document resume ed 432 740 note 39p. …greensboro, nc 27435 336-334-3211 800-545-7075 fax...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 432 740 CS 013 662
TITLE Improving Reading: Southeastern School Strategies.INSTITUTION SERVE: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education.SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.PUB DATE 1998-00-00NOTE 39p.CONTRACT RJ96006701PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Teacher (052)EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Educational Improvement; Elementary Education; *Reading
Improvement; *Reading Programs; *Reading Skills; *StudentEvaluation
IDENTIFIERS *SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education
ABSTRACTDescribing the SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education
(SERVE) program and its mission to promote and support the continualimprovement of educational opportunities for all learners in the Southeast,this paper discusses ways that teachers can decipher their students' progressin reading to help further develop students' reading skills. It is based onsite visits to 18 schools endorsed as having strong reading programs. After abrief overview, it summarizes 10 needs and strategies for improving readingand then presents these needs, strategies, and results in more detail. Thepaper concludes that the 10 strategies described need to be considered in thecontext of the "big picture" (the way the faculty approaches its work); andthat the schools visited are not doing any one thing exclusively. Contains 31references. Four appendixes contain a questionnaire, a list of schoolsconsidered in the study, 8 points on how children learn to read, and a95-item bibliography. (SC)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
********************************************************************************
0
lrriiir
;x14Ico
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
a This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organization
1/4.0 originating it
Minor changes have been made tor-) improve reproduction quality
OPoints of view or opinions stated in this
() document do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy
BEST COPYAVAILABLE
s
Sou 1:1 eastern School Straus es
Written for SERVE byC. Steven Bingham, Ed.D.
Improving Reading is part of a series of products designed to address the improvementof reading literacy in the Southeast, including a videomagazine on Leading Change in
Reading Literacy and a case study of two district-designed reading programs. The projectreported in this document was directed by Wendy McColskey, Ph.D., SERVE Director ofAssessment, Accountability, and Standards. SERVE thanks the principals and teachers
of all participating schools and school districts who made this product possible.
3
SouthEastern RegionalVision for Education
SEMISouth Eastern Regional Vision for Education
Associated with the School of EducationUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro
First Printing, 1998
Edite byCharles Ahearn, Director of Publishing and Quality Assurance
Christy Casbon, Communications SpecialistDonna Nalley, Senior Program Specialist
Designed byKelly Dryden, Senior Design Specialist
Special Tin sacto the principals, teachers, and parents of the more than two dozen southeastern
schools we visited in researching this publication. Your belief in the capacityof every child to read and write effectively and your ability to see that it happens
is an inspiration to educators everywhere.
We also thank the following individualsfor reviewing and critiquing this document:
Christopher Baker, Professor of Education, Salem College, NCMelita F. DeTreville, Teacher, Center of Knowledge, Richland Two Magnet School, SC
Paula Egelson, Senior Research Specialist, SERVE, Greensboro, NCWendy McColskey, Director of Assessment, Accountability, and Standards, SERVE, Greensboro, NC
Nancy Mc Munn, Research Specialist, SERVE, Greensboro, NCVicky Mickow-Porto, Senior Policy Analyst, SERVE, Greensboro, NC
Thelma J. Roberson, Federal Programs Director, Lumberton Public Schools, MSPatricia Schenck, Resource Teacher, Bay District Schools, FL
The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
This document was produced with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. RJ96006701.
4
About the SERVE Organization
Purpose of Document
7Overview
Summary of StrategiesUsed in Schools
1Needs, Strategies, and Results
Conclusions
References
5
25Appendix A
Questions Used in School Visits
26Appendix B
List of Schools Visited orContributing to Publication
Appendix CWhat We Know About How
Children Learn to Read
Appendix DBibliography of Literature and Research
on Improving Reading
SERVE PublicationsOrdering Information
Aboutrg
SERVE, the South Eastern Regional Visionfor Education, is an educational organi-zation whose mission is to promote ansupport the continual improvement of
educational opportunities for all learners in theSoutheast. To address the mission, SERVE en-gages in research and development in educationalissues of critical importance to educators in theregion and in the provision of research-based ser-vices to SEAs and LEAs which are striving forcomprehensive school improvement. Committedto a shared vision of the future of education inthe region, the organization is governed by a boardof directors that includes the chief state schoolofficers, governors, and legislative representativesfrom Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,North Carolina, and South Carolina, and repre-sentatives of teachers and the private sector.
SERVE's core component is a Regional Educa-tional Laboratory funded since 1990 by the Of-fice of Educational Research and Improvement(OEM), U.S. Department of Education. SERVEhas additional major funding from the Depart-ment in the areas of Migrant Education andSchool Leadership and is the lead agency in theEisenhower Mathematics and Science Consor-tium for the Southeast and the Southeast and Is-lands Regional Technology in Education Consor-tium (SEIRTEC). Based on these grants andcontracts, SERVE has developed a system of pro-grams and initiatives that provides a spectrum ofresources, services, and products for respondingto local, regional, and national needs. These pro-gram areas are
O Program on Assessment, Accountability,and Standards
O Program for Children, Families, andCommunities
O Program on Education Policy
O Program for the Improvement of Science andMathematics Education
Program on School Development and. Reform
O Program on Technology in Learning
SERVE's National Specialty Area is Early Child-hood Education, and the staff of SERVE's Pro-gram for Children, Families, and Communities isdeveloping the expertise and the ability to pro-vide leadership and support to the early childhoodcommunity nationwide for children from birth toeight years old.
In addition to the program areas, the SERVEEvaluation Department supports the evaluationactivities of the major grants and contracts andprovides evaluation services to SEAs and LEAsin the region. Through its Publishing and Qual-ity Assurance Department, SERVE publishes avariety of studies, training materials, policy briefs,and other products of the programs. These infor-mative and low-cost publications include guidesto available resources, summaries of current is-sues in education policy, and examples of exem-plary educational programs. Through its program-matic, evaluation, and publishing activities,SERVE also provides contracted staff developmentand technical assistance in many areas of exper-tise to assist education agencies in achieving theirschool improvement goals.
The SERVE head office is at the University ofNorth Carolina at Greensboro, with major staffgroups located in Tallahassee, FL, and Atlanta,GA, and policy advisors in each state departmentof education in the region. Current and detailedinformation on any of the program and serviceareas noted here may be found on SERVE's siteon the World Wide Web at www.serve.org.
6
SERVE-AlabamaEducation Policy Analyst
Office forthcomingpleasecall the SERVE mainoffice for assistance
at 800-755-3277
SERVE-FloridaDatabase Information
Services Center1203 Governor's Square Blvd.
Suite 400Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-671-6012800-352-3747
Fax 850-671-6020
School Development andReform; SERVEing YoungChildren; Publishing and
Quality Assurance1203 Governor's Square Blvd.
Suite 400Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-671-6000800-352-6001
Fax 850-671-6020
Eisenhower Consortium forMathematics and Science
Education at SERVE1203 Governor's Square Blvd.
Suite 400Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-671-6033800-854-0476
Fax 850-671-6010
John R. Sanders, Ed.D.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SERVE.
Education Policy AnalystOffice of the Commissioner
The Capitol, LL 24Tallahassee, FL 32399
850-488-9513Fax 850-488-1492
SERVE-GeorgiaUrban Education andTeacher Leadership
41 Marietta Street, NWSuite 1110
Atlanta, GA 30303800-755-3277
Fax 404-577-7812
Education Policy AnalystGeorgia Department of
Education2066 Twin Towers East
Atlanta, GA 30334404-657-0148
Fax 404-651-4673
SERVE-MississippiEducation Policy Analyst
State Department ofEducation
P.O. Box 771Jackson, MS 39201
601-359-3501Fax 601-359-3667
ITWe.C[DL°
J 7
SERVE-NorthCarolina (MAIN OFFICE)Assessment, Accountability,and Standards; Education
Policy; Evaluation; ExecutiveServices; Operations
P.O. Box 5367Greensboro, NC 27435
336-334-3211800-755-3277
Fax 336-334-3268
Anchor School Project;Children, Families, and
Communities; Region IVComprehensive Center;
SERVE Leaders Institute;Southeast and Islands
Regional Technology inEducation Consortium
P.O. Box 5406Greensboro, NC 27435
336-334-3211800-545-7075
Fax 336-334-4671
Education Policy AnalystDepartment of Public
InstructionEducation Building
301 North Wilmington StreetRaleigh, NC 27601-2825
919-715-1245Fax 919-715-1278
SERVE-SouthCarolina
Education Policy AnalystOffice forthcomingplease
call the SERVE mainoffice for assistance
at 800-755-3277
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
hitney, an inquisitive third-grader, sat down at herdesk, flipped open a book during the designated "reading time,"and began reading. Any parent, teacher, student, or completestranger could observe that Whitney was reading, but what
was her current reading level? The fact is we cannot determine a child's read-ing level or skills by mere observation. State standardized test scores offersome comparative data, but they do not clearly establish how instructionalprograms compare to others. Teachers need to know how to decipher theirstudents' progress in reading to help further develop students' reading skills.This can be accomplished by "benchmarking," a technique used by organiza-tions to look outward for models to compare to their efforts.
Improving Reading is meant for educators who are committed to and excitedabout helping benchmark their school's efforts to improve reading. It sum-marizes what a team of SERVE colleagues learned from site visits to 18 schoolsendorsed as having strong reading programs. The schools cited are listed sothat you may personalize your benchmarking experience by contacting theseschools and comparing progress notes on programs and reading improvementefforts. In addition, SERVE has developed a video that examines the readingprograms at the visited sites. Educators must recognize that continuous im-provement on the part of all faculty members is essential in creating andmaintaining solid programs. Therefore, we recommend that the video beviewed in faculty meetings in order to generate ideas and determine plans ofaction based on each schools' individual needs. It is crucial for educators toacknowledge that continuous improvement requires consistent review ofschools' strengths and weaknesses to produce students with exceptional read-ing abilities.
ithout expanding instruction to meet the requirements o21" century workplace, students will have increased dculty in achieving gainful employment in a flourishin4,,g1bal job market. Fortunately, administrators and teacheig
becoming progressively aware of the need to improve reading instruction'anstudent literacy. Greater numbers of educators are acknowledging the signifi-,cance of enhancing students' capacity to read and write at higher levels.
The demands of meeting employers' needs for a highly literate workforce arewithout precedent. Particularly in the Southeast, where little more than ageneration ago the regional economy was driven by employment in low-wage,low-skill factories and family farms, expectations for teaching literacy to allstudents have never been greater. While many of our parents and grandpar-ents did not earn a high school diploma, today's high school graduates areseeking work in areas requiring higher levels of comprehension and literacy.For instance, employees in factories such as Hoechst Celanese in Greenville,South Carolina; Burroughs-Welcome in Raleigh, North Carolina; andMercedes-Benz in Vance, Alabama, are expected to comprehend complex tech-nical text. This example illustrates the need for educators to challenge theirstudents and heighten literacy'outcome standards in the Southeastern regionand beyond.
The adage "Well begun is half-done" suggests that well is the most challeng-ing and important component of any initiative. Beginning well implies defin-ing a problem area. Schools implicitly define a problem by the choices theymake concerning where to focus their improvement efforts. The notion ofchoices leads to a second assumption, embodied in the adage, "There are manyways up the mountain." Each school situation is unique. Therefore, it is un-realistic and even implausible to prescribe a one-size-fits-all approach to read-ing improvement that will work for every school. That is, the school improve-ment process lends itself better to description rather than prescription.
9
s`r.,11
When SERVE's team visited schools, they found a wide variety of successfulapproaches and programs being implemented to improve literacy. They didnot encounter one "right answer" to the problem of improved reading butrather uncovered multiple initiatives being used in various areas, such as cur-riculum development, assessment, professional development, and parent in-volvement. In the following pages, you will see some of the viable paths sev-eral schools have taken. Ideally, the SERVE team's summary of the actions ofthese 18 schools will help you identify problems which are not currently be-ing addressed in your school.
Methodologically, this document builds from site-visits and classroom obser-vations at schools across the Southeast. The team interviewed teachers, stu-dents, parents, and principals at these schools. They also analyzed school,Local Education Agency (LEA), and State Education Agency (SEA) docu-ments. Schools selected for visitation were recommended as having "success-ful" reading programs or making "significant progress" in reading by SEA,LEA, or Institute of Higher Education (IHE) personnel familiar with theschools' reading literacy programs and student outcomes.
All visits were made in the spring and fall of 1997. (Please see Appendix A forguiding questions.) Of the total number of schools visited, 18 were documented
case reports and comprise the foundation of this study. The names, addresses,cipals, and phone and fax numbers of the 18 schools, as well as others con-
-aping to the research project, are provided for your use in Appendix B.
number of strategies for improvingreading emerged from the studiedschools. During their visits, theSERVE team found that these schools
had made a variety of improvements. The im-provements implied that certain needs existedprior to the change. Figure 1 on page nine sum-marizes the needs and improvement strategiesused in these "successful" schools.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
In the following section, school initiatives aredescribed in the context of the 10 need and strat-egy areas identified above. Supporting researchand literature for each strategy are cited, andimplementation and results from actual southeast-ern school classrooms are shared.
10
41.
guumniumaury ®f aelhooll nec6alio Erne linnaproweramerind gthreceOies
Need - improventea ra ewes .
Reading program purpose, goals,and expected student outcomesneed to be discussed and Shared
Develop teacher study groups; discuss vision of whatconstitutes good instructional Practice; study state
content standards, inform and involve parents.
The reading program needs to beconsistent across a school.
Adopt or adapt a research based model outlininghow instructional time is spent.
Texts and other materials need' to fit the program goals.
Select appropriate materials.
Instruction needs to beindividualized (With some studentsneeding more.SUpport than others.)
Consider how to provide intensive supportwhere needed (e.g., Success for All, Reading
Recovery, reduced class size, tutors, etc.)
Students need to readfrequently eleNiant, leveled
books of their choice.)
Identify book lists (provided by AcceleratedReader); consider ways to encourage/celebrate
reading comprehension through meaningfulstudent-led discussions.
Students' progress needs to beassessed and documented.
..,
Develop schoolwide portfolios based onregular assessments of reading and writing
competencies; redesign report cards;conference with students and parents:.
Teachers need more knowledgeof reading research.
Offer reading courses; develop teacher studygroups; institute teacher book study clubs.
Teachers need continuous. ,
feedback on'tioi;v to apply newinstructional approaches.
Use consultants, mentors, and peer coaches.
Reading need's to be consideredas a cross-disciplinary skill.
,
Use reading and writing across the curriculum.
Reading needs to be modeled. Implement schoolwide reading events;identify community resources.
.4*VZ'-\:
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
StrmtegyDeveloping Teacher Study
Groups; Discussing a Visionof What Constitutes Good
Instructional Practice; StudyingState Content Standards; Inform-
ing and Involving Parents
According to Wheatley, organizational devel-opers have long recognized that people sup-
port what they create.' If improving reading is adesired goal, then school leaders must acknowl-edge the need to involve those who will be imple-menting new practices and programs in the de-sign. Parents, too, may be brought aboard as part-ners in the teaching-learning process. With allstakeholders included and a common languagedeveloping, practices that are most likely to suc-ceed in that school community may be shared.Without the development of shared purpose, goals,objectives, and strategies, schools will struggle toattain consistent development of literacy out-comes across classrooms. Many schools developteacher study groups based on the discovery thatteamwork is both beneficial and conducive toteaching and learning reading. Teachers and ad-ministrators at Central Elementary School inElizabeth City, North Carolina, and PoplarvilleLower and Upper Elementary Schools inPoplarville, Mississippi, are good examples of pro-fessionals who have coordinated their efforts tostudy what works in reading in order to examinewhat might work in their schools.
Located near the agricultural and fishing area ofPasquotank Sound, Central Elementary serves
' Wheatley, 1992.
approximately 575 students, grades K-5. Spurredby the superintendent's vision for improvementand mirroring a districtwide process, the princi-pal and teachers of Central Elementary first ana-lyzed their reading instruction strengths andweaknesses. To address and remediate weak-nesses, teachers engaged in a study dreading re-search and literature, including Cunningham andAllington's Classrooms That Work: They Can AllRead and Write, Cunningham's Phonics They Use:Words for Reading and Writing, and Routman'sLiteracy At the Crossroads. In addition, all teach-ers were trained by an outside consultant to useHyerle's Thinking Maps, which infuses graphicorganizers to assist student writers.2 As the con-sultant worked with them over a two-year period,teachers recognized additional weaknesses intheir approach to reading and writing instructionand committed to create a "game plan."
Their efforts resulted in a framework for com-munication skills consisting of six instructionalcomponents:
O Teacher Read Aloud
O Self-selected Reading with Teacher/StudentConferences
Teacher-Directed Reading
O Writing
O Word Skills
O Take-Home Reading
The Communication Skills framework and accom-panying rubric for teacher self-assessment, how-ever, was not universally accepted. Convinced thatif more teachers were involved in examining re-search, they would embraceor amendthe
2 I-Iyerle, 1995.
12
framework, the superintendent established adistrictwide Communication Skills LeadershipCouncil. The Council consisted of about 28 K-6teachers, including representatives from CentralElementary. Teachers were subdivided intogroups of three and asked to research and reporton one of eight critical reading issues, rangingfrom spelling and grammar instruction to the pur-pose of oral reading.
By the end of the next school year, the Councilhad revised the framework and created a docu-ment teachers could support. Council membersincreased the value of the document for teachersby adding useful resource materials such as
O Suggested lists of graded read-alouds
O Methods for conducting reading conferences
O A checklist to monitor skills taught
O Samples of take-home reading managementforms
O Essential skills for each grade
O Rubrics for assessing writing
(For information on these materials, contact VirginiaHouston at Elizabeth Citg-Pasquotank Schools, ElizabethCitg, North Carolina.)
The teacher study groups at Central and otherElizabeth City-Pasquotank County schools haveproduced remarkable results. During the pilot yearof the state accountability plan, every elementaryschool in the district demonstrated "Exemplary"growth, achieving 110 percent of academic expec-tations for progress. When the scores were disag-gregated, school leaders found that all subsets ofstudents (gifted, minorities, females, low-perform-ing, etc.) showed growth. In the next year, 75 per-cent of district elementary schools reached "Ex-pected" standards for growth, and four schoolsagain attained "Exemplary" growth. These out-standing results were accomplished while testingover 98 percent of all students, despite the state'sallowance for up to 5 percent of exceptional chil-dren to be excluded from end-of-grade tests.
The Poplarville Upper and Lower ElementarySchools in Poplarville, Mississippi, organized studygroups designed to improve reading literacythrough identifying expected student outcomes. Asa rural district, Poplarville serves about 1,900 stu-dents. Fifteen percent are African-American, andthe remainder are white. Although Poplarvilleschools serve the majority of students quite well,administrators wished to increase the achievementof students in the lowest quartile. As about 25 per-cent of Poplarville students ultimately drop out ofschool, administrators conjectured that those stu-
dents dropping out are likely the same oneswhose literacy achievement is below
grade level. One response wasto enable teachers to meet
within and across gradelevels in curriculumteams each month.Among the school's re-sponsibilities was thedevelopment of lit-eracy standards for
the district. This pro-cess is called TALK-12(Teachers As LeadersK-12). Using thisteacher study group tospecify the desired
reading and writing out-comes allows student goals
to be better understood.
13
6+5:w14 dace, 44,
4/1144 Ifts, sign
tiallteuff C:rm
etolls Solt
Stluedfc=,1Z1 14.a Vattlum)
,01 dive ihmtm
a
/1 4 ,*!.31^
5 '04Clearly teachers are important stakeholders in thedesign of reading improvement efforts. Someschools also treat parents as important stakehold-ers in the reading program. Babson Park Elemen-tary School, in Babson Park, Florida, illustratesthe many ways of involving parents in the read-ing program. Babson Park, located among the cit-rus groves and phosphate mines of central Florida,serves about 400 students, grades K-5. Six in ev-ery ten children qualify for a free or reduced-pricelunch. Parent involvement in the school and withreading is pervasive. Parents are often found read-ing to students, listening to students read, or shar-ing personal experience or folklore stories. Yet,Babson's efforts extend beyond the norm. TheBabson staff, which embraces the parent as a genu-ine partner, nurtures parental involvement byconstantly keeping the parents "in the loop." Thisis done via weekly progress reports, "Parent Pack-ets" for each grade level (outlining curricula, pro-cedures, and assessments), and the "Babson ParkNews," a paper written and published by studentsfor and about the school community. Of particu-lar interest is the biannual "Parent PortfolioNight," in which children share with their par-ents the work they have produced during thecourse of the year. The contents of the portfolio,typically containing poetry, prose, and original in-formational text, are compiled throughout the yearsuch that, when parents return for the secondvisit, the child's progress is apparent. Participat-ing teachers report that nearly 100 percent of par-ents, many of whom report being emotionallymoved, regularly attend the event.
Adopting or Adapting a Research-Based Model Outlining HowInstructional Time is Spent
Allington and Cunningham maintain that inschools with effective literacy programs,
principals and teachers have blocked out certainperiods to devote solely to reading and writing.3In addition, according to the National EducationCommission on Time and Learning, some schoolshave extended their school day to increase learn-ing opportunities for deficient readers, anotherpractice with a growing research base.
Several schools documented in this study havereconfigured their daily or weekly schedule tooptimize literacy learning. Hillcrest Elementary inMorganton, North Carolina, and LaBelle Elemen-tary in LaBelle, Florida, are outstanding examples.Hillcrest serves about 350 students, grades K-5.Of these, 25 percent receive English as a SecondLanguage (ESL) services. Student transience andpoverty are cited as chronic problems. TheHillcrest reading program is characterized by anSRA component emphasizing vocabulary, decod-ing, and word-attack skills, as well as a LiteratureCircles component targeting comprehension andreading for pleasure and reflection.4 During bothparts, students are re-assigned to small, like-abil-ity, multiage groups for instruction by all trainedstaff members, including teacher assistants andspecialists. The SRA component lasts 45 minutesdaily; the literature circles component occurs 60minutes three times weekly. A complementary lit-erary activity occupies the other two days. Hillcresthas achieved outstanding results using this com-bination of word skills and literature discussiongroups.
Sometimes a school adopts or adapts a pre-estab-lished set of instructional strategies. PatriciaCunningham's "Four Blocks" framework is a setof strategies employed with increasing frequencyin southeastern schools.' Brockington ElementarySchool in Timmonsville, South Carolina, is an out-
3 Allington and Cunningham, 1996.4 Daniels, 1994.5 Cunningham and Hall, 1997.
14
standing example of progress that can be madewhen all teachers use the same set of strategies.
Brockington Elementary has a student populationof about 487 students; 90 percent are African-American. Two years ago, Brockington was iden-tified for participation in a state assistance program.As one strategy for improvement, a consultant washired to train teachers in the "Four Blocks" meth-odology. The method called for providing extendedand sustained periods of time (2.25-2.5 hours daily)for shared read-alouds, self-selected reading, wordwork, and writing. Characteristically,teachers reveal personal experiencesand activate students' priorknowledge as they
O Share books
O Provide develop-mentally appropri-ate books andtime for readingtexts of choicefor and bystudents
O Engage studentsin play withwords usingonsets and rhymes
O Post high-frequency wordson a word wall inthe classroom
O Conduct mini-lessonswhich model thewriting process
O Engage in writingconferences
aZ4
dents scoring in the lowest quartile of the crite-rion-referenced South Carolina Basic Skills Testis also noteworthy. From 1995 to 1997, first-grad-ers in the bottom fourth fell from 58 percent to26 percent; during the same period, lowest scor-ing second-graders plummeted from 68 percentto 24 percent.
Strait g 3Addressing the Need to Select
Appropriate Materials
hile adopting a new readingtextbook every few years is a com-
mon SEA or LEA event, the practiceof an individual school selecting a se-ries that best addresses its uniquestudent needs or teacher beliefs isnot as common. When thought-fully done, the results for literacyimprovement can be dramatic.Teachers at Club Boulevard El-ementary in Durham, NorthCarolina, and Jesse Wharton El-ementary in Greensboro, NorthCarolina, have built their readingprograms around the Success inReading and Writing text series.
Club Boulevard is an arts and hu-manities magnet school serving
about 420 students, grades K-5; 70percent are African-American and
poor. Massive amounts of money havebeen allocated for staff development
over the last several years, providingteachers training in thematic instruction,
multiple intelligence theory, movement educa-tion, and authentic assessment.
Brockington teachers assert that before "FourBlocks" everyone was "doing their own thing."Developing a common language and standardiz-ing practice is paying off for Brockington in termsof standardized test scores as well. In two years,the percent of first-graders scoring above the 50thpercentile on the MAT-7 reading test has climbedfrom 20 to 46 percent. For second-graders, theresults are even more astoundingan increasefrom nine to 40 percent. The reduction of stu-
1 5
Teachers have also interned at the Mary AltwellSchool, a laboratory school affiliated with OhioState University's Reading Recovery program. Al-though training and instructional materials havefluctuated over the years, Club Boulevard teach-ers have continued to use the Ann Adams' Suc-cess in Beginning Reading and Writing text seriesas their primary reading resource. The series re-volves around four componentsresearch, rec-
reational reading, writing, and word study. As aframework for language arts instruction, the les-sons are integrated with other subjects. One ofthe most unique components is research, whichrequires students to choose a topic, identify re-sources, and research problem solutions.
Teachers at the Jesse Wharton School in Greens-boro, North Carolina, also selected the Success inReading and Writing text. School leaders acclaimthe series in a Wharton public relations document,calling it "a proven way of teaching and learningthat captures the excitement of students . . . basedon the belief that all children want to read, write,and learn . . . and used with students from lan-guage-poor or ESL backgrounds. "6 As an ESL site,Wharton teachers were particularly motivated toidentify a reading/language arts text that wouldserve the special needs of their student popula-tion. While Success is arguably appropriate for anygroup of students, teachers at Wharton reasonedthat this was the right choice for them.
0-,noEttegyAddressing Need to Consider
How to Provide IntensiveSupport Where Needed
lavin maintains that many schools across theOSoutheast have embraced Success for All(SFA)' or Reading Recovery.' in efforts to improvereading and writing. While start-up and mainte-nance costs are often cited as prohibitive, the re-sults in terms of student literacy improvementdocumented over years of implementation suggestthat the programs can be effective in the long run.9One underlying reason is the extensive teachertraining component involved in these programs.
Moreover, a commonality of both SFA and Read-ing Recovery is the practice of reducing the stu-dent-teacher ratio such that the time each childspends in one-on-one instruction is optimized, a
6 Jesse Wharton Elementary School, 1996; page 2.Slavin, et. al., 1994.
8 Clay, 1993.9 Ross, Smith, Cassey, and Slavin, 1995.1° Egelson, Harmon, and Achilles, 1996.
practicethat is widelyresearched and rec-ognized for its benefits.'°With all the recent interest in re-search on reducing class size, SERVE produced adocument for educators that summarizes this re-search entitled Does Class Size Make a Difference?In SFA, students are homogeneously grouped byreading ability into classes of no more than 12-16pupils, each with a trained adult instructor. In itssimplest form, Reading Recovery utilizes only onereading specialist with one first-grade deficientreader. However, notable whole-group applicationsof Reading Recovery strategies exist that combineone-on-one instruction with reduced class-size.
In rural Anson County, North Carolina, the prin-cipal and teachers of Ansonville ElementarySchool have made remarkable progress over thelast three years in enhancing student literacythrough the SFA program. Ansonville servesabout 240 predominantly rural, African-Ameri-can students, grades preK-6. In the week prior tothe 1994-1995 school year, SFA consultants pro-vided the staff with three days of on-site staff de-velopment and added two days per semester
16
there-after. In
subsequentyears, training has
been reduced to two daysannually. In the SFA program,
students from the first- through third-grades are homogeneously regrouped by readinglevel from their homeroom cohort for 90 minutesof daily reading and language arts instruction.Each class has about 15 students. Facilitated by atutor, the students enjoy read-alouds from qual-ity children's literature, followed by directed read-ing, word skill activities, paired reading by stu-dents, and writing. Twenty minutes of self-se-lected home reading is also required. Writing in-volves a writer's workshop format with feedbackat each stage from both teachers and peers.Schoolwide assessment and regrouping occurs ev-ery eight weeks. A school family support teamthat promotes parent involvement and a staff sup-port team that provides ongoing peer coachingsupport the program. All activities are supervisedby a part-time, on-site SFA facilitator who trainsnew teachers, models lessons, and serves as amentor for the teaching staff.
Analyses of 1997 end-of-grade standardized read-ing test scores exhibit some encouraging csults.
17
Fifty-six percent of third-grade students, 50 per-cent of fourth-grade students, and 38 percent offifth-grade students performed at or above gradelevel. The remarkable news, however, is thatgreater exposure to SFA is positively correlatedwith a reduction in the white-minority achieve-ment gap across all tested grade levels. At grade 6(no SFA exposure), the gap is nearly 56 points; atgrade 5 (one-year exposure), the gap is about 36.5points; at grade 4 (two-years' exposure), the gapis still about 36.5 points; at grade 3 (three-years'exposure), the gap is less than 16 points. Clearly,something is working.
Students are scaling new literacy heights at Moun-tain Park Elementary in Lithonia, Georgia, andPartee Elementary in Stone Mountain, Georgia,where teachers have adapted Reading Recoverystrategies in a program called, "Reading Express."Mountain Park and Partee are located in GwinnettCounty, a fast-growing suburb of Atlanta. Read-ing Express grew primarily from the efforts of aformer Mountain Park principal who brought withhim previous experience with Reading Recovery.He hired a Reading Recovery specialist whose ex-traordinary student results began to arouse curi-osity among regular classroom teachers. Desiringthe same outcomes for all students, not merely thelowest 20 percent of first-graders, teachers beganto meet at the nearby home of the Reading Recov-ery teacher for staff development. The programevolved into a set of lessons which provides notonly individual instruction commensurate withthe original Reading Recovery format, but also in-struction for both small groups and entire first-grade classrooms as well.
Focusing on literacy skillssuch as what to dowhen you see a word you do not knowthe Read-ing Recovery teacher leads the class during one-hour blocks one day a week with students par-ticipating in follow-up practice activities with theclassroom teacher. Three days per week, childrenwork for one hour daily in two Literacy Stationsdesigned to extend the introduced literacy skill.On the fifth day of the week, the Reading Recov-ery teacher works one-on-one with any studentrequiring assistance. Extensive assessment pro-vides the opportunity for the homogeneously abil-ity-grouped children to move into or out of groupsas needed. Assessment includes teacher logs of
class activities, strength and weakness records,and pre-/post-tests for each individual studentusing the Reading Recovery Observation Surveyand an Individual Reading Inventory.
What results have Gwinnett County teachers ob-tained with Reading Express? At Mountain ParkElementary School, the year-end median readingdifficulty level rose from 14 (beginning first grade)to 30 (sixth grade) over the first three years ofimplementation. Expressed another way, over four-fifths of all students were achieving average to ex-cellent for their grade cohort. Mountain Park teach-ers have dropped the term "non-reader" by the endof first grade because it is no longer needed! As anew school, Partee is able to report only resultsfrom the first quarter of 1997. Records show thatfirst-grade students reading below grade level fellfrom 58 percent to 33 percent in the quarter. Ad-ditionally, first-grade teachers report positive rela-tionships between the model and student progress.They assert that students see themselves as "read-ers" as they are able to discuss context-specificreading strategies; consequently, students are be-coming more independent and joyful readers.
In the Guilford County, North Carolina, Schools(host district of Jesse Wharton Elementary dis-cussed earlier), "Reading Together" provides theopportunity for fifth-grade students to tutor sec-ond-grade students who are performing belowgrade level. A collaborative project of the GuilfordCounty Schools, the National Council of JewishWomen Institute for Educational Innovation atHebrew University, and the University of NorthCarolina at Greensboro, this peer tutoring pro-gram utilizes structured reading sessions designedto ensure that tutees have positive reading expe-riences. The program occurs in three phases. InPhase One, selected fifth-grade tutors receive ninetraining sessions and lead 15 meetings with sec-ond-grade tutees. During these 35-45 minute tu-torials, the students read aloud and engage in dis-cussion. Once the tutees return to their class-rooms, the tutors meet with the coordinatingteacher to review the session. Additional planningmeetings are scheduled to prepare for the nextsession with the tutees. Phase Two includes 10sessions using books and support materials pre-selected for the tutee. During the five sessions ofPhase Three, the students choose their own books
and apply what they have learned through theproject.
In addition to providing effective assistance forchildren experiencing early reading difficulty,"Reading Together" also challenges tutors to im-prove their reading fluency and comprehensionskills as well as to develop social skills. Althoughthe project is only in its first year of operation,anecdotal evidence from three pilot schools inGreensboro suggests that the impact of the projectis quite favorable. In fact, project planners haveidentified six expansion school sites for next year.
St toIdentifying Book Lists; Considering
Ways to Encourage/CelebrateReading Comprehension Through
Meaningful Student-led Discussions
esearch tells us that students who read moreself-selected, developmentally appropriate
books read better and at increased rates than thosewhose reading is primarily teacher-selected andwithout regard for individual differences in abil-ity." The challenge is to find ways to motivatestudents to engage with print they choose, pref-erably with connected text that is written at a levelcommensurate with their ability.
A possible solution, or starting point, that manyschools across the Southeast have adopted is theAccelerated Reader program.'2 The primary fea-tures of the program include codifying children'sliterature by level of reading difficulty and usinga computer to access comprehension tests basedon the literature. After reading an approved, self-selected book, the student reader self-administersthe test for that book. Adequate test scores, usu-ally 80 percent or more correct responses, deter-mine advancement in difficulty level for the indi-vidual student reader. Records of student perfor-mance are maintained by the program coordina-toroften the school media specialistandshared regularly with classroom teachers. Typi-
" Fielding and Pearson, 1994; Krashen, 1993.12 Advantage Learning Sgstems, 1995.
18
cally, incentives, such as certificates, prizes, par-ties, and field trips, are provided for students whosuccessfully accumulate a predetermined numberof points.
Although many schools in our study use Acceler-ated Reader as one of several components in theirreading program, implementation and literacy out-comes at two southeastern sites are particularlynoteworthyRoyall Elementary School in Flo-rence, South Carolina, and Parmer ElementarySchool in Greenville, Alabama. Demographically,Royall Elementary is a K-5 school populated byabout 480 urban students representing whites andAfrican-Americans about evenly. Nearly half thestudents are eligible for free or reduced-pricelunch. Accelerated Reader was introduced atRoyall in 1989 as a means of motivating studentsto read for pleasure and to be rewarded for doingso. Supported by ongoing training from ReadingRenaissance consultants and resources, '3 class-room teachers at Royall ensure literacy success by
O Diagnosing students' reading level at the be-ginning of the school year and periodicallythereafter
O Conferencing with students and instructingthem in specific reading strategies
O Regularly setting goals and monitoringprogress
O Pre-assessing students on their comprehen-sion of self-selected Accelerated Reader books
O Allotting 60 minutes daily for silent, sus-tained reading of the books
The process is described as one of motivating, in-structing, monitoring, and intervening. Eachweek the Royall media specialist, who is also theAccelerated Reader program coordinator, meetswith every grade-level team to discuss an "at-riskreport" of students scoring lower than 80-percentcorrect on the comprehension tests. The coordi-nator and the principal not only discuss units cur-rently being taught in each classroom, but theyidentify specific intervention strategies to use withstudents. Moreover, the coordinator suggests re-lated television shows and other relevant instruc-
13 The Institute for Academic Excellence, 1997.
19
tional resources designed to enhance teaching andlearning during the reading and writing processes.
Attributable in part to the Accelerated Reader pro-gram, significant literacy outcomes have accruedfor Royall students. In addition, the school hasearned both state and national recognition for itsliteracy accomplishments, including a South Caro-lina Writing Award in 1991 and a Literacy SpotAward in 1996. Royall Elementary is currently ademonstration site for the Reading Renaissanceand Accelerated Reader program.
Like Royall, Parmer Elementary School adoptedAccelerated Reader in an effort to motivate morestudents to read. Populated by about 1150 eco-nomically disadvantaged, K-4th grade, rural Afri-can-American students, Parmer was placed in aca-
demic "Cau-tion" in 1995
pursuant to Ala-bama Department of
Education sanctions forlow-performing schools. Di-
rected to raise standardized test scores or face stateassistance team intervention, school leaders iden-tified Accelerated Reader and Reading Renais-sance as a focus for change. Program implemen-tation strategies included bringing apprehensiveparents on-board in Open House presentationsand through sharing children's success. Teacherslearned necessary computer competencies. Stu-dents came to recognize the motivational and as-sessment value in knowing their reading level. Un-like Royall Elementary which has all but abolishedthe use of Accelerated Reader rewards because ofa desire to enhance intrinsic rather than extrin-sic motivation for reading, a comprehensive sys-tem of incentives and recognition drive the pro-gram at Parmer. Teachers insist, however, that stu-dents' love of reading has become the primary mo-tivation at Parmer and that the rewards are only"icing on the cake." Like Royall, 60 minutes dailyis set aside at Parmer for self-selected reading foreach child. Reading level assessment is conductedfive times a year.
As implementation of Accelerated Reader has lessthan a two-year history at Parmer, literacy outcomesare not as marked as at Royall; however, the school'sprogress on raising standardized test scores in read-ing removed in one year the necessity of state in-tervention. In fact, primary grade teachers were suf-ficiently impressed with student excitement aboutreading after the first semester of implementationat grades 3 and 4, that they insisted on their stu-dents' inclusion. In response, Accelerated Reader
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
is now available for all but kindergarten studentsat Parmer. Teachers, too, report a heightened senseof achievement and professionalism due both to thetraining received pursuant to Reading Renaissanceand Accelerated Reader program and their students'unprecedented success in reading.
Developing Schoolwide PortfoliosBased on Regular Assessments of
Reading and Writing Competencies;Redesigning Report Cards; Confer-encing with Students and Parents
-Op elieving that instruction and assessment in a-1..) continuous progress model maximizes read-ing achievement, educators are increasingly choos-ing to group students and measure their learningoutcomes in nontraditional ways. Their beliefs aresupported by research which shows that assess-ment and grouping may be key levers in improv-ing the quality and quantity of students' readingand writing." New strategies for assessingstudent's reading growth include the developmentand use of schoolwide portfolios, new report cards,and the use of multiage/multigrade classrooms.
Student portfolios may contain written worksamples, documentation of books read, reflectionon work, and communication between the teacherand student, to name a few possible entries. Theportfolio may or may not be illustrative of eachstudent's "best" work. Ideally, all teachers in theschool use student portfolios and pass them alongto the child's subsequent teacher. One obviousbenefit of portfolios is that the student becomes amore reflective, responsible reader and writer.Another benefit is that the teacher can moreclearly understand the student's unique learningstyle. From an assessment standpoint, contentsof the portfolio provide insight into the child'sthinking as sampled in various points across theyear. Portfolios, consistent with a continuousprogress model, clearly display a student's valu-
14 Knuth and Jones, 1991.
20
able day-to-day learning and achievement ratherthan zeroing in on individual assignments or tests.
Continuous assessment is key to the multiage/multigrade classroom, whether used all day oronly for specific instructional periods. Themultiage/multigrade classroom addresses theproblem of different rates of development bygrouping developmentally similar students (forexample, kindergarten through grade 2). In addi-tion, looping extends a teacher's knowledge ofstudent progress by assigning the same teacher tothe same students two years in a row. When com-bined with schoolwide portfolio assessment,multiage/multigraded looped classrooms offer apowerful and effective way for students to learn.
Two schools in this study have particularly com-pelling multiage/multigrade and alternative assess-ment or portfolio programsClub Boulevard El-ementary in Durham, North Carolina, and LaBelleElementary in LaBelle, Florida. Teachers at ClubBoulevard reassign like-ability students from vary-ing grade levels to specific classrooms for extendedperiods of time for interdisciplinary lessons. Aresearch lesson might involve addressing the fol-lowing question: What barriers did the WrightBrothers have to overcome in their attempt to fly?Working as individuals or in multiage/multigradeteams, students access information in the area ofscience, mathematics, and social studies and cre-ate a communication arts product, such as a skit,poster, written report, or even a song. Accordingto Club Boulevard teachers, the goal is to employstudent-centered, individualized instruction.Multiage/multigrade grouping and performanceassessment provide unique opportunities to cre-ate reflective, literate, learning communities.
Similarly, LaBelle Elementary School, located inthe orange growing region about 30 miles east ofFt. Myers, Florida, has demonstrated amazingresults through reconfiguring the school day.LaBelle School, student population 772, servesoverwhelmingly economically disadvantaged, ru-ral children, 54 percent Hispanic (the majority ofwhom are in the ESL program), 41 percent white,and 5 percent African-American, grades preK-5.Selected teachers participate in a continuousprogress, multiage instruction program which hasenhanced every facet of student performance, in-
21
eluding reading development. The continuousprogress design enables four teachers and theirstudents, grades K-2 or 3-5, to be grouped in vary-ing instructional arrangements for up to threeyears. The essential element, however, is that in-struction is developmentally appropriateas stu-dents demonstrate readiness for higher literacylevels, the design accommodates their needs. Twoyears ago, LaBelle Elementary was recognized asa Florida "Higher-Performing, High-Poverty"Title I school with 48 percent of students perform-ing above the 50th percentile on the Florida stan-dardized test for reading.
At LaBelle Elementary School, teachers buildsimilar learning communities in their multiage/multigrade classrooms. Similar to the Club Bou-levard model, students are regrouped throughoutthe day for instruction in language arts/socialstudies, math/science, or some other subject com-bination commensurate with teachers' preroga-tive and training. In addition, LaBelle has designedand implemented a Writing Evaluation Portfolio.The portfolio is actually a report card containingdescriptions of foci, organization, elaboration/de-velopment, and conventions for writing at everygrade level. An assessment grid provides for check-ing students' writing as demonstrating "no evi-dence," "emerging evidence," or "frequent use of(grades 1-2) and "high," "medium," or "low"(grades 3-5) appropriate writing practices.
anomaegyOffering Beading Courses;Developing Teacher Study
Groups; Instituting TeacherBook Study Clubs
Asurvey of teacher preparatory programs insoutheastern schools and colleges of educa-
tion revealed that no more than one course inreading pedagogy is typically required of teachergraduates.15 Given the importance of literacy tooverall student achievement, one might guess thatmore emphasis would be placed upon the teach-
15 Public School Forum of North Carolina, 1996.
ing of reading, especially for elementary educa-tion majors. For a variety of reasons, this is notthe case. Consequently, the burden of learning toteach reading and writing beyond a one-semes-ter, pre-service course falls either to chance, trial-and-error, or in-service training.
Understanding that many teachers need moreknowledge of reading research and pedagogy,many southeastern schools are offering formalcourses in reading as a starting point for literacyimprovement. In Florence, South Carolina, forexample, the principal at Royall Elementary andprincipals of the other schools in Florence Dis-trict One are required to complete a graduatecourse in reading as part of their ongoing profes-sional development plan. Of particular interest isthe staff development offered at Westfield, Shoals,and other Surry County North Carolina elemen-tary schools where administrators and teachershave designed a program that provides for an on-site, graduate-level course in reading to be taughtthroughout the year. Termed "Developing Effi-cient Readers," the program grew from the aware-ness that a holistic philosophy of reading was notunderstood and that teachers were inadequatelyprepared to teach reading. An expert consultantconducted volunteer teacher workshops on Fri-day evenings and weekends, a practice that con-tinued for five years. Funding from a Goals 2000grant allowed for the addition of a summer Labschool where mentor teachers, under theconsultant's guidance, assisted peers as theytaught reading to students. In addition to the Labschool, "Developing Efficient Readers" is charac-terized by peer coaching, support team assistance,significant parent involvement, and the serviceof a literacy specialist. A 50-hour graduate-levelcourse in reading and writing is delivered to par-ticipating teachers by the consultant during theyear prior to the teachers' summer Lab experi-ence. The textbooks used include Cambourne'sThe Whole Story, Goodman, Watson, and Burke'sReading Miscue Inventory, Graves' A Fresh Lookat Writing, and Smith's Reading Without Non-sense." An additional 50 hours is earned in thesupervised practicum at the Lab school resultingin a total of 100 training hours; plus, a readingendorsement is added to their teaching license.
16 Crafton, 1991.4 #
Studentswith trainedteachers scored farbetter on end-of-grade teststhan those whose teachers receivedno training. Students of trained teachers typicallyachieve above-average proficiency in reading.Higher, positive parent and student attitudes to-ward reading and writing as revealed in surveysand self-assessments demonstrate the benefits ofthe program. Anecdotal evidence from teacher in-terviews also reveals a heightened sense of com-petence and professionalism as they relate suc-cess stories of reluctant readers gaining literacyconfidence and fluency.
(71y
Using Consultants, Mentors,and Peer Coaches
Research and best practice on school reformsuggest benefits accrue from using outside
consultants to identify problems and build capac-ity, experts from outside or inside to serve as men-tors, and peer coaches to invite reflection and mas-
22
tery."As a reform
initiative, read-ing improvement re-
quires ongoing problemidentification, capacity building,
and continuous engagement with new in-structional practices over a long period of time.SERVE's school visits suggest that the effort is mosteffectively supported by professionals assigned toan instructional support role. If resources prohibitthe hiring of a staff member whose job is dedicatedto teacher support, another teacher may be used.
Several schools used consultants, mentors, or peercoaches in their reading improvement initiatives.Among those who developed long-term relation-ships with reading consultants was Babson ParkElementary in Babson Park, Florida.; Central El-ementary and other district schools in ElizabethCity/Pasquotank County, North Carolina; Shoalsand Westfield Elementary and other districtschools in Surry County, North Carolina; and JesseWharton Elementary in Greensboro, North Caro-lina. Others, such as Mountain Park and ParteeElementary in Gwinnett County, Georgia, usereading specialists as internal mentors. Peercoaches are used in most of the schools visited.Some schools, for example, those in the PoplarvilleSeparate School District in Mississippi, have for-
malized the process of peer coaching by usingteachers to help other teachers meet annual goalsin their professional growth plans. (See the SERVEpublication, Designing Teacher Evaluation Sastemsthat Support Professional Growth, 1993).
0,11° 4111thyUsing Reading and Writing
Across the Curriculum
esearch underscores the need to teachreading in the content areas." To develop
readers who transfer reading skills and strategiesbeyond reading instructionthat is, to teachstudents to read for informationschools shouldemphasize reading across the curriculum (just asthey have with writing).
A noteworthy site in our study where reading andwriting across the curriculum is a schoolwidefocus is Elizabeth City Middle School in ElizabethCity, North Carolina. Elizabeth City Middle is oneof the schools serving the 6,000 students of theElizabeth City/Pasquotank County district. About916 students in grades 7-8 attend Elizabeth CityMiddle, a school which has implemented a num-ber of cross-disciplinary literacy practices. Forexample, students keep journals and hold bookconferences in all classes. Even mathematics in-struction typically requires writing, as illustratedin the following example:
Which of these decimals is less than 0.427?a. 0.43b. 0.428c. 0.441d. 0.42Explain with words.
Dramatic, scripted portrayals of historic events, on-line research using the Internet, using and explain-ing graphs, and writing about critical societal prob-lems for social studies classes are also common in-structional events at Elizabeth City Middle.
Robbins, 1991.18 Billmeyer, 1996.
4
fivIttegy 10Implementing Schoolwide
Reading Events; IdentifyingCommunity Resources
hildren are keen observers, taking their cuefrom adult behavior as to what is and is not
truly valued. Expert practitioners and researcherssuggest that implementing a schoolwide reading pe-riod and engaging storytellers and authors in theclassroom are effective ways to show students thatreading and writing matter." The fact that suchpractices and programs are employed by all teach-ers in the school underscores the commonality .ofpurpose within the school community and is, con-sequently, one of the underlying reasons for theirsuccess.
Effective implementation of a schoolwide read-ing program involves setting aside 15 to 30 min-utes for the entire school, including both studentsand teachers, to silently read a book of theirchoice. Further value for reading is created whenchild or adult storytellers relate tales from theirown or others' experience. If these stories or ex-periences are written down, the storyteller be-comes an author, which reinforces the importanceof writing as a component in the reading program.
A number of southeastern schools are demonstrat-ing their commitment to teaching students tovalue reading through schoolwide reading peri-ods, storytellers, and authors. Maryvale Elemen-tary in Mobile, Alabama, and Jesse Wharton El-ementary in Greensboro, North Carolina, typifythis group. Maryvale School serves about 864 in-ner city children, grades K-5, 98 percent of whomare African-American and receive free or reduced-price lunch. Many children are from single-par-ent homes and reside in one of the nearby subsi-dized housing projects. The Maryvale principalreports that reading became a focus for improve-ment when the Alabama Department of Educa-tion placed the school under "Alert" for insuffi-cient academic performance on standardizedachievement tests. As a result of extensive pro-fessional development both on- and off -site, prin-
19 Routman, 1996; Langer, 1988. (11;
cipals and teachers at Maryvale adopted numer-ous organizational and instructional changes.
One practice implemented required specified read-ing time for both school- and classroom-basedreading. Accordingly, the first 15 minutes of ev-ery day at Maryvale is devoted to sustained, si-lent reading for every student in the school. Rec-ognizing the importance of modeling, teachers, aswell, put aside their work to read. Additionally,every student in the school spends at least onehour daily in a Josten's Learning Lab on computer-assisted literacy tasks. Children most in need ofreading improvement are assigned to the Lab for60 minutes two afternoons each week as well. Inaddition, Maryvale students visit a writing cen-ter several times each week to compose storiesand reports. Students' work generated on com-puters with word processing and graphics soft-ware is displayed on bulletin boards throughoutthe hallways and classrooms. Every common areabulletin board has a literary theme, documentinga book studied by a particular class and a higher-order thinking skill, such as productive thinking,decision making, and forecasting. Maryvale teach-ers further create value for literacy by using aschoolwide postal service to deliver student mailto the boxes prominently displayed outside eachclassroom. The principal, an extraordinary cheer-leader for reading and writing within the schoolcommunity, often writes brochures for parents.The brochure advocates the notion of lifelonglearning and encourages parents to read with theirchildren at least 15 minutes a day.
The emphasis on schoolwide literacy improvementhas paid off well for Maryvale. The school wasrecognized in 1994 as a National Blue RibbonSchool and in 1997 as an International ReadingAssociation award winner. Attesting to the waysin which Maryvale teachers infuse literacy withhigher-order thinking skills, the school is also anational demonstration site for the Talents Un-limited program. Standardized test scores have alsoresulted in Maryvale's pronouncement as academi-cally "Clear," as grades 2-5 averaged a gain of 11percentile points in one critical year with second-grade alone accounting for a 20-point increase.
Jesse Wharton Elementary School leaders, deter-mined to meet the increasing demands for aca-
24
demic excellence from business and communityleaders, obtained funding for an improvement ef-fort called "The Learning Circle: A PartnershipApproach." As part of this partnership, commu-nity mentors and literacy tutors convey the mes-sage to students that reading and writing matter.Family Reading Nights are held at the school withparents participating in literacy tasks with theirchildren. Community leaders routinely visit theschool to listen to students read aloud. Studentswrite to each other and to community memberswho visit the school. Grandparents share storieswith classrooms. One of the most interesting waysthat Wharton teachers have created value for lit-eracy, however, involves a student video club.
Merging literacy with technology, students meetafter school to write scripts, operate the video cam-era, coordinate the music or other soundtracks,and serve as anchors for the "Jesse Wharton Morn-ing Show" broadcast daily at the school.
Once distinguished by its bland academic perfor-mance, Wharton School is now recognized as aleader in the educational community. Exceedingexpectations for growth in reading and mathemat-ics, Wharton students achieved "Exemplary" sta-tus on end-of-grade tests during 1997. Whartonhas been particularly honored to receive aGovernor's Entrepreneurial Schools Award forresponsible risk-taking and innovation.
esearch on low-performing schools in Texas" and North Carolina21 reveals that schools who aredoing well with disadvantaged populations are programmatically dissimilar. Rather than revealing uniformity in programs, the consistencies researchers found across successful schools hadmore to do with school culture, staff commitment, and ways of work. The successful schools were
constantly assessing their programs and progress, constantly looking for new ways to meet students' needs.
Thus, the 10 strategies we describe need to be considered in the context of the big picturethatis, in theway the faculty approaches its work. There are indeed many ways up the mountain; however, the atti-tudes and working relationships among the school's princi-pals, teachers, and parents is indicative of how smoothly,quickly, and safely you reach that mountaintop.
A second observation is that schools described in this studyare not doing any one thing exclusively. Most sites are movingtoward all 10 desired states in some form. In many cases itwas quite challenging for SERVE to decide which way to fea-ture a given school when so many promising practices andprograms appeared to be at work. Also, schools' efforts, suchas involving parents, often went far beyond improving read-ing literacy only, positively impacting many areas of the cur-riculum and instructional outcomes. Improving readingandschool improvement in generalis clearly a multi-faceted job.
20 Lein, Johnson, and Ragland, 1996.2' North Carolina Department of Public Instruction,
1997. 5
RefeAdams, A. (1978). Success in beginning reading and writ-
ing: the basal concept of the future. Santa Monica, CA:Goodyear.
Advantage Learning Systems. (1995). Introduction to theaccelerated reader. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
Allington, R. L., and Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schoolsthat work: Where all children learn to read and write.New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Balmier, R. (1996). Teaching reading in the content ar-eas: If not me, then who? Aurora, CO: McREL.
Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story. New York:Ashton Scholastic.
Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery: A Guidebook forteachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Crafton, L.K. (1991). Whole Language: Getting started-Moving forward. Katonah, NY: R.C. Owen.
Cunningham, P. (1995). Phonics they use: Words for read-ing and writing. 2ed. New York: HarperCollins.
Cunningham, P., and Allington, R. L. (1994). Classroomsthat work: They can all read and write. New York:HarperCollins.
Cunningham, P., and Hall, D. P. (1997, January). Thefour blocks: A framework for literacy in primary class-rooms. Paper presented at the 6th Symposium forLiteracy and Disabilities, Durham, NC.
Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice inthe student centered classroom. London: Stenhouse.
Egelson, P., Harmon, P., and Achilles, C. M. (1996). Doesclass size make a difference? Greensboro, NC: SERVE
Fielding, L. G., and Pearson, P. D. (1994). "Reading Com-prehension: What Works." Educational leadership,51, 63-68.
Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J., and Burke, D. L. (1987).Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures.New York: Richard C. Owen.
Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.
Hyerle, D. (1995) Thinking maps: Tools for learning. Cary,NC: Innovative Sciences, Inc.
Institute for Academic Excellence. (1997). Fundamen-tals of reading renaissance. Madison, WI: Author.
Jesse W. Wharton Elementary School. (1996). Specialprograms. Unpublished manuscript. Greensboro,NC: Author.
Knuth, R. A, and Jones, B. F. (1991). What does researchsay about reading? Oakbrook, IL: NCREL.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO:Libraries Unlimited.
vieLanger, J. A. (1988). "Reading, Writing, and Understand-
ing: An Analysis of the Construction of Meaning."Written communication, 3 (2), 219-267.
Lein, L., Johnson, J. F., and Ragland, M. (1996). Success-ful Texas schoolwide programs: Research study results.Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas atAustin.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning.(1994). Research findings (Report No. EA 025 962-970). Washington, D. C.: National Education Com-mission on Time and Learning. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 372491)
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.(1997). Improving schools study: Another way to lookat raising student achievement (a preliminary study).Unpublished manuscript. Author.
Public School Forum of NC. (1996). A profession in jeop-ardy: Why teachers leave and what we can do aboutit. Raleigh, NC: Author.
Robbins, P. (1991). How to plan and implement a peercoaching program. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.
Ross, M. R., Smith, L. J., Cassey, J., and Slavin, R. E.(1995). "Increasing the Academic Success of Dis-advantaged Children: An Examination of Alterna-tive Early Intervention Programs." American edu-cational research journal, 32, 4, 773-800.
Routman, R. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads: Crucialtalk about reading, writing and other teaching dilem-mas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., Wasik, B. A.,Ross, S. M., and Smith, L. J. (1994, April). "When-ever and Wherever We Choose: The Replication ofSuccess for All." Phi delta kappan, 639-647.
Smith, F. (1997). Reading without nonsense. 3ed. NewYork: Teachers College Press.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science:Learning about organization from an orderly universe.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
0A, 0
n
esti Toe
Why was it necessary tochange reading instructionin this school or district?
E.g., stagnant or declining test scores; racial orsocioeconomic disparities; outdated instruction
What does your current readingliteracy program look like?
E.g., key components; teaching/learningprocesses; use of time, space, and staff;
parent involvement
How does reading and writinginstruction differ now ascompared with the past?
E.g., eliminated round robins, reading groups,worksheets, spelling lists; added direct
instruction in strategic reading
What strategies are in placeto diagnose and assist
deficient readers?E.g., tutorials; conferencing; computer
assistance; miscue analysis
How has student groupingand assessment changed?
E.g., both heterogeneous and homogeneousgroups; continuous progress model;
authentic assessment; portfolios
What resources were required toimplement your new program?
E.g., more trade books; staff development;consultants; new school schedule;
reading specialists
How would you describe thesteps in the change process
you have gone through?E.g., problem identification; brainstorming;
selling the idea; collaboration; planning;implementation; evaluation
AS eh III Vit§fild
What role did principalsand teachers have in the process
E.g., action researchers; self-assessors; planningpartners; customers of the program
How were parents and thecommunity involved in the process?
E.g., partners; not consulted at all;learn new ways to help at home;
understand what's going on
How were outside consultants used?E.g., many or few consultants; directive
or facilitative; ongoing relationship;in-class assistance; research only
What components of yourstaff development seemed
to be most effective?E.g., use of outside consultant; collegial teacher-groups; support or mentor teachers; lab school
What were some of the immediatebarriers or problems that you faced?
E.g., no preservation of past; resistanceto change; ineffective communication;
ineffective leadership
What problems emerged later?E.g., superficial implementation; resource
acquisition/allotment; consultant dependency
What results are you getting?E.g., improved test scores; self-confident
readers/writers; creative writing;success in later grades
What have been someunanticipated outcomes?E.g., greater parent involvement;
enhanced self-esteem; better attendance;social studies/science achievement
147
111 d off 5e oft@ 'Rated ® Ce) TIT uniting to
SchoolAnsonville
Elementary SchoolBetsy Ammons
PrincipalHwy 52 N
Ansonville, NC 28007Phone 704-826-8337
Strategies HighlightedSuccess for All
SchoolBen Hill County Schools
Sandra BostelmanAdministratorP.O. Box 5189
Fitzgerald, GA 31750Phone 912-423-3320
Fax 912-423-5398
Strategies HighlightedParallel Block Scheduling;Literacy Leadership Team
Training
SchoolBabson Park
Elementary SchoolDale FairPrincipal
815 North Scenic HighwayBabson Park, FL 33827Phone 941-638-1483
Strategies HighlightedParent Portfolio Night
SchoolBrockington
Elementary SchoolGreg Mingo
Principal410 North Brockington
Timmonsville, SC 29161Phone 803-346-4038
Strategies HighlightedCunningham's Four Blocks
SchoolCentral Elementary School
David Christenbury,Principal
1059 US Hwy 17Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone 919-335-4305
Strategies HighlightedCommunication Skills
Leadership Study Groups
SchoolClub Boulevard
Elementary SchoolCarolyn Rideout
Principal400 West Club Boulevard
Durham, NC 27704Phone 919-560-3918
Strategies HighlightedRegrouping for
Interdisciplinary Lessons
28
lifiemitftom
SchoolElizabeth City Middle School
Geraldine HillPrincipal
306 North Road StreetElizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone 919-335-2974
Strategies HighlightedReading and Writing Across
the Curriculum
SchoolHillcrest Elementary School
Susan WilsonPrincipal
Tennessee StreetMorganton, NC 28655Phone 704-437-4258
Strategies HighlightedGrouping for SRA/Literature
Circles
SchoolLaBelle Elementary School
Jan GannPrincipal
150 West Garden StreetLaBelle, FL 33935
Phone 941-674-4150
Strategies HighlightedMultiage Instruction/Writing
Evaluation Portfolio
SchoolMaryvale Elementary School
Joyce HunterPrincipal
1901 North Maryvale StreetMobile, AL 36605
Phone 334-471-1379
Strategies HighlightedInfuse Literacy With Higher-
Order Thinking
SchoolMountain Park Elementary
School Sandra WebbPrincipal
1500 Pounds RoadLilburn, GA 30247
Phone 770-921-2224
Strategies HighlightedReading Recovery and the
Reading Express
SchoolParmer Elementary School
Alin WhittlePrincipal
Butler CircleGreenville, AL 36037Phone 334-382-8720
Strategies HighlightedAccelerated Reader
SchoolPartee Elementary School
Barbara LundsfordPrincipal
4350 Campbell RoadLithonia, GA 30058Phone 770-982-6920
Strategies HighlightedReading Recovery and the
Reading Express
SchoolPoplarville Lower Elementary
Glenda MalleyPrincipal
209 Church StreetPoplarville, MS 39470Phone 601-795-4736
Strategies HighlightedTALK-12 Teacher Study
Groups
SchoolPoplarville Upper Elementary
Gylde FitzpatrickPrincipal
One Todd CirclePoplarville, MS 39470Phone 601-795-8303
Strategies HighlightedTALK-12 Teacher Study
Groups
SchoolRoyall Elementary School
Julie SmithPrincipal
1400 Woods RoadFlorence, SC 29501
Phone 803-664-8167
Strategies HighlightedAccelerated Reader WithoutIncentives; Required Courses
in Reading
SchoolSawyer Elementary School
Shelton DavisPrincipal
1007 Park StreetElizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone 910-338-8263
Strategies HighlightedCommunication Skills
Leadership Study Groups
?9
SchoolShoals Elementary School
Teddy SheltonPrincipal
RR 2 Shoals RoadPinnacle, NC 27043Phone 336-325-2518
Strategies HighlightedYear-Long Teacher Training
Program
SchoolWestfield Elementary School
Martha SmithPrincipal
Jessup Grove Church RoadPilot Mountain, NC 27041
Phone 336-351-2745
Strategies HighlightedYear-Long Teacher Training
Program
SchoolWharton Elementary School
Pandora BellPrincipal
116 Pisgah Church RoadGreensboro, NC 27455Phone 336-545-2030
Strategies HighlightedBusiness Partners/Success inReading and Writing Series
SchoolGuilford County Schools
Mary Lou Kyle"Reading Together"
Coordinator712 North Eugene StreetGreensboro, NC 27401Phone 336-370-2307
Strategies HighlightedTutorials and Reading
Together Project
WHnot We ovy
The following is from Barbara M. Taylor, P.David Pearson, and Elfrieda H. Hiebert's Center
for the Improvement of Early ReadingAchievement Web Page, available at
www.ciera.org/aboutciera/principles/index.htm
Family and Volunteer LiteracyPrograms
1. Family literacy programs and volunteer lit-eracy efforts are central to the establishmentof lifelong reading habits and high levels ofliteracy achievement in all communities butespecially in high-poverty communities.Strong connections between literacy programsin schools and homes/communities are neededduring both the preschool and school years.
Kindergarten and First-gradeReading Experience
2. Children who enter first grade with low lev-els of phonemic awareness are at consider-able risk of failure to read well in first gradeand thereafter. Activities that promote pho-nemic awareness include a variety of activi-ties such as rhyming, letter tracing/writing,and journal writing.
3. Focused and well-designed reading programsin the early primary grades increase levels ofreading achievement (on both comprehensionand word recognition measures.) These pro-grams include several well-articulated char-acteristics: (a) systematic phonics instruction,(b) frequent opportunity to read lots of textsof appropriate difficulty, and (c) frequentopportunity to write (and spell) lots of textsof their own.
4. Effective reading teachers have high expecta-tions of students and are deliberate about in-struction of reading skills strategies. Effectiveteachers are aware of the strengths and needsof their students, using various assessment
en ILesarrm t® ITGesaail
tools to monitor their students' growth inreading skills and strategies.
Reading Instruction for Childrenwith Special Needs
5. Children with learning disabilities benefitfrom structure in the early phases of literacyinstruction but not at the cost of opportuni-ties to engage in meaningful use of readingand writing.
6. The reading and writing of bilingual childrenbenefits from instruction that draws on theirexisting oral and written language knowledge.In fact, there is considerable evidence that ac-complished L1 readers bring a rich array of"extra" metacognitive skills to L2 reading.
Ensuring Successful Reading inThird Grade at Beyond
7. For early success in reading to result in highlevels of literacy, children in the late primaryand middle grades must continue to receiveinstruction in strategies that will allow themto negotiate the vocabulary and comprehen-sion demands of different kinds of texts, es-pecially science and social studies texts.Middle-schoolers benefit from instruction onstrategies to monitor reading for understand-ing. Further, daily opportunities to read aresignificantly related to reading achievement.
Professional Development8. Programs and schools that are effective in in-
creasing the literacy achievement of at-riskchildren provide consistent opportunities forteachers to learn about effective reading in-struction and to participate in ongoing con-versations and support networks where suc-cesses are shared and solutions sought forpersistent issues.
t 30
MilEblifiestrapiplhiy ®f latermattuanoe
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinkingand learning about print. Urbana, IL: Centerfor the Study of Reading.
Adams, M. J. (1991). "Why Not Phonics andWhole Language?" In All language and the cre-ation of literacy (pp. 40-53). Proceedings ofthe Orton Dyslexia Society Symposia, "WholeLanguage and Phonics" and "Literacy andLanguage." Baltimore, MD: Orton DyslexiaSociety.
Adams, M. J. & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the"Great Debate." American educator, 19 (7),10-20.
Allington, R.L. (1991). "Children Who FindLearning to Read Difficult: School Responsesto Diversity." In E.H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacyfor a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, poli-cies (pp. 237-252). New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.
Allington, R.L. (1983). "The Reading InstructionProvided Readers of Differing Abilities." El-ementary school journal, 83, 548-559.
Allington, R.L. & Patricia M. Cunningham.(1996). Schools that work: Where all childrenread and write. New York: HarperCollins Col-lege Publishers.
Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A. &Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a nationof readers: The report of the commission on read-ing. Washington, D.C.: The National Instituteof Education.
Anderson, R.C. & Pearson, P.D. (1984). "ASchema-theoretic View of Basic Processes inReading Comprehension." In P.D. Pearson(Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.
Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1995)."The Effects of Inclusion on Learning." Edu-cational leadership, 52 (4), 33-35.
Beck, I. & Juel, C. (1995). "The Role of Decodingin Learning to Read." American educator, 19(8), 21-25, 39-42.
Billmeyer, R. (1996). Teaching reading in the con-tent areas: If not me, then who? Aurora, CO:McRel, 1996.
De@eattre onn prowintig
Binkley, M. & Williams, T (1997). Reading lit-eracy in the United States: Findings from theMA reading literacy study. Washington, D.C.:United States Department of Education.
Blakey. E. & Spence, S. (1990). Developmentmetacognition microform. Syracuse NY: Syra-cuse University, School of Education, Schoolof Information Studies (ERIC Document Re-production Services No. ED 32718).
Browne H. & Cambourne, B. (1990). Read andretell. Portsmouth, NI-1: Heinemann.
California Department of Education (1996).Teaching reading. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California State University Institute for Educa-tion Reform. (1996). Building a powerful read-ing program: From research to practice. Sacra-mento, CA: Author.
Calkins, L.M. (1986). The art of teaching writing.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cullinan, B. (1987). Children's literature in thereading program. Newark, DE: IRA.
Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Naturallearning and the acquisition of literacy in theclassroom. New York: Ashton Scholastic.
Cambourne, B. (1991). "What Do We KnowAbout Reading?" Theory of others. Stanley,NY: Frameworks.
Carbo, M. (1996). "Reading styles: High gains forthe bottom third." Educational leadership, 53(5), 8-13.
CEDaR (Council for Education Development andResearch) (1996). EdTalk: What we knowabout reading teaching and learning. Washing-ton, D.C.: Author.
Christen, W.L., & Murphy, T.J. (1991, March).Increasing comprehension by activating priorknowledge. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearing-house on Reading and Communication Skills(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 328885).
Clay, M.M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebookfor teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Collins, N.D. (1994). Metacognition and learningto read. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse
31
on Reading, English and CommunicationSkills (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 376427).
Cooper, J.D. (1993). Literacy: Helping childrenconstruct meaning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Daresh, J.C. & LaPlant, J.C. (1984). The status ofresearch on administrator inservice. Paper pre-sented at the American Educational ResearchAssociation. New Orleans.
Duke, D. L. (1990, May). "Setting Goals for Pro-fessional Development." Educational leader-ship, 71-75.
Duke, D. L. (1993, May). "Removing Barriers toProfessional Growth." Educational leader-ship, 702-712.
Edwards, P. A. (1991). "Fostering Early LiteracyThrough Parent Coaching." In E.H. Hiebert(Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspec-tives, practices, policies (pp. 199-213). NewYork: Teachers College Press.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). "The Place of Prac-tical Argument in the Education of Teachers."In Virginia Richardson (Ed.), Teacher changeand the staff development process: A case inreading instruction (pp. 23-42). New York:Teachers College Press.
Fielding, L.G. & Pearson P.D. (1994). "ReadingComprehension: What Works." Educationalleadership, 51, 63-68.
Gamoran, A. (1986). "Instructional and Institu-tional Effect of Ability Grouping." Sociologyof education, 59, 185-198.
Glatthorn, A. A. (Ed.). (1995). Content of the cur-riculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Su-pervision and Curriculum Development.
Goldenbery, C. Reese, L. & Gallimore R. (1992)."Effects of Literacy Materials from Schoolson Latino Children's Home Experiences andEarly Reading Achievement." Americanjour-nal of education, 100, 497-536.
Goodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, D.L.(1987). Reading miscue inventory: Alternativeprocedures. New York: Richard C. Owen.
Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, M.F., Graves B.B., & Braaten, S. (1996)."Scaffolded Reading Experiences for Inclu-sive Classes." Educational leadership, 53 (5),14-16.
Heller, L.R. & Frantuzzo, J.W. (1993) "ReciprocalPeer Tutoring and Parent Partnership: Does
r .
Parent Involvement Make a Difference?"School psychology review, 22 (3), 517-34.
Hiebert, E.H. (Ed.). (1991). Literacy fora diversesociety: Perspectives, practices, and policies.New York: Teachers College Press.
Hiebert, E.H., Valencia, S.W. & Afflerbach, P.P.(1994). "Definitions and Perspectives." InE.H. Hiebert, S.W. Valencia & P.P. Afflerbach(Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practicesand possibilities (pp. 6-21). Newark, DE: In-ternational Reading Association.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composi-tion: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL:ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Commu-nication Skills.
Honig, B. (1996). Teaching our children to read:The role of skills in a comprehensive program.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
International Reading Association and the Na-tional Council of Teachers of English. (1996).Standards for the language arts. Newark, DE:Wright Publishing Group.
Irvin, J. (1990). Vocabulary knowledge: Guidelinesfor instruction. Washington, D.C.: NationalEducation Association.
Joyce, B., Murphy, C., Showers, B. & Murphy, J.(1989, November). "School Renewal as CulturalChange." Educational leadership, 46 (2), 70-77.
Juel, C. (1994). Learning to read and write in oneelementary school. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Keedy, J.L. (1988). Forming teacher dialogue/sup-port groups: A school improvement proposal.West Georgia College Regional Center forTeacher Education.
Keedy, J. L. (1989). An applied research study: Form-ing a teacher collegial group. West Georgia Col-lege Regional Center for Teacher Education.
Knuth, R.A. & Jones, B.F. (1991). What does researchsay about reading? Oak Brook, IL: North Cen-tral Regional Educational Laboratory.
Koskinen, P.S., Blum, I.H., Tennant, N., Parker,E.M., Straub, M.W., & Curry, C. (1995)."Have You Heard Any Good Books Lately?:Encouraging Shared Reading at Home WithBooks and Audiotapes." In Morrow, L.M.(Ed.), Family literacy: Connections in schoolsand communities (pp. 87-103). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading.Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
32
Kujawa, S. & Huske L. (1995). Strategic teachingand reading project: Guidebook. Oak Brook, IL:North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Langer, J.A. (1988). "Reading, writing, and un-derstanding: An analysis of the constructionof meaning." Written communication, 3 (2),219-267.
Langer, J.A., Campbell, J.R., Neuman, S.B, Mullis,I.V.S., Persky H.R., & Donahue P.L. (1995).Reading assessment redesigned. Washington,D.C.: National Assessment of EducationalProgress.
Langer, J.A. & Applebee, A.N. (1987). How writ-ing shapes thinking. Urbana, IL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English.
Lloyd, C.V. & Anders P.L. (1994). "Research-basedpractices as the content of staff development."In Virginia Richardson (Ed.), Teacher changeand the staff development process: A case inreading instruction (pp. 23-42). New York:Teachers College Press.
Madden, N.A., Slavin R.E., Karweit N., LivermonB., & Dolan L. (1989). Success for all: Effectson student achievement, retentions and specialeducation referrals (Report No. 30). Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center forResearch on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Marzano, RJ. (1991). Cultivating thinking in En-glish and the language arts. Urbana, IL: Na-tional Council of Teachers of English.
Mullis, I.V.S., Campbell, J.R., & Farstrup, A.E.(1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for thenation and the states. National Center for Edu-cation Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Govern-ment Printing Office.
Musthafa, B. (1994). "Literary Response: A Wayof Integrating Reading/Writing Activities."Reading improvement, 31 (1), 52-58.
National Assessment Governing Board. ReadingFramework for 1992 and 1994 National As-sessment of Educational Progress. Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996).Reading proficiency and home support for lit-eracy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation.
National Reading Research Center. (1996). A sur-vey of instructional practices of primary teach-ers nominated as effective in promoting literacy.Athens, GA: Author.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.(1996). North Carolina Teacher Handbook. Ra-leigh, NC: Author.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.(1996). Reading strategies: The difference be-tween proficient and poor readers.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.(1996, May). Bibliography of assessment alter-natives: Reading. Portland, OR: The Test Cen-ter, Evaluation and Assessment Program.
Palincsar, A.S., & Klenk, L.J. (1991). "DialoguesPromoting Reading Comprehension." In B.Means, C. Chelemer, and M. Knapp (Eds.),Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearson, D.P. (1993). "Focus on Research: Teach-ing and Learning Reading: A Research Per-spective." Language arts, 70, 502-511.
Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L.R., Dole J.A., & Duffy,G.G. (1992). "Developing Expertise in Read-ing Comprehension." In Sj. Samuels & A.E.Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say aboutreading instruction (pp.145-149). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.
Perkins, D. (1993, October). "Teaching and Learn-ing for Understanding." NJEA review, 10-17.
Pikulski,J.H. (1994, September). "Preventing Read-ing Failure: A Review of Five Effective Pro-grams." The reading teacher, 48, 1:17, 30-39.
Pinnell, G.S. (1989). "Reading Recovery: Help-ing At-risk Children Learn to Read." Elemen-tary school journal, 90, 161-184.
Ploumis-Devick, E., & Follman, J. Appreciatingdifferences: Teaching and learning in a cultur-ally diverse classroom. Tallahassee, FL: South-eastern Regional Vision for Education(SERVE).
Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning tothink. Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress.
Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1994). Teacher change andthe staff development process: A case in readinginstruction (pp. 23-42). New York: TeachersCollege Press, 1994.
Rouk, U. (Ed.). (1996). EdTalk: What we knowabout reading teaching and learning. Washing-ton, D.C.: Council for Educational Develop-ment and Research.
Routman, R. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads: Cru-cial talk about reading, writing and other teach-ing dilemmas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
33
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1967). Literature as exploration.New York: Noble & Noble.
Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The key to continu-ous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: As-sociation for Supervision and Curriculum De-velopment.
Sebranek, P., Meyer, V. & Kemper, D. (1992).Writers, Inc. Burlington, WI: Write SourcePublishing House.
Share, D.L. (1995). "Phonological Recording andSelf-teaching: Sine Qua Non of Reading Ac-quisition." Cognition: International journal ofcognitive science, 55, 151-218.
Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). "The Evolutionof Peer Coaching." Educational leadership, 53(6), 12-16.
Slavin, R.E. (1996). "Neverstreaming: PreventingLearning Disabilities." Educational leader-ship, 53 (5), 4-7.
Smith, S.L. (1982). "Learning Strategies of Ma-ture College Learners. " Journal of reading, 26,5-12.
Smith, S.L. (1985). "Comprehension and Compre-hension Monitoring by Experienced Read-ers." Journal of reading, 28, 292-300.
South Carolina English Language Arts Curricu-lum Framework Writing Team. (1996, Feb-ruary). South Carolina English language artsframework. Columbia, SC: South CarolinaDepartment of Education.
Squire, J.R. (1983). "Composing and Compre-hending: Two Sides of the Same Basic Pro-cess." Language arts, 60, 568-589.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). "Matthew Effects in Read-ing: Some Consequences of Individual Differ-ences in the Acquisition of Literacy." Read-ing research quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Stanovich, K.E. (1993). "Does Reading Make YouSmarter? Literacy and the Development ofVerbal Intelligence." In H. Reese (Ed.), Ad-vances in child development and behavior, 25,(pp. 133-180). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tierney, RI; Carter, M.A. & Desai, L.E. (1991).Portfolio assessment in the reading-writingclassroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gor-don Publishers, Inc.
Tierney, R.J. & Pearson, P.D. (1986). Schemathem, and implications for teaching reading:A conversation. Washington, D.C.: Center forthe Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED 281140).
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The develop-ment of higher psychological processes. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walmsley, S.A. & Walp, T.P. (1990). "IntegratingLiterature and Composing into the LanguageArts Classroom." Elementary school journal,90 (3), 251-274.
Watkins, M.W. & Edwards, V.A. (1992). "Extra-curricular Reading and Reading Achieve-ment: The Rich Stay Rich and the Poor Don'tRead." Reading improvement, 29 (4), 236-242.
t. 34
HIVE LublicationsOrders g Information
1. Please complete the order form at the end of the publications/products listing and mail withcheck or purchase order to SERVE, Publishing and Quality Assurance, 1203 Governor's SquareBoulevard, Suite 400, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Make check or purchase order out to SERVE,a federally funded contract administered by the University of North Carolina at Greensboro(Federal ID EIN#56-6001-468).
2. Discounts are available for most SERVE products when you purchase units of fifty or more.Please contact (800) 352-6001 for discount information.
3. If you are requesting an invoice, your order must include a purchase order number.
4. We ship by U.S. Mail and United Parcel Service. Please calculate your shipping charges from thetable below. Shipping charges will be higher for special orders and shipping outside the continentalU.S. Please allow two weeks for delivery from the time we receive the order in our office. If yourequire special shipping arrangements, let us know. In most cases, we can accommodate yourneeds. Publication prices are subject to change.
5. For more information regarding SERVE's products and ordering procedures, please call(800) 352-6001.
Shipping and Handling ChargesUp to $30.00 $2.50$30.01 to $60.00 $5.00$60.01 to $100.00 $7.50$100.01 to $150.00 $10.00$150.01 to $200.00 $12.50$200.01 and above call for price
Bti lie ti nnDescription Item # Price1996 SERVE Regional Forum on School Improvement Proceedings SIPROC $8.001997 SERVE Regional Forum on School Improvement Proceedings SIPRO2 $8.00Achieving Your Vision of Professional Development HTEPD $10.00Action Research: Perspectives from Teachers' Classrooms MSARP $12.00Appreciating Differences: Teaching and Learning in a Culturally
Diverse Classroom HTADI $10.00Assessment Hotspots (Volume 1, Number 1) MAAHS $8.00Assessment in Early Childhood Education: Status of the Issue ECESI $1.00A Call to Action: Family Involvement as a Critical Component
of Teacher Education Programs HTCTA $6.00Chartering for Excellence: Developing and Implementing Charter
School Legislation HTCFE $6.00Children Exposed to Drugs: Meeting Their Needs HTSEC $10.00Children Exposed to Drugs: What Policymakers Can Do PBCED $1.00Comprehensive School Improvement HTCSI $8.00Coming Together: Collaboration as a Tool for Change ECCTC $3.00Continuity in Early Childhood Education: A Framework
for Home, School, and Communiv binkages, ECECE $12.00
Designing the School of Your Dreams SSDSD $6.00Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems that Support
Professional Growth RDTES $8.00Does Class Size Make a Difference? RDCSD $4.00Ed Talk: What We Know About Mathematics Teaching
and Learning EDMAT $7.00Ed Talk: What We Know About Reading Teaching and Learning EDRTL $7.00Ed Talk: What We Know About Science Teaching and Learning EDSCI $7.00Evaluation of the Alabama Direct Assessment of Writing Program RDADE $4.00Families and Schools: An Essential Partnership SSFSP $6.00Future Plans Planning Guide FPPLG $8.00Going to Scale with TQM: The Pinellas County Schools' Journey
Toward Quality SSPCS $12.00Head, Heart, and Hands for Our Youngest Children ECHHH $5.00How to Assess Student Performance in Science: Going Beyond
Multiple-Choice Tests RDSPS $10.00Improving Reading: Southeastern School Strategies SSIRS $6.00Improving Schools Now: Accessing SERVE's Programs, Products,
and Publications (1998) PRHIS2 FREEImproving Schools Now: Accessing SERVE's Programs, Products,
and Publications (1999) PRISN FREEImproving Student Motivation: A Guide for Teachers
and School Improvement Leaders RDISM $12.00Interagency Collaboration: Improving the Delivery of Services
to Children and Families HTICO $12.00Issues to Consider in Moving Beyond a Minimal
Competency High School Graduation Test RDMCT $4.00Leading Change in Literacy: Southeastern District Stories SSLCL $6.00Learning By Serving: 2,000 Ideas for Service Learning Programs HTLBS $8.00A New Framework for SchoolAccountability Systems RDFRA $3.00Overcoming Barriers to School Reform in the Southeast RDBAR $3.00Planning for School Improvement: A Report on a Comprehensive
Planning Process SRPSI $1.00PROBE: Designing School Facilities for Learning PRDSF $10.00Promising Service-Learning Programs SSPSL $1.00Reducing School Violence: Building a Framework for
School Safety HTRSV $8.00Reengineering High Schools for Student Success HTRHS $8.00Reflecting on Progress: Site-Based Management and School
Improvement in North Carolina RDROP $4.00Resources for School Improvement: How to Improve
Schools Now HTRSI $10.00Safe Schools: What the Southeast is Doing PBSSC $1.00School Board Member Training in the Southeast RDBMT $4.00Schools for the 21st Century: New Roles for Teachers and Principals HTSTC $8.00Science in the Elementary Classroom: Portraits of Action Research MSARE $12.00Selecting High-Quality Charter Schools: What Policymakers Can Do PBSCS $1.00South Pointe Elementary School (Year 1): A Public-Private
Partnership RDSP1 $1.00South Pointe Elementary School (Year 2): A Public-Private
Partnership RDSP2 $1.00
U 36
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
South Pointe Elementary School (Year 3): A Public-PrivatePartnership
Southern Crossroads: A Demographic Look at the SoutheastSupporting Family Involvement in Early Childhood Education:
A Guide for BusinessTeacher Evaluation: The Road to ExcellenceTechnology Infrastructure in Schools and Plugging In: Choosing
and Using Educational TechnologyTerrific Transitions: Ensuring Continuity of Services for Children
and Their FamiliesTogether We Can: A Guide for Crafting a Profamily System of
Education and Human ServicesTotal Quality Management: Passing Fad or "The Real Thing"?
An Implementation StudyUsing Accountability as a Lever for Changing the Culture of
Schools: Examining District StrategiesUsing Technology to Improve Teaching and LearningWelfare to Work: Early Childhood Care and EducationYouth Apprenticeship: A School-to-Work
Transition Program
Vide it peDescriptionDrug-Free Schools: A Generation of Hope (Running time: 27:00)Future Plans Videotape: Making the Most of Technology in the
Classroom (Running time: 27:10)Passages: Providing Continuity from Preschool to School
(Running time: 32:25)School Improvement: A Journey Toward Change (Running time: 23:00)Southern Crossroads: A Demographic Look at the Southeast
(Running time: 22:00)Southern Solutions in Improving Mathematics and Science:
General Audiences (Running time: 27:00)Southern Solutions in Improving Mathematics and Science:
Policymakers (Running time: 60:00)Southern Solutions in Improving Mathematics and Science:
Teachers/Practitioners (Running time: 1:24:00)
Tilmihniumg aiteriDescriptionFor information on these training programs, please call 800-352-6001.Leadership for Collaboration: A Training ProgramProviding a Safe and Healthy School Community
For information on these training programs, please call 800-545-7075.Legal Principles Related to School Violence, Safety, Security and
Student Management Discipline
CIEDDIR3orran
To order this item, please call 800-545-7075.M.U.D. Pie, 1997 gr1
37
RDSP3 $1.00SRSCR $3.00
SRSFI $5.00SSTER $6.00
PITI $10.00
ECTTC $5.00
SRTWC $8.00
RDTQM $5.00
RDUAL $8.00HTTEC $8.00PBWTW $1.00
HTYAP $8.00
Item # PriceVTDFS $19.95
FPPAK $19.95
VTPST $19.95VTCSI $19.95
VTSCR $19.95
VTMS3 $19.95
VTMS6 $19.95
VTMS9 $19.95
Item # Price
TRNLCTRNSH
TRNLP
$49.95
irName
Title
Address home work
City State Zip
Phone home work (
Fax home work ( )
Quantity Description Item No. Unit Price Total
Subtotal
Non-exempt Florida residentsadd 7% sales tax
Mail to: Shipping and HandlingSERVEPublishing and Quality Assurance Total1203 Governor's Square BoulevardSuite 400Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Florida tax exemption number:
Please photocopy this form for future orders.
NOTE: Ordering information and this formare located in the back of most SERVE publications.
38
e
improving Raiding is part of a series of productsdesigned to address the improvement of readingliteracy in the Southeast. The series includes avidcomagazine On Leadinp Charvie in Iiiievacinand a case study of two district-designed readingprogra ms.
Julpriwinti Reading is meant for educators whoare committed to and excited about helpingbenchmark their school's efforts to improvereading. It summarizes what a team of SERVEcolleagues learned from visits to 18 schoolsendorsed as having strong reading programs.The schools cited are listed so that you maypersonalize your benchniarking experience bycontacting these schools and comparingprogress notes on programs and readingimprovement efforts.
SSIRS C' ; ":t,;$6.00
30
1 I; fn blitCa
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
IC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (9/97)