University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring Reading First program implementation across schools with differing achievement results

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring Reading First program implementation across schools with differing achievement results

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EXPLORING READING FIRST PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ACROSS
SCHOOLS WITH DIFFERING ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS
by
Lori Ann Rogers
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 Lori Ann Rogers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3233821
Copyright 2006 by
Rogers, Lori Ann
All rights reserved.
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 3233821
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.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Rick Rogers, and my children,
Rebecca and Melissa Rogers, whose ongoing love, support and understanding
have made this journey possible, as well as to my father, Larry Felts, whose love
for and belief in me was always apparent. I am blessed by my extended family
and friends who have always believed in and loved me, and thank God for their
positive influence on my life and work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with deep appreciation that I attribute my success in completion of this
dissertation and my ensuing doctorate to the following individuals supporting me
in this endeavor. This list includes: my dad, God rest his soul, for without his
support and vision, I may have never started this journey; my beloved husband,
for his unfailing belief in my ability to succeed; and my two precious, brilliant
daughters who gave me two good reasons just to wake up every day. I extend
my sincere thanks to my committee members: Chairperson, Dr. Amanda
Datnow; Dr. Robert Rueda; and Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores, for their invaluable
support and guidance in completing this research project. They exemplify the
tradition and professionalism of the University of Southern California. I further
acknowledge my Anaheim City School District colleagues, my Orange County
cohort and in particular my dissertation cohort. My carpool buddies Maggie and
Kathy deserve appreciation for never letting me quit and for providing laughter
and lattes as good medicine along the way.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................vii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1
Background of the Problem...........................................................................................1
No Child Left Behind.....................................................................................................3
Overview of Reading First............................................................................................ 5
Reading Program Adoptions......................................................................................... 7
Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................8
Research Questions........................................................................................................ 9
Significance of the Study.............................................................................................10
Limitations.................................................................................................................... 11
Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................... 12
Introduction...................................................................................................................12
Conceptual Framework................................................................................................13
Factors in Successful Reform Implementation.......................................................... 15
District and Site Leadership..................................................................................... 15
School Context, Relationships and Collaboration..................................................19
Design Team Support.............................................................................................. 23
Teacher Professional Development........................................................................ 24
Relationships Between Reforms and Accountability Systems............................. 29
Conclusion....................................................................................................................31
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY...................................................................... 34
Research Design........................................................................................................... 35
Sample and Population.................................................................................................36
Figure 3.1: API Comparison....................................................................................... 39
A Brief Comparison of the Two Schools................................................................... 39
Instrumentation and Data Collection..........................................................................42
Qualitative Analysis.....................................................................................................44
Validating the Findings................................................................................................44
Summary.......................................................................................................................45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA........................................................46
Research Question One............................................................................................... 47
Classroom Implementation......................................................................................47
Classroom Environment.......................................................................................... 52
Instructional Time.....................................................................................................56
Other Initiatives........................................................................................................ 57
Summary of Findings for Research Question One................................................ 58
Research Question Tw o.............................................................................................. 60
Assembly Bill 466 and Assembly Bill 75 - Professional Development............. 61
Additional Professional Development.................................................................... 62
Coaching....................................................................................................................65
Knowledge of the Reading First Plan..................................................................... 66
Summary of Findings for Research Question Tw o............................................... 67
Research Question Three............................................................................................ 69
Changing School Context........................................................................................ 69
Collaboration............................................................................................................ 70
Administrative Leadership....................................................................................... 72
Relationships and Communication..........................................................................74
Teacher Leadership - Coaching...............................................................................76
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three............................................. 79
Research Question Four...............................................................................................79
District Support......................................................................................................... 80
Hindrances - Reading First.. .Everything Else Second.........................................82
Parent Involvement, SES, and the Language Barrier............................................ 84
Preschool and Overcrowded Schools..................................................................... 86
Summary of Findings for Research Question Four............................................... 88
Conclusion.................................................................................................................88
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER STUDY................................................................................................90
Overview of the Problem............................................................................................ 90
Purpose of the Study....................................................................................................90
Methodology.................................................................................................................91
Findings for Research Question One..........................................................................93
Findings for Research Question Two......................................................................... 93
Findings for Research Question Three....................................................................... 94
Findings for Research Question Four.............................................................. 95
Conclusions...................................................................................................................96
Recommendations for Future Research..................................................................... 96
Suggestions for Policy and Practice............................................................................99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................104
APPENDIX A: READING FIRST TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 112
APPENDIX B: READING FIRST PRINCIPAL/COACH INTERVIEW
PROTOCOL...................................................................................................................114
APPENDIX C: INFORMAL OBSERVATION PROTOCOL..................................117
APPENDIX D: MASTER LIST OF CODES............................................................. 118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: RFAI Two-year Comparison...................................................................... 38
Table 3.2: Demographic Comparison of District Schools Selected for Study 40
Table 3.3: Teacher Experience and Professional Development................................41
Table 4.1: Classroom Evidence: Elements of Houghton Mifflin Program............ 56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
ABSTRACT
This study examines implementation of the California Reading First Plan in
two elementary schools in one Southern California school district. Reading First is a
federal initiative aimed at improving reading instruction in primary grades. For the
purposes of the present study, the focus is on understanding what differences exist in
the implementation of the Reading First Plan and how contextual factors may
support or hinder implementation. The overarching research question is as follows:
Are there differences in Reading First implementation at a school with high
achievement index scores as compared to a school with low achievement index
scores?
This study explores the impact of classroom context, professional
development experiences, school context and other internal factors, and external
factors that support or hinder implementation of the Reading First Plan. Generally,
the findings of the study lead to the conclusion that even though the two schools
have differences in achievement levels, there were no real differences in
implementation. In sum, few differences between the two schools surfaced in
classroom context and professional development. Interviewees participated in nearly
identical professional development activities as required by the Reading First
subgrant assurances. Classroom environment was quite similar at both schools
except that School B lagged behind School A in posting required elements of the
adopted literacy program - Houghton Mifflin Reading. Elements of school context
were also similar across schools in the areas of collaboration, communication and
coaching. While leadership is not viewed as an implementation factor, a noted
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
difference was that School A experienced stable leadership and a clear reform
agenda over both years of Reading First Plan implementation while School B had a
history of changes in school administrators and initiated conflicting reforms. Finally,
external factors such as a lack of parent involvement and student language
differences were noted by both schools as a hindrance to implementation at both
sites. Suggestions for future research include studying implementation through a
larger sample of multiple schools involved in Reading First, as well as examining the
role of leadership and teacher efficacy in student outcomes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
“ I f we knew what is was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? ”
- Albert Einstein
Background o f the Problem
As many as 40% of children in the U.S. experience significant problems
becoming competent readers (Snow, Bums, & Griffin, 1998). In fact, more than two-
thirds of fourth graders fail to read at levels considered to be proficient (National
Center for Educational Statistics, 2001), and in areas of high poverty it is not
uncommon to find 70%-80% of a school’s student body reading below the 30th
percentile (Snow, et al., 1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children
(Snow, et al., 1998) examines factors that put children at risk of being poor readers.
It explores in detail how literacy can be fostered from birth through kindergarten and
the primary grades, including evaluation of philosophies, systems, and materials
commonly used to teach reading.
An analysis of the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) data indicated that while good readers are improving, poor readers are
losing ground. In half the NAEP participating states in the U.S. (18 out of 36) the
performance of students in the bottom quartile in fourth grade reading declined, and
performance improved in only three states (Barton, 2002). In contrast, the
performance of students in the top quartile improved in twelve states and declined in
none. Given that reading achievement has been the focus of many instructional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
programs over the past several years, the corresponding expectation has been that
reading scores for our most at-risk student should increase not decline.
One of the most significant factors affecting reading instruction is phonics.
In 2002, the American Psychological Association issued a report whose conclusions
Scientific American (Rayner, et al., 2002) summarized: “Our recent review of the
topic shows that there is no doubt about it: teaching that makes the rules of phonics
clear will ultimately be more successful than teaching that does not. Admittedly,
some children can infer these principles on their own, but most need explicit
instruction in phonics, or their reading skills will suffer” (p. 29). In addition, in
appearances before congressional committees and in journal articles, Dr. Reid Lyon,
chief of the National Institutes of Health’s Child Development and Behavior Branch,
reported that the results of his agency’s studies argue for the use of explicit phonics
programs in the early grades (Lyon, 2002).
Without a doubt, children need strong foundation skills in reading. While
much has been learned about effective early literacy instruction, much less is known
about how school systems and teachers can be encouraged to adopt these research-
based practices. Reading First, a federal grant program under the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act o f 2001 (P.L. 107-110), targets funding to underperforming
schools to finance the adoption and operation of scientifically-based reading
programs. This study will explore the issues of Reading First program
implementation and the factors that influence it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
No Child Left Behind
Before examining Reading First, it is useful to consider the policy context in
which it was developed. In 2002, President Bush signed into law No Child Left
Behind, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
The new law reflected an unprecedented commitment to ensuring that all students,
regardless of background, have the opportunity to obtain a quality education and
reach proficiency in core academic subjects. To reach this goal, NCLB refocused
federal education programs on the principles of stronger accountability for results,
more choices for parents and students, and the use of research-based instructional
methods (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). The federal government’s
involvement through NCLB reinforces the prior movement of many states toward
policies based on measured student achievement. Analysis of state achievement
growth as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (2004)
shows that accountability systems introduced during the 1990s had a clear positive
impact on student achievement.
The cornerstone of current federal educational policy has been expansion of
school accountability based on measured student test performance. Although many
states had already installed accountability systems by 2000, a central campaign
theme of George W. Bush was to expand this to all states, something that became a
reality with NCLB. The policy has been controversial for a variety of reasons,
leading to assertions that it has distorted schools in undesirable ways, that it has led
to unintended outcomes, and that it has not and will not accomplish its objectives of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
improving student achievement (Hanushek & Raymond, 2003). Some argue that the
passage of NCLB marked a distinct shift in educational governance. As Conley
(2003) states, “in one fell swoop, the American educational system became
federalized to an unprecedented degree” (p. 28).
The landmark NCLB codified a developing policy view that standards,
testing, and accountability were the path to improved performance. Much of earlier
educational policy, both at the federal and state level, concentrated on providing
greater resources - especially for the education of disadvantaged students. But
student outcomes proved noticeably impervious to these policy initiatives (NAEP,
2004). As a result, federal policy made a distinct shift in focus to emphasizing
performance objectives and outcomes rather than school inputs. Stinging criticism
of current public policy related to NCLB (Allington, 2002; Coles, 2003) suggest that
sizeable segments of the K-12 and scholarly reading communities have deep
reservations about Reading First. They see the policy as overemphasizing, for
example, phonics, phonemic awareness, scientifically-based research, and
particularly testing.
In a survey completed by members of the International Reading Association
(Roller, 2005), items related to two of the basic underlying assumptions of NCLB -
that research-based instruction will improve achievement, and that professional
development will improve achievement showed strong support by most IRA
members. In addition, the membership is also positive about supplemental services
and extending the school day or school year. However, another assumption - that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
severe sanctions for schools failing to meet adequate yearly progress will improve
achievement - is not shared by IRA members.
Overview o f Reading First
Reading First is a national initiative, established under NCLB. Specifically,
Reading First was authorized by Title I, Part B, Subpart I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act o f 2001.
California was approved on August 23, 2002, to receive approximately $900 million,
over a six-year period, to improve K-3 classroom instruction in reading provided that
“substantial progress” is made toward the goal that by the end of third grade, all
students are grade level proficient readers in English (CalRead, n.d.). Reading First
subgrants were awarded to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) or school districts in
California in three cohorts - 2002, 2003, and 2004 - based upon qualification for
funding coupled with approved subgrant applications, which followed Reading First
assurances. Schools with 40% or more of second and third graders who performed
below basic and far below basic on California Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) state assessments qualified for funding.
Reading First represents a direct and intensive effort by the federal
government to influence instructional practice and student achievement in low-
performing schools. Reading First is predicated on research findings that high-
quality reading instruction in the primary grades significantly reduces the number of
students who experience difficulties in later years (National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, 2000). The Reading First initiative builds on the findings
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
of years of scientific research, which, at the request of Congress, were compiled by
the National Reading Panel (2000). Ensuring that more children receive effective
reading instruction in the early grades is of critical importance.
The Reading First program goal is to improve kindergarten through third-
grade student achievement in reading by supporting state and local educational
agencies in establishing reading programs that are based on scientifically based
reading research. Building on a solid foundation of research, the program is designed
to select, implement, and provide professional development for teachers using
scientifically based reading programs, and to ensure accountability through ongoing,
valid and reliable screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based assessment (U.S.
Department of Education, n.d.). Other components of the Reading First plan require
that principals become knowledgeable in reading instruction through professional
development and annual follow-up training (California Department of Education,
n.d.; CalRead, n.d.) along with instructional support systems such as literacy coaches
and content experts for support to the coaches.
The Reading First program encourages districts to utilize literacy coaches
solely to provide site-based support of the adopted reading program. Twenty days of
extensive professional development for coaches is provided by the California
Technical Assistance Center (C-TAC) during the initial three years of grant
implementation. At the Coach’s Institutes, coaches, content experts and district
coach coordinators develop expertise in the adopted reading program at all K-3 grade
levels. Additionally, coaches are trained to provide consultation and serve in a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
leadership role regarding reading instruction. Districts may request technical
assistance from the regional centers on how to support their coaches.
Reading Program Adoptions
Alongside these policy changes, during the past fifteen years an increasing
number of school districts across the country have enacted policies that require the
adoption of highly structured basal reading curricula to address their students’ low
reading scores on standardized tests. The most prominent use of highly prescribed
curricula has been in large urban school systems and in a number of Southern states
with traditions of strong centralized controls (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Districts in
New York, Texas, California, Washington, and a host of other states have adopted
programs such as Open Court, Houghton Mifflin Reading and Success for All.
According to Darling-Hammond (1997) student achievement levels have risen
primarily in states that have invested heavily in teacher development.
The demand for highly structured basal curricula has resulted in a
proliferation of externally developed reading programs. The wholesale adoption of
these programs is now underway. The California State Board of Education selected
only two programs for adoption in 2001 that were deemed to be based on standards-
based reading research. The list included Open Court and Houghton Mifflin
Reading.
The California Teachers Association (CTA) is concerned that the policies
represented by NCLB are designed to de-skill teachers and strip them of control
(CTA, 2002). Armed with the belief that scripted reading programs threaten the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
future of the teaching profession, CTA fears that schools will turn to less-skilled
teachers to teach scripted programs resulting in “real teachers” being pushed out of
the profession. A review of research on basal reading programs reveals that their use
alone does not translate into de-skilling or a reduction in the role of teachers
(Baumann & Ivey, 1997) or improved student achievement in reading. While there
are studies that suggest that the use of some basal reading programs, may have a
positive relationship to increased test scores, these studies focus solely on outcome
data and do not examine the extent to which program implementation and outcomes
are related (McGraw-Hill, 2002; Schacter, 2001; Sacramento City Unified School
District, 2000).
Statement o f the Problem
In 2002, the ABC School District (ABCSD) district adopted a state board
approved, K-6 standards-based reading program - Houghton Mifflin Reading. In
2003, ABCSD was one of approximately 60 school districts in California to be
awarded a Reading First subgrant under the state’s Reading First Plan. Sixteen of
twenty-three ABCSD schools were selected to receive funding through Reading First
for their K-3 programs. After the first year of implementation of the adopted
Houghton Mifflin Reading program and the Reading First plan, differences in
achievement scores between schools were noted. But what explains these
differences?
It is not known how well school reforms, which involve improved student
achievement in reading, are working. Are Reading First programs implemented
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
differently across schools and if so, why? This study will examine the
implementation and impact of the California Reading First Plan in ABCSD schools.
The study sample will consist of two schools in the ABC School District - one
Reading First school with high achievement index scores and one Reading First
school with low achievement index scores. Results of the CAT 6 (California
Achievement Test Sixth Edition), the primary standardized test used for
accountability in California and the Reading First Achievement Index (RFAI) will be
used to select the schools for the study. The CAT 6 is the norm-referenced portion of
STAR testing. RFAI is calculated on a weighted formula using results of third grade
CAT 6 reading scores (10%), the California Standards Test portion of the STAR for
second and third grades (60%), first, second and third grade end of year fluency
scores (25%), and end of year kindergarten assessments (5%). Reading First schools
receive an achievement index score between 0-100.
Research Questions
This study will be guided by the following overarching research question:
Are there differences in Reading First implementation at a school with high
achievement index scores as compared to a school with low achievement index
scores?
The following subquestions will also be addressed:
1. How does classroom context influence implementation?
2. How do teachers’ experiences with professional development affect
implementation differences?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
3. How does the school context or internal factors support or hinder
implementation?
4. What external factors (e.g., district support, nature of program itself) support
or constitute barriers to full implementation?
These research questions are the basis for the data collection, analysis and
subsequent discussion of the data. For each research question, detailed information
and analysis is presented in the conclusions and recommendations of the study.
Significance o f the Study
This study will explore how Reading First programs are implemented
differently across schools and why. The study keeps pace with current legislation
affecting school reform under NCLB. Though the literature attests to the importance
of improved reading instruction (Snow, et al., 1998; National Reading Panel Report,
2000), research regarding the differences in implementation of program reform under
Reading First is still scarce. The study will examine differences in program
implementation through the lens of teacher professional development, school
contexts or internal factors, and external factors, which support or constitute barriers
to full implementation.
When this study is done, it will provide a basis for discussion about
continuation, expansion and/or replication of the Reading First program at other
school sites. While this study is specific to the reform efforts of Reading First in two
schools in the same school district, the study results will have broader implications
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
and findings will be transferable to other Reading First reform efforts in California
and perhaps nationally.
Limitations
Limitations of the study and assumptions guiding the study are discussed
below. One limitation includes selection bias - how teachers are selected for
interviews (e.g. volunteer or nomination). While the sample may not allow for
generalization to other dissimilar schools and districts, the selection will be
purposefully done to ensure that the data gathered would be relevant to over 100
districts in California with schools implementing the California Reading First plan.
Another limitation is the use of the human instrument in data collection and
interpretation.
Assumptions
In generating a conceptual framework for analyzing the implementation of
the Reading First program in one southern California school district, the author
assumes that the guidelines and suggestions put forth by the State of California and
the United States Department of Education are sound and representative of best
practices. This author assumes that there are differences in how the Reading First
program is being implemented and that such implementation differences may impact
student achievement in reading. All interviewees are also assumed to be honest in
their responses. Furthermore, this author believes that improving the quality of
professional learning in schools is desirable and possible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review
“The great aim o f education is not knowledge but action. ” - Herbert Spencer
Introduction
Since the inception of NCLB, American schools are grappling with ways in
which to best provide a quality education for a broadly diverse student body (Roller,
2005). In much of the conversation around improving teaching and learning,
professional development for teachers has been put forth as an integral element of
school reform (Sparks, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002). However, the effective
implementation of the Reading First component of NCLB in classrooms is far more
complex, not to mention controversial, than simply signing program assurances and
implementing broad-based professional development requirements (Reading First,
2002; Coles, 2003). Indeed, a review of the literature on educational reform
implementation indicates that broad policy development and implementation issues
at the federal, state and local levels have played, and will continue to play, a major
role in the establishment of reforms in schools, as well as the success or failure of
reform implementations such as Reading First and NCLB which are designed to
improve student achievement.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss critical factors that contribute to
supporting successful reform implementation. I begin by providing a conceptual
framework for studying implementation. Next, I discuss the effects of various
systemic internal and external school factors related to reform implementation
including: (1) district and site leadership; (2) school context, relationships and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
collaboration; (3) design team support; (4) professional development; and (5)
relationships between reforms and accountability systems. As these factors are
discussed, it is noted how they can serve as both supports as well as barriers to
reform implementation, depending on the particular circumstances.
Conceptual Framework
Researchers of educational innovations have long been concerned with
studying variations in the implementation of educational innovations. Evaluators in
particular have advocated the collection of data on within-program variability in
program implementation, because the scale, depth, and fidelity of implementation
can never be assumed ahead of time when designing an evaluation (Patton, 2002;
Scheirer, 1994). Data on variation in program implementation are critical both in
understanding the limits of a program’s applicability or flexibility and in explaining
within-innovation variations in effectiveness (Lipsey & Cordray, 2000).
Researchers also differ in their interpretations of the significance of
implementation variation. Some are concerned with measuring implementation
fidelity, that is, the extent to which teachers enact innovations in ways that either
follow designers’ intentions or that replicate practices developed elsewhere (Loucks-
Horsley, Hewson, Love & Stiles, 1998). These researchers often cite evidence from
large-scale studies of innovations such as the Comer School Development Program,
Success for All, and the New American Schools scale-up that implementation
fidelity is often strongly related to program effectiveness (Stringfield, Datnow, &
Ross, 1998; Bodilly, 1998). Other researchers have argued that focusing on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
implementation fidelity ignores the important role that teachers play in adapting and
transforming innovations to be effective in different contexts. They can point to
evidence from studies of policy implementation that demonstrate the central
importance of teachers’ views and understandings of policy goals in shaping the
outcomes of innovations (e.g., Cohen & Hill, 1998).
In any event, the extent to which reform models can be successfully
transplanted to multiple school sites, each with entirely different teacher and student
compositions and district and state policies, is a complex issue (Datnow, 2002). The
phrase “mutual adaptation” first coined by Berman and McLaughlin (1978)
characterizes the dynamic process that occurs in implementation. In the classic
RAND Change Agent Study, Berman and McLaughlin (1978) argued that
implementation should be seen as “a mutually adaptive process between the user and
the institutional setting - that specific project goals and methods be made concrete
over time by the participants themselves” (1978, p. 18). Other researchers
(Stringfield et al., 1997; Datnow & Stringfield, 2000) have found variation in
implementation to be a hallmark in the educational change process. Local
implementation of reform necessarily involves adaptation rather than “pure”
implementation (McLaughlin, 1990). There is now recognition that variability is a
good thing, that it signals a “healthy system, one that is shaping and integrating
policy in ways best suited to local resources, traditions, and clientele” (McLaughlin,
1990, p. 13).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
Datnow, Hubbard & Mehan (2002) have built upon the concept of mutual
adaptation by showing interrelations between actions in schools and the wider social
and political sphere. Their term “co-construction” refers to the multi-directional,
multi-dimensional nature of reform and recognizes the flexibility needed to maintain
successful reform efforts. A departure from the traditional uni-directional view of
reform, the concept of co-construction assists in providing an understanding of the
contexts in which the reciprocal influence takes place between schools and their
communities. The permeable borders of both entities allow for interaction between
the schools and environments external to them. In sum, context plays an important
role in school level reform (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; McLaughlin, 1990;
Stringfield et al., 1997; Datnow et al., 2002). For the purposes of the present study,
the focus is on understanding what differences exist in the implementation of the
Reading First plan and how contextual factors may support or hinder
implementation.
Factors in Successful Reform Implementation
In a review of research, I have identified five key school and systemic factors
that are important in supporting reform implementation. This list is not exhaustive,
but it is reflective of the issues that were most prevalent in research studies of school
reform.
District and Site Leadership
“Strong leadership” appears in virtually every list of attributes of successful
schools (Chapman & Harris, 2004). School reform initiatives need strong district
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
and school level leadership in order to be successful (Murphy & Datnow, 2003).
District leadership plays an essential role in determining the need for reform and
allocating or securing necessary resources to sustain reform efforts (Bodilly, 1998).
District level leaders frequently provide a great deal of assistance to schools so that
they can become acquainted with the expected outcomes of the reform process
(Livingston-Asensio & Johnson, 2002).
Case studies of achievement patterns in large urban school districts
conducted by the Council of Great City Schools (2002) revealed that consensus
among key stakeholders about district priorities or an overall strategy for reform was
critical to the successful implementation of the reform. The findings in this study
underscore the importance of district-level leadership and the district itself as a level
of intervention for reform. Comparison districts in this study claimed to be doing
similar things, but there were several important differences that prevented them from
achieving similar gains. For example, the district's central office took little or no
responsibility for improving instruction or creating a cohesive instructional strategy
throughout the district.
In other words, the presence or absence of strong district leadership can have
a powerful impact on school reform efforts. In research conducted by Kirby et al.
(2002) many cases were noted in which districts undermined their support to schools
and teachers (perhaps unintentionally) by also requiring them to incorporate district-
wide initiatives that in some cases conflicted with design approaches to curriculum
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
and instruction. Additionally, schools’ capacity to carry out the reform was limited
because districts had not granted schools the autonomy required by the designs.
In addition to the need for strong district-level leadership, it is common for
researchers to indicate a need for strong reform leadership to be present at the school
site level (Datnow, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002). A study of how principals and
facilitators defined their leadership roles with respect to the Success For All (SFA)
reform model determined that both roles were important to the successful adoption
and implementation of the reform (Datnow & Castellano, 2001). In the schools’
initial adoption of SFA, the leadership of the principal was critical. The principals in
all of the schools studied were noted to be strong proponents of SFA. Although the
principals sought teacher agreement to the decision to adopt SFA, a fair number of
teachers felt pressured to adopt the reform. The principal’s vision for the school also
has a major influence on the direction of decision making about reform.
A recent survey of principals and teachers conducted in 257 California
elementary schools explored why some California elementary schools serving
largely low-income students score as much as 250 points higher on the state’s
academic performance index (API) than other schools with very similar students
(Williams et al., 2005). The practices found to be associated with high performance
included the following: prioritizing student achievement; implementing a coherent,
standards-based curriculum and instructional program; using assessment data to
improve student achievement and instruction; insuring availability of instructional
resources; and the overall importance of both principal and district leadership. While
student socioeconomic background and parent involvement are found in other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
studies to be predictors of success, this study found that what schools do with their
own resources can make a difference. In general, API scores were higher in schools
with principals whose responses indicate that they act as managers of school
improvement, driving the reform process, cultivating the school vision, and
extensively using student assessment data for a wide variety of school improvement
areas of focus, including evaluation of teacher practice and assistance to struggling
students.
According to Berman and McLaughlin’s comprehensive 1978 change agent
study, the active support of the school principal has a powerful affect on a project’s
implementation and continuation. The principal’s contribution to implementation lies
in giving support to the staff and in creating a culture that gives the project
legitimacy. Teachers need the sanction of their principal to the extent that the
principal is the “gatekeeper of change” (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978, p. 20).
Newmann and Wehlage (1995) found that formal leaders (principals) in
restructuring schools “gave central attention to building a schoolwide collective
focus on student learning of high intellectual quality” (p. 291). These same leaders
consistently expressed the norms and values that defined the school’s vision,
initiated conversation, and provoked staff to think about that vision. They created
time for reflective inquiry and staff development and shared power by being at the
center of the school’s organizational pattern.
The teacher leadership position (facilitator) was also identified as an
important role in the successful implementation of Success For All (SFA) (Datnow
& Castellano, 2001). Principals agreed that the SFA facilitator role required a special
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
type of person who was organized, could work well with both teachers and children,
and was willing to commit extra hours but still be paid on a teacher’s salary scale.
The functions of the facilitator were specified by the SFA model and ranged from
monitoring implementation, teacher and student progress, and tutoring to training
teachers and assessing students. In Datnow’s (2004) study, several schools (those
implementing the Edison, Success for All, Coalition of Essential Schools, and Co-
nect reform models) had teachers who functioned in the role of full-time reform
coordinators, a role that certainly helped to support the change effort at these
schools. The California Reading First Plan calls for inclusion of literacy coaches and
content experts for support to coaches as a critical instructional support system
(CalRead, n.d.).
Overall, successful implementation of school reform requires strong
leadership at three key levels - district, principal, and teacher. Sustainability of a
reform depends upon competent leadership at multiple levels.
School Context, Relationships and Collaboration
The term “context” is a broad term that gets at the idea of the
interdependence of all facets of a school. In order to understand the impact of
contextual factors on school reform, it is necessary to examine issues of school
culture, faculty relationships and teacher collaboration, to name a few. The context in
which those seeking to improve schools find themselves creates a set of conditions
that may present supports to implementation of reform or barriers to change. By
encouraging the development of those factors that facilitate change or nurturing them
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
if they already exist, school leaders increase the opportunity for change to become a
permanent part of the school environment (Boyd, 1992).
Cooper (1998) presents quantitative and qualitative analyses of how within-
school factors or aspects of context affect the quality of implementation.
Specifically, the study looks at how these factors affect implementation based on the
implementation and evaluation of Success for All (SFA), a school-wide restructuring
program. A sampling of the within-school factors includes supportive culture,
program resistance, strong site facilitator, and material quality and availability.
Based on the analyses of these factors, the program implementation in Cooper’s
study (1998) was identified as high quality, medium quality, or low quality. High
quality implementation was enhanced by the following within-school factors: having
a supportive culture for change; decreasing program resistance among the school
staff; having a skillful on-site facilitator; and having resources/materials that are
readily available.
Other research on school reform suggests that effective program
implementation and subsequent achievement gains directly relate to internal or
contextual factors such as positive school climate and teacher commitment (Bryk et
al., 1998). Even when favorable conditions exist, implementation may become
progressively weaker each year because teachers gravitate back to traditional
instructional strategies, necessary resources and professional development
opportunities become less available, and original supporters of the program retire or
transfer. Unless implementation is systematically monitored, weaknesses may be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
discovered when it is too late to fix them or obtain the desired outcomes (Ross,
2003).
Recent research also shows that social trust among teachers, parents, and
school leaders improves much of the routine work of schools and is a key contextual
resource for reform. Differences between two cases, elementary schools in Chicago,
help illustrate how the dynamics of relational trust across a school community
influence its reform efforts (Bryk & Schneider, 2003). The authors identified
elements of social trust between stakeholders (parents, teachers, students, and
leaders) to include respect, personal regard, personal integrity, and competence. The
authors noted the benefits of building social trust included a shared commitment to
the academic success of students. The contrast between the two schools noted for
this particular aspect of the research showed the positive aspects of a school
successful in building social trust as compared to a school that had evidence of
distrust, incompetence, lack of integrity and little personal regard. Evans (2000)
echoes this line of thought: “Transformation begins with trust. Trust is the essential
link between leader and led, vital to people’s job satisfaction and loyalty, vital to
followership” (p. 287). Accordingly, principals’ actions play a key role in developing
and sustaining relational trust.
Overall, relationships between persons and groups of persons are part of the
school culture and can either facilitate or impede change related to school reform
efforts. Fullan’s book, The New Meaning o f Educational Change (2001) explores the
knowledge base of change by applying current advances of cognitive science and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
chaos theory. Some newly verified thoughts of educational change are also presented
in the text. For instance, “one of the keys to successful changes is the improvement
of relationships - precisely the focus of group development” (p. 56).
Additionally, collaboration plays a role in the successful implementation of
reform efforts. The development of collaborative work cultures helps reduce the
professional isolation of teachers, allows the sharing of successful practices and
provides support (Fullan, 2001). Collaboration and collegiality raise morale,
enthusiasm, and the teachers’ sense of efficacy and makes teachers more receptive to
new ideas (Simpson, 1990). Collegiality can, however, be difficult to establish in
schools. Little (1982) describes collegiality as a norm exhibited through four specific
behaviors. Adults in schools who have a collegial relationship talk about practice.
They also observe each other engaged in the practice of teaching and administration.
Colleagues engage together in work on curriculum by planning, designing,
researching, and evaluating it. Finally, collegiality is exhibited when adults teach
each other what they know about teaching, learning, and leading.
Factors related to school context are important due to their impact on the
school culture and climate, the facilitation of relationships, and the establishment
teacher collaboration. Elements of school context can facilitate or impede efforts to
improve schools’ capacity to implement changes that support school reform.
Design Team Support
Reform implementation can be greatly impeded when schools are
infrequently in contact with reform design team representatives (Berends et al.,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
2002). The term design team, borrowed from the business world, refers to the group
that conceives of the reform model, determines the principles, implementation and
possible materials. The teams often provide support to schools in the form of
training, consulting, or other types of professional development (Datnow, Hubbard,
& Mehan, 2002).
Datnow et al. (2002) discuss how and why design teams change in the
process of program implementation. These authors draw upon observations of and
interviews with representatives of various design teams in regional and national
offices, and interviews with educators in schools. Their focus is on connections
between design teams, schools, and state and local policies. Reform designs change
over time and may have varying organizational forms and levels of support. Gauging
the level of flexibility of various design teams is an important task for educators
choosing among reforms. Design teams should link their levels of scale up with the
development of their organizational capacity (Datnow et al, 2002).
High levels of implementation reported in all the RAND studies of the New
American schools reform designs were reportedly related to clear communication
with and strong assistance from the design teams (Kirby et al., 2002). Other studies
show that schools vary greatly both in implementation and outcomes of reform
strategies (Stringfield et al., 1997), but concluded that effects on student achievement
are most dramatic where technical assistance and staff development are ongoing and
targeted to specific school issues and problems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
Teacher Professional Development
Teacher professional development is also a critical factor in reform
implementation. Building “capacity” for improved instruction through professional
development must be ongoing, continuous, focused, and connected to the day-to-day
classroom. Capacity building involves developing the collective ability -
dispositions, skills, knowledge, motivation, and resources - to act together to bring
about positive change (Fullan, 2005). Berends and colleagues (2002), analyzing a
decade of efforts by New American Schools, found that teacher capacity was
invariably a crucial factor in successful reform. Professional development gives
teachers and staff members the tools they need to implement school reform.
Administrators, however, need to tailor staff development to the demands of their
particular reform. The capacity of teachers to meet student needs in classroom and
school contexts should be a priority for any school system.
According to Stein and D’Amico (in Hightower, et al., 2002) the importance
of aligning expectations for learning with instructional frameworks and the challenge
of building teacher capacity across a wide range of teaching expertise are at the
forefront of building a coherent professional development system. In the New York
district studied (Stein & D’Amico, 2002), top district leaders work closely with
principals and staff developers to provide opportunities for these stakeholders to
share information about teacher knowledge and expertise across school contexts
through conferences and meetings. The district offers continuous professional
development for the Balanced Literacy program including the theory and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
components while teachers interact in a peer community and receive long-term
assistance tailored to their needs. The development of this literacy initiative
described took place over ten years and such a length of time must be factored into
account when considering reform for professional development.
Since teachers are the primary audience for professional development efforts,
it is important to consider how we ask them to spend their time. The National Staff
Development Council (2004) advocates that at least one-quarter of teachers’ work
time be given to professional study and collaborative work. The Council believes this
time should not be implemented through isolated “inservice days” but should be
embedded in teachers’ daily work and more closely linked to improving student
learning. In many schools, this “job-embedded” approach to staff development is
being implemented in the form of study groups, action research, training, coaching,
and the joint planning of lessons and critiquing of student work.
Survey data from 1,000 teachers participating in a Title II workshop collected
and studied by Birman, et al. (2000) reiterates the importance of time. Researchers
in this study identified three structural features that set a proper context for
professional development: form, duration, and collective participation. The core
features of professional-development learning experience include content focus,
active learning, and coherence. Within a specified focus of a content area study such
as language arts or mathematics, it was determined to be important to the participants
to be actively engaged and have ongoing program coherence.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Staff development is undergoing profound change as traditional approaches
fall short of current needs and educators face new challenges. Gone are the days
when teachers were the primary and passive recipients of “sit and get” training.
Hirsh and Sparks (1997) remind us that effective staff development is targeting
everyone who affects student learning, and the total organization is improving
through multiple forms of learning. The authors discuss how results-driven
education, systems thinking, and constructivism are shaping current staff
development. Their examples include districts and schools throughout the nation that
are at the forefront of the new staff development. Hirsh and Sparks (1997) provide
first-hand accounts of how practicing educators are handling the transition, devising
solutions, and creating staff development that works. The clear goal in staff
development, according to these authors is improved performance by students, staff,
and the organization.
The erosion of professional confidence and capability were identified as
major barriers to improving schools in challenging contexts (Chapman and Harris,
2004). Investing in forms of professional development and collaboration that raised
teachers’ knowledge base and skills were shown to improve achievement in schools
in their study. Strategies for improvement include opportunities and new approaches
to professional development, such as mentoring, coaching and peer review.
Likewise, Supovitz et al. (2003) report that coaching, as a mechanism for the
professional development of teachers, is increasingly relied upon by schools and
districts across the nation to train teachers on a particular set of instructional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
techniques and practices. Coaching involves professional, ongoing classroom
modeling, supportive critiques of practice, and specific observations. Showers and
Joyce (1996) also found that teachers involved in a coaching relationship practiced
new skills and strategies more frequently and applied them more appropriately than
did teachers w ho w orked alone.
Accordingly, intellectually rigorous staff development efforts must be
sustained over time and provide a great deal of in-classroom demonstration and
coaching. If a school district wants to affect teachers’ content knowledge,
instructional skills, and student learning, the district and its schools must make
certain the staff development effort is sufficiently powerful to accomplish those
purposes (Sparks, 2002). In addition, staff development opportunities must offer
generous amounts of time for small groups of teachers to help one another plan
lessons, critique student work, study new teaching methods, and solve the common
and persistent problems of teaching.
The professional development required to meet the challenges of continuous
improvement, must not only affect the knowledge, attitudes and practices of
individual teachers, administrators, and other school employees, but must
also alter the cultures and structures of the organizations in which those
individuals work (Sparks, 1999, p. 82).
Through case studies of successful programs, evidence from research, and
illustrations from their extensive experience, Joyce and Showers (2002) help
educators design professional development programs that measurably improve
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
student achievement. They strive to fill gaps in staff development programs by
exploring ways to develop skills to implement new curricular and instructional
knowledge; examining how to embed the study of student learning into staff
development; and adapting learning environments to meet individual needs. In
addition, Joyce and Showers (2002) focus on the potential for both personal and
organizational growth inherent in staff development programs as school renewal
depends on the individual development of all its members. They offer ideas for
creating a community in which organizers, providers, teachers, administrators, and
students learn and grow together to achieve the goal of lasting student achievement.
In sum, the research is clear, professional staff development that improves
student learning involves hard work on the fundamentals of content and pedagogy.
Building capacity through teacher professional development is a notable aspect of
reform implementation. Collaborative practice, active participation, and assessment
that inform instruction are all consistently identified across researchers as elements
critical to successful staff development. Job-embedded learning has become a key
aspect of staff development as the move away from lecture-type training takes place.
Greater attention to teacher collaboration and the use of mentoring and/or coaching
as an alternative form of professional development must become common practice if
reform efforts are to succeed. School reform efforts aimed at improving student
achievement require school districts to invest in on-going professional development
and incorporate identified elements of current research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Relationships Between Reforms and Accountability Systems
Educators and local policymakers often adopt reforms as a strategy to help
them improve student achievement and test scores (Elmore and Fuhrman, 2001).
With the passage of NCLB, the push for increased accountability and improved
student achievement in U.S. schools has never been greater. Whereas, teachers and
administrators have traditionally defined their accountability in terms of effort,
policymakers are now holding them accountable for results (Lashway, 2001). In
order to be sustained over time, school reform models must help schools meet
growing state and federal accountability mandates. Unfortunately, research suggests
that often times, reform models are not in alignment with accountability mandates.
Conflicting demands often result in schools attempting to implement unaligned and
incoherent mixes of standards, assessment, curriculum, instruction and professional
development (Desimone, 2002). For example, principals in the New American
Schools study reported that most standardized tests were not aligned with the
instructional practices that were part of reform models they were implementing
(Berends et al., 2002). This study found that while high-stakes tests may motivate
schools to increase performance, they may also provide disincentives to adopt richer,
more in-depth curricula that could improve students’ learning opportunities.
When reform objectives are not closely aligned with district and/or state
accountability measures, conflict results. Faced with the dilemma of what mandates
to address, the pressure to meet local measure will usually win out and the reform
will be suspended (Berends et al., 2002). Similarly, teachers involved in studies of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Comprehensive School Reform designs often reported that design goals seemed to
conflict with the tests used by districts for accountability (Bodilly, 1998). Bodilly
states that the result would have been little impact of reform on test scores, putting
teachers’ jobs, pay, or reputations at risk. Concerns that design teams could offer no
hard evidence that the proposed changes would improve student performance
resulted in reform efforts that were often abandoned. Even when the reform program
was not completely abandoned, lower levels of reform implementation resulted
(Kirby et al., 2002).
Care must be taken when implementing schoolwide reform, such as literacy
reform, so as not to reduce or sacrifice other important subject areas. In a survey
conducted by the Center on Education Policy (Haager et al., 2004) school districts
implementing expectations of NCLB were asked whether they had reduced the
amount of time spent on subjects other than reading and math. In particular, they
were asked whether social studies, science, art and music, and physical education
had been cut. For each of these subjects, the majority of districts reported that
instructional time had been reduced only minimally or not at all. But 27% of
districts reported reducing the time devoted to teaching social studies somewhat or to
a great extent, and 22% reported reducing time in science. Twenty percent reported
cutting art and music, and 10% reported reducing time for physical education.
As these examples reveal, the success of many reforms depends upon their
ability to assist schools in meeting current accountability requirements. The
sustainability of school reform models in schools often depends on their ability to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
help schools meet state targets (Datnow, 2004). Fullan (2005) defines sustainability
as “the capacity of a system to engage in the complexities of continuous
improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose” (p. ix). Successful
implementation is often contingent on the reform models’ ability to align ongoing
state, and district reform efforts (Desimone, 2002).
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to provide a framework for a study of
variations in implementation of Reading First and to discuss the factors found to be
most significant in prior studies of successful implementation of school reform.
These factors included (1) district and site leadership; (2) school context,
relationships and collaboration; (3) design team support; (4) professional
development; and (5) relationships between reforms and accountability systems. As
previously discussed, these factors are not a complete list of all the possible variables
that affect the successful implementation of school reform, though they are the ones
that were most apparent in research studies on reform implementation.
In sum, lessons learned from decades of research with school reform (e.g.,
see Datnow, Hubbard & Mehan, 2002; Desimone, et al., 2002) inform current
program implementation efforts. A host of internal and external factors affect reform
efforts. Leadership plays an important role in successful program implementation
(Murphy & Datnow, 2003). District and site-level administrators along with teacher
leaders or implementation facilitators make a key difference in school reform
(Datnow & Castellano, 2001). School context, teacher relationships and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
collaboration impact school reform efforts (Cooper, 1998; Boyd, 1992; Little, 1982).
Positive school climate and teacher commitment have also been identified as factors
related to successful school reform (Bryk & Schneider, 2003) along with systematic
monitoring of the implementation (Ross, 2003). Sustainable reform focuses on
teacher professional development efforts, a strong connection between
implementation fidelity and program effectiveness, and coherence with a clear focus
on instruction (Sparks, 2002; Fullan, 2001). Finally, accountability factors at
federal, state, district, and school levels affect school reform implementation
(Datnow, 2004; Desimone, 2002).
The proposed study is likely to be of importance to many in the field of
education. Implementation of the Reading First Plan in California is in its infancy
and few studies to date have been conducted. From a research standpoint, there are
questions as to whether the findings regarding the factors influencing
implementation hold true in the case of Reading First, a reform initiative that exists
in a much stronger, centralized policy climate than past reforms. For educational
administrators at the state and federal levels, this study presents an opportunity to
examine the manner in which NCLB policy has found its way to implementation at
district and school levels through Reading First funding. Consideration of
implementation issues, both successful and problematic, will contribute to potential
next steps. For district and school site administrators, issues of program
implementation are complex. The current study will contribute to a better
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
understanding of potential differences in the implementation of the Reading First
Plan in California.
Classroom level implementation of the literacy plan is the most critical
component of Reading First. Accordingly, classroom teachers will find this study
useful in identifying classroom practice that has been successful and understanding
barriers to implementation, in order that they might modify their own professional
practice, as needed, to produce greater outcomes for student achievement - the
ultimate goal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection
and data analysis process of the proposed study. Once again, the purpose of the study
is to investigate the implementation of the Reading First plan at the site level. The
focus is to examine relationships between the Reading First plan and classroom level
implementation with attention to school context, leadership, design teams,
professional development and accountability. Two elementary schools within one
Southern California school district were selected for this study in order to answer the
overarching question and four established research subquestions:
Are there differences in Reading First implementation at schools with high
achievement index scores as compared to schools with low achievement index
scores? (Overarching question)
1. How does classroom environment influence implementation?
2. How do teachers’ experiences with professional development affect
implementation differences?
3. How does the school context or internal factors support or hinder
implementation?
4. What other external factors (e.g., district support, nature of program itself)
support or constitute barriers to full implementation?
In drawing primarily on qualitative and case study approaches to this study of
Reading First implementation, the principle data sources consist of semi-structured
and informal interviews with teachers, literacy coaches and administrators;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
classroom observations; and document analysis, including a review of online
resources and materials that contain information about federal, state, district, and
school policy initiatives and the California Reading First Plan. An analysis of
teacher and administrator participation in professional development activities by site
is also included.
Research Design
Qualitative, case study research methods are used to accomplish an in-depth
study and analysis of two schools currently implementing NCLB’s California
Reading First Plan. According to Yin (1994) case study methodology enables
educational researchers to explore situations in which the intervention being
evaluated (e.g. Reading First plan) has no single set of outcomes. “Assuming that
‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are the focus of study, the case study is preferred in
examining contemporary events, but when the relevant behaviors cannot be
manipulated” (Yin, 1994, p. 8). Merriam (1998) notes that case study research has
proven particularly useful for evaluating programs or educational innovations.
Educational programs can be examined through case study to “bring about
understanding that in turn can affect and perhaps even improve practice” (p. 41).
The case study method were utilized in order to provide explanations for the
phenomena studied, Reading First program site implementation, and to describe their
relational patterns (Creswell, 1998). This case study involves detailed description
and analysis of a phenomenon within a relatively bounded context. The advantage of
this approach is capturing the phenomenon as it occurs in its natural environment
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
(Merriam, 1998). This qualitative study examines the implementation of Reading
First from the perspectives of those most involved in it - the teachers.
Sample and Population
The study focuses on two elementary schools in one K-6 southern California
elementary district. The district was selected on the basis of having a Reading First
plan and federal grant funding to support the program. The district selected for the
study, ABC School District (ABCSD), a K-6 elementary district (kindergarten
through grade six) is located in Southern California. ABCSD has twenty-three
elementary schools, sixteen of which are under the guidelines of a California
Reading First sub-grant. Permission to conduct the study was granted by the Deputy
Superintendent of ABCSD.
ABCSD serves 22,375 students (kindergarten through grade six) in Southern
California. All of the District's 23 schools are on a year-round, multi-track calendar,
resulting from a 49% increase in students during the last decade (from 14,972 to
22,375). While an increased number of students created a formidable task for
administrators and teachers, a greater challenge is posed by the District’s altered
demographics. From 1988-2002, ABCSD’s population of English language learners
(ELL) tripled. On state and national tests of performance, the achievement of the
District’s students plummeted. As a result, 11 ABCSD schools fell in deciles 1 and 2
in 2002, on the statewide API rank, and none ranked higher than 5. The District’s
challenges include:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
• ABCSD is the second largest and the third poorest city in the County, and
more than 80% of the District’s K-6 students qualify for free or reduced price
lunches.
• Spanish is the primary language in the home of 73% of students. 75% of
entering Kindergartners do not speak English, and 63% of the District's
students are classified as English language learners (ELL).
• Approximately one-third of ABCSD parents did not graduate from high
school.
Under 2003 Reading First (RF) subgrant guidelines, ABCSD was awarded
$2.5 million per year for three to five years to improve reading instruction in sixteen
of the twenty-three elementary schools. This California Reading First subgrant
under NCLB focuses on reading improvement for kindergarten through third grade.
Reading First eligibility is limited to districts who have either one thousand of their
second and third graders or fifty percent or more of their second and third graders
scoring in the categories “below basic” and “far below basic” on the California
Standards Test.
Two individual schools in ABCSD were selected as having been identified as
either high achieving or low achieving, as identified by the Reading First
Achievement Index (RFAI). RFAI is calculated on a weighted formula using results
of third grade CAT 6 reading scores (10%), the California Standards Test portion of
the STAR for second and third grades (60%), first, second and third grade end of
year fluency scores (25%), and end of year kindergarten assessments (5%). The CAT
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
6 (California Achievement Test Sixth Edition) is the primary standardized test used
for accountability in California. Reading First schools receive an achievement index
score between 0-100 based on the above calculation. One school (School B) with a
low district RFAI will be compared to one school (School A) with a high district
RFAI in ABCSD. Principals of the two schools believed to meet the criteria for the
study were contacted and considered by the researcher once formal district approval
was secured.
Table 3.1: RFAI Two-year Comparison
Reading First
Achievement
Index
Kindergarten
End-of-Year
Assessment
(5%)
ELA CST CAT/6, Grade 3 End-of-Year Oral
Fluency
School Grade
2
(30%)
Grade
3
(30%)
Reading
(6%)
Language
(2%)
Spelling
(2%)
Gr. 1
(10%)
Gr. 2
(10%)
Gr.3
(5%)
School A
2004
44.5 3.6 16.4 11.9 1.9 0.9 1.2 3.9 3.1 1.6
School A
2005
44.9 3.7 17.9 9.0 1.8 0.9 1.1 3.4 4.5 2.6
School B
2004
27.8 3.3 9.8 5.7 1.4 0.6 0.8 3.2 2.2 0.8
School B
2005
34.2 3.6 11.0 7.7 1.7 0.8 1.1 3.2 3.8 1.2
It is also notable that differences in achievement predate Reading First as
shown in Figure 3.1 below. Schools are assigned an Academic Performance Index
(API) based on results from annual STAR testing. School A outperformed School B
each year over a five-year period and made steady gains as measured by the API.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 3.1: API Comparison
39
API Com parison
700 n
675
650
S O2
A 600
P
1 550
A 500
s
E 450
400
2003-04 2001-02 2002-03 2000-01 1999-00
School Year
School A — School B
A Brief Comparison o f the Two Schools
The schools were also chosen because they have similar demographics (see
Table 3.2 below). With 1,211 students in 2003-04, School A is slightly larger that
School B (which had 1,088 students in 2003-04). School A has 56 teachers while
School B has 54 heeding the larger student population at School A. The high
percentage of students on free/reduced lunch is comparable at the two sites (87.2% at
School A and 90.4% at School B), as is the percentage of Hispanic students (88.1%
at School A and 91.8% at School B). The overall percentage of student classified as
English language learners (ELL) at School B (65.9%) is slightly larger than School
A’s ELL percentage (62.8%). Both schools have a high percentage of Spanish-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
speakers (60.8% at School A and 64.2% at School B) as Spanish is the dominant
language spoken in the district.
Table 3.2: Demographic Comparison of District Schools Selected for Study
Based on CDE Ed-Data (2003-04)
School A School B
Number of students 1,211 1,088
Number of teachers 56 54
Student racial/ethnic distribution
White 6.4 2.2
African American 1.4 1.8
Hispanic 88.1 91.8
Asian/Pacific Islander/Filipino 3.9 2.9
Native American/Alaskan Native 0.1 0.8
Free and reduced lunch eligibility 87.2 90.4
(%)
English language learner (%) 62.8 65.9
Spanish-speaking (%) 60.8 64.2
As shown in Table 3.3, the range of teacher experience in School A is from
six to twenty years. The range in School B is from five to sixteen years.
Interestingly, teachers at School B had completed the bulk of their time teaching in
their current assignment. School A had fewer teachers who participated in
interviews with longevity at the same site. The principal at School A noted a high
rate of turnover from the 2004-05 school year to the 2005-06 school year due to
medical leaves and maternity leaves. In part teacher turnover in the district studied is
due to the movement of a large number of temporary teachers from sites in declining
enrollment to sites with greater enrollment. When using the verbal script for
recruitment all of the originally selected teachers in School B agreed to be
interviewed. In School A, two teachers declined to be interviewed and were replaced
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
by other selected teachers at the site who fulfilled the requirement for teacher
selection of having taught for two years under the Reading First grant.
Table 3.3: Teacher Experience and Professional Development
School A
Teachers
Years
Experience
Years at Current
School
AB 466
Professional
Development
Teacher 1A 8 X
Teacher 2 A
Teacher 3 A X
Teacher 4A
School B
Teachers
Teacher IB
Teacher 2B
Teacher 3B
Teacher 4B
A sampling strategy using quota sampling within a cluster sample of the two
schools in the same school district allowed for selection of one teacher per primary
grade level (K, 1, 2 & 3) per site to be selected for interview. In quota sampling, the
population is first segmented into mutually exclusive sub-groups, which in this case
includes specific grade levels: kindergarten; first grade; second grade; and third
grade teachers. Then judgement is used to select the subjects from each segment
based on a specified proportion such as one teacher per grade level per site
(Cresswell, 2003). In cluster sampling the subjects are selected in groups or clusters.
With multiple teachers at each grade level (typically four) at a site, a quota of 25% of
the teachers at that grade level at that site would be one teacher. When all “units” of
the selected cluster are interviewed, this is referred to as “one-stage cluster
sampling” (Patton, 2002). School site administrators from the two selected sites
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
provided complete lists of K-3 teaching staff from which interview participants were
selected. As a matter of convenience, it was only possible to interview “on-track”
teachers in the year-round school system. Within the on-track group, I asked each
site administrator to assist in selecting a diverse group of teachers from the cluster
(e.g., range of experience, time at the building, number of degrees). Additional
teachers not selected through this system had the opportunity to volunteer for
interviews to round out the process.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers, school
administrators and literacy coaches in order to capture their perspectives on the
implementation process of the Reading First plan. Interviews were guided by semi
structured interview protocols (see Appendices A and B). The interview protocols
were piloted prior to use in the study. The data collection process took place in a
three-week period during the first trimester of the 2005-06 school year. Interview
time blocks were scheduled with the site administrator and literacy coach in order to
access teachers immediately following the instructional day, outside of school hours.
Interviews took place on-campus of each of the two selected elementary schools and
lasted approximately 30-45 minutes each. Additional time was allowed for principal
interviews in order to obtain demographic and background data along with the
interview. Interviewees also provided some basic demographic information at the
outset of the interview in order to provide background information on completion of
recent professional development related to the Reading First grant (see Appendices
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
A and B). Follow-up interview dates were scheduled on an as needed basis in order
to access all of the selected K-3 teachers at each site in case of absence. Only one
interview had to be scheduled outside of the three-week window. A total of eight
teachers, two principals and two literacy coaches were interviewed for this case
study.
In order to triangulate the interview data, classroom observation data was
also collected. The goal of the classroom observations was to get a general sense of
implementation of Reading First in the two school sites. Brief, informal classroom
observations were conducted during the language arts instructional block school-
wide in K-3 classrooms at each site. Observation notes were taken on an informal
observation protocol sheet (Appendix C). All eight teachers interviewed agreed to be
observed. I was able to visit seven of the eight classrooms during their on-track
time. The eighth classroom teacher (School B) was not available during the data
collection to be observed with students, but was able to show me her classroom
environment following the interview process. Observations were scheduled in
advance and lasted for twenty to thirty-minutes each. During that time I was able to
observe the physical environment and one language arts lesson conducted by the
teacher. In order to obtain direct evidence of classroom instruction, I described
teacher-student interactions through detailed narratives. I noted the time the activity
began, teacher and student behaviors, the materials used and the time the activity
ended. These field notes provided me with information on both the type of activities
occurring and the amount of time spent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Qualitative Analysis
Data collected through teacher, principal and literacy coach interviews was
organized and prepared for analysis by transcribing interview audiotapes verbatim
and typing field notes. All data was read thoroughly and notes taken. In keeping
with qualitative data analysis, in vivo coding was used to organize transcripts and
field notes. In vivo coding means to assign the text that is to be coded to a code,
whose label is the text itself (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The research questions and
interview protocols helped generate a list of initial codes. Additional codes were
generated as new categories arose. A master list of codes is shown in Appendix D.
Simple cut and paste methods allowed me to create themes with the various coded
transcripts. Coding the classroom observation field notes (Appendix C: Informal
Observation Protocol) was based on the results from in vivo codes generated in the
interview coding. The classroom data were examined in order to identify evidence
in the areas of classroom environment and instruction to support or negate interview
data. The overall goal of the qualitative data analysis was to compare
implementation across the two sites and to ascertain themes and patterns in the data
within and across sites. Finally, the data were interpreted and compared to prior
research findings (Cresswell, 2003; pp. 190-195).
Validating the Findings
Interviewing different participant groups including teachers, site
administrators (principals) and literacy coaches allowed for triangulation of the data.
Additionally, the use of member checking allowed for post-interview interaction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
with interview participants to clarify and confirm findings. A rich, thick, narrative
description is used to convey findings. Bias was clarified through self-reflection and
a peer debriefer reviewed and asked questions about the study (Cresswell, 2003; pp.
195-197).
Summary
This chapter provided the research methods utilized in the current qualitative
case study, inclusive of a description of the research design, sample, data collection
instruments and an explanation of the data collection and analysis processes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
CHAPTER FOUR: Analysis of the Data
“We read to know we are not alone. ” - C.S. Lewis
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected in the current study, whose
purpose was explore possible differences in Reading First implementation across two
demographically similar schools with different achievement indices in one Southern
California school district. The focus of the study is to determine and analyze the
relationship between state and district/site policy and actual classroom
implementation, inherent in that being the description and analysis of both the
Reading First Plan, as well as reading program implementation.
The data obtained from the selected schools and district were analyzed using
in vivo coding to establish themes and answer the overarching question and four
established research subquestions developed for this study:
Are there differences in Reading First implementation at schools with high
achievement index scores as compared to schools with low achievement index
scores? (Overarching question)
1. How does classroom context influence implementation?
2. How do teachers’ experiences with professional development affect
implementation differences?
3. How do school context or other internal factors support or hinder
implementation?
4. What other external factors (e.g., district support, nature of program itself)
support or constitute barriers to full implementation?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
The following sections are organized by the four research subquestions posed
in this study with sub-headings to guide the reader in identifying themes uncovered
in data analysis.
Research Question One
Research question one asks, “How does classroom context influence
implementation?” The focus of research question one examines classroom
implementation, classroom environment, adherence to instructional time, and
conflicting initiatives.
C la s s r o o m I m p l e m e n t a t i o n
California’s Reading First Plan (2002) has a set of Assurance Statements for
LEA Reading First Subgrants. This document serves as a proxy for the LEA’s
commitment to the quality and integrity of the Reading First Plan and is signed by all
district and site administrators where the grant is to be implemented. The assurance
statements address responsibilities of the LEA and each participating school site.
According to this document, critical to what happens in the Reading First classroom
will be whether or not teachers hold to the fidelity of the instructional program that
the local governing board adopted from the State Board’s authorized list, in this case
Houghton Mifflin. The writers of the assurances recommend “diligence in avoiding
the use of other supplemental materials, technology programs, and/or assessments
not aligned to the adopted reading/language arts instructional program” (California
Reading First Plan, 2002). A teacher at School B described Reading First this way:
Basically Reading First is fidelity to Houghton Mifflin - our reading
program. It is focus walls - focusing on what you’re learning, focusing on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
the themes you are learning as far as comprehension reading strategies, high
frequency words, grammar, and vocabulary. It is universal access,
differentiation, reteaching, preteaching, giving children what they need at
their level based on language or ability level.
A visit to this second grade teacher’s classroom allowed me the opportunity
to observe “fidelity and focus walls.” The room environment showed ample
evidence of a theme focus and a multitude of HM materials from anthologies to
leveled readers to handbooks. Charts for universal access and vocabulary lists were
posted near the focus wall. The focus wall highlighted upcoming story selections for
theme two of HM and showed a list of comprehension strategies. The classroom was
set up in a u-shape for whole group instruction with a teaching table for small group
instruction to the side.
During the twenty-minutes I observed in her classroom the lesson focused on
the comprehension strategies of prediction and summary. Students were seated at
their desks. The teacher introduced a new anthology selection from theme two of
HM to the whole group and asked students to make predictions as to what the story
might be about based on the title, pictures, and newly introduced vocabulary. She
recorded student predictions on a large, white board. She then read aloud the first
two paragraphs and asked students to turn to a partner to confirm or change
predictions. She then elicited changes to the prediction chart based on input from
two student pairs. Partners read aloud to each other through section one of the
anthology and were asked when finished to write a single sentence summary of that
section. Sentence starters were written on sentence strips and distributed to the pairs.
Students were expected to complete at least one sentence together.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
The teacher planned to collect the sentence summaries to post in the pocket
chart for the next day’s lesson review. The lesson I observed was directly from the
teacher’s edition of HM. The Extra Support Handbook was set aside on the small
group instruction table open to the reteaching lesson for comprehension. A large,
posted daily schedule outlined the time blocks for each content area with a
breakdown of the time schedule specifically for the language arts block.
A brief walk through School B’s primary classrooms affirmed that this
second grade teacher’s classroom was fairly representative of others at the school in
classroom environment and instructional practice. I chose to highlight her classroom
for two reasons: first, she volunteered as an interviewee and agreed to be observed
and second, the observation notes lent themselves to a very descriptive example of
faithful implementation of Reading First and the HM Reading program. Classroom
observations are a critical component to this study because they provide a window
into actual teacher practices and allow for triangulation of data from the interviews.
For comparison, I observed in a third grade classroom at School A. At
School A, the third-grade teacher described what I would find in a Reading First
classroom:
I think in a Reading First classroom you’re going to see a lot of illustrations
as well as scaffolding for students of many different levels. I think you are
going to see lots of differentiation across the Houghton Mifflin Program.
You are going to see collaborative grouping. You are going to see flexible
grouping. You are going to see teachers looking at assessment to guide
instruction as well as their groups for the needs of their students.
In visiting this third grade teacher’s classroom, there were a lot of
illustrations. She had illustrations on a large, mural-like pictorial input chart that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
outlined an anthology story and was labeled with story vocabulary. I observed this
classroom during the morning language arts block. Ample evidence of the HM
program included student anthologies and practice books on every student desk,
while sets of leveled reading books lined the bookshelf under the window. A “focus
wall” took up one entire bulletin board and provided information related to the
current theme studied in HM including illustrated vocabulary words, comprehension
strategies, and realia (real objects which are used in the classroom). A large daily
schedule posted the times during which each subject was taught. Students were
seated table groups of six.
The teacher conducted a whole group grammar lesson from the HM teacher’s
edition in the writing and language section providing students the opportunity to
identify the subject and predicate of a sentence. The teacher used partner sharing to
increase participation during the lesson: “Turn to your partner and tell him or her
which part is the subject and which part is the predicate.” One student in the pair
reported, “The subject part of the sentence has the noun and the predicate has the
verb.” The teacher modeled the grammar lesson on an overhead projector using a
teaching transparency from the HM program. After 15 minutes of direct whole
group instruction with partner talk interspersed throughout the lesson, students were
told to complete the practice book page on subject/predicate independently. While
students worked on the practice page, the teacher pulled a small group of five
students to a side table to presumably work with her on the task. An organization
chart near the teaching table denoted small groups organized by colored shapes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Another chart with a list of optional activities and mandated activities was called the
“Must Do/May Do” chart. Students explained to me that the chart was how they
knew what to do when they finished their work.
This third grade classroom was quite representative of other primary
classrooms at School A. A teacher at School A reported minimal variation in
implementation:
Well, having been on [the] leadership [team] and walking through the
different classrooms, it seems as though everybody’s very similar. I’d have
to say, I’ve seen a huge improvement over the last few years as far as
consistency goes and knowing in the copy room you see people making
copies of the Leveled Readers work pages or just people talking about how
are you using your Must Do May Do’s and asking those questions, so it
seems like everybody is really doing it and it’s not just a horse and pony
show. It seems like everyone is really doing it.
Another teacher at School A said, “I don’t think there’s much variation.
We’re pretty much at the same line and we all think the same way and we are all
implementing everything and we do it because we know it’s going to be what’s best
for kids.”
Participating in a series of classroom walkthroughs affirmed that there is
indeed consistency in classroom implementation at both schools. However, the
observational data suggests that there was more teacher collaboration and sharing of
ideas at School A as compared to School B. For example, in visiting second and
third grade classrooms at School A, the teachers had shared their ideas for
vocabulary charts and murals to the degree that each teacher had one on display
along with a student version of the mapping on each desk. I did not see that level of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
consistency or evidence of such collaboration at School B although in interviews
School B’s teachers reported regular collaboration.
C la s s r o o m E n v i r o n m e n t
Observations in seven of the eight interviewees’ classrooms determined few
appreciable differences between the two schools in terms of classroom environment.
When asked, “What would I find in a Reading First classroom?” one interviewee at
School B had the following to say:
Lots of reading. For primary, we’re doing lots of phonics, still mastering
phonics skills. We’re doing lots of comprehension skills, ways to predict,
ways to summarize, lot of different strategies that are going to help the
students master those skills. Lots of activities where they might be working
with partners, so it’s not just individuals. There’s a lot of teamwork involved
with the students. Not just the teachers, but a lot of teamwork with the
students collaborating that way.
A teacher at School B rattled off this list:
A Focus Board. Interactive Focus Boards. I want to say Nancy Fetzer (a
writing consultant). What do I have left? My vocabulary for the story.
Pictures to go with the vocabulary. Differentiated teaching. Charts made
with the students, instead of so much of the charts you buy at a teachers’
store. If you’re making the charts with the students on your grammar and
reading strategies and focus.
At School B, the kindergarten teacher reported:
We have the Houghton Mifflin program here that we’re all supposed to be
working from, 100 percent. I think it’s a good program and the kids are
doing well in it. I also put together with Reading First certain things in the
rooms we have to have that’s supposed to be like standard throughout the
school. That being the Focus Walls, certain expectations as far as the
Administration goes and the state. Every now and then they’ll walk through,
checking the rooms. The big thing about it, I think, is the Universal Access
time that gets all the students teaching at their levels. I think access to the
curriculum for the kids. Daily schedules that include down to the minute
what’s being taught, meaning that even in the small groups what’s being
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
taught in each small group and if there’s differentiation going on. I think it’s
just like access to the curriculum and I think that that’s what I would say.
I observed in the afternoon kindergarten class of School B during the hour-
long language arts block. Alpha-friend cards lined the top of the front white board.
Alpha-friends are a key component of the HM program teaching sounds and letters.
As I entered, students were chanting selected Alpha-friend cards, “Nyle noodle, Nyle
noodle n-n-rC and later sang a Nyle noodle song, which alliteratively listed words
beginning with the letter n. Thirty students were seated on the carpet in colored
squares. The teacher kept a fast pace during the opening routine. She had the HM
teacher’s edition near her throughout the lesson. The students practiced phonemic
awareness and rhyming by responding to the teacher’s prompts. The teacher
conducted a brief morning message, which was pre-printed on chart paper and read:
“Today, we are going to read a story about a fat cat who takes a nap.” She used a
pointer to point to each word in the sentence as she read it aloud. Then she said,
“your turn” and the students proceeded to chorally read the sentence. She later
selected one student to lead the group in reading the sentence aloud again.
Individual students were called to the chart to find letters, sounds and words that
came from previous lessons. For example, “Suzy, can you find a word that begins
with “n” like our alpha-friend Nyle Noodle”. Suzy promptly took the pointer and
pointed to nap. The teacher handed her a strip of hot pink highlighter tape to cover
the word. Other students found rhyming words (fat/cat) and high frequency words
(are/to/about). Lists of kindergarten high frequency words were posted in large print
to the left of the morning message chart. A new word was added each week. As I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
prepared to leave, students were moving to small group stations where they worked
with manipulative letter cards to form words or read a simple text with the AM
teacher or drew a picture in their journals and added a sentence or a label.
A first grade teacher at School A reported that a Reading First classroom
would have:
...games and activities that foster learning and phonics. I have things on the
computer like the Tronic Phonics and Starfall. I like the Rosetta Stone,
because I have a student who speaks no English and I put him on that to see
what would happen and he’s learned vocabulary. You should have a lot of
books, rhyming books, picture books for every level so that even children
who are good readers sometimes they like to look at picture books. I have
the sight words, the high frequency words. I have a universal access wall... it
helps with grouping. The fluency we haven’t gotten into too much yet
because it’s the beginning of the year.
In visiting her first grade classroom late in the morning language arts block, I
observed an English language development (ELD) lesson with about half the class.
The nine kids not participating in the teacher directed lesson were stationed around
the room in buddy reading or independently reading quietly aloud into “phoneme
phones” which amplify the sound to the ear of the speaker. There was an ample
supply of books in a classroom library in one cozy comer of the classroom. This
experienced teacher had charts posted with sight words or high frequency words,
vocabulary charts and spelling lists near what she called her “focus wall”. Like
many other focus walls I have seen in the many classroom visits, this bulletin board
listed the current HM theme under study and had examples of student work on
display. It clearly posted what comprehension strategies and skills were to be taught
during the theme. Eleven first-graders participated in the ELD lesson. The teacher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
was seated near an easel at the front of the room with the students surrounding her on
the carpet. The chart displayed a graphic organizer with a brainstorming map. In the
center the label was family and the children volunteered labels for family members,
“brother, sister, mama (mother), papa (father), aunt, uncle, cousins, etc.” Many
family labels were given in Spanish. The teacher said, “That’s right, can you tell me
the name for ‘hermano’ in English?” If the child could not provide the word, another
child could fill in or the teacher would say and write the word in English.
The teacher flipped back a chart from the previous day and the children
chanted a poem about a family. The teacher then elicited brief sentences about
family members from individual students and wrote the sentences on a nearby white
board. The students were assigned to draw a picture of their family and write a few
sentences telling about the picture using words from the graphic organizer. Many
students copied the charted sentences on their papers and proceeded to add details to
their drawings of their own families.
Classrooms across the two schools are quite similar in classroom
environment as noted through observations of teacher interviewees’ classrooms in
kindergarten, first grade, second grade and third grade. As shown in Table 4.1,
elements of the Houghton Mifflin program were evident in all classrooms, but
School B lagged behind School A in posting all of the required elements of the
Houghton Mifflin program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Table 4.1: Classroom Evidence: Elements of Houghton Mifflin Program
Sound
Spelling or
AlphaFriend
Cards
Focus
Wall
Writing
Process
Board
Phonics
Center
(K)
Universal
Access
Charts
Daily
Schedule
School A
School B
I n s t r u c t i o n a l T im e
According to the California Reading First plan another key factor is to what
extent LEAs and school sites seek to fully implement the program and protect daily
reading/language arts instructional time (a minimum of 2.5 hours for grades 1-3 and
intervention grades 4-8 and 1 hour for kindergarten). Classroom observations in
seven classrooms in ABC School District revealed daily schedules posted in every
room visited. Kindergarten language arts instruction was posted as ninety minutes in
both schools and instructional minutes for grades 1 -3 in both schools were posted as
150 minutes meeting the minimum grant requirements. There were no differences
noted between schools in the implementation of instructional time devoted to
language arts. As to whether the time was “protected,” all observations but one
occurred during the time at both sites as the language arts block. According to both
principals, interruptions were kept to a minimum during this time period. The
principal at School A stated:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
One of the biggest changes that has happened since I’ve been here is a very
firm, strong schedule. It is not negotiable when it comes to teaching language
arts and math. It’s been a goal of everybody, the teachers, the administration,
not to interrupt that sacred language arts block. We used to have assemblies in
the morning because it was hot in the afternoon, but now we just sweat in the
afternoon. We don’t want to take away that sacred language arts time.
In sum, there were no differences across the two schools in terms of the
protected language arts period.
O t h e r I n i t i a t i v e s
When reform objectives are not closely aligned with district and/or state
accountability measures, conflict results. Faced with the dilemma of what mandates
to address, the pressure to meet local measure will usually win out and the reform
will be suspended (Berends et al., 2002). In the interview with the administrator of
School B, it was noted that her school had also been a recipient of a previous grant in
2001. In the fall of 2000, the California Department of Education was one of only
fifteen states to have an approved Reading Excellence Act (REA) application. The
purpose of that grant was aimed at:
a. Providing children with the readiness skills they need in early childhood to
learn to read once they enter school;
b. Teaching every child to read on grade level by the end of the third grade;
c. Improving the instructional practices of teachers in elementary schools; &
d. Providing children having difficulty making the transition from
kindergarten to first grade with additional support.
The purposes of REA sound remarkably similar to the goals of Reading First.
In building a bridge from the Reading Excellence Act grant to Reading First, School
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
B could have benefited from the lessons learned. However, the current principal of
School B, a former resource teacher of that same site notes:
This site applied for an earlier grant - the Reading Excellence Act grant back
in 2001. There was quite a bit of professional development and a lot of
strides were made back then. However, two years after that, Reading First
became available. I think of REA as the Clinton administration and Reading
First NCLB as the Bush administration. Our school was one of 16 in the
district to receive funds under Reading First. We are a Reading First district,
but we are one of the schools under the funding of the grant. You would
have thought that we had a head start with REA, but with the changes in
administration... As a matter of fact, I’m the fourth principal at this school in
the last four years. So, there have been a lot of changes.
Reading First was the only major reform reported by School A. There were
no apparent conflicting initiatives in place during the time of this study. Thus, while
School B’s implementation was hindered by other initiatives and a turnover in
administrators, School A’s implementation was enhanced by a clear reform agenda
and stable leadership.
S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s f o r R e s e a r c h Q u e s ti o n O n e
Research question one sought to describe how classroom context influences
implementation. In analyzing how classroom context influences implementation it is
noted that classroom environment and classroom implementation at both sites was
actually quite similar. However, School B lagged behind School A in posting all the
required elements of the HM program (see Table 4.1). Both schools currently adhere
to the instructional time requirements in the California Reading First Plan and both
principals report protecting the language arts time block. This does not seem to have
been the case in School B in previous grant years, but has been a consistent element
at School A according to interviewees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Through data collected through interviews and classroom observations, I
concluded that all of the grade levels (K-3) at both sites met or exceeded the Reading
First required amount of time on language arts. In fact, teachers in this study were
most likely to spend their time on reading/language arts followed next by
mathematics. As expected, most Houghton Mifflin program materials were
displayed in classrooms, however the Phonics Center did not appear to be utilized in
kindergarten classrooms visited at either school. When asked, the kindergarten
teachers interviewed felt that the two-student activities contained in the phonics set
did not lend itself to integration into the classroom management scheme nor did they
feel that it was something students could use independently. Focus walls were in
evidence in all eight classrooms and were occasionally referred to and used during
the lessons I observed. Some classrooms at School B and all classrooms at School A
had elaborate charts for universal access providing lists of activities that groups of
children “must do” during independent work time. There was another list of “may
do” activities that provided choice for activities to follow the completion of all other
activities. The charts were often sorted by ability grouping.
Observations showed that most teachers were on target for pacing in the
language arts program based on the district pacing guide. Many teachers at both
schools mentioned the importance of making accommodations in the program to
meet the needs of all their students. They referred to this as universal access and
differentiation. I observed writing process boards in grade one, two and three
classrooms at School A and in grade one and two at School B. Samples of student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
writing were posted in all seven classrooms visited, but the work of all students was
not on display in any classroom. Much of the writing posted at School B was not
based on the Houghton Mifflin Reading program. They reported being trained in an
alternate writing program provided by consultant Nancy Fetzer. Classroom
observations at both sites revealed that teachers closely followed the district pacing
guide and were on track for lessons observed at that particular time of year.
Research Question Two
Research question two asks, “How do teachers’ experiences with professional
development affect implementation differences?” The focus of research question
two is on the implementation differences affected by teachers’ experiences with
professional development and their knowledge of the Reading First Plan. The
Reading First LEA assurances indicate that the focus of the professional
development programs is to increase teacher?’ reflections on their practice and be
driven by screening, diagnostic, and monitoring data to help teachers attend to the
learning needs of their students. Furthermore, the site administrator, as an
instructional leader, is expected to become a knowledgeable and supportive voice for
teachers, especially if the school site elects to hire reading or literacy coaches.
Coaches can help site administrators and teachers keep the focus on program
implementation and students’ needs (California Reading First Plan, 2002).
The following sub-sections will discuss professional development, coaching,
and knowledge of the Reading First Plan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
A s s e m b l y B i l l 4 6 6 a n d A s s e m b l y B i l l 7 5 - P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t
Assembly Bill 466 (AB466) training for K-3 teachers is identified as a grant
assurance under Reading First. It is a five-day, 40-hour, grade level training based
on the current adopted reading program - Houghton Mifflin Reading. All eight
teachers and both literacy coaches interviewed described participation in the state’s
AB466 training as their primary professional development experience under the
Reading First plan. All interview participants, teachers and coaches alike, completed
an 80-hour professional development follow-up log at the completion of AB466
training. This was confirmed by examining district professional development
attendance lists.
As the instructional leaders of their schools, principals play an important role
in ensuring the quality of practice provided by their teachers. Under the Reading
First Plan, principals were able to attend Assembly Bill 75 (AB75) and additional
AB466 training in order to support their teachers as they improve their practice.
Both principals interviewed had completed the extensive Assembly Bill 75 (AB75)
training as a Reading First assurance requirement for administrators at grant-funded
schools. AB75 consists of three modules. Module I of AB75 parallels AB466 for
teachers and provided a five-day overview of the core adopted curriculum, in this
case Houghton Mifflin. AB75’s Module II provides three days of instructional
leadership training and Module III offers three days of technology training.
Additionally, both administrators participated in portions of their staffs’ AB466
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
training. The principal of School B felt strongly about participating in both
leadership and staff training:
I went to both the AB466 training and the AB75 training for administrators.
Whenever there is any professional development offered to our teachers, I
like to attend that. I’ve attended RT [Reciprocal Teaching] and Focused
Approach. Whatever they are expected to attend and understand, I feel that I
need to understand so that I can coach them through the process.
In sum, there were no differences between schools in teacher and principal
participation levels in required professional development.
A d d i t i o n a l P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t
All eight teachers and coaches at both sites indicated participation in Focused
Approach training during year two of the grant. Focused Approach training supports
Houghton Mifflin program implementation and provides teachers with strategies for
implementing the core reading program with English learners. It was selected by
ABCSD as the year two training component provided in partnership with the
California Reading and Literature Project. Participation in Focused Approach
provided a way for teachers at Reading First funded sites to complete their annual,
ongoing professional development requirements under the grant. Site level
professional development was frequently cited as an important component in reading
program implementation. Additionally, teachers listed phonics training, classes on
writing and universal access, as well as vocabulary development provided by either
district curriculum specialists or site literacy coaches as important to their
professional development experiences. According to Sparks (2002) if a school
district wants to affect teachers’ content knowledge, instructional skills, and student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
learning, the district and its schools must make certain the staff development effort is
sufficiently powerful to accomplish those purposes.
When asked if more professional development was needed, none of the eight
teachers felt that additional mandated training was necessary. A teacher from School
A responded in her description of Reading First as follows:
Children who are at risk...to be able to enrich their environment as far as
phonics is concerned. To have language literacy activities that would help
them be interested in learning. I think phonemic awareness and alphabet
recognition is very important. You have to have ongoing professional
development to do this - which I ’ ve had (italics added).
Four of the eight teachers (all from School A) responded that they were
willing to continue participating in collaboration meetings at the site level, as well as
site level training provided by the literacy coach, but would not seek out additional
professional development at the district level. When asked if more professional
development was needed, a teacher at School A said, “No. I don’t know that I
needed as much as I received.” Three teachers at School B and one teacher at School
A indicated that observing other teachers using the same language arts program
(Houghton Mifflin) would be a helpful form of professional development at their
grade level. The teacher at school A stated, “I’m able to certainly handle the manual
and understand and add other things from my own toolbox to what I do to teach
reading. What I think would be beneficial would be some more observation
opportunities of expert teachers in my grade level.”
Both literacy coaches expressed the opinion that future professional
development need not be week-long institutes, but preferred ongoing professional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
development at the site via staff meetings; grade level collaboration; and
implementation of the coaching cycle incorporating classroom demonstrations
followed up by teacher observations. Cooper (1998) refers to this as having a
supportive culture for change in schools determined to have high quality program
implementation.
The principal at School B stated concerns with the consistency and
sustainability of professional development. When asked what professional
development was provided to teachers, she explained:
AB466, Focused Approach, RT training (Reciprocal Teaching with Action
learning), curriculum mapping, writing strategies with Nancy Fetzer, direct
instruction, GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design). But walking
through the classrooms, I don’t see a lot of the strategies evident. There
hasn’t been a lot of consistency and common language to sustain the
professional development. They need common strategies and a common
focus. That’s the reason that when I came on I thought, well,
implementation, we are going to focus on those key components of HM. I
assumed primary really understood how to utilize sound/spelling cards, but
I’m finding out that was not so, so we need to go back and utilize our coach
to provide professional growth opportunities once a month after school.
Those are extra hours for the teacher that I can sign off on, but they are all
focused on full implementation of HM at this point and also integrating the
data analysis piece.
While professional development geared to support the implementation of the
core reading curriculum is provided, concerns come into play when other
professional development may affect consistency and sustainability of the reform
effort. School B appeared to have less consistency than School A in terms of
professional development at the site. A variety of staff development plans
implemented by different administrators over three years at School B resulted in a
lack of focus on the reform. However, there were no differences between the two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
staffs and their administration in attendance at professional development required by
Reading First grant assurances.
C o a c h in g
In this study, both schools hired full-time literacy coaches from within their
own staff using Reading First grant funds. Both literacy coaches focus on grades K
through 3, splitting their time evenly between new and veteran teachers. They
demonstrate lessons, observe classes, coach teachers one-on-one and in small groups,
provide professional development sessions for all staff, and help teachers link
instruction to assessment. Demonstrating lessons is the cornerstone of their work.
There has been no turnover in coaches at the two sites studied. Both coaches
completed extensive professional development as required by the state including
twenty-five days of program and coach training over a period of three years.
Interestingly, these two coaches reported not only participating in AB466
professional development with their site’s teachers, but both became AB466 trainers.
The coach at School B trained AB466 at the second grade level exclusively within
ABC School District, but the coach at School A certified in year two of the grant
trained teachers in AB466 in other parts of California. Both coaches offer extensive
on-site professional development to their K-3 teaching staffs and willingly offered
district level staff development as part of a larger team of language arts trainers. A
teacher at School A reported information about her coach this way:
From what 1 understand she (the coach) is supporting the process of
Houghton Mifflin so she can come in and teach various lessons from the
program. I know that she has done that at least once or twice for myself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6 6
She’s helped us with our focus walls. She’s helped us connect with other
schools to get us resources to use within Houghton Mifflin.
When asked to discuss her relationship with the coach the same teacher
replied, “Great! I think that most of her time is taken up with people that are
new...that’s my assessment. I would guess. She helps pass out the OARS (Online
Assessment Reporting System) information. She was crucial in figuring out that
whole thing at the beginning.” Coaches at both sites in this study completed required
professional development and provide onsite training to their staffs in the form of
demonstration lessons and collaborative meetings. There were no differences noted
between the two coaches in the amount of professional development attended or
provided to their staffs.
K n o w l e d g e o f t h e R e a d i n g F i r s t P la n
District teachers who were interviewed demonstrated varying knowledge of
the Reading First plan. Each of the two site literacy coaches and both principals had
read the plan and could recall the basic assurances of the grant. Of the eight teachers
interviewed, one teacher at School A admitted to not knowing anything about the
plan other than the fact that it existed, one teacher at School B confused it with the
school improvement plan that included reading implementation, and six were able to
describe the basics of the plan (three at School A and three at School B). When
asked to describe Reading First, one School A teacher stated the following, “To me
Reading First seems to be an organized way for teachers across the state to be
instructed in similar ways. An extension each year seems to build on each other.”
Another teacher at School A described Reading First somewhat differently, “It’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
been a series of tasks that we’ve done. It’s a structure. It’s been the grant that we
were awarded with the specific set of criteria that we have to follow to make a very
systematic approach to teaching reading.” Surprisingly, another teacher at School A
told me, “I’m feel that I’m ignorant about Reading First. I don’t know that it’s solely
Houghton Mifflin. Is it?”
Conceptual knowledge of the reform initiative, in this case Reading First,
would appear to be an important element to the success of the plan. In contrast to the
School A interviewee, a teacher in School B described Reading First as follows:
I would describe it as the whole primary or even the school being kind of on
the same page, as far as curriculum goes. And expectations and the language.
We have the Houghton Mifflin program here that we’re all supposed to be
working from, 100 percent. I think it’s a good program and the kids are
doing well in it. I also put together with Reading First certain things in the
rooms we have to have that’s supposed to be standard throughout the school.
That being the Focus Walls, certain expectations as far as the Administration
goes and the state. Every now and then they’ll walk through, checking the
rooms. The big thing about it, I think, is the Universal Access time that gets
all the students teaching at their levels.
In sum, there was little difference between School A and School B in terms
of the teachers having knowledge of the Reading First plan. At both sites, the
principals were very knowledgeable of the plan and there were mixed results among
teachers at both sites who knew the plan.
S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s f o r R e s e a r c h Q u e s ti o n T w o
Research question two sought to describe the effects of teachers’ professional
development experiences on the implementation of the Reading First Plan at the site
level, with an emphasis on teacher practice, coaching and knowledge of the Reading
First Plan. In relation to professional development, the district has offered ample
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
opportunities for teachers and administrators to be trained. Further, the Reading First
grant has provided funding for staff development opportunities at both the district
and the site levels, as well as grade level collaboration and one-to-one mentoring
provided to teachers by literacy coaches.
Overall, there are few notable differences between the two schools in this
study in the amount and type of professional development in which they participated.
Administrators at both schools participated in AB75. All teachers and both coaches
completed AB466 professional development requirements. In fact, the literacy
coaches at both sites were also AB466 trainers. The principal at School B expressed
concerns about the consistency and sustainability of the professional development
efforts at her site. She self-reported a variety of professional development activities
in which the teachers at her site had participated that were beyond the scope of the
Reading First Plan.
Administrators and coaches expressed a greater interest in “ongoing”
professional development for staff and themselves, whereas teachers interviewed
indicated an interest in collaboration and opportunities to observe other teachers
implementing the HM program. They were least interested in additional professional
development training. Knowledge of the Reading First Plan was not a strength at
either site beyond the literacy coach and administration level. Teachers at both sites
self-reported having a limited knowledge and/or understanding of the Reading First
Plan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
In general, the implementation of the Reading First professional development
requirement in ABCSD has gone, for the most part according to the three-year
timeline as outlined in the California Reading First Plan (2001). It is perhaps not
surprising that there aren’t implementation differences, given that professional
development experiences were quite similar.
Research Question Three
Research question three asks, “How does the school context or internal
factors support or hinder implementation?” The focus of research question three
examines internal factors and context within the school. Themes uncovered in data
analysis as related to school context included collaboration, administrative and
teacher leadership, and relationships and communication.
Changing School Context
Findings with regard to the implementation of Reading First in ABC School
District are best situated in an understanding of the school context and how it
changed during the selection of schools for the study. The context at School B
changed when a new principal was hired at the start of the 2005-06 school year.
According to the teachers and coach interviewed at School B implementation of
Reading First did not begin in earnest until the beginning of the third year of the
grant (2005-06). This may be related to four changes in administration over a three-
year period. The new principal welcomed the opportunity to discuss Reading First,
and I encountered no difficulty verbally recruiting four teacher interview candidates
along with the literacy coach. The teachers at School B were forthcoming about
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
barriers in the implementation of Reading First as related to a lack of leadership for
the project during the first two years. One primary teacher at the site explained, “In
previous years, it did not feel like we were a Reading First school or that there were
any expectations. It was known around the campus that the administration wasn’t a
big believer in Houghton Mifflin programs.”
When school selection for the study began based on 2003-04 Reading First
Achievement data, School A’s principal was very much in favor of promoting the
use of Reading First as a reading reform model. Her school was performing better
on average than other identified Reading First schools based on the Reading First
Achievement Index. Principal A was very positive about showcasing her school for
the study, but surprisingly I encountered some resistance to the interview process.
Two out of the four originally contacted teachers declined to be interviewed, but
were replaced by other eager interviewees.
Collaboration
The practice of collaboration has been cited in studies of effective schools.
Lezotte and Levine list “faculty cohesion and collaboration” among the
characteristics of Unusually Effective Schools (1990). Fullan (2001) cites
collaboration as central to the learning process required for school improvement.
Grade level collaboration was named by every interviewee as an internal factor
supporting implementation of the Reading First plan. Teachers, coaches, and
administrators reported in interviews that when teachers meet regularly with coaches,
distinct cultural shifts happen throughout the school, including increased teacher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
willingness and ability to collaborate, greater peer accountability, greater knowledge
about other teachers’ classrooms and instructional strategies, and better support for
new teachers. For example, when asked, “What changes has your school made to
facilitate the implementation of Reading First,” a teacher at School B responded:
Collaboration is definitely supported by this administration. The school is
collaborating. We’re not just collaborating grade-wise, but also by track.
And we’re slowly getting rid of ‘this is kindergarten, this is primary, and this
is upper grade.’ We are starting to mix and to realize we have to work
together. Talking to each other, ‘What do you need me to do?’ It’s really
brought the school together. It’s united us to focus.
Similarly, another teacher at School B reported increased collaboration: “We
have meetings by grade level or by primary/upper. We have collaborations quite
often, but mostly monthly. Our coach is there and our principal and vice principal
sometimes.” The coach at School A explained her perceptions of collaboration: “I
keep track of all the assessments from all of the teachers, so she (the principal) can
see growth in the teachers. It’s not for me to see, but for her. The teachers use the
data in their grade level meetings where they collaborate, because we do a lot of
collaboration.” When asked what kinds of professional development she participated
in, a teacher at School A included collaboration in her response: “We have a lot of
grade level collaboration especially at School A, because we always talk about
everything.” The principal of School A noted that additional professional
development should include collaboration with other school districts:
Why not go find out what other districts are doing? Maybe, more
collaboration across districts, finding out what other districts are doing,
because how could that be different than having our teachers collaborate.
Why should we all be reinventing the wheel? If it’s a best practice and it’s
working then why not have everyone use it? Just like when teachers used to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
be isolated. You’d be teaching right next door to each other and one teacher
might be doing something totally different from another teacher. Well, right
now I think we’ve expanded [collaboration] in our school, but we haven’t
expanded beyond our district.
When asked, “What type of support does the principal provide?” a teacher at
School A replied, “She’s very big on working together as a team, collaboration and
she seems very open minded to different ideas and suggestions. But at the same time
she guides us to where eventually we really need to be.”
Eaker, DuFour, and Burnette (2002) describe collaborative processes
infiltrating school culture, replacing teacher isolation with teams of teachers working
together in a professional learning community. Teachers at both sites in this study
engaged in professional dialogue and collaboration. The difference is that School
A’s collaboration has become ingrained in the culture at the site, while School B is
newly integrating and formalizing the structure of teacher collaboration. Developing
a professional learning community is part of the vision of the newly appointed
principal of School B. Over time it is likely that collaboration will have the same
positive effects at School B as it has at School A.
Administrative Leadership
Schools are supposed to be “learning communities” where principals, literacy
coaches, teachers, parents and students all work together with a shared commitment
to the program and learning (Burnette et al., 2002). This next section will focus on
what principals and coaches do to support the Reading First plan in their schools and
the perceived usefulness of their actions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Morris (2002) found that the principal was a key factor in differentiating
successful schools from struggling schools. For example, at successful schools,
principals participate in meetings, encourage staff to believe in the program, and visit
classrooms. This was not true at struggling schools. Consequently, teachers were
asked in their interviews about their relationship with their principal and their
literacy coach. School leadership was noted in interviews as both a support and
hindrance to implementation. All four teachers at School A, along with the literacy
coach, indicated strong principal support. When asked to describe their relationship
with their principal, one teacher noted, “She’s firm but clear.” All four teachers and
the coach at School B indicated that the newly appointed principal of three months
provided strong leadership as related to the reading program and Reading First
implementation. A teacher at School B put it this way:
Our current principal is very supportive. She says, ‘If you need help, just let
me know and I’ll figure out a way.’ Or if there’s something she can do, if
you need more collaboration time, or if there’s resources you need, just to let
her know and she’ll figure out a way for us to work on it. So, our current one
seems to be very supportive.
When asked to comment on previous administrators under the Reading First
grant the same teacher replied, “It wasn’t bad. It’s just that it didn’t seem that it
(Reading First) was as supported. It wasn’t as easy to get support then.” These same
interviewees at School B had a range of descriptions about the lack of support for the
adopted program and the Reading First plan by the previous two principals during
the first two years of the grant. One teacher at School B stated, “In previous years, it
did not feel like we were a Reading First school or that there were any expectations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
It was known around the campus that the former administration wasn’t a big believer
in Houghton Mifflin (language arts) programs.”
Current principal support for the Reading First plan and the implementation
of the Houghton Mifflin program was strong at both schools. There is evidence in
the interviews with teachers that previous administrators at School B supported
neither the Reading First Plan nor the Houghton Mifflin program.
Relationships and Communication
Coaches at both sites identified good communication as important to
successful implementation of Reading First. Coaches were asked to describe their
relationship with their principals and vice versa. The literacy coach at School B
noted:
I feel it is a very good relationship in the sense that there is a lot of
communication. A lot of open communication I should say, where we refer
to the standards, the expectations of the Reading First grant, the needs, the
focuses, the goals of our school site and classrooms, and we have a lot of
communication, so it’s very helpful. I feel as though she trusts me with
doing my job and that’s a very good feeling. My principal provides support
in communicating with the staff regarding areas that need attention regarding
implementation. She supports me to the staff in utilizing my position in
contacting me, conferencing with me, and utilizing me basically.
Similarly, the School A coach indicated that she had a positive relationship
with her principal:
My relationship with the principal? I’d say very easy, very good. She
supports me in anything and gives me lots of freedom and leeway to do what
I think needs to be done. If I want to talk about sound spelling cards or word
pattern boards at a meeting, she sets the time aside for me to do that. No
doubt about it. It’s a really good relationship. We meet once a week to go
over things that need to be done. Of course, it takes an hour or two to get to
that meeting, because she’s so busy. She just called me on the phone right
before you came because I was freaking out over the pre-walk today because
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
it wasn’t what I expected it to be. She called to reassure me that we have a
whole bunch of new people this year. We only have two people who are here
from last year. They’re all new.
The principal of School A reported her relationship with the literacy coach as
follows:
It’s a pretty open and honest relationship. Sometimes she may not want to
hear what I have to say, but we are open and honest with each other. We
share what needs to be said, we have really good communication. She’s
working every minute, working in classrooms doing model lessons, helping
them with the components of HM, how to implement HM, how to do the
word work, the fluency, how to do the theme, how to introduce the theme,
how to work with the focus wall, how to use the sound/spelling cards. She
meets with grade levels and this year we’re actually having her work with
grade levels to look at specific children and list the students that are intensive
or below basic and talk about as a whole grade level “What can we do to
move Johnny from Below Basic up to Basic?” So, they are looking at it and
discussing it as grade level teams and looking at the data. The coach helps in
the classroom when the teachers are assessing their students if they need to
do assessment. She doesn’t do the assessments, I don’t believe in that, that’s
not her job. She helps monitor students and do a teaching lesson. She can do
a great teaching lesson with the students while the teacher is doing
assessment, because I want the teachers to be assessing their own kids. Then,
they own them.
The principal at School B described the activities provided by her site’s
coach:
Basically, she’s working with teachers whether it be through demo lessons,
team teaching, working with room environment, how they can better utilize
components of the programs and the different interventions that HM has in
place for the students. The universal access piece. Also, she’s the one to
present the professional growth opportunities for the staff. She’s really trying
to promote or work on implementation. I feel that she’s feeling more
supported. I don’t want to say that she wasn’t supported with previous
administrators, but I think she feels like now we are working together more
as a team. She’s also working very closely with other coaches and
curriculum specialists and refining her own practice. It’s going to take time.
I have to remember that I’ve only been here three months!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Literacy coaches at both School A and B expressed perceptions of a positive
relationship and good communication with their respective administrators.
Similarly, principals at both sites reported a positive working relationship with their
coaches and strong trust in their abilities as peer coaches for their staffs. School B’s
principal is focused on teamwork and helping her coach feel more supported.
Teacher Leadership - Coaching
The coaching component is crucial to the success implementation of the
Reading First plan (California Reading First Plan, 2002). The principal sets the tone
and the vision for the school and the coach works together with the principal as part
of the instructional team. The coach duties include demonstrating lessons, observing
classrooms and providing feedback, ordering and distributing materials, planning and
providing staff development, and organizing assessments. Coaches receive
continuous professional development on both program content and coaching skills.
Coaches indicated in their interviews that they spent most of their time in
classrooms, closely followed by time spent in meetings and on completing
paperwork. Positive comments in interviews focused on being more knowledgeable
and working better with teachers. Negative comments focused on lack of
administrative support (in School B during previous years), too many meetings, and
too much paperwork (from the district level). Principals found the support the
coaches provided to be very useful. The teachers at School A did not find the coach
quite as useful as the principal did. Teachers at School B had nothing but positive
accolades for the usefulness of their coach.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
According to Datnow & Castellano (2001) in a study of how principals and
facilitators defined their leadership roles with respect to the Success For All reform
model, it was determined that both roles were important to the successful adoption
and implementation of the reform. In this study, all four teachers at School B
described their literacy coach as a strong support to Reading First implementation.
Teachers at School B consistently reported strong support through their
literacy coach. The kindergarten teacher talked about her coach very positively and
had this to say, “She’s wonderful. She is constantly there for assessment help,
questions, demos, just collaboration. I mean, collaboration and just the demos are a
real big thing. She’s just very available, I would say.” The third grade teacher
stated, “We have our literacy coach that’s here that comes in and we’ll do lessons.”
The extensive support provided by School B’s coach was described by the
first grade teacher, “I think she’s wonderful. She’s always there for everything we
need. She teaches model lessons; she assesses students in reading when it’s needed.
She teaches inservices, professional development once a month that we should be
doing.” The second grade teacher at School B expanded on the support the coach
provided:
She’s great at answering questions when they come up. Or, if she doesn’t
know the answer, she can find the person who does. So, we’re not all trying
to search for it ourselves; we can go through her. She comes in and does
demo lessons. She can come in for observations if we’re doing something
and we want to see what did I do wrong, what do I need to change, why
didn’t this work? She can observe that way and help us come up with new
strategies. She helps us when it comes to the testing themes, either to help us
with time to test, or she takes the class and lets us have time for assessments.
She gives us a lot of help that way.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Comparatively, the teachers at School A were mixed in their perceptions
regarding their coach. Two of the four teachers interviewed at School A described
strong coaching support, while the other two indicated only moderate support. One
teacher had this to say, “Our literacy coach speaks at our staff meetings. Although
on e-mail, I saw recently that she’s meeting with different grade levels on a monthly
basis, but not kindergarten.”
Conversely, another teacher at School A had this to say, “Our reading coach
is great. You are not afraid to approach her. I don’t worry what she will think if I
ask her. Most of the time she’s coming to us with ideas and she’ll let you see it to
see what you think about it. Everything she sends is wonderful and a big help and
you can count on her.” Further evidence of coach support was supported by the
following statement in a teacher interview at School A:
I think she’s wonderful. She’s always there for everything we need. She
teaches model lessons; she assesses students in reading when it’s needed. She
teaches inservices, professional development once a month that we should be
doing. For instance, fluency, word pattern boards, HFW [high frequency
words], that kind of thing. She constantly sends us emails on websites that
are good, different research done, she creates her own focus walls. She’s
creating a “school focus wall” in the lounge. She models what we need to be
doing. She came into my classroom not too long ago and said, let’s do this
this and this. So, we rearranged a few things and made it a more Reading
First appropriate classroom.
Peer coaching is evidenced in research as an effective form of on-site
professional development (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Teacher perceptions of literacy
coaches impact their effectiveness. Teachers at School B expressed greater value in
their literacy coach than did teachers at School A. Principals at both sites placed
great trust and value on their coaching staff.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
Summary o f Findings for Research Question Three
Research question three examined the school context and other internal
factors which either supported or hindered implementation. Themes uncovered in
data analysis as related to school context included collaboration, administrative and
teacher leadership, and relationships and communication. A major difference
between the two schools at the time of the study was a change in leadership at
School B. A variety of factors led to a series of four principals over a three-year
period. Leadership is essential to the implementation of a program or project. All
four teachers interviewed at School B, along with the literacy coach and the current
principal noted the change in leadership as a hindrance to the implementation of
Reading First. Principal support was identified by the coach and teachers at School
A as a support to Reading First implementation. The change of leadership at School
B may have resulted in a delayed rather than a lack of implementation of the Reading
First Plan. The support of the literacy coaches at both sites was critical to support
implementation. School A reported mixed responses to the support offered by their
coach, while School B’s teachers had nothing but positive accolades for the coach
there. Both principals and both coaches noted strong relationships and good
communication as key to implementation of the Reading First Plan.
Research Question Four
Research question four asked, “What other external factors support or
constitute barriers to full implementation?” The focus of research question four is on
identifying factors outside of the school context, which affect implementation of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Reading First Plan. Interviews of teachers, coaches, and site-level administrators
along with classroom observations were used to triangulate data and provide a rich
body of data from which to answer research question four.
District support of Reading First was perceived as a support to full
implementation at both sites. The overemphasis on reading at the expense of other
subject areas was a concern of teachers at both sites. The perceived lack of parent
involvement, limited student preschool attendance, the low socioeconomic status of
students and language differences were all noted as external factors that were
perceived barriers to full implementation of the Reading First Plan. These external
factors affecting implementation are addressed in the following sections.
District Support
Teachers and administrators at both sites listed district policy and action as a
positive support to full implementation of the Reading First Plan. The principal of
School B provided an example of the contrast between district support and site level
support:
The district expectation as to what needs to take place at our sites is very
structured. All of the administrators are well aware of what those
expectations are and what message is to be delivered to the staff. So, it’s
very disheartening to return here after two years to leave a school that was
flying and to come back and they are struggling to fully implement a program
for reading. It’s disheartening. The excuse is that we’ve had changes in
administrators. I don’t think that it’s necessarily the case. Maybe it has to do
with the philosophy of the former administrators.
Likewise, School A teachers reported a similar perception of high district-
level support:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
I think the support we get from the district is phenomenal. The fact that not
only does each school have a coach, but each school has layers of leadership.
All the coaches have a leader, and even underneath that leader are other
leaders. We all have so many people that we can call up and rely on.
Similarly, a teacher at School B reported support of the district through
professional development. When asked what support the district offered, she said,
“Smart Pages professional development and they have people come in once a month
from the district doing Reading First type of things at our staff meetings. They’ve
also come by to do Reading First walks to observe us in the classroom.” Smart
Pages are a published list of teacher and staff development classes offered each
trimester to all ABCSD employees and held at the district office.
In a recent article Newmann, et al., (2001) acknowledge the power of
coherence from a study on 222 Chicago elementary schools. The study suggests that
the problem in most reform efforts is that there tend to be too many unrelated and
unsustainable improvement programs. The report concludes that State, LEA, and
school site policies must be built around “a set of interrelated programs for students
and staff guided by a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment,
and learning climate pursued over a sustained period” (p. 43).
California’s Reading First Plan (2002) is based on the need for coherence.
There are very few reform efforts that have been able to sustain themselves. Most
state and LEA efforts begin with intentions “to stay the course.” Reading First offers
three to six years of funding, increasing the possibilities for coherence in grant
funded schools. For as the Newmann study (2001) suggests, “(If) LEA policy could
assist instructional program coherence by requiring elementary schools to offer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
literacy instruction based on nationally recognized models and by offering a three-
year sequence of professional development for school teams to help them gain
mastery of an approach.. chances are success in student learning will occur (p. 14).
This concern for coherence is evident in the ABC School District. However,
coherence itself it not the goal. It is the means to achieve the goal of increased
student achievement (Newmann et al, 2001). The test is whether low performing
schools can benefit from sustained, districtwide, professional development efforts, a
common instructional program, use of peer reading coaches to support colleagues,
and ongoing monitoring of student progress and instructional effectiveness
(California Reading First Plan, 2002). The challenge for policy leaders and the
educational community is keeping the focus on the students in the classroom and
finding models that work for the duration of the national Reading First Initiative.
Hindrances - Reading First.. .Everything Else Second
External factors sometimes pose barriers to full implementation of the
Reading First Plan. Teachers at both sites indicated concerns that the implementation
of Reading First makes teaching very restrictive and have a negative affect on the
teaching of other subjects. Interview participants both schools interviewed as part of
this case study expressed concerns that Reading First’s focus on reading would take
time and energy away from other important subjects, as well as from gifted and
talented programs or extracurricular activities like performing arts. A teacher at
School A commented on the loss of focus on other subject areas:
I think the implementation of Reading First is affecting the teaching of all
other subject areas. We’re losing a lot of education because of this program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
I think social studies and science are being exited out - even PE [Physical
Education]. And I know that that’s a big deal, but I believe that that’s being
lost. Because everybody’s so focused on Reading First and reading that even
math gets lost. I’m quite surprised, and I think it’s that way throughout this
school site.
Assurances of the Reading First Plan focus on program fidelity. Teachers,
however, felt that focus to be somewhat restrictive. A teacher at School B explained
her views on how restrictive teaching under the Reading First Plan can be:
I think it’s hard sometimes because I feel that we are restricted as teachers
now. I think that maybe you could hire anybody to do our job now.
Basically, if they can read the TM, that’s all they want. They just want you
to read it and spit it back at the kids. I feel like kids need different
things...they all learn in different ways and I feel like as a teacher I ought to
be able to be creative with the strategies that I feel are necessary to meet their
needs. The curriculum is very restrictive.
Similarly, a teacher at School A reported her concerns about the prescriptive
nature of the program:
I don’t want to say that the negative way particularly. I think it’s an excellent
process for newer teachers that don’t have some background experience to
draw on, so that they have a very prescribed procedure to go through. And,
for experienced teachers, we’re being asked to do exactly the same is not
always in the best interest of instruction. I mean, the children have obviously
learned from it. We can get there, but there are other ways to get there that
may be more age appropriate for our children. So, as a school as a whole
with all the grade levels, you see pretty much the same classroom, the same
things, despite the personality or the background of the person that’s
directing it.
Teacher perceptions at both sites include concerns regarding the
restrictiveness of the Reading First Plan, the prescribed nature of the program and
the teaching of reading at the expense of other core subject areas. Such concerns
created resistance and may have become a hindrance to full implementation of the
Reading First Plan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Parent Involvement, SES, and the Language Barrier
Lack of parent involvement, low socioeconomic status of students and a
language barrier were perceived by teachers, coaches and administrators at both
schools as barriers to full implementation. The principal at School B expressed
concerns about the low socioeconomic status and mobility of their students,
“Mobility is a major issue and so is the socioeconomic status of our students. Their
needs are unbelievable.” An interviewee at School A put it this way:
I don’t see a lot of involvement with the community with implementation of
the program. We have people that come and help read. We have parents
who come and help with cutting and pasting type things, projects. The
parents make me sad, because they don’t talk to their kids. We would not
have such a problem with kindergarten and our vocabulary if they talked to
their kids. So, we’re working really hard on family involvement, and we’re
trying to do that. Parent involvement is also one of my favorites because I’m
sorry, but if these parents would just talk to their kids every single day
instead of ignoring them....and I see too much of that. They take wonderful
care of their children. They love their children; they take them everywhere,
but they don’t talk to them. And, so verbally, we’re really low and that’s a
part of the problem that’s from the community and from the culture.
A teacher at School B echoed similar concerns regarding the lack of parent
involvement at her school:
Barriers to implementation? Well, just sometimes the unavailability of the
parents. Sometimes it’s just not with the help with homework, or the
partnership between the teacher, the student, and the parent. You know, the
expectations and the lack of help at home. I think that was the biggest
barrier.
While lack of parent involvement may be perceived as a barrier to the
implementation of the Reading First Plan, there is little mention of that component in
the assurances of the grant. There are no parent involvement policies or expectations
listed in the accountability or funding. Meanwhile, low expectations of students and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
low expectations of family involvement on the part of school personnel could impact
implementation negatively.
In addition to a lack of parent involvement, concerns about the language
barrier and parent literacy also surfaced in some interviews. A teacher at School B
explained:
The children’s home life could be one barrier. How much their families are
not involved. Their families are not speaking English. I’ve been doing
parent conferences and the parents ask, “How do I help my child when I
don’t read myself?” I think the limited support we get from the home is a
huge barrier.
The principal at School B also expressed concerns about language as an
implementation barrier in light of the high expectations and accountability measures:
I think first I think of the high expectations or the high standards that our
state, California, has for our students which is one of the most rigorous in the
country. And if we are looking at those high academic standards, and the
CSTs (California Standards Tests) and what our students are expected to
achieve, then we are working with students who have a lot of deficits. I don’t
like to look at primary language as a deficit but when you are looking at
English only instruction - it is. As research tells us, it takes 5-7 years to
become fluent to master another language. I know that myself from learning
how to speak and understand Spanish, it’s a huge issue.
The principal continued:
We have such a large immigrant population in California. But the
expectations still need to be very high. Educators really need to look at
research to see what the best curriculum would be...what the best
instructional strategies would be for these students. That can be very difficult
for overtaxed administrators, and teachers who are working so hard trying to
meet the needs of their students, trying to differentiate and trying to be the
counselor, the parent, the friend, as well as the teacher in those classrooms.
It’s very interesting and an overwhelming situation we are in when you think
about the accountability it’s unbelievable. They are always beating down
teachers and schools. Not making excuses but we really deal with a lot. Our
students don’t come to school with a background...we have to build it for
them. It’s overwhelming.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 6
The principal at School A had similar concerns regarding language as a
barrier to implementation:
I think we still struggle with supporting our English learners, because we
have such a huge ELL population that any time you have to meet the
California standards in language or math, it’s very difficult to do that when
you have to teach them how to speak English first. So, we are struggling
with teaching them English at the same time we are teaching them the content
standards and in some cases, that is almost impossible in kindergarten to have
them be proficient when they don’t understand anything you are saying to
them.
External community factors such as high numbers of English learners, the
socioeconomic status of the families served and limited parent involvement were
perceived as barriers to lull implementation of Reading First. The schools in this
study are demographically quite similar and expressed similar concerns as to how
these factors impact student achievement and the implementation of the grant. At
the same time, it may be that the educators’ perceptions of students and their parents
serve to limit what they see as possible through Reading First implementation.
Preschool and Overcrowded Schools
Lack of preschool attendance and overcrowding in the schools were noted as
external factors and barriers to full implementation. Teachers at School B expressed
concerns about overcrowding in the school even after modernization. When asked to
identify the major issues facing ABCSD, the principal at School B expressed the
following:
Low or declining enrollment is a problem financially, but we are still
overcrowded in this school even with the lower enrollment. At this site
they’ve been on staggered session, and multiple tracks for at least seven
years. But we are still overcrowded. This year we were able to go off
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
staggered session. That makes it difficult for intersession programs. It’s
impacted.
Both schools in the study were recently modernized. The campus size of
School A was expanded with new construction while School B was given an updated
“look”, but did not increase capacity. Last year both schools were able to go off of
staggered session, a practice of having two sessions of primary classes a day with an
hour of overlap mid-day. Staggered session allowed schools in ABCSD to
accommodate larger numbers of students in the same amount of space. Both schools
continue to work on a four-track, year-round schedule due to overcrowding.
According to the principal of School A, declining enrollment and continuous
building projects across the district are expected to decrease the number of
overcrowded schools in ABCSD.
In addition to large class size, a teacher at School A expressed concerns
regarding preschool attendance. She stated, “The children, you know, have never
handled books. So, you’re starting at a place, a different place, than Houghton
Mifflin anticipates you’re beginning. It (HM) wasn’t written for our students, so it’s
making some assumptions.” When probed for more information the interviewee
continued, “They (students) need a year before they get this curriculum. They’re not
getting it.” An examination of district data showed a steady increase over time of
students attending preschool, but in this teacher’s experience only two of her 32
students had attended preschool prior to entering kindergarten.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Summary o f Findings for Research Question Four
Research question four sought to identify external factors, which either
supported or constituted barriers to implementation of the Reading First Plan.
Interviewees at both school sites perceived district policy and district support of as
strong support to the implementation of Reading First. One barrier to
implementation was identified as an overemphasis on reading at the expense of other
subject areas. Additionally, limited student preschool attendance and school
overcrowding were identified as barriers to implementation. Teachers and
administrators at both sites expressed concerns about a lack of parental involvement
at the school site. Language differences and the socioeconomic status of students
were factors identified as barriers to implementation. Both schools in the study
identified various external factors as barriers to full implementation of the Reading
First Plan. Concerns regarding overcrowding were more prevalent at School B than
School A, but perceptions regarding the negative impact of a lack of parent
involvement and the language barrier between Spanish speaking families and
English speaking staff were similar at both sites.
Conclusion
The data for each research question, with accompanying analysis and
findings, have been presented in Chapter Four. Major themes were developed and
discussed. In answer to the overarching question of the study: Are there differences
in Reading First implementation at a school with high achievement index scores as
compared to a school with low achievement index scores? Overall, the findings of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
the study lead to the conclusion that even though the schools have differences in
achievement levels, there were not marked differences in implementation, classroom
environment, levels of district support, and participation in required professional
development. However, there were differences in leadership stability and
establishment of a clear reform agenda, which may contribute to differences in
achievement. The study is summarized in Chapter Five with findings,
recommendations and suggestions for further study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
CHAPTER FIVE: Findings, Recommendations and Suggestions for Further Study
“The best way out is always through. ” - Robert Frost
Chapter five offers a brief summary of the findings, a discussion of how
findings fit with prior research, which are discussed throughout the summary,
recommendations for future research, and suggestions for policy and practice.
Overview o f the Problem
Although the role of No Child Left Behind (2002) in education is still under
scrutiny and subject to rigorous debate, the literature has presented many examples
of reform efforts in schools producing strong student achievement outcomes. As is
the case with any educational innovation, both the establishment of coherent policy
and the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation process are key factors in
the success of the California Reading First Plan (2002).
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate the implementation of the
Reading First Plan at the school site level. The focus was on examining relationships
between the Reading First Plan and classroom level implementation with attention to
school context, leadership, design teams, professional development and
accountability. For the purposes of the present study, the focus was on
understanding what differences exist in the implementation of the Reading First Plan
and how contextual factors supported or hindered implementation.
The overarching question of the study asked, “Are there differences in
Reading First implementation at a school with high achievement index scores as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
compared to a school with low achievement index scores?”. Four research
subquestions were developed to guide the study:
1 . How does classroom context influence implementation?
2. How do teachers’ experiences with professional development affect
implementation differences?
3. How does the school context or internal factors support or hinder
implementation?
4. What external factors (e.g., district support, nature of program itself) support
or constitute barriers to full implementation?
These research questions are the basis for the data collection, analysis and
subsequent discussion of the data.
Methodology
Qualitative, case study research methods were used in order to accomplish an
in-depth study and analysis of two schools currently implementing the California
Reading First Plan. Interviews and observations were used to collect data. Semi
structured interview protocols were created based on the study’s conceptual
framework in order to identify key elements of implementation. The case study
method was utilized in order to provide explanations for the phenomena studied,
Reading First program site implementation, and to describe their relational patterns
(Cresswell, 1998).
This study focused on two schools in an elementary district, selected on the
basis of the schools having a Reading First Plan in place. The district selected for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
the study, ABC School District, is an elementary district (kindergarten through grade
six) located in an urban area in Southern California. The ABC School District has
twenty-three elementary schools and operates on a year-round, four-track schedule.
School A has 1,211 students, fifty-six teachers and two site administrators, while
School B has 1,088 students, fifty-four teachers and two site administrators. Each
site employs one full-time primary literacy coach.
The data collection was conducted between September and October of 2005,
a three-week period during the first trimester of the school year, following the
Deputy Superintendent’s approval of the project. Pre-collection meetings were
conducted with the two school principals, wherein the researcher and principals
negotiated the process by which data collection at the site would proceed. Data
collection began with teacher, coach and principal interviews, which were conducted
over a three-day period at each school site. Prior to all interviews, consent to
participate form was reviewed with and signed by each interviewee. Classroom
observations were arranged with seven of the eight teacher interviewees and took
place within the three-week period as the interviews.
Twelve interviews conducted for the present study were audiotaped, and the
transcripts were reviewed, saleable points extracted and comparisons/contrasts
examined. Thirty-minute, informal classroom observations conducted in three
classrooms at School B and four classrooms at School A, yielded a general sense of
implementation of Reading First in the two school sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
Findings fo r Research Question One
Research question one sought to examine classroom context in relation to the
implementation of the Reading First Plan. Classroom environment at both sites was
remarkably similar. While School A had more evidence of required elements of the
Houghton Mifflin program posted than School B, lessons I observed at both schools
closely followed the program and district pacing guides. A strong focus on language
arts was evidenced through a “protected language arts block” and consistent
adherence to instructional minutes outlined in Reading First grant assurances at both
sites. Interviewees at both schools reported minimal implementation variation
between and across grade levels and classroom observations confirmed this to be
true.
Findings fo r Research Question Two
Research question two sought to describe the effects of teachers’ professional
development experiences on the implementation of the Reading First Plan at the site
level, with an emphasis on teacher practice, coaching and the use of assessment to
inform instruction. There were no differences between schools in this study in the
participation rates of teachers in the required professional development components.
Both schools had active literacy coaches and their activities were reported to support
the implementation of the Reading First Plan by all interview participants at both
sites. The importance of building teacher capacity through professional
development is noted as a crucial factor in successful reform throughout the
literature (e.g., Fullan, 2005; Berends et al., 2002).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
The Reading First Plan was well known by only a few of the interviewees:
administrators and coaches most closely involved with site level implementation.
Teachers at both sites ranged in their knowledge of the plan from knowing some
elements of the plan to confusing it with the single school plan to simply knowing
that one existing and admittedly feeling “ignorant” about it. Data collected from
interviews and classroom observations evidenced that understanding of the Reading
First Plan varied greatly among stakeholders. According to Kirby et al. (2002) clear
communication with and strong assistance from design teams resulted in high levels
of implementation reported in all the RAND studies of the New American schools
reform designs. There was no reference in interviews as to the influence of the
design teams, in this case Reading First Technical Assistance Center.
Findings fo r Research Question Three
Research question three examined the school context and other internal
factors, which either supported or hindered implementation. Findings related to
school context included support for implementation through increased teacher
collaboration, administrative and teacher leadership, and positive relationships and
communication. Strong leadership is crucial to the implementation of schoolwide
reform (Chapman & Harris, 2004). Researchers point out that in many schools
where reform failed, principals did not keep the staff aligned to the goals of the
design. As well, many principals were not knowledgeable about basic precepts of the
reform program, and therefore could not provide good leadership as is consistent
with prior research (Schaffer et al., 1997). The current principals at each of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
schools in this study were knowledgeable about the Reading First Plan. According
to the teachers and coaches at both schools, the principals were strong leaders.
However, concerns were voiced by the teachers at School B that support for the grant
did not exist with two previous administrators.
According to Simpson (1990) collaboration and collegiality raise morale,
enthusiasm, and the teachers’ sense of efficacy and makes teachers more receptive to
new ideas. Teachers, coaches and principals at both sites in this study placed great
value on communication and collaboration. While changes in leadership occurred a
few times at School B during the first two years of the grant, there was a general
sense among teachers interviewed that current leadership provided great support to
the implementation of Reading First. Teachers at both sites indicated that the teacher
leadership provided by the literacy coach had a powerful impact on their practice.
Findings fo r Research Question Four
Research question four sought to identify external factors, which either
supported or constituted barriers to implementation of the Reading First Plan.
Interview participants a both sites indicated district support as a support to the
overall implementation of Reading First. Perceived barriers to implementation
included a lack of parent involvement at both sites, socioeconomic status of students,
concerns regarding student language differences and a focus on reading at the
expense of other core subjects. Haager et al., (2004) found that school districts
implementing expectations of NCLB had reduced the amount of time spent on
subjects other than reading and math. While student socioeconomic background and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
parent involvement are possible predictors of academic achievement, other school
resource factors were found to be more significant in impacting student achievement
as noted in a recent survey conducted by Williams et al. (2005).
Conclusions
The short answer to the overarching question of the study: Are there
differences in Reading First implementation at a school with high achievement index
scores as compared to a school with low achievement index scores? is no. Generally,
the findings of the study lead to the conclusion that even though the two schools
have differences in achievement levels, there were no real differences in
implementation. The schools in the study were quite similar in classroom
environment, perceptions of district support and adherence to professional
development requirements. While leadership is not considered an implementation
factor, it is noted that there was a lack of leadership stability and establishment of a
clear reform agenda at School B, which may contribute to differences in
achievement, but is beyond the scope of this study. It is also notable that differences
in achievement predate Reading First.
Recommendations for Future Research
Within the context of the research questions, an analysis of the data, findings
and conclusions suggests several areas for further research. The current study
examined possible Reading First implementation differences between high and low
achieving schools. While the lack of stable leadership and an unclear reform agenda
at School B may have impacted overall implementation, few notable implementation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
differences were determined between the two schools in this study. Even though the
Reading First Plan was not well known by all stakeholders at either school, there was
a general sense at both schools regarding the support that the district provided for
Reading First implementation at the site level. Future research should be conducted
to examine the effect that leaderships lack of support for, or even hostility to a given
reform, has on a school’s initiative and eventual implementation.
Schools undertaking systemic reform, such as Reading First, provide
interesting contexts in which to examine issues of implementation. I suggest using
the conceptual framework presented in this dissertation to examine other reform
efforts, which rely upon program fidelity in the implementation of a reform. Some
researchers have argued that focusing on implementation fidelity ignores the
important role that teachers play in adapting and transforming innovations to be
effective in different contexts (Cohen & Hill, 1998). Berman and McLaughlin
(1978) refer to this process as mutual adaptation while Datnow, Hubbard & Mehan
(2002) term it co-construction. Local implementation of reform necessarily involves
adaptation rather than “pure” implementation (McLaughlin, 1990). Future research
should be conducted to explore successful adaptations of broad-based school reform
efforts.
Districts considering undertaking a process to articulate the elements of a
major reform effort should take care to inform teachers throughout the process.
Most importantly, districts should find ways in which to integrate the components of
the plan into teachers’ daily routines to ensure that schools are knowledgeable about
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
the district policy in order to best implement the types of reform that are articulated
in the plan. A policy that is virtually unknown by the majority of its constituents
leaves one to wonder as to the cause of any desirable implementation efforts.
The literature in the area, as well as the qualitative data, demonstrates that
questions regarding the impact of Reading First implementation on student
achievement are far from answered. Further qualitative research examining
differences at high and low achieving schools involved in implementation of the
Reading First Plan would be very timely. Also, while it was beyond the scope of the
current study, I would like to see additional case studies conducted that compare
multiple schools with high and low levels of literacy achievement and look to
identify possible differences in implementation at those sites. In addition to site
level interviews in similar future studies, I would suggest broadening the scope of
interview participants to include district level administrators in order to provide
additional perspectives on implementation of district and state mandated policies and
reforms.
Interviewee concerns regarding issues of student language as a barrier or
hindrance to Reading First implementation raise questions of teacher efficacy.
Individuals who believe that teaching is potentially powerful factor in students'
learning may believe either that they are effective or that they lack the ability to
make a difference with their own students (Bandura, 1997). Future studies should
explore the effects of teacher efficacy on implementation and student achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Suggestions for Policy and Practice
In addition to having implications for further research, this study has yielded
implications for education policy making. I will discuss suggestions for policy and
practice that emerge from of the findings of this study.
• Continue to focus on full implementation of the Reading First Plan.
Analysis of this study’s data suggests that Reading First is being
implemented similarly in two schools in Southern California in essential aspects, in
particular professional development, classroom environment, coaching, collaboration
and instructional practices. However, findings indicate that stable leadership and a
clear reform agenda are essential to successful implementation. Districts should
focus on providing consistent leadership for the life of a reform in order to maximize
its impact. State and local Reading First personnel should continue to focus efforts
on full implementation of the Reading First Plan in so that momentum in the reform
is not lost.
• Support participation in Reading First over multiple years and allow for
alternative professional development options including observation,
collaboration and coaching.
It takes a few years of implementation to show positive effects of a reform,
even with extensive training and support (Haager et al., 2005). Teachers in this
study indicated a preference for observation, coaching and collaboration as forms of
professional development in place of weeklong training sessions. According to
Showers and Joyce (1996) teachers involved in a coaching relationship practiced
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
new skills and strategies more frequently and applied them more appropriately than
did teachers w ho w orked alone. Furthermore, Cohen & Hill (1998) offer
evidence from studies of policy implementation that demonstrate the central
importance of teachers’ views and understandings of policy goals in shaping the
outcomes of innovations.
Coaching was perceived as a support to Reading First implementation.
Districts should explore ways to fund literacy coaches and expand the coaching
model in order to build capacity and sustain the positive effects of Reading First
beyond the life of the grant. Continued support beyond the initial two years is
essential to achieve significant and lasting results and to establish the long-term
institutional changes needed for Reading First instructional practices to continue
even after funding is discontinued.
• Embrace student diversity.
The diversity of students in today’s classrooms underscores the importance of
developing teaching strategies and policies to help all students succeed in school.
Efforts to welcome, understand, and affirm all students - and to treat their cultural
and linguistic backgrounds as equally valid and important - should be reflected in
every facet of the school environment. This approach is especially important when
addressing literacy for an increasingly diverse student population (Au, 1993). Prior
research on school reform has shown educators beliefs about race and social class
influence their beliefs about the reform (Datnow, 2000). Effective literacy
instruction builds upon the cultural and linguistic backgrounds, ways of making
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
meaning, and prior knowledge that all children bring to the classroom. Such
instruction also acknowledges the important role of culture in language and literacy
learning. In addition to focusing on mastery of subject matter, future professional
development should include mastery of cultural competency. Understanding and
respecting the array of different cultures and languages represented in their
classrooms can help educators adopt strategies for teaching literacy that will
encourage and support student achievement.
• Encourage connections with students and parents.
Concerns raised by interview participants in this study regarding a language
barrier and a lack of parent involvement as possible hindrances to Reading First
implementation leads to a suggestion of encouraging connections with students and
their families. One of the most important strategies for helping English learners and
their parents may be to assist them in achieving a sense of belonging in school. The
importance of this sense of belonging to a supportive school community requires
social bonding with other students, teachers, and/or school staff (Wehlage et al.,
1989). Similarly, Bryk & Schneider (2003) identified the importance of developing
social trust between stakeholders (parents, students, teachers, and leaders) as a key
contextual resource for reform.
Closely related to school membership is the concept of engagement in school.
Engagement is the active involvement in at least one academic, social, or
extracurricular feature of the school. Miller et al. (1988) found that engagement in
even one of these aspects of the school significantly increased the likelihood of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
staying in school. However, there is agreement that, at some point, academic
engagement must take place for school achievement to improve (Wehlage et al.,
1989; Miller et al., 1988). Improving school membership and engagement for
English learners and their families may require staff development to heighten teacher
sensitivity. Developing the kind of school culture that promotes student membership
and engagement takes work and commitment from all school staff.
• Assure stable leadership at the school level.
Those in formal leadership positions (e.g., principal, superintendent) play a
critical role in the success of school reform efforts. Those in less formalized, teacher
leadership positions, however, are also very important. While implementation
differences were not evident in this study, the need for stability of principal
leadership came through very strongly in this study. In this regard, superintendents
can perform an important role in assuring stable leadership at the school level - of
both principals and as well as teacher leaders or in this case, literacy coaches
(Murphy & Datnow, 2003).
• Sustain change through communication.
Initial implementation of a school reform effort is a daunting task. Sustaining
that reform through a successful implementation is even more challenging. While
communication was valued by all interview participants in this study and attributed
to support for implementation, the lack of teacher knowledge regarding the Reading
First Plan belies existing communication strategies. Administrators at both the site
and district levels should create a widely understood strategy for improving school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
performance. Moffett (2000) advises creating a communication networking system-
frequent stakeholder meetings, face-to-face meetings, ongoing oral and written
updates, and parent and community meetings-to communicate this strategy. This
level of communication should also extend to school board members in order to
maintain their commitment to the reform movement (Hill, 2001).
• Bring greater consistency and clarity to local administration of Reading
First by providing plain and timely information to all stakeholders about
policies the State has approved in the accountability of the Reading First
Plan.
NCLB has clearly brought a greater sense of urgency to state and local efforts to
raise student achievement, but it has also created difficulties for states and school
districts because it is a very demanding piece of legislation and is layering its
requirements on top of existing school reform strategies. In sum, this study
conducted during the third year of Reading First implementation reveals support for
the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act and encouraging signs of positive impact.
In this study, however, minimal implementation differences were noted between two
Reading First schools with differing achievement results. Questions remain as to
why schools with comparative implementation have differences in student
achievement outcomes. Increased communication must occur at all levels between
state and local administration, as well as increased teacher knowledge of the Reading
First Plan if the state and local district expect to see long-term, sustainable
improvements in student achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
REFERENCES
Allington, R.L. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How
ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (n.d.). Retrieved January
30, 2005 from http://websaver3.ascd.org/ossd/planning definitions.html.
Au, K. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise o f control. New York: W.H.Freeman
and Company.
Barton, P.E. (2002). Raising Achievement and Reducing Gaps: Reporting Progress
Toward Goals fo r Achievement. National Education Goals Panel. Retrieved
March 19, 2005 from http://www.ets.org/research/pic/raising.pdf
Baumann, J.F., & Ivey, G. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for curricular and
instructional equilibrium in a second-grade, literature/strategy-based
classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 244-275.
Berends, M., Chun, J., Schuyler, G., Stockly, S., & Briggs, R. J. (2002). Challenges
o f Conflicting School Reforms: Effects o f New American Schools in a High-
Poverty District. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting
educational change, Vol. VIII. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter A.C., & Garet, M.S. (2000). Designing
Professional Development That Works. Educational Leadership, v57 n8 p28-
33 May 2000.
Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools’ scale-up phase. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Boyd, V. (1992). School Context: Bridge or Barrier to Change? Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from
http://www.sedl.org/change/school/
Bryk, A.S. & Schneider, B. (2003). Creating Caring Schools - Trust in Schools: A
Core Resource for School Reform - A longitudinal research study in Chicago
schools shows that trust is crucial for the success of school improvement.
Educational Leadership: Journal o f the Department o f Supervision and
Curriculum Development, N.E.A. 60, no. 6, 40.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Bryk, A. S., Thum, Y. M., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (1998). Assessing school
academic productivity: The case of Chicago school reform. Social
Psychology o f Education, 2, 103-142.
Burnette, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.
California Department of Education (n.d.). Mathematics and Reading Professional
Development. Retrieved January 24, 2005 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/ma/mard03.asp
California Reading First Plan (2002). Assurance Statements fo r LEA Reading First
Subgrants. Retrieved September 21, 2005 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/rf/documents/crfplan.pdf
California Teachers Association. (2002). Scripted Learning. California Educator.
Vol. 6, Issue 7, April 2002.
CalRead. (n.d.). Introduction to Reading First. California Reading First Technical
Assistance Center. Retrieved March 19, 2005 from http://calread.net
Chapman, C. and Harris, A. (2004). Improving schools in difficult and challenging
contexts: strategies for improvement. Educational Research, 46(3), Winter
2004.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance:
The mathematics reform in California (RR-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education.
Coles, G. (2003). Reading the Naked Truth: Literacy, Legislation and Lies.
Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.
Conley, D.T. (2003). Who Governs Our Schools? Changing Roles and
Responsibilities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cooper, R. (1998). Socio-cultural and within-school factors that affect the quality o f
implementation o f school-wide programs (Report No. 28). Baltimore, MD:
Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED426173). Retrieved February 26,
2005 from http://www.csos.ihu.edu/.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Council of the Great City Schools (2002, September). Foundations for Success:
Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achievement.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC).
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research: Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Datnow, A. (2000). Implementing an Externally Developed School Restructuring
Design: Enablers, Constraints, and Tensions. Teaching and Change, 7(2),
147-171.
Datnow, A. (2004). Happy Marriage or Uneasy Alliance? The Relationship Between
Comprehensive School Reform and State Accountability Systems. Journal o f
Education for Students Placed A t Risk, 10(1), 113-138.
Datnow, A., Borman, G., & Stringfield, S. (2000). School reform through a highly
specified curriculum: A study of the implementation and effects of the Core
Knowledge Sequence. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 167-192.
Datnow, A. and Castellano, M. (2001). Managing and Guiding School Reform:
Leadership in Success for All Schools. Education Administration Quarterly
37, no. 2,219-249.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From
one school to many. London: RoutledgeFaimer.
Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal
o f Education for Students Placed At Risk, 5(1), 183-204.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint fo r creating schools
that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Desimone, L. (2000). Making comprehensive school reform work. New York: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully
implemented. Review o f Educational Research, 72(3), 443-480.
Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Suk Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year
long study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-113.
Elmore, R. F., and Fuhrman, S. H. (2001). Holding Schools Accountable: Is It
Working? Phi Delta Kappan 83, 1 (September 2001): 61-12.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Evans, R. (2000). The Authentic Leader. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on
Educational Leadership, pp. 287-308. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning o f educational change (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture o f change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: system thinkers in action.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., and Varma, S. (2005). The California Reading
First Year 3 Evaluation Report. Educational Data Systems. Retrieved
February 1, 2006, from http://calread.net/documents/rf eval 2004 2005.doc
Hanushek, E.A., and Raymond, M.E. (2003). Lessons about the Design of State
Accountability Systems. In No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice
o f Accountability, edited by Paul E. Peterson and Martin R. West.
Washington, DC: Brookings: 127-151.
Hill, P.T. (2001). Digging Deeper. Education Next 1, 3 (Fall 2001): 18, 20-23.
Hirsch, S. & Sparks, D. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development. Virginia:
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Joyce, B.R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student Achievement Through Staff
Development, 3rd Edition. Virginia: Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., Naftel, S., McKelvey, C., Bodilly, S., Chun, J., Gill, B., &
Heilbrunn, J. (2002). Implementation of NAS Designs During the Scale-Up
Phase. In M. Berends & S. Bodilly & S. N. Kirby (Eds.), Facing the
Challenges o f Whole-School Reform: New American Schools After a Decade.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Lashway, L. (2001) The New Standards and Accountability: Will Rewards and
Sanctions Motivate America’ s Schools to Peak Performance? Eugene,
Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED 453 589.
Levine, D.U., & Lezotte, L.W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and
analysis o f research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for
Effective Schools, 10.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Lipsey, M. W., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention.
Annual Review o f Psychology, 51, 345-375.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace
conditions of school success. American Educational Research Association
Journal, 19(3), pp. 325-340.
Livingston-Asensio, M., & Johnson, J. (2001). Comprehensive School Reform:
Perspectives from Model Developers. San Francisco: WestED.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing
professional development fo r teachers o f science and mathematics.
Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lyon, G.R. (2002). Reading development, reading difficulties, and reading
instruction: Educational and public health issues. Journal o f School
Psychology, 40, 3-6.
McGraw-Hill (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro
Perspectives and Micro Realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, S.E., Leinhardt, G., & Zigmond, N. (1988). Influencing engagement through
accommodation: An ethnographic study of at-risk students. American
Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 465-487.
Moffett, C.A. (2000). Sustaining Change: The Answers Are Blowing in the Wind.
Educational Leadership, 57(7): 35-38.
Morris, J. (2002). The role o f literacy coaches in implementing research based
reading programs at low achieving schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Los Angeles, California.
Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). Leadership lessons for comprehensive school
reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). Leadership lessons for comprehensive school
reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (August, 2004). The nation's report
card. Retrieved January 30, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2001). How Different Groups Perform:
U.S. Achievement by Poverty Level in Public Schools. Retrieved February 1,
2005 from http://nces.ed. gov/pubs2004/pirlspub/9.asp?nav=2.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report o f the
National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment o f the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Staff Development Council (1995). Self-assessment and planning tool.
Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
National Staff Development Council (2004). NSDC Standards: 2001. Retrieved
February 23, 2005 from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/about/index.cftn
Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A
report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and
Restructuring o f Schools. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and
Restructuring of Schools.
Newmann, F.M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A.S., (2001). Instructional
Program Coherence: What It Is and Why It Should Guide School
Improvement Policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Winter
2001, Vol. 23. No. 4.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110,115 stat. 1425, (2002).
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002,
March). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286(A), 84-91.
Retrieved February 27, 2005 from
http://www.lexialeaming.com/librarv/how to teach reading.pdf
Reading First (2002). Assurances. Retrieved January 12, 2004 from
www.calread.net
Reading First Grant (2003). Anaheim: Anaheim City School District. Retrieved
February 11, 2005 from www.acsd.kl 2.ca.us
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Rolheiser, C., Fullan, M. & Edge, K. (2003). Dynamic duo: Literacy joins forces
with change - The Toronto school district combines professional learning in
literacy with learning about change to give staying power to literacy-driven
reform. The Journal o f Staff Development, 24, no.2: 38.
Roller, C. (2005). No Child Left Behind: A Survey of Its Impact on IRA Members.
Division of Research and Policy. International Reading Association.
Retrieved February 28, 2005 from
http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/NCLB survey 022005.pdf
Ross, S.M. (2003, Sept.). How to get off the reform roller coaster. Principalship.
Retrieved February 26, 2005 from
http://www.findarticles.eom/p/articles/mi qa4002/is 200309/ai n9300593/p
g_2-
Sacramento City Unified School District Research and Evaluation Services (August
2000). 2000 STAR/SAT9 Study: Open Court Curriculum Assessment.
Schacter, J. (2001). Reading programs that work: A review ofprograms fo r pre
kindergarten to 4th grade. ERS Spectrum.
Schaffer, E.C., Nesselrodt, P.S., & Stringfield, S. (1997). Impediments to Reform:
An Analysis o f Destabilizing Issues in Ten Promising Programs. Baltimore:
Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Arlington,
Virginia: Educational Research Service.
Scheirer, M. A. (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H.
P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook o f practical program
evaluation (pp. 40-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational
Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.
Simpson, G. (1990). Keeping it alive: Elements of school culture that sustain
innovation. Educational Leadership, 47(8),34-37.
Snow, C.E., Bums, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sparks, D. (1999). How can schools make time for teacher learning? Results,
March, 1999.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
Sparks, D. (2002.). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and
principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved
February 14, 2005 from http://www.nsdc.org/librarv/leaders/sparksbook.cfm
Stein, M.K. and D’Amico, L. (2002). The District as a Professional Learning
Laboratory. In Hightower, A., M. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin
(Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal: Opening the conversation.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics o f Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S.M., & Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school
restructuring in multicultural, multilingual contexts: Early observations from
Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 326-357.
Stringfield, S., Milsap, M. A., Yoder, N., Brigham, N., Nesselrodt, P., Schaffer, E.,
Karweit, N., Dolan, L., Levin, M., Smith, L., Gamse, B., Puma, M.,
Rosenblum, S., Herman, R., Bedinger, S., Randall, B., & Stevens, R. (1997).
Urban and suburban/rural special strategies fo r educating disadvantaged
children (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Planning and Evaluation Service.
Supovitz, J. A., Poglinco, S. M., Bach, A. J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., & Sauders,
M. (2003). The Heart o f the Matter: The Coaching Model in America's
Choice Schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.
U.S. Department of Education, (n.d.). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved February 14,
2005 from http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml
Wehlage, G.G., Rutter, R.A., Smith, G.A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R.R. (1989).
Reducing the risk: Schools as communities o f support. New York: Falmer
Press.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar Students, Different Results:
Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A large-scale survey o f California
elementary schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Appendix A: Reading First Teacher Interview Protocol
[Instructions: Begin with a few minutes of explaining the study and who you are.
Explain that while the interview will be taped, their responses are strictly
confidential. Let them know that if there is something they would like to say off tape,
just to let you know and you will shut off the tape for their comment.]
I. Background
A. Personal
• Years teaching? Years at this school? Grade level? Do you have a
teaching credential? *3
II. Implementation
A. Overview of Reading First
• How would you describe Reading First? (e.g., curriculum, program,
philosophy, way of thinking, frame of mind) * 1
B. Building capacity for implementation
• Describe what was done initially and an ongoing basis to prepare the staff
for the implementation of Reading First? *2
• What professional development was provided? More needed? *2
• What changes has the school made to facilitate the implementation of
Reading First? 1
• Are meetings held regularly to discuss Reading First? Who
attends (teachers, site/district administrators, coaches)? Are they
helpful? *2 & *3
• What type of support does the literacy coach provide? *2 & *3
• Describe your relationship with the coach. *3
• What type of support does the principal provide? *3
• What type of support does the district provide? *4
C. O ngoing Im plem entation issues
• Describe what has been done at the school so far to implement the
Reading First plan. * 1
• What variation in implementation exists between classes or grade
levels? *1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
• What local/external factors have contributed to the successful
implementation of Reading First thus far? What local/external
factors have hindered implementation? *3
• Are there district or state policies that impact implementation? (e.g., state
tests, district curriculum requirements) *4
III. Results of implementation
• What changes have actually taken place in the school as a whole? [Ask
about changes in school culture and climate, school structure, governance
and decision making, coordination of curriculum, scheduling, building
changes] *1 & *3
• What changes have actually taken place in your classroom? [Ask about
teaching methods, curriculum, assessment/evaluation, expectations of
students, organization] *3
• How do you think Reading First has impacted students thus far? *1
VII. Closure:
• [If not yet addressed, ask] In your opinion, what are the major benefits or
strengths of Reading First? What are the limitations?
• Any additional comments you would like to make? Any questions?
*Key to Code (1-4)
Numbering system cross-references interview questions with the four research
questions:
1. Are there differences in Reading First implementation at schools with high
achievement index scores as compared to schools with low achievement index
scores? (Overarching question)
2. How do teachers’ experiences with professional development affect
implementation differences?
3. How does the school context or internal factors support or hinder
implementation?
4. What other external factors (e.g., district support, nature of program itself)
support or constitute barriers to full implementation?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
Appendix B: Reading First Principal/Coach Interview Protocol
[Instructions: Begin with a few minutes of explaining the study and who you are.
Explain that while the interview will be taped, their responses are strictly
confidential. Let them know that if there is something they would like to say off tape,
just to let you know and you will shut off the tape for their comment.]
I. Background
A. Personal History
• Years as a principal/coach? Years at this school? What path brought you
here? *3
Note: *Sections B, C, and D are intended for Principal interview ONLY
B. About the school*
I f possible, get a copy ofprofile that describes the total number o f students,
etc.
• Tell me a little about your student population. *3
What percentage of your student population are English Learners?
What is the dominant language spoken here?
Do you have a large population of immigrant students?
What is the approximate student mobility rate?
C. About the district*
• Can you give me a sense of major issues in this district. What are the
major initiatives or concerns of the school board, of the superintendent, of
the parents? *4
D. About the state*
• Can you give me a sense of the major issues regarding education at the
state level. Tell us about the state’s accountability system and any
curricular or other reform efforts. *4
II. Implementation issues
A. Adoption of Reading First
• Why, when, and how did you and your school get involved with Reading
First? *1
• How does Reading First fit with the overall school improvement plan? Is it
part of a larger plan or the plan? * 1 & *3
B. Building capacity for implementation
• Describe what was done to prepare the faculty for the initial and ongoing
implementation of this model. *2
• What professional development was provided to teachersl More
needed? *2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
• What type of training did you as an administrator/coach receive? Was
it helpful? *2
• What type of support does the literacy coach/principal provide? (e.g.,
Does the coach/administrator assess teachers’ progress with the reform
and determine needs?). *2 & *3
Describe your relationship with coach/principal. *3
• What type of support does the district provide? *4
C. Ongoing Implementation issues
• Describe what has been done at the school so far to implement this
model. *1
• What variation in implementation exists between classes or grade
levels? *1
• What local/external factors have contributed to the successful
implementation of the model thus far? What local/external factors have
hindered implementation? *3 & *4
• Are there district or state policies that impact implementation? How?
(e.g., state tests, district curriculum requirements) *4
III. Results of implementation
• What changes have actually take place in the school as a whole? [Ask about
changes in school culture and climate, school structure, governance and
decision making, tracking (if secondary school), coordination of curriculum,
scheduling, building changes] *1 & *3
• What changes have actually taken place in classrooms? [Ask about teaching
methods, curriculum, assessment/evaluation, expectations of students,
organization] *2 & *3
• How do you think Reading First has impacted students thus far? * 1
VII. Closure:
• [If not yet addressed, ask] In your opinion, what are the major benefits or
strengths of Reading First? What are the limitations?
• Any additional comments you would like to make? Any questions for
me?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
*Key to Code (1-4)
Numbering system cross-references interview questions with the four research
questions:
1. Are there differences in Reading First implementation at schools with high
achievement index scores as compared to schools with low achievement index
scores? (Overarching question)
2. How do teachers’ experiences with professional development affect
implementation differences?
3. How does the school context or internal factors support or hinder
implementation?
4. What other external factors (e.g., district support, nature of program itself)
support or constitute barriers to full implementation?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
Appendix C: Informal Observation Protocol
Date: School:
Time: Teacher:
Implementation Observation List Notes/Comments
Classroom Environment
• Program materials posted (HMR)
• Grouping arrangements)
• Bulletin Boards (theme board;
word patterns; charts)
Instruction
• Pacing/sequence
• Use of adopted program (HMR)
• Evidence of flexible grouping
• Universal access
• Teaching strategies
Student
• Engagement
• Assignments
• Assessments
Other (Miscellaneous)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
Appendix D: Master List of Codes
Achievement
Assessment
Climate
Coaching
Collaboration
Communication
Consistency
Culture
Curriculum
Data
Demographics
Environment
Expectations
Fidelity
Grouping
Hindrances
Implementation
Instruction
Instructional time
Language differences
Leadership
Pacing
Parent involvement
Planning
Policy
Professional development
Relationships
Socioeconomic status
Trust
Variation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Brothers and sisters together: Sibling pairs' interactions during literacy activities

PDF

A case study of a principal's transformation of a high poverty urban school

PDF

Early reading predictors of literacy achievement for English learners: A longitudinal study from first through third grade

PDF

An exploration of project -based learning in two California charter schools

PDF

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

Coordinating the reading and writing competencies during the early literacy development of 5--6 year -old Spanish -English emergent bilinguals

PDF

A descriptive study of teacher beliefs about classroom motivation: A goal orientation theory perspective

PDF

Implementation of literature circles in a rural high school English class: One teacher's journey of changing student attitudes toward reading

PDF

Instructional actions of exemplary grades 2 and 5 teachers who mediate strategic reading behavior in guided reading with low -achieving students

PDF

From writers to readers: An analysis of first grade deaf or hard of hearing students' writing development using Scaffolded Writing

PDF

Faculty characteristics: What are their relationships with academic outcomes of community college students?

PDF

A descriptive study of probation officers' views of delinquency in males and females

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

A substitute teacher preservice staff development program: A case study of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

PDF

Cross -cultural international adjustment of American undergraduate interns in Asia

PDF

Differential characteristics of beginning teachers

PDF

Asian Pacific Americans and graduate social work education: Career choice influences

PDF

Class size reduction: A case study

PDF

A case study of Long Beach Unified School District: How elements of effective reading strategies can be implemented at the secondary level

PDF

Correlation of factors related to writing behaviors and student -developed rubrics on writing performance and pedagogy in ninth-grade students

Asset Metadata

Creator Rogers, Lori Ann (author)

Core Title Exploring Reading First program implementation across schools with differing achievement results

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

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, elementary,education, reading,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Datnow, Amanda (committee chair), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-429058

Unique identifier UC11342230

Identifier 3233821.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-429058 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3233821.pdf

Dmrecord 429058

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rogers, Lori Ann

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