reading first: designing state-level support sharon walpole michael c. mckenna university of...

Reading First:Designing State-Level Support

Sharon Walpole Michael C. McKenna

University of Delaware University of Virginia

Overview

• Describe our charge as professional development architects for Reading First in Georgia;

• Position that work as an ongoing formative experiment;

• Describe a potentially more powerful design, if Reading First is reauthorized.

Some Facts about GARFThe state grant was approved in Sept., 2003, and

funded at approximately $30 million per year. Currently, we are in year 4 of 5.

In addition to the funded schools, the state provides extensive professional development support to other schools and to individual teachers.

We won a competitive contract to design professional development for the state staff in 2004, and then again in 2007.

All of our work in this project is available for review at our website http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/reading/projects/garf/

Some Facts about GARF

The state awarded grants to schools in a competitive process, using a group of individual grant reviewers who were solicited in an open call; these individuals reviewed and scored grants, and then schools were funded based on their recommendations.

The state never issued a list of approved programs for purchase, but required schools to engage in a review and/or to use a review conducted by one of the national technical assistance centers. One vendor complained about this process, as it was not in the state’s original plan.

Some Facts about GARF

In January of 2007, the Office of Inspector General issued its final audit report to investigate grant awards. There was one general finding.

“GDOE Did Not Have Written Policies and Procedures and Did Not Adequately Manage the

LEA Grant Application Process”http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/areports2007.html

The state drafted new policies and procedures in response to the OIG recommendations.

A Pragmatic* Perspective

Pragmatic theory directs researchers to address socially-situated problems whose solutions contribute broadly to a more democratic way of life.

Pragmatists allow contributions from research literature and from the world of practice to be combined in the search for solutions to problems.

*Dillon, O’Brien, & Heilman, 2000

A Pragmatic* Perspective

The Reading First portion of NCLB is potentially positive for low-performing schools;

Advocacy for good instruction is not inconsistent with the statute;

One way to advocate is to participate directly;States have very limited infrastructure for making

complex design decisions related to reform, but are making good-faith efforts (Sunderman & Orfield, 2006)

Reading First is an opportunity, not fully realized, for the reading research community

*Dillon, O’Brien, & Heilman, 2000

State(n≈18)District(n≈49)

Principal(n≈140)

Literacy Coach(n≈150)

Teacher(n≈3000)

Our Charge:

Design a professional support system for the Reading First team in Georgia.

Characteristics of a Formative Experiment*

Theoretical

Schools

Schools are complex systems. We must include all stakeholders if we are to increase achievement (e.g., Guskey & Sparks,1996).

Adult

Learning

The cycle of theory, demonstration, practice, and feedback is essential (e.g., Joyce & Showers, 2002).

*Reinking & Bradley, 2004

Characteristics of a Formative ExperimentTheoretical

Teaching

Gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) and direct explanation (Duffy et al., 1987) form a basis for effective teaching.

Literacy

Literacy is developmental (e.g., Adams, 1990), with language skills and decoding skills interacting across the elementary grades (e.g., Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2002). Maximum growth comes from differentiated instruction (e.g., Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004).

Characteristics of a Formative Experiment

Interventionist and Goal Oriented

Adult

Learning

Use professional book studies to build knowledge and improve practice. Establish and support ongoing professional dialog. Engage in data analysis.

Schools

Build schedules that maximize teaching and facilitate professional learning. Build systems for high-quality classroom instruction. Build assessment systems. Coordinate interventions.


Interventionist and Goal Oriented

Classroom

s

Use grade-level core materials and high-quality children’s literature in meaningful ways. Use formal and informal assessment data to inform and evaluate instruction. Provide targeted, temporary, differentiated instruction for all children every day.


Iterative, Based on Data Analysis

Reflections from

State (inform

al and through surveys)

Year 1 “top-down” book studies replaced with collaborative design

Year 2 “grade-level” book studies replaced with modules

Year 3 dual-cohort approach replaced with a unified approach for Year 4

Year 4 we included state criterion-referenced testing in our presentations

Year 4 we are doing multiple web-based book studies with the state team



Our observations in schools

We focused more attention on the difference between “small-group” instruction and “differentiated instruction” with the state staff.

We established separate meetings for district officials and principals, to better address policy issues.

We are working with the state to differentiate for districts with extensive existing PD infrastructure.

We are working with the state to establish procedures for locating the most successful schools for intense study.



State D

ata Analysis

Data indicate that students who are only slightly below grade level are not making the same improvements as those at/above or below; We are therefore focusing on informal assessments and differentiated instruction.

Data protocols make combined analyses (e.g., DIBELS, ITBS, PPVT, CRCT) impossible; The state is building a data portal to enable such analyses.


Transformational, acknowledging unintended consequences

State

The state team is knowledgeable, flexible, and committed.

There is some staff turnover due to their visibility and their skills; we did not plan to reprise PD from previous years.

The project is high-profile at the state DOE; we did not plan for coordination with the rest of the state infrastructure.


Transformational, including unintended consequences

Schools

Some schools have been discontinued because they made great progress; some schools remain despite very little progress.

It is hard to account for this trend in longitudinal impact data.

We did not plan adequately for sustainability of professional learning.

We have not planned adequately for schools where professional learning has failed.


Methodologically Inclusive and Flexible

The professional development plan and the contracted evaluation plan are disconnected (by design) and consequently wasteful.

We are initiating a mixed-methods approach as part of the PD plan: Use achievement data to locate the most interesting

grade-level teams; Use surveys, interviews, and observations to learn about

them and consider a wide range of factors that may

influence their success; Produce case studies to share with the rest of the state.


Pragmatic

In this next phase, we will be partnering directly with the most successful practitioners (teachers, literacy coaches, and principals) to learn what is working for them and to describe it for the rest of our team.

We will build next year’s plan based on what we learn.

A More Powerful Design

Theoretic

al

Actively recruit (and exclude) schools by presenting a more complete picture, with multiple examples and nonexamples (Tabak, 2006) of the program in action.

Interventionist and goal oriented

Create several up-front school-based design choices to allow choice in important design components, all of which are potentially powerful: PD systems, assessment systems, school schedules.

Specificity offederal regulations

Flexibility of implementation

in state and local contexts

High High

Low Low

A Policy Seesaw


Iterative

Combine all data into one set for analysis.

Link formative evaluation and professional development directly.

Develop instrumentation (surveys, observation protocols, interviews) in advance, based on what we have learned so far.

Transform

ational

Provide feedback from these tools quickly and directly to the schools to inform action planning.

Support low-performing schools with additional resources.

Encourage schools to budget flexibly and allow them to reflect on their own choices.


Methodologically

Flexible

Combine all data into one set for analysis.

Link formative evaluation and professional development directly.

Develop instrumentation (surveys, observation protocols, interviews) in advance.

Pragm

atic

Provide feedback from these tools quickly and directly to the schools to inform action planning; encourage schools to budget flexibly and allow them to reflect on their own choices.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305-336.

Dillon, D. R., O'Brien, D. G., & Heilman, E. E. (2000). Literacy research in the next millennium: From paradigms to pragmatism and practicality. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 10-26.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus., L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368.

Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34-38.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2004). Connecting research and practice using formative and design experiments. In N. K. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 149-169). New York: Guilford Press.

Sunderman, G. L., & Orfield, G. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind reforms and state administrative response. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.

Tabak, I. (2006). Prospects for change at the nexus of policy and design. Educational Researcher, 35, 24-30.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 11-29). New York: Guilford Press.

reading first: designing state-level support sharon walpole michael c. mckenna university of...

Documents

funded schools

garfthe state grant

state staff

schools advocacy

reading research community

grant awards

powerful design

professional support