Comprehensive Statewide Literacy Needs Assessment

To prepare for the development of the Comprehensive State Literacy Plan, the California Department of Education (CDE) conducted a comprehensive statewide literacy needs assessment available to all California local educational agencies (LEAs), including county offices of education, districts, and schools (including charter). The CDE collected 88 responses from across the state. A summary of the results is available on the Comprehensive Literacy State Development web page. The CDE and the State Literacy Team used these results to inform statewide literacy priorities defined in the age/grade band sections.

Statewide Literacy Needs Assessment(DOCX)

Statewide Literacy Needs Assessment Technical Assistance Webinar Recording (Video; 23:48)

The implementation levels for the key topics of the needs assessment are defined as follows:

• Emerging: Establishing Consensus
• Developing: Building Infrastructure
• Operationalizing: Gaining Consistency
• Optimizing: Innovating and Sustaining

Key Topic A: Engaged Leadership and Supporting Teachers to Improve Instruction

Key Topic A gathered data on how the LEA and school leaders collaborate to implement high-quality literacy programs, which includes analyzing assessment data, utilizing evidence-based instructional practices, building literacy-focused teams, and promoting teacher learning and leadership. Key Topic A mainly addresses the “Well-Prepared and Supported Teachers and Leaders” element of the Comprehensive and Integrated Literacy Model.

Data for Key Topic A

Of all the key topics, Key Topic A had the fewest respondents in the Optimizing level across the topic questions. Most respondents consider implementation of this key topic to be in the Emerging and Developing levels. The greatest area of need in this topic appears to be the need to establish onsite literacy leadership teams, with 28 percent of respondents reporting that this area is Not Yet Emerging. Respondents noted several challenges to this key topic in their open-ended responses, including the lack of resources, instructional leadership, professional learning on literacy instruction, ongoing support such as coaching, and systemic implementation.

Key Topic B: Assessment Practices and Intervention Support

Key Topic B gathered data on assessment policies, procedures, and practices that are developed, implemented, and documented, and literacy interventions that are provided as needed. Key Topic B relates to Academic Standards and Guidance in the Comprehensive and Integrated Literacy Model and all three levels of support within a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS).

Data for Key Topic B

Fewer respondents reported being in the Operationalizing and Optimizing levels with the use of universal screening measures to appropriately place and provide interventions to students and using assessments in multiple languages than the other areas of this topic, with 33 percent of respondents reporting this area as Not Yet Emerging. Implementation challenges noted by respondents for this area include lack of professional learning around using formative and interim assessment data to inform instruction, lack of substitutes to provide release time for teachers to collaborate around data, lack of supports for English learner students and students with disabilities, and lack and inconsistent use of universal screeners in early learning programs.

Key Topic C: Policy, Structure, and Cultural Alignment

Key Topic C gathered data on the implementation of California’s policies, procedures, and guidance documents relating to standards-based literacy instruction, as well as on the implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy in all transitional kindergarten through grade twelve classrooms. Key Topic C mainly relates to the sections of the Comprehensive and Integrated Literacy Model that address “Academic Standards and Guidance,” as well as “Context for Learning: Inclusive, Culturally and Linguistically Affirming, and Whole Child Focused.”

Data for Key Topic C

Most respondents report being at the Emerging or Not Yet Emerging levels of implementing California’s literacy-related guidance and policy documents and supporting all learners. While implementation of literacy across the content areas appears to be mostly at the Developing and Operationalizing levels, implementation of academic language across content areas shows more respondents at the Emerging level. Respondents reiterated their concerns about the lack of sustained quality professional learning to support English learner students and students with disabilities. They noted that current curriculum does not address English language Development (ELD) or align with the California Dyslexia Guidelines and that LEAs need more professional learning on this document and the English Language Arts/ELD Framework to support the implementation of designated and integrated ELD. Respondents also stated that more professional learning is needed to implement culturally responsive pedagogy and social and emotional learning.

Key Topic D: Family, Community, and Partner Supports

Key Topic D gathered data on how LEAs exist and work within the context of their communities and how they collaborate with parents, families, community members, and outside organizations to create the structures necessary for effective literacy instruction and learning. Key Topic D mainly addresses the “Family and Community Engagement” element of the Comprehensive and Integrated Literacy Model.

Data for Key Topic D

A large majority of respondents report being at the Developing level and below in this key topic. Regarding relationships with early education providers, 22 percent of respondents report being at the Not Yet Emerging level. Almost half of the respondents (44 percent) report being at the Not Yet Emerging and Emerging levels in implementing relationships with literacy-focused organizations. Respondents reported challenges in increasing parent engagement, providing culturally diverse books and multilingual resources, sharing information with and supporting early education providers, and prioritizing community partnerships.