central connecticut state universitywebcapp.ccsu.edu/u/faculty/kurkjianc/carrreader article... ·...

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

mailto:[email protected]

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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

http://tiepresentationjune2008.pbworks.com/f/Five+Missing+Pillars.pdf

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/ew/issues/adequate-yearly-progress/

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.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/30/19nonfiction_ep.h32.html?qs=common+core+misunderstandings

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/30/19nonfiction_ep.h32.html?qs=common+core+misunderstandings

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/09/14/04cep.h31.html

http://www.edweek.org/

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

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/smarter_balanced_assessment_c

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/smarter_balanced_assessment_c

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/ccss/ccss_strategic_plan_sbe_120512.pdf

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards

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

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/rttfinalrptfull.pdf

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


Teachers assume that all children can learn at reasonably high levels and that teachers can help them



Teachers work together to develop shared understandings of students, curriculum and instruction; produce materials and activities



Through words and actions teachers affirm their common values concerning critical educational issues



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.



Teachers have common spaces for discussion of education practices



There are recurring formal situations in which teachers work together (e.g. team teaching, integrated lessons)



Opportunities exist for an exchange of ideas within and across organizational units (e.g. teams, grade levels, and departments).



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



33

text based argumentsCreate learning experiences that build knowledge using informational texts



Provide instruction in academic vocabulary to support student understanding of complex text



Providing instruction in analyzing and using visual and multimedia elements in reading and writing



(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

central connecticut state universitywebcapp.ccsu.edu/u/faculty/kurkjianc/carrreader article... ·...

Documents