central connecticut state universitywebcapp.ccsu.edu/u/faculty/kurkjianc/carrreader article... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Cultures of literacy: An investigation of essential factors in the implementation of the Common Core State Literacy Standards
Submission to the CARReader
September 16, 2016
Penelope L. Lisi, Ph.D.Professor, Department of Educational Leadership
Central Connecticut State [email protected]
and
Catherine Kurkjian, Ed.D.Professor, Department of Literacy, Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Central Connecticut State [email protected]
Introduction
In 2005, the National Association for Secondary School Principals published a
report (Creating a Culture of Literacy: A Guide for Middle and High School Principals)
that describes the major deficit in the literacy achievement of United States’ secondary
students. Direct literacy instruction that might address this glaring deficit ends, in most
cases, at the third grade. Historically, the teaching of reading has been one of the most
critical, and perhaps challenging responsibilities of educators in schools around the
world. In the U.S. 30% of all students are not graduating from high school, and 75% of
all students with literacy problems in the third grade will still experience literacy
difficulties in the ninth grade.
Since 2010, a promising, though somewhat controversial educational reform
initiative in the United States has been the development of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) in the English Language Arts and in Mathematics, and other content
areas (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010). The common K-
12 standards are intended to define knowledge and skills so that upon graduation students
are college and career ready. The successful implementation of the CCSS necessitates the
creation of cultures of literacy in schools in which all stakeholders, including teachers
and leaders, are working together to improve the teaching of reading from PK-12 grades.
Forty-two states have adopted the Common Core State Standards. Much direction for
implementation of the CCSS in Connecticut is coming from the Connecticut State
Department of Education (Pryor et al, 2012; Pryor, 2014). Most notable is encouragement
for the creation and use of professional learning communities (PLCs) as a strategy to
support implementation. The intention is that schools and districts will move towards
establishing cultures of literacy.In this article, we provide a hitorical overview and
examine the interface between federal policy and the development of the CCSS. We
describe the results from Year 2 of a three-year study that is designed to ascertain
perceptions of Connecticut teachers and administrators regarding the implementation of
the CCSS. During Year 1 (the pilot year), we used a 48-item instrument adapted from the
Common Core Feedback Loop to collect baseline data about respondents’ understanding
of the literacy standards and perceptions of supports for implementation of the standards.
2
In Year 2, we fine-tuned the survey instrument, based on responses during the pilot year,
and disseminated the survey throughout the state of Connecticut. Of particular interest is
how leaders are creating a culture for enhancement of literacy.
The primary goal of this research project is to enhance our knowledge of leadership
practices in support of a culture for literacy in ways that address significant literacy
achievement challenges. In particular, we are interested to learn how educators and
educational leaders are addressing the reform initiative that requires the implementation
of a new set of learning standards in schools across the nation. While educators appear to
be committed to defining expectations of what students should know and be able to do
(EPE Research Center, 2013), there appear to be varying reactions to the national
standards that have been established, to supports that have been provided for teachers to
learn to implement them in the classroom, and to assessment systems that measure the
integration and impact of the standards on student learning (Gewertz, 2011).
Historical Background
This historical review traces trends and provides a context leading up to the birth of
the CCSS initiative. Traditionally, a tension has existed between local governance and
federal control of schools. While local governance is considered a constitutional right by
virtue of the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, one can trace the increasing impact
of federal policy on reading instruction and, in the case of the focus of this article, how it
interfaces with the development of the CCSS.
The Education and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was the first legislation that
provided monetary incentives to states to improve the academic achievement of low-
3
income families and to redress educational inequality among “minorities”. The ESEA
was an important component of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.
Compensatory programs such as Head Start and Title I (Chapter I) were intended to
provide more and better educational services to move the poor out of poverty, to ensure
equity in educational opportunities, and to safeguard compliance with civil rights
policies. Over the next three decades these programs grew extensively and were
increasingly funded and accompanied by a demand for increased measures of
accountability. Policies moved from targeting categorical groups in order to close
achievement gaps to impacting all students. Funding for these programs provided needed
resources to enhance reading instruction for all students.
In the 1980s Title I programs came under fire as demonstrated by a review of test
scores and an examination of its overall efficacy. Allington (1984) argued that policies
constrained effective reading instruction. He suggested redesign in areas such as its
delivery, curriculum, instructional time, instructional focus and student evaluation. He
called for a focus on research-based reading instruction and admonished reading
professionals for too little involvement in conducting systematic investigations. The
revamping of Title I programs from pull out to push in programs provided an entry point
for districts to use funding to benefit reading instruction for all students.
In this same era the whole language movement, a holistic learner-centered
philosophy guiding literacy instruction, was at its peak. Pushback to this approach came
in a variety of forms. There was a great deal of politicized debate focusing on whole
language versus phonics instruction, referred to as the Reading Wars. The Center for the
Study of Reading under the sponsorship of the National Academy of Reading published a
4
report, Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson et al, 1983), which provided a thorough
synthesis of existing research and implications for reading instruction. This report
underlined the importance of teaching phonics and its inclusion into reading instruction in
a balanced way that did not polarize or politicize the debate.
Congress provided a grant in 1989 to the Educational Testing Service to expand
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to compare results of student
performance in reading and mathematics and writing across grade levels and states. At
that point California’s state level curricular policies were holistic and this was a source of
controversy. The NAEP Assessment of 1992 tested 4th and 8th graders and found that
California scored at the bottom of the tested states in reading achievement. This provided
fodder for the phonics proponents and helped to propel the accountability movement
through development of yearly statewide standardized assessments and scientifically
research-based instruction.
During this time legislated reading programs were in place. Shanahan (2011)
described the programs and provided a timeframe of federal literacy and language
programs impacting reading instruction from the 1960s-2009. Related to the standards
movement was the National Voluntary English Language Arts Standards.
In 1992 The National Governors Association called for specific learning standards
to be used to enforce accountability. The US Department of Education contracted with
the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, and with two professional literacy
organizations, the International Reading Association (IRA) (now International Literacy
Association, ILA) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). A great deal
of controversy surrounded the development of these professional standards. The
5
Department of Education argued that the resulting standards were too broad and did not
define what learners should know and be able to do in various literacy domains across
grade levels. Funding for the standards was pulled in 1994. However, ILA and NCTE
still published these professionally developed voluntary standards, and they are currently
being revamped.
The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, The Improving America’s School Act (IASA)
required states to adopt their own high standards for all students. For Title I schools there
was an expectation of high quality teaching and professional development to ensure low
achieving students in high poverty areas would meet challenging standards.
Accountability was built in through the use of state developed standards and assessments
for all children (Riley, 1995). Varying standards at different levels of difficulties across
states made it difficult, however, to enforce accountability.
The No Child Left Behind legislation was enacted in 2002 to institute high stakes
testing with incentives and sanctions for not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
The AYP component of NCLB required that states use a single accountability measure to
determine if individuals and subgroups of students were making adequate progress on
state standards (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2011). States were to
hold districts and schools accountable for meeting AYP with the goal of 100%
proficiency by 2014.
Additionally, NCLB embraced scientific research-based instruction based on the
findings of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000). In 1997 the NRP was formed by
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the
Department of Education. The panel established criteria by which to select scientifically
6
worthy studies and identified topics with feedback from regional public hearings. Debate
and controversy surrounded the National Reading Panels’ process as well as the
determination of what counts as scientific research. The NRP Report has had a
tremendous impact on what is considered its narrow focus on reading instruction in its
identification of the five “pillars’ of reading instruction. Research-based practices were
identified that provide benefits to learners in the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics,
oral reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension and professional development
for teachers (NICHD (2000). Critiques of the National Reading Panel often center on
what was ignored in their review. Allington (2005) identifies and cites research on the
“other five pillars” of reading instruction that were neglected, and of the dismissal of
quasi-experimental studies that were not easily codified, and as such may have been lost
to history. In 2002 the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) required instruction based on
the findings of the NRP. Shanahan (2011) notes that “the NCLB enactment mentions
scientific based reading research more than 100 times” (p.155).
Criticism of the NCLB Act revolved around a range of issues including the AYP
design in which the rigor of standards varied from state to state. Once again differing
standards across state mitigated accountability efforts. Shanahan (2011) argues that states
were not encouraged to generate competitive standards due to sanctions in place if they
failed to meet them. Others argued that the goals of AYP were too stringent and
unrealistic and would set up schools for failure (Center on Educational Policy, 2004, as
cited in Editorial Projects Research Center, 2011; Cronin, 2004). Cost was another issue
in the implementation of the law, and some contended that the federal government was
not contributing its share to meet their mandate (Orfield et al., 2004 as cited in Editorial
7
Projects Research Center, 2011). Other criticisms address the impact of high stakes
testing and its relationship to teacher turnover (Ingersoll, Merrill & May, 2016), and the
impact of test preparation on curriculum and student learning and engagement.
The CCSS emerged in response to standards developed in states that were deemed
to be “lower and uneven …. coupled with even lower assessments in many states”
(VanTassel, 2015, p.60). With the reauthorization of NCLB, The National Governors
Association (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) led
the development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Four billion dollars
provided by Congress as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
were used to fund Race To The Top (RTTT) grants (U.S. Department of Education,
2015).
Competitive rounds of grants were issued to challenge states to adopt college- and
career-ready standards for all students, develop assessments aligned with the CCSS,
provide student data systems for accountability, and link teacher evaluation to student
performance on standardized tests. Shanahan (2011) explains that since Title I funds have
been broadly distributed and combined with general education money to support reading
instruction for all students, districts are reliant on them to fund reading instruction for all
students. Moreover, he indicates that under ESEA, originally designed to force
compliance with civil rights laws, the federal government has the power to withhold
funds for noncompliance to educational policies. In this way federal policies regarding
literacy can be used to influence literacy education.
In December 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed,
replacing the No Child Left Behind Act which takes effect in the 2017-2018 school year.
8
With the passage of ESSA, the US Department of Education is now prohibited from
attempting to, "influence, incentivize, or coerce State adoption of the Common Core State
Standards as it relates to state control over standards and states rights to opt out of the
Common Core (Section 8544), prohibition of federal mandates, direction or control to
incentivize, mandate, coerce or promote the CCSS or any other standards (Section
8526A,) Prohibition of use of funds and endorsement of curriculum (Section 8527) ( as
cited in Education and the Committee Workforce, Sept. 2016). It will be interesting to
explore the extent of the adoption and use of the CCSS in light of ESSA legislation.
While federal initiatives and policy related to the CCSS have been traditionally
bipartisan, the CCSS has taken on political overtones with pushback from those on the
right and left (Baker, 2014) making it unclear as to what impact a newly elected president
will have on its implementation.
Conceptual Framework for the Study
Literacy instruction must not end when students enter middle school. However,
creating cultures of literacy necessitates strong and effective leadership. This study is
guided by the literature and research about leadership for school improvement, as well as
effective instructional practice. The literature is clear about the need for effective
leadership as an essential ingredient in educational reform (Blankstein, 2012; Creating a
Culture of Literacy, 2005; Deal and Peterson, 2009; Fullan, 2007; Hoy and Miskel, 2008;
Murphy, 2004; Reeves, 2004; Schmoker, 2006; Wagner, 2008; Wahlstrom, Seashore
9
Louis, Leithwood, and Anderson, 2010; Zepeda, 2007).
The literature on creating a culture of literacy that supports high levels of academic
achievement indicates that the following principles must be in place: literacy is the top
priority in the school; educators are committed to impacting student learning; educators
maintain high expectations for students; and faculty and administrators maintain a strong
academic press (Gewertz, 2013; International Reading Association Common Core State
Standards Committee, 2012; Murphy, 2004; National Association of Secondary School
Principals; 2005; Torgesen, Houston, and Rissman, 2007). Further, time is managed
productively and opportunities exist for staff to engage in professional learning
The research on the role of collaboration in school improvement is compelling,
particularly around the use of professional learning communities (PLCs). Shirley Hord
(1997) is credited with coining the term “professional learning community”. She defined
a professional learning community (PLC) as “a school in which the professionals
(administrators and teachers) continuously seek and share learning to increase
effectiveness for students, and act on what they learn” (p.1). In professional learning
communities, teachers learn to work in high performing teams in which collaboration is
embedded in routine practices; time for collaboration is built in the school day; team
norms guide collaboration; and teams pursue specific and measurable performance goals
(Hord, 2004). When a collaborative culture and professional learning communities are in
evidence, the research indicates that this leads to high levels of academic achievement.
10
DuFour and Eaker (1998) describe characteristics of professional learning communities
that include the following: shared mission, vision, and values; collective inquiry in which
community members engage in a collective process of seeking and testing new methods,
reflecting on results; collaborative teams in which members learn from one another, thus
creating momentum to fuel continued improvement; action orientation and
experimentation; continuous improvement; and results orientation through which
community members know that their efforts must be assessed on the basis of results
rather than intentions.
Purpose of the Study and Primary Research Questions
The current study is the second part of a three-year plan to ascertain perceptions over
time of Connecticut teachers and administrators regarding the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). While the study will not directly benefit
participants, the perspectives on implementation of Common Core State literacy
standards will inform university literacy and educational leadership professors as to how
to enhance university-level curriculum related to the CCSS in a way that addresses needs
with models of best practice. The study will inform the knowledge base on how leaders
can support large-scale changes.
Research questions that guide this study are as follows:
1. What is the level of awareness on the part of teachers and administrators in
Connecticut of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in Literacy?
2. What beliefs do teachers and leaders possess relative to the value of the CCSS?
11
3. What supports are provided by leaders for implementation of standards-based literacy
instruction?
4. What types of changes in classroom practice have resulted from the implementation
of standards-based literacy instruction?
Methodology
This is a descriptive study. Data are collected over a three-year time period using
a survey. During the first year we piloted the data collection tool and collected baseline
data from students we served in terms of their understanding of the literacy standards and
the supports for, and challenges to the implementation of the standards. In Year Two, the
survey was revised and disseminated to all elementary teachers in grades 3, 4, and 5
(6,000 teachers), and all (900) elementary administrators in the state to ascertain
perceptions related to use of the CCSS over time.
In terms of elementary educator teacher respondents, the following demographic
data was collected: 68% of the respondents taught in grades 4-6, 35% in grades 2-3. Of
all teacher respondents, 49% work in a rural school setting, 34% work in an urban setting,
49% work in a suburban setting, and 17% work in a suburban rural setting. And finally,
39% work in a setting in which 25% or less of the students are supported by a free and
reduced lunch regulation; 22% work in a setting of more than 76% free and reduced
lunch students.
12
In terms of elementary administrator respondents, the following demographic data
was collected: 69% serve as school principals, 28% of the respondents serve as assistant
principals. In terms of experience, 38% of the administrator respondents have served in
that capacity for 1-5 years, 31% for 6-10 years, and 30% for more than 10 years. In terms
of work setting, 32% of the leader respondents work in an urban setting, 53% of the
leader respondents work in a suburban setting, 32% in an urban setting, and 14% in an
urban setting.
The survey, originally piloted as a 48-item instrument adapted from the Common
Core Feedback Loop and used with permission from the U.S. Education Delivery
Institute became a 32-item instrument in Year 2. For the Year 2 survey, two mirror
versions of the instrument were again developed: one for educators, and one for
educational leaders. Each version had the same number of items, yet the language was
altered slightly to reflect the respondents. This instrument was grounded in the Year 1
survey, and adapted from a survey developed by Achieve, the U.S. Education Delivery
Institute (EDI) and Education First. Items were also included with permission from the
Missouri State Common Core Standards Survey and the Professional Learning
Community Survey from the Polk County Public Schools in Florida. Survey items were
grouped within five separate categories that included items related to: demographics,
awareness of the CCSS, beliefs about the CCSS, preparation for implementation of the
CCSS, and impact of the CCSS on instructional practice.
13
In spring 2014, the researchers requested email addresses from the Connecticut State
Department of Education (CTSDE) for 6,000 elementary teachers and 900 elementary
level administrators. Following approval of the study by the university’s Human Studies
Council/ Institutional Review Board, emails were sent to potential respondents asking for
their participation in the study. Confidentiality of responses was assured, and the email
provided a link to an on-line survey (using SelectSurvey.NET) for respondents to access
the instrument. Two follow-up emails were sent to all potential respondents. When access
to the survey was closed, the response rate of usable surveys for the elementary educators
was approximately 15% and 20% for the elementary administrators.
As indicated earlier, this is a descriptive study. Preliminary data analyses have used
simple descriptive statistics. We plan to conduct additional statistical analyses on the
quantitative data, as well as coding of responses to the final open-ended item. Qualitative
data will be analyzed for patterns across questions and participants.
Findings
In Year 2 of the study, data from responses by leaders and teachers provide useful
information to support the investigation of knowledge of leadership practices in support
of a culture for literacy in our schools. In particular, preliminary data analysis indicates
that educators and educational leaders are addressing the reform initiative that requires
the implementation of a new set of learning standards in schools in Connecticut. That
said, there does appear to be some variation in perceptions about awareness of the
14
standards and impact on teaching. It must be noted that, as discussed previously in the
section on demongraphics, approximately one-half of both the leader and teacher
respondents work in a suburban setting, and one-third of both sets of respondents work in
an urban setting. That said, we did not tease out responses in terms of demographics.
Instead, findings are discussed by the full leader group and the full teacher group.
Awareness of standards
In terms of survey questions related to Awareness of Standards, the data indicate
that 64% of the leaders have extensive knowledge and 34% have some level of
knowledge about the CCSS. In terms of leader responses, 98% indicate they have read
the CCSS, 91% indicate they are aware of the school plan for implementation, and 87%
are aware of the district plan for implementation (see Table 1).
In terms of teacher responses about awareness, 36% indicated they have
comprehensive knowledge, and 59% indicate they have some knowledge. Ninety-eight
percent indicate they have read the CCSS and 83% are aware of a school plan and 84%
are aware of a district plan.
Insert Table 1 approximately here
Beliefs about the CCSS
When asked about their beliefs, 81% of the leader respondents indicated they
believe that the CCSS will lead to improved student learning for the majority of students.
15
(see Table 2). Reasons provided by leaders for why the CCSS will benefit the majority of
their schools’ students include: 88% believe the CCSS are more demanding and raise
expectations for student learning; 66% believe the CCSS will help students master key
competencies, and 59% believe the CCSS will help the school ensure standards are
vertically aligned K-12.
In contrast to leader respondents, 47% of teachers indicated that they believe that
the CCSS will lead to improved student learning for the majority of students. Reasons
provided by teachers for why the CCSS will benefit the majority of their schools’
students include: 82% believe the CCSS are more demanding and will raise expectations
for student learning; but 33% believe the CCSS will help students master key
competencies; and 33% believe the CCSS will help the school system ensure standards
are vertically aligned. It appears that among those who believe that the CCSS will
improve student learning for the majority of students, a high number of leaders and
teachers believe the CCSS are more demanding and will raise expectations for student
learning.
Insert Table 2 approximately here
A further investigation of beliefs regarding the CCSS indicated that 83% of the
leaders believe the CCSS will help teachers know what content to teach. However, 55%
of the teachers believed the same thing. Only 53 % of leaders believe the CCSS will help
teachers differentiate instruction and 39% of the teachers believed the same thing. On a
16
more positive note, 74% of the leaders believe the CCSS will change teacher use of
technology and 66% of the teachers believe the same thing. Interestingly, 89% of the
leaders believe the CCSS will help them identify instructional practices that represent the
CCSS in classroom observations. However, only 46% believe they have the ability to
identify effective teaching. Finally, in terms of challenges to implementation of the
CCSS, 55% of the leaders and 47% of teachers believe teachers need more quality
professional development while only 22% of leaders indicate there is a need for more
textbooks and materials aligned to the CCSS as opposed to 50% of the teachers who have
articulated this need
Preparation and Support for Implementation of the CCSS
When asked if they feel prepared for using the CCSS, 92% of the leaders
indicated they feel completely or somewhat prepared. When asked the same question,
78% of the teachers indicated they feel completely or somewhat prepared (see Table 3).
Insert Table 3 approximately here
When asked what would help them feel better prepared to use the CCSS, 64%
indicated teachers should have more collaborative planning time to align curriculum to
the CCSS, 62% believed teachers should have collaborative planning time to understand
the CCSS, 59% indicated teachers should have access to assessments aligned to the
CCSS, and 58% indicated teachers should have access to curricular resources aligned to
the CCSS. When asked the same question, 73% of the teachers indicated they should
17
have access to curricular resources aligned to the CCSS, and 52% said they should have
access to assessments aligned to the CCSS.
Respondents were asked to describe their professional training for implementation
of the CCSS. Fifty-one percent of the leaders indicated teachers were engaged in
professional learning communities, and 49% indicated teachers were engaged in multi-
day training. When asked the same question, 42% of the teachers indicated they had
received one day of training, 26% indicated they were engaged in a PLC, and 23%
indicated they had received multi-day training. Most training appears to have been
provided by a staff member from the respondent’s district. However, when asked if the
training had been of high quality, 66% of the leaders agreed that it had, while only 36%
of the teachers agreed that it had.
Respondents were asked about the culture of the school in relation to support for
the CCSS. Both leaders and teachers agree that faculty and staff talk with each other
about their challenges (85% of the leaders and 79% of the teachers). When asked if
teachers believe that all children can learn at reasonably high levels and that teachers can
help them, 67% of the leaders agreed, while 58% of the teachers agreed. When asked if
teachers work together to develop shared understanding of teaching and learning, 67% of
the leaders agreed that they do, while 52% of the teachers agreed that they do.
In response to the question about structures that are in place in their school to
support the implementation of the CCSS, 46% of the leaders believe that there is a formal
18
process of regularly scheduled time for educators to engage in on-going self-examination.
Only 18% of the teachers agreed that this structure was in place. When asked if they have
common space for discussion of education practices, 70% agreed the teachers do have
that space, while only 34% of the teachers agreed that space exists. When asked if there
are formal structures for teachers to work together (for example, through team teaching),
53% of the leaders agreed there are, while only 22% of the teachers agreed with the
statement. When asked if opportunities exist for an exchange of ideas across
organizational units, 69% of the leaders agreed with the statement, while only 31% of the
teachers agreed. And when asked if teachers have autonomy to make decisions regarding
their work, guided by the beliefs of the professional community, 58% of the leaders
agreed with the statement, while only 37% of the teachers agreed.
When asked about changes that are being made in how teachers are supported in
implementing the CCSS, 69% of the leaders indicated there are opportunities for sharing
of information and resources, while only 42% of the teachers believe that support exists.
Sixty-four percent of the leaders believe there are opportunities for teachers to collaborate
with colleagues about the CCSS, while only 38% of the teachers agreed with that support.
Changes in classroom practice
The data from the CCSS Survey indicate that there are changes in teacher practice
as a result of implementation of the standards (Please see Table 4). When asked if their
school’s educators are building students’ knowledge through content-rich nonfiction,
80% of the leaders and 72% of the teachers indicated that is happening. And when asked
19
if teachers are providing students with reading and writing experiences grounded in
evidence from literary and informational texts, 78% of the leaders and 80% of the
teachers indicated that is happening. Finally, when asked if teachers regularly provide
students with practice in using complex grade-level text, 61% of the leaders, and 57% of
the teachers indicated that is happening. Oddly enough, when asked if teachers are
incorporating CCSS into their teaching expectations, 38% of leaders and 33% of the
teachers indicated that is happening fully.
Insert Table 4 approximately here
When asked to what extent there are shifts in teaching practices in the classroom,
59% of the leaders and 57% of the teachers indicated teachers structure opportunities for
students to have conversations and develop text-based arguments. Seventy-four percent
of leaders and 75% of teachers believe teachers are creating learning experiences that
build knowledge using informational text. And 61% of leaders and 58% of teachers
believe teachers provide instruction in academic vocabulary to support student
understanding of complex text. Finally, more than 75% of the leaders and 75% of the
teachers believe teachers are implementing a variety of CCSS English Language Arts
standards, including: guiding students to read texts closely; guiding students to answer
text-dependent questions, and guiding students to notice structural features of texts.
Discussion
Research Question #1
20
In considering data that addresses Research Question #1 (What is the level of
awareness on the part of teachers and administrators in Connecticut of the Common Core
State Standards in Literacy?), responses by educational leaders indicate their
overwhelming belief that they are knowledgeable about the CCSS standards.
Similarly, teachers are knowledgeable about the standards, though more believe
they have some knowledge, as opposed to full knowledge, like the vast majority of
leaders.
Research Question #2
When reflecting on data that addresses Research Question #2 (What beliefs do
teachers and leaders possess relative to the value of the CCSS?), a preliminary
examination of the data indicates that leaders and teachers appear to hold some
significantly different beliefs. Most notable are strongly held leader beliefs that the CCSS
will lead to improved student learning. Less than 50% of the teachers agreed with this
and 39% of them disagreed with this statement. This is a critically important difference
that will need to be addressed. Additionally, 83% of leaders and 55% of teachers believe
the CCSS will help teachers know what content to teach. Further, 66% of leaders and
33% of teachers believe the CCSS will help students master key competencies.
Beliefs influence school and organizational culture. Significant school
improvement will be very difficult to implement effectively if values and beliefs- the core
of school culture- are not addressed. This is consistent with the research on professional
21
learning communities (e.g. DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997, 2004). In order to
support school improvement efforts, leaders must ensure a shared vision, norms, beliefs,
and values around the effort.
Research Question #3
When reflecting on data that addresses Research Question #3 (What supports are
provided by leaders for implementation of standards-based literacy instruction?), a
preliminary examination of the data appears to indicate that leaders are engaging teachers
in a variety of activities. Leaders and teachers agree at high levels that there are
opportunities for faculty to talk with each other about challenges and situations.
However, this is a clear discrepancy between leader and teacher perceptions about
structures that are in place to support teacher implementation of the CCSS. In particular,
these discrepancies appear in the areas of: teachers having common space for discussion
of education practices, opportunities for exchange of ideas across organizational units,
and teacher autonomy.
Elmore (2004) outlined key principles for school improvement, including the notion
that leaders provide opportunities for collaboration activity related to the CCSS
implementation. While leaders appear to believe those opportunities exist, they would be
well-served to be clear with teachers about where those opportunities exist.
Even when asked about opportunities for collaboration among teachers, teacher and
leader perceptions are uneven. While 64% of the leaders believe they provide
22
opportunities for collaboration about CCSS, only 38% of the teachers believe those
opportunities exist. It would be expected that over time opportunities to collaborate in
professional learning communities would increase, or engagement in existing
opportunities would expand, since these supports are key components of the State
Department of Connecticut’s strategic plan. Clearly, leaders should consider additional
ways of supporting teachers in this critical school improvement effort, a requirement
consistent with the research and literature (Creating a Culture of Literacy, 2005; Murphy,
2004; Reeves, 2004; Schmoker, 2006; Wahlstrom, Seashore Louis, Leithwood, and
Anderson, 2010).
Surveys revealed that the majority of teachers and leaders are aware of, and
supportive of the major shifts in the CCSS that include 1) building student knowledge
through content-rich non-fiction; 2) providing students with reading and writing
experiences grounded in evidence from literary and information text; 3) providing regular
opportunities for students to practice with complex grade-level text; and 4) facilitating
evidence-based conversations. While this is a positive finding, clearly, professional
development will be needed to support the shifts and to help teachers decide the
conditions under which these practices are most appropriate.
Research Question #4
When looking at responses that address Research Question #4 (What types of
changes in classroom practice have resulted from the implementation of standards-based
23
literacy instruction?), the preliminary data appear to indicate that leaders and teachers
agree at fairly high levels that the CCSS are being implemented in classroom practice.
It appears that, while teachers may not believe in the value of this initiative, they
are making a shift towards a more rigorous curriculum in alignment with the CCSS. Both
teachers and leaders believe at levels over 75% that teachers are doing the following:
guiding students to read texts closely, guiding students to answer text-dependent
questions, guiding students to draw on evidence in their writing, and guiding students to
notice structural features of text.
Recommendations
As leaders continue to work to develop a culture of literacy in light of the new
standards reform initiative, the preliminary data from this study may provide insights into
what leaders might do. Recommendations include the following:
1.Continue to support the development of PLCs during which educators can share
best practice and learn from and with each other.
2.Engage in school-wide reflection on core values and beliefs, particularly related to
the CCSS.
3.Have a clear professional development plan in place that includes job-embedded
learning opportunities and time for collaboration.
4.Ensure that leaders and teachers have a deep understanding of the shifts that the
CCSS are requiring
24
5.Provide a range of resources to implement the shifts particular to nonfiction, along
with other CCSS aligned materials and assessments to inform instruction.
6.Provide opportunities for teachers to sort out the misconceptions that abound and
provide opportunities that take into account differentiating instruction so that this
initiative can address the needs of all students.
Summary
There is little argument that educators in American schools need to prepare students
to participate in a global society. In particular, there is a consensus that this need extends
especially to reading/ language arts, or literacy, and mathematics. With relation to
building more effective opportunities for students to build upon their literacy capacity,
the primary question is, are leaders creating a culture or environment for enhancement of
literacy? Preliminary data from the current study point to the fact that schools and school
leaders do seem to be headed in a positive direction. There is still much room for
additional and extensive support in order for this initiative to take deep root.
References
Allington, R. L. (2004). Setting the record straight. Educational Leadership 61(6): 22-25.
[email protected] European Conference on Reading, Zagreb, August 2005
Retrieved http://tiepresentationjune2008.pbworks.com/f/Five+Missing+Pillars.pdf
Allington, R. (1989, May). Policy constraints and effective compensatory reading
instruction: A review. Paper presented at Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
25
International Reading Association (29th, Atlanta, GA, Retrieved from ERIC database
(ED248456).
Baker, A. (2014, February). Common Core Curriculum now has critics on the left. The
The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/nyregion/new-york-early-champion-of-common-
core-standards-joins-critics.html?_r=0.
Blankstein, A. (2012). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K.D. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and
promises. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices
for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2011, July 18). Issues A-Z: Adequate
Yearly Progress. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/adequate-yearly-progress/
Education and theWorkforce Committee (Sept. 2016). Moving in the Right Direction.
Retrieved http://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentquery.aspx?
DocumentTypeID=1925
Elmore, R. (2004). School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and
Performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
EPE Research Center, (2013). Findings from a National Survey of Teacher Perspectives on
the Common Core (Bethesda, MD: EPE Research Center, 2013). Retrieved from
26
http://www.edweek.org
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Gewertz, C. (2011, September). Common standards implementation slow going, study finds.
Education Week 31(4) from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/09/14/04cep.h31.html
Gewertz.C. (2013, January) Interpretations Differ on Common Core's Nonfiction
Rule. Education Week 32(19) from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/30/19nonfiction_ep.h32.html?
qs=common+core+misunderstandings
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they
important? Issues...about Change, 6(1), 1-8.
Hord, S. M. (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through
professional learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research
and practice, 8th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L. & May, H. (2016). Do accountability policies push teachers out?
Educational Leadership, 7(8), 44-49.
International Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
Committee. (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State
Standards [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/association-
documents/ira_ccss_guidelines.pdf
Johnson, J. (1989, September). EDUCATION; A Federal Grant for Testing Aims at State-by-
State Data. The New York Times. Retrieved from
27
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/27/us/education-a-federal-grant-for-testing-aims-at-
state-by-state-data.html
Murphy, J. (2004). Leadership for literacy: Research-based practice, PreK-3. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to
read. Report of the subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institutes of Health.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). Creating a culture of
literacy: A guide for middle and high school principals. Reston, VA: NASSP.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief
State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers,
Washington D.C. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards
Pryor, S., Boberge-Wentzell, D.,Ullman, D. Byrne, E. (December 2012). Connecticut
State Department Common Core State Standards Strategic Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/ccss/ccss_strategic_plan_sbe_120512.pdf
Pryor, S. (March 2014). NEWS. Connecticut State Department of Education. Retrieved
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/smarter_balanced_assessment_
consortium_shifts_first_day_of_field_test.pdf
Reeves, D. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can
take charge. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Shanahan, T. (2011). Education policy and the language arts. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.)
Handbook of Research on the English Language Arts, 3rd edition. New York:
28
Routledge.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in
teaching and learning. Alexandria VA: ASCD.
Torgesen, J., Houston, D., & Rissman, L. (2007). Improving literacy instruction in
middle and high schools: A guide for principals. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research
Corporation, Center on Instruction.
U.S. Department of Education (2015, November). Fundamental change: Innovations in
America’s schools under Race to the Top. Washington D.C. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/rttfinalrptfull.pdf
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t
teach the new survival skills our children need -- and what can we do about it. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Wahlstrom, K.L., Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S.E. (2010).
Learning from leadership project: Investigating the links to improved student learning.
University of MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Zepeda, S. (2007). The principal as instructional leader: A handbook for supervisors.
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
29
Tables
Table 1 Responses to Survey Questions related to Awareness of Standards
Key concept: Awareness Teacher response Leader response(6) Knowledge of state’s transition to the CCSS
36% comprehensive knowledge59% some knowledge
64% extensive knowledge34% some knowledge
(7) Have read CCSS 98% yes 98% yes(8) Awareness of plan (school)
83% yes 91% yes
(9) Awareness of plan (district)
84% yes 87% yes
(10) Awareness of shift- citing textual evidence
87% Correct response 94% Correct response
Table 2 Responses to Survey Questions related to Beliefs about the CCSS
Key concept: Beliefs Teacher response Leader response(11) Level of agreement that CCSS will improved learning for majority of school’s students
47% agree39% Disagree
81% agree13% disagree
(12) Reasons for belief why CCSS will benefit majority of studentsCCSS will help students master key competencies
33 % 66%
The CCSS will help school system ensure standards are vertically-aligned K-12
33% 59%
(14) The CCSS are more demanding and raise expectations for student learning.
82% 88%
The CCSS will help teachers know what content and sequence to teach
55% 83%
CCSS will help differentiate instruction to meet unique needs of students
39% 53%
CCSS will change use of technology
66% 74%
Administrators believe they can identify instructional
89%
30
practices that represent CCSS during classroom observationsAdministrators believe they have the ability to identify most effective educators
46%
(16) Two top challenges in implementationNeed more aligned textbooks and materials
50% 22%
Need more quality professional development
47% 55%
Table 3Responses To Survey Questions Related To Preparation and Support For Implementation Of Standards-Based Literacy Instruction
Key concept: Supports Teacher response Leader response17. Do you feel prepared to teach the Common Core State Standards?
10% Completely prepared68% Somewhat prepared19% No, I do not feel prepared at all
20% Completely prepared72% Somewhat prepared6% No, I do not feel prepared at all
18) What would help you be better prepared to teach the Common Core State Standards? (check all that apply)More information about how CCSS changes what is expected of my practice
45% 54%
Access to assessments aligned to CCSS
52% 59%
Access to curricular resources aligned to CCSS
73% 58%
Collaborative planning time for understanding CCSS
40% 62%
Collaborative planning time to align curriculum to CCSS
37% 64%
(20) Have you participated in professional development on CCSS?
Yes- 83%No-17%
Yes- 93%No-7%
(21) [If yes] How would you describe those professional development/training opportunities? (check all that apply)One-day training 42% 39%Multi-day training 23% 49%Professional Learning Community
26% 51%
(22) [If you received PD) Who provided the training? (check all that apply)A staff member from my school or district
70% 81%
31
(23) CCSS training I have received has been of high quality that has helped me improve my practice.
36%Agree58% Disagree
66%Agree30%Disagree
(24) For each statement please choose the answer that most closely reflects your school cultureFaculty/staff members talk to each other about their situations and challenges
79% Agree11% Somewhat or Not at all
85% Agree3% Somewhat or Not at all
Teachers assume that all children can learn at reasonably high levels and that teachers can help them
58% Agree19% Somewhat or Not at all
67% Agree12% Somewhat or Not at all
Teachers work together to develop shared understandings of students, curriculum and instruction; produce materials and activities
52% Agree24% Somewhat or Not at all
67% Agree12% Somewhat or Not at all
Through words and actions teachers affirm their common values concerning critical educational issues
56% Agree18% Somewhat or Not at all
57% Agree14% Somewhat or Not at all
25.Is there a staff member in your school or district who has been identified as a teacher resource on CCSS?
33% Yes39% No28% I don’t know
62% Yes31% No7% I don’t know
(26) Rate the degree to which the following structures are in place at your schoolA formal process provides substantial and regularly scheduled time for educators to conduct on-going self-examination.
18% Agree69% Somewhat or Not at all
46% Agree40% Somewhat or Not at all
Teachers have common spaces for discussion of education practices
34% Agree54% Somewhat or Not at all
70% Agree20% Somewhat or Not at all
There are recurring formal situations in which teachers work together (e.g. team teaching, integrated lessons)
22% Agree61% Somewhat or Not at all
53% Agree29% Somewhat or Not at all
Opportunities exist for an exchange of ideas within and across organizational units (e.g. teams, grade levels, and departments).
31% Agree50% Somewhat or Not at all
69% Agree15% Somewhat or Not at all
Teachers have autonomy to 37% Agree 58% Agree
32
make decisions regarding their work guided by the norms and beliefs of the professional community.
43% Somewhat or Not at all 20% Somewhat or Not at all
27) What changes, if any, are being made to the ways you are supported in implementing the Common Core State Standards? The leader, or leadership team is:Providing opportunities for you to collaborate with colleagues on CCSS implementation
38% 64%
Ensuring that curricular materials reflect CCSS
35% 61%
Sharing information and resources with educators related to CCSS
42% 69%
Professional development opportunities that support CCSS implementation
33% 53%
Table 4Responses to Survey Questions related to Changes in Classroom Practice as a Result of Implementation of the Common Core State Standards
Key concept: Changes Teacher response Leader response (28) Which of the following central shifts required from the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts/Literacy are you making? (check all that apply)Build students’ knowledge through content-rich non-fiction
72% 80%
Provide students reading and writing experiences with evidence from literary and informational text
80% 78%
Provide regular opportunities for students to practice with complex grade-level text
57% 61%
Facilitate evidence based conversations
57% 62%
(29) Have you incorporated CCSS into your teaching expectations and practice
33% Fully64% Some Areas
38% Fully60% Some Areas
(30) To what extent are the following shifts in teaching occurring in your classroom?Structure opportunities for students to have conversations and develop
57% Agree19% Somewhat or Not at all
59% Agree14% Somewhat or Not at all
33
text based argumentsCreate learning experiences that build knowledge using informational texts
75% Agree7% Somewhat or Not at all
74% Agree7% Somewhat or Not at all
Provide instruction in academic vocabulary to support student understanding of complex text
58% Agree14% Somewhat or Not at all
61% Agree14% Somewhat or Not at all
Providing instruction in analyzing and using visual and multimedia elements in reading and writing
48% Agree26% Somewhat or Not at all
43% Agree23% Somewhat or Not at all
(31) Rate the level of your school's implementation of the following components of the CCSS English Language ArtsGuiding students to read texts closely (close reading)
86% Current Lesson11%Next Year
87%Current Lesson13%Next Year
Guiding students to answer text dependent questions
97% Current Lesson 98% Current Lesson
Guiding students to draw on evidence in their writing
90% Current Lesson 76% Current Lesson
Guiding students to consider academic vocabulary in context
78%Current Lesson 83% Current Lesson
Guiding students to notice structural features of text
92% Current Lesson 87%Current Lesson
Guiding students to use visual/ multimedia elements in reading and writing
66% Current Lesson25% Next Year
63% Current Lesson34% Next Year
34