Best Practices in Reading: A Study of 16 Texas Reading First Campuses
Candice Knight, PhD
Daryl Michel, PhD
2010
Institute for Public School Initiatives
5316 Highway 290 West, Suite 510
Austin, Texas, 78735-8931
ipsi.utexas.edu
1
Texas Reading First Demonstration Site Project Report
Texas Education Agency
Institute for Public School Initiatives, University of Texas at Austin
Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas at Austin
Children’s Learning Institute, University of Texas-Health Science Center, Houston
Texas Institute of Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston
Acknowledgments
The Texas Reading First Study-Demonstration project was implemented with funding from the Texas Education
Agency. The authors of this report acknowledge many individuals who contributed, provided guidance, and
offered support throughout the various phases of this project.
Project Coordinators and Report Authors:
Candice Knight, Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas at Austin
Daryl Michel, Institute for Public School Initiatives, University of Texas System
Project structure, development of data collection tools, and data analysis:
Coleen Carlson, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston
Greg Roberts, University of Texas, Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts
Heather Zavadsky, University of Texas System, Institute for Public School Initiatives
Data collection and transcribing:
Griselda Hernandez, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston
Teresa Tipton, University of Texas System, Institute for Public School Initiatives
Mary White, Children’s Learning Institute, University of Texas, Health Science Center
Interview and observation schedules, product design guidance:
Kathy Balch, Linda Cranmer, Leslie Harris, Becki Krsnak, Darlene McAlister, and Stacy Pineda;
University of Texas System, Institute for Public School Initiatives
Angie Durand, Ken Nieser
Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston
We recognize the participating campuses for sharing insights on their best practices used to increase reading
achievement scores. We also thank each site for producing educational products so that others may learn from
their best practices.
Burrus Elementary, Houston ISD
Cromack Elementary, Brownsville ISD
D’Hanis Elementary, D’Hanis ISD
Driscoll Elementary, Driscoll ISD
Hughes Springs Elementary, Hughes Springs ISD
La Vega Elementary, La Vega ISD
Maple Lawn Elementary, Dallas ISD
Parsons Elementary, Lubbock ISD
Preston Hollow Elementary, Dallas ISD
Price Elementary, Beaumont ISD
Ramirez Charter School, Lubbock ISD
Shallowater Elementary, Shallowater ISD
Southmayd Elementary, Houston ISD
Tijerina Elementary, Houston ISD
Troup Elementary, Troup ISD
Vanguard Academy Charter
2
Abstract
Reflection is an essential part of the learning process (Schon, 1987). After implementing new practices, it
is important for practitioners to look back in an effort to continually improve educational experiences for
students. As Texas Reading First neared the end of implementation, a self-study was initiated focusing on
effective instructional practices that had been implemented over the course of the grant period. What worked
well? What can others learn from us? What can we do better? The Study/Demonstration Site Project sought to
first identify effective practices, and then to study those practices in an effort to learn from practitioners and
share their success with others at the local and state levels.
Purpose and Objectives
This study examined effective practices at successful elementary schools in Texas. We looked at 16 schools
that made significant progress over time in outcome measures in reading. The project goals were to highlight
successful school sites as models of effective practice, identify effective practices at each site, and demonstrate
effective practices for others. This paper discusses the common themes that were identified and is designed to
inform practitioners about what these schools accomplished and how they did so.
Theoretical Background
Large-scale school improvement is often measured in terms of student achievement. If the goal is to improve
student learning, we must improve the schools in which that learning takes place (Darling-Hammond, 1996).
School improvement often relies on several integrated dimensions of practice among varying stakeholder
groups. This could mean building capacity at different levels in developing the knowledge and skills of
individuals, creating a professional community, aligning programs, providing resources, or sharing leadership
(Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000). To improve schools, these various dimensions must also continually evolve
and change. Fullan (2008) notes that schools that effectively implement change value their employees, connect
peers with purpose, build capacity, continue learning, function transparently, and have evolving systems. In
addition to the individual dimensions that are related to school improvement, relationships within the overall
system may have an impact as well. As such, general systems theory was used as one guiding principle for this
study. When examining effective practices at successful schools, it is possible that both successful subsystems
within specific dimensions and an overall smoothly functioning unit will exist (Cummings & Worley, 2005;
Fullan, 2008).
In order to provide structure for the scope and direction of the study, a guiding framework was theorized to
contain important dimensions of successful schools that allowed us to examine their relationships (see Figure
1). The Conceptual Framework was developed by drawing from existing models for examining effective school
practices, such as the National Center for Educational Achievement, The Broad Foundation, and Baldridge
National Quality Program. This original Conceptual Framework guided all data collection activities, including
the development of data collection instruments.
3
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Methods
We used a qualitative, comparative case study approach to guide this study, carefully examining each case,
including activities and functions (Stake, 2006). With the use of this approach, we collected, organized, and
analyzed data specific to each case and, later, used this data for comparison purposes (Patton, 2002).
Site Selection
The 16 schools were selected as potential study sites based on K-3 student performance on outcome
assessments in reading. The 2004-2008 outcome measures included in this model were the percentage of
students scoring proficient at each campus on: 1) Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) graphophonemic
knowledge scores and, if applicable, Tejas LEE graphophonemic knowledge scores in kindergarten; 2) Stanford
Achievement Test-10 or Iowa Test of Basic Skills total reading in grades 1 and 2, and, if applicable, APRENDA
or Logramos total reading in grades 1 and 2; and 3) Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) English,
and, if applicable, Spanish, in grade 3. Method of selection was as follows: Standard scores (z-scores) were
calculated for both change over time, from 2004-2008 (slope) and reading performance in 2008 (intercept).
Campuses with the largest growth in reading outcomes during years participating in Reading First and
campuses at the highest level of performance in reading in 2008 were identified. Campuses were rank ordered
according to both slope and intercept values. Campuses were identified using multi-level, unconditional
models of student performance, nesting students within campuses. In addition to overall performance,
representation of study sites across districts of varying size was also considered as part of the selection
process. This criterion was based on the need to include study sites that would be representative of as many
campuses across the state as possible, as pertaining to district type.
4
Participant Selection
After selecting the 16 sites, a sample of representative participants from each district and campus were
asked to participate. Data were collected from district leaders, campus leaders, classroom teachers and
interventionists, and Reading First technical assistance personnel assigned to the schools (see Table 1).
Subjects
Title
Reading Technical Assistance Specialist
Superintendent
Reading First Director
Principal
Literacy Coach
Teacher
Interventionist
Special Education Teacher
Interview
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Data Sources
Observation
Focus Group
X
X
X
X
X
Table 1. Data Collection by Subject
Data Sources
Interview and observation protocols were developed based on the Conceptual Framework, as well as
from existing instruments used to measure effective practices. We drew from interview and observation
instruments used by the Broad Foundation, National Reading First Technical Assistance Center, Texas Institute
for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics, Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts, and the
Center on Instruction. Taking into consideration existing protocols, we then adapted and developed original
instruments that were tailored to the needs of this study.
We created separate interview protocols for state, district, and campus level leaders, as well as for teacher
focus groups. Additionally, we created separate observation and follow-up interview protocols for teachers and
interventionists. The interview and observation instruments were piloted at one school and adjustments made
to ensure clarity in participant responses.
Data Collection
Each site was visited during the 2009-2010 school year to collect data and identify areas most related to
each campus’ success. These areas were then highlighted for demonstration. The project team spent at least
one school day at each of the sites conducting individual and focus group interviews and observing core and
intervention instruction.
We used a structured process for the interviews. We used a pre-established set of questions, inclusive of our
framework categories: teaching and learning, processes, leadership, and systems. Additionally, we had preestablished prompts and clarifications in order to obtain as much information as possible from each participant
about best practices and to expand on effective practices that may not be included in our framework.
Observations of best practices in reading during classroom instruction were also a focus of this study. Our
goal was to observe instruction in search of best practices used. During classroom observations, we used a
structured instrument to systematically collect data about best practices in reading related to the elements
from our framework. Following these observations, structured interviews took place with those teachers
observed. The purpose for interviewing after the observations was to collect additional data from teachers on
practices used during the lesson. We used guiding questions and prompts to attain additional information and
insights from each teacher.
5
Data Analysis
The analysis of data continued throughout the study as we identified themes emerging from the data. Merriam
(1998) stated that the “right way to analyze data in a qualitative study is to do it simultaneously with data
collection” (p. 62). After each data collection point, digitally recorded interview data were transcribed and
identifying markers were removed. We recorded our thoughts and captured responses from each participant
or group specific to each case noting emerging themes, key phrases or patterns, thoughts and feelings,
commonalities, and differences. By immediately reflecting on the data, we were able to begin to organize the
data and generate additional categories and themes (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).
After all interviews were transcribed, we coded and then summarized each case by campus, with 16 cases
in all. For the coding process, the original categories in the Conceptual Framework were condensed to 7
categories. These condensed were communication, instructional practices, assessment, support, professional
development, leadership, and vision and values. Each case analysis was then summarized in a site summary
table.
After each case was summarized, we performed a cross-case analysis. We wanted to understand the
commonalities that existed among the 16 campuses studied. We analyzed responses from each district
and campus level interview. In addition, we examined random teacher interviews and focus groups to gain
additional insight into our findings across the 16 campuses.
We summarized the cross-case analysis by looking at distributions. The series of three distribution charts
represents the campus highlights (drawn from the Conceptual Framework) that were identified by the project
team during the onsite visits (see Figure 2). The second distribution, represented in Table 2, is the frequency of
references to themes stated in the district and campus level interviews. This produced two documents, which
were compared to each other, combined, and used to formulate an overall summary of findings, found in
Figure 3.
As of yet, teacher and interventionist observation data have not been formally analyzed, although observations
of instructional practices by the project team were taken into consideration when identifying campus
highlights. Our hope is that this data will be formally analyzed in the future to offer additional insight into
effective practices at the classroom level.
Results
The data used to reach conclusions for this study included both self-reflections from the participants
(interviews) and observations from the project team (highlights identified from site visits). The determination
was made to use both of these data sources because, upon examining the final data, we noticed that the
topics participants spoke about and the way they spoke about them were largely limited to the more concrete
dimensions from the Conceptual Framework. For example, participants spoke of their core programs often but
did not mention sustainability very often at all. We hypothesize that this is because some of the dimensions
are more concrete and easily observed while others are more abstract. It seems logical that practitioners
would be more aware of their everyday practices and perhaps less aware of the underlying values and
processes that influence those practices. The project team was in a unique position to look specifically for
these underlying factors and as such noted them more often. In addition, we noticed that the practices we
observed on campuses and participants’ awareness of their own practices were sometimes different. For these
reasons, both the direct input from the participants and the observations of the project team were given equal
weight when analyzing the data. The results represent the combination of both of these data sources. We are
confident that this creates a more well-rounded and accurate picture of the actual factors, both concrete and
abstract, that are influential at each site.
6
The results indicate that there are several dimensions from the Conceptual Framework that work together to
influence outcomes at these sites. We will begin by reporting the most important individual dimensions and
conclude with how these dimensions work together in an overall system.
Table 2 represents the distribution of themes from the coded interview data, or the number of times that
certain themes were referenced by participants in each interview question. The most frequent themes
referenced were instruction (200) and support (198). Professional development (PD) had many references
(160) but it became apparent that there was overlap between the categories of PD and support, as many
of the participants spoke of PD as a type of support or visa versa. Therefore, PD was not included as a
distinct important dimension but can be assumed to be embedded in support to some extent. Likewise,
communication (148) was found to overlap with support as a type of support and was not reported as a
separate important dimension. In addition, assessment had many references (158) but this category was
noticed to overlap with instruction in that many references to grouping or differentiated instruction could
be included as either instruction or assessment. Thus, assessment is represented in instruction and was not
included as a separate important dimension. Overall, instruction and support appear to be the most important
dimensions to stakeholders when reporting their own effective practices.
7
Figure 2: Distribution of Campus Highlights (from the Conceptual Framework)
Figure 2 represents the distribution of campus highlights from the Conceptual Framework, or the number of
times each dimension was identified as a campus strength by the project team. These campus highlights were
identified based on a day-long visit to each campus, which included interviews with various stakeholders and
classroom observations. The most frequent dimensions highlighted were instruction (9), support (7), campus
leadership (7), and implementation (11). In addition, there were 4 categories that were highlighted frequently
but not quite as often: vision and values (6), district leadership (5), collaboration (6), and communication (5).
Combining the results from both Table 2 and Figure 2, the most important dimensions appear to be
implementation, instruction, support, and campus leadership. Additional influential dimensions appear to be
communication, collaboration, district leadership, and vision and values.
Instruction and Implementation
Within the dimension of instruction, the components that appear to be of particular importance are high
quality Tier 1 instruction, including small–group instruction, high-quality workstations, differentiated
instruction based on student needs, and general grouping practices using data. Within the dimension of
implementation, the components that appear to be of particular importance are having the 3-Tier Reading
Model framework in place, effective scheduling, and fidelity to the core reading program (consistency
and alignment). In addition, many participants stated that the overall, state-level infrastructure of Texas
Reading First (such as funding levels, employment of coaches, professional development, and communicated
expectations) was beneficial to them. As an example of the importance of both instruction and implementation
and how they are related to each other, when asked how Reading First affected instructional practices, one
participant responded:
“… before Reading First we really didn’t teach reading very well at all… No one had ever taught us how to teach
reading. We were very fragmented… we might have been doing… a little bit of that program, a little bit of
something we developed ourselves, but… we now realize that… you create gaps and holes in your instruction
and in their learning… I think we caused children to be Tier II students through our own misguided attempts
at instruction. But learning how to use explicit instruction and the core with fidelity, that all changed and our
reading instruction became… very focused, very tight… very driven by what the children were needed [sic].”
8
Our analysis suggests that the implementation (structure) and instruction (practice) dimensions appear
to consistently influence one another. Implementing clearly understood structures (i.e. 3-Tier Reading
Model), often results in strengthened delivery of instructional practices (i.e. fidelity to core, targeted smallgroup instruction), whereas the delivery of instructional practices continually informs the refinement of
implementation structures. This ongoing improvement cycle of refining organizational structures ultimately
affects the practices necessary to increase student learning.
Support
Within the dimension of support, one of the components that appears to be the most important is having
onsite coaching support. Most of the participants referred to their coach as being a key factor to their success.
Coaching activities referenced most often include modeling, providing PD, conducting collaborative grade
level meetings, regular data meetings, and providing positive feedback. Creating an “open-door policy” where
teachers felt free to ask questions and share concerns seemed to be important as this appeared to build
trust and allowed the coach to provide nonthreatening and constructive feedback. In fact, communication
and collaboration were both found to be important factors, with the bulk of the communication being
informational and the bulk of the collaborating being between the teachers themselves or the coach and the
teachers.
Thus, the coach’s ability to build relationships appears to be key. Our analysis suggests that the extent to which
the coach was able to build positive and trusting relationships with the teachers greatly influenced the quality
and quantity of their implementation. Likewise, the relationship between the coach and leadership appears
to be instrumental to success. When state, district, and campus leadership work collaboratively and support
and empower the coach this appears to impact instruction in a positive way. In addition, many participants
referred to the support of the principal and the Reading Technical Assistance Specialists (RTAs) in particular as
influencing factors. Overall, there appears to be a network of supportive relationships that allows for successful
problem solving for implementation.
Monitoring and accountability appear to play important roles. Classroom observations by the coach and the
principal were common, along with clear communication about expectations. However, it is worth noting
that participants made sure to tell us that this monitoring and accountability was always paired with the
encouragement and support to implement. Such instructional engagement on the part of campus leadership
(principal and coach) led many teachers to feel supported rather than evaluated. One participant stated “… she
was in my classroom a lot, you know, helping. Not, you know, in a bad way… just there giving a lot of support,
and it makes you feel more confident and comfortable. “
Leadership
While all dimensions of the Conceptual Framework appear to be important, leadership in particular seems to
have the highest impact on effective instructional practices and, ultimately, on student outcomes. Our analysis
revealed that the presence and active participation of multiple leaders who are interacting with one another is
important. Although leadership styles varied, it was evident from interviews that effective leaders maintained
and communicated a clear vision and organized improvement efforts around what is best for students within
the various populations.
Campus principals were found to be especially influential in the functioning of the overall system. Much of
this influence appears to be through the articulation and implementation of a successful campus culture,
manifested through the leaders’ vision and values. While the type of campus cultures varied, having a clear
and consistent vision for the direction of the campus and implementing a student-centered set of values that
drive decision-making appear to be instrumental to success. Strong, principal-led vision and values seem to
influence daily practices in multiple dimensions at these campuses and, by extension, student outcomes as
well.
9
Analysis of transcripts indicated that effective implementation is cultivated by the knowledge and skills of the
local campus coach. The local campus coach is instrumental in supporting implementation, yet also plays a key
leadership role when acting as a liaison between state, district, and campus stakeholder groups and ensuring
that expectations at the various levels are implemented. While our findings suggest the need for strong
campus leaders, the local campus coach seems equally important in maintaining a focus on the common vision
and communicating a clear sense of campus-wide expectations.
Some campuses identified district leadership as an important factor. Participants mentioned aligning district
and campus structures and practices, and securing funding for material and personnel resources as most
important. The analysis also suggests that the communication and support structure within small, rural
districts appears more closely connected and/or aligned.
Our analysis suggests that leadership appears to be one of the main determinants to success at the studied
sites. When reflecting on leadership from a systems perspective, it is becoming more and more apparent that
the success of the larger system can be shown by the extent to which parts of the system are guided by a
strong leader.
Figure 3
Overall System
Recall that both participant feedback from interviews and the project team’s observations were used to
analyze these data. Figure 3 combines these findings into our overall results, with the various dimensions from
the Conceptual Framework in Figure 1 (Teaching and Learning, Leadership, Processes, and System) working
together in an overall system. This system graphic illustrates the relative importance of the dimensions that
were found to be influential.
Within the dimension of Teaching and Learning, instruction and support were both found to be important.
Within the dimension of Leadership, campus leadership (principal and coach), district leadership, and vision
and values were found to be important. Within the dimension of Processes, implementation, communication,
and collaboration were found to be important.
10
The important factors within each of the 3 dimensions have been reorganized in Figure 3 to represent how
they functioned at the 16 schools. Some of the factors have been used in this context differently to reflect
how there were used and discussed by participants. For example, implementation was originally under the
dimension of Processes but during the analysis it became apparent that participants spoke of implementation
as being very closely related to instruction. That is, implementation was thought of as a practice rather than a
process. Therefore, implementation will be discussed along with instruction as part of Teaching and Learning
(box on the right-hand side).
In addition, support was originally included as part of the Teaching and Learning dimension but will be
discussed here as part of Processes. This change was made to reflect what participants stated, namely that
ongoing support was a process that impacted instructional practices. Communication and collaboration are 2
additional processes that were influential and all 3 can be found in the small box in the center of Figure 3.
Finally, “vision and values” was originally included as part of the dimension of Leadership and it is still
represented as part of the principal’s influence (Principal and Literacy Coach circles). The principal does seem
to be the driving force behind communicating a clear vision and implementing student-centered values schoolwide. However, it was also discovered that the vision and values of the principal influenced every other aspect
of how the campus functioned as a system. Therefore, “vision and values” was added at the campus system
level (inside large square) as a determinant of how the various dimensions worked as a whole.
The alignment of various dimensions appears to be another determining factor to success. We looked at 3
main categories of dimensions (Teaching and Learning, Leadership, and Processes) and found that in most
cases multiple dimensions were found to be strengths at these campuses. In fact, 11 out of the 16 schools
were determined to be strong in some way in all 3 dimensions. While the site-specific strengths varied, it
appears that multiple dimensions working well simultaneously in a system may contribute to success. It seems
that the presence of these larger district- and state-level successful operating systems (outside large square)
plays a key role, influencing the way in which the individual dimensions operate.
Indeed, the presence or relative success of individual dimensions does not appear to be as important as
the whole picture, or how well the different dimensions work together. This is supported by Cummings and
Worley’s (2005) findings, which state that “a system’s overall effectiveness is partly determined by the extent
to which the different subsystems are aligned with each other” (p. 88). Successful schools appear to be doing
many things well at the same time. Further, the things that they are doing well seem to be related to each
other as part of an overall system.
In sum, campus leadership (principal and coach) appear to influence teaching and learning (implementation
and instruction) through effective processes (support, communication, and collaboration). These relationships
operate within an effective larger system, which includes campus level vision and values as well as district and
state support. Furthermore, effective practices at each of these levels appear to positively impact student
outcomes.
11
Recommendations
These recommendations are based on our analysis of the factors contributing to success at these sites, as
well as the barriers to success that the sites identified and their solutions for overcoming them. In other
words, the following recommendations represent what worked well and also what might be considered when
implementing future initiatives.
State Education Agency (SEA)
State-level support appears to be instrumental to Local Education Agency (LEA) success. Based on our
analysis, it is recommended that state-level practice include providing sufficient funding for implementation;
participants noted repeatedly the importance of adequate funding to support their local implementation
efforts. It is recommended that funding be sufficient to allow for the hiring of highly qualified, key support
personnel (coaches and interventionists) and that hiring these personnel be part of a clear structure of nonnegotiable expectations for implementation, communicated consistently.
Additionally, many of the sites noted that the long-term implementation period of the grant initiative (5-6
years) contributed to their success. They faced obstacles, which led to an implementation dip in the first few
years of the initiative. However, having sufficient time to address and overcome these obstacles and refine
practice proved key. Full implementation that was differentiated to local needs took time but did occur later in
the implementation process, impacting teacher practice and student outcomes. Therefore, it is recommended
that future initiatives similarly allow ample time for full implementation to occur.
In addition, Texas Reading First’s structure of providing support through technical assistance (TA) to LEAs
proved quite successful and this structure is recommended for future practice. This structure included having
highly qualified content and instructional experts provide support at the state, regional, and campus level and
regularly assist with implementation. In particular, the state-level regional TA provider and the local campus
coach had an important impact on success and it is recommended that these positions be included in future
initiatives. Clear and consistent communication and frequent collaboration with these support personnel also
contributed to success and is recommended for future initiatives.
To summarize, recommendations to State Education Agencies for future initiatives include the following:
• Provide adequate funding;
• Allow ample time for implementation to occur;
• Set clear and consistent expectations in the form of non-negotiables; and
• Provide highly qualified local support personnel and technical assistance that is targeted to meet local
needs.
Local Education Agency (LEA)
While state-level support is critical, it is the LEA that appears to be the driving force behind success at these
sites. Thus, the bulk of recommendations are for strong local implementation efforts. This section will be divided into district-level, campus-level, and classroom-level recommendations.
District level
It is recommended that district-level administration of the grant be in a manner consistent, not overlapping,
but in alignment with other initiatives or programs, with clear expectations communicated regularly.
The district should support the initiative by setting up clear structures and expectations, monitoring the
implementation of those expectations, and providing support as needed. One important way to provide
such support is through the funding of key, campus-level personnel. It is important that the district create
a structure of support for campus leaders (principals and coaches), which includes removing barriers to
implementation.
12
In addition, the extent to which district-level leadership took ownership in the implementation of the initiative
and made it a priority often determined the extent to which full implementation occurred. Therefore,
consistent district engagement in the implementation process, from state to campus level, is recommended.
To summarize, recommendations to LEAs for future initiatives include the following:
• Provide adequate funding for personnel and resources;
• Communicate clear expectations;
• Align and collaborating with other initiatives; and
• Make implementation a priority.
Providing support for campus expectations is also highly recommended, including monitoring implementation.
Campus level
Effective campus leadership appears to be one of the strongest determinants of success. This section will
provide attributes of and recommendations for effective principals and coaches.
One recommendation is the presence of a strongly engaged campus principal. Based on the analysis of
transcripts, participants at many of the schools identified the following attributes of a strong leader:
• The principal demonstrated support by being actively engaged as a participant in learning and as an
ongoing motivator.
• The principal maintained and communicated a clear vision, established short and long term goals,
conveyed expectations, and monitored and supported implementation.
• The principal set aside time for common planning with the expectation that teachers communicate and
collaborate with one another, with colleagues in other grade levels, or with the local campus coach.
• The principal appropriately used funds to hire qualified key personnel (i.e. instructional coach or
interventionist) or acquired material resources when needed.
This suggests to us that future initiatives should clearly establish the role for the campus principal, noting
the importance of being highly visible, knowledgeable, participatory, and supportive throughout the various
implementation phases. As described by one campus leader, “….ownership is big. And when you’re trying to
get a staff on board who’s fairly reluctant, it’s not easy to do so. We had to really walk hand in hand”.
In addition to the campus principal, the individual assuming the role of the instructional coach appears to be
another strong indicator of success. As mentioned by many participants in our study, the instructional coach
provided differentiated support. This included modeling in classrooms and demonstrating best practices. The
instructional coach led professional development sessions that were relevant to the teachers, prioritized based
on need, and presented information systematically and in a manageable way. The information or strategies
presented were closely monitored and teachers were engaged in reflective feedback sessions to discuss their
delivery and how students responded. In addition, the coach played an instrumental role in communicating
and maintaining a focus on the vision.
This suggests to us that the selection of an instructional coach is extremely important. We suggest instructional
coaches be part of future initiatives, yet we suggest that careful consideration be placed on how they are
selected. We learned from this study that they must be individuals that are highly competent in their assigned
content area, have the ability to build trusting and supportive relationships, understand what their coaching
role is, and can collaborate and communicate with individuals at varying levels (district and campus).
13
It is important that the campus principal and instructional coach work closely to ensure that the needs of the
teachers are met and that the vision remains a focus in the decision-making process. The principal and coach
remain in constant communication with one another, collaborating with the teachers to ensure that they feel
supported. The principal appears to play a key role in setting appropriate and consistent vision and values,
while the coach plays a key role in communicating and supporting them. The vision and values appear to
influence all aspects of campus practice by creating a campus culture, so it is recommended that the principal
be reflective about his/her expectations (short and long term). While individual campuses may have different
needs, it is recommended that the vision and values be as student-centered as possible. The most successful
sites had a collective sense of responsibility for student needs and had a “whatever it takes” attitude. This
emphasis on student needs guided decision-making and expectations at every level.
Classroom level
Overall results indicate that instructional practices and implementation are separate dimensions but are
equally important. Implementation reflects the structured expectations (3-Tier Reading Model, scheduling,
etc.) and instruction is the daily practice of teaching. It is recommended that these dimensions be addressed
and supported individually but continually inform each other. Recommendations for classroom-level practice
will include both Tier I instruction and also intervention instruction, although it is worth noting that many of
the participants emphasized the importance of high quality Tier I instruction as key to their success.
What was consistent across the successful sites in this study is that teachers felt supported in their profession.
It is recommended that this environment of perceived and actual support be fostered by establishing systems
that allow for regular communication and collaboration. Participants noted time and again the importance
of the coach in this role, providing ongoing classroom support and PD that was prioritized, manageable, and
relevant. Teachers felt that their needs were met primarily through the coach. As stated in the previous section
on leadership, the coaching role seems critical to success and it is recommended that it be utilized in future
initiatives.
In addition, the principle of buy-in for implementation was heard throughout the interviews, with participants
noting that teacher ownership in the initiative was an initial barrier in the adoption process but eventually
became the key to their success. The key to overcoming this barrier appears to be teachers feeling supported
and “heard.” Therefore, it is recommended that during the initial phase of adoption and throughout
implementation a forum for teacher input be established and a support system put into place based on their
feedback.
Consistency at the classroom level also appears to be important and is highly recommended. Vertical and
horizontal alignment in practice, materials, and vocabulary was achieved through regular collaboration and
communication between and among grade level teachers. In addition, differentiated instruction appeared to
be key. The most successful sites had a deep understanding of how to monitor student progress and tailor
their instruction accordingly, including strategic grouping practices and providing small group instruction.
In addition, our analysis suggests that participants perceive high quality Tier I instruction as critical to their
success. Our recommendation for future initiatives is to ensure structured collaboration time is made available
to carefully plan the alignment of intervention instruction with Tier I instruction.
Overall Recommendations
Recommendations for future initiatives include the recommendations listed above, along with establishing a
clear, long-term plan in place at inception, communicating this plan clearly, and monitoring and supporting the
implementation of this plan throughout.
14
One of the barriers noted repeatedly by participants was a feeling of being overwhelmed at the beginning of
implementation. These successful sites overcame that barrier by prioritizing their implementation and focusing
on a few key things at a time. Their ability to slow down the implementation and customize what they chose to
focus on first in order to meet their local needs contributed greatly to their success. Thus, it is recommended
that LEAs be allowed and indeed encouraged to differentiate in this way for future initiatives, prioritizing their
implementation sequence and pace.
In addition, the support structures in place for Texas Reading First appeared to have made a big difference and
future initiatives can learn from that success. In particular, the local support personnel (coach, RTA) were able
to provide targeted, grade level or in-classroom PD that met the needs of each campus and teacher. Support
through professional development was noted by participants as a factor that contributed to their success.
However, it is worth noting that they referred to non-traditional types of PD as the most beneficial. Local,
targeted, campus-based, and classroom-based ongoing professional learning made the difference at these
schools and that structure is recommended for future initiatives.
Finally, the most successful sites in this study had in common an additional, unexpected dimension. They
were all very reflective about their decision-making and put a lot of thought into how they implemented the
initiative based on their local needs. They also formatively evaluated their progress along the way, by analyzing
data and talking among stakeholders, and either celebrated their successes or modified appropriately. This
reflection appears to have helped them stay the course for implementation and also stay true to their own
vision and values. One noted “when we began to see some of the data it became very evident to all of us, and
it gives me chills just thinking about that, that what we were doing was truly benefitting children and it would
benefit them for a lifetime.” In fact, the experience of participating in this study appears to have been a type of
professional development in itself, with schools becoming more aware of what they were doing and why. Such
reflection appears to be both motivating and a useful tool for course-correction if necessary. Therefore, putting
a structure into place for strategic reflection, at all levels, is recommended for future initiatives.
Although these recommendations have been reported by state, district, and campus level, we want to
emphasize how important it is for all parts of the system to be working together through communication and
collaboration. The extent to which the larger system functioned cohesively caused participants to feel more
informed, valued, and supported, which increased the amount and quality of implementation.
Conclusion
The significance of this study reaches beyond the research realm and represents a move forward in the study
of school improvement. Understandably in a system that needs support, the traditional research model in
education has been to look for problems and then problem-solve for solutions. This study took the perspective
of looking for successes, cataloging them in detail, and sharing them with others to be replicated in other
contexts. In many ways, this study allowed us at the state level to self-reflect and our hope is that what we
learned from our successes can positively impact future practice.
15
References
Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2005). Diagnosing organizations. In Organization development and change (8th edition, pp. 83-99). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and
democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5-17.
Fullan, M. (2001) Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Newmann, King, B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the
professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
16
About the Authors
Dr. Daryl Michel is an Assistant Director at The University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Public
Initiatives (IPSI). Daryl came to IPSI in 2005 and served as a Project Manager for the Texas Reading First
Initiative. He has national experience in providing support to educators and school and district leaders
in areas such as instructional leadership and effective teaching practices. Currently, he co-­‐leads the
Texas Literacy Initiative, leading multiple teams in developing facilitated course modules, providing
face-­‐to-­‐face and online professional development and technical assistance, and supporting Texas
schools and districts in literacy education and using data to guide instruction. Dr. Michel received his
Ph.D. from Texas State University with an emphasis in Education: School Improvement. His research
interests include learning communities, leading effective meetings, and teacher and administrator
development.
Institute for Public School Initiatives
5316 Highway 290 West, Suite 510
Austin, Texas, 78735-8931
ipsi.utexas.edu
IPSI brings decades of experience supporting schools and districts, developing leaders and teachers, building
technological solutions and tools, and building strategic partnerships with agencies, foundations, business
leaders, and associations.
17