University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An exploratory study of professional development to improve student reading: a case study in Oahu Hawaii

(USC Thesis Other)

An exploratory study of professional development to improve student reading: a case study in Oahu Hawaii

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

1

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE
STUDENT READING: A CASE STUDY IN OAHU HAWAII

by

Damien T. Tymes

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2017

Copyright 2017 Damien T. Tymes

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to a number of people but first and foremost it is dedicated
to my lord and savior Jesus Christ. Without him, none of this would have been possible. My
loving wife Christina has been superbly supportive prior to and throughout this journey. She
has inspired, encouraged, and occasionally refocused me, all in efforts to complete this body of
work. I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for allowing me to pursue and
achieve this goal at such a busy time in our lives. I also dedicate this dissertation to Nora Rose,
my first born. This journey was made to set a standard in our home and allow you to see that
with God all things are possible. This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Herman and Rose,
who countinue to mentor me. Dad, thank you for not sugarcoating anything and always
challenging me to do better. Whether you realize it or not, the example you set for me is
something I am still trying to live up to today. Ma, thank you for being my biggest cheerleader.
As a young man you always told me I could do anything I put my mind to. Through my many
failures and successes, you have always been there to help me pick myself up and get back into
the fight. I also dedicate this dissertation to Betty Dendy, John Harnet, Lidia Mowers, Harry
Miller, Lisa Belcher, Robin Greiner, Commader Ludwell McCay, Lt Commander Carl Green,
Master Chief Petty Officer Michael Howard, and Master Sergeant Milton Clifton Sr. You all are
the teachers who pushed me achieve my dreams, I cannot thank each of you enough for modling
me into the person I am today. There are countless others that have supported me throughout
this process. I am humbled by all who have traveled this journey besided me. Your kind words,
guidance, and encouragement were without a doubt my salvation.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Lawrence Oscar Picus has been a beacon of knowledge and support throughout this
study of the Race to The Top program. I was blessed to have had you as my dissertation
committee chair. Your patience and steady guidance has helped me throughout this long and
arduous task. I am eternally grateful for all you have done. Dr. Monique Datta, thank you for
guidance and feedback. Your candor and ability to assist students in producing their best product
is highly valued. Dr. Alan Green, thank you for helping me to learn how to reflect on matters
through different lenses. Your teaching style and ability to relate to students are unmatched.
To the nine Hawaii Department of Education employees who participated in this study as
interviewees, thank you. Your openness and flexibility made data collection meaningful and
enjoyable. Your accounts and reflections were what drove this study, I could not have asked for
a more cooperative and forthcoming group of people to interview. Furthermore, I also thank you
for your daily commitment to educate the children of Oahu. It is teachers like you who truly
make a positive impact on our youths.
Last but not least, thank you to the 2014 USC Hawaii Cohort. I truly believe God
intentionally allowed me to embark on this journey with you all. In my almost two decades of
military service, I have never seen a group of people form such a strong bond so quickly. You
all made it possible for me to continue on in this program through many trips off island and
outside of the country. I will never forget your kindness, patience or what beautiful people each
of you are.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Overview 9
Introduction 9
Problem Statement 13
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 16
Importance of the Study 16
Limitations/Delimitation and Assumptions 18
Definitions 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
Introduction 23
Background of Race to The Top 23
Common Core State Standards 33
Reading Instruction under Common Core State Standards Guidance 36
Teacher Preparation 46
Summary 49
Chapter 3: Methodology 51
Introduction 51
Purpose of Study 52
Research Questions 53
Research Design and Methods 53
Sample and Population 54
Overview of Organization 55
Table 1. Demographic Breakdown of Schools Used for Research 56
Instrumentation 59
Data Collection 59
Data Analysis 60
Summary 60
Chapter 4: Findings 62
Introduction 62
Research Question 1 63
Research Question 2 70
Research Question 3 75
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

5
Research Question 4 82
Conclusion 93
Chapter 5: Discussion 97
Introduction 97
Summary of Findings 100
Limitations 104
Implications for Practice 104
Recommendations for Future Research 106
Conclusion 107
References 109
Appendices 117
Appendix A: IRB Approval 117
Appendix B: Site Permission Letter 118
Appendix C: Qualitative Data Interview Protocol 119

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded 83
reading proficiency, 2010-2011
Figure 2. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded 84
reading proficiency, 2011-2012
Figure 3. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded 85
reading proficiency, 2012-2013
Figure 4. Percentage of students who met or exceeded reading proficiency, 2013-2014 86
Figure 5. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded 87
reading proficiency, 2010-2011
Figure 6. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded 88
reading proficiency, 2011-2012
Figure 7. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded 89
reading proficiency, 2012-2013
Figure 8. Percentage of students who met or exceeded reading proficiency, 2013-2014 90
Figure 9. Percentage of Hibiscus Grade 3-5 students who met or exceeded achievement 91
standards, 2014-2015
Figure 10. Percentage of Plumeria Grade 3-5 students who met or exceeded achievement 92
standards, 2014-2015

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

7
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to understand how Race to the Top (RTTT) program resources
were used to prepare teachers in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) to implement
instructional techniques that would lead to increased reading/language arts achievement and
decrease reading achievement gaps between student subgroups. Parallel research on the same
topic was conducted on a sample of Oahu schools that were not in the Zone of School Innovation
(ZSI), who did not receive RTTT funding, but were required to meet the same standard as ZSI
schools that did receive RTTT funding. State assessment scores from the aforementioned ZSI
and non-ZSI schools were also reviewed during this study. Quantitative data was used to
determine which schools showed the most growth during and after utilization of RTTT funds by
HIDOE. This study analyzed standards and methods set forth under RTTT to increase reading
achievement and decrease learning gaps specific to reading within elementary schools in the ZSI
on Oahu, as well as other methods used by non-ZSI schools. The research also relayed
information on how teachers in the ZSI on Oahu utilized reform specific professional
development provided by the HIDOE to facilitate instruction in reading and language arts.
Instruction methods used by non- ZSI School English-Language Arts (ELA)/reading teachers
was also examined. Information was collected from ZSI teachers, non-ZSI teachers and a
HIDOE administrator to learn how reading achievement was affected by RTTT within the
HIDOE. HIDOE was solicited for quantitative data to determine how reading achievement was
affected during and after the time period RTTT funds were utilized in Hawaii. The study also
illustrated how ZSI schools compared against non-ZSI Schools in regards to reading
achievement during the period RTTT funds were distributed. The findings indicate that all four
elementary schools that took part in this study engaged in some form of professional
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

8
development for reading achievement in efforts to comply with Common Core State Standards
under RTTT. Research determined RTTT funding had low impact on ZSI teachers’ abilities to
implement curriculum that research suggested would lead to improved outcomes for its students.
Non-ZSI schools used reading achievement software, after school reading programs and summer
reading programs to improve outcomes in reading comprehension. Finally, quantitative data
provided by HIDOE illustrated that non-ZSI schools showed the most growth during and after
utilization of RTTT funds by HIDOE.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

9
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW
Introduction
On February 17, 2009 President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment act (ARRA) into law. Legislation for ARRA was set forth to stimulate the U.S.
economy, assist in the creation of jobs, and invest in sectors critical to the U.S. following the
financial crisis of 2007-2008. The ARRA identified education as one of the critical sectors that
required economic stimulation (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2009). According to
Superfine (2011), the intent of the ARRA was to save jobs in education and foster policy reform
that were in areas of interest to the Obama administration. The ARRA provided a means for
education reform by promoting innovative strategies, supporting investments in schools that
would likely produce increased student performance, sustained gains in school systems and
proliferations in productivity and effectiveness (USDOE, 2009). Superfine (2011) believed that
President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act would be reauthorized due to
the large amount of ARRA funding devoted to educational policy areas that were targeted for
reform.
The passage of NCLB in 2002 intensified the federal focus on educational outcomes,
governance arrangements, and quality (Superfine, 2011). As a reauthorization of President
Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, NCLB
imposed enhanced requirements for states to continue obtaining Title 1 funds. Not only did
NCLB require states to administer standards and assessment systems in science, mathematics
and reading, it also implemented accountability systems that complemented various federal
requirements. Under the NCLB accountability systems’ requirements schools were to make
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

10
annual progress (Superfine, 2011). In order to comply with annual requirements under NCLB,
states were to define an acceptable yearly increase of student performance on assessments
aligned with state criteria.

The increase was to incorporate separate objectives for poor students,
ethnic minority students, disabled students, and students with limited English-speaking abilities
(Superfine, 2011). States were also to ensure that each of the aforementioned student subgroups
were fully competent by 2014. NCLB was the object of much praise and criticism. Supporters
of NCLB deemed the act was a conduit for increasing the effectiveness of federal funds for
refining schools. Jennings and Rentner (2006) believed NCLB had a major impact on American
public education. There was more testing and more accountability in schools throughout the
country. More attention was paid to lessons being taught and how lessons were taught. Low-
performing schools also received greater attention (Jennings & Rentner, 2006). Teacher
qualifications also came under greater scrutiny. Synchronously with NCLB, state reading and
mathematics tests scores increased. Individuals opposed to NCLB claimed that the act was
dramatically underfunded.
NCLB’s accountability requirements were arguably aggravating educational inequalities
by over emphasizing test preparation in schools with a high population of minority and
underprivileged students (Superfine, 2011). According to Kim and Sunderman (2005), NCLB’s
accountability requirements placed racially diverse schools and high-poverty schools at a
disadvantage because all subgroups were required to meet the same accountability goals.
Darling-Hammond, Noguera, Cobb and Meier (2007) stated if NCLB funding were to increase,
its structure did not allow for critical structural enhancements, such as a system of professional
development and teacher preparation that would consistently yield high-quality teaching. With
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

11
the negative connotations of NCLB still lingering another education reform would surface, in
less than a decade.
Born from ARRA, the Race to the Top (RTTT) grant was created to assist school districts
throughout the U.S. in closing achievement gaps and improving chances for more students to
attend college by supporting key reform strategies. A $4.35 billion competitive grant program,
RTTT aimed to accelerate major education reforms in states and districts with the hopes to create
the conditions for greater educational innovation (Boser, 2012). According to USDOE (2009)
RTTT focused on four core education reform areas. The first was recruiting, developing,
rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals. Second, creating a data system to
measure student success. Third was turning around low achieving schools. The fourth and final
focus dealt with adopting more rigorous standards and assessments for students.
RTTT was devised to encourage and provide incentives for States that created an
atmosphere for original thoughts and practices in the field of education and reform (Kolbe &
Rice, 2012). States were expected to create plans for investing in state and local school aptitude
and establishing reforms supported by federal policy priorities that were articulated in the ARRA
legislation and the RTTT fund’s grant parameters, in efforts to qualify for RTTT funding
(USDOE, 2010). The competition for RTTT received a great deal of attention. Forty-seven
states (including the District of Columbia) went head to head in two rounds of competition for
twelve grants. The applications for the grants were widely politicized and publicized, regardless
of the fact that less than 1% of annual kindergarten through twelfth grade public school funding
was available through RTTT funds. Furthermore, a majority of the applicants’ implemented
additional actions to modify state laws and regulations, as well as local labor agreements, to
adhere to grant requirements and improve their competitive standing (McGuinn, 2010). At the
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

12
end of the competition, 12 states (including the District of Columbia) won grants ranging from
$75 million to $700 million, dispensable over a 4-year period (Kolbe & Rice, 2012).
The Hawaii State Department of Education (HIDOE) is unique in that it houses one
statewide K-12 school system that operates as both the State Educational Agency (SEA) and a
Local Educational Agency (LEA). Consequently, all 288 schools in Hawaii located on six of
Hawaii’s eight main islands, participated in the State’s RTTT plan (USDOE, 2012a). Hawaii’s
RTTT plan pitched five major goals called the Common Education Agenda Performance
Outcomes, and was adopted jointly by the state’s Office of the Governor, Board of Education,
HIDOE, and the University of Hawaii (HIDOE, 2012). The five Common Education Agenda
Performances Outcomes topics will be explored in greater detail.
The first performance outcome was to increase overall K-12 student achievement
(HIDOE, 2012). By 2014, Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) reading scores were to increase to
90% and the mathematics scores were to increase to 82%. All students were to be proficient in
both reading and mathematics by 2018. Additionally, Hawaii students’ National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) scores were to meet or exceed the national median score by 2018
(HIDOE, 2012). The second outcome was to ensure college and career readiness (HIDOE,
2012). By 2018, the overall high school graduation rate in Hawaii was to increase from 80% to
90% and all graduating students would earn the new “college and career ready” high school
diploma, which required that students meet STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics) competencies (HIDOE, 2012). The third performance outcome was to increase
higher education enrollment and completion rates (HIDOE, 2012). By 2018, the college‐going
rate of Hawaii’s high school graduates was proposed to increase by 11 points, from 51% to the
national median of 62%. Through the Hawaii Graduation Initiative, the University of Hawaii
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

13
(UH) also planed to increase the number of college graduates by 25% annually by 2015 (HIDOE,
2012). The fourth performance outcome was to ensure equity and effectiveness by closing
achievement gaps (HIDOE, 2012). By 2014, the gap between groups and all students in state
assessment scores, graduation rates, and college enrollment rates were to be reduced by 50%. By
2018, it was proposed that the gaps would be eliminated (HIDOE, 2012). The fifth performance
outcome was to increase STEM proficiency statewide and highly effective STEM instruction in
Title 1 Schools (high‐poverty) (HIDOE, 2012). All first year teachers in Title 1 schools for
STEM subject areas and other difficult‐to‐staff subjects were to be highly qualified/highly
effective by 2011 (HIDOE, 2012).
Hawaii created a five-point comprehensive plan to drive student success (HIDOE, 2012).
The first point of the plan aimed to adopt high quality college and career ready standards
assessments statewide. The second point emphasized striving to improve longitudinal data
collection and use for all students. Cultivation, rewarding, leveraging and leading effective
teachers to impact success in Hawaii classrooms were included in the third point of the plan.
The fourth point focused on turning around Hawaii’s lowest achieving schools through targeted
support. The fifth and final point centered round aligning organizational functions to support
reform outcomes (HIDOE, 2012). The State of Hawaii’s proposal was enough to impress
decision makers involved in selecting states that would be awarded the RTTT grant. In August
2010, Hawaii was awarded $75 million in RTTT funds over a four-year period.
Problem Statement
An important component of the RTTT program focused on teacher roles in producing
student achievement. Hawaii was one of 12 states (including the District of Columbia) that
received a RTTT grant and substantial effort went into improving and evaluating teacher
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

14
performance. When RTTT was initiated across the United States there was an emphasis on
improving teacher quality, as it was considered one of the most pressing concerns of education
reform (Crowe, 2011a). There were several requirements specific to educators that RTTT
funded states were mandated to fulfill. To produce the type of results RTTT was created to
inspire, teachers at the selected schools should have received the proper guidance, curriculum,
and training to implement Common Core State Standards (CCSS) under RTTT. Parameters
specific to goals, expectations, new responsibilities, training requirements, and feedback sessions
should have been addressed with HIDOE schools that received RTTT funding prior to
implementing new curriculum for their students. According to Crowe (2011a), ensuring teachers
receive a quality education is a critical focus of education reform. However, the task is daunting
as there have been minimal successes from a litany of reform and redesign initiatives over the
past thirty years (Crowe, 2011a). The U.S. has had trouble obtaining substantial change in the
quality of teacher education. The U.S. education system made efforts to combine a reward and
punishment approach. This method provided incentives to programs that soughed out serious
reform efforts and stipulated effective accountability mechanisms to guide other reform
programs onto a successful path (Crowe, 2011a). The teacher education requirements of RTTT
ask states to dispatch stronger accountability tools and to create or expand upon professional
development programs for teachers. The desired outcome of the teacher preparation program is
to generate effective teachers (Crowe, 2011a). RTTT was implemented with hopes that an
emphasis on teacher education (among other initiatives) would ultimately increase student
achievement in reading/language arts and STEM. Though teacher education reform has
continued to occur over the past three decades without resolution, RTTT has provided funding
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

15
for schools to find the most efficient means to train teachers and provide students with the tools
needed to succeed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand how RTTT resources were used to prepare
teachers in the HIDOE to implement instructional techniques that lead to increased
reading/language arts achievement and decreased reading achievement gaps between student
subgroups. Parallel research on the same topic was conducted on a sample of Oahu schools that
were not in the ZSI but also needed to improve under RTTT. According to USDOE (2012b)
effective teachers are defined as those whose students achieve growth by at least one grade level
over the course of a year. Information regarding professional development components of RTTT
required affected states to implement more vigorous accountability mechanisms and to establish
or expand effective preparation programs to produce successful teachers (Crowe, 2011a).
This study analyzed standards and methods set forth under RTTT to increase reading
achievement and decrease learning gaps specific to reading within elementary schools in the ZSI
on Oahu, as well as other methods used by non-ZSI schools. The research will also relay
information on how ZSI teachers on Oahu utilized reform particular to professional development
provided by the HIDOE to facilitate instruction in reading and language arts. Instruction
methods used by non- ZSI school English-Language Arts (ELA)/reading teachers were also
examined. Information was gathered from teachers and a HIDOE administrator to learn how
reading achievement was affected by RTTT within the HIDOE. HIDOE was also solicited for
quantitative data to determine how reading achievement was affected. Once information from
both ZSI and non-ZSI Schools was gathered the study illustrated how ZSI schools compared
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

16
against non-ZSI Schools in regards to reading achievement during the period RTTT funds were
distributed.
Research Questions
1. What actions did DOE administrators on Oahu take to prepare teachers to implement
reading achievement curricula under state education reform?
2. How did RTTT impact teachers’ ability to enact strategies that research suggests will
lead to improved student outcomes?
3. What methods did teachers who did not receive RTTT funding use to improve
outcomes in reading comprehension?
4. How did ZSI schools compare to non-ZSI Schools regarding reading comprehension?
Importance of the Study
The research complied in this study provides several audiences with information on
effective and ineffective professional development methods for elementary school ELA/reading
teachers. It aids in reflecting on possible best practices for professional development with
regards to facilitating a mastery of reading/language arts achievement. The information derived
from this research can be used to validate professional development policies for elementary
ELA/reading teachers being utilized throughout the school systems. It may also encourage
leaders in the elementary ELA/reading professional development field to re-evaluate policies that
may not have been as effective as they were intended to be. Though the field research conducted
during this study was specific to the island of Oahu, Hawaii, information obtained may also
affect the U.S. DOE, as data learned during this study may be included in studies regarding
ELA/reading teacher professional development in the U.S. The HIDOE has the most to gain
from this document, as all field research focused on schools in the HIDOE area of responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

17
Information provided in this study by subordinate educators who work within the HIDOE
was directly linked to facts, documentation, and opinions, provides valuable knowledge to the
department leadership. Specific information regarding how professional development was
introduced, received and utilized will assist the HIDOE to evaluate its effectiveness in the realm
of training elementary ELA/reading teachers. Information provided on student outcomes is
important to HIDOE personnel because when combined with details regarding elementary
ELA/reading professional development, policy makers can make informed inferences as to why
reading achievement may have improved or decreased in performance. Data regarding non-ZSI
Schools provided in this study also allow HIDOE personnel to assess whether some reform
practices tied to RTTT were beneficial to the state education system or a detriment. If nothing
else, this research is vital to the HIDOE because it provides and outside and unbiased report on
findings generated from its employees and test results on topics that are essential to the
educational readiness of the state. Though this study focuses on one of twelve states, the
information contained in this document is of value to the U.S. DOE.
The information generated by this study is important to the U.S. DOE because one of the
intentions of RTTT was to increase NAEP scores. Facts from the research presented provides
useful information to the U.S. DOE regarding how RTTT funds were implemented in one of
Hawaii’s largest concentrations of schools. Reading test scores for students who were in the ZSI
may be used to correlate positive or negative trends between students who tested from non-ZSI
schools and other states that participated in RTTT. Information learned from schools outside of
the ZSI would either affirm CCSS that are tied to RTTT tenants were sound, or that schools
outside of the ZSI were able utilize a potentially more cost effective reform program.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

18
There is a belief in U.S. popular culture that American students are not advancing in the
areas of reading/language arts at a rate commensurate with our economical status as a nation
(Sparks, 2015). According to Sparks (2015), America’s best educated and most well off young
adults has fallen behind their international peers in topics to include literacy and problem-solving
skills. Research provided in this study illustrates how a subsection of American students may
eventually score on national and international assessments. Individuals interested in this topic
may benefit from learning about successful methods used to educate elementary school
ELA/reading teachers that can be replicated at their location. The research also provides
information on how well different reform programs were implemented and whether or not
ZSI/Non-ZSI schools continued to use the programs once funding depleted. Regardless of who
digests the information presented in this study, the importance of the information is relevant in
the present and will be relevant in the future.
Limitations/Delimitation and Assumptions
Three limitations and four delimitations applied to this study. The first limitation deals
with the pool of participants who engage in this study, their varying views, and experiences
regarding HIDOE’s efforts to prepare teachers to implement RTTT. No video or audio
recordings of participants receiving professional development training from HIDOE employees
has been made available to the researcher as part of this study, or exist to the researchers
knowledge. The last limitation is that each participant reserved the right to selectively answer
questions or omit parts of an answer at their own discretion.
The first delimitation applied to this study is that the sample size of this study is limited
to four schools. Another delimitation dealt with the sample being constrained to the island of
Oahu, Hawaii, due to the limited resources available during the period in which research was
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

19
conducted. Also, a thematic dissertation group identified participants selected for this study.
The last delimitation is that information for the study was collected during a specific time period
that correlated with the initiation of RTTT funding and concluded with the programs completion
date.
The following assumptions applied to this study. The researcher used a mix of human
subjects and quantitative data based on assessment scores provided by HIDOE to collect data for
this study. The information obtained from all parties related to this study was believed to be
creditable and based on actual accounts. Assessment documents used for research purposes are
available for public record and do not reflect any privacy act information. The researcher
assumes that all accounts presented by participants were firsthand in nature.
Definitions
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Legislation created to stimulate the
U.S. economy, fund employment creation opportunities and finance critical areas including but
not limited to education (USDOE, 2009).
Academic Review Team (ART): Serves as a project management oversight committee at
the school level, including monitoring the implementation of the six priority strategies
(American Institutes for Research, 2014).
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): The stimulus package signed into
law by President Obama in February 2009 intended to stimulate the economy create jobs, and
invest in critical sectors, including education. The Department of Education received $97.4
billion in support to reshape the education system (USDOE, 2012a).
College and Career Ready (CCR): Standards developed by states to prepare students for
college and career readiness by the time they graduate from high school (USDOE, 2014).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

20
Complex Area (CA): Composed of two or three high schools and the intermediate/middle
and elementary schools that feed into them, each headed by a Complex Area Superintendent
(CAS), which allows administrators to focus on supporting the needs of their schools while
providing meaningful supervision and accountability (USDOE, 2014).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Established clear and consistent goals for
learning that prepare America’s Children for success in college and careers. Developed in
collaboration with stakeholders, including states, governors, teachers, school administrators and
parents to support kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) English language arts and
mathematics (USDOE, 2014).
Education Reform: Efforts to improve the methods, purposes, and the overall quality of
elementary and secondary schools (Friedman, 2011).
Educator Effectiveness System (EES): Comprehensive evaluation system that sets clear
expectations for effective teaching, provides educators with quality feedback and support to
improve their effectiveness with students, and promotes professional development (American
Institutes for Research, 2014).
Effective Teacher: A facilitator whose students achieve satisfactory grades at a minimum
of one grade level per academic year. Responsible school governance organizations (DOE,
district, etc.) must include multiple measures to prove that facilitator effectiveness is evaluated
largely by student growth. Additional measures may include but are not limited to, multiple
observation-based assessments of facilitator performance by someone within the facilitator’s
school governance organization (USDOE, 2009).
Highly effective teachers: A teacher whose students achieve at acceptable rates (e.g., at
least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in the RTTT
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

21
requirements). Measurements may include multiple observation-based assessments of the
teacher’s performance to include evidence of leadership roles (which may include mentoring or
leading professional learning communities) that increased the effectiveness of other teachers in
the school or LEA. This information submitted by states, LEAs or schools showing the teacher’s
effectiveness had a significant part in the student’s growth (as defined in the RTTT
requirements) (USDOE, 2014).
Local Education Agency (LEA): An educational agency at the local governmental level
that operates schools or contracts for educational services. LEAs can be as small as a single
school district and as large as county offices of education (USDOE, 2015a).
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): Is administered once every two
years and is the largest continuing and nationally representative assessment of what American
students know and can do in various subject areas (USDOE, 2014).
No Child Left Behind: An act passed in 2001 to set a standard that students across the
U.S. have a equal, fair, and substantial opportunities to procure a high-quality education and
achieve minimum proficiency levels on challenging State achievement (Hayes, 2013).
State Education Agency (SEA): Have a close partnership with LEAs, as SEAs built
knowledge and skills of their staff and recruited new staff to drive comprehensive and
collaborative change in their education system. Develop and strengthen partnership with local
stakeholder’s such as teachers’ union institutions of higher education to accomplish their goals.
SEAs set the vision for improving teaching and learning across the state and support all the
individuals in their education system and to act on their vision in ways that made sense at the
local level (USDOE, 2015a).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

22
Science, Technology, Engineer, and Mathematics (STEM): STEM education integrates
the study of science, technology, engineering and mathematics by using scientific inquiry and
engineering design as unifying processes. STEM emphasizes innovation and the development of
problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration skills (USDOE, 2015b).
Student Achievement: A combination of a student’s score on a State’s assessment under
the ESEA, in conjunction with other measures of student learning (Crowe, 2011a).
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined above) for an
individual student between two or more points in time. A State may also include other measures
that are rigorous and analogous across classrooms (USDOE, 2009).
Title 1: A federal fund that provides financial assistances to schools with a high
percentage of under privileged children in order to help them meet academic standards
established by the state (USDOE, 2012a).
Zone of School Innovation (ZSI): Developed by HIDOE to focus on low-achieving
schools. The two ZSIs contain all but one of the lowest achieving schools in the state (a total of
18 schools and 7 public charter schools). Schools identified in the ZSI received higher levels of
services, support, and monitoring than other schools (USDOE, 2014).

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

23
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter is dedicated to reviewing and synthesizing literature that forms an
understanding of circumstances that lead to RTTT, school reform utilized by the state of Hawaii,
reform based guidelines recommended to improve reading/literacy achievement, and teacher
preparation on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. This chapter is divided into four sections (excluding
the introduction and summary of the chapter). The first section illustrates circumstances that
lead to inception/implementation of RTTT. It speaks to legislation, national and international
assessments that provided lawmakers data needed to generate interest in creating RTTT. The
second section provides information on the reform method that was chosen by the state to
improve reading achievement in the state of Hawaii. The third section provides information on
reform guidance provided by authors of Hawaii’s selected reform efforts, along with studies that
support and refute the reform. The fourth section examinees specific information related to
professional development for the RTTT program. In addition to reviewing information on how
school districts nationwide were prepared to train instructors on how to implement RTTT,
section four will also provide information specific to HIDOE and teacher preparation. These
sections are followed by a summary of the aforementioned subtopics discussed throughout the
chapter.
Background of Race to The Top
There were many assessments used by legislators to validate the need for RTTT. One of
many success measures for school districts participating in the RTTT program was increasing
student achievement in reading/language arts, as reported by the National Assessment of
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

24
Educational Progress (NAEP) and the assessments required under President Lyndon Baines
Johnson’s ESEA (USDOE, 2009). Other assessments like ones from the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) provide comparisons of a specific age group across an
international spectrum to rank how nations compete among one another in various academic
areas (Fleischman, Hopstock, Pelczar, & Shelley, 2010). Literature on both NAEP and PISA
were reviewed for the purpose of this study to gain understanding of the type of data that
inspired lawmakers to move forward with RTTT. Since this study is specific to reading/literacy
achievement, documentation of assessments in other academic areas were omitted from the text,
in efforts to remain focused on the main idea of the study. The first assessment method reviewed
will be the NAEP.
NAEP has used Long-Term Trend (LTT) assessments to document educational progress
since the early 1970s (Rampey, Dion, & Donahue, 2009). Since 1971, 12 assessments specific to
reading were conducted. Students represented in all assessments were from both public and
private schools. In 2004, a slight revision of the original assessment format, content, and
procedures occurred to accommodate students with disabilities and English language learners; as
well as updated content. However, the knowledge and skill levels assessed have remained
consistent since the first assessment year (Rampey et al., 2009). There is a second NAEP
assessment, sometimes referred to as “Main NAEP” that is administered every two years, and
was initiated in 1990 (Reardon & Robinson, 2008). The content of the Main NAEP assessment
is periodically updated to capture changes in curricula. Therefore, the Main NAEP is more suited
for reporting student performance based on curricula taught in their respective schools, rather
than providing an overall depiction of national growth among students (Reardon & Robinson,
2008). Another difference between the two NAEP assessments is that NAEP-LTT is
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

25
administered to students by age groups, specifically students ages 9, 13 and 17. Whereas, Main
NAEP is administered to students by grade levels, specifically grades 4, 8 and 12 (Reardon &
Robinson, 2008). In efforts to remain concentrated on the background of RTTT, the focus of this
literature review will remain on NAEP-LTT.
The NAEP-LTT reading assessment required elementary and secondary school students
to answer questions related to a variation of age appropriate readings such as stories, poems,
reports, and advertisements. The assessment was intended to measure students’ ability to
identify the main idea of the text, recognize specific information in the documents provided and
draw inferences from information located in two or more parts of the readings. The reading
abilities of students were measured using mainly multiple-choice questions and some open-
ended questions (Rampey et al., 2009). Each student took a portion of the assessment, which
consisted of three 15-minute sections. The 2008 reading assessment contained between 36 and
40 reading passages for students at the ages of 9, 13 and 17. Test results were graded on a 0 to
500 scale. Students were asked between one and five questions, which were in reference to
between 8 and 15 reading passages (Rampey et al., 2009).
In 2008, the national reading trend improved from the 2004 NAEP-LTT (Rampey et al.,
2009). For 9 year-olds, the average reading score increased by four points (220) since the 2004
NAEP-LTT and 12 points since the 1971 NAEP-LTT. At the time this report was authored, the
aforementioned scores were the highest recorded scores for 9-year-olds in the history of the
NAEP-LTT. Scores for 9-year-olds at the 10th, 25th, 50th and 75th percentile were used to
create the overall average reading score. The average score for 9-year-olds were higher in 2008
than in all previous assessment years. However, there was no significant change in scores of 9-
year-olds who scored in the 90th percentile between 2004 and 2008 (Rampey et al., 2009). Dee
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

26
and Jacob (2011) believed NAEP-LTT data illustrated gains made by 9-year-old students in 2008
were primarily the effect of a reduction of very-low-skilled 9-year-old readers. The 2008 NAEP-
LTT literacy scores of 9-year-old students at the 75th or 90th percentile were faintly higher than
the 1999 NAEP-LTT scores (Dee & Jacob, 2011). However, the 2008 NAEP-LTT scores of 9-
year-old readers at the 10th or 25th percentile significantly increased. Dee and Jacob (2011)
explained the growth might have been attributed to instruction that was deliberately targeted to
disadvantaged students or that improvement regarding instruction of skills-based competencies
may have led to improvements in the NAEP-LTT assessment (Dee & Jacob, 2011).
The average score for 13-year-olds in 2008 increased by three points (260) and the score
was also higher than the 1971 NAEP-LTT (Rampey et al., 2009). However, there was not a
significant difference in scores from a combination of all the assessment that occurred in the
years between 1971 and 2008. In total, there was a maximum increase of five points (286) in the
13-year-old age range between 1971 and 2008 (Rampey et al., 2009). These outcomes varied for
students that performed at different percentile levels. No score increases were noted for students
who scored at the 10th percentile from the initial NAEP-LTT in 1971 through the 2008 NAEP-
LTT. According to Rampey et al. (2009), students who scored in the 10th and 25th percentiles
increased their scores since the 2004 NAEP-LTT. There was no significant change in the scores
over the same period for students who scored in the 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles (Rampey et
al., 2009). Reardon, Valentino and Shores (2012) noted that a majority of the increased NAEP-
LTT literacy scores of 9-year-olds appeared to have occurred after 1999. Reardon et al. (2012)
credited the slight upward trend in scores of 13-year-olds from 2004 to 2008 to a possible
increase in the reading skill level of 9-year-olds that may have persisted through middle school.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

27
In 2008, the average reading score for 17-year-olds was higher than the 2004 NAEP-LTT
but not significantly different from the NAEP-LTT score in 1971 (285) (Rampey et al., 2009).
The highest scores for the 17-year-old age group were recorded in 1988 (290); the scores
remained consistent until 1994 (Rampey et al., 2009). Gains generated between 2004 and 2008
in the 17-year-old category were obtained by individuals who scored in the 25th and 75th
percentiles. Stedman (2009) opined that NAEP-LTT trend data indicated a growing aliteracy,
specifically among 17-year-olds. Other students scoring in the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles
over the same period did not produce a significant change in the scores. According to Stedman
(2009), in 2004, one-third of 17-year-olds admitted they seldom, if ever, read for leisure. The
lack of interest in reading for enrichment by 17-year-olds had nearly doubled from 20 years
earlier. Stedman (2009) also stated that students read much less as they grew older. In 2004,
over half of 9-year-olds polled stated they read for fun nearly every day. Only a fifth of 17-year-
olds polled read for leisure on a daily basis. The gap of students reading for fun has widened
over several decades (Stedman, 2009). Though it appears that some students made gains
between the 2004 and 2008 NAEP-LTT assessments, there was still much room for improvement
(Rampey et al., 2009).
Another success factor was the converse, decreasing achievement gaps between
subgroups in reading/language arts as reported by the NAEP-LTT and assessments required
under ESEA (USDOE, 2009). Generally, these gaps have narrowed since the inception of the
NAEP-LTT (Corbett, Hill, & Rose, 2008). A greater percentage of all students are reaching
proficiency today than in the past. While racial and ethnic gaps are reducing, growth is slow, and
disconcerting gaps among students by race/ethnicity continue to exit (Corbett et al., 2008).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

28
In 2008, 9-year-old White and Black students had higher average reading scores than in
the 11 previous assessment terms (Rampey et al., 2009). There was a 14-point increase in the
average score for 9-year-old white students from the first assessment in 1971 to the 2008 NAEP-
LTT. Black students increased their scores by 34 points between 1971 and 2008. In 2008,
White and Black students at 13 years old increased their scores from both the 2004 and 1971
NAEP-LTT (Rampey et al., 2009). White students boosted their scores by 7 points and the
scores of Black students reflected a 25-point gain during the 2008 NAEP-LTT compared to the
1971 NAEP-LTT. The average reading score increased for White students at 17-years old from
the 2004 NAEP-LTT to the 2008 NAEP-LTT. Black 17-year-olds did not produce scores that
illustrated a significant change between the 2004 and 2008 NAEP-LTT (Rampey et al., 2009).
However, Black 17-year-old students increased their average reading score by 28 points from the
1971 NAEP to the 2008 NAEP-LTT. According to Rampey et al. (2009), white 17-year-old
students showed a gain of four points. Though no significant changes in reading score gaps were
noted between White and Black students from the 2004 NAEP-LTT to the 2008 NAEP-LTT, the
gaps in the three ages groups tested were narrower in the 2008 NAEP-LTT than in the inaugural
1971 NAEP-LTT. The gaps narrowed by 20 points for 9 year olds, 17 points for 13-year-olds

and 24 points for 17-year-olds (Rampey et al., 2009). According to Barton and Coley (2010)
most progress related to closing achievement gaps between Black and White students occurred
during the 1970s and 1980s. Excluding the 2008 gap reduction in reading for Black 9-year-olds,
greater gains have not been made since the 1980s in regards to closing the reading achievement
gaps between Black and White students (Barton & Coley, 2010).
In regard to Hispanic students, 9-year-old students scored higher on the 2008 NAEP-LTT
than all previous assessments (Rampey et al., 2009). Hispanic students yielded an eight-point
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

29
gain between the 2004 NAEP-LTT and the 2008 NAEP. In all, Hispanic 9-year-old students
scores increased by 25 points in comparison to the 1975 NAEP-LTT. Hispanic students at 13
and 17 years old did not score significantly different from their predecessors in the 2004 NAEP-
LTT (Rampey et al., 2009). However, both age ranges scored higher in the 2008 NAEP-LTT
than in the 1975 NAEP-LTT. Hispanic 13-year-olds increased their scores by 10 points between
the 1975 and 2008 NAEP-LTT, while 17-year-old Hispanic students increased their scores by 17
points from the 1975 to 2008 NAEP-LTT (Rampey et al., 2009). There were no significant
changes in the gaps in reading scores between White and Hispanic students from 2004 to 2008
across the three age groups measured in these assessments. In 2008, the gaps narrowed by 13
points for 9 year-old students, they did not change for 13 year-old students, and narrowed by 15
points for 17 year-old students when compared to the 1975 NAEP-LTT (Rampey et al., 2009).
Both 9-year-old male and female students achieved overall improvement in reading
(Corbett et al., 2008; Rampey et al., 2009). The 2008 NAEP-LTT yielded the highest average
scores for 9-year-old males and females than the previous 11 assessments. At the beginning of
their elementary education, female students exhibit an advantage in reading. However, the
reading gap ultimately decreases between most male and female students, excluding students
who preform below average levels, through the course of elementary school (Robinson &
Lubienski, 2011). The 2008 NAEP-LTT results disclosed on average 9-year-old female students
scored seven points higher than their male counterparts (Rampey et al., 2009). Between the 2004
NAEP-LTT to the 2008 NAEP-LTT, progress in the 13-year-old age range varies by gender.
Thirteen-year-old male students increased their reading scores between the 2004 and 2008
NAEP-LTT, while there was no significant score influxes for 13-year-old female students during
the same time-frame (Rampey et al., 2009). Scores were higher in the 2008 NAEP-LTT for both
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

30
13-year-old male and female students in comparison to the 1971 NAEP-LTT. Seventeen-year-
old male students increased their average reading score by four points from the 2004 NAEP-LTT
to the 2008 NAEP-LTT. The score of 17-year-old female students did not reflect a significant
variance over the same period. Robinson and Lubienski (2011) explained in regards to reading,
achievement gaps favoring female students usually decrease between high achieving and average
students but widen among low-achieving students. Conversely, teachers generally rated female
students higher than their male counterparts in reading. Comparisons of 2008 NAEP-LTT to the
1971 NAEP-LTT show no significant change for either male or female 17-year-old students
(Rampey et al., 2009). Female 17-year-old students sustained higher reading scores on average
than their 17-year-old male counterparts. For 9-year-old students, the 7-point gap in the 2008
NAEP-LTT was not much different than the gap from the 2004 NAEP-LTT; however, it was
narrower than the gap in the 1971 NAEP-LTT. The 2008 NAEP-LTT reflected an eight-point
gender gap for 13-year-olds but was not drastically different than the gaps in the 2004 NAEP-
LTT or the 1971 NAEP-LTT (Rampey et al., 2009). Lastly, the 11-point gap in gender scores
for 17-year-old students in the 2008 NAEP-LTT was not significantly different from the gaps in
the 11 assessments previous to the 2008 NAEP-LTT (Rampey et al., 2009). Corbett et al. (2008)
drew on educational data for males and females in grade four through college. Corbett et al.
(2008) contended that both male and female student achievement had improved within the last
several decades. The 2008 NAEP-LTT scores listed above represented mostly increased reading
scores in various subgroups among other American students; however, U.S. teens scored in the
middle of the pack internationally in the following year, and slightly lower in a subsequent
international assessment in 2012 (Fleischman et al., 2010).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

31
In 2000, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) was coordinated by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Fleischman et al.,
2010). PISA is an international assessment that measures the performance of 15-year-olds in
reading, mathematics, and science literacies (Fleischman et al., 2010; Kelly et al., 2013). PISA
is a system which allows all countries involved to compare their learning outcomes as students
are close to completing their secondary education (Kelly et al., 2013). PISA measures 15-year-
old students’ abilities to use cognitive skills and apply them to real-world problems rather than
focus on curricular outcomes (Provasnik, Gonzales, & Miller, 2009). By using real-world
situations, PISA provides students the opportunity to encounter texts that they are likely to come
across as young adults. Examples of the text include but are not limited to brochures, excerpts
from government forms, instructional manuals, magazines and newspaper articles. Three to five
questions multiple-choice questions and written response questions pertinent to a narrative
questions are asked of each student. The PISA assessment measures how well students can
evaluate its author’s rhetorical choices, interpret a text, retrieve information and reflect on a text
(Provasnik et al., 2009). At the onset of this organization, PISA consisted of 34 international
member countries. By the 2009 PISA, 60 countries and five other education systems

participated
in the assessment. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produces a report on
PISA every three years (Fleischman et al., 2010; Kelly et al., 2013). NCES is a sub office
operated under the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Educational Sciences. NCES
acts as the U.S. federal Government’s primary entity to collect, analyze and report data
connected to education in the United States and foreign nations (Fleischman et al., 2010).
The 2009 PISA illustrated that U.S. 15-year-olds scored an average of 500 on the
combined reading literacy scale, these scores were seven points higher than the OECD average
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

32
score of 493 (Fleischman et al., 2010). U.S. students scored higher than 13 countries, on average
with 14 countries, and lower than six countries. Among 64 other OECD countries, non-OECD
countries, and other education systems, the U.S. scored higher than 39 countries, 16 shared a
similar average score to U.S. students, and nine countries scored higher averages than the U.S.
(Fleischman et al., 2010). By the 2012 PISA, U.S. students produced an average score of 498,
which was only two points higher than the OECD average of 496. The average U.S. student
score was higher than that of students from 34 other countries, similar to the scores of 11
countries students, and lower than 19 countries’ students’ average scores (Kelly et al., 2013).
Between the 2009 PISA and the 2012 PISA, U.S. students allowed eight countries’ scores to
surpass their own. Additionally, the average combined reading score only dropped by two
points. U.S. student reading scores did not decrease dramatically between 2009 and 2012;
however, there was no upward movement in the assessed reading capabilities of U.S. students
noted between the two testing periods mentioned (Fleischman et al., 2010; Kelly et al., 2013).
At this juncture, information has been provided on how children within the U.S. were
progressing when compared to other students in the U.S. Information has also been provided on
how U.S. students fare in reading when placed against the international community. Data
derived from documents like the NAEP and PISA assisted the ARRA in identifying education as
one of the critical sectors that required economic stimulation. Subsequently, the ARRA was able
to provide a means for education reform by fostering innovative strategies, supporting
investments in schools that would likely produce increased student performance, sustained gains
in school systems and proliferations in productivity and effectiveness through RTTT (USDOE,
2009).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

33
Common Core State Standards
In 2009, 48 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
and the National Governors Association (NGA) (King, 2011). The MOA committed the
aforementioned locations to a state-led process, the Common Core State Standards Initiative.
This initiative was generated to create a set of K-12 standards for English/language arts and
mathematics (King, 2011). Gamson, Lu, and Eckert (2013) explained using a Common Core
State Standard (CCSS) throughout the U.S. and its territories championed increasing the
complexity level of writing in textbooks and reading materials utilized by students across the
nation. Architects of the ELA component of CCSS built their stance for higher complexity
partially upon a research base they believed depicted a continual deterioration of complex text in
student textbooks over a span of 50 years (Gamson et al., 2013). The initiative was designed in
efforts to produce high school graduates who would ultimately succeed in postsecondary studies
as well as their careers. After much reflection and preparation the CCSS were released on June
2, 2010 (King, 2011).
King (2011) explained the CCSS were substantiated by evidence which included: the
superlative work of states and high-functioning nations, scaffolds developed for the NAEP,
benchmarks set by the American Diploma Project, scholastic research, curriculum evaluations,
assessment data on post secondary and workforce performance, and input from various educators
at each level and on a wide range of subjects (King, 2011). Research found the core knowledge
and skills related to mathematics and ELA that are essential to success in college and in good
occupations have united. The CCSS made no distinction between postsecondary and career
readiness (King, 2011). CCSS for ELA and mathematics were explicit in their focus on the
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

34
material students were to learn as opposed to how that content was to be taught (Porter,
McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). However, Porter et al. (2011) believed CCSS were more
focused on mathematics than ELA.
To create CCSS, CCSSO and NGA collaborated with delegates from the aforementioned
states, as well as a variety of community groups, content experts, educators, national
organizations and researchers (King, 2011). According to NGA and CCSSO, the CCSS were
established to accomplish the several outcomes. The first out come was to align with college and
workforce expectations. Another desired outcome was to include rigorous content and
application of knowledge through higher-order skills. The third outcome dealt with building
upon strengths and lessons of current state standards (King, 2011). From a global prospective,
one of the outcomes reflects expectations of top performing countries so that all U.S. students are
prepared to succeed in our global economy. The last outcome was to be evidence and/or
research-based (King, 2011).
According to Brown (2009) Hawaii was ahead of the curve on standards-based education.
In 1991 the state of Hawaii created the Hawaii Commission on Performance Standards, the
implementation of this commission placed the state on a path to education reform well before
most disciplinary organizations began drafting model standards (Brown, 2009). Despite the
states’ efforts to champion education reform early, Hawaii was never named among other states
that were consistently lauded for having exemplary standards across the board. Hawaii English
and Language Arts (ELA) standards were divided into three components across kindergarten
through eighth grades: Reading, Writing, and Oral Communication, prior to the creation and
subsequent adoption of CCSS by the state of Hawaii (Carmichael, Martino, Porter-Magee, &
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

35
Wilson, 2010). The components were subcategorized into standards, topics, and grade-band
benchmarks.
Hawaii provided sample performance assessment questions along with a rubric that
articulated proficiencies a student would have to master to be regarded as advanced, proficient,
partially proficient, or novice, for each benchmark (Carmichael et al., 2010). Hawaiian high
school standards followed a similar organizational structure; however, included standards for
American and British Literature, Expository Writing (I and II), World Literature, Reading
Workshop, and Creative Writing (Carmichael et al., 2010). Finn, Julian and Petrilli (2006) stated
Hawaii did an excellent job addressing literary elements and techniques. Additionally, the state
adequately addressed oral and written language conventions. However, Hawaii’s curriculum
failed to include a catalogue of essential works or authors to guide curriculum developers or test
makers, as well as teachers, students, or parents (Finn et al., 2006). Finn et al. (2006) felt the
Hawaiian ELA standards were vague and believed vague standards were not measurable.
Additionally, Finn et al. (2006) believed Hawaii’s vocabulary development provided negligible
coverage. Consequently, it remained unclear to Finn et al. (2006) whether a systematic
instruction in phonics would take place in the primary grades. Finn et al. (2006) gave Hawaii the
grade of C for its ELA standards.
By 2010, some authors or books were occasionally mentioned in the Reading standards.
The standards’ documents supply did not list exemplar texts or direction on the complexity of
text to aid in defining student reading selections throughout different phases in their educational
journey (Carmichael et al., 2010). Carmichael et al. (2010) assessed over one third of content
considered critical for ELA was missing. Carmichael et al. (2010) suggested Hawaii’s ELA
program lacked clearness and specificity needed by teachers to assist facilitating daily classroom
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

36
instruction, assessments, and a rigorous curriculum. Carmichael et al. (2010) gave Hawaii the
letter grade of C for its ELA standards and deemed the standards “mediocre.” As opposed to
ELA standards developed by CCSS, which earned a firm B-plus from Carmichael et al. (2010).
On June 20, 2010 the state of Hawaii adopted the CCSS ELA initiative in efforts to improve
student learning (Carmichael et al., 2010).
As states began to implement CCSS, King (2011) believed teacher preparation and
professional development were of great concern. For example, King (2011) wondered if
practicing educators and new teachers would be ready to teach a new higher standard. In
reaction to CCSS, there was national activity on teacher preparation and professional
development (King, 2011). In October 2010, a draft model of teaching standards that was
aligned to the CCSS to direct state policy in areas like teacher certification and licensure and
program approval were released by the CCSSO. The American Association of Colleges of
Teacher Education (AACTE) also demanded the creation of professional development programs
and teacher performance assessments to be connected to the CCSS (King, 2011).
Reading Instruction under Common Core State Standards Guidance
Coleman and Pimentel (2012), two of the lead authors of CCSS stated that instructions
for redirecting the concentration of literacy instruction to focus on a careful examination of the
text itself are at the heart of CCSS. CCSS emphasizes that student’s focus on readings closely in
efforts to extract evidence and knowledge from assigned readings and requires students to read
and digest texts of acceptable range and difficulty (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). CCSS
guidelines offered by Coleman and Pimentel (2012) were not meant to dictate classroom
practice. Instead, they were written to assist in certifying that teachers received effective tools.
CCSS had two key criteria for text selection to improve student reading. The first criterion
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

37
related to complexity of text and the second related to range and quality or assigned text to
students. CCSS required students to develop skills necessary to read progressively complicated
texts while developing objectivity as they prepare to enter postsecondary studies or the
workforce (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012).
CCSS Reading Standard 1 describes the complexity level of text students needs to
comprehend at each grade level (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). According to Coleman and
Pimentel (2012), research showed that complexity levels of required student texts were
significantly lower than what is required to achieve postsecondary education and workforce
readiness. Cultivating CCSS depends on students’ exposure to suitably challenging texts at each
grade level in efforts to foster advanced language skills and conceptual knowledge students need
for academic and personal success. Instructional materials at each grade level should be
complemented with advanced texts to provide students an opportunity to read works exceeding
their current grade level, in efforts to prepare them for the challenges with more advanced
readings (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). Robertson, Dougherty, Ford-Connors, and Paratore
(2014) explained that CCSS made a clear case for confirming that student’s graduate high school
with critical thinking and reading skills. These skills should be honed to understand complex
texts, as this capability necessary to succeed in postsecondary school and in the workforce
(Robertson et al., 2014). The ability to decipher complex text is not only important to complete
K–12 educations; it also matters throughout each respective school year. The material read by
students influences the scope and depth of what students retain. Deciphering complex text
supports students’ possession of complex and grade-appropriate terminology, models, and
linguistic structures (Stahl & Nagy, 2007).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

38
According to Coleman and Pimentel (2012), students who have not maintained the same
level of reading proficiency as their peers are often provided less complex texts in lieu of
assistance needed for the respective students’ to read grade level appropriate texts. Complex text
is a rich repository of ideas, information, and experience, which all readers should learn how to
access, although some students will need more scaffolding to do so. CCSS allows flexibility for
teachers and curriculum developers to construct progressions of readings to increase complexity
within grade-levels that intersect to a certain degree, for example grades four and five or grades
six through eight (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). Materials related to curriculum should allow
broad opportunities for all students to be exposed to complex text. However, students who
develop at slower rates need supplementary opportunities to hone their skills by reading text they
can comprehend successfully without extensive supports. Students who learn at slower rates
than their counterparts, however, must not miss opportunities to receive coaching and training
their classmates are obtaining to help them learn knowledge of both words and our culture in
general. Additionally, students may need added assistance in practicing their fluency and
building their vocabularies (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). Allington and Gabriel (2012) reported
that struggling students were the less likely to discuss readings with their peers; because the
struggling students were completing additional basic-skills practice. During class dialogues
about reading assignments, it was probable that struggling students would be asked direct
questions about what they had read, to demonstrate they comprehended the material, rather than
to be included in a group discussion regarding the text (Allington & Gabriel, 2012).
Shorter reading assignments are exceptionally useful to facilitate students at many
reading levels to participate in a closer analysis of more demanding text (Coleman & Pimentel,
2012). Starting with Reading Standard 1, CCSS highly prioritized close, continuous reading of
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

39
complex materials. The standard usually requires short, self-contained manuscript that students
can read/re-read consciously and deliberately to form a deeper analysis and explore the meanings
of individual words, how sentences unfold, and the formation of themes throughout the text
(Coleman & Pimentel, 2012).
In 2003, the short readings project was created to add specific target terminology into
adolescent students’ long-term vocabulary by repeated exposure to selected words throughout
sequences of short readings (Johnson & Heffernan, 2006). Equipped with these lexicons, the
targeted students (English language learners) would be better equipped to understand ten English
language movie trailers which contained the targeted vocabulary words. Seven classes that
consisted of one hundred and nineteen students agreed to participate in the project over a span of
nine weekly meetings (Johnson & Heffernan, 2006). A parallel two-section pre/post-quiz was
generated. The first section consisted of context-based questions (similar to the questions found
after each of the readings) were formulated using ten randomly selected words of the 112 target
vocabulary words. Students in the second section answered multiple-choice questions built from
10 short clips from movie trailers that lasted 3 and 10 seconds in length. Each clip contained 10-
target vocabulary words that where selected at random (Johnson & Heffernan, 2006).
Research presented by Johnson and Heffernan (2006) on using learning strategies like
contextual clues, dictionary usage, and repeated exposure of vocabulary was analyzed to
guarantee the short readings project effectively promoted vocabulary retention. Johnson and
Heffernan (2006) stated that reading afforded students more control over both top-down and
bottom-up comprehension, as opposed to listening exercises, which cycled continuously
regardless of listener comprehension. During the short reading project, if students did not grasp
the meaning of a word they were free to try deriving vocabulary meanings from context or using
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

40
a dictionary as a reference. Johnson and Heffernan (2006) also noted, students could read
passages several times until they felt vocabulary comprehension was achieved; therefore making
reading less stressful for students of the project. Overall, there was a 16% increase in section
one and an 8.1% increase in section two scores, as a result of short reading practices. According
to Coleman and Pimentel (2012), this manner of reading allows students to obtain a complete
understanding of texts and scrutinize literary works more effectively.
Proportionately, students must also be mandated to read texts at vast ranges of lengths
and increase the volume of material read by adding several progressively robust manuscripts
each year (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). There should be a discussion of extended or longer
reading materials. The discussion should remain constant throughout deciphering of the entire
text. Facilitators should also create questions to demonstrate how attention to particular sections
within a reading allows opportunities for close reading (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). According
to Thompson (2014) after finishing a book, life long readers share ideas with their peers, make
suggestions to friends, read a similar book to the one they recently read, or choose to read about
something completely different. Discussion time post reading is vital to students (Thompson,
2014). Allington and Gabriel (2012) stated student time to discuss their reading and writing is
easy to facilitate, but is one of the most underused methods of instruction. Facilitating a
discussion on materials read does not warrant the use of special materials, specialized training, or
a lot of time. Subsequently, the results of a facilitated discussion on reading yield benefits in
comprehension, inspiration, and language proficiency. Rotating task between reading, speaking,
listening and writing, assists students in making connections between, and consequently solidify,
the abilities they use in each (Allington & Gabriel, 2012). The aforementioned makes student-to-
student conversation especially important for English language learners, as they are rarely asked
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

41
to speak about what they read (Allington & Gabriel, 2012). Concentration on larger bodies of
work will assist students in developing the stamina and diligence needed to decipher and extract
information and understanding when faced with even greater volumes of material. Students need
to be able to read closely, additionally, they also must be able to read large bodies of work when
required for research or other reasons (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012).
Bauerlein and Stotsky (2012) believed CCSS implied that by adding more informational
reading assignments to high school curriculum, students would improve their college readiness.
Bauerlein and Stotsky (2012) felt CCSS was structured this way because creators of CCSS
operated under the impression that a majority of material read by postsecondary students was
informational text as opposed to literary text. Bauerlein and Stotsky (2012) did not discover any
research to support such a notion. College readiness history in the 20th century indicates
deficiencies in college readiness are linked to a less-challenging literature curriculum over the
last five decades. Prior to the 1960s, an English curriculum that was literature heavy was
recognized as a necessity for students who planned on attending college after high school
(Bauerlein & Stotsky, 2012).
Coleman and Pimentel (2012) suggest that the objective of additional [reading] materials
is to increase routine independent reading of texts that captures students’ interests as they gain
enrichment and develop a joy for reading. The additional materials should allow for each student
a chance to read manuscripts selected by them during and outside of school. Students should
have access to a variety of materials on a wide range of topics in their classrooms and school
libraries. This would ensure that they have independent opportunities to read broadly and
increase their knowledge, proficiency, and pleasure in reading (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012).
Materials should include readings that are at the respective students’ reading level. Additionally,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

42
the texts should possess complexity levels that will challenge and motivate students. Readings
should also differ in length and density (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). The variances will require
students to decrease or increase their reading pace depending on the pretext for reading.
Allington and Gabriel (2012) endorsed a blended approach to reading instruction that
included critical thinking skills, explicit direct instruction, and peer collaboration in efforts to
increase students’ reading achievement. Allington and Gabriel (2012) felt that a strong reading
program should consist of texts selected by students, appropriately challenging texts, facilitator-
lead lessons, student sovereignty in regards to some texts, authentic reading tasks, close reading
techniques, and student-to-student collaboration. Permitting students to select a reading of his or
her choice and student access to a variety of text will increase interest in reading. Additionally,
it will increase the likeliness of students reading outside of school (Hagan, 2013). In efforts to
display a range between qualities of text, CCSS requires more focus on informational text for
elementary school students and greater focus on literary nonfictional works for K6-12 students
(Coleman & Pimentel, 2012).
According to Coleman and Pimentel (2012), literacy programs alternate balance of
reading and instructional time to include equal measures of literary and informational
manuscripts in grades three through five. CCSS recommended elementary curriculum be
readjusted to produce a mix of 50% informational text to 50% literary text, including reading in
ELA, science, social studies, and the arts (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). Coleman and Pimentel
(2012) suggested a substantial modification in early literacy materials and instructional time
should occur so that historical and scientific text are provided equal time and weight as literary
text. Coleman and Pimentel (2012) stated the modification must happen in efforts to achieve an
appropriate balance between literary and informational text in the next generation of materials.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

43
Stotsky (2012) was critical of evidence Coleman used to form his views on information
text. Stotsky (2012) stated Coleman made claims without evidence that 80% of the elementary
school day is currently spent on literature/stories. He refuted Coleman’s claims that his research
was clear. Stotsky (2012) wrote that most schools spent approximately one hour daily on math
alone. The remaining four hours were not spent reading or listening to stories. Stotsky (2012)
stated any elementary school teacher would testify that any time left after math instruction and
the typical 2.5-hour “literacy” block is not spent on reading literary stories. Stotsky (2012)
believed stories were too abundant in reading instructional materials. Stotsky (2012) questioned
what texts teachers were currently using to teach grammar, geography, history, language usage,
math and science.
According to Bauerlein and Stotsky (2012), Massachusetts’ state test performances bare a
striking disconfirmation to CCSS emphasis on informational text. Massachusetts maintained
heavy literature standards and test, as recommend by English teachers in the state. The state
standards contained approximately 60% literary work and only 40% informational texts.
However, they produced the highest college-ready high school graduate rates (Bauerlein &
Stotsky, 2012). Critical thinking abilities are hampered when applied to low-complexity text,
which is the inverse of the same skills being applied to high complexity texts. Bauerlein and
Stotsky (2012) believed creators of CCSS drew the wrong conclusion from ACT results when
using them as part of their key elements of the standards. Theoretically, CCSS problems lie in
assuming that the study of literary text is not helpful in the comprehension of non-literary text for
students. By recognizing the high postsecondary readiness in Massachusetts and the large
amount of complex texts tied to literature, Bauerlein and Stotsky (2012) find the study of literary
texts supports overall reading comprehension.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

44
According to Shanahan and Duffett (2013), CCSS expects routine practice with suitably
complex texts. Prior to the conception of CCSS, state ELA standards mandated that students be
able to read and comprehend grade-appropriate manuscript by the end of the respective academic
year (Shanahan & Duffett, 2013). Shanahan and Duffett (2013) suggested that CCSS
contrastingly, recognized the only way for students to master complex text by academic year’s
end was to expose students to complex texts throughout the year. Shanahan and Duffett (2013)
wrote that informational text did not dominate English classes during their study; however, it
was not completely absent from English classes either. Put into practice, Shanahan and Duffett
(2013) reported that elementary reading teachers indicated coverage of informational texts
comprises approximately 32% of their time in class.
CCSS requires blended literature such as drama, fiction, nonfiction, historical or poetry
for example to be aligned with ELA curriculum materials in grades six through twelve (Coleman
& Pimentel, 2012). Coleman and Pimentel (2012) believed most ELA programs and associated
materials needed to substantially increase the amount of nonfiction literary works they possess.
Many of the manuscripts selected for sixth through twelfth grade students should require
concentration and careful re-reading for understanding, due to CCSS emphasis on close reading
(Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). Coleman and Pimentel (2012) felt, in efforts to prepare for college
or employment in the workforce, students must apply themselves to gain understanding of works
that span many genres, cultures, and reflect the types of mental processing and writing the
respective students should strive for while completing their own work. Additionally, the selected
texts should have students’ process and integrate larger bodies of work for research purposes.
Shanahan and Duffett (2013) stated CCSS emphasized reading and documenting
grounded evidence found in text. Shanahan and Duffett (2013) gave the example that students in
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

45
the past may have read a passage, and then wrote a personal response to the passage. Under
CCSS, along with their teachers, students are pushed to stay with the text by using the author’s
words and evidence found in the text to answer questions supporting questions to their analysis
(Shanahan & Duffett, 2013). Shanahan and Duffett (2013) believed CCSS fostered a precise
kind of close reading and that students need to drive comprehension and strengthen their critical
thinking skills.
Specific points in CCSS mandate students read certain literary works or types of
literature (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). During the high school grades of nine through twelve,
historical foundational documents, various selections from American and world literature, a
Shakespearian play, and an American drama are all required manuscripts to be built into a
curriculum. During more formative levels of education students are obligated to read classic
myths and stories, including texts representative of diverse cultures. Coleman and Pimentel
(2012) suggest materials for third through twelfth grades should put forward a coherent sequence
of texts to provide students with a well-cultured sense of literary works in preparation for
postsecondary studies or release into the workforce.
Coleman and Pimentel (2012) stated that many times in research and other contexts,
several bodies of work would be deciphered to study a topic. They believe it is necessary that
one piece of literature or a set of texts be used to act as cornerstone or text(s) to make a thorough
study meaningful (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). The cornerstone text(s) provides critical
opportunities for students to dedicate time and attention required for close reading and to exhibit
a deep understanding of a specific source(s) of information. Completing readings aside from the
cornerstone text(s) allow students to demonstrate their ability to read a wide range of works in
addition to reading particular source(s) in depth (Coleman & Pimentel, 20212).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

46
Teacher Preparation
At the onset of RTTT, the Obama administration declared the grant was produced “to
encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and
reform” subsequently offering $4.35 billion through ARRA toward the aforementioned goals, a
key focus was teacher preparation (Crowe, 2011a, p. 1). The RTTT funding solicitation depicted
improving the quality of teachers in the U.S. as a pressing issue in school improvement and
education reform. According to Crowe (2011a) increasing the number of effective teachers in
specific subject areas and in high-need schools are goals that cannot be met without significant
enhancement to the capacity of teacher preparation programs to produce and support effective
teachers for the nation’s schools. Teacher education sections of RTTT requested states to
acquire stronger accountability measures and to create or increase the size of preparation
programs that were successful. Therefore, RTTT provided several requirements to states that
received funding. States receiving RTTT funds were to link student achievement and student
growth data to the teachers of these students. The information was to be tied into the in-state
programs that prepare teachers. Schools that received RTTT funding were to publicly report the
data on program effectiveness for each preparation program in the state. RTTT funded states
were to expand teacher education programs and teacher credentialing options that were
successful at producing graduates who were effective teachers (Crowe, 2011a).
Crowe (2010) explained what strong accountability for preparation programs was
(Crowe, 2011b). Crowe (2010) also described how state policies at the time failed to deliver
substantive accountability for teacher preparation programs throughout the U.S. Most state
policies ignored the influence of teacher preparation program graduates on their elementary and
secondary school students. Wallace (2009) explained that professional development had
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

47
moderate effects on teacher practice. The direct effects of a teacher’s influence on student
growth, teacher attitude, guiding for teacher preparation program, and professional development,
were more impactful than the secondary effects of professional development on student
advancement. In regards to student impact, professional development had very small but
sometimes-significant effects on student achievement when the effects of professional
development were facilitated by teacher practice. Wallace (2009) illustrated an example of
teacher practice having small to moderate direct effects on an average student mathematics
achievement. According to Wallace (2009) there was an increase in average achievement status
of 1% in NAEP and an increase in average gains of 8.5% in Connecticut. Regardless of
differences in academic subjects, assessments, and samples, the effects of professional
development on teacher practice and student achievement endure and are parallel across analyses
(Wallace, 2009).
According to Crowe (2011b), states reported minimal information on major outcomes
like tracking where graduates of various teacher preparation programs end up practicing,
retention of those teachers, or feedback about how the program prepared students for classroom
instruction. In many states, teacher preparation test minimum requirements were set low enough
to ensure a passing grade for each student (Crowe, 2011b). In 1998, the U.S. Congress mandated
each state to create and implement criteria aimed at identifying low preforming schools. As a
result of the congressional mandate, less than 2% of teacher education programs nationwide were
identified as low performing in the respective states they operated in (Crowe, 2011b). In 2010,
Hawaii held the lowest pass rate of any state for the teacher-licensing exam; the test pass rate
was 89%. RTTT was enacted to ensure a more accountable system was put in place so that
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

48
states accurately measure the effectiveness of teachers and connect the findings to respective
teacher preparation programs (Crowe, 2011b).
Policies are progressively holding teachers accountable for their performance, similarly
teacher preparation programs are increasingly being held accountable for their performance as
well (Coggshall, Bivona, & Reschly, 2012). Most states currently evaluate several mechanisms
to ensure their teacher preparation programs meet acceptable quality standards. Approval,
accreditation, and certification are the three controls used to regular teacher preparation program
quality in most states (Coggshall et al., 2012). Respective state departments of education author
training program approval requirements. States typically mandate that teacher preparation
programs request initial approval and subsequently be available for review panels (Coggshall et
al., 2012). Numerous states suggest or mandate teacher preparation programs be accredited from
a non-governmental agency such as National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE). Every state demands that graduates of teacher preparation programs meet a minimum
standard in efforts to receive certification. These standards include but are not limited to passing
a skill assessment, completing courses specific to the certification, and holding a degree in the
related subject (Coggshall et al., 2012). However, witnesses have disclosed that the amounts of
control yielded by aforementioned accountability mechanisms vary (Coggshall et al., 2012). For
instance, it is mandatory for teacher preparation programs to earn state approval to recommend
teachers for state licensure. However, approval processes vary throughout many states, in rare
occasions they are based on evidence, and are infrequently monitored through compliance-
oriented expectations (National Research Council, 2010).
RTTT implemented a requirement for funded states to quantify and disclose teacher
preparation program results to the public (Crowe, 2011b). This was also the first of five
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

49
“Measuring What Matters” indicators (Crowe, 2010). All RTTT funded states were required to
handle their teacher preparation programs in the same manner (Crowe, 2011b). This was to be
accomplished by using particular definitions of student academic growth and student
achievement to determine respective teacher effectiveness and the overall effectiveness of the
teacher preparation program.
A 2010 review of Hawaii’s program improvement proposals and teacher-quality
displayed positive elements but caused concern about the state’s commitment to change (Crowe,
2011a). The positive attributes of the review related to HIDOE’s agreement to dispatch public
reports of teacher effectiveness related to graduates from the state’s preparation programs. Prior
to RTTT, HIDOE did not measure the quality or impact of its teacher education programs. It is
important to assess professional development for teachers. According to Darling-Hammond,
Wei, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009), American teachers stated that much of the
professional development at their disposal was not useful to them. Almost 60% of teachers gave
good feedback on content-related learning opportunities. However, fewer than half of teachers
did not believe professional development they received in other areas were of much value
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).
Summary
This chapter reviewed and synthesized literature which is essential to forming a better
understanding of RTTT, CCSS, guidelines for CCSS to improve reading/literacy achievement
and teacher preparation on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, under the RTTT program. This chapter
was divided into four sections excluding the introduction and summary. The sections were
topics that are linked to RTTT, curriculum reform, reform-guided curriculum specific to reading
achievement, and teacher preparation. The first section provided a brief synopsis of
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

50
circumstances that lead to inception/implementation of RTTT. It provided details on legislation,
specifically ESEA. Additionally, national and international assessments like NAEP and PISA
were used to give background on what lawmakers used to generate interest in creating RTTT.
The second section provided information on CCSS and a brief vignette about how CCSS came
about. The chapter also shared details about how the state of Hawaii ultimately elected to adopt
CCSS to improve reading achievement. The third section provided information on CCSS
guidance for improving reading achievement. The paragraphs within the sections spoke to
curriculum guidance that authors of CCSS believed would increase reading achievement. The
section provided supporting information from other studies, as well as, information from
researchers who were not in favor of CCSS. The fourth section examined specific information
related to teacher preparation for the RTTT program. There was also information provided on
how school districts nationwide were prepared to train instructors on how to implement RTTT,
section four also provided information specific to HIDOE and professional development. The
overall intent of this chapter was to provide a body of research on events that lead up to RTTT,
reform selected to increase reading achievement, reform based curriculum guidance, and teacher
preparation in efforts to implement RTTT.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

51
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the research methods utilized to answer the study questions listed
in Chapter 1. The chapter explains the purpose of this study, research questions, research design
and qualitative and quantitative methods used, sample and population, overview of the
organizations studied, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis that was completed.
The chapter concludes with a synopsis of the aforementioned topics. The study focused on how
HIDOE prepared teachers at ZSI schools to improve student-reading skills utilizing RTTT funds.
One HIDOE administrator who has extensive knowledge on teacher preparation for RTTT was
interviewed. Additionally, teachers who are employed by HIDOE on the island of Oahu, HI,
during the four years RTTT funding was available were also interviewed. Four of the teachers
were from inside the ZSI and the other four were from outside of the ZSI. Careful attention was
given to the HIDOE administrator and teachers who were selected to participate in this study.
Conversely, the study also examined what methods non-ZSI schools used to improve student-
reading skills.
In addition to focusing on how schools in the ZSI were prepared to increase student
reading parallel attention was given to non-ZSI schools to determine how they were prepared to
accomplish the same task, without RTTT funds. Best practices detailing the most effective
methods used to assist students in improving their reading skills were sought out in efforts to
provide potential new knowledge to administrators and practitioners.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

52
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to understand how RTTT resources were used to prepare
teachers in the HIDOE to implement instructional techniques that would lead to increased
reading/language arts achievement and decrease reading achievement gaps between student
subgroups. Parallel research on the same topic was conducted on a sample of Oahu schools that
were not in the ZSI but also needed to improve under RTTT. According to USDOE (2012b)
effective teachers are defined as those whose students achieve growth by at least one grade level
over the course of a year. Information regarding teacher education components of RTTT
required affected states to implement more vigorous accountability mechanisms and to establish
or expand preparation programs that are effective at producing successful teachers (Crowe,
2011a).
This study analyzed standards and methods set forth under RTTT to increase reading
achievement and decrease learning gaps specific to reading within elementary schools in the ZSI
on Oahu, as well as other methods used by non-ZSI schools. The research also relayed
information specific to how teachers in the ZSI on Oahu utilized reform specific professional
development provided by the HIDOE to facilitate instruction in reading and language arts.
Instruction methods used by non-ZSI School ELA/reading teachers were also examined.
Information was gathered from teachers and a HIDOE administrator to learn how reading
achievement was affected by RTTT within the HIDOE. HIDOE was also solicited for
quantitative data to determine how reading achievement was affected. The study illustrates
which set of schools yielded more growth in regards to reading achievement during the period
RTTT funds were distributed.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

53
Research Questions
1. What actions did DOE administrators on Oahu take to prepare teachers to implement
reading achievement curricula under state education reform?
2. How did RTTT impact teachers’ ability to enact strategies that Common Core State
Standards suggests would lead to improved student outcomes?
3. What methods did teachers who did not receive RTTT funding use to improve
outcomes in reading comprehension?
4. Which set of schools yielded more growth regarding reading comprehension, during
the period HIDOE received RTTT funding?
Research Design and Methods
Qualitative research methods were used to conduct the majority of data collection for this
study. Merriam (2009) stated researchers gain an understanding of how individuals interpret
their experiences and what they gain from those experiences through qualitative research.
Becoming informed on what methods were used to prepare teachers in the Zone and out of the
Zone schools was vital to understanding how reading/literacy skills were affected within
HIDOE. The primary method for gathering data for this study was in-person interviews.
Interviews were conducted with one HIDOE administrator who was involved in preparing
teachers to implement reading specific training to teachers operating in HIDOE’s ZSI schools.
Additionally, four teachers within ZSI schools were interviewed along with four teachers not
working in ZSI schools. The intent was to examine what type of training was provided for the
affected schools. The goal of the study was to understand effective practices used to improve
student reading/literacy skills for schools in the HIDOE. Weiss (1994) outlined the benefits of
interviews and what can be gained from the interview process. Weiss (1994) explained
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

54
interviewers could learn about individuals through conducting interviews specific to people’s
interior experiences. It is possible for interviewers to learn information that individuals
perceived and how they construed their perceptions. Interviewers can discover how occurrences
affected a person’s thoughts and feelings, their work, and their selves. It is possible for
interviewers to learn about a variety of experiences, from joy to grief, which combined
represents, the human condition (Weiss, 1994). Interviewing was a successful qualitative
method used to extract informative and vivid data from the teachers and the HIDOE
administrator who were interviewed. It is important to realize that the quality of the data
recovered from an interview is contingent upon a researcher’s accuracy while transcribing
pertinent information (Patton, 2002).
Sample and Population
One HIDOE administrator, four teachers in the ZSI and four teachers out of the ZSI, were
interviewed during this study to determine how HIDOE prepared teachers to improve
reading/literacy skills. A small sample was used in efforts to allow the researcher opportunities
to identify common practices the study subjects used to improve student-reading skills at the
selected schools. Four elementary schools from two district complex areas in the HIDOE were
used as samples for this study. Two of the elementary schools were within the ZSI and received
RTTT grant monies to implement reform. The other two elementary schools possessed similar
demographics but were outside of the ZSI. The aforementioned learning institutions are public
elementary schools. Schools used in this study were selected according to the percentage of
students participating in the free and reduced lunch program. Research for this study focused on
the level of reading achievement improvement each school experienced with RTTT funding
inside of the ZSI or with limited funding outside of the ZSI.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

55
Criteria established to choose the schools that participated in this study were based on
demographics similarities, commensurate student grade levels featured in participating schools
and proportionate student population. The selection of the four schools for this study was based
on the purposeful convenience sample. The four schools were recipients of Title 1 funds. Each
school was willing to participate in the study and accessible for the researcher to gain entry to the
respective campuses during the time of the study.
Overview of Organization
A HIDOE report that revealed RTTT grant recipients in the ZSI was used to identify
complex areas and elementary schools. The enrollment of students with similar demographics
was used to select complex areas and elementary schools outside of the ZSI. Schools that
participated in this study had a large Native Hawaiian population, along with a small variation of
other ethnicities. A high percentage of the ethnicities represented at each school were considered
socioeconomically disadvantaged. The true identities of the complex areas, schools, and
teachers interviewed for this study have been changed to maintain their respective anonymity. A
summary of grade levels at each school, their respective enrollment figures and a brief summary
of demographics are provided in Table 1.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

56
Table 1
Demographic Breakdown of Schools Used for Research
School
Zone or
Non Zone Enrollment
Native
Hawaiian
% Free and
Reduced Lunch
Grade
Range Area
Makai Zone 640 67.1% 85.9% K-6 Plumeria
Moana Zone 904 60.8% 72.3% K-6 Plumeria
Akau Non Zone 234 86% 85.9% K-6 Hibiscus
Hema Non Zone 508 60.2% 85.2% K-8 Hibiscus
Source: Hawaii Department of Education

Zone Schools of Innovation
The mission of Makai is to prepare students to think critically, involve its students in the
community and meet or exceed Hawaii’s Common Core State Standards (HIDOE, 2016). The
goal of Makai is that each student who graduates its Kindergarten to sixth grade program is a
self-directed learner, a complex thinker, an effective communicator, and a positive contributing
member of society (HIDOE, 2016).
Makai services Hawaiian Homesteads students by providing instruction in both English
and the Hawaiian. Students at Makai utilize digital devices for instruction, learning and
assessments throughout the day (HIDOE, 2016). Makai uses interim assessments and informal
assessments to determine students’ progress in achieving proficiency in Common Core State
Standards. The school then uses the data gained from the student assessments to adjust
instruction plans. The demographic group attending Makai includes: 90% Hawaiian
Native/Pacific Islander, 7% Hispanic, 2% two or more other races, 0% Asian or Asian/Pacific
Islander, African American, European American, or American Indian/Alaska Native students
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

57
(HIDOE, 2016). Eighty-five percent of the students participate in the free or reduced cost lunch
program. In term of sex, the student body is broken down into 45% females and 55% males.
The school received recognition as a coveted state award recipient for meeting and exceeding
proficiency on the Hawaii State Assessment for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years
(HIDOE, 2016).
The vision and mission of Moana is to focus on creating a culture which supports
learning and effective instruction that influences the student’s achievement. Moana has a diverse
student body. The demographic group includes 70% Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander, 14%
Hispanic, 7% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% European American, 3% are two or more
other races, 1% African American and 1% American Indian/Alaska Native students (HIDOE,
2016). Seventy-two percent of the students participate in the free or reduced cost lunch program.
In terms of sex, the student body is broken down into 51% females and 49% males.
Non Zone of Schools of Innovation
Akau’s vision is to provide its students with a strong foundation for future academic and
life endeavors. Akau is a small rural school located on Hawaiian Homestead land. The school
has a long history of educating students that dates back to 1965. It strives to impress upon its
students to be respectful, cooperative, and active participants in the student-centered curriculum
that focuses on integrating technology, collaboration and problem solving. The school’s goal is
to develop the “whole child,” both academically and socially. The demographic group attending
Akau is diverse and includes: 84% Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander, 6% Hispanic, 4% two or
more races, 3% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 2% European American and 0% American
Indian/Alaska Native or African American students (HIDOE, 2016). Eighty-five percent of the
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

58
students participate in the free or reduced cost lunch program. In terms of sex, the student body
is broken down into 47% females and 53% males.
Hema’s mission is to provide its students with an academic learning environment that
incorporates a standards based curriculum, effective instructional strategies and prepares students
for post-secondary educational opportunities. Hema services students from PrePlus (4 years old)
through 8th grade. Hema is an Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) certification
school, which encourages students in 4th through

8th grade, who were generally not inclined to
enroll for post-secondary studies to pursue a college education. New teachers arriving at Hema
are provided a “peer buddy” from the current leadership team to assist the teacher in their
transition.
Hema is located in a rural community. In 2012, Hema served as a pilot school for the
Education Effectiveness System (EES) implementation. The demographic group attending
Hema is diverse and includes: 84% Hawaiian Native/ Pacific Islander, 19% Asian or
Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% Hispanic, 5% two or more races, 4% European American, 1%
African American and 0% American Indian/Alaska Native students. Eighty-five percent of the
students participate in the free or reduced lunch program. In terms of sex, the student body is
broken down into 46% females and 54% males. Hema’s only feeder school for the intermediate
division is Akau. In academic years 2013-2014, Hema implemented the Reading Wonders
Curriculum for the elementary and middle school division. Hema continues an after school
program initiative for middle school students that provides supervised activities, which limits “at
risk” behaviors.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

59
Instrumentation
This study utilized a semi-structured interview process wherein each participant received
the same questions. Merriam (2009) defined the semi-structured interview process as a mix of
structured and unstructured questions. Conducting a semi-structured interview allows a novice
interviewer to conduct an interview with predetermined questions that facilitates a relaxed
environment for the interviewer and interviewee (Merriam, 2009). A semi-structured interview
also provides an opportunity for interviewers to delve deeper into certain topics if required
during the interview, in efforts to gain additional details or clarification (Merriam, 2009). Open-
ended questions gave interviewees time to think through the question and provide an adequate
response. The data gained from the interviews were compiled, analyzed and discussed in the
chapter of the study that identifies findings.
Data Collection
Audio recordings, typed transcripts of the audio recordings, and hand-written notes taken
by the researcher were the data collections methods used for this study. Interview notes were
used to document information obtained during interviews as well as visual observations
witnessed during interviews. According to Bogdan and Biklen (2007), data learned throughout
various interviews serves as both the evidence and clues to answering research questions. Data
was also collected from open source HSA results provided by the HIDOE official website.
Audio recordings, transcripts of those recordings, and handwritten notes were selected as
the data collection method for this study, to certify the validity of the information obtained
during the research. Maxwell (2013) explained validity is key to providing credibility to the
research questions. Relationships established with interviewees was essential to gaining access
to data possessed by study participants. In this study each interviewee was introduced to the
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

60
researcher via telephone call, email, and coordination with their respective supervisors in order
to establish a date and time to conduct each interview.
Data Analysis
Data analysis begins by operating with the collected information, organizing the
information into digestible segments, synthesizing the information, and probing for patterns
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Each segment of data describes a unit, a key piece of
information, or potential answers to the research questions. Information collected from each
interview was applied to a case study specific to the affected school. The case studies carefully
describe the accounts of the respective interviewees in regards to their perspective on HIDOE’s
preparation of teachers to implement curriculum that would improve student reading/literacy
skills. According to Merriam (2009), data analysis is a process used to answer a study’s research
question(s). All participants agreed to clarification interviews contingent upon whether the
information gathered was determined incomplete, or if further explanation was necessary.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the purpose of this study by explaining that this
study was conducted to understand how RTTT resources were used to prepare teachers in the
HIDOE to implement instructional techniques that would lead to increased reading/language arts
achievement and decreased reading achievement gaps between student subgroups. Additionally,
the purpose of the study described parallel research on the same topic at non-ZSI schools. Four
research questions focused on HIDOE’s implementation of teacher preparation for ZSI and non-
ZSI schools were presented. Additionally, one research question asked which schools yield more
growth during and after RTTT funding was appropriated. The research design and qualitative
methods used section explained the primary method for gathering data for this study was in-
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

61
person interviews followed use of quantitative data provided by HIDOE. A small sample and
population consisting of one HIDOE administrator, four teachers in the ZSI, four teachers out of
the ZSI were examined during this study to determine how HIDOE prepared teachers to improve
reading/literacy skills. A HIDOE report that revealed RTTT grant recipients in the ZSI were
used to identify complex areas and elementary schools. The same HIDOE report also identified
the overview of the schools studied. The enrollment of students with similar demographics was
used to select complex areas and elementary schools outside of the ZSI. The instrumentation
section stated this study utilized a semi-structured interview process in which each individual
was asked the same questions. Audio recordings, typed transcripts of the audio recordings, and
hand written notes taken by the researcher were explained as methods used to obtain data
collections for this study. To compile the data listed throughout this chapter, information
collected from each interview was applied to a case study specific to the affected school that
describes the accounts of each interviewee’s perspective on HIDOE’s preparation of teachers to
implement lesson plans that would improve student reading/literacy skills. Findings were
illustrated and examined in Chapter 4 followed by recommendations for future research in
Chapter 5.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

62
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
The research complied in this chapter will provide readers with information on
professional development practices that took place during RTTT in efforts to increase the
reading skills of elementary school students on the island of Oahu. The chapter will explore
several research questions and will culminate with a discussion regarding data collected. The
research questions used for data collections focused on steps taken by HIDOE to prepare
teachers to implement CCSS reading curricula. There were questions prepared for ZSI and Non-
ZSI schools that asked participants how RTTT funds were used to impact reading achievement,
as well as how reading achievement was impacted at schools without RTTT funding. Finally, a
review of HSA and Smarter Balance Assessment (SBA) scores provided by HIDOE will
illustrate growth achieved by ZSI and Non-ZSI schools during the period RTTT funds were
available. Hawaii’s RTTT plan pitched five major goals called the Common Education Agenda
Performance Outcomes, and was adopted jointly by the states Office of the Governor, Board of
Education, HIDOE, and the University of Hawaii (HIDOE, 2012). One of the performance
outcomes was to raise overall K‐12 student achievement (HIDOE, 2012). By 2014, HSA
reading scores were to increase to 90%. The four research questions guiding this study were:
1. What actions did DOE administrators on Oahu take to prepare teachers to implement
reading achievement curricula under state education reform?
2. How did RTTT impact teachers’ ability to enact strategies that research suggests will
lead to improved student outcomes?
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

63
3. What methods did teachers who did not receive RTTT funding use to improve
outcomes in reading comprehension?
4. How did RTTT schools compare to non-RTTT schools regarding reading
comprehension?
Research Question 1
The first research question probed into how HIDOE prepared teachers to implement
reading curriculum that aligned with CCSS, as required by the RTTT program. This question
asked information about the availability, frequency and types of professional development
offered during the period RTTT was implemented. It also inquired about new reading
curriculums or programs that may have been established during the period HIDOE received
RTTT funding. This question was asked of a HIDOE administrator that was present during the
period HIDOE received RTTT funding, as well as to teachers at both complexes involved in this
study.
HIDOE Administrator’s Response to Research Question 1
Mr. Immanuel, a HIDOE administrator, explained that HIDOE’s Office of Curriculum
Instruction received a large portion of RTTT funds because of the large impact the office had on
curriculum. He stated Reading Wonders (Wonders), a reading program that aligned with CCSS,
was the English curriculum program selected by HIDOE to be used throughout the state. He
recalled HIDOE having to prepare teachers for Wonders and the SBA, among other new
programs. He recalled attending a statewide training session for the program. Mr. Immanuel
explained that an individual from Wonders came to HIDOE to provide the initial professional
development for the program. He affirmed that Wonders training was directly connected to the
CCSS. According to Mr. Immanuel, one of the attributes of the program that attracted HIDOE to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

64
Wonders was the online interface that was built into the program. The addition of Wonders to
the HIDOE included ensuring one to one computers for each classroom of schools that were
using the Wonders curriculum.
Though Mr. Immanuel attended the professional development for Wonders, he
commented that there was a lot of resistance to the program. He did not believe the professional
development for the Wonders curriculum he attended was enough to make teachers in HIDOE
feel comfortable with the new curriculum. He believed someone from Wonders provided
additional professional development for the curriculum, but did not attend the training and could
not provide any timeframes when the training may have occurred. Mr. Immanuel heard rumors
that once Wonders received the contract with HIDOE the company was not very
accommodating. He thought the switch to Wonders was difficult for veteran teachers because
they were able to facilitate their own curriculum and were all of a sudden being forced to teach
reading in a curtain format. He also heard about negative feedback from teachers whose students
were making passing grades. Mr. Immanuel stated these teachers wanted to continue using the
curriculum they taught prior to Wonders. He explained there was a waiver process for schools
that did not want to convert to Wonders. However, Mr. Immanuel explained that the
aforementioned waivers were difficult to obtain from HIDOE.
Mr. Immanuel recalled HIDOE consulting with a group of individuals from across
HIDOE including HIDOE administrators, teachers, and specialists regarding how to disperse
RTTT funding. He stated that not every HIDOE employee was included in the decision-making
process, but that an adequate amount of employees were available. He was not able to provide
an exact breakdown of how many people from each area was used to represent the sections of
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

65
HIDOE. He stated that employees selected to recommend how RTTT funds were spent used
vote casting as a method to determine the groups’ opinions on various matters.
Mr. Immanuel stated in addition to brining the Wonders curriculum to a majority of the
state schools, HIDOE also developed a curriculum library for teachers to share their lessons with
one another. He described it as being similar to a repository. He could not remember the name
of the program, but knew all of the information was maintained digitally. He stated the
curriculum library was created to allow HIDOE to have a pool of different curriculums available
for its teachers to use at their disposal. Teachers from the two complexes shared opposing views
on the amount of professional development offered during the implementation of RTTT driven
initiatives on Oahu.
According to teachers from the Hibiscus Complex there were a variety of professional
development opportunities provided to teachers. However, teachers in the Plumeria Complex
(whose schools received RTTT funding) did not notice much or any change in the amount of
professional development provided during the time RTTT funding was available. Teachers from
all four schools provided varying depictions of how often professional development occurred.
The link between CCSS and professional development during RTTT was apparent to teachers at
each school that participated in this study.
Hibiscus Complex Teachers’ Responses to Research Question 1
Mr. Acang, a teacher at Akau explained once the stated adopted CCSS, HIDOE selected
the Wonders curriculum. Mr. Acang approximated four to six days were dedicated to
professional development each year RTTT was in effect. Mr. Acang recalled training
specifically geared toward developing reading achievement was provided. Ms. Brown, another
teacher at Akau described the professional development she received as something that felt
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

66
“forced” based on the curriculum Akau used prior to RTTT. Ms. Brown explained that as a
heterogeneous or varying-ability group-reading curriculum, the Wonders program was vastly
different than the homogeneous or similar-ability group-reading curriculum called Success for
All that Akau used for two decades prior.
Ms. Brown described a contrast between professional development courses she received
prior to Wonders being implemented. Specifically, she felt that professional development she
received during the time RTTT took place was not as thorough as the professional development
she received from Success for All representatives. Ms. Brown stated trainers for the Wonders
program were less engaged with their audience than trainers with Success for All. For example,
training provided by Wonders’ representatives was delivered in a crowded environment by a
person that walked HIDOE employees though a series of website interfaces. Training
representatives for Wonders did not live in the local area and were only available to train HIDOE
members for short periods of time and were not readily available to assist HIDOE members who
may have had questions or needed assistance with implementing the new curriculum.
Ms. Brown explained that the prior curriculum’s representatives took time to examine
data provided by Akau, and were able to gauge the needs of their customers based on what was
observed. Ms. Brown stated Success for All program representatives also were readily available
to assist HIDOE members per the members’ request. The lack of engagement from the Wonders
representatives left Ms. Brown feeling as if the professional development she received during the
time RTTT occurred did not provide much assistance on how to incorporate the Wonders
curriculum into her classroom.
Ms. Cochran, a teacher at Hema recalled a group of teachers receiving initial training by
Wonders representatives. However, after Wonders representatives provided the initial training,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

67
HIDOE members provided continuing professional development on the curriculum. Though Ms.
Cochran thought the training was useful, she remembered a lot of her peers being resistant to the
professional development offered. She further explained that some of her peers resisted the
professional development because they had taught for two or three decades using their own
curriculums and were then mandated to learn the Wonders curriculum.
Mr. Drake, another teacher from Hema recalled one large professional development
linked to Wonders being provided by company representatives. He stated the professional
development was interesting, but a little overwhelming. Mr. Drake explained that the Wonders
training he received was provided for kindergarten through fifth grade teachers. As a first grade
teacher, Mr. Drake thought the training gave him a broad prospective on what K-5 students were
learning. He was able to correlate methods thought to first grade readers and where those skills
were necessary in higher levels of elementary education. Mr. Drake shared that members of the
faculty at Hema would provide quarterly training to teachers at their school based on different
sections of the Wonders curriculum. The teachers who attended training would take turns
sharing how they taught their students using the new curriculum.
Plumeria Complex Teachers’ Responses to Research Question 1
Mr. Edwards, a teacher at Makai stated his school conducted several types of professional
development specific to reading achievement during the time Makai received RTTT funds.
Some of the professional development conducted was for curriculum used prior to HIDOE
adopting CCSS. While other training was specific to implementing CCSS through Wonders.
Mr. Edwards explained that he did not attend any professional development held by HIDOE.
However, faculty coaches from his school received training on Wonders and other curriculums.
The coaches who received training at HIDOE conducted professional development sessions
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

68
based on the information they learned during professional development at HIDOE. Though Mr.
Edwards was sure coaches at his school conducted training on Wonders, he could not recall the
frequency of the training.
Ms. Fangel also taught at Makai and recalled similar information about professional
development that occurred during the time Makai received RTTT funding. Ms. Fangel recalled
one additional professional development that was made available to teachers at Makai, which
was not mentioned by Mr. Edwards. However, the training was not mandated, but optional. Ms.
Fangel could not remember how teachers were able to complete the additional professional
development, but did not think any representatives from that curriculum’s training program
provided training at Makai. Ms. Fangel knew professional development was conducted by
coaches at Makai, but could not approximate how often it occurred. Both Mr. Edwards and Ms.
Fangel knew Wonders professional development occurred but did not believe much training was
provided on the curriculum until the 2013-2014 school year.
Ms. Grazzini taught at Moana and stated that she received professional development
through faculty meetings and via online courses. Additionally, Moana allowed Ms. Grazzini and
other teachers at her school to attend professional development on Saturdays during the time
Moana received RTTT funding. Ms. Grazzini explained the Saturday professional development
sessions occurred approximately once a semester. She stated that there were professional
development courses specific to reading achievement that were available via online courses or in
person every trimester (rather than semester). However, Ms. Grazzini stated that teachers would
have to pay out of their pockets to enroll in these online courses.
Ms. Grazzini stated her school used the Wonders curriculum, but could not recall any
professional development specific to Wonders. Mr. Hall another teacher at Moana recalled
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

69
attending professional development for the Wonders program that was provided by HIDOE;
however, he could not recall if the training occurred during the time RTTT funding was being
provided to Moana. Mr. Hall did remember attending some professional development courses
that were tied to CCSS, but he was not able to recall more specific information about the training
he received. According to Mr. Hall, literacy coaches at his school would also provide
professional development periodically throughout the year. Outside of the Wonders training
attended by Mr. Hall, neither teacher from Moana remembered continuing professional
development courses related to the Wonders curriculum.
Findings for Research Question 1
In regards to HIDOE preparing teachers to implement reading curriculum that aligned
with CCSS, all four elementary schools that took part in this study engaged in some form of
professional development for reading achievement in efforts to comply with CCSS under RTTT.
Teachers from the Hibiscus Complex were able to provide a variety of professional development
opportunities provided to teachers in their complex, though they did not receive federal funding
from RTTT. However, teachers in the Plumeria Complex did not observe much change in the
amount of professional development provided during the time RTTT funding was available for
their schools. The frequency of professional development received between 2010-2014 varied
throughout the schools and complexes used for the study. At least one person at each school
referred to Wonders training that was provided by HIDOE and attended by a large amount of
HIDOE employees throughout the state. None of the teachers interviewed recalled follow-on
professional development from Wonders personnel. One of the Hibiscus Complex teachers
remarked that she did not feel the services offered by the Wonders representative was user
friendly due to lack of human interaction.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

70
Research Question 2
The second research question was specific to ZSI Schools and was aimed at identifying
how RTTT impacted teachers’ ability to enact CCSS that research suggested would lead to
improved student outcomes. Schools in the Plumeria Complex (ZSI Schools) received RTTT
funding. This section will probe into new initiatives that started while RTTT funding was
available for ZSI schools like Makai and Moana. It will determine if insight from HIDOE
teachers was solicited to determine how RTTT funds should be spent to improve reading
achievement. This section will also analyze whether RTTT money was used to fund other
curriculums that were not linked to CCSS. Lastly, this section will provide information about
whether changes related to professional development have occurred since RTTT funding ended.
Makai Teachers’ Responses to Research Question 2
Mr. Edwards stated Wonders was endorsed by the state of Hawaii and adopted at Makai
as the curriculum that was initiated during the RTTT program. In addition to Wonders, Makai
also blended parts of the Wonders curriculum with another curriculum called Read Well. Read
Well was used by Makai prior to the school receiving RTTT funding and was used in
conjunction with Wonders throughout the period RTTT funds were spent at Makai. Mr.
Edwards explained there were three other initiatives adopted at Makai during RTTT. The Safe
and Civil Schools program, along with Champs, and the Universal Screener program were
attractive initiatives that were began at Makai while RTTT funds were spent at the school. Mr.
Edwards could not validate whether RTTT funding was used to pay for any of the programs that
were not linked to CCSS. None of the aforementioned programs were specific to reading
achievement. In addition to Wonders, Ms. Fangel recalled some teachers at Makai also
implemented another reading program called Daily Five. According to Ms. Fangel, trainers from
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

71
Daily Five did not come to the school to provide training. However, there was no expectation set
by the school for teachers to participate in the Daily Five program. Instead, teachers that were
interested in the Daily Five program were encouraged by the school to obtain training. Ms.
Fangel was unaware if RTTT funds were used to pay for Daily Five professional development.
Mr. Edwards and Ms. Fangel explained that Wonders, Read Well, Safe and Civil
Schools, and Champs were all still in in use at Makai. Neither teacher could comment on where
current funding for these programs came from. However, Mr. Edwards explained that Makai
was using curriculum from Champs but not paying for professional development services
associated with the Champs program.
Mr. Edwards did not recall anyone from HIDOE or Makai leadership engaging in
conversation with him or other teachers about how RTTT funds should be spent to increase
reading achievement. Mr. Edwards explained that HIDOE employees at the Plumeria Complex
office authored a proposal on how RTTT funds should be spent within the complex. He could
not recollect any information about reading development being present in the proposal.
Additionally, Mr. Edwards advised that most of the proposal submitted to HIDOE by the
Plumeria Complex was not accepted. Initially Ms. Fangel could not recall anyone from the
Plumeria Complex asking how RTTT funds should be spent. After focusing more on that time
frame, she did remember an instance when school leadership inquired about what Ms. Fangel
would be interested in learning once the school received RTTT funding. She did not provide any
specific information about training requested, nor did she remember if any of the professional
development made available during RTTT was directly tied to any teachers’ requests. Mr.
Edwards and Ms. Fangel felt the most leeway they received from Makai in regards to utilizing
RTTT funds was Extended Learning Time (ELT). Ms. Fangel explained that ELT was an extra
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

72
hour of learning time during the school day that was funded by RTTT. Both teachers explained
they were able to use ELT in any manner they wanted to with their students. Mr. Edwards stated
leadership at Makai imparted that ELT should be “fun” for their students. Other than the
aforementioned guidance, teachers at Makai were given autonomy to use the hour as they chose
to. Ms. Fangel used ELT to conduct additional guided reading time with her class. Mr. Edwards
could not remember the specific year ELT took place, but knew it only took place at Makai for
one year. Mr. Edwards believed this was due to the high cost to maintain keeping teachers in the
classroom for an extra hour.
Moana Teachers’ Responses to Research Question 2
Ms. Grazzini stated Moana implemented Wonders during the time RTTT funds were
available for her school. According to Ms. Grazzini, Wonders was very beneficial for her
students because of the vocabulary words provided in the program. She explained that many of
the students at Moana come from low-income areas. Mr. Grazzini thought that the vocabulary
words covered by Wonders exposed her students to words they may not have heard otherwise.
She also shared that fables her students read using Wonders were also not tales they may have
been exposed to without utilization of the new curriculum.
Mr. Hall also recalled Moana receiving Wonders, but thought Wonders was implemented
outside of the time RTTT funding was provided. However, Mr. Hall did recall someone from
Wonders coming to Oahu to train HIDOE members on the curriculum during the time RTTT
funds were being utilized at Moana. He explained that Wonders used a lot of rich text and
nonfictional text that were good for students to use at their respective grade levels. Mr. Hall
stated Wonders was a good program for new teachers. However, he believed more experienced
teachers blended Wonders curriculum with curriculums they created on their own.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

73
Ms. Grazzini stated she used ELT to build reading/language arts skills with her students.
She worked with her students during the extra hour to produce a play. During production of the
play her students wrote their own scripts and lyrics to songs. She did not attribute creation of the
play to any curriculum in particular. However, Ms. Grazzini believed the skills students
obtained while producing a script and song lyrics increased student-reading abilities. Ms.
Grazzini also recalled Universal Screeners being implemented at Moana, but stated Universal
Screeners did have a “lasting impact” and was only used for one school year. Mr. Hall stated
that though he heard about Moana receiving RTTT funds it seemed that each school in the
Plumeria Complex did not receive any guidance regarding distribution of RTTT funds. Mr. Hall
recalled the school conducting ELT, but stated he did not use the extra hour of learning to focus
on reading. Instead, Mr. Hall used that time to focus on building the student as a whole leaner.
Other than Wonders and ELT, Mr. Hall could not recall any other initiatives that were started
while RTTT funds were available to Moana.
Ms. Grazzini and Mr. Hall stated Wonders is currently being used at Moana. They both
believed the state was funding the program after the period when RTTT funding was available.
Ms. Grazzini recalled Wonders being initiated during the time RTTT funds were available to
Moana. However, Mr. Hall did not believe Wonders was used at Moana until after RTTT ended.
That being the case, Mr. Hall believed Wonders was only funded by the state and not by RTTT.
Both teachers from Moana shared that ELT only lasted for one year. Though they thought ELT
was beneficial they attributed the short-lived initiative to lack of funding.
Ms. Grazzini and Mr. Hall had different views about the availability of professional
development offered after RTTT funding expired at Moana. Ms. Grazzini thought there was an
increase of professional development offered in her school. She added the training offered was
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

74
not limited to reading only. She thought the HIDOE also created more opportunities for
professional development after RTTT funds were not available, but she could not provide any
specific examples to training offered. Mr. Hall on the other hand did not feel there was an
increase or decrease in professional development opportunities once Moana stopped receiving
RTTT funding. Neither Ms. Grazzini nor Mr. Hall recalled HIDOE asking teachers for input on
how RTTT funds should be spent to improve reading achievement, or any other areas.
Findings for Research Question 2
RTTT funding had low impact on Plumeria Complex teachers’ abilities to implement
curriculum that research suggests would lead to improved outcomes for it students. None of the
Plumeria Complex teachers interviewed provided information on additional professional
development or other methods that could have been utilized to increase reading achievement.
Both schools that received RTTT funds (Makai and Moana), as well as schools that did not
(Akau and Hema) executed the same reading curriculum in efforts to increase reading
achievement for elementary school students on Oahu, at various times throughout the four years
RTTT Funds were available. Schools in the Plumeria Complex engaged in new initiatives
during RTTT with multiple focuses, including reading achievement. Some of the initiatives
remained in place after RTTT funding was available, while others were discontinued during the
period RTTT funding was provided, or the programs concluded simultaneously with the last year
that RTTT funds were available. Outside of receiving funding for Wonders curriculum material,
none of the teachers interviewed were able to provide any specifics on supplemental reading
programs or initiatives that occurred while schools in the Plumeria Complex received RTTT
funding.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

75
Teachers in the Plumeria Complex responded differently by school, when asked about
teacher input regarding expenditure of RTTT funds to increase reading achievement. Some
teachers vaguely remembered attempts to request feedback regarding RTTT funds, while others
could not recall any instances of school leadership requesting input regarding any uses of RTTT
funds. Teachers from one school in the Plumeria Complex provided an example of a program
utilized in their school that was outside of the curriculum supported by CCSS, which is currently
in use. Teachers in the Plumeria Complex did not notice any significant change in the volume of
professional development offered after RTTT funding ended.
Research Question 3
Research question three focused on Non-ZSI Schools and the methods teachers in the
Hibiscus Complex used to improve reading comprehension without receiving RTTT funding.
This section will analyze if other finance resources were available to Non-ZSI schools. It will
establish how Non-ZSI schools executed their mission to meet CCSS without RTTT funding. It
will also analyze whether other curriculums not linked to CCSS were used during the time period
RTTT took place. This section will conclude by providing information about whether changes
related to professional development have occurred since RTTT ended.
Akau Teachers’ Responses to Research Question 3
Mr. Acang and Ms. Brown both explained that Akau was a Title 1 school and received
funding from the federal government. Ironically, both teachers were under the impression that
their school received funding from RTTT while funds were available to ZSI schools in the
Plumeria Complex. During her interview, Ms. Brown commented that whenever her school used
funds from their annual budget to procure professional development, the training was usually
much better than what was provided by HIDOE. She did provide example of a supplemental
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

76
program initiated by her school that will be covered later in this section. Ms. Cochran and Mr.
Drake on the other hand were both aware that Hema did not receive RTTT funding. Ms.
Cochran was adamant that additional funding came from somewhere, as the school did enact
Wonders. Mr. Drake could not recall if Hema received additional funding during the time RTTT
took place. However, he stated that the school purchased some computer programs to
supplement reading instruction.
Mr. Acang explained in addition to Wonders, other methods and curricula were used to
increase reading achievement at Akau. Mr. Acang specifically remembered Akau implementing
an after school-tutoring program. He stated the program utilized certified teachers, rather than
college students or teachers’ aids to work with students. Tutoring for reading took place during
the after school sessions. Akau also hosted a two-week summer program to increase the overall
achievement of students. Certified teachers were also in charge of conducting the summer
program as well. Mr. Acang explained that the summer program was used as a maintenance
measure, to reinforce what was taught to students who attended tutoring for reading during the
school year. He also shared that Akau believed in using its available resources to help its
struggling students for the after school and summer program, rather than recruit outside support
help tutor its students. Mr. Acang felt that the tutoring and summer programs met the schools’
objectives because teachers were able to provide more in-depth scaffolding to students during the
aforementioned programs than what they received during the traditional school day.
Ms. Brown reported that Wonders was implemented during the time RTTT took place.
She stated that Akau could not afford for a Wonders representative to come their school to train
teachers. It was up to leadership teams at Akau to figure out the curriculum and provide the
professional development to teachers at the school. She believed instruction on Wonders was
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

77
not standardized throughout the state of Hawaii. In Ms. Brown’s opinion HIDOE did rushed into
utilizing Wonders without taking time to consider other options. Ms. Brown also explained that
the Wonders curriculum was not fully implemented at Akau, as some teachers combined
principles of Wonders with those of Success for All. She mentioned that kindergarten and first
grade teachers received the most benefit from blending Wonders and Success for All due to the
difficulty level of the Wonders curriculum at the lower grade levels. Wonders is still in use by
Akau, to the dissatisfaction of some of the teachers there. She explained that Akau was
mandated to continue using Wonders due to their HSA scores. However, Ms. Brown expounded
if schools were scoring well on the HSA they could use whichever curriculum they preferred.
Ms. Brown recalled a supplemental program named Professional Instructional Practices
(PIP) was implemented during the last year RTTT was active. PIP started at Akau during the
2013-2014 school year. She stated the program had multiple foci, one of which was professional
development specific to small group instruction in reading. Ms. Brown stated that a local
university facilitated the PIP professional development for Akau. She advised that PIP was part
of the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE). According to
CREDE (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2017), CREDE’s charter is to target and create
effective educational practices for students, who are placed at risk by factors of race, poverty,
and geographic location. CREDE has aided a diverse population of American students to
achieve academic excellence. The Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National
Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students, U.S. DOE, fund CREDE, as one of twelve
national research and development centers (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2017). Ms. Brown
thought that PIP/CREDE was a highly effective program. She explained that CREDE helped
teachers target a large population of readers in the classroom. Though she had positive feelings
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

78
about PIP, Ms. Brown thought that PIP taught subject matter that was at the core of teaching
reading; regardless of what initiative it supported. Ms. Brown stated Akau is still using PIP, but
the latest professional development being offered was related to mathematics and is being
provided by a different university.
Hema Teachers’ Responses to Research Question 3
Ms. Cochran and Mr. Drake both stated that Hema used Wonders during the time RTTT
funds were available to certain schools in the state. Ms. Cochran explained that when Hema
initially began using Wonders, teachers had to incorporate the curriculum along with various
curriculums that were used prior to the implementation of Wonders, in efforts to meet CCSS.
Mr. Drake explained that HIDOE expected all schools to utilize the Wonders curriculum, but
schools did have the option not to use the program. If schools submitted a waiver to their
Complex Area Superintendent and the waiver was approved then the school could use another
curriculum. Ms. Cochran thought it was odd that her peers at other schools were using Wonders
in different ways. She advised that while Hema was using the entire curriculum to teach its
students, other schools would only use Wonders material as a “resource.” Ms. Cochran
explained that prior to Wonders, her school also used Success for All. However, she did not
believe teachers at her school were blending Success for All Curriculum with Wonders. Ms.
Cochran thought that Wonders was more rigorous than prior curriculums used at Hema. She
stated that there are a variety of reading genres for students to enjoy and learn from. Though she
preferred the phonetic learning principles of Success for All, she thought that Wonders was a
better overall curriculum because it provided students a broader range of decoding, reading, and
reading comprehension programs. Ms. Cochran and Mr. Drake shared that Hema was still using
Wonders curricula.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

79
Mr. Drake explained that Hema sent teachers to attended CCSS protocol training, which
was provided by HIDOE as a method to meet CCSS. He stated that CCSS was one of six
protocols implemented by the state during RTTT, and that each school was expected to receive
training for the respective topics. The CCSS protocol professional development provided
attendees with a common understanding of CCSS. However, Mr. Drake emphasized that the
professional development provided was an overview of the CCSS program. He explained that
CCSS was initially introduced to lower elementary teachers with the intent that they begin
implementing the CCSS before any other grade levels did. Teachers who attended the CCSS
protocol professional development were provided handouts and slide presentations to bring back
to their schools. The slides could be edited so that facilitators could tailor the presentations to
their particular school. Mr. Drake thought a local private school system may have provided
some additional information on CCSS, but he was not certain.
Though some schools in the Plumeria Complex used parts of older curriculums to
supplement what was being taught using Wonders, Mr. Drake stated Hema acquired Lexica and
Reading Plus, reading software programs to increase reading achievement of students who were
having difficulties grasping CCSS for reading. He could not recall the timeframe when the
programs were purchased, but knew they were computer programs used to supplement student-
learning gaps that occurred after CCSS were implemented. Both programs operate using the
Internet and were purchased with the intent to reinforce reading skills and increase reading
achievement. According to Mr. Drake, HIDOE purchased an online computer program called
Achieve 3000 and initially made the program available to all schools. At some point during
RTTT, funding for Achieve 3000 was relinquished to schools in HIDOE to maintain this
program at individual schools. As a result of the high cost to fund Achieve 3000, Hema
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

80
discontinued using the program and adopted the less expensive Lexica and Reading Plus
programs. Both Lexica and Reading Plus are still in use at Hema.
Teachers in the Hibiscus Complex had varying opinions on how professional
development has changed since RTTT. Mr. Acang did not notice much or any change regarding
professional development once the RTTT program ended. He explained that Akau received a lot
of assistance by way of Title 1 funds and was able to apply for unused end of year funds from
different schools in HIDOE. Mr. Acang believed neither an increase nor decrease in
professional development occurred, based on the funding provided through different means
throughout the state. Ms. Brown felt that the focus of professional development changed after
the RTTT program expired. She felt that more emphasis was placed on assessment based
training, rather than instructional training. She attributed the shift in focus to Hawaii adopting a
new teacher Educator Effectiveness System (EES), during RTTT. Ms. Brown explained that
EES was a program used to rate the effectiveness of teachers, which linked to their salaries Ms.
Brown sarcastically remarked that professional development was so EES based that it barely
occurred to her that professional development opportunities for reading achievement were
available. Ms. Brown thought that there was an increase in professional development at Hema,
but that the increase was lead by Hema faculty acquiring professional development and not led
by the Complex or HIDOE. She stated she knew of schools in HIDOE currently engaging in
professional development related to Wonders. However, she noted that none of the schools were
receiving the same training. Rather, Wonders professional development would be tailored to
address curtain aspects of the curriculum.
Ms. Cochran did not notice any changes in the frequency or total amount of professional
development provided after RTTT. However, she thought training notifications were sent out
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

81
more sporadically after RTTT concluded. She stated there was a slight increase of exchanges
between lower elementary teachers at her school after RTTT ended. These exchanges we related
to CCSS and would occur quarterly, for teachers to crosstalk with others about CCSS in relation
to the grade level they were teaching. Mr. Drake explained that once RTTT funding stopped he
noticed his school still sent representatives for HIDOE training sessions on Wonders. He
believed the Complex paid for the professional development and as a result a limited number of
people could attend HIDOE training. As mentioned earlier, teachers who attended training at the
state level would have to return to Hema and provide professional development for the faculty
based on what they learned at the state level professional development course. Mr. Drake did not
cite any differences in the frequency of professional development.
Findings for Research Question 3
Schools in the Hibiscus Complex used supplemental learning aids such as reading
achievement software, after school reading programs and summer reading programs to improve
outcomes in reading comprehension. Both of the schools in the Hibiscus Complex received Title
1 funds from the U.S. Government prior to RTTT, during RTTT, and today. Neither set of
teachers reported knowledge of any other form of federal funding received by their schools.
Both schools in the Hibiscus Complex implemented Wonders (the curriculum purchased by
schools in the Plumeria Complex) in order to ensure that CCSS were met. Each school currently
operates under the same curriculum; however, one of the schools has modified the curriculum to
better serve their students’ needs. The aforementioned school utilized a variant of RTTT along
with another reading achievement curriculum in effort to increase reading achievement and meet
the expectations of HIDOE leadership. Once teachers in the Hibiscus Complex identified a
problem with students having trouble adjusting to CCSS for reading achievement, the complex
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

82
purchased reading software that provided addition support. One of the Hibiscus Complex
schools also enacted a supplemental after school and summer program to increase students
reading skills. However, the programs were discontinued around the time RTTT funding ended.
Though one of the teachers drew a contrast in professional development between the curriculum
that preceded RTTT and Wonders, schools in the Hibiscus Complex have not noticed much
change in the frequency in professional development since RTTT ended.
Research Question 4
The fourth and final research question compares HSA results of the schools examined
during this study from the Plumeria Complex to schools in the Hibiscus Complex. This section
will provide qualitative data provided by HIDOE regarding the type of growth schools in the
Plumeria complex experienced during the time RTTT funds were available to them. It will
provide quanitative data depicting growth in schools located in the Hibiscus Complex during the
time RTTT was in place. This section will also provide data on the same schools post RTTT
funding in efforts to monitor their growth. The section will conclude by explaining which set of
schools experienced the most growth during RTTT.
Plumeria Complex HSA Reading Exam Results, 2010-2014
Figures 1 to 4 illustrate a breakdown of how third, fourth, and fifth graders at schools in
the Plumeria Complex scored on the HSA for reading in 2010 through 2014. In the 2013-2014
school year, HIDOE removed some of the categories depicted on the 2010-2013 exam results.
The only category addressed on the figures for the aforementioned school year is the percentage
of students that met reading sufficiency standards. As a result, the 2013-2014 figures appear
differently from other figures provided in this section.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

83

Figure 1. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded reading
proficiency, 2010-2011. Source: Hawaii Department of Education

During the 2010-2011 school year, Moana obtained more growth than Makai based on
HSA exam scores. Thirty-seven percent of fifth graders at Moana met standards in accordances
with the HSA. Additionally, third graders at Moana experienced the most growth, as 38% of
third graders at the school exceeded standards for the HSA reading examination. Conversly,
39% of third graders at Makai were approaching but below the meet standards level. Fifty-three
percent of fourth grade students at Makai were well below/or approaching standards set by HSA.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Makai
Grade 3
Makai
Grade 4
Makai
Grade 5
Moana
Grade 3
Moana
Grade 4
Moana
Grade 5
Well below
Approaches
Meets
Exceeds
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

84

Figure 2. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded reading
proficiency, 2011-2012. Source: Hawaii Department of Education

During the 2011-2012 school year, Moana experienced more growth than Makai
according to HSA reading scores. Fifth graders at both schools yielded the most students that
met HSA reading exam standards. However, Moana had 14% more growth in this category than
Makai. Though the percentage of students who were approaching but below meeting standards
at Makai dropped 5% from its highest point in the 2010-2011 school year, the highest rate for
this category was still 8% higher than the highest rating in the same category at Moana. There
was only a 1% drop in students who tested well below HSA reading exam standards at Makai.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Makai
Grade 3
Makai
Grade 4
Makai
Grade 5
Moana
Grade 3
Moana
Grade 4
Moana
Grade 5
Well below
Approaches
Meets
Exceeds
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

85

Figure 3. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded reading
proficiency, 2012-2013. Source: Hawaii Department of Education

While students at Makai did show growth in the meets standards section of their HSA
reading exam scores, overall Moana still provided better HSA reading exam scores. Moana
produced 9% more fifth grade students who met standard scores for the HSA reading exam
students in the same grade at Makai. Fifth graders at both schools produced the highest
percentage points that scored in the meets standards category. Fourth grades at both schools
scored the highest percentage points in the well exceed HSA reading exam standards category.
However, fourth graders at Moana scored 9% higher than their peers at Makai.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%

Makai
Grade 3

Makai
Grade 4

Makai
Grade 5

Moana
Grade 3

Moana
Grade 4

Moana
Grade 5
Well below
Approaches
Meets
Exceeds
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

86

Figure 4. Percentage of students who met or exceeded reading proficiency, 2013-2014. Source:
Hawaii Department of Education

The only HSA reading exam scores provided from the 2013-2014 school year was the
reading proficiency percentage. As in the preceding years, Moana showed the most growth
based on exam scores. However, based on this single criterion Moana only scored 5% higher
than Makai.
Hibiscus Complex HSA Reading Exam Results, 2010-2014
Figures 5 to 8 illustrate a breakdown of how third, fourth, and fifth graders at schools in
the Hibiscus Complex scored on the HSA for reading in 2010 through 2014. In the 2013-2014
school year, HIDOE removed some of the categories depicted on the 2010-2013 test results. As
a result, the 2013-2014 figures appear differently from other figures provided in this section.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Makai Moana
Students that Meet or are Above Reading
Proficiency Percentage
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

87

Figure 5. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded reading
proficiency, 2010-2011. Source: Hawaii Department of Education

During the 2010-2011 school year, Akau obtained more growth than Hema based on
HSA exam scores. Fifty-seven percent of fifth graders at Akau met standards in accordances
with the HSA, as opposed to only 39% of the fifth graders at Hema. The percentage of students
who scored in the well below standards level for the HSA reading exam at Hema is only 3%
higher than the highest caterogry at Akau. However, the other two grade levels only had 3% of
fourth grade students and none of the fifth grade students score in the well below standards
category. Hema had higher level of students whose HSA reading exam scores exceeded
standards, than Akau. The amount of students who scored lower than average but approaching
the standard was similar across both schools.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Akau
Grade 3
Akau
Grade 4
Akau
Grade 5
Hema
Grade 3
Hema
Grade 4
Hema
Grade 5
Well below
Approaches
Meets
Exceeds
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

88

Figure 6. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded reading
proficiency, 2011-2012. Source: Hawaii Department of Education

During the 2011-2012 school year Akau experienced more growth according to HSA
reading exam scores. Akau did not have any students in the grade levels depicted in the figures
score well below standards set for the HSA reading exam. Conversely, percentage points at
Hema slightly increased by approximately 5% in two of the three grade levels in the figure.
Hema only saw an 8% decrease in the amount of fourth graders who scored in the
aforementioned category. Akau showed growth in the exceed HSA reading exam standards
category. Third graders at Akau yielded a 17% increase, fourth graders increased by 9% and
fifth graders scores in this area increased by 19%. Hema experienced a slight decrease in student
scoring in the same area.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Akau
Grade 3
Akau
Grade 4
Akau
Grade 5
Hema
Grade 3
Hema
Grade 4
Hema
Grade 5
Well below
Approaches
Meets
Exceeds
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

89

Figure 7. Percentage of students who were well below, approaching, met or exceeded reading
proficiency, 2012-2013. Source: Hawaii Department of Education

During the 2012-2013 school year Akau showed more growth than Hema according to
HSA reading exam scores. Akau did experience an increase in the amount of students that
scored in the well below HSA reading exam standards when compared to the previous year.
However, Akau saw some growth in the amount of students that met HSA reading exam
standards. There is almost a 20% deficiency in the amount of Hema fifth graders who scored in
the meets standards category of the HSA reading exam, compared to their peers at Akau. Hema
experienced growth by 15% in the amount of fifth graders who scored in the meets standards for
the HSA reading exam category.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Akau
Grade 3
Akau
Grade 4
Akau
Grade 5
Hema
Grade 3
Hema
Grade 4
Hema
Grade 5
Well below
Approaches
Meets
Exceeds
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

90

Figure 8. Percentage of students who met or exceeded reading proficiency, 2013-2014. Source:
Hawaii Department of Education

The only HSA reading exam scores provided from the 2013-2014 school year was the
reading proficiency percentage. As in the preceding years, Akau showed the most growth based
on exam scores. However, based on this single criterion Akau only scored 1% higher than
Makai.
SBA Read Exam Results for the Hibiscus and Plumeria Complexes, 2014-2015
Figures 9 and 10 provide a breakdown of the SBA, which replaced the HSA beginning in
the 2014-2015 school year (the first year after RTTT ended). The scores provided by HIDOE
combined the percentage of students who met SBA reading exam standards and the percentage
of students who exceeded the reading exam standards for SBA for the third, fourth, and fifth
grades. Therefore, the following figures will only provide information on the aforementioned
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Akau Hema
Students that Meet or are Above Reading
Proficiency Percentage
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

91
categories. The Hibiscus Complex figure will be provided, followed by the Plumeria Complex
figure.

Figure 9. Percentage of Hibiscus Grade 3-5 students who met or exceeded achievement
standards, 2014-2015. Source: Hawaii Department of Education

Though Akau consistantly displayed more growth than Hema during the period RTTT
took place, Hema illustrated the most growth in the 2014-2015 school year. Hema scored .07%
higher than Akau when averaging the scores from all three grade levels. Third and fifth grade
students at Hema scored 7% and 12% higher than their peers at Akau, respectively. Since this is
a different exam that the one provided throughout RTTT, these exam results cannot be compared
against how students scored on the HSA in previous years.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Akau Grade 3 Akau Grade 4 Akau Grade 5 Hema Grade 3 Hema Grade 4 Hema Grade 5
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

92

Figure 10. Percentage of Plumeria Grade 3-5 students who met or exceeded achievement
standards, 2014-2015. Source: Hawaii Department of Education

As in the years both Makai and Moana received RTTT funding, Moana scored better than
Makai on the SBA reading exam. Moana students scored 12% higher than students at Makai
when scores from the grade levels depicted in the figures are averaged. The numbers of third
graders at Moana who met or exceed standards for the SBA reading exam double that of students
at Makai. Third graders at Moana scored lowest in their school on this exam, but still scored 7%
higher than the highest scoring grade at Makai.
Findings for Research Question 4
Based on the data collected from the two complexes where research was conducted, the
Hibiscus Complex showed the most growth during and after RTTT. Figures throughout this
section clearly depict students in the Hibiscus Complex scoring higher than their counterparts in
the Plumeria Complex. In many of the figures shown Hema, the lower scoring school in the
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Makai Grade 3 Makai Grade 4 Makai Grade 5 Moana Grade 3 Moana Grade 4 Moana Grade 5
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

93
Hibiscus Complex still produced higher scores than Moana, the highest scoring school in the
Plumeria complex. On the 2013-2014 reading proficiency percentages, the Hibiscus Complex
scored 11% higher than the Plumeria Complex when averaging scores from the two schools in
each complex. The Hibiscus Complex also scored 11% higher than the Plumeria Complex on
the 2014-2015 SBA reading exam, when averaging scores from the two schools in each complex.
Conclusion
Research submitted in this chapter offered readers information on professional
development practices that occurred during RTTT to increase the literacy proficiencies of K-5
students on the island of Oahu. The research questions used for data collections focused on steps
taken by HIDOE to prepare teachers to implement CCSS reading curricula. Questions were
prepared specifically for ZSI and Non-ZSI schools. The questions probed how RTTT funds
were used to impact reading achievement at ZSI schools. Questions for Non-ZSI schools asked
how reading achievement was impacted at schools that did not receive RTTT funding. The last
research question incorporated HSA scores provided by HIDOE by using figures to illustrate
growth achieved by ZSI and Non-ZSI schools during the period RTTT funds were available.
The first research question asked how HIDOE prepared teachers to implement reading
curriculum that aligned with CCSS. Teachers from the two complexes researched during this
study had different views on the amount of professional development provided. According to
teachers from the Hibiscus Complex, there were a variety of professional development
opportunities provided to teachers. Their peers in the Plumeria Complex did not notice much
change in the amount of professional development provided during the time RTTT funding was
provided to their schools. Teachers from all four schools provided varying accounts of how
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

94
often professional development occurred. However, the link between CCSS and professional
development during RTTT was apparent to teachers at each school that participated in this study.
All schools researched during this study engaged in some form of professional education
for reading achievement in efforts to comply with CCSS under RTTT. The frequency of
professional development received between 2010-2014 varied throughout the schools and
complexes used for the study. At least one person in each school referred to Wonders training
that was provided by HIDOE and attended by a large amount of HIDOE employees throughout
the state. All but one of the teachers interviewed recalled follow-on professional development
from Wonders personnel. One of the Hibiscus Complex teachers remarked that she did not feel
the services offered by the Wonders representative was user friendly due to lack of human
interaction.
Research question 2 aimed to identify how RTTT funds impacted teachers in the
Plumeria Complex’s ability to improve student literacy. The question probed into new initiatives
that started while RTTT funding was available for ZSI schools like Makai and Moana. It also
asked if suggestions were taken from HIDOE teachers regarding how RTTT funds should be
spent to improve reading achievement. This analyzed whether RTTT money was used to fund
other curriculums that were not linked to CCSS. The question gauged whether professional
development in ZSI schools changed since RTTT funding ended.
All schools researched in this study implemented the same reading curriculum in efforts
to increase reading achievement for elementary school students, at various times while RTTT
Funds were available. Schools in the Plumeria Complex engaged in new initiatives during
RTTT with multiple focuses. Some of the initiatives remained in place after RTTT funding was
depleted. Other initiatives were discontinued during the period RTTT funding was provided;
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

95
other programs concluded simultaneously with the last year RTTT funds were available. When
asked about teacher input regarding expenditure of RTTT funds to increase reading achievement,
teachers in the Plumeria Complex responded differently by school. Some teachers from the
Plumeria Complex recalled HIDOE to request find out how RTTT funds could be spent.
Teachers in the Plumeria Complex did not notice any significant change in the volume of
professional development offered after RTTT funding ended.
Hibiscus Complex schools researched in this study received Title 1 funds during RTTT.
Outside of Title 1 funds Hibiscus Complex schools, according to teachers interviewed, received
no additional forms of federal funding. Both schools in the Hibiscus Complex purchased
Wonders in order to ensure that CCSS were met. The Hibiscus Complex schools examined in
this study still use Wonders. One of the schools has modified the curriculum in accordance with
the needs of their students. One of the Hibiscus Complex schools also used an after school
program to increase students reading skills. The program was discontinued around the time
RTTT funding ended. Schools in the Hibiscus Complex used several different curriculums to
supplement Wonders in efforts to improve student literacy. Overall, teachers in the Hibiscus
Complex have not noticed much change in the frequency in professional development since
RTTT ended.
Research question 4 compared HSA results of the schools examined during this study
from the Plumeria Complex and the Hibiscus Complex. The question provided quantitative data
provided by HIDOE regarding the type of growth schools both complexes experienced during
the time RTTT took place. It also provided data on the same schools post RTTT funding in
efforts to monitor their growth. Lastly, the question probed which set of schools experienced the
most growth during RTTT.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

96
Based on the data collected from the two complexes, the Hibiscus Complex exhibited the
most growth during and after RTTT. Test scores provided by HIDOE showed Hema, the lower
scoring school in the Hibiscus Complex produced higher scores than Moana, the higher scoring
school in the Plumeria complex. The Hibiscus Complex scored 11% higher than the Plumeria
Complex on both the 2013-2014 reading proficiency percentages and the 2014-2015 SBA
reading exam. Chapter 5 will provide further discussion on these issues, conclusions, and
suggestions for future research.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

97
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Introduction
The RTTT grant was created to assist school districts throughout the U.S. in closing
achievement gaps and improving chances for more students to attend college by supporting key
reform strategies (Boser, 2012). One significant element of the RTTT program focused on
educators’ roles in producing student achievement. Hawaii was one of 12 states (including the
District of Columbia) that received a RTTT grant and substantial effort went into improving and
evaluating teacher performance. When RTTT was initiated across the United States there was an
emphasis on improving teacher quality, as it was considered one of the most pressing concerns of
education reform (Crowe, 2011a). There were several requirements specific to educators that
RTTT funded states were mandated to fulfill. In efforts to produce the type of results RTTT was
created to inspire, teachers at the selected schools should have received the proper guidance,
curriculum, and training to implement RTTT priorities. Parameters specific to goals,
expectations, new responsibilities, training requirements, and feedback sessions should have
been addressed with teachers who participated in RTTT prior to using new curriculum with their
students. According to Crowe (2011a), ensuring teachers receive quality education is a critical
focus of education reform. However, the task is daunting as there have been minimal discernible
successes from a litany of reform and redesign initiatives over the past thirty years (Crowe,
2011a).
The U.S. has had trouble obtaining substantial change in the quality of teacher education.
The U.S. education system made efforts to combine a reward and punishment approach. This
method provided incentives to programs that sought out serious reform efforts and stipulated
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

98
effective accountability mechanisms to guide other reform programs onto a successful path
(Crowe, 2011a). The teacher education requirements of RTTT asked states to dispatch stronger
accountability tools and to create or expand upon professional development programs for
teachers. The desired outcome of the teacher preparation program is to generate effective
teachers (Crowe, 2011a). RTTT was implemented with hopes that an emphasis on teacher
education (among other initiatives) would ultimately increase student achievement in
reading/language arts and STEM. Though teacher education reform has continued to occur over
the past three decades without resolution, RTTT has provided funding for schools to find the
most efficient means to train teachers and provide students with the tools needed to succeed.
The purpose of this study was to understand how RTTT resources were used to prepare
teachers in the HIDOE to implement instructional techniques that would lead to increased
reading/language arts achievement and decrease reading achievement gaps between student
subgroups. Parallel research on the same topic was conducted on a sample of Oahu schools that
were not in the ZSI but also needed to improve under RTTT. Information regarding teacher
education components of RTTT required affected states to implement more vigorous
accountability mechanisms and to establish or expand preparation programs that are effective at
producing successful teachers (Crowe, 2011a).
This study analyzed standards and methods set forth under RTTT to increase reading
achievement and decrease learning gaps specific to reading within elementary schools in the ZSI
on Oahu, as well as other methods used by non-ZSI schools. The research also relayed
information specific to how teachers at ZSI schools on Oahu utilized reform specific professional
development provided by the HIDOE to facilitate instruction in reading and language arts.
Instruction methods used by non- ZSI School teachers who taught ELA/reading was also
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

99
examined. Information was gathered from teachers and a HIDOE administrator to learn how
reading achievement was affected by RTTT within the HIDOE on Oahu. Non-ZSI School
teachers were also solicited for data to determine how reading achievement was affected.
Information gathered during the study illustrates similarities and differences between ZSI
schools and non-ZSI Schools regarding professional development for reading achievement and
HSA reading sores during the period RTTT funds were distributed, as well as when the funding
ended.
Research questions for this study are listed below:
1. What actions did DOE administrators on Oahu take to prepare teachers to implement
reading achievement curricula under state education reform?
2. How did RTTT impact teachers’ ability to enact strategies that research suggests will
lead to improved student outcomes?
3. What methods did teachers who did not receive RTTT funding use to improve
outcomes in reading comprehension?
4. How did RTTT schools compare to non-ZSI Schools regarding reading
comprehension?
Qualitative research methods were used to conduct data collection for this study.
Merriam (2009) stated researchers gain an understanding of how individuals interpret their
experiences and what they gain from those experiences through qualitative research. Becoming
informed on what methods were used to prepare teachers in the ZSI and at Non-ZSI schools is
vital to understanding how reading/literacy skills were affected within HIDOE. The primary
method for gathering data for this study was in-person interviews. Open source HSA data was
also collected from the HIDOE public website. Interviews were conducted with one HIDOE
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

100
administrator who was involved in preparing teachers to implement reading specific training to
teachers operating in HIDOE’s ZSI program. Four teachers from the ZSI program were
interviewed along with four teachers not working in ZSI program. The intent was to examine
what type of training was provided for the affected schools. The goal of the study was to
understand effective practices used to improve student reading/literacy skills for schools in the
HIDOE. Weiss (1994) explained interviewers could learn about individuals through conducting
interviews specific to people’s interior experiences. It is possible for interviewers to learn
interviewees’ perceptions of various issues and how they construed those perceptions.
Interviewers can discover how occurrences affected a person’s thoughts and feelings, their work,
and their overall condition. It is possible for interviewers to learn about a variety of experiences,
from joy to grief, which combined represents, the human condition (Weiss, 1994). Interviewing
was a successful qualitative method used to extract informative and vivid data from the teachers
and the HIDOE administrator who participated in this study.
Summary of Findings
During this study the researcher was able to find answers for all research questions.
Throughout this study four major findings were extracted. Research revealed actions taken by
HIDOE on Oahu to prepare teachers for implementation of reading achievement curricula under
CCSS. It provided information describing how RTTT impacted teachers’ abilities to enact
strategies which research suggested would lead to improved student outcomes. Research
produced information regarding the methods used to improve outcomes in reading
comprehension by schools that did not receive RTTT funding. Lastly, research provided factual
data that compared HSA scores from ZSI and Non-ZSI schools researched in the study and
determined which school achieved more growth during and after RTTT funds were available.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

101
All four elementary schools that took part in this study engaged in some form of
professional development for reading achievement in efforts to comply with CCSS under RTTT.
At least one interviewee at each school referred to professional development on the Wonders
curriculum that was provided by HIDOE and attended by a large amount of HIDOE employees
throughout the state. Gamson et al. (2013) explained using CCSS throughout the U.S. and its
territories championed increasing the complexity level of writing in textbooks and reading
materials utilized by students across the nation. Teachers from the Hibiscus Complex stipulated
there were a variety of professional development opportunities provided to them, though they did
not receive federal funding from RTTT. Teachers in the Plumeria Complex did not observe
much change in the amount of professional development provided during the time RTTT funding
was available for their schools.
All four schools reported using the Wonders curriculum. King (2011) wondered if
practicing educators and new teachers would be ready to teach a new higher standard. Several
teachers from the Hibiscus Complex mentioned that their peers struggled with incorporating the
Wonders curriculum. These teachers felt that their previous curriculums were effective.
According to Porter et al. (2011), CCSS for ELA was explicit in its focus on the material
students were to learn as opposed to how that content was to be taught. CCSS guidelines offered
by Coleman and Pimentel (2012) were not meant to dictate classroom practice. Instead, they
were written to assist in certifying that teachers received effective tools. Teachers at schools in
both complexes admitted to blending the Wonders curriculum with various other curriculums
and/or supplemental programs in order to implement CCSS in their schools. As one of the key
pieces of the RTTT program, implementation of CCSS was mandatory for all schools in HIDOE.
The AACTE demanded the creation of professional development programs to be connected to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

102
the CCSS (King, 2011). The state mandated Wonders as the curriculum the means to facilitate
CCSS into schools in HIDOE. Though the curriculum was reportedly implemented in a variety
of ways all schools received initial professional development for the curriculum and conducted
their own variations of professional development on the new curriculum at their respective
schools in efforts to comply with the state’s decree.
Teachers in the Plumeria Complex at both schools provided different examples of the
Wonders curriculum increasing the amount of rigor their students received during reading/ELA
instruction. According to King (2011), a desired outcome of CCSS was to include rigorous
content and application of knowledge through higher-order skills. An interviewee in the
Plumeria Complex expressed some delight with CCSS and explained the new curriculum
exposed their students to vocabulary they would not have heard or learned otherwise. Finn et al.
(2006) believed Hawaii’s vocabulary development was provided negligible coverage.
Schools in the Plumeria Complex engaged in new initiatives during RTTT, including
reading achievement. Teachers at both schools in the Plumeria Complex explained they did not
receive much direction on how to implement some of the programs available to them during the
period that their school received RTTT funding. Finn et al. (2006) felt the Hawaiian ELA
standards were vague and believed vague standards were not measurable. Carmichael et al.
(2010) suggested Hawaii’s ELA program lacked clearness and specificity needed by teachers to
assist facilitating daily classroom instruction, assessments, and a rigorous curriculum. Though
teachers in the Plumeria Complex were able to recognize the strengths of CCSS, they felt there
was a lack of direction from their schools’ senior leaders.
Schools in the Hibiscus Complex implemented after school, summer reading, and reading
software programs not linked to Wonders. The aforementioned was accomplished in addition to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

103
using the Wonders curriculum to ensure that CCSS were met. Schools in the Hibiscus Complex
recognized that some of their students experienced a learning gap after the induction of the
Wonders curriculum. According to Coleman and Pimentel (2012), CCSS allowed flexibility for
teachers and curriculum developers to construct progressions of readings to increase complexity
within grade-levels that intersect, to a certain degree. In efforts ensure their students progressed
in reading, the respective schools enacted strategies that supplemented reading instruction under
CCSS. The after school and summer programs were created and implemented by teachers at one
Hibiscus Complex school rather than receiving outside assistance. These supplemental reading
programs were enacted to increase the reading ability of students that were lagging behind their
peers. CCSS required students to develop skills necessary to read progressively complicated
texts while developing objectivity as they prepare to enter postsecondary studies or the
workforce (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). Teachers in the Hibiscus Complex wanted to ensure
their students would not fall too far behind their classmates. Deciphering complex text supports
students’ possession of complex and grade-appropriate terminology, models, and linguistic
structures (Stahl & Nagy, 2007). Schools in the Hibiscus Complex were focused on not only
implementing a new curriculum but also ensuring the process was done correctly. Teachers in
the Hibiscus Complex were attentive to the needs of their students and worked within their
resources to identify and attack the problem of the students who were falling behind.
Data collected from the two complexes proved the Hibiscus Complex experienced the
most growth during and after RTTT. Students in the Hibiscus Complex consistently scored
higher than their counterparts in the Plumeria Complex. The Hibiscus Complex also scored 11%
higher than the Plumeria Complex on the 2014-2015 SBA reading exam, when averaging scores
from the two schools in each complex. The HSA and SBA scores used for this study combined
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

104
with information discovered throughout both complexes can be used to assess outcomes that
occurred during the time the RTTT program was active.
Limitations
There were three limitations applied to this study. The first limitation dealt with the pool
of participants who engaged in this study specifically, their varying views and experiences
regarding HIDOE’s efforts to prepare teachers to implement RTTT. There was no video or
audio recordings of participants receiving professional development training from HIDOE
employees was made available to the researcher as part of this study, or exist to the researcher’s
knowledge. The last limitation was that each participant reserved the right to selectively answer
questions or omit parts of an answer at their own discretion.
Implications for Practice
Though all four elementary schools that took part in this study engaged in some form of
professional development for reading achievement to comply with CCSS, professional
development was only standardized at the state level. After HIDOE members attended initial
professional development on the Wonders curriculum they were left to go back to their
respective schools and lead professional development on a topic they had just learned about.
There were no arrangements made for Wonders representatives to provide in person training at
any of the schools that took part in this study. With no one to rely on other than their peers,
teachers were left to create professional development for Wonders for the respective faculties.
No standard was implemented or enforced to ensure schools in the HIDOE provided/received
adequate training on the Wonders curriculum. Without a set standard to reach or be measured
by, professional development for the curriculum varied. It spanned from Wonders training being
held during quarterly meetings at some schools at the onset of RTTT, to other schools where in
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

105
one case a teacher did not recall using Wonders until after RTTT ended. Finn et al. (2006) stated
vague standards could not be measured.
Schools in the Plumeria Complex explained they did not receive much direction on how
to implement some of the programs available to them during the period that their school received
RTTT funding. The Plumeria Complex schools were left with directions instructing teachers to
make ELT “fun,” rather than provided specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time driven
goals. As a result of that, teachers were left on their own volition to develop plans on how to
enrich their students without any direction. Carmichael et al. (2010) suggested Hawaii’s ELA
program lacked clearness and specificity needed by teachers to assist facilitating daily classroom
instruction, assessments, and a rigorous curriculum.
Schools in the Hibiscus Complex implemented after school, summer reading, and reading
software programs not linked to Wonders that ensured that CCSS were met. These schools
recognized a problem experienced by some of their students, analyzed the situation and took
action on a plan. According to test scores yielded in the years RTTT was in place and afterward,
the Hibiscus Complex reading students showed more growth than students from the Plumeria
Complex. In efforts to ensure their students progressed in reading, the respective schools
enacted strategies that supplemented reading instruction under CCSS. CCSS required students to
develop skills necessary to read progressively complicated texts while developing objectivity as
they prepare to enter postsecondary studies or the workforce (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). The
after school and summer programs were created and implemented by teachers at one Hibiscus
Complex school rather than receiving outside assistance. The Plumeria Complex may be able to
increase their students reading levels by creating supplemental reading programs similar to what
was done in the Hibiscus Complex in efforts to achieve similar or greater goals.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

106
Recommendations for Future Research
In efforts to extend or enhance research related to this topic perhaps research should be
conducted on professional development to improve STEM under RTTT, professional
development practices for HIDOE teachers in general, and leadership methodologies of schools
in the Plumeria Complex. Each of these topics is tied into this study and may provide more
prospective on how the findings for this study came to be.
Though this study focused on professional development to improve student reading under
RTTT, there was a similar initiative for STEM taking place simultaneously. It would be
interesting to learn how much resources were expended to increase students’ knowledge base in
STEM. A similar study for STEM professional development will add different categories of
training that may also increase the frequency of professional development experienced by
teachers. A similar study of STEM could also be structured to parallel this study in efforts to
help HIDOE leadership see overarching issues that may have affected student learning.
Professional Development for teachers in HIDOE may be an interesting topic due to the
issues with standardization for professional development seen at times during this study.
Researching the fundamentals of professional development, as well as the professional
development practices of HIDOE may draw some interesting conclusions on how professional
development should be provided compared to how HIDOE implements it. Vignettes from this
research could be used to provide a small sample of what took place during this studies
interviewees’ experiences with professional development in HIDOE.
Leadership methodologies at the different complexes may have made a difference in the
outcomes of the two complexes researched during this study. A study focused on the different
leadership principles enacted by the CAS and principals of the four schools identified in this
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

107
study may tie into the results yielded during this study. Researchers could gain a better
prospective of how leadership decisions ultimately affected the HSA scores obtained by students
at schools in this study.
Conclusion
The state of Hawaii received $75,000,000 and was one of 12 states (including the District
of Columbia) that received a RTTT grant. When RTTT was initiated across the United States
there was an emphasis on improving teacher quality, as it was considered one of the most
pressing concerns of education reform (Crowe, 2011a). In efforts to produce the type of results
RTTT was created to inspire, teachers at the selected schools should have received the proper
guidance, curriculum, and training to implement CCSS. Parameters specific to goals,
expectations, new responsibilities, training requirements, and feedback sessions should have
been addressed with teachers who participated in RTTT prior to rolling out CCSS to their
students. According to Crowe (2011a), ensuring teachers receive quality education is a critical
focus of education reform. The U.S. has had trouble obtaining substantial change in the quality
of teacher education. The teacher education requirements of RTTT asked states to dispatch
stronger accountability tools and to create or expand upon professional development programs
for teachers. RTTT was implemented with hopes that an emphasis on teacher education (among
other initiatives) would ultimately increase student achievement in reading/language arts and
STEM. Though teacher education reform has continued to occur over the past three decades
without resolution, RTTT provided funding for schools to find the most efficient means to train
teachers and provide students with the tools needed to succeed.
This study compared ZSI schools to Non-ZSI schools during the time RTTT was in
place. Though only ZSI schools received RTTT funding, Non-ZSI schools were expected to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

108
achieve similar results to ZSI schools without receiving assistance from RTTT. Professional
development continued throughout all schools researched in this study. However, the methods
and frequency of professional development sessions varied throughout the aforementioned
schools. This study provided evidence that suggest Non-ZSI schools listed in this study achieved
more growth than ZSI schools. Research during this study determined that Non-ZSI schools
used additional academic measures to ensure their students learned information required to align
with CCSS. Hopefully information derived from this study can be used to improve professional
development for student reading, which will aid in helping our children achieve at their
maximum potential.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

109
REFERENCES
Allington, R., & Gabriel, R. (2012). Every child, every day. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 10-
15.
American Institutes for Research. (2014, September). Evaluation of Hawaii’s Race to the Top:
Third evaluation report. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/RTTT/AIR_RTTT3rd.pdf
Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap: When progress stopped.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Bauerlein, M., & Stotsky, S. (2012, September). How Common Core’s ELA standards place
college readiness at risk (Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 89). Boston, MA: Pioneer
Institute.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Boser, U. (2012, March). Race to the Top: What have we learned from the states so far? A state-
by-state evaluation of Race to the Top performance. Washington, D.C.: Center for
American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2012/03/26/11220/race-to-
the-top-what-have-we-learned-from-the-states-so-far/
Brown, B. (2009). A policy history of standards-based education reform in Hawaii. Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Carmichael, S. B., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., & Wilson, W. S. (2010). The state of state
standards — and the Common Core — in 2010. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham
Institute.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

110
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2017). Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and
Excellence (CREDE). Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/what-we-do/projects/crede
Coggshall, J. G., Bivona, L., & Reschly, D. J. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher
preparation programs for support and accountability (Research & Policy Brief).
Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State
Standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3-12. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12. pdf
Corbett, C., Hill, C., & St. Rose, A. (2008). Where the girls are: The facts about gender equity in
education. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women Educational
Foundation.
Crowe, E. (2010, July 29). Measuring what matters: A stronger accountability model for teacher
education. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2010/07/29/8066/measuring-
what-matters/
Crowe, E. (2011a, December). Getting better at teacher preparation and state accountability:
Strategies, innovations, and challenges under the federal Race to the Top program.
Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

111
Crowe, E. (2011b, March 1). Race to the Top and teacher preparation: Analyzing state strategies
for ensuring real accountability and fostering program innovation. Washington, D.C.:
Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2011/03/01/9329/race-to-the-
top-and-teacher-preparation/
Darling-Hammond, L., Noguera, P., Cobb, V. L., & Meier, D. (2007, May 2). Evaluating “No
Child Left Behind”: The problems and promises of Bush’s education policy. The Nation.
Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/evaluating-no-child-left-behind/
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, D.C.: National Staff
Development Council.
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
Finn Jr., C. E., Julian, L., & Petrilli, M. J. (2006). The state of state standards, 2006.
Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation & Institute.
Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pelczar, M. P., & Shelley, B. E. (2010). Highlights from PISA
2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science
literacy in an international context (NCES 2011-004). Washington, D.C.: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Friedman, I. C. (2011). Education reform (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Facts on File.
Gamson, D. A., Lu, X., & Eckert, S. A. (2013). Challenging the research base of the Common
Core State Standards: A historical reanalysis of text complexity. Educational Researcher,
42(7), 381-391.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

112
Hagan, E. (2013). Student reading attitudes in relation to the instructional approach
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville,
MO.
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2012). Strategic plan 2011-2018: 2012 update.
Honolulu, HI: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/Advancing%20Education/Strategic
Plan.pdf
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2016). School status and improvement report. Honolulu,
HI: Author. Retrieved from http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/ssir/2016/honolulu.html
Hayes, W. (2013). Consensus: Education reform is possible. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.
Johnson, A., & Heffernan, N. (2006). The short readings project: A CALL reading activity
utilizing vocabulary recycling. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 63-77.
Kelly, D., Xie, H., Nord, C. W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J. Y., & Kastberg, D. (2013, December).
Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy
in an international context: First look at PISA 2012 (NCES 2014-024). Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child
Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-
13.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

113
King, J. E. (2011). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An action agenda for
higher education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Retrieved from
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Implementing-the-Common-Core-State-
Standards-2011.pdf
Kolbe, T., & Rice, J. K. (2012). And they’re off: Tracking federal Race to the Top investments
from the starting gate. Educational Policy, 26(1), 185-209.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McGuinn, P. J. (2010). Creating cover and constructing capacity: Assessing the origins,
evolution, and impact of Race to the Top. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise
Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/publication/creating-cover-and-
constructing-capacity/
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Retrieved from
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12882/preparing-teachers-building-evidence-for-sound-
policy
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards: The new US
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

114
Provasnik, S., Gonzales, P., & Miller, D. (2009). U.S. performance across international
assessments of student achievement: Special supplement to The Condition of Education
2009 (NCES 2009-083). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Rampey, B. D., Dion, G. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2009). NAEP 2008: Trends in academic progress
(NCES 2009-479). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Reardon, S. F., & Robinson, J. P. (2008). Patterns and trends in racial/ethnic and socioeconomic
academic achievement gaps. In H. A. Ladd & E. B. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of research
in education finance and policy (pp. 497-516). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reardon, S. F., Valentino, R. A., & Shores, K. A. (2012). Patterns of literacy among US
students. The Future of Children, 22(2), 17-37.
Robertson, D. A., Dougherty, S., Ford‐Connors, E., & Paratore, J. R. (2014). Re‐envisioning
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 67(7), 547-559.
Robinson, J. P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in
mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct
cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American Educational Research Journal,
48(2), 268-302.
Shanahan, T., & Duffett, A. (2013). Common Core in the schools: A first look at reading
assignments. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Sparks, S. D. (2015, February 18). U.S. millennials come up short in global skills study.
Education Week, 34(21), 6.
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2007). Teaching word meanings. New York, NY: Routledge.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

115
Stedman, L. C. (2009, March). The NAEP Long-Term Trend Assessment: A review of its
transformation, use, and findings. Washington, D.C.: National Assessment Governing
Board. Retrieved from http://orb.binghamton.edu/education_fac/2/
Stotsky, S. (2012, June 11). Coleman’s 50/50 mandate for literary/informational texts. Chicago,
IL: Parents Across America. Retrieved from http://parentsacrossamerica.org/the-
common-cores-5050-mandate-for-literaryinformational-texts
Superfine, B. M. (2011). Stimulating school reform: The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act and the shifting federal role in education. Missouri Law Review, 76(1), 81-134.
Thompson, D. (2014). The effect of student sharing on reading comprehension (Unpublished
Master’s thesis). University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top: Executive summary. Washington, D.C.:
Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Race to the Top fund: States’ applications for Phase 2.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2012a). Race to the Top: Hawaii report, year 4: school year
2010-2011. Washington D.C.: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012b). Race to the Top, district application for funding.
Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-
district/2012-application.doc
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Race to the Top: Hawaii report, year 3: school year
2012-2013. Washington D.C.: Author.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

116
U.S. Department of Education. (2015a). Race to the Top: Hawaii report, year 4: school year
2013-2014. Washington, D.C.: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015b). Fundamental change innovation in America’s schools
under Race to the Top. Washington D.C.: Author.
Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices,
and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573-596.
Weiss, E. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

117
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

118
APPENDIX B
SITE PERMISSION LETTER
Aloha,

My name is Damien Tymes and I am a doctoral student with the University of Southern
California, Hawaii Cohort. I am writing because I need your assistance to complete my
dissertation this spring. I would like to collect data from elementary reading/English teachers in
your school who taught between 2010-2014 (throughout the span of Race to The Top federal
grant funding here on Oahu). With your help, I hope to conduct approximately 12 interviews
between January 9, 2017 and January 30, 2017. The identity of interview participants will not be
disclosed to the public, nor will the names of schools that are used for my research. I value your
time and realize that you have a demanding schedule. That being said, each interview will last
approximately 45 minutes. I am willing to travel to your school to conduct interviews, or can
arrange to conduct interviews at a place and time that is more convenient for you, if need be.
Please spread the word to anyone at your school who meets the criteria needed for my data
collection purposes. I can be reached via email at dtymes@usc.edu, or via cellphone at (phone
number removed from publication). Thanks in advance for your time and assistance. I look
forward to hearing from you soon.

Mahalo,

Damien T. Tymes, MBA, CFE
USC, 14’ Hawaii Cohort

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

119
APPENDIX C
QUALITATIVE DATA INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Item 1: Interview Protocol
I. Introduction

Aloha and mahalo nui loa for agreeing to participate in my study. As a student and researcher it
is my responsibility to focus on specific aspects of the truth and gain a boarder prospective on
research topics. Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective or thoughts with me
about the Race to The Top (RTTT) Program. Your interview will take approximately an hour;
will your schedule accommodate the purposed timeframe?

Now that you have blocked some time off to speak with me, I am sure you are curious as to why
I am here? Would you like to hear an overview of the topic I am studying? Feel free to stop me
at any time and ask any question you would like regarding the topic and your participation in the
study. I am currently a third year of graduate student at the University of Southern California
and am competing data collection for my dissertation. The primary purpose of this study is to
learn how to conduct qualitative research. The purpose of this study is to understand how RTTT
resources were used to prepare teachers in the Hawaii DOE (HIDOE) to implement instructional
techniques that would lead to increased reading/language arts achievement andreading
achievement gaps between student subgroups. Parallel research on the same topic will be
conducted on a sample of Oahu schools that were not in the Zone of School Innovation (ZSI) but
also needed to improve under RTTT. According to USDOE (2012b) effective teachers are
defined as those whose students achieve growth by at least one grade level over the course of a
year. Information regarding teacher education components of RTTT required affected states to
implement more vigorous accountability mechanisms and to establish or expand preparation
programs that are effective at producing successful teachers (Crowe, 2011b).

This study will analyze standards and methods set forth under RTTT to increase reading
achievement and decrease learning gaps specific to reading within elementary schools in the ZSI
on Oahu, as well as other methods used by non-ZSI schools. The research will also relay
information specific to how ZSI teachers on Oahu utilized reform specific professional
development provided by the HIDOE to facilitate instruction in reading and language arts.
Instruction methods used by non- ZSI School English-Language Arts (ELA)/reading teachers
will also be examined. Information will be gathered from teachers and a HIDOE member to
learn how reading achievement was affected by RTTT within the HIDOE. Non-ZSI teachers
will also be solicited for data to determine how reading achievement was affected. Once
information from both ZSI and non-ZSI Schools are gathered the study will illustrate how ZSI
schools compared against non-ZSI Schools in regards to reading achievement during the period
RTTT funds were distributed.

I assure you that I am strictly acting as a researcher while engaging in discussions regarding my
research topic. My line of questioning is not a means to observe or evaluate you, or your school.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

120
I am not in a position to, nor will I make any judgments on your performance as a teacher. I will
not list the true names of any interviewees in my final paper.

If you are curious as to the results of my research, please feel free to ask for a copy of my
dissertation once it has been published. Would you like to ask any questions about my research
before the interview begins? If you do not have any questions for me at this time I would like to
start the interview. Please remember that we can stop the interview at any time to allow for your
questions or comfort breaks. In efforts to capture the most accurate account of this interview, I
have brought a recorder with me to assist in documenting this interview. This recording will not
be broadcasted to the general public and will be destroyed following submission of the final
product of this research. I be the only person that will have access to the recording and I will
destroy it as soon as I complete my dissertation. May I have your permission to record our
conversation?

II. Setting the Stage

I would like to start off by learning a little bit about you. How long have you been a teacher?
What type of training/education did you receive specific to your profession? What grade level
do you teach? What technical resources do you have available to deliver your message?

III. Heart of the Interview

1. During RTTT how was professional development conducted?
2. How often did HIDOE provide professional development for reading achievement during
RTTT?
3. Was professional development obviously linked to RTTT?
4. Can you recall any information about professional development for reading achievement
that I have not asked about?

i. Transition

Up until now we have spoken about professional development during RTTT. I would like talk a
little about how RTTT impacted teachers’ ability to enact strategies that research suggests will
lead to improved student outcomes (for ZSI Schools ONLY).

5. Did your school start any new reading achievement initiatives after receiving RTTT
funding?
a. If so, what was the name and concept of the initiative?
b. What were the objectives of the initiative?
c. Is the initiative currently active, if so how is it being funded?
d. If the initiative is not active, were objectives of the initiative met?

6. Did Hawaii DOE seek insight from teachers on how RTTT funds should be spent to
increase reading achievement?
a. If so, what suggestions were made by teachers? Did you make any suggestions?
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

121
7. Were RTTT funds used to initiate reading achievement curriculum other than reform
curriculum suggested by common core state standards?
a. If so, what other type of reform curriculum was used to improve reaching
achievement?

8. Since RTTT ended, how has professional development changed, i.e. training topics,
frequency of training, funding for training?

9. Can you recall any information regarding how RTTT impacted teachers’ ability to enact
strategies that I have not asked about?

ii. Transition

Now, I would like to focus what methods teachers who did not receive RTTT funding use to
improve outcomes in reading comprehension (for Non-ZSI Schools ONLY)?

10. Did your school receive funding from any other federal or state program to improve
reading comprehension?
a. If so, what type of funding did your school receive?
b. Where did it come from?
c. How much funding did your school receive?
d. When did your school receive the funding and what was the time period for the
funding?

11. How did your school plan to meet common core state standards for reading achievement
without RTTT funds?
a. Did your school enact reasonable methods to meet standards identical to schools in
that received RTTT funding? Please explain your answer.
b. Is your school still operating under the same plan?

12. Did your school initiate reading achievement curriculum other than reform curriculum
suggested by common core state standards?
a. If so, what other type of reform curriculum was used to improve reading
achievement?

13. Since RTTT ended, how has professional development changed, i.e. training topics,
frequency of training, funding for training?

14. Can you recall any information about other methods your school used to meet the same
reading achievement standards as schools that received RTTT funding that I have not
asked about?

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE STUDENT READING

122
IV. Closing Question

Is there anything I haven’t asked you about or that you would be useful data for my research?

V. Closing

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my questions and provide your prospective on my
research topic. I am grateful that you have allowed time in your schedule to entertain my
questions and my company. The experience, knowledge, and information you have shared are
vital to my research. In the event that I come up with a follow-up question(s), may I contact
you? If so, what is your preferred method of contact and when are the best times to reach you?
Thanks again for participating, as a token of my appreciation please accept this gift card to
Starbucks.

VI. Special Considerations and Probing

ii. Probing Statements/Questions

1. I have not read anything that explains your stance so clearly. Please tell me more.
2. Though I am researching this topic there is still a lot I do not know about it. Can you
please explain what that mean?
3. Please help me to visualize this situation, as if I did not have any idea of the concept.

Item 2: Research and Interview Questions Table
Research Questions
Interview
Questions
What actions did HIDOE administrators on Oahu take to prepare teachers
to implement reading achievement curricula under state education reform?
IQ 1, 2, 3, 4
(For ZSI Schools) How did RTTT impact teachers’ ability to enact
strategies that research suggests will lead to improved student outcomes?
IQ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
(Non-ZSI Schools) What methods did teachers who did not receive RTTT
funding use to improve outcomes in reading comprehension?
IQ 10, 11, 12,
13, 14

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to understand how Race to the Top (RTTT) program resources were used to prepare teachers in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) to implement instructional techniques that would lead to increased reading/language arts achievement and decrease reading achievement gaps between student subgroups. Parallel research on the same topic was conducted on a sample of Oahu schools that were not in the Zone of School Innovation (ZSI), who did not receive RTTT funding, but were required to meet the same standard as ZSI schools that did receive RTTT funding. State assessment scores from the aforementioned ZSI and non-ZSI schools were also reviewed during this study. Quantitative data was used to determine which schools showed the most growth during and after utilization of RTTT funds by HIDOE. This study analyzed standards and methods set forth under RTTT to increase reading achievement and decrease learning gaps specific to reading within elementary schools in the ZSI on Oahu, as well as other methods used by non-ZSI schools. The research also relayed information on how teachers in the ZSI on Oahu utilized reform specific professional development provided by the HIDOE to facilitate instruction in reading and language arts. Instruction methods used by non-ZSI School English-Language Arts (ELA)/reading teachers was also examined. Information was collected from ZSI teachers, non-ZSI teachers and a HIDOE administrator to learn how reading achievement was affected by RTTT within the HIDOE. HIDOE was solicited for quantitative data to determine how reading achievement was affected during and after the time period RTTT funds were utilized in Hawaii. The study also illustrated how ZSI schools compared against non-ZSI Schools in regards to reading achievement during the period RTTT funds were distributed. The findings indicate that all four elementary schools that took part in this study engaged in some form of professional development for reading achievement in efforts to comply with Common Core State Standards under RTTT. Research determined RTTT funding had low impact on ZSI teachers’ abilities to implement curriculum that research suggested would lead to improved outcomes for its students. Non-ZSI schools used reading achievement software, after school reading programs and summer reading programs to improve outcomes in reading comprehension. Finally, quantitative data provided by HIDOE illustrated that non-ZSI schools showed the most growth during and after utilization of RTTT funds by HIDOE.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A qualitative study on Hawaii's use of Race to the Top funding on extended learning time in a Zone of School Innovation

PDF

The Hawai'i State Teachers’ Association and Race to the Top: HSTA’S role in the RTTT grant

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Race to the Top funding: allocation, accountability and distributed leadership

PDF

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

PDF

Exploratory study on Race to the Top schools and the impact a school principal has on a school’s academic performance

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools

PDF

Online, flipped, and traditional instruction: a comparison of student performance in higher education

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

A case study analysis of high school principals' criteria in the teacher selection process

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Tymes, Damien T. (author)

Core Title An exploratory study of professional development to improve student reading: a case study in Oahu Hawaii

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/01/2017

Defense Date 04/13/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Hawaii Department of Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,Race to the Top,reading achievement,student reading

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Green, Alan (committee member)

Creator Email dttymes@gmail.com,dtymes@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-373728

Unique identifier UC11255873

Identifier etd-TymesDamie-5344.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-373728 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TymesDamie-5344.pdf

Dmrecord 373728

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tymes, Damien T.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA