Transcript AACTE Presentation

Stories from Successful Elementary Schools Serving
Economically Distressed Communities and Implications for
Teacher Preparation
A Project of the TN State Improvement Grant
Susan M. Benner, Ed. D.
Kandy Smith, Ph. D. Candidate
Anne McGill-Franzen, Ph. D
Sherry Mee Bell, Ph. D.
University of Tennessee
AACTE
February 20, 2010
State Improvement Grant
Purpose:
To sustain important services to struggling schools so
that children and youth will achieve strong literacy
and pre-literacy skills
Transition of SIG to system-level RtI consulting and
professional development
S/S
Questions Derived From SIG Work
• What institutional structures and resources
characterize successful elementary schools in
Tennessee?
• What patterns of beliefs and practices on the
part of teachers and administrators define
successful elementary schools in Tennessee?
S/Mc
Theoretical Perspectives
• Pragmatic tradition (Dillon, et al., 2004)sought an emic point of view to better
understand practitioner beliefs & practices;
respectful orientation to practitioner
identified issues; potential benefit
• Ecological stance (Brofenbrenner, 1993)acknowledged work of practitioners is
embedded in political and social contexts
Mc/Mc
Related Research
• Effective schools (Edmonds, 1982; NCEA, 2006)
Just for kids synthesis-goals, practices, HQT,
leadership, data analysis, adjustment
• CELA (Pressley, et al., 1998; Langer, et al.,2001)engagement, explicitness, integration across
content, matched to ability; collaboration,
strategic & generative learning
• CIERA (Taylor, et al.,1999) particular interactional
styles, instructional focus related to complexity
• BTO Resource allocation (Perez & Socias, 2008)willingness to stay focused over time
Mc/S
Methodology
• Document analysis of archived school-level state data
– Identify successful schools
• Focus group interviews of participants from 14 schools
– 60-90 minutes per group
– 3 groups (administrators, special ed & classroom
teachers—4 -7 participants in each group)
– 3 regions of the state (west, east, middle TN)
• Qualitative analysis of transcribed interviews (500+
pages) with a priori codes based on prior research
• Developed case studies of each school
• Identified patterns within and across schools
S/S
What Is a Successful School?
Criteria developed by IHE
Child Performance
TCAP scores
Teacher
Performance
Value Added
performance data
SPED referrals in 3rd5th grades
Teacher turn-over
rates
Closing the Gap
Teacher development
and autonomy
Reading First schools
with solid gains
Title 1 Schools with
documented success
Enjoyment of reading
Community Context
Community
Involvement
Community
satisfaction with the
school
Partnership with
IHEs in teacher
training
Parent satisfaction
and participation
S/S
Characteristics Participating Schools
21 identified 14 participated
•
•
•
•
12 schools in towns
2 schools in cities
Enrollment of schools between 300
and 750
Grades Served
– 5 K-4 schools
– 3 K-5 schools
– 3 K-6 schools
– 3 K-8 schools
•
Economically Disadvantaged (State
Average: 54.7)
– Below the state average: 3
schools
– Above the state average: 11
schools
– Lowest percentage in these
schools: 42%
– Highest percentage in these
schools: 94%
S/S
School Demographics in State Context
• Percent Minority
State Average: 32% minority
– Below the state average: 12
schools
– At or above the state average: 2
schools
– Lowest percentage in these
schools: 1%
– Highest percentage in these
schools: 35%
• Percent Special Education
State Average: 15.4%
– These schools: (for 2007 only)
– Below the state average: 9
schools
– At or above the state average: 4
schools
– Lowest percentage in these
schools: 1%
– Highest percentage in these
schools: 25%
S/M
To what do you attribute
your school’s success in literacy?
Probes
• How does your school overcome
the challenges presented by the
at-risk student population?
• Reflect on the use of student
assessment data in the school’s
instructional planning?
• How do teachers collaborate in
supporting students with special
needs or struggling readers in
your schools?
• How does the leadership in your
school support its success?
• Reflect on parent involvement in
your school.
• Reflect on the importance of
professional development in your
school’s success.
• What instructional practices in
your school do you think
contribute to your success?
M/M
Teacher Education
• What are the teacher behaviors that contribute
to the success in these schools?
• What teacher practices are valued in these
schools?
– Willingness to collaborate
– Collaboration between teachers
• Grade-to-grade, SPED-to-regular, cross-grade
– Knowledge seeking
– Willingness to critically examine practices through
teacher discourse
M/S
James Napier Elementary School
Demographics 2007 & Grades 2003 - 2007
•
•
•
•
Grades served: Pre-K-5
Enrollment: 500
Rural
65% Economically
Disadvantaged
• Racial Composition
97% Caucasian
• 2003
– C Achievement
– C Value-Added
• 2004
– C Achievement
– B Value-Added
• 2005
– C Achievement
– B Value-Added
• 2006
– B Achievement
– A Value-Added
• 2007
– B Achievement,
– A Value-Added
S/S
James Napier Elementary School
% Proficient/Advanced
All Students
2003: 79%
2004: 87%
2005: 91%
2006: 88%
2007: 92%
Disabilities
2003: 30%
2004: 53%
2005: NA
2006: 66%
2007: 75%
African American
2003: NA
2004: NA
2005: NA
2006: NA
2007: NA
Poor
2003: 77%
2004: 84%
2005: 86%
2006: 85%
2007: 88%
S/S
James Napier Elementary School
Administrator states: “It’s the dedication of your
teachers. If they’re there and they’re working,
you know you’re going to have good results.”
Langer identified a deeply caring attitude as part
of the success in the “beating the odds”
schools she studied (Stemler, Elliott,
Grigorenko, Sternberg, 2006)
S/S
James Napier Elementary School
• Administrator: “When you asked me what do I think is
successful for my school. We talked about data, and
that is important because you can’t do anything until
you’ve looked at the data and find your strengths and
weaknesses.”
• General Education teacher: “…we think it has been
because we test, you know, these children every so
often, too, and, especially the lower ones we keep up
with the, with running records a lot and how they’re
progressing.”
• Instruction based on data/assessment (Blair, Rupley,
Nichols, 2007)
S/S
James Napier Elementary School
• Special Education teacher: “You’re there as a support
just like they’re there for support, too. It’s all a group.”
• General Education Teacher: “…because we’ve found
that that’s probably the most successful thing that’s
happened in the last few years is getting to talk to
other people and you know we constantly have new
teachers coming in and it really helps them out a lot,
too.”
• Langer (2001) – beating the odds schools had a
“unified sense of community”
S/S
James Napier Elementary School
• Special Ed Teacher: “I think you just have to take
each student, too, individual, or each group that’s
individual to see what’s best that works I mean
like some, it works - inclusion and some that are
so low, you have to really work on individualized
instruction for that one student to show success.
And find different things and have the teacher be
willing to work.”
• Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld (2008) – effective
teachers have interventionists’ beliefs
S/B
Elvis Presley Elementary School
Demographics 2007 & Grades 2003 - 2007
•
•
•
•
Grades served: K-5 & K-4
Enrollment 710
Rural
55% Economically
Disadvantaged
• Racial Composition
– 69.7% White
– 21% African American
– 7.9% Hispanic
– 1.4% Asian
• 2003*
– C Achievement
– D/F Value-Added
• 2004
– C Achievement
– C Value-Added
• 2005
– C Achievement
– A Value-Added
• 2006
– C Achievement
– A Value-Added
• 2007
– B Achievement
– A Value-Added
B/B
*Targeted Assistance
Elvis Presley Elementary School
% Proficient/Advanced
All Students
2003: 84%
2004: 78%
2005 : 89%
2006: 87%
2007: 86%
Disabilities
2003: 40%
2004: 27%
2005: 64%
2006: 64%
2007: 60%
African American
2003: 64%
2004: 71%
2005: 76%
2006: 81%
2007: 86%
White
2003: 90%
2004: 82%
2005: 93%
2006: 91%
2007: 88%
Hispanic
2003:
2004: 67%
2005:
2006: 60%
2007: 73%
Economically Disadvantaged
2003: 72%
2004: 72%
2005: 75%
2006: 81%
2007: 82%
B/B
Elvis Presley Elementary School
Accepting Responsibility
Having a Sense of Efficacy
 Sense of responsibility and ownership of the poor performance of the school
the school had gotten on the school improvement list at least partially because teachers were not
collaborating in the instructional process.
Classroom teacher—”just because the third and fourth and fifth grade test scores are what we see
and we go by, but it starts in the kindergarten.”
instruction in mathematics was, “whatever the teacher felt they had pizzazz or interest in
teaching, that teacher taught that section.”
now consistency and planning across grade levels, with a flow that builds on rather than repeating
previous instruction.
state standards serve as the starting point for all instruction.
Reflective Inquiry
Polk (2006) citing Conkling (2003) Taking the time to analyze what is working and what
is not working and why
B/B
Elvis Presley Elementary School
Protecting Instructional Time
 Teachers would not allow outside interruptions and distractions
“… we look at our minutes of instruction and see how few we really have when you break it down,
and we just can’t waste it, so we start looking at what we can eliminate and then we take it
back…”
Engaged time as a critical variable for student learning-Topping and Ferguson (2005) effective literacy teachers explicitly maximize time on task
Citation by Topping & Ferguson of Hall and Harding (2003) conclusions from review of studies of
literacy teaching--classrooms had high levels of pupil engagement, on-task behavior and pupil
self-regulation
B/B
Elvis Presley Elementary School
Individual Connections and Academic Goals
Setting academic goals with students and
communicating them to parents
“… making sure every child has a significant relationship
in the building… I think it all comes down to the teacher
in the classroom and their commitment and their
dedication to making sure that every child has every
chance every day to be successful.”
High expectations and student receipt of
individualized attention
B/B
Elvis Presley Elementary School
Teacher Collaboration
 Teachers collaborated within grade levels and across grade levels
 Planning periods were built into schedule and supported/expected by
administrator
 Old barriers were broken down—crossing the equator
 the school had gotten on the school improvement list at least partially because teachers
were not collaborating in the instructional process. She described the situation regarding
their instruction in mathematics as, “whatever the teacher felt they had pizzazz or
interest in teaching, that teacher taught that section.” There is now consistency and
planning across grade levels, with a flow that builds on rather than repeating previous
instruction. The state standards serve as the starting point for all instruction.
“… pulled together as a school, collaborated, approached the problem as a school problem,
lots of crossover meetings to get communication flowing, a lot of hard work, a lot of
meetings after school, a lot of dedication on the part of teachers to understand and
accept we were going to have to work early and stay late to accomplish our goals …”
Stemler, Elliott, Grigorenko, Sternberg, (2006)
"teacher as the sole adult with a given instructional group (a 'class') no longer widely
applies"
B/Mc
Dolly Parton
Demographics 2007 & Grades 2003-2007
•
•
•
•
•
•
PreK-6
480 Students
Town (10,500+)
78% Poor
22% Special Education
Racial Composition
– 95% White
– 3.8% African American
– 1% Hispanic
• 2003, 2004
– B Achievement
– F Value-Added
• 2005
– B Achievement
– A Value-Added
• 2006, 2007
– A Achievement
– A Value-Added
Mc/Mc
Dolly Parton
% Proficient & Advanced
All Students
2003: 91%
2004: 92%
2005: 96%
2006: 96%
2007: 95%
Disabilities
2004: 59%
2005: 82%
2006: 90%
2007: 86%
Poor
2004-7: 92-95%
Mc/Mc
Dolly Parton: Theme 1
• Access to grade level curriculum with support
enabled lowest achieving students to improve
The schools moved to total inclusion for grades 3-6
The schools became school-wide Title 1 thereby gaining
teachers, assistants, and instructional coaches
Title 1 teachers, assistants, and special education
teachers push into classroom to support instruction
during reading block
Mc/Mc
Dolly Parton: Theme 2
• Collaborative planning enabled adjustments
to curriculum
The school initiated daily common planning and weekly
grade level meetings
The instructional coach identified students for
intervention based on mastery of SPIs
The special education and Title 1 teachers and
assistants consulted classroom teachers’ posted plans
The special education teacher and classroom teachers
monitored students’ progress on reading curriculum
assessments
Mc/Mc
Overarching Themes
• Central administration exerted powerful influence on curricula,
instruction, technology, and press for achievement
– “We’re looking all the way down and we are beginning to see what we
can do for all levels of students. ”
– “We are actually brought in one on one and our test scores are looked
at.”
• Schools drilled down into data and maintained achievement history
for individual students
– “what did you do to teach this child this skill last year because they’re
not getting it this year?”
• Collaboration enabled high degree of intensity and consistency of
instruction
– Shared access to online lesson plans
– Multiple opportunities for planning
“… turn in ‘weekly team learning logs’”
Mc/M
Nancy Ward Elementary School
Demographics 2007& Grades 2003 - 2007
•
•
•
•
Grades PreK-4
Enrollment: 700
Rural/suburban
40.5% Economically
Disadvantaged
• Racial Composition
– 97.6% White
– 1% Hispanic
• 2003
– B Achievement
– F Value-Added
• 2004
– B Achievement
– A Value-Added
• 2005
– A Achievement,
– A Value-Added
• 2006
– A Achievement
– A Value-Added
• 2007
– A Achievement,
– A Value-Added
M/M
Nancy Ward Elementary School
% Proficient/Advanced
All Students
2003: 90%
2004: 92%
2005 : 98%
2006: 97%
2007: 99%
Disabilities
2003:
2004:
2005:
2006: 99%
2007: 100%
Poor
2003: 84%
2004: 89%
2005: 95%
2006: 97%
2007: 99%
M/M
Nancy Ward
• Increase in inclusion
• Inclusion as a way of thinking
• General educators taking responsibility for special
education identified students
According to one of the school’s special educators, “inclusion
has proven very successful,’ with general education teachers
planning interventions; we have “seen growth in special
education students… inclusion does wonders for them.”
– Some studies indicate that inclusion results in higher student
achievement, more positive student outcomes and higher
teacher expectations (Idol, 2006; Ritter, Michel & Irby, 1999)
M/M
Nancy Ward
• Co-planning for differentiated instruction
• Differentiating instruction to meet needs of
students achieving at various levels
– “We used the time to plan differentiated
instruction, addressing the needs of “higher”
students and devising ways to strategically
intervene with those who need more help”
• Effective collaboration improves achievement outcomes for
at-risk students (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998).
M/M
Nancy Ward
• Attitude of Knowledge Seeking
– “Having common professional development (gen
ed and sped) helps build relationships”
– With teachers as the most important component
in students’ literacy development, professional
development provides the foundation for
struggling readers’ success. (Booker, Invernizzi, &
McCormick, 2007; Crawford & Torgesen, 2007).
M/Mc
Inclusion Issues
“I’m planning probably an hour and a half or two
hours a day after school and at home just making
sure I am prepared for the next day…. And I am a
veteran teacher….I love my intervention teachers,
but I just don’t understand why they don’t have
their own curriculum and why once kids are
targeted they don’t pull them out and do a
program.” Regular Education Teacher
“Inclusion for special education teacher is like being
a teacher aid”
Mc/Mc
Concluding Thoughts for Teacher
Educators
• Need to show teachers how to collaborate by
– Modeling an interdisciplinary process within our
departments
• Need for us to reflect on what needs to be in place in
our programs in terms of
–
–
–
–
Clinical experiences
Content & pedagogical knowledge
Opportunities to interrogate beliefs
Joint preservice preparation: Integrated and Merged
Models (Blanton & Pugach, 2007)
Mc/Mc
References
• Blair, T., Rupley, W., & Nichols, W. (2007). The effective
teacher of reading: Considering the “what” and “how” of
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 432-438. doi:
:10.1598/RT.60.5.3.
• Benner, S. M., Bell, S. M., & Broemmel, A. (in press).
Teacher education and reading disabilities. In R. Allington &
A. McGill-Franzen (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Disabilities
Research. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2007). Collaborative
programs in general and special teacher education: Action
guide for higher education and state policy makers.
Washington, D. C.: Council of Chief State School Officers in
partnership with the American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education .
References
• Booker, K. C., Invernizzi, M. A., & McCormick, M. (2007).
Kiss your brain: A closer look at flourishing literacy gains in
impoverished elementary school. Reading Research and
Instruction, 46(4), 315-339.
• Brofenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive
development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R.
H. Wozniak and K. W. Fischer (Eds.). Development in
context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (3-44).
Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
• Crawford, E., & Torgesen, J. (2007, November). Teaching all
students to read: practices from schools with strong
reading intervention outcomes. Retrieved February 15,
2009, from http://www.fcrr.org
References
• Dillon, D. R., O’Brien, D. G., & Heilman, E. E. (2004).
Literacy research in the next millennium: From
paradigms to pragmatism and practicality. B. R.
Ruddell, & N. Unrau, Eds. Theoretical Models and
Processes of Reading (pp. 1530-1556). 5th ed. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
• Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of school improvement:
An overview. Educational Leadership, 40 (3): 8–11.
• Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education
students in general education: A program evaluation of
eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 7794.
References
• Langer, J. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle
and high school students to read
and write well. American Educational Research
Journal, 38 (4), 837-880.
• Perez, M. & Socias, M. (2008). Highly successful
schools: What do they do differently and at what cost?
Education Finance and Policy, 3 (1), 109-129.
• Polk, J. (2006). Traits of effective teachers. Arts
Education Policy Review, 107, 23-29
• Pressley, M., Allington, R., Morrow, L., et al. (1998). The
nature of effective first-grade
reading instruction (Rep. No. 11007). Albany, NY: CELA.
References
• Ritter, C.L., Michel, C.S., & Irby, B. (1999).
Concerning inclusion: Perceptions of middle school
students, their parents, and teachers. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 18(2), 10-16.
• Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Developing
effective teacher beliefs about learners: The role of
sensitizing teachers to individual learning differences.
Educational Psychology, 28(3), 245-272. doi:
10.1080/01443410701528436
• Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998).
Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
References
• Stemler, S., Elliott, J., Grigorenko, E. & Sternberg, R.
(2006). There’s more to teaching than instruction:
Seven strategies for dealing with the practical side of
teaching. Educational Studies, 32(1), 101-118. doi:
10.1080/03055690500416074.
• Taylor, B., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (1999).
Beating the odds in teaching
all children to read (Rep. No. 2-006). Ann Arbor, MI:
CIERA.
• Topping, K., & Ferguson, N. (2005). Effective literacy
teaching behaviours. Journal of Research in Reading,
28, 125–143.
TN State Improvement Grant Website
http://sig.cls.utk.edu/