Literacy Now

“Congratulations, Kip Glazer! You are the newest winner of our One Classroom at a Time Grant!”

A perky news reporter walked into my classroom with her cameraman in September 2013, holding an oversized check. She truly surprised me because I sent the application in June and completely forgot about it!

As a veteran teacher, I have written many, many grant applications. On my LinkedIn profile, I have listed several I have won over the years. However, I have always felt a bit uncomfortable about talking about my experience. Don’t get me wrong—I am not shy about submitting grant applications. I submit several of them each year, but many of them have been rejected. I have learned to deal with the feeling of getting polite rejection letters. They all pretty much say the same thing, they regret not being able to fund my project. They wish that I try another time. But as Shakespeare once said, “Wise men ne’er sit and wail their loss, but cheerily seek how to redress their harms.”

One of the reasons I win grants is because I do not let rejection get to me. Although I feel the reason I win grants was because I was at the right place at the right time, I am happy to share a few things I have done. I hope it will help teachers in a small way in submitting their own grant applications.

Just start!

Arthur Ashe once said, “Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can.” Anyone interested in winning grants should just start. Don’t wait. Do it now! Type in “teacher grants” into a search engine and begin. There are tons and tons of websites helping teachers find grants online. I also subscribe to list services that send out grant applications weekly. I usually look at the emails when I have about 20-30 minutes to spare. When I see a grant I think I should apply for, I just sit down and write the application and hit submit. I don’t stop until I am finished because I know it is unlikely I will go back to it later. Remember, you can never win a lottery unless you play! Just keep writing!

Create a go-to document

To expedite the process, I have a Google document I keep with all the list of projects I would like to pursue. Whenever I think of a new idea, I put it in that document. I add bullet points under different projects. I add what the project is about, how many students it will serve, what types of standards it will target, what supplies I will need, etc. That document also houses the paragraphs from some of my previous grant applications. I definitely keep paragraphs from winning grant applications!

Leverage media and target local organizations to build personal relationships

Several of the grants I won were small and they came mostly from local educational agencies or charitable organizations. Some of them were unsolicited. The first time I won a grant from my county office of education, there was a newspaper article. I cut out that article and sent it to various local charitable organizations with a letter asking for more donations to the project. I received a lot of polite rejection letters, but some led to making connections with people at local organizations. Even when they say no to me, I send a thank you card for their time. As a result, these new friends have donated money to my students who need help with AP testing fees.

I have also cultivated friendly relationships with local media. Prior what I consider to be innovative projects, I typically do an additional lesson with my students on how to write a press release for local media. I also email different online news sites to connect with the writers. One communication resulted in a Mindshift blog post. With that, I was able to contact other local charitable agencies to request additional funding for other projects.

Crowdsource and collaborate

In addition to asking for donations, I often ask my friends and their acquaintances to share information on various grants. Just the other day, a parent of one of my graduates sent me information on a $150 grant. It only took me five minutes to complete the application. It is worth letting people know you are always on the search for grants. I have also shared information on grants with other teachers that didn’t quite fit me. So please email me if you know of any grant for which I should be apply!

Always consider collaborating. The largest grant I won was with two other teachers. The grant was brought to me and we wrote the application together. While working on the grant application, I learned so much about what my colleagues are doing and we all benefited from winning the grant.

Document and share the results

Each time I won a grant, I made sure to create a quick digital presentation or a blog post of how the money was spent. No matter how small or how much large the award, funders love to see that their donations are making a difference. I not only honor the people whose generosity made things possible but also teach my students that no one does these things alone. It has always been important for me to teach my students to be gracious. A picture on a blog with credit accomplishes that more quickly. It has helped my cause as well. I have used my links to the pictures and videos more than once for additional projects. Pictures really are worth a thousand words!

I don’t mean to profess to be an expert grant writer. I am not. I am a teacher who won a few grants during her career. I sincerely hope you find some use from my experience. Good luck to you all!

Kip Glazer is a native of Seoul, South Korea, and immigrated to the United States in 1993 as a college student.  In 2002, she graduated Cum Laude from California Polytechnic University in San Luis Obispo with a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. She earned her Master’s Degree in Curriculum and Instruction from Chapman University in 2004, while receiving her California Single Subject Teaching Credential in both Social Studies and English. Since then, she has earned additional teaching credentials in Health, Foundational Mathematics, and School Administration. Glazer is currently pursuing a Doctorate of Education in Learning Technologies at Pepperdine University. She is the current team leader for Independence High School’s Teachers’ Professional Development Grant funded by California State University, Chico. She maintains a blog about her projects and grants.

I would like to introduce you to Jennifer. Jennifer is in the eighth grade and earning good grades—no, she is getting great grades. According to her teachers she is a nice, compliant, intelligent student who is just a little on the quiet side. Her ideas are complex and interesting and she always wants to do her best.

So, why would someone like me write about Jennifer? I am interested in Jennifer because the effort it takes her to make all of teachers think she is an average to above student is probably two to three times that of her peers. Jennifer is a twice exceptional student, which means she has dyslexia (and dysgraphia) and is intellectually gifted. This means she does three hours of homework when her peers are doing 45 minutes. She writes the same paper three or four times before she lets anyone see it. She chooses smaller words when she is writing to avoid spelling mistakes and receives lower grades because she is unable to showcase her true vocabulary. While we might applaud Jennifer for persevering and becoming successful despite (or because) of her dyslexia, Jennifer would be more successful if afforded the accommodations she needs to level the playing field. Then she could demonstrate what she knows and understands versus what she can write or read in the conventional manner. Her passing grades and good performance does not mean she doesn’t need accommodations under IDEA and we need to think outside the box when it comes to how people with dyslexia learn.

Sustained Silent Reading Assessment

On the surface, it looks like Jennifer’s reading is fine and she doesn’t need help to access the curriculum, but if we take a deeper look, we will see the struggle. One way to collect data regarding reading fatigue is to have a student read a long passage at their current grade level for four minutes. After each minute, mark where the student is currently reading. After four minutes you should have a word count for each minute. In most cases of students with dyslexia, you will have evidence of fatigue that might look something like this:

Minute 1: 106 Correct Words Per Minute
Minute 2: 96 CWPM
Minute 3: 85 CWPM
Minute 4: 75 CWPM

Writing With and Without Assistive Technology

Jennifer will write a sentence like this, “I went on a trip with my mom and dad.” This might seem fine until you realize what she wanted to write was more like this, “Last weekend, my family and I visited the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful with deep canyons and breathtaking views. I enjoyed the time with my family and look forward to our next vacation.” How did I know this is what she really wanted to say? I knew because I compared her verbal ability to her written ability.

So, the second way to collect data regarding the writing challenges of a twice exceptional student is to have her write something on her own with no assistance. Then have her dictate something to you and you scribe what she wrote. Lastly, compare the word choice, grammar and complexity of ideas. Which one is more representative of her true intellect?

Accommodations

Now that we have established students with dyslexia—who happen to be also be intellectually gifted as well—are actually struggling, we can provide accommodations that will help even the playing field and allow them to put in the effort that is expected of their non-dyslexic peers. Here are some ideas for assistive technology that is easy to implement.

• Audio Books
• Speech to Text
• Livescribe Pen
• Keyboarding
• Notes provided
• Taking pictures of the notes on the board

Your Turn

Now I have an easy task for you. Take a moment to write a sentence about what you did this morning, but before you do that take a look at a few words you cannot use: a, the, of, and, is, or. These words should not appear on your paper anywhere. You have one minute. Then come back to this article.

How was it? Based on my experience with this simulation, I am going to propose the task was not easy, and I purposefully used the word easy as part of the simulation. I wanted you to believe this should be something you can do without any problem before you even tried it. I am willing to bet what you wrote was not an adequate representation of your intellectual ability. Imagine if you were graded only on what you wrote?

The reality is that our public education system does not have to make sure a student reaches her potential; they are only required to show educational progress. However, when students with dyslexia become frustrated with not being able to work to their potential, it wreaks havoc on their self-esteem. But it doesn’t have to, because now you know what it feels like and together, we can change the culture of silence about the dyslexic and intellectually gifted students. These students are not asking for more, they are asking for fair and we all know that fair does not always mean equal.

Kelli Sandman-Hurley (dyslexiaspec@gmail.com) is the co-owner of the Dyslexia Training Institute. She received her doctorate in literacy with a specialization in reading and dyslexia from San Diego State University and the University of San Diego. She is a trained special education advocate assisting parents and children through the Individual Education Plan (IEP) and 504 Plan process. Dr. Kelli is an adjunct professor of reading, literacy coordinator and a tutor trainer. Kelli is trained by a fellow of the Orton-Gillingham Academy and in the Lindamood-Bell, RAVE-O and Wilson Reading Programs. Kelli is the Past-President of the San Diego Branch of the International Dyslexia Association, as well as a board member of the Southern California Library Literacy Network (SCLLN). She co-created and produced “Dyslexia for a Day: A Simulation of Dyslexia,” is a frequent speaker at conferences, and is currently writing “Dyslexia: Decoding the System.”

photo credit: cybrarian77 via photopin cc

In my research, there appears to be two meanings of “gifted”—the child who seems to possess innate knowledge, scores well on IQ or state tests, and out paces his class is stereotypical definition. Or there is the unnoticed, abstract thinker—the one who has gifts, often beyond recognition in the classroom, beyond the scope of assessment, hides their gifts within.

I recently read The Drama of the Gifted Child by Alice Miller. The reading forced me to look at “gifted” in a new sense, almost. What is a child not allowed to express? Who do they have to be? For whom?

This book placed a new perspective on the gifted child for me, mainly, in the everyday context of school. Gifted is somehow associated with meritorious achievement. Gifted, in another sense, is how we see the world. I think one point Miller tried to convey is that many of us are not allowed to reveal or demonstrate our gifts. Her writing made me wonder if the term “gifted” is an entitlement rather than the truest expression of one curious, obscure, and/or sheltered talent. In a way, how one needs to conform to a community or society deems the “gifted” nature of a human being through context rather than innate talent.

What, then, defines the gifted reader?

From my experience, the gifted reader is one who passes state or standardized tests by exceeding the standard or ardent advancement through reading levels. Recall, the ability to narrow in on characters, or to identify main ideas further define the gifted reader.

One could argue that pedagogy defines the context of the gifted reader, how well a reader functions within the parameters of a class defines one’s talents. If our classrooms are test-centered, multiple choice-based where students derive answers not from close reading, but “right there” answers, a certain population will excel. Such readers score well. Are they not gifted for achieving a score within a particular range?

A gifted child, by traditional definition/perception of intellect, is based in fact or concrete thinking. The abstract may confound such a thinker. A gifted child who is embraced for his thinking is more apt to excel with abstract thinking than the concrete. Such a reader may not care to trivialize facts or concern themselves with “knowns” of the text. Rather, they ponder what might be. For example, while reading One Crazy Summer, kudos to the reader who can recall the most events. But what about the reader, age 11, who realizes Fern defines herself not by name but by proudly emphasizing black her poem performed courageously in front of an unfamiliar audience?

What about transaction? Transactional Theory, as cited by Louise Rosenblatt, takes us as educators and reader to a new definition. Transaction, however, possessed unique signs of giftedness with the concept of perception. Perception and confidence lead to one's ability to interpret text.

Do we believe in transaction or is there an unstated expectation that all students view texts the same way? What about those readers, age 8-13, who actually relate the context of a book to the reality that surrounds them? Interpret text within the constructs of their perceptions today (and maybe someday down the road?) Is this an aspiration we hold for all students?

Transaction with a text is an amazing, if not spiritual, act. But does this reading make a child gifted? If we valued the whole child and their views of the world, the ability in which one transacts with a test could indeed define their “giftedness.” Measuring giftedness on transaction would place experience and background into play. That move would presume giftedness is cultural and socioeconomic related.

What we don't often see is the reaction of the child who defines their ability, comprehension, or transaction, on immeasurable scales. When I find these readers, they don't seek a title to define themselves. Rather, they seek a person who will appreciate and admire their vision. Sometimes simply allowing this reader to define his thinking—through song, poetry, art, charts, or any means defined by them—is enough space for the student to express themselves and reveal their true selves to the world. Anything but a comparative test.

If a classroom desires abstract thinking, response to text with close reading supporting arguments free of predetermined outcomes, a new set of “talented” readers are likely to emerge. As I've watched students in the intermediate grades develop as readers, those who learn the skills of reading in class and are allowed the space to think outside of the four corners of the text outpace their gifted companions through “thinking” ability. This thinking is transactional—an interpretation and understanding of life. Perhaps even rationalization.

Standardized test scores seldom reflect this phenomenon in the classroom. The skill-based, perceptive thinker, call them visceral or cerebral, processes information in an atypical fashion. Despite increased levels of cognition and metacognition, because test scores reflect measureable aspects of reading, these students are rarely recognized for their talents. Particularly if a multiple choice response can be argued with evidence. Despite their gifted thinking, these readers are not labeled gifted. In some cases, they are turned away from reading, creating an imbalance of talent, a public rejection of one's perception for the celebration of unfamiliar intellect. The student trapped in this predicament feels disenfranchised because the standard of intellect has changed without understanding.

I would argue, the child who is free to express their interaction with text and translate the ways of the world is gifted. A child who is breaking through barriers and overcoming their struggles, in the same right, is gifted. Perhaps even more so because the student “comes from behind” to close the “achievement gap.” A child is able become autonomous and creative with the tools they possess and acquire to further their reading and interpretation is also gifted.

We are all born with gifts. Our giftedness is defined within the context we exist.

Justin Stygles is a grade 5/6 ELA/Humanities teacher at Guy E. Rowe Elementary in Norway, Maine. He is currently engaged in a long-term project dealing with emotional involvement in middle grade reading.

There has been a significant up­tick in interest in project-based approaches to education. Some of this may be due to the work of organi­zations that advocate for project-based work, such as the Buck Institute and the George Lucas Educational Foundation, while some may be due to a growing recognition of the need to provide more engaging education to today’s media-enmeshed children and youth. Some could also be due to the perception that project-based approaches can address many Common Core State Standards (CCSS) or develop 21st century skills more broadly.

Whatever the reasons, it is important that we not get swept up in it as a fad, but rather take a thoughtful, evidence-driven approach. Project-based education has lots of potential for literacy development, but also potential pitfalls.

Three ways project-based instruction could go terribly wrong

1. Lack of clear conceptualization. Literacy has a long history of using terms so differently or broadly that eventually it seems anything “counts.” Consider “balanced literacy.” To some, this means balancing lots of opportunities to read connected text with explicit instruction in phonics and other knowledge and skills; to others, it means a balance of reading to children, with children, and by children (following Margaret Mooney’s 1990 book); still others apply the label to instruction that does not appear to me to be balanced by either meaning. Whole language, guided reading, writers’ workshop, direct instruction, and a number of other terms have been used to label a wide variety of approaches and practices that may be quite far from what popularizers of these terms intended.

Project-based learning is in danger of that same semantic spread. For example, I recently heard an assignment in which students were asked to make a diorama related to a book they’d read described as “project based.” To address this, I urge all of us who use this or a related label to be very clear in what we mean by it. In my mind, for instruction to be project based, students must work over an extended period of time to meet a purpose beyond satisfying a school requirement, such as to address a problem or create something to be used in the local community. We do not all need to agree that is a necessary characteristic of project based, but we do need to articulate what we mean by the term.

2. Limited alignment to standards. Today’s teachers and students cannot afford to spend large amounts of time engaged in an activity unaligned with standards. But standards have not been a substantial emphasis in much of the instantiation of project-based approaches. Instruction must be carefully designed to address specific standards while maintaining the character­istics that make it project based. Anne-Lise Halvorsen and colleagues described the development of standards-aligned projects in a 2012 article in Theory & Research in Social Education. One involved second-graders visiting a local park, identifying strengths and deficiencies of the park, and then developing a proposal to present to a government of­ficial about making improvements. Project lessons addressed a number of standards in reading, writing, and social studies, such as CCSS 5 for Reading Informational Text, about text features, CCSS 1 for Writing, about writing opinion pieces, and Michigan Grade Level Content Expectations for Social Studies involving identifying issues in the local community that influence the daily lives of its citizens.

Children who experienced this and an­other 20-session project-based unit showed pre- to post-term gains on standards-aligned measures, with effect sizes of 1.31 for reading, 0.52 for writing, and 0.85 for social studies (all reported in Cohen’s d). In fact, the children who were from low socioeconomic status (SES), low-performing schools performed in infor­mational reading and social studies at levels statistically equivalent to students from high-SES, high-performing schools. This suggests the promise of designing projects aligned with standards in multiple domains.

3. Lack of explicit, systematic instruction. Project-based approaches have been linked to discovery learning, with little or no emphasis on explicit, systematic instruction. This is a poor fit to literacy education, in which there is overwhelming evidence in favor of ex­plicit, systematic instruction in a number of areas, including comprehension and writing, both of which are entailed in many projects.

We must ensure projects incorporate explicit, systematic instruction. I choose to use the term “project-based instruc­tion” rather than “project-based learning (PBL)” to emphasize the importance of instruction in project-based approaches. Project-based instruction can be seen as an overarching context in which we can place a number of research-supported in­structional practices. For example, with a project in which students research ani­mals and write articles about them for a magazine to be placed at a local pediatrician’s office, the teacher might provide explicit instruction in comprehension strategies, text structure, and revision strategies, all of which have considerable research support.

How project-based instruction could go powerfully right

With these challenges, one might question whether it is worthwhile. In my view, it is. A project-based con­text provides students with opportu­nities to read and write for a purpose beyond simply learning to read and write—which research suggests is as­sociated with greater reading and writ­ing growth. A project-based context enables students to write for an audience beyond their teacher, which is associated with higher quality writing. A project-based context provides a way to incorporate a number of characteristics of more engaging instruction (e.g., relevance, choice, collaboration, autonomy, mastery goals), which a number of researchers have established to be associated with stronger literacy outcomes.

It is well worth the delicate dance to take advantage of the affordances of project-based instruction while avoiding its many potential pitfalls.

Nell K. Duke, an IRA member since 1994, is a professor of literacy, language, and culture, and an affiliate of the Com­bined Program in Education and Psychology at the University of Michigan. Her most recent book is Inside Information: Developing Powerful Read­ers and Writers of Informational Text Through Project-Based Instruction, co-published by IRA and Scholastic.This column originally appeared in Reading Today magazine. Members can read the rest of the magazine in digital form and non-members can join IRA here.

Glendale High School in Springfield, MO, is taking a different approach to learning. Quest@GHS is the first program in the state to partner with New Tech Network, a nonprofit based in California that works with local business leaders to prepare students for a 21st century workforce with more than 130 schools in the U.S. and Australia. The program within the school addresses critical thinking, public speaking, collaboration and the use of technology with a focus on project-based learning. Our perspective is that learning has evolved and our approach to teaching and learning has got to change as well. Students should have a say in how they learn—ownership is very important when it comes to taking responsibility for one’s own future. Quest@GHS provides students with a voice and a choice in how they learn.

Quest@GHS students take pride in their accomplishments. They are responsible for learning, researching, presenting, coaching, directing, and completing projects from beginning to end. They take different roles on different projects. They may direct the group, they may assign the tasks, they may research, create, build, program, or direct their presentation. These presentations are for authentic audiences and designed to have a real world connection to the students.

Some schools have a ‘sit and get’ format. Students listen to lecture, answer questions from the back of the chapter, memorize facts, then spit it back out for the test. That model creates memorizers not lifelong learners. When a person is actively engaged in the process of learning they cannot help but be more invested in the outcome. PBL encourages students to take ownership in what they are learning. It gives them opportunities for hands on learning and encourages them to refine skills they will need for the future.

Our Quest, pardon the pun, began five years ago. It grew from conversations about “dream schools.”  What would we do if we could do anything? Matt Pearce, former principal at Glendale High School, spent time researching and searching for a model that would meet the needs of our students, address their needs in the future, he looked for a model that had some reliable research, and discovered New Tech. He built a team and began visiting different schools, and conversations began. Pearce left the district and Natalie Cauldwell replaced him in 2013. She, too, visited sites and with the support of our district leadership, eventually a team of eight teachers, one counselor, one building director and one district director came together.

Students who are enrolled in Quest@GHS have one combined class (2 subjects, 2 teachers) and then they have a standalone Quest class. Freshmen are enrolled in American Studies, (a combination class of English I and American History), some will be in Problem Based Algebra I, and PBL Physics First. Sophomore learners enjoy BioLit, (a combination of Biology and English II), and PBL World History.  They take the rest of their classes in the main part of the high school with the students who are not in Quest. Quest@GHS student are involved in athletics, fine arts, clubs, and academic teams as are all Glendale students.

Our vision includes an environment of Trust, Respect, and Responsibility. We ask students to use a collaborative approach and take different roles when working on a team. These students may take the role of researcher, speaker, presentation creator, or project manager. They practice critical thinking skills and are able to not only capitalize on their strengths, but are also able to improve areas of weakness by practicing and receiving feedback from peers and adults.

Our students develop norms for their teams and hold one another accountable for their work product. Students are honing their critical thinking and public speaking skills with every project they create. Learners in the Quest@GHS program are asked to share their knowledge with an authentic audience. So their culminating activity could be a presentation to a local business owner, the director of a museum or another relevant community connection. They have an audience comprised of adults including Facilitators, administrators, local experts and community members.

We have 168 highly motivated freshmen and sophomores participating in our program. When it was launched, students of all stripes were invited to join us if they wanted to learn differently than a traditional school setting. They now range from Honors students to those with IEPs and 504 plans. We were fortunate that we had plenty of room for everyone who applied in the first two classes. Next year, as we add approximately 100 freshmen, we anticipate implementing a lottery system to accommodate the flood of applicants we expected as a result of this year’s buzz.

We only have two caveats in order to be accepted: 1) If you accept the appointment, you must agree to stay in the program for one year and 2) Transportation is not provided for students not in our attendance area. We have seven students transfer into the program from schools other than Glendale and about a 50/50 split of males and females in the program and a wide range of diversity amongst our learners.

The facilitators of our combined classes are very deliberate when creating their projects so that students can see the correlation between the two subjects. The facilitators have completed numerous hours in professional development, learning to create authentic projects that have a real world connection so learners are able to make connections between their own lives and their projects. Our facilitation team, comprised of seven teachers and 63 years of combined experience, volunteered for this program. Some of our experienced teachers have likened the change in approach to repeating their first year in the classroom. They relish the opportunity to collaborate with their colleagues and create projects that are relevant and topical.

Our learners have had a bit of an adjustment period as well, particularly when it comes to how grades are earned. They earn grades in many categories: knowledge, collaboration, presentation, and agency (were they on task, did they meet their part of the contract, did they assist or hinder the team progression, how did their team members grade them). They were not used to so many different areas of grades—homework tests and participation are usually about it.

They were used to a traditional approach, and now they are driving and directing their learning. Our learners approached the facilitators and asked permission to create a program emphasizing the culture of the program and reinforcing the expectations of participants. They’ve already developed a deep sense of pride in their involvement and realize they are setting standards, expectations and traditions.

Our advisory board, made up of students, meets twice a month or as needed with the facilitators and the director to air concerns, share ideas, and assist in shaping the school for the future. Our learners and facilitators are on a quest to set the standard for implementation of the New Tech model in the state of Missouri. I believe we have set the bar high!

Tammy Quinn is assistant principal at Glendale High School and the director of the Quest@GHS program in Springfield, MO.