Americas Choice Final Proposal 5-19-09

Americas Choice Reform Model: Teacher Attitudes toward Implementation
Submitted to: Dr. Denise Seguine Chief Academic Officer, Wichita Public Schools USD 259
Submitted by: Doctoral students: Kim Burkhalter, J.K. Campbell, Bob Diepenbrock, & Gina Marx Faculty Mentors: Dr. Mara Alagic & Dr. Craig Elliott
May 2009
Wichita State University

Educational Leadership
Americas Choice Implementation
Americas Choice Reform Model: Teacher Attitudes toward Implementation Executive Summary In an effort to improve student achievement and meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) more public schools are turning toward externally developed comprehensive school reform (CSR) providers. CSR models provide a top-down direction for designing and supporting the process of school reform; support for school change presumably steeped in research and literally packaged and delivered to the school site (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003). However, research suggests expanding a comprehensive reform model across a school or district, is a complex and multi-faceted process (Coburn, 2003; Desimone, 2002). There are many factors that constrain and facilitate successful scale-up, and evaluation over time is necessary with any reform model implementation. Recognizing the difficulty of successful implementation and drawing on the existing literature regarding CSR implementation and scale-up, the field study team developed a framework that included qualitative assessment of teacher attitudes toward program implementation from a variety of perspectives. This study provides an indicator of teacher attitudes during initial implementation and a related literature review to help guide a school districts formative assessment of implementation of the Americas Choice (AC) reform model in two Wichita Public Schools (WPS), Mead and Truesdell. Selected teachers from the two Title I middle schools, Mead and Truesdell, that participated in Americas Choice professional development during the summer 2008 were invited to participate in this study. Researchers also interviewed district administrators, building principals and leadership team members, and AC cluster leaders. Focus groups were conducted
with teachers and interviews were conducted with other stakeholders to determine perspectives on Americas choice professional development, implementation, and support during implementation. Specifically, researchers posed the following questions: What are teacher attitudes about the professional development received through the AC program? What are teacher attitudes about implementation of the AC program? What are teacher beliefs about implementation of the AC program and the influence on teachers instructional practices? What additional support, if any, might be necessary for effective implementation of the AC program? In addition to interviews and focus groups, participants also completed a survey specific to AC professional development, and observations of AC classrooms were made. Researchers also attended one leadership team meeting. Collected data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). During and after data collection, researchers collaboratively reflected on data collection experiences and identified some initial themes. Participants responses were coded and categorized by emerging themes. Through further analysis, the total number of themes was reduced to seven, and comprised restructuring; top down implementation; support issues which include programs, initiatives and assessments, availability of materials, and implementation and professional development; communication disconnect; and early successes. During analysis of participant responses and emergent themes, researchers determined disconnect in perceptions about Americas Choice program implementation from the various stakeholder groups. Administrative and building leadership beliefs were not the same as those held by teacher and/or other stakeholders. A much less positive perception of implementation from those most connected to the classroom was revealed. A delay in the acquisition of instructional materials necessary for implementation caused a significant degree of frustration
with classroom teachers and promoted a sense of distrust with reform efforts from the onset. Teachers reported feeling overwhelmed with implementation, given their perception that they were also to continue or begin to simultaneously implement other district initiatives also aimed at improving student achievement. As a result, a concern for the fidelity of implementation that the district desires may be compromised. Specifically scale-up, spread, and depth of the reform model implementation may be impeded. While frustrations and stressors were significant, researchers also found indicators of early successes during initial implementation. An embedded review of literature provides additional information to aid WPS in the processes of spread, scale-up, and sustainability of the AC program implementation. Research indicates CSR models are difficult to replicate from one site to another and careful attention must be devoted to contextualization, recognizing each school has a distinct culture and site specific needs to address (Cavallo, 2000; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002; Malen & Rice, 2004). Literature points to the importance of reducing the number of concurrent and required initiatives, as well as the number of required student assessments (Bonner, Koch, & Langmeyer, 2004; Marx, Hunter, & Johnson, 1997); providing continuous feedback to teachers about aspects of implementation of Americas Choice instructional strategies during classroom visits; and improving communication about implementation of the model and expectations for implementation to teachers and building leadership teams (Baum, 2002). Current research promotes development of professional learning communities to allow all stakeholder groups the opportunity to share successes and frustrations with reform model implementation (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; Hughes, 1997). Data for this study was collected in the very early stages of Americas Choice implementation and results reflect the complexity of reform start-up. An ongoing assessment is
a critical component to accurately determine successful implementation and ultimate success of comprehensive reform initiatives in this district. In the full report of the field study, researchers provided relevant literature review, data analysis, detailed findings with discussion and implications and conclusions in the form of emerging questions in an effort to provide WPS administrators with a perspective that might help to further guide implementation, spread, and sustainability of Americas Choice comprehensive reform in Wichita Public Schools. As in good learning, ongoing attention needs to be given to prior knowledge and contextual factors. This leads to the following questions: What is Wichita Public Schools leadership operational definition of "implementing AC with fidelity"? Is the intent to replicate precisely the AC model or is the intent to facilitate a process of an emergent design? Emergent design (Cavallo, 2000) in the context of Americas Choice implementation would require ongoing consideration of the following components: Initiatives and assessments - How WPS leadership can synergize the number of district and school initiatives and student assessments, in a constructive and creative manner, for more efficient instructional practices? Support and feedback - Observing is a one way road if the feedback is not provided: What kind and frequency of feedback do teachers need for AC implementation to be successful? If all instruction is not AC based i.e., if other initiatives are integrated then who is the most competent to facilitate professional development integration modeling for teachers? Communication - How can communication among all stakeholder groups be more direct and transparent, to share successes and plan how to constructively overcome frustrations?
List of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 2 RESEARCH TOPIC ........................................................................................................... 12 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 12 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................... 13 Theoretical Perspective ............................................................................................ 14 LITERATURE REVIEW: COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM ........................................... 15 Culture and Organizational Change ........................................................................ 16 Effects of Restructuring............................................................................................. 17 Teacher Attitudes Regarding Top Down Initiatives.................................................. 18 Implementation and Professional Development ....................................................... 19 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 22 Research site ............................................................................................................. 22 Participants ............................................................................................................... 23 Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 23 Survey ........................................................................................................................ 24 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 25 Focus Groups ............................................................................................................ 26 Classroom Observations ........................................................................................... 26 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 27 Restructuring............................................................................................................. 28 Top Down Implementation ........................................................................................ 30 Support Issues: Programs, Initiatives, and Assessments .......................................... 32
Support Issues: Availability of Materials ................................................................. 34 Support Issues: Implementation and Professional Development ............................. 36 Communication Disconnect ...................................................................................... 40 Early Successes ......................................................................................................... 43 Survey Results ........................................................................................................... 44 Site Observations ...................................................................................................... 47 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................... 49 CONCLUSIONS: EMERGING QUESTIONS .......................................................................... 57 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 58 APPENDIX A: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ............................................. 63 APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 64 APPENDIX C: SURVEY QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 65
Introduction As public school districts continue to race against the timeline established by the federal act of No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) and the target for all students to achieve academic proficiency by 2014, Wichita Public Schools is not exempt from this race. Wichita Public Schools (WPS), the largest urban school district in the state of Kansas, faces many challenges to meet assessment targets outlined by federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and state legislation. Recently, some of the middle schools in the district experienced restructuring as a result of not meeting state assessment targets. Restructuring, as defined by NCLB, is a term reserved for those schools that after one full school year of corrective action fail to make adequate yearly progress. The local educational agency (LEA) in charge of school oversight must allow students enrolled in a restructured school the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA, continue to make supplemental services available to children who remain in the school, and implement an alternative governance arrangement. Alternative governance must include one of the following: reopening the school as a public charter school; replacing all or most of the school staff who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress; enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school; turn the operation of the school over to the state educational agency; or pursue any other major restructuring of the schools governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms. In an effort to improve student achievement and meet the requirements of NCLB for restructured and other Title I middle schools, district administrators researched comprehensive school reform (CSR) programs that would effectively address the learning needs of students enrolled and meet legislated mandates. The purpose of Title I legislation is to ensure that all
children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments ("Elementary and secondary education act," 1965). Wichita Public Schools district administrators determined the Americas Choice (2009) comprehensive school reform model met the NCLB alternative governance requirements and selected this model because of its design and participatory approach to school reform. The America's Choice (AC) school design provides a combination of professional development, technical assistance, and curricular materials to help reform schools that have a substantial group of students with difficulty meeting standards. The design is customized for elementary, K8, middle, and high schools. Ramp-Up Literacy and Ramp-Up Mathematics are comprehensive instructional systems designed to accelerate the learning of middle and high school students who are two or more years behind grade level, include yearlong, double-period classes to help students be successful. Literacy Navigator and Mathematics Navigator are modular interventions for elementary and secondary students who are experiencing difficulty with specific topics. The Americas Choice Coaching Program provides district and school instructional coaches with targeted, systematic training. Americas Choice (AC), an externally developed CSR model, is a national literacy and mathematics curriculum and assessment program. Americas Choice is one of a few federally approved CSR models (Correnti & Rowan, 2007). Externally developed CSR models provide a top-down approach for designing and supporting the process of school reform; tangible and accessible support for school change steeped in research and literally packaged and delivered to the school site (Borman, et al., 2003). Borman, et al. (p. 126-127) states CSR focuses on reorganizing and revitalizing entire schools rather than on implementing a number of specialized,
and potentially uncoordinated, school improvement initiatives. However, WPS decided to start this implementation with seven Title I middle schools. Out of the seven schools, the field study team researched initial implementation in one recently restructured school, Mead, and another school, Truesdell, which is going through the process of restructuring. In a pre-proposal meeting, the field study research team conducted an interview with district administrators responsible for initiating and implementing AC. These administrators indicated interest in assessing teacher attitudes toward Americas Choice initial professional development and implementation. District administrators stated they were not interested in assessing student achievement results with this study, but were more intent on understanding whether or not this model would lead to a change in teachers instructional practices. In general, a districts effective implementation and scale-up of a CSR model is usually slow and challenging (Coburn, 2003). Scale-up is the process whereby external providers expand the education reform agenda from demonstration sites to reach more teachers, schools, and districts as quickly as possible. Reform providers have identified four characteristics of successful scale-up to include spread, depth, sustainability, and shift in ownership. The term spread refers to implementing increased practice of a specific reform used across school sites in a district, or throughout classrooms in a specific building. Depth defines how significantly classroom practices are enacted to improve student achievement. Sustainability ensures appropriate policy and infrastructure systems are in place, supporting long-term improvement in instruction. Shift in ownership refers to the capacity of a school or district to continue efforts of scale-up and reform once the external provider is no longer contractually obligated. According to Coburn (2003), scale-up often focuses on nothing more than the expansion of numbers, i.e., how quickly the reform effort moves through a
10
building or district. Whereas external provider organizations recognize the importance of these four factors, researchers do not often find districts that are successful in connecting to these complex characteristics. Coburn states, With the growing number of external reforms with a longer history of development and use, conditions are ripe for studies that grapple with the challenges of creating research design to further explore the multidimensionality of scale. With attention to this multidimensionality, research can begin to speak more clearly and persuasively about the tensions and tradeoffs involved in different strategies to take reform to scale (p. 9). Desimone (2002) provides further understanding of why school-wide reform scale-up is usually a slow and challenging process. She reviews the factors that constrain and facilitate successful implementation, and more importantly, identifies the importance of evaluation over time in any reform effort. According to Desimone, One of the pervasive challenges in school reform is the determination of the type and level of reform implementation that is effective (p. 438). And once the type and level of reform have been determined and the reform effort is implemented, the slow pace of school reform affects the ability to assess implementation success, as well as the ability to measure effects on teachers, students, and parents (p. 437). Researchers commonly note various difficulties in measuring or assessing effective reform implementation and scale-up (Borman, et al., 2003; Hamilton, et al., 2003; Malen & Rice, 2004; Mintrop, Gamson, McLaughlin, Wong, & Oberman, 2001). Upon determining the WPS administrators purpose for this study, research team members reviewed applicable literature prior to formulating the research problem and related questions. Qualitative data were collected through interviews, focus groups, surveying, and classroom observation followed by a constant
11
comparative method of data analysis used to identify emerging themes. Findings, based on emergent themes connected to existing literature, are provided at the conclusion of the study.
Research Topic
The field study teams task was to investigate a) teacher attitudes toward the professional development received through the Americas Choice program; b) teacher attitudes toward implementation of the Americas Choice program; c) teacher self-reporting about how implementation of the Americas Choice program influences their own instructional practices; and d) what additional support, if any, might be necessary for effective implementation. This study was limited to Mead and Truesdell middle schools. Recognizing the difficulty of successful implementation and scale-up, this qualitative study offers a framework for assessing initial implementation of externally provided CSR models. Drawing on the theoretical literature regarding CSR implementation and scale-up, the field study team developed a framework that includes qualitative assessment of teacher attitudes toward program implementation from a variety of perspectives. This study provides an indicator of teacher attitudes during initial implementation and critically connects existing literature to the research findings. Research Questions The following questions guided the research: 1. What are teacher attitudes about the professional development received through the Americas Choice program? 2. What are teacher attitudes about implementation of the Americas Choice program?
12
3. What are teacher beliefs about implementation of the Americas Choice program and the influence on teachers instructional practices? 4. What additional support, if any, might be necessary for effective implementation of the Americas Choice program? Conceptual Framework Attempting to successfully spread and sustain the implementation of the Americas Choice program in selected middle schools is one of the major goals WPS leadership is aiming for in the coming years. Recognizing teachers attitudes may have a major effect on the implementation (Baum, 2002), WPS requested a study to identify teacher attitudes toward Americas Choice implementation, and what teachers perceive as necessary support in order for the implementation to be effective. The Diffusion of Innovation theory presents a framework for disseminating an innovation through a system over time (Vanderslice, 2000). This theory is particularly relevant for the study of the Americas Choice implementation in the WPS middle schools because it captures the goal of district leadership related to AC implementation and scale-up.
Theoretical Framework
Innovations. According to Diffusion of Innovations theory, people embrace and share various innovations at different rates. Some innovations may never be fully embraced by individuals in an organizational system and other innovations may not even be considered. Embracing, accepting, and implementing innovations become easier when they are concise and explicit. This is called relative advantage. Without relative advantage, innovations are generally dropped or dismissed. However, relative advantage does not always indicate widespread support or diffusion (Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004). Innovations that are 13
harmonious with the stakeholders values, norms, and needs tend to be more widespread (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). These kind of innovations points to the need for careful consideration of contextual factors and adaptations to the local conditions (Cavallo, 2000). Diffusion. How individual people introduce and spread an innovation is known as diffusion. Good ideas are not just accepted. It is important to understand the circumstances by which ideas are spread throughout an organization (Vanderslice, 2000). Interpersonal networks through social connection (word of mouth, advice and friendships) are the most powerful methods for diffusion. Different groups have various social networks and powers of influence. It is important to know the culture of the organization and its sub-groups to help identify relationships by which the innovation might be successfully spread (Lundblad, 2003). Theoretical Perspective The belief that teachers and students are both psychologically and socially diverse suggests that finding a school reform model to fit all is unrealistic. School systems, particularly large urban schools, often resist new ideas and practices (Cawelti, 1995). School reform is only as effective as the implementation in the classroom. Buy-in from teachers is vital for the success of effective school reform. As school system stakeholders seek to identify the appropriate model of reform, it is imperative they consider the influence and demands that change creates for teachers and administrators (Marx, et al., 1997). A psychoanalytical perspective stemming from the work of Sigmund Freud suggested that individual response and reaction to structural change is based on experiences. Psychoanalytical perspective as a theoretical lens in school reform recognizes the emotional interest that individuals, such as teachers or administrators, and organizations, experience during school reform and restructuring. This perspective helps identify ways in which the lack of knowledge about restructuring and reform programs can
14
increase the anxiety level for teachers and administrators. While teachers and administrators may recognize the problems that exist and believe change is needed, the very absence of their input and buy-in hinders the process of successful reform (Baum (Baum, 2002), 2002). Many times when the emotional state of being of individuals is ignored, schools often face resistance to change, new ideas, programs and initiatives. Therefore, it is important to take into account the emotional issues related to grief and loss which may occur with educators who are involved in major school restructuring and reform initiatives (Marshak, 1996). Teachers and administrators may interpret the reform changes as a requirement to replace current practices and roles which define their professional understanding. Teachers and administrators may perceive they should discard familiar practices and old ways of doing things and embrace the reform and new initiative. The resistance to change may be endorsed by not taking into consideration thought of the educators emotional experiences connected to what was and moving to what will be (Marshak, 1996).
Literature Review: Comprehensive School Reform

The purpose of this review is to provide information and highlight previous research that helps to shape understanding and knowledge of the elements of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) and this research study. Essential to CSR, this literature review proposes to connect culture and organizational change, effects of restructuring, teacher attitudes regarding change, professional development, and phases of implementation to the processes of CSR scale-up. Most importantly, the quality of the implementation matters (Borman, et al., 2003). Researchers agree that deep change alters teachers beliefs the underlying assumptions about how students learn, the nature of the subject matter, expectations for students, and what constitutes effective instruction (Coburn, 2003; Desimone, 2002; Sparks, 2007). Additionally, capturing depth 15
requires assessment over time and should include in-depth interviewing and ample opportunities for classroom observation (Datnow, 2005; Malen & Rice, 2004). The literature also notes effective professional development is at the center of reform. Well-implemented reform models tend to have strong professional development and training components, as well as effective follow-up to address teacher specific problems during implementation. Professional development must be high quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom focused to affect a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and the teachers performance in the classroom (Borman, et al., 2003; Boyle, Lamprianou, & Boyle, 2005; Nielsen, Barry, & Staab, 2008; Sparks, 2002, 2007). None of the above can be accomplished without first understanding the school and district culture, and the impact of the organization and/or system during implementation and the change process. Culture and Organizational Change Organizational restructuring in education can be challenging and complex. For restructuring to be successful, its important to understand the culture of the organizations, schools, and the people within the school system. To ignore this important aspect of restructuring is considered sabotage for any such change (Marshak, 1996). Unless restructuring takes into account the culture of the school, teachers and students, (those who shape the system), the adjustments, revisions, changes made will have little impact on the expected outcomes (Wehlage, Smith, & Lipman, 1992). To recognize the effects of change, its important for systems to understand that time is a key factor. Furthermore, it is recommended that organizations take time to identify and clearly articulate dissatisfaction and desired outcomes. In addition, researchers indicated that potential conflict which occurs through organizational change is normal and helpful.
16
Manageable conflict allows more individuals within the system an opportunity to find value and reasoning for restructuring (Bonner, et al., 2004). Effects of Restructuring Restructuring and system-wide change can transform how school districts educate students. Determining what components of the system can be changed and ensuring that schools become more productive can present challenges. While some individuals believe that the best proponents for change are teachers, research has shown that educational system-wide changes are most influenced by external stakeholders, such as community, families, students and legislators (Cawelti, 1995). One of the main issues identified with restructuring of schools is related to the absence of focus on the true issues regarding what is being taught, how it is taught, how students learn and what students are learning. In other words, is the teaching meaningful and relevant to students? Is the purpose of restructuring to change the curriculum and content or is the purpose to adjust what is currently taught and make instruction more efficient and effective? When these components are not considered, the question remains, what is the reason(s) to restructure? When restructuring, leadership should consider which student groups are targeted, those who have a history of performing poorly, or those who experience academic success? Is it possible for restructuring to focus along the continuum and meet the needs of all students? These are important questions to consider when restructuring schools (Wehlage, et al., 1992). Positive changes could occur when reform efforts are focused on instruction, positive teacher attitudes, and on organizational structure (Crissman, Spires, Pope, & Beal, 2000).
17
Teacher Attitudes Regarding Top Down Initiatives A major reason for failure among reform initiatives is that resistance, primarily by teachers, prevented successful implementation (Zimmerman, 2006). Zimmerman discussed the need for school leadership to discover why teachers resist change, and provide research-based studies that can be utilized by principals to overcome implementation obstacles. Ruscoe and Miller (1991) examined 93 schools in Kentucky to analyze how school improvement was affected by teachers attitudes. They noted implementation of reform efforts were profoundly affected by established norms and attitudes of teachers toward educational research. Reform designers and facilitators must see teachers as an asset and as collaborators rather than professionals required to simply implement the reform with fidelity. For example, implementation of the national curriculum that was imposed on teaching professionals and schools in England had many problems due to the lack of input from educational professionals in its development (Hughes, 1997). Reform initiatives, imposed or mandated by law or decisionmakers and implemented without input from all stakeholders are often referred to as top-down initiatives. These types of initiatives are bound to have problems with implementation when teachers feel they are not involved in the decision making process. Reform efforts must be guided (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000). Earlier research described how central office administration must transform its role and move toward site-based management. It requires those in formal leadership positions to relinquish power and control to others (Harris, 2003). Mertens and Yarger (1988) reiterate that the power of the central office is transferred to the school in site-based management. They believed it was essential for reform efforts to be successful. However, more current research suggests collaborative leadership, distributive leadership, shared decision making, and
18
empowerment of teacher leaders are all related management practices that are considered more desirable than top down initiatives or strict site-based management. Consultation with the school community that includes administration, staff, parents, and patrons is essential for laying the foundation in any reform efforts (Streshly, 1992). Accomplishing an improvement in student achievement results requires collaborative work of teachers and it is the job of the formal leadership to keep the organization working together (Harris, 2003). Collaboration among stakeholders should also be considered when implementing reform initiatives and designing professional development activities to support them. Implementation and Professional Development Researchers agree high quality teachers are more important than ever, and many school systems have increased their attention to reform efforts through professional development and ongoing support. Professional development that successfully influences teacher self-efficacy includes a focus on new content, active learning strategies, follow-up support, an emphasis on teacher needs, the use of exemplary models, and communication about and connections between the change and larger goals and objectives (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Haycock, 1998; Ingersoll, 2003; Nielsen, et al., 2008; Sparks, 2002). Given the nature of local conditions that influence professional development context, changes in student learning may take longer to become evident in one school than another. Successful professional development requires follow-up training, opportunities for feedback on teaching, support from school leadership, opportunities for collaboration, and opportunities for shared examination of student work. The quality and quantity of follow-up professional development affects the extent to which teachers report a sense of increased knowledge. This
19
reflects the critical role that coaching and classroom support play in how teachers learn new skills and integrate them into practice (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005). Designers of professional development rarely build in opportunities for feedback and coaching, yet research indicates these are essential for teachers to learn new skills. Reflection on practice and the development of understanding about the new content is unlikely to be optimal without sources of timely and insightful feedback for teachers. Effective programs provide opportunities for every teacher to receive elbow-to-elbow support and coaching during the difficult phase of implementation of a new program. Though this feature of professional development is time consuming and labor-intensive, money may be wasted without it (Martin, McCaughtry, Hodges-Kulinna, & Cothran, 2008). The pre-existing level of support for professional development in a school has a significant effect on the outcomes of reform implementation. It is not enough to provide welldesigned professional development programs from outside the school. Policy makers and school administrators need to give equal attention to building the conditions that will enable schools to provide fertile ground for job-embedded professional learning. Professional community is vital to significant change and should include time for teachers to think, analyze, reflect, and share what peers are doing in the classroom and what their students are learning. Effective school administrators demonstrate they value teacher learning by expecting evidence of successful professional development implementation because of the significant gap between professional development and implementation of effective teaching practices (Ingvarson, et al., 2005); Sparks, 2002). Professional development activities should be well aligned to teachers goals for learning and their goals for students; when teachers decide if they will enact or resist particular
20
innovations, this decision is often driven by the social context of the school (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). Reeves (2006) stated, Many people resist change because they have been burned in prior years on programs that were poorly planned and badly executed. The result is more work and fewer positive results. Resisters can be transformed into allies if they see that the planning and execution of the initiative will be significantly better than in the past (p. 96). Two studies mentioned here have evaluated the sequence of events from professional development to what is considered long lasting change in teachers attitudes and perceptions. Guskey (2002) provided a model of teacher change and the conditions under which change might best be facilitated. The model for teacher change introduced by Guskey (1986), suggests that significant change in teachers' beliefs and attitudes is likely to take place only after a teacher has experimented and evidenced changes in student learning outcomes. In other words, "the model implies that change in teachers' beliefs and attitudes is primarily a result, rather than a cause, of change in the learning outcomes of students" (Guskey, 1986, p. 9). Guskey's model of the teacher change process is illustrated by outcomes listed in the following order: (a) staff development, (b) change in teachers' classroom practices, (c) change in student learning outcomes, and, (d) change in teachers' beliefs. Boyle, Lamprianou, and Boyle (2005), completed a longitudinal study of teacher change investigating the influence of professional development on teaching strategies. Sparks (2002) advocated for local evaluation of staff development to demonstrate its value, and refers to Guskeys suggestion that evaluation or evidence of effective professional development should be significant to interested parties. Guskey (2002) indicated the local action researcher
21
could gather anecdotal records and testimonials from teachers to show evidence of improved instruction. Researchers studied teachers attitudes and perceptions towards the professional development received in the Americas Choice comprehensive school reform implementation. The methodology used to develop this research follows.
Methodology
Qualitative research is an appropriate methodology when exploring a system of beliefs, designed to bring out the details from the viewpoint of the participants by using multiple sources of data. This methodology is shaped by the researchers belief about the nature of reality, its social construction and the relationships within. Qualitative research begins with a theoretical perspective or view on how the world is seen. The researcher seeks to understand how people make sense of their world related to the research problem. Qualitative research is considered naturalistic when it takes place in the setting being studied and provides a context for understanding of the research. Understanding the perspective of the researcher is also essential in naturalistic inquiry. This field study included the interpretation of the researcher, the voices of participants, a detailed description and interpretation of the problem, findings and attempts to connect findings to the literature in a way that might be beneficial to both researchers and practitioners (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). Research site This study was conducted in two Wichita public Title I schools, Mead and Truesdell. Mead has a current enrollment of 481 students. Thirty-one percent of the student population is White; twenty-eight percent African American, twenty-seven percent Hispanic and fourteen percent identified as other ethnicities. Approximately ninety-two percent of the students qualify 22
for free or reduced meals. During the 2007-08 school year, Mead experienced school restructuring under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) regulations. All administrators were new to the school. Approximately ninety-five percent of the teaching staff was new to the school, with the majority of teachers in their first year. Truesdell had student enrollment of 752 students. Fifty-one percent of the students were White, seventeen percent African American, nineteen percent Hispanic, and fourteen percent identified as other ethnicities. Seventy-eight percent of the students enrolled receive free or reduced meals. Under the No Child Left Behind regulations, Truesdell is experiencing school restructuring during the 2008-09 school year and. Participants Selected teachers from Mead and Truesdell that participated in Americas Choice professional development during the summer 2008 were invited to participate in this study. Teachers selected to participate in this study were identified with the assistance of Mead and Truesdell principals. Building principals, learning, instructional, and data coaches, and selected district administrators, along with Americas Choice facilitators, participated in this study. Data Collection The primary strategies for data collection for this study included a survey, classroom observations, document review, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups. In an attempt to capture teachers attitudes, researchers administered a survey depicted from the literature (Guskey, 2002; Lowden, 2005). Levels of participation during research studies range from a lowlevel, where the researcher has no direct participation with those being observed, to the active participation whereby the researcher does what the participants do (Spradley, 1980). The researchers used a passive participation model, whereby the researchers were present during various activities, but did not participate. The research team reviewed AC professional
23
development documents and agendas. WPS leadership and staff provided relevant information to assist researchers in data collection. Each semi-structured interview was facilitated as an open-ended questioning process, a conversation between the interviewers and the participants that allowed participants to tell their stories in their own words (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). The researchers recorded specific responses from the interviews and also documented unexpected concerns that surfaced during the conversation (Patton, 1990). Interviews were designed, recorded and transcribed for accuracy. Emerging themes (patterns) from this data were categorized to help support findings. Focus groups consisted of five to eight teachers who had shared interests in the research topic. Focus group members each had an opportunity to express their views and did not have to reach consensus. Focus groups were large enough to offer diverse opinions, but small enough that everyone had the opportunity to share their views about the research topic (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Specifically, participants were interviewed by grade level and content area regarding Americas Choice implementation and professional development, at their sites (schools or district administration buildings). Survey Teachers and coaches who were trained and were implementing or helping implement Americas Choice instructional strategies in the classroom were surveyed about the professional development received in preparation for AC implementation. Fifteen participants from Truesdell and eleven participants from Mead responded to forty-six survey questions about Americas Choice initial professional development. Questions elicited responses about the quality and impact of the professional development, and focused on learned instructional strategies, new knowledge and skills, and the impact on student learning. Questions also addressed whether or
24
not respondents implemented and applied new instructional practices learned in professional development, if there were positive changes in teaching, and whether or not the new strategies would make long-lasting changes in their teaching practices. Interviews According to existing literature, there are four types of interviews: informal conversational, guided approach, open-ended, and fixed response (Patton, 1990). The researchers chose the guided approach for this study as it allowed the question protocol to be followed. This approach provided flexibility in question order and follow up questioning. Interviewing was conducted through a purposeful conversation where the interviewees told their story in their own words (Erlandson, et al., 1993). Researchers interviewed the assistant superintendent for middle schools, the chief academic officer, building principals, and assistant principals. AC cluster leaders, data, instructional, and learning coaches. Researchers guided interviews by questions and prompts that allowed the participants to tell their stories in their own words, allowing participants to share their own understanding of the AC implementation as it relates to their role in the process of implementation. Since the interviewers were the researchers as well, they were careful to let the interview process develop without influencing participant responses (Holstein & Gubrium, 1997). Some interviews were more conversational than others; some provided additional information, not necessarily directly related to the questions, but still relevant to the process of implementation. Interview data was analyzed with other sources, including available documents and observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
25
Focus Groups Focus groups were a way to gather data from a group of participants who, when they were interviewed together, fostered ideas from one another and from the questions being asked. Focus groups were made up of seven to ten people bringing in as many ideas as possible (Merriam, 1998). The generation of ideas by this method is known as the group effect (Morgan, 1996). Questions were developed to guide the conversation and organized so that they appropriately engaged the participants, but were non-threatening (Krueger, 1998a). Researchers/moderators asked follow up questions, but did not participate in answering questions (Krueger, 1998b). Focus group moderators made sure all participants had an opportunity to share their ideas and feel their opinions were valued. Researchers recorded sessions and coded participant responses for transcription and data analysis. Focus group members were assured of confidentiality and that participation was voluntary. Participants of the focus groups at both Mead and Truesdell signed consent forms and were informed that audio recordings would be destroyed at the conclusion of the study. Classroom Observations Researchers followed observation protocol recommended by existing literature (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 1998). Permission to visit classrooms for observation was gained from appropriate personnel. It was determined what observations were to be accomplished and which classrooms and participants were to be observed. A protocol for recordkeeping was completed. Researchers did not participate in activities, but took field notes during AC classroom observations. Passive observational techniques were easily employed by observing classrooms where Americas Choice model was used in instruction.
26
Data Analysis
The data collected was analyzed using the constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All audio responses from focus groups and interviews were transcribed and unitized. During and after data collection, researchers collaboratively reflected on data collection experiences and identified some initial themes. Each unitized response was coded as an interview or focus group and categorized by theme. Additional codes included school, line number, and type of participant. Participants included central office administrators, building administrators, teachers, category of coaches, and AC cluster leaders. The responses were queried and sorted by nine initial themes: organizational change, assessment, support, successes, communication, topdown, materials, programs and initiatives, and restructuring. Building administrator and coach responses were then grouped together as leadership teams for advanced analysis. Once comments were sorted by initial themes, researchers analyzed data to further refine categories and themes. Discussion over emerging themes served as an impetus to recheck initial perceptions. Researchers scrutinized initial themes provided by each participant group and further divided responses into positive, negative, and neutral categories. Researchers reduced the total number of themes to seven, comprised of support, successes, communication, top-down, materials, programs and initiatives, and restructuring. This section includes a discussion of emergent themes from interviews and focus groups, an overview of survey results, an analysis of survey responses, and a discussion of site observations. Figure 1 illustrates number of comments according to emergent themes, elicited from participants during interviews and focus groups. It is important to notice that comments are not presented in their relationships to the number of participants. The total number of comments related to support is 246. However, Figure 1 does not show how many participants mentioned support or luck of the same. Similar reasoning
27
applies to other numbers within this graph. Nevertheless researchers considered that this comparison would give a sense of how conversations brought different number of comments for emerging themes.
Support Successes 124 94 94 78 34 33
246
Emergent themes
Communication Top Down Materials Too Many Programs Restructuring
Number of comments Figure 1. Number of comments according to emergent themes in the first analysis cycle of interviews and focus groups transcripts. Restructuring No Child Left Behind legislation requires that schools that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for five years must restructure ("NCLB," 2001). Mead Middle School was restructured and Truesdell began restructuring for the 2009-2010 school year. Under restructuring, none of the teachers knew whether they would return to Truesdell, including the new principal. All current Truesdell employees were required to reapply and no employee was guaranteed a position. Additionally, it is common to restructure curriculum and instruction. Many districts choose to implement externally provided comprehensive school reform models 28
(Cawelti, 1995). As already mentioned, WPS administrators decided to implement Americas Choice model. According to district level administrators, after they looked at a number of alternatives, Americas Choice was selected due to its very specific intervention program. Part of the selection process included district administrators visiting several schools where Americas Choice was fully implemented. The district administrators were impressed with the support, professional development, and rituals and routines evident in those Americas Choice schools and thus chose to implement Americas Choice in seven Title I middle schools in Wichita starting in the 2008-09 school year. At Mead Middle School, most of the teaching staff and all of the administration were new to the building as a result of restructuring and, therefore, the schools culture changed significantly in 2008; the administrative staff was new, twenty-eight teachers were new to the building out of which five were new to the profession, and seventeen teachers were returning to Mead. According to the two Wichita based AC cluster leaders, Americas Choice prefers to train teachers with experience in order to best develop model classrooms. Some teachers from Mead who were trained during the summer did not meet the experience criteria and some could not attend all training sessions. In spite of the challenges, administrators reported inexperienced teachers often grasped the concepts readily and were less resistant to the Americas Choice workshop model of instruction and Ramp-Up curriculum (AC, 2009). Some leadership team members thought that new teachers, without any experience, lacked a repertoire of instructional methods so they readily implemented the model. The new administrative team at Mead was selected by the district administrators and Meads staff was selected by the new principal and assistant principal. The same process was
29
utilized at Truesdell. AC teachers were selected by administration and the building leadership team based on the perception those teachers would willingly implement the AC teaching model and/or curriculum. The AC teachers selected were considered some of the best teachers in the buildings. This illustrated an organizational structure of top down management. Top Down Implementation Due to the immediacy of the restructuring requirement, district administrators decided to implement Americas Choice beginning fall 2008, knowing it could be perceived as a top down initiative. This was done in spite of the fact that a committee was formed on the school level in 2007-2008 to make recommendations for the anticipated restructuring of Mead. Though teachers reported that committee members felt their work was significant, relevant, and applicable to restructuring, they believed it was ignored in favor of Americas Choice. Baum (2002) suggests that predictable failure to school reform occurs when districts fail to recognize that the inclusiveness of all stakeholders from superintendent to administrators, teachers, students and parents are vital to the success of the reform and acknowledge that all stakeholders have a vested interest. Varying views were expressed about AC implementation and future success of the model and curriculum. District administrators believed that some teachers were resistant to change with regard to instructional issues. Administrators believed teachers saw Americas Choice curriculum as prescriptive, though the workshop model, according to some participants, allowed for more teacher autonomy. District administrators further saw that some teachers could be resistant to change due to being uncomfortable in utilizing Americas Choice. Yet, district administrators believed that some teachers were implementing Americas Choice very well, while others were not. Administrators expressed their belief this might be due to teachers
30
attitudes and unwillingness to implement AC. Administrators realized that reform takes time, though how much time, in their view, depended upon teachers support for Americas Choice. Administrators and Americas Choice cluster leaders described and anticipated a tipping point whereby teachers would fully support and work toward school-wide implementation of Americas Choice creating a school-wide cultural change. During interviews, district administrators and AC cluster leaders emphasized the success of Americas Choice in schools was clearly dependent on building level leadership. They further identified building principals as the key to the success of Americas Choice. Some teachers expressed their view that building level administrators would do whatever was necessary so that Americas Choice would be successful in their buildings. At one end, district level administrator described principals as being involved in an ongoing dialogue with district level administrators, while, contrary to that, teacher described principals assent as towing the line. The teacher went on to say, Our principal will do whatever she can do and do exactly what she is told to do to make this thing work. District level administrators felt that building leadership teams regularly discussed how to successfully implement Americas Choice, yet that view was not necessarily how building leadership team members viewed the functionality of building leadership teams. Researchers observed leadership team meetings where no discussion of AC took place during building leadership meetings. Americas Choice and district level administrators viewed Americas Choice as rolling along smoothly. Administrators believed the Americas Choice calendar for the school year was laid out, well understood, and followed. District level administrators believed they were providing all the support schools needed. Teachers, however, believed they had not received adequate support, nor received consistent AC relevant information. In fact, one teacher felt a
31
district level administrator discouraged them from asking questions during the training. The teacher stated, We did not get to ask questions. We had to sit and get. In fact, we were discouraged from asking questions. As one school has gone through restructuring and another prepares to do so, researchers discovered differing perceptions among stakeholders about AC implementation, professional development, and the top down approach chosen by district administrators. Researcher referred to this as the disconnect between the various groups. As a result, a concern for the fidelity of implementation that the district desires may be compromised. Though district level administrators did not define fidelity, researchers interpreted fidelity to mean conforming to the AC curriculum and instructional strategies as prescribed by the AC model. Although administrators were concerned about AC fidelity, researchers were informed about other ongoing initiatives. Support Issues: Programs, Initiatives, and Assessments Teachers and coaches felt strongly that while they were expected to implement the Americas Choice program, there were too many existing programs and new initiatives teachers were expected to also execute simultaneously. The interviewees identified the following new and old non-negotiable programs: Americas Choice curriculum and workshop instructional model, AC assessments, Extreme Literacy, Cornell Notes, AVID (advancement via individual determination), cross-teaming plan time, CWC (class within a class), district pacing guides, district common assessments, 6-Trait writing, Explore testing, school climate survey, Cultural Proficiency, Quality Instruction Framework, MAP (measures of academic progress) tests, state required MTSS (multi-tiered systems of support), and Kansas State Assessments. Also, a new
32
language arts textbook adoption and accompanying classroom libraries were cited as additional implementation initiatives. Coaches were not able to help other teachers in the building as they had done in previous years because the coaches primary responsibility was now directed to Americas Choice. One coach said, Were spending a lot of time with America's Choice now and were not able to help all teachers with instruction. Another coach stated, Instead of losing anything, we have dumped America's Choice on topnow we have different test assessments. It's getting to be an awful heavy load for teachers. One teacher indicated the district had specific requirements for grading papers using the 6-Trait model, while Americas Choice required another protocol for grading, and consequently, she had to grade all writing papers twice. Guidance for teachers in how to integrate existing programs and new initiatives was requested many times. A teacher said, Thats why I suggest one person with the big picture because everybodys pushing and promoting everything. Another teacher said, I think theyre all valid activities, I just dont think weve had any idea of how to get them done in a timely way, in an equitable way. An administrator added that restructuring has also added stress, So, its not just the Americas Choice program, and the AVID, and the CWC classes, but on top of that, we are in restructuring this year, so that has increased the level of stress in the building exponentially. Teachers expressed they need time and support to implement yet another program. Give us time. Dont give us another program. Allow us to implement and carry it through. The district always adopts a new program before we can get comfortable with a [n existing] program. Another teacher said, In my professional opinion, we will have teacher burnout quicker than ever. Interviewees expressed a feeling of being overwhelmed with too many programs and initiatives while also implementing Americas Choice. Interviewees also
33
expressed frustration regarding a lack of AC curricular materials being available in a timely manner during startup. Support Issues: Availability of Materials As with any initiative, start up materials and resources are needed to aid in a smooth transition. This was not the case as reported by participants in this study. The level of frustration voiced by the teachers and building leader participants rang loud and clear as they explained to the researchers the absence of materials necessary to begin classroom instruction. They reported, The lack of materials has been a major headache for everybody, and Getting the materials has been a big thing and a major frustration for the teachers. The lack of material impacted teachers ability to prepare and teach their students and implement Americas Choice. With permission from Americas Choice, teachers copied needed materials in an effort to begin implementation in their classrooms. The AC Cluster leaders reported, For Wichita, getting the materials was delayed when ordering. As with any initiative, there may be some glitches to work through. Cluster leaders also indicated, At the time of training we had training materials, but we had more people participating in the training than we thought we were going to have However, once the materials were received, some participants stated they liked the curriculum; the curriculum was well organized, structured, and helped to move the teachers through the lesson planning. One teacher reported, You can look through their materials and find exactly what you are questioning, or interested in, or need more information on. Figures 2 and 3 show a comparison of the number of negative and positive comments regarding the availability of AC materials by school and according to different stakeholders. Mead teachers and Mead leadership team had three times as many negative comments as Truesdell.
34
Interview/Focus Group Respondents
AC Cluster Leaders Truesdell Teachers Mead Teachers Truesdell L- Team Mead L- Team Truesdell Admin Mead Admin 0 0
2 5 18 5 15
4 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Negative Comments about Materials Figure 2. The number of negative comments (n=49) about materials made by participants, and clustered according to stakeholder groups and buildings
AC Cluster Leaders Truesdell Teachers Mead Teachers Truesdell L-Team Mead L-Team Truesdell Admin Mead Admin 0 0 0 1 0 0
10
15
20
25
30
Number of Positive Comments about Materials Figure 3. The number of positive comments (n=10) about materials made by participants, and clustered according to stakeholder groups and buildings
35
The number of negative comments may also be attributed to restructuring issues at Mead, raising more questions that could be considered in an additional study. Support Issues: Implementation and Professional Development Building a reform support infrastructure at the district and school-level is necessary and important to successful implementation when focusing on school-level factors which lead to comprehensive school change and sustainability (Datnow, 2005). Interviews and focus groups questions included an attempt to determine perspectives on kind and quality of support related to professional development and implementation of the Americas Choice model, according to various stakeholders. A persons individual perspective and/or a groups perception of the amount of support one is receiving during implementation connects to the success of scale-up, particularly in areas of spread, depth and sustainability of the reform model (Coburn, 2003), as explained in the Introduction to this report. Distinct differences of support emerged when comparing administration and leadership team comments and perceptions with those of the teachers. The leadership teams comments about the implementation at Truesdell were more positive than in Mead. Americas Choice cluster leaders portrayed a very positive perception of the support they provided to teachers and to instructional coaches. Cluster leaders believed their primary responsibility was to provide support to a schools leadership team as they worked through the process of implementation. This type of support has become known as reform oriented professional development. It is designed to provide more in-depth engagement than traditional professional development and includes being mentored or coached by a trusted source, most necessary at the beginning of a CSR initiative when the reform effort demands much of teachers (Penuel, et al., 2007). Cluster leaders helped the leadership team support the instructional
36
coaches, who in turn provided support to the classroom teachers. It was the perception of cluster leaders that they worked side by side and shoulder to shoulder offering on-site support which they believed was different than other CSR models. They indicated that through classroom observations, modeling, and by giving regular feedback to teachers they were providing teachers the support they needed to appropriately move through the implementation process. The researchers interpretation was that cluster leaders and district administration believed this training the trainer model effectively supported teachers in this context. Teachers, however, were not as positive as AC cluster leaders, about the support they were getting from cluster leaders with implementation of the model. Teachers commonly indicated they had seen AC cluster leaders in their classrooms very rarely, and in some cases, reported they had never seen an AC cluster leader. Additionally, teachers indicated they had not been observed by cluster leaders at all, and only had one to two observations. When observed by a cluster leader, teachers indicated they had little to no feedback about the observation. A few comments by cluster leaders did suggest teachers should have more access to Americas Choice personnel and they saw the need to support or provide a little more support for those that are not as strong on implementation. District administration believed adequate AC support was provided to all stakeholder groups. The district level leaders were well supported by the AC company representatives, and had on-going opportunities to share perspectives with AC leaders and staff. However, this support was not necessarily available at the building and teacher level according to collected data. District administration saw a strategic system of support in place for teachers and implemented throughout the WPS organization through training and use of instructional, academic, and data coaches assigned to each building. District leaders also believed on-going
37
support was provided to teachers through professional development, instructional leaders, cluster leaders, and professional learning communities; support structures appeared to be in place. Because of the many layers of support they believed were already provided to teachers, it was administrators perceptions that implementation of Americas Choice was smooth. Yet teachers did not define support in the same way, and often commented about the lack of communication between stakeholder groups which caused them more work and anxiety, rather than providing teachers with individual or systemic support. Baum (2002) indicated CSR is often not successful because reformers do not provide the technical support required for teacher to educate students. He further explains that this lack of support psychologically creates unconscious anxiety in educators making it difficult for them to plan and deliver the new knowledge to students. Building level leadership at Truesdell perceived teachers had a great deal of support with implementation of Americas Choice, either through AC cluster leaders or through the coaching system already established in the district. A Truesdell leadership team member reported, We have our cluster leader who comes in and goes into our classes, and has started to have time to share what she sees, and she is kind of the expert in AC so she gets to debrief with the teachers and help them and tell them things they are doing great or help them reflect on the things they are doing great, and give them pointers on things they are not doing so well. Truesdell leadership team members believed it was their job to support teachers, reinforcing the district leaders belief that infrastructure was in place. Truesdell leadership indicated that AC cluster leaders provided adequate support to teachers. Mead leadership team members, in contrast, were much less positive about the support they received from cluster leaders. Mead leadership team members expected cluster leaders to be in the building more often and support individual teachers in a stronger way. Mead coaches
38
stated they were told cluster leaders would be moving here and they would be in our building all the time supporting us Whereas coaches admitted potential misconceptions, they wanted more modeling and feedback from observations by cluster leaders, rather than just isolated observations with no feedback. Mead instructional leaders believed, because of the number of first year teachers to the building, they didnt have enough time to get to them all and were spending their time outside of the regular school [hours] to support those teachers. Figures 4 and 5 depict a comparison of the number of negative and positive comments regarding the support for AC implementation by school and according to different stakeholders. Mead teachers and Mead leadership team expressed notably more negative comments than all other stakeholder groups. The number of negative responses may again be attributed to restructuring issues at Mead, raising more questions that could be considered in an additional study. Interview/Focus Group Respondents
Truesdell Teachers Mead Teachers Truesdell L-Team Mead L-Team Truesdell Admin Mead Admin 0 5 6 10 7 3
14 21
28
15
20
25
30
Number of Negative Comments about Support for AC Implementation Figure 4. The number of negative comments (n=79) about support for AC implementation clustered according to stakeholder groups and buildings, based on the transcribed data from interviews and focus groups 39
AC Cluster Leaders District Admin Truesdell Teachers Mead Teachers Truesdell L-Team Mead L-Team Truesdell Admin Mead Admin 0 1 5 1 2
5 19
7 17
15
10
15
20
25
30
Number of Positive Comments about Support for AC Implementation Figure 5. The number of positive comments (n=67) about support for AC implementation, clustered according to stakeholder groups and buildings, based on the transcribed data from interviews and focus groups Communication Disconnect The theme of communication disconnect emerged at various levels among the stakeholders. Teachers and leadership teams expressed their lack of understanding regarding the implementation of the AC initiative. In addition, they also lacked awareness of the districts future plans regarding Americas Choice. Teachers indicated the following, Were wondering where do we go with this next year? What is the plan? We have no idea. They also said, Its not cohesive across the district and there is still a lot of misunderstanding and unknown variables about implementation. While AC cluster leaders believed that communication between schools and AC was open and going smoothly, teachers reported frustration with the lack of scheduled visits from AC cluster leaders. One teacher stated, We have not had a lot of direct contact with our AC cluster leaders. 40
In an article, Organizational Theory Applied to School Reform: A Critical Analysis, Bonner, Koch and Langmeyer, (2004) reported that the interconnections through communication across all stakeholders groups are critical within a system to reach desired outcomes of an effective implementation. However, building level participants in this study emphasized there was a lack of consistent communication among stakeholder groups. Researchers analysis of data supported a sense of disconnection among stakeholders implementing AC model. This was apparent in comments made by classroom teachers, building administrators, and some leadership team members, but not evident in comments made by district administrators and AC cluster leaders. Throughout the research process, the lack of consistent communication continued to surface from teacher participants, while Americas choice cluster leaders and district administrators suggested clear, established methods of communications were present. Teachers frustration regarding the lack of contact and inconsistent scheduling with AC cluster leaders, in addition to their attempts to figuring out the process as they go, was reiterated in comments during the data collection process. Furthermore, it was apparent in other themes of this study that the strategic plan (whether formal or informal) for communication across stakeholder groups was inefficient. For example, as previously indicated, teachers did not perceive support in the same way as district administration. Teachers indicated the lack of communication between groups caused additional and unnecessary work, as well as anxiety about program implementation. Figure 6 and 7 show distinct differences in perceptions of stakeholders about communication and the apparent disconnect caused by communication issues. Only three positive comments were made by teachers about communication.
41
Truesdell Teachers Mead Teachers Truesdell L-Team Mead L-Team Truesdell Admin Mead Admin 0 4 5 10 15 20 6 1 14
21
25
25
30
Number of Negative Comments about Communication Figure 6. The number of negative comments (n=71) about communication, clustered according to stakeholder groups and buildings, emerging from interviews and focus groups
District Admin AC Cluster Leaders Truesdell Teachers Mead Teachers Truesdell L-Team Mead L-Team Truesdell Admin Mead Admin 0 0 0
1 2 3
2 1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Positive Comments about Communication
Figure 7. The number of positive comments (n=12) about communication clustered according stakeholder groups and buildings, based on interviews and focus group data
42
Early Successes The focus groups and interviews with teachers, coaches, administrators, and AC cluster leaders indicated there were early signs of success in the implementation of the Americas Choice program. The 25 Book Campaign was one of the most frequently mentioned successes. One teacher, when discussing the campaign, said, theyre just bubbling seeing some excitement with reading and an administrator stated, More students are reading literacy pieces. AC has encouraged reading more and were seeing more students with books. A small number of teachers made positive comments about the success of the workshop model. Teachers made comments such as, I help a lot more kids now; the walking around instead of just being at my deskthe ones who dont want to look like fools coming up for help are now getting the help they need. Coaches were more positive about the workshop model. One coach commented, Walking into one of those Americas Choice classrooms and seeing those kids pull from each other what theyve got and then being comfortable saying, Thats it! Thats it! I mean, they are actually working together; its different when you go into a non-Americas Choice classroom and you just dont see that. You see the kids working independently, not in groups. Another coach said, The kids are owning their answersand kids at every level. When you look at a reading classroom thats serving identified special education needs, those kids are getting up and presenting. Those kids are owning their work. Those kids are able to verbalize their answersthe high highs, the low lows, everyone in between. That is the biggest improvement I am seeing.
43
A principal brought to researchers attention an example of non-AC teachers who wanted to use the workshop model. The principal stated, There are some people who are ready and are like, I want to do workshop model now. So theyre dabbling in it and theyre playing in it. Some teachers indicated seeing a better attitude from students toward reading and writing, with one teacher stating, at the beginning, when they came in, they couldnt read for 15 minutes independently, and now they can. Im seeing improvement in what they are writing, and their comprehension and questioning. Another teacher said, I do see my kids attitude toward reading and writing as being better. Yet another teacher added, Its been really positive for all my kids, not just my top kids. Its really hitting those kids that we struggle with. Its awesome! Theyre writing a lot more. However, careful data analysis showed most positive comments about implementation successes came from district administrators and building leadership teams rather than teachers, as illustrated by some of the above quotes and Figure 8. The total number of comments referring to successful implementation was 124. However, 97 comments came from district administrators, building principals, coaches and cluster leaders, and only 27 of those comments were provided by teachers. There were 20 positive comments from Truesdell teachers where researchers interviewed 15 teachers, and only 7 positive comments from Mead where 11 teachers were interviewed. Figure 8 shows there were comments about early successes made by all stakeholder groups, with more comments made overall by the Truesdell staff. Survey Results Some participants provided positive narrative comments, indicating those who provided written responses had positive experiences with Americas Choice professional development. In responding to the survey, six out of fifteen Truesdell teachers agreed that AC professional
44
development met their needs, while nine of eleven Mead teachers agreed that it met their needs. Eight of fifteen Truesdell teachers agreed they learned practical instructional strategies, and eight of eleven Mead teachers agreed they learned practical instructional strategies.
District Admin
10 9 20 7 22 14 27 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Interview/Focus Group Responses
AC Cluster Leaders Truesdell Teachers Mead Teachers Truesdell L-Team Mead L-Team Truesdell Admin Mead Admin
Comments about Early Successes

Figure 8. Number of comments about beginning successes as reported by stakeholders during interviews and focus groups: 36 by Mead staff, 69 comments by Truesdell staff, and 19 comments by district administration and cluster leaders Survey responses indicated teachers believe teaching and learning changes when they have meaningful professional development experiences; when they learn practical instructional strategies; when they learn skills that make them more effective, more efficient, or more productive as a teacher; when they learn skills to meet various needs of all students; when professional development has a positive effect on student behavior; when new skills actively engage students in learning; and when they see a positive impact on student achievement. It appeared these responses set the stage for participants evaluation of AC professional development. Respondents indicated initial AC professional development was offered by 45
instructors who were knowledgeable and effective, and was generally a positive experience. The respondents also conveyed AC professional development was extremely important to building and district administrators, and somewhat important to themselves and to the Board of Education.
Teacher/Coach Survey Questions
Extremely important to parents Classroom management improved Student achievement increased Extremely important to my colleagues Achievement increased on assessments Students are involved in their own learning Learned new knowledge and skills Student confidence as learners improved Students more engaged in learning Concepts connected to prior knowledge Learned the theory behind the practice AC PD meets my needs
0 20 40 60
71 74 77 77 78 80 84 85 86 86 86 86
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Point Totals by Question Figure 9. Survey Questions Receiving the Lowest Points of 220 Possible Per Question However, survey responses were less positive about AC professional development meeting participants needs. Many respondents did not feel they learned new knowledge and skills, understood the theory behind the practice, or learned new concepts connected to prior knowledge. They did not recognize the professional development as extremely important by colleagues and parents. Most importantly, many did not believe AC professional development helped increase student achievement, engagement in learning, improved classroom management, achievement on assessments, or student confidence.
46
Site Observations Researchers performed twelve observations in ten classrooms. Observations were made in ramp-up and on grade level classes for math and reading at both schools and in all grade levels. Two of the twelve classroom observations were special education inclusion classrooms known as class within a class. One of the twelve was an English Language Learner classroom. Researchers also observed one leadership team meeting. Based on these observations, researchers reflections are described in the following paragraphs. During ten of the twelve classroom observations, researchers saw students engaged at various levels in the classroom activities. During two classroom observations, students were not engaged in activities and there were significant classroom management issues. It appeared that lack of materials and teacher preparation contributed to these issues. It is important to include that during a second observation of one classroom, researchers saw improved student management and engagement in the activity. It was not apparent to researchers that teachers were implementing Americas Choice instructional strategies or following the AC workshop model. Teachers may have been using strategies from previous and concurrent district initiatives that appear similar to AC, such as Kagan Cooperative Learning structures, Cornell Notes, AVID, Extreme Literacy, etc. While researchers observed classrooms, it was difficult to identify the rituals, routines and structures promoted by Americas Choice. Considering the short amount of time for observations, it is possible that researchers did not have an opportunity to capture these important elements (the rituals, routines and structures) of AC model. Researchers were informed by administrators and coaches the math workshop model would begin with bell work designed to activate prior knowledge. Bell work should occur during
47
the first five to seven minutes of class. Following that, students should be given independent work for approximately 30-40 minutes and this period was called struggle time. Teachers instructed during closing when students shared answers and worked to correct errors. However, when researchers observed one teacher, the teacher began class by announcing the students would be working on skills. All of the students were working from a ramp-up math book. The teacher walked around the room checking on student work. After a couple of minutes, the teacher asked a student to read the goal for the day. A ruler was drawn on the board and she asked, What do you see? Questions were asked so students had to explain their answers such as Predict how many you think there are. After that short exercise, the teacher asked students to read along as the teacher read the introduction to the lesson from the AC manual. Approximately 80% of the students appeared to be reading along. After the lesson introduction was completed in 15 minutes, students began work time. During work time, students were to work individually for a few minutes, though few did, and after ten minutes it was announced they were to work in pairs. Based on the researchers understanding of the workshop model, there appeared to be no closing. An on grade level language arts classroom was observed that was an inclusion class for special education students (class within a class). There was no special arrangement in this classroom as it was held in a science lab and it was full. One teacher was in the front of the classroom playing a book on tape as students listened. Only four to five students were reading the book along with the tape. Students also had a worksheet and the teacher played the tape for a period of time, stopped it and asked questions, while students were to answer the questions on a worksheet.
48
There was a variance in efficacy among literacy classrooms observed. One teacher passed out candy when students answered questions correctly. Some teachers asked students to predict what would happen in the stories being read. Students in one class understood the rituals and routines well, and easily moved from one activity to another. Students worked out problems on large sheets that were put on the front board and discussed at the end of class in a math classroom. Groups of students were asked to explain how they solved the problems and to further explain why they chose to solve the problem in that way. AC classes were observed at the beginning, middle and end of class. A building leadership team meeting was observed. When researchers met with principals at the beginning of the study, they were provided information on the makeup of the leadership teams. Researchers were told most leadership team meetings focused a major portion of their time on strategies, professional development, and implementation of Americas Choice. Seven of the nine leadership team members showed up at some time during the meeting observed. During the meeting, there was no discussion of Americas Choice. People came into the room late and left early and the principal attended for only a short time. An assistant principal complained about teachers unreasonable expectations and lack of empathy for students. Data was presented by a coach indicating teachers perceptions of professional development and there was some discussion on past and future professional development specific to other district and building initiatives, not Americas Choice.
Discussion and Implications

Wichita Public Schools (WPS) administrators decided to implement the federally approved comprehensive school reform program, Americas Choice, due to restructuring requirements in the NCLB legislation for middle schools not making adequate yearly progress on 49
state assessment data. At the request of the WPS Chief Academic Officer, Dr. Denise Seguine, the Wichita State University field study team of four doctoral students and two faculty members carried out a research study in two of the middle schools, Truesdell and Mead. Drawing on the theoretical literature regarding CSR implementation and scale-up, researchers developed a framework for assessing initial implementation of the externally provided CSR model. The framework was layered because it elicited perceptions about CSR implementation at number of levels: teachers, school leaderships, district administrators and AC cluster leaders levels. In terms of data collection, the framework inquired multiple perspectives in a variety of ways; it included qualitative assessment of teacher attitudes toward program implementation from a diversity of perspectives. These perspectives included teacher focus groups and interviews of teacher coaches, classroom observations, and a teacher survey of the initial professional development of the CSR model. Researchers used four major research questions to guide the study, and collaboratively analyzed seven themes emerging from collected data: support, successes, communication, top-down, materials, programs and initiatives, and restructuring. Findings relevant to these themes are presented in Data Analysis section. Restructuring. Many districts choose to implement externally provided comprehensive school reform models when the restructuring of the curriculum and instruction is needed (Cawelti, 1995). However, a lack of knowledge about restructuring and reform programs can increase the anxiety level of teachers and administrators (Baum, 2002). The Mead Middle School culture changed significantly in 2008; most of the teaching staff and all of the administration were new to the building as a result of restructuring. The challenge of developing a shared culture after restructuring and while implementing AC might provide an explanation for some of the findings related to the teachers attitudes and initial successes. Although Truesdell is
50
currently undergoing restructuring, it appeared that the implementation of AC is proceeding somewhat smoothly, or at least somewhat better than in the Mead middle school. Top-Down Initiatives. Reform designers and facilitators must see teachers as an asset and as collaborators rather than professionals required to simply implement the reform (Hughes, 1997). Reform efforts must be guided and supported by building and district leadership, with input from all stakeholders. Current research suggested collaborative leadership, distributive leadership, shared decision making, and empowerment of teacher leaders are all related management practices that are considered more desirable than top down initiatives (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000). While it appeared that the necessary structure for implementation was in place, there were differing perceptions among stakeholders about AC implementation, professional development, and the top down approach chosen by district administrators. Researchers referred to this as the communication disconnect among the various groups. As a result, an expectation for the fidelity of implementation the district desires might be compromised. Specifically scale-up, spread, and depth of the reform model implementation may be impeded. Cultural and organizational change. Building a support infrastructure at the district and school-level was necessary and important for successful AC implementation when focusing on school-level factors which lead to comprehensive school change and sustainability (Datnow, 2005). These kinds of innovations point to the need for careful consideration of organizational culture, contextual factors and adaptations to the local conditions emergent design (Cavallo, 2000). WPS administrators believed the Americas Choice calendar for the school year was laid out, well understood, and followed. District level administrators believed they were providing all the support schools needed. Many teachers, however, believed they had not received adequate
51
support, nor received consistent AC information and support. Organizations have to take time to identify and clearly articulate desired outcomes and existing or potential dissatisfaction (Bonner, et al., 2004). One teacher felt a district level administrator discouraged them from asking questions during the initial training, which definitely may suppress opportunities for relating new information to prior knowledge, a fundamental principle of learning (National Research Council, 2000). The teacher stated, We did not get to ask questions. We had to sit and get. In fact, we were discouraged from asking questions. This also relates to the challenge of integrating existing initiatives and programs into the AC model. Professional Development. Effective professional development is at the center of reform. Well-implemented reform models tend to have strong professional development and training components, as well as effective follow-up to address teacher specific problems during implementation (Borman, et al., 2003). Teachers, however, commonly indicated they had seen AC cluster leaders in their classrooms very rarely, and in some cases, reported they had never seen an AC cluster leader. Additionally, teachers indicated they had not been observed by cluster leaders at all or only had one to two observations. When observed by a cluster leader, teachers indicated they had little to no feedback about the observation. A few comments by cluster leaders did suggest teachers should have more access to Americas Choice personnel and they saw the need to support or provide a little more support for those that are not as strong on implementation. On one hand, the structure of trainer of trainers seemed to be in place, while on the other hand there was an expectation and promise of AC leaders being present in the classrooms, modeling, observing and providing feedback. Effective programs provide opportunities for every teacher to receive elbow-to-elbow support and coaching during the
52
difficult phase of implementation of a new program (Martin, McCaughtry, Hodges-Kulinna, & Cothran, 2008). Professional development that successfully influences teacher self-efficacy includes a focus on new content, active learning strategies, follow-up support, emphasis on teacher needs, the use of exemplary models, and communication about and connections between the change and larger goals and objectives (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Guskey, 2003; Haycock, 1998; Ingersoll, 2003; Sparks, 2002). Successful professional development requires follow-up training, opportunities for feedback on teaching, support from school leadership, opportunities for collaboration, and opportunities for shared examination of student work. The quality and quantity of follow-up professional development affects the extent to which teachers report a sense of increased knowledge (Ingvarson, Meiers & Beavis, 2005). Cluster leaders helped the leadership team support the instructional coaches, who in turn provided support to the classroom teachers. It was the perception of cluster leaders that they worked side by side and shoulder to shoulder offering on-site support which they believed was different and better than other CSR models. However it seemed to be an expectation by teachers that AC cluster leaders would be present more in the classrooms at instructional times. A coach believed, teachers wanted more modeling and feedback from observations by cluster leaders; and that coaches didnt have enough time to get to them all and were spending their time outside of the regular school [hours] to support those teachers. Implementation and scale-up of a CSR model is usually slow and challenging. Desimone (2002) identifies the importance of evaluation over time in any reform effort. Capturing depth requires assessment over time and should include in-depth interviewing and ample opportunities for classroom observation (Coburn, 2003; Datnow, 2005; Malen & Rice, 2004). A persons
53
individual perspective and/or a groups perception of the amount of support one is receiving during implementation connects to the success of scale-up, particularly in areas of spread, depth and sustainability of the reform model (Coburn, 2003). Distinct differences of support emerged when comparing administration and leadership team comments and perceptions with those of the teachers. The leadership teams comments at Truesdell were more positive about the implementation than at Mead. Availability of materials. Professional development that successfully influences teacher self-efficacy includes a focus on new content, active learning strategies, follow-up support, emphasis on teacher needs, the use of exemplary models, and communication about and connections between the change and larger goals and objectives (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Guskey, 2003; Haycock, 1998; Ingersoll, 2003; Nielsen, et al., 2008; Sparks, 2002). As with any initiative, start up materials and resources are a major teacher need to aid in a smooth transition. This was not the case as reported by participants in this study. The level of frustration voiced by the teachers and building leader participants rang loud and clear as they explained to the researchers the absence of materials necessary to begin classroom instruction. They reported, The lack of materials has been a major headache for everybody, and Getting the materials has been a big thing and a major frustration for the teachers. The lack of material caused tension with the teachers, and impacted teachers ability to prepare, teach, and implement Americas Choice with depth. The shift in ownership necessary for effective CSR implementation was also impeded by the lack of timely availability of materials. Programs, initiatives, and assessments. As school system stakeholders seek to identify the appropriate model of reform, it is imperative they consider the influence and demands that change creates for teachers and administrators (Marx, Hunter, & Johnson, 1997). CSR focuses
54
on reorganizing and revitalizing entire schools rather than on implementing a number of specialized, and potentially uncoordinated, school improvement initiatives (Borman, et al., 2003, pp. 126-127). Teachers and coaches felt strongly that while they were expected to implement the Americas Choice program, there were too many existing programs and new initiatives teachers were also expected to execute simultaneously. Coaches expressed frustration at not being able to help other teachers in the building as they had previously, because the coaches primary responsibility was now directed to Americas Choice. Teachers identified a number of new and/or non-negotiable programs they were to implement alongside Americas Choice. Additionally, guidance for teachers in how to integrate existing programs and new initiatives was requested many times. It is important for systems to recognize that time is a key factor for the teachers (Bonner, et al., 2004). A teacher said, Give us time. Dont give us another program. Allow us to implement and carry it through. The district always adopts a new program before we can get comfortable with a [n existing] program. Communication. The theme of a communication disconnect emerged at various levels among the stakeholders. Teachers and leadership teams expressed their lack of understanding regarding the implementation of the AC initiative. In addition, they also lacked awareness of the districts future plans regarding Americas Choice. For effective implementation, specified goals and established lines of communication are critical within a system to reach desired outcomes (Bonner, et al., 2004). Datnow (2005) suggested building a reform support infrastructure at the district and school-level is necessary and important to successful implementation when focusing on school-level factors which lead to comprehensive school change and sustainability. Although researchers found that WPS had a support infrastructure in place, building level participants emphasized there was a lack of consistent communication among stakeholder groups.
55
Researchers analysis of data supported a communication disconnection within Americas Choice implementation. Early Successes. The focus groups and interviews with teachers, coaches, administrators, and AC cluster leaders indicated there were early signs of success in the implementation of the Americas Choice program. The 25 Book Campaign was one of the most frequently mentioned successes. A small number of teachers made positive comments about the success of the workshop model. Some teachers indicated seeing a better attitude from students toward reading and writing. A teacher said, . . . Im seeing improvement in what they are writing, and their comprehension and questioning. However, careful data analysis showed most positive comments about implementation successes came from district administrators and building leadership teams rather than teachers. Researchers found that more successes were noted at Truesdell than at Mead. Given the nature of local conditions that influence professional development context, changes in student learning may take longer to become evident in one school than another (Ingvarson, Meiers & Beavis, 2005). Additional Supports Needed for Effective Implementation. Although researchers found there were some important early successes, the research question, What additional supports, if any, are needed for effective implementation? elicited many responses from participants, indicating potential for some tensions between teachers and other stakeholders engaged in the AC implementation. Similar tensions have been reported in existing literature, especially in the initial steps of organizational change. Managing constructively such tensions may significantly contribute to successful spread, scale-up, and sustainability of the program implementation (Bonner, et al., 2004). Time is always a key factor, timely availability of resources, just in time
56
professional development and ongoing support with feedback have been mentioned by many participants as well as in the relevant literature (e.g.,Argyris, 1993; Argyris & Schn, 1996).
Conclusions: Emerging Questions

As in good learning, ongoing attention needs to be given to prior knowledge and contextual factors. This leads to the following questions: What is Wichita Public Schools leadership operational definition of "implementing AC with fidelity"? Is the intent to replicate precisely the AC model or is the intent to facilitate a process of an emergent design? Emergent design (Cavallo, 2000) in the context of Americas Choice implementation would require consideration of the following components: Initiatives and assessments - How WPS leadership can synergize the number of district and school initiatives and student assessments, in a constructive and creative manner, for more efficient instructional practices? Support and feedback - Observing is a one way road if the feedback is not provided: What kind and frequency of feedback do teachers need for AC implementation to be successful? If all instruction is not AC based i.e., if other initiatives are integrated then who is the most competent to facilitate professional development integration modeling for teachers? Communication - How can communication among all stakeholder groups be more direct and transparent, to share successes and plan how to constructively overcome frustrations?
57
References
Americas Choice (2009). Americas Choice. Retrieved September 2009, from http://www.americaschoice.org/ Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action. A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Baum, H. S. (2002). Why school systems resist reform: A psychoanalytic perspective. Human Relations, 55(2), 173-198. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Bonner, M., Koch, T., & Langmeyer, D. (2004). Organizational theory applied to school reform: A critical analysis. School Psychology International, 25(4), 455-471. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125230. Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A Longitudinal Study of Teacher Change: What Makes Professional Development Effective? Report of the Second Year of the Study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1-27. Cavallo, D. (2000). Emergent design and learning environments: Building on indigenous knowledge. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3), 768-781. Cawelti, G. (1995). High school restructuring: What are the critical elements? Nassp Bulletin, 79(569), 1-15. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32, 3-12.
58
Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298-339. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative research and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Crissman, C., Spires, H. A., Pope, C. A., & Beal, C. (2000). Creating pathways of change: one school begins the journey. Urban Education, 35(1), 104-120. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153. Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students at Risk, 5 (1 & 2). Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479. Elementary and secondary education act, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq 1001 (1965). Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
59
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4-20. Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Robyn, A., & Bugliari, D. (2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practice: An example from mathematics and science. Educational and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 1-29. Harris, A. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: Leading or misleading? Management in Education, 16(5), 10-13. Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters....a lot. The Education Trust, 3(2), 3-14. Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. F. (1997). Active interviewing. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 113-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hughes, M. (1997). The national curriculum in England and Wales: A lesson in externally imposed reform? Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(2), 183-197. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). To close the gap, quality counts. Education Week, Jan 7(7-18). Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 1-26. Krueger, R. A. (1998a). Developing questions for focus groups (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krueger, R. A. (1998b). Moderating focus groups (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus Groups (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers: Motivation to implement accountability policies. 38(1), 94-119. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
60
Lowden, C. (2005). Evaluating the impact of professional development. The Journal of Research in Professional Learning. Retrieved from http://nsdc.org/library/publications/research/lowden.pdf Lundblad, J. P. (2003). A review and critique of rogers' diffusion of innovation theory as it applies to organizations. Organization Development Journal, 21(4), 50-64. Malen, B., & Rice, J. K. (2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18(5), 631-660. Marshak, D. (1996). The Emotional experience of school change: Resistance, loss, and grief. [Other]. Nassp Bulletin, 80(577), 72-77. Marx, G. E., Hunter, D. D., & Johnson, C. D. (1997). Increasing Student Achievement: An Urban District's Search for Success (Journal Article). Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mertens, S., & Yarger, S. J. (1988). Teaching as a profession: Leadership, empowerment, and involvement. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(32). Mintrop, H., Gamson, D., McLaughlin, M., Wong, P. L., & Oberman, I. (2001). Design cooperation: Strengthening the link between organizational and instructional change in schools. Educational Policy, 15(4), 520-546. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(October 10, 2008). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083427 Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A. L., & Staab, P. T. (2008). Teachers' reflections of professional change during a literacy-reform initiative. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(5), 1288-1303. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
61
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958. Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ruscoe, G. C., & Miller, S. K. (1991). The dilemmas of change: Lessons from a school improvement effort gone awry. Science Communication, 170-192. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH National Staff Development Council. Sparks, D. (2007). Leading for results: Transforming teaching, learning, and relationships in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Streshly, W. (1992). Staff involvement in a site-based curriculum development model. NASSP Bulletin, 76, 56-63. U.S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat.1425. Retrieved September 27, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html Vanderslice, S. (2000). Listening to Everett Rogers: Diffusion of innovations and WAC. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines: A Forum for Debates Concerning Interdisciplinary, Situated Discourse Communities, and Writing Across the Curriculum Programs, 4(1), 22-29. Wehlage, G., Smith, G., & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring urban schools: The new futures experience. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 51-93. Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it? . NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249.
62
Appendix A: Semi-structured Interview Questions

1. Tell us about the Americas Choice Program 2. Tell us about the Americas Choice professional development. 3. Tell us about teachers attitudes toward professional development of Americas Choice. 4. Tell us about implementation of the Americas Choice Program. 5. Tell us about teachers attitudes toward Americas Choice implementation? 6. What do you perceive influences the extent to which teachers are implementing Americas Choice as it is intended? 7. How has building leadership been involved in the Americas Choice implementation process? 8. What improvement in students learning, if any, have you seen from the implementation of Americas Choice? Please provide some examples. 9. How has Americas Choice professional development influenced instructional practices? 10. Tell us about the kinds of support needed for effective implementation of Americas Choice? 11. Is there anything else you think we should know about the implementation of Americas Choice?
63
Appendix B: Focus Group Questions
1. Tell us about the Americas Choice Program 2. Tell us about the Americas Choice professional development youve received. 3. Tell us about implementation of the Americas Choice Program. 4. How has building leadership been involved in the Americas Choice implementation process? 5. What improvement in students learning, if any, have you seen from the implementation of Americas Choice? Please provide some examples. 6. How has Americas Choice professional development influenced your instructional practices? 7. Tell us about the kinds of support needed for effective implementation? 8. Is there anything else you think we should know about the implementation of Americas Choice?
64
Appendix C: Survey Questions

Field Study: Americas Choice Implementation in Wichita Public Schools
Protocol: The following survey* about professional development is validated in the literature in the form available below. While completing this survey, please focus on your experience with Americas Choice professional development that you received this past summer, and answer question in the spirit of that professional development. Thank you very much for completing this survey and participating in our study. * Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51. Section I: Please tell me about yourself: Total Number of Years Teaching Experience (including this year) 1-3 4 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30 + Total Number of Years Teaching in this school district (including this year) 1-3 4 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30 + Grade level Currently Teaching: (check all that apply) 6th 7th 8th Subject or Content Area: _____________________________________
Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree
Professional development in my school district: 1. 2. Meets my needs Is nonthreatening
3. Is offered at a time convenient for me 4. Is time well-spent 5. Is offered by instructors who are knowlegeabe & effective 6. Is generally a positive experience Because of professional development, I have learned: 7. Practical instructional strategies 8. New knowledge and skills 9. The theory behind the practice 10. New concepts connected to prior knowledge Professional development in my school district: 11. Has a positive impact on the organization as a whole 12. Has a positive impact on the culture & climate in my school 13. Is often conducted during the school day 14. Leads to in-service credit or a stipend 15. Is recognized as being extremely important by the following: Board of Education District Administrators Building Administrators My Colleagues Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree
65
Myself Parents After I have participated in a professional development experience, I usually: 16. Go back and practice with new instructional strategies 17. Implement/apply new instructional practices 18. Become committed to new teaching strategies 19. Note positive changes in my teaching 20. Make long-lasting changes in my teaching Generally, my professional development impacts my students inthe following ways: 21. It makes a positive impact on my students learning 22. Student achievement increases 23. Students are more engaged in learning 24. Students are involved in their own learning 25. Classroom management has improved 26. Go to the next question 27. Student achievement has risen on teacher or classroom assessments 28. Students confidence as learners has improved My beliefs about teaching and learning change when: 29. The experience was meaningful to me 30. I learned practical instructional strategies 31. My teaching becomes more effective 32. I am more efficient or productive as a teacher 33. Ive enjoyed the experience 34. I become empowered in new ways 35. I have learned to meet the various needs of all of my students 36. It has a positive impact on student behavior 37. My students become more actively engaged in learning 38. I can see a positive impact on student achievement 39. Go to the next question 40. I receive positive feedback from my supervisor 42. My efforts are recognized 43. I feel proud of my accomplishments 44. It connects to district needs and overall school improvement Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
Agree
No Opinion
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Note. Likert scale: 5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = no opinion; 2 = disagree; 1 = strongly disagree.
66

Americas Choice Final Proposal 5-19-09

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Americas Choice Final Proposal 5-19-09

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Americas Choice Reform Model: Teacher Attitudes toward Implementation

Wichita State University

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Literature Review: Comprehensive School Reform

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Support Successes 124 94 94 78 34 33

Communication Top Down Materials Too Many Programs Restructuring

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Interview/Focus Group Respondents

Interview/Focus Group Respondents

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Interview/Focus Group Respondents

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Interview/Focus Group Respondents

Interview/Focus Group Respondents

Number of Positive Comments about Communication

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Interview/Focus Group Responses

Comments about Early Successes

Americas Choice Implementation

Teacher/Coach Survey Questions

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation

Americas Choice Implementation