Consortium for
Responsible School Change in Literacy
Sponsored by
Minnesota Center for Reading Research
at the University of Minnesota
Senior literacy educators* from 6 universities and 2 large professional
organizations recently formed the Consortium for Responsible School Change in
Literacy. University consortium members work regularly with schools to provide
professional learning in literacy to teachers across grades K-12. The university
partners also have been conducting research on effective school improvement that
reveals striking similarities across sites.
The primary purpose of this university-based consortium is to provide
research-validated school improvement models and resources to schools with the
goals of producing highly qualified literacy teachers and improving literacy
achievement for all students in meaningful ways. Members of the consortium also
continue to conduct ongoing research on school improvement and will work
collectively to impact educational policy that focuses on school-wide literacy
improvement.
The research conducted by consortium members has found that successful school
improvement in literacy requires support for organizational change, support for
individual teacher change, and a focus on sound instruction that emphasizes
complex thinking as well as basic skills. Research has revealed that a framework
for school improvement (described below) which helps schools focus on these 3
key elements is effective in improving students' reading ability (Taylor,
Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005; Taylor & Peterson, 2004).
Most university consortium partners first conducted research on effective
schools and teachers before turning to research and outreach on effective school
improvement. From the research of the consortium members the following common
principles emerged.
Support for Organizational Change
- Vision and Commitment. Members of a school community
must develop a shared vision and establish a long-term commitment to
literacy improvement. Langer (2000) found that successful high school
English programs had highly coordinated efforts to increase student
performance. As students' scores increased, teachers set higher goals. All
of the successful schools Lipson et al. (2004) studied had a history of
long-term commitment to literacy improvement (8-10 years) and a stable
school administration. Also, everyone within these successful schools
appeared to be working toward a shared vision for students' literacy
learning. The Standards Based Change Process, currently being implemented in
Hawaii and Chicago (Au, Hirata, and Raphael, 2004), helps schools establish
a vision and set a direction for change but also helps teachers and
administrators understand that they must stay the course for three years or
more to make the improvements that are necessary to achieve substantial
gains in student learning.
- Buy-In and Leadership. A structure or model for school
improvement is essential, and most staff within a school must consciously
select a particular school improvement model for it to be successfully
implemented. For example, the School Change Framework encourages schools to
have at least 75 percent buy-in across teachers (Taylor et al., 2005). Once
a school has commitment, strong leadership is needed to keep the reform
effort moving forward with success. Taylor et al. found that high reform
schools that were seeing accelerated growth in students' reading had an
effective teacher leader, an enthusiastic leadership team, and a supportive
principal.
- Data-Driven Reform. Use of data at the student,
teacher, and school level is needed to promote change. The successful
schools that Lipson et al. (2004) studied used external standards and data
to help them focus their efforts and evaluate their progress. In the
Standards Based Change Process (Au et al., 2004) teachers set targets for
student performance and three times a year collected evidence to examine
students' progress towards meeting these benchmarks. Teachers met by grade
levels to score evidence according to rubrics, and as student scores rose,
teachers developed more challenging benchmarks and rubrics. In the School
Change Framework (Taylor et al., 2005), each school received an annual
school report with data on not only students' progress in reading but also
on teachers' changes in teaching and their perceptions of school-level
collaboration and leadership. This data in turn helped schools improve the
following year.
- Collaborative School Community. To be successful with a
school improvement effort, teachers and administrators must become a
collaborative school community. Langer (2000) found that teachers in
successful schools were members of a number of teaching and learning
communities that reportedly sustained them in their efforts. Lipson,
Mosenthal, Mekkelsen, and Russ (2004) found that teachers in successful
schools had built a collaborative community with high expectations and a
climate of commitment. Teachers felt they were collectively responsible for
all students. This positive school culture, however, was missing in the less
successful schools Lipson et al. studied. In another study of elementary
schools that were beating the odds (Taylor, Pearson, Clark, and Walpole,
2000), teachers reported that collaboration in teaching was a major reason
for their success. Peer coaching, teaming, and program consistency were
mentioned as aspects of collaboration that teachers valued.
Support for Individual Change
- Professional Learning. It is essential that teachers
have the opportunity to engage in ongoing, focused, challenging,
job-embedded professional learning. Lipson et al. (2004) found that
successful schools had extensive professional development, and that teachers
spoke with confidence about their learning. Also, they were eager to receive
feedback and new ideas from their external professional development
partners. At schools successful with the Standards Based Change Process (Au
et al., 2004), leaders had developed a multiyear plan for school-based
professional development that was tied to specific goals for curriculum
development designed to improve students' achievement. Teachers in schools
that were successful with the School Change Process engaged in weekly study
groups that focused on substantive literacy topics like comprehension
strategies and higher level thinking (Taylor et al, 2005). Teachers engaged
in video sharing and looked at student work to improve practice.
- Change in Teaching. Teachers' professional learning
must focus on reflection and change in thinking and in teaching. The Schools
for Thought reform effort supported teachers as they shifted from having
students memorize facts to learning with understanding (Zech, Gause-Vega,
Bray, Secules, & Goldman (2000). Teachers engaged in classroom-based inquiry
with a facilitator and other teachers with a focus on comprehending
students' understanding in specific content domains. Similarly, reflection
on and change in teaching is at the heart of the professional development
model used in the School Change Framework project (Taylor, Pearson,
Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003). Study groups focus on research-based changes
in reading instruction. In addition, facilitators visit classrooms to model
and coach, and teachers reflect on their teaching through video sharing and
personal analysis of observation data. Taylor et al. found that teachers in
high reform schools, those that succeeded with this model, made more
positive changes in their teaching than teachers in low reform schools
(Taylor et al., 2005).
A Focus on Coherent, Balanced, Challenging Instruction
- Curriculum Coherence and Balanced Instruction. To help
all students achieve at high levels in reading and writing, teachers need to
develop a coherent curriculum and provide sound, balanced instruction. In
the Standards Based Change Process (Au et al., 2004), teachers in successful
schools developed a coherent curriculum across grade levels with a shared
understanding of goals for student learning, instruction, and assessment.
Lipson et al. (2004) found that in the successful elementary schools they
studied, teachers provided balanced literacy instruction regardless of the
type of reading program the school had adopted.
- Complex Thinking. To help all students achieve at high
levels in reading and writing, teachers need to teach with an instructional
emphasis on complex thinking as well as basic skills. Langer (2001) found
that in secondary schools beating the odds teachers moved students from
initial skill acquisition or basic understandings to deeper understandings
and generation of ideas. Taylor et al. (2000, 2003, 2005) found that
students who showed greater reading growth were in classrooms of teachers
who engaged them in more high-level talk and writing about text.
- Student Thinking and Learning. To help all students
achieve at high literacy levels, teachers need to reflect on how their
students are thinking and learning rather than simply on what they as
teachers are teaching them. Langer (2001) found that English teachers in
high performing schools taught students procedural or meta-cognitive
strategies in addition to content or skills whereas teachers in more typical
schools focused on content or skills alone. Similarly, Zech et al, (2000)
helped teachers focus on a question about students learning (e.g., How do my
students develop an understanding of summarizing?) and then examined student
work or student responses to answer their questions. This focus on students'
learning processes improved teachers' teaching.
Conclusion
Members of the Consortium for Responsible School Change in Literacy have
developed research-validated school improvement models and resources that can be
used by schools in their own reform efforts to improve students' literacy
abilities. External partners, like the university consortium members, can assist
schools in this important work by providing initial knowledge and support. While
the Consortium on Responsible School Change in Literacy is enthusiastic about
helping schools improve students' literacy abilities, ultimately of course, the
drive and hard work necessary for long-term change must come from within
individual schools.
References
Au, K. H., Hirata, S.Y., & Raphael, T.E. (2004). Improving
achievement through standards. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Reading Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and
high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 837-880.
Langer, J. A. (2000). Excellence in English in middle and
high school: How teachers' professional lives support student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 397-439.
Lipson, M.L., Mosenthal, J. H., Mekkelsen, J., & Russ, B.
(2004). Building knowledege and fashining success one school at a time. The
Reading Teacher, 57 (6) 534-542.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S.
(2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary grade
reading instruction in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101(2),
121-166.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez,
M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of
teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning.
Elementary School Journal. 104, 3-28.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez,
M. C. (2005). The CIERA School Change Framework: an evidenced-based approach to
professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research
Quarterly, 40 (1), 40-69.
Taylor, B.M., & Peterson, D.S. (2004). Year 2 Report of the
Minnesota REA School Change Project. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Zech, L.K., Gause-Vega, C.L., Bray, M.H., Secules, T., &
Goldman, S.R. (2000). Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional
development model for sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist,
35 (3), 207-217.
*Educators include: Barbara Taylor, University of Minnesota; Taffy Raphael
and Susan Goldman, University of Illinois at Chicago; Kathy Au, University of
Hawaii; Marge Lipson and Jim Mosenthal, University of Vermont; Judith Langer,
SUNY-Albany; David Pearson, University of California - Berkeley; Cathy Roller,
International Reading Association; and Barbara Kapinus, National Education
Association.
