Reading is the engine of every academic outcome.
The DoDEA CCRS Summative ELA assessment measures two things above all: whether students can read complex texts closely and whether they can write effectively from those texts. This 4-session series gives GES teachers the research-backed strategies to move both, grounded in the Science of Reading and aligned directly to what the summative demands.
Reading Complex Text: The Complexity Framework & Close Reading
Unpack what text complexity means at each grade band. Learn and practice a 3-read close reading protocol. Build annotation habits for students.
Vocabulary & Fluency: The Two Bridges to Comprehension
Teach Tier 2 vocabulary explicitly. Build fluency through repeated reading and partner reading structures. Bridge both to summative comprehension.
Writing from Evidence: The Three ELA Task Types
Decode the three summative writing tasks (Literary Analysis, Research Simulation, Narrative). Practice evidence selection and written response structures.
Calibration & Commitment: Student Work, Rubrics, and Action Plans
Score real student writing responses against the summative rubric. Identify classroom patterns. Build a personal instruction action plan.
Session 1: Reading Complex Text — The Framework & Close Reading Protocol
60 minutes · Whole-group with grade-band breakouts
FACILITATION AGENDA
The Summative Reading Demand — In Plain Terms
Display one ELA summative reading passage (from the DoDEA practice test portal). Ask: "What does a student need to be able to do to answer these questions?" Chart responses. Connect to the two ELA reporting domains: Reading complex texts and Writing from sources. Frame the series: "We're not doing test prep. We're building the instruction that makes test performance possible."
📊 The Text Complexity Framework — What It Means for K–5
Direct instruction (10 min) on the three dimensions of text complexity from the CCSS/CCRS framework:
- Quantitative: Lexile level, word frequency, sentence length (measured by tools)
- Qualitative: Levels of meaning, text structure, language clarity, knowledge demands — these require teacher judgment
- Reader and Task: Who is reading, for what purpose, with what support?
Key message: Grade-level text is not what most students can already read easily. It is text that stretches them — and our job is to build the scaffolds that let them access it, not to simplify the text away.
📌 Facilitator Note
The most common misconception to address here: teachers often believe "complex text" means "hard vocabulary." In reality, qualitative complexity — layers of meaning, subtle structure, dense knowledge demands — is what trips students most on the summative. A Lexile level alone tells you almost nothing about whether students can comprehend a text.
🔍 The 3-Read Close Reading Protocol — Do It Together
Distribute the same short complex text (1 paragraph, grade 4–5 level) to all teachers. Model the 3-read protocol, then have partners attempt Read 2 and Read 3:
Read 1 — What Does It Say? (Literal Comprehension)
Students read for the gist. No annotation yet. After reading: "What is this mostly about?" Teacher listens, does not confirm or deny — this is for orientation.
Read 2 — How Does It Work? (Structure & Craft)
Students annotate: circle key words, underline evidence, mark confusing parts with "?". Teacher poses text-dependent questions: "Why did the author use this word?" / "What does this sentence do for the paragraph?"
Read 3 — What Does It Mean? (Deeper Meaning & Application)
Students synthesize. Teacher poses higher-order questions: "What is the author's central claim?" / "How does this connect to ___?" Students write 1–2 sentences citing evidence. This is the summative demand in miniature.
Common Mistake: All Three Reads in One Day
Close reading is most powerful when distributed — 15 min Monday (Read 1 + 2), 15 min Wednesday (Read 3 + write). Not a marathon session. Short, purposeful encounters with the same text build retention.
📌 Facilitator Note
Expect pushback: "My K–1 students can't do this." Respond: close reading in K–1 happens primarily through read-aloud. YOU are the fluent reader. The 3-read protocol applies — you read aloud 3 times with different purposes. Young students absolutely can engage in text-dependent questions about a read-aloud text.
📋 Apply It to a Text You Use
Grade-band groups (K–1, 2–3, 4–5) select a text from their current unit or curriculum. Using the Text Complexity Checklist below, they evaluate it and then draft 3 questions — one for each read — appropriate for their grade band. Groups share one question set in the debrief.
📌 Facilitator Note
For K–1 teachers: redirect toward read-aloud mentor texts they already use. A complex picture book like The Dot, Enemy Pie, or a quality nonfiction text is entirely appropriate for a 3-read read-aloud sequence. The complexity of the conversation matters more than the reading level of the text.
💬 Share + Name the Move
One rep per grade band shares their Read 3 question. Group identifies: what skill does this question demand? (Inference? Evidence? Author's craft?) Facilitator connects back to the summative: "This is exactly what the EBSR questions — Evidence-Based Selected Response — ask on the test. If students practice this regularly, they build the habit."
🎯 Try One Close Reading Cycle Before Session 2
Each teacher commits to running at least one 3-read sequence with a current text before Session 2. They bring one observation: What question worked? Where did students struggle? This feeds the Session 2 opening.
Materials Checklist — Session 1
- Printed sample DoDEA summative ELA reading passage (from dodea.mypearsonsupport.com practice tests) — 1 per teacher
- Short complex text for the whole-group close reading activity (grade 4–5 level, 1 paragraph, printed for all)
- Sticky notes or pens for annotation during Read 2
- Anchor chart paper: "3-Read Protocol" (pre-make the three rungs as headers — teachers fill content)
- Text Complexity Quick Checklist printed or displayed (from callout box above)
- Texts from participants' current units for the breakout (ask teachers to bring 1 text each in advance)
Session 2: Vocabulary & Fluency — The Two Bridges to Comprehension
60 minutes · Whole-group with grade-band breakouts
FACILITATION AGENDA
What Happened When You Tried It?
Quick pairs share (60 sec each): one observation from their close reading attempt. Facilitator charts 3–4 responses. Listen for: students couldn't access vocabulary, students read too slowly to track meaning, students answered Read 1 questions but not Read 3. These are the bridges this session builds.
🗝 The Vocabulary Tiers — And Why Tier 2 Is the High-Leverage Target
Direct instruction (8 min) on the three vocabulary tiers, then a live vocabulary routine demonstration:
Everyday Words
Words most students know from oral language. Rarely need direct instruction.
Academic Language
High-frequency words across content areas. Appear in complex texts. Direct instruction essential. These appear throughout the summative.
Domain-Specific Words
Low-frequency, subject-specific. Taught within units as needed.
Then demonstrate the Robust Vocabulary Instruction Routine (Beck, McKeown & Kucan) with a Tier 2 word live:
Introduce in context
Read the word in the sentence from the text. Don't define it yet. "What do you think this might mean here?"
Student-friendly definition
Give a clear, accessible definition — not a dictionary entry. "Evident means easy to see or understand, like it's obvious."
Examples and non-examples
"It was evident the dog was hungry — he kept looking at the bowl. Was it evident he was cold? Not unless you had other clues."
Student interaction
Ask students to use the word: "Tell your partner something that is evident in our classroom right now." Require the word in the response.
Repeated encounter
Return to the word in 3 different contexts across the week. Vocabulary is not learned in a single exposure — it requires 10–15 encounters to truly own a word.
📌 Facilitator Note
The research is clear: vocabulary knowledge explains the largest share of variance in reading comprehension. Students who don't know Tier 2 academic words cannot answer EBSR questions even when they can decode the text perfectly. This routine takes 8–10 minutes per word — do 3–5 Tier 2 words per week, not 20 words per week from a list.
⚡ Fluency — The Bridge Between Decoding and Comprehension
Brief direct instruction (6 min). Key points:
- Fluency is not speed reading. It is accuracy + rate + prosody (expression). A student who reads fast but monotone is not fluent — they're not processing meaning.
- Fluency frees up cognitive resources for comprehension. When decoding is effortful, working memory has nothing left for understanding.
- The summative assumes grade-level fluency. A student reading below grade-level fluency norms will run out of time on complex passages.
Three fluency routines to demonstrate live:
- Echo Reading: Teacher reads a sentence/paragraph aloud (modeling prosody), students echo it back. Effective K–3.
- Partner Reading: Pairs take turns reading paragraphs — one reads, one follows and gently corrects. Effective 2–5.
- Repeated Reading with purpose: Students read the same short passage 3–4 times, each time with a different focus (first for gist, second for expression, third to record and self-assess). Research shows 4 reads with feedback can close a fluency gap faster than any other single intervention.
🛠 Build Your Vocabulary Routine
Grade-band groups select 3–5 Tier 2 words from a text in their current unit. Using the 5-step routine, they plan how they'd teach one word — drafting their student-friendly definition, two examples, two non-examples, and a student interaction prompt. Groups share one word plan in the debrief.
📌 Facilitator Note
Groups will want to select Tier 3 words (content-specific) by default — this is the habit most teachers already have. Gently redirect: "Those are great Tier 3 words, but find me 3 words in the same text that would appear in a social studies, math, OR science text — that's your Tier 2 target." Examples from any text: determine, significant, compare, approach, support, evidence.
🔗 Connect to the Summative
Facilitator displays one EBSR question from the practice test. Ask: "Which Tier 2 words in this question would trip a student who hadn't been taught academic vocabulary?" Circle them. Show teachers how vocabulary instruction directly unlocks test access. Make the connection explicit — this is not abstract.
🎯 Teach 3 Tier 2 Words This Week Using the Routine
Each teacher commits to explicitly teaching 3 Tier 2 words from their current text using the 5-step routine. They note student responses — especially during the "interaction" step — and bring observations to Session 3. Optional: bring a short fluency data point (a student who read fluently vs. one who struggled and what you noticed about comprehension for each).
Session 3: Writing from Evidence — The Three ELA Task Types
60 minutes · Whole-group with grade-band breakouts
FACILITATION AGENDA
Vocabulary Quick Share
Pairs: one word you taught, one student interaction that worked. Facilitator charts 3–4 observations. Bridge: "Now we move to the other side of reading — writing back from what you've read. This is where our students leave significant points on the summative."
📋 The Three ELA Task Types — What the Summative Actually Asks
Direct instruction (12 min). The DoDEA CCRS ELA summative Writing domain includes three performance task types. Display a sample of each and annotate together:
📚 Literary Analysis Task (LAT)
Students read 1–2 literary texts and write an essay analyzing theme, character, or craft. Requires text evidence + analytical writing. Most heavily weighted in upper grades.
🔬 Research Simulation Task (RST)
Students read 2–3 informational texts on a topic and write a response that synthesizes information across sources. Heavy nonfiction reading + evidence selection demands.
📝 Narrative Task (NT)
Students read a literary text then write a narrative continuation or transformation. Requires reading comprehension of the source text's tone, character, and structure.
Key insight to share: All three tasks require reading comprehension first. A student who can't closely read the source texts can't write a strong response regardless of writing skill. Sessions 1–2 directly feed performance on these tasks.
📌 Facilitator Note
For K–2 teachers: these task types exist in simplified form in the lower grades. A kindergartner drawing + dictating about a story they heard IS a narrative task. A Grade 2 student writing "I think the author's message is ___ because ___" IS a literary analysis in embryo. Frame this for K–2 as building the foundation, not doing something different.
🏗 Writing from Evidence — The Core Daily Habit
The single highest-leverage daily habit for improving summative writing performance: evidence-based short writes. Every time students read, they write at least one sentence citing evidence. This is not essay writing — it is a daily 5-minute habit.
Introduce the RACE / REAP structure as a scaffold (not a formula):
- R — Restate / Respond to the question
- A/E — Answer / Evidence from the text (quote or paraphrase)
- C/A — Connect / Analyze — explain how the evidence supports the answer
- E — Extend — what does this mean beyond the text? (upper grades)
Demonstrate with a live short write using a text already shared in Sessions 1 or 2. Show a 3-sentence response that earns full credit, and a 3-sentence response that cites evidence but doesn't explain it — and ask teachers to identify the difference.
🖊 Design a Short Write for Your Class
Grade-band groups use a text from their current unit to design one evidence-based short write prompt appropriate for their grade band. They must identify:
- Which task type does this most closely resemble (LAT, RST, or NT)?
- What evidence in the text supports a strong response?
- What writing frame or sentence starter will you provide?
- What does a full-credit response include vs. a partial-credit response?
📌 Facilitator Note
The most common breakout outcome: groups write prompts that can be answered without the text ("What do you think about the character's choice?"). Push for text-dependency: "If a student who didn't read the passage could answer this, revise it." The summative EBSR questions are all text-dependent — students must return to the text to respond.
🔍 Share + Sharpen
Each grade band reads their prompt aloud. Group asks: "Is this text-dependent?" and "What does a strong response include?" Revise one prompt live as a group. Connect to Session 4: "Next session we score student responses and build our action plan. Between now and then, teach this short write and bring student work."
🎯 Teach Your Short Write and Collect Student Responses
Each teacher gives their evidence-based short write to their class. They select 3 student responses (low / mid / high) and bring them to Session 4 for the calibration protocol. No preparation needed — just collect and come.
Session 4: Calibration & Commitment — Student Work, Rubrics, and Action Plans
60 minutes · Whole-group with grade-band breakouts
FACILITATION AGENDA
Quick Win Popcorn
One sentence each: "Something I noticed about my students' short writes was…" Facilitator charts without commenting — this is data. Look for patterns across classrooms before you name them.
📋 Calibration: The ELA Writing Rubric in Plain Language
The DoDEA summative ELA Prose Constructed Response (PCR) items are scored on two dimensions:
Reading Comprehension / Written Expression
Does the response demonstrate understanding of the text? Is the claim supported by relevant, specific evidence? Does the writing organize ideas clearly and use language effectively? (0–4 points)
Knowledge of Language & Conventions
Does the response demonstrate grade-appropriate command of conventions — grammar, usage, capitalization, punctuation, spelling? (0–2 points)
Facilitator displays one student response on screen and models scoring it on both dimensions. Class scores it independently, then shares scores. Discuss discrepancies — what language in the rubric resolves them?
📌 Facilitator Note
The most common scoring error: teachers weight conventions (Dimension 2) too heavily and undervalue the reading/evidence dimension (Dimension 1). On the actual summative, Dimension 1 carries more points. A beautifully spelled response with no evidence earns a low score. Redirect: "Does this response show me they understood the text? Did they use evidence to support the claim? That is Dimension 1."
🔬 Collaborative Student Work Protocol
Each teacher brings 3 student responses. Groups use the structured protocol:
- Read silently (90 sec): Read one response independently.
- Score independently (60 sec): Assign a score on both dimensions.
- Share scores (30 sec): State scores without explanation first.
- Discuss (3 min): What in the response led to different scores? What rubric language resolves it?
- Name the gap (1 min): What specific skill is missing?
- Name the instruction (1 min): What would this student need before the next short write?
Rotate through 3–4 responses per group. Track: most common gap pattern across all responses.
📌 Facilitator Note
Expected patterns to listen for: students restate evidence but don't explain it ("The text says X" with no "This shows that..."); students make claims without returning to the text; students write 1 sentence where 3 are needed; students have strong opinions but weak text connections. Every one of these is addressable with daily instruction — help groups name the instructional move, not just the gap.
📌 What Did We Find Across All Classrooms?
Each grade band names their most common gap. Facilitator charts across all groups. Ask: "What do these have in common? What is our school telling us?" Frame the schoolwide pattern — not as failure, but as the instructional focus for the next 90 days.
Likely patterns: students cite evidence but don't analyze it; students avoid returning to the text; students treat evidence as the answer rather than as support for a claim. Each of these has a direct classroom instructional fix that the strategy card addresses.
🗓 Build Your 90-Day ELA Instruction Plan
Teachers complete the Lesson Template action plan section. Three commitments:
- Daily: Every reading lesson includes at least one text-dependent question that requires oral or written evidence ("Which sentence from the text tells you that?")
- Weekly: One evidence-based short write per week using the RACE/REAP structure, with at least one Tier 2 vocabulary word explicitly pre-taught before reading
- Monthly: One close reading cycle per month using grade-level complex text; collect one written response and look at it with a colleague
🐻 GES Close
Each teacher reads their Daily commitment aloud. Facilitator: "The students who underperform on the ELA summative are not students who can't read. They're students who haven't yet been taught to read complex text closely, use academic language precisely, and write back with evidence — consistently, every week. That changes here."
Research Base: What the Evidence Says
The studies and frameworks behind every strategy in this PD series
Five Pillars of Reading — National Reading Panel
🔤 Phonemic Awareness & Phonics
Systematic, explicit phonics instruction produces significantly better outcomes than instruction that teaches little or no phonics. Phoneme proficiency — the ability to manipulate sounds automatically — is the strongest early predictor of reading success.
⚡ Fluency
Guided oral reading and repeated reading have significant positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and comprehension across all ages. Text reading fluency makes an independent contribution to comprehension above and beyond decoding and listening comprehension.
🗝 Vocabulary
Vocabulary knowledge explains the largest single share of variance in reading comprehension. Students must know 98% of words in a text to comprehend it. Tier 2 academic vocabulary requires 10–15 exposures across multiple contexts to reach durable ownership.
🧠 Comprehension
Explicit comprehension strategy instruction — predicting, questioning, summarizing, visualizing, monitoring — produces significant gains. The Science of Reading continues to expand the comprehension model beyond the Simple View to include motivation, executive function, and background knowledge.
Text Complexity & Close Reading
📊 Text Complexity Framework
The three-part model (quantitative, qualitative, reader/task) provides a rigorous approach to text selection. Research supports matching reader to appropriately complex text with instructional support — not simplifying text to reader level.
🔍 Close Reading
Multiple re-readings of a complex text with text-dependent questions significantly improve comprehension and inferential thinking. Short, repeated encounters with the same text outperform single long readings. Annotation and marginalia increase retention and active processing.
Evidence-Based Writing
✍️ Writing to Learn Reading
Writing about what students read — summarizing, responding, analyzing — significantly increases reading comprehension. Short, frequent writes outperform infrequent long essays for comprehension growth. Writing back from text is the most underused comprehension strategy in elementary classrooms.
📋 Text-Dependent Questions & Evidence
Questions that require students to return to the text to respond — rather than drawing on personal experience — produce stronger comprehension gains than generic discussion questions. Evidence-citing practice is the single skill most closely aligned to summative ELA demand.
Professional Learning
🏫 Teacher Effectiveness Is the Cornerstone
States that have sustained ELA score improvement have done so through long-term, systematic investment in teacher professional learning — not one-time PD. Over 90% of students can reach reading proficiency with effective explicit instruction (Vellutino et al., 2004; Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006). The GES PD series is designed for sustainability: between-session practice, Session 4 action planning, and monthly student work review build the habits that compound over time.
Classroom Strategy Reference Card
Eight high-leverage moves for ELA — grounded in Science of Reading research · K–5
1. 3-Read Close Reading Protocol
Read any complex text three times with different purposes: Read 1 for gist, Read 2 for structure and annotation, Read 3 for deeper meaning and written response. Distribute across 2–3 days. Works as read-aloud in K–2.
Research anchor: Multiple re-readings with text-dependent questions significantly improve comprehension and inference. (Fisher & Frey, 2012)
🎯 Try it: Select one complex text from this week's unit. Run Read 1 Monday, Read 2 Wednesday, Read 3 Friday with a short write.2. Robust Tier 2 Vocabulary Instruction
Pre-teach 3–5 Tier 2 words before reading using the 5-step routine: in-context introduction → student-friendly definition → examples/non-examples → student interaction → repeated encounter. 10–15 exposures required for ownership.
Research anchor: Vocabulary knowledge explains the largest share of variance in reading comprehension. Students need 98% word knowledge to comprehend a text. (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2002)
🎯 Try it: Before the next reading, identify 3 Tier 2 words. Spend 8 minutes on Step 1–4. Return to the words on 3 more days this week.3. Repeated Reading with Feedback
Students read the same short passage 3–4 times with different purposes. Teacher or partner provides specific prosody feedback: "Try that sentence again — make it sound like you're excited." Track rate as a data point, not a grade.
Research anchor: Repeated reading with feedback is the single most effective fluency intervention. Four reads with feedback can close a fluency gap faster than any other single practice. (NRP, 2000)
🎯 Try it: Pull 3 students for a 10-min repeated reading group twice this week. Use a 100-word passage. Note expression improvement by the 4th read.4. Text-Dependent Questions (Every Day)
Every discussion question must require students to return to the text. Replace "What do you think about ___?" with "Which part of the text makes you think that?" If a student who didn't read could answer it — revise the question.
Research anchor: Text-dependent questions produce stronger comprehension gains than personal-connection questions and directly align to summative EBSR item demands. (CCSS Appendix A)
🎯 Try it: Audit your 3 most common discussion questions. Can they be answered without the text? Revise one this week to require evidence.5. Evidence-Based Short Writes (Weekly)
After reading, students write 3–5 sentences responding to a text-dependent prompt using the RACE/REAP structure. This is not an essay — it is a fast, frequent habit. Score on whether they cited evidence AND explained it.
Research anchor: Writing about what students read significantly increases reading comprehension. Short, frequent writes outperform infrequent long essays. (Graham & Hebert, 2010)
🎯 Try it: After every close reading cycle, add a 5-min short write: "Using evidence from the text, explain…" Collect and look for the explain step.6. Read-Aloud as Comprehension Instruction (K–3 especially)
Daily teacher read-aloud of complex text above students' independent reading level builds vocabulary, comprehension strategies, background knowledge, and listening comprehension — all prerequisites for later independent reading of complex text.
Research anchor: Listening comprehension is the ceiling for reading comprehension at all grade levels. Students comprehend more when listening than reading until about Grade 8 — oral language instruction is reading instruction. (Simple View of Reading)
🎯 Try it: Select a text 1–2 grade levels above your class. Read aloud daily for 10 min. Stop 3 times and ask text-dependent questions. Don't just read — interrogate.7. Phonics / Word Study (K–3 non-negotiable)
Explicit, systematic phonics instruction in K–3 is the strongest lever for reading achievement. Include daily 15–20 minute word study with direct instruction, practice, and application. Phonics is not a pre-reading skill — it IS reading for K–2 students.
Research anchor: Systematic phonics instruction significantly enhances children's success in learning to read — far more than approaches that teach little or no phonics. (NRP, 2000; Science of Reading consensus)
🎯 Try it: Identify 2 students who are decoding below grade level. Check whether their phonics scope and sequence is complete — are there gaps? Target the gaps explicitly.8. Background Knowledge Building
Students can't comprehend a text about topics they know nothing about — vocabulary and decoding aren't enough. Intentionally build content knowledge before reading informational texts. Science, social studies, and history knowledge directly fuel ELA comprehension.
Research anchor: Background knowledge is a significant predictor of text comprehension, particularly for informational text. Students who know more about a topic comprehend new texts about that topic at higher levels. (Duke & Cartwright, 2021)
🎯 Try it: Before the next informational text, spend 3 min activating prior knowledge: "Tell your partner everything you know about ___." Use this to identify who has gaps to fill before reading.ELA Lesson Planning Template
Science of Reading–Aligned · GES Grizzlies · Complete before teaching · Bring to Session 4