document resume - ericdocument resume ed 425 886 rc 021 748 title evolution of the primary program...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 425 886 RC 021 748

TITLE Evolution of the Primary Program in Six Kentucky Schools.INSTITUTION Appalachia Educational Lab., Charleston, WV.SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),

Washington, DC.PUB DATE 1998-09-00NOTE 22p.; For other issues of this newsletter, see ED 425 043

and ED 378 002.CONTRACT RJ96006001PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022) Reports Research (143)JOURNAL CIT Notes from the Field: Education Reform in Rural Kentucky; v6

n1 Sep 1998EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; Change Strategies; Curriculum Development;

*Educational Change; Multiunit Schools; *NongradedInstructional Grouping; *Primary Education; ProgramEvaluation; Program Implementation; Qualitative Research;*Rural Schools; State Legislation; Teacher Attitudes

IDENTIFIERS Kentucky; *Kentucky Education Reform Act 1990

ABSTRACTAs part of an 8-year study of education reform in rural

Kentucky, this report examines the primary program that has evolved in sixrural elementary schools as a result of the Kentucky Education Reform Act(KERA), which requires that grades K-3 be replaced by a nongraded program.This change aimed to eliminate failure in the first 2 years of schooling andprepare all children for the fourth grade by allowing them to progress attheir own developmental rate. Seven mandates for this primary programincluded developmentally appropriate practices, multiage and multiabilityclassrooms, continuous progress, authentic assessment, qualitative reportingto parents, professional teamwork, and positive parent involvement. Thisreport discusses the relationship of the primary program to other KERAstrands, the study methodology, and findings. Reform implementation washindered by uneven time lines, lack of guidance from the state department,slow formation and organization of school councils, uncertainties aboutappropriate instructional practices, and KERA mandates for "criticalattributes" of primary classrooms. Primary teachers at all study schoolsattempted to implement the attributes within the first 2 years upon receivingtraining and new materials, but program implementation was slowed due toover-emphasis on the critical attributes, legislative adjustments, lack ofperceived fit to reforms in grades 4-12, and questions of efficacy. Programdevelopment at the local level was influenced by principal's leadership,teacher beliefs, school climate, and local response. Attaining program goalsmay require reinforcing the intent of the primary program and articulatinghow teachers can infuse challenging content into the primary program in waysthat prepare students to meet state academic expectations. Case studies offour primary schools are included. (SAS)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

t-,

CNI

CD

Nr\

NOTES FROM THE HELD:Education Reform in Rural Kentucky

Volume 6, Number 1September 1998

Evolution of the Primary Program in Six Kentucky Schools

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

C(This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

ftl. slackTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

BEST COP if AVAILABLE

9

NOTES FROM THE FIELD:Education Reform in Rural Kentucky

Volume 6, Number 1September 1998

Evolution of the

In this issue of ''Notes from theField," we examine the developmentof the primary program in six ruralKentucky elementary schools. AELresearchers have studied the schoolsthroughout the past eight years,interviewing teachers, principals,central office staff, parents andstudents, as well as doing occasionalclassroom observation and reviewingdocumentary evidence and appropri-ate literature. This report is based onthe entirety of our work in eachschool, but the most detailed descrip-tion comes from the 1996-97 schoolyear, when we narrowed the focus ofour work to the class of 2006. Thesestudents were in their final year ofthe primary program during 1996-97.For more specific information, seethe description of our researchmethods (p. 3); a brief summary ofthe law related to the primaryprogram, including the seven criticalattributes (p. 5); and a short descrip-tion of the Kentucky accountabilityand assessment programs (p. 11).

When the primary program wasfirst implemented following the 1990passage of the Kentucky EducationReform Act (KERA), planning forand implementation of theprogramlooked fairly similar from school toschool across our study districts. Ingeneral, teachers made a good faitheffort to design their programsaccording to guidelines from the

Primary Program in Six Kentucky Schools

Kentucky Department of Education.During the first two years of primaryimplementation in the classrooms westudied, we documented a great dealof change in instruction, assessment,and student grouping practices.Changes have persisted over time inmost classrooms: flexible seatingarrangements, opportunities forstudents to work with partners or inteams, regular use of authenticliterature, increased emphasis onwriting, greater'use of hands-onactivities, less emphasis on numberand letter grades, more communica-tion among teachers of primarystudents, and more contact withparents. Over time, the programevolved differently in each school, asillustrated by the four, short casestudies enclosed. Some schoolscontinue to implement KERAprimary programs, while others havenow opted for more traditionalprograms.

The Primary Programin the Context of KERA

Initial Intent

The reform legislation does notspecify the intent of the primaryprogram; it merely requires that thefirst four years of school (K-3) bereplaced by a nongraded program. Itis clear from other sources, however,that the primary program was

intended to work hand-in-glovewith the results-based reforms ingrades 4-12. In 1990, David Hornbeck,the consultant on the curriculumportion of the reform law, explainedthe rationale for the primary programin his recommendations to the TaskForce on Education Reform:

I recommend that we abolish gradedifferentials up until entny into the 4thgrade. That will eliminate the possibility of"failing" kindergarten or the first grade.The basic school will, thus, extend from age4 through roughly age 9, with the objectivebeing to have all youngsters ready to enterthe 4th grade by [age) 8-10 with parents aspart of the successful partnership(Hornbeck, 1990).

This recommendation suggeststwo major goals for the primaryprogram: (1) eliminating failure in thefirst two years of schooling and (2)preparing all children for the fourthgrade. The idea was that schoolswould give children a positive startwhere they could progress at theirown developmental rate. This wouldeliminate the stigma and negativeconsequences of "failing" early inone's schooling. At the same time,however, students would be expectedto demonstrate the skills and capabili-ties needed for fourth grade.

Shortly after the passage of KERA,the Kentucky Department of Educa-tion developed seven critical at-tributes to guide schools in imple-menting the nongraded primary

This synthesis of findings is part of a qualitative study of education reform in rural Kentucky being conducted by the Appalachia Educational Laboratory(AEL) to provide feedback to educators and policymakers on the implementation of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990. Fourresearchers are documenting reform efforts in four rural Kentucky districts that have been assigned the pseudonyms of Lamont County, NewtownIndependent, Orange County, and Vanderbilt County. For more information about this project, contact Pam Coe (800-624-9120), or Patty Kannapel (502-581-0324), or AEL, P.O. Box 1348, Charleston, WV 25325-1348.

3

program (see p. 5). It was believedthat these program attributes wouldenable students to progress at theirown rate and also, through hands-onactivities, group work, and authenticassessment, help them achieve thehigher-level skills that would betested in fourth grade. The criticalattributes quickly became the linch-pin of the primary program.

Legislative Adjustments

In 1992, the legislature adopted theseven critical attributes into law,making the primary program theonly aspect of KERA that mandatedparticular classroom practices. Alsoin 1992, the legislature moved up theimplementation time lines suggestedby the state department of education.The state department suggested fullimplementation by the 1995-96 schoolyear (Kentucky Department ofEducation, 1991); the legislaturerequired schools to fully implementthe primary program by 1993-94.

Later, in response to teachercomplaints, the 1994 General Assem-bly enacted legislation designed togive greater flexibility to the pro-gram. By this time, it was widelyrecognized that teachers werefocused on and struggling with themultiage critical attribute; they alsoquestioned including five-year-oldsin the program. The legislature madetwo changes: permitting entry-levelstudents to be grouped in self-contained classrooms, and makingthe extent of multiage/multiabilitygrouping more flexible. A legislatorwho supported those changesexplained that he hoped that theincreased flexibility would result inteachers focusing more on the overallintent of the program and less onmultiaging as an end in itself.

In 1998, the legislature passedHB484, which created a new sectionof KRS Chapter 158, where all theprovisions for the primary programcan be found in one place.

2

Relationship of Primary Programto Other KERA Strands

To understand primary programimplementation in the study schools,one must recognize that Kentucky'sprimary program is but one compo-nent of a massive restructuring of thestate's education system. Reflecting anew philosophy that would becomeknown as "systemic reform" (Mur-phy, 1990; Smith & O'Day, 1990), thereform package shifted the focusfrom teacher input to student results,gave schools autonomy to decidehow to help students achieve reformgoals, but held them accountable forstudent performance as measured bya performance-based assessmentinstrument, the Kentucky Instruc-tional Results Information System(KIRIS). Thus, while primary teach-ers were required to implement newinstructional, assessment, andgrouping practices, they and theircolleagues in higher grades were alsoheld accountable for student perfor-mance. Schools, through their school-based decision-making councils,were given autonomy to decide howto help students achieve KERA goals.

Another reform measure affectingthe primary program was reorgani-zation of the state department ofeducation, which was meant toenhance the department's capacity tofacilitate rather than monitor reform.KERA required the new statedepartment to provide curriculumguidelines to assist districts inaligning curriculum to KERA goalsand expectations. The law requiredall positions in the department to beterminated on June 30, 1991, and anappointed commissioner (replacingthe elected chief state school officer)to institute a newly designed depart-ment on July 1, 1991. So during theentire first year of KERA implemen-tation, department staff were tryingto provide direction, but wereuncertain as to what role they might(or might not) play in the newdepartment.

To provide the massive amount of

teacher training needed to imple-ment the reforms, funding forprofessional development wasgreatly increased over the six-yearperiod, from $1 per student in 1990to $23 per student in 1996-97. Smallerdistricts were required to pool theseresources in professional develop-ment consortia. By 1992, regionalservice centers were in place toprovide districts with technicalassistance.

Recognizing that students arriveat school in various stages of readi-ness to learn, the legislature includedin KERA a number of programsschools could use to help studentsovercome barriers to learning. Theseincluded preschool programs for at-risk four-year-olds and for three- andfour-year-olds with handicaps ordevelopmental delays; integratedservices (family resource and youthservices centers) to help studentsovercome social, emotional, andphysical barriers to learning; andextended school services (ESS) forstudents who needed additional timeto meet the mandated outcomes.

Components of KERA werephased in. State-sponsored profes-sional development during the 1990-92 school years was required inseven areas: the reform act itself,school-based decisionmaking,performance-based student assess-ment, nongraded primary, research-based instructional practices, instruc-tional uses of technology, andcultural diversity. Extended schoolservices was begun in 1990-91.School-based decision making(SBDM) was required in at least oneschool in each district by July 1991and in all schools (except those inone-school districts or that had mettheir accountability goals) by 1996.Preschool programs were institutedin 1990-91, and the integratedservices grants were made on acompetitive basis in June 1992. Theprimary program was initiated in1992-93, after a year of planning andprofessional development.

NOTES FROM THE Flap: Education Reform in Rural Kentucky4

Study Methodology

Research Methods

This report is based on findings from AEL's longitu-dinal study of primary program implementation in fourrural districts. From 1991 through 1995, we studied theprimary program along with other aspects of KERAimplementation in all 15 elementary schools in the fourdistricts. Beginning in 1996-97, we narrowed our focusto six schools and to a specific cohort of students withinthose schools: the class of 2006. This study sample ofsix schools includes two schools in western Kentucky,two in central Kentucky, and two in eastern Kentucky.Four of the schools are located in towns, while two arein outlying communities or rural areas. Five are locatedin county districts; one is in a small, independent schooldistrict. The schools range in size from about 80students to about 500 students. One of the schools hasfewer than 30 percent of students on free/reduced-priced lunch; the remainder range from 50 to 60percent.

The study is qualitative in nature: we rely oninterviews, observations, and review of documents toprovide information. In 1996-97, two researchers visitedthe six study schools in October, November or Decem-ber, January, February, and April. The February visit atall schools was spent interviewing primary teachers atall levels. The remaining visits were spent interviewingprincipals and observing and interviewing upper-primary teachers. In addition to regular field visits, tworesearchers visited each district together in May andmet separately with administrators and with upper-primary teachers at each school to share preliminaryfindings and obtain feedback.

The list below details the body of interviews andobservations conducted in the two phases of research.Because the primary was only one component of KERAthat we studied from 1991-1995, our investigation of itwas not as intensive during that phase of the researchas it was in 1996-97. The number of interviews shownbelow is a count of the total number of interviewsconducted with each role groupnot the total numberof individuals interviewed. For instance in 1996-97,only six principals were interviewed, but they wereinterviewed at least three times. Likewise, upper-primary teachers were interviewed 3-5 times each in1996-97. There were not nearly as many repeat inter-views during the 1991-95 phase, so those counts arecloser to the actual number of persons interviewed.

Number of interviews with:1991-95 1996-97

Totalto date

Principals 60 22 82Primary teachers 124 87 211Intermediate teachers 55 0 55Parents 30 0 30Primary students 19 0 19

Hours of observation in:Primary classrooms 100+ 86 186+

Key documents were also reviewed, such as primaryprogram action plans and annual evaluations, schooltransformation plans, school council minutes, schoolboard minutes, and local newspapers. During the 1996-97 school year, we copied and analyzed lesson plansfrom September through April for the 17 upper-primaryteachers.

In addition to local fieldwork, we have gatheredinformation at the state level throughout our study.Activities that provided information for this reportinclude a 1993 interview with officials at the KentuckyDepartment of Education who were responsible forprimary program implementation, a 1996 interviewwith one of the legislators instrumental in legislativechanges to the primary statutes, a 1997 conversationwith a former department official who helped get theprimary program off the ground, observation of regularmeetings of the Kentucky Board of Education since1992, observation of professional development sessionsrelative to the primary program (including that provid-ed by the state department: Primary Institutes andKELP training), and review of key state-level docu-ments.

Data Analysis

Data for 1996-97 were analyzed at mid-year andagain at the end of the school year. The summary offindings agreed upon by the research team was sharedwith administrators and teachers in the local districts atsmall group meetings. Input obtained during thesemeetings provided some new information and helpedrefine the analysis. At the end of the school year, theresearch team generated a set of overall findings acrossthe schools, as well as findings specific to each of thecase-study schools. In addition, lesson plans wereanalyzed to determine what content teachers covered,and with what frequency each subject area was coveredin the lesson plans.

Volume 6, Number 1

53

Findings

Implementation of the Program:Getting Started

Radical change is a difficult andoften messy process, an observationwell documented by the educationchange literature (see Fullan, 1996.)The implementation of the primaryprogram in the study districts was noexception. With increased profession-al development, primary teachersmade many positive changes in theearly years. They were hampered,however, by uneven implementationtime lines and lack of guidance froma state department undergoingreorganization. The primary pro-gram was implemented on schedulebut without some of the supportsbuilt into the law. For instance, inthree schools, the primary programwas well underway before familyresource centers were established;the remaining three schools are notyet served by these centers. Theextended school services programwas available early on, but in most ofour study schools it was offered onlyto students in the fourth or highergrades. Alignment of curriculumwith KERA goals and expectationslagged considerably behind primaryimplementation in the few studyschools that have accomplished it atall. Only three of the six schools hadcouncils at the time they were firstimplementing the primary program.The councils that were in place werebusy getting organized and trying todetermine their areas of responsibili-ty. These councils were content toallow primary teachers to plan theirown programs without a strong handfrom the councila practice that hascontinued to this day in all but oneschool. The different time linescontributed to the primary programbeing implemented almost as areform unto itself, rather than as aninterconnected part of a largerreform.

The early professional develop-

4

ment available to primary teachersoffered a variety of instructionalapproaches from which to choose. Inaddition, the state departmentoffered some early "primary insti-tutes" that focused on the philosophybehind the program. Teachers wespoke to at these sessions, however,expressed impatience with discus-sions of the primary programphilosophy. Because they wererequired to have a program up andrunning by the next school year, theywanted help with the practicalities ofday-to-day operation of a multiageprimary classroom. Perhaps inresponse to such complaints, profes-sional development soon began tofocus almost exclusively on instruc-tional practices in multiage settingsand was conducted by a variety ofproviders, some of whom gaveconflicting information as to whatwas appropriate primary practice.Because everyone (council members,principals, and teachers) was equallyunsure as to what actually constitut-ed appropriate practice, certain"myths" ("you can never use text-books again," "you can't teachspelling or phonics," "you can't drillstudents on math facts") becameprevalent and were implemented fora time.

In addition to the primary insti-tutes, the state department ofeducation provided early guidanceto primary teachers with the publica-tion of two documents that includedboth philosophical and practicalinformation (Kentucky Departmentof Education, 1991,1993). Becausethe department was reorganizingsimultaneously with primaryprogram implementation, however,consistent guidance from the statewas difficult to maintain. Continualshifting of state department person-nel responsible for the primaryprogram added to the difficulty.

Confusion in the early years ofprimary program implementationmay have been exacerbated by the1992 adoption of the critical at-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

tributes into statute. KERA estab-lished six broad goals for all studentsto achieve by the twelfth grade.Decisions about how to get studentsthere were left to the professionaleducators in schools and classrooms.In the primary program, however,the seven critical attributes specifiedhow classrooms were to operate andlook. This mandate, combined with alack of early information on thespecific content primary teachersshould be teaching, meant that,initially, primary teachers in ourstudy schools paid more attention tothe critical attributes than to theKERA goals and academic expecta-tions. They devoted more overtimehours than teachers at other gradelevels during 1991-94; they hadneither the time nor the energy toworry about the fit between whatthey were doing and overall KERAgoals and expectations. Even giventhese problems, however, primaryteachers instituted a number ofpositive changes in their classrooms.

Changes in Primary ClassroomsWe Studied

In the first two years of primaryprogram implementation (1992-93and 1993-94), primary teachers at allstudy schoolsin an attempt toimplement the attributesmadechanges in their approaches toinstruction, assessment, groupingpractices, reporting methods,working with other teachers, andworking with parents. Teachers atsome schools changed their practicessubstantially, while those at otherschools were more cautious.

With the new professional devel-opment money from KERA, virtuallyall primary teachers in the studyschools received copious training,purchased new materials, andexperimented with new instructionalpractices. They learned aboutinstructional approaches that werecompatible with the program, suchas involving students in theirlearning through learning centers,

NOTES FROM THE FIELD: Education Reform in Rural Kentucky

6

cooperative group activities, andhands-on math and science instruc-tion. Real-life application of skillsand integration of subject matterwere stressed in professional devel-opment sessions on literature-basedinstruction and thematic units.Teachers reported being over-whelmed at the time and energy ittook to make these changes. Yet, of

all the changes primary teachershave made, these have persistedmore than the others, reportedlybecause teachers have had successwith many of the new approaches.Even though teachers have opted notto continue some of the new practic-es, primary classrooms at all studyschools look different now thanwhen our study began. For instance,

primary teachers at all schools haverearranged their classrooms toeliminate desks in straight rows anddeveloped arrangements that enablestudents to interact with one anotherand work together. Most teachersgive students frequent opportunitiesto work with partners or in smallgroups. As a consequence of thestrong writing emphasis on the state

Overview of the Primary Program Requirements

KERA mandates that grades K-3 be replaced with anongraded primary program. The rationale behind thenongraded program is that students will progress attheir own rate through the primary years withoutexperiencing the stigma of early school failure. Imple-mentation of the primary program began in 1992-93 aftera year of planning and professional development, andthe program was to be fully implemented in all elemen-tary schools by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year.

Full implementation of the primary program meansthat seven critical attributes must be addressed to somedegree in every primary classroom in the state. Theseseven critical attributes were designed to enable primarystudents to achieve the six broad learning goals specifiedin the reform law.

(1) Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Curricu-lum and instruction that address the physical, social,intellectual, emotional, and aesthetic/artistic needs ofyoung learners and that allow them to progressthrough an integrated curriculum at their own rateand pace.

(2) Multiage and Multiability Classrooms: Flexiblegrouping and regrouping of children of different ages,sex, and abilities who may be assigned to the sameteacher(s) for more than one year.

(3) Continuous Progress: Students progress through theprimary school program at their own rate withoutcomparisons to the rates of others or consideration ofthe number of years in school. Retention and promo-tion within the primary school program are notcompatible with continuous progress.

(4) Authentic Assessment: Assessment that occurscontinually in the context of the learning environmentand reflects actual learning experiences that can bedocumented through observation, anecdotal records,journals, logs, work samples, conferences, and othermethods.

(5) Qualitative Reporting: The communication ofchildren's progress to families through various

home-school methods of communication that focus onthe growth and development of the whole child.

(6) Professional Teamwork: All professional staffincluding primary teachers, administrators, specialeducation teachers, teacher assistants/aides, itinerantteachers, and support personnelcommunicate andplan on a regular basis to meet the needs of groups aswell as individual children.

(7) Positive Parent Involvement: Relationships betweenschool and home, individuals, or groups that enhancecommunication, promote understanding, and increaseopportunities for children to experience success.

No process was mandated for teacher use to deter-mine if students have successfully completed theprimary program, but two tools were provided. TheKentucky Department of Education developed aninterim process for determining successful completion ofthe primary program, which was adopted into regulationby the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Educa-tion in December 1992. The interim regulation was meantto be replaced by the Kentucky Early Learning Profile(KELP). The KELP is an instrument designed to supportappropriate curriculum and instruction in the primaryprogram, verify successful completion of the primaryprogram, communicate with and involve parents in theassessment process, and constitute a staff developmentprogram on using authentic assessment. This primaryassessment tool was not intended to mirror the fourth-grade assessment, but was designed to provide studentswith opportunities to develop activities that lay thefoundation for the fourth-grade assessment. The KELPwas developed by the state's assessment contractor,piloted during the 1992-93 school year, and field testedin 1993-94. Training in use of the KELP was madeavailable to primary teachers across the state in thesummer of 1994. Concerns about the amount of paper-work associated with the KELP kept it from beingmandatory. Currently, schools may use the "interim"regulation, the KELP, or some similar process to verifysuccessful completion of the primary program.

Volume 6, Number I 5

assessment, primary teachersincorporate a great deal of writing intheir classrooms. In addition, authen-tic literaturereal books or stories,not material written specifically forclassroom instructionis frequentlya part of the primary reading pro-gram. The result of these changes isthat instruction in primary class-rooms is more interactive, hands-on,and connected to real-life experiencesthan previously.

In addition to instructionalchanges, primary teachers haveattempted working with groups ofstudents with wide ranges of abilitiesand ages and have begun to thinkabout and work out ways to allowstudents to progress at their ownrate. Some teachers developedstructures within their own single- ordual-age classrooms for allowingstudents to progress at their own ratein certain subjects (see KessingerElementary case history). At oneschool, teachers used flexible group-ing and regrouping for mathematicsinstruction, assessing and reshufflingstudent groups at the end of eachunit (see Orange County Elementarycase history).

Teachers have also made changesin their assessment and reportingpractices in response to the criticalattributes. At one school, teachersuse the state-provided assessment/reporting tool, the Kentucky EarlyLearning Profile (KELP), a voluntaryrecord keeping/assessment programappropriate for the primary pro-gram, made available in 1994. TheKELP learning descriptors gaveprimary teachers the first statedepartment guidance on specificcontent primary students shouldmaster before entering fourth grade.The KELP includes methods formonitoring student progress andreporting to parents not with lettergrades, but in narrative. In addition,progress reports are shared withparents face-to-face at regularintervals during the year. Teachersreport that the KELP is time-con-

suming, but provides a great deal ofinformation about student progress(see Orange County Elementary casehistory). At schools not using theKELP, teachers initially implementednew methods of authentic assess-ment, and replaced traditional reportcards with progress reports that weremeant to provide more detailedinformation to parents. There hasbeen a general lack of satisfactionwith these strategies, but primaryteachers at most schools still rely lesson numerical and letter grades thanin the past.

Primary teachers also communi-cate with one another and withparents more than in the past.Teacher teams that worked andplanned together were created atnearly all schools at some point inimplementation. Although thispractice is not now as common asinitially, teachers continue to reportthat they feel less isolated, sharingmore with other teachers than before.Similarly, in response to the criticalattributes, all six schools made astrong effort to reach out to parentsthrough parent meetings, conferenc-es, classroom newsletters, creation ofparent-teacher organizations, orparent volunteer programs. Schoolshave relaxed their efforts in this area,but the level of parent involvementat most study schools is still higherthan previously.

The changes in primary class-rooms have not been readily accept-ed by all teachers. Many teachersfeared that movement away from thetraditional, teacher-directed scopeand sequence approach to instructionwould result in the young studentslearning less. Some teachers mayhave interpreted "allows [students]to progress at their own rate" tomean that students should not bechallenged academically. As soon asthe first group of primary studentsentered fourth grade, we began tohear comparisons of them to previ-ous fourth graders. We were told bysome parents and teachers that

students coming out of the primaryprogram had weak spelling skillsand hadn't memorized their mathfacts. To balance those complaints,parents and fourth-grade teachersalso told us that the exiting primarystudents were "better thinkers,"asked more questions, and werebetter creative writers. However, westill detect a lingering perceptionamong upper-grade teachers that theprimary program does not adequate-ly prepare students for fourth grade.We have no evidence in our studydistricts or statewide that primaryprogram implementation impedesstudent performance on the stateassessment program. In fact,fourth-grade students statewide haveoutperformed students at grades 8and 11/12 on KIRIS (KentuckyDepartment of Education, 1996).

Slowing Down

Changes in primary classroomshave been substantial, but movementtoward greater implementation ofthe primary program has slowedconsiderably in our study schools.Generally, primary teachers seem tohave settled into an approachcomfortable for them, whether itequates to primary program imple-mentation or not. The reasons varyfrom one school to the next. Fourfactors were relevant at most schools:(1) emphasis on the critical attributesrather than on the overall purpose ofthe primary program, (2) legislativeadjustments to the primary program,(3) lack of perceived fit betweenprimary program and results-basedreform in grades 4-12, and (4)questions of efficacy, linked toteacher belief systems.

Obscured purpose of primaryprogram. A basic problem thatplagued implementation of theprimary program at our studyschools from the beginning was thatthe program's overall goal quicklybecame lost in the single-mindedfocus on implementing the seven

6 NOTES FROM THE FIELD: Education Reform in Rural Kentucky

Overview

The factors that appeared toinfluence the evolution of theprimary program at KessingerElementary School most stronglywere local ones: leadership, teacherbeliefs, and school climate. Interest-ingly, many primary teachers atKessinger appeared to grasp theintent of the primary program and toagree with the overall philosophy ofallowing students to progress at theirown rate through an instructionalprogram geared to the needs ofyoung learners. The primary pro-gram might have been implementedin a consistent direction had thefaculty been able to pull togethertoward a common vision. But theopportunity to do so was impededby frequent changes in principals,coupled with a longstanding lack ofcohesiveness among the teachers.Differing philosophies amongteachers that had been largelydormant pre-KERA "when teachershad the freedom to teach as they sawfit within their own classrooms" werebrought to the forefront when thefaculty was called upon to create acoherent primary program.

Kessinger Elementary is located ina small, rural county whose economyis based largely on agriculture. Inspite of an increase in the local taxrate and more state funding afterpassage of KERA, lack of industryand tourism in the county causes thedistrict to struggle financially. Agreat deal of turnover in school anddistrict leadership is due, in part, tothe district's lower administratorsalaries. Five principals have servedKessinger in the eight years since thepassage of KERA.

History of the Primary Program

When KERA passed, Kessingerteachers exhibited varying degrees ofenthusiasm for the nongraded

The Need for Leadership:Kessinger Elementary School Primary Program

primary program. Generally, prima-ry teachers were willing to give theprogram a try and planned toimplement it as specified by stateguidelines. Some teachers, however,found the primary philosophyclosely aligned to their own beliefsystems and were eager to beginimplementation, while others wereskeptical and wanted to proceedmore slowly. These different view-points exacerbated existing tensionsamong the faculty. The principal wasuncomfortable with the conflict thatarose from trying to arrive at acommon vision. When differences ofopinion surfaced at the first meetingto plan the primary, the principaldelayed the planning process toprovide a cooling-off period. Instead,the controversy heated up.

By 1992-93, Kessinger teachershad been unable to agree on aprimary configuration, so theyimplemented two different ap-proaches. One team implemented aK-3 arrangement at one end of thehall, while another implemented adual-age arrangement (K-1, 1-2, and2-3) at the other end. Neither teamhad common planning time for itsmembers, and teachers on bothteams reported at mid-year that theywere exhausted and frustrated fromtrying to implement new instruction-al programs without support or timeto interact with their peers. Teacherson both teams tried different strate-gies for student grouping but wereunable to settle on a strategy satisfac-tory to all. By the end of the year,teachers on the K-3 team began todiffer among themselves, with somesupporting the K-3 arrangement,others favoring a dual-age configura-tion, and others coming to believethat single-grading was desirable.

In 1993-94, the frustration andconfusion regarding the Kessinger

AEL Supplement to NOTES Vol. 6, No. 19

primary program reached a peak.Teachers still had not agreed on theappropriate configuration, and a newsource of conflict arose when someteachers began to push to excludekindergarten students from theprogram. Teachers moved kindergar-ten in and out of the program duringthe school year, shifting studentsamong teachers. A parent com-plained that her child changedclasses four times during the year asthe teachers wavered on kindergar-ten inclusion. Another parentdescribed the primary program as "amess" and reported that the twofactions of primary teachers wereconstantly bickering. The teachersthemselves contemplated having a"negotiator" from the state depart-ment come talk to them.

After the 1993-94 school year, theKessinger principal opted to returnto the classroom. The School-BasedDecision Making (SBDM) councilhired a principal from outside thedistrict who initiated and supporteda move to dual-age classrooms withsome ability grouping for skills. Theprimary configuration at Kessingerin 1994-95 was K-1, 1-2, and 2-3.Teachers kept their students in dual-age groups for a period of time eachday, but students spent the bulk ofthe day in ability groups, mostly bygrade. The disagreement overkindergarten inclusion in the prima-ry program continued.

This second (since our studybegan) principal resigned for a betteroffer in another district at the end of1994-95. The SBDM council, on a splitvote with no principal yet on board,voted to switch to a single-gradeconfiguration the following year. Themove was supported byintermediate-grade teachers, as wellas some parents. The council subse-quently hired a new principal, who

S-1

set out to support the program thatwas already in place. She dividedKessinger teachers into single-gradeteams and, for the first time, teamswere given common planning time.Although teachers appeared to getalong better, there were signs thatfactionalism continued. The principalreported that they were still "fightingthe battle" in the school and with thecommunity about what was expectedof multiage classrooms. A veteranfaculty member reported that KERAhad divided the school into "for" and"against" factions, and that teacherswasted a lot of time pulling indifferent directions and trying to winsupport for their views.

Status of the Primary Program inthe 1996-97 School Year

At the end of 1995-96, the thirdprincipal resigned to return to herhome county. A new principal washired and set about to bring theprimary program "into compliance"with state requirements in 1996-97.This fourth principal, however, cameon too strong for some teachers andwas unable to intervene successfully.She attributed the problems in theprimary to the lack of continuity inleadership. She said she had tried tohelp with this, but conceded that"there are times when my visionimpedes the process." At the end ofthe school year, she resigned becauseshe did not feel she had sufficientsupport to be an effective leader.The ongoing turmoil at Kessingerhad considerably less detrimentaleffect on the primary program inparticular and instruction in generalthan one might expect. In fact,Kessinger earned rewards in thesecond accountability cycle (1994-95and 1995-96). By 1996-97, Kessingerprimary teachers, as a group, did notseem to have been defeated by theconflict that had become a way of lifeat the school. Classroom observa-tions at Kessinger revealed that verylittle instructional time was wastedand that teachers were generallyfocused on helping students succeed.

The majority of Kessinger primaryteachers continued to implementmany practices consistent with theprimary philosophy. Many struggledwithin the single-grade structure tomanage a continuous progress modelin their classrooms, or exchangedstudents with other teachers. Forinstance, at least two teachersestablished individualized readingprograms for students within theirown classrooms. Two teachers ofdifferent grade levels combined theirclasses three times a week to teachscience, planning units together afterschool and on weekends.

Teachers who supported fullerimplementation of the primaryprogram were not vocal in theirviews, but seemed to have decidedthat the best way to manage thesituation was to try to do what theythought best for students within theirown classrooms or in conjunctionwith another, like-minded teacher.Teachers who opposed the primaryprogram were more vocal. Generally,the teachers we interviewed andobserved, whether they supportedthe primary concept or not, seemedto be conscientious and devoted tohelping students learn. The twofactions of teachers had simply beenunable to arrive at a meeting of theminds with regard to the primaryprogram. Those who opposed theprogram, including some parents,were more vocal and influential thansupporters. The latter group contin-ued to support the primary programand implement it to the best of theirability within a structure that wasnot conducive to the primaryconcept.

SummaryThe Kessinger case illustrates how

inconsistencies in leadership canseriously impede a school's progress,particularly in a school where afaculty that lacks cohesiveness iscalled on to make major program-matic and instructional changes. Inthe early stages of primary programimplementation, teachers were left

mostly on their own to work outtheir differences. At that time, mostof the teachers were willing to atleast give the program a try, al-though there were varying levels ofenthusiasm. When things did not gowell at first, teachers had only theirown belief systems and past experi-ence to fall back on in knowing whatto do next. Those who had beenskeptical about the program returnedto practices they had previouslyfound successful. Those who sup-ported the philosophy forged on,widening the chasm between the twocamps of teachers. By the time aprincipal was hired who understoodand supported the primary programphilosophy, the factions were well-entrenched and difficult to bringtogether. The constant change inleadership since that time has madethe problem worse. By the time eachnew principal had begun to grasp thenature of the problem, the year wasnearly over and then the principalmoved on to another job. The schoolhas a desperate need for continuityin leadership to get the primaryprogram and the school on track.

The future of the primary pro-gram at Kessinger is uncertain. Atthe time of this writing, the Kessing-er SBDM council had hired a newprincipal, this time someone fromwithin the district. The primaryprogram has switched to a K, 1-2, 3configuration in an attempt to bringthe program into compliance. Itremains to be seen what role the fifthprincipal will play in shaping thedirection of the primary program.Because she has several years ofexperience in the school district, shemay have greater insight into theproblems than have previousprincipals. Whether her familiaritywith Kessinger and its teachers willbe an asset or a liability depends notonly on her ability to bring thefaculty together, but on the teachers'own willingness to trust one anotherenough to ignore past differencesand make another attempt at devel-oping a common vision for students.

5-2 AEL Suypoement to NOTES Vol. 6, No. 1

Overview

The local factor that most heavilyinfluenced the development of theprimary program at NewtownElementary School was a longstand-ing tradition of excellence in educa-tion, as evidenced by some of thehighest standardized test scores inthe state and a college attendancerate of more than 90 percent. Thistradition reinforced teachers' deeplyfelt belief in the value of the rigoroustraditional program the schoolprovided. In addition, strong paren-tal involvement and teachers'feelings of empowerment created apositive school climate. When theschool won rewards after the firstbiennium of KIRIS testing, thesefactors were reinforced, and therewas even less incentive for change.

Newtown Elementary School islocated in an independent schooldistrict operated by a small townsince the early years of the century.Newtown prides itself on raisingenough local tax revenue to supporta highly successful school system,whose students have outperformedthose in any of the nearby ruralcounty districts. Parents havetraditionally been highly invested intheir children's education, andmiddle class families from a numberof nearby districts have paid tuitionto send their children to the indepen-dent district.


The principal at the school whenthe program was being developedencouraged teachers and parents totake leadership and gave themunstinted support. Planning for theprimary program was accomplishedmostly through the efforts of one ortwo enthusiastic teachers, who wereinterested in receiving additional

Tradition, Tradition:Newtown Elementary School Primary Program

training to implement the newprogram. Most of the faculty re-mained skeptical of the mandatedchanges.

The initial primary program planspecified three-year, multiageclassrooms, with a separate kinder-garten program. Primary teachershad access to a broad spectrum oftraining opportunities, but not allavailed themselves of the full range.Teachers and students were dividedinto multiyear primary families, withgroups of teachers sharing students.Students studied reading and mathin skill groups (largely single age)but were taught "themes" (usuallyscience and social studies) in themultiage setting. Teachers reportedthat it was difficult to keep theattention of and involve studentsacross such a wide age range.

The first year of implementation,some teachers continued to usemostly traditional methods butsupplemented them with some newapproaches, including learningcenters, sustained silent reading,journal writing, and some hands-onmath and science projects. Nearly allteachers rearranged their classroomsso that desks were in clusters orstudents were seated around tablesrather than in straight rows facingfront. Many engaged in joint plan-ning. Some teachers shelved theirtextbooks and taught thematically.

Teachers struggled with thelogistics of keeping anecdotal recordsof student performance but manybegan ensuring that their studentskept portfolios of work. (The contentof the portfolios and the number ofpieces of work varied from teacher toteacher.) Student progress wasreported on a skills checklist with anarrative section rather than atraditional report card. Parents


lamented the elimination of lettergrades and reported that neither theynor their children could tell from theprogress reports just how thestudents were doing.

The multiyear families at New-town Elementary changed quickly todual-age, self-contained classrooms,and later they changed again toessentially single-age units. Thedual-age rooms were taught as splitclasses in some cases, with littlemixing of the two age groups forinstructional purposes. Joint plan-ning decreased to cooperation amonggrade-level teachers, with theexception of planning for periodicschoolwide themes.

Instruction remained largelytraditional, with a skills emphasis.Even so, teachers at higher gradelevels reported that some primarystudents were coming to themwithout the necessary proficiencies.Shortly, even teachers who hadenthusiastically embraced newmethods returned to stressing skills,either on their own or as a result ofencouragement from others. Text-books, worksheets, phonics work-books, and spelling books were verymuch in evidence. Some teachers,especially at the third-grade level,opted to give number or letter gradeson student work.

These traditional approaches werereinforced by the KIRIS results: theschool earned rewards in the firsttwo accountability cycles. Thesuccess of the "tried and true"methods convinced school personnelthat they were on the right track andshould persevere. Most parents werepleased with the school's approach;they had been uncomfortable withthe year or two of cautious experi-mentation that followed the initialprimary implementation.

S-3


Newtown Elementary has re-tained some of the new strategiesencouraged by the primary program.Teachers report that primary stu-dents are writing more now than inthe past. Students work in groupsmore than they did before KERA,according to the principal. Hands-onmath and science have provenhelpful and interesting for mostteachers and students, although theextent to which these approaches areused varies by teacher. Teachers areconscious of the individual skilllevels of students and try to take

them into account. Some teachersgroup students by skill level forreading or math instruction. Othersgive whole class instruction in thebasic subject areas but require less ofstudents who have lower skill levels.

The school personnel seemcomfortable with their currentapproach in the primary program,and show no movement towardmore or less implementation. Sincethe start of KERA, the faculty hasbeen confident that their studentswill be successful on the statewideassessment and that their school willcontinue to be recognized as one ofthe most academically rigorous andsuccessful schools in the area.

Summar),Newtown Elementary School was

proud of its primary program beforeKERA. The faculty has used theprimary program professionaldevelopment to increase theirrepertoire of techniques and materi-als. They have made some lastingchanges, such as increasing theamount of writing done by primarystudents. But, for the most part, theyhave approached change with greatcaution. Their KIRIS scoresliketheir previous scores on standard-ized testshave been high enough toconvince them that their approach iscorrect and that their traditionallyhigh academic standards will bemaintained.

1 ?

S-4 AEL Supplement to NOTES Vol. 6, No. 1

Overview

Change and Change Again:Orange County Elementary School Primary Program

At Orange County ElementarySchool, local factors facilitated thedevelopment of the most fullyfleshed out primary programimplementation we observed: astrong principal, teachers whotrusted the principal and acceptedher leadership, and a felt need forchange because the school was not ahigh-achieving school prior to KERA.

Orange County Elementary islocated in a large, rural, easternKentucky school district. Duringprimary program implementation,the school moved into a new build-ing designed to encourage flexiblegrouping and regrouping of studentsand professional teamwork amongthe faculty. School climate is positive,and the faculty is developing acommon, child-centered vision.When the first KIRIS results werereported, the school had the largestgains of any elementary school in thedistrict and earned rewards after thesecond biennium as well. The facultyprided itself on what the school hadbeen able to accomplish.

In spite of success on KIRIS whileimplementing a relatively innovativeprimary program, faculty membersbecame fearful they could notcontinue improving without increas-ing the fit between the primaryprogram and the KIRIS-driven upperelementary grades. Their solutionresulted in a return to more tradi-tional forms of instruction at theupper primary level, althoughcontinuous progress and otheraspects of the primary program werestill emphasized.


A new principal, who providedvigorous leadership, came to theschool shortly before KERA. Some of

the faculty were initially leery of thenew principal's strong advocacy ofthe nongraded primary program andresearch-based curriculum innova-tions, but the principal won theirsupport by demonstrating respect fortheir professional opinions anddecisions. From the beginning,teachers have been child-oriented;they are determined to make suretheir students, mostly from nonad-vantaged backgrounds, have theopportunity to achieve at high levels.The principal's leadership and anactive school counselor have rein-forced the focus on the whole child.The school has the feel of a largeextended family, with cooks, instruc-tional aides, and students, as well asteachers and administrators, takingresponsibility for the student body.

The primary committee, consist-ing of the principal, counselor, andall K-3 teachers, developed andimplemented a plan where childrenaged 5-9 worked together in multi-age home bases for several hours aday. Students worked on academicsubjects in somewhat flexible skillgroups for the balance of the day.Special education children were fullyintegrated into these families. Theplan resulted in frequent movementin the halls as children moved fromroom to room to change skill groups.One primary family was able to use adifferent strategy, however: onelarge open-space classroom was ableto accommodate four teachers andalmost 100 children. This arrange-ment facilitated teacher collaborationand more flexible grouping andregrouping than was possible in theother families.

The primary teachers received agreat deal of training in innovativecurricula and strategies, especiallyduring the planning year (1991-92)and the first year of program imple-


13

mentation (1992-93). The primaryteachers met as a group occasionally,and each family of teachers hadcommon planning time scheduleddaily, when they jointly worked oninterdisciplinary themes or unitsusually taught during multiage,multiability "theme time" in theafternoon, after the academic subjectshad been covered.

Although the primary teachersmade a concerted effort to implementthe critical attributes, they haddifficulties during the third andfourth years. Even with commonplanning time, teachers never hadenough time to do all they had to do,and they reported their personallives suffered. Parental participation,which was high during the first twoyears of the program, waned, andcollaboration among the teachers ineach family grew less intense.Teachers began using the commonplanning time for individual plan-ning.

As primary students beganentering fourth grade, the upperelementary teachers compared themwith previous classes. They reportedthat the children were more creativeand better at problem solving thanprevious classes, and less fearful ofspeaking in public, but that theywere less disciplined and were oftenunwilling to sit quietly and work attheir desks.

When the school moved to thenew facility, most primary childrenwere grouped in large open rooms,as had proved so successful for oneprimary family during the first twoyears of the program at the olderbuilding. One family shared twosmaller rooms. Also after the move,the district required primary class-rooms to use the full Kentucky EarlyLearning Profile (KELP) for recordkeeping and reporting to parents.

S-5

While some teachers complainedbitterly about the amount of time andpaperwork required by KELP, theyalso said it enabled them to knowand understand their students'achievements better than they everhad before.

In 1996-97, the primary configura-tion was changed from K-3 familiesto two K-2 primary families and onelarge family combining grades 3 and4. There were five teachers andapproximately 100 children in theclassroom housing grades 3 and 4.The rationale for this move was toease the transition from the primaryprogram to fourth grade in bothacademics and deportment.

The upper primary teachersresponded to the pressure to preparestudents for the academic rigors ofKIRIS, with a renewed emphasis onskills. They used basal readers andtextbooks freely, following themclosely in some cases and using themas resources in others. Instructionwas less thematic, although scienceand social studies were still taught asunits. Students did participate in anumber of hands-on science projects.

The upper primary teachersincorporated continuous progressinto basic skill areas. For a number ofyears, every student in the school hastaken a basic skills test each year tomake sure that those skills were notbeing neglected. Beginning in 1996-97, the teachers in the third-fourthgrade classroom assessed all studentsin both grades on math and readingskills and used the resultsas wellas their observation of student

skillsto assign students to flexibleskill groups. At the end of each unitor chapter, students were shifted toother groups or new groups werecomposed, based on studentprogress. Thus, in a skill groupfocused on multiplication, somestudents might be assigned to agroup reviewing place value, whileothers were considered ready tomove on to division. Reading groupswere shuffled less frequently thanmath groups.


T'he K-2 classrooms at the schoolare still organized around the sevencritical attributes of the primaryprogram; however, the final year ofprimary is now focused on preparingstudents to succeed on KIRIS. Theprogram in upper primary hasincorporated continuous progress inthe basic subjects, especially mathe-matics, as part of this strategy.

Sunni llarY

Orange County ElementarySchool illustrates how local factors,including a felt need to improve localeducation, can lead a faculty toimplement the nongraded primaryprogram wholeheartedly and how afaculty's response to state factors(KIRIS preparation) can influence thedirection of change. Orange Countyeducators were committed to changebecause they wanted their studentsto achieve. Several factors came

together in a timely way to persuadeteachers that the primary programwas a step in the right direction.Subsequently, educators at the schoolcame to believe that the disjunctionbetween the primary program andthe intermediate grades must beaddressed if the school was tocontinue to meet its accountabilitythreshold. Their current solutionseems to have pointed upper prima-ry teachers toward a more traditionalscope and sequence as they attemptto inject KIRIS content into theirinstruction.

The teachers have not, however,abandoned all the primary programinnovations: they continue toemploy some flexible grouping andregrouping, the KELP assessment/reporting program, frequent commu-nication with parents, and hands-onand collaborative education asstrategies for reaching their academicgoals. Frequent testing as the basisfor regrouping enables continuousprogress in the basic subjects.

The Orange County strugglehow to simultaneously implement acontinuous progress primary pro-gram and an assessment-drivenreformis shared by other schools inour sample. The Orange CountyElementary primary program seemsto be evolving in a rational andpotentially positive direction. Whatthe teachers need is assurance that itis possible to prepare students to dowell on KIRIS while implementiungan ungraded primary programthenthey would have the best of bothworlds.

14

S-6 AEL Supplement to NOTES Vol. 6, No. 1

Overview

"Why Are We Doing This?"Vanderbilt County Elementary School Primary Program

Vanderbilt County ElementarySchool illustrates, perhaps more thanany school in our study, how thecombination of state and local factorscan influence primary programimplementation. One of the mostcentral factors at the school was thefaculty's lack of a shared philosophyabout the primary program. Theschool had previously been tradition-al in its approach and had done wellon standardized tests.

Vanderbilt County ElementarySchool is located in the county seat ofa rural, agricultural community.KERA and a new principal arrived atthe school nearly simultaneously,and it seemed that a new day haddawned. Teachers were initiallywilling to implement new programsand strategies at the principal'surging. Some were enthused aboutthe changes but many were skeptical,perhaps because of their previoussuccess using more traditionalmethods. When the first round ofKIRIS results was released and theschool had not met its threshold, theteachers began retreating fromprimary program implementation.As a result, a school that initiallymade many changes in its approachto primary instruction returned to aprogram that closely resembled pre-KERA practices.


The new principal, hired in 1991by the newly formed School-BasedDecision Making (SBDM) council,greatly supported the conceptsembedded in KERA and set about toput the school on a new path. Earlyreports from teachers were mostlycomplimentary; they appreciated theprincipal's energy, enthusiasm, and

aggressiveness in seeking resourcesand opportunities for them to get thetraining they needed to implementKERA.

The central office, too, wasrelatively proactive in preparingteachers to implement the primaryprogram, and several years of soundfiscal management enabled thedistrict to provide substantialprofessional development to primaryteachers. Vanderbilt County Elemen-tary teachers availed themselves ofthese opportunities more thanteachers at other schools in thedistrict, largely owing to the princi-pal's encouragement, support, andinitiative in locating additional timeand resources for teacher training.Primary teachers were appreciativeof the resources and training avail-able to them, and most of them mademany changes during initial imple-mentation of the primary program.

At that time, the focus appeared tobe heavily on implementation of theprimary program critical attributes.Teachers changed their instructionaland assessment approaches substan-tially, but did not express a strongsense of the overall purpose of theprimary program. Many teacherswere especially skeptical of themultiage requirement. The schoolwas cautious in implementing amultiage program, never goingbeyond a dual-age arrangement.During the first year of implementa-tion, half of the primary teachers haddual-age classrooms all day, whilethe other half had dual-age groupsfor an hour daily. Kindergartenteachers incorporated their studentsinto the program 90 minutes weekly.Teachers with full-day, dual-ageclassrooms paired with anotherteacher for "skills grouping" in mathand sometimes reading: the teachers

AEL Supplement to NOTES Vol. 6, No. 11 5

grouped students according to theirskill level, with one teacher takingthe "high" group and another thelower group. Teachers were requiredby the principal that year to submitevidence of flexible grouping andregrouping of students. Teacherswere provided with planning daysand used these to collaborate withcolleagues. Collaboration tended tobe dual-grade rather than across theprimary. Many teachers weresystematic about keeping anecdotalrecords on students.

In 1993-94, primary teachersconfigured their program with avariety of dual-grade arrangements:K-1, 1-2, and 2-3. In addition, twoself-contained kindergarten roomswere in place for parents whopreferred that option. Primaryteachers generally felt that a widerage span would be too difficult tomanage. Some teachers said theywould prefer to return to a single-grade approach. Even with dual-ageclassrooms, primary teachers report-ed that they did not keep the samestudents from one year to the next sono teacher would have the sameproblem students each year. Primaryteachers continued to use many ofthe new instructional approaches.

In 1994-95, all classrooms wereconfigured as either K-1 or 2-3.Teachers worked in teams of two orthree within their grade groups to doskills grouping each morning forlanguage arts and math instruction.The skills groups were largely single-grade groups, but some studentscrossed the grade boundary asneeded. That same year, KIRISresults for the first biennium werereleased. Within the school district,other elementary schools that hadnot made as many changes scoredhigh enough to earn rewards.

S-7

Vanderbilt County Elementary scoresimproved but the school did notmeet its goal. Many teachers at theschool and throughout the districtinterpreted this as a sign thatVanderbilt County Elementary hadgone too far in throwing out tried-and-true methods. Teachers who hadtried to follow the course the princi-pal had set for the school began toquestion this course. The principalbegan to give teachers more freedomto find other approaches.

The dual-age approach continuedin 1995-96, but more and moreteachers reported dissatisfaction withthis arrangement; they expressed adesire to return to single-gradeclassrooms. Teachers began toincorporate some of the moretraditional approaches back into theirclassrooms, such as using basalreaders and teaching spelling andphonics as separate subjects. Teach-ers reported they felt less pressurenow to use only the newer methods,perhaps because the assessmentresults had given more credence tothe argument that the new approach-es were not effective. Teachers alsobegan to back away from authenticassessment techniques. One of thechanges teachers madecollabora-tion with special teachersincreasedin response to KIRIS results, as theschool began to use Title I teachers asmath and science specialists to helpteachers plan hands-on activities intheir classrooms.


The principal, who initially madea strong effort to get the primaryprogram moving in a consistentdirection, changed strategy after thefirst round of test scores was re-

S-8

leased. In 1996-97, when the primaryteachers expressed a strong desire toreturn to a single-grade configura-tion, the principal insisted they clearthis through the state department ofeducation. When officials at the statedepartment assured them they couldhave single-grade homerooms withthe understanding that studentswould be moved around during theday according to individual needs,the teachers moved to a single-gradearrangement without overt opposi-tion from the principal. For the mostpart, primary teachers appeared tohave opted for a more traditionalapproach, placing students in single-grade classrooms and grouping themmostly by ability in relatively stablegroups.

With the principal now giving theteachers more freedom in choosinginstructional strategies, primaryteachers began implementing theprogram as they saw fit, resulting inapproaches that varied from oneclassroom to the next. The majorityof primary teachers expressedsupport for the single-grade ap-proach, and several professed a beliefthat they had thrown out too muchinitially and needed to return moreto "the basics." Veteran primaryteachers appeared to have reinstatedthe more traditional approaches.Younger teachers used more varietyin their approaches, continuing touse whole language, cooperativelearning, hands-on activities, andlearning centers.

SummaryThe Vanderbilt County Elementa-

ry School case illustrates how aneducational innovation can go awrywhen teachers do not see promisingresults after being obliged to make a

change they do not agree with andwhose purpose they may not under-stand. Teachers were given ampleprofessional development aimed athelping them implement the criticalattributes, but they seemed to viewthe attributes as ends in themselves,rather than as means to an end. Theprincipal, who seemed to grasp thepurpose of the primary program andfelt implementation of the criticalattributes was essential to achievingthe goals of the program, hoped thatthe extensive professional develop-ment the teachers received wouldbring them on board in implement-ing the program. Whether thishappened or not, however, theprincipal felt responsible for makingsure the state-mandated primaryprogram was implemented. This wasaccomplished by a strong focus onprocess over content. As time wenton and test results came in, however,the principal gave teachers morefreedom in the classroom in the hopethat, once they were comfortablethey were covering the necessarycontent, they would begin to incor-porate strategies that enabledstudents with different learningstyles to acquire the necessaryknowledge and skills. It is too soonto tell what will become of theschool's primary program. In onesense, it might appear that KIRISscores interrupted the reformprocess. However, if the principaland teachers can continue workingtoward an approach that successfullycombines the teachers' expertise onhelping students acquire basic skillswith the principal's understanding ofinstructional strategies that enablesuccess, then KIRIS results may havebeen the impetus the school neededto get everyone moving in a commondirection.

1 6


critical attributes. Rather than usingthe critical attributes as tools to helpstudents progress at their own rate inpreparation for fourth grade, manyteachers in the study schools becamepreoccupied with the multiagingcomponent of the program; theyfound it difficult to manage logisti-cally. In addition, they did notappear to link multiage grouping to abroader purpose. They did not viewit as a tool to achieve continuousprogress, but as an end in itselfandone they did not necessarily agreewith or know how to manage.Without a clear understanding of thepurpose of multiage/multiabilitygrouping, many primary teacherslacked the motivation and skills towork through the organizational andmanagement problems inherent inthis approach.

As a result, although all sixschools initially made a good-faitheffort to implement multiage/multiability grouping, we saw aquick movement to reduce the agespan within classrooms. Three of thesix tried K-3 classrooms in the firstyear of primary implementation(1992-93), while the others config-ured their programs with dual-gradearrangements or a three-grade spanin their classrooms. By 1993-94, onlyone school continued with the fullK-3 span the entire school year. Bythe 1996-97 school year, three of theschools had returned to single-gradeclassrooms (see the Kessinger,Newtown, and Vanderbilt Countycase histories), two continued withdual-grade classrooms because lowenrollment forced "split" classes, andone school had a K-2, 3-4 arrange-ment (see Orange County Elementa-ry School case history). At no schooldid we witness the envisionedelimination of "grade differentials."

The shift back to single- or dual-grade classrooms does not, by itself,mean that continuous progress wasnot happening. Some teachers (butby no means the majority) hadstructures for allowing students to

progress at their own rate in certainsubject areas. The more commonpractice, however, was to return tomore traditional grouping practicesin which students stayed with thesame teacher most of the day andwere placed in relatively stableability groups for reading and mathinstruction. Even in schools wheresome teachers had worked outcontinuous progress within theirown classrooms, the movement fromone grade level to the next interrupt-ed the smooth continuum of progressfor children.

Legislative adjustments. At thesame time that primary teacherswere struggling to figure out how toimplement the primary programand why they should do solegislative changes influencedprogram implementation. In ourstudy schools, the unintended effectof the new time line adopted in1992coupled with the criticalattributes becoming statutoryrequirementswas that teacherswere thrust into the overwhelmingdemands of multiage classroomsbefore the state provided the curricu-lum guidance required by KERA.They had received ample training innew instructional approaches, buthad little time to reflect on them andfigure out how to weave challengingcontent into multiage settings inways to help students acquire KERAgoals and capabilities. The result wasthat primary teachers workedfeverishly to fashion a program thatdemonstrated implementation of theseven critical attributes, but, underthe surface, many fundamentalissuessuch as the program'sphilosophy and how the curriculumshould align with KERAhad notbeen worked out.

The teachers we studied wereexperiencing difficulty by the 1993-94school year, their second year ofprimary program implementation.Teachers were doubting the newmethods they were using. They

feared students might not be learningthe basics now that many primaryteachers no longer relied on text-books as the main curriculum, andno clear curriculum had emerged toreplace them. At the same time,primary teachers were under pres-sure from some parents who did notunderstand the new ways of report-ing, and from intermediate teacherswho reported that students werecoming to them unable to workindependently and without masteryof important basic skills. Primaryteachers were also struggling tomanage a wide range of abilities andage levels in their classrooms, oftenwithout knowing how or appreciat-ing the purpose of doing so. Thus,primary teachers had reached a pointby the end of the 1993-94 school yearwhen they strongly needed a boost ofsome sort if they were to pushforward toward greater primaryimplementation.

In the schools we studied,however, the 1994 legislation relax-ing the multiage, multiabilityrequirement was viewed as anindication that primary teacherscould do less in that area. Thus, at atime when teachers in our studyschools badly needed reinforcementin understanding what they were todo and why, they received what theyinterpreted to be a signal that they nolonger had to implement the oneattribute that, to them, had becomesynonymous with the primaryprogram.

Fit between the primary programand results-based reform. From theinception of the reform, teachers inour study schools expressed the viewthat the primary program is out ofsynch with what happens in grades4-12. We see this confusion as a resultof the different orientations of thereform at the primary level and ingrades 4-12, and of the lack ofunderstanding as to how the twoapproaches to reform are meant towork in harmony. In the primary, the

Volume 6, Number 17

1 "I

focus has been on eliminatingstudent failure and on buildingstudent self-esteem and love oflearning. This is accomplishedthrough mandates as to how primaryclassrooms should operate (thecritical attributes). In grades 4-12, thefocus is on student acquisition ofKERA goals and expectations.Classroom practices are not mandat-ed, but students demonstrate theirlearning on KIRIS. So primaryclassrooms focused on process, whilegrades 4-12 were more focused oncontent. Both sets of teachers experi-enced frustration over the orientationof the reforms. Primary teachersagonized about what studentsshould learn before progressing tothe fourth grade, while upper-gradesteachers wondered how to teach toKERA goals and expectations.

At the primary level, the shuffle toimplement new instructional ap-proaches and to form multiageclassrooms led many primaryteachers in the study schools, at leastfor a time, to lose sight of what theywere to teach the children. The resultwas a plethora of new and interest-ing approaches that were often notconnected specifically to KERA goalsand expectations. Like their col-leagues in the upper grades, primaryteachers awaited more specificguidelines from the state as to whatshould be taught. Curriculumframeworks and the KELP learningdescriptors appeared after initialimplementation of the primaryprogram, and many teachers viewedthe frameworks as too cumbersometo be of use. In addition, use of theKELP was not made mandatory, andteachers in five of our six schools didnot use the KELP in any significantway.

Currently, pressure to preparestudents for the state assessmentprogram has helped primary teach-ers focus more strongly on content,which seems a natural and positivedevelopment in the primary pro-gram. However, many primary

teachers in the study schools havenot been sure how to incorporaterigorous content within the criticalattributes of the primary program.Therefore, instead of incorporatingKIRIS content into the new ap-proaches, many primary teachershave returned to more traditional,scope-and-sequence curriculummaterials.

Efficacy and teacher beliefsystems. Why would teachers returnto more traditional instructionalapproaches to prepare students for atest that is designed to measurehigher-order skills? Two factorsseem to bear on this issue. First is thequestion of efficacy: to make achange of this magnitude, teachersneed some evidence that the pro-gram will produce results that aresignificantly better than thoseproduced by more traditionalmethods. Statewide assessmentresults suggest that the primaryprogram produces higher KIRISresults, given that "elementaryschools that include the primaryprogram continue to set the pace forschool improvement" (KentuckyDepartment of Education, 1996). Yet,there is no clear evidence that highKIRIS scores are linked to fullimplementation of the primaryprogram. Moreover, non-academicbenefits of ungraded programssuch as improved student attitudestoward self, peers, and school(Miller, 1990; Pavan, 1992; Veenman,1995)may not be immediatelyapparent in assessments (althoughthey may be reflected in the futureon measures of achievement or non-cognitive factors, such as reduceddropout rate and improved schoolattendance). Thus, teachers currentlylack solid evidence that faithfulimplementation of the primaryprogram will produce better resultsfor students.

Even if it could be clearly demon-strated that full primary programimplementation improves KIRIS

scores, teacher belief systems mayinterfere with implementation. TheOrange County Elementary Schoolcase history illustrates that evenwhere primary program implemen-tation apparently produced positiveKIRIS results, teachers still felt someneed to return to more traditionalapproaches. Our conversations withteachers at all study schools aboutthis phenomenon have providedinsight into how teacher beliefsystems influence reform. Teacherswho favor the more traditionalapprozches expressed the belief thatstudents must be provided with abasic foundation of knowledgebefore they will be ready to tackle thehigher-order tasks required in fourthgrade. In addition, teachers havegrown accustomed to a lockstep,compartmentalized approach tocurriculumsequenced for them by"experts"and are unsure how tointegrate content from several areasinto a single unit. With the depart-ment's release of the Core Contentfor Assessment, teachers feelasthey did pre-KERAthat they have agreat deal of content to cover in ashort amount of time. They doubtthey have time to explore the subjectmatter in great depth, somethingthey think would be required inusing a problem-solving approach tohelp develop students' higher-orderskills. Teachers fear that instructionwhere students pursue in-depthprojects, work in groups, spend timeat learning centerssome of thefeatures of the primary programmay come at the expense of contentneeded to do well on KIRIS. Inaddition, some teachers have strug-gled with behavior managementwhen students were given greaterindependence in the classroom.

Local Factors

The preceding sections share someof the findings we observed acrossstudy schools. It should be noted,however, that the primary program


18

evolved differently in each of theschools we studied. In some schools,the faculty eagerly took advantage ofnew resources provided throughKERA to make many changesintended to produce a multiage,multiability, continuous progressprimary program. In other schools,the faculty members were waryabout abandoning practices that hadbeen successful for them, and thechanges they made were cautiousand exploratory. In all the studyschools, educators have arrived at acomfortable mix of innovative andtraditional practices, although themix is different from school toschool. The enclosed four, short casehistories illustrate some of thosedifferences. Four factors wereinfluential in development of theprimary program at the local level:principal leadership, teacher beliefs,school climate, and the school'sperformance on the state assessmentprogram. At some schools, thesefactors facilitated innovation in theprimary program; at others, thefactors operated in ways that hin-dered implementation. We offer abrief overview of the four factors,and reference the case histories thatmost strongly illustrate the influenceof the factors.

Principal leadership. The princi-pal's ability to foster a commonvision among the faculty and to builda supportive environment was a keyfactor in how primary programswere implemented (see OrangeCounty Elementary case history).Stability was also important, withfrequent changes in principalsundermining school improvement,even when individual principalswere strong (see Kessinger Elementa-ry case history).

Teacher beliefs. Whether or notteachers shared common beliefsabout primary educationand whatthose beliefs werestrongly influ-enced the development of a school'sprimary program. Where teachers

were united in their approach to theprimary program and in having highexpectations for students, theprogram generally appeared success-ful, whether the school was imple-menting the letter of the law or not(see Newtown Elementary andOrange County Elementary casehistories). If teachers held widelyvarying beliefs, they had difficultydeveloping a common commitmentto a primary program that mightcontribute to overall school improve-ment (see Kessinger and VanderbiltCounty Elementaries).

School climate. School climaterefers to the general atmosphere ofand mood at the school, includingrelations between teachers andadministrators, camaraderie amongstaff and faculty, expectations forstudents, and attitude towardparents. In the study schools, weobserved a variety of situationsproducing positive school climates.These included a tradition of aca-demic excellence (Newtown Elemen-tary); strong principal leadershipwillingly accepted by teachers,students, and parents (OrangeCounty Elementary); "laissez-faire"principal oversight combined withstrong teacher leadership (NewtownElementary); and active parentsupport or passive acceptance byparents of what the school was doing(Newtown Elementary and OrangeCounty Elementary). Schools withless positive school climates exhibit-ed characteristics such as poorrelations between the principal andteachers and lack of camaraderieamong teachers. In such schools, itwas difficult for the faculty tomaintain coordinated, consistentefforts to improve education (seeKessinger and Vanderbilt CountyElementaries).

Local response to the stateassessment program. We saw noevidence in our study schools thatthe level of primary program imple-mentation influenced KIRIS scores.

But this did not hold true in thereverse. KIRIS scoresand anticipat-ed problems in continuing to im-prove the school's KIRIS scoreshada marked effect on primary programimplementation in each school.Educators at schools that consistentlymet their KIRIS thresholds believedthat they were taking the correctapproach to the primary, whetherthey were fully implementing theattributes or not (see NewtownElementary case history). Educatorsin other schools struggled to deter-mine just what sort of primaryprogram would produce the desiredresults on the fourth-grade KIRISassessment (see Vanderbilt CountyElementary case history). And at oneschool, fears that the school wouldnot be able to maintain its stellarperformance on KIRIS led to adilution of primary program initia-tives (see Orange County Elementarycase history).

Future DirectionsOur description of the evolution

of the primary program in the studyschools might leave the readerwondering if the glass is half-emptyor half-full. Initial implementation ofthe program was rushed, confused,and uncoordinated, both at the stateand the local level, and these prob-lems have had a lasting effect on theprimary program. Even so, primaryteachers in nearly all the schools westudied have established (or, in somecases, strengthened) classroomswhere students have opportunities tomove around, interact, write cre-atively, read authentic literature,engage in hands-on activities, andwork with peers. Many teachers aremore mindful of allowing students toprogress at their own rate and haveworked out methods to allow that tohappen. Teachers are talking andsharing with one another more thanin the past.

At the same time, movementtoward implementing a primaryprogram like the one envisioned by

Volume 6, Number 1 9

1 9

Hornbeck and others has slowed.Primary teachers are feeling the needto focus more strongly on preparingstudents for the KIRIS assessment,but are unsure about how to teachthe content that will be tested whilecontinuing to implement the criticalattributes. The goal of establishing aprimary program in which teachers,over a period of years, help studentsmeet high learning standards at theirown rate and in their own waywithout the stigma of failure has notbeen wholly achieved in the studyschools. Moreover, the study schoolsdo not appear to be moving closer tothat goal. The experience of theseschools suggests that attaining thegoals of the primary program mayrequire renewed effort in two keyareas.

1. Reinforce the intent of theprimary program.

The primary program does and willcontinue to look different every-where, depending on such factors aslocal leadership, parent expectations,teacher beliefs, and school climate.Different methods of implementingthe program are natural and desir-able. However, there should berelatively little difference acrossschools and districts in the overallgoals of the program. It is importantto communicate the goals to teachersand to help them understand how toattain them. The vision of a block ofyears in which young students arehelped to acquire challenging skillsand capabilities at their own paceand in their own wayswithassistance as needed from pre-schools, family resource centers, andextended school servicesneeds tobe shared with teachers. SBDMcouncils need to be made aware thatconstructing a program with thesegoals is part of their task. Manyprimary teachers in our studyfocused on the multiage aspect of theprimary program. If SBDM councilscan devise a way to let studentsprogress through the primary years

at their own pace without multiageclassrooms (for instance, having oneteacher stay with an age cohort ofstudents throughout the primaryyears), they currently have thefreedom to do so. Renewed emphasison the continuous progress aspect ofthe primary program, along withtraining and technical assistance onhow to implement it, is needed if theprogram is to be implemented asoriginally intended.

2. Articulate how primary teacherscan infuse challenging contentinto the primary program in waysthat prepare students to meetstate academic expectations.

We have no evidence that primaryprogram implementation wasdetrimental to KIRIS scores, yetteachers are unsure how to imple-ment the program while ensuringthat students achieve the skills andcapabilities measured on the stateassessment. There is a need tocombine what teachers have alreadylearned about instructional methodswith specific content appropriate tothe primary grades and aligned tothe state academic expectations.More recent data gathered at thefourth grade level in 1997-98 sug-gests that intermediate-gradeteachers also need assistance inidentifying and becoming proficientat instructional techniques thatincorporate the core content forassessment and higher-order skillsinto the classroom.

ConclusionEven if the above two issues are

addressed, there is no guarantee thatall schools will implement a continu-ous progress primary program. Ourcase studies illustrate that bringingall teachers on board with thephilosophy underlying the primaryprogram has been no small task. Insome of our study schools, educatorsand parents alike suppoit a tradition-al approach, have had success withit, and are unlikely to change that

approach. In other schools, localconflicts and leadership issues havehindered the development of consis-tency in instructional approaches.

Some of the national researchersinvolved with previous nongradedprimary programs have addressedthe philosophical issue that we see atwork in our study schools. Pavan(1992), Anderson (1993), and Good-lad and Anderson (1987) all mentionthat nongradedness is more aphilosophy than a practice. Thus,teachers beliefs must be aligned withthe nongraded philosophy to have asuccessful primary program. Ander-son goes so far as to say "If too manyteachers are uncomfortable with thephilosophy and practices associatedwith nongradedness, there is littlepoint in taking the plunge" (p.12).Tyack and Cuban (1995) suggest thatstructures such as graded schoolshave been in place so long that theyare viewed as emblematic of a "realschool." They also note that thesupport of parents, school boards,and the public must be enlisted tochange something so deeply en-trenched as the graded system ofeducation.

In spite of these obstacles, theKentucky reform effort has perhapshad greater effects than most reformefforts because it does address theentire system. Unlike the reformsdiscussed by Tyack and Cuban, allpublic school primary classroomswithin the state were asked to changein a common direction. As they pointout, even when reform efforts fail,teachers often embrace ideas andpractices they see as useful andinterestingand we have certainlyseen this happen in our studyschools. The teachers in our studyhave demonstrated they are capableof and willing to implement changeif they see a need and are helped,over time, to do so. Addressing someof the key problems facing theprimary program at this juncturecould help build on the change thathas already happened, and keep


9 0

Brief Description of State Assessment and Accountability Programs*

KERA removed all previous curriculum mandatesand adopted instead a list of goals that schools areexpected to achieve:

a. Schools shall expect a high level of achievement of allstudents.

b. Schools shall develop their students ability to

1. use basic communication and mathematics skillsfor purposes and situations they will encounterthroughout their lives;

2. apply core concepts and principles from mathe-matics, the sciences, the arts, the humanities,social studies, and practical-living studies tosituations they will encounter throughout theirlives;

3. become self-sufficient individuals;

4. become responsible members of a family, workgroup, or community, including demonstratingeffectiveness in community service;

5. think and solve problems in school situations andin a variety of situations they will encounter inlife; and

6. connect and integrate experiences and newknowledge from all subject-matter fields withwhat they have previously learned, and to buildon past learning experiences to acquire newinformation through various media sources.

c. Schools shall increase their students' rate of schoolattendance.

d. Schools shall reduce their students' dropout andretention rates.

e. Schools shall reduce physical and mental healthbarriers to learning.

f. Schools shall be measured on the proportion ofstudents who make a successful transition to work,post-secondary education, and the military (Ken-tucky Department of Education, 1994, p. 274).

The Kentucky General Assembly mandated develop-ment of a performance-based assessment program toensure school accountability for student achievement ofgoals set forth in KERAalthough goals 3 and 4 werelater removed from the accountability system. From1991-92 to 1997-98, the instrument developed and

administered was the Kentucky Instructional ResultsInformation System (KIRIS). KIRIS was first adminis-tered during the 1991-92 school year, and those results,along with measurement of noncognitive goals (such asreduction in dropout and retention rate and increase inattendance rate), were used to establish a baseline"accountability index" for each individual school in thestate. The baseline was used to set an incrementally i(increased "threshold" or goal score the school was /required to meet by the 1993-94 school year to obtainrewards or avoid sanctions. This measurement isongoing; i.e., a school accountability index is deter-mined biennially and schools are expected to showimprovement over their new baseline scores. Scoresfrom both years in each biennium, along with measure-ment of noncognitive factors, are averaged to deter-mine if a school reached its threshold. Currently, thetest consists of open-response questions, multiple-choice questions, and writing portfolios. Studentperformance is reported in terms of four performancestandards: novice, apprentice, proficient, and distin-guished.

Schools that score at least one percent above theirthresholds and move at least 10 percent of studentsscoring "novice" to a higher performance level receivefinancial rewards, which are divided according to thewishes of the majority of educators at the school.Schools not achieving their thresholds receive varyinglevels of assistance and/or sanctions, depending uponhow close they come. When the proportion of successfulstudents declines by five percent or more, the school isdeclared to be a "school in crisis." Not only must theschool develop a school improvement plan and not onlyis the school eligible to receive funds for school im-provement, but a "Distinguished Educator" (selectedand trained by the Kentucky Department of Education)is assigned to the school to assist in implementing theschool improvement plan, all certified staff are placedon probation, parents are permitted to transfer studentsto the nearest successful school, and, after six months,the Distinguished Educator determines which of thecertified staff should be retained, dismissed, or trans-ferred. Recognizing that schools had not had sufficienttime to implement all aspects of KERA, the 1994Kentucky General Assembly delayed imposition ofLevel 3the most severe sanctionsuntil the end of the1994-96 biennium. Like the entirety of the assessmentand accountability systems, the Distinguished Educatorprogram and related sanctions are currently undergoingchanges mandated by the 1998 legislature.

*The 1998 General Assembly called for a revamping of the assessment and accountability programs. The CommonwealthAccountability Testing System (CATS) was under development at the time of this writing.

Volume 6, Number 1

2 1

11

schools moving in the direction ofcreating a coherent system thatexpects and assists all students toattain high levels of knowledge andthought.

References

Anderson, R. H. (1993). The return ofthe nongraded classroom. Principal,72(3), 9-12.

Fullan, M. G. (February 1996). Turningsystemic thinking on its head. PhiDelta Kappan, 420-423.

Good lad, J. I., & Anderson, R. H.(1987). The nongraded elementaryschool. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Hornbeck, D. W. (1990, February 23).Recommendations related tocurriculum (Adopted by the TaskForce on Education Reform 2/23/90). Frankfort, KY: LegislativeResearch Commission.

Kentucky Department of Education(1991). Kentucky's primary school:The wonder years. Program Descrip-tion I. Frankfort, KY: Author.

Kentucky Department of Education(1993, January). State regulations andrecommended best practices forKentucky's primary program.Frankfort, KY: Author,

Kentucky Department of Education(1994). 1994 Kentucky school laws,annotated. Frankfort, KY: Author.

Kentucky Department of Education(1996, October 23). Nearly allKentucky schools show improve-ment in latest KIRIS scores, butmiddle schools lag behind. (Pressrelease). Frankfort, KY: Author.

Miller, B. A. (1990). A review of thequantitative research on multigradeinstruction. Research in RuralEducation, 7(1), 1-8.

Murphy, J. (1990). The educationalreform movement of the 1980s: A

comprehensive analysis. In J.Murphy (Ed.), The educationalreform movement of the 1980s:Perspectives and cases (pp. 3-55).Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Pavan, B. N. (1992). The benefits ofnongraded schools. EducationalLeadership, 50(2), 22-25.

Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1990).Systemic school reform. In S. H.Fuhrman & B. Ma len (Eds.), Thepolitics of curriculum and testing:The 1990 politics of educationassociation yearbook (pp. 233-267).Bristol, PA: Falmer

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinker-ing toward utopia: A century ofpublic school reform. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Veenman, S. (1995). Cognitive andnoncognitive effects of multigradeand multiage classes: A best evi-dence synthesis. Review of Educa-tional Research, 65(4), 319-382.

Appalachia Educational LaboratoryPost Office Box 1348Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1348

Address correction requested

Telephone: 304/347-0400Toll free: 800/624-9120FAX: 304/347-0487http://[email protected]

NonprofitOrganization

U.S. Postage PaidPermit No. 2560

CharlestonWest Virginia

25301

This publication was produced in whole or in part with funds frOm the Office of Educational Research and Improvement(OERI), U. S. Department of Education, under contract number R396006001. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the viewsofOERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U. S. government.

AEL is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.

22

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

document resume - ericdocument resume ed 425 886 rc 021 748 title evolution of the primary program...

Documents