Promoting A Collaborative Professional Culture in Three Elementary Schools That Have Beaten The Odds

Promoting a Collaborative Professional Culture in Three Elementary Schools That Have Beaten
the Odds
Author(s): David Strahan
Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 127-146
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202983 .
Accessed: 19/07/2014 00:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Elementary School Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.107 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:36:21 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Promoting
a
Collaborative
Professional Culture
in Three
Elementary
Schools That Have
Beaten the Odds
David Strahan
University of
North Carolina at Greensboro
The
Elementary
School
Journal
Volume
104,
Number 2
o
2003
by
The
University
of
Chicago.
All
rights
reserved.
0013-5984/2004/10402-0003$05.00
Abstract
This
3-year study
examined the
dynamics
of
school culture in 3
elementary
schools that have
beaten the odds in
improving
low-income and
minority
student achievement. From 1997 to
2002,
student scores on state achievement tests
rose from less than 50%
proficient
to more than
75%
proficient
at these 3 schools. Research teams
constructed case studies
by collecting
demo-
graphic
and achievement
data,
interviewing
teachers and
administrators,
and
observing
les-
sons and
meetings
at each school. This
study
re-
examined data from these 3
original
case studies
to
explore
the
professional
culture at these
schools.
Analysis
of 51
original
interviews and
28 new interviews indicated that
personnel
at
these schools
reported developing supportive
cultures that enabled
participants
to coordinate
efforts to
improve
instruction and
strengthen
professional learning
communities. The central
dynamic
in this
development
was "data-directed
dialogue," purposeful
conversations,
guided by
formal assessment and informal
observation,
that connected the
ways
adults and students
cared for each other and that
provided energy
to
sustain their efforts. These case studies describe
how this
dynamic shaped
reform at these schools
and
suggest
a framework for
studying
and
sup-
porting
reforms.
The
biggest change
over the last 3
years
has been our concentration on what the
children can do
academically,
not what
they
do behavior wise. We have turned
our attention
away
from the
things
that
students were
doing wrong
and turned
our attention to those
things
that will
cause us to make
progress.
And those
things
are the academic
accomplish-
ments of the students. Our students feel
good
about themselves now because
they
are
achieving.
(Teacher
at North El-
ementary
School)
Systematic
efforts to advance
learning
and
teaching
have become
part
of the fabric of
128 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
JOURNAL
education in recent
years.
In
response
to
state and national
mandates,
almost
every
school is
engaged
in some
type
of reform.
Working
with teachers and administrators
as
they
address these
initiatives,
researchers
have identified a
growing
number of issues
that contribute to the
complexity
of reform
(Bryk, Sebring,
Kerbow, Rollow,
&
Easton,
1998;
Earl &
Lee, 1998; Fullan, 1999;
Langer,
2000; Wolf, Borko, Elliot,
&
McIver, 2000).
These
reports
document the contextual na-
ture of school
improvement
and the chal-
lenges
inherent in
exploring
school culture.
Understanding
the
dynamics
of school
reform is the
goal
of the North Carolina
Lighthouse Project.
In the
spring
of
2000,
a
team of researchers identified three elemen-
tary
schools with a
history
of
high perfor-
mance on statewide achievement tests that
also served students who had not tradition-
ally
scored well on such measures. At each
of these
schools,
more than two-thirds of
students
qualify
for free and
reduced-price
lunch,
a
proxy
for
poverty.
More than three-
fourths of students are members of an eth-
nic
minority,
and almost one-fifth
speak
En-
glish
as a second
language.
In
1997,
fewer
than half the students at these schools
scored at or above
grade
level on the North
Carolina End-of-Grade
(EOG)
tests. Since
then,
their
progress
has been
dramatic,
as
illustrated in Table 1.
Over a
3-year period,
researchers con-
structed case studies of the
ways
that these
three
elementary
schools
promoted
achieve-
ment. In this
investigation,
I
reanalyzed
data
from those case studies and conducted new
interviews to examine the role that increas-
ingly
collaborative
professional
cultures
played
in
promoting
instructional im-
provement
at these three schools.
School Culture and
Accomplishment
As schools scramble to meet the often-
stringent
mandates of
high-stakes testing,
researchers have
attempted
to
identify
the
most
important
factors in
creating
climates
for
learning.
A
growing
number of studies
have
provided
rich
descriptions
of schools
that
promote
student achievement
(Langer,
2000;
Louis &
Kruse, 1995;
Newmann &
Wehlage,
1995;
Wolfe et
al., 2000). As Fullan
(1999)
suggested,
the
pictures
that have
emerged
from these studies are
fairly
con-
sistent. One characteristic of successful
schools is that teachers work collabora-
tively.
As
they
do
so,
they develop stronger
instructional
strategies,
and these
strategies
enhance student achievement. At the same
time,
teachers
develop
a
stronger profes-
sional
community, enabling
them to
pro-
vide even more social
support
for
learning.
This
"spiral
of reform
activity"
links
ongo-
ing
assessment and instructional
improve-
ment to enhance student
accomplishment
(Fullan, 1999,
p.
34).
From their
study
of school reform in
Chicago, Bryk
et al.
(1998)
identified a set
of salient features of successful schools that
represent
the
findings
from
many
of these
studies:
engagement
of
parents
and com-
munity
resources,
access to new
ideas,
professional community, internalizing
re-
sponsibility
for
change,
and
strategic
edu-
cational
planning (working
toward coher-
ence).
Wolf et al.
(2000)
found similar
features in their case
study
of schools in
Kentucky
that have been successful in re-
TABLE 1.
Percentage
of
Third, Fourth,
and Fifth Graders at or above
Grade Level in
Reading
and Math
School 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Archer 49.4 55.8 60.7 64.7 71.6 74.0
Hunter 44.6 56.5 63.7 70.1 75.3 81.5
North 44.7 54.0 58.1 62.9 65.2 71.5
Average
46.2 55.4 60.8 65.9 70.7 75.6
NOVEMBER 2003
COLLABORATIVE CULTURE 129
form.
They
concluded that successful
change
efforts occurred "in a
larger
web of connec-
tion and are
dependent
on their
[teachers']
collaborative and
consistently positive
stance toward
learning
as well as their
principal's leadership" (p.
349).
In successful
schools,
these shared be-
liefs are often intertwined with a set of
shared
practices
that link the social
context,
the affective dimensions of
learning,
with
the academic dimensions of
performance.
In their
investigation
of successful schools
in the Child
Development Project,
Lewis,
Schaps,
and Watson
(1996)
identified five
principles
of
practice
that created class-
rooms with
optimal
academic and affective
characteristics:
warm,
supportive,
stable re-
lationships;
constructive
learning; impor-
tant,
challenging
curricula;
intrinsic moti-
vation;
and attention to social and ethical
dimensions of
learning.
Their data affirmed
the interrelation between academic and so-
cial
objectives
and documented
ways
that
caring
classrooms could also be
highly
ac-
ademic.
They
concluded that it was
impos-
sible to
separate
affective and academic di-
mensions of
learning.
School Professional Culture
These features underscore the
importance
of what
Hargreaves
(1997)
called "cultures
of collaboration
among
teachers." Har-
greaves
noted that successful schools en-
courage
teacher
risk-taking, learning
from
errors,
and
sharing
of
good
ideas in
ways
that lead to increased
self-efficacy, higher
expectations,
and
improved learning. Spil-
lane's
(1999)
longitudinal study
of math
and science reform initiatives showed that
teachers who were most successful in im-
proving
instruction
engaged
in
ongoing
de-
liberations with
colleagues
that
helped
them translate new ideas into
practice.
Cob-
urn's (2001)
study
of the
ways
that elemen-
tary
teachers
implemented
reforms in read-
ing
instruction
emphasized
that teachers
attempted
to make sense of reforms
during
their discussions with
colleagues.
Teachers
in her
study
coconstructed their under-
standing
of innovations in both formal and
informal conversations. These conversa-
tions
shaped
the
ways they
decided which
ideas to
pursue
and how
they negotiated
reform in the classroom.
Based on these studies and
others,
Pe-
terson and Deal
(2002)
described school cul-
ture as the
key
to
productivity, noting
that
"teachers and students are more
likely
to
succeed in a culture that fosters hard
work,
commitment to valued
ends,
an attention to
problem solving,
and a focus on
learning
for
all students"
(p.
11).
By learning
more about
school
culture,
researchers can
begin
to un-
derstand the human
dynamics
that nurture
and sustain
meaningful changes
in
learning
and
teaching.
Based on his review of re-
search on these
dynamics,
Wolcott
(1999)
defined culture as how
people
conduct their
lives and the beliefs related to their behav-
ior. Peterson and Deal
(2002)
identified
three
key
elements in the
study
of culture:
(a)
values-the standards set for what is
"good,"
(b)
beliefs and
assumptions--sys-
tems of
perceptions
that
guide
behavior,
and
(c)
norms-unstated rules that staff
and students are
supposed
to follow.
Langer's
(2000)
longitudinal
case stud-
ies of teachers whose students were "beat-
ing
the odds" in
literacy suggested
that a
critical
aspect
of school culture is the extent
to which teachers create a
professional
learning community.
In this
5-year study
conducted with 44 teachers in 25
schools,
Langer
found that
key
characteristics of suc-
cessful schools were
highly organized,
con-
nected,
and overt efforts to increase student
performance;
coordinated efforts
by
teach-
ers and administrators to
identify
needs,
to
investigate
and
develop strategies
for im-
provement;
and site-based staff
develop-
ment initiatives
designed
to
help
teachers
learn to
incorporate
the new
practices
into
their
daily
routines. These
professional
de-
velopment
efforts
encouraged
a
stronger
sense of
agency among teachers, the shared
belief that
they
could
improve
achievement.
A useful means of
understanding
how
communities affect
JOURNAL
the culture of a school is the construct of
"collective
efficacy,"
defined
by
Goddard,
Hoy,
and
Hoy
(2000)
as school staff's beliefs
that
they
can work
collaboratively
to
bring
about
change.
These beliefs
emerge
over
time from the shared
perceptions
of teach-
ers and
shape
the normative environment
of the school. This
process
occurs as teach-
ers discuss their work with each other. As
teachers hear about their
colleagues'
suc-
cesses as well as those of other
schools,
they
incorporate
these into their beliefs in
posi-
tive outcomes. Teachers share these stories
in formal
settings,
such as staff
develop-
ment work
sessions,
and in informal set-
tings,
such as the teachers'
lounge
or hall-
way.
When these conversations are
positive
and
persuasive,
the culture of the school
grows
more
optimistic
and
encouraging.
These studies have documented the
powerful
role of
com-
munities in school reform. Research
reports
have
suggested
that a
recurring spiral
of re-
form activities characterizes
many
success-
ful initiatives: teachers work
collaboratively
to
identify priorities
for school
improve-
ment and initiate conversations about in-
struction. As
they
do
so,
they target
areas
for instructional
improvement
and coordi-
nate their efforts to
implement
shared in-
structional
strategies.
These coordinated ef-
forts enhance student achievement and
strengthen
the
com-
munity. Consequently,
the school
provides
more social
support
for
learning;
school cul-
ture
grows
more
collaborative;
and teachers
develop stronger
collective
efficacy.
These
descriptors provide
a framework
for
understanding
school reform.
They
do
not, however,
capture
the
dynamics
of re-
form. Fullan
(1999)
argued
that
insights
from
many
cross-sectional research
reports
are limited because
they
are based on
schools that have
already implemented
reforms and thus do not describe the
pro-
cess of
change. Somehow, in successful
schools, teachers and administrators ac-
complish
a
productive
blend of
"urgency-
agency-energy"
(Earl & Lee, 1998).
They
recognize
that some needs are more
urgent
than
others,
accept responsibility
for ad-
dressing
those
needs,
and draw on shared
sources of
energy
to take action. Fullan
(1999)
used the term
"change
forces" to de-
scribe the
underlying
moral,
political,
and
intellectual
powers necessary
to fuel suc-
cessful reform.
The North Carolina
Lighthouse
Schools
Study
Using
this framework for
analyzing
the
dy-
namics of school
reform,
this
study
ex-
plored ways
in which teachers and admin-
istrators
strengthened
the
power
of the
learning
communities in their schools over
3
years. During
the first
year
of this inves-
tigation,
a research team from the Center for
School
Accountability,
Staff
Development,
and Teacher
Quality
at the
University
of
North Carolina at Greensboro
(UNCG)
con-
structed case studies of three
elementary
schools whose students had made dramatic
gains
in achievement. Researchers exam-
ined archival data from the schools and con-
ducted site visits to
identify
some of the rea-
sons
why
these schools were successful. In
interviews,
participants reported
three ma-
jor ways
in which
they improved
student
achievement: (a)
concentrating
instruction
on student
performance,
(b)
creating
invit-
ing
school
climates,
and
(c)
guiding
reform
through energetic leadership
(Strahan
&
Ware, 2001).
Participants provided compel-
ling
illustrations of how these
changes
transformed their schools from
places
where failure was often
expected
to
places
where
everyone
now
expects
to achieve.
In the second
year
of the North Carolina
Lighthouse study,
teams of researchers con-
ducted observations and interviews to iden-
tify
instructional
practices
that enact these
general changes
(Strahan, 2002).
The result-
ing
case studies documented seven addi-
tional
things
that teachers and administra-
tors
reported doing
to achieve success:
defining
success
comprehensively, building
classroom
learning communities, designing
lessons that
engage
students in active learn-
NOVEMBER 2003
ing, assessing
students'
progress
in
learning
strategies
and
concepts, initiating
site-based
staff
development, developing
a shared
stance toward
learning,
and
forming part-
nerships
to sustain
growth.
In the current
study
I reexamined data
from the first 2
years
to reconstruct some of
the
ways
that teachers and administrators
connected
values, beliefs,
and
practices
in
reforming
their schools. With a
working
draft of this
analysis
(Strahan, 2003),
re-
searchers conducted a new round of inter-
views and observations at each of the three
schools
during
the third
year
of this inves-
tigation.
The
following questions guided
this
research:
(1)
How have teachers and admin-
istrators articulated collaborative
agendas
for reform?
(2)
How have
they strengthened
their
communities?
(3)
How have these
communities nurtured instructional im-
provement
and continuous school renewal?
Method
This
investigation began
with a reexami-
nation of data from the first 2
years
of re-
search with the North Carolina
Lighthouse
Schools
(Strahan, 2002;
Strahan &
Ware,
2001).
In the
spring
of
2000,
a research team
comprised
of one
principal investigator
and
at least one doctoral student was
assigned
to each of the three
Lighthouse
schools.
1. Archer
Elementary
School is a
K-5
school in Guilford
County,
North
Carolina,
that serves over 600
students,
68% of whom
qualify
for free or
reduced-price
lunch. Sev-
enty percent
are members of an ethnic mi-
nority,
and 20%
speak
a
language
other than
English
as their first
language.
2. Hunter is also a K-5 school in Guil-
ford
County,
North Carolina. The school
serves 410
students,
85% of whom
qualify
for free or
reduced-price
lunch.
Ninety-one
percent
of the students are members of an
ethnic
minority,
with 20%
speaking
a lan-
guage
other than
English
as their first lan-
guage.
3. North is a K-5 school in Person
County,
North Carolina, serving
more than
400 students.
Seventy percent
of these stu-
dents are on free or
reduced-price
lunch,
and 70% are ethnic minorities.
To construct their case
studies,
teams
conducted an initial round of focus
group
interviews with a total of 51 administra-
tors, teachers,
parents,
and
support per-
sonnel at the three schools. The
purpose
of
the
open-ended
interviews was to
explore
participants'
views of how their schools
had increased student
performance
on
state-mandated assessments. The inter-
views
yielded
more than 200
pages
of
single-spaced transcripts.
The research
team
analyzed
the
transcripts
to
generate
the three themes that
guided
the
phase
one
summary report:
(a)
concentrating
instruc-
tion, (b)
creating inviting
school
climates,
and
(c) energetic leadership
(Strahan
&
Ware, 2001).
Based on the results of that
report,
the
teams collected a second round of data in
the
spring
of 2001. Researchers
began by
in-
terviewing
the three
principals
and
asking
them to nominate four teachers at their
school who had
high
student
pass
rates on
the
state's
standardized tests and
possessed
characteristics the school valued
(see
App.
A for this interview
protocol).
A member of
the research team interviewed each teacher
individually
(see
App.
B).
Following
this
interview,
a researcher observed each of the
12 teachers in two authentic situations:
(a)
teaching
a lesson and
(b)
participating
in
a
meeting
with
colleagues.
Observers re-
corded notes on a
template, jotting
down
the time
every
5 minutes.
Following
the ob-
servations,
researchers conducted a second
interview with each teacher to discuss is-
sues related to the lesson and the
meeting.
The team also collected archival
records,
in-
cluding planning
documents and minutes
from
grade-level
team
meetings.
Each team
coded
transcripts
from these interviews and
observations
according
to a
system
devel-
oped initially
around four
guiding ques-
tions: How do
participants
(1) define suc-
cess at their schools, (2)
promote
success in
their classrooms, and (3) collaborate with
JOURNAL
colleagues
toward continued
growth?
and
(4)
What
types
of
support
are
necessary
to
sustain
growth?
Following
this
categorical analysis,
each
research team identified
principal
themes
that
emerged
from the data from its school
and selected illustrative
examples
to use in
its initial
summary report.
At
Archer,
the
unifying
themes were
community, respon-
sibility,
and
respect.
At
Hunter,
recurring
phrases
such as "time to
shine,"
"first
things
first,"
and
"together
we can" served
as
organizing
themes. At
North,
researchers
identified four
principal
themes:
defining
success,
promoting
success,
collaborating
toward
continuing growth,
and
supporting
each other.
In fall
2001,
each team conducted a focus
group
with teachers at the schools. Team
members
randomly
selected five
partici-
pants
at each school for this interview from
a list of teachers who had been at the school
the
year
before and who had not
partici-
pated
in the classroom observations and in-
dividual interviews.
During
the
group
in-
terview,
research team members asked
participants
to
"go
over each of the themes
in detail" and
asked,
"What do
you
think
about this? Please comment." Their re-
sponses
were
tape-recorded
and tran-
scribed. After
incorporating
those clarifica-
tions and illustrations into a final
report
for
each
school,
team members
gave
their re-
ports
to teachers and administrators at their
schools. The
participants
read the
reports
carefully
and
agreed
that
they gave
an ac-
curate
picture.
The Center for School Lead-
ership Development
has
published
these
detailed case
reports
(Strahan, 2002).
In this
article,
I
present
an
analysis
of the
dynamics
of school culture that
shaped
re-
form at each of these three schools. I
began
this third
phase
of the
investigation by
rean-
alyzing
all of the data from the first two
phases
of the
Lighthouse study.
I reread the
transcriptions
of all of the interviews to
identify
the
language
that
participants
used
to characterize their
agendas
for reform and
to describe how
they reported
that
they
strengthened
their
learning
communities.
We used this information to
design
a new
set of
questions
to
guide
the next series of
site visits. To
gain
fresh
insight
about the
cultural
dynamics
that
emerged,
research-
ers conducted individual interviews with
all of the teachers who were new to each
school in the fall of 2001
(five
teachers at
Archer,
six at
Hunter,
and five at
North;
See
App.
C for the interview
protocol).
In the
spring
of
2002,
researchers conducted a
second round of interviews with the 12
teachers
they
had observed the
year
before
(App.
B).
During
each of these school
visits,
teams
also
gathered
archival data to
update
the
records of school reform. These documents
included state-mandated school
improve-
ment
plans,
minutes from
meetings,
demo-
graphic profiles
for
students,
and
"report
cards"
prepared by
the school districts that
summarized students'
performance
on state-
mandated assessments. In North
Carolina,
these assessments include two
major
end-of-
grade
(EOG)
tests administered each
spring
to students in
grades
3-5. The
reading
tests
require
students to examine
page-length
passages
from narrative and
expository
texts and answer
multiple-choice compre-
hension
questions
at three levels:
literal,
inferential,
and author's
purpose.
The math-
ematics exam is also
multiple
choice,
featur-
ing computational
exercises and word
prob-
lems.
To
synthesize
the
analyses
of these
data,
I
present
reconstructed case
reports
from
each school.
Although
these cases are based
on a limited
sample
of classroom observa-
tions and thus cannot confirm the nature of
the
changes participants reported, they
summarize
participants' descriptions
of the
reforms that
they
believe fostered increased
achievement at their schools. Citations at
the end of each
quotation identify
the
par-
ticipant's
role (T = teacher, P =
principal)
and the time of the
quotation (year
and se-
mester). The citation for the first
quotation,
for
example, T02S, signifies
a teacher inter-
view from the
spring
semester of 2002.
NOVEMBER 2003
Results and Discussion:
Collaborative Reform
Archer
Elementary
School
In
1997,
fewer than half of the students
at Archer demonstrated
proficiency
on as-
sessments of
reading
and mathematics.
Since
then,
teachers and administrators
have been
engaged
in a number of school
reform initiatives. Student
performance
on
the North Carolina assessment
system
has
risen
steadily
each
year
(see
Table
1).
The first
phase
of reform featured char-
acter education. In
1998,
a consultant
pre-
sented two
workshops
on character educa-
tion. In the first
session,
the entire
faculty
participated
in a
daylong
discussion of val-
ues
they
wished to
promote.
On the second
day, participants
identified
ways
to
pro-
mote these values
through
school
practices
and curricular
emphases.
Since
then,
four
core values of character education have con-
tinued to
guide participants: integrity,
re-
spect, discipline,
and excellence. When
speaking
of these shared
values,
partici-
pants
often used the
phrase
"Archer
pride."
A veteran teacher noted that Archer
pride
was one of the most
important ways
she
taught
behavioral
expectations
to students
who were new to the school. "You teach ex-
pectations through
character
education,
through
Archer
pride.
You let them know
that we are diverse. You don't let them
pick
on each
other,
and if
they
do,
then
you
have
to let them know
that's
the
way
that
person
is
being
raised. You can do it
through
social
studies,
it can be done
through reading.
You
have Vietnamese
kids,
you
read books
about Vietnam or wherever
they're
from.
You have books about kids from
Japan.
It's
diversity.
You have to teach it"
(T02S).
Although
character education has con-
tinued to be an
emphasis, professional
de-
velopment
has focused more on balanced
literacy
instruction over the
past
3
years.
The curriculum facilitator has worked with
teachers in
grade-level meetings
to de-
velop
instructional
strategies
in the follow-
ing
areas:
*
Guided
reading-using small-group
instruction with students at similar
reading
levels with a focus on students
understanding
and
explaining
what is
read.
*
Writing-writing
across the curricu-
lum,
writing
for
pleasure, integrating
writing
with content area instruction.
*
Word
study-sounding
out unfamiliar
words and
expanding vocabulary.
*
Self-selected
reading-engaging
stu-
dents with books
they
can read inde-
pendently, promoting
interest,
and en-
couraging reading
for
pleasure.
In
weekly grade-level meetings,
teachers
identified
procedures
for
promoting
active
student involvement in each of these areas.
As students have become more familiar
with these
procedures,
teachers have ex-
tended instructional
strategies
to other ar-
eas of the
curriculum,
using
text
passages
in science for
guided reading,
for
example,
and
applying comprehension strategies
to
word
problems
in math. One teacher de-
scribed this collaborative
process
of
profes-
sional
development:
"I think the
thing
that
stands out to me is
implementing
the liter-
acy plan.
I've heard that we're ahead of
some other schools in the district as far as
that
goes.
And she
[the
curriculum facilita-
tor]
introduced it to us last
year.
We learned
about the different
parts
of the
literacy plan,
and we're
expected
to be
doing
all of them.
Not
necessarily
be
doing
all of them
per-
fectly,
but to be
giving
each of them a
try.
She
provided
the materials we
needed,
you
know,
and let us at least know how we
could
get
hold of
them,
for
guided reading,
for
example"
(T01S).
This collaboration
provided
an
ongoing
dialogue
about
professional development,
as one of the new teachers described:
"[We
learn what is
expected] mostly through
working
with the
grade
level
[meetings].
What the
principal
talks about matches
what we talk about in the
meeting,
which
matches our
planning,
which matches the
goal,
but there is still
flexibility
within all
these
things.
When I have
opportunities
to
see other teachers
interacting
with students,
JOURNAL
you
can tell that that there is a
hunger
or
thirst to do the
right thing
and to use new
ideas"
(T01F).
Teachers and administrators have
pur-
sued this
agenda
for reform in
ways
that
have created a more
supportive
culture at
Archer
Elementary.
The
principal
described
the school before the turnaround: "I used to
hear a lot of excuses. It
was, 'but these chil-
dren
can't,
and these
parents
can't.'
Teach-
ers would
ask, 'How
can
you expect
us to
do
better?'
Now
they
believe that
they
can
do it. We've seen that if we
give
them our
best,
we can do it the
right way.
Now
they
believe it's
possible"
(POOS).
Over the 3
years
of this
study, partici-
pants
articulated values and beliefs
regard-
ing
their mission much more
cohesively,
using
the term "Archer
pride,"
which
rep-
resented their collective stance toward
learning.
One teacher
reported:
"We do
things according
to Archer
pride.
That is
something
we
emphasize
to the student. To
be
polite,
have
integrity, respect, discipline,
and excellence here at Archer School. It is
not an
option.
You have to do
your
best. It
is
something
we chant in our classroom.
'Do
your
best. Have
you
done
your
best?
Is this
your
best work?"'
(T01F).
This stance has
emphasized
a shared
sense of
responsibility.
Students have
learned that
they
are
responsible
for their
own
learning,
for
pushing
themselves,
and
for
helping
their classmates. Teachers dem-
onstrate
responsibility
to
promote
all stu-
dents'
learning
and
positive feelings
about
themselves as successful learners and as im-
portant people.
As one teacher
said,
"Good
teaching
is not
just preparing
a child aca-
demically,
but
you
have to reach the whole
child. It's not
going
to do us
any good
to
just
stand
up
there and teach when that
child does not have
any
connection to
you.
The children have to be connected. What
I'm
saying
is
you
have to reach them so-
cially, emotionally, academically. They
have
to know that
they
have
somebody
from 7:45
to 2:15 that
genuinely
cares about them.
That's
good teaching"
(T02S).
Articulating
a shared stance toward
learning
has
strengthened
instructional
norms that
emphasize
more active student
engagement.
One teacher
reported,
"We do
a lot of critical
thinking problems,
we do a
lot of hands-on lessons to make sure
they
understand the
concepts,
and then we do
a lot of
applying
those
concepts
and
really
using
them. I
give
them a lot of
problems
where
they
have to think to find the an-
swers rather than
just
answer word
prob-
lems or
computation-type problems,
a lot
of critical
thinking
skills"
(T02S).
Observations and interviews docu-
mented a number of instructional activities
that
promoted deeper
levels of
thinking.
For
example,
Let's take a novel that we were
reading,
The Summer
of
the Swans. It turned out to
be a character lesson because the
young
lady
in the book accused the little
boy
of
taking
her
brother's watch. Her brother
was a
mentally
disabled child who suf-
fered from an illness. When the little
girl
found out that she was
wrong,
she had a
hard time
facing
the
boy.
So it
actually
turned into a lesson of how do
you
come
back after
you've
accused someone and
you've
told all these
people?
It becomes
slander and
deprecation
of character. We
talked about all
this,
and there were
pros
and cons.... That was a
really good
character education
lesson,
good
social
studies
lesson,
because we went
through
the hills of West
Virginia
and talked
about the little
boy falling
into a ravine
and what are the
possibilities
of what's
in there? So we
got
a little bit into science
with that
segment. (T02S)
Participants'
stance toward
learning
fos-
tered collaborative
planning
sessions that
improved
shared
teaching practices.
Dia-
logue regarding
these instructional norms
occurred
formally
and
informally.
Teachers
met
regularly
in
grade-level
teams to re-
view student
progress
and discuss
teaching
strategies.
In these formal sessions, teachers
and administrators
developed stronger pro-
cedures for
promoting
data-directed dia-
logue regarding
school reform. Grade-level
NOVEMBER 2003
planning
sessions and school-based staff
development
now featured discussions of
students'
progress
on a
range
of assess-
ments of achievement.
Informally,
teachers
reported many
con-
versations about
teaching
that enriched and
extended these shared
practices.
Teachers
and administrators assessed their own suc-
cess based on student
learning,
which,
in
turn,
nurtured an
upward spiral
of school
reform. "We all
try
to
help
each
other,
if
there's an area of
weakness,
or someone
thinks there's an area of
weakness,
or some-
one
says
'I
need to do this. Will
you
look
over
this?'
We don't have a
problem
with
that around here. When I came
here,
we
didn't have
[formally designated]
mentors;
it was
somebody
took
you
under their
wing.
And that's the
way
it should be.
When it becomes
competitive, you
lose the
collaboration. Collaboration does not occur
when there is
competitive teaching.
If one
is
trying
to outdo the
other,
you're
not
going
to share
anything.
What are
you going
to
share?
Nothing"
(T02S).
Using
data as a basis for
dialogue
has
become
part
of the culture. The curriculum
facilitator and media
specialist
have
worked
together
to make data more acces-
sible to teachers. In a recent
presentation,
they
identified six
types
of formal assess-
ments that were now available to teachers
(school
performance
data,
grade-level
re-
ports,
teacher
reports, subgroup reports,
re-
ports by
curriculum
goals,
and K-2 assess-
ment
data).
As
they completed
the 2001-2002 school
year,
members of the
leadership
team met
to examine their reform
agenda
for the fol-
lowing year.
Our notes from an end-of-the-
year planning
session illustrate some of the
ways participants
combined data and dia-
logue
to address the
challenges
of school re-
form:
On a
sunny morning
at the
beginning
of
summer, nine teachers and two admin-
istrators
gather
in a
quiet
room to review
the school
improvement plan
and de-
velop
an
organizational
structure for the
next school
year.
After
exchanging greet-
ings
and
comparing
notes on the
day's
agenda, they
launch into the business at
hand. The
principal
distributes summa-
ries of recent test scores
by grade
level
and
asks,
"When
you
look over these
percentages,
what
jumps
out at
you?"
Several
participants
share observations
that
highlight growth
scores for various
subgroups
of students. "What other
pat-
terns do
you
see?" asks the
principal.
A teacher notes that the retest scores
showed a
huge jump.
"This shows that
some of our students need more time."
Another teacher
expresses
a concern
that the
fourth-grade passing
rate for
reading
(76%)
is not as
high
as it is for
math
(90%).
This
prompts
an animated
discussion of the frustrations students
express
when faced with the
long pas-
sages
on the test.
One teacher
says,
"I watch the stu-
dents as
they
thumb
through
their test
booklets. Some of them
whisper,
'This is
so
long!'
Others
groan.
On the math tests
they keep moving.
On the
reading
tests,
I can see them drift and fade. This is so
different from their
reading during
in-
dependent reading
time.
They stay
with
their
books,
and I know
they
understand
them from what
they say
and write."
Other teachers
agree.
Several share
stories of times when their students have
shown
great
excitement and
persistence
with trade books that
challenge
them to
read at
higher
levels. As the discussion
progresses, participants agree
that
they
need to address the issue of students' en-
durance as readers. Several teachers
sug-
gest ways
to increase the
length
of
prac-
tice
passages.
Others
propose lengthening
the amount of
independent reading
time
during
the school
day.
After almost 45 minutes of discus-
sion,
the
principal proposes
that
they
make
independent reading
a
higher pri-
ority
next
year
and
suggests
that
they
gather
research to find
ways
to do so
more
productively.
Several teachers offer
suggestions
for studies to read. A vol-
unteer
agrees
to
compile
a set of studies.
Another wonders if it is
possible
to
put
together
more useful
diagnostic profiles
to
give
next
year's
teachers more than
just
the test score summaries. The dis-
cussion continues. (Observation notes,
leadership team, 02S)
JOURNAL
This
exchange
illustrates data-directed dia-
logue
in action.
Participants
examined re-
cent achievement tests
scores,
identified
trends in the data and noted a
pattern
re-
lated to test-retest
performance,
and illus-
trated this
pattern
with their observations
of students. The discussion was
purposeful
and resulted in the identification of another
goal
for
improving
instruction--helping
students extend their endurance as readers.
With this
goal
in
mind,
participants gener-
ated
suggestions
that would
guide
future
professional development.
Hunter
Elementary
School
Like their
colleagues
at
Archer,
teachers
and administrators at Hunter School wit-
nessed a dramatic rise in achievement test
scores from 1997 to 2002
(see
Table
1).
They,
too,
engaged
in a number of
professional
de-
velopment
efforts.
Many
reforms evolved
from the
Early Literacy Learning
Initiative
(ELLI).
In
1997,
a team of teachers and ad-
ministrators attended ELLI
training
at Ohio
State
University.
This
program promotes
a
comprehensive approach
to
reading,
writ-
ing,
and
reasoning
in the
elementary
grades.
The
program
features
strategies
that
integrate literacy development
across the
grade
levels and
throughout
the curricu-
lum.
Participants reported
a number of
ways
in which
they
rallied around this ini-
tiative: "I think what started
things really
well for
us,
as a
faculty,
is that we were
trained at Ohio State 5
years ago.
It was
ELLI-Early Literacy Learning
Initiative
...
I can
say
from that
cornerstone,
we have
taken what we learned. We
fine-tuned,
we've eliminated some
things,
we've added
some
things.
The
biggest thing-we've
kept up
with it. We have a curriculum fa-
cilitator who
helps keep
us
organized
and
focused"
(T02S).
Since
1997,
have used their ELLI
training
to
develop
their own blend of instructional
practices.
As the curriculum facilitator
reported,
Hunter is in its sixth
year
of
continuing
student achievement. No
single program
or innovative
practice
can be cited as re-
sponsible
for this achievement.
Rather,
we believe that it is a total school
philos-
ophy
and
atmosphere
that has
precipi-
tated this increased student
learning.
Our
greatest
commitment is to our bal-
anced
literacy program. Daily
lessons in
all of the
literacy components
and
using
these effective
strategies
in all areas of
the curriculum have
developed strong,
independent
readers and writers.
Daily
mathematics work in
problem solving,
computation,
and drill has
helped
our
students to become
competent
with
numbers and
reasoning.
(Internal memo,
September
2002)
In a
presentation
for all new
teachers,
the
curriculum facilitator identified three cor-
nerstones of the Hunter framework: focused
instruction,
differentiated and
integrated
in-
struction,
and teamwork. "Focused instruc-
tion involves
posted daily
schedules that
map
out a
sequence
for
guided reading
groups;
focus cards that
express
lesson ob-
jectives
in
'kid talk';
quarterly
curriculum
mapping
in which
grade-level
teams review
progress
and
identify priority goals;
and
agenda
books that
help
students
keep
track
of
assignments.
The
goal
of differentiated
and
integrated
instruction is to create a com-
munity
of learners
through
motivation,
modeling,
flexible
grouping, organization,
and time on-task. Teamwork takes
place
through weekly
team
planning,
focused staff
development,
vertical
communication,
and
successful committee
participation"
(curric-
ulum facilitator
presentation,
S01).
The
Hunter framework thus
emphasizes
clear
goals,
varied instructional
delivery,
and col-
laboration.
A
carefully
orchestrated
system
of adult
volunteers
put
these essential
components
of the Hunter School framework into
prac-
tice. Trained
by
the curriculum
facilitator,
a
cadre of adults conducted
guided reading
lessons and tutored students under the di-
rection of classroom teachers.
During
the
2001-2002 school
year,
this cadre included
74
community
volunteers and
university
in-
terns who followed a schedule that
engaged
NOVEMBER 2003
them with the same small
groups
each
Monday, Wednesday,
and
Friday.
At
Hunter,
articulated a shared stance toward
learning
that
emphasized
a commitment to
meeting
high expectations.
This stance linked values
and beliefs to form a communal attitude fre-
quently expressed
as
"Together
We
Can."
As the 2002 school
improvement plan
stated,
"'Together
we can' is our motto at
Hunter
Elementary
School,
and it
signifies
the
unifying
vision
underscoring
the critical
importance
of
relationship, responsibility,
and a results-oriented
efficacy."
One of the
teachers described this stance:
I don't think Hunter is the
place
for ev-
eryone.
You have to believe in the vision
in order to be
here,
because the
expecta-
tions are there. And even
though you're
a
professional
in
your
own classroom
and
you're
allowed to do
things
as
you
want,
it's under a certain umbrella. There
are certain criteria that
you
have to meet
in order to teach at this school. The first
thing
would be
having high expectations
for
your
students. But certain
things
that
you
see in
every
classroom are focus
cards. Each
teacher, assistant,
student in-
tern,
community helper,
whoever,
any
lesson that
you
start is
expected
to
begin
with a focus card. That
just basically
fo-
cuses the children and lets the children
know that in math
you
will. ... It's in kid
language
and lets them know
specifically
what
you're expected
to do
by
the end of
this
lesson,
what
you
will be able to do.
That's one of the
expectations. High
en-
ergy.
You have to have a
high energy
level to be here.
(T01S)
Teachers new to Hunter
readily
articulated
these
expectations.
Interviewer: What do
you
think is ex-
pected
of
you
as a new
teacher here at Hunter?
New Teacher: What's
mainly expected
of
all the teachers here-to
find out what
my
children
need and to do assessments
on them and use that to re-
form
my teaching.
(T01F)
Interviewer: How do
you
think
your
colleagues
here would de-
fine
good teaching?
If I
walked
up
to them and
said,
"What's
good
teach-
ing?
What does that look
like in the school?" What
do
you
think
they
would
say?
New Teacher: I think
they
would
say
that
you
have a direct
purpose
for
every
lesson. I think
that's the
point
of
using
fo-
cus cards
here,
that the
children know the
purpose
of the
lesson,
that
you
are
again using your
assess-
ments,
and what
you
know about
your
children
to meet their needs. You're
using
what
you
know
about them to
design your
lessons. And not
just
their
assessments but their in-
terests,
and so
you're
tar-
geting
both.
(T01F)
This
expectation shaped
instructional norms
that
emphasized
more active student en-
gagement.
For
example,
one teacher re-
ported,
For the
kids,
their favorite
part
of the
day
is center time.
But, it's
not
only
that it is
fun. It's a time when their skills are
sharpened.
It
gives
them a chance for in-
dependence,
and it also frees me
up
to
work with students that need that extra
push.
If I have a student that needs extra
help
in
reading,
I'll
try
to
pull
him or
pull
a small math
group
that did not
get
the
pictograph
that we worked on
yesterday.
I need to
pull
them and
get
them accel-
erated,
so
they'll
be
ready
for the next
math unit. (T01S)
This shared stance of commitment and team-
work,
expressed
as
"Together
We
Can,"
shaped
instructional norms that featured ex-
plicit techniques
for
strategy
instruction:
If I want them to write
something
or
plan
something,
I would
always
model or do
it on the overhead. Then I would model
a
step,
and then I would
say,
"Now
you
list more ideas
you
think
you
would like
to write about." And then I would
say,
JOURNAL
"Prioritize our
list,"
and I would circle
three that I
really
want to write about.
"Why
don't
you
circle three that
you
re-
ally
like?" Rather than make them sit
there and listen to me for an
hour,
I do a
little
bit,
they
do a little
bit,
I do a little
bit,
they
do a little
bit,
and that
keeps
them
focused,
more
engaged
in the les-
son than
just lecturing.
(T01S)
These instructional norms were enriched
and extended
through
collaborative
plan-
ning
that
improved teaching.
"We have a
meeting,
a
study group,
and it's like a
pro-
fessional
development meeting every
week
with the
literacy
coordinator. And
again,
that
goes
over the kinds of
things
we need
to do in our class and with our
teaching.
So,
for
example,
for the first
writing
bench-
mark,
we're
doing simple
directions. So
yesterday
we
just
went over all the
things
we are
doing
and we can do and set the
dates for when we're
going
to do our
testing
and how we're
going
to do it so as a team
we're
all
working
the same
way"
(T01F).
As these collaborative work sessions be-
came
part
of the culture at
Hunter,
they pro-
vided a structure for
connecting
school-
based staff
development
with
day-to-day
teaching practices.
"One
of the
things
I
wanted to
add,
though,
is we all went to a
workshop
on
thinking maps together.
Last
year,
as the
only
second
grade
in the third-
grade building, my
room could see into
Chris's room. I had
my thinking maps up,
and
my
kids saw into Chris's room and
they
said,
"Mrs.
K,
they
have the same
maps
we
have!'
I told
them, 'It's
because we are
using
them
throughout
the school and
you
will be
using
them all the
way through
tenth
grade"'
(Hunter
focus
group,
F01).
Using
data to
guide
these
dialogue
ses-
sions has become a natural
part
of the cul-
ture at Hunter. "I'm
expected
to know what
is in their folder and if
they
have
any
diffi-
culties or
learning
differences in their folder.
If I continue to see a
problem,
I would talk
to another teacher, 'What can I do about
this?' Then if it still continued, I would
go
to
my buddy
teacher and ask for the Stu-
dent
Support
Team
(a
team of teachers who
assist their
colleagues
with students who
are not
making progress)
and talk about dif-
ferent
strategies
to use. I've done that this
year.
I've had some students that have had
a few
problems,
so I've either
gone
to an-
other
first-grade
teacher or
my buddy
teacher for SST and asked about it"
(T01F).
These collaborative work sessions have
also become a source of
energy
and
support
for teachers as
they
have learned to
rely
on
each other as teammates. For
many,
the
motto
"Together
We Can" describes a sense
of
professional togetherness,
which was a
theme in almost
every
interview with teach-
ers at
Hunter,
as well as a stance toward
students. Most
participants reported
a
view of their work as "difficult
yet
do-
able." The three cornerstones of the Hunter
framework- focused
instruction,
differ-
entiated and
integrated
instruction,
and
teamwork--demanded
a
great
deal of
hard work from teachers. At the same
time,
working together
to
accomplish
these
goals
was a source of
energy
and renewal.
I
really enjoy
the
atmosphere-the
team
atmosphere
is
very supportive.
I know
that if I have
questions,
or I have
prob-
lems,
if I'm overwhelmed or whatever
the situation would
be,
I know there is
always somebody
there to
help
me
through
it. I
appreciate
that,
and I know
that I'm not
going
to be left with a blank
answer-I'll have an answer for some-
thing.
The staff is
very helpful,
and it's
almost like a
family.
That's most of all
why
I
enjoy coming
here. I love the kids
and I love
working
with kids. I love to
see them
progress
and continue to learn.
It's
very enjoyable
to see these kids
going
from the
beginning
of the
year
to
...
just
to see them succeed-it's awesome! To
see the kids believe in themselves too. To
instill that belief in them that
"Hey, you
can do
this,"
and to
actually
hear the kids
say,
"Yeah,
I can do this." It's so neat to
see this.
(T01F)
North
Elementary
School
North
Elementary,
a K-5 school in Per-
son
County,
North Carolina, serves more
NOVEMBER 2003
than 400 students.
Eighty percent
of the stu-
dents are on free or
reduced-price lunch,
and 75% are members of an ethnic
minority.
Like the other two schools in the
study,
the
school has increased academic achievement
steadily
from 1997 to 2002
(see
Table
1).
As the
Lighthouse study began
in the
spring
of
2000,
at North were
completing
their first
year
of
a
3-year
collaborative staff
development pro-
ject
with the CIERA
Project
(Center
for the
Improvement
of
Early Reading
Achieve-
ment).
CIERA is a national center for re-
search on
early reading
that
represents
a con-
sortium of educators from five universities.
A team from CIERA
presented workshops
and facilitated teacher
study groups
to iden-
tify
and
implement
"best
practices"
in teach-
ing reading.
These
practices
included
*
Whole-class
instruction-ways
to im-
prove
word
study, strategies
for ask-
ing higher-level questions, integrat-
ing reading
into
math, science,
and
social studies.
*
Guided
reading-ways
to
organize
and
conduct
small-group
lessons based on
reading
levels.
*
Self-selected
reading-strategies
for
promoting independent reading,
stock-
ing
classroom libraries with leveled
books,
encouraging reading
for
plea-
sure,
using
lexiles and accelerated read-
ing
materials.
*
Questioning skills-promoting higher
levels of
reasoning.
*
Cooperative group
instruction and lit-
erature
circles-strategies
for encour-
aging
discussion and
linking
discus-
sion comments to text
passages.
*
Assessment-how to conduct and use
running
records.
In their
interviews,
participants highlighted
a number of
ways
that this collaboration
had
improved teaching.
The CIERA
project,
I
really enjoyed the
last meeting where we
were
given the ar-
ticles, and I'm looking forward to having
the
opportunity
to discuss that, you
know, with
colleagues.
I would think that
that's
something
teachers often don't
get
the time to do is to look at research and
to look at the newest
things
out. And I
love the idea of
having
an
opportunity
to
look at research that's come out and
things
that are
being
tried in classrooms
and the latest and
being
able to talk about
that with
colleagues.
(TOOS)
[After the CIERA
workshop],
we
were able to look and see what were the
best
practices
and what wasn't
working.
I went back to
my
classroom and I
changed
the format so that I was
doing
more of the best
practice things
because
I had been
doing
it with a small
group
of
children,
you
know, the remedial
group,
my target group, doing
some of those
best
practice things
with them when all
of a sudden I realized I need to do that
with the whole class. And so I started do-
ing
that with the whole
class,
and it's
just
amazing
how much those
coaching
groups
in a
small-group
instruction re-
ally
moves them.
And,
you
know, it
breaks
my
heart to hear that the third-
grade
teachers
just
don't have it because
they're really
a
target grade
where the
kids need to be
moving. They
need those
small
groups
and
they
need the assistant
to be
working
with them. (TOOS)
In addition to the
implementation
of best
practices
in
reading
and
writing promoted
by
CIERA,
teachers and administrators em-
phasized
two
practices
in staff
develop-
ment.
Thinking maps training provided
strategies
for
helping
students
organize
and
interpret
information. Self-selected
reading
using
lexile levels created a schoolwide fo-
cus on
independent
and sustained
reading
for all students.
As
they implemented
these
reforms,
developed
a
stance toward
learning
that
emphasized
working
hard to meet standards. One
teacher described this stance: "I think that
teachers are focused on the
goals
and ob-
jectives
that we are
supposed
to be teach-
ing,
and I think that a lot of the teachers
are
looking
for
ways
to
improve
their
teaching
skills. We're
reaching
more chil-
dren
by using
different
teaching methods,
a lot of hands-on, and
just presenting
the
information in different
ways
so that
you're reaching
all different learners, you
JOURNAL
know,
whether it's visual
learners,
or au-
ditory
learners,
or kinesthetic
learners,
or
whatever"
(T01S).
New teachers
clearly
in-
ternalized this stance.
Interviewer: What do
you
think is ex-
pected
of
you
as a new
teacher here at North Ele-
mentary?
New Teacher: I think that I'm
expected
to
get
the children to the level
they
need to
be,
as far as
teaching
and
teaching
to
the standards that the state
has set
up,
so that the chil-
dren can reach the
goals
they
need to reach to
go
on
to the next
grade.
And if
that
requires providing
ex-
tras,
help,
or whatever
needs to be
provided
to do
that. If I need to
get help
from other teachers to think
of different
strategies
and
things,
to use all
my
avail-
able resources to
get
the
children to where
they
need to be." (T01F)
Based on this shared stance of
working
hard
to meet
standards,
teachers
developed
in-
structional norms that
emphasized
the in-
tegration
of skills and active
learning.
Teachers
reported
that
they
worked to-
gether
to
identify
books that would interest
their students and serve as vehicles for
teaching higher
levels of
comprehension.
From
kindergarten
to fifth
grades,
lessons
encouraged recurring ways
of
thinking:
re-
telling, summarizing, problem solving,
identifying
author's
purpose.
Teachers re-
ported
that
they
shared books and activi-
ties,
asking
students to examine stories
from a different
point
of view and to con-
nect nonfiction texts with science
projects,
for
example. Many
of them stressed the
value of hands-on activities. One teacher re-
ported,
"We did a science
experiment
where
we had colored
toothpicks,
and
they
were
the
prey
and we were the
predators.
There
were four different-colored
toothpicks,
and
I went and threw them in the
grass
and
gave
them 2 minutes to
get
as
many prey
as
they
could. Then we came back in and
charted how
many yellow (toothpicks)
we
got,
how
many green
we
got, why
was it
harder to find the
green
ones versus the red
ones.
Just
notice the
patterns" (T02S).
Another instructional norm that teach-
ers
reported frequently
was to model learn-
ing strategies
and
practice
them over time.
We
may
have the characters drawn
out,
and we'll talk about
story sequence,
or I
may
teach word
strategies
like
thinking
about what makes sense. I do the sen-
tence
strip
activities. I take the word out
and
say, "Okay,
I'm
reading
this. I don't
know this word. I've
got
a blank here." I
model for them a lot. I
say,
"I don't know
what this word is. What am I
going
to
do? First
thing
I want to do is look at the
beginning
sounds and
say
the
word,
or
say
the
sound,
and I need to think about
what makes sense." Then we
play
the lit-
tle
guessing game.
We make
guesses
of
what would
fit,
and then we look at the
beginning
sound and cross out what
wouldn't work because of the
beginning
sound,
and then we cross out what
wouldn't work because of the
ending
sound. (T01S)
Teachers reinforced these instructional
norms in collaborative
planning
sessions
that were held each week
by grade
level,
or
in
monthly study groups.
We break into
study groups,
the
teaching
staff,
and then we share and write
papers
to
disperse
to the others. So that's
a shar-
ing
of information that's
going
on. One
group
I looked at was
integrating
sub-
jects,
and with
my experience
in Austra-
lia that's what we do. The afternoon is
integrated
studies. We
bring
in the sub-
jects
to whatever
subject
we're
studying.
And a lot of these staff [members]
have
never
experienced
that. I'm not the ex-
pert,
but I've at least
experienced
it. So I
knew some books to
try
to
get
informa-
tion, suggest
how we could
get
that done
in this school. We've
got
to
adapt
it to tell
the art teacher what we're
looking
at so
she can follow
through
with the
topics
in
her room.
(T02S)
NOVEMBER 2003
In these
planning
sessions,
participants
drew from a number of data sources to
guide
decisions.
Interviewer:
When we
say
"data,"
what
would
you put
on that list?
What are the data that mat-
ter?
Teacher 1:
Running
records.
Teacher 2:
Any
kind of assessment.
Teacher 3: Whether
they
are teacher
made or
already
made for
you.
Teacher 4: Gross indicators-not
only
this test is the
assessment,
but how has the child
pro-
gressed
from
beginning
to
end? Has he
gone up
two
levels in
reading?
Has he
gone up
five levels of read-
ing?
Has he
grown
two de-
velopmental points
or has he
grown eight developmental
points?
It's not
just
the
score,
but what was the
growth?
Teacher 5: And often the data
give
the
teachers a time to reflect
back on what's been
taught
and what skills the
majority
of the kids did not do well
on. (North
focus
group,
Fall
2001)
In individual
interviews,
veteran teachers
described how
they
used
multiple
sources
of data to assess
progress. Many explained
how
they began
with
day-to-day
observa-
tions,
which allowed them to learn what
students do well and what is difficult for
them.
They
drew on formal assessments to
provide
more
explicit
information
regard-
ing
skills and
concepts. Many
veterans re-
ported
that their most valuable
insights
of-
ten came from class discussions.
I
encourage
them to ask
questions,
first
of
all,
because I don't know what
they
don't understand. I tell them that I can't
read their mind.
They
need to tell me
what
part they
don't understand. If that's
not the case and that doesn't work, I use
peer tutoring
if I find out
they
are
having
trouble. I also
go
around and monitor to
see what
they
are
doing.
If
they
are hav-
ing
trouble I
help
them then. We
basically
do
tutoring
for
reading
after
school,
so I
will
help
the ones who are
having
trouble
after school. We will
pick
one skill like
drawing
conclusions and would do that
for an hour after school.
Just
different
things.
It
just depends
on what it is and
what kind of resources I have to be able
to do
something
different.
(T01S)
Like their
counterparts
at Archer and
Hunter,
participants
at North
Elementary
drew
energy
from their
colleagues
to meet
these
challenges. They emphasized
the col-
laborative nature of their
relationships
with
each other. One teacher
noted,
"We work
well
together
as
partners.
We don't
stay
in
our rooms and
say,
'These
are
my
ideas and
I'm not
going
to
share,
and if
your
kids
don't do
well,
oh well ... that's fine,
I'm the
better
teacher.'
I
think
everyone
here works
together
with one idea in
mind,
and
that's
having
the children learn and
making
the
growth
that
they
need and whatever we
need to
do,
we do"
(T02S).
Summary
and Conclusion
These case studies of the North Carolina
Lighthouse
Schools enrich and extend the
descriptions
of successful schools
generated
in
previous
studies of school reform. As
noted
earlier,
Fullan's
(1999)
"spiral
of re-
form
activity" begins
with teachers and ad-
ministrators
working together
to
identify
priorities
for school
improvement.
At these
three
schools,
successful reform
began
when
participants
established an
agenda
for reform that addressed students' needs.
This
agenda helped
them
target
areas for
instructional
improvement
and coordinate
their efforts to
improve
shared instructional
strategies.
Like the teachers on "the
caring
classroom's academic
edge,"
teachers in
these schools said
they developed suppor-
tive
relationships
with students that
likely
encouraged gains
in achievement
(Lewis et
al., 1996). At all three schools, teachers and
administrators
reported
that
they
coordi-
nated efforts to
improve
achievement in
ways
that were similar to those
Langer
(2000) identified in her
study
of 25 second-
JOURNAL
ary
schools. Teachers in the
present study
reported
that
they
shared access to new
ideas and used these ideas to
strengthen
their
professional community
in
ways
simi-
lar to teachers in other case
reports (Bryk
et
al., 1998;
Wolf et
al., 2000).
At these three
elementary
schools,
grade-level meetings
provided
a
regular
means for
identifying
needs,
developing strategies
for
improve-
ment,
and
linking
school-based staff devel-
opment
to
daily practice.
These
dialogue
sessions seemed to
encourage
a
stronger
sense of
agency
and collective
efficacy
(Goddard
et
al., 2000).
Each school
accomplished
reform in a
slightly
different fashion. At
Archer,
partic-
ipants began
with a focus on character edu-
cation and extended their collaborative
pro-
fessional
development
to enrich their
literacy
instruction. At
Hunter,
participants
began
with a framework for
literacy
devel-
opment
and
developed
their own
system-
atic,
schoolwide
approach
to instruction. At
North,
participants
worked with a team of
consultants in a national reform network to
create a
professional learning community
and to
improve teaching
at their school.
Although
each school achieved success
with a different
emphasis,
the most
impor-
tant
insights
from this
investigation
are the
similarities in the
ways respondents
re-
ported
that
they accomplished
reform.
When considered
together,
these case stud-
ies
begin
to
capture
the
dynamics
of school
improvement. Figure
1
presents
a frame-
work for
analyzing
the
dynamics
of school
reform that summarizes these similarities.
In this
figure, descriptors
in boldface sum-
marize
previous
studies of school reform.
Descriptors
in italics are
key findings
of the
study reported
in this article.
Once
they
had identified
priorities
for
school
improvement
and initiated conver-
sations about
instruction,
teachers and ad-
ministrators at these schools used data from
formal and informal assessments to
target
areas for
improving teaching. They
then ini-
tiated school-based
professional develop-
ment to
identify
and enact more effective
instruction. As students became more suc-
cessful,
participants
shared stories of their
success,
a
dynamic
that molded teachers
into a
stronger professional learning
com-
munity.
Over
time,
these communities de-
veloped
a cultural stance that communi-
cated
expectations
and values to new
teachers and to new students. In each
school,
the shared stance became
part
of the
personality
of the school. New teachers
per-
ceived a
way
of
doing things
that was
par-
ticular to that school. Practices and
proce-
dures that
may
have once been new and
unfamiliar became the norm. Conversations
about
learning
and
teaching routinely
fea-
tured formal and informal assessments.
Teachers knew what students need to suc-
ceed
and,
when unsure of how to meet these
needs,
could count on their
colleagues
for
suggestions
and
support.
This set the
stage
for continued
improvement.
Wolf et al.
(2000)
used the term "stance"
to describe the collaborative and consis-
tently positive approach
to
learning
that
characterized successful schools in their
study
of reform in
Kentucky.
Results of this
study suggest
that stance
represented
both
shared attitudes and
public posture
toward
action. At Archer
Elementary,
teachers and
administrators articulated a stance charac-
terized
by
a shared sense of
responsibility
for student achievement that is
expressed
in
the
phrase
"Archer
pride."
At
Hunter,
a
common view of
learning emphasized
a
commitment to
meeting high expectations
for student achievement. This stance com-
bined shared values and beliefs to form a
communal attitude and
posture frequently
expressed
as
"Together
We Can." At
North,
developed
a
stance toward
learning
that
emphasized
working
hard to meet academic standards.
These stances
expressed
the moral
purpose
and ethical
obligation
that
guided
the work
of teachers and administrators in these
schools.
Although they frequently sug-
gested
that
improving
students' test scores
was
important
to them, their
primary
source of motivation was their commitment
NOVEMBER 2003
The school
provides more
social
support
for
learning;
school culture grows more collaborative;
and teachers
develop stronger
collective
efficacy.
*Shared
values and instructional norms
enhance student achievement.
*Success
builds momentum and
fuels
new
efforts
toward
reform.
DATA & DIALOGUE
At the same
time,
teachers
develop
a
stronger professional learning community.
*Teachers and
adninistrators
develop
a
shared stance that links
mutual values and
beliefs
into a communal
attitude
and
posture.
DATA & DIALOGUE
These coordinated efforts
promote higher
levels of student
engagement
and
enhance student achievement.
*Teachers share
specific stories
of
student
s e.
DATA & DIALOGUE
As
they
do
so, they target areas for
instructional
improvement
and coordinate
their efforts to
implement
shared instructional
strategies.
*Teachers and admninistrators initiate school-based
professional development efforts
to
identify
and enact more
effective instruction.
DATA & DIALOGUE
Teachers and administrators work
collaboratively
to
identify priorities
for school
improvement
and initiate
conversations about instruction.
FIG.
1.-A
framework for
analyzing
the
dynamics
of school reform
(descriptors
in boldface summarize
previous
studies of school
reform;
descriptors
in italics are
key findings
of the
study reported
in this article).
to
improving
the
quality
of life in their
schools.
Repeatedly, they expressed
the no-
tions that
good teaching
was the
right thing
to do and that
creating
a sense of commu-
nity
was their mission.
At these
schools,
the reform
spiral
was
fueled
by
data-directed
dialogue.
In their
reflections,
participants
stressed the
impor-
tance of the time
they spent conversing
in
grade-level meetings,
site-based staff devel-
opment
sessions,
mentoring
discussions,
and informal
get-togethers.
These conver-
sations were
purposeful. They
focused on
meeting
the needs of students and
support-
ing
each other. Conversations
brought
co-
herence to the
many
initiatives
underway
at
each school and
integrated
individual ef-
forts toward success. Much of this
dialogue
was data
directed,
guided by
assessment
systems
and informal observations. This
continuous
dialogue helped
to cultivate col-
lective
efficacy
at each school and
provided
a renewable source of
energy
for
partici-
pants.
JOURNAL
We
rely heavily
on each other. I know
my
first
year
here was
extremely tiring
and
I-if I would have
kept doing
the same
things
I did
my
first
year-I
would have
burned out. We have a new teacher now
on the
third-grade
level,
and she feels re-
ally
burned
out,
but we meet
together,
our
third-grade
team
does,
every
week
for 2
days
after school. And we
plan
our
lessons
together,
and we share the re-
sponsibilities.
If one teacher is
having
a
hard
time,
we
try
to take on the load and
help
that teacher out. And we
try
to
divvy up responsibility
so each
person
doesn't have to do the same
thing.
We
share
things.
And that makes the load
easier.
(T01F)
Descriptions
like this one abound in the
data. These three schools are
places
where
adults and students care for each other and
invest
great personal energy
in their work.
They
also draw
energy
from each other and
from the success
they
are
achieving.
Data-
directed
dialogue provides
focus and
sup-
port.
As these studies
continue,
my
col-
leagues
and I
hope
to learn more about the
ways
collaborative cultures continue to
evolve at the schools and about the
types
of
support
needed to sustain and celebrate col-
laboration.
Appendix
A
Protocol for
Principal
Interview-
Spring
2001
Prior to the next interview:
Please
identify
three or four teachers who have
been
especially
successful in
promoting
student
achievement over the
past
2
years. Primary
cri-
teria are
1. Teachers whose students have made
gains
on EOG's that exceed the school's
average
for at
least 2
years
2. Teachers with these characteristics:
*
Demonstrate beliefs that
every
child can
learn
*
Show
they
are able to
get through
to
difficult students
*
Demonstrate confidence
they
will be
able to motivate their students
Interview
questions:
About teachers:
1. Tell me about the teachers
you
have iden-
tified.
2. What do
they
do that makes them so suc-
cessful?
3. How do
they
show that
they
believe that
every
child can learn?
4. How do
they
show that
they
are able to
get through
to difficult students?
5. How do
they
show confidence that
they
can motivate their students?
6. How do
they
interact with their col-
leagues?
About
accountability
and school reform:
7. What do
you
see as the school's
major
ac-
complishments
over the
past
few months?
8. What are the district's
expectations
for
your
school on this
year's
EOGs?
9. How do
you
translate those mandates for
your
teachers (that is,
how do
you
communicate
expectations
to them? Promote conversations
about
accountability?)?
10. How do
you
work with teachers who do
not seem to be on
target
to meet
expectations?
11. How do
you encourage
teachers to be-
lieve that
they
are
responsible
for all students'
learning,
not
just
the students within the walls
of their classroom?
12. How do
you encourage
teachers'
aware-
ness of their own instructional
practices,
and
those of their
colleagues?
13. How do
you encourage
common
pur-
poses
and actions in the school environment
(promote
conversations about
learning)?
14. How do
you challenge
teachers to think
innovatively
about their
teaching practices?
Appendix
B
Protocol for Interviews with Teachers
Nominated
by Principals
Questions
to
accompany observations-Spring
2001
About student success:
1. Your
principal
has
suggested
that
your
students have done well on the EOGs over the
past
few
years. Why
do
you
think that
your
stu-
dents have done so well?
2. How do
you encourage
students to
achieve?
About the
learning community:
3. How do
you
work with
your colleagues
to
promote
achievement (to learn new
ways
to
teach
better,
to
support
each
other)?
4.
(With a
large
sheet of blank
paper)
Please
help
me understand the
relationships among
teachers and
principals
in
promoting
achieve-
ment. Please list the names of the
people you
work with most
closely.
Is there
any way you
could
diagram
the
relationships among
these
people
in
promoting
achievement?
NOVEMBER 2003
5. When
you
work with these
people,
what
do
you
talk about?
6. How do
you
establish
your goals
for in-
structional collaboration?
7. We would like to sit in on one of
your
meetings
with
your colleagues.
Would
you
please help
us schedule a time to do that?
8. When we observe this
meeting,
what will
we see and hear?
About
your
classroom:
11. Tell me a little more about
your
class-
room. What are
your
most
frequent teaching
practices?
12. How do
you encourage
all students to be
active learners?
13. What are the
major things you
think
about when
you plan?
14. Please select one
topic
or unit that
you
have
taught recently.
As
you planned
this
unit,
what are the
major things you expected
students
to learn and be able to do?
15. What
types
of classroom tasks did
you
assign?
16. How do students
typically respond
to
these tasks?
17. What about students who do not seem to
understand the first time
through?
18. What else should I know before I come
to observe
your
class?
Follow-up
questions--Spring
2002
1. When we talked with
you
last
year, your
students were about to take the End-of-Grade
tests
(or
assessments for
primary grades).
How
did
your
students do last
year?
How did
they
do
this
year?
2.
Why
do
you
think that
your
students have
done so well?
3. Did
you
do
anything differently
this
year
to
encourage
students to achieve?
4. When we talked last
year, you gave
us
good descriptions
of
ways you
work with
your
colleagues
to
promote
achievement. Have
you
done
anything differently
this
year?
5. If we had been able to observe
your
meet-
ings
with
your grade-level colleagues during
the
month of
May,
what would we have seen and
heard?
6. How do
you
think
your colleagues
here
would define
"good teaching"?
7. What is
your
basis for that definition? How
is this communicated?
8. Tell us about one of
your
best lessons from
the
past
few months.
What did students do?
Why
do
you
think this was a
good
lesson?
9. If one of
your
students was
experiencing
academic
difficulty,
what did
you
do?
10. What are the indicators that tell
you
that
your
students are
making progress
(or not mak-
ing progress)?
11. A
good
definition of school culture is
"who we are and how we do
things
around
here." How would
you
describe the school cul-
ture of
_
Probe for details of "who we are."
Probe for details of "how we do
things
around here."
12. How do new teachers learn the culture?
13. How do students learn the culture?
14. What were
your biggest joys
this
year?
15. What were
your biggest
frustrations?
16. What are the
biggest challenges you
will
face when school starts next
year?
Appendix
C
Interview
Questions
for Teachers
New to
Lighthouse
Schools-Fall
2002
1.
Tell us about
your teaching experiences
before
you
came to (name of school).
Probe for details about the nature of their
experiences
(student
teaching, regular teaching,
etc.).
Probe for details about the characteristics
of the school in which
they
worked.
2. What were
your
first
impressions
of
3. What had
you
heard about be-
fore
you
had an interview?
4. What do
you
think is
expected
of
you
as a
new teacher here at
_
5. How did
you
learn what was
expected?
6. Tell us about
your
first few weeks here.
7. How do
you
think
your colleagues
here
would define
"good teaching"?
8. What is
your
basis for that definition? How
is this communicated?
9. Tell us about one of
your
best lessons so
far.
What did students do?
Why
do
you
think this was a
good
lesson?
10. If one of
your
students is
having
aca-
demic
difficulty,
what is
expected
of
you?
11. How is this communicated?
12. What are the indicators that tell
you
that
your
students are
making progress
(or not mak-
ing progress)?
13. What are
your biggest joys
in
coming
to
14. What are
your biggest
frustrations?
15. [Select one frustration] How are
your
col-
leagues helping you
with that?
16. What other
support might
be
helpful?
17. What advice would
you give
a teacher
who has
just
been hired to teach at
__
146
THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
JOURNAL
Note
This article was written with the
sponsorship
and
approval
of the Center for School Leader-
ship Development
at the
University
of North
Carolina at
Chapel
Hill. Portions of the article
originally appeared
in the Phase Three
Report
of
the North Carolina
Lighthouse Project
(Strahan,
2003).
Achieving
success in the North Carolina
Lighthouse
Schools:
Creating
cultures of accom-
plishment
in
elementary
schools that have
beaten the odds.
Chapel
Hill,
NC:
Principals
Ex-
ecutive
Program)
and are
published
here with
permission.
References
Bryk,
A.,
Sebring,
P., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S.,
&
Easton, J.
(1998).
Charting Chicago
school re-
form.
Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Coburn,
C. E.
(2001). Collective sense
making
about
reading:
How teachers mediate read-
ing policy
in their
professional
communities.
Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis,
23,
145-170.
Earl, L.,
&
Lee,
L.
(1998).
School
improvement:
What have we learned
from
the Manitoba
expe-
rience? Toronto: Walter and Duncan Gordon
Foundation.
Fullan,
M.
(1999).
Change forces:
The
sequel.
Lon-
don: Falmer.
Goddard, R.,
Hoy,
W.,
&
Hoy,
A.
(2000).
Collec-
tive teacher
efficacy:
Its
meaning,
measure,
and
impact
on student achievement. Ameri-
can Educational Research
Journal, 37(2),
479-
508.
Hargreaves,
A.
(1997).
Cultures of
thinking
and
educational
change.
In B.
J. Biddle,
T. L.
Good,
& I.
F. Goodson
(Eds.),
International
handbook
of
teachers and
teaching
(Vol. 2,
pp.
1297-1319).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Langer,
J. (2000).
Excellence in
English
in middle
and
high
school: How teachers'
professional
lives
support
student achievement. American
Educational Research
Journal, 37,
397-440.
Lewis, C.,
Schaps,
E.,
&
Watson,
M.
(1996).
The
caring
classroom's academic
edge.
Educa-
tional
Leadership,
54(3),
16-21.
Louis, S.,
&
Kruse,
S. (Eds.). (1995).
Professional-
ism and
community.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA: Cor-
win.
Newmann, F.,
&
Wehlage,
G. (1995).
Successful
school
restructuring.
Madison:
University
of
Wisconsin,
Center on
Organization
and Re-
structuring
of Schools.
Peterson,
K.
D.,
&
Deal,
T. E.
(2002).
The
shaping
school culture
fieldbook.
San Francisco:
Jossey-
Bass.
Spillane,
J.
P.
(1999).
External reform initiatives
and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their
practice:
The
mediating
role of teachers'
zones of enactment.
Journal of
Curriculum
Studies, 31,
143-175.
Strahan,
D.
(2002).
Achieving
success in the North
Carolina
Lighthouse
Schools: Patterns
of perfor-
mance in
elementary
schools that have beaten the
odds.
Chapel
Hill:
University
of North Caro-
lina,
Center for School
Leadership Develop-
ment.
Strahan,
D.
(2003).
Achieving
success in the North
Carolina
Lighthouse
Schools:
Creating
cultures
of accomplishment
in
elementary
schools that
have beaten the odds.
Chapel
Hill,
NC: Princi-
pals
Executive
Program.
Strahan, D.,
&
Ware,
A.
(2001).
Achieving
success
in the North Carolina
Lighthouse
Schools: An
analysis of
the
dynamics of meaningful reform.
Chapel
Hill:
University
of North
Carolina,
Center for School
Leadership Development.
Wolcott,
H. K.
(1999).
Ethnography:
A
way of
see-
ing.
Walnut
Creek,
CA: Alta Mira.
Wolf, S., Borko, H., Elliott, R.,
&
McIver,
M.
(2000).
"That
dog
won't hunt!":
Exemplary
school
change
efforts within the
Kentucky
re-
form. American Educational Research
Journal,
37,
349-396.
NOVEMBER 2003

Promoting A Collaborative Professional Culture in Three Elementary Schools That Have Beaten The Odds

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

Promoting A Collaborative Professional Culture in Three Elementary Schools That Have Beaten The Odds

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Promoting a Collaborative Professional Culture in Three Elementary Schools That Have Beaten

You might also like