DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 400 922 PS 023 788
AUTHOR Bridge, Connie A.TITLE The Implementation of Kentucky's Primary Program
1995: A Progress Report.INSTITUTION Kentucky Univ., Lexington. Inst. on Education
Reform.SPONS AGENCY Kentucky Inst. for Education Research, Frankfort.PUB DATE Aug 95NOTE 153p.
PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) StatisticalData (110) Reports Descriptive (141)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Classroom Environment; *Elementary School Curriculum;
*Mixed Age Grouping; Primary Education; State Action;*State Government; *State Legislation; StatewidePlanning; Teaching Methods
IDENTIFIERS *Kentucky
ABSTRACTThis study is the third annual study of primary
program implementation in Kentucky elementary schools. This researchproject is one of six studies conducted in 1995 to determine theextent Kentucky schools and educators had implemented educationaltechnology. In June, 1990, the Kentucky legislature passed theKentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), mandating restructuring ofKentucky educational system. A controversial aspect of thelegislation is the requirement for all of Kentucky's elementaryschools to become non-graded, multi-age, multi-ability primaryschools by the fall of 1993. In this study, observations werecollected in a random sample of 24 primary schools in eight regionalservice areas in the state, selecting four teachers in each schoolfor observation. Observers were trained to use the Primary ProgramComponent Configuration Map. Teachers rated the level of support forimplementation of the primary program. Results include: (1) widevariation from teacher to teacher in manner and degree in whichcomponents of the primary program are implemented; (2) little changebetween 1994 and,1995 in patterns of implementation; and (3) decreasein percentage of teachers who were implementing the primary programin recommended ways. Recommendations include more staff development,especially in using assessment and instructional techniques scienceand social sciences. (BGC)
********************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
* from the original document. *
*************************************************************k*AAAi.
THEKENTUCKYINSTITUTE
EDUCATIONRESEARCH
U.S. DIEPARTISENT OP SIXICATIONOffice of Educational Research and ImmemmentEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (
NIIICeceived from the portion or cepanizatanasThis document has been reproduced
originating itO Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction crustily.
Points of view or opinions stated in this doCirmerit do not neCetisenly represent officialOERI position or POMO/.
The Implementation of Kentucky'sPrimary Program 1995: A Progress Report
A Report of Researchconducted by
Institute on Education ReformUniversity of Kentucky
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
ROctV SPoo4..fecretZ.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
for theKentucky Institute for Education Research
146 Consumer Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
August 1995
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
BOARD OF DIRECTORSChair Jane Joplin EvansBen Richmond 515 North Main StreetUrban League of Louisville Somerset, KY 425011535 West BroadwayLouisville, KY 40203-3516 Blaine Hudson
439 Strickler HallVice Chair University of LouisvilleGary Dodd Louisville, KY 40292CM Management Services698 Perimeter Drive, Suite 200 Ernie W. StamperLexington, KY 40517 Ashland Petroleum Co.
P. 0. Box 391Secretary Ashland, KY 41114Robert F. SextonThe Prichard Committee Fred D. Williams
for Academic Excellence 70 Pentland PlaceP. O. Box 1658 Ft. Thomas, KY 41075Lexington, ICY 40592
Amy Helm WilsonTreasurer Murray Ledger & TimesDoug Kuelpman 1001 Whitnell AvenueUnited Parcel Service Murray, KY 420711400 North Hurstbourne ParkirayLouisville, KY 40223 Joe Wright
Star RouteLila Bellando Harned, KY 40144Churchill WeaversP. 0. Box 30 Executive DirectorBerea, KY 40403 Roger S. Pankratz, Ph.D.
KY Institute for Education ResearchBarbara DeebWICYU-TV1 Big Red WayBowling Green, KY 42101
146 Consumer LaneFrankfort, KY 40601
THEKENTUCKYINSTITUTE
EDUCATIONRESEARCH
146 Consumer Lane Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 502-227-9014 Fax 502-227-8976
The Implementation ofKentucky's Primary Program
1995: A Progress Report
A Report of ResearchConducted by
The Institute on Education ReformUniversity of Kentucky
Principal InvestigatorConnie A. Bridge
June 1995
Supported With Funds FromThe Kentucky Institute for Education Research
PREFACE
This research project is one of six studies conducted in the spring of 1995 todetermine the extent schools and educators across Kentucky had implemented EducationalTechnology, High School Restructuring, the Primary Program, Professional Development,Performance Assessment and School-Based Decision Making. The progress of the PrimaryProgram presented in this document is the only one of the six studies in its second year ofdata collection.
The studies were sponsored by the Kentucky Institute for Education Research,supported by funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each of the research projects wascontracted to a Kentucky university that managed the research and employed the services of ateam of researchers/field observers, mostly from higher education institutions across the state.
Each study was designed to collect data from a random set of schools across the eightstate educational regions. All studies used a research tool developed especially for studyingthe progress of program implementation called an Innovation Component Configuration Map.The Configuration Map enables researchers to judge the level of implementation of differentprogram components based on a common set of standards and guidelines.
Collectively, though these six studies, more than fifty trained researchers visited 189schools across the Commonwealth conducting interviews, observing classrooms, trainingsessions, and school council meetings, reviewing documents and collecting artifacts. To datethis research represents the single most comprehensive effort to gage the level ofimplementation of programs initiated through the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990(KERA).
The Kentucky Institute for Education Research is proud to be able to sponsor theseprojects and highly commends the members of the research teams and the universities for theexcellent work of data collection and analysis they conducted under difficult conditions and alimited budget. On behalf of the Institute, I want to personally express my sincereappreciation to each of the principal investigators for their professional commitment to thisstatewide effort, their many hours of work beyond those budgeted in the contract and theirperseverance to produce a high quality research report.
This report not only describes what schools and educators across the state are doing toimplement school reform, it also provides research-based, thoughtful suggestions about howimplementation of programs can be enhanced and the benefits of reform increased for theyouth of Kentucky. I sincerely hope you will find the contents of this report both informativeand helpful.
Roger Pankratz, Executive DirectorKentucky Institute for Education Research
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of numerous individuals who made thisstudy possible. First, we could not have conducted the study without the cooperation of theteachers and principals who graciously were willing to interrupt their busy schedules to beinterviewed and to complete the surveys. We thank them.
Second, I thank my colleagues from universities and schools throughout the state who servedas field observers and who spend a great deal of time learning to use the InnovationComponent Configuration Map and traveling to the schools to observe and interview theteachers and principals. These observers are listed on the following page.
Third, we appreciate the sage advice and prompt response of Dr. Archie George of theUniversity of Idaho who analyzed the data and helped us interpret the results of the clusteranalyses.
I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Roger Pankratz, Executive Directorof the Kentucky Institute for Education Research, for his vision in conceptualizing the use ofthe Innovation Component Configuration Maps for the evaluation of the various strands of theKentucky Education Reform Act and for his advice during the conduct of this study and thepreparation of the final report. His adherence to high standards is always valued.
Finally, I must thank my two research assistants in the Institute on Education Reform,Susan Gooden and Margaret Compton-Hall, for their extensive efforts to organize and conductthe observer training, to schedule school visits, to help analyze and interpret the data, and tohelp develop the final report. My staff assistant, Charmaine Powell was responsible for thelayout and final appearance of the report. As always, the quality of her work was superb andher contributions invaluable.
Connie BridgeDirectorInstitute on Education ReformUniversity of Kentucky
iv
FIELD OBSERVERS
Keith BartonNorthern Kentucky University
Paige CarneyCollaborative for Elementary Learning
Wendy CombsCollaborative for Elementary Learning
Margaret Compton-HallUniversity of Kentucky
Toby DanielWestern Kentucky University
Mary EvansWestern Kentucky University
Sue EvansWestern Kentucky University
Shannon FeenickUniversity of Kentucky
Susan GoodenUniversity of Kentucky
Doug GriggsGeorgetown College
Karen HammonsMorehead State University
Nancy HufstutterCollaborative for Elementary Learning
Denise KaiserCollaborative for Elementary Learning
Diane KyleUniversity of Louisville
Shirley LongEastern Kentucky University
Debra MattinglyMorehead State University
Christy McGeeUniversity of Louisville
Ellen McIntyreUniversity of Louisville
Alice MikovchWestern Kentucky University
Janet MillerNorthern Kentucky University
Phyllis OakesMorehead State University
Rebecca PowellGeorgetown College
Julia RobertsWestern Kentucky University
Lynne SmithNorthern Kentucky University
Taylor ThompsonGeorgetown College
Lora TysonEastern Kentucky University
Jackie VanceModel Lab School
Melinda WillisUniversity of Kentucky
Paul WirtzEastern Kentucky University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS xThe Purpose of the Study xThe Statewide Sample xiThe Data Collection Process xiConclusions xiiRecommendations xivSuggestions for Further Research xvi
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 1
Background of the Study 1
Results of the 1993 Primary Progress Study 1
Results of the 1994 Primary Progress Study 2
Purposes of the 1995 Study 3
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 4Sample 4Observers 5
Development of the Configuration Map 6Teacher and Principal Interviews 10
Teacher Survey 10
RESULTS OF THE OBSERVATIONS, INTERVIEWS AND SURVEYS 10A Typical Pattern of Primary School Implementation 10
Patterns of Implementation of Program Components Based on theConfiguration Map 14
Analysis of Differences in Implementation in 1994 and 1995 14
Learning Environment: Physical Environment 27Learning Environment: Social Emotional Environment 27Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Integrated Instruction 28Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Varied Instructional Strategies 28Assessment 29Educational Partnerships: Professional Teamwork 29Educational Partnerships: Parent Involvement 29Multi-Age/Multi-Ability Grouping Patterns: Classroom Patterns 30Multi-Age/Multi-Ability Grouping Patterns: School-Wide Patterns 30Results of the Rank-Order Correlations for Primary ICCM Components 31
Results of the Cluster and Discriminant Analysis forComponents of the Primary ICCM 33
Results of the Teacher Interview 36Summary of Interview Data 43Results of the Teacher Survey 44
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS 44
RECOMMENDATIONS 47
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 49
REFERENCES 50
vii
TABLE OF FIGURES
TABLE 1. Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Componentsat Different Levels for the Learning Environment
Part 1. Physical Environment 15
Part 2. Social Emotional Environment 16
TABLE 2. Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Componentsat Different Levels for the Developmentally Appropriate Practices
Part 1. Integrated Instruction 17
Part 2. Varied Instructional Strategies 19
TABLE 3. Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Programat Different Levels for Assessment
Components
TABLE 4. Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Programat Different Levels for Educational Partnerships
Part 1. Professional TeamworkPart 2. Parent Involvement
Components
20
2122
TABLE 5. Multi-Age/Multi-Ability Grouping PatternsPart 1. Classroom Patterns 23Part 2. School-Wide Patterns 24
TABLE 6. Comparison of the Percentage of Teachers Implementing the Primary Programwith High Fidelity in the 1994 and 1995 Studies 25
TABLE 7. Highest and Lowest Spearman Correlation Coefficients 32
TABLE 8. Canonical Correlations and F-values for Componentsthat Discriminate Among Clusters 34
APPENDIX A 51
An Innovation Component Configuation Map for Primary Programs 52
APPENDIX B 79Teacher Interview 80
APPENDIX C 83
Principal Interview 84
APPENDIX D 86Teacher Survey 87
viii
APPENDIX ETable 9.Table 10.Table 11.Table 12.Table 13.Figure 1.Figure 2.Figure 3.Figure 4.
Figure 5.
TABLE OF FIGURES (cont.)
APPENDIX FFigure 6.Figure 7.Figure 8.Figure 9.Figure 10.Figure 11.Figure 12.
88Learning Environment 89Developmentally Appropriate Practices 90Assessment 91
Educational Partnerships 92Teacher Survey 93Learning Environment/Developmentally Appropriate Practices 94Assessment/Educational Partnerships 95Cluster Analysis: Plot of ICC Groups Based on Discriminant Analysis 96Cluster Analysis: Location of Cluster Means
Based on Discriminant Analysis 97Teacher Survey 98
99Physical Environment 100Social/Emotional Environment 101
Integrated Curriculum 102Varied Instructional Strategies 103
Assessment 104Professional Teamwork 105
Parent Involvement 106
ix
ITHE IMPLEMENTATION OF KENTUCKY'S PRIMARY PROGRAM
1995A PROGRESS REPORT
IEXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
111The Purpose of the Study
The Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 required all of Kentucky's elementaryschools to develop and implement a non-graded primary program for children in kindergartenthrough grade three by the fall of 1993. As part of that program, schools were to implementseven critical attributes of the primary program:
1. Developmentally appropriate practices.2. Multi-age, multi-ability classrooms.3. Continuous progress.4. Authentic assessment.5.6.
Qualitative reporting methods.Professional teamwork.
7. Positive parent involvement.
During the spring of 1993 and 1994, statewide studies were conducted to determinethe nature and extent of primary program implementation in Kentucky's elementary schools.The overall purpose of the 1995 study was to provide follow up data regarding the progressof primary program implementation. More specifically, the objectives of this study were asfollows:
1. To determine the status of implementation of the primary program in a random sampleof classrooms in 24 primary schools geographically distributed throughout Kentucky.
2. To determine the patterns of implementation of the components of the primaryprogram by teachers in these 24 schools.
3. To determine the differences in patterns of implementation between the teachers whowere implementing the primary program with high fidelity and those teachers whowere implementing with low fidelity.
4. To compare the nature and extent of implementation between the spring of 1994 andthe spring of 1995.
5. To determine teachers' perceptions of the levels of support they have received forimplementation of the primary program and their attitudes toward various aspects ofthe primary program.
The Statewide Sample
Observations were collected in a geographically stratified random sample of 24primary schools in the eight regional service center areas in the state. Four primary teacherswere randomly selected for observation in each school. In two schools, only two teacherswere observed due to scheduling conflicts, leaving 92 teachers in the sample. While thestudy sample is small and may not be totally representative of teachers in primary programsthroughout the state, it provides a snapshot view of the status of implementation.
The Data Collection Process
Information about the implementation of specific components of the primary programwas collected by observers trained to use the Primary Program Component ConfigurationMap. Observers spent one day in each teachers' classroom and conducted interviews with theteacher and the school principal. In addition, teachers completed a teacher survey instrumentin which they rated the level of support for implementation of the primary program that theyhad received from various sources.
The Primary Program Component Configuration Map contained descriptions ofdifferent levels of implementation for 48 components related to the seven critical attributes ofthe primary program. The 48 program components were derived from indicators on theDepartment of Education's Primary Action Plan Review Form developed in the summer of1992 with input from the Early Childhood Division staff, Primary Program consultants fromthe state's Regional Service Centers, and university faculty. The 48 program componentswere organized around five major areas: the learning environment, developmentallyappropriate practices, assessment of learning, educational partnerships, andmulti-age/multi-ability grouping.
Field observers across the state were recruited from the ranks of university professorsand doctoral students in early childhood and elementary education and public schooladministrators. All observers were highly familiar with the primary program. Observers weretrained using videotapes of primary classrooms to establish interobserver agreement.
Researchers first contacted the principals of selected schools to explain the study andobtain consent to participate. Field observers then scheduled individual interviews andobservations.
xi
13
Data collected for analysis consisted of completed Primary Program ConfigurationMaps, notes from structured interviews with teachers and principals, and completed teachersurveys.
Conclusions
1. There is wide variation from teacher to teacher in the manner and degree to which thecomponents of the primary program are being implemented. Within individualschools, there may be wide variation among teachers. However, in a few schools, allof the four randomly selected teachers were implementing the primary program withhigh fidelity.
2. There has been little change between 1994 and 1995 in the patterns of implementationand in the degree to which the primary program is being implemented. Although therehas been a slight decrease in the level of implementation in several components and aslight increase in a few components, few of these changes represent statisticallysignificant differences.
3. In two areas, there was a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of teacherswho were implementing the primary program in recommended ways. Fewer teacherswere arranging the physical environment in flexible ways that enable children to workindividually and in a variety of group sizes. Also fewer teachers showed evidence thatthey were providing for the continuous progress of students through the primaryprogram.
4. There were two areas in which a significantly higher percentage of teachers wereusing recommended practices. They included communication with special areateachers to plan for the needs of students and the involvement .of parents in theevaluation of their own children's progress.
5. As in 1994, teachers' progress toward implementation varied among the componentsof the primary program with some components being implemented by over half of theteachers and others still lacking in implementation.
Half or more of the teachers were:
a. Arranging the physical environment of the classroom in ways that facilitatedthe implementation of the primary program and filling their classrooms with avariety of instructional and print materials for children to use.
b. Creating warm, supportive social environments in which positive discipline wasused, children were actively involved in learning and allowed to talk and move
xii
about as needed, and teachers interacted with students individually as well as ingroups.
c. Planning instruction around Kentucky's Learning Goals and AcademicExpectations.
d. Planning with other regular classroom teachers and with special area teachers.
e. Using qualitative methods for reporting student progress to parents, such asparent/teacher conferences and qualitative progress reports.
f. Communicating with parents about the primary program, helping parents learnto support their child's learning at home and getting parents involved in theclassroom.
g. Using many of the recommended instructional practices in reading, writing, andmathematics.
Fewer than half of the teachers were:
h. Using the recommended instructional practices in teaching science and socialstudies and integrating the arts with other content areas.
i. Using flexible grouping and providing for the continuous progress of students.
j. Using a variety of instructional strategies in their teaching or allowing studentsto initiate instructional activities.
k. Using learning centers as an integral part of their ongoing instructionalprogram.
1. Using broad based themes and units, but focusing instead on narrow topics.
6. Approximately half of the teachers were meeting the multi-age, multi-ability groupingrequirement in ways that were originally recommended by the developers of theprimary program guidelines; that is, by grouping children in self-contained dual-ageand multi-age classrooms in which flexible grouping is used to meet the needs andinterests of the children.
7. Approximately three fourths of the children remain with the same teacher or the sameclassroom family for two or more years. Teachers reported many social and academicadvantages for keeping the same children for more than one year.
8. Schools were dealing with five-year-old inclusion in a variety of ways. Nearly half ofthe schools were including kindergartners with primary two students (first graders).Almost a fourth of the schools included kindergartners with two or more ages.Approximately 20% of the kindergartens were self-contained.
9. When schools included five-year-olds with other students, about half of them did sofor the entire kindergarten session or for large blocks of time in which the fivesparticipated in a variety of activities. The other half of the schools included fives withother age groups for short periods of time each day only for certain activities or on aregularly scheduled basis but only once a week or once a month for certain activities.
10. Almost all schools included special needs students in regular primary classroomsduring all or most of the school day. In only 12 percent of the schools did specialneeds students spend most or all of their time in special education classes.
11. Teachers who were implementing the primary program with high fidelity differed mostfrom teachers who were implementing the program with low fidelity in components ofthe program over which the individual teacher has control, especially in areasinvolving the use of a variety of instructional and assessment techniques that aredesigned to facilitate the continuous progress of students. On components affected byschool wide policies, such as report cards, parent conferences, and parent involvement,the low fidelity implementors were rated more like the high fidelity implementors.
12. Teachers still reported a need for more planning time during the school day, especiallycommon planning times with other team members, regular teachers, and special areateachers. Only 20 percent of the teachers have regularly scheduled individual andcommon planning time during the school day.
13. When asked to rate sources of support for implementation of the primary program,teachers rated internal sources of support higher than support from external sources.That is, they ranked support from their principals and from other classroom teachershigher than support from district personnel, universities, local cooperatives, theKentucky Department of Education, and regional service centers.
Recommendations
1. A great deal of staff development is still needed to help primary teachers implementthe primary program in recommended ways. It cannot be assumed that most teachersalready have the knowledge of the instructional strategies and assessment techniquesthat they need to enable each child to make continuous progress in the classroom.Teachers especially need more staff development in using a variety of assessment andinstructional techniques to ensure continuous progress and in using recommendedinstructional practices in the teaching of science and social studies.
xiv
2. Fewer than half of the teachers want to discontinue the multi-age requirement in theprimary program. Thus, educators and policy makers need to continue to supportteachers' efforts to implement the primary program rather than discontinue theprogram before teachers have had the time and training needed to implement theprogram in recommended ways.
3. Each elementary school should assess the variation in levels of implementation ofprimary program components among the teachers in that building and design strategiesto support the development of key program components that are not being wellimplemented.
4. Each elementary school should examine its curriculum for alignment with Kentucky'sLearning Goals and Academic Expectations. Professional development activitiesshould focus on helping teachers design learning activities to support the attainment ofthe academic expectations for which schools are held accountable.
5. Each elementary school should plan for staff development that meets its needs, withspecial attention paid to the following key areas:
a. Building teachers' knowledge of developmentally appropriate instructional andassessment strategies to monitor and facilitate students' continuous progress.
b. Designing an instructional program that:
focuses on Kentucky's Academic Expectations.uses broad-based themes and units.uses a variety of learning centers.increases the time and quality of science and social studies instruction.integrates instruction in the arts.
6. Schools should arrange their schedules to provide teachers more time to plan withother regular classroom teachers and special area teachers.
7. Schools should develop more parent involvement programs that promote two-waycommunication between teachers and parents and that enhance family support ofchildren's learning.
8. The Kentucky Department of Education in cooperation with local school districtsshould identify classrooms and teachers who are using the most promising practicesrelated to the key components of the primary program and establish sites for otherteachers to visit. Teachers with success in implementing the primary program shouldbe utilized more effectively in professional development activities.
xv
Suggestions for Further Research
Researchers need to conduct studies that:
1. Examine the relationship between level of implementation of various primary programcomponents and student achievement.
2. Examine the effects of dual-age and multi-age grouping patterns on studentachievement.
3. Examine the effects on five-year-olds of full inclusion in the primary program versusself-contained kindergarten placement.
4. Determine factors that contribute to high implementation in schools in which teachersare successfully implementing the primary program and determine factors that impedeimplementation in schools in which teachers are struggling with implementation.
xvi
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF KENTUCKY'S PRIMARY PROGRAM1995
A PROGRESS REPORT
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Background of the Study
In June, 1990, the Kentucky legislature passed the Kentucky Education Reform Act(KERA) which mandated a complete restructuring of the Kentucky educational system in theareas of finance, governance, and curriculum. One of the most controversial mandates due toits immediate and wide ranging consequences has been the requirement for all of Kentucky'selementary schools to become non-graded, multi-age, multi-ability primary schools by the fallof 1993.
The intent of this mandate was to facilitate the continuous progress of children througha developmentally appropriate curriculum by establishing multi-age classrooms in which allchildren could proceed at their own rate. Thus, schools were required to reorganize theirprimary programs by replacing all single grade level kindergarten through grade threeclassrooms with classrooms containing some combination of ages and grade levels. Theteachers and administrators in each school were allowed to decide which ages and gradelevels would be combined and the manner in which the school would be organized toaccommodate the multi-age classrooms.
During the spring of 1995, Kentucky was in its fifth year of educational reform and inthe second year of the mandated full implementation of the primary program. Most schoolsdid not wait to begin implementation but began their efforts to implement the primaryprogram during the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 school years; however, all schools wereexpected to have "fully implemented" the program by the 1993-1994 school year. Thecurrent study is the third annual study of primary program implementation. Previousstatewide studies of implementation were conducted in the spring of 1993 and the spring of1994.
Results of the 1993 Primary Progress Study
During Spring 1993, the Institute on Education Reform at the University of Kentuckycoordinated a study of primary school implementation that was designed to provide asnapshot view of the manner in which schools were implementing the primary programmandate. In that study, 46 principals in a geographically stratified random sample of schoolswere asked to select the teacher who they thought had made the greatest progress toward
1
implementation of the primary program. Researchers observed in these teachers' classroomsto determine the manner in which they were implementing the primary program.
Results indicated that these more progressive teachers were successfully implementingsome aspects of the primary program while having difficulty with the implementation of otheraspects of the program. The teachers were doing a good job of creating a flexible physicallearning environment and a positive social-emotional climate in their classrooms. In terms ofdevelopmentally appropriate instructional practices, many of the teachers were using severalof the recommended practices in reading, writing, and mathematics, but there was littleevidence of discovery science, inquiry based social studies, or the arts being taught orintegrated into the curriculum. Teachers were struggling with the use of learning centers andthematic instruction and with the implementation of authentic assessment and continuousprogress. Examples of parent involvement were limited and traditional (Bridge, Carney,Freeland, Hovda, Johnson, Kyle, Long, McIntyre, Oakes, Powell, Smith, Steffy, Tyson,Vance, Weaver, M. Willis, & V. Willis, 1994).
Results of the 1994 Primary Progress Study
During Spring 1994, the Institute on Education Reform at the University of Kentuckyagain coordinated a statewide study of primary program implementation with funding fromthe Kentucky Institute for Education Research. The purpose of the 1994 study was to gatherinformation that would provide follow up data one year later regarding the extent and natureof primary school implementation in the elementary schools in Kentucky. During April andMay, 1994, trained observers visited in randomly selected schools throughout Kentucky togather this information through interviews, observations, and surveys.
Results revealed patterns of implementation similar to those found in the 1993 study(Bridge, 1994). However, it is important to remember that the methodology of the 1993 and1994 studies differed in two major ways. First, the sample of teachers was chosendifferently. In 1993 principals in a geographically stratified random sample of 46 primaryschools were asked to select the teacher he or she thought had made the most progress towardimplementation of the primary program. In the 1994 study, a random sample of four teacherswas taken in 24 schools in a geographically stratified random sample throughout the state.Thus, the more progressive teachers, based on principal judgement, in the 1993 study werecompared to a random sample of teachers in the 1994 study.
The second difference lay in the refinement of the observation instrument used in thestudies. In 1993, the components of the primary program were listed along with briefdescriptive phrases and observers were asked to take extensive notes regarding thecomponents and subsequently rate the teachers on the degree to which they had implementedthat component of the primary program on a scale of 1 to 4 with four denoting high fidelityimplementation.
2
In 1994 the possible variations of these same components were described in greaterdetail and observers were asked to select the description that best described the manner inwhich the component was being implemented in that classroom. The variations were labeleda, b, c, and d with the letter a representing the recommended best practices for high fidelityimplementation of that component. For purposes of analysis, the a, b, c, and d were coded as4, 3, 2, and 1. Means and percentages were computed to describe the patterns ofimplementation for each component.
Recognizing the limitations imposed by these two differences in methodology and bythe categorical nature of the variables, it is interesting to compare the patterns ofimplementation of the two groups of teachers on the various components.
In both 1993 and 1994, the nature and quality of implementation varied from teacherto teacher. Such variations occurred even among teachers within the same school. Individualteachers also varied within their own classrooms in that they were implementing somecomponents to a higher degree than others.
Even so, similar patterns of implementation emerged, in that the 1994 random sampleof teachers ranked high in the same areas in which the 1993 progressive teachers receivedhigh rankings and ranked low in the same areas that had been ranked low in 1993.
Overall, however, it is not surprising that the random sample of teachers in 1994received slightly lower rankings on most of the components than did the 1993 progressiveteachers who were selected by principals because they had made the most progress towardimplementation. Exceptions to that pattern occurred in qualitative reporting to parents,professional teamwork, and parent involvement. It is interesting to note that thesecomponents were often affected by schoolwide practices for which the individual teachers didnot have complete responsibility, such as school wide scheduling to permit joint planning, thedevelopment of a qualitative report card for the total school, and the scheduling of parentconferences.
On the other hand, in areas in which responsibility rested with the individual teacher,such as components related to classroom instruction and classroom assessment practices, theprogressive teachers almost always received higher ratings. They were judged to do better atestablishing an appropriate physical environment, creating a positive social emotionalenvironment, using developmentally appropriate instructional practices, and conductingfrequent authentic assessments.
Purposes of the 1995 Study
The overall objective of the 1995 study was to gather information that would providethird year follow up data regarding the nature and extent of primary program implementation
3
in Kentucky's elementary schools. More specifically, the purposes of the research includedthe following objectives:
1. To determine the status of implementation of the primary program in a random sampleof classrooms in 24 primary schools geographically distributed throughout Kentucky.
2. To determine the patterns of implementation of the components of the primaryprogram by teachers in these 24 schools.
3. To determine the differences in patterns of implementation between the teachers whowere implementing the primary program with high fidelity and those teachers whowere implementing with low fidelity.
4. To compare the nature and extent of implementation between the spring of 1994 andthe spring of 1995.
5. To determine teachers' perceptions of the levels of support they have received forimplementation of the primary program and their attitudes toward various aspects ofthe primary program.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Sample
Observations were collected in a geographically stratified random sample of 24primary schools in the eight regional service center areas in the state. Four primary teacherswere randomly selected for observation in each school. Schools that had been included in theprevious two years' studies were deleted from the list prior to the random selection of schoolsfor the current study. Six schools that were selected for the study refused to participate; thus,it was necessary to select randomly another school from the same geographic region.
Letters were sent in advance to the principals in each of the schools explaining thenature of the study and soliciting their participation in the study. They were asked to have alist of their primary teachers ready so that the observers could randomly select four teachersto observe at the time of their arrival. The researchers called the schools in advance toschedule the date of the observations, so that the principal could inform all of the primaryteachers in the school that they might be observed on the scheduled date, although they didnot know specifically which teachers would be observed until the day of the observations. Ina few schools, some of the teachers refused to participate so the selection of teachers was nottotally random.
4
Observers
Most of the observers were university professors or advanced graduate students in theareas of primary and literacy education. The rest of the observers were public schoolsupervisors and administrators who work with the primary program in their districts. Noobservers conducted observations in a school in the system in which they were employed.All observers were highly familiar with the mandated requirements of the primary program.Nine of the observers had served as observers for all three years of the primaryimplementation studies and thus were highly familiar with the observation instrument and hadbeen involved in the development and refinement of the instrument during the last threeyears. Nine others had served as observers for two years. They, too, had provided feedbackregarding needed refinements in the configuration map after their 1994 observations. Twelveobservers were conducting observations for the first time.
Both experienced observers and new observers attended training that consisted of ahalf day session in which they participated with the principal investigator and/or her assistantsin a discussion of the various components on the observation map. They then observed avideo tape of a primary classroom and marked the variation on the observation map that theyfelt best described the manner in which the teacher in the classroom was implementing thatcomponent of the primary program.
Observers were instructed to make a decision even when parts of more than one of thedescriptions of variations could apply. They were to choose the description that was mostapplicable and to write comments explaining if and why they had difficulty making a choiceon some components.
The observers then submitted their ratings for a reliability check to determine thepercentage of agreement with the ratings that had been previously established by the principalinvestigator and her assistants. The protocols were then returned to the observers so thatthey could discover the components that they had rated differently from the principalinvestigator. Then both the trainers and trainees explained the reasons for their decisions.When disagreements occurred, they were discussed at length until all observers arrived atconsensus on the criteria for the decision.
The percentage of agreement was computed by dividing the number of agreements bythe total number of items. Since the component configuration map was divided into highfidelity variations of components (a and b) and low fidelity variations (c and d), agreementwas judged to be acceptable when the observers' ratings fell into the same high fidelity (a orb) or low fidelity (c or d) category as the researchers. Using this criteria for determiningagreement, an 89.5% level of interrater agreement was achieved. The range was between 77and 100% agreement, with 19 of the 30 observers scoring 90% or above reliability, eightscoring 80 to 89%, and 3 scoring 77 to 79%.
5
Development of the Configuration Map
The configuration map was a refinement of the observation instrument used in theSpring, 1993 study of Kentucky's primary program (Bridge, et al., 1994) with furtherrefinement following the 1994 data collection (Bridge, 1994). These refinements primarilyrepresented attempts to clarify the descriptions of the variations in response to feedback fromthe observers in 1994 regarding items that they had difficulty rating. A few new items wereadded to the configuration map in 1995 to enable the observers to describe with greaterspecificity the multi-age, multi-ability grouping patterns, the nature of five-year-old inclusion,and the inclusion of special needs students.
The original instrument focused on the seven critical attributes of the primary programwhich were defined by KDE (1991) as follows:
1. Developmentally appropriate educational practices.2. Multi-age and multi-ability classrooms.3. Continuous progress.4. Authentic assessment.5. Qualitative reporting methods.6. Professional teamwork.7. Positive parent involvement.
Developmentally Appropriate Practices. Developmentally appropriate practices meansproviding curriculum and instruction that addresses the physical, social, intellectual,emotional, and aesthetic/artistic needs of young learners and allows them to progress throughan integrated curriculum at their own rate and pace.
Multi-age and Multi-Ability Classrooms. Multi-age and multi-ability classroomsmeans the flexible grouping and regrouping of children of different ages, sex, and abilitieswho may be assigned to the same teacher(s) for more than one year.
Continuous Progress. Continuous progress means that students will progress throughthe primary school program at their own rate without comparisons to the rates of others orconsideration of the number of years in school. Retention and promotion within the primaryschool program are not compatible with continuous progress.
Authentic Assessment. Authentic assessment means assessment that occurs continuallyin the context of the learning environment and reflects actual learning experiences that can bedocumented through observation, anecdotal records, journals, logs, work samples, conferences,and other methods.
Qualitative Reporting. Qualitative reporting means that children's progress iscommunicated to families through various home-school methods of communication whichfocus on the growth and development of the whole child.
6
Professional Teamwork. Professional teamwork refers to all professional staffincluding primary teachers, administrators, special education teachers, teacher assistant/aides,itinerant teachers, and support personnel who communicate and plan on a regular basis tomeet the needs of groups as well as individual children.
Positive Parent Involvement. Parent involvement means relationships between schooland home, individuals, or groups that enhance communication, promote understanding, andincrease opportunities for children to experience success.
During Spring 1992, the Early Childhood Division of KDE asked all primary schoolsto develop a Primary Program Action Plan to explain how the faculty planned to implementthe seven critical attributes of the primary program. On the Action Plan form, these attributeshad been organized around four major categories: learning environment, developmentallyappropriate practices, assessment, and educational partnerships. Under each of thesecategories, several aspects of the category were listed to guide primary faculty as to the areasthat needed to be addressed in the Primary Action Plan.
During Summer 1992, the Early Childhood Division staff, the primary consultantsfrom the Regional Services Centers, and university faculty met to identify indicators thatthese aspects of the primary program had been addressed in the action plans. The KDE staffand primary consultants then developed a Primary Program Action Plan Review Form onwhich they recorded their evaluative comments of each school's action plan. Using the list ofindicators, the consultants noted strengths in the plans and areas in which amendments wererequired to bring the plans into compliance with KDE recommendations. These evaluationsforms were then returned to the school.
The majority of the components on the Primary Program Configuration Mapcorrespond to the categories and indicators on the Primary Action Plan Review Form. In thedevelopment of the map, researchers also referred to the KDE documents entitled StateRegulations and Recommended Best Practices for Kentucky's Primary Program, IntegratedProfessional Development Series: Primary, and Primary Thoughts: Implementing Kentucky'sPrimary Program. The map was reviewed and revised in light of comments from theuniversity professors, school administrators, and advanced graduate students who served asobservers in the primary progress studies in 1993 and 1994.
The attributes were subsequently grouped into four major categories: learningenvironment, developmentally appropriate practices, authentic assessment, and educational
partnerships.
The original observation instrument was an open ended protocol with room forextensive observer notes. After the observations were completed, observers were asked torate the various components of the primary classroom on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 indicatingthat the observer saw "no evidence" of implementation, 2 indicating "little evidence," 3
"moderate evidence," and 4 "extensive evidence."
7
For the purposes of the 1994 study, the observation instrument was revised inaccordance with Hall and Hord's (1987) concept of an innovation configuration map (SeeAppendix A for Configuration Map for Primary School Observations). The purpose of aninnovation configuration map is to define the major components of an innovation and thevariations that occur in the implementation of the innovation. In this case, the primary schoolprogram was considered to be the innovation and the various aspects of the program wereconsidered to be the components. The ways in which teachers were implementing eachcomponent were considered to be the variations. Descriptions of variations were developedfor the following categories:
I. LEARNING ENVIRONMENTA. Physical Environment
1. Flexible Layout2. Learning Centers3. Print Rich Environment4. Display of Student Work5. Variety of Instructional Materials
B. Social Emotional Environment1. Purposeful Movement2. Active Engagement3. Student Talk4. Teacher/Student Interaction5. Positive Discipline
II. DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICESA. Integrated Instructional Practices
1. Kentucky's Learning Goals2. Flexible Scheduling3. Broad Based Themes and Units4. Authentic Problems/Questions5. Levels of Questioning6. Meaning Centered Reading7. Meaning Centered Writing8. Problem Solving Mathematics9. Discovery Science10. Inquiry-Oriented Social Studies11. Other Content Areas
B. Varied Instructional Strategies1. Balanced Instructional Delivery2. Balance of Student/Teacher Initiation3. Active Child Involvement4. Flexible Grouping5. Continuous Progress
8
III. ASSESSMENTA. Continuity and FrequencyB. AuthenticityC. Variety of MethodsD. Student Self-EvaluationE. Evaluation of All Areas of GrowthF. Qualitative Reporting
1. Parent Conferences2. Descriptive Progress Reports
IV. EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPSA. Professional Teamwork
1. Teaming with Regular Teachers2. Planning with Regular Teachers3. With Special Teachers4. Planning Time5. Level of Collaboration
B. Parent Involvement1. In Classrooms2. In Policy Making3. In Student Evaluation4. In Supporting Learning5. Communication between Teachers and Parents
V. MULTI-AGE/MULTI-ABILITY GROUPING PATTERNSA. Classroom Patterns
1. Age levels in classrooms2. Years with the same teacher
B. School-Wide Patterns1. Five year old inclusion: Type of group2. Five year old inclusion: Type of activity3. Inclusion of special needs students
Section V, Multi-Age, Multi-Ability Grouping Patterns, was added before the 1995data collection. As previously mentioned, this section enabled a more systematic descriptionof information regarding the ways in which schools were grouping children of various agesand abilities and including five-year-olds and special needs children in the primaryclassrooms.
9
Teacher and Principal Interviews
In addition to conducting the observations, the researchers also interviewed theteachers and the principal in each school to find out more information about the componentson the configuration map that are difficult to determine through classroom observation, suchas grouping and teaming patterns and schoolwide schedules. Open-ended interview questionsalso focused on the teachers' attitudes and perceptions regarding various components of theprimary program (See Appendices B and C). Teachers were asked about changes in theirinstructional practices, their use and training in Different Ways of Knowing (DWOK) and theKentucky Early Learning Profile (KELP), the role of the school based decision makingcouncil (SBDM) in their building, and the nature of their referrals to the Family ResourceYouth Service Centers (FYSRSC's). Perhaps the most interesting question related to theaspects of the primary program they would continue or discontinue if the program becameoptional.
Teacher Survey
Teachers also filled out a survey regarding their judgement of the amount ofprofessional support they had received from various sources as they attempted to implementthe primary program (See Appendix D for Teacher Survey). The survey items asked theteachers to rate the amount of support on a scale of one to four, with one being "none," twobeing "limited," three being "adequate," and four being "extensive." The teacher surveyinstrument used in this study was the same as that used in 1993 and 1994 to collectprofessional support data.
RESULTS OF THE OBSERVATIONS, INTERVIEWS AND SURVEYS
A Typical Pattern of Primary School Implementation
When reporting the results of the 1994 study, a description of a teacher in a typicalprimary classroom was developed. This description was a composite picture and did notreflect precisely any one single classroom, nor were any two classrooms exactly alike in theway in which the teachers were implementing the primary program. The patterns ofimplementation in 1995 are so similar to the patterns revealed in 1994 that the description ofthe typical primary classroom remains essentially unchanged.
Although the means for many of the components have dropped slightly (.1 to .2 of apoint in many cases), the changes are so slight that they probably do not reflect anymeaningful differences in level of implementation. Nevertheless, the fact that there have notbeen increases in implementation in most areas is a matter of concern. The most disturbingdrops were in the teaching of science (.3) and social studies (.6).
10
In only two areas, professional teamwork and parent involvement, did the meansincrease slightly for almost all components, but again the differences were so slight (.1 to .3)that they probably do not represent real changes. It might appear that there is a trend forteachers to plan more with special area teachers and to have more regularly scheduledplanning time. The typical teacher may be involving parents more frequently and in moredifferent ways than in previous years of the study. Although there may be cause foroptimism in these areas, the small increases in the means and the nature of the datanecessitate caution in interpretation.
Context. The typical primary teacher in Kentucky teaches in a building in whichchildren are grouped in dual age classrooms, not in the multi-age classrooms recommendedby the developers of the primary program recommendations. Many of the teachers in thebuilding would prefer to discontinue the multi-age/dual-age component of the primaryprogram as they believe that it increases the diversity of instructional needs in theirclassrooms and thus makes it more difficult for them to meet this wide variety of instructionalneeds.
They question the practice of including five-year-olds in the primary program,especially since the kindergartners attend only half day sessions, thus making it difficult toschedule kindergartners' involvement in whole day primary classrooms. When five-year-oldsare included in the primary program, it is on an infrequent basis, usually for short periods oftime, perhaps for buddy reading or calendar time. Special needs students are included in theclassroom on a full time basis and participate in all activities when possible.
Physical Environment. In this hypothetical typical classroom, the teacher has arrangedthe physical environment so as to accommodate a variety of activities and group sizes. Thefurniture is flexible and can be rearranged when students need to work individually or insmall or large groups. This teacher has accumulated a variety of instructional materials thatprovide students with "hands-on" learning experiences and opportunities to explore newconcepts. The classroom has a print rich environment in which many types of print materialsare readily available. However, few examples of student generated print, art products, orother projects are displayed in the classroom. Most of the print has been commerciallyprepared or teacher produced. The teacher has a few permanent and temporary learningcenters, but the activities in the centers do not always appear to be an integral part of theongoing instructional program nor are the activities open-ended or adapted to a variety ofstudent levels, interests, and needs.
Social Emotional Environment. The social emotional environment in the typicalclassroom is generally positive and characterized by mutual respect and expectations forstudent self discipline. Students are allowed to move quietly about the room as needed and totalk quietly to one another about the tasks at hand. The teacher interacts with individuals andsmall groups of students as well as with the whole group. For the most part, students areactively engaged in learning activities; however, students have few opportunities to initiate
11
29
learning activities themselves. The teacher maintains a high level of control over studentmovement, student talk, and the learning activities in which students are involved.
Integrated Instruction. The teacher in the typical classroom is struggling to develop anintegrated curriculum. However, the need to begin curricular planning with Kentucky'sLearning Goals and Academic Expectations confronts her with new challenges. Althoughmost of the learning activities in her classroom do contribute to student achievement of theExpectations, she does not always make a conscious effort to focus instruction on the Goalsand Expectations. The teacher uses some thematic instruction; however, the topics of thethemes are generally narrow (e.g. whales, dinosaurs, and Egypt) and do not focus on thebroad based themes (e.g. patterns, movement, and change) identified in the AcademicExpectations. The classroom schedule provides for large blocks of time within which theteacher can flexibly designate periods of time needed to accomplish the learning activities forthe day.
As in traditional classrooms, most of the instructional time is spent on reading,writing, and mathematics. The teacher devotes little time to science and social studiesinstruction and only occasionally integrates the arts, practical living, and physical educationinto the curriculum. The teacher has adopted many of the practices recommended by wholelanguage advocates. The children read not only in their basal reading anthologies but alsoread many children's tradebooks; they write frequently in their journals and keep an ongoingfolder of their writings. Students are reading and writing about informational topics as wellas fiction. The teacher uses a process approach to writing instruction and confers with thechildren about their writing so that students understand that writing involves successiverevisions and editing. In mathematics, the teacher occasionally provides students withopportunities to go beyond textbook exercises by focusing on meaningful problems and usingmanipulatives to discover mathematical concepts. During science instruction, the teacherrarely uses an investigative approach in which students conduct experiments, observescientific processes, and record and analyze their observations.
Varied Instructional Strategies. The teacher usually facilitates the continuous progressof students by providing them with materials and activities that are appropriate to their leveland that enable them to move at their own pace. She sometimes uses flexible grouping,bringing students together for instruction based on learning needs and interests. The teachersometimes varies her methods of instructional organization, using cooperative learning as wellas direct instruction and independent activities. However, students' varied learning styles andmultiple intelligences are not often recognized or encouraged. The teacher usually involvesstudents actively in instruction, but the learning activities themselves are initiated almostsolely by the teacher, as students rarely have a chance to initiate an activity that arises fromtheir own interests and experiences.
Ongoing Authentic Assessment. The teacher is beginning to use more frequent andvaried authentic assessment methods in that she frequently conducts observations andassessments within the context of instruction. The focus of assessment is on what the
12
children know and can do with what they know and on the ways in which they learn. Theteacher attempts to document the children's growth in all areas of development (cognitive,social, physical, and aesthetic). However, she rarely involves the children in the evaluation oftheir own learning. She reports that the new assessment methods were time consuming andconfusing at first; however, now she is starting to feel more comfortable and confident intheir use.
When reporting to parents, the teacher uses a progress report which lists the types oflearning outcomes that students are expected to accomplish and indicates the progress thechild is making toward achieving those outcomes. No letter grades are given and the teachersupplements the checklist with written narrative comments explaining the children's progress.The teacher is available for parent teacher conferences when either she or the parents feel thata conference is needed. She reports that several parents complained about the new qualitativereport cards because they felt that letter grades gave them more information about whethertheir child was progressing at the expected rate.
Professional Teamwork. The teacher collaborates with other regular classroomteachers on an occasional basis; however, she rarely, if ever, plans with special area teachers(e.g. physical education, music, art, library, and special education). She reports that she hasan individual planning period, but that there is not a regularly scheduled planning time forteachers to plan together during the school day. Thus, the occasional joint planning she doeswith her fellow teachers occurs before or after school. She enjoys the collaboration with hercolleagues and says that the opportunity to exchange ideas with her peers is one of the bestparts of the new primary program. However, she says that she needs a regularly scheduledtime within the school day to conduct collaborative planning.
Parent Involvement. The teacher is making more efforts to increase parentinvolvement. She communicates with parents on a frequent basis often in the form ofnewsletters and parent meetings. Sometimes notes and telephone calls are exchanged withparents and conferences are scheduled on an as needed basis. The teacher is trying to getmore parents involved in the classroom and occasionally asks them to participate inevaluating their own children's progress.
Support for Implementation. The teacher in the typical classroom feels that she hasreceived a high level of support for implementation of the primary program from her principaland from the other teachers in her school. However, she feels that she has received limitedsupport from local district personnel, KDE, the regional service centers, the cooperatives, theuniversities, and from parents. She laments that "we have been asked to do too much, toosoon, without enough time to plan or adequate support for implementation."
13
Patterns of Implementation of Program Components Based on the Configuration Map
The results for the observational component of the study will be organized around thefive major areas of the Innovation Component Configuration Map for Primary Programs:learning environment, developmentally appropriate practices, assessment, educationalpartnerships, and multi-age/multi-ability grouping patterns. These results are presented in thefollowing Table 1 to 5. Table 1, Learning Environment includes two sections: PhysicalEnvironment and Social Emotional Environment. Table 2, Developmentally AppropriatePractices also has two sections: Integrated Instruction and Varied Instructional Strategies.Table 3, Assessment, addresses Ongoing Authentic Assessment. Table 4, EducationalPartnerships, is presented in two sections: Professional Teamwork and Parent Involvement.Table 5 presents Multi-Age/Multi-Ability Grouping Patterns in two sections: ClassroomPatterns and Schoolwide Patterns.
The researchers determined that teachers who were rated in Variations A and B whichare left of the dotted line in Table 1 to 4 were teachers who were implementing the primaryprogram components with high fidelity; whereas, teachers who were rated in Variations C andD were judged to be implementing the program components with low fidelity. In Table 5,the variations describe different grouping patterns. Although A and B variations may berecommended, the other variations may also be considered acceptable, just different.
The percentages of teachers who were using high fidelity implementations in 1994 and1995 are presented in Table 6.
Analysis of Differences in Implementation in 1994 and 1995
The differences in the percentages of teachers who were implementing the programwith high and low fidelity were analyzed using Chi-Square Analyses to determine whether ornot the differences were statistically significant. In only four of the components were thedifferences significant at the p<.05 level; the decline in the other component approachedsignificance. In two components a significantly lower percentage of teachers were judged tobe implementing the primary program with high fidelity: Flexible Layout and ContinuousProgress. The decline in one other component, Flexible Grouping, approached significance(2<.056). In two other areas, a significantly higher percentage of teachers were judged to beimplementing the component with high fidelity: Communication with Special Area Teachersand Parent Involvement in Student Evaluation.
The levels of implementation of the various components will be discussed in moredetail in the following sections.
14
TABLE 1
Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Components at DifferentLevels for the Learning Environment
Part 1. Physical EnvironmentFlexible layout
B
Arrangement enables somevariety of activities and group
sizes.
33%
CArrangement enables traditional
activities and group sizes.
17%
DArrangement enables no
variety of activities and groupsizes.
4%
AArrangement enables variety of
activities and group sizes.
46%
Learning centersB
A few centers which supportinstruction and meet individual
needs .
36%
COne or two centers not closely
related to instruction.
42%
DNo centers.
11%
AVariety of centers which
support instruction and meetindividual needs.
11%
Print rich environmentB
Several types of books andprint.
51%
CLimited selection of books and
print.
23%
DPrimarily textbooks.
2%
AWide variety of books and
print.
24%
Student work displayedB
Some display of student work.
23%
CLimited display of student
work.
46%
DNo display of student work.
17%
AVariety of student work
displayed.
14%
Variety of materials
B
Occasional use of "hands-on"materials.
45%
CLimited use of "hands-on"
materials.
35%
DNo use of "hands-on"
materials.
6%
AFrequent use of "hands-on"
materials.
14%
33
15
TABLE 1 (cont.)
Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Components at DifferentLevels for the Learning Environment
Part 2. Social Emotional EnvironmentPurposeful movement
BSome student-initiated
movement but primarilyteacher directed.
39%
CVery little student-initiatedmovement. Most teacher-
initiated.
39%
DNo evidence of student-
initiated movement.
8%
ABalance of student-initiated and
teacher-initiated movement.
14%
Active engagementB
Students actively engaged.Combination teacher
lecture/student discussion.
47%
CFew opportunities for active
student engagement. Emphasison teacher lecture.
28%
DNo indication of active student
engagement.
10%
AStudents actively engaged.Minimum teacher lecture.
15%
Student talkB
Some indication of teacher andstudent initiated talk. Some
opportunity for studentinteraction.
51%
C
Very little opportunity forstudent initiated talk and
interaction.
16%
DNo opportunity for studentinitiated talk or interaction.
9%
ABalance of student-initiated andteacher-initiated talk. Student
interaction.
24%
Student teacher interactionB
Some interaction individualand small group.
Predominantly large group.
60%
C
Little interaction individual andsmall group. Primarily large
group.
13%
DExclusively interaction in large
group.
4%
AMost interaction with
individuals and small groups.
23%
Positive disciplineB
Generally supportive, teacherfrequently praises and rewards.
58%
C
Teacher rarely praises orrewards.
12%
DTeacher comments negative
and punitive.
1%
ASupportive, mutual respect.
Student involvement in settingstandards.
29%
34
16
TABLE 12
Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Components at DifferentLevels for the Developmentally Appropriate Practices
Part 1. Integrated InstructionKentucky's Learning Goals
BMost activities evolve from
goals.
45%
CActivities not closely related to
goals.
39%
DActivities not related to
goals.
6%
AAll activities evolve directly
from goals.
10%
Flexible schedulingA B C D
Schedule changes to meet Large blocks of time for Traditional schedule with Set schedule for contentstudent needs. Integrated themes. Some time for separate times for content. areas. Teacher cannot
themes are used. individual content areas. Teacher can alter schedule. alter schedule.
2% 50% 36% 12%
Broad based themes/unitsA B C D
Units planned around broad Thematic teaching part of day. Theme topics narrow. Most of No themes observed.based themes and core Separate instruction in major instruction in separate content Instruction in separateconcepts. Content areas
integrated.content areas. areas. content areas.
5% 38% 49% 8%
Authentic problems/questionsA
Students solving real-lifeproblems.
8%
B
Occasional problem solving;problems may be contrived.
43%
C
Little evidence of problemsolving.
28%
DThere is no evidence of
problem solving.
21%
Levels of questioningA
All levels of questions areused.
26%
B
There is some evidence ofdifference levels of questions
being asked.
28%
CThere is little evidence of
varied levels of questioning.Teacher primarily asks short
recall questions.
36%
DThere is no evidence of
varied levels of questions.
10%
Meaning centered readingA
Children read frequently in avariety of materials formeaningful purposes.Instruction focuses on
comprehension and skills incontext.
23%
B
Basal reading series or othercommercial program usedprimarily. Skills sometimestaught in context, frequent
emphasis on comprehension.
45%
C
Basal texts and commercialprograms used only. Skills
frequently taught separately,emphasis on low level skills.
27%
DSkills not taught in
context, meaning centeredreading not promoted.
5%
Meaning centered writingB
Occasionally instructionfocuses on the writing process,skills in context, and writing
across the curriculum.
51%
CRarely instruction focuses onthe writing process, skills in
context, and writing across thecurriculum.
27%
DWriting process not
promoted, skills taught inisolation, limited
opportunities for studentwriting.
10%
AInstruction focuses on thewriting process, skills in
context, and writing across thecurriculum.
12%
Problem solving mathematicsB
Combination of textbookexercises and tasks engagestudents' interest, intellect.Some use of manipulatives.
35%
CTasks limited primarily totextbook exercises. Paper,
pencil tasks on computationskills rather then manipulatives
for investigation.
30%
DTasks limited to textbook
exercises. No use ofmanipulatives.
10%
A
Tasks engage students' interest,intellect. Manipulatives,
technology, other tools areused in investigations.
25%
Discovery scienceB
Sometimes investigativeapproach used. Frequent useof textbook as primary data
source.
26%
CRarely investigative approachused. Textbook sole source of
instruction.
9%
DNo science instruction
observed.
47%
AInvestigative approach used.
Hands-on, minds-onexperiences, interpretive
discussion.
19%
Inquiry based social studiesB
Occasional studentinvestigation. Some use ofmultiple sources, hands-on
activities, meaningfulexperiences.
27%
CRare student investigation.
Few opportunities for hands-onactivities, meaningful
experiences.
17%
DNo social studies
instruction observed.
50%
AStudent investigation
emphasized. Multiple sources,hands-on activities, meaningful
experiences used.
5%
Other subject areasB
Several arts are integrated incontent areas.
25%
CLittle indication of arts
integration in content areas.
40%
DNo evidence of
integration of arts.
29%
AArts are integrated in content
areas.
5%
36
18
TABLE 2 (cont.)
Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Components at DifferentLevels for the Developmentally Appropriate Practices
Part 2. Varied Instructional StrategiesVaried instruction
B
Occasionally instructionaltechniques vary to meetstudents' learning styles.
34%
CRarely instructional techniquesvary to meet students' learning
styles.
41%
DInstruction is not varied.
12%
AInstructional techniques vary tomeet students' learning styles.
13%
Student/Teacher initiationB
Extensive evidence of teacherinitiated activities, some
student initiated.
25%
CFew student initiated activities.
54%
DNo student initiated activities.
16%
AExtensive evidence of bothstudent and teacher initiated
activities.
4%
Active child involvementB
Students occasionally involvedin hands-on activities.Students move freely in
classroom at certain times.
44%
CStudents rarely involved in
hands-on activities. Studentsrarely move about classroom
unless teacher directed.
27%
DStudents not involved inhands-on activities. All
student movement teacherdirected.
16%
AStudents actively involved inhands-on activities. Students
move freely in classroom.
13%
Flexible groupingB
Some evidence teacher groupsstudents flexibly according to
needs and interests.
38%
CLittle evidence teacher groupsstudents flexibly; fixed ability
groups.
36%
DNo indication of flexible
groupings.
12%
ATeacher groups students
flexibly according to needs andinterests.
14%
Continuous progressB
Teacher usually supportscontinuous progress. Usuallyenables all students to move atown pace and learning level.
28%
CMaterials and activities same
for all students with littleadaptation to individuals.
49%
DAll students proceed at samepace through same materials.
12%
ATeacher supports continuous
progress. Enables all studentsto move at own pace and
learning level.
11%
a7
19
r.
TABLE 3
Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Components at DifferentLevels for Assessment
Continuity and frequencyA
Continuous/frequentassessment occurs.
21%
B
Assessment occurssporadically.
39%
CInfrequent assessment.
29%
DNo indication of continuous or
frequent assessment.
11%
AuthenticityA
Assessment in context, reflectsactual learning experiences,
performance based.
22%
B
Assessment in context,occasionally reflects actual
learning experiences.
35%
CLittle indication of assessmentin context or reflecting actual
learning experiences.
29%
DNo assessment during
instruction.
14%
Variety of methodsA
Use of multiple assessmentmeasures. Uses performance
based tasks.
19%
B
A few types of assessmentmeasures used. Some evidence
of performance based tasks.
41%
CLittle indication of multiple
measures. Students notinvolved in performance tasks.
33%
DNo evidence of a variety ofassessment measures. Tasksprimarily paper and pencil.
8%
Student self-evaluationA
Students given opportunity toreflect, evaluate own work.
10%
B
Students occasionally evaluateown work.
27%
CStudents rarely evaluate own
work.
42%
DNo student self-evaluation.
21%
Evaluation of all areasA
Teacher evaluates social,emotional, physical, aesthetic,
and cognitive growth.
27%
B
Teacher focuses on cognitiveand academic growth. Little
attention to other areas.
46%
CTeacher focuses on cognitive
and academic growth. Noattention to other areas.
22%
DNo evidence of evaluation of
any area.
5%
Qualitative Reporting:Conferences
ARegularly scheduled
parent/teacher conferences.
33%
B
Parent/teacher conferencesscheduled as needed or
requested.
50%
CParent/teacher conferences
scheduled for severe problems.
15%
DNo indication of parent/teacher
conferences.
2%
Qualitative Reporting:Progress reports
ADescriptive, narrative progress
reports.
21%
B
Descriptive checklist.
53%
CReports not descriptive or
narrative.
21%
DLetter grades only.
5%
rBEST COPY AVAILABLE
TABLE 4
Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Components at DifferentLevels for Educational Partnerships
Part 1. Professional Teamwork
Teaming with regular teachersB
There is some evidence ofteam teaching, collaborative
teaching, and/or peer coaching.
34%
CThere is little evidence of team
teaching, collaborativeteaching, and/or peer coaching.
25%
DThere is no evidence of team
teaching, collaborativeteaching, and/or peer
conferencing.
29%
ATeacher uses a variety of co-instructional strategies such asteam teaching, collaborative
teaching, and/or peer coaching.
12%
Planning with regular teachersB
Teacher occasionally (at leastonce a month) plans and shares
materials or ideas with otherteachers on the team.
32%
CThe teacher rarely plans and
shares materials
20%
DThere is no indication that theteacher plans or shares with
other teachers.
10%
ATeacher frequently (at least
once a week) plans and sharesmaterials or ideas with other
teachers on the team.
39%
With special teachersB
Frequently communicates andplans with special teachers.
44%
CRarely communicates and plans
with special teachers.
25%
DDoes not communicate andplan with special teachers.
21%
ARegularly communicates andplans with special teachers.
10%
Planning timeB
Has regularly scheduledindividual and common
planning time, most outside.school day.
. 39%
CHas regularly scheduled
individual planning time. Nocommon planning time
scheduled.
30%
DNo scheduled planning times.
11%
A
Has regularly scheduledindividual and common
planning time during schoolday.
20%
Level of collaborationB
Occasionally collaborates withteam and special teachers.
51%
CRarely collaborates with team
and special teachers.
27%
DDoes not collaborate.
10%
A
Collaborates with team andspecial area teachers.
12%
39
TABLE 4 (cont.)
Percent of Teachers Judged to be Implementing Program Components at DifferentLevels for Educational Partnerships
Part 2. Parent Involvement
In classroomsB
Parents involved occasionallyin classroom.
42%
CParents involved rarely in
classroom.
39%
DParents not involved in
classroom.
11%
A
Parents involved frequently inclassroom.
8%
In policy makingB
Parents involved in policydecisions at SBDM.
45%
CParents rarely involved in any
policy decisions.
21%
DParents not involved in policy
decisions.
29%
A
Parents involved in policydecisions at classroom level
and SBDM.
5%
In student evaluationB
Teacher occasionally involvesparent in evaluation of child.
25%
CLittle indication of parent
involvement in evaluation ofchild.
26%
DNo parent involvement in
evaluation of child.
39%
A
Parent/teacher collaboration onevaluation of child.
10%
In supporting learningB
Parents are occasionally helpedto support child's learning.
48%
CParents are rarely helped to
support child's learning.
22%
DNo indication of help for
parents.
11%
AParents are helped to support
child's learning.
19%
CommunicationB
Frequent one-waycommunication from teacher to
parent.
62%
COccasional one-way
communication from teacher toparents.
12%
DNo communication except
through report cards.
4%
AFrequent two-way
communication betweenteacher and parents.
22%
BEST COPY AVAiLABLE
40
TABLE 5
Multi-Age/Multi-Ability Grouping Patterns
Part 1. Classroom Patterns
Age levels in classroomsA
Includes three or moretraditional grade levelsfor entire school day.Teacher uses flexiblegrouping to addresschildren's needs and
interests.
10%
B
Includes two traditionalgrade levels for entireschool day. Teacher
uses flexible grouping toaddress children's needs
and interests.
41%
CIncludes two or more
traditional grade levels.Most grouping is done byage or ability level with
few provisions for flexiblegrouping.
7%
DIncludes two or more
traditional grade levels.Children leave the
classroom part of theday for ability- or age-group instruction or for
instruction in aparticular subject.
27%
EOther.
15%
Years with the sameteacher
AChildren remain withsame teacher two or
more years asdetermined by the needs
of the children.
42%
B
Children remain withinthe same family
throughout primary andmay have same teacherfor two or more years.
29%
CChildren are randomly
assigned to teachers eachyear and may have same
teacher two or moreyears.
DChildren do not remainwith the same teacher
for more than one year.
EOther.
23% 5% 0%
TABLE 5 (cont.)
Multi-Age/Multi-Ability Grouping Patterns
Part 2. School-Wide Patterns
Five year old inclusion:Type of group
AFive year olds are includedin multi-age groups with atleast three traditional grade
levels.
8%
B
Five year olds areincluded in dual-age
groups with at least twotraditional grade levels.
21%
CFive year olds are
included in dual-agegroups with one othertraditional grade level.
38%
DOther.
33%
Five year old inclusion:Type of activities
AFive year olds are includeddaily for the total time they
attend school and areinvolved in a variety of
activities with children ofother ages.
35%
BFive year olds are
included daily for largeblocks of time and areinvolved in a variety ofactivities with children
of other ages.
9%
CFive year olds are
included daily for shortperiods of time and forcertain activities only.
19%
DFive year olds are
included at regularlyscheduled intervalsranging from once a
week to once a monthfor certain activities
only.
23%
EOther.
14%
Inclusion of special needsstudents
ASpecial needs students areincluded for the entire day
and interact with otherchildren in the class.
38%
B
Special students leavethe classroom part of the
day for specialinstruction. There islittle opportunity forthem to interact with
other children.
50%
CSpecial students spend
most of the day inspecial classes.
5%
DSpecial students spend
all day in specialclasses.
7%
24
1
1
1
1
TABLE 6Comparison of the Percentage of Teachers Implementing the Primary Program
with High Fidelity in the 1994 and 1995 Studies
Percentage. of TeachersImplementing with High
Fidelity1994 1995
Physical EnvironmentFlexible layout *90 78Learning centers 49 47Print rich environment 70 75Student work displayed 35 37
Variety of materials 64 59
Social and Emotional EnvironmentPurposeful movement 57 53
Active engagement 63 62Student talk 73 75Student teacher interaction 77 83
Positive discipline 81 87
Integrated InstructionKentucky's Learning Goals 52 54Flexible scheduling 55 52Broad based themes/units 45 43Authentic problems/questions 51
Levels of questioning 54Meaning centered reading 74 67Meaning centered writing 67 63Problem solving mathematics 70 60Discovery science 56 45Inquiry based social studies 41 33
Other subject areas 39 30
25
43
1
Percentage of TeachersImplementing with High
Fidelity1994 1995
Varied Instructional StrategiesVaried instruction 48 47Student/Teacher initiation 35 29Active child involvement 62 57
Flexible grouping 66 52Continuous progress *55 39Continuity and frequency 62 60Authenticity 62 57Variety of methods 62 60Student self-evaluation 39 37Evaluation of all areas 81 73
Qualitative reporting: Conferences 83 83Qualitative reporting: Progress reports 79 74
Professional TeamworkTeaming with regular teachers 46Planning with regular teachers 71
With special teachers *33 54Planning time 56 59Level of collaboration 69 63
Parent InvolvementIn classrooms 40 50In policy making 53 50In student evaluation *20 35
In supporting learning 59 67Communication 77 84
siew items added to the ICCM in 1995.*Differences significant at the L<.05 level.Due to rounding, percentages may differ slightly from those on Tables 1-4.
26
44
Learning Environment: Physical Environment
A review of Part 1 of Table 1, Learning Environment: Physical Environment revealsboth strengths and weaknesses. In three of the five components, Flexible Layout (78%), PrintRich Environment (75%), and Variety of Materials (59%), well over half of the teachers werejudged to be using practices that are compatible with the primary program (Figure 1).However, in two components, Learning Centers (47%) and Student Work Displayed (37%),fewer than half were using high fidelity variations of implementation. In other words, mostteachers have rearranged their classrooms to support the implementation of the primaryprogram and filled their classrooms with a variety of appropriate learning materials and manybooks and print materials. On the other hand, teachers are having difficulty designinglearning centers that are integral to ongoing instruction and that enable students to respond ata variety of levels.
Some teachers are hampered by the lack of appropriate furniture and limited space. Inold buildings with small classrooms, limited storage space, and separate desks, it is difficultto organize the classroom for flexible grouping of students. It was disturbing to note that asignificantly lower percentage of teachers had flexible physical environments as indicated bya drop from 90% to 78% from 1994 to 1995 (See Table 6). Three fourths of the teachers hada print rich environment. Classroom libraries, including informational books, were availablein most of the classrooms. Although observers reported the presence of a variety of"hands-on" instructional materials for mathematics in 59% of the classrooms, they noted thatthey rarely saw students actually using the materials. Teachers often used the materials fordemonstrations in mathematics, but students usually did not have access to the materials.
Fewer than half of the teachers displayed students' work in the classroom and therewas still a preponderance of commercially produced materials and teacher generated printwith few examples of student generated print and art work.
Learning Environment: Social Emotional Environment
Over half of the teachers were using recommended practices in the establishment ofpositive social emotional environments in their classrooms. They were particularly strong ininteracting with students and in using positive methods of discipline. Observers sawextensive use of extrinsic rewards, but fewer examples of student involvement in settingstandards for their own behavior. Students were allowed to talk to one another and moveabout the room as needed, but most talk and movement were still teacher directed.
Again, there was little change in the percentages of teachers in the high fidelityimplementation category from 1994 to 1995 in all components related to the social emotionalenvironment.
27
Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Integrated Instruction
Fifty five percent of teachers were in the high fidelity implementation category in theuse of Kentucky's Learning Goals to guide instruction. Observers commented that teacherswho were using the Kentucky Early Learning Profile (KELP) were more successful in relatinginstruction to Kentucky's Learning Goals, especially in the areas of reading and writing.Several teachers actually had the numbers of the Kentucky Academic Expectations in theirlesson plans with the activities designed to help students meet the expectations.
Fewer than half (43%) of the teachers were using broad based themes and units. Wellover half of the teachers were using recommended practices in teaching reading (68%),writing (63%), and mathematics (60%), but fewer than half were doing so in science (44%),social studies (32%), and integration of the arts with other content areas (30%). Observerssaw almost no science and social studies being taught in approximately half of the classroomsand limited use of recommended practices in another 10 to 20% of the classrooms. Teachers'self reports of the changes that they have made in various areas of instruction will bediscussed at length in the section on interview responses, but their reports support the findingthat most of the instructional changes have occurred in reading and writing.
About half of the teachers (52%) were arranging a flexible schedule. Observersreported that the school day was often fragmented, sometimes by schoolwide schedulesinvolving the scheduling of special classes (music, art, and physical education) or bydepartmentalization that caused students to lose ten to fifteen minutes several times a day asthey moved from room to room. Such practices fragment the day and interfere with thescheduling of large blocks of time to work on integrated themes and units. Observers alsonoted that few teachers began the day with a planning session with the children nor did theyend the day with a time for reflection and self evaluation regarding what had beenaccomplished during the day.
Slightly over half of the teachers were successful at asking a variety of levels ofquestions (54%) and involving students in the solution of real life problems (51%).
Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Varied Instructional Strategies
Results from classroom observations of the components in the use of variedinstructional strategies indicated a significant drop (p<.05) in the level of implementation inthe continuous progress component (55% to 39%). The drop in flexible grouping (67% to52%) approached significance (2<.05). Slight change occurred in the areas of active childinvolvement (61% to 57%), balance of student and teacher initiated activities (35% to 29%),and varied instructional techniques (48% to 47%).
As in 1994, few teachers (29%) allowed students to initiate activities. Almost all ofthe classroom activities were initiated and controlled by the teachers.
28
Fewer than half of the teachers (39%) appeared to be successfully managingcontinuous progress and only slightly over half were using the flexible grouping practicesnecessary for continuous progress. Observers reported that many of the groups were based onability or age and several of the groups were fixed for the entire day, staying the same for allcontent areas. Often children of various ages were using the same materials and activities,but the younger children just did fewer items or moved less quickly through the materials.The management of continuous progress and flexible grouping are vital to the successfulimplementation of the primary program. Thus, the observed decline in these two componentsis a matter of concern and indicates a need for further staff development.
Assessment
Over half of the teachers were using recommended assessment procedures; that is, theywere using a variety of assessment methods (60%), assessing student progress within thecontext of instruction (57%), and doing so with relative frequency (60%). However, only37% were involving students in self-evaluation. A high percentage of teachers were usingqualitative methods for reporting to parents (83%) and conducting regularly scheduledparent/teacher conferences (74%). There were no significant changes in the level ofimplementation in assessment practices between 1994 and 1995.
Educational Partnerships: Professional Teamwork
A significantly higher percentage of teachers were implementing the component ofplanning and communicating with special area teachers (31% to 54%). Fifty-nine percent ofthe teachers reported having regularly scheduled planning time. The item related to planningand teaching collaboratively with other regular classroom teachers cannot be compared to1994 as the item was broken into two items on the 1995 map, one for planning and sharingmaterials and ideas with other regular classroom teachers and one regarding team teachingand collaborative teaching with other regular teachers. Results indicated that fewer than half(46%) of the teachers actually taught collaboratively with other regular teachers; however,71% planned with regular teachers. No significant changes occurred in the level ofcollaboration time for planning from 1994 to 1995.
Educational Partnerships: Parent Involvement
Half of the teachers appeared to be involving parents in the classrooms and asignificantly higher percentage were asking parents to participate in evaluating their ownchildren's growth (20% to 35%). Communication with parents (67%) and getting parentsinvolved in supporting their children's learning (84%) were areas of strength.
29
Multi- Age/Multi- Ability Grouping Patterns: Classroom Patterns
This set of items was added to the configuration map in 1995 to more accuratelydescribe the variety of grouping patterns being employed in Kentucky's primary classrooms.Results revealed that only eight percent of the classrooms included three or more traditionalgrade levels for the entire school day with the teacher in the classroom using flexiblegrouping to address the needs and interests of the children. Forty-one percent of theclassrooms had dual age groups for the entire day with the teacher using flexible grouping toaddress children's needs and interests. These two variations of multi-age grouping are mostcompatible with the original recommendations of the planners of the primary program inKentucky. Thus, approximately half of Kentucky's classrooms were meeting the multi-agerequirement in suggested ways.
On the other hand, 27% of the classrooms had two or more traditional grade levels butthe children left the classroom part of the day for ability or age group instruction in aparticular subject. Another 7 percent of the classrooms included two or more traditionalgrade levels, but the teacher worked separately with age or ability groups within theclassroom with few provisions for flexible grouping. Another 15% used a variety of othergrouping configurations with some kindergarten classrooms being totally self-contained.
Teachers' responses to the interview questions will help shed light on reasons why fewschools are using multi-age rather than dual age grouping.
It was interesting to note that many children remained with the same teacher (42%) orthe same family (29%) for two or more years. Another 23% of the children were randomlyassigned to teachers and might have the same teacher for more than one year. Teachersreported advantages to keeping children for more than one year in that they got to know theneeds and interests of the children better and were thus better able to plan for continuousprogress. They said they were able at the beginning of the new school year to begin wherethey left off at the end of the previous school year with little time needed to get acquaintedwith students, teach classroom routines, or assess levels of achievement.
Multi-Age/Multi-Ability Grouping Patterns: School-Wide Patterns
Since not all teachers had five year olds or special needs children in their classrooms,the grouping patterns for five-year-olds and special needs students were described in terms ofpractices used in the total school as reported by the principals in their interviews.
First, principals were asked to describe the age levels of the children with whomfive-year-olds were included. Only eight percent of the fives were included with three ormore ages and 13% were included with two other grade levels. The largest group, 44%, wereincluded with one other traditional grade level, usually primary two students (first graders).Thirty-five percent used none of these patterns, and approximately 20% of the kindergartens
30
were self-contained. Eighty-five percent of the schools included fives with other children forthe entire school year; 15% for second semester only.
When fives were included with other students, 35% spent the total session withchildren of other ages. Another nine percent were included for large blocks of time andparticipated in a variety of activities with children of other ages. Twenty percent of fiveswere included with children of other ages for short periods of time each day for certainactivities only. Another 23% were included with other ages on a regularly scheduled basis butonly once a week or once a month for certain activities only.
Results of the Rank-Order Correlations for Primary ICCM Components
To determine if specific components of the primary program provide a good indicationof overall implementation of the program, a series of Spearman Rank-Order Correlations wasconducted. Correlation coefficients were computed for each of the items in the first fourareas of the primary program map with the overall average of all the items for the 92teachers.
High correlation coefficients indicated that high ratings on these items were positivelyrelated to high overall implementation scores. Low correlation coefficients indicated thatthese items were relatively independent of high or low implementation scores. The itemswith high correlation coefficients were good predictors of overall implementation and itemswith low correlation coefficients were poor predictors of overall implementation. The tenitems with the highest and lowest correlation coefficients are presented in Table 7.
31
TABLE 7Highest and Lowest Spearman Correlation Coefficients
Highest Coefficients (Descending order)Continuous progress 0.82Authentic assessment 0.80Balanced instructional delivery 0.79Active engagement 0.79Variety of assessment methods 0.78Continuity and frequency of assessment 0.77Student talk 0.77Balance of teacher and student initiated activity 0.77Variety of instructional materials 0.76Kentucky's Learning Goals 0.74
Lowest Coefficients (Ascending order)Planning time 0.24Inquiry based social studies 0.42Planning with regular teachers 0.48Involving parents in policy making 0.49Discovery science 0.51Teaming with regular teachers 0.53Involving parents in classrooms 0.53Qualitative reporting to parents 0.54Professional teamwork: Level of collaboration 0.54Qualitative reporting conferences 0.57
The highest Spearman correlation coefficients, presented in descending order, wereobtained for the following items: Continuous Progress, Authentic Assessment, BalancedInstructional Delivery, Active Engagement, Variety of Assessment Methods, Continuity andFrequency of Assessment, Student Talk, Balance of Teacher and Student Initiated Activity,Variety of Instructional Materials, and Kentucky's Learning Goals. Thus, it appears thatteachers who obtained high overall implementation scores were teachers who were providingfor the continuous progress of their students, using a variety of instructional techniques andmaterials, providing opportunities for students to talk and to initiate activities, and activelyengaging students in learning activities that were focused on Kentucky's Learning Goals andExpectations. These teachers' assessment practices supported students' continuous progress asthey made frequent use of a variety of authentic assessment methods to monitor studentprogress.
The lowest Spearman correlation coefficients, presented in ascending order wereobtained for the following items: Planning Time, Inquiry Based Social Studies, Planning withRegular Teachers, Involving Parents in Policy Making, Discovery Science, Teaming with
32
Regular Teachers, Involving Parents in Classrooms, Qualitative Reporting to Parents,Professional Teamwork: Level of Collaboration and Qualitative Reporting Methods. Notethat only the correlation for Planning Time was so low that it indicated that implementationof this component was relatively independent of overall implementation scores. The othercomponents, though relatively lower, were still moderately correlated with overallimplementation scores.
These results suggest that efforts to improve the implementation of the primaryprogram might focus on helping teachers learn ways to enhance the continuous progress ofstudents. Teachers need support in using frequent and continuous authentic assessmentmethods to monitor student progress and then planning appropriate instruction using a varietyof instructional materials and techniques that promote high engagement in learning activities.Teachers who were implementing the primary program with high fidelity were willing toinvolve students in initiating learning activities and to give them the freedom to talk to oneanother about their learning activities. Learning activities in high implementors' classroomsalso focused on Kentucky's Learning Goals and Academic Expectations.
Results of the Cluster and Discriminant Analysis for Components of the Primary ICCM
To further examine the patterns of implementation for the 92 teachers within the entireset of innovation map components, a cluster analysis was performed, using Ward's MinimumVariance Cluster Analysis. The results of this analysis are depicted graphically in Figures 3and 4. The teachers' scores placed them within five clusters with 10 outliers whoseimplementation patterns were so different that they did not fit within any of the clusters. Theclusters tend to group high fidelity users together in a few groups and low fidelity userstogether in other groups. The high groups will be high in different ways that distinguishthem from one another.
Discriminant analysis was then used to help identify the ways in which these clustersdiffered from one another by indicating the components which discriminate among the groups.F-ratios were derived from a standard analysis of variance using the cluster membership asthe independent variable and the Innovation Component Configuration Map item rating as thedependent variable. A high F-ratio indicates that the clusters tended to differ on that item.Items that discriminate highly between clusters have low within-cluster variance and highbetween cluster variance. The F-ratios for the most discriminating items are presented inTable 8.
33
TABLE 8Canonical Correlations and F-values for Components that Discriminate Among Clusters.
CanonicalCOMPONENTS Correlation F-Value*
Dimension 1Active engagement 0.84 41.9Balanced instructional delivery 0.83 41.2Continuous progress 0.81 35.1Variety of instructional materials 0.79 30.5Balance of student and teacher initiation 0.77 28.0Student talk 0.75 30.6Flexible grouping 0.74 25.3Active child involvement 0.74 24.2
Dimension 2Parent involvement in policy making 0.55 16.3Professional teamwork: Level of collaboration 0.38 12.3Planning with regular teachers 0.36 11.3Parent involvement: Communication 0.30 9.8Communicating and planning with special teachers 0.28 13.4Teaming with regular teachers 0.25 12.3Qualitative reporting to parents 0.20 14.4Parent involvement in supporting learning 0.20 16.1
*Note: All F-Values are statistically significant at the .0001 level.
The discriminant analysis determines the dimensions along which the members of eachcluster can be placed. These dimensions represent an attempt to array the differences along acontinuum in order to define a conceptual framework. Linear combinations of the variablesin the data set can be defined which will place each observation on a scale. In this way, twodimensions were identified (See Table 8). High values indicate the items that bestcharacterize each dimension.
The following eight items had the highest values and thus characterize the firstdimension: Active Engagement, Balanced Instructional Delivery, Continuous Progress,Variety of Instructional Materials, Balance of Student and Teacher Initiated Activities, StudentTalk, Flexible Grouping, and Active Child Involvement.
On the second dimension, a different set of eight items received high loadings: ParentInvolvement in Policy Making, Level of Collaboration, Planning with Regular Teachers,Communication with Parents, Communicating and Planning with Special Teachers, Teaming
34
with Regular Teachers, Qualitative Reporting to Parents, and Parent Involvement inSupporting Learning.
Dimension one was labeled Dynamic Instruction as it appears to relate to theindividual teachers' ability to involve students actively in learning through the use of a varietyof instructional materials and techniques, to share authority in the classroom with the studentsby enabling them to initiate activities and talk together, and to use flexible grouping tosupport students' continuous progress. All of these components except Flexible Groupingwere included in the top ten items that had high Spearman Rank Order Correlations withoverall high implementation of the primary program. Five of these items come from thesection of the Innovation Component Configuration Map involving DevelopmentallyAppropriate Practices: Varied Instructional Strategies, two from the section on LearningEnvironment: Social and Emotional Environment and one from Physical Environment.
Dimension two was labeled Professional Partnerships. This dimension seems to berelated more to components that are affected by school level policies governing professionalpartnerships with parents and other teachers. The individual teacher has little control overmany of these policies, such as the scheduling of time for teachers to plan together and theamount of communication and teaming with other regular and special teachers. Many of theparent involvement components involve schoolwide policies for communicating with parents,for involving them in policy making for the school, for helping them learn to support theirchildren's learning, and for reporting student progress to parents. Many of these factors didnot correlate highly with overall implementation of the primary program. However, teacherswere found to be consistent in the ratings on these items, independent of overallimplementation.
The teachers in cluster four tend to have the highest overall implementation scores andto score very high on the first dimension identified as Dynamic Instruction and somewhathigh on the second dimension identified as Professional Partnerships. The teachers in clusterfive tended to have the second highest overall implementation scores and to rank somewhathigh on both dimensions one and two. Teachers in cluster three ranked high on dimensiontwo, but somewhat lower on dimension one. Their overall implementation scores were in themidrange. Cluster one teachers had the lowest implementation scores and ranked lowest ondimension one and relatively higher on dimension two. Cluster two teachers ranked relativelyhigher than cluster one teachers on dimension one but lower on dimension two.
Cluster four teachers who were implementing the components of the primary programwith high fidelity on the overall configuration map and cluster one teachers who wereimplementing with low fidelity are graphically depicted in Figure 3 and 4 (See Appendix E).As with the 1994 comparison of high and low implementors, the greatest differences betweenthe two groups involved components that the individual teacher controlled; whereas, the twogroups were more alike on the components affected most by school wide policies.
35
Results of the Teacher Interviews
The purpose of the interviews was to provide more information about aspects of theprimary program that were difficult to determine through observation alone. Severalquestions were developed to learn more about teachers' perceptions and beliefs about variousaspects of the program.
The first two questions related to teachers' perceptions regarding changes they hadmade in their instructional practices as a result of the primary program. Question one wasopen ended and asked teachers how their teaching practices had changed. Question twospecifically mentioned changes they had made in reading and writing instruction. Since mostof the reported changes occurred in reading and writing, the answers to questions one and twowill be discussed together.
1. How have your instructional practices changed as a result of the primaryprogram?
2. What effect has the primary program had on your writing instruction?reading instruction? What materials are you using for your readinginstruction?
Writing Instruction. Seventy of the 91 teachers (77%) mentioned that their writingpractices had changed and that they felt that the new emphasis on writing was positive.Forty-one teachers (45%) mentioned that their students were doing much more writing.Eighteen indicated that they were attempting to teach writing as a process and 13 said theywere focusing on integrating writing across the curriculum into subjects such as science,social studies, and mathematics. Fourteen teachers reported that their students were writing injournals on a regular basis, and nine said that their students were developing portfolios thatwere similar to the fourth-grade writing portfolios used in the statewide accountability testing.
Observers' written comments on the configuration map and oral comments during thedebriefing session confirmed teachers' self-reports. They, too, reported seeing frequentwriting in the classrooms, writing across the curriculum, students writing in journals, andstudents keeping writing folders and portfolios.
Overall, it appears that the primary program has had a positive influence on thenature and amount of writing that is occurring in Kentucky's primary classrooms. Oneteacher's comment captured the essence of the changes: "Before the primary program, thefocus was on neatness, punctuation, etc. I had not focused on creative writing. Now I havestudents write their own stories." Another teacher said, "I never had children write muchbefore, because, you know, in first grade we thought they had to spell first and make lettersright first. Now we use best guess spelling. We have a Wee Postal System in our school andmy children write to a person in another class. We do creative writing now."
36
A third teacher's comment was poignant in terms of the mutually beneficial effects ofinvolving students in the writing process: "I am learning the writing process with mystudents. I now write poetry. I never could have done that before. My mom passed awayApril 1, and they read one of my poems. I feel thrilled. I'm doing it, and they're doing it."
Reading Instruction. Fifty-one teachers (56%) acknowledged that the primary programhad had an effect on their reading instruction. Twenty-seven teachers indicated that they wereusing more trade books and children's literature. Fifteen of these teachers said that they usedchildren's literature in conjunction with a basal reading series. Four teachers stated they nowexpose students to more print and encourage their students to read more. Seventeen teachersindicated that reading often related to their thematic units and content areas. Six teachersreported that reading groups were more flexible, and many suggested that they employedwhole group, small group, and cooperative group instruction. Six teachers indicated that theynow use fewer worksheets, and three teachers said that they taught specific reading strategies,such as predicting and comprehension strategies.
In a follow-up question, teachers were asked directly what materials they were usingfor reading instruction. Sixty-five teachers (71%) indicated that they used tradebooks andliterature, and 55 teachers (60%) indicated that they relied on basals to some degree. Inaddition to trade books, children's literature, and basal reading series, nine teachers indicatedthat they used theme related books and print materials. Twelve teachers said that they used"big books" designed for shared reading. Eleven teachers reported using the Success programand four said that they used the Write to Read program which involves children writing atcomputers in an integrated reading/writing approach.
The following comment is indicative of some of the changes teachers have made: "Iuse stories from the basal if they relate to our theme. I now deal with children's interests.Instead of being directed by literature, literature is based on the students' interests. Thechildren direct the curriculum. While reading, there is a lot of talk about what makes goodreaders: Read to the end of the sentence to see if it makes sense, relate to personalexperiences, make predictions, etc. Skills are taught in context."
Another teacher commented: "We don't use the reading manual any more. In fact,we don't use prepared, marketed things. We decide on units, and we just begin. We pullfrom here and there, and my teammate and I share. I have started using basal readersinformally at the parents' request once a week. I have students read stories in them and thatseemed to satisfy the parents because what we were doing was different from what they (theparents) were used to. Now I am more tuned it to what the children need."
Manipulatives. Twenty-four teachers indicated that they are now using moremanipulatives. Four teachers stated that they use Box It Bag It mathematics. Other areas inwhich teachers indicated that they used manipulatives included science, reading, and themebased learning centers. As one teacher put it, "I also use Box It Bag It math and four or fivemath texts and manipulatives. Not just in math either, I mean, if they can hold it, put it
37
together and do things in other subjects, they need to. We studied rocks and you know whatthey wanted to do? They wanted to hold the rocks, smell the rocks, rub the rocks. Feeling,touching, that's what was important to them."
Grouping Patterns. Nineteen teachers indicated that they have changed their overallgrouping patterns. Fifteen teachers suggested that they now use whole group instruction lessand employ more small group and individualized instruction. Six teachers indicated that theyused cooperative learning and believed that students benefitted from sharing their ideas. Sixteachers said that they use learning centers to meet the needs of students.
Other Instructional Changes. Seven teachers stated that "everything has changed" andthat preparation takes a lot more time. One teacher suggested that her work load haddoubled. Three of these teachers indicated that they were not prepared for themulti-age/multi-ability aspect of KERA and as a result they felt stressed.
One teacher put it this way, "I've changed almost everything. It used to beself-contained, basal and textbooks, set curriculum, and almost no writing. The students whocouldn't sit still and listen and get it were just kind of lost. Now it's literature-based, wholelanguage, and hands-on math, and I try to get the kids more involved."
According to another teacher, "My outlook and philosophy on teaching children isdifferent. Children are the focus. They help make selections and run the temperament of theclass."
Overall, teachers reported the greatest amount of change in their reading and writinginstruction. In writing, they indicated that children were writing more and using the writingprocess. In reading, teachers noted the use of a wider variety of reading materials with lessemphasis on the basal reading series. The other most frequently mentioned changes related togreater use of manipulatives during instruction and more flexible grouping patterns. Manyteachers mentioned that the changes they had made in implementing the primary program hadtaken a great deal of time and were often accompanied by high levels of stress.
3. Have you had an orientation session to DWOK? Are you using it? How isDWOK working in your classroom? What is your opinion of DWOK?
Eighty-eight teachers responded to this interview question. Only 12 teachers indicatedthat they had been trained to use the Different Ways of Knowing (DWOK) program. Ten ofthe twelve were actually using DWOK. Several had positive things to say about the programand the training, but they also had concerns. Some found it hard to incorporate and said ittook a lot of time. Others mentioned that they found it difficult to share materials with othermembers of the team. One noted that the "activities and ideas are great, but it's all socialstudies and no science." A couple of teachers said they used it to supplement units theyalready had developed. A positive aspect that one teacher noted was the presence of activities
38
to meet the seven intelligences and ideas for using the humanities. She also liked having a"printed manual - the first since primary started."
It appears that during the first year of DWOK training, the program has had limitedeffects with fewer than 14% of the teachers in the study sample having received training.The teachers who have been trained seem to be having difficulty incorporating it into theirinstruction and report using it on a limited basis to supplement existing units. They appear toneed more training and support before they are able to integrate DWOK into their teaching.
4. What do you use to support continuous progress in your classroom?(anecdotal records, checklists, learning logs, etc.) Have you been trainedin using KELP? Are you using it? What is your opinion of KELP?
Fifty-six of the 88 teachers (64%) who responded to this question reported that theyused anecdotal records to help monitor students' continuous progress. Forty-nine teachers(56%) said that they used various checklists and 17 teachers (19%) reported using portfoliosor some type of working folder for students' work samples.
Thirty-six teachers (41%) indicated that they had been trained in the use of theKentucky Early Learning Profile (KELP). Fifty-two teachers said they had not been trainedin KELP but nearly half of them planned to participate in KELP training during the summer.Nearly all of the teachers who had been trained commented that the use of the KELP is verytime consuming; even so, most of them felt that it was worth the effort. Teachers felt ithelped them organize and manage the assessment process and motivated them to be precise intheir record keeping. Several noted that parents liked the KELP because they were betterinformed about their children's progress when they looked at the child's collected work. Oneteacher said that she enjoyed conferences with parents much more now. Several teachersnoted that parents sometimes wanted letter grades and felt uncomfortable with only worksamples and anecdotal records.
Overall, the most frequent comment by both supporters and opponents of KELP dealtwith its time consuming nature. Teachers who had received KELP training were more apt tomake positive comments than teachers who had not been trained. The untrained teachersreported that they were worried about the time it would take to learn how to use KELP and toactually implement it in the classroom.
In summary, it appears that teachers who have received training in the use of theKELP find it useful for monitoring student progress and for reporting to parents even thoughthey find it to be time consuming and hard work.
39
5. When did your school begin SBDM? What impact did the council have onthe primary program?
Twelve of the 24 schools reported having councils in place, and two more plan tobegin in August 1995. In four of the schools, the council had been in place for four years.One school had had a council for three years, four others for two years, and three schools forone year.
In schools where there were councils, teachers reported that councils made decisionson such things as curriculum, planning, budget, and how students were grouped. Councilsprovided input on how the school spends money, communicates with parents, arranges theschool schedule, and deals with discipline. In some schools, building based committees maderecommendations to the council, which usually accepted the recommendations.
Most of the teachers reported positive accomplishments for the councils including:providing classroom aides, getting multiple copies of books, helping to get materials andsupplies, more freedom in grouping and assigning students, more power in the hands of theteachers, more teacher input in decision making, and better parent/teacher relations. Oneteacher said, "There would be no primary program without the council." Another noted thatthe council has "pulled staff together as a team and helped to get parents involved oncommittees which enables them to share ideas."
On the other hand, a few teachers expressed concerns. One said, "Teachers have lesspower to make choices. All decisions must be voted on by the council." Another reported, "Ithink it's good, but I think it has been carried too far. We're thinking about making ad hoccommittees next year. We are all worn out. I think it's the principal's job to do a lot of thisstuff. They're getting paid a lot of money to deal with this stuff and we're not. It is so timeconsuming. It's just physically and mentally exhausting."
Overall, teachers in schools with functioning councils seemed to feel positive about theroles that the councils had assumed and their accomplishments. They noted increasedinvolvement of both parents and teachers in decision making.
6. The primary program is based on seven critical attributes. Which of thoseattributes have you found easiest to implement? Which have been thehardest? If the primary program became optional, what would you want tocontinue? discontinue?
Easiest to Implement. The seven critical attributes of the primary program weredefined earlier is this report and include the following: developmentally appropriate practices,multi-age/multi-ability grouping, continuous progress, authentic assessment, qualitativereporting, professional teamwork, and parent involvement. Professional teamwork was
40
considered easiest to implement by 69% of the teachers. Fifty-five percent stated thatdevelopmentally appropriate practices was the attribute that was easiest to implement.
Most Difficult to Implement. The two most difficult attributes of the primaryprogram to implement, according to the teachers, were: authentic assessment (58%) andqualitative reporting (55%). In light of the number of teachers who reported that they woulddiscontinue multi-age/multi-ability grouping, it was surprising that this attribute was notconsidered most difficult. Of the teachers who rated multi-age grouping, 33 said it waseasiest; 38 said it was most difficult. Ranked somewhere in the middle were continuousprogress (34 easy; 26 hard) and parent involvement (32 easy; 30 difficult).
Aspects to Continue. The aspects of the program that were most frequently mentionedby teachers as aspects that they would continue were developmentally appropriate practices(18), the emphasis on writing (17), multi-age/multi ability grouping (14), use of themes andunits (14), the total primary program (11), continuous progress (9), and authentic assessment(9).
Comments made by teachers included the following: "It's (the primary program) thebest thing to happen to teaching." "Personally I'd like to continue. It has many goodworking ideas and a few things we need to iron out." "Keep multi-age/multi-ability grouping,but restructure it. I like the teaching methods, but would prefer part-time multi-age andpart-time single age groups. First and second do well together, but I would take third outbecause the transition to fourth grade is too hard."
Aspects to Discontinue. Forty teachers mentioned that they would discontinuemulti-age/multi-ability grouping. No other aspect of the primary program was mentionedmore than twice. Thus, it appears that of the 91 teachers who were interviewed, almost halfof them (44%) would choose to discontinue multi-age/multi-ability grouping.
One teachers' comment indicated a misconception in that she equated multi-agegrouping with split classes: "It's a giant step backward. None of us wanted split-grades.Now we all have split grades. It's terrible. We used to have too many different abilities.Now it's unmanageable." Another teacher expressed a concern that is shared by manyproponents of the primary program: "I might discontinue multi-age but I fear that wouldprobably lead to traditional ways of teaching and I would not be in favor of that."
7. Do you have a family resource center? For what types of services have you madereferrals?
According to teacher reports 19 of the 24 schools in the study had Family ResourceCenters; five did not. When teachers were asked what types of referrals they had made to thecenters, they most frequently reported the following: requests for clothing for children (42);medical needs (30); food (8); attendance problems (8); counseling (7); child abuse (6); school
41
supplies (6); parenting classes (6); and home visits (5). Other requests for various types ofchild services were mentioned three or fewer times. One teacher commented that "mostfamilies have benefitted. We are now reaching out to working parents better."
8. Is there anything else that you want to add regarding the primaryprogram?
This question elicited a wide array of comments, some positive, some negative. Thelargest number of comments dealt with teachers' concerns about time. Several (12) felt thatthey had not had adequate time to prepare for implementation of the primary program andthat there was not enough time for daily planning built into the schedule. The second largestnumber of comments (9) dealt with the related issue of stress. Several mentioned specificallythe stress brought on by the KIRIS statewide assessment and the accompanying rewards andsanctions.
Typical complaints included: "I have spent more than 30 hours in meetings afterschool with no pay. I always have to stay about 45 minutes to one hour after school to getthings put away and get things out for the next day. Also, I take work home." Anotherteacher noted, "The biggest problem is the amount of time the components of the primarytake, such as planning and conferencing. There is a mammoth amount of time devoted to thepreparation for class activities." One teacher complained, "The primary program has put abig stress on teachers because of lack of time and training." In the same vein, another noted,"I really wish they would have started from the floor up instead of the ceiling down. Weneed materials, time, and training. We feel like we had the rug pulled out from under us.We've all worked so hard." A third teacher commented, "Initial deadlines were mindboggling. It was stressful meeting those deadlines." A fourth teacher pointed out, "Rewardsand sanctions have created a lot of tension."
Several (6) teachers also mentioned a need for more money and materials toimplement the program. One teacher complained that "teachers need more assistanceselecting and purchasing appropriate materials that support the critical attributes of theprimary program." Another pointed out that "finding materials appropriate for multi-agegroups is difficult." A third said, "We need more money for books, games, manipulatives andsupplies for Box It, Bag It."
Several comments related to a desire to return to the "good old days." One teachersaid "I just prefer the old ways." Another lamented, "I wish it was back the way it used tobe. I like it that way because I got good results." A third agreed, "It's not all bad but Iprefer a traditional class." A few teachers said they needed more structure; "I can't cope withall this freedom. If you don't have textbooks you have to write your own curriculum."Another commented, "I really like it and want to continue it, but I do want more structure,more to go on." The desire for more structure was often accompanied by worries regardingtheir ability to meet the needs of the children. "I don't like the insecurities teachers have
42
about if we are teaching what children need to learn." Another teacher agreed, "I worryabout students getting what they need."
On the positive side, several teachers mentioned benefits of the primary program. Onestated, "I like what it's doing. I like the freedom for students. I like my teaching - thereading and writing. Sometimes I'm concerned: Am I doing the right thing? Then I'll seesomething the children do and I know I'm meeting the children's needs." Another said, "Ilike teaching multi-age, but it is stressful. I like having different ages. The little kids pick upa lot of stuff from the older ones just by being there. Some of them are reading on a thirdgrade level and want to do multiplication and division because they see the older ones doingit." Another teacher noted that she was "strongly in favor of the program; it allows childrento progress at their level." Another said, that the primary program is "a wonderful tool foryoung children's learning."
Several teachers commented on the growing confidence they felt in their ability toteach in the primary program. "I have enjoyed this year very much. The previous years,especially the first, were very difficult and I questioned my ability as a teacher. We havedone more age appropriate flexible grouping which has been comfortable for me." "I haveseen some children learn to love school that had a hard time performing in the traditionalclassroom. I look more forward to school each morning." The primary program is "givingme a new sense of looking at students individually. It's a fresher approach to teaching. Itkeeps me young."
The change from feeling negative to feeling positive about the primary program wasbest captured by the teacher who said, "The first year I considered getting a degree insomething else. I thought then, 'this doesn't fit me; I hate it.' But now, here I am...I wasone of those teachers who found real security in the teacher's manual and a daily schedule, inhaving a set routine to follow, and I was good at it. I could do it well, but, who couldn't? Atrained monkey could do it. This has been a change for me and it's been hard but I likemyself better and I think that the kids in my class like school better."
Summary of Interview Data
In general, it appeared that teachers were relatively positive about the progress theyhave made in implementing the primary program and about the effects the primary program ishaving on student learning. They were especially positive about the changes that hadoccurred in their teaching of reading and writing. Nearly half of them still had concernsabout the multi-age/multi-ability grouping requirement, but many teachers pointed outadvantages that had accrued from having various ages and abilities in the same classroom.Teachers said that they had worked extremely hard to implement the primary program in sucha short time. Almost all of the teachers felt that the timeline for implementation was tooshort and that they needed more time, more training, and more materials to support theirimplementation efforts. There were a few teachers who longed for the "good old days," but
43
very few mentioned any aspects of the program that they would discontinue if the primaryprogram became optional, except for the multi-age requirement.
Results of the Teacher Survey
Teachers were asked to rate the amount of support for implementation of the primaryprogram that they had received from various sources. This was the third year that this surveyhad been used, and the most remarkable result was the high degree of consistency among thedata for the three years (See Appendix E, Table 13).
As in the previous two years, teachers ranked highest the amount of support they hadreceived from other teachers and from their principal. This is encouraging in light of theneed to build capacity within each school building. Teachers indicated that they had hadadequate opportunities to attend regular staff meetings on primary implementation, toparticipate in decision making regarding the primary program, and to participate in trainingsessions. They indicated that the principal had also participated in the training sessions.
Teachers ranked the time to plan and implement the program and the opportunities toobserve other primary programs as relatively limited.
They also ranked the amount of support they had received from sources outside theirbuilding as relatively limited. The following sources were ranked from highest to lowest asfollows: parents, district staff, local universities, district cooperatives, Kentucky Departmentof Education, and regional primary consultants.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS
1. There is wide variation from teacher to teacher in the manner and degree to which thecomponents of the primary program are being implemented. Within individualschools, there may be wide variation among teachers. However, in a few schools, allof the four randomly selected teachers were implementing the primary program withhigh fidelity.
2. There has been little change between 1994 and 1995 in the patterns of implementationand in the degree to which the primary program is being implemented. Although therehas been a slight decrease in the level of implementation in several components and aslight increase in a few components, few of these changes represent statisticallysignificant differences.
3. In two areas, there was a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of teacherswho were implementing the primary program in recommended ways. Fewer teacherswere arranging the physical environment in flexible ways that enable children to work
44
62
individually in a variety of group sizes. Also fewer teachers showed evidence thatthey were providing for the continuous progress of students through the primaryprogram.
4. There were two areas in which a significantly higher percentage of teachers wereusing recommended practices. They include communication with special area teachersto plan for the needs of students and the involvement of parents in the evaluation oftheir own children's progress.
5. As in 1994, teachers' progress toward implementation varies among the components ofthe primary program with some components being implemented by over half of theteachers and others still lacking in implementation.
a. Teachers are arranging the physical environment of the classroom in ways thatenable the implementation of the primary program and are filling their classroomswith a variety of instructional and print materials for children to use.
b. Teachers are creating warm, supportive social environments in which positivediscipline is used, children are actively involved in learning and allowed to talkand move about as needed, and teachers interact with students individually as wellas in groups.
c. Teachers are having difficulty designing learning centers that are an integral partof the ongoing instructional program.
d. Teachers are not using broad based themes and units, but tend to focus on narrowtopics.
e. Teachers are using many of the recommended practices in reading, writing, andmathematics, although their level of use is lower than in 1994.
f. Fewer than half of the teachers are using the recommended practices in teachingscience, social studies, and special areas of the curriculum (music, art, physicaleducation, etc.). In fact, in several classrooms no science and social studiesinstruction was observed.
g. A slightly higher percentage of teachers are planning instruction aroundKentucky's Learning Goals and Academic Expectations than in 1994.
h. Fewer than half of the teachers are using flexible grouping and providing for thecontinuous progress of students and the overall level of implementation in thesecomponents has dropped from 1994.
45
63
i. Fewer than half of the teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies intheir teaching or allowing students to initiate instructional activities.
j. Teachers are planning with other regular classroom teachers and have significantlyincreased their level of planning with special teachers. Although planning timehas increased, teachers still cite a need for increased time for planning during theschool day.
k. Teachers are using qualitative methods for reporting student progress to parents,such as parent/teacher conferences and qualitative progress reports.
1. There is a slight trend toward increased levels of parent involvement from 1994.Teachers are communicating with parents about the primary program and helpingparents learn to support their child's learning at home. Significantly more teachersare getting parents involved with evaluating their own children's growth. Abouthalf of the teachers are getting parents involved in the classroom.
6. Approximately half of the teachers are meeting the multi-age, multi-ability groupingrequirement in ways that were originally recommended by the developers of theprimary program guidelines. That is, forty-one percent are grouping children inself-contained dual-age classrooms; eight percent are grouping three or more agestogether in a self-contained classroom in which flexible grouping is used to meet theneeds and interests of the children. Twenty-seven percent had two or more ages in theclassroom for part of the day, but children left the classroom for ability or age groupinstruction in a particular subject. In another seven percent, children of two or moreages were included but taught separately by age or ability groups. Another 15% useda variety of other grouping configurations with some kindergarten classrooms beingtotally self-contained.
7. Approximately 70% of the children remain with the same teacher (42%) or the sameclassroom family (29%) for two or more years. Another 23% of the children wererandomly assigned to teachers and might have the same teacher for more than oneyear. Teachers reported many social and academic advantages for keeping the samechildren for more than one year.
8. Schools are dealing with five-year-old inclusion in a variety of ways. Nearly half(44%) of the schools are including kindergartners with primary two students (firstgraders). Eight percent of the schools include kindergartners with three or more ages;13% with two other ages. Approximately 20% of the kindergartens are self-contained.Eighty-five percent of the schools include fives with other children for the entireschool year; 15% for second semester only.
9. When five-year-olds are included with other students, 35% spend the total session withchildren of other ages, and another nine percent include fives for large blocks of time
46
for a variety of activities. Twenty percent of schools include fives with other agegroups for short periods of time each day for certain activities only. Another 23percent of schools include fives on a regularly scheduled basis but only once a weekor once a month for certain activities only.
10. Almost all (88%) special needs students spend all or most of their time in regularprimary classrooms. In 38% of the schools, special needs students are included in theprimary classrooms for the entire day and interact with the other children in the class.In 50% of the classrooms, special students spend part of the day in the regular primaryclassroom but leave for part of the day to receive special instruction. In only 12% ofthe schools do special needs students spend most (five percent) or all (seven percent)of their time in special education classes.
11. Teachers who are implementing the primary program with high fidelity differ mostfrom teachers who are implementing the program with low fidelity in components ofthe program over which the individual teacher has control, especially in areasinvolving the use of a variety of instructional and assessment techniques that aredesigned to facilitate the continuous progress of students. On components affected byschool wide policies, such as report cards, parent conferences, and parent involvement,the low fidelity implementors were rated more like the high fidelity implementors.
12. Teachers still report a need for more planning time during the school day, especiallycommon planning times with other team members, regular teachers, and special areateachers. Only 20% of the teachers have regularly scheduled individual and commonplanning time during the school day. Another 39% report regularly scheduledindividual and common planning times outside the school day. Thirty percent of theteachers have individual planning time but no common planning time scheduled.Eleven percent have no planning time, either individual or common.
13. When asked to rate sources of support for implementation of the primary program,teachers rated internal sources of support higher than support from external sources.That is, they ranked support from their principals and from other classroom teachershigher than support from district personnel, universities, local cooperatives, theKentucky Department of Education, and regional service centers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A great deal of staff development is still needed to help primary teachers implementthe primary program in recommended ways. We must not assume that most teachersalready have the knowledge of the instructional strategies and assessment techniquesthat they need to enable each child to make continuous progress in the classroom.Teachers especially need more staff development in the teaching of science and social
47
'60
studies and in using a variety of assessment and instructional techniques to ensurecontinuous progress.
2. Fewer than half of the teachers want to discontinue the multi-age requirement in theprimary program. The Kentucky Department of Education, universities, and localdistricts need to continue to support teachers' efforts to implement the primaryprogram rather than discontinue the program before teachers have had the time andtraining needed to implement the program in recommended ways.
3. Each elementary school should assess the variation in levels of implementation ofprimary program components among the teachers in that building and design strategiesto support the development of key program components that are not being wellimplemented.
4. Each elementary school should examine its curriculum for alignment with Kentucky'sLearning Goals and Academic Expectations. Professional development activitiesshould focus on helping teachers design learning activities to support the attainment ofthe academic expectations for which schools are held accountable.
5. Each elementary school should plan for staff development that meets its needs, withspecial attention paid to the following key areas:
a. Building teachers' knowledge of instructional and assessment strategies to monitorand facilitate students' continuous progress.
b. Designing an instructional program that:focuses on Kentucky's Academic Expectations.uses broad-based themes and units.uses a variety of learning centers.increases the time and quality of science and social studies instruction.integrates instruction in the arts.
6. Schools should arrange their schedules to provide teachers more time to plan withother regular classroom teachers and special area teachers.
7. Schools should develop more parent involvement programs that promote two-waycommunication between teachers and parents and that enhance family support ofchildren's learning.
8. The Kentucky Department of Education in cooperation with local school districtsshould identify classrooms and teachers who are using the most promising practicesrelated to the key components of the primary program and establish sites for otherteachers to visit. Teachers with success in implementing the primary program shouldbe utilized more effectively in professional development activities.
48
66
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Researchers need to conduct the following types of studies:
1. Studies that examine the relationship between level of implementation of variousprimary program components and student achievement.
2. Studies that examine the effects of dual-age and multi-age grouping patterns onstudent achievement.
3. Studies that compare the effects on five-year-olds of full inclusion in the primaryprogram versus self-contained kindergarten placement.
4. Studies of schools in which teachers are successfully implementing the primaryprogram to determine factors that contribute to high implementation. Converselyschools in which teachers are struggling with implementation need to be studied todetermine factors that impede implementation.
49
67
REFERENCES
Bridge, C. A., Reitsma, B. A., & Winograd, P. N. (1993). Primary thoughts: ImplementingKentucky's primary program. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Education.
Bridge, C. A. (1994). The implementation of Kentucky's primary program. A report ofresearch conducted by the Institute on Education Reform, University of Kentucky forthe Kentucky Institute for Education Research. Lexington, KY.
Bridge, C., Carney, P., Freeland, K., Hovda, R., Johnson, W., Kyle, D., Long, S., McIntyre,E., Oakes, P., Powell, R., Smith, L., Steffy, B., Tyson, L., Vance, J., Weaver, R.,Willis, M., Willis, V., & Wirtz, P. (1994). Kentucky's primary program: A progressreport. (UKERA Occasional Papers). Lexington: University of Kentucky, Instituteon Education Reform.
Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York:State of New York University Press.
Integrated professional development series: Primary. (1992). Frankfort, KY: KentuckyDepartment of Education.
State regulations and recommended best practices for Kentucky's primary program. (1993).Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Education.
50
68
-VI
NM MN US MN IMO UN all 1 UM MINI IWO UN IN Mill I= UN NM OM MI
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
AN
INN
OV
AT
ION
CO
MP
ON
EN
T C
ON
FIG
UR
AT
ION
MA
PF
OR
PR
IMA
RY
PR
OG
RA
MS
Sch
ool:
Obs
erve
r.D
ate:
Num
ber
of T
each
ers:
Num
ber
of S
tude
nts:
Ple
ase
note
:
Thi
s do
cum
ent w
as d
evel
oped
by
the
Uni
vers
ity o
f Ken
tuck
y, In
stitu
te o
n E
duca
tion
Ref
orm
in c
olla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
h fo
r th
e pu
rpos
e of
stu
dyin
g th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e P
rimar
y P
rogr
am a
nd is
not
to b
e us
ed a
s an
eva
luat
ion
Inst
rum
ent.
Whi
le it
was
desi
gned
as
a re
sear
ch to
ol, t
his
docu
men
t can
be
used
for
plan
ning
and
sel
f-as
sess
men
t of l
ocal
pat
tern
s of
impl
emen
tatio
n.
Thi
s do
cum
ent,
know
n as
a C
ompo
nent
Con
figur
atio
n M
ap, i
dent
ifies
key
com
pone
nts
of th
e P
rimar
y P
rogr
am a
nd d
escr
ibes
var
iatio
ns in
pra
ctic
e on
ew
ould
exp
ect t
o fin
d ac
ross
the
stat
e. T
he v
aria
tions
fart
hest
to th
e le
ft ar
e co
nsid
ered
by
Ken
tuck
y pr
actit
ione
rs, r
esea
rche
rs a
nd d
evel
oper
s to
be
the
emer
ging
pra
ctic
e ad
voca
ted
in th
e K
ER
A in
itiat
ive.
Det
erm
inin
g w
hich
is th
e m
ost e
ffect
ive
or e
ffici
ent v
aria
tion
of p
ract
ice
will
be
the
chal
leng
eof
ong
oing
res
earc
h.
Thi
s in
stru
men
t can
be
obta
ined
by
cont
actin
g R
oger
Pan
krat
z, E
xecu
tive
Dire
ctor
, Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
h, 1
46 C
onsu
mer
Lan
e,F
rank
fort
, Ken
tuck
y 40
601.
Pho
ne: 5
02-2
27-9
014;
Fax
: 502
-227
-897
6.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
7'7
70
tN Lr)
NM
I11
1111
all M
III1
IN
M M
INN
MI 1
INS
MI
MI I
NN
MI a
ll
1.
DR
AFT
-03/
09/9
5
TA
BLE
OF
CO
NT
EN
TS
Lear
ning
Env
ironm
ent
5
A.
Phy
sica
l Env
ironm
ent
51)
Fle
xibl
e la
yout
2)Le
arni
ng c
ente
rs5
3)P
rint r
ich
envi
ronm
ent
64)
Stu
dent
wor
k di
spla
yed
65)
Var
iety
of i
nstr
uctio
nal m
ater
ials
7
B.
Soc
ial a
nd E
mot
iona
l Env
ironm
ent
71)
Pur
pose
ful m
ovem
ent
72)
Act
ive
enga
gem
ent
83)
Stu
dent
talk
84)
Tea
cher
inte
ract
ion
95)
Pos
itive
dis
cipl
ine
9
II.D
evel
opm
enta
lly A
ppro
pria
te P
ract
ices
10
A.
Inte
grat
ed In
stru
ctio
n10
1)K
entu
cky'
s le
arni
ng g
oals
102)
Fle
xibl
e sc
hedu
ling
103)
Bro
ad-b
ased
them
es a
nd u
nits
11
4)A
uthe
ntic
pro
blem
s11
5)Le
vels
of q
uest
ioni
ng11
6)M
eani
ng c
ente
red
read
ing
127)
Mea
ning
cen
tere
d w
ritin
g13
8)P
robl
em s
olvi
ng m
athe
mat
ics
149) 10
)D
isco
very
sci
ence
14in
quiry
-orie
nted
soc
ial s
tudi
es15
11)
Oth
er s
ubje
ct a
reas
15
B.
Var
ied
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
ies
161)
Bal
ance
d in
stru
ctio
nal d
eliv
ery
162)
Bal
ance
of s
tude
nt a
nd te
ache
r in
itiat
ion
16
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
7372
I11
=I
INN
INN
Oil
MI M
I MI N
IB M
IM
IN1
WIN
I
DR
AFT
-03/
09/9
53)
Act
ive
child
invo
lvem
ent
174)
Fle
xibl
e gr
oupi
ng17
5)C
ontin
uous
Pro
gres
s17
Ass
essm
ent
18
A.
Ong
oing
Aut
hent
ic A
sses
smen
t18
1)C
ontin
uity
and
freq
uenc
y18
2)A
uthe
ntic
ity18
3)V
arie
ty o
f met
hods
194)
Stu
dent
sel
f-ev
alua
tion
195)
Eva
luat
ion
of a
ll ar
eas
of s
tude
nt g
row
th20
6)Q
ualit
ativ
e re
port
ing
conf
eren
ces
207)
Qua
litat
ive
repo
rtin
g to
par
ents
20
IV.
Edu
catio
nal P
artn
ersh
ips
21
A.
Pro
fess
iona
l Tea
mw
ork
211)
Tea
min
g w
ith r
egul
ar te
ache
rs21
2)P
lann
ing
with
reg
ular
teac
hers
213)
Com
mun
icat
ing
and
plan
ning
with
spe
cial
teac
hers
224)
Pla
nnin
g tim
e22
5)Le
vel o
f col
labo
ratio
n22
B.
Par
ent I
nvol
vem
ent
23-.
1.
1)In
cla
ssro
oms
23in
2)In
pol
icy
mak
ing
233)
In s
tude
nt e
valu
atio
n23
4)In
sup
port
ing
lear
ning
245)
.C
omm
unic
atio
n24
V.
Mul
ti-A
ge/ M
ulti-
Abi
lity
Gro
upin
g P
atte
rns
25
A.
Cla
ssro
om P
atte
rn25
1)A
ge le
vels
In c
lass
room
s25
2)Y
ears
with
the
sam
e te
ache
r26
B.
Sch
ool-W
ide
Pat
tern
s26
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
74
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AiL
AB
LE
75
MI
MI
1111
11IM
O M
O11
111/
IIII
IIO
M I
N M
I M
I
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
1)F
ive
year
old
Incl
usio
n: T
ype
ofgr
oup
262)
Fiv
e ye
ar o
ld In
clus
ion:
Typ
e of
act
iviti
es27
3)In
clus
ion
of s
peci
al n
eeds
stu
dent
s27
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
eK
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
7677
In Ln
MI
MI
Ell
MI
IMO
Ili
OM
MI-
NM
- R
R M
R O
M
Prim
ary
Pro
gram
sIn
nova
tion
Com
pone
nt C
onfig
urat
ion
(IC
C)
Map
I. Le
arni
ng E
nviro
nmen
t
A.
Phy
sica
l Env
ironm
ent
1)F
lexi
ble
layo
utfle
xibi
lity
in a
rran
gem
ent,
stud
ent m
obili
ty)
(a)
All
furn
iture
can
be
rear
rang
ed a
s ne
eded
.T
he c
lass
room
has
a v
arie
ty o
f are
aspr
ovid
ed fo
r va
rious
type
s of
act
iviti
es(q
uiet
, act
ive,
& o
ther
) w
ith s
pace
for
stud
ents
to e
ngag
e in
indi
vidu
al, s
mal
l,an
d la
rge
grou
p ac
tiviti
es. T
here
are
tabl
es, b
ooks
helv
es, a
nd a
reas
des
igne
dfo
r st
uden
t use
.
(b)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as a
few
pie
ces
offu
rnitu
re b
esid
es s
tude
nt d
esks
, and
the
desk
s ca
n be
rea
rran
ged
as n
eede
d. T
hela
yout
of t
he c
lass
room
Is d
esig
ned
toen
able
stu
dent
s to
mov
e to
diff
eren
t are
asof
the
clas
sroo
m w
ith e
ase
and
flexi
bilit
y.T
here
are
a fe
w a
reas
pro
vide
d fo
r gr
oup
wor
k (e
.g.,
larg
e, s
mal
l, an
d in
divi
dual
)
2)Le
arni
ng g
gnIg
tz (
num
ber,
act
ive
stud
ent i
nvol
vem
ent)
(a)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as a
var
iety
of p
erm
anen
tce
nter
s an
d te
mpo
rary
cen
ters
that
rel
ate
to th
e cu
rren
t the
me
or to
pic
of s
tudy
. The
cent
ers
prov
ide
stud
ents
with
the
oppo
rtun
ity to
lear
n at
thei
r ow
n ra
te a
ndle
vel o
f com
plex
ity. T
hese
cen
ters
prom
ote
activ
e st
uden
t Inv
olve
men
t and
allo
w s
tude
nts
to w
ork
both
inde
pend
ently
and
coop
erat
ivel
y. In
add
ition
, the
cen
ters
cont
ain
'han
ds-o
re e
xper
imen
tatio
n an
dex
plor
atio
n by
the
stud
ents
.
(b)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as a
few
per
man
ent a
ndte
mpo
rary
cen
ters
that
rel
ate
to th
e cu
rren
tth
eme
or to
pic
of s
tudy
. The
cen
ters
prom
ote
stud
ent I
nter
actio
n, a
ctiv
e st
uden
tIn
volv
emen
t, an
d ch
oice
and
incl
ude
activ
ities
at v
aryi
ng le
vels
of c
ompl
exity
.
(c)
The
stu
dent
s' d
esks
are
org
aniz
ed In
fixe
dro
ws.
The
cla
ssro
om e
nviro
nmen
t has
very
littl
e sp
ace
crea
ted
for
diffe
rent
are
as.
The
are
as p
rovi
ded
for
grou
p w
ork
are
very
trad
ition
al. F
or e
xam
ple,
ther
e is
one
area
for
larg
e gr
oup
inst
ruct
ion
and
one
area
fore
sm
all g
roup
Inst
ruct
ion.
The
onl
yta
bles
ava
ilabl
e ar
e st
uden
t des
ks.
(c)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as o
nly
one
or tw
oce
nter
s. T
he c
ente
rs th
at a
re p
rese
ntra
rely
enc
oura
ge s
tude
nt c
hoic
e, a
ctiv
est
uden
t inv
olve
men
t, or
stu
dent
inte
ract
ion.
The
cen
ters
are
des
igne
d to
prom
ote
stud
ents
to w
ork
inde
pend
ently
rath
er th
an c
oope
rativ
ely.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Stu
dent
s' d
esks
are
org
aniz
ed in
fixe
dro
ws
with
no
othe
r ar
eas
or c
ente
rs fo
rsm
all a
nd/o
r la
rge
grou
p ac
tivity
. The
clas
sroo
m e
nviro
nmen
t is
not c
ondu
cive
tost
uden
t mov
emen
t. S
tude
nts
wor
k al
one
at in
divi
dual
des
ks o
r ta
bles
.
(d)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as n
o ce
nter
s av
aila
ble
for
stud
ents
.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
nR
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
78
Ln
MI
MI
ON
MI M
I NM
MI
OM
MI M
I MI
3)P
rint r
ich
envi
ronm
ent
varie
ty, a
cces
sibi
lity,
mat
eria
ls d
ispl
ayed
I
(a)
Stu
dent
s ha
ve a
cces
s to
a w
ide
varie
ty o
fbo
oks
and
othe
r ty
pes
of p
rint m
ater
ial
incl
udin
g in
form
atio
nal,
fictio
n, a
ndre
fere
nce.
The
se m
ater
ials
are
dis
play
edat
eye
leve
l and
dis
pers
ed a
roun
d th
ero
om. T
he c
lass
room
con
tain
sen
viro
nmen
tal p
rint t
hat e
ncou
rage
sst
uden
ts to
rea
d m
eani
ngfu
l sig
ns a
ndpo
ster
s. S
tude
nt-g
ener
ated
prin
t is
evid
ent.
(b)
Stu
dent
s ha
ve a
cces
s to
sev
eral
type
s of
book
s an
d ot
her
prin
t mat
eria
l inc
ludi
ngin
form
atio
nal,
fictio
n an
d re
fere
nce.
The
clas
sroo
m h
as a
few
sig
ns a
nd p
oste
rs(c
omm
erci
al o
r te
ache
r-pr
oduc
ed)
that
cont
ain
dire
ctio
ns a
nd in
form
atio
n fo
rst
uden
ts. T
here
is s
ome
indi
catio
n th
atst
uden
t gen
erat
ed p
rint i
s di
spla
yed.
4)S
tude
nt w
ork
disp
laye
dva
riety
, dis
play
ed j
(a)
The
cla
ssro
om a
nd h
allw
ays
cont
ain
ava
riety
of s
tude
nt w
ork
(art
& w
ritin
g) th
atis
bot
h cu
rren
t and
orig
inal
.
(b)
The
re is
som
e di
spla
y of
orig
inal
stu
dent
wor
k.
(c)
Stu
dent
s ha
ve a
cces
s to
a li
mite
dse
lect
ion
of b
ooks
and
oth
er ty
pes
of p
rint
mat
eria
l inc
ludi
ng in
form
atio
nal,
fictio
n,an
d re
fere
nce.
The
re a
re v
ery
few
oppo
rtun
ities
for
stud
ents
to r
ead
mea
ning
ful s
igns
and
pos
ters
. Few
exam
ples
of s
tude
nt g
ener
ated
prin
t are
evid
ent.
(c)
The
re is
a li
mite
d am
ount
of s
tude
nt w
ork
disp
laye
d in
the
clas
sroo
m. M
ost o
f the
stud
ent w
ork
disp
laye
d is
'coo
kie-
cutte
rar
t or
pape
rs w
ritte
n on
a c
omm
on th
eme
rath
er th
an o
rigin
al w
ork.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Stu
dent
s' a
cces
s to
prin
t mat
eria
ls is
limite
d pr
imar
ily to
text
book
s. N
o st
uden
tge
nera
ted
prin
t is
disp
laye
d.
(d)
Stu
dent
wor
k is
not
dis
play
ed.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on E
duca
tion
Ref
orm
in c
olla
bora
tion
with
the.
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
s0
IIIIII
MI M
IM
I MIN
MI a
llIII
IIII
I= I1
1M
I I=
5) V
arie
ty o
f ins
truc
tiona
l mat
eria
ls (
var
iety
pro
mot
es a
ctiv
e le
arni
ng, a
cces
sibi
lity
)
(a)
Stu
dent
s fr
eque
ntly
use
a w
ide
varie
ty o
f'h
ands
-on
' mat
eria
ls th
at p
rom
ote
activ
ele
arni
ng in
the
clas
sroo
m (
mat
hm
anip
ulat
ives
, sci
ence
equ
ipm
ent m
usic
inst
rum
ents
, art
sup
plie
s, c
ompu
ter,
&au
dio
tape
sMde
os).
Stu
dent
s ha
veac
cess
to m
ater
ials
that
acc
omm
odat
edi
ffere
nt le
vels
and
inte
rest
s. T
hem
ater
ials
pro
vide
stu
dent
s w
ith th
eop
port
unity
to p
robl
em-s
olve
and
exp
lore
new
con
cept
s.
(b)
Occ
asio
nally
stu
dent
s us
e "h
ands
-on*
inst
ruct
iona
l mat
eria
ls (
e.g.
, man
ipul
ativ
es&
aud
io ta
pes)
to p
rom
ote
activ
e le
arni
ngIn
the
clas
sroo
m. S
ome
of th
e ac
tiviti
esac
com
mod
ate
vary
ing
leve
ls a
nd in
tere
sts.
B.
Soc
ial a
nd E
mot
iona
l Env
ironm
ent
1)P
urpo
sefu
l mov
emen
t (st
uden
t Ini
tiatio
n I
(a)
The
re is
a b
alan
ce o
f bot
h st
uden
t-in
itiat
edan
d te
ache
r-in
itiat
ed p
urpo
sefu
l mov
emen
tIn
the
clas
sroo
m.
(b)
Stu
dent
s' m
ovem
ent i
s di
rect
ed p
rimar
ilyby
the
teac
her.
The
re is
som
e pu
rpos
eful
mov
emen
t tha
t is
stud
ent i
nitia
ted.
(c)
The
re a
re li
mite
d 'h
ands
-on"
inst
ruct
iona
lm
ater
ials
ava
ilabl
e to
stu
dent
s.T
extb
ooks
, wor
kboo
ks a
nd w
orks
heet
sar
e th
e pr
edom
inat
e m
ater
ials
use
d fo
rin
stru
men
tatio
n. S
ome
man
ipul
ativ
esw
ere
obse
rved
in th
e cl
assr
oom
but
not
used
by
the
stud
ents
. (c)
The
re is
ver
y lit
tle p
urpo
sefu
l mov
emen
tin
itiat
ed b
y th
e st
uden
t. M
ost o
f the
mov
emen
t is
teac
her
initi
ated
or
gove
rned
by s
tric
t rul
es.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
The
re a
re n
o 'h
ands
-on
' ins
truc
tiona
lm
ater
ials
ava
ilabl
e to
stu
dent
s. T
extb
ooks
and
wor
kboo
ks a
re th
e on
ly to
ol u
sed
for
inst
ruct
ion.
(d)
The
re is
no
evid
ence
of p
urpo
sefu
l stu
dent
initi
ated
mov
emen
t in
the
clas
sroo
m.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on E
duca
tion
Ref
orm
in c
olla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hD
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
N F
RO
MK
IER
82
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
co In 3
2)A
ctiv
e en
gage
men
t I d
egre
e, n
umbe
r of
opp
ortu
nitie
s I
(a)
Stu
dent
s ar
e ac
tivel
y en
gage
d in
the
lear
ning
pro
cess
with
a m
inim
um o
fte
ache
r le
ctur
e. L
earn
ing
activ
ities
prom
ote
stud
ent d
iscu
ssio
ns a
ndin
tera
ctio
n w
ith 'h
ands
-on"
man
ipul
ativ
es.
The
re is
a h
igh
leve
l of o
n-ta
sk b
ehav
ior
by th
e st
uden
ts d
urin
g th
e le
arni
ngpr
oces
s.
(b)
Stu
dent
s ar
e ac
tivel
y en
gage
d in
lear
ning
thro
ugh
a co
mbi
natio
n of
teac
her
lect
ure
and
stud
ent d
iscu
ssio
ns.
3)S
tude
nt ta
lk I
stud
ent i
nitia
ted,
inte
ract
ive]
(a)
The
teac
her
prov
ides
a b
alan
ce o
f bot
hte
ache
r an
d st
uden
t ini
tiate
d ta
lk a
s w
ell
as th
e op
port
unity
for
stud
ents
to r
espo
ndan
d in
tera
ct w
ith e
ach
othe
r. S
tude
nts'
resp
onse
s an
d qu
estio
ns a
re a
ccep
ted
byth
e te
ache
r.
(b)
The
re is
som
e in
dica
tion
of te
ache
r an
dst
uden
t tal
k re
late
d to
the
task
and
als
oth
e op
port
unity
for
stud
ents
to ta
lk a
ndin
tera
ct w
ith e
ach
othe
r.
(c)
Stu
dent
s ha
ve fe
w o
ppor
tuni
ties
to u
sem
anip
ulat
ives
and
eng
age
in d
iscu
ssio
nsdu
ring
the
lear
ning
pro
cess
. Cla
ssro
omin
stru
ctio
n em
phas
izes
teac
her
lect
ure
and
de-e
mph
asiz
es s
tude
nt in
volv
emen
t.
(c)
The
re is
ver
y lit
tle o
ppor
tuni
ty fo
r st
uden
tsto
talk
and
inte
ract
. Mos
t of t
he ta
lk in
the
clas
sroo
m is
teac
her
dom
inat
ed a
nddi
rect
ed.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
The
re is
no
indi
catio
n of
stu
dent
s be
ing
activ
ely
enga
ged
in th
e le
arni
ng p
roce
ss.
Stu
dent
s si
t qui
etly
at t
heir
desk
sco
mpl
etin
g in
divi
dual
ized
ass
ignm
ents
.
(d)
Stu
dent
s ar
e no
t giv
en th
e op
port
unity
tota
lk in
the
clas
sroo
m e
xcep
t whe
n ca
lled
upon
by
the
teac
her.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
eK
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
8584
rn if)
MO
MR
MI
IIIII
MN
4)T
each
er in
tera
ctio
n (d
egre
e of
indi
vidu
al a
nd g
roup
(a)
Ade
s1 te
ache
r in
tera
ctio
n is
with
indi
vidu
alst
uden
ts a
nd s
mal
l gro
ups
with
occ
asio
nal
larg
e gr
oup
inst
ruct
ion.
(b)
The
teac
her
inte
ract
s w
ith s
tude
nts
pred
omin
antly
in a
larg
e gr
oup
setti
ng,
with
som
e in
tera
ctio
n in
a s
mal
l gro
up a
nda
one-
on-o
ne s
ettin
g.
5)P
ositi
ve d
isci
plin
e (d
egre
e of
sup
port
, stu
dent
eng
agem
ent,
and
invo
lvem
ent ]
(a)
The
soc
ial e
nviro
nmen
t is
supp
ortiv
e an
dch
arac
teriz
ed b
y m
utua
l res
pect
. Hig
hle
vels
of s
tude
nt e
ngag
emen
t pre
clud
e th
ene
ed fo
r di
scip
linar
y ac
tion.
Stu
dent
s ar
ein
volv
ed in
set
ting
stan
dard
s fo
r cl
assr
oom
beha
vior
and
sho
w s
elf-
disc
iplin
e. T
hete
ache
r's p
rais
e is
mea
ning
ful,
spec
ific,
and
natu
ral a
nd d
emon
stra
tes
a ge
nuin
ein
tere
st In
stu
dent
s' a
chie
vem
ents
.
(b)
The
soc
ial e
nviro
nmen
t is
gene
rally
supp
ortiv
e an
d fo
ster
s m
utua
l res
pect
.T
he te
ache
r co
ntro
ls b
ehav
ior
by fr
eque
ntpr
aise
and
rew
ards
for
stud
ents
' beh
avio
ran
d ac
hiev
emen
ts. T
here
is s
ome
indi
catio
n th
at s
tude
nts
are
self-
disc
iplin
edan
d se
lf-m
otiv
ated
.
(c)
The
teac
her
inte
ract
s w
ith s
tude
nts
prim
arily
In a
larg
e gr
oup
setti
ng. V
ery
little
sm
all g
roup
or
one-
on-o
ne in
tera
ctio
noc
curs
.
(C)
The
teac
her
rare
ly p
rais
es a
nd r
ewar
dsst
uden
ts fo
r th
eir
beha
vior
and
achi
evem
ents
. The
re Is
littl
e in
dica
tion
that
stu
dent
s ar
e se
lf-di
scip
lined
and
sel
f-m
otiv
ated
.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Tea
cher
Inte
ract
ion
is a
lmos
t exc
lusi
vely
thro
ugh
lect
ure
in a
larg
e gr
oup
setti
ng.
(d)
Mos
t tea
cher
com
men
ts a
re n
egat
ive
and
puni
tive.
0
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky I
nstit
ute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
86
MB
NM
MO
MI M
I OM
I11
MI M
IIli
A.
Inte
grat
ed In
stru
ctio
n
1)
II. D
evel
opm
enta
lly A
ppro
pria
te P
ract
ices
Ken
tuck
y's
lear
ning
goa
ls d
egre
e of
cur
ricul
um a
lignm
ent J
(a)
All
curr
icul
um a
nd a
sses
smen
t act
iviti
esev
olve
dire
ctly
from
Ken
tuck
y's
Lear
ning
Goa
ls a
nd A
cade
mic
Exp
ecta
tions
.
(b)
Mos
t of t
he c
urric
ulum
and
ass
essm
ent
activ
ities
evo
lve
dire
ctly
from
Ken
tuck
y's
Lear
ning
Goa
ls a
nd A
cade
mic
Exp
ecta
tions
.
2)F
lexi
ble
sche
dulin
g (d
egre
e of
flex
ibili
ty ]
(a)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as a
flex
ible
sch
edul
e th
atch
ange
s to
mee
t stu
dent
s' n
eeds
. The
stud
ents
and
teac
her
plan
toge
ther
the
day'
s sc
hedu
le to
acc
ompl
ish
stud
ents
'le
arni
ng g
oals
. Stu
dent
s ar
e in
volv
ed in
inte
grat
ed th
emes
with
tim
es fo
r sp
ecifi
cin
stru
ctio
n ba
sed
on s
tude
nts'
nee
ds,
inte
rest
s, a
nd s
tren
gths
.
(b)
Larg
e bl
ocks
of t
ime
are
set a
side
for
them
es, u
nits
, cen
ters
, and
/or
proj
ects
with
som
e sp
ecifi
ed ti
me
sche
dule
d fo
rin
divi
dual
con
tent
are
as.
(c)
Cur
ricul
um a
nd a
sses
smen
t act
iviti
es a
reno
t clo
sely
rel
ated
to K
entu
cky'
s Le
arni
ngG
oals
and
Aca
dem
ic E
xpec
tatio
ns.
(c)
A tr
aditi
onal
sch
edul
e is
obs
erve
d w
ithse
para
te ti
mes
set
asi
de fo
r in
divi
dual
cont
ent a
reas
, but
the
teac
her
can
alte
r it
whe
n ne
cess
ary.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Cur
ricul
um a
nd a
sses
smen
t act
iviti
es a
reno
t rel
ated
to K
entu
cky'
s Le
arni
ng G
oals
and
Aca
dem
ic E
xpec
tatio
ns.
(d)
The
re is
a s
et s
ched
ule
for
indi
vidu
alco
nten
t are
as th
at c
anno
t be
chan
ged
beca
use
of d
epar
tmen
taliz
edor
gani
zatio
nal s
truc
ture
or
teac
hers
' ow
nbe
liefs
abo
ut r
outin
e.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ithth
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
eSea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
89
88
MI
IIIII
=II
OM
I= I=
IMO
Ell
NM
OM
3)B
road
-ba
sed
them
es a
nd u
nits
deg
ree
of u
se, b
read
th o
f top
ics,
inte
grat
ion
)
(a)
The
mes
, uni
ts, a
nd p
roje
cts
are
plan
ned
arou
nd th
e br
oad-
base
d th
emes
and
cor
eco
ncep
ts id
entif
ied
in K
entu
cky'
sA
cade
mic
Exp
ecta
tions
(e.
g., p
atte
rns,
mod
els
& s
cale
, cha
nge
over
tim
e,sy
stem
s an
d in
tera
ctio
ns).
All
cont
ent
area
s ar
e in
tegr
ated
whe
n th
e co
nnec
tions
are
natu
ral,
but i
nstr
uctio
n in
indi
vidu
alsk
ills
and
conc
epts
may
occ
ur w
hen
deem
ed n
eces
sary
.
(b)
Par
t of t
he d
ay is
spe
nt in
usi
ng th
emat
icte
achi
ng, b
ut s
epar
ate
inst
ruct
ion
issc
hedu
led
each
day
in m
ajor
con
tent
area
s, s
uch
as la
ngua
ge a
rts,
mat
h,sc
ienc
e, a
nd s
ocia
l stu
dies
.
4)A
uthe
ntic
pro
blem
s an
d au
estio
ns r
eal l
ife o
rient
ed I
(a)
Stu
dent
s ar
e of
ten
invo
lved
in s
olvi
ng r
eal-
life
prob
lem
s th
at a
re r
elat
ed to
thei
rin
tere
sts
and
envi
ronm
ent.
(b)
The
teac
her
occa
sion
ally
enc
oura
ges
prob
lem
-sol
ving
act
iviti
es b
ut th
e pr
oble
ms
may
be
cont
rived
.
5)Le
vels
of q
uest
ioni
ng (
diff
eren
t lev
els
used
)
(a)
The
teac
her
uses
all
leve
ls o
f que
stio
ns.
(b)
The
re is
som
e ev
iden
ce o
f diff
eren
t lev
els
of q
uest
ions
bei
ng a
sked
in th
e cl
assr
oom
.
(c)
The
mes
, uni
ts, a
nd p
roje
cts
are
plan
ned
arou
nd n
arro
w to
pics
(e.
g., b
ears
,di
nosa
urs,
Mex
ico)
. Mos
t of t
hein
stru
ctio
n oc
curs
in s
epar
ate
cont
ent
area
s.
(c)
The
re is
littl
e ev
iden
ce th
at th
e te
ache
rpr
omot
es p
robl
em-s
olvi
ng a
ctiv
ities
rel
ated
to th
e st
uden
t's in
tere
sts
and
envi
ronm
ent.
(c)
The
teac
her
prim
arily
ask
s st
uden
ts s
hort
reca
ll qu
estio
ns r
athe
r th
an in
fere
ntia
ldi
scus
sion
que
stio
ns.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Inst
ruct
ion
occu
rs o
nly
in s
epar
ate
cont
ent
area
s. N
o un
its, t
hem
es, o
r pr
ojec
ts w
ere
obse
rved
.
(d)
The
re w
as n
o ev
iden
ce o
f pro
blem
-sol
ving
activ
ities
rel
ated
to th
e st
uden
t's in
tere
sts
and
envi
ronm
ent p
rom
oted
in th
ecl
assr
oom
.-
(d)
The
stu
dent
s ar
e no
t ask
ed in
fere
ntia
lqu
estio
ns.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
90
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
C)
MO
OM
Ole
Ell
MI
III1
OM
OM
MO
MN
UN
IIO
M M
N
6)M
eani
na c
ente
red
read
ing
inte
grat
ion,
varie
ty, e
mph
asis
on
com
preh
ensi
on, s
tude
nt-t
each
erin
tera
ctio
n I
(a)
Rea
ding
is in
tegr
ated
thro
ugho
ut th
ecu
rric
ulum
. Stu
dent
s pr
imar
ily r
ead
child
ren'
s lit
erat
ure
and
refe
renc
e bo
oks
not j
ust b
asal
text
book
s or
com
mer
cial
prog
ram
s. S
kills
are
taug
ht In
con
text
as
need
ed, a
nd h
ighe
r le
vel c
ompr
ehen
sion
is e
mph
asiz
ed. T
he te
ache
r pr
ovid
esst
uden
ts w
ith a
var
iety
of o
ppor
tuni
ties
tore
ad (
e.g.
, tea
cher
rea
ds a
loud
, stu
dent
sre
ad to
one
ano
ther
, stu
dent
sAea
cher
read
s si
lent
ly in
SS
RA
ndep
ende
nt r
eadi
ngtim
e) a
nd in
tera
ct w
ith p
rint (
e.g.
, lite
ratu
redi
scus
sion
s, d
irect
ions
, mes
sage
s, a
ndsi
gn-u
p sh
eets
).
(b)
The
teac
her
occa
sion
ally
inte
grat
esre
adin
g w
ith o
ther
are
as o
f the
cur
ricul
um.
Tea
cher
mos
t ofte
n de
pend
s on
a b
asal
read
ing
serie
s or
oth
er c
omm
erci
alpr
ogra
ms
with
a p
rede
term
ined
seq
uenc
eof
ski
lls. S
kills
are
som
etim
es ta
ught
Inco
ntex
t and
hig
her
leve
l com
preh
ensi
on is
freq
uent
ly e
mph
asiz
ed. T
here
ism
oder
ate
evid
ence
that
the
teac
her
prov
ides
stu
dent
s w
ith a
var
iety
of r
eadi
ngop
port
uniti
es.
(c)
The
teac
her
rare
ly in
tegr
ates
rea
ding
with
othe
r ar
eas
of th
e cu
rric
ulum
. Stu
dent
son
ly r
ead
in te
xtbo
oks
or u
se c
omm
erci
alpr
ogra
ms.
Ski
lls a
re fr
eque
ntly
taug
htse
para
tely
. The
re is
an
emph
asis
on
low
leve
l com
preh
ensi
on s
kills
. Ver
y lit
tleop
port
unity
exi
sts
for
stud
ents
to r
ead
with
othe
r st
uden
ts o
r in
divi
dual
ly.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Mea
ning
cen
tere
d re
adin
g is
not
pro
mot
edin
the
clas
sroo
m n
or in
tegr
ated
with
oth
erar
eas
of th
e cu
rric
ulum
. Ski
lls a
re n
otta
ught
in c
onte
xt a
nd th
ere
are
limite
dop
port
uniti
es fo
r st
uden
ts to
rea
d.S
tude
nts
spen
d m
ost o
f the
ir re
adin
g tim
ew
orki
ng o
n is
olat
ed s
kills
.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
min
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
9392
Ell
Ell
MI
IIIIII
IIIIII
IIIII
MI E
ll11
111
MI N
IB M
I MI M
I
7)M
eani
ng c
ente
red
writ
ing
( In
tegr
atio
n, fl
exib
ility
, var
iety
, sel
f-ev
alua
tion,
opp
ortu
nity
to w
rite
I
(a)
Writ
ing
is in
tegr
ated
thro
ugho
ut th
ecu
rric
ulum
. Ski
lls a
re ta
ught
with
in th
eco
ntex
t of t
he s
tude
nt's
writ
ing.
Stu
dent
sar
e ta
ught
to u
se th
e w
ritin
g pr
oces
s(p
rew
ritin
g, d
rafti
ng, r
evis
ing,
edi
ting,
shar
ing)
in a
flex
ible
man
ner
that
ena
bles
stud
ents
to d
evel
op a
pie
ce a
t the
ir ow
nra
te. T
he te
ache
r pr
ovid
es th
e st
uden
tsw
ith a
var
iety
of w
ritin
g op
port
uniti
es (
e.g.
,po
nfol
ios/
joum
als)
. Stu
dent
s of
ten
choo
seth
eir
own
topi
cs. T
he te
ache
r co
nfer
s w
ithth
e st
uden
ts o
n a
regu
lar
basi
s re
gard
ing
thei
r w
ritin
g. P
eer
conf
eren
ces
and
stud
ent-
self-
eval
uatio
n ar
e en
cour
aged
inth
e cl
assr
oom
.
(b)
The
teac
her
occa
sion
ally
Inte
grat
es w
ritin
gth
roug
hout
the
curr
icul
um. S
kills
are
som
etim
es ta
ught
with
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
hest
uden
t's w
ritin
g. T
here
is m
oder
ate
evid
ence
that
the
teac
her
prov
ides
stud
ents
with
a v
arie
ty o
f writ
ing
oppo
rtun
ities
. Stu
dent
s ar
e ta
ught
to u
seth
e w
ritin
g pr
oces
s (p
rew
ritin
g, d
rafti
ng,
revi
sing
, edi
ting,
sha
ring)
. The
re Is
som
eIn
dica
tion
that
stu
dent
s ar
e co
nfer
enci
ngw
ith th
eir
peer
s an
d w
ith th
e te
ache
r an
dal
so e
valu
atin
g th
eir
own
writ
ing.
(c)
The
teac
her
rare
ly in
tegr
ates
writ
ing
thro
ugho
ut th
e cu
rric
ulum
. The
re is
littl
eIn
stru
ctio
n In
the
writ
ing
proc
ess.
Ski
llsar
e fr
eque
ntly
taug
ht s
epar
atel
y fr
om th
est
uden
t's o
wn
writ
ing.
The
re is
ver
y lit
tleop
port
unity
for
stud
ents
to w
rite
and
the
writ
ing
that
occ
urs
is n
ot m
eani
ngce
nter
ed o
r on
stu
dent
sel
ecte
d to
pics
.T
he te
ache
r ra
rely
con
fers
with
stu
dent
sre
gard
ing
thei
r w
ritin
g or
pro
vide
s fo
r se
lf-ev
alua
tion
and
peer
con
fere
nces
.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Mea
ning
cen
tere
d w
ritin
g an
d us
e of
the
writ
ing
proc
ess
are
not p
rom
oted
in th
ecl
assr
oom
. Ski
lls a
re ta
ught
in Is
olat
ion
and
ther
e ar
e lim
ited
oppo
rtun
ities
for
stud
ents
to w
rite.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
9495
I= M
I MO
WO
MI N
M U
NI
NM
Ell
IMO
MO
=M
IIMI N
M I=
=I
8)Pr
oble
m s
olvi
ng m
athe
mat
ics
enga
ging
, act
ive
invo
lvem
ent,
use
of m
anip
ulat
ives
, use
of t
echn
olog
y(
(a)
Mat
hem
atic
al ta
sks
enga
ge s
tude
nts'
inte
rest
and
inte
llect
. Stu
dent
s ar
epr
ovid
ed o
ppor
tuni
ties
to d
eepe
n th
eir
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
mat
hem
atic
s be
ing
stud
ied
and
its a
pplic
atio
n. T
he te
ache
rus
es a
nd h
elps
stu
dent
s us
em
anip
ulat
ives
, tec
hnol
ogy,
and
oth
er to
ols
to p
ursu
e m
athe
mat
ical
inve
stig
atio
ns.
The
teac
her
help
s st
uden
ts s
eek
conn
ectio
ns to
pre
viou
s kn
owle
dge
and
deve
lopi
ng k
now
ledg
e. T
here
is a
com
bina
tion
of g
uide
d in
divi
dual
, sm
all
grou
p, a
nd w
hole
-cla
ss w
ork.
(b)
Tea
cher
s us
e a
com
bina
tion
of te
xtbo
okex
erci
ses
and
som
e m
athe
mat
ical
task
sth
at e
ngag
e st
uden
ts' i
nter
est a
nd in
telle
ctan
d pr
ovid
e op
port
uniti
es to
dee
pen
stud
ents
' und
erst
andi
ng o
f th
em
athe
mat
ics
bein
g st
udie
d an
d its
appl
icat
ions
. At t
imes
, the
teac
her
uses
and
help
s st
uden
ts u
se m
anip
ulat
ives
topu
rsue
mat
hem
atic
al in
vest
igat
ions
and
assi
sts
stud
ents
in m
akin
g co
nnec
tions
topr
evio
us k
now
ledg
e an
d de
velo
ping
know
ledg
e. T
here
is s
ome
indi
catio
n of
guid
ed in
divi
dual
, sm
all g
roup
, and
who
le-
clas
s w
ork.
(c)
The
mat
hem
atic
al ta
sks
are
limite
dpr
imar
ily to
text
book
exe
rcis
es th
at d
o no
ten
gage
stu
dent
s' in
tere
st. S
tude
nts
are
doin
g pa
per
and
penc
il ta
sks
focu
sed
onco
mpu
tatio
nal s
kills
rat
her
than
usi
ngm
anip
ulat
ives
to p
ursu
e m
athe
mat
ical
inve
stig
atio
ns. M
ost o
f th
e in
stru
ctio
n is
dire
ct in
stru
ctio
n in
who
le-c
lass
set
ting.
9)D
isco
very
sci
ence
activ
e in
volv
emen
t, in
vest
igat
ion,
inte
grat
ion,
opp
ortu
nity
to te
am I
(a)
Scie
nce
is ta
ught
with
an
inve
stig
ativ
eap
proa
ch. S
tude
nts
are
exte
nsiv
ely
invo
lved
in h
ands
-on,
min
ds-o
nex
peri
ence
s an
d in
terp
retiv
e di
scus
sion
sto
hel
p th
em c
onst
ruct
mea
ning
. The
use
of m
athe
mat
ics
and
lang
uage
incl
udin
gw
ritin
g is
ext
ensi
ve in
rec
ordi
ngob
serv
atio
ns a
nd in
terp
retin
g an
dre
port
ing
resu
lts. I
nteg
ratio
n oc
curs
as
appr
opri
ate.
(b)
Scie
nce
is s
omet
imes
taug
ht th
roug
h an
inve
stig
ativ
e ap
proa
ch. H
owev
er, t
hete
ache
r fr
eque
ntly
use
s a
text
book
as
the
prim
ary
sour
ce o
f da
ta a
nd in
form
atio
n. I
nth
ese
case
s th
e fo
cus
is m
ore
on c
over
ing
the
mat
eria
l tha
n on
con
stru
ctin
g an
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
key
con
cept
s.In
stru
ctio
nal i
nteg
ratio
n oc
curs
infr
eque
ntly
.
(c)
Scie
nce
is r
arel
y ta
ught
thro
ugh
inve
stig
atio
n. R
athe
r it
is a
rea
ding
abo
utan
d an
swer
ing
text
book
que
stio
nap
proa
ch. T
he te
ache
r re
lies
alm
ost
sole
ly o
n a
sing
le te
xtbo
ok a
nd d
oes
not
inte
grat
e ot
her
subj
ects
whe
n te
achi
ng.
scie
nce.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Mat
hem
atic
al ta
sks
are
limite
d to
text
book
exer
cise
s an
d w
hole
cla
ss in
stru
ctio
n.St
uden
ts a
re n
ot u
sing
man
ipul
ativ
es to
purs
ue m
athe
mat
ical
inve
stig
atio
ns. T
hete
ache
r do
es n
ot h
elp
the
stud
ent t
o m
ake
conn
ectio
ns w
ith p
revi
ous
know
ledg
e an
dde
velo
ping
con
nect
ions
with
pre
viou
skn
owle
dge
and
deve
lopi
ng k
now
ledg
e.M
athe
mat
ics
inst
ruct
ion
is s
olel
y ta
ught
thro
ugh
dire
ct in
stru
ctio
n.
(d)
No
scie
nce
inst
ruct
ion
was
obs
erve
d.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
nR
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
66
BE
STC
OPY
AV
AiL
AB
LE
9 7
MI E
= M
I NM
MN
NM
MI I
MO
NM
11E
1III
IIIM
N N
M-
I= M
N M
I=
10)
inqu
iry-o
rient
ed s
ocia
l stu
dies
act
ive
invo
lvem
ent,
mul
tiple
sour
ces
of in
form
atio
n, in
tegr
atio
n, o
ppor
tuni
ty to
loam
I
(a)
Soc
ial s
tudi
es in
stru
ctio
n in
volv
es th
est
uden
ts in
ask
ing
ques
tions
abo
ut a
ndin
vest
igat
ing
soci
al p
heno
men
a. W
hen
teac
hing
soc
ial s
tudi
es, t
he te
ache
rst
ress
es th
e us
e of
mul
tiple
sou
rces
of
info
rmat
ion,
han
ds-o
n ac
tiviti
es, a
ndm
eani
ngfu
l exp
erie
nces
. Oth
er s
ubje
cts
are
inte
grat
ed th
roug
hout
the
day
and
dire
ct in
stru
ctio
n is
use
d w
hen
appr
opria
te.
(b)
Soc
ial s
tudi
es in
stru
ctio
n oc
casi
onal
lyin
volv
es s
tude
nts
in a
skin
g qu
estio
nsab
out a
nd in
vest
igat
ing
soci
al p
heno
men
a.A
t tim
es, t
he te
ache
r us
es m
ultip
leso
urce
s of
info
rmat
ion,
han
ds-o
n ac
tiviti
es,
and
mea
ning
ful e
xper
ienc
es. O
ther
subj
ects
are
occ
asio
nally
inte
grat
ed.
11)
Oth
er s
ubje
ct a
reas
inte
grat
ed, o
ppor
tuni
ty to
lear
n I
(a)
The
art
s (e
.g.,
mus
ic, a
rt, m
ovem
ent,
dram
a) a
re in
tegr
ated
with
the
cont
ent
area
s.
(b)
Sev
eral
of t
he a
rts
are
inte
grat
ed w
ith th
eco
nten
t are
as.
(c)
Soc
ial s
tudi
es in
stru
ctio
n ra
rely
invo
lves
stud
ents
in a
skin
g qu
estio
ns a
bout
and
inve
stig
atin
g so
cial
phe
nom
ena.
The
teac
her
prov
ides
few
opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
rha
nds-
on a
ctiv
ities
and
mea
ning
ful
expe
rienc
es. O
ther
sub
ject
s ar
e no
tin
tegr
ated
thro
ugho
ut th
e da
y an
d di
rect
inst
ruct
ion
is th
e pr
imar
y m
etho
d of
inst
ruct
ion.
(c)
The
re is
littl
e in
dica
tion
of th
e ar
ts b
eing
inte
grat
ed w
ith th
e co
nten
t are
as.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
195
(d)
No
soci
al s
tudi
es w
as o
bser
ved
or s
ocia
lst
udie
s in
stru
ctio
n is
lim
ited
to r
eadi
ng in
asi
ngle
text
book
.
(d)
The
re is
no
evid
ence
that
the
arts
are
bein
g in
tegr
ated
with
con
tent
are
as.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on E
duca
tion
Ref
orm
in c
olla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
tefo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hD
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
EW
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
N F
RO
M K
IER
98
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
mu
EN
um
am
No
as N
o um
EN
EN
no
EN
ow
EN
am
99
V;)
B.
Var
ied
Inst
ruct
iona
l Str
ateg
ies
1)B
alan
ced
inst
ruct
iona
l del
iver
yva
ried
inst
ruct
ion,
lear
ning
diff
eren
t sty
les,
stud
ent e
xpre
ssio
n ]
(a)
The
re is
a b
alan
ce o
f ins
truc
tiona
l del
iver
yin
the
clas
sroo
m (
e.g.
, coo
pera
tive
lear
ning
, dire
ct in
stru
ctio
n, &
inde
pend
ent
lear
ning
). T
he te
ache
r co
nsis
tent
ly ta
kes
into
acc
ount
stu
dent
s' d
iffer
ent l
earn
ing
styl
es a
nd m
ultip
le in
telli
genc
es.
Inst
ruct
ion
is p
rese
nted
in a
var
iety
of
mod
es a
nd s
tude
nts
expr
ess
them
selv
esin
a v
arie
ty o
f way
s.
(b)
Occ
asio
nally
, the
teac
her
uses
a b
alan
ceof
inst
ruct
iona
l del
iver
y in
the
clas
sroo
m.
At t
imes
, the
teac
her
enco
urag
es d
iffer
ent
lear
ning
sty
les
and
mul
tiple
inte
llige
nces
and
allo
ws
the
stud
ents
to e
xpre
ssth
emse
lves
in a
var
iety
of w
ays.
2)B
alan
ce o
f stu
dent
and
teac
her
initi
atio
n (s
tude
ntin
itiat
ive
I
(a)
The
re is
ext
ensi
ve e
vide
nce
of b
oth
stud
ent a
nd te
ache
r in
itiat
ed a
ctiv
ities
.
(b)
The
re Is
ext
ensi
ve e
vide
nce
of te
ache
rin
itiat
ed a
ctiv
ities
with
som
e op
port
uniti
esfo
r st
uden
t ini
tiate
d ac
tiviti
es.
(c)
The
teac
her
rare
ly im
plem
ents
a b
alan
ceof
inst
ruct
iona
l del
iver
y in
the
clas
sroo
m.
Inst
ruct
ion
is p
rimar
ily d
irect
inst
ruct
ion.
The
re is
littl
e ev
iden
ce o
f diff
eren
t lea
rnin
gst
yles
or
mul
tiple
inte
llige
nces
bei
ngen
cour
aged
in th
e cl
assr
oom
. The
stud
ents
are
rar
ely
give
n th
e op
port
unity
toex
pres
s th
emse
lves
in a
var
iety
of w
ays.
(c)
The
re a
re fe
w s
tude
nt in
itiat
ed a
ctiv
ities
.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
The
teac
her
does
not
use
bal
ance
din
stru
ctio
n in
the
clas
sroo
m. T
here
are
noop
port
uniti
es fo
r st
uden
ts to
exp
ress
them
selv
es in
mul
tiple
way
s.
(d)
The
re a
re n
o op
port
uniti
es fo
r st
uden
ts to
initi
ate
activ
ities
.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
nw
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
nR
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
101
100
INN
NM
MI N
M IN
N M
I NM
INN
NM
NM
I NM
MI 1
MN
MN
1111
11l
Il
3)A
ctiv
e ch
ild in
volv
emen
t var
iety
of a
ctiv
ities
, fle
xibl
e m
ovem
ent I
(a)
Stu
dent
s ar
e ac
tivel
y in
volv
ed in
a v
arie
tyof
'han
ds -
on' a
ctiv
ities
that
enc
oura
geex
perim
enta
tion
and
expl
orat
ion.
Stu
dent
sm
ove
free
ly a
bout
the
clas
sroo
m a
sne
cess
ary.
(b)
Stu
dent
s ar
e oc
casi
onal
ly in
volv
ed In
'han
ds-o
n' a
ctiv
ities
that
enc
oura
geex
perim
enta
tion
and
expl
orat
ion.
At t
imes
,th
e st
uden
ts a
re a
llow
ed to
mov
e ab
out
the
clas
sroo
m a
s ne
eded
.
4)F
lexi
ble
grou
ping
I fle
xibi
lity,
bas
ed o
n in
tere
st, g
roup
siz
e ]
(a)
The
re a
re m
any
oppo
rtun
ities
for
flexi
ble
grou
ping
s an
d re
grou
ping
s fo
r in
stru
ctio
nba
sed
on in
tere
st, l
earn
ing
styl
e, p
robl
emso
lvin
g, s
kill
inst
ruct
ion
(sho
rt te
rm),
rein
forc
emen
t, ra
ndom
, etc
. Gro
upin
gsra
nge
from
sm
all g
roup
s (2
.6)
to la
rge
grou
ps (
7 &
up)
. Spe
cial
nee
ds s
tude
nts
are
freq
uent
ly in
clud
ed In
gro
ups.
(b)
The
re is
som
e ev
iden
ce o
f fle
xibl
egr
oupi
ngs
and
regr
oupi
ngs.
The
teac
her
occa
sion
ally
gro
ups
stud
ents
In s
mal
lgr
oups
, lar
ge g
roup
s, a
nd w
hole
cla
ss.
Spe
cial
nee
ds s
tude
nts
are
incl
uded
inso
me
of th
e gr
oups
.
5)Q
ontln
uous
pro
gres
a [ s
tude
nt s
elf-
pace
d )
(a)
The
teac
her
supp
orts
the
cont
inuo
uspr
ogre
ss o
f all
stud
ents
by
prov
idin
gm
ater
ials
and
act
iviti
es th
at e
nabl
e ea
chst
uden
t to
mov
e at
his
/her
ow
n pa
ce a
ndle
vel o
f lea
rnin
g.
(b)
The
teac
her
usua
lly s
uppo
rts
the
cont
inuo
us p
rogr
ess
of a
ll st
uden
ts b
ypr
ovid
ing
the
mat
eria
ls a
nd a
ctiv
ities
that
enab
le e
ach
stud
ent t
o m
ove
at h
is/h
erow
n pa
ce a
nd le
vel o
f lea
rnin
g.
(c)
Stu
dent
s ar
e ra
rely
Invo
lved
in "
hand
s-on
'ac
tiviti
es th
at e
ncou
rage
exp
erim
enta
tion
and
expl
orat
ion.
Stu
dent
s ar
e ra
rely
allo
wed
to m
ove
abou
t the
cla
ssro
omun
less
dire
cted
by
the
teac
her.
(c)
The
re is
littl
e in
dica
tion
that
flex
ible
grou
ping
s ar
e oc
curr
ing
in th
e cl
assr
oom
.M
ost o
f the
cla
ss In
stru
ctio
n Is
cen
tere
dar
ound
who
le c
lass
Inst
ruct
ion
or fi
xed
abili
ty g
roup
s. S
peci
al n
eeds
stu
dent
s ar
eno
t inc
lude
d in
the
grou
ping
s
(c)
Mat
eria
ls a
nd a
ctiv
ities
are
the
sam
e fo
r al
lst
uden
ts w
ith li
ttle
adap
tatio
n to
stu
dent
s'va
ryin
g st
reng
ths
and
wea
knes
ses.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
Stu
dent
s ar
e no
t inv
olve
d in
"ha
nds-
ore
expe
rimen
tatio
n an
d ex
plor
atio
n. A
llst
uden
t mov
emen
t is
dire
cted
by
the
teac
her.
(d)
The
re is
no
indi
catio
n th
at fl
exib
legr
oupi
ngs
are
bein
g im
plem
ente
d in
the
clas
sroo
m. T
he o
nly
type
of i
nstr
uctio
noc
curr
ing
Is w
hole
cla
ss in
stru
ctio
n.
(d)
All
stud
ents
are
exp
ecte
d to
pro
ceed
thro
ugh
the
curr
icul
um a
t the
sam
e pa
ce.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
102
103
EN
NW
1111
11O
W U
M M
I E
MI
MN
MI
In W
EI
ON
E N
M M
I M
I E
N M
I
A.
Ong
oing
Aut
hent
ic A
sses
smen
t
Ill. A
sses
smen
t
1)C
ontin
uity
and
freq
uenc
y [ f
requ
ency
, are
as a
sses
sed
J
(a)
The
teac
her
asse
sses
stu
dent
pro
gres
s in
all a
reas
of d
evel
opm
ent (
cogn
itive
, soc
ial,
emot
iona
l, ph
ysic
al &
aes
thet
ic).
Thi
sas
sess
men
t occ
urs
on a
con
tinuo
us a
ndfr
eque
nt b
asis
, occ
urs
with
in th
e co
ntex
t of
inst
ruct
ion,
and
focu
ses
on h
ow th
e ch
ildle
arns
and
wha
t the
chi
ld c
an d
o.
(b)
Occ
asio
nally
ass
essm
ent o
ccur
s w
ithin
the
cont
ext o
f ins
truc
tion
and
occu
rs o
n a
freq
uent
bas
is. M
ost a
sses
smen
t foc
uses
on c
ogni
tive
deve
lopm
ent.
2)A
uthe
ntic
ityre
flect
s le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
es, p
erfo
rman
ce b
ased
I
(a)
Ass
essm
ent o
ccur
s in
the
cont
ext o
f the
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent a
nd r
efle
cts
actu
alle
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
es in
the
clas
sroo
m.
The
ass
essm
ents
are
per
form
ance
bas
ed.
(b)
Ass
essm
ent o
ccur
s in
the
cont
ext o
f the
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent a
nd o
ccas
iona
llyre
flect
s ac
tual
lear
ning
exp
erie
nces
.
(c)
Ass
essm
ent o
f stu
dent
pro
gres
s is
infr
eque
nt a
nd c
ondu
cted
out
side
the
cont
ext o
f ins
truc
tion.
Mos
t ass
essm
ent o
fst
uden
ts fo
cuse
s on
cog
nitiv
ede
velo
pmen
t and
occ
urs
at th
e en
d of
the
grad
ing
perio
d.
(c)
The
re is
littl
e in
dica
tion
that
ass
essm
ent
occu
rs w
ithin
the
cont
ext o
f ins
truc
tion
and
refle
cts
actu
al le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
es in
the
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
The
re is
no
Indi
catio
n of
con
tinuo
us o
rfr
eque
nt a
sses
smen
t met
hods
. Cog
nitiv
egr
owth
is th
e on
ly a
rea
of d
evel
opm
ent
that
Is a
sses
sed.
(d)
No
asse
ssm
ent i
s co
nduc
ted
durin
gin
stru
ctio
n.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
104
105
rn
MI M
I MI U
R N
I MI
1111
1IM
ON
IS N
M11
1111
1111
1N
M M
IN
I
3)V
arie
ty o
f met
hod;
; ( m
ultip
le a
sses
smen
t mea
sure
s, d
ocum
enta
tion,
per
form
ance
-bas
edta
sks
J
(a)
Tea
cher
use
s m
ultip
le a
sses
smen
tm
easu
res
(e.g
., po
rtfo
lios,
obs
erva
tions
,ch
eckl
ists
, con
fere
nces
, ane
cdot
alre
cord
s, r
unni
ng r
ecor
ds, w
ork
sam
ples
,et
c.).
The
teac
her
keep
s an
ecdo
tal
reco
rds
and
chec
klis
ts o
f stu
dent
'sat
titud
es, s
tren
gths
, wea
knes
ses,
and
prog
ress
. The
teac
her
uses
per
form
ance
-ba
sed
task
s to
ena
ble
stud
ents
tode
mon
stra
te th
eir
know
ledg
e an
d sk
ills.
(b)
The
teac
her
uses
a fe
w ty
pes
ofas
sess
men
t mea
sure
s an
d ke
eps
limite
dno
tes
of s
tude
nt o
bser
vatio
ns. T
here
isso
me
evid
ence
of p
erfo
rman
ce ta
sks
bein
g im
plem
ente
d In
the
asse
ssm
ent
proc
edur
e.
4)st
uden
t sel
f-ev
alua
tion
oppo
rtun
ity fo
r se
lf ev
alua
tion
]
(a)
Stu
dent
s ar
e gi
ven
the
oppo
rtun
ity to
refle
ct o
n an
d ev
alua
te th
eir
own
wor
k.S
tude
nts
have
bot
h su
ppor
t and
str
uctu
rein
the
eval
uatio
n pr
oces
s (e
.g.,
writ
ing
chec
klis
ts, r
ubric
s). S
tude
nts
edit
thei
rw
ork
and
mak
e de
cisi
ons
abou
t lea
rnin
gpo
rtfo
lio e
ntrie
s.
(b)
Stu
dent
s oc
casi
onal
ly e
valu
ate
thei
r ow
nw
ork.
Tea
cher
s oc
casi
onal
ly p
rovi
dest
uden
ts w
ith a
n ev
alua
tion
stru
ctur
e.
(c)
The
re is
littl
e in
dica
tion
that
the
teac
her
isus
ing
mul
tiple
mea
sure
s or
kee
ping
anec
dota
l rec
ords
of s
tude
nt p
rogr
ess.
Stu
dent
s ar
e no
t inv
olve
d in
per
form
ance
task
s.
(c)
Stu
dent
s ra
rely
eva
luat
ion
thei
r w
ort
The
re a
re n
o ev
alua
tion
stru
ctur
es fo
rst
uden
ts to
use
in th
e ev
alua
tion
proc
ess.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
A v
arie
ty o
f ass
essm
ent m
etho
ds a
re n
otbe
ing
empl
oyed
in th
e cl
assr
oom
.A
sses
smen
t rel
ies
prim
ary
on p
aper
and
penc
il te
sts.
(d)
Stu
dent
s ar
e no
t giv
en th
e op
port
unity
toev
alua
te th
eir
own
wor
t.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on E
duca
tion
Ref
orm
in c
olla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hD
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
NF
RO
M K
IER
106
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
C
=I N
MM
INI M
IM
N M
II=
MI=
111
1111
1M
I MB
MI M
I MIM
IIM
O
DR
AFT
-03/
09/9
55)
Elfa
lUal
lQa1
2Lai
Lara
aLtIS
IISI2
131=
S11
(co
mpr
ehen
sive
ness
)
(a)
The
teac
her
eval
uate
s th
e st
uden
t's s
ocia
l,em
otio
nal,
phys
ical
, aes
thet
ic, a
ndco
gniti
ve d
evel
opm
ent.
(b)
Mos
t eva
luat
ion
focu
ses
on c
ogni
tive
and
acad
emic
gro
wth
with
littl
e at
tent
ion
paid
to s
tude
nts
soci
al, e
mot
iona
l, ph
ysic
al,
and
aest
hetic
dev
elop
men
t.
6)gu
alila
lban
acuI
lam
nlen
nam
(ty
pe, f
requ
ency
)
(a)
(b)
The
teac
her
cond
ucts
bot
h in
form
al a
ndst
ruct
ured
con
fere
nces
with
par
ents
on
are
gula
r ba
sis
but a
lso
Is a
vaila
ble
for
conf
eren
ces
as r
eque
sted
by
pare
nts.
The
teac
her
uses
a n
arra
tive
prog
ress
repo
rt a
nd o
ccas
iona
lly s
ends
not
es to
pare
nts
rega
rdin
g th
eir
child
's p
rogr
ess.
7)Q
uata
tive
repo
rtin
g to
par
ents
type
, fre
quen
cy]
(a)
The
teac
her
uses
a d
escr
iptiv
ean
d na
rrat
ive
prog
ress
rep
ort
that
indi
cate
s pr
ogre
ss to
war
dK
entu
cky'
s Le
arni
ng G
oals
and
Aca
dem
ic E
xpec
tatio
ns. T
hete
ache
r se
nds
inte
rim r
epor
ts to
pare
nts
to c
ite p
robl
ems
in w
ork
com
plet
ion,
diff
icul
ty in
unde
rsta
ndin
g, a
nd la
ck o
fpr
ogre
ss, o
r w
hen
outs
tand
ing
wor
k ha
s be
en c
ompl
eted
or
prog
ress
mad
e.
(b)
The
teac
her
uses
a n
arra
tive
prog
ress
rep
ort a
nd o
ccas
iona
llyse
nds
note
s to
par
ents
rega
rdin
g th
eir
child
's p
rogr
ess.
(c)
The
teac
her
focu
ses
on c
ogni
tive
and
acad
emic
dev
elop
men
t with
no
atte
ntio
npa
id to
stu
dent
's s
ocia
l, em
otio
nal,
phys
ical
, and
aes
thet
ic d
evel
opm
ent.
(c)
Tea
cher
con
duct
s a
conf
eren
ce w
ith a
pare
nt o
nly
if a
seve
re p
robl
em o
ccur
s.
(c)
The
pro
gres
s re
port
is n
otde
scrip
tive
or n
arra
tive.
The
teac
her
rare
ly p
rovi
des
pare
nts
with
not
es o
r co
mm
ents
rel
ated
to th
e ch
ild's
wor
k.
(d)
The
re Is
no
Indi
catio
n th
atna
rrat
ive
and
desc
riptiv
epr
ogre
ss r
epor
ts a
re s
ent t
opa
rent
s.
(d)
The
re is
no
evid
ence
that
the
teac
her
eval
uate
s th
e st
uden
t's s
ocia
l, em
otio
nal,
phys
ical
, aes
thet
ic, a
nd c
ogni
tive
deve
lopm
ent.
(d)
The
re is
no
indi
catio
n th
at th
e te
ache
rco
nfer
ence
s w
ith th
e pa
rent
s.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m In
col
labo
ratio
n w
ithth
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
108
109
MI
MN
NI
- --
In
MI
MI
MI
1111
1111
1111
r N
D M
N I
n11
101
1011
1
A.
Pro
fess
iona
l Tea
mw
ork
1)
IV. E
duca
tiona
l Par
tner
ship
Tea
min
g w
ith r
egul
ar te
acha
ra (
degr
ee o
f int
erac
tion,
freq
uenc
y of
coo
pera
tive
teac
hing
)
(a)
The
teac
her
uses
a v
arie
ty o
f co-
inst
ruct
iona
l str
ateg
ies
such
as
team
teac
hing
, col
labo
rativ
e te
achi
ng, a
nd/o
rpe
er c
oach
ing.
(b)
The
re is
som
e ev
iden
ce th
at te
amte
achi
ng, c
olla
bora
tive
teac
hing
, and
/or
peer
coa
chin
g is
occ
urrin
g.
(c)
The
re is
littl
e ev
iden
ce th
at te
am te
achi
ng,
colla
bora
tive
teac
hing
, and
/or
peer
coac
hing
is o
ccur
ring.
2)P
lann
ing
with
reg
ular
teac
hers
deg
ree
of in
tera
ctio
n, fr
eque
ncy
of c
oope
rativ
e pl
anni
ngI
(a)
The
teac
her
freq
uent
ly (
at le
ast o
nce
aw
eek)
pla
ns a
nd s
hare
s th
emat
ic s
tudi
es,
reso
urce
mat
eria
ls, a
nd c
urric
ulum
idea
sw
ith o
ther
teac
hers
on
the
team
or
in th
efa
mily
.
(b)
The
teac
her
occa
sion
ally
(at
leas
t onc
e a
mon
th)
plan
s an
d sh
ares
them
atic
stu
dies
.re
sour
ce m
ater
ials
, and
cur
ricul
um id
eas
with
oth
er te
ache
rs o
n th
e te
am o
r in
the
fam
ily.
(c)
The
teac
her
rare
ly p
lans
and
sha
res
them
atic
stu
dies
, res
ourc
e m
ater
ials
, and
curr
icul
um id
eas
with
oth
er te
ache
rs o
nth
e te
am o
r in
the
fam
ily.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
The
re is
no
evid
ence
that
team
teac
hing
,co
llabo
rativ
e te
achi
ng, a
nd/o
r pe
erco
achi
ng is
occ
urrin
g. (d)
The
re is
no
evid
ence
of p
lann
ing
orsh
arin
g th
emat
ic s
tudi
es, r
esou
rce
mat
eria
ls, a
nd c
urric
ulum
Idea
s.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
colla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hD
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
TP
ER
MIS
SIO
N F
RO
M K
IER
1 0
MI=
MI
MO
MI M
I MI O
MM
I NM
IN
IB M
I
111
3)C
ionu
nkal
inaa
ndaa
nn(d
egre
e of
inte
ract
ion,
freq
uenc
y of
coo
pera
tive
plan
ning
)
(a)
The
teac
her
com
mun
icat
es r
egul
arly
and
plan
s w
ith s
peci
al a
reas
teac
hers
(e.
g.,
phys
ical
edu
catio
n, m
usic
, art
, lib
rary
,sp
ecia
l edu
catio
n).
(b)
The
teac
her
freq
uent
ly c
omm
unic
ates
and
plan
s w
ith s
peci
al a
rea
teac
hers
.
4)ek
idal
imilf
sch
edul
ed, o
ppor
tuni
ty fo
r int
erac
tion
with
col
leag
ues
(a)
The
teac
her
has
regu
larly
sch
edul
e tim
efo
r pl
anni
ng in
divi
dual
ly a
s w
ell a
sco
mm
on p
lann
ing
time
with
team
teac
hers
and
with
spe
cial
are
a te
ache
rs. T
his
plan
ning
tim
e oc
curs
dur
ing
the
scho
olda
y.
(b)
The
teac
her
has
regu
larly
sch
edul
edtim
efo
r pl
anni
ng in
divi
dual
ly a
nd w
ith te
amte
ache
rs. O
ccas
iona
lly, t
he te
ache
r pl
ans
with
the
spec
ial a
rea
teac
hers
. How
ever
,m
ost p
lann
ing
occu
rs b
efor
e an
d af
ter
scho
ol.
5)Le
vel o
f col
labo
ratio
n fr
eque
ncy,
lear
ning
are
as a
ddre
ssed
I
(a)
The
teac
her
colla
bora
tes
with
the
team
teac
hers
and
spe
cial
are
a te
ache
rson
alm
ost a
ll ph
ases
of s
tude
nts'
lear
ning
expe
rienc
es.
(b)
The
teac
her
occa
sion
ally
col
labo
rate
s w
ithte
am te
ache
rs a
nd s
peci
al a
rea
teac
hers
on s
ome
phas
es o
f stu
dent
s' le
arni
ngex
perie
nces
.
(c)
The
teac
her
rare
ly c
omm
unic
ates
and
plan
s w
ith s
peci
al a
rea
teac
hers
.
(c)
The
teac
her
has
regu
larly
sch
edul
edin
divi
dual
pla
nnin
g tim
e du
ring
the
scho
olda
y. H
owev
er, t
he te
ache
r do
es n
ot h
ave
plan
ning
tim
e sc
hedu
led
with
team
teac
hers
or
spec
ial a
rea
teac
hers
.
(c)
The
teac
her
rare
ly c
olla
bora
tes
with
team
teac
hers
and
spe
cial
are
a te
ache
rson
stud
ents
' lea
rnin
g ex
perie
nces
.
DR
AFT
-03/
09/9
5
(d)
The
teac
her
does
not
com
mun
icat
e an
dpl
an w
ith s
peci
al a
rea
teac
hers
.
(d)
The
teac
her
does
not
hav
e a
regu
lar
sche
dule
d pl
anni
ng ti
me,
exc
ept b
efor
eor
afte
r sc
hool
.
(d)
The
teac
her
does
not
col
labo
rate
with
team
teac
hers
or
spec
ial a
rea
teac
hers
onst
uden
ts' l
earn
ing
expe
rienc
es
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
colla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
tefo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hD
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
RD
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
NF
RO
M K
IER
112
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
A!
LE
113
all O
M n
ilM
IIII
IIIM
I MI O
M IN
NIN
INN
B.
Par
ent I
nvol
vem
ent
1)In
gle
ggra
grag
invo
lvem
ent,
freq
uenc
y)
(a)
Par
ents
are
invo
lved
freq
uent
ly in
thei
rch
ild's
cla
ssro
om in
a v
arie
ty o
f way
s (e
.g.,
tuto
rs, c
leric
al w
orke
rs, g
uest
spe
aker
s,ca
rpen
ter,
etc
.).
(b)
Par
ents
are
occ
asio
nally
Invo
lved
in th
eir
child
's c
lass
room
in a
var
iety
of w
ays.
2)In
pol
icy
mak
ing
( in
volv
emen
t, le
vel ]
(a)
Par
ents
are
invo
lved
in p
olic
y m
akin
gde
cisi
ons
at th
e cl
assr
oom
leve
l as
wel
l as
on th
e S
BD
M C
ounc
ils.
(b)
Par
ents
are
invo
lved
in p
olic
y m
akin
gde
cisi
ons
thro
ugh
SB
DM
Cou
ncils
rat
her
than
dec
isio
ns a
t the
cla
ssro
om le
vel.
3)In
stu
dent
eva
luat
ion
Invo
lvem
ent,
pare
nt r
espo
nsib
ility
J
(a)
Par
ents
are
invo
lved
In a
nd ta
kere
spon
sibi
lity
for
mon
itorin
g th
eir
child
'sgr
owth
and
pro
gres
s. T
he te
ache
r an
dpa
rent
con
tinua
lly c
olla
bora
te o
n th
eev
alua
tion
of th
e ch
ild's
pro
gres
s.
(b)
The
teac
her
occa
sion
ally
invo
lves
par
ents
in th
e ev
alua
tion
and
asse
ssm
ent p
roce
ss.
(c)
Par
ents
are
rar
ely
invo
lved
in th
eir
child
'scl
assr
oom
.
(c)
Par
ents
are
rar
ely
invo
lved
in a
ny fo
rm o
fpo
licy
mak
ing
deci
sion
s in
the
clas
sroo
mor
at t
he s
choo
l lev
el. (c
)
The
re is
littl
e In
dica
tion
that
the
pare
nts
are
invo
lved
in th
e ev
alua
tion
proc
ess
ofth
eir
child
.
DR
AFT
-03/
09/9
5
(d)
Par
ents
are
not
invo
lved
in th
eir
child
'scl
assr
oom
.
(d)
Par
ents
are
not
invo
lved
in a
ny fo
rm o
fpo
licy
mak
ing
in th
e cl
assr
oom
or
at th
esc
hool
leve
l.
(d)
The
re is
no
indi
catio
n th
at th
e pa
rent
Isin
volv
ed in
eva
luat
ion
of th
eir
child
'spr
ogre
ss e
xcep
t to
rece
ive
and
sign
the
repo
rt c
ard.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
colla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hD
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
NF
RO
M K
IER
114
115
NM
MI
NM
MI
III-
MS
MI
4)in
sup
port
ing
lear
ning
(co
mm
unic
atio
n, h
elpf
ulIn
tera
ctio
nI
(a)
Par
ents
are
hel
ped
to s
uppo
rt th
eir
child
'sle
arni
ng a
t hom
e. T
his
supp
ort c
omes
from
the
com
mun
icat
ion
and
inte
ract
ion
betw
een
the
pare
nts
and
the
teac
her
and
from
new
slet
ters
and
wor
ksho
ps fo
rpa
rent
s.
5)C
omm
unic
atio
n fr
eque
ncy,
type
I
(a)
F lu
mni
two-
way
com
mun
icat
ion
occu
rsbe
twee
n te
ache
rs a
nd p
aren
ts.
Com
mun
icat
ion
occu
rs in
the
form
of
new
slet
ters
and
Indi
vidu
al s
tude
ntpr
ogre
ss r
epor
ts. W
hen
need
ed, t
hete
ache
r co
mm
unic
ates
with
the
pare
nts
thro
ugh
note
s or
tele
phon
e ca
lls to
pro
vide
them
with
feed
back
on
thei
r ch
ild's
lear
ning
. Tea
cher
s se
ek in
put f
rom
pare
nts
rega
rdin
g th
e st
uden
t's p
rogr
ess.
(b)
Par
ents
occ
asio
nally
are
hel
ped
to s
uppo
rtth
eir
child
's le
arni
ng a
t hom
e th
roug
hw
orks
hops
and
new
slet
ters
.
(b)
Occ
asio
nal t
wo-
way
com
mun
icat
ion
occu
rs b
etw
een
teac
hers
and
par
ents
.C
omm
unic
atio
n w
ith p
aren
ts is
usu
ally
inth
e fo
rm o
f new
slet
ters
. At t
imes
, the
teac
her
may
exc
hang
e no
tes
with
par
ents
conc
erni
ng a
stu
dent
's p
rogr
ess.
(c)
Par
ents
rar
ely
are
help
ed to
sup
port
thei
rch
ild's
lear
ning
at h
ome.
(c)
The
teac
her
rare
ly c
omm
unic
ates
with
the
pare
nts.
The
teac
her
does
not
see
kpa
rent
al In
put.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(d)
The
re is
no
indi
catio
n th
at p
aren
ts a
rehe
lped
to d
evel
op w
ays
to s
uppo
rt th
eir
child
's le
arni
ng a
t hom
e.
(d)
The
re w
as n
o in
dica
tion
that
the
teac
her
com
mun
icat
es w
ith th
e pa
rent
s ex
cept
thro
ugh
the
repo
rt c
ard.
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on E
duca
tion
Ref
orm
in c
olla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hD
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
NF
RO
M K
IER
116
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
117
In
1111
1 =
MI
NO
EN
AIN
NIB
EN
MI
r --
111
11O
M M
N O
M
V. M
ulti-
Age
/Mul
ti-ab
ility
Gro
upin
g P
atte
rns
A. C
lass
room
Pat
tern
s
1)A
ge le
vels
in c
lass
room
s (m
ulti-
age/
mul
ti-ab
ility
gro
upin
g pa
ttern
s, fl
exib
le g
roup
ing,
var
iety
of n
eeds
)
(a)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as m
ulti-
age
and
mul
ti-ab
ility
leve
ls w
ith th
ree
or m
ore
trad
ition
al g
rade
leve
lsre
pres
ente
d. T
he m
ulti-
age/
mul
ti-ab
ility
gro
upin
gpa
ttern
is u
sed
for
the
entir
esc
hool
day
with
teac
her
usin
gw
ithin
cla
ss o
r w
ithin
team
flexi
ble
grou
ping
to m
eet t
heva
riety
of n
eeds
and
inte
rest
s of
child
ren.
Wha
t tra
ditio
nal g
rade
leve
ls a
re in
clud
ed?
K
(b)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as d
ual-a
gegr
oupi
ng w
ith tw
o tr
aditi
onal
grad
e le
vels
rep
rese
nted
. The
dual
-age
pat
tern
is u
sed
for
the
entir
e sc
hool
day
with
the
teac
her
usin
g w
ithin
cla
ss o
rw
ithin
team
flex
ible
gro
upin
g to
mee
t the
var
iety
of n
eeds
and
inte
rest
s of
the
child
ren.
Wha
ttr
aditi
onal
gra
de le
vels
are
incl
uded
?
(c)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as tw
o or
mor
etr
aditi
onal
gra
de le
vels
repr
esen
ted.
The
with
in c
lass
grou
ps a
re o
rgan
ized
acc
ordi
ngto
age
or
abili
ty le
vel w
ith fe
wpr
ovis
ions
for
flexi
ble
grou
ping
acco
rdin
g to
the
need
s an
dIn
tere
sts
of th
e ch
ildre
n. T
here
is li
ttle
oppo
rtun
ity fo
r ch
ildre
n of
diffe
rent
age
s or
abi
litie
s to
inte
ract
dur
ing
inst
ruct
iona
l tim
e.W
hat t
radi
tiona
l gra
de le
vels
are
incl
uded
?
(d)
The
cla
ssro
om h
as tw
o or
mor
etr
aditi
onal
gra
de le
vels
. The
child
ren
leav
e th
e cl
assr
oom
for
part
of t
he d
ay to
be
with
child
ren
of th
e sa
me
age
orsa
me
abili
ty fo
r in
stru
ctio
n in
som
e, a
reas
(e.
g., r
eadi
ngm
athe
mat
ics,
sci
ence
, soc
ial
stud
ies)
or
who
le c
lass
es m
ove
toge
ther
to d
iffer
ent t
each
ers
for
diffe
rent
sub
ject
s. W
hat
trad
ition
al g
rade
leve
ls a
rere
pres
ente
d?
11
11
22
_23
_23
33
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(e)
Oth
er (
Des
crib
e an
yar
rang
emen
t tha
t is
not i
nclu
ded
in th
e ot
her
desc
riptio
ns.)
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
min
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
118
119
MI
INN
MI
MI
OM
all
MI
II1=
II
(2)
(a)
Yea
rs w
ith th
e sa
me
teac
her
(con
tinui
ty o
f ins
truc
tion]
Chi
ldre
n re
mai
n w
ith th
e sa
me
teac
her
for
two
or m
ore
year
s as
dete
rmin
ed b
y th
e ne
eds
of th
ech
ildre
n.
(b)
Chi
ldre
n re
mai
n w
ithin
the
sam
efa
mily
thro
ugho
ut p
rimar
y an
dm
ay h
ave
the
sam
e te
ache
r fo
rtw
o or
mor
e ye
ars.
(C)
Chi
ldre
n ar
e ra
ndom
ly a
ssig
ned
to te
ache
rs e
ach
year
and
may
have
the
sam
e te
ache
r tw
o or
mor
e ye
ars.
B.
Sch
ool-W
ide
Pat
tern
s[It
ems
conc
erni
ng fi
ve y
ear
old
incl
usio
n an
d sp
ecia
l nee
ds in
clus
ion
addr
ess
scho
ol w
ide
prac
tice.
prin
cipa
l.) 1) (a)
Fiv
e ye
ar o
ld in
clus
ion:
Typ
e of
gro
up (
exte
nt o
f mul
ti-ag
e gr
oupi
ng)
Fiv
e ye
ar o
lds
are
incl
uded
inm
ulti-
age
grou
ps w
ith a
t lea
stth
ree
trad
ition
al g
rade
leve
ls.
Wha
t tra
ditio
nal g
rade
leve
ls a
rein
clud
ed?
_1 _
Sec
ond
sem
este
r_2
Who
le y
ear
3
(b)
Fiv
e ye
ar o
lds
are
Incl
uded
indu
al-a
ge g
roup
s w
ith a
t lea
sttw
o tr
aditi
onal
gra
de le
vels
.W
hat t
radi
tiona
l gra
de le
vels
are
incl
uded
?1
Sec
ond
sem
este
r_2
Who
le y
ear
3
(c)
(d)
Chi
ldre
n do
not
rem
ain
with
the
sam
e te
ache
r fo
r m
ore
than
one
year
.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
(e)
Oth
er (
Des
crib
e an
yar
rang
emen
t tha
t is
not i
nclu
ded
in th
e ot
her
desc
riptio
ns.)
If in
form
atio
n is
una
vaila
ble
from
the
clas
sroo
m te
ache
r, o
bser
ver
may
nee
d to
ask
the
Fiv
e ye
ar o
lds
are
incl
uded
indu
al-a
ge g
roup
s w
ith o
ne o
ther
trad
ition
al g
rade
leve
l. W
hat
trad
ition
al g
rade
leve
l is
incl
uded
?_1
_S
econ
d se
mes
ter
_2 W
hole
yea
r3
(d)
Oth
er (
Des
crib
e an
yar
rang
emen
t for
five
yea
r ol
din
clus
ion
that
is n
ot in
clud
ed in
the
othe
r de
scrip
tions
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e. U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith th
e K
entu
cky
Inst
itute
for
Edu
catio
n R
esea
rch
DO
NO
T R
EP
RO
DU
CE
OR
DIS
TR
IBU
TE
WIT
HO
UT
PE
RM
ISS
ION
FR
OM
KIE
R
120
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
121
r
MI
MI
MI
MO
NIB
MI O
M I1
1!M
OM
2)F
ive
year
old
incl
usio
n: T
ype
of a
ctiv
ities
(va
riety
of a
ctiv
ities
)
(a)
Fiv
e ye
ar o
lds
are
incl
uded
dai
lyfo
r th
e to
tal t
ime
they
atte
ndsc
hool
. The
five
yea
r ol
ds a
rein
volv
ed in
a v
arie
ty o
f act
iviti
esw
ith c
hild
ren
of o
ther
age
s._S
econ
d se
mes
ter
_Who
le y
ear
(b)
Fiv
e ye
ar o
lds
are
incl
uded
dai
lyfo
r la
rge
bloc
ks o
f tim
e an
d ar
ein
volv
ed in
a v
arie
ty o
f act
iviti
esw
ith c
hild
ren
of o
ther
age
s.
_Sec
ond
sem
este
rW
hole
yea
r
(c)
Fiv
e ye
ar o
lds
are
incl
uded
dai
lyfo
r sh
ort p
erio
ds o
f tim
e an
d fo
rce
rtai
n ac
tiviti
es o
nly.
(Li
stac
tiviti
es)
Sec
ond
sem
este
r__
Who
le y
ear
3)In
clus
ion
of s
peci
al n
eeds
stu
dent
% (
activ
e in
volv
emen
t, fle
xibl
e gr
oupi
ng, c
olla
bora
tion)
(a)
Spe
cial
nee
ds s
tude
nts
are
incl
uded
in th
e cl
assr
oom
and
are
activ
e pa
rtic
ipan
ts In
the
clas
sroo
m in
stru
ctio
nal s
ettin
g.F
lexi
ble
grou
ping
pro
vide
sop
port
uniti
es fo
r th
e sp
ecia
lne
eds
stud
ents
to in
tera
ct w
ithot
her
child
ren
in th
e cl
ass.
The
teac
her
uses
a v
arie
ty o
fst
rate
gies
and
res
ourc
es to
mee
t the
nee
ds o
f the
spe
cial
need
s st
uden
t and
col
labo
rate
scl
osel
y w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
teac
hers
abo
ut th
e st
uden
ts'
inst
ruct
iona
l nee
ds.
(b)
Spe
cial
nee
ds s
tude
nts
are
incl
uded
in th
e cl
assr
oom
but
leav
e fo
r pa
rt o
f the
day
toat
tend
spe
cial
inst
ruct
iona
lcl
asse
s. T
hey
are
incl
uded
inth
e ac
tiviti
es o
f the
inst
ruct
iona
lse
tting
with
som
e op
port
uniti
esfo
r ac
tive
part
icip
atio
n.G
roup
ing
prac
tices
allo
w li
ttle
oppo
rtun
ity fo
r th
e sp
ecia
l nee
dsst
uden
ts to
inte
ract
with
the
othe
r ch
ildre
n. T
here
is s
ome
evid
ence
that
the
regu
lar
teac
her
and
the
spec
ial n
eeds
teac
hers
col
labo
rate
abo
ut th
est
uden
ts' i
nstr
uctio
nal n
eeds
.
(c)
Spe
cial
nee
ds s
tude
nts
are
incl
uded
in th
e cl
assr
oom
for
only
a v
ery
smal
l por
tion
of th
eda
y, s
pend
ing
mos
t of t
he d
ay in
spec
ial c
lass
es w
ith o
ther
spec
ial n
eeds
stu
dent
s an
dsp
ecia
l nee
ds te
ache
rs. W
hen
stud
ents
are
In th
e cl
assr
oom
,th
eir
part
icip
atio
n is
lim
ited.
The
re Is
littl
e or
no
evid
ence
that
the
regu
lar
teac
her
colla
bora
tes
with
the
spec
ial n
eeds
teac
her
abou
t the
stu
dent
s' In
stru
ctio
nal
need
s.
(d)
Fiv
e ye
ar o
lds
are
incl
uded
at
regu
larly
sch
edul
ed in
terv
als
rang
ing
from
onc
e a
wee
k to
once
a m
onth
and
for
cert
ain
activ
ities
onl
y. (
List
act
iviti
es)
Sec
ond
sem
este
r_W
hole
yea
r
(d)
Spe
cial
nee
ds s
tude
nts
spen
dal
l day
in s
peci
al c
lass
es w
ithot
her
spec
ial n
eeds
stu
dent
s.T
here
is n
o co
llabo
ratio
nbe
twee
n re
gula
r te
ache
rs a
ndsp
ecia
l nee
ds te
ache
rsco
ncer
ning
stu
dent
s' n
eeds
.
DR
AF
T-0
3/09
/95
Dev
elop
ed b
y th
e U
nive
rsity
of K
entu
cky,
Inst
itute
on
Edu
catio
n R
efor
m in
colla
bora
tion
with
the
Ken
tuck
y In
stitu
te fo
r E
duca
tion
Res
earc
hD
O N
OT
RE
PR
OD
UC
E O
R D
IST
RIB
UT
E W
ITH
OU
T P
ER
MIS
SIO
NF
RO
M K
IER
122
123
NM
all
MI
IS M
SIM
O M
I OM
MI M
I
1:C1
C\1
Qt,
44ai
-tt
MI all IN MN I= NM NM MN Ell MO MN MO NM OM I= MN
CODE
Teacher Interview
1. How have your instructional practices changed as a result of the primary program?
2. What effect has the primary program had on your writing instruction? readinginstruction?
What materials are you using for your reading instruction?
3. Have you had an orientation session to DWOK? Are you using it?
How is DWOK working in your classroom?
What is your opinion of DWOK?
I80
125
4. What do you use to support continuous progress in your classroom?(anecdotalrecords; checklists, learning logs, etc.)
Have you been trained in using KELP? Are you using it?
What is your opinion of KELP?
Could I have a copy of your progress report or report card?
5. When did your school begin SBDM? What impact did the council have on theprimary program?
6. The primary program is based on seven critical attributes. Which of those attributeshave you found easiest to implement? Which have been the hardest?
81
126
[If some attributes are not mentioned, prompt with the following: You havementioned (attributes mentioned in 5). How easy or hard have the others been?]
Critical attributes: Developmentally Appropriate PracticesMulti-Age/Multi-Ability GroupingContinuous ProgressAuthentic AssessmentQualitative ReportingProfessional TeamworkPositive Parent Involvement
If the primary program became optional, what would you want to continue?discontinue?
7. Do you have a family resource center?For what types of services have you made referrals?
8. Is there anything else that you want to add regarding the primary program?
82
00
MIN NM Ell I= IIIMI =I MI NM all =I MN EMI NM
CODE
Principal Interview
1. How many primary students are there in this school?
2. How many primary classrooms are there in this school?
3. How many of the primary classrooms are grouped by:
Dual-Ages?
Three Ages?
Four Ages?
What two ages?
What three ages?
What four ages?
Combination of single, dual, & multi-age? If so, describe.
4. What percentage of the children in your school are on free or reduced lunch?
5. How many of the teachers keep the same students for more than one year? For howmany years? Are there any teachers who keep the same students for more than twoyears?
84
129
6. Are there any teachers that work together as teams? If so, how many?
How many teachers are there in the team?
Do the teachers share students?
Do they plan together?
7. Have your teachers been trained in DWOK and KELP? Are they using eitherprogram in their classrooms?
8. What were your school's assessment results?
(If the principal response indicates good assessment results, probe with the following:What impact do you think the primary program had on your assessment results?)
85
00
INN 111 NMI MN 101111 MN NO MI NO am Sr am or Nei am orb
TEACHER SURVEY
Please circle the word that best describes your experiences related to theimplementation of the primary program in your school.
Participation in practical training sessions designed to help you implementthe primary school
Participation of your principal in the primary school training sessions you have attended
Classroom assistance from district staff
Assistance from Kentucky Department of Education staff in Frankfort
Assistance from the Primary School consultant in your Regional Service Center
Assistance from local universities (e.g. workshops, consultants, coursework, materials)
Assistance from the cooperative or consortium that serves your district
Opportunities to observe in other classrooms, schools or districts
Regular staff meetings that focus on practical problems related to implementationof primary school
Time to plan and implement the primary school
Opportunities to participate in decisions regarding primary school implementationin your school
Support from the principal of your school
Support from other teachers in your school
Support from parents of children in your school
CODE
91387
1 2 3 4
1 2 3
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 4
APPENDIX E
88
133
TABLE 9. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
*1993PrincipalSelection
1994RandomSelection
1995RandomSelection
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Mean Mean Mean
Flexible Layout 3.4 3.3 3.2Learning Centers 2.8 2.5 2.5Print Rich Environment 3.1 3.0 3.0Student Work Displayed 2.7 2.2 2.3Variety of Instructional Materials 3.2 2.8 2.7
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
Purposeful Movement 3.1 2.6 2.6Active Engagement 3.4 2.8 2.7Student Talk 3.3 2.9 2.9Student/Teacher Interaction 3.5 2.9 3.0Positive Discipline 3.5 3.0 3.2Active Child Involvement 3.2 2.6 2.5
n = 46n = 86n = 92
89
TABLE 10. DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES
*1993PrincipalSelection
1994RandomSelection
1995RandomSelection
INTEGRATED CURRICULUM Mean Mean Mean
Flexible Scheduling 3.0 2.5 2.4Broad Based Themes & Units 2.8 2.4 2.4Authentic Problem Solving & Questions A 2.6 2.5
Authentic Problems/Questions 2.4Levels of Questioning 2.7
Meaning Centered Reading 3.1 2.9 2.8Meaning Centered Writing 3.2 2.8 2.7Problem Solving Math 3.0 2.8 2.8Discovery Science 2.6 2.5 2.2Inquiry-Oriented Social Studies 2.5 2.5 1.9Other Subject Areas 2.3 2.3 2.1
VARIED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
Balanced Instructional Delivery 3.1 2.5 2.5Student/Teacher Initiated Activities 2.8 2.2 2.2Flexible Grouping 2.9 2.7 2.5
* n = 46n = 86n = 92This item was separated into authentic Problems & Questions and Levels of Questioning on the 1995 maps.
90
TABLE 11. ASSESSMENT
*1993PrincipalSelection
1994RandomSelection
1995RandomSelection
ONGOING ASSESSMENT Mean Mean Mean
Continuous and Frequent Assessment 2.7 2.7 2.7Authentic Assessment 2.7 2.8 2.6A Variety of Assessment Methods 2.7 2.7 2.7Student Self-Evaluation 1.9 2.4 2.3Assessment in All Areas of Student Growth 2.6 3.1 2.9
QUALITATIVE REPORTING METHODS
Conferences 2.5 3.2 3.1Progress Reports 3.0 3.0 2.9
n = 46n = 86n = 92
91
136
TABLE 12. EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
PROFESSIONAL TEAMWORK
*1993PrincipalSelection
Mean
1994RandomSelection
Mean
1995RandomSelection
Mean
Professional Teamwork with Regular Teachers A 2.8 3.1
Teaming with Regular Teachers 2.3Planning with Regular Teachers 3.0
Professional Teamwork with Special Teachers 2.5 2.2 2.4Planning Time 2.6 2.8 3.0Level of Collaboration 2.9 2.8 2.7
PARENT INVOLVEMENT
Parent Involvement in Classrooms 2.2 2.3 2.5Parent Involvement in Policy Making 2.2 2.3 2.3Parent Involvement in Student Evaluation 1.7 1.8 2.1Parent Involvement in Support of Learning 2.6 2.6 2.8Parent Involvement in Communication 2.6 2.9 3.0
n = 46n = 86n = 92This item was separated into Teaming with Regular Teachers and Planning with Regular Teachers on the1995 Map.
92
137
TABLE 13. TEACHER SURVEY
1993PrincipalSelection
Mean
1994RandomSelection
Mean
1995RandomSelection
Mean
Participation in Training Sessions 3.2 3.2 3.0Participation of Principal in Training Sessions 3.2 3.2 3.1
Assistance from District Staff 2.7 2.6 2.5Assistance from Kentucky Department of Education 2.1 2.3 2.1Assistance from Regional Primary Consultant 2.0 2.2 2.1
Assistance from Local Universities 2.4 2.7 2.5Assistance from District Cooperative 2.3 2.6 2.3Observation of Other Primary Programs 2.4 2.5 2.3Regular Staff Meetings on Primary Implementations 3.0 3.1 3.1
Time to Plan and Implement 2.3 2.3 2.4Participation in Making Decisions 3.2 3.1 3.1
Support from Principal 3.5 3.5 3.5Support from Other Teachers 3.3 3.6 3.5Support from Parents 2.9 2.9 2.7
93
138
1
1
BEST COPYAMIABLY
FIGURE 1
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Flexible Learning Print Rich Student Variety of Purposeful Active Student Talk Student/ Positive Active ChildLayout Center Environment Work Instructional Movement Engagement Teacher Discipline Involvement
Displayed Materials Interaction
III 1993 Principal Selection Mean 1994 Random Selection Mean 1995 Random Selection Mean
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES
*This item vas separatedinto Authentic Problems &
Questions and Levels ofQuestioning on the 1995
Mpg.
Flexible Broad Based AuthenticScheduling Themes & Problem
Units Solving &Questions*
Meaning Meaning Problem Discovery Inquiry- Other Balanced Student/ FlexibleCentered Centered Solving Science Oriented Subject Instructional Teacher GroupingReading Writing Math Social Areas Delivery Initiated
Studies Activities
in 1993 Principal Selection Mean 1994 Random Selection Mean 1995 Randon Selection Mean
94
139
FIGURE 2
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
ASSESSMENT
Continuous& FrequentAssessment
AuthenticAssessment
A Variety ofAssessment
Methods
StudentSelf-
Evaluation
Assessmentin All Areasof Student
Growth
Conferences ProgressReports
1993 Principal Selection Mean 1994 Random Selection Mean 1995 Random Selection Mean
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS This item was separated into Teamingwith Regular Teachers & Planning with
Regular Teachers on the 1995 Map.
Professional Professional Planning Time Level of Parent Paren Parent Parent Parent
Teamwork with Teamwork with Collaboration Involvement in Involvement in Involvement in Involvement in Involvement inRegular Special Teachers Classrooms Policy Making Student Support of Communication
Teachers' Evaluation Learning
1993 Principal Selection Mean 1994 Random Selection Mean 1995 Random Selection Mean
95
140
AK2 4
1
3 2 1 0
-1
I
- 2 - s
-4
-17.5
141
0
FIG
UR
E 3
CL
UST
ER
AN
AL
YSI
S:PL
OT
OF
ICC
GR
OU
PS B
ASE
D O
N D
ISC
RIM
INA
NT
AN
AL
YSI
S
-15.0
0
-12.5
11
1
0 1
-10.0
Plot of CAN2 *CAN1.
1
1
1
2
22
2 2
2
22
22
22
2 22
-7.5
-5.0
Symbol is value of
33
3. 33
33
3 3
333
0333
33 3
3
2 2
0
-2.5
0.0
CLUSR,
3
33
53
3
5
5
0 2.5
5
5
55 5
s
5 5
5555
5 5
0
5
0
5 5
5 5.0
0
0
4
7.5
4
44
44
44
4
4 4
+-
10.014212.5
CAN1
E =
IN =
IIO
il11
111
r--
all O
N O
N M
I Ell
OM
MI M
I MI N
M
FIG
UR
E 4
CL
UST
ER
AN
AL
YSI
S:L
OC
AT
ION
OF
CL
UST
ER
ME
AN
S B
ASE
D O
N D
ISC
RIM
INA
NT
AN
AL
YSI
S
CAN2
2.0
1.5
1
1
1.0
0.5
I
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.01
143
2
2.5
I
Plot of CAN2mCAN1.
Symbol is value of CLUSTER.
0
3
++
++
+-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
CANT
+ 2
5
4
144
++
++-
46
810
INM
I Ell
OB
I SO
OM
MO
BIM
all N
O II
IE
MI
MI M
N IM
O O
M
_-, -, -
=a
:VI': /r1:4,44-- T
""
-.A
'"11)
44;14,,0;17 V
;i4:.154 .TPX
VIZ
CSI
r.L. e
11. t.-1 ,.,
try. eqt.1' T
,r, ,Ickst-
.
"'"-
Cr-c-,Sre-rir
--
ID410
APPENDIX F
99
146
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 6
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTHIGH IMPLEMENTORS
N = 11
nA
Recommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable PracticesPractices
B C D
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTLOW IMPLEMENTORS
N=8
A C DRecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
Flexible Layout Learning Centers Print RichEnvironment
100
147
Student Work Variety ofDisplayed Instructional
Materials
EST COPY AVAiLABU
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 7
SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL ENVIRONMENTHIGH IMPLEMENTORS
N=11
ARecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
B C D
SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL ENVIRONMENTLOW IMPLEMENTORS
N3
ARecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
C D
PurposefulMovement
Active Engagement CI Student Talk
101
148
Student/Teacher M Positive DisciplineInteraction
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 8
INTEGRATED CURRICULUMHIGH IMPLEMENTORS
N=11
ARecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
11B C D
INTEGRATED CURRICULUMLOW IMPLEMENTORS
N4i
ARecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
B C
102
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 9
VARIED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIESHIGH IMPLEMENTORS
N=11
nA B C D
Recommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable PracticesPractices
VARIED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIESLOW IMPLEMENTORS
N=8
ARecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
B C D
Continuous Progress Balanced Balance of Active Child E FlexibleInstructional Student/Teacher Invovement GroupingDelivery Initiation
103
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 10
ASSESSMENTHIGH IMPLEMENTORS
N=11
A B C DRecommended Acceptable Unacceptable UnacceptableBest Practices Practices Practices Practices
ASSESSMENTLOW IMPLEMENTORS
N=8
rA
Recommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable PracticesPractices
C
1
Continuity and Frequency Authenticity Variety of Methods M Student self - Evaluation
M Evaluaticn in all Areas of Conference Progress ReportsStudent Growth
104
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 11
PROFESSIONAL TEAMWORKHIGH IMPLEMENTORS
N=11
in
A C DRecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
PROFESSIONAL TEAMWORKLOW IMPLEMENTORS
N43
ARecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
B
Teaming with Regular LI Planning with Regular LI With Special Teachers in Planning Time H Level of CollaborationTeachers Teachers
105
152
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 12
PARENT INVOLVEMENTHIGH IMPLEMENTORS
N=11
F71
ARecommended Best Acceptable Practices
Practices
C DUnacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
PARENT INVOLVEMENTLOW IMPLEMENTORS
N=8
ARecommended Best Acceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices Unacceptable Practices
Practices
C D
in In Classrooms In Policy Making In Student In Supporting a CommunicationEvaluation Learning
106
153BEST COPYAVAILABLF
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
(Specific Document)
Title:
Author(s):
Corporate Source:
12e.41714,c1.1
eefruet-,-II. REPRODUCTION. RELEASE:
Publication Date:
a'4,kfc14 /)-121-
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announcedin the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy, and electronic/optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit isgiven to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign atthe bottom of the page.
Check hereFor Level 1 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4' x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical)and paper copy.
t\e'
C\ignre->
ease
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 1
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2 documents
PERMISSION TO.REPRODUCE.ANDDISSEMINATE THIS
MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPERCOPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 2
Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permissionto reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
4-1?-
Check hereFor Level 2 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4' x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical),but not in paper copy.
hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminatethis document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by persons other thanERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profitreprod fft n by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy in formation'needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries."
Signature:
Organizati
/ CD-1154140.c,
Printed Name/Position/Title:
0 C.541., Ali ki-A-1.1Vephone:
2.-2:75P/
DberAX:
E-Mail Address:
VS.04,13v0 ao/Date:
/d- 7-4 -Mt.(over)
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source,please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it ispublicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria aresignificantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:If the right to grant reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:
Name:
Address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
Karen E. SmithAcquisitions CoordinatorERIC/EECE805 W. Pennsylvania Ave.Urbana, IL 61801-4897
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility1100 West Street, 2d Floor
Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598
Telephone: 301 - 497 -40.80Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-953-0263e-mail: ericfac @inet.ed.gov
WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com(Rev. 6/96)