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)