 16(3), 17-28.
Committee on How People Learn. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in
the classroom. National Academies Press.

18


Connor, C. M., Alberto, P. A., Compton, D. L., & O'Connor, R. E. (2014, February). Improving reading
outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from
Institute of Education Sciences:
/>Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2008). Research on coaching. In J. Knight, Coaching: Approaches and
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (3rd
ed.). Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Ontario, CA: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
D’Agustino, S. (2013). Providing innovative opportunities and options for credit recovery through
afterschool and summer learning programs. In T. K. Peterson, Expanding minds and
opportunities: Leveraging the power of afterschool and summer learning for student success.
Dangel, J. R., & Hooper, S. (2010). Researching pedagogy in a professional development school.
School-University Partnerships, 4(1), 88-100.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional
learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United
States and abroad. Stanford University. Palo Alto, CA: National Staff Development Council
and the School Redesign Network.
Davis, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational
technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45 – 52.
DeBlois, R. &. (2007). Alternatives for struggling learners. Principal Leadership: High School Edition ,
38-42.
Denton, C. (2009). Classroom reading instruction that supports struggling readers: Key components

for effective teaching. Houston, TX: Children's Learning Institute, University of Texas Health
Science Center.
Department of Education. (2001). Evidence that tutoring works. Planning and Evaluation Service,
Corporation for National Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Duffy, A. M. (2001). Balance, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching in a summer school
literacy program for elementary school struggling readers. Reading Research and
Instruction, 40(2), 67-100.
Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at
approaches to tiered intervention. National High School Center.
DuFour, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.

19


DuFour, R. (2011, February). Work together: But only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 5761.
Dumas, J. E., Lynch, A. M., Laughlin, J. E., Phillips Smith, E., & Prinz, R. J. (2001, January). Promoting
intervention fidelity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(1), 38-47. Retrieved from
/>Durlak, J. (2013). The Importance of Quality Implementation for Research, Practice, and Policy. ASPE
Research Brief. US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved May 2014, from US
Department of Health and Human Services: />Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008, June). Implementation matters: A review of the research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 327-350. Retrieved
from />Echevarria, J. V. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. New
York, NY: Pearson.
ECONorthwest. (2008). A Review of research on extended learning time in K-12 schools. Portland:
ChalkBoard Project. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from />Education Northwest. (2012, June 21). What the research says (and doesn't say): Expanded learning
time. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from />Egbert, J. &.-S. (2010). Access to academics: Planning instruction for K-12 classrooms with ELLs. New
York, NY.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring

programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of
the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605-619.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School Reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Epstein, J. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. In
J. L. Epstein, K. Coates, M. Salinas, M. Sanders, & B. Simon, School, family, and community
partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed., pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Epstein, J. L. (2005). Developing and sustaining research-based programs of school, family and
community partnerships. Baltimore, MD: National Network of Partnership Schools, Johns
Hopkins University.

20


Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997). Epstein's Framework of Six
Types of Involvement. In School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for
action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Escamilla, K. (2007). Considerations for literacy coaches in classrooms with English language
learners. Retrieved April 2014, from Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse: http://www.
literacycoachingonline.org.
Faltis, C., & Coulter, C. (2008). Teaching English learners and immigrant students in secondary
schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Fantuzzo, J., & Rohrbeck, C. (1992). Self-managed groups: Fitting self-management approaches into
classroom systems. School Psychology Review, 21(2), 255-263.
Ferguson, C., Ramos, M., Rudo, Z., & Wood, L. (2008). The school-family connection: Looking at the
larger picture. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections with
Schools.
Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catch-up growth for those
who are behind. Kennewick, WA: The New Foundation Press, Inc.

Finnan, C., & Chasin, G. (2007). Accelerating the learning of low-achieving students: The
transformation of a dropout. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 625-629.
Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. (2000). Accelerating the learning of all students: Cultivating culture change
in schools, classrooms and individuals. Westview Press.
Fixsen, D. L. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).
Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5),
531-540.
Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Intensive technical assistance: Scaling-up brief number 2. Retrieved May 2014,
from FPG Child Development Institute:
/>Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Readiness for change: Scaling-up brief number 3. Retrieved May 2014, from FPG
Child Development Institute:
/>Fixsen, D. L. (2009). Scaling up evidence-based practices in education: Scaling-up brief number 1.
Retrieved May 2014, from Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute:
/>
21


Flamboyan Foundation. (2011, January). What kinds of family engagement are most effective?
Retrieved March 31, 2014, from www.flamboyanfoundation.org:
/>Flipping the classroom. (2013). Retrieved May 30, 2014, from Center for Teaching and Learning,
University of Washington: />Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids/street kids: Identity development in latino students. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Franco, M. S. (2011). An interim report on a pilot recovery program in a large, suburban
midwestern high school. Education, 132(1).
Freeman, Y. &. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of
teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams.
The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.

Garet, e. a. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading
instruction and achievement. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance.
Garet, M. P. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national
sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4).
Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., & al., e. (2008). The impact of two professional
development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. Institute of
Education Science, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Washington, DC: Department of Education.
Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., Walters, K., Doolittle, F. (2001). Twoyear findings from the middle school mathematics professional development impact study.
Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Garrett, K. (2012). Community schools: It takes a village. Education Digest: Essential Readings
Condensed for Quick Review, 78(3), 14-17.
Gaustad, J. (1993, March). Peer and cross-age tutoring. Retrieved from ericdigests.org:
/>Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. (2009,
February). Assisting struggling students with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier
intervention for reading in the primary grades. Retrieved from Institute of Education

22


Sciences:
/>Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in
the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners academic literacy and thinking. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Gibbs, S. (n.d.). Effective tutoring: Assembling the pieces. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from
/>gWhitePaper_FNL.pdf.
Glaser, D. (2005). ParaReading: A training guide for tutors. Boston: Sopris West Educational
Services.

González, N. M. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and
classrooms. . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Research says: Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in.
Technology-Rich Learning, 70(6), 78-80.
Gordon, D. M. (2009). Mentoring urban black middle school male students: Implications for
academic achievement. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(3), 277-289.
Gordon, E. E. (2009, February). 5 ways to improve tutoring programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(6), 440445.
Great Schools Partnership. (2013). Expanded learning time definition. Retrieved March 28, 2014,
from The Glossary of Education Reform: />Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.
Gwynne, J. A. (2012). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago Public Schools: A
focus on English Language Learners. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Habeeb, S. (2013). The ninth grade challenge. Principal Leadership, 18-22.
Halgunseth, L. C., Peterson, A., Stark, D. R., & Moodie, S. (2009). Family engagement, diverse families,
and early childhood education programs: An integrated review of the literature. National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Hanan, A. (2009). Modeling and observing sheltered instruction charts: Lesson planning and notetaking tools for ESL/ELL coaches. Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse.
Hanewald, R. (2013). Transition between primary and secondary school: Why it is important and
how it can be supported. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1). Retrieved from
/>
23


Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Jounal
of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 798-812.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New
York: Routledge.
Henderson, A., & Berla (Eds.), N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to
student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and
community. Austin, TX: Southwest Education Development Laboratory.

Hennessy, S. R. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment,
constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2, 155-192.
Heritage, M., Jones, B., Tobiason, G., & Chang, S. (2013). Fundamentals of learning: Resource #2.
Retrieved March 31, 2014, from National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and
Student Testing; University of California, Los Angles:
/>Herrera, C. G. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters schoolbased mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346-361.
Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hiebert, E. (1991). Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices and policies. Teachers College
Press.
Hill, J. &. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Hill, N. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school readiness: The roles of
ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 686-697.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment
of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740-763.
Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and
inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational
Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hollifield, J. (1987). Ability grouping in elementary schools. ERIC Digests.
Hopkins, G. (2006). Alternative school calendars: Smart idea or senseless experiment? Retrieved April
2014, from Education World:
/>
24


Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: What they are and why are they important?
Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Library.
Hott, B., Walker, J., & Sahni, J. (2012, April). CLD - Peer tutoring. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from
/>Hough, T. T., Peyton, D., Geier, C., & Petrie, B. (2007). Adolescent literacy tutoring: Face-to-face and

via webcam technology. Reading Psychology, 28(1), 283-300.
Ingersoll, R. &. (2004). The impact of mentoring on reacher retention: What the research says.
Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning
teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Education Research, 81(2), 201-233.
Retrieved from
/>International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches.
Newark, DE: Carnegie Corporation.
Iowa School Boards Foundation. (2007). Family, school and community connections: Improving
student learning. Des Moines, IA: Iowa School Boards Foundation.
Ishimaru, A. (2013). Involvement to collaboration: Next practices in parent/family engagement.
Transition District Family Engagement Workshop, (pp. 1-33). Spokane. Retrieved from
/>rating%20wFamilies_IshimaruFin.pdf.
J., C. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill.
Jacobsen, C., Bonds, M., Medders, K., Saenz, C., Stasch, K., & Sullivan, J. (2002). An intersession model
for accelerated literacy learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18(2), 151-173.
Jeynes, W. H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). A Study of the effect of sustained, whole-school
professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44(6), 775-786.
Jones, C., Reutzel, D., & Smith, J. (2011). A focus on struggling readers: A comparative analysis of
expert opinion and empirical research recommendations. In R. Flippo (Ed.), Reading
Researchers in Search of Common Ground (2nd ed., pp. 274-303). New York: Routledge.
Joyce, B. R. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. ASCD.
Juel, C., Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., & Deffes, R. (2003). Walking with rosie: A cautionary tale of early
reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 60, 12-18.

25