University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of an elementary school in the Beach Promenade Unified School District

(USC Thesis Other)

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of an elementary school in the Beach Promenade Unified School District

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was scanned as received. 173 This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DISTRICTWIDE INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT: A CASE STUDY OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THE BEACH PROMENADE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT by Jeffrey Hubbard A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 2006 Copyright 2006 Jeffrey Hubbard Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3233819 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3233819 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS At times our own light goes out and is rekindled by a spark from another person. Each of us has cause to think with deep gratitude of those who have lighted the flame within us. -Albert Schweitzer During the course of my life I have been blessed to have many friends and mentors without whom I would not have accomplished the writing of this manuscript My first “lighter of the candle” would be my late mother who instilled in me a belief that I had a moral obligation to accomplish much in my life by working for the betterment of others. My late father too always supported my professional dreams and I know how proud he would be of me. The University of Southern California became a “proving ground” of sorts for me and I must express my profound gratitude to Dr. David Marsh without whom I could not and would not have finished this dissertation. His remarkable commitment to me and others symbolizes the true spirit of the Trojan Family. In addition, his educational insights continue to guide much of my work as a superintendent Further, the mentorship of Dr. Robert Ferris should be mentioned. The gift of Dr. Ferris’ wise counsel has been a blessing and has been invaluable. Dr. John Fitzpatrick saw promise in me when nearly no one else did and he directed me toward USC and this program which has transformed my life. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii I should also acknowledge the push that I regularly got from my amazing editor Shantanu Duttaahmed, Ph.D. He kept after me in the darkest moments. The same can be said for Dr. Carlye Olson, our research group’s steady, intelligent, and giving leader. Too, Jennifer Boone without whose energy would have made my SC education much the lesser. Dr. Gwen Gross, and Mr. John Aycock have been constant supporters and I owe them so much for believing in me. I want to mention my fabulous children who endured this process with me and who are my greatest inspiration. Jordan, Kevin, and Lilly you continue to be the “lighters of my candle” each and every day. I cannot express, enough, my gratitude to all who have helped me... teachers, loved ones, colleagues and friends. Each moment with all of you has added immeasurably to the richness of this life and the wonder of my existence. This dissertation is, indeed, the culmination of a lifetime of superb academic experiences. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements..................................................................................................iii List of Tables............................................................................................................. v List of Figures........................................................................................................... x Abstract....................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................1 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................... 22 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................... 66 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALSYIS AND DISCUSSION...................... 90 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 142 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 162 APPENDICES.......................................................................................................172 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V LIST OF TABLES 1. Summative School Level Survey Results for Question 1................................103 2. Summative School Level Survey Results for Question 2 ................................ 116 3. Teacher’s Highest Stage of Concern...............................................................123 4. Classroom Teachers Use of POL Strategies...................................................125 5. Percentage of Classroom Teachers Use of POL Strategies............................126 6. Summative School Level Survey Results for Question 3 ................................ 127 7. Summative School Level Survey Results for Question 4 ................................136 8. Classroom Teachers Usage............................................................................. 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi LIST OF FIGURES 1. Annual Growth API’s for Rough Rider Elementary.....................................106 2. Staffing Trends and Rough Rider Elementary............................................... 107 3. Enrollment and Sub-Group Representation....................................................108 4. Frequency of Teachers’ Stages of Concern....................................................124 5. Teachers’ Use of Principles of Learning........................................................ 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine how a school district created, implemented and monitored a reform-oriented program to improve classroom instruction. The study explored the elements of the district program, the elements that fashioned the program, the methods employed by district personnel to implement die program, and the effectiveness of the district in implementing the reform. The Beach Promenade School District has employed, as a district wide reform, Lauren Resnick's “Principles of Learning”. This study was conducted in one elementary school selected for its successful results, student achievement, and participation in a district led reform effort. This study closely examines the school and seeks to answer the following four major research questions: 1. What was the district’s design for improving teaching and learning? 2. What school level efforts facilitate the implementation of the district design? 3. To what extent has the district design been implemented at the site and classroom levels? 4. How effective was the design and implementation strategies at the site and classroom level? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viii By answering and processing the research questions, this study will make a contribution to the existing body of research on district designed reform efforts in the context of standards-based education. Important findings of the study include: Accomplishments 1. Teachers, the principal, test results, and staff members all believe that the Principles of Learning are working. 2. There is a common language used at the school when discussing issues around teaching and learning 3. The original discomfort that teachers experienced when the plan was unveiled has now evolved into a high comfort level. 4. Teachers have tools to employ when they are struggling and want to improve their instruction. Areas of Concern 1. Most teachers do not take “ownership” in the original design of the reform plan. 2. Teachers and the principal feel the need for more “time” to implement the program. 3. More teachers want to be involved in the “Learning Walks” and are unaware of other departments and grade level successes. In summary, the plan has been implemented broadly and the student achievement results appear excellent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The current status of the American educational system as reported by various studies indicates that student performance continues to show mixed results. Since 1983, when A Nation at Risk was published, more than 10 million Americans have reached die 12th grade without being able to read at a basic level, and more than 20 million have reached their senior year without basic math skills. (Center for Education Reform 1998). Sadly, these statistics reflect the performance of students who actually completed their high school education. These numbers exclude the nearly 6 million who dropped out of high school altogether. A more recent study such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) (1999) reported that the achievement of public school students in the United States is “significantly lower than their peers” in other countries. (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2004) Thus the data from TIMSS, possibly the most ambitious and widely reported international comparative study ever conducted, revealed findings that were similar to what had been revealed by A Nation at Risk The TTMSS report focused on three major areas: As stated in the report, TIMMS was “an in-depth analysis of mathematics (and science) curricula, an investigation of instructional practices based mainly on teacher self-report data, and an assessment of students’ mastery of the curriculum as well as their attitudes and opinions” (Robitaille et al. 1993). The study revealed that although US 4th Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 graders did better than average, students performed substantially worse by the 8th grade, and their progress declined even further by high school. “[H]igh school students receiving the most demanding mathematics and physics curricula available in US schools had not attained the level of achievement common for students in other countries” (Valverde & Schmidt, 2000, p. 652). The TIMSS report’s examination of curricula revealed that the most common curricula found in US schools lacked focus and coherence and that topics within curricula were repeated more often and without a corresponding depth in US schools than was typical of schools in other countries. The study presented in sharp relief the fact that school children in the US did not have the same high levels of academic achievement as their peers in other nations. Some research, however, presents a more positive picture, suggesting that the situation may not be as bad as it appears. According to Berliner (1993) and the Wisconsin Education Association Council (1996), “a variety of research reports have revealed that much of the criticism has been simplistic and has distorted and misrepresented the conditions of public education.” Similarly, the US Department of Education (1997) reports also indicate that education in the United States is improving on many fronts. Students are taking courses that are better preparing them scholastically, and long-term gains are occurring as demonstrated on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In particular, test results in mathematics seem to be on the upswing. A majority of participating states, and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 nation as a whole, show significant change in positive scores according to data presented by Paul E. Barton in 2001. However, student performance continues to remain inconsistent in American schools. Significant reform efforts were initiated since the Russians launched their satellite Sputnik, an event which spurred the United States’ to attempt to create an internationally competitive educational system in this country. Since then growing global insecurity has stimulated further concern and, therefore, intensified efforts to improve schools. (Sizer, 1992). These concerns have been heightened to an even greater degree since the September 11,2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers in New York City. In short, the consensus is that American students are not performing according to their established potentials. In particular, impoverished students and students in minority communities perform at disproportionately lower levels in relation to their Caucasian counterparts. However, knowing some of the root causes of the deficiencies of US students, has not necessarily led to an increased understanding of appropriate reform efforts that must be initiated to address these issues. T n order to understand what reform efforts might be appropriate to improve our international ranking it is important to look at the various factors that specifically affect student performance. What is clear, according to McLaughlin (1994), is that factors such as teacher quality, professional development, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 scheduling, class size, socioeconomic levels, race, preschool, attendance, and language proficiency all have a significant impact on a child’s education. The most critical factor as it relates to student achievement is teacher performance. Teacher performance has a much greater influence on student learning than class size, ethnicity, location and socio-economic status (Holland, 2001). While defining teacher quality can be problematic, Ferguson (1998) attempts a definition by suggesting that “teacher quality is determined by student learning as measured by student test scores, observers’ rating of teachers, professional classroom practice, and teachers’ test scores.” While there is a nexus of connections between quality teaching and staff development, historically the latter has not been an effective tool for increasing either teacher motivation or improving instructional skills. However, it is important to note that in true learning communities these components of continual professional development should be included as part of the regular school day. Many researchers believe that reflection is perhaps the most important activity that a teacher can engage in. Effective staff development must support the notion that teachers learn best by reflecting on their own instructional practice and then collaborating with colleagues. When educators began to move away from the caste system of education in which certain students were viewed as highly capable, and others as not capable at all (while still others were the dreaded “middle kids”), and began instead to approached all students as capable of learning, a fundamental shift had been Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 achieved in the way in which classroom instruction and staff development was re conceptualized. Viewing learning as a passive activity in which students are empty vessels waiting to be filled by the undisputed knowledge of the teacher is no longer valid. Constructivist learning theories assert that students are participants in their own learning. Furthermore, that their learning processes are always connected in some integral way to what they had previously. A primary thrust of contemporary curricular thought is that learning is an active and dynamic process, as opposed to one that involves repetitive rote activities. Aligned with the constructivist approach is the concept of standards-based school reform. If the starting point is the assumption that all students can learn, uniform standards must be adopted and implemented into the classroom so that all students can achieve. Several states, and California as a striking example, picked up the gauntlet of standards based reform and incorporated standards based curriculum in their schools. In keeping with this belief, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, which reiterates that all students are capable of learning at levels that many had not believed was attainable, nor was it consistent with true standards based reform. According to Charles Finn, 2004, standards based education reform is compared to a tripod, where all three legs must be sturdy if the structure is to resist collapse: The first leg of the standards based tripod symbolizes the actual quality and rigor of the standards; the second leg is a valid and reliable assessment system aligned to the standards and the third leg is the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 accountability system that includes incentives, interventions, rewards and consequences for specific, given results. In summary, reform practice views students as the center of the educational experience. Curriculum and lessons reflect the belief that all students are capable of performing at high levels. Academic standards are clear, expectations are high, and rubrics are visible. Once educators and students commit to the vision that intelligence is neither static nor absolute, the next step is to shift the focus from teaching to learning and directly connect reform efforts to student achievement. Central to improving instruction in a standards based reform era is the teacher’s ability to create consistent and clear expectations for all students. In addition, schools must facilitate aligning assessment, instruction, and standards. Teachers must be able to monitor student achievement in ways that reflect the student’s actual performance levels and in ways that will assist the teacher in developing a more utilitarian plan that will assist that student. A critical component in the success of this reform is to acknowledge teachers as instruments of moral purpose (Fullan, 2000), and no longer be viewed as the culprits of a dysfunctional educational system. In fact, teachers should share their successes with one another within a dialogic community of professionals. Research that links student learning to teacher learning suggests that schools will only produce life long learners if teachers are also life long learners (Dufour 1997, Joyce and Showers 2002, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 Richardson 1998, Sparks 1998). The role of the teacher must experience a metamorphosis from an isolated professional working solely with students to that of a professional researcher who systematically engages in instruction, assessment and adjustment of instruction (Schmoker 2004). This work is best done in an atmosphere of communal responsibility or what is commonly called a learning community. A learning community is defined as a collaborative model of professional development that needs to be informed, purposeful and ongoing (Steigler and Hiebert, 1999). Lauren Resnick suggests that, “only with the recent movement for standards-based education has America begun to explore the potential of designing policy, structures, explicitly to link testing, curriculum, textbooks, teacher training, and accountability with clearly articulated ideas about what should be taught and what students are expected to learn” (Resnick and Hall, 1998). Synergistic efforts which incorporate various links to support standards based reform are critical to its’ successful implementation. This holistic approach is far removed from previous piecemeal efforts that were employed in previous eras. This approach calls for strong educational leadership. Educational leaders are in the best position to assess the level of synergy associated with these efforts. Only from a “crows nest perspective” can an individual observe and analyze an integrative model that captures the interrelated workings of a learning community. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 Extensive research has been generated with regard to the effective traits embodied by school leaders. Descriptions of an effective leader have evolved from a primarily charismatic figure, to someone who integrally understands the internal dynamics of an organization: the how and the why of it. Perry and McDermott (2003), state that, “successful leaders are those who build the capacity of everyone in the organization - parents, students, teachers, site and district administrators and system leaders - in knowing, understanding and using the strategies effectively.” While leadership at the site level has been the focus of extensive review with regard to school reform, the impact of leadership at the district level has been only cursorily explored. Historically, the basic premise of district participation has been to align curriculum and instruction to assessment, building up the capacity of district staff, and to foster relations with stakeholders and attending to the allocation of district resources (Regional Educational Laboratory 2000). Recently, standards-based reform strategies associated with improving student achievement at the district level have become critically important. These instructional strategies must be developed and maintained in the face of terrific challenges in the contemporary educational system, such as teacher apathy, lack of financial resources, and resistance to change. For example, state initiatives continue to rain down upon local school districts with their associated bureaucratic requirements. Nevertheless, important strategies such a^ development of a district wide student success plan and examining the physical setting of the school Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 themselves are considered front line approaches to the implementation of increased student success measures. It is crucial to realize that in the context of planning, less is truly more. Dozens of objectives associated with typical strategic plans have not brought the success that districts have sought. Instead, districts such as Philadelphia, Edmonton, and New York City have sought out a specific and, at times, highly prescriptive approaches to the change process. The aforementioned school districts have minimized die number of goals to bring more energy to as single purpose: that of improving student achievement by focusing on student learning. While-ifis not within thescopeofthis study to examine every district initiative to implement standards based reform, it should be noted that there are several encouraging programs that are beginning to show results in schools across the nation. Some examples are the Accelerated Schools Program which affords students opportunities for an accelerated instruction that are usually reserved for gifted students, as well as the Coalition of Essential Schools which promotes a more individualized education plan for students. Lastly, the site based conceptual framework approach is a commonly used model that clearly defines a mission and establishes specific goals in enacting the necessary reform. In the recent past, school districts in the United States have experienced profound difficulties in implementing holistically consistent approaches to school reform. Furman (1994), has identified several challenges to implementing instructional reform. These challenges include; overwhelming work load, limited Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 resources, articulating the nature and intent of reforms, going beyond standards and assessments, equity, competing problems, the grip of the past, and leadership. In spite of these challenges districts have not given up systemic approaches designed to overhaul their entire district. San Diego City Schools and Philadelphia are examples of such districts. Moreover, their efforts to reconstitute instruction and learning have been studied extensively. In San Diego, research continues, however, the current data already provides a “fascinating case of district leadership that has prioritized high quality instruction and professional learning through a forceful district led agenda that has turned upside down many traditional notions of the relationship between bureaucracy and innovation” (Darling Hammond et al, 2002). The Philadelphia story also sheds light on lessons learned regarding the implementation of systematic reform. Some of these lessons will provide important direction for districts interested in following their lead. Lessons that continue to hold meaning and potential revolve around the concept that “where there were consistent improvements in instructional practices and sustained gains in student achievement, there was strong school leadership focused on instruction, a sense of professional community, curriculum-based professional development and effective use of data including review of student work” (Christman and Corcoran, 2G G 2). In summary, the national shifts that have happened in educational reform, demand the collaboration and participation of educators. Significant questions Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 about how districts work with their schools to improve teaching and learning in ways that payoff for students must be studied, examined, and the successful options materially addressed as best fits the needs and requirements of individual districts Statement of the Problem The American educational system is in need of improvement. District based school reform has the potential to critically impact student achievement. However, much of the current reform movements are more akin to ‘Tinkering” without any strong foundational premises. Since only a few districts are taking a holistic approach to reform, it is important to carefully examine those that are, in hopes of developing efficacious models of reform.. The review of these successful reform movements must be dynamic and structural, so as to discern the cause/effect relationship between the strategies executed. While much study of individual school restructuring has been completed, more work needs to be done in examining district initiated reform. As the research questions which guided this study (below) reveal, understanding the context in which reform efforts are initiated is critical to a successful analysis of them. Without understanding the specific factors which shape a district’s design, we cannot determine with confidence how each of those factors affected the reform efforts. As important as understanding the context of the reform efforts, is to be aware of the strategies that were used to implement the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 design. An examination of these implementation strategies is critical if one wants to connect the district design to verifiable improvements in classroom instruction. As the research questions further establish, examining the extent of the implementation of the district designs is also a valuable aspect of the study. Finally, it is important to examine the effectiveness of the district design, and the district in general, in implementing this reform at specific sites. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine how a school district created, implemented and monitored a reform-oriented program to improve classroom instruction. The study explored the elements of the district program, the elements that fashioned the program, the methods employed by district personnel to implement the program, and the effectiveness of the district in implementing the reform. Research Questions The following questions were critical for formulating the parameters of this study: 1. What was the district’s design for improving teaching and learning? 1. What school level efforts facilitate the implementation of the district design? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 1. To what extent has the district design been implemented at the site and classroom levels? 1. How effective was the design and implementation strategies at the site and classroom level? Importance of the Study Public policy and the current high-stakes environment require that districts immediately address student performance. The research and literature on district led reform indicate that the role of the district is a necessary component of reform efforts. Therefore, it is important to understand how effective district designs are planned and implemented. By answering and processing the research questions, this study will make a contribution to the existing body of research on district designed reform efforts in the context of standards-based education. In addition, legislative bodies, boards of education and district administrators, school leaders, and professional development providers will benefit from the findings and conclusions presented. Additionally, state legislative bodies and policy makers across the country need to know how to effectively implement district designed reform efforts. As legislative bodies initiate and implement efforts aimed at school improvement, it is important that they are aware of the processes, resources, and structures necessary to effectively impact classroom practice. This study, and the larger study of which Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 it is a part, may provide additional insight for legislatures to effectively impact policy on district efforts. This study may provide further understanding for boards of education and district administrators as to how to effectively design and implement a district design for improving teaching and learning. A better understanding of the elements o f the design, strategies for implementation, and its ultimate effectiveness will enable districts to respond to the current educational climate and its emphasis on instructional improvement. School leaders will have the opportunity to learn how districts effectively design and implement reform efforts. This study will provide insight into the reasons for reform efforts and how schools effectively responded to the design implementation of the district. Finally, professional development providers will have an opportunity to understand the role of professional development in the district design. Specifically, external professional developers will learn how to effectively facilitate a process in which an effective district design is developed and implemented. This study will provide insight needed to assist practitioners in developing and implementing district designs to improve teaching and learning. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 Limitations This study included one elementary school involved in a successful district wide reform effort designed to improve teaching and learning. There was no control over the events that occurred at the school during the time of the data collection. Delimitations This study included one elementary school located in California that was involved in a successful district wide reform effort designed to improve teaching and learning. The school was chosen because it was actively engaged in the implementation of a district wide reform strategy. Three methods of data collections used for this case study were observation, questionnaires and interviews. The data was collected between September of2004 and December of 2004, thus a short time frame constitutes delimitation. Assumptions The following assumptions can be made in regard to die case study used in this report: 1. The teachers and administrators who were involved in this study responded with honest and authentic information. 1. Valid and adequate data was obtained through the interview techniques used in this study. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 1. The teachers and students are sufficiently knowledgeable about the students and the progress they were making relative to the district design for enhanced student achievement. 1. That the conclusions of the study are generalizable and useful for others. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as described below: Academic performance index (API) : California’s numerical indicator of student achievement, used as a basis for a comparative ranking of schools statewide. Accountability: A designed effort or system that holds districts, schools, parents and/or students responsible for student performance. Accountability systems typically consist of assessments, public reporting of results, and rewards or sanctions based upon student performance overtime. Assessment: A measurement of a student’s particular skill or knowledge that may be written, oral, or performative in nature. Behaviorism: The theory which postulates that learning occurs when environmental stimulus triggers a response. It advocates that children learn through a change in behavior, so the use of rewards and punishments result in the establishment or extinction of behaviors. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 Benchmark: An expectation of student performance at specific grades, ages, or developmental levels. California Content Frameworks', guides published by the Department of Education to provide assistance in implementing the content standards. California Content Standards: What students need to know and do at each grade level in each of the core subject areas. Capacity: The ability to flexibly respond to external demands in order to translate high standards into effective instruction and strong student performance that is comprised of both qualitative and quantitative factors that reside in within structures, processes, and relationships (Massell, 1998). Conceptual Framework: A consistent and comprehensive integration of research literature, theories, and other pertinent information that is the basis for the analysis of findings within the study. Constructivism: Children build new information on a foundation of preexisting experiences and modify their understanding based on new data. Within this process, their ideas become more complex. This position advocates that students actively create their own knowledge and learning cannot be transferred to them through listening to lectures or through rote practice. Data: A collection of things known or assumed: facts, figures, evidence, records^ statistics — information that describes or from which conclusions can be inferred. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 Data-driven Decision Making: A process of making decisions about curriculum and instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and standardized test data. Data-driven decision making uses data on function, quantity and quality of inputs, and how students learn to suggest educational solutions. Design: A plan that is intended to affect change which may be district-wide, specific to a certain level, or to specific schools. Equity: Educational impartiality that ensures all students receive fair treatment and have access to the services they need in order to receive a high- quality education. Fiscal Resources: funds available and allocated to districts and schools in order to operate programs. Human Resources'. The personnel available and allocated to schools in order to operate and improve programs. Implementation: The translating of an idea into action in order to accomplish the specified goal(s). Innovation: A plan of action intended to improve instruction through changing what currently exists. Instructional Improvement: A change in die structures or opportunitfes that- enables quality teaching that results in improved learning (Gilbert et. al., 2003). Instructional Leadership: An influence that guides the activities that impart knowledge or skills to students. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 Professional Development: Opportunities for staff to develop new knowledge and skills that will improve their teaching ability. Public Schools Accountability Act o f1999 (PSAA): California’s recent reform act which mandates the API, the II/USP, and the GPA; these components include both incentives and sanctions. Reform: Any effort that is undertaken to improve instruction by implementing changes in the current system. Sanctions: The punitive consequences imposed for not meeting expected performance outcomes in some accountability systems. Staff Development: activities designed to provide professional educational and training experiences for school staff. Stakeholder: Any person with interest in the operations and outcomes of the specific educational system, including administrators, teachers, parents, students, and community members. Standardized Test: Assessment that is administered and scored in exactly the same way for all students that are designed to measure specific skills and knowledge. Slandards-based Accountability: The assessment of subject-matter benchmarks to determine student achievements that are not only publicly reported but also used to guide instruction. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 Standards-based Reform: The changes initiated within an educational system that utilizes subject-matter benchmarks to measure student achievement. Systemic reform: Change that occurs in all aspects and levels of the educational process that impacts all stakeholders with implications for all components, including curriculum, assessment, professional development, instruction, and budgeting. Teaching and learning: The eventual goal of instructional improvement efforts is the improvement of student learning; however, in this study this outcome is assumed as the result of good instruction. Therefore, although learning outcomes are not specifically specified, they are implied within the concept of instructional improvement. Organization of the Study Chapter One of the study presents the introduction, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, the research questions, the importance of the study, limitations, delimitations, assumptions, definitions, and organization of the study. The chapter also presents the difficulties facing districts and the importance of examining district strategies for improving instruction. Chapter Two is a review of relevant literature pertaining to standards- based reform and changing teaching and learning in districts and schools, while Chapter Three presents the methodology used in the study, including the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 researcher’s reasons for interest in the study and relevant background; the participants in the study; the selection process and rationale; the research design; and the procedures used. Chapter Four presents the findings of the study from the data collected followed by analysis and discussion of each of the research questions. Chapter Five presents the significance of the study, implications for practice, as well as conclusions and recommendations. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Student Performance in the United States Student performance remains inconsistent in American schools. Significant reform efforts have been initiated since the Russians launched their satellite Sputnik, an event which spurred the United States’ to attempt to create an internationally competitive educational system in this country. Since then growing global insecurity has stimulated further concern and, therefore, intensified efforts to improve schools. (Sizer, 1992). These concerns have been heightened to an even greater degree since the September 11,2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers in New York City. During the 1960’s, in concert with the goals of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, federal legislation assigned tax dollars to assist states, local districts and schools to help students, particularly those deemed, “at risk” to improve. Efforts to help impoverished students and to improve schools were epitomized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Debray, 2003); this act is still in effect. In California specifically, the 1970’s were a period of educational upheaval. To a large extent the focus was removed from the classroom and shifted instead to external issues with the enactment of mandatory collective bargaining laws in 1974 and, in particular, the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). Moreover, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 financial equity in the schools was addressed with the landmark Serrano vs. Priest ruling. Lastly, the tax revolt measure, Proposition 13, altered the ways in which schools were funded in California. Instruction, it seemed, had become a secondary issue as public school educators strove to survive the political tumult of the times. The publication of a report of the National Commission on Excellence on Education (NCEE), more commonly called “A Nation at Risk”, in 1983, has been recognized as a seminal event in America’s educational history (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The New York Times described the report as one of the most significant documents in the history of American public education (Fiske, 1988). The crux of the report was that American Schools were mired in mediocrity. Within one year of die report 44 states were raising their high school requirements and 20 were considering a longer school day (U.S. Department of Education, 1984). In the ensuing years after “A Nation at Risk”, state legislatures enacted hundreds of laws suggesting (dictating) what should be taught, how it should be taught, and when it should be taught. Politicians became “education reformers” as part of their job. The first surge of reform associated with the report emanated not from the schoolhouse but from the statehouse (Futrell, 1989). In 1991 George Bush Senior’s Administration held an Education Summit and developed Goals 2000, thereby establishing the first national endeavor to endorse standards based education. Goals 2000 was continued by the Clinton Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 administration. States were asked by the Clinton administration to adopt clear standards related to the program in order to receive federal funds (Debray, 2003). It was at this time that an emphasis was put on standards and, in particular, focused on the notion that all students can learn. Lauren Resnick (Resnick, 1996) emphasized that excellent student performance must be central to an effective school design. The pursuit of new endeavors, the continuation of existing practices and the abandonment of present strategies all have to be screened for their contribution to exemplary student performance, the community of learners, professional development and leadership (Resnick, 1996). In reality, although Goals 2000 moved educational thinking in a different direction, it had little long term effect on student performance in and of itself (Robelen, 2001). National reform efforts continued through the next reauthorization of ESEA which is now known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The law provides stringent timelines for all students through the use of annual tests. The legislation has serious sanctions for schools that do not meet federal standards. The NCLB focuses on racial and ethnic subgroup success in order to close what is commonly called the Achievement Gap (Debray, 2003). The law, mired in controversy, continues to be assailed by educators and researchers alike who share concerns regarding the level of federal funding and the commensurate expectations established by the law. Moreover, there are serious concerns regarding the purpose of the law and whether the goals set forth in it are reasonable and attainable (Lewis, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 2003; Wagner, 2003; Stiggins, 2002; Mathis, 2003). In spite of the aforementioned concerns, NCLB continues to be promoted and defended by representatives of the second Bush administration and by, most notably, Secretary of Education, Rod Paige. International Comparisons and California State Issues An extremely important study, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was another significant milestone in American educational history. It is considered, by many, to be the most thorough examination of Science and Mathematics ever conducted. The study is backed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and is funded, in the United States, by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This study is quite illuminating in that it consists of data from fifty countries. By any reasonable standard, this is an unprecedented comparison of educational systems both from curricular and data driven perspectives. The study has been published in both 1995 and 1999 (TIMSS Repeat). The information gathered about American students in 1995 was somewhat startling. It showed that U.S. fourth graders performed well in both Math (ranked 11 th out of 26 nations) and Science (ranking 3rd out of 26 nations). American students in 8th grade were ranked about average; however, the 12th graders studied were well below the international average. Something was, apparently, going awry Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 in the educational system between the fourth grade and high school graduation (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). The TIMSS study reported that students in the United States had a far less demanding curriculum at the upper grades than did their international counterparts. Moreover, math was focused primarily on understanding procedures as opposed to understanding the broad picture of math concepts which were emphasized in successful educational systems in other countries. In 1999 the TIMSS study was repeated and provided comparative data with the 1995 study. The American eighth-grade students continued to perform at or around the international average in Math and Science (ranking 19th and 18th out of 38 countries respectively). It seems that new reforms, stimulated by the original TIMSS report, did not, in general, increase student achievement. However, it is significant to note that, in 2003, a national report indicated that the percentages of fourth and eighth graders achieved at or above Basic level (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). The national educational emphasis on ethnicity and socio-economic status has been reviewed and data regarding subgroups continues to show that minority students, with the notable exception of Asian/ Pacific Islander group, typically lag behind their Caucasian counterparts. However, in math, Black and Hispanic students in grades 4 and 8 scored higher in 2003 than in any of the previous assessment years since 1990. Also, in 2003 Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 native students scored higher than Blacks. Lastly, it is noted that at 4th and 8th grade Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher on average in 2003 than did white students. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). On the California state level it should be noted that the California system has typically mirrored the instructional trends in the nation. For example, cumulative test scores, in spite of California’s unique challenges associated with ethnicity and bilingualism, show very little difference than the national average. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003) Current data regarding student achievement shows that reading performances are somewhat static. To illustrate, in 2003, the average scale score for eighth grade students in California was found not to be significantly different from 2002 and 1998. Data regarding subgroups continues to show that minority students, with the notable exception of Asian/ Pacific Islander group, typically lag behind their Caucasian counterparts. However, in Math, Black and Hispanic students in grades 4 and 8 scored higher in 2003 than in any of the previous assessment years since 1990. Also, in 2003 Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska native students scored higher than Blacks. Lastly, it is noted that at 4th and 8th grade Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher on average in 2003 than did white students. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). In summary, student performance in the United States, from a historical perspective, has been inconsistent and desultory with political and historical events Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 often stimulating efforts at improvement. Various reports, from “A Nation at Risk” to TIMSS Revised, have demonstrated fundamental weaknesses in student performance. These results run across ethnic and socio-economic boundaries and are found in math, science and reading. Attempts by both the federal government and state legislatures to improve student performance have also met with mixed results. Some misguided attempts have actually backfired and been counterproductive. This history, of course, begs the question, “If we are to improve student performance, what are the factors that affect student performance?” Factors Affecting Student Performance Holland (2001), suggests that of the many factors often cited for poor student performance, teacher effectiveness has the greatest impact by far over class size, ethnicity, location and socioeconomic status. This notion of teacher quality being the single most important factor in student performance is echoed throughout current research. Williams (2003) believes that the individual classroom teacher has a much more important role than was originally believed. This is a relatively new notion according to Marzano and Pollock (2001) who state that, “prior to the 1970’s much of the research concluded that factors relating to student achievement depended on the student’s natural ability or aptitude, the socioeconomic status of the student (the “revelation” revealed in the 1960’s which led to the ESEA), and the student’s home environment”. It is now clear that teacher performance is the most Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 important element in student performance and must be addressed accordingly. Darling-Hammond (1997) states that, “student learning depends, first, last, and always on the quality of teachers”. The nexus between student learning and teacher performance is well established. Other studies suggest that class size is an important factor and significantly influences instruction. The U.S. Department of Education (2000) reports that students who were members of a small class met their performance objectives and a number of these students increased at both the proficient and advanced levels in reading and math. The benefits of participating in smaller classes continued well beyond the time that students were actually enrolled in these classes. Finally, although not as significant as teacher quality, family background and socioeconomic status (SES) are shown to be related to student achievement on a consistent basis. It should be noted, however, that the notion of SES and class size being the two primary reasons for student achievement is no longer accepted as educational “truth”. In fact, that approach can actually deter educational achievement in that it is not consistent with the reform-based focus of each student reaching his/her full potential based on a belief that all students can be “taught intelligence” (Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., et al. 1996; Hanushek, 1986). In other words, teacher quality is still paramount in any discussion of factors affecting student performance. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 Many of the previously mentioned ideas are incorporated by Goodwin (2003) who suggests six significant areas that affect student performance: • Weak or inappropriate curricula • Ineffective instruction • Disengaging classroom discourse • Poor student self concept • Unsuccessful adjustment to school culture • Prejudice Curriculum, instruction, and classroom discourse can all be related to teacher quality. The other factors mentioned by Goodwin can, of course, also be addressed by the classroom teacher to some extent. Hence, Goodwin’s thoughts are not inconsistent with the prevailing contemporary notion of teacher quality being at the hub of what affects each student’s performance. Lastly, there was a very interesting study for schools undergoing new construction or modernization, by Frazier (1993) which linked student performance to the physical settings and facilities of the schools themselves. Indications are that improved facilities can positively impact student performance, as part of the larger school community, if there is a priority on what happens instructionally within the classroom when designing schools. In sum, the obvious implication associated the notion of teacher performance being all important is that fundamentally good instruction is at the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 heart of improving student learning. This, of course, raises questions associated with what is meant by the term, “Good instruction”. Effective Instructional Practices To date, volumes have been written about what meets the criteria as effective instruction. Evidence from the educational world suggests that successful student achievement and instructional improvement rely on simple data driven formats where individuals and teams come together to identify areas of student difficulty and student need. At that point, the work of the teacher can be evaluated from various perspectives. It can be analyzed, dissected, polished and fine tuned while keeping the desired results in the forefront of the work. (Collins, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1997; DuFour, 2002). This analysis assumes many factors, including an environment of collegiality and expertise by those involved in the “dissection” of the data, which may or may not ultimately yield “educational reality” in the schools. Intense understanding of instructional concerns is at the foundation of this approach, some of which can be developed in teacher training programs. The partnership of teacher training programs and schools is critical in the teacher’s comprehension and support of what constitutes effective instructional practices. Rosenshine (1996) provided some common sense ideas for teachers in teacher training programs, to wit: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 • Present new materials in small steps • The value of guided student practice, i.e., students working on a few problems and discussing the steps out loud after instruction • Check for understanding of all students • Attempt to prevent students from developing misconceptions These rudimentary ideas are practical by nature and may assist new teachers. However, while the above mentioned illustration is interesting, it does not represent the most crucial issues associated with contemporary thought regarding the overall context in which educators should view learning. Teacher training programs, at the university level, as well as in the schools, must make the paradigm shift from behaviorist learning to a more constructivist approach. Learning is no longer viewed as a passive activity resulting from simple stimulus response and operant conditioning mechanisms. (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Mayer 1998). For the past century, essentially until the 1990’s, the behaviorist approach to instruction and learning has dominated educational thought (Mayer, 1998; Resnick, 1999). An excellent description of the contrast between “behaviorists” and “cognitive constructivists”, is provided by Asmul and Meistad (1998), who state that whereas behaviorists view intelligence as absolute and measurable on the bell curve, cognitive constructivists say it is “relativistic”, constantly changing as the learner interacts with his environment. Moreover, constructivists believe that students are active participants in their own learning, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 constructing meaning from the connections they make from previously learned knowledge. Making those connections in meaningful ways promotes understanding far beyond what is learned by the rote learning methods in behaviorist classrooms (Asmul & Meistad, 1998; Mayer 1998; Reyhner 2003). This important shift in the educational approach to learning and instruction is a key factor in the new standards based reform movement which emerged in the 1990’s. Constructivist Learning and Elements of Standards Based Reform The first and most important concept relative to constructivism and the new standards based reform is the key notion that all students can learn. According to Fullan (1996), educators interested in standards based reform must change the nature of learning by “reculturing” schools to accept a new vision of teaching. Further commentary regarding this transformation that intelligence is teachable is found in Resnick (1999) and Resnick and Hall (1998). In addition, teachers must now, always, put students at the center of their educational experience (Garcia, 1999). Thus, the emphasis on teaching found in the behaviorist approach must be abandoned in favor of the new paradigm which places the emphasis on learning. Instead of teachers who act as intuitive and omniscient beings who “just know” what is appropriate, they must become convinced that quality instruction is a by product of research-based content pedagogy (Marzano & Pollock, 2001). There is a more hopeful approach in the new constructivist thinking. No longer are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 educators seeing themselves and their institutions as fundamentally limited by fixed student intelligence. Resnick and Hall (2000) assert the idea that, “effort creates ability”. In other words, they believe that all students can, indeed, meet tough expectations through sustained and targeted effort. Critical to this process of quality constructivist instruction is knowing when and how to apply strategies that can facilitate learning. This is a process that psychologists refer to as metacognition (Cordes, 2001). If students can develop metacognitive skill they will be able to self-regulate their own learning and possess tools to move forward even if something goes awry in the learning process. Resnick (1999) states that intelligence is nothing more than, “the sum of one’s habits of mind”. Hence, the idea of honing these, “habits of mind” is critical in the new model of intelligence. In die best possible sense it means that all students, not just those traditionally thought of as “bright”, can access deep thought and a challenging curriculum. Students who instinctively use these honed strategies will define themselves as “smart” (Resnick, 1999). In an analysis of contemporary reform approaches to constructivist learning one must review additional ideas of what quality instruction looks like. For one, it is no longer dependent on an “all knowing” teacher standing in the front of the room dispensing knowledge to empty vessels known as students. Reform-minded teachers recognize that the classroom is a fluid and non-linear place. Instruction must be adjusted according to the group and to individual needs (Bunting, 1999; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 Reilly, 2000). Also, the reformed classroom possesses a culture that is intellectually safe and which is engaging and responsive for all students. Moreover, the curriculum reflects the clear belief that, indeed, all students are capable of performing at a high level. Standards are clearly defined and known by student and teacher alike. There is a strong emphasis on designing instruction that meets the constructivist criteria. (Garcia, 1999; Hickey, 2003; Wiggins and McTighe, 1998) An essential component, and one that rings true for many practitioners, is the use of “responsive pedagogy”. This strategy focuses on the strengths of students instead of their weaknesses. In other words, teachers diagnose the current assets that students possess and work to build on them (Garcia, 1999). Lastly, it should be commented that moving to this new reform, rooted in a standards based approach, creates opportunities for teachers to professionalize teaching by implementing aspects of both research -based learning frameworks and organizational change tools such as Total Quality Management (TQM) (Goldberg & Cole, 2002; Louis, 1998). Issues Associated With the Shift to a Standards Based Approach On face, it seems that the upside of moving to constructivist, reform based classrooms, far outweighs the downside. That being true, there is much to be encouraged about, however, this shift is fraught with difficult challenges. As will be discussed later, the school districts role in reform efforts, a commitment on the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 part of school districts to provide adequate professional development to support the activities of teachers and give them the assistance they need to fundamentally alter their approaches to instruction and the manner in which they view students is critical. Excellent teachers learn best by doing, and reflecting: by collaborating with other teachers; by looking closely at students and their work; by learning from observing expert models in their classrooms, and by co-teaching with expert coaches (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Klein, 1995). The type of professional development that would support the activities mentioned by Darling-Hammond, et al, is critical to the successful implementation of standards-based reform efforts. Or, as Fullan (1993) points out, “successful institutional reform and creating high performing schools requires a refocused professional development agenda.” Another prime concern is the lack of willingness of various governmental bodies to allow a shift from the previous behaviorist approach to the constructivist model. State legislatures and the federal government, let alone local school boards, have passed hundreds of laws which keep districts busy with implementation and related funding issues. Galluci, Knapp, Markhort, and Ort (2003) claim that removing state restrictions on organization and instruction would allow local school districts to focus on effective management and leadership, which would lead to increased capacity and improved student achievement. Yet the ability of a district to maintain sufficient flexibility in meeting the needs of it’s’ schools and to keep the pressure on for high standards is a difficult balance to maintain. Another Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 challenge is that of changing the mental paradigm of educators to believe, that in fact, all students can perform at high levels. We must abandon present strategies that are not working in favor of strategies that will contribute to exemplary student performance (Rallis & MacMullen, 2000). Additionally, there are fundamental shifts that must occur in school management itself. Principals must create a learning environment, school wide, that creates a sense of responsibility on the part of all teachers for all student learning and meeting standards (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003). The manner, tone and sense of purpose demonstrated by the principal will determine the degree of commitment, accountability and responsibility that the whole school exhibits. Results are defined in terms of student achievement; all team members are accountable for student success (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003). In summary, there has been a dramatic move in contemporary educational thinking from behaviorist to constructivist thought. The constructivist approach is aligned with the new standards based reforms. A primary belief in the standards based approach is that all students are capable of achieving at high levels and that aptitude is not fixed. Classrooms are moving away from being teacher centered to student centered. This notion extends into making schools about learning and no longer about teaching. There are a variety of instructional strategies that can be utilized to support the learning centered classroom. Excellent teachers are at the heart of the process and their sustained, ongoing professional development is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 crucial to the process. Leadership at the site level is critical. Governmental entities must facilitate this shift. There are significant opportunities, as well as challenges, as we move forward into the standards based era. The Role of School Districts in Improving Teaching and Learning School districts themselves should be examined for their participation with and support of improving teaching and learning in a reform-minded context. School districts have developed many strategies in the hope of finding a synergistic approach to the implementation of standards based, school-wide, reforms. These strategies have had, at their core, the hope of generating momentum for systemic reform and the creation of high performing schools where students meet standards and are assessed using multiple quality measures (Rallis & MacMullen, 2000). Further, die goal to build capacity at each school and within a “district design”, which causes all students to achieve, all teachers to create learning communities and involve all stakeholders in the endeavor, is what effective school districts seek (Rallis & MacMullen, 2000). The role of school districts in the reform effort is fundamental. No longer should we just examine what schools and teachers do to facilitate learning, but we should examine district strategies for instructional success as well. Resnick and Hall (1998) state that the history of reform is, “Largely on tinkering with institutional arrangements, such as the practice of grouping, reporting, accountability, governance and management, (all of which) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 have little impact on established patterns of teaching and learning”. Resnick and Hall (1998) are particularly interested in the, “potential of designing policy structures explicitly to link testing, curriculum, textbooks, teacher training, and accountability with clearly articulated ideas about what should be taught and what students are expected to learn. Further, Resnick and Hall (1998) examine the history of reforms since the 1920’s to the present, “effort based learning” and, “knowledge-based constructivism”. According to Massell (2000), there are four major capacity building strategies employed by districts in order to lead meaningful reforms. They are: • Interpreting and using data • Building teacher knowledge and skills • Aligning curriculum and instruction • Targeting intervention on low performing students and/or schools In another study and in answering the question, "what does a reforming district do?” McLaughlin and Talbert (2003) point to several key conditions that characterize reforming districts: • A system approach to reform • Learning community at the central office level • Coherent focus on teaching and learning • A stance of supporting professional learning and instructional improvement Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • Data-based inquiry and accountability 40 The Role of Professional Development If, as mentioned previously, teacher performance is at the crux of a successful learning-based experience for students (Williams, 2003; Darling- Hammond, 1997), then it would logically follow that the importance of district support for teachers would be at the forefront of the district’s role in improving teaching and learning. It makes sense, then to revisit the critical component of effective professional development especially in light of the current research. In order for professional development to have long-term, effective results , it must be based on student need, be collaborative and on-going, use effective training models, have wide-spread commitment and be evaluated (Action Learning Systems, 2004). Moreover, effective components of collaborative, on-going professional development include one to one coaching, team meetings, modeling and time allocated for teacher learning and reflection, during the regular school day (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Historically, staff development has been an ineffective enterprise. “Staff development was best described as a haphazard endeavor with sporadic, isolated, relatively ineffective events unconnected to a school’s goals and aspirations (Brennan, 2001). Since staff development has often fallen under the purview of district office direction, it is clear that this is a major challenge faced by districts Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 given the current structure of school district hierarchy. Although staff development participation is common, its effectiveness and impact on classrooms has been disappointing to teachers and districts. Additionally, there has traditionally been a lack of alignment between the goals of teachers and staff development providers. Perhaps, more important to note is the lack of a coherent practice that aligns the goals and objectives of school districts with their very own staff development activities. Very importantly, staff development was designed on a “deficiency” model; making the assumption that the district, school and/or teacher is either not doing something that should be done for effective teaching and successful learning to occur, or that what is currently being done is simply wrong. Educators were seen as bad actors that were in need of training rather than partners and collaborators in the reform effort (Consortium for Policy Research Education, 1993). This is precisely the same problem that educators struggle with when they encounter students with deficits and fail to look for their strengths and build on them. Hence, Sparks and Hirsh (1997) commented that a radical rethinking of staff development was necessary and should provide teachers with the same learning approaches that are applied to students in the classroom. Corwin (1975) asserts that staff development is a leadership issue. It is a failure of the entire system that leads to breakdowns in staff development. “From a political climate that failed to acknowledge classroom achievement to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 organizational structures that discouraged teacher participation, to the creation of staff development that was singularly focused. Staff development failed because there’s a lack of focus and leadership at every level” (Corwin, 1975). According to Joyce and Showers (2002), “wide spread commitment from district personnel and board members will increase the effectiveness of staff development”. Teacher isolation, too, is seen as a serious problem on the professional development front as well. Much of the professional development activities support opening up a new vista of teacher collaboration and dialogue. This effort must be sustained and must contribute to the creation of a learning community in which teachers, like students, employ constructivist approaches to help each other grow and learn. In fact, the research links student learning to teacher learning, suggesting that schools will only create lifelong learners and effective collaborators if their teachers are the same (Joyce & Showers, 2002, Dufour, 1997). The collaborative model of professional development needs to be informed, purposeful, and ongoing in professional learning communities (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). American teachers must, as in other countries, learn to work together in creating and implementing teacher practice that is connected, at its roots, to constructivist principles. When this occurs, then teachers themselves become researchers and learners and study their own class, school, and colleagues in an effort to gather the information they need to be effective (Schmoker & Wilson, 1993). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 In summary, the role of school districts is vital to the success of standards based reform efforts. Strategies for success involve creating policies that support an emphasis on learning and a belief that all students can learn. Districts must cease, “tinkering” with the educational organization in an effort to mold an organization through small and misaligned steps. Chief among these is the historically poor attempts at meaningful staff development. Moreover, districts must be cognizant of the isolation that teachers experience and set forth plans to combat this isolation with supportive and collaborative professional development. Professional development that views teachers as partners in the reform efforts and has them take a constructivist point of view in the staff development activities themselves is crucial to its success. Teachers should become researchers themselves. The District Leadership Vision and Elements of a Professional Learning Community In this unfolding era of standards-based reform, districts play an instrumental role in instructional improvement. In order to provide a unified vision and consistent model of instructional improvement, districts must utilize resources, personnel, and finances to train and support instructional leaders at the school site to create a systematic approach to instructional reform. Some researchers, such as Resnick and Hall (1998), have examined the sustainability of reform efforts and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 provided a common ground of information about the implementation of reform efforts and the key role of instructional leadership played by school districts. Resnick and Hall (1998) examine how reform can penetrate the “educational core” to determine the roles that the teacher and students must play in the process of teaching and learning. Traditionally teaching and learning have been considered to be site based while the focus on structure and management is believed to be the role of policy makers. Resnick and Hall assert that, “Radical and sustainable change can be created by building new learning organizations”. Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001) concur with Resnick and Hall, stating that, “school leadership is key in the effort to change instruction”. Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2000) review school leadership research and outline theories for a distributed leadership framework. This focus uses distributed cognition and activity theory to frame connections of leadership practice which revolves around four central ideas: leadership tasks and functions, task enactment, social distribution of task enactment, and situational distribution of task enactment. “We argue that investigating leadership practice is essential to understanding leadership in organizations” (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2000). This perspective on the practice of school leadership centers on the how and why of leadership activities. The following ideas are set forth: • Frames the inquiry into leadership activity so there is an understanding of leadership as practice. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 • Suggests that the leadership activity at the level of the school, rather than individual leadership, is the critical piece of instructional leadership. • It specifies an integrative model for thinking about the relationship between the work of leaders, and their social, material, and symbolic situation - one in which a situation is a defining element in leadership practice. • The perspective suggests some ways of thinking to change the practice of and improve school leadership. An essential part of “leading” is to facilitate the process of learning and to contribute to a learning community (Lambert, 2002). In addition, according to Lambert, all educators, as purposeful beings need to embrace leadership as an integral part of their professional life. District leadership, moreover, needs to be viewed as the “politics of virtue” where there is a shared commitment for the good of all (Sergiovanni, 1996). In addition, leadership should be open to inquiry. This work of providing distributed leadership, at all levels of the organization, is not easily accomplished. The ability to facilitate change and create a, “new setting” is an onus on district leaders (Sarason, 1998). Also, change in the best of times is quite complex and a new model for leadership will not be “comfortable” for teachers, principals and district office staff (Lieberman, 1998). In the new paradigm teachers and administrators are simultaneously learners themselves Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 (Elmore, 2000). This approach will significantly influence the way in which school districts will design their reform. Implementing a collaborative strategy may disturb the status quo and will necessitate a review of how school districts may be organized. Lieberman (1998) insists that districts can implement major shifts in the way in which teaching and learning are viewed if there is a complete commitment to building relationships among colleagues, providing systematic recognition, and building a professional learning community. Neuman and Simmons (2000) further discuss the notion that in a professional learning community all participants, from Board members and superintendents to parents, must take responsibility to assume any leadership role that is appropriate. The school district culture and hence its schools need to identify a shared vision, be public and clear about its purpose, share and develop traditions that make the district and schools’ values be visible in the practice of education, create opportunities for collaboration, and participate in a shared decision-making structure which constitutes the moral fiber of the school community (Scieszka, 1996). These strategies and ideas are consistent with the research of McDermott & Perry (2003) and state that, “Successful leaders are those who build the capacity of everyone in the organization - parents, students, teachers, site and district administrators and system leaders - in knowing, understanding and using the strategies effectively”(McDermott & Perry , 2003). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 Michael Fullan (1998) states that “overload and vulnerability make it difficult for reform-minded principals and school leaders to think outside the box”. He states that these two conditions often cultivate dependency for principals who are usually the ones to be given the mandates to implement externally initiated changes. Fullan (1998) offers four guidelines to help navigate school leaders through the maze of implementing change, to wit: • Respect those you want to silence - “Resistance to a new initiative can actually be highly instructive.” • Move toward the danger in forming new alliances - “The new leadership requires principals to take their school’s accountability to the public.” • Manage emotionally as well as rationally - “managing emotionally means putting a high priority on reculturing (changing the norms, values, incentives, skills and relationships in the organization) not merely restructuring.” • Fight for lost causes - “It is especially important that leaders have and display hope that they show they are prepared to fight for lost causes, because they set the tone for so many others.” Fullan (1998) states “the societal context for educational reform has radically changed. To be successful, future leaders of the school, district, or other levels will require very different characteristics than those expected of leaders in the last decade”. Making reform widespread does not deal with the spreading of good Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 ideas and the “pockets of innovation,” rather creating die conditions that have made them successful. Julie Marsh’s examination of relationships between the state, districts, schools and communities further supports the work of Fullan when she comments that, “human, social, and physical capital appear to be foundational. Districts that mobilize these key resources have a much better chance of enacting and sustaining state and local reform goals and policies” (Marsh, 2000). “Beyond the personal attributes of individuals, effective district leadership also includes the ability of those individuals to build a cohesive professional community and normative culture” (Marsh, 2000). The idea of a “professional learning community” is one that is often repeated in the research. Professional learning communities are developed and organized around the authentic work of all participants (Dufour & Eaker, 1998). A learning community has a basis in trust which is mutual and supports the interconnectedness of tasks and the prospects of learning from one another. It is, in fact, what is known as “social capital” that allows principals and district leaders to stricture a professional learning community. (Fink & Resnick, 2001). Furthermore, total quality management in schools and school districts must become a communal responsibility; therefore a continuous review of programs and achievement are essential to student success. Comprehensive reform cannot happen until schools exhibit the habits of a professional learning community (Dufour, 1997; Goldberg and Cole, 2002). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 Reavis, Leifeste and West (2001) again move that leadership is the key to success of any reform. The leadership that keeps the vision focused must be “memorable, meaningful, motivational and moral”. The effective implementation across a district and the expectations associated with accountability require that instructional leaders understand the new practices and reform deeply enough, to not only judge the quality of enactment in classroom, but also to assist all of the administrators in their roles as leaders of reform in their buildings. The nature of instructional leadership as well as the implementation of the instructional guidance systems is critical for districts to make sustained reform a reality. Lastly, it should be acknowledged that distributed leadership, if implemented well and appropriately, requires individuals to give up their self interest for the greater good of the group (Lencioni, 2002; Collins, 2001). Qualities of leadership for school leaders in a reform-based, student-centered organization are the following (Sergiovanni, 1996; Fullan, 2001; Bolman and Deal, 2001; Morrison, 2003): • Leadership for meaning • Leadership for problem solving • Leadership for building relationships • Leadership for sharing the responsibility of success • Supporting risk taking and failure • Demanding and expecting high expectations and strong practice Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 • Understanding and leading from the heart To summarize, school districts play a crucial role in student learning, especially when viewed from a reform context. The development of district designs for this reform creates a great need for leadership. The very idea of leadership and district leaders has evolved for several years, and is continuing to evolve. Reform must penetrate the, “educational core” (Resnick and Hall, 1998) of organizations in order to facilitate a new and better situated understanding of who leaders are and what they should provide. The implementation of collaborative structure and an emphasis on creating trust are vital. The district design as well as its implementation cannot be developed and sustained without these key leadership ingredients. Schools must experience these elements of district leadership and be able and willing to transform their sites into professional learning communities. This must happen, of course, in concert with a district emphasis on and encouragement of the notion of a professional learning community. The concept must of communal ownership, consistent with the principles of Total Quality Management, must be defined and then zealously pursued. Each participant of the organization must share in its successes and participate in the monitoring of the progress of the organization in order to fulfill the vision of communal responsibility. This starts at the district level and should be modeled consistently. Qualities for leadership have been identified and include not just intellectual and academic approaches but approaches that also appeal to the heart. Leadership is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 really the basic requirement for creating and maintaining systems and organizations that are dynamic and successful in educating students and crating lifelong learners among students, teachers and administrators. District Strategies and Factors that Influence Reform Design As we further examine district led reform efforts we note that they must employ certain utilitarian strategies and tactics if they are to contribute to schools becoming professional learning communities. A constructivist and standards based shift cannot simply be implemented from, “on high” by a superintendent and/or local school board. Districts face a number of challenges as they move toward a standards-based approach. Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy (2002) point out the following concerns with which districts must contend: unsatisfactory student achievement; political conflict which could be within the context of the community; inexperience of the teaching staff; low expectations of students and a lack of appropriately engaging curriculum; a lack of instructional coherence which can be caused by a disjointed set of initiatives or practices; high student mobility; and poor district business operations which can be exacerbated by uncertainties in funding. These challenges can obviously be formidable yet must be addressed. The last, and perhaps greatest challenge, is the implication for school districts that take the risk, implement a new approach and meet with mixed results, or worse? Serious consequences from the state level can befall school districts who do not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 satisfy state legislators and governmental bodies with their definition of success (Coast Mountains School District #82,2003). Yet, these challenges must be faced with hope and the conviction that school districts can succeed and that all students can learn. In general, through a context of dynamic, fluid and distributive leadership, district strategies must be collaborative and draw on some basic premises that are easily articulated and understood. The strategies typically fall into three categories which can be defined as (Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory Network [McREL], 2000): • District driven • Collaborative efforts between the school site and the district office • Site-based efforts District driven strategies include rudimentary, yet important, concepts such as; aligning curriculum and instruction to assessment results, building the capacity of the district staff, fostering relations with stakeholders, and attending to the allocation of district resources (Regional Educational Laboratory Network, 2000). This idea of aligning district resources with an eye toward student achievement, from both personnel and financial perspectives, is echoed in Corcoran (2003). Massell (2000) comments that the district role in building capacity at the school site level most often deals with some variation of data analysis, modification of curriculum and instruction, enhancement and advancement of teacher knowledge Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 and skills. Observations of district efforts have shown four key components, again and again, namely: using a systemic or systems based approach; creating and maintaining collaborative school culture; building leadership and consensus toward a shared vision, and monitoring student learning in order to facilitate overall school improvement. An additional concern raised by Schmoker (2004) is that, in fact, professional learning communities are quite rare and, ironically, are blocked by the very things that are designed to improve them such as institutionalized reform and improvement models. For example, the traditionally accepted notion of “strategic planning” that has included elements of mission, vision, goals setting and action steps can result in a, “monster that takes on a life of its own apart from the intentioned improvements in learning, and often at their expense”. Kouzes and Posner (1995) speak of the relationship, “Between organizational momentum and the visible signs of success” especially as it relates to the simplicity of the adopted plan. As they point out, “In the case of strategic planning for instructional improvement, the axiom less is more holds true in terms of the potential effectiveness of the plans”. Reform Designs and Implementation Issues There are several reform designs that have been developed with an eye toward a focus on student-centered learning by organizations and school districts. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 In many instances, they were created as a response to needs at a school, or an organization and they give insight into both understanding the district/school connection and how the impact of district efforts might be studied. A popular reform design created by Dr. Henry Levin, of Stanford University, is the Accelerated Schools Program (Levin & Hopfenberg, 1991). The program was developed with the goal of improving education for so called, “at- risk” students. The basic philosophy of the program is that students who have fallen behind are not given remedial coursework. Instead, through a site-based and collaborative effort of parents, students, school staff, and community members, these students would be given the same opportunities as those traditionally provided only to “gifted” students. This program is still being utilized in various schools across the country and monitored and supported from a national center in Connecticut at the University of Connecticut. The next design discussed is one that has generated much attention and is known as the Coalition of Essential Schools. This program was initiated in 1994 when Theodore Sizer and his colleagues completed a five year study of American high schools. As a result of this study, Sizer (1999) developed principles for the coalition that promoted a more individualized education for students in smaller settings and eliminated many “not essential” programs. According to the Coalition of Essential Schools (2004) the program is currently being implemented at over 1,000 schools in America. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 E.D. Hirsch developed a program called the Core Knowledge program. This program, consistent with the ideas espoused by its’ founder, offers a core curriculum that includes topics and subjects that all students should be exposed to and builds in a linear and sequential way from year to year as students proceed through the educational system (Hirsch, 2001). This program attempts to use the theories of Russian educational theorist, Lev Vygotsky, in that there is relationship between rudimentary mental processes and more abstract, complex concepts that involve what is called, “qualitative transformations” (Mahn, 1999). Two other programs, Success for All and the Comer School Development Program are also prominently mentioned in the literature. Success for All was designed as a method of designing curriculum that supports cooperative learning strategies. The Comer program espouses the idea that students develop along, “six pathways” that include ethical, social, linguistic, psychological, cognitive, and physical domains. This program relies on extensive training especially for teachers, but also for all other school personnel and community members. Teams are responsible for planning, coordinating, and implementing educational efforts to meet the needs of students (Comer & Mahomes, 1999). While the above mentioned programs are truly “district” implemented there is a strongly held belief that meaningful reforms can only originate at the school site which has obviously important implications for district reformers. Codding and Tucker (2000) claim that, The standards that drive high achievement have to come Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 from the faculty of each school, that the process of defining these standards, school, by school, lies at the very core of what it means to be a professional educator”. This conceptual framework for site-based school reform is typically one in which there is a clearly defined mission and goals to support that mission at the site. Guskey and Peterson (1995) offer that decision-makers at a school should, “jointly develop a statement that articulates a school’s vision of success and defines the outcomes being sought. This should not be filed in some office in a cabinet. It should be regularly reviewed and re-evaluated as the foundation upon which all decisions are based”. Mike Schmoker (1999) also weighs in on the importance of goal setting and its subsequent monitoring, “School success depends on how effectively we select, define, and measure progress and how well we adjust efforts to those goals”. This then sets the stage for the question, if there are both district and school-site models for improving instruction and implementing reform, is there something that might accommodate both models? The answer is found in what is typically referred to as the “convergence model”. Conway and Calzi (1995) state that, “the process of governance does not have to be an either/or choice between centralization and empowerment The key is to find the right balance for resolving district problems. Solutions may require flexibility in both structure and process”. Since both site-based and district driven models have attributes and deficits why not utilize the best of both? This, then, is known as the convergence model. This model would seem to be supported by Darling-Hammond, Hightower, Husbands, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 LaFlors, and Young (2002) who comment that, “Distinctions between these two perspectives highlight a fundamental problem that confronts those seeking to understand policy implantation and impact. Frameworks that treat policy as a discrete, traceable, set of resources, requirements, and reform intentions emanating from a “higher level” source tend to lose sight of the way actors at each level of the system interpret and make use of policy events to achieve their own purposes. Whereas frameworks that focus on the fine detail of teachers’ or other professionals’ practice at the “ground level” often underestimate how larger environmental factors construct and constrain action, thinking, and educational results.” While there appears to be much promise associated with the convergence model there is no panacea regarding any model. While Galluci, Knapp, Markhort, and Ort (2003) acknowledge the attributes of the convergence model they also point out that the dynamic tension created form using top down and bottom up models can also be of benefit to educators. Still, great caution must be use when implementing any approach and the convergence model does seem to allow for the flexibility needed to implement programs of educational innovation. Observing the role each of these models plays will give great insight into understanding how reforms are carried out and gives fresh perspectives when reviewing the effect of how reform efforts might be studied. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 Exemplary District Reform Efforts If we are to understand district-led reform, it is critical that we examine districts that have undergone such efforts. Over the past 15 years, districts across the nation have struggled with implementing instructional reform efforts. There are, however, a few districts whose efforts have been researched. Not only were the successes and failures of such districts analyzed, but the research has provided the education community with lessons to drive the reform efforts of districts on the verge of implementing such reforms. Fuhrman (1994) has examined many reform efforts and provided a general set of information about reform implementation. Fuhrman’s research addresses the challenges of reform efforts and utilizes this information to provide a list of strategies districts should consider when looking to implement instructional improvement plans. Fuhrman’s article identifies seven challenges to implementing instructional reform. These challenges include: overwhelming work load, limited resources, articulating the nature and intent of reforms, going beyond standards and assessments (incentives, professional development, accountability, scaling up), equity, competing problems, the grip of the past, and leadership. Although research regarding the challenges of implementation is useful, utilizing the data to develop strategies and lessons for future implementation is required if education reform efforts are ever going to meet with success. Fuhrman recommends that districts examine the following principles to ensure a more Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 effective implementation model: building capacity in new ways, expanding die meaning of professional development, taking sufficient time, being honest, and taking advantage of the national trend. Examining the work of individual districts is also extremely useful when studying reform efforts over the last several years. San Diego and Philadelphia are two examples of districts that have risen to the challenge of implementing a district-led reform. Not only have they designed and implemented a reform, but their efforts have been studied extensively. San Diego Much research has been done on the reform efforts of the San Diego City Schools. Although it is still a work in progress, the implementation efforts of San Diego are teaching us a great deal about effective design and implementation of instructional reform. Darling-Hammond, Hightower, Husbands, LaFors, and Young (2002) provide a detailed look at how San Diego designed and implemented a multi-year plan to improve student achievement. Utilizing interview, observation, survey and record data collected at the state, district and school levels over four years, the research team examined the “nested interactions of several sets of policies that target teachers and instruction at all levels of a state system and the implication for teachers’ practice of those sometimes conflicting, sometimes coherent policies” (Darling-Hammond, Hightower, Husbands, LaFors, and Young 2002). The research examines the topic Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 from the perspectives of 1) curriculum and assessment initiatives, 2) teacher development initiatives, and 3) accountability initiatives. “The San Diego reform provides a fascinating case of district leadership that has prioritized high-quality instruction and professional learning through a forceful district-led agenda that has turned upside-down many traditional notions of the relationship between bureaucracy and innovation” (Darling-Hammond, Hightower, Husbands, LaFors, and Young 2002). Philadelphia Believed by many as the first dramatic broad-scaled attempt by an urban district to test systematic reform, the story of Philadelphia’s reform movement also illustrates the pitfalls when implementing reform. An analysis by Foley (2001) utilized four years of data to evaluate Philadelphia’s efforts. Research methods included school level data from 1996-2000, two census surveys of teachers, school indicators describing teacher and student characteristics, five years of qualitative research in 49 schools, interviews of central office and cluster staff, and interviews of 40 Philadelphia civic leaders. Foley suggests the following reasons for the demise of the efforts: flaws in theory of action, flaws in implementation, lack of capacity and lack of attention to building capacity, and inconsistency by stakeholders about the beliefs and values underlying the reform effort. The final section of the paper draws on the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 experience of Philadelphia, both the successes and challenges, to provide lessons for other districts taking on school reform. Christman and Corcoran (2002) also studied the implementation of “Children Achieving” in Philadelphia. Their report summarizes the lessons and draws on the findings published in previous reports from CPRE and RFA to provide an overall assessment of the reforms undertaken in Philadelphia in the 1990’s. The report is organized around the eight core strategies of the reform and the rationale, design, implementation, and effectiveness of each strategy are discussed. The eight core strategies identified were: 1. Fair funding 2. Standards 3. Accountability 4. Decentralization 5. Leadership and support 6. Better coordination of resources 7. Civic and parent engagement 8. Doing it all at once Christman & Corcoran (2002) found: Where there were consistent improvements in instructional practices and sustained gains in student achievement, there was strong school leadership focused on instruction, a sense of professional community, curriculum- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 based professional development, and effective use of data including review of student work. New York Superintendent Anthony Alvarado led a noteworthy effort to improve student learning in New York City’s Community District #2 (Hightower et al., 2002). The district was dramatically diverse. Some of the schools were comprised of quite affluent students while others were from poverty stricken areas with a free and reduced lunch rate of 99%. Alvarado’s plan was a system-wide reform calling for professional development coupled with accountability and a focus on content specific instructional improvement The district leaders sought a common literacy program to form the core of the reform efforts. After selecting the “Balanced Literacy” program the district then expected all teachers to teach literacy in a manner that was consistent with goals and purposes of the program. It is important to note that the essence of the program was a philosophical one and that, as a result, its’ success relied heavily on teacher’s grasp of theory and the rationale that underlies the practice. This represented a major shift in teacher behavior and practice and was viewed, by teachers as a tremendous challenge. Professional development was actually embedded into the work of teachers as opposed to the more traditional technique of setting aside specific sessions for such work. The staff development personnel were site based thus providing “on the spot” assistance and influence. In addition, teachers participate din collegial Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 observation of one another and there was a major focus on principals staff development that was also aligned to the overall reform activity. Remarkable for the emphasis of on an ongoing staff development program District #2 experienced a dynamic change in the district. The reform efforts cut across a larger swathe of student learning styles, teacher talent, and socio-economic status. Since there was commonality in approach, the reform developed a common purpose and hence, a coherent learning community. This initiative has withstood the test of time for over 10 years and is a model of how professional development can accomplish dramatic and positive change. Edmonton The Edmonton public schools in Alberta, Canada, have been undergoing reform efforts since the 1970’s. The district has established curriculum frameworks and successful assessment strategies. These strategies include a high school exit exam and a yearly school plan for strident success that is the responsibility of the school principal. Additionally schools were provided with incentives, based on meeting community objectives that generated additional funding and supported student success (Marsh. 1995). The major themes that were contained in the Edmonton reform movement fell into three main areas: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 1. Guiding principles at the district level focused on results and fundamental distinctions between central office and school responsibilities 2. Principals had the authority for achieving results, designing programs, allocating resources, developing annual school plans, engaging teachers in professional development and leadership roles within the schools, and engaging the community. 3. The central office established priorities with the community, set results, and indicators of success, provided service support to schools, and managed the processes of decentralization. A major emphasis of this reform was its emphasis on results which originally began as a focus on educational quality. Surveys were generated and conducted in order to gather information so that schools and the district office could make informed decisions concerning education in Edmonton. Additional information was generated by utilizing benchmark achievement standards which were focused on key knowledge, skills and attitudes in four core areas. District examinations, at grades three, six and nine, were utilized for this purpose. The notion that student achievement was the goal insisted that the curriculum be synonymous with the expected student results. Curriculum was viewed as a district responsibility whereas instruction was decentralized and viewed as a site responsibility. Flexibility was emphasized at the schools. Each school was given Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 85% of district financial resources which had, at its base, a prescription for determining the allotment of student dollars in order to achieve a sort of “equalization” of resources. Budgets, approved by the district, were tied directly to school plans to insure that spending was consistent with the school’s vision for teaching and learning. Edmonton’s efforts were paced slowly and focused more on results and benchmarked student achievement, and through targeted implementation, districts intervened at ineffective schools by changing principals or providing additional resources. The result of this reform created ideal working conditions for teachers and principals with student achievement at it’s’ heart. Summary District-led reform efforts are extremely intricate endeavors. As we investigate such efforts, especially with an end toward providing new knowledge to guide future district action, it is crucial that the investigation integrates past research to steer its design. There is much to be learned about where we have been, where we are, and where we can go in American schools. We do not have to do it alone... fortunately there are paths that have been trod before us beckoning our review and encouraging our hope for the future. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 6 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction This chapter explains the design, sample, and instrumentation of the study, as well as the processes involved in the actual data collection and data analysis. The purpose of the study was to identify the critical elements within the district design which were aimed at improving teaching and learning at the schools. This section also explores and examines the school-level efforts that contributed to the implementation of the district design. To examine the effectiveness of the district design, specific implementation strategies at die site and classroom levels were addressed. To facilitate this study the research team was separated into two areas, with eight researchers concentrating on reform efforts at the school district level, and another eight investigating the district-led reform at the school site level. This study focused on a single school district and a single elementary school in that district. In order to ensure that all sixteen case studies would maintain consistency for the eventual examination of comparative data, it was essential that the study be designed in such a way that each of the two investigative areas had an identical conceptual framework. The examination of the reform efforts at the school site and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 classroom levels were guided by the following four research questions, with a specific conceptual framework developed for the subsequent investigation of each: 1. What was the district design for improving teaching and learning? 2. What school-level efforts facilitated the implementation of the district design? 3. To what extent has the district design been implemented at the site and classroom level? 4. How effective were the district design and implementation strategies at the site and classroom level? Qualitative, descriptively analytic and case study research methods were utilized in this study. These approaches, with the addition of rudimentary quantitative analysis of statistical data derived from demographic indicators and questionnaire results, provided the foundation for the study. The case study research approach offers many advantages over traditional qualitative research methods. These advantages include: • The general population and other readers of case study reports can better develop a basis for educational theories, designing educational interventions, and utilizing other action plans for student success; • Practitioners are able to compare the results of a case study with their own situation and possibly develop a formula for positive change; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 • Since education is a dynamic discipline, case studies offer an immediacy allowing researchers to focus on certain assumptions of the phenomenon and formulate new questions as data is obtained; • Education is a discipline filled with ambiguity and instance, factors which may not coincide with general trends. Outliers and other phenomena are best explained with case study research (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). The research was conducted over a three-month period, which included no fewer than six visits to the respective sites. Interviews with administrators, key site leadership individuals, and teachers were conducted. Questionnaires were administered to teachers, surveys were given to all certificated staff at the schools, and key documents were reviewed. The data collected was used to permit analysis based upon both the emic and etic perspectives of the research questions (Creswell, p. 60). All of these instruments were developed in congruence with the specific conceptual frameworks tied to each of the four research questions. Sample and Population The process of purposeful sampling was used in selecting the districts and schools for the case studies. The districts were selected based on having enrollment figures between 10,000 and 60,000 students. Additional criteria included having a diverse student population in terms of both socioeconomic status Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 and ethnicity, and current involvement in the implementation of a district-wide effort to improve teaching and learning for a minimum of two years. The selected schools met or exceeded their Academic Performance Index (API) targets for at least two of the last three years, also the schools must have had the same administrative leadership for at least the past two years. After reviewing the attributes of the “Beach Promenade Unified School District”, the team of doctoral students conducting the research at a summer institute at the University of Southern California under the leadership of Dr. David Marsh, the principal researcher, determined that this district would be an appropriate and purposeful sample. Beach Promenade Unified School District utilizes both current and emerging data designs to improve student performance. Beach Promenade Unified School District is attempting to shift its instructional focus by implementing Resnick’s Principles of Learning to drive both instructional curriculum and promote student achievement. Selected District Beach Promenade Unified School District was using Resnick’s Principles of Learning as it worked with site level teachers and staff to improve instruction and correspondingly the achievement levels of all students within the district. Beach Promenade Unified School District consists of 16 schools: 10 elementary, 2 middle, 2 comprehensive high schools, one continuation high school and one adult school. The district serves a diverse student population of 12,553 students. As Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 elaborated in the district’s “vision statement”, on their website, they enable their students to be “visionary, versatile thinkers; resourceful, life-long learners; effective, multi-lingual communicators and global citizens. We are a richly varied community that values the contributions of all its members. We exist to prepare all students in their pursuit of academic achievement and personal health and to support and encourage them in their development of intellectual, artistic, technological, physical and social expression.” Beach Promenade Unified School District’s program includes a comprehensive K-12 curriculum that directly addresses the California Content and Performance Standards. Individual district program highlights include: a rigorous regular education program, a Resource Specialist Program, a Special Day Class Program, an English Language Learner Program, a Gifted and Talented Program, an Advanced Placement Program, as well as extensive offerings in the visual and performing Arts, and computer sciences. The district also works with the Regional Occupation Program and has developed a Career and Vocational Paths Program, and a large Adult Education offering. Interscholastic male and female athletics are available to all high school students, and the district also participates in the School Improvement Program, Title I and Special Designed Academic Instruction in English. (SARC). Beach Promenade Unified School District provides educational services to students who speak several home languages including English, with Spanish as the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 second largest and has the following diverse ethnic/racial distribution: White 58.2%, Hispanic or Latino 27.2 %, Asian 5.5%, African American 8.4% and Filipino American 0.3%, Pacific Islander 0.2% and Alaskan/Native American 0.2%. Selected School This researcher chose an elementary school as the purposive sample where the research would be conducted. “Rough Rider Elementary School”, is a K-5 school, and a high performing school in the Beach Promenade School District. The mission statement for Rough Rider states, Rough Rider School is a richly diverse community of learners that values the contributions of all its members. In an environment of teamwork, caring, trust, and respect, we provide the highest quality of education possible. Our aim is to empower students by facilitating the acquisition of knowledge, improving skills, and developing character so that they may lead quality lives and contribute to society. We promote visionary, versatile thinking and enthusiastic, lifelong learning. We appreciate the uniqueness of each student and set high expectations for all. We welcome parents and community members as partners in the educational process. The principal indicates that it is his desire to, “have a belief in a child- centered approach that provides an atmosphere in which a child’s social, emotional, physical, and intellectual needs are equally important.” The Academic Performance Index (API) of Rough Rider continues to increase each year and is now approaching 900 and serves a student population of 774. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 The school offers the following educational programs: Regular Education, A Resource Specialist Program, a Special Day Class Program, Gifted and Talented Education, Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English, and English Language Acquisition Program. The school serves the following multi-ethnic student population: White 68.2%, Hispanic 13.6%, African-American 7.4 %, Asian/Pacific Islander, 9.9%. Site Participants At the Rough Rider Elementary school, the principal, six leadership team members, and six classroom teachers granted the researcher the time for in-depth interviews, with the principal being interviewed twice, once at the beginning of the research and once towards the end of the study. All site certificated employees were also asked to complete a survey, and all teachers were asked to complete a “Stages of Concern” questionnaire. Frincipal The principal has been in the Beach Promenade District for 26 years of which he has spent 23 as principal of Rough Rider Elementary. He received his Bachelor’s Degree at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a Master’s Degree in Curriculum Development at the University of Southern California (USC). He has continued to grow professionally through workshops, conferences, and other professional development pursuits. In particular, he has Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 focused on Lauren Resnick’s work and her, “Nine Principles of Learning” through the UCLA School Management Program, Los Angeles County Office of Education, and in working closely with his superintendent. Leadership Team Members In this instance, the Assistant Principal formed the Leadership team, and was directly involved with the site-level implementation of the design of the district for improving teaching and learning. The Assistant Principal is in her second year as an administrator. She had previously served as a “learning coach” and categorically funded coordinator. She is in her sixth year as an educator in a public schools setting. Lead Teachers Six teachers were identified by the principal as lead teachers for the site level implementation of the district led design. These lead teachers have been grade level supervisors, persons involved in teacher training and/or curriculum design on the campus level, or other persons selected by the principal. Once again, purposeful sampling was employed to select these persons by asking the principal to select lead teachers who were directly involved with the implementation of the district design. This teacher group consisted of the following: A second grade teacher who has been at the school for 8 years, A first/second grade combination teacher who has been at the school for 29 years and who has taught in the district for a total of 34 years. A third grade teacher who has been at Rough Rider for 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 years. A fourth grade teacher who has been at the school for 13 years and has spent a total of 37 years in the Beach Promenade District. A fifth grade teacher who has been teaching at Rough Rider for 4 years and a kindergarten teacher with 18 years of experience at Rough Rider Elementary. At the conclusion of the interviews that were conducted as part of the study, the researcher asked each teacher to self-report his/her extent of implementation of the reform efforts. Site Level Certificated Personnel All certificated personnel at the school site were asked to complete a school level survey consisting of forty-five items. The teachers at the school teach kindergarten through sixth grade. Their experience runs form a first year teacher still getting her credential to a teacher with over 30 years of experience in Beach Promenade. According to the principal, each of the teachers has some experience with Resnick’s Principles of Learning. Instrumentation The instrumentation for this study was created and developed by members of a cross-analysis research study team consisting of sixteen Ed.D. candidates in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Led by Dr. David Marsh, the research team met once in April of 2004, again in May of 2004, and weekly during the following five week summer session. A thorough compilation of the pertinent literature was collected by small groups working on Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 various aspects of the possible research, and then explained and disseminated to the entire study team. Following this, each study team member completed an individual analysis and synthesis of this literature. Both the purpose of the study and the research questions were developed through the mutual efforts of all study team members. Afterwards, various members of the study team working in small groups collaboratively developed conceptual frameworks and appropriate data collection instruments, submitting them to the entire group for revision and ultimate approval. Figure 1, on the following page, describes the relationship of each instrument of data collection to each research question, thus ensuring that all research questions were appropriately addressed. An “X” in a matrix cell indicates that a given data collection instrument was used to investigate a specific research question. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 Figure 1. The Relationship of Data Collection Instruments with Research Questions C ase S tudy Guide Components Data Collection Instruments RQ 1 : District Design RQ2: School Level Effort RQ3: Extent of Implementation RQ4: Effectiveness of Implementation Principal Interview Guide X X X Leadership Team Member Interview Guide X X X Lead Teacher Interview Guide X X X Teacher Interview Guide X X X X Innovation Configuration X School Level Survey X X X X Teacher Questionnaire (SOC) X Document Review Guide X X X X Conceptual Frameworks bv Research Question As previously indicated, each research question is directly connected to a conceptual framework that guides the specific investigation primarily related to that question. Thus there are four conceptual frameworks used in this study, identified by the letters A, B, C and D, corresponding directly to research questions 1,2,3 and 4. They will henceforth be identified by CFA, CFB, CFC and CFD. Each Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 conceptual framework consists of four to nine major areas of investigation, presented as specific area of inquiry to be investigated relative to the larger research question. Each of these is followed by a series of sub-questions that provide the specific points of the framework. Conceptual Framework for Research Question I Research question one asked, “What is the district design for improving teaching and learning?” CFA gives the rationale for collecting evidence relative to such a design and is divided into five sections: 1) What is the district’s design for improving teaching and learning; 2) What is the district’s change strategy; 3) How was the design communicated to the staff, parents, students, and the public; 4) How does the district define standards-based instruction; and 5) What are the intended outcomes of the instructional improvement. Conceptual Framework for Research Question 2 Research question two asked, “What school-level efforts facilitated the implementation of the district design?” CFB provides the rationale fbr collecting data relative to the efforts of the school to implement the design of the district, and also consists of five sections: 1) What was the site level plan for implementing the district’s design; 2) What site level resources were needed to effectively implement the reform design; 3) How was the reform design communicated to staff members; 4) What kind of professional development did the staff receive; and 5) What kind of support is offered to staff members. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 Conceptual Framework for Research Question 3 Research question three asked, “To what extent has the district design been implemented at the school and classroom levels?” CFC gives the rationale for collecting data relative to the extent of implementation of the design at the school and classroom levels, and consists of nine sections: 1) How are the design and strategies monitored for extent of implementation; 2) How does the site leadership team obtain feedback from all departments; 3) What data are generated; 4) How much of the change has permeated throughout the school; 5) What are some of the explanations for why some teachers may not be fully implementing design; 6) Have the strategies been modified, and, what process was/will be used; 7) How did fiscal, human, and physical resources promote or inhibit the extent of implementation; 8) How has the reform affected equity throughout the system; and 9) How has the learning culture changed as a result of the design. Conceptual Framework for Research Question 4 Research question four asked, “How effective were the design and implementation strategies at the site and classroom levels?” CFD provides the rationale for data collection relative to the effectiveness of the design and implementation strategies at the site and classroom levels, and consists of four sections: 1) What was the stakeholders’ perspective about impact of the improvement effort (schools level, classroom level, student level); 2) Was the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 design cost effective; 3) Was the design time efficient; and 4) Did the impact rise to the intentions of the design? Data Collection Instruments The conceptual frameworks provided both the foundation for and guided the development of the data collection instruments that would address the issues posed in the four research questions. The primary instrument was the Case Study Guide, which provided the researchers with general and specific directions for collecting and presenting data. Instrumentation derived from the directions of the Case Study Guide included staff interviews, the innovation configuration, surveys and questionnaires, and the document review guide. The use of the surveys and questionnaires provided a source of anonymous data that proved to be valuable as both triangulated and statistical evidence. Case Study Guide As briefly mentioned above, the case study guide provided general and specific guidelines for the development of the remaining instrumentation. In addition, the case study guide provided lists of questions appropriate for each of the four different types of interviews: principal, leadership team member, lead teacher and regular teacher. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 Surveys All certificated personnel were asked to complete the School Level Survey. The survey included a brief introduction, directions for completing the survey, an assurance of anonymity, ten demographic data questions and forty-five survey questions. The responses were based upon a five-point Likerl -type scale, ranging from 0) Don’t Know, 1) Strongly Disagree, 2) Somewhat Disagree, 3) Somewhat Agree, to 4) Strongly Agree. The School Level Surv ey was intended to measure the degree of awareness about the district design for improving teaching and learning. The survey questions focused on the perceptions of participants about the district design and implementation strategies, the school level efforts in implementing the design, the extent of implementation, and the effectiveness of the implementation. The School Level Survey was pre-tested on two separate samples both similar to the target sample and revised where the pre-test results indicated lack of clarity or a tendency on the part of the participants to misunderstand the intent of the question. Teacher Questionnaire All teachers were asked to complete a second survey referred to as the Teacher Questionnaire. The Teacher Questionnaire was a thirty-six item questionnaire based on the Stages of Concern. The questionnaire was based upon the Stages of Concern Model developed by Hall, Wallace and Dorsett in 1973. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 1 They proposed that as persons experience change in their environment, they move through seven unique Stages of Concern (Marsh & Jordan-Marsh, 1986). The questionnaire reflected this theory and was intended to demonstrate teacher knowledge about die district design and their comfort level with implementing the reform strategies. The Stages of Concern Teacher Questionnaire also revealed the extent of the teacher’s implementation of the district design in their classrooms. One of the questions on the questionnaire is repeated twice intentionally, to provide a check for the respondent’s attentiveness. The participant responds to all of the questions using a Likert-type scale with seven options ranging from zero to six. The net result of a sample completing the Stages of Concern evaluation range from 0) Awareness, 1) Informational, 2) Personal, 3) Management, 4) Consequence, 5) Collaboration, and 6) Refocusing. Awareness indicates knowledge of die topic, Personal indicates concern about one’s ability to deal with the topic, Management indicates implementing the topic, Consequence indicates the perception of the relevance of the change and its impact upon students, while Collaboration refers to working with others to implement the change, and Refocusing indicates consideration of enhancing the scale of change or moving on to another effective innovation. Document Review Guide The document review guide was used to align district and school documents to the research questions developed in the study, addressing design, factors Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 supporting design, extent of implementation and effectiveness of design and implementation. The Document Review Guide is, for all intents and purposes, an organizational tool, which facilitated the ability of the researcher to focus on the research questions and maintain documents in an efficient manner. Data Collection Interviews As mentioned before, the interview questions were provided by the Case Study Guide, and were meant to serve as a guideline only, not to be asked in rote format. Rather, the questions were formulated to accomplish at least two major objectives: First, the interviewer, using the guide, could be certain of not omitting any essential areas during the interview and secondly, the general reference list of questions to be used by all researchers at every site, would ensure that consistency and alignment was maintained during the interviews by all members of the research team. During the interview sessions, initial questions would generally come from the appropriate interview guide, with the interviewer following up with more probing questions, seeking elaboration or alternative meanings to the initial response given. Each of the four interview guides is arranged in sections that directly reflect the research questions of the study. Interviews were conducted with the site principal, two leadership team members, four lead teachers and six classroom teachers. As discussed previously, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 the principal selected both the leadership team members and the lead teachers that were to be interviewed in order to ensure the researcher of collecting data from persons who were deeply embedded in the district-led instructional improvement process. The classroom teachers were selected randomly according to criteria unique to the type of school being visited. These teachers also completed a self- reported innovation configuration document prior to the end of their interview. The principal was interviewed twice, once prior to any other on-campus data collection and at the conclusion of the on-campus research. This final interview with the principal allowed the researcher to ask any questions that weren’t addressed during the first three stages of the data collection, as described below, and also permitted the principal to provide any final thoughts or clarifications. All interviews were conducted according to the model as developed in EDPA 612, Qualitative Methods in Educational Research. This includes, but is not limited to, guaranteeing anonymity to the interviewees, taping and transcribing each interview, making copious field notes during the interviews, and informing each participant of how their responses will be stored, and when the tapes will be destroyed. It was important to conduct interviews with both the principal-selected staff and randomly selected teaching staff. The first group ensured that persons with direct knowledge of the district design were being interviewed. The interviews with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 the randomly selected staff allowed for the possibility of either confirming data relative to the responses of the staff selected by the principal, or finding data contrary to what the principal-selected staff interviews revealed, or both. In any event, such variation in interviewee selection provided the opportunity for more effective triangulalion of data. Eight interviews were conducted and then the corresponding data inserted into the data base in accordance with the four research questions. A total of five site visits and one district office visit were completed. The first visit was an informal and preliminary meeting with the superintendent who described his vision and offered insight into his rationale for choosing Principles of Learning. Further, he described the process he utilized for implementation at the district level. This meeting lasted approximately two hours. The following site visits consisted of the following: • A visit with the principal, assistant principal and office staff primarily dealing with logistical issues • An in-depth three hour meeting with the site principal • A staff meeting visitation describing the study and answering questions. • A meeting with teachers and leadership team members for the purpose of interviews. This meeting lasted two hours. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 • An additional meeting with teachers for interviews. This meeting lasted approximately two hours. • A follow up meeting with the principal and office staff to review and conduct a follow-up interview with the principal based on the data that was collected. In addition, numerous phone calls and e-mails between the researcher and the Rough Rider principal were exchanged. Lastly, the superintendent was informed, informally, of the activities associated with the research. Document Review Guide The document review guide was utilized to align district and school documents to the research questions and provide evidence of the district design, school level efforts, extent of implementation, and effectiveness of the district. It served as an organizational tool that enabled the researcher to remain focused on the research questions and maintain documents in an organized fashion. The researcher reviewed and compared documents to understand the relationship among data sources as it was collected and sorted according to the research question it addressed. Teacher Questionnaire and School Level Survey The Teacher Questionnaire (Stages of Concern) and the School Level Survey allowed the researcher to make inferences about the participants on the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 basis of the data collected from the quantitative survey data. The survey data was compiled and analyzed by using various statistical measures. Data Analysis The purpose of this study was to develop a greater understanding of the school’s position within the district-wide reform efforts to improve teaching and learning. The study includes a description of the actions taken both by the school and the district to shift the instructional paradigm of the district. The effectiveness of the district’s design or model was assessed by examining its school level effort, the extent of the designs implementation, and the effectiveness of the design at one elementary school. The four research questions addressed the purpose of the study. Moreover, the research questions drove the data collection and analysis activities. The data itself was grouped and analyzed by the use of a database for the purposes of comparative analysis and for the ease of its use. Analysis of Interview Data Data from the interviews was examined by the researcher in an effort to compare responses to the questions as they related to die district design, school level effort, and extent of implementation and the effectiveness of the district design. An innovation configuration chart was used as a tool to assist in determining the extent of the implementation of the district design. The researcher asked each of the participants to determine where they believed they were in the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 process of implementing the district design. This chart was essentially an implementation rubric specific to the district’s design which outlined three levels of implementation: fully implemented, partially implemented, or just getting started. Each component of the district design was calculated as a percent based on the number of teachers who circled their current level of implementation. This enabled the researcher to determine the percent of teachers who had fully implemented, partially implemented, or were just getting started in using the district’s design. Analysis of data from the Teacher Questionnaire The responses from the Teacher Questionnaire (Stages of Concern) were analyzed using a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was formatted prior to inputting the data to ensure that the proper groups of questions were placed into their corresponding stage of concern. Participants responded to each statement on the questionnaire by circling a number from zero to seven based on their personal feelings, with zero being the lowest and seven representing the highest level of concern. The raw score for each participant was calculated by taking the sum of the responses to the five statements for each of the seven stages of concern. The total overall raw score was determined by taking the sum of the raw scores for each of the seven stages. In-depth analysis of the data was calculated by determining the number of teachers whose peak, or highest raw score, was in each of the seven Stages of Concern. The frequency distribution of the number of teachers with peak scores in each stage, as well as the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 8 frequency distribution o f the number o f teachers in each Stage o f Concern based on each teacher’s second highest score, provided a more detailed profile o f the sample population. Demographic information collected on the School Level Survey was matched to the same respondent’s questionnaire. This facilitated further analysis o f the data, such as the examination o f teachers’ level o f concern in relationship to the number o f days o f training or their years o f teaching experience. Analysis ofdata from the School Level Survey The School Level Survey was analyzed also on a spreadsheet by tallying the responses in each o f the four scaled areas to discover the perceptions or patterns o f the teachers at the school with regard to die district’s design. As mentioned previously, this questionnaire was grouped in die following way: questions 1-8 related to the district’s design; questions 9-21 related to the school level efforts; questions 22-33 focused on the extent o f implementation o f die district’s design; and questions 34-44 were tailored around the effectiveness o f the district’s design and implementation strategies. The respondent’s results were charted as a percent to facilitate comparisons and reporting. Summary This chapter presented and discussed the methodology that directed the research for this study. Included were descriptions o f the research design, the sample, the conceptual frameworks, the data collection instruments, as well as an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. overview of the processes used in both data collection and data analysis. Additionally, the integral connections between the conceptual frameworks, the data collected and the original research questions were demonstrated. In the following chapter, the findings and the analysis of the research are presented. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 CHAPTER FOUR DATA FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Introduction As California attempts to keep pace with national standards and current measures of statewide accountability, local school districts have implemented various programs associated with standards-based reform. Level of effort and timelines for implementation vary widely among the districts. In 2002, the Beach Promenade School District under the direction of it’s’ superintendent and school board implemented a district wide program that incorporated Lauren Resnick’s nine Principles of Learning (POL). This reform effort was designed to specifically address the needs of all students in the Beach Promenade School District by providing a clearly articulated vision and practical steps for classroom instruction improvement. Since this reform effort has clarity of purpose and specific sequential steps for implementation, it provides an excellent environment for studying successful implementation strategies, and conversely identifying elements of the district design that hinder the district aims of improving student achievement. This chapter presents the data collected regarding the district reform effort to improve teaching and learning at Rough Rider Elementary School in the Beach Promenade Unified School District. An in-depth analysis was conducted utilizing qualitative study methods, including surveys, questionnaires, and interviews of school staff. In addition, an analysis of documents and researcher observations augmented the data collection. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 An analysis and discussion of the data collected and the findings for each research question are included in this chapter. The data consisted of an interview with a district leader, a site administrator, a vice principal, and eight teachers. In addition to the interviews, the data also consisted of the responses of thirty-five certificated employees to one survey and one questionnaire, as well as additional data from district and school site documents and other artifacts. This compiled data is presented using the four research questions as topic outlines. These research questions that guided the case study were as follows: 1. What was the district’s design for improving teaching and learning? 2. What school level efforts facilitated the implementation of the school level design? 3. To what extent has the district design been implemented at the site and classroom levels? 4. How effective was the design and implementation strategies at the site and classroom level? Data Findings Research Question 1: Elements of the District Design The first research question asked “What was the district’s design for improving teaching and learning?” Conceptual Framework A in the Case Study Guide was used for the collection of data. The interview guide facilitated collection of data from the principal, a leadership team member, and six teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 Data collected from items numbered one through eight on the School Level Survey addressed the first research question. Collaboration with researchers examining the implementation of the reform at the district level was utilized to provide additional insight and for validation of data collected at the school. District Context Beach Promenade Unified School District is located in Southern California and is a K-12 district. The district enrollment in 2004 was 12,224 students. The district demographics are generally considered multi-ethnic with a large degree of socio-economic disparity. The following information found on their website, describes the school as follows: The Beach Promenade Unified School District is located along the coast of Southern California. This diverse district is made up of sixteen schools. Programs serve pre-school children to adults. The District has an acceptable use policy governing the use of all on-line systems. The vision statement for the school reads: As a community of learners the Promenade Unified School District works together in a nurturing environment to help students be visionary, versatile thinkers; resourceful, life-long learners; effective, multi-lingual communicators and global citizens. We are a richly varied community that values the contributions of all its’ members. We exist to prepare all students in their pursuit of academic achievement and personal health and to support and encourage them in their development of intellectual, artistic, technological, physical and social expression (Adapted in 1997). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 Principles of Learning According to the Superintendent, the main focus of the district design revolved around Lauren Resnick’s work. Primarily, he utilized her “Nine Principles of Learning. These principles can be summed up by the following: Organizing for Effort • Beliefs are based on the notion that effort is a more important determinant of achievement than natural ability. • All members of the learning community believe that all students with effort, will meet a common set of standards for high student achievement-no exceptions, no excuses • Teachers’ efforts to enhance classroom practice are supported through professional development and clear feedback. • Expert teachers are made, not bom • Sustained and directed effort can yield high achievement for all students • Learning environment is organized to support sustained work and revision • A rigorous curriculum geared to standards is the norm, with time and expert instruction provided to support the student’s effort Clear Expectations • What students need to learn is explicitly defined orally and in writing • Models of student work and expectations that align the standards to the work are part of the classroom norm • Student work exemplars help determine what is necessary to meet or exceed the standard • Expectations are clearly stated for professionals, parents, community and students • Students participate in evaluating their own w ork and setting goals for their own effort Fair and Credible Evaluations • Fair assessments are directly aligned with the standards and the daily curriculum and instructional practice Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 • Fair assessment requires a strict grading against an absolute standard rather than against a curve. • The link among standards, curriculum, instruction and assessment create a credible evaluation process with parents, colleges and employers based on what students know and can do. Recognition of Accomplishment • Recognition of authentic accomplishment must be done on a regular basis • Recognition is based on work that meets standard • Intermediate points are clearly articulated so that all students can progress toward the standard and receive recognition frequently and at different intervals of success. • Learning should be tied to events that have significance for students and their families Academic Rigor In A Thinking Curriculum • Knowledge and thinking are intricately linked • Curriculum is organized around significant concepts that students must know • Teaching must engage students in active reasoning • Learning requires a commitment to core knowledge, high level thinking strategies and active use of knowledge Accountable Talk • Talking with others about ideas and work is fundamental to learning, • The talk must promote rigorous thinking • Connections must be made to the discipline being studied and citing evidence from the work to demonstrate understanding • Demonstrates good reasoning strategies Socializing Intelligence (1.6.71 • Problem solving strategies are used regularly • Intelligence can be taught • Intelligent habits of the mind are learned; through practice and being held responsible for using them Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 Self-Manaeement Of Learning (1.5.8) • Develop a variety of self-monitoring and self-management strategies • Use of metacognitive skills to know when they don’t understand and apply strategies to remedy the situation • Manage own learning by utilizing feedback from others to affect current and future learning • Students demonstrate ability to judge progress toward learning goals Learning As Apprenticeship (1.5.6.7.8) • Organization of learning environment so that complex thinking is modeled • Coaching and mentoring is provided • Opportunities for practice, specific feedback and guided learning are part of the daily instructional practice Elements of the District Design After his first 100 days as superintendent, a document authored by him was provided to the community of the Beach Promenade District. The following are excerpts which identify key elements and outcomes for the overall district plan: Paramount to all our efforts will be the total rejection of any system that holds that some of the children can achieve at high levels. The fact I state this belief system rests in the extensive research of an effort-based system, not an educational system based on aptitude. While this seems simple, it is actually the linchpin to the vision of Extraordinary Achievement for All. The superintendent went on to discuss the district priorities, however without specific timelines for achieving them: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 The first priority will be to construct the conditions necessary for extraordinary achievement. This will include the work of widely engaging with the Principles for Learning. These research based guidelines will help us ‘set the table’ for staff and students to achieve. Instrumental in this effort will be the Learning Walks, commonly called the Walkthrough. The second priority will be the construction of a data-driven decision making system. The third priority will be the widespread building of capacity and leadership. The fourth priority will be the development and insistence upon a high fidelity of customer service. The Strategy for Change When the current superintendent of schools was hired, he met with “thousands of people, including community leaders” in order to develop a comprehensive plan for executing a new vision in the Beach Promenade Unified School District associated with teaching and learning. As a result of these meetings and the communication derived, a plan was developed using school board member input and direction. He indicated that they would make a decision about who would execute the plan. The superintendent knew about the Institute for Learning and their work from his previous experiences as a superintendent. He indicated that he had “worked with Lauren Resnick for years” and therefore adopted a plan using the Principles of Learning as a district wide plan for improvement. The superintendent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 said to each principal, “You are the professional developer in your school.” He had also stated to them that they were to be the social agents at their schools, and that they [the principals] needed to be clear about expectations regarding implementation. The superintendent then set forth to implement a district plan to personally provide the staff development and foundation that the principals would need to execute the district plan. “The principals are always mine. I staff develop them regarding the plan.” The principals met every Monday morning for a period of ninety minutes to incorporate Resnick’s Principles of Learning into the current curriculum as a reform approach. He talked about Teacher Leaders, speaking to other adults about learning and instruction, Learning Walks. The superintendent met with the PTA each month and looked deeply at student work and data. He met with each site Council and went to every faculty meeting and through ongoing talks with the Union Leadership developed a “traveling speech” to promote Resnick’s ideas. These activities “raised the temperature” all over the district, teachers were deeply concerned about this top down directive and principals worried about the new level of expectation for their school performance. This was clear departure from their previous way of doing business. At the same time, the superintendent was working with the school board and going on retreat to ask and answer the question, “What does good instruction look like?” The school board and community were hungry for improvement After working with the previously mentioned groups, the superintendent believed that his main role was to help the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 personnel in the district obtain the skills necessary to help them collectively get student achievement to where they believed it should be. District Factors Identified as Necessary for Successful Implementation At the outset, the superintendent had stated that, “the plan is basically mine” and thus had assumed individual responsibility for the reform efforts. He had further admitted, that he is not necessarily a deeply democratic leader, and explained that the decisions he makes are his alone. The superintendent had also indicated that in order to implement Resnick’s Principles of Learning, there were seven factors that needed to be in place for the reform efforts to work. 1. Locate funds to support the efforts. The superintendent related that when he had initially arrived, the Beach Promenade School District was experiencing a deep financial crisis. He was concerned that any program designed to improve teaching and learning would fall short due to a lack of financial resources to both implement and maintain the necessary resources for its success. Hence, he investigated several alternative avenues for generating additional revenue. Primarily, he focused on improving the school district’s relationship with the city in which Beach Promenade School District is located. As a result, a yearly agreem ent to provide additional funds to the local school district was put in place and generated much needed revenue for the purposes of the curriculum reform efforts. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 2. Build strong administration and appropriate culture of learning. Upon his arrival, the superintendent reviewed all personnel from the viewpoint of whether or not they would be able to support and energetically implement his vision associated with Resnick’s POL. Consequently, there was a significant turnover among district office administrators and principals. The superintendent stated that he had dismissed the majority of administrative employees in the school district as a result of his initial review. Moreover, he sought new administrative employees to replace those he had dismissed in hopes that they would share a similar vision to his own regarding the reform efforts. Consequently, administrators who did not share his vision were deemed a poor match; in time the superintendent related that nearly all of his current administrative team were, indeed, a “good match.” 3. Building capacity in local site administration. The superintendent stated that he believed the principals were the “linchpins” of his reform efforts. He provided personal staff development with each of his principals on a weekly basis to initiate the implementation of the program. In addition, he developed benchmarks to determine the extent of the implementation of the reform elements and individual student success. He stated that his expectations, upon reflection, may have been too high. Nevertheless, he believed that his high expectations lead to better results with regard to student achievement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 4. Building capacity in teachers. The expectation of the superintendent was that his principals would conduct staff development activities with their teachers that were in alignment with both his vision and his own ideas. He “modeled” for his principals the behaviors that he expected to see in their performance as they provided guidance to the teachers on the principals’ sites. A fundamental component of all staff development was enforcing the belief that all students can and will learn. Although the superintendent acknowledged some difficulties with the teachers’ union, he stated that “unions can’t get upset over the idea that all students should be learning.” 5. Systematic use of instructional data. The superintendent emphasized reviewing data on a regular basis. Decision-making regarding next steps for staff development were driven by instructional data analysis. 6. Support pieces. The superintendent believed that his reform efforts must include community support. A key element of this community support, in association with the district, was the creation of a plan to address the needs of pre-kindergarten children. 7. Public issues. In particular, the superintendent was interested in various public issues and their impact on local schools. For example, he analyzed how rent control and the cost of housing affected the school district and student attendance. His close association with the city government gave him insight and understanding of complex civic issues Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 and their consequent impact from both financial and cultural viewpoints. Communication of the District Design Once the superintendent announced that the district was joining the Institute for Learning (IFL), the district began to immediately feel the impact of his direction. One teacher commented that the superintendent simply “bulldozed this plan through.” While the superintendent acknowledged that his direction had “raised the temperature” of the district, he sought to allay fears by using a “traveling speech” at each school in the district. The speech was designed to offer clarity and support in an attempt to elevate the comfort of the teaching staff. At this same time, the superintendent was working with the school board in an effort to address the question, “What does good instruction look like?” The superintendent indicated that, to his good fortune, the community was hungiy for school improvement. He saw his work as helping the school district community to gain the requisite skills to provide extraordinary growth in the area of student achievement. The principal of Rough Rider Elementary echoed what the superintendent stated in regard to the creation and implementation of the district design for improving teaching and learning. He stated that the superintendent “brought Resnick to the district” and the first day it was introduced, the associated staff development for principals lasted for the entire day. He said that the superintendent began to talk about a “results oriented outcome-based instruction” and that the key link was using data to “form instruction.” He stated that Resnick’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 POL “centered their thinking” with regard to improving teaching and learning. The superintendent literally handled 85% of all the training for the district plan of employing Principles of Learning School Level Survey Survey data from the School Level survey indicated that all of the teachers were aware of the Principles of Learning strategies. Further, they agree that the strategies are centered on improving teaching and learning. Moreover, the leaders in the district want everyone to use the Principles of Learning strategies, which confirm what the Superintendent and principal had expressed. At each staff meeting, staff reported that the principal talks about the use of the Principles of Learning and improving their API scores. Teachers were provided training on late start Fridays in their faculty meetings. The superintendent also met with the teachers and discussed the link between test scores and the Principles of Learning, but Teacher 2 stated, “We have always done well and I think the district administration had trouble with speculating why we were doing well without Lauren Resnick’s POL.” Once again, such a comment is indicative of the ways in which the reform effort, and Resnick’s Principles of Learning were read by many as intrusive and counter-productive. Teachers often felt that were doing a good job of teaching their classrooms prior to the reform efforts by the district. The principal stated that, “teachers were shocked with the new approach.” Teachers wanted to continue providing instruction the way they had always and the teacher thought, “This too shall pass.” However, many teachers have come to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 believe that there has been a huge progression from, “no, we won’t do this”, to “it’s OK .” The following table shows die results from Question one, “What was the District Design for Improving Teaching and Learning?” Table 1 : Summative Results from Research Question RQ1 What was the District Design for Improving Teaching and Learning? D o n 't Know S tro n g ly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree i C D 1 5 5 1 I am aware o f die Principles o f Learning strategies for improving teaching and learning. 0% 0% 0% 43% 57% 2 The district supports standard- based instruction. 0% 0% 9% 23% 68% 3 The Principles o f Learning strategies are centered on improving student learning. 0% 0% 0% 37% 63% 4 The Principles o f Learning strategies call for the use of multiple measures to assess student performance. 6% 0% 0% 37% 57% 5 The Principles o f Learning strategies include ways to identify acceptable levels o f student performance. 3% 0% 6% 43% 48% 6 The district believes that all students can meet high standards. 0% 0% 6% 34% 60% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 Table 1 : Summative Results from Research Question 1 (Contd) ^ The Principles o f Learning strategies foster a collaborative approach to improving student performance. 6 % 0 % 3 % 43% 48% g Leaders in die district want everyone to use the Principles o f Learning strategies. 0 % 0 % 3 % 26% 71% Please note the very high number o f positive answers for questions 1 and 3. All those surveyed have some awareness of the reform effort and believe that the strategies are centered on improving student learning. The data clearly shows widespread understanding of the plan. Research Question 2: School-level Efforts that Facilitated Implementation The second research question asked, “ What school level efforts facilitated the implementation o f the district design?” Conceptual Framework B in the Case Study Guide was utilized for the collection of data. Interview guides facilitated collection o f data from the principal, a leadership team member, and six teachers. Data collected from items numbered nine through 21 on the School Level Survey addressed the first research question. The Document Review Guide assisted in the analysis o f district and school documents. Collaboration with researchers examining the implementation o f the reform at the district level was utilized to provide additional insight and for validation o f data collected at the school. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 School Context Description of Rough Rider Elementary School Enrollments at Rough Rider have stayed fairly constant. The number of students in the National School Lunch Program has diminished over time which may be attributable to rising real estate prices in the area. The English Language Learner population fluctuates around 10%. It is notable that some years the API scores reflect ELL and Hispanics as significant subgroups while in others they are not recognized as such. From an academic standpoint, the API scores of Rough Rider always grow. Each year since the inception of the Academic Performance Index the school has met its’ growth targets and has always been eligible for awards. This is particularly interesting in light of the personnel changes, reflected in the data below, that the school has experienced. While noticeable numbers of office and paraprofessional employees has varied the one constant is student improvement and growth of the API. In general the principal and staff have embraced Resnick’s Principles of Learning. The principal is quite enthusiastic about the reforms and the teachers somewhat less so, however they all agree that the reforms have had a positive impact on student learning. The teachers indicated that their opinions have changed over time and they now see the benefits of the structure provide by Resnick’s Principles. It is also clear that the principal’s enthusiasm for the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 Principles of Learning was and is meaningful to the staff. They reported that they enjoy the training and staff development he has presented as well as the relationships he has created with them. The following chart shows a continuing trend of API improvement. Each year has shown significant gains. Figure 1: Annual Growth APIs for Rough Rider Elementary School 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 The chart above shows a starting point of 839 and an ending point, in 2003, of 878. In particular note the 15 point increase between the years of 2002 and 2003. This period of time is in the “heart” of the reform activities. However, this study does not, necessarily, show a nexus between increasing API scores and Resnick’s POL. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 There may be a variety of factors affecting the scores and the school was on an improvement track prior to the implementation of the POL. Figure 2: The following chart shows the staffing numbers at Rough Rider school. The trends do not show a relationship between the number of staff and the API score improvement. Staffing Trends at Rough Rider Elementary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 A Teachers ♦ ParaProfessionals — ■— Office/Clerical • Other Classified Note that the above chart does not take into consideration the principal’s concern regarding the “teacher coach” but rather the raw numbers of staff. This data, according to the principal, is further evidence that changes are occurring in instruction and that class size and administrative/clerical support have not been critical factors in the schools improving test scores. The following chart shows the enrollment figures and subgroup representation at Rough Rider. Note that there has been relatively little change in the years since 1999. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 8 Figure 3: Enrollment and Subgroup Representation at Rough Rider Elementary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Fnrnllm «nt 74A 7 M 7JM 7 * 3 T1A The above chart shows a growth pattern for overall enrollment but there have been no dramatic changes. The exception to these patterns is found in the reduction o f the number o f students qualifying for the free lunch program between 1998-99 and 1999-00. In addition, the number o f English Learners peaked over 10% for the first time in 2003-2004. It is interesting that this is the year that the API reached 878 giving some credence to the notion that all students have benefited fro the POL reform. T h e School’ s Principal The principal o f Rough Rider has been in education fbratotal o f 37 years. He has spent 26 years in the Beach Promenade School District ami has been the 30.0% ■ ELL H Free Lunch 1 20.0% e ui "5 15.0% S 10.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 principal at Rough Rider for the last 23 years. The principal indicated that he received his master’s degree in curriculum in the early 1970’s but has stayed current by participating in staff development activities both inside and outside the district. In particular, he mentioned attendance at several workshops at the two largest research-based universities in the nearby major metropolitan area. He stated that some of these activities centered around Resnick’s nine Principles of Learning including training on Walk-Throughs and the Learning Walks. His main focus throughout his career has been on finding and using what works to increase student achievement. The principal of Rough Rider is considered a key figure in the district with regard to enduring change and excelling in the midst of transition. The principal, for the purposes of this study, is considered an excellent example of an administrator who has successfully implemented the district direction associated with Resnick’s Principles of Learning. He had always been interested in a results- oriented educational program that focused on success for all students in closing the achievement gap for minority children. Moreover, his colleagues consider him an expert at generating local resources to enhance his school’s achievement and reputation. He is considered someone who can utilize these resources in innovative ways to attack instructional problems within Rough Rider Elementary. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 The School's Perception of the District Design With regard to the Principles of Learning, the principal stated that the superintendent “brought Resnick’s POL to the forefront of our reform efforts.” The first time, he introduced Resnick’s POL was in an all-day workshop with the principals. Prior to this emphasis, there was “expansive freedom with regard to teaching and staff development in our school and in the district.” The superintendent’s direction regarding Resnick was a “centering of our focus.” It was meaningful to the principal that the superintendent handled eighty-five percent of the training with regard to his emphasis on Resnick’s POL. The superintendent, “held us accountable, as principals, for the success of the implementation of Resnick’s POL. He modeled by example as we submitted [reports] three times a year [as to] where we were in the process. The strong points of his direction are that it was clearly defined with clear expectations and that it was supported by contemporary research. In addition, he showed us how the elements of the POL overlap and provided an emphasis on the integration of the elements in a holistic way. We also looked district wide at many of the best practices of our teachers and as principals shared freely among one another. The most important paradigm shift was the emphasis on learning rather than on teaching. This was a new way to look at our work.” The teachers said that they feel as though the Principles of Leaning is the superintendent’s plan. The superintendent sent out a survey and one teacher stated that “the survey had the noblest of intentions, but it was used to reinforce the goals Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l and ideas of the superintendent in regard to Lauren Resnick’s POL. He just wants us to all teach the same way.” The teachers believed that the plan was very directive in nature. Professional Development Staff development was the key to school level implementation of the district’s design for improving teaching and learning. The teachers talked about joint grade level meetings. The visitation by their colleagues with the Learning Walks helped teachers feel less uncomfortable about people coming into their rooms. The staff meetings were collaborative and the principal modeled this. The Principles of Learning provided a common language that all teachers used to communicate about teaching strategies in their discussions about student achievement and daily performance in the classroom. Teachers began to ask, “Are my students using Accountable Talk?” When teachers began to understand the ideas associated with Accountable Talk, this also provided opportunities for vertical and horizontal talk when teachers looped with their students. Lastly, although the principal indicated that the plan was not connected to the collectively bargained teacher evaluation tool specifically, he found that his observation of teachers during staff development activities, their receptiveness to his training, was directly correlated to their performance in the classroom and therefore, ultimately linked to their evaluation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 Factors Facilitating Implementation All thirty-five teachers believe that they are aware of the Principles of Learning strategies for improving teaching and learning. Moreover, they believed that the school was supportive in implementing the Principles of Learning strategies. The principal said that he created “bank time” to allow ninety-minute staff development activities at least three times a month. In spite of this, Teacher #2 indicated that there still, “isn’t enough time to adequately facilitate the continuing implementation of the district direction.” A frequent comment from teachers surrounded their relationship with the principal. In particular, they mentioned that the principal was very supportive in their efforts to bring widespread implementation of Resnick’s POL. Twenty-nine teachers acknowledged that the superintendent’s direction provided for a systematic effort to implement the Principles of Learning strategies. They talked about their principal’s training, their own training or training their colleagues, and a sequential approach to that training. Moreover, it was made clear by the teachers during the interview process that while they held some skepticism for the plan originally, they were willing to “please” their principal because of their affection for him and the fact he can be “irrepressible” according to a new teacher. Barriers to Implementation The principal mentioned that they no longer had a “coach” at each school, and as a result he was somewhat concerned with implementation issues. In fact, he Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 stated that the, “clear expectations has faded” from the district office. Moreover, he indicated, that since the inception of die program, at times, all the schools had experienced what he called, “shallow implementation”. As always, he believed, there was never enough time and money to implement things he would like to see if he was living in an “ideal world”. This sentiment was also reiterated in the survey results with question 20. Sometimes, according to the principal, the “human relations piece” was missing from the implementation plan. This sentiment was also echoed by the teachers who were interviewed. The belief that, “agendas were more important than the people” was the way one teacher (#7) put it. These concerns, however, had been largely addressed as the School Level Survey demonstrated. Teachers felt like they have input into the implementation plan and are adequately staff developed. Lastly, teachers believed that there was a lack of direction for the future of the program. In fact, nearly half of the teachers believed that the training and assistance provided was not accomplished in a timely manner. Teacher #7 said the future of the plan is “all over the map.” This is; of course, in direct opposition to the point made by question 21 which is that the school’s vision is directly linked to the POL. School Level Survey Items 9 through 21 on the School Level Survey relate to Research Question 2 (Table 2). Survey data demonstrated a high level of understanding about Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 the first three components of Resnick’s POL. The principal and the teachers commented on a new common language that the school site personnel share regarding what works for student achievement A vast majority of the teachers indicated that they felt they knew a great deal about the Principles of Learning strategies. This apparent comfort level was relatively new according to the Teachers’ Survey. In spite of this, better “feeling” about the POL, many teachers interviewed stated that they did not believe that the comfort level had led to better results for all students. Interestingly, the teachers believed that “at risk” students were achieving at higher levels due to the POL. Over one half of the teachers surveyed, however, indicated they would not modify the way the school used the Principles of Learning strategies. Characterized in teacher interviews as “very prescribed,” many teachers discussed a more practical application of the POL into their teaching. Several teachers indicated that their instruction had not significantly changed from their teaching practices prior to the superintendent’s directive. The principal does not agree. He stated that teacher behavioral changes, in many instances, have almost been through osmosis. He pointed to a greater level of dialogue among teachers with regard to their instructional practices. He also spoke of his own rejuvenation surrounding the issue of teaching and learning. He believed that in his evaluations of teachers, and substantiated as well as in the self- reporting done on the School Level survey teaching practices had, indeed, changed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 The School Level Survey reflected the comments of the participants in the interviews. The majority of teachers either felt strongly or somewhat agreed about the following: • The School is supportive in implementing POL • F requent Staff Development is offered • Systematic efforts were communicated regarding the strategies of implementing the POL • Teachers feel they know a “great deal” about the plan. • There is opportunity for input (even though most believe it is through their principal... exactly what the superintendent had intended). • Teachers are developing mastery over the first three components of POL • The schools mission, vision, and goals are aligned with the POL. The table on the following page shows the summative results for research question 2: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 Table 2: Summative School Level Survey Results by Percentage for Research Question 2 (N=35) W hat School Level Efforts Facilitated the Q2 Implementation of the District Design? D o n 't K now Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree The school is supportive in implementing the Principles o f Learning strategies. % % 6 % 3 4 % 60 % The school offers frequent professional jq development to raise knowledge o f die Principles of Learning strategies. % 3 % 1 1 % 3 4 % 5 2 % Systematic efforts to implement die Principles of 1 1 Learning strategies were communicated. % 6 % 1 1 % 4 3 % 4 0 % Teacher training and assistance were provided 12 and conducted in a timely m an ne r. 3 % 6 % 3 4 % 3 1 % 2 6 % I have attended professional development training ^ on the Principles of Learning strategies in the past six months. % 9 % 9 % 2 0 % 6 3 % I know a great deal about the Principles o f 14 Learning strategies. % 6 % 1 4 % 4 0 % 4 0 % Teachers have opportunities to provide input on ^ how to implement the Principles o f Learning strategies at my school. % 3 % 1 7 % 4 3 % 3 7 % I would like to modify die way my school uses jg the Principles o f Learning strategies based on the experiences of my students. 1 2 % 6 % 3 7 % 2 9 % 1 7 % Teachers are involved in the change process a nd y j development/selection o f suitable materials to support Principles o f Learning strategies. 6 % 9 % 2 3 % 4 3 % 2 0 % I am developing mastery o f the Principles o f 18 Learning strategies. 3 % 3 % 2 0 % 4 6 % 2 9 % School leadership support was a key element in jg assisting this site in the implementation o f the Principles o f Learning strategies. 3 % 6 % 1 4 % 4 3 % 3 4 % Financial, staff and material resources are 2 Q allocated to facilitate the implementation o f die Principles o f Learning strategies. 1 2 % 1 2 % 1 8 % 2 9 % 2 9 % My school’s vision, mission, and goals ar e 21 aligned with the Principles o f Learning strategies. % % 9 % 4 3 % 4 9 % Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Research Question 3: Extent of Implementation The third research question asked, “To what extent had the district design been implemented at the school and classroom levels?” Conceptual Framework C in the Case Study Guide facilitated the collection of the data. Instruments utilized to collect the relevant data included the Teacher Interview Guide, the Innovation Configuration, the Teacher Questionnaire, and the School Level Survey (items 22- 33). Innovation Configuration Data indicates that Rough Rider Elementary School is currently in partial implementation of the Principles of Learning. During the first year of staff development, principals of the school district collectively chose to implement Accountable Talk as the first principle to train staff and to locate evidence in . support of this implementation. The second principle to be implemented was “Clear Expectations”. At the time of the study, those two principles of Learning, out of the nine, were being fully implemented. Teacher and principal interviews indicated that there is no common knowledge as to how and when the remaining seven principles will be introduced to staff and students. “The superintendent brought down the plan like gangbusters but the momentum has since then decreased. He has other things on his plate”. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 The staff seems to appreciate that each principle is allowed to resonate in their teaching before a new principle is introduced. As a result of this approach, thirty-three of the thirty-five teachers responded that they currently connect the Principles of Learning strategies to their curriculum. This data is striking relative to other less definitive results. Further, the great majority of teachers believe that the Principles of Learning strategies assist students in meeting state performance standards. This set of data supports the principals’ observations regarding teacher implementation of Resnick’s Principles of Learning. School Level Survey As mentioned earlier, there is an interesting paradox presented by the data. While teachers are not necessarily convinced that the POL are working for all students it is clear that they believe students performing below grade level are improving. Teacher #5 indicated that we are “closing the achievement gap”. This sentiment is echoed in the school level survey, question 24, where 75% of the teachers surveyed believed that the strategies of POL are used to help students performing below grade level. Teacher #3 stated, “We are very focused on at risk students but not as focused on learning for all”. The principal also focused on students “in need”. Many anecdotes related to the successes at Rough Rider had to do with the “at risk” students and their families. It seems that both the faculty and the administration put forth extra effort for poorly performing students. It would also appear as if the students performing at the higher end of the learning spectrum, those students, who are above grade level, were not seeing similar gains as the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 other students. However, this observation may not be wholly accurate since the API has shown consistent improvement for all subgroups as well as the general student population. Teacher #5 stated, that “the conflict level at the school is way up about students other than those at risk and we’re not all convinced that learning will improve for the upper end students”. Hence, it appears that the POL are firmly grounded in improving the achievement of poor performing students at Rough Rider but there is skepticism about its impact on the entire student population. Another area regarding concern for full implementation is connected to question number 27 which connects the POL strategies to the curriculum. An overwhelming 95% of the teachers claim that they are using the strategies to connect to the curriculum. Then it would appear that the existing disconnection between the content and the instruction is a long-standing one, and not directly related to the district reform efforts or to the POL. At Rough Rider there is a belief that the curriculum, per se, reflects an appropriate use of Resnick’s POL. This is confirmed by teachers who believed that they are listened to when it comes to the selection of curricular materials. They believed that this ability to select appropriate instructional materials has been a major success of their collaborative work together. Teacher #5 stated, “We were able to talk about the curriculum together and without the administration and the 19 other things they wanted us to do”. Another item of note, contrary to some of the criticism the POL received during the direct interviews, the majority of teachers (77%) believed that die POL Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 has improved their teaching. Given the concerns of several teachers regarding some elements of the implementation this data is remarkable and is consistent with the principal’s beliefs that there has been a change form “teacher centered teaching to a focus on student learning which has changed the way teachers are teaching”. The School's Principal The principal spoke of “social justice and equity” as being an important part of the superintendent’s vision and appears to be the belief of his staff as well. This is confirmed by the numbers in the School Level Survey and is demonstrated in their focus on needy students. The principal indicated that during classroom visitations the following are examples of a new focus which he attributed to the implementation of POL: • Teachers now offer more wait time for students to come up for answers • Creativity among responses is now more valued than before • There is significantly more inquiry and questioning during the average lesson • Teachers better understand the value of application and synthesis in student responses Moreover, in supporting the idea the previously mentioned new focus brought in with the implementation of POL, the principal agrees regarding the important notion of the content of the curriculum being aligned with POL. Because of the POL, “teachers spend more time reviewing potential materials for adoption Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 to make sure they are in alignment” with the POL. In other words, teachers have a framework for making their curricular decisions that did not exist before. This “framework” gives teachers a common focus on the selection and implementation of curricular materials. Teacher Questionnaire The data from the Teacher Questionnaire corroborates the data from the School Level Survey. Only one teacher reports being at the “awareness stage” and all of the teachers indicate that they know about the reform. There are still teachers who demonstrate some lower level concerns, i.e., informational and personal. However, the main level of concern rests at the “management level”. This is where die greatest number of teachers indicate high levels of concern. Based on this data, it would seem that concern remains regarding the actual implementation of the plan and making it work in the classroom. The second highest stages of concerns are in the consequence and collaboration components of the questionnaire. This indicates, as the principal would suggest, a highly trained, involved and focused staff. The main issues for the teachers surround the ideas of the plan’s implication for learning on all students which are consistent with the data from then interviews as well as the School Level Survey. It would appear that teachers remained concerned that the district plan improves learning for all students; such an observation is consistent with data gathered from the interviews and the School Level Survey as well. Additionally, the data would indicate that teachers have concerns about how to effectively work Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 together. The School Level Survey, for example, indicates that each department feels that they are working well together but they do not see this as happening with consistency on a school wide, department by department basis. Lastly it should be noted that only two teachers have high levels of concern regarding refocusing. This data demonstrates that teachers don’t want to change the method of implementing the reform. Indeed, they are not interested in modifying the current program, rather, they accept the current implementation policies as the “way it is”. The table on the following page shows the number of responses for each Stage of Concern: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Table 3: Teachers' Highest Stage of Concern Expressed on the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (N=36) I s S S I S I s S s j tageO i A tage 1 Inf tage 2 P ; tage 3 i tage 4 i M ! C tage 5 C tage 6 > : i wareness r - i o rm a B o n a l ' ..2. ersonai .... ........2 j anagement i onsequence | 2.1 2. elaboration 3. efocusm g 3 ! i 2 2 - 1. I S - « a 1. 2. 2. s o. 2. 2. | 2. 1 3 2 J " 3. S 2 3. 2. 3 .: 1. - 4 2. ! 2. 2. 1. | 2 V r " % 2 3 2 3 2 ! 2. I 2 T 7 7 '4 £ r 2. I 1 - 3. 2. | 3 r ^ 3. 2. 1 7 2. 2. 7 2. ; 2 2- ! 2- 2. 2. “ 'I S 3 3. 3. I 3. f e ’ r 5 3. 1 3. ; ______ 4. 4. " 3. I 2. S 3. to _ i 4. 2 1 3 3 $ ^ 2 * 3 » 2. 2. ! 2. 3. 3 i S t 2 ^ 3. 3. I ! 1. 2 2- J 2 1 1. 3 2. i 3 3. 3. j z x - ^ 2. 1. ! 27 2 2. 2. 1. ! 1. 3. 2 1 4. 3. 4 1. j 2 2 7 4. 2. I 3. 2 3. f 1 . _ '______ ■ - 2 2. i 3 r ' 44' 4 2 1 1. 1 i 1. ! 2 i * * ~ c M 2. n ■ 2 \ 0. ! 2. \ 2 2. 2. 2. 2. 1. I 1. | 3 1 2. V 1. 1. I 1 .| 2 7 7 4 4 7 7 1 7 2- I 4 4. 3. ) v 0 3. 1 ! 0. 42. 1 ; 1 - i 1. 2 1‘ 1 3 3.1 2 j 2 I 1. 2 ! 2 4. r - ■ m : 2. I 4. ... 4 ' 4- 1 1. 2 2. ■ '2 ' 1. 2- 1.1 3 " 5 " ....... 1 4 i 4. 4 1 i 0. 1 - 2. 1. 0. i 171 2 2. S 1. * 2 ■ T °- i 2. 3. 2. 3. °- 2. 3 2 3. 271 2. 2 I 17| 2. 2. 2 1 I 1 - o71 2. 3. 0. | 3. ■ - ' 4. 1 2. 2 ! 2. f : 3. I 3 1 2. "2. ; 1 . 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 The figure shows, graphically, the highest levels of concern. Figure 4: Frequency of Teachers ’ Highest Stage of Concern (N = 36) 1 2 -i E 10- w £ z Stage0 Stage 1 Stage2 Stage3 Stage4 Stages Stages Clearly the majority of respondents report that they are in stages 3,4, and 5 which indicates that the majority of teachers are concerned about “managing” POL and implementing it, either initially or effectively, into their classroom practices. The following table examines the relationship regarding the frequency of POL use and teaching experience. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 Table 4: Classroom Teachers Usage of PoL Strategies in Relation to Years Experience (N=24) Use o f Principles of Learning Strategies Everyday Most Days Twice/Week Once/Week Once/Month 3 - 5 Years 0 1 0 2 0 6 -1 0 Years 2 4 3 0 1 11 -2 0 Years 1 3 1 1 0 20+Years 4 1 0 0 0 First, it is important to note, from the above chart, that the most veteran teachers use the POL frequently. This data is contrary to die notion that inexperienced teachers are die most “malleable”. It further speaks to die importance o f die principal's staff development surrounding POL. The veteran teachers have benefited from the POL training in ways that the newer teachers have not The implication seems to be that in time, after the newer teachers have been adequately trained they will use PL more frequently. The following table shows the same data indicated in the form o f percentages. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 t _ ' - ' ; - - * - Table 5: Cl assroom Teachers Usage o f PoL S trategies a s a P ercentage o f Teachi ng S ta ff in R el ation to Years Experi ence (N=24) Use of Principles o f Learning Strategies E V eryday M ostOays T w f c e / W O e k O n e efMeek O ne e/Month 3 -5 Years 0 % 4 % 0% 8% 0% 6 - 1 0 Years 8 % 1 7% 13 % 0% 4% 11- 20 Y ears 4 % 1 3% 4% 4% 0% 20+ Y e a r s 17 % 4 % 0% 0% 0% The following table (#6) shows the summative results for research question 3, To What Extent Had the District Design Been Implemented at the School and Classroom Levels? The data shows* as mentioned previously, thirty4hree o f the thirty-five teachers responded that they currently connect die Principles o f Learning strategies totheircum c^um . In addition, the majority of teachers believe thirt the Principles of Learning strategies assist students in meeting state performance standards. This set o f data supports the principals’ observations regarding teacher implementation of Resnick’s Principles of Learning. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Table 6: Summat i ve School L evel Survey R esults by P ercentage fo r R esearch Q uest i on 3 (N=35) _ To W hat Extent Had th e District Design Been Implemented a t th e School and Classroom Levels? D o n 't K now Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree All teachers are committed to die 2 2 implementation o f die Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies. 12% 14% 17% 26% 31% The Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies are 2 3 consistently used to improve student learning. 9% 6% 14% 43% 29% Tl» Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies are used to help students who perform below grade level 6% 9% 11% 46% 29% The Pri nci pl es o f team ing st cst egj es assist 25 students to meet state performance standards. 20% 3% 3% 46% Z 9 7 0 The Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies are 26 used by other departments in my school. 20% 3% 3% 46% 29% I connect die Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng 27 strategies to die curriculum. 3% 3% % 66% 29% I connect and use the Pri nci pl es o f 2 g Learni ng strategies to teach my students die standards. 11% 3% 6% 40% 40% I use die Pri nci pl es c f Learni ng st i t i begj es 29 to help students understand textbook content 17% 6% 11% 40% 26% Students are aware o f m id use the 30 Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies to improve their academic achievement level 9% 3% 34% 26% 29% I use the Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies 3 1 to improve my instruction. 9% % 3% 51% 37% I am comfortable using the Pri nci pl es o f 32 Learni ng strategies in my classroom. 9% % 20% 37% 34% Using the Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies 3 3 has improved my teaching. 11% 3% 9% 43% 34% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 Research Question 4: Effectiveness of the Design and Implementation Strategies The fourth research question asked, “How effective were the district design and implementation strategies at the school and the classroom levels?” Conceptual Framework D in the Case Study Guide was utilized for the collection of the data. Interviews with the principal, a member of the leadership team, a lead teacher, and six teachers were conducted according to the respective Interview Guides. The School Level Survey (items 34-44) provided additional data for this specific research question. Research question number four asks for crucially important and telling information. The majority of teachers indicate that the reforms, whatever their issues with its implementation, has improved their teaching. Further, and perhaps most importantly, they believe that the POL strategies have improved student learning. The majority of teachers also, citing their own experience, indicate that the POL strategies have helped students to be successful in their class. This critical self-reporting shows, despite previous and ongoing concerns, that teachers are acknowledging programmatic success. The concerns that teachers express are consistent with other data and demonstrate that they would like more useful training and that the issue of timeliness of training is a concern. Thus, it appears that teachers believe that the process is working and teachers are hungry for more staff development supporting the POL strategies. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 Lastly, and critically, not one teacher disagreed with question number 42, “the POL strategies are worth keeping”. Clearly teachers want to keep the POL approach and want more support to do just that. Teachers ’ Positive Responses Teacher # 7 spoke at length regarding the new “common language” that the POL provided. This was also reiterated by the principal who spoke of the common language component as being a, “real plus” about the implementation of the POL. This common language component is a by-product of the training and staff development provided by the superintendent to the principals and, in turn, for the principals to the teachers and staff. Terms such as “accountable talk” and “clear expectations” are commonly understood and became part of the vernacular of the school setting. Additional positive comments from the teachers surround the focus of the program. That is, they believe that staff meetings are no longer relegated to being “information that could be given to us in a memo” (teacher #7). According to the teachers, there was a greater focus on learning in staff meetings which sent a vital message about what was essential at the school. Teacher # 5 indicated that since the start of the reform efforts the process has, “gone through growing pains and now we are moving toward greater individual teacher creativity”. This statement is critical in light of the original skepticism that accompanied the introduction of the program. During the interviews, teacher #2 often commented that she thought the program was too prescribed and artificial. Yet, when the issue of creativity was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 addressed the teachers believed that there had been improvement in this area. This particular viewpoint is collaborated in the Teacher Questionnaire, School Level Survey and the principal survey data. Teacher #3 indicated that for the first time, all the teachers seemed to be “on the same page”, and there was general consensus that the program had been integrated in a consistent manner. Too, due to the collaborative teaming efforts and common planning time, the teachers often communicated regarding classroom best practices. During the interviews, sometimes the teachers expressed concern that the focus of the implementation was on coverage over depth and they had to remain vigilant about that oversight. Each of the teachers in the interview expressed that they had some doubt regarding the plan’s origin, however, in spite of this doubt they were pleased to acknowledge their increasing API scores and gave POL implementation and the subsequent changes in their teaching some credit for that. In fact, they were disappointed that they weren’t recognized for their good work regarding implementation more often. “We used to see the superintendent a lot but when our scores went up he quit coming around” is how Teacher #1 put it. We should, “celebrate our kids doing great”, was another comment that demonstrated that the teachers had, indeed, refocused their attention away from their teaching and into student learning and wanted to have that refocusing acknowledged. Teachers also report that they are, indeed, using POL. Fully two-thirds of the staff indicated that they use the POL most days, or everyday. These numbers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 exceed the general impression of the staff but confirm the principal’s beliefs. This is a very high number given that there has been some personnel turnover and new teachers coming on Board. Even the newer teachers are quickly integrating POL into their classroom instruction and with a focus on student achievement. Teacher #6 stated that, “I have changed my teaching and it has worked”. Areas of Concern A consistent theme from the teachers is that elements of the plan had been “bulldozed” over diem (teacher #2). This is what the school level survey data could allude to, as only a little over half of the teachers believe that the “principles have been implemented in a timely manner”. In other words, the pacing of implementation was problematic for teachers but the data suggests that the district went too fast at the beginning and is now going to slow. Other problems that teachers noted were that they believed that no one seemed to care about their previous successes and that when the new superintendent came in he acted like, “our school was a problem school, which it wasn’t”. “Now, it seems like no one cares except our principal”. Again, the concern was about the superintendent himself not the plan and its’ success. This may be consistent with what the principal called the, “missing human relations piece”. While the principal may be averse to criticizing the superintendent this comment seems to reflect some of the concerns around the manner in which the superintendent dealt with his staff. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 It is apparent from the data that the staff is fully engaged in the implementation of the POL. Follow-up is a theme that consistently shows up as a concern. This is true in all forms of the data. Teachers believe that the POL is showing positive results and that they would like to implement all nine of the Resnick principles. In fact, teachers complained that there still isn’t enough “time” to adequately address their concerns regarding full implementation of the POL. They mentioned that, "The principal asks us what we want to work on but then we don’t have time." (Teacher#3). Amplifying this idea were concerns, expressed by the teachers, about the future of the program, indicating that there are “no timelines” (teacher #2) and sometimes we “seem all over the map (teacher #7).” Teacher #1 wanted to know, “where are we in the process?” “We don’t get enough feedback from the district office” said Teacher #5. Teacher #4 said little in her interview but was consistently concerned about how “special education fits into the picture”. Some cynicism was introduced into the interview by teacher #3 who said, “We were improving anyway, how we know that the superintendent’s plan had anything to do with it? There is no empirical evidence of that”. Teacher #3 went on to say that, “The fact is that the superintendent asked us what we wanted and then told us what we had to do and the two were not related”. “One thing we know is, no matter what measurements they use, they can’t measure the hearts of our students” (teacher# 7) is a comment that was pervasive in the interviews. Follow- up questioning revealed that this had to do more with the ubiquitous testing found Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 in schools today as opposed to a specific comment about POL. Teachers, in general, expressed frustration about state measurement tools and believed that “local” assessments gave them better data to help with student learning. Also, they believe that the administration is overly concerned with state results (even though teachers are proud of them) and don’t focus enough on the “whole child”. Levels of Implementation 75% of the teachers agreed that their instructional delivery has changed as a result of the implementation of the POL reform. Given this self-reporting it should be noted that a very high number of teachers report that they use the POL every day or on most days. 30% of the teachers indicate a once or twice a week use of the Principles of the Learning reform. This shows that a very high level of implementation is occurring with 96% of the teachers reporting that they use POL on at least a weekly basis. There was only one teacher who stated that she used the strategies only once a month. Unfortunately, this teacher turned in an incomplete survey which did not provide further data for understanding why she has chosen to use the principles on such an infrequent basis. The data regarding teaching credential status shows no relation to the use of the POL. Credentials in relation to usage: • 1 Emergency credential = every day • 2 Preliminary credentials = most days • 1 preliminary = once/week Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 It is interesting to note that the most veteran teachers on the staff (20+ years) are the most consistent and frequent users of the POL reforms. This could be explained by the simple fact that there are no teachers with 0-2 years experience. Moreover, the new teachers at 3-5 years may be new to the school or district and overwhelmed by expectations of the district and principal. In addition, the connection that the teachers made with one another and the principal over a number of years may have elevated the comfort level of implementation among those that were more “risk free”. School Level Survey Survey results indicated that the design and implementation processes have been effective. Thirty-two of thirty-five certificated staff indicated that the Principles of Learning Strategies were effective in improving student learning. Teachers stated that their instructional delivery has been altered by using the Principles of Learning Strategies. This is supported by the survey results which indicated that twenty-six of the thirty-five teachers agreed “somewhat” and “strongly” that they had implemented changes. Six teachers indicated that they had not made changes to their instructional strategies using the POL. Teachers believed that ongoing support was provided at the school level and thirty-one of thirty-five teachers believed that feedback was provided to teachers on their use of the POL. Teachers interviewed stated that the main feedback received was via the Learning Walks. Teachers also agreed that the POL strategies have helped students to be successful in the classroom. All but three teachers agreed that the POL strategies are consequential in improving teaching and learning. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 The following table shows the summative results from research question number 4, How Effective Were the District Design and Implementation Strategies at the School and Classroom Levels? The data clearly shows that teachers believe that the POL strategies have improved teaching and learning and indicate teacher’s willingness and desire to have more staff development to support full implementation of the program. See Table 7 on the following page: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 7: Summat i ve School L evel Survey R esults by P ercent age fo r R esearch Q uest i on 4 (N“35) How Effective W ere th e District Design and Implementation Strategies a t th e School and Classroom L evels?' D o n 't Know Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree The Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies are 34 effective in improving student leaning. 6% 3% 3% 43% 46% My instructional delivery has changed by 35 using the Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies. 9% 3% 14% 46% 29% The Pri nci pl es e f Learni ng strategies have 36 increased student motivation toward teaming. 17% % 23% 26% 34% The Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies are 37 not expensive to implement 20% 6% 9% 26% 40% The Pr i ncf i pt es o f Learni ng strategies were 38 presented to teachers in a timely manner. 6% 6% 34% 29% 26% Training provided to teachers on die 39 Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies was useful. 6% 3% 29% 29% 34% On-going support is provided at my school 40 on the Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies. 3% 6% 17% 51% 23% Feedback is provided to teachers on their 41 use o f the Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies- 6% 6% 17% 43% 29% The Pri nci pl es a f Learni ng strategies are 42 worth keeping. 14% % % 46% 40% The Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies have 43 hdpcd stndents to be snccessfhl in my class. 11% 3% 9% 46% 31% The Pri nci pl es o f Learni ng strategies « e 44 feasible in improving teaching and learning. 6% % 6% 37% 51% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 It is clear from table 7 that teachers believe that the POL is < 4 worth keeping” Figure 5 show, graphically, that teachers are using the POL strategies on a regular basis. Figure 5: Teachers' Use o f the Principles o f Learning (N=24) It is significant to note that the majority of teachers are using POL “everyday” or “most days” A very small percentage of teachers (only 17%) report that they use the POL strategies sparingly (only once per week or month). O nce per 4% Not a t all Once per month At leas Everyday 29% a week 17% Most days 37% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 Table 8 is the data showing teacher usage in relation to years of teaching experience. Table 8: Classroom Teachers Usage ofPoL Strategies in Relation to Years ____________Experience (N=24)_____________________________________ Use of Principles of Learning Strategies Everyday Most Days Twice/Week Once/Week Once/Month 3 - 5 Years 0 1 0 2 0 6 - 10 Years 2 4 3 0 1 11 - 20 Years 1 3 1 1 0 20+ Years 4 1 0 0 0 In table 8, the “once a month” user, again, is from an incomplete survey. Teachers with the most experience reported the most frequent use as an overall percentage (all five indicated that they use the POL strategies “most days” or “everyday”). In interpreting the data we can see that there is widespread use, on a regular basis, o f the POL. The stereotypical belief that veteran teachers are more resistant to change is challenged by the fact that the senior teachers are the most consistent users of the reform. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 Summary of Findings The School District design is their own version of Lauren Resnick’s Principles of Learning. The school district design was developed after an extensive and exhaustive 100 days of data collection according to the Beach Promenade superintendent. After this period of working to understand the community and school district the superintendent decided that the district was “hungry for improvement”. Moreover, he believed that prior to his arrival the district was not using data, for the purposes of improvement, as well as it should. He alone decided to implement Lauren Resnick’s nine Principals of Learning as the protocol and design for reform in the Beach promenade School District and at Rough Rider Elementary. The Superintendent had worked, personally, with Lauren Resnick, “a renowned thinker and educational researcher” for years. Resources were a problem; the superintendent noted that, “the district was always on the verge of bankruptcy”. He set forth to pass a parcel tax (they did) and found five new revenue streams for money to go into the schools of Beach Promenade. Some of these funds were for grants to support the POL implementation on the district. The plan was then delivered to, “an incredible group of principals” who, in turn, delivered to their staffs. He taught the principals how to understand a deep systemic approach to analyze data. The data supports that the model was quite well known in the district and that there is a common belief that the program is about, “strategies that are centered on improving student learning”. A remarkable 100% (somewhat agree or strongly Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 agree) of those surveyed are aware of the program. 100% believe the strategies are about helping students. This shows that the emphasis on the plan, started by the superintendent, supported by the Board, and delivered by the principals has made a profound impact on the district and at Rough Rider Elementary. Certainly the major components of the plan are understood and believed to be in the best interests of student learning according to data in the School Level Survey, the following numbers indicate agreement, either “somewhat” or “strongly”, to wit: • 92% of those surveyed believe that the district supports Standards-Based Education • 94% believe that the plan supports the use of multiple measures of assessment. • 94% believe that the district believes ALL students can learn. • 91% agree that the plan fosters greater collaboration • 97% agree that the district wants all teachers to use the POL Indeed, these numbers are remarkable and consistent with what the principal and superintendent stated were important values and components of the vision and plan. In sum, the data is conclusive regarding the plan itself. The design was well thought out, communicated effectively, and has made believers of the community, the teachers and the school site administrators. Resnick’s POL made sense and were rooted in student achievement. The results, from the interviews to the survey data and documents, are overwhelmingly positive. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 Discussion Teachers at Rough Rider believe in the use of the POL strategies as introduced by their superintendent. They feel positively about the program and acknowledge its’ use has improved their teaching and student learning. The principal agrees with them and test results have shown a positive growth pattern since the principles were introduced. Teacher data is interesting. The study reaffirms what we typically believe are the stages of implementation. It shows that while they were initially unhappy with the direction of the district they now see it as beneficial. They believed that the implementation was, at first, to fast but is now too slow. There has been a conversion of their thinking from initial resistance to acceptance and now a willingness to know more about how to specifically apply the POL principles in their classrooms. It is clear that the staff is ready for more information about how to proceed. Teachers indicated a strong desire to “keep the ball rolling”. This sentiment was reiterated by the principal. The school may be at a critical juncture. This may be the moment at which the majority of teachers are open to new and exciting ways of improving student learning. Clearly, there is pride in what has been accomplished, a desire for recognition of their good work, and a willingness to follow the program to it’s’ end. Implement all nine strategies, work together, get feedback and make their professional lives more meaningful and to do it all on behalf of student success. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Introduction The current status of the American educational system as reported by various studies indicates that student performance continues to show mixed results. Since 1983, when A Nation at Risk was published, more them 10 million Americans have reached the 12th grade without being able to read at a basic level, and more than 20 million have reached their senior year without basioskills in mathematics. (Center for Education Reform 1998). Sadly, these statistics reflect the performance of students who have officially matriculated and completed their high school education. These statistics call for an approach that will improve education in America. The “standards-based Movement” has been at the forefront of this new approach and has been embraced by researchers and educators alike. Lauren Resnick has noted that, only with the recent movement for standards-based education has America begun to explore the potential of designing policy, structures, explicitly to link testing, curriculum, textbooks, teacher training, and accountability with clearly articulated ideas about what should be taught and what students are expected to learn” (Resnick and Hall, 1998). Synergistic efforts, such as those mentioned by Resnick, which incorporate various links to support standards based reform are critical to successful implementation of any efforts to improve student achievement. This holistic approach is far removed from the previous piecemeal approaches that have been Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 employed in the (not too distant) past. This revisionist approach which implicates various Ievelis of the educational infrastructure simultaneously likewise demands strong educational leadership. White leadership at the site level has been the focus o f extensive review with regard to school reform, the impact of leadership at the district level has been only cursorily explored. Historically , the basic premise of district participation has been to aligncumculum and instruction to assessment building up the capacity of district staff, and to foster relations with stakeholders and attending to the allocation of district resources (Regional Educational Laboratory 2000). Only recently, have standards-based reform strategies at the district level become critically important. These instructional strategies must be developed and maintained in the face of terrific challenges, such as teacher apathy, lack of financial resources, and resistance to change. Nevertheless, important strategies such as the development of a district wide student success plan, as well as examining the physical setting of the school themselves are now considered front line approaches for the implementation of increased student success measures. In the recent past, school districts in the United States have experienced profound difficulties in implementing holistically consistent approaches to school reform. Furman, 1994, has identified several challenges to implementing instructional reform. These challenges include; overwhelming work load, limited resources, articulating the nature and intent of reforms, going beyond standards and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 assessments, equity, competing problems, the grip of the past, and leadership. Significant questions about how districts work with their schools to improve teaching and learning in ways that payoff for students must be addressed. District based school reform has the potential to critically impact student achievement. However, much of the current reform movements still remain at the level of “tinkering” with a variety of ideas, without any sprang foundational premises to coalesce those discrete ideas into sustainable reform movements, Since only a few districts are taking a hol istic approach to reform, it is important to carefully examine those that are, in hopes of developing efficacious models of reform. In addition, while a considerable amount of research exists on individual school restructuring, much more work still needs to be done in examining district initiated reform, and the pivotal role of the district in such efforts. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study W as to examine how a school district created, implemented and monitored a reform-oriented program to improve classroom instruction. The study explored the elements of the district design, the elements that fashioned the program, the methods employed by district personnel to implement the design, and the effectiveness of the district in implementing the reform. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 The following questions were critical for formulating the parameters of tiiis study: 1 . What was toe district’s design for improving teaching and learning? 2. What school level efforts facilitate the implementation of the tostrict design? 3 . To what extent has the district design been implemented at the site and classroom levels? 4. How effective was toe design and implementation strategies at the site and classroom level? Methodology Qualitative, descriptively analytic and case study research methods were utilized in this study. These approaches, with the addition of rudimentary quantitative analysis of statistical data derived from demographic indicators and questionnaire results, provided the foundation for the study and it’s attending research inquiries. The case study approach was utilized as the most effective methodology for this research. Education isa discipline filled with ambiguity and instance, factors which may not always coincide with general trends, thus outliers and other phenomena are best explained with case study methods (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). This particular case study allows for an immediacy enabling researchers to focus on certain assumptions about toe phenomenon and formulate new questions to more sharply focus the data as it is obtained. The detailed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 descriptions of context and process allow practitioners to compare the findings of this study with their own situation in order to effectively implement change by designing educational interventions and utilizing other action plans for student success. Sample Purposeful sampling was used to select die district and school for this case study. The district was selected based on the following criteria; 1 .. Enrollment figures between 10,000 and 60,000 students. 2. A diverse student population in terms of both socioeconomic status and ethnicity 3. Current involvement in the implementation of a district-wide effort to improve teaching and learning for a minimum of two years. Correspondingly, once the district was selected, the selection of a specific school within that district was based on the following criteria. 1. The school met or exceeded their Academic Performance Index (API) targets for at least two of the last three years, 2. The schools have had the same administrative leadership for at least the past two years. Data Collection and Analysis The collection of data was conducted over a three-month period, which included no fewer than six visits to the respective sites. Interviews with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 administrators, key site leadership individuals, and teachers were conducted. Questionnaires were administered to teachers, surveys were given to ah certificated staff at tiie schools, and key documents were reviewed: The data collected was used to permit analysis based upon both the emic and etic perspectives of the research questions (Creswcll, p. 60). All of fivese instruments were developed by a team of doctoral candidates at the University of Southern California’s School of Education during the summer ©f 2004 in congruence with the specific conceptual frameworks tied to each o f the four research questions. The Case Study Guide (Appendix A) guided the collection of data, and contained a data collection chart and descriptions of each instrument and the four data collection phases. The four conceptual frameworks (Appendix B, C, D, and E) were the foundation for the instrumentation used to collect the data, e.g., four interview guides (Appendix F, G, H, and I), the School Level Survey (Appendix J), the Stages of Concern TeacheT Questionnaire (Appendix K), and the Document Review Guide (Appendix L). f Selected Findings A summary of three key findings for each of the four research questions are included in this section, as well as the conceptual frameworks and instrumentation that guided the collection and analysis of the data. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 Research Question 1: The District's Design for Improving Teaching and Learning The first research question asked, “What was the district’s design for improving teaching and learning? . Conceptual Framework A guided the collection and analysis of data. The School Level Survey, interviews, and district documentation were the primary sources of data. First, survey data demonstrated a high level of understanding about the first three components of Resniclc’s POL. The principal and the teachers commented on a new common language that the school site personnel share regarding what works for student achievement. A vast majority of teachers indicate they feel they know a great deal about the Principles of Learning strategies. Secondly, sometimes, according to the principal, the “human relations piece” was missing from the implementation plan. This sentiment was echoed tty the teachers who were interviewed. The belief that, “agendas were more important than the people” was the way one teacher (#7) put it. These concerns, however, have been largely addressed as the School Level Survey and interview data demonstrates. In fact, the “human relations piece” was provided by the principal, which was part of the superintendent’s original plan. Lastly, the data is conclusive regarding the plan itself. The design was well thought out, communicated effectively, and has made believers of the community, the teachers and the school site administrators. Resnick’s POL made sense and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 were rooted in student achievement. The principals understood the plan and energetically and, in the Rough Rider school’s case, humanely, implemented it. Research Question 2: School Level Efforts that Facilitated Implementation The second research question asked, “What school level efforts facilitate the implementation of the district design?” Conceptual Framework B guided the collection and analysis of data. The School Level Survey, interviews, and a review of documents were the primary sources of data. It is clear from the data that the school is fully engaged in the plan. Participants in the study are clear about what the plan is and believe that the district and in particular, the school, are supportive of the plan. It is also clear that die principaTs enthusiasm for the Principles of Learning was and is meaningful to the staff. They reported that they enjoy the training and staff development he presents as well as the relationships he creates with diem. This delivery of the program seems to be, at least in the minds of the superintendent and teachers, determined by the talent, skill, and passion of die principal. Thirdly , according to the principal of the school, the superintendent, “held us accountable, as principals, for the success of the implementation of Resnick’s POL”. He modeled by example as we submitted three times a year where we were in the process. The strong points of his direction are that it was clearly defined with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 clear expectations and that it was supported by contemporary research. In addition, he showed us how the elements o f the POL overlap and provided an emphasis on the integration of the elements in a holistic way. We also looked district wide at many of the best practices of our teachers and as principals shared freely among one another. The most important paradigm shift was the emphasis on learning rather than on teaching. This was anew way to took at our work.” This clear focus and energetic commitment to the program, trn the part of the superintendent, permeates the school that was studied. Research Question 3: The Extent of Implementation The third research question asked, “To what extent has the district design been implemented at the site and classroom levels? ” Conceptual Framework C guided the collection and analysis of data. The School Level Survey, the Teacher Questionnaire, mid interviews were the primary sources of data. Contrary to some of foe criticism foe POL received during foe direct interviews, foe vast majority of teachers (77%) believe that the POL has improved their teaching. Given foe concerns of several teachers regarding some elements of foe implementation this data is remarkable and is consistent with the principal’s beliefs that there has been a change from “teacher centered teaching to a focus on student learning which has changed the way teachers are teaching”. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 Secondly, another area of apparent full implementation is connected to School Level Survey question number 27 regarding the connection of POL strategies to the eumculum. 95% of the teachers claim that they are using die strategies to connect to the curriculum. The disconnect between the content and appropriate materials and die instruction is a long-standing one at Rough Rider, according to the principal. Now, however, at Rough Rider there is a belief that the materialsehosen and the curriculum, per se, are appropriate to the use of Resniek’s POL. This is confirmed by teachers who believe-that they are listened to when it comes to the selection of curricular materials. They believe that this has been a major success of their collaborative work together. Teacher #5 stated, “We were able to talk about the curriculum together and without die administration and the 19 other things they wanted us to do”. Lastly and very importantly, as indicated by the survey data and by their own admission, teachers admit that they are now“comfortable” with the POL plan. This “comfort” is related to the notion that teachers now have a greater number of “tools” at their disposal to use if they are struggling. This point should not be underemphasized, Teachers are isolated and often reluctant or unwilling to ask for help if they are struggling. The common foundation of the POL and the collaboration of the process of implementation of the program have “opened up” teachers to look anew at their teaching and apply tools to improve if necessary. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 The researcher would argue that this is, perhaps, the most important piece of data in the study. Research Question 4: Effectiveness of the Design and Implementation The fourth research question asked, “How effective was the design and implementation strategies at the site and classroom level?” Conceptual Framework D guided the collection and analysis of data. The School Level Survey and interviews were the primary sources of data. There is a particular concern mentioned throughout the various forms of date collection, time and again, about not having a timeline” for full implementation; This concern is also shown in the data regarding presenting the POL in a timely manner. 40% of the participants in the survey either somewhat or strongly disagreed that the program was presented in a timely manner. This data is generally inconsistent with die otherwise positive commentary made about die POL. Secondly, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding regarding resource allocation associated with the POL plan. Various factors, including site based budgets, categorical expenditures, personnel costs, and grant money are confusing to teachers who are not responsible for t he coordination of these resources. The most encouraging date regarding the critical question about student learning showed a very positive result, 88% of the survey participants believe that, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 in fact, the POL is improving student learning. This is consistent across all Forms of the data collected for this study. In every forum of interview that participants agreed that the process seems to be working, This, in the final analysis, rs striking data and confirms that the Resnick POL is a success at Rough Rider School. Conclusions In general the POL approach used in Beach Promenade has experienced success. The plan itself, developed by the superintendent, was well designed, communicated effectively, and is being embraced by teachers, administrators, and the community. The plan was highly directive. The superintendent asked the principals to be the irnplementers o f the plan. They were responsible for appropriate staff development and holding teachers accountable. The principals provided the “relationship building” component. Further* they facilitated the collaboration necessary for implementation and wide scale buy in. The most important shift, according to the principal, is the re-focusing of teacher emphasis from teaching to student learning. Ibis was a major focus of the principal’s work. Teachers, while critical of the original implementation plan, have become supporters. They believe that their efforts have been exemplary and that they now Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 deserve more recognition. Teachers use the POL often and, in their opinion, with success. Teachers and the principal expressed concerns about the timelines and, in particular, when and how they will continue to move forward with the POL. 88% of the participants of the study believe that the POL is improving student learning. Several themes emerged during the analysis of the data in this study. These themes are organized below into two categories: accomplishments and areas of concern in relation to implementation of the district’s reform effort. Accomplishments Five accomplishments reflective of effective practice that emerged in this study were: 1. Teachers, the principal, test results, and staff members all believe that the Principles of Learning are working. 2. A new emphasis on staff development has been met with enthusiasm and a renewed commitment to collaboration. 3. There is a common language used at the school when discussing issues around teaching and learning 4. The original discomfort, or shock, that teachers experienced when the plan was unveiled has now evolved into a high comfort level. 5. Teachers have tools to employ when they are struggling and want to improve their instruction. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 Areas of Concern Five areas of concern identified in this study were: 1 . Most teachers do not take “ownership” in the original design Of the reform plan. 2. Teacher and principals have asked for a definitive timeline for the next six elements ofthe 9 Principles of Learning 3. Teachers and the principal feel the need for more "time” to implement the program, 4. More teachers want to be involved in the “Learning Walks” and are unaware of other departments and grade level successes. 5. There is a lack of understanding regarding the commitment of resources to the reform plan. Implications for Practice This study provided some implications for those involved in systemic reform: The implications-are divided into spedfic areas of responsibility, inchiding implications for school boards and key district leaders, implications for site administrators, and implications for teachers. School Boards and Key District Leaders: 1 . This study shows the importance of having a comprehensive, cohesive, and focused plan for the improvement of learning in a school district cannot be overemphasized. The energy and emphasis put on a single Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 plan, whether an amalgam of reforms or a singular reform, offer clarity and direction. 2. Resources must be continually allocated to support the refomi plan. This study indicates that there is a concern regarding the sustainability of the reform activities as it relates to resources. There was a feeling that a lack of continuing pursuit of appropriate resources could potentially hamper future progress, 3. Schools should be celebrated for their, successes. In this study, teachers were frustrated that their efforts seemed to be going unnoticed at the top levels of district management. 4. Commitment to the plan must not waver or be perceived as wavering. Progress can “lose steam” if a continuing emphasis is not placed on the reform activity. 5. Site administrators should be trained and held accountable for the implementationof the plan. Site Administrators: 1, This study makes clear that principals must recognize their role as the key figures reform plan which is to understand, embrace, and effectively communicate the plan. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 2. Principals must hold their teachers accountable for the implementation of the plan. This study demonstrates improvement through the vigilance of the principal mid his willingness to hold teachers accountable. 3. Site administrators should act as champions for the plan and” walk the talk” of students, not adults, being the focus of the school. Teachers: 1. This study demonstrates that teachers must change the paradigm of looking at teaching as all important. Rather, they should see student learning as their main focus. 2. Teachers should take every opportunity to engage with their colleagues on the implementation and execution of the reform plan. This is a desire mentioned repeatedly during the study by teachers and administrators alike. 3. Teachers should work to understand the importance of resource allocation in the success of any plan and take responsibility for their use of those resources. When teachers work together and understand a reform plan they choose to align their materials along with the vision of the plan. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 Recommendations for Future Research Implications for future research that arose out of this study include: 1. A future study, in 3-5 years, should be conducted at Rough Rider and in Beach Promenade to determine whether the reform has been sustained. 2. An in-depth study of specific teacher behaviors that change as the result of reform plans should be conducted. 3. A study of the number of districts that currently employ a cohesive reform plan and what the elements of that plan are should be done thereby giving a greater sense of potential state emphasis, 4. A comparative study, looking at the results of other school districts using Resnick’s Principles of Learning should be conducted. 5. A study of staff development for principals should be conducted. This study should specifically focus on on-going training that is consistent with a plan for improving teaching and learning. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 REFERENCES Action Learning Systems (2004). Professional development that improves student learning and professional development that does not improve student leaming-What does the research say? [Electronic Version], Retrieved May 18, 2004, from www. actionleamingsvstems. com/training Asmul, S., Wilhehnsen, S. & Meistad, O. (1998). Psychological theories: A brief survey of the changing views of learning [Electronic Version], Retrieved June 9,2004, from www.uib.no/People/siniayCSCL/web struktur-4.htm. Betts, J., Rice, L. & Zau, A. (2003). Determinants of student achievement: New evidence from San Diego. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, Retrieved September 30,2003, from http://ppic.Org/content/pubs/r 803JBR.pdf Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass. Bolman, L and Deal, T. (2001). Leading with soul. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, 2001. Brennan, A. (2001). A comprehensive paper on staff development. Retrieved August 4,2004, from Articles & Resources on Educational Administration & Supervision Web Site: www. soencouragement. org/ comprehensive-paper-on-staff-development.htm Bunting, C. (1999). School reform— does it really matter? The Clearing House, 72(4), 213-216. California Department of Education (2005). Dataquest and EdData [Electronic . Version], Retrieved July 18,2005, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ Christman, J„ & Corcoran, T. (2002, November). The limits and contradictions of systemic reform: The Philadelphia story [Electronic Version], CPRE. Retrieved January 18,2005, from www.cpre.org/ Publications/childrenO 8. pdf Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 Christopher, C., Darling-Hammond, Hightower, A., Husbands, J., LaFors, J. & Young, Y. (2003, September). Building instructional quality: “ Inside-out” and “outside-in ” perspectives on San Diego's school reform Electronic Version], Retrieved April 13,2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/ ctpmail/PDFs/Brief five, pdf Coast Mountains School District #82. (2003). In Coast Mountains School District #82 Accountability Contract 2003-2004. Retrieved August 5, 2004, from British Columbia School Districts Web Site: www.bced. gov. be. ca/schools/sdinfo/acc contracts/ Cole, B. & Goldberg, J. (2002). Quality Management in education: Building excellence and equity in student performance., The Quality Management Journal, 9(4), 8-22. Coley, R. (2003). Growth in school revisited: Achievement gains from the fourth to the eight grade [Electronic Version], ETS Policy Information Report. Retrieved May 9,2004, from www.ets. org/research/pic/growth2. pdf Collins, J. (Ed.). (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Business. Comer, J., & Mahomes, V. (1999). Creating schools of child development and education in the USA: Teacher preparation for urban schools. Journal of Education for Teaching, 25(1), 3-15. Conway, J. A., & CaLzi, F. (1995). The Dark Side of Shared-Decision Making. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 45-9. Consortium for Policy Research Education (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development [Electronic version]. Retrieved August 24,2002, from www.ed. gov/pubs/CPRE/t61 /t61 d.html. Corcoran, T. (2003, November). The use of research evidence in instructional improvement [Electronic Version], Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Briefs, RB-40. Retrieved May 30, 2004, from www. cpre. org/publications Cordes, S. (2001, October 03). Meta-cognitive development strategies [Electronic Version], Retrieved June 10,2004, from www. schoolrene wal. org Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 Corwin, R. G. (1975). Innovation in organizations: The case of schools. Sociology of Education, 48(1), 1-37. Retrieved August 4,2004, from http://www.istor.org/sici Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Croninger, R , Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1996). Restructuring high schools can improve performance [Electronic version], Wisconsin Center for Education Research Highlights. Retrieved March 10,2002, from www.wcer.wisc.edu/ publications/WCER Highlights/ Vol. 8 No.l Spring 1996/Restructuring high schools.html. D’Amico, L. & Stein, M. (2002b). The district as a professional learning laboratory. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School Districts and Instructional Renewal (Chapter 4). NY: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996, September). What matters most: Teaching for America’ s future [Electronic Version], Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved July 3,2004, from www.teachingqualitv.org/resources/pdfs/What Matters Most.pdf. Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, December). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence [Electronic Version]. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy Working Paper #R-99-l. Retrieved May 9,2004, from http://dents. Washington.edu/ ctpmaii/PDF s/LDH 1999.pdf. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003, February). Standards and assessment: Where we are and what we need [Electronic Version]. Teachers College Record. Retrieved November 5,2003, from www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp? ContentID=l 1109. Darling-Hammond, L., Klein, S. & Wise, A. (1995). A license to teach: Building a profession for the 21st century schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A., Husbands. J., LaFors, J. & Young, V. (2002, April 4). Building instructional quality: Inside-out, bottom-up, and to-downperspectives on San Diego's school reform [Electronic Version], Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New Orleans, LA. Retrieved January 11,2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/ PDFs/InProgress/SDCS- Reform-AERAdraft. pdf. Debray, E. (2003). The federal role in school accountability: Assessing recent history and new law. In R. Rothman (Ed.), Rethinking accountability (pp. 56-64). Diamond, J., Halverson, R. & Spillane, J, (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 3Q(3), 23-27. Diamond, J„ Halverson, R, & Spillane, J, (2004, April). Distributed leadership: Toward a theory of school leadership practice [Electronic Version], Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Diego, CA. Retrieved May 6,2004, from http://dls.sesp.northwestem.edu/papers/twdsldrpracticeSPIHALDIA%20. pdf. DuFour, R. (1997, Winter). Moving toward the school as a learning community [Electronic Version], Journal of Staff Development, 18(1). Retrieved April 13,2004, from www.nsdc.org/library/publlcations/isd/ dufourl81.cfm. DuFour, R. (1997). The school as a learning organization: Recommendations for school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, £7(588), 81-87. DuFour, R. (2002, May). The learning-centered principal [Electronic Version], Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from www.ascd.org/cms/obiectlib/ascdframeset/index. cfm?publication=: www. a scd.org/publications/ed lead/200205/toc.html. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 Elmore, R. (2000, Winter). Building a new structure for school leadership {Electronic Version]. The Shanker Institute Retrieved April 13,2004, from www. shankerinstitute. org/Downloads/bui lding.pdf Elmore, R. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and performance-based accountability [Electronic Version], CPRE: NGA Center for Best Practices. Retrieved November 1,2003, from www.nga.org/cda/files/0803knowing.pdf. Elmore, R. & Fuhrman, S. (2001, December). Research finds the false assumption of accountability. The Education Digest, 67(4), 9-14. Ferguson, R. (1998). Teachers 'perceptions and expectations and the Black- White test score gap In The Black-White Gap. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press. Fink, D. & Hargreaves, A. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693-700. Fink, E. & Resnick, L. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders [Electronic Version].NCSL Review. Retrieved April 13,2004, from www.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/randd-engaged-fink.pdf Fiske, E. (1988). 35 Pages that shook the U.S. education world. New York Times, p. B10. Foley, E. (2001, August). Contradictions and control in systemic efforts: The ascendancy of the Central Office in Philadelphia schools. [Electronic Version) CPRE Report. Retrieved November 1,2003, from http: //www. core. org/Research/children03. pdf Frazier, L. (1993). Deteriorating school facilities and student learning (ERIC Digest 82.) Eugene OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356564). Fuhrman, S. (1994). Challenges in systemic education reform. Retrieved June 20,2004, from www.core.org/Publications/rb 14.pdf Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 420-423. Fullan, M. (1998, April). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 55, 7. Retrieved March 10,2002, from www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/ 9804/fullan.html. Fullan, M. G. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Futrell, M. H. (1989). Mission not accomplished: Education reform in retrospect. Phi Delta Kappan, 7/(1), 8-14. Galluci, C., Knapp, M., Markhort, A. & Ort, S. (2003, July). Standards-based reform and small schools of choice: How reform theories converge in three urban middle schools [Electronic Version]. CTP Research Report #R-03-2. Teaching Quality Briefs, 9, 1-8. Retrieved April 13,2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctDmail/ pdfs/districtm-gkmo-07-2003.pdf. Garcia, E. (1999). Reforming education and its cultures. The American Behavioral Scientist, 42(6), 100072-11091. Glennan, T. & Resnick, L. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School Districts and Instructional Renewal (Chapter 10). NY: Teachers College Press. Goertz. M. & Massell, D. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School Districts and Instructional Renewal (Chapter 3). NY: Teachers College Press. Goodwin, B. (2000, May). Raising the Achievement of Low-Performing Students. MCREL Policy Brief Retrieved September 17,2003, from http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/PoIicvBriefs/5993PI PBRaisingAchievement. pdf Guskey, T. & Peterson, K. (1995). The road to classroom change. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 10-14. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 Hall, G., Hord. S., Huling-Austin, L., & Rutherford, W. (1987). Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Hall, M. & Resnick, L. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable education reform. Daedalus, 127, 89-118. Hall, M. & Resnick, L. (2000, February). Principles of learning for effort-based education [Electronic Version], Retrieved April 13,2004, from http://curriculum.dpskl2.org/pol prin leam.htm. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The Economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141-78. Hickey, D. (2003). Engaged participation versus marginal nonparticipation: A stridently socio-cultural approach to achievement motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 103(4), 401-429. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15. Hiebert, J. & Stigler, J. (1997, September). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study [Electronic Version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 14-21. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from http://lsc-netterc.edu/do.cfm/paper/8037/show/use set- intl focus. Hiebert, J. & Stigler, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: The Free Press. Hightower, A. (2002), San Diego’s big boom; Systemic instructional change in the central office and schools. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds..)T School Districts and Instructional R enew al (Chapter 5). NY: Teachers College Press. Hirsch, E. D. (2001). Seeking breadth and depth in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 22-25. Holland, R. (2001, April). How to build a better teacher [Electronic Version], Hoover Institution Policy Review. Retrieved May 18, 2004, from http://www.pollcvreview.org/apr01/holland.html Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 Hopfenberg, W. & Levin, H. (1991). Accelerated schools for at-risk students: The Accelerated Schools Project. The Education Digest, 56(9), 47-50. Hubbard, L., Mehan, H. & Stein, M. (2002, March). Reform ideas that travel far afield: The two cultures of reform in District #2 and San Diego [Electronic Version]. Paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved May 9,2004, from www.ctpweb.org. Huberman, M. & Miles, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1995, May). Learning experiences in staff development. The Developer. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40. Leifeste, K., Reavis, C., & West, D. (2001). Strategies for initiating and sustaining change and organizational learning: The four cornerstones of successful change- A three year longitudinal series of studies. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association Conference. Seattle, WA. Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lewis, Anne (2003). Incomplete For the New Brand of Federalism. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 3-4. Lieberman, A. (1998). Expanding the leadership team. Educational Leadership, 4-8. Louis, K. (1998). A light feeling of chaos: Educational reform and policy in the United States. Daedalus, 127(4), 13-40. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 MacMullen, M. & Rallis, S. (2000). Inquiry minded schools: Opening doors for accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 776-773. Mahn, H. (1999). Vygotsky's methodological contribution to socio-cultural theory. Remedial and Special Education, 20(6), 341-50. Marsh, J. (2000). Strategic differences in theories of school system reform: EARLY implementation and effects of district-intermediary partnerships to improve teaching and learning [Electronic Version], Retrieved June 12, 2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/District Lit.pdf Marsh, J. (2002). How districts related to states, schools and communities: A review of emerging literature. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School Districts and Instructional Renewal (Chapter 2). NY: Teachers College Press. Marzano, R., Pickering, D ., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Massed, D. (2000, September). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies [Electronic Version], Consortium for Policy Research in Education: Policy Briefs, RB-32. Retrieved July 3,2003, from www.cpre.org/Publications/rb32.pdf Mathis, W. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Costs and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 665-668. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive theory for education: What teachers need to know. In N.M. Lambert & B.L. Combs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. McDermott, J. & Perry, G. (2003). Learning and leading: Rethinking district- school relationships. Retrieved June 26,2004, from www. ne whorizons. or g/trans/perrv. htm McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. Hightower, M. Knapp, J. Marsh & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School Districts and Instructional Renewal (Chapter 11). NY: Teachers College Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (2000, November) Implementing education reform: strategies used by states, districts, and schools. Aurora,CO: Regional Educational Laboratory Network. Retrieved March 18,2005, from www.mcrel.org/ PDF/SchoolImprovementReform/5005IR ImplementingEdReform. pdf Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (2001). Leadership for school improvement [Electronic version], Aurora, CO: McREL. Retrieved May 28,2002, from www.mcrel.Qrg. Morrison, M. (2003). Leading through meaning. Torrance, CA: University of Toyota. National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Highlights from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study [Electronic Version], U. S. Department of Education NCES 2001-027. Retrieved July 3,2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/ 2000094.pdf.. National Center for Educational Statistics (2003). Highlights from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study—Repeat [Electronic Version], U.S. Department of Education Report NCES 2001-027. Retrieved July 3,2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001027.pdf. National Center for Education statistics. (2003). Snapshot report [Electronic . Version] Retrieved July 3,2004, from National assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Web Site: http://nces.ed. gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/sh2003/2004456CA.8.pdf National Commission on Educational Excellence (1983). A nation at risk. The imperative for educational reform [Electronic Version]. United States Department of Education. Retrieval June 21,2004, from www.ed. gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/ Neuman, M., & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 9-12. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reilly, D. (2000). Linear or non-linear? A metacognitive analysis of educational assumptions and reform efforts. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14(1), 7-15. Resnick, L. (1996). Performance puzzles: Issues in measuring capabilities and certifying accomplishments (CSE No. 415). Los Angeles: University of California. Resnick, L. (199S, Fall). Learning organizations for sustainable education reform [Electronic Version]. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 127(4), 89-118. Retrieved April 13,2004, from www. instituteforleaming. ore/ media/docs/leamingorgforsustain. pdf. Resnick, L. (1999). Making America Smarter. Education Week Century Series, 18(40), 38-40. Reyhner, J. (2003). The reading wars: Phonics vs. whole language. Retrieved July 3,2004, from http://ian.ucc.nau.edu/~iar/Reading Wars.html Robelen, E. (2001, Nov. 28). States Sluggish on Execution of 1994 ESEA. Education Week Rosenshine, B. (1996). Advances in research on instruction. In J.W. Lloyd, E.J. Kameanui & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in education students with disabilities Manwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ross, S., Sanders, W, Stringfield, S., Wang, W., & Wright, S. (1999). Two- and three-year achievement results on the Tennessee value-added assessment system for restructuring school in Memphis. Memphis: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. Rowan, B. (2001, February). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States [Electronic Version]. CPRE Study of Instructional Improvement Conceptual Paper. Retrieved July 3,2004, from www. sii. soe.umich. edu/documents/EcologvPaper.pdf. Sarason, S. (1998). Political leadership and educational failure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schmoker, M. (2004, February). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional improvement [Electronic Version], Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424. Retrieved April 13,2004, from www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0402sch. htm. Scieszka, G. (1996). Key indicators of effective rural elementary schools as perceived by parents and teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(09A), 3820. Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoothouse. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Sizer, T. (1992). School reform: What's missing. World Monitor, 20. Sizer, T. (1999). No Two are quite alike. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 6-11. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. MDRC for the Council of the Great City Schools. Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Spillane, J. P. (1996, March). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1) 63- 87. United States Department of Education (1994). Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education [Electronic version]. Retrieved May 21, 2002, from www.ed. gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/ SvsReforms/ cambone2.html. United States Department of Education (2000). The class size reduction program. In Boosting student achievement in schools across the nation Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 VanderArk, T. (2002). Attributes of high achievement school and districts. Retrieved March 20,2004, from www.gatesfoundation.org/ education/evaluation/default.htm Wagner, T. (1993, September). Systemic change: Rethinking the purpose of school. Educational Leadership, 24. Williams, B. (Ed.). (2003). Closing the Achievement Gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 Appendix A Case Study Guide Overview The purpose of the Case Study Guide is to provide general and specific directions to the researchers for collecting data according to the methodologies presented in Chapter 3 and for presenting data as part of the findings in Chapter 4. The case study guide is in accordance with the conceptual frameworks of this study, which describes the examination of the design and implementation of district-led reform efforts at the site and classroom levels. When collecting data, the conceptual frameworks and the guiding questions found therein should serve as the focus both when conducting formal interviews and while administering surveys at the site and classroom level. It is not needed to ask each of the guiding questions during any given interview, but rafter use the guiding questions and conceptual frameworks to be certain of getting the pertinent information as specified in the data collection chart. This case study should be included as a major part of Chapter 3 of the dissertation. The headings and questions from the conceptual frameworks may serve as a guide for data collection and presentation of findings. Instrumentation Tools Staff Interviews Formal interviews will be conducted with the site principal, leadership team members, lead teachers, and classroom teachers. For each interview, the researcher will obtain relevant background information about the participant. The research will include the participant’s title, years of experience, and years at current site. Researchers will use a corresponding Interview Guide to ensure that the interview questions are aligned with the research questions. Interviews will be conducted Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 according to the model as developed in EDPA 612, Qualitative Methods in Educational Research. Innovation Configuration At the close of each teacher interview, the researcher will ask the participant to self-report his/her individual extent of implementation of the district’s design on a chart called an Innovation Configuration. The Innovation Configuration is essentially an implementation rubric specific to the district’s design which outlines three levels of implementation; fully implemented, partially implemented, and just getting started. The Innovation Configuration will enable the researcher to determine the extent of classroom implementation of each element of the district’s design. Surveys Selected certificated personnel will be asked to complete the School Level Survey. The School Level Survey includes a brief introduction, directions for completing the survey, an assurance of anonymity, eleven demographic data questions and forty-four survey questions. The School Level Survey is intended to measure the degree of awareness about the district design for improving teaching and learning. The survey questions focus on participants’ perceptions about the district’s design & implementation strategies, school level efforts in implementing the design, the extent o f implementation, and the effectiveness o f the implementation. Teachers will be asked to complete a second survey called the Teacher Questionnaire. The Teacher Questionnaire is a thirty-six item questionnaire based Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176 on the Stages of Concern. This questionnaire is intended to show teachers’ knowledge about the district design and comfort level with implementing reform strategies. The Stages of Concern, Teacher Questionnaire, will also reveal teachers’ extent of implementation. Document Review Guide The Document Review Guide will be used to align district documents to the research questions developed in the study, addressing design, factors supporting design, extent of implementation and effectiveness of design and implementation. The Document Review Guide is essentially an organization tool, which will enable the researcher to remain focused on the research questions and maintain documents in an organized fashion. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 Data Collection Chart Data Collection ; j Instruments <N Principal | Interview Guide I Leadership Team Member Interview Guide Lead Teacher Interview Guide T eacher Interview Guide Innovation Configuration (self-report) School Level Survey Teacher Questionnaire (SOC) Document Review Guide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 Appendix B Data Collection Schedule Phase /: Document Analysis [Initial & Ongoing] Location: Off-site [internet research & information retrieved from district level Group] Timeline: Before the first day of interviews and ongoing throughout each phase of data collection. The researcher will begin by retrieving and analyzing pertinent information about the district such as district and school student demographic data (SES status, ethnicity, language proficiency) and staff data (number of fully credentialed teachers). This will enable the researcher to obtain a holistic view of the context being studied. In order to have a comprehensive understanding of the district’s design for improving teaching and learning, the researcher will study official district documents describing reform efforts. The Document Review Guide will be utilized to ensure the information obtained addresses the research questions. After the initial document analysis, the researcher will contact the principal of the School to determine the logistics for conducting interviews and administering surveys. The researcher will also provide the principal with copies of all of the instruments being used for the study. At this time the researcher will also ask the principal to identify two leadership team members and four lead teachers who can be interviewed by the researcher. Phase II: Conducting the F irst Round of Interviews Location: On-site Timeline: Approximately 7 Hours (1-2 days at the school site) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 The researcher will conduct approximately seven one-hour interviews: 1 Principal 2 Leadership Team Members (assistant principals, if applicable) 4 Lead Teachers (instructional coaches or department chairpersons) The researcher will begin by interviewing the principal. The researcher will then conduct six more interviews (2 - leadership team members & 4 - lead teachers). The number of interviews may change based on the size and configuration of the school being studied. The participants of this round of interviews witt be purposefully selected by the principal. Purposeful sampling wilt be used to ensure that the participants are directly involved with the site-level implementation of the district’s design for improving teaching and learning. In preparing to conduct the interviews, the researcher witt study Conceptual Frameworks A, B, & D. During the interviews the researcher will use the Principal Interview Guide, the Leadership Team Member Guide and the Lead Teacher Guide, which outline key areas of focus directly aligned with the research questions. Phase IIP . Administering Surveys Location: On-site Timeline: Distribution and collection - 1 hour. The researcher will administer two surveys: 1 < School Level Survey - 44 items (administered to selected certificated staff) 2. Teacher Questionnaire - 36 items (administered to classroom teachers only) The researcher will distribute the surveys through staff mailboxes. Selected certificated personnel will receive the appropriate survey(s) along with a cover letter, briefly describing the study and outlining directions for completing and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 returning the surveys, and an envelope for returning the survey(s). The researcher intends to address the school staff, during a faculty meeting in which the researcher will introduce himself or herself, describe the study, assure confidentiality and anonymity, and outline the directions for completing and returning the surveys. Participants will be given a three-day window in which to complete and return the surveys. Survey collection procedure may include either a self addressed stamped envelope to be mailed to the researcher or a collection box in the main office. Survey envelopes will be pre-numbered to ensure accurate record of the response rate while maintaining anonymity. After the survey deadline, the researcher will determine which surveys were not returned and send out friendly reminders. The researcher will repeat this process until he or she obtains at least a 70% response rate. The researcher will work directly with the principal or administrative designee to further develop the logistics of administering the surveys. Phase IV: Interviews (Principal & teachers) & Innovation Configuration Location: On-site Timeline: Approximately 7 Hours (1-2 days at the school site) The researcher will conduct seven more interviews: 6 Teachers The researcher will begin this second round of interviews by interviewing six classroom teachers. The participants of the teacher interviews will be randomly selected within the predetermined criteria range to ensure a representative sample. The interviews will take place during the school day. The researcher will also work with the principal or administrative designee to develop the logistics for the 2n d round of interviews. In preparing for the teacher interviews, the researcher will use Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 representative sample. The interviews will take place during the school day. The researcher will also work with the principal or administrative designee to develop the logistics for the 2n d round of interviews. In preparing for the teacher interviews, the researcher will use Conceptual Frameworks A,B, C, and D. During the teacher interviews the researcher will use the Teacher Interview Guide to focus the discussion on all four research questions. At the conclusion of the interview, the researcher will ask each teacher to self-report his/her extent of implementation on the Innovation Configuration. The researcher will also conduct a second interview of the school principal to ask any questions that weren’t addressed during the first three stages of the data collection. The principal will also be given an opportunity to provide any final thoughts. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 Appendix C Conceptual Framework A The district’s design for improving teaching and learning • What is the district’s design for improving teaching and learning? o What elements are included in the design? o What is the fundamental pedagogy of the design? o Does the design include strategies and programs to be used? o How detailed or prescriptive is the design? o Does the design take into account subgroup accountability and closing the achievement gap? • What is the district’s change strategy? o Incremental or major changes o Anchoring reform design to traditional structure or restructuring district office o Top-down approach - collaborative approach • How was the design communicated to the staff, parents, students, and the public? o How much detail of the plan was communicated? o How were the changed policies and strategies actually disseminated? • How does the district define standards-based instruction? o How does the district define quality instruction? o How do district policies coherently support this vision of quality teaching? • What are the intended outcomes of the instructional improvement? o What benchmarks demonstrate realization of these outcomes? o What mechanisms are built into the design to provide feedback on progress towards goals? Instruments Aligned to Conceptual Framework A: Principal Interview Guide - Leadership Team Member Interview Guide - Lead Teacher Interview Guide - Teacher Interview Guide - School Level Survey - Document Review Guide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 Appendix D Conceptual Framework B Schobl level efforts to facilitate the implementation of the district’s design • What was the site level plan for implementing the district’s design? o What choices were made at the district level? o What decisions were the schools allowed to make? o Who was involved in implementing the reform efforts (one person or team approach) o How was the staff involved? o What was the level of community and parent involvement? • What site level resources were needed to effectively implement the reform design? o Human resources / Fi seal resources / Physical resources • How was the reform design communicated to staff members? o Were structures developed to facilitate communication of information? o Formal or informal? o Horizontally or Vertically? o Site-based or District-level? o How did teachers learn about the reform? ■ How was the importance of the reform communicated? By whom? ■ Did the district foster a shared understanding of goals? • What kind of professional development did the staff receive? o How has professional development impacted the design? ■ Content? Opportunities? Delivery? Concepts of Teacher as Learner? o Who is involved with providing professional development? ■ Is professional development general or content specific? * How is professional development funded? • What kind of support is offered to staff members? o What type of support do you provide for experienced and new teachers? o How was data used to signal capacity issues? Instruments Aliened to Conceptual Framework B: Principal Interview Guide - Leadership Team Member Interview Guide - Lead Teacher Interview Guide - Teacher Interview Guide - School Level Survey - Document Review Guide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 Appendix E ConceptualF ramework C Extent of implementation of the district’s design • How are the design and strategies monitored for extent of implementation? • How does the site leadership team obtain feedback from all departments? • What data are generated? o Where are the data stored? o What is done with the data? ■ Is this information reported to the district? ■ Are the results communicated to the teachers? How? ■ Is the information disaggregated? o What decisions are made based upon this information? • How much of the change has permeated throughout the school? o Is it in every classroom at the level? At the desired level? • What are some of the explanations for why some teachers may not be fully implementing design? o How would you get them to change? o What kinds of support, information, or professional development do teachers still need to fully implement the design? • Have the strategies been modified? What process was/will be used? • How did fiscal, human, and physical resources promote or inhibit the extent of implementation? o How does the capacity of teachers, schools, and the organization compare to before the reform? • How has the reform affected equity throughout the system? o Between schools & . among student groups? • How has the learning culture changed as a result of the design? Instruments Aligned to Conceptual Framework C: Teacher Interview Guide - Innovation Configuration - School Level Survey - Teacher Questionnaire - Document Review Guide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 Appendix F Conceptual Framework D Effectiveness of Innovation • What was the stakeholders’ perspective about impact of the improvement effort (school level, classroom level, student level)? q Site Leadership Team o Teacher o Parents & Community Members • Was the design cost effective? o How will the reform be sustained over time? • Was the design time efficient? o Was the roll out of expectations realistic? • Did the impact rise to the intentions of the design? o What promoted or inhibited the realization o f the intended outcomes? Instruments Aligned to Conceptual Framework D: Principal Interview Guide - Leadership Team Member Interview Guide - Lead Teacher Interview Guide - Teacher Interview Guide - School Level Survey - Document Review Guide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186 Appendix G Principallnterview Guide 1 . Principal background • years of experience • years at the district/site • educational background • recent training 2. School Data • School configuration • Student population • Demographics • API/A YP Special programs 3. Principal’s view of district involvement (RQ 1. What is the district design for improving teaching/learning?) • Describe the district plan. • How was the district plan developed? • Who was involved in creating the district plan? (what was the role of the superintendent and school board? Were site level people involved?) • Were forces inside the district such as the board, the superintendent, or another person or group the initiator of the plan? • What was their motivation for creating the plan? • What are the components of the district plan? • From your perspective what are the plans’ strong points? • From your perspective what do you think the plan is missing? • How was the plan communicated to the school site administrators? • What training accompanied the plan for school leaders/teacher leaders? • What district resources were allocated to support the plan? • Who funded the development of the plan? • Who funded the implementation of the plan? • Would your plan have been different if you had more funds? • Were individual school budgets affected by the decisions made by the developers of the plan? • Did the sites have a say in that? • Who controls the budgeting and funding of the plan? • How does the district assess the success of the plan? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 1. Specific administrator activities at the school site related to student performance (RQ 2. What school level efforts facilitate the implementation of the district design?) • What was your role in the development of the district plan? • How did you implement the district plan at the site level? • What was the timetable? • Did the timetable follow the original plan? • Who monitored the ongoing implementation of the plan? • Describe the evaluation component of the plan? • What measures were used to evaluate success or failure? • Describe how the program was monitored at the site level? • How did you train teachers? • What was the training timeline? • Who paid for the training? • How did you assess the success of the plan? 1. Principal’s perception of teachers involvement in the district design (RQ 3. To what extent has the district design and implementation strategies at the site/district levels been effective?) • What was the teacher’s response to the communication of the district plan? • What was the teacher’s attitude toward the plan? • How did you know that the teachers’ understood the plan? • How did teachers assess the success of the plan? • What did the implementation look like in the classroom? • What evidence did that teacher give to you that the plan is either working or not working? • To what extent were teachers actually using it? What do you see in the classroom? • How much time did the plan take? • Does the teacher evaluation system currently in place support the implementation of the district design? • Do you feel your school needs have been met by the plan? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 Appendix H Leadership Team Member Interview Guide 1. Leadership Team Member background • Job description/role of the leadership team member • Years of experience • Years at the district/site • Professional background • Recent training 2. Perceptions of district involvement • Describe the district plan • Were you involved in die creation of the district plan? • What are the elements of the district plan? • How was the plan communicated to die lead teachers and staff? • What training accompanied the plan for school leaders? • How is the success of the plan assessed? 3. Specific Leadership Team Member activities at the school site related to student performance • What is your role in the implementation of the district plan at the site level? • Describe how die program is monitored at the site level? • What type of supporting activities do you engage in with the teachers? • What is the training/implementation timeline? -• What about die plan do you think is working? • What about the plan do you think needs work? • How do you assess the success of the plan? 4. Leadership Team Member perception of teachers involvement in the district design • What was the teacher’s response to the communication of the district plan? • What was the teacher’s attitude toward the plan? • How did teachers assess the success of the plan? • What did die implementation look like in the classroom? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 Appendix I Lead Teacher Interview Guide 1. Lead Teacher background • Job description/role of the lead teacher • Years of experience • Years at the district/site • Professional background • Recent training 2. Perceptions of district involvement • Describe the district plan • Were you involved in the creation of the district plan? • What are the elements of the district plan? • How was the plan communicated to the lead teachers? • What training accompanied the plan for school teacher leaders? • How is die suecess of the plan assessed? 3. Specific lead teacher activities at the school site related to student performance • What is your role in the implementation of the district plan at the site level? • Describe how the program is monitored at the site level? • What type of supporting activities do you engage in with the teachers? • What is the training/implementation timeline? • What about the plan do you think is working? • What about the plan do you think needs work? • How do you assess the success of the plan? 4. Lead Teacher’s perception of teachers involvement in the district design • What was the teacher’s response to the communication of the district plan? • What is the teacher’s attitude toward the plan? • How do teachers assess the success of the plan? • What does the implementation look like in the classroom? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 Appendix J Teacher Interview Guide 1. Teacher background • Years of experience • Years at the district/site • Professional background • Recent framing 2. Perceptions of district involvement • What did you know about the district plan for improving teaching and learning and how does the plan affect what you do in your classroom? • Was someone from your school, or you, involved in its creation? • What are the elements of the district plan? • How was the plan communicated to die teachers? • What training accompanied the plan for schools and teachers? • How was the success of the plan assessed? 3. Specific teacher activities at the school site related to student performance • What was your role in the implementation of the district plan at the site level? • Describe how the program is monitored at the site level? • What type of activities do you engage in with the administrator or lead teachers? • How often did you have training or participate in activities that support you in the implementation? • What about the plan do you think is working? • What about the plan do you think needs work? • How did you assess the success of the plan? 4. Teacher’s perception of teachers involvement in die district design • What was your response to the communication of the district plan? • Are most employee’s familiar with the district plan? • How did you feel about the plan? • Was the professional development offered helpful? Examples of positive or negative aspects of the professional development. • How did you assess the success of the plan? • Can you give me examples that highlight either the positive or negative examples that occurred during the implementation of plan? • What does the implementation look like in the classroom? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 Appendix K School Level Survey Principles of Learning Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this study. Your contribution is valued and your answers are completely confidential. As part of this study, your responses will provide educators and professional organizations with important information. Please mark the following demographic data that best applies to you for purposes of this study only. Your anonymity will be maintained. The numbers in parenthesis following each response are for coding purposes only. 1. Your Gender: _ Female (i) 6. Years of Experience in Education: _ Male (2) _ 0-2 Years (i) _ 3-5 Years (2) Highest Educational Degree You 6-10 Years (3) Possess: 11-20 Years (4) _ Bachelor’s (1) _ 20+ Years (5) _ Master’s (2) _ Doctorate (3) 7. Years in Current Position: _ 0-2 Years 0 ) Credentials You Possess: _ 3-5 Years (2) _ Clear (1) 6-10 Years (3) _ Preliminary (2) _ 11-20 Years (4) _ Intern (3) _ 20+ Years (5) _ Pre-Intern (4) _ Emergency (5) 8. Ethnicity: _ African American (1) Your Current Position: _ Asian (2) _ Administrator (1) _ Hispanic/Latino (3) _ Teacher Leader (Dept. Chair) ( 2) _ Native American (4) _ Teacher (3) _ Pacific Islander (5) _ White (6) Grade Level Currently Teaching: Other (7) ^ 6 * (i) 7 th- 8 th (2 ) _ 9th -12th (3) _ Not teaching (4) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 _ Hispanic/Latino _ Native American _ Pacific Islander White _ Not teaching 9. Courses Currently Teaching: _ Self-contained (Elementary School) (i> Fine Arts ( 2) _ F oreign Language (3 ) _ English/Language Arts (4 ) _ Mathematics (5 ) _ Physical Education (6 ) _ Science (7 ) _ Social Science g o _ Elective ( 9 > _ Other______________ (io) Not Teaching (ii) 10. How often do you use the nine strategies from Principles of Learning*. _ Everyday (i) Most Days ( 2) _ At least twice a week ( 3 > _ About once per week (4 ) _ Once per month ( 5 > Not at all (6 ) _ Not familiar with the nine strategies ( 7 > 11. What type of training have you had in using the nine strategies from Principles ofLearning} _ More than five days (i) _ Three to five days ( 2) _ One to two days (3 ) _ Less than one day ( 4 > No training (5 ) (3) (4) (5) Other (7) (6) (4> Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 Principles of Learning Please take time to read each item carefully and circle the number that best reflects your response to the item. on't trongjy j omewh ! omewh j trongly : j at at | | I now I isagree j gree j isagree 1 gree j | 1. I am aware of the Principles of Learning : strategies for improving teaching and learning. ] j [ • j 2. The district supports standard-based instruction. j ! 3. The Principles of Learning strategies are j j ____ centered on improving student learning. j j J : j J | 4. The Principles of Learning strategies call for the j I use of multiple measures to assess student j performance. _________ _ _ _ j i _ ; . : J 5. The Principles of Learning strategies include I ways to identify acceptable levels of student | performance. .............. L _ _ L _ J _ L. J _ _ i ; 6. The district believes that all students can meet high standards. _ _ _...... _ ..... ] _ J ._ ... _.. j _ ! _ _ _ j j ! 7. The Principles of Learning strategies foster a collaborative approach to improving student performance. ________ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ J ............|...........I ........_ J j i 8. Leaders in the district want everyone to use the ! Principles of Learning strategi es. j j j j j 9. The school is supportive in implementing the { Principles of Learning strategies. j L I L _ i J 10. The school offers frequent professional development to raise knowledge of the Principles \ j of Learning strategies. ........... _ ..... _ ... j........... _j.... _...;.._ .................. i 11. Systematic efforts to implement the Principles of 1 ; Learning strategies were communi cated. [ :_____; ] j ; 12. Teacher training and assistance were provided S ____and conducted in a timely manner. j____ J !____ i _ ____ ______ j ; 13. I have attended professional development i l l ! ! ; training on the Principles of Learning strategies in j j ; the past six months. ................... _ _ i... ...... ; _ ....■ ..... I .......... : 14. I know a great deal about the Principles of Learning strategies. _ _ _ _ _ ..... ; .........L .........J ........L _ ._... i......... j i 15. Teachers have opportunities to provide input on I how to implement the Principles of Learning L _ strategies at my school. ______ :........ j_ ... . ..j _____j... ...;......... j | 16. I would like to modify the way my school uses the | Principles of Learning strategies based on the 5 [ experiences of my students. ____ { _____j_____ [ j ____ : j 17. Teachers are involved in the change process and ( F i j i development/selection of suitable materials to L _ _ support Principles of Learning strategi es. J [ ; j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 18. I am developing mastery of the Principles of Learning strategies. 19. School leadership support was a key element in assisting this site in the implementation of the Principles of Learning strategies. 20. Financial, staff, and material resources are allocated to facilitate the implementation of the Principles of Learning strategies. 21. M y school’ s vision, mission, and goals are aligned with the Principles of Learning strategies. 22. A ll teachers are committed to the implementation of the Principles of Learning strategies. ___ 23. The Principles of Learning strategies are consistently used to improve student learning. 24. The Principles of Learning strategies are used to help students who perform below grade level 25. The Principles of Learning strategies assist students to meet state performance standards. 26. The Principles of Learning strategies are used by other departments in my school. 27.1 connect the Principles of Learning strategies to the curriculum. 28. I connect and use the Principles of Learning strategies to teach my students the standards. 29. I use the Principles of Learning strategies to help students understand textbook content. 30. Students are aware of and use the Principles of Learning strategies to improve their academic achievement level. 31. I use the Principles of Learning strategies to improve my instruction. 32. I am comfortable using the Principles of Learning strategies in my classroom.___ 33. Using the Principles of Learning strategies has improved my teaching. 34. the Principles of Learning strategies are effective in improving student learning. 35. M y instructional delivery has changed by using the Principles of Learning strategies. 36. The Principles of Learning strategies have increased student motivation toward learning.__ 37. The Principles of Learning strategies are not expensive to implement. ___ _______ 38. The Principles of Learning strategies were presented to teachers in a timely manner. omewh ; omewh j trongly at at ' gree : g r e e Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 on't { trongly omewh ; omewh ; trongly now ; isagree gree isagree gree at at i ' 39. Training provided to teachers on the Principles of Learning strategies was useful._____ 40. On-going support is provided at my school on the Principles of Learning strategies. 41. Feedback is provided to teachers on their use of the Principles of Learning strategies. 42. The Principles of Learning strategies are worth keeping._________ 43. The Principles of Learning strategies have helped students to be successful in my class. 44. The Principles of Learning strategies are feasible in improving teaching and learning. Thank you very much for your time. Please return this survey in the self- addressed stamped envelope. If you have misplaced the envelope, extra self- addressed envelopes are available in the front office. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 Appendix L Document Review Guide The document review guide will be used to align district documents to the research questions developed in the study; design, factors shaping design, extent of implementation and effectiveness of design and implementation. Document Title: Author & Date: esearch Questions Description and Purpose: M O 1 o ELEMENTS OF DISTRICTS DESIGN Researcher Notes n if i 1 ... i 1 1 1 8 i 1 fi 1 3 !§ IP k i 1 ■ B RQl: Design -- RQ2: School Level Effort - - RQ3: Extent of Im plementation - RQ4: Effectiveness of the design Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 Appendix M Teacher Questionnaire Principles of Learning Years of Teaching___________ The purpose of this questionnaire is to identify concerns regarding use of the nine strategies from Principles of Learning. You may find some of the items on this questionnaire irrelevant. For the completely irrelevant items, please circle “0” on the scale. Other items will represent those concerns you do have, in varying degrees of intensity, and should be marked higher on the scale. The results of this questionnaire are confidential and will only be used for dissertation research in summative form. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irrelevant Not true of me Somewhat true of me Very true of me now I am concerned about students’ attitudes towards the use of the nine strategies from Principles of Learning. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I now know of some other approaches that might work better than the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I don’ t know what the Principles of Learning strategies are. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f am concerned about not having enough time to organize myself each day in relation to using the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would like to help other faculty in their use of the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have a very limited knowledge of the Prindpfes of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 I would like to know how the use of the Principles of Learning strategies affects my classroom, my position at my school, and my professional status. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am concerned about conflict between my interests and my responsibilities when using the Principles of Learning strategies 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am concerned about revising my lesson plans to use the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 I would like to develop working relationships with both our faculty and outside faculty who use the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 I am concerned about how the Principles of Learning strategies affect students. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 I am not concerned about the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 i would like to know who will make the decisions on how I use the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 I would like to discuss the possibility of using the Principles of Learning strategies. Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 I would like to know what resources are available to support the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 I am concerned about my inability to manage all that the Principles of Learning strategies require. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 I would like to know how my teaching skills are supposed to change with the use of the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I would like to familiarize other departments or persons with the progress of using the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students in relation to the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 I would like to revise the Principles of Learning strategies instructional approach. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 I am completely occupied with other things besides the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 I would like to modify the school’s use of the Principles of Learning strategies based on the experiences of my students. Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 3 Although I am not familiar with the Principles of Learning strategies, 1 am concerned about aspects of the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 1 would like to exdte my students about their part in the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 1 am concerned about time spent working with nonacademic problems related to the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 1 would like to know what the use of the Principles of Learning strategies will require in the immediate future. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 1 would like to coordinate my effort with others to maximize the effects of the Principles o f Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 would like to have more information on time and energy commitments required by the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 i would like to know what other faculty are doing as they use the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 At this time, 1 am not interested in learning about the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 would like to determine how to supplement, enhance, or replace the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 1 would like to use feedback from students to change the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 I would like to know how my role as a teacher will change when 1 am using the Principles of Learning strategies. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Coordination of tasks and people in relation to using the Principles of Learning strategies is taking too much of my time. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 1 would like to know how the Principles of Learning strategies are better than what we have had in the past. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 1 am concerned about how the Principles of Learning strategies affect students. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the media unified school district

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of Algiers Elementary School in the Orchard Unified School District

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Beach Promenade Unified School District

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Orchard Field Unified School District

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

A closer look at the impact of teacher evaluation: A case study in a high performing California elementary school

PDF

How districts and schools utilize data to improve the delivery of instruction and student performance: A case study

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high -achieving urban elementary school

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's High Priority School: A case study

PDF

How effective schools use data to improve student achievement

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Media Unified School District

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's high -priority school: A case study

PDF

An analysis of program planning in schools with emerging excellence in science instructional design

PDF

An analysis of Long Beach Unified School District's EXCEL model of providing gifted programs for urban students and their effect on student achievement

PDF

Design, implementation and adequacy of using student performance data and the design's link to state context for assessing student performance: A case study

PDF

Elementary administrators and teachers' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

An analysis of the use of data to increase student achievement in public schools

PDF

Data: Policies, strategies, and utilizations in public schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Hubbard, Jeffrey (author)

Core Title Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of an elementary school in the Beach Promenade Unified School District

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,education, curriculum and instruction,education, elementary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Ferris, Robert (committee member), Fitzpatrick, John (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-428698

Unique identifier UC11336416

Identifier 3233819.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-428698 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3233819.pdf

Dmrecord 428698

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hubbard, Jeffrey

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA