<%BANNER%>

Reading Instruction during the No Child Left Behind Years

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021432/00001

Material Information

Title: Reading Instruction during the No Child Left Behind Years The First R Revisited
Physical Description: 1 online resource (153 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Zeig, Jacqueline Love
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: instruction, learning, policy, reading, teaching
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The objective of this study was to examine contemporary Florida teachers' instructional practices and beliefs related to the teaching of reading. Drawing upon an earlier survey of reading beliefs and instructional practices, I developed and sent via email an elementary reading instruction survey to elementary teachers throughout the state of Florida. I gathered data for this quantitative study during the month of May, at the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. I received survey responses from 669 Florida elementary teachers, including reading coaches, and other instructional staff. Independent-samples t-tests, chi-square tests of independence, and simple descriptive statistics were used. Themes and patterns in survey responses that emerged within the Florida sample of teachers as well as between this sample of teachers and teachers of the past were described. This study contributes to the understanding of teaching and learning during a highly politicized era characterized by high-stakes assessments and accountability. Specifically, the findings from this study elucidate Florida elementary teachers? self-reported instructional practices and beliefs. The survey responses suggest: (1) teachers' instructional practices and beliefs are closely aligned with contemporary Florida policies; and (2) these policies have altered teacher beliefs and practices when compared to the responses of teachers gathered a decade earlier.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jacqueline Love Zeig.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: McGill-Franzen, Anne.
Local: Co-adviser: Allington, Richard L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021432:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021432/00001

Material Information

Title: Reading Instruction during the No Child Left Behind Years The First R Revisited
Physical Description: 1 online resource (153 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Zeig, Jacqueline Love
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: instruction, learning, policy, reading, teaching
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The objective of this study was to examine contemporary Florida teachers' instructional practices and beliefs related to the teaching of reading. Drawing upon an earlier survey of reading beliefs and instructional practices, I developed and sent via email an elementary reading instruction survey to elementary teachers throughout the state of Florida. I gathered data for this quantitative study during the month of May, at the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. I received survey responses from 669 Florida elementary teachers, including reading coaches, and other instructional staff. Independent-samples t-tests, chi-square tests of independence, and simple descriptive statistics were used. Themes and patterns in survey responses that emerged within the Florida sample of teachers as well as between this sample of teachers and teachers of the past were described. This study contributes to the understanding of teaching and learning during a highly politicized era characterized by high-stakes assessments and accountability. Specifically, the findings from this study elucidate Florida elementary teachers? self-reported instructional practices and beliefs. The survey responses suggest: (1) teachers' instructional practices and beliefs are closely aligned with contemporary Florida policies; and (2) these policies have altered teacher beliefs and practices when compared to the responses of teachers gathered a decade earlier.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jacqueline Love Zeig.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: McGill-Franzen, Anne.
Local: Co-adviser: Allington, Richard L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021432:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 READING INSTRUCTION DURING THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND YEARS: THE FIRST R REVISITED By JACQUELINE LOVE ZEIG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Jacqueline Love Zeig

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This has been a long road paved with many ch anges and challenges, all of which motivated me to push through to the end of this great journe y. I would never have achieved this if not for my supervisory committee co-chair, Richard Allingt on. His recruitment of me all those years ago first led me into the doctoral program at the Univer sity of Florida. There, I met my mentor and chair, Anne McGill-Franzen, in my first course Without her steadfast support and persistent pushing of me to consistently challenge myself, I would not be the rese archer I am today. To both Dick and Anne, I am eterna lly grateful for their belief in me and their guidance throughout the years. The depth of knowledge they possess a bout literacy learning is unsurpassed, and I am fortunate to have worked under their tutelage. I am also indebted to the other members of my committee, David Miller, Diane Yendol-Hoppey, and Tom Dana. Their flexibility and constant support has been invaluable. I would like to thank Dr. Baumann and Dr. Bason from the University of Georgia, both of whom also answered my questions and provided so me of the data used for this study. I also thank Dr. Baumann and his co lleagues for revisiting the First R and inspiring my research. I thank my friends, who patiently listened to me along this journey and encouraged me to continue. Special thanks go to Evan Lefsky for making this dissertation po ssible, as well as for his continued encouragement as I grappled with this process. I am grateful also to my first students, my siblings: Andrea, Brittany, Brandon, Mark and John. They inspired me to become a teacher. I am thankful for my mom, Linda, and my father, Duane; their love has been unwavering. I would also like to thank my family, whic h has grown exponentially during my years in the doctoral program. I thank my daughter, Soph ia, and my son, Benjamin, for their patience while mommy had to go write, and, now my newe st addition, Jacob. I am most thankful for

PAGE 4

4 these additions to my life. Lastly, I am gratef ul to my husband, Bryan, for allowing me to follow my dreams and supporting me in doing so. I am very fortunate to have him as a partner in life.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 LIST OF TERMS/SYMBOLS/ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY.............................................................................................15 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........15 Statement of Problem........................................................................................................... ..16 Significance of Study.......................................................................................................... ....17 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....17 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................... .........17 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........18 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................19 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........19 The Original First R Study.....................................................................................................19 The First R Yesterday and Today ...........................................................................................21 Theoretical Framework: Ecological Perspective....................................................................23 The Ecological Perspective.............................................................................................23 Visualizing the Framework.............................................................................................25 Florida Educational Policy.....................................................................................................25 K-12 Comprehensive Reading Plan.............................................................................28 Reading/Literacy Coaches...............................................................................................29 Professional Development...............................................................................................29 Classroom Instruction......................................................................................................30 Teachers and Teacher Change................................................................................................30 The Role of Policies........................................................................................................... .....31 Role of Schools in Teaching...................................................................................................34 Role of Students in Teaching..................................................................................................35 Teaching Within a Context of High-St akes Assessments and Accountability.......................35 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........37 3 METHODS........................................................................................................................ .....39 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........39 Participants................................................................................................................... ..........39

PAGE 6

6 Population..................................................................................................................... ...39 Sample......................................................................................................................... ....40 Data Collection................................................................................................................ .......40 Survey Construction........................................................................................................40 Survey Creation and Field Testing..................................................................................43 Procedures..................................................................................................................... ..........44 Design......................................................................................................................... ............45 Research Questions.........................................................................................................45 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. .45 Study Limitations.............................................................................................................. ......47 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........48 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......53 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........53 Profile of Florida Elementary Teachers and Schools.............................................................54 Teacher demographics.....................................................................................................54 School and Student Demographics..................................................................................55 Professional Development...............................................................................................55 Philosophy and Goals........................................................................................................... ..57 Philosophies................................................................................................................... ..57 Goals.......................................................................................................................... ......57 Instructional Time and Materials............................................................................................58 Organizing for Instruction...............................................................................................58 Instructional Time...........................................................................................................58 Instructional Materials for Reading........................................................................................60 Specific Use of Basal Readi ng Materials and Trade Books............................................61 Type of Basal Series Used and Year Adopted................................................................61 Teaching Reading Skills and Strategies in relation to Read ing Instructional Materials......................................................................................................................61 Content Area Reading........................................................................................................... ..62 Gifted and Struggling Readers................................................................................................62 Gifted Students................................................................................................................62 Struggling Readers..........................................................................................................62 Interventions.................................................................................................................. ..62 Assessing Reading Development...........................................................................................63 Teachers use of Assessment Results..............................................................................63 Teachers use of assessments fo r Instructional Decision-Making..................................64 Overall Reading Program.......................................................................................................65 School Reading Program..........................................................................................65 Classroom Reading Program....................................................................................66 Grade-Level Specific Questions.............................................................................................66 Philosophy or Perspective........................................................................................66 Opinion on the Importance of Teaching Young Children Word Reading Strategies...............................................................................................................66 Teaching Phonics to Students..................................................................................66 Materials, Techniques or Activities Used Regularly................................................66

PAGE 7

7 Third through Fifth Grade Teachers................................................................................67 Materials, Techniques or Activities Used Regularly................................................67 Statistically Significant Differences between Teachers in the 1990s and Teachers Today...68 Participation in Professional Activities...........................................................................68 Instructional Time...........................................................................................................68 Average Minutes Daily to Component s of Reading and Language Arts Instruction.............................................................................................................68 Instructional time reported for literacy topics..........................................................69 Instructional Materials.....................................................................................................69 Assessment Results Used for Instructional Decision-Making........................................70 Descriptive Differences between Survey Years.....................................................................71 Gifted and Struggling Readers........................................................................................71 Organizational Structures................................................................................................71 Overall approach to reading assessment..........................................................................72 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........72 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ....94 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........94 Educational Contexts........................................................................................................... ...94 Research Question 1: What are the instructi onal practices and beliefs related to reading instruction as reported by Fl orida elementary teachers?.....................................................95 Research Question 2: Are teachers self-re ported instru ctional practices of today significantly different from those report ed prior to the inception of NCLB?.....................96 Comprehensive Core-Reading Programs...............................................................................96 Classroom Instruction.......................................................................................................... ...98 Reading Coaches................................................................................................................ ..102 Highly Qualified Teachers....................................................................................................102 Professional Development....................................................................................................103 Assessments.................................................................................................................... ......104 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ........106 Recommendations for Further Research..............................................................................106 Implications................................................................................................................... .......107 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......109 APPENDIX A THEORETICAL SCHEMATIC...........................................................................................115 B INFORMED CONSENT......................................................................................................116 C SURVEY INSTRUMENT....................................................................................................117 D FLORIDA TEACHERS SURVEY RESPONSES..............................................................133 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................147 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................153

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1. Floridas formula for success.............................................................................................38 3-1. Comparison of Florida and average (all states) educational information..........................50 3-2. Comparison of sample demographics................................................................................51 3-3. Teachers response rate by survey question number.........................................................52 4-1. Chi-square tests of independence compari ng activities teachers engage in to further professional knowledge and skill in teachi ng reading and language arts by survey years.......................................................................................................................... .........89 4-2. Independent-sampless t-tests comparing the total average time (in minutes) spent daily for reading and language arts activities between survey years.................................90 4-3. Independent-sampless t-tests comparing means for reported rela tive allocation of instructional time between survey years............................................................................91 4-4. Independent-sampless t -tests comparing means for ra nge of use for instructional materials between survey years.........................................................................................92 4-5. Independent-sampless t -tests comparing means for reported degree of use of assessment results for instructional de cision-making between survey years.....................93 5-1. Summary of Findings.......................................................................................................112

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4.1. School and district-based prof essional development topics..............................................73 4-2. Voluntary and required prof essional development topics.................................................74 4-3. School and district-based professional development related to assessment......................75 4-4. Voluntary and required professional development related to assessment.........................90 4-5. Average minutes daily spent on read ing and language arts activities...............................77 4-6. Literacy components or activities that received a considerable amount of instructional time............................................................................................................. ..78 4-7. Instructional material s used predominately....................................................................79 4-8. Instructional materials used moderately.........................................................................80 4-9. Instructional material s used infrequently.......................................................................81 4-10. Instructional mate rials never used..................................................................................82 4-11. Basal Series Adopted..................................................................................................... ....83 4-12. Overall approach to classroom reading instruction...........................................................84 4-13. Teachers uses of assessments...........................................................................................85 4-14. Assessments used to a moderate de gree for instructiona l decision-making..................86 4-15. Assessments used a little fo r instructional decision-making..........................................87 4-16. Assessments used not at all for instructional decision-making......................................88

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TERMS/SYMBOLS/ABBREVIATIONS Comprehension strategies St rategies for understanding, re membering, and communicating with others about what has been read. Comprehension strategies are sets of steps that purposeful, active readers use to make sense of text. Fluency The ability to read text accura tely and quickly with expression and comprehension. It provides a br idge between word recognition and comprehension. Fluent readers recognize words and comprehend at the same time. Phonemic awareness The ability to hear, id entify, and manipulate the individual sounds phonemes in spoken words. Phonemic awareness is the understanding that sounds of s poken language work together to make words. Phonics The understanding that there is a predictable relationship between phonemes the sounds of spoken language and graphemes the letters and sounds that represent th ose sounds in written language. Readers use these relationships to recognize familiar words accurately and automatically to decode unfamiliar words. Vocabulary development Development of st ored information about the meanings and pronunciation of words necessary for communication. There are four types of vocabulary: Listening vocabulary : the words needed to understand what is heard Speaking vocabulary : the words used when speaking Reading vocabulary : the words needed to understand what is being read Writing vocabulary : the words used in writing Just Read, Florida! The reading initiati ve issued by Governor Jeb Bush, which proposes that every child in Flor ida will attain grade level or higher reading skills by 2012. This initiative is designed to guide changes at every level of educat ion that has an impact on reading outcomes. Just Read, Florida! is directly aligned and consistent with the scientific knowledge base in reading th at underlies the Reading First component of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) A federal act reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Act, which proposes to close the achie vement gap with accountability, flexibility and choice to ensure that no child is left behind

PAGE 11

11 Pullout Program Students ar e taken from the general classroom, usually to another location, to receive alternative instruction often by a reading specialist. Reading First A federal initiative that bu ilds on the findings of years of scientific research, which, at the request of Congress, were compiled by the National Reading Panel. Response to Intervention A provision to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), which allows for an alternative method to identify students with reading disabilities and a means for providing early intervention to all children at risk for school failure. Scientifically based reading instruction Research that applies rigor ous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruc tion, and reading difficulties. Sunshine State Standards (SSS) Approved by the State Board of Ed ucation (FL) in 1996 to provide expectations for student achievement in Florida. In the subjects of language arts, math, science, and so cial studies, the SSS have been expanded to include grade level e xpectations. Thes e Standards are the basis for state assessments at each grade 3-10 in Language Arts and Math. Progress monitoring Provides a quick sample of critical reading skills that will tell the teacher if the child is making adequate progress toward grade level reading ability at the end of the y ear growth charts for reading. Screening Provides the teacher a beginning assessment of the childs preparation for grade level reading instruction. Screening tests are a first alert that a child will n eed extra help to make adequate progress in reading Dynamic Indicators of Basic Earl y Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Five measures for three areas of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. Five to ten minutes per student. Letter Name Fluency identify upper and lower case letters (K, 1) Initial Sound Fluency Identify the beginning sounds of words represented by pictures (K) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Say the individual phonemes (sounds) in words (K, 1)

PAGE 12

12 Nonsense Word Fluency Decode non-words of 2 and 3 letters (consonant-vowel-consonant combinations) (K, 1, 2) Oral Reading Fluency Read connected text (1, 2, 3) Diagnostic assessments Provide a more detail ed picture of the full range of a childs knowledge and skill so that instruction can be more precisely planned. According to Reading Fi rst guidelines in FL, diagnostic assessments will usually only be given when a child fails to make adequate progress after being given extra help in learning to read (iii immediate intensive intervention) Outcome measures Given at the end-of-y ear for teachers to evaluate overall effectiveness of their reading program; principal can compare school performance across multiple years. Oral Reading (Grades K, 1, 2, & 3) Reading comprehension (Grades 1, 2 & 3) Reading Vocabulary (Grades 2 & 3) Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, & Fluency (Grades K-3: DIBELS 4th Assessment) Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) An assessment designed to assess the teaching and learning of the Sunshine State Standards. The pr imary purpose of the FCAT is to assess student achievement of the higher-order cognitive skills represented in the SSS in reading, writing, and mathematics. The SSS portion of the FCAT is a cr iterion-referenced test. A secondary purpose of the a ssessment is to compare the performance of Florida students to the performance of students across the nation using a norm-refere nced test. All students in grades 3 take the FCAT in the spring of each year.

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy READING INSTRUCTION DURING THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND YEARS: THE FIRST R REVISITED By Jacqueline Love Zeig August 2007 Chair: Anne McGill-Franzen Co chair: Richard Allington Major: Curriculum and Instruction The objective of this study was to examine contemporary Florida t eachers instructional practices and beliefs related to the teaching of reading. Drawing upon an earlier survey of reading beliefs and instructional practices, I deve loped and sent via email an elementary reading instruction survey to elementary teachers throughout the state of Florida. I gathered data for this quantitative study during the month of May, at the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. I received survey responses from 669 Florida elem entary teachers, including reading coaches, and other instructional staff. Independent-samples t-tests, chi-square tests of independence, and simple descriptive statistics we re used. Themes and patterns in survey responses that emerged within the Florida sample of teachers as well as between this sample of teachers and teachers of the past were described. This study contributes to the understanding of teaching and learning during a highly politicized era characterized by high-stakes a ssessments and accountability. Specifically, the findings from this study elucidate Florida elem entary teachers self-re ported instructional practices and beliefs. The survey responses su ggest: (1) teachers inst ructional practices and beliefs are closely aligned with contemporary Flor ida policies; and (2) these policies have altered

PAGE 14

14 teacher beliefs and practices when compared to the responses of teachers gathered a decade earlier.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY Introduction This is an era when the American educational system is highly scrutinized. With the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB] ("No child left behind act of 2001, pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 stat. 1425", 2002), the fe deral government imposed regulations requiring more accountability, flex ibility and local control, opti ons for parents, and emphasized scientifically based teaching methods, pa rticularly in the area of reading. Although NCLB called for idealistic changes in education to improve the teaching and learning of students, debates co ntinue around the implementation of the policy. The constraints imposed on teachers remain at the core of the debates. Even so, policymakers continue to impose curricular and instructional mandates, bu t the outcome of these instructional mandates varies across contexts. By id entifying the instructional practi ces and beliefs that teachers reported using, I determined th e impact of such policies w ithin the Florida context. All of the teachers in my study came from th e same state, Florida, which undoubtedly has an active educational policy context. What are th e instructional practices of Florida teachers and are contemporary polices influencing their instruc tion? To show the effect of policy on Florida teachers practice during this era, I juxtaposed da ta from my study with past data to identify changes in practices prior to NCLB and now. To provide a context fo r understanding past practices, I utilized da ta provided in the seminal work of Baumann, Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, and Moon Ro (2000). In the summer of 2000, Baumann et al. (2000) published their 1996 survey data. This survey highlighted reading in struction at the c onclusion of the 20th Century. Provoked by uncertainty and misperceptions surrounding readi ng instruction in the 1990s, Baumann et al.

PAGE 16

16 (2000) replicated the original First R conducted by Mary Austin and colleagues during the 1960s (Austin and Morrison, 1963). Now, se ven years after th e publication of The First R Yesterday and Today (Baumann et al, 2000), confusion still exists regarding reading inst ruction. What are effective strategies for teaching reading? Ar e our most underprivileged students being served appropriately? Who or what should be held accountable for thos e not achieving? In 2007, the questions asked are not strikingly different from those asked 10 or even 40 years earlier, but the political milieu in which teaching and learning occurs has changed greatly. Research suggests sharing and identifying best practices enables reform s to flourish (Spellings, 2005). My study collected the instructional practi ces and beliefs of Florida elementary teachers to identify whether reform effort s have influenced the teachers of today. Specifically, are the teachers that teach todays youth highly qualifi ed, as federally mandated by the end of the 2006 school year? Are teachers using scientifically ba sed teaching practices as identified by the National Reading Panel? Have teaching practices and belief s changed significantly from 10 years earlier, prior to the inception of NCLB? Statement of Problem January 1 of 2001 marked the beginning of a new era for education. George W. Bush signed into law The NCLB Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) unequivocally one of the most influential and highly touted educational reforms this coun try has ever seen. This legislation was the federal governments reaction to a national outcr y for improved teaching and learning; but, was the imposition of a heavy-handed policy the panacea or the problem? This question has been at the core of many debates surrounding education and it continues today. The challenge we face as educators today may be how to continue to meet the indivi dual needs of our students while teaching within a prescribed educational context.

PAGE 17

17 Significance of Study My research study proposed to extend the research communitys awareness of the instructional practices and beliefs of teacher s in Florida and the impact of contemporary legislation on these teachers classrooms. My study provide d documentation, as reported by Florida elementary teachers, about the authentic state of present-day reading instruction and identified changes that have come into pr actice since the Baumann et al. (2000) study. Research Questions My study revealed Florida teachers instructi onal practices and beliefs during an era of high-stakes assessments and accountability, and contra sted the practices of today to those of the past. My study explored whether teaching practi ces and beliefs have changed significantly from 10 years earlier, prior to the in ception of NCLB. Using independent -samples t-tests, chi-square tests of independence, and simple descriptive statistics for survey items, I offered data that provides answers to the follo wing research questions: Research Question 1: What are the instructional practices and beliefs related to reading instruction as reported by Fl orida elementary teachers? Research Question 2: Are teachers self-reported in structional practices of today significantly different from those reported prior to the inception of NCLB? If so, in what ways? Hypotheses Given the active policy environment su rrounding reading, I hy pothesized a strong dissimilarity to the findings collected ten years earlier by Baumann and colleagues. H1: The reading instruction of the sample population will differ from the sample population of the First R Revisited study (2000). H0: The reading instruction of the sample population will not differ from the sample population of the First R Revisited study (2000).

PAGE 18

18 Summary This chapter has provided the pertinent backdrop for understanding the current study. Research questions and hypothese s were presented. Education encompasses many perspectives; therefore, I offered definitions of terms to help the reader clearl y understand my use of particular vocabulary throughout the paper. In the chapte r that follows, I discuss prior studies that contributed to my work. In a ddition, I explore the Florida poli cy context and the theoretical framework, including an ecological perspective. In Chapter 3, I describe the methodology and the survey instrument. In Chapter 4, I pres ent the findings of the current study and identify significant differences between this study and past studies (A ustin & Morrison, 1963; Baumann et al 2000). Finally, in Chapter 5, I conclude wi th a discussion of findings with accompanying implications.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The implementation of contemporary policies is a hot topic within the current educational context of teaching and learning. Now in its si xth year of implementa tion, NCLB continues to impact local and state decisions in important ways. Policy mandates, which stem from NCLB, unequivocally outline when and how students take tests, which te xtbooks series di stricts adopt, which children receive extra attention and how th ey are grouped, how states and districts spend their federal money, how teachers are trained, and where principals and teachers are assigned to work (Retner et al., 2006). The implementation of NCLB is at its pinn acle, and this is a fascinating moment in educational history to ex amine teaching and learning. NCLB has made its mark on our schools, and it is important that we study and evaluate the consequences of this legislation. To understand where we are historically in e ducation, I begin with a brief outline of the two studies, The First R: The Harvard Report on Reading in Elementary Schools (Austin and Morrison, 1963) and The First R Yesterday and Today: U.S. Elementary Reading Instruction Practices Reported by Te achers and Administrators (Baumann et al., 2000), that contributed to the development of this study. These studies pr ovide a snapshot of education during two very distinct political eras. Next, I discuss the theoretical framewor k of the ecological perspective guiding my analysis. I provide a schematic to en able the reader to visualize the theoretical perspective. Finally, I conclude w ith a summary of the chapter. The Original First R Study The 1960s was considered a volatile time fo r education (Baumann et al, 2000). The educational context focused on the teaching and learning of skills, influenced by behaviorist

PAGE 20

20 theory popularized during that era. Teacher e ducation centered on teach ers learning a set of skills, specific behaviors, and psychological routines, that were believed to be the necessary competencies of reading teachers (Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). Mary Austin and Coleman Morrison (1961) sought to examine pre-service teacher preparation in reading during this period. Their study, The Torch Lighters (1961), found that graduating pre-service teachers were not always adequately trained to help students learn to read. Prompted by the findings of The Torch Lighters Mary Austin and a group of colleagues conducted The First R study (Austin and Morrison, 1963) to examine the guidance teachers were receiving after gr aduating from college, the methods and techniques used to help childr en to read, and the role of administration in improving reading instruction. The First R surveyed over 1000 teachers from fiftyone demographically distinct districts about the status of current prac tices and the content of reading instruction. Laudably, Austins research team also interviewed teachers, prin cipals, and district personnel. To examine, firsthand, the components of the reading program s, Austin and her research team observed lessons and activities in 14 school districts (Austin et al., 1963). The researchers elucidated the mediocrity of the reading programs, including teac hers over reliance on materials, which Austin and Morrison contended was a poten tial inhibitor to teachers fo cus on the individual needs of students (Shannon, 1983). Austin and Morrison ( 1963) identified five areas in need of improvement: more challenging developmental progr ams for all children; better provisions for individual differences; more stimulating pr ograms for gifted readers; improved teacher preparation; and more effective leadership at the administrative level. They outlined forty-five specific recommendations for educators.

PAGE 21

21 The First R Yesterday and Today The educational milieu of the 1990s consiste d of misperceptions and confusion about reading instruction as it existed in the 1960s. Ho t topics included public perception of declining achievement levels, the effectiveness of instruc tional approaches for preventing reading failure, and whole language vs. process-oriented a pproaches. In 1996, Baumann, Hoffman, DuffyHester, and Moon Ro, revisited the original First R (Austin & Morrison, 1963) study; hoping to provide a broad inspection of the context of reading instruction th at had not been examined since Austins original study. Baumann et al. (2000) su rveyed U.S. teachers and administrators. Their study examined what changes had occurred and wh at reading instruction was taking place at the turn of the century. They surveyed teachers, bui lding administrators, and district administrators to determine reading instruction of the time. Over 3,000 U.S. teachers were contacted, with just over 1,200 returning surveys. Baumann et al. (2000) reported a number of noteworthy differences between reading instruction in the 1960s and in the late 1990s. Teach ers at the turn of the century described their reading instruction as reflecting a balanced, ec lectic perspective in contrast to the strong skills-based emphasis of the past, utilizing a whole group reading inst ruction rather than a three-group reading, and adjusting to endemic ch anges in programs and philosophy, as compared to the stagnant reading instruction of the 1960s (Baumann et al., 2000). Baumann et al. (2000) characterized teachers as educated professionals who taught diverse children in varied districts. These teachers taught a balanced literacy pers pective with systematic instruction in decoding through the wide use of literature (trade books and basals). A considerable amount of instructi onal time was dedicated to reading and language arts instruction. Read-alouds, exposure to print-rich environmen ts, and independent and self-selected reading were common practices. Students were typically grouped heterogeneously in self-contained

PAGE 22

22 classrooms that commonly used some flexible grouping. Teachers used alternative assessment measures and procedures for reading assessm ents, although standardized tests were still administered and mandated. Classroom teacher s had sole responsibility for accommodating struggling and gifted readers, wh ile support programs were availabl e for struggling readers; they were less frequently reported for gifted readers. Teachers and administrators reported a shared responsibility in making decisions concerning reading programs as well as a modest amount of district-sponsored professional development. Baumann et al. (2000) documented that the two greatest challenges faced by teachers were how to accommodate struggling readers and the lack of support (parent, administrative, funding) for re ading programs. Administ rators reported their greatest concerns were teacher knowledge and professional development. Since the publication of the First R Revisited numerous national surveys have been conducted. Rita Bean and colle agues queried reading specialis t on their changing roles and responsibilities (Bean et al 2002); researchers surv eyed Head Start preschool teachers regarding their views and pr actices related to emerging literacy (Hawken, Johnston, & McDonnell, 2005); and Rankin-Ericks on and Pressley inquired the same of special education teachers nominated as effective teachers of li teracy (Rankin-Erickson & Pressley, 2000). Researchers also have explored Florida specifically examining how Florida principals interpret and implement 3rd grade retention policy (Zmach, 2006) a nd changes in teachers knowledge and instructional practices related to their interactions with reading coaches (Lefsky, 2006). Although these surveys provided valuable informa tion regarding specific aspects of literacy instruction, none of them specifically explored th e teaching practices and beliefs of elementary teachers in general. My study uni quely utilized past data to illuminate changes in practice prior to and following the impl ementation of NCLB.

PAGE 23

23 Theoretical Framework: Ecological Perspective My study is organized around the ecological pers pective, drawing on ecological theory and the ecological structure of th e educational environment as proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1975, 1976). I utilized the theoretical perspective of ecology to deepen conceptualizations of reading instruction today. Currently, United States education is in a highly politicized and top-down era. High-stakes assessment and accountability ar e at the forefront of education. In 1996, when Baumann et al. (2000) originally revisited The First R, the political milieu was strikingly different. Although skepticism su rrounding the achievement of U.S. students was on the rise, instruction embodied theories of holis m and balanced literacy. Instruction during the 1990s focused on making meaning of the text rather than the skills-based approach of the 1960s. When Austin and Morrison (1963) first explored reading instruction, it wa s conceptualized as a time of consensus, albeit misguided, on how to teach beginning reading (Chall, 1967, p. 13, as cited in Hoffman et al., 1998, p. 171). How, the n, have the different environmental contexts such as policies and historical periods influen ced the instructional practices and beliefs of contemporary teachers? The Ecological Perspective The ecological perspective provided an umbre lla for conceptualizing the interplay of policies, school, and students on the instructi onal practices and beliefs of teachers. The ecological perspective, champione d by Urie Bronfenbrenner, considered the development of an individual as an interplay between the develo ping individual himor herself, and the environments in which s/he nested (Bronfenbr enner, 1975). According to this theory, for optimal development of an individual (or organism), a close fit must exist between the individual and his/her environment. This theory expands the concept of development to mean the structural and functional change over time, in the relation between the organism and its

PAGE 24

24 environment (p.439). Development implies that th ere is some form of continuity between the individual and the environment; th ere is a reciprocal influence as the environment affects the development of the individual and the individual infl uences the development of the environment. Most notably, Bronfenbrenners research (1975 ) focused on how the various environments in which children live (family) and learn (school) contribute to their educational and human development. He described the ecological stru cture of the educational environment in which researchers can conceptualize how children ar e nested within the multiple interacting environments that contribute to their development, and contended that studying children within their environments enables a fuller understa nding of how children learn. According to Bronfenbrenner (1976), an environment is a neste d arrangement of struct ures, each contained within the next. Bronfenbrenners primary focus was on human development, more specifically how the environment influenced childrens learning. For my study, I transposed his ecological perspective to explore how teachers, as the unit of analysis rather than children, are nested within an interacting environment. Fo r the purpose of my study, the ecologi cal perspective served as an umbrella to understand and analyze the data. Bronfenbrenner descri bed a setting or context as a place where individuals engage in activities and assume roles fo r particular periods of time (Bronfenbrenner, 1976). The ve ry foundation of this definitio n is the idea of place, time, activity, and role as paramount to the context. For my study, the place is where the study was conducted (Florida), the time in which it took pl ace is 2006, the activity is teaching, and the role is that of the teacher. These elements are necessa ry if we are to understand the data of today and, further, compare the data of yesterday (Austin and Morris on, 1963; Baumann et al., 2000).

PAGE 25

25 Visualizing the Framework A theoretical schematic (Appendix 1) is provide d to show how policie s, schools, teachers, and students all are individual, yet interrelated in their influence on the instructional practices and beliefs of teachers. They form the ecolo gical environment in which teaching occurs. I considered the ecology of teaching to analyze the interplay of each of th ese agents of change: policies, schools and students, in this current climate of high-stakes te sting and accountability. To implement educational change there needs to be change in practice (Fu llan, 2001). I acknowledge the vital impact of othe r contributing agents of change in the teaching of reading; For example: how policies are in terpreted; parental involvemen t and community support; and the role of the principal (Fullan, 2001). My study, ho wever, is a replicati on of earlier studies; therefore, I was limited, in part, to the questions included in the or iginal survey instrument. The following section provides a review of the current educational polic y context in Florida. Brief descriptions of each agent of changepolicies, schools, and studentsand their effects on teachers and teaching within the context of highstakes assessments and accountability follows. I conclude with a summary. Florida Educational Policy Florida, like most states, ag reed to the federal mandates under NCLB. NCLB, a response to the failed reforms of the past, demanded greater accountability by requiring high-stakes assessments of subject-matter know ledge. The problem emphasized in NCLB is the failure of public schools to teach what state governments test more specifically, focusing on the gap in student achievement among economically divers e students (McCaslin, 2006). Explicit policy documents were created to ensure the implementati on of these policies. For example, states are provided with a road map for implementing the bright lines essential and indispensable markers for implementing NCLB. These bright li nes include:

PAGE 26

26 Assessments in Grades 3-8 Disaggregated Data Proficiency by 2013-14 Highly Qualified Teachers Options for Families (Education, 2005). One of the central tenets of NCLB calls for states to adopt a standards-based accountability system that tests challenging content and identifi es performance standards. NCLB requires that students be tested annually in reading and math in grades 3 through 10 (Spellings, 2005). To test their proficiency in meeting these standards, Florida identified the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) as the state-approved assessment system. According to the Florida Department of Education website (www.fldoe.org) data from the FCAT is used to report educational status and annual progr ess for students to the state de partment of education (Florida Department of Education, 2007a). In alignment w ith the federal guidelines of NCLB, starting in the 2002 school year, Florida be gan requiring all third grader s to take and pass the FCAT (Florida Statue 1008.25 Section (4)(a). During the fi rst year of this law, nearly one-quarter of Floridas third-graders did not meet the passing criteria (Weber & Postal, 2003). An additional component of Florida policy wa s the aggressive Reading First Initiative. Reading First is a federally funded component of NCLB that provides upwards of 300 million dollars over six years to Florida, which is then distributed to di stricts who have applied for and complied with the requirements of the grant (Florida Department of Education, 2005a). Reading First has been noted as the largest, most focuse d, early reading initiative to face this country. Reading First requires more pr ovisions on classroom instruction than previous federal reading efforts; in particular, it specifi es that teachers' classroom in structional decisions must be informed by scientifically based reading research as identified by the National Reading Panel (United States Department of Education, 2007). Reading First proposed as a goal that teachers

PAGE 27

27 have the necessary tools to provi de coherent, skills-based readi ng instruction for all children. The over arching goal of Reading First is for children to become proficient readers by the end of the third grade (United States De partment of Education, 2007). The National Reading Panel (NRP) Report (NIC HD, 2002) is at the core of the Reading First Initiative. Reading First has deemed the NRP report the authority on scientifically based reading instruction (United St ates Department of Education, 2007). Five essential components of reading instruction are considered to be the in tegral elements of scientifically based reading instruction. The NRP proposed ex plicit and systematic instructi on in these five areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension strategies. Reading First drew upon these five essentia l components of readi ng instruction as the interrelated areas that all readers must master in order to be prof icient, successful readers by the end of the third grade (Unite d States Department of Edu cation, 2007). One of the current requirements is that schools within the district must all use a scientifically research based program. The basal reading program or core -reading program which historically has been defined as a sequential, all-inclusive set of inst ructional materials that can teach all children to read regardless of teacher competence and regardless of learner differences (Goodman, Shannon, Freeman, Murphy, 1988; p.1), has now taken on the prestigious title of scientificallyresearch based program. Reading First funds will only finance programs that the FLDOE has identified as rooted in scie ntifically based research. In 2002, a formal review of a number of core-reading programs was conducted by the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR). Based on this review the FCRR acknowledged five core-reading programs that they identified as meeting Reading Firs t standards and suitable

PAGE 28

28 for Reading First schools (Florida Center for Reading Research, 2006). The core-reading programs identified were: Trophies published by Harcourt (2003); A Legacy of Literacy published by Houghton Mifflin (2003); Open Court published by SRA (2002); Reading Mastery Plus published by SRA (2002); and Scott Foresman Reading as long as the manual Links to Reading First is used (2002). During the 2005-2006 school year, 585 schools were Reading First schools (Florida Department of Education, 2007a). All districts whose schools rece ive Reading First funds are re quired to supply evidence that these schools are following the procedures and pr ograms outlined in the a pplication to the state (Florida Department of Education, 2005d). Most di stricts do not have the resources available to enact different policies for each individual school. Therefore, when a district falls under Reading First mandates, many times all schools are aff ected by the mandates; however, only those schools identified as Read ing First suffer the penalties (suc h as loss of Reading First funding) (Florida Department of Education, 2005d). Floridas response to these fede ral initiatives was to constr uct a state level initiative, Just Read, Florida! This initiative adhered to and suppor ted the requirements of NCLB and Reading First. K-12 Comprehensive Reading Plan In 2006, Just Read, Florida! developed the K -12 Comprehensive Reading Plan, in order to allocate money for reading th rough the public school funding formula (Florida Department of Education, 2003). The statewide a llocation to districts who complie d with the guidelines outlined in the K-12 Comprehensive Reading Plan was $111.8 million (Florida Department of Education, 2003). The plan ensured that: Leadership at the district and school leve l is guiding and suppor ting the initiative; The analysis of data dr ives all decision-making;

PAGE 29

29 Professional development is systematic thr oughout the district and is targeted at individual teacher needs as determined by analysis of student performance data; Measurable student achievement goals ar e established and cl early described; Appropriate research-based instructional mate rials and strategies are used to address specific student needs (Florida De partment of Education, 2007a). Reading/Literacy Coaches Florida does not require all sc hools to use a reading/literacy coach, but district leadership must allocate resources to hire reading/liter acy coaches for the lowest performing schools. Schools who utilize a reading/lit eracy coach must adhere to the Just Read, Florida! reading/literacy coaches model (Florida Department of Educa tion, 2007a). Each year districts must increase the number of reading/liter acy coaches used in the prior year. Professional Development The K-12 Comprehensive Reading Plan (F lorida Department of Education, 2007a) requires that professional development be availabl e for all teachers, coaches, and administrators. This professional development was mandated to ensu re that all district educators are grounded in the essential components of reading instruction. Providers of professional development (internal and external) must be trained in reading instru ction according to scien tifically based reading research. The Plan requires that prof essional development address: Fidelity in implementation of all instruct ional materials, all reading programs, and strategies based on scientific reading research, including ea rly intervention, classroomreading materials, and accelerated programs. Immediate intensive instruction (iii) should be addressed. Instruction in the use of sc reening, diagnostic, and classr oom-based progress monitoring assessments, as well as other procedures that effectively identify students who may be at risk of reading failure or w ho are experiencing reading difficu lties (Florida Department of Education, 2007a; p.10).

PAGE 30

30 Classroom Instruction Districts must all address the reading need s of all student subgroups identified under NCLB. To do so, the Just Read, Florida! initiative required school s to align their research-based activities with the Florida Formula for Success (Table 2-1). The Just Read, Florida! K-12 Comprehensive Reading Plan provided an out line of intended instruction for teachers: classroom instruction in r eading in a dedicated, uninterrupted block of time of at least 90 minutes duration. An init ial lesson from the Comprehensive Core-reading Program (CCRP) usually requires 30 minutes per day of the required 90-minute uninterrupted reading block. For the remainder of the bl ock, the teacher should then differentiate instruction focusing on individual student needs. In addition t o, or as an extension of the 90-minute reading block, the classroom teacher special education teacher, or reading resource teacher will provide immediate inte nsive intervention (iii) to children as determined by progress monitoring and other form s of assessment (Florida Department of Education, 2007a; p.11). Elementary schools who received a school grad e of an A or B in addition to meeting Adequate Yearly Progress in reading by all s ubgroups, with 90% of students achieving high standards in reading (an FCAT sc ore of Level 3 or above) were eligible for flexibility options. Schools meeting all these criteria were not requir ed to implement a comprehensive core reading program (Florida Departme nt of Education, 2007a). Teachers and Teacher Change Research postulates (Darli ng-Hammond, 2006) that implemen ting any approach, whether it is a core-reading program or new research-bas ed practices, requires a strategic teacher who can systematically and effec tively execute the proposed prog ram or practice (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Teachers are the decisive element in improved student achievement, especially for students from high poverty schools (Nye, K onstantopolous, and Hedges, 2004). Without a knowledgeable teacher to execute the curriculum to meet the needs of their students, improved learning may be minimal, if at all, regardless of which programs or curricula are in place. Even though researchers have documented the limitatio ns of core-reading materials (Durkin, 1984;

PAGE 31

31 McGill-Franzen et al., 2006), policymakers con tinue to impose policie s mandating the use of core-reading programs as essential to improved student achievement. This is not to say that teachers do not need guidance from instructional materials (McGillFranzen et al., 2006; Valencia et al 2006), especially those teach ers who sought alternative routes to certificati on, and who often times lack suffici ent pedagogical knowledge (CochranSmith & Lytle, 2006) vital to teaching a range of learners. Mandated curriculum programs, however, do not result in substantive teacher lear ning, thoughtful instruction, or best classroom practices (Austin and Morrison, 1963; Valencia et al., 2006). Some argue that mandated materials may inadvertently distract teachers, causing them to focus more on how to use the materials and strategies and less on the students a nd the impact of their t eaching (Valencia et al., 2006). Todays current educati onal political context imposes increased requirements and significant pressures from administ rators and policymakers (Hammerness, 2004). It is not clear how these policies affect teachers practice. The Role of Policies The insidious role of polices that encroach upon teaching has been noted by teacher educators. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2006) conducted a comprehensive analysis of NCLB and accompanying policy documents. From this anal ysis, they concluded that NCLB impinged on teachers leaving them void of agency and that the NCLB legislation oversimplifies the process of teacher learning and practice. For example, NCLB documents explicitly identified five areas of reading instruction essential to reading instruction th at all teachers must utilize in order to improve student learning of readi ng. Mandating the conten t of instruction and instructional practices assumes that teaching is universal and general izable (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006). In alignment with the NCLB view, Florida implemented the Florida K Comprehensive Reading Plan to ensure that Fl orida schools integrated and taught these five

PAGE 32

32 essential components. Under the Plan, schools are required to adopt and teach only from scientifically research based programs or comprehensive core reading programs as identified on the state approved list. Additionally, schools receiving stat e funds through the K-12 Reading Plans are required to us e screening, diagnostic, and evaluativ e assessment measures. Often times it is these tests that determine how students w ho struggle with reading will be categorized and the types of interventions that will be available to them (McGill-Franzen, 1987). Reporting for the U.S. Department of Educations Office for Educational Research Improvement (OERI), Allington ( 2000) provides an in-depth re view of research studies addressing the impact of policies on readi ng instruction (Allingt on, 2000) and suggests, historically, federal policies have had, at best, a minimal impact on teacher behavior. McLaughlins Rand Change Agent Study is one example of the inconsistencies of policy implementation (1991). This study examined the implementation of federally funded initiatives in the 1970s, noting the lack of fi delity in the implementation of po licies: teachers often varied in how and to what degree they implemented policies. Research acknowledges that the faithful and appropriate implementation of policies is necessary for intended change to occur (Fullan, 2001). Teaching is a complex, multidimensional act that is challenging to capture. When policies are mandated, teacher implementation varies based on the environment as well such factors as personal beliefs, knowledge, materials and practices utilized (Spillane, Reisner, and Reimer, 2002). This confounds a researchers ability to capture the actual e ffect of a policy on practice. In an attempt to standardize the implementa tion of policies, changes to organizational patterns are mandated; however, changing organizatio nal patterns has been shown to have little effect on teaching (Allington, 2000) Teachers teach what they know and believe to be best practice. Elmore (1996), as cited in Allington (2000), notes the difficulty in changing central

PAGE 33

33 tenets of teaching and learning. Teachers individual beliefs a bout what defines appropriate reading instruction is paramount to the im plementation of policy mandates (Allington, 2000; McGill-Franzen, 2000; Fulla n, 2001) over curricular materials (H offman et al., 1998). If policy mandates do not match a teachers personal belief s, often times the policy will be implemented minimally, if at all. Assessing the effects of policies at the t eacher level is multidimensional and muddied (Fullan, 2001). Educational policymaking rarely reflects the intended instructional outcomes (Allington, 2000). Implementing new policies or i nnovations requires teacher s to: (1) use new or revised materials; (2) use new teaching appro aches; and (3) possibly alter personal beliefs (Fullan, 2001). Each of these dimensions must be explored when consid ering a policys effects on teaching. Fullan (2001) argues that in order to alter practice in teaching, change has to occur along all three dimensions to affect the outcome s of the innovation; how ever, little research documents this notion of uniformity between ma terials, approach to teaching, and teachers beliefs when implementing reform efforts. Con ceivably, this is the resu lt of how research was promulgated. Teachers are mandated to implem ent best-practices that are misaligned with their personal beliefs about teac hing. Therefore, policies are seen as intrusive to intended practice and lead teachers to feel unsettled about their pr actice (Hammerness, 2004). Richardson (1990) suggested teachers be provid ed with practices that work, but then present ways for teachers to heighten awareness of their own beliefs through time for reflection, and develop their understandings of warranted pr actices. Since teachers sense-making around policies has been linked to how teachers teach (Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer, 2002), teachers should be encouraged to challenge their views of knowledge, wh at they believe about teaching and learning, in order to change thei r practice (Hoffman et al., 1998).

PAGE 34

34 Has NCLB been different? With the requireme nts of scientifically-based research to support instructional practices a nd the influx of federal funds to build local capacity, are the intended instructional outcomes of NCLB present in Florida sc hools? Faithful implementation of policies is consistently noted as a pr oblem (Allington, 2000; McGill-Franzen, 2000); so, do Florida teachers reported instructional pr actices align with current policies? Role of Schools in Teaching Other than individual teachers, the schools in which teachers are embedded contribute significantly to what and how they will teach. Sc hools determine how policies will be enforced and supported. The culture of the school and the teachers who work there can contribute to the success of a particular innovation or to its failure (Darling-Ha mmond, 2006). Schools, unfortunately, are subject to an overload of fragmented po licies and innovations from hierarchical bureaucracie s (Fullan, 2001). Schools are vital to the development or hindran ce of teachers practi ce. Lack of support and adequate information for how policies should be implemented is often documented as an inhibitor to policy implementation (Standerford, 1997). When teachers share common goals and organization about their work, schools are more likely to adopt a new innovation related to student learning, and as a result improved learning occurs (Rosenholtz, 1989). Linda DarlingHammond (2006) recommends systematic efforts to redesign schools that provide time for teachers to work together to promote colla boration, collective planning, lesson study, peer coaching, curriculum and assessment development, and student work. Nevertheless, some research documents that even when capacity -building opportunities, such as professional development, are provided; few teachers particip ate in these initiatives (Freeman and Freeman, 1998, as cited in Allington, 2000). School culture a ffects the type and level of participation in professional development activities (Richardson, 1990). How the subjective realities of what

PAGE 35

35 teachers know and believe to be appropriate prac tice are addressed or ignored is crucial for ensuring that innovations are implem ented meaningfully (Fullan, 2001). Role of Students in Teaching Students affect teaching. Students from impove rished backgrounds often achieve at lower levels than their economically advantaged c ounterparts (Pellino, 2006). Teachers must adapt their instruction to meet the needs of struggling readers. Research documen ting the challenges of teaching these students is plentiful (MonteroSieburth, 1989; Pellino, 2006). Teachers in urban schools report increased pressure, scant materi als, lack of community support (Pellino, 2006), and teacher burnout. Due to the increased pressu re to succeed and the significant lack of resources at schools with the hi ghest numbers of poor students, teachers in these environments are often under-qualified (Ingersoll, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006). The learning needs of the students also influe nce what is taught and how (McGill-Franzen & Goatley, 2001). Students who are struggling re quire expert teachers who are skillful in adapting materials and practices to the needs of th eir students. Research documents the need for diversity of instruction for th e most struggling students (M cGill-Franzen & Goatley, 2001). Teachers may not be aware of the ways in which students of diverse cultures learn. The stakes for the teacher may be high, with the potential for failure as a teacher; the stakes for the students, however, are even higher (Hammerness, 2004). Teaching Within a Context of High -Stakes Assessments and Accountability NCLB mandated that all student s be tested in grades 3 (U nited States Department of Education, 2003). Mandating high-stakes testi ng is perceived as the panacea for improving teaching. Rather than providing a remedy for th e perceived problem of inadequacy in both teaching and learning, this climate of high-stak es testing and accountab ility may actually be promulgating the problem (Cochran-Smith & Ly tle, 2006). Afflerbach (2004) developed a

PAGE 36

36 policy brief on high-stakes testi ng and reading assessment for the National Reading Conference. It outlines the varied liabili ties of this situation, arguing that high-stakes tests: Are used with increasing frequency in spite of the fact that there is no research that links increased testing with incr eased reading achievement. Are limited in their ability to descri be students reading achievements. May be harmful to students self-esteem and motivation. Confine and constrict reading curriculum. Alienate teachers. Disrupt high quality teaching and learning. Demand significant allocation of time and m oney that could otherwise be used to increase reading achievement. Are used with increasing frequency to char acterize and label y oung children who are in early developmental stages of reading. Most often come with caveats related to the accuracy of scores and the suitability of uses of scores, which are widely ignored. Each of these liabilities contri butes in some way to the instructional practices and beliefs of Florida elementary teachers. Teachers in the state are required under Florida Statue 1008.22 to administer the Florida Comprehens ive Achievement Test. Further, beginning with the 2002 sc hool year, if the students reading deficiency, as identified in paragraph (a), is not remedi ed by the end of grade 3, as demonstrated by scoring at Level 2 or higher on the statewid e assessment test in reading for grade 3, the student must be retained (F lorida Statue 1008.25 section 5b). In addition to the state-mandated assessments districts require the administration of assessments (e.g., Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills DIBELS or SAT) in grades for which no state-mandated assessmen ts are required (Section 232.245(5), Florida Statues). Often times, students in first and second grade are retained in grade for failure on these assessments. Despite the lack of research supporting retention (Allington & Walmsley, 1995),

PAGE 37

37 students are being retained for not mastering the content of a test on one particular day. Teaching in this context emphasizes the product of learningor how well a child performs on a standardized testrather than th e process of learning that rese arch has historically valued. Teachersrightfullyare feeling pressure to teach to the test to ensure that their students master the content of the test. Alt hough research does not support th is practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 20006; Guthrie, 2002), teachers and admini strators often embrace the idea that if the material of the test is taught, no one can say they did not do their jobs. Summary In a letter preceding the publication of NCLB : A Road Map for State Implementation (Spellings, 2005) U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings discusses rising achievement levels and the narrowing of the achievement ga p among U.S. students. She acknowledges the need for documentation of best practices that have contributed to the improved success of students. Florida has been tout ed as a state that is demonstr ating improved scores on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Proc ess (NAEP). The 2005 administration of the fourth-grade reading NAEP scores shows Florid as average score (219) was marginally higher than the national average score (217). Thirty pe rcent (30%) of Florida st udents performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level and 65% scor ed at or above the NAE P Basic level (United States Department of Education, 2005). Sharing the instructiona l practices of Florida teachers may shed light on contemporary instructional practices. Florida is a state enmeshed in the demands of NCLB. This state represents the diversity of teachers and students represen tative of many U.S. schools. Florida teachers, like most teachers nationally, are intertwined in many of th e same ecological issues of policies, schools, and students when implementing practices. In th e following chapters, this study explores those

PAGE 38

38 practices and beliefs. The next chapter descri bes the methodology used to collect and analyze the data presented. Table 2-1. Floridas Formula for Success 5 + 3 + ii + iii 5 Major Components 3 Types of Classroom Assessment Initial Instruction Immediate, Intensive Intervention Phonemic Awareness Screening Explicit Flexible Groupings Phonics Progress Monitoring Systematic Accommodations Fluency Diagnosis Scaffolded Vocabulary Differentiated Comprehension Print-rich Note: Available from Just Read, Florida! website http://www.justreadflorida.com/Reading_Plans/Examples/rbrpg_memo.pdf

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Introduction Contemporary policies have increased the fede ral role in educati on, requiring schools to adhere to specific mandates in order to receiv e federal monies. Although a number of other researchers, have examined reading instruc tion (Austin and Morrison, 1963; Baumann et al., 2000; Chall, 1967) during periods of educational disharmony, collec ting data six years into the NCLB act allowed me to illuminate the existi ng instructional practices utilized by Florida elementary teachers in light of th e legislation. This study used si mple descriptive statistics to elucidate the instructional practic es of teachers today; independent-samples t-tests and chi-square tests of independence were used to compare these practices to those of the past. Participants Population For my study, I collected sample data from a Florida population of elementary school teachers. In contrast, the Baumann et al. (2000) study sample was drawn from a national population. Floridas overall populati on may be comparable to that of the nation (Table 3-1). In comparing the demographics of Florida elementary/secondary schools with national demographics, Florida is more disadvantaged with a higher pupil to teacher ratio, more students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and a higher percentage of students on Individualized Education Plans. Nonetheless, Florida students pe rform slightly better than the national average on the fourth grade NAEP in both Reading and Math. Florida has 1,884 public elementary schools. Approximately, 57, 863 elementary school teachers (United States Department of Educati on, nd) work at these schools. I collected my

PAGE 40

40 sample from this population of elementary teach ers. Drawing data from a Florida population provided me with a demographically diverse sample. Sample The primary step in understanding the impact of NCLB on teaching is to learn what local actors know about it (Stodolsky, 199 6); therefore, I surveyed Flor ida elementary teachers to ascertain their reported instruc tional practices and beliefs. All Florida district contacts, as identified thr ough the Just Read, Florida! office, received an email instructing them to forward the email to all elementary teachers at their school. Included in this email was a consent letter (Append ix B) asking for participation in the current study, and a hyperlink connecti ng the individuals to the Florida elementary reading instruction survey (Appendix C) All participants who accessed the survey and answered the questions were included in the sample (n=669). Due to the de sign of the study, confidentiality was secured. There were no identifying questi ons included in the survey. The participants were descriptively and statistically compared to participants from the First R: Yesterday and Today (Baumann et al., 2000) I provided a comparison between the two samples of teachers (Table 3-2). Data Collection Survey Construction Baumann et al. (2000) note the cumbersome pro cess they undertook to re create the original First R survey, as it was conducted in 1963. Bauma nn and his research team contacted Mary Austin and Coleman Morrison, as well as the Harvar d Libraries and Carnegie Archives, to obtain the original survey instrument. Unfortunatel y, they were unable to obtain the original instrumentalthough Mary Austin provided an unpublished dissertation by Coleman Morrison. In his dissertation, Morrison, surveyed 50 experts and prominent researcher s in the field rather

PAGE 41

41 then teachers and administrators. From this document, Baumann and his research team reconstructed a survey. Morrison (1963) juxtapos ed the experts opinions to those of teachers and administrators contained in The First R reporting the questionna ire used for reading specialists [] was identical to that for the ad ministrative officers, that is, the original First R survey (as quoted in Baumann, et. al, 2000). Usi ng extensive data tables and results provided by Morrison, Baumann and his research team recons tructed a close approximation of the original survey. Fortunately, Baumann et al. (2000) appended their reproduction of the original First R survey. I used an adapted form of the surv ey for my study. The Florida elementary reading instruction survey consisted of twelve sections. Part 1: Teacher education and professional development consisted of twenty-four questions querying teachers on demographic inform ation about themselves and their students. Questions also related to th eir education, in addition to past and current professional development activities. Due to current legisla tion requiring teachers to be highly qualified by the year 2006 (United States Department of E ducation, 2003), I added three questions asking teachers for the number of undergraduate and gra duate courses taken in reading, as well as whether they were certified as reading teachers or reading specialists. In this section, I asked teachers to indicate the number of regular and exceptional students taught and to assess their students economic situation. Part 2: Teacher beliefs/philos ophical orientation consisted of two questions asking teachers to identify multiple statements that re presented their personal philosophical beliefs and goals related to reading and th eir instructional program. Part 3: Instructional time contained two questions elicit ing the amount of time teachers spent instructionally on various read ing activities. I then gave teach ers a matrix of questions that

PAGE 42

42 provided numerous activities and components of r eading. I asked responde nts to indicate the amount of time they devote to each of these on a scale of one through four, where one is a considerable amount of time and four is no time. Part 4: Instructional materials presented five questions. Agai n, a matrix provided a list of instructional materials. Teachers were asked to choose the level of use of each of the types of materials by choosing a number between 1 and 5, where 1 corresponds to the most use (Exclusively) and 5 represents the least use (Never Used) (for the analysis portion of my survey these rated items were reverse-coded). Part 5: Content area reading was new to the survey, althou gh one of the two questions in this section were included in past surveys. I added a questio n asking simply if reading was taught through the content areas. Part 6: Organizing for instruction contained three questions about the organizational structure of their respective t eaching situations, instruction for reading with students, and their primary organizational stru cture for teaching reading. Part 7: Accommodating gifted and struggling readers consisted of four questions about the accommodations available provided to students of varying needs. Since the inclusion of reading coaches in Florida school s is prevalent, I added questi on stems to one question about support personnel as well as one question about the teachers perceived effectiveness of the reading coach at their school. Part 8: Intervention and support for struggling readers was also a new section in the survey. This section contained four questions about the interven tions that were provided for students and, if they were provided, th e number of students receiving them.

PAGE 43

43 Part 9: Assessing reading development contained nine questions about assessment. Because Florida mandates the use of a number of assessment instruments, I chose to query teachers specifically about their degree of use of each of these assessments. I also questioned teachers about their overall use of assessments and the different roles of assessments in their instructional decision-making. Part 10: Overall school and classroom reading program contained two questions in which each teacher was asked to grade his/her overall school and classroom reading program with a grade of A through F. Part 11: Grade level-specific questions contained five quest ions that explored philosophies and perspectives particular to the grade level taught. I also questioned teachers about their use of instructional materials sp ecific to their assigned grade level. Part 12: Open-ended questions the final section, asked teache rs to share major changes or innovations in their reading programs in recent year s, the nature of the changes, and their degree of success. Lastly, I asked teachers to describe the greatest challenge facing them as they work toward improving reading instruction. Survey Creation and Field Testing Following a similar process described by Bauma nn, et al (2000), I prudently analyzed the survey questionnaire to determine relevant quest ions to include in my adapted survey and questions to be altered or omitted. I included onl y questions that were analyzed and determined appropriate to the era in which I collected th e data, 2006, compared to when Baumann et al. (2000) collected their data, duri ng 1996. I altered language to re flect the educational vocabulary representative of Flor ida elementary schools. (e.g., inclus ion of fluency, phonemic awareness, and FCAT). I omitted questions (nine total) to reduce the total number of items on the survey (e.g., questions related to homesc hool connections and library use) I added questions (eighteen

PAGE 44

44 total) to reflect the current pol itical and educational context (e.g., the addition of questions on alternative certificat ion, number of undergraduate and graduate courses taken, reading teacher/specialist certification, professional de velopment topics, and time allotted to test preparation). Procedures In the original First R study (Austin and Morrison, 1963), the researchers utilized mail surveys and field visits to collect data from vari ous stakeholders (classroom teachers, principals, and central office administrators). The First R Yesterday and Today (Baumann et al., 2000) was modeled closely after the original and also collected multiple perspectives surveying elementary teachers, building administrators, and district ad ministrators via mail surveys. The current study surveys only Florida elementary teachers. Data collection for this study took place during the final month (May) of the 2005 school year. The mode of data collection used was email, with Web page surveys. Email or Web page survey methods of data collection are advantageous in a number of ways. Internet methods garner faster response times than regular mail, are more cost effective, stimulate higher response levels, and encourage longer answers to open-ended questions; respondents also are more apt to respond to sensitive questions (Doyle, nd). Due to the availability of resources (time, money, and labor), Internet surveys were ut ilized to collect data from the sole perspective of the elementary school teacher. One of the noted disadvantages of Internet methods may be their lack of applicabil ity to the whole population (Doyle, nd); because of this, I chose to include in my study all respondents who co mpleted a survey (n=669). I sent an email containing a consent letter to reading contacts from each of the sixty-seven Florida school districts with inst ructions to forward the letter to all elementary teachers at their

PAGE 45

45 schools via email. For those agreeing to par ticipate, teachers were prompted to follow a hyperlink to an online survey (Appendix A). Design Research Questions The impetus of my study was to examine the reported instructional practices and beliefs of classroom teachers during a highly politicized era in education, where high-stakes assessments and accountability have become the norm. For this purpose, I used simple descriptive statistics to answer relevant data with regard to the inst ructional practices and be liefs related to reading instruction as reported by Fl orida elementary teachers. A secondary issue underlying my study was wh ether significant differences existed between the reported instructional practices and be liefs of current teachers and those of the past and, if so, in what ways. I specifically chose to look at teachers sel f-reported instructional practices of today as compared to those reported prior to the incep tion of NCLB. If so, in what ways? Data Analysis Teachers responses on the Florida survey were imported into SPSS for analysis. I obtained the electronic data from the Baumann et al. study (2000) to use to cross-analyze with my data in order to identify similaritie s and differences between the two groups. Due to the variability in professional langua ge used by educators, some items were recoded. I analyzed each response that coded O ther on teaching position to identify potential responses that could be recoded. If teachers responses fit into one of the categories provided, the response was recoded to represent the ap propriate group. For example, teachers marked Other and then filled-in rd grade. Therefore, their respons es were recoded to represent the category of K-5 teacher that teaches one grad e level. The following is a list of specific

PAGE 46

46 responses that teachers provided for Other. Th ese responses were then recoded to fulfill the category of special education teacher: Remedial reading Title 1/Reading Recovery VE K-5 Recoded to reading coach: Reading Resource Teacher Reading Specialist Teachers Other responses were also rec oded for those who indicated they taught 6th grade. These were recoded to K-5 elementary teach er of just one grade le vel. This represented the restructuring of schools from nine years earlier when the First R Revisited (Baumann et al., 2000) collected their data. Sixth gr ade is included in more elemen tary schools today. After all the recoding, 12% of the total sample remained in the Other category. Examples provided by the respondents for the Other classifi cation of teaching position were assistant principal, curriculum resource teacher, music teacher, or media specialist To align my analysis with the design of the First R Revisited study of Baumann et al. (2000), simple descriptive statis tics and frequencies were calc ulated for the forced-choice questionnaire items. Two types of analyses were employed and results are reported. For questions that required a rating on an ordinal scale (such as 1 through 5), independent-samples ttests were conducted. Between-group and within -group differences are reported. Independentsamples t-tests and chi-square test of independe nce are used to identify significant differences between the Baumann, et al (2000) data and my study, and within my study. Disparities and similarities between the two studies were identified and described. For questions that required teachers to choos e multiple responses (see example below) percentages and frequencies we re computed for all respondent s. Between-group and within-

PAGE 47

47 group differences were highlighte d. Following the analysis of data I also highlighted specific contemporary Florida policies and discusse d my findings within this context. What activities do you engage in to furthe r your professional knowledge and skill in teaching reading and language arts? (you may choose more than one response) attend workshops, in-services, or staff development courses attend local, state, or regi onal professional conferences attend national conferences present at local, state, regiona l, or national conferences enroll in college or univers ity courses in education enroll in a graduate degree program in education read professional magazines or journals write articles for professional education newsletters, periodical, or journals membership in professional organizations serve in a leadership role in a professional organization (e.g., officer, board member, committee chair) conduct research in your own classroom, either alone or in collaboration with others other (please specify) Study Limitations One of the well-documented biases of internet surveys is the respondents lack of access to computers (Yoon & Horne, 2004); however, since th e sample collected was made up entirely of teachers, it was assumed that most, if not all, would have internet access at their schools. Another documented disadvantage related to internet surveys is that respondents can quit answering questions in the middle of the questio nnaire, whereas a person al interviewer may be able to encourage the respondent to finish (Doyle, nd). I noted this limitation in my study. My study utilized sophisticated survey software that compensates for noted di sadvantages present in Internet surveys. My survey was posted on SurveyMonkey.com, which respondents reach by using the hyperlink provided in their consent letter, sent via em ail. The software provided by Survey Monkey allows respondents to skip irrele vant questions and prohibits respondents from completing the survey or answering the questions multiple times, each of which is a typically noted disadvantage of internet surveys (Doyle, nd). Noting that internet methods may not be

PAGE 48

48 generalized to the whole population (Doyle, nd), I have provided information that showed the similarities and differences betw een Florida and the United States (Table 3-1). Conclusions can only be drawn based on the current data availa ble and those views expressed by the available sample. Another potential limitation to the study was the structure of the instrument as an opinion survey. Given that my goal in using the survey was to illuminate the impact that NCLB had on pedagogies of Florida teachers, it was necessary to question the actual teachers about their practice. Sunderman et al. explained the limitations and values of opinion surveys: Opinion surveys have limits as a source of po licy guidance, but teac hers views are very important to the success of any educati onal reform plan. Among the reasons these responses deserve credibility is their thoughtfulness, the comp lexity of opinions expressed, the close divisions on some issues, and th e fact that the teach ers whose schools are succeeding under the law report most of the sa me things that the teachers in the less successful schools say. These opinions cannot be interpreted as defensiv e justifications of failure (Sunderman et al., 2004; p.8). My study was limited by the response rate on individual questions The design of the survey allowed respondents to skip questions. Therefore, th e study was limited by the response rate of each question as identified (Table 3-3). Given the demographics of my sample, with 12% identifying themselves as an other teacher (e.g., assistant principal or curriculum resource teacher), questions that related directly to cl assroom teaching may have been skipped by those respondents who did not teach in a traditional classroom setting. Lastly, my sample of teachers may be biased. Certain responses were atypical of classroom teachers. For example, 41% of the responding teac hers reported conducting research in their own classrooms. Teachers definitions of conducting re search in their classrooms may vary greatly. Summary This chapter outlined the methods used when conducting the research for my study. The process was presented as well as the limitations to the study.

PAGE 49

49 In Chapter 4, I offer the relevant data orga nized by within-group differences and betweengroup differences. Data tables are provided to display descriptive st atistics that aid the reader in making comparisons between todays teachers and da ta about teachers in the past. Graphs are also presented to illustrate vari ability in teachers responses.

PAGE 50

50 Table 3-1. Comparison of Florida and aver age (all states) educational information Note: Data provided from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/ sresult.asp?mode=full&displaycat=1&s1=12 retrieved April 12, 2007. Florida Average, all states Total number of schools 3,700 1,920 Total number of students 2,639,336 956,762 Total Teachers 154,864 60,598 Pupil/Teacher Ratio 17 15.8 White, non-Hispanic 50.52% 56.94% Black, non-Hispanic 24.08% 17.00% Hispanic 22.96% 18.74% Asian/Pacific Islander 2.12% 4.39% American Indian/AK Native 0.34% 1.19% Total population male 51.45% 49.49% Total population female 48.54% 46.77% Free lunch eligible 38.66% 29.34% Reduced-price lunch eligible 8.69% 6.82% Limited English Proficiency (LEP)/English Language Learners (ELL) Students 8.12% 8.00% Individualized Education Program 15.25% 12.18% 2005 NAEP Scale Score, Grade 4 Math 239 237 Scale Score, Grade 8 Math 274 278 Scale Score, Grade 4 Reading 219 217 Scale Score, Grade 8 Reading 256 260

PAGE 51

51 Table 3-2. Comparison of sample demographics First R Revisited Current Study Sample Size (n) 1207 669 Sample Group (%) National sample of Elementary Teachers State sample of Florida Elementary Teachers Gender Female 93 Female 96 (%) Male 8 Male 4 K classroom teacher of just one grade level 86 K classroom teacher of just one grade level 64 K classroom teacher in a multi-grade class 8 K classroom teacher in a multigrade class 3 Prekindergarten teacher 1 Prekindergarten teacher 1 Pre-first grade/transitional firstgrade teacher <1 Pre-first grade/transitional firstgrade teacher <1 Special reading teacher 1 Reading coach 10 Special education teacher <1 Special education teacher 10 Teaching Positions (%) Other 3 Other 12 Black/African American 5 Black/African American 3 White/European American 89 White/European American 92 Hispanic/Latino 3 Hispanic/Latino 2.1 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 Asian/Pacific Islander <1 Native American/Eskimo <1 Native American/Eskimo <1 Teacher Nationality (%) Multiracial <1 Multiracial <1 Other <1 Other 1 Average number of regular education students 22 Average number of regular education students 22 Average number of special education/exceptional students 3 Average number of special education/exceptional students 7 Percent of families at a low income level 45 Percent of families at a low income level 39 Percent of families at a middle income level 46 Percent of families at a middle income level 27 Percent of families at an upper income level 8 Percent of families at an upper income level 6 Percent Black/African American students 14 Percent Black/African American students 16 Percent White students 68 Percent White students 40 Percent Hispanic/Latino students 12 Percent Hispanic/Latino students 14 Percent Asian/Pacific Islander students 2 Percent Asian/Pacific Islander students 2 Percent Native American/Eskimo students 1 Percent Native American/Eskimo students <1 Percent multiracial students 1 Percent multiracial students 3 Student Demographics Percent other ethnic students 1 Percent other ethnic students 2 Note: Teachers responses from the 2006 sample for per cent of families in low, middle and upper income levels and student nationalities do not equal 100%. For this sample, t eachers must have students who do not fit into these categories, since these percentages do not come close to 100%.

PAGE 52

52 Table 3-3. Teachers response rate by survey question number (Sample: N=669) Question Number Response Rate Question Number Response Rate Q1 669 Q32 510 Q2 666 Q33 509 Q3 666 Q34 499 Q4 666 Q35 167 Q5 659 Q36 499 Q6 665 Q37 245 Q7 666 Q38 495 Q8 48 Q39 424 Q9 656 Q40 373 Q10 655 Q41 348 Q11 661 Q42 331 Q12 664 Q43 457 Q13 654 Q44 285 Q14 578 Q45 418 Q15 664 Q46 357 Q16 587 Q47 456 Q17 586 Q48 456 Q18 591 Q49 456 Q19 582 Q50 456 Q20 616 Q51 440 Q21 615 Q52 440 Q22 507 Q53 220 Q23 521 Q54 214 Q24 498 Q55 209 Q25 488 Q56 192 Q26 454 Q57 96 Q27 491 Q58 411 Q28 502 Q59 186 Q29 485 Q60 179 Q30 511 Q61 344

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction What instructional practices and beliefs do Florida teachers report for the teaching of reading? How do Florida teachers instructiona l practices today compare to a national sample collected prior to the enactment of NCLB? Are teachers reported inst ructional practices and beliefs of today reflective of c ontemporary policies? This chapte r provides the data that begins to answer these questions. The first section begins by presenting within-g roup differences for my sample of teachers. Subsections are organized around themes from the su rvey instrument. In the following section, I provide between-group differences for the nationa l sample from the Baumann et al. (2000) study and my Florida sample of teachers. I discuss a nd display in tables all statistically significant differences. Next, I provide between-group subs tantive differences identified by comparing the percentages between the tw o samples. To highlight teachers responses throughout the chapter, I have used italics to identify answer stems. For questions such as identify a rating on a likert scale, I used quotation marks to identify the rating being reported; for ques tions that are multifaceted, that is, requiring teachers to elaborate on some asp ect of their response, specific words are in bold to reference those aspects. For example, in question 50, I asked: For each use of assessments, to what degr ee (Not at All to C onsiderable) do you use results from DIBELS for these purposes? If your students do not ta ke the DIBELS, please skip this question. Identify students at risk Grouping decisions Identify skills to emphasize Determine if skills are improving Parent conferences

PAGE 54

54 Quotation marks identify the rating, or in this case, degree of use, which is Not at All; italics are used to identify DIBELS as part of the answer stem taken di rectly from the survey; further, I bolded teachers elaboration of the response, in this case, the purpose fo r assessment results, to identify students at risk. For the statistical analyses, I conducted independent-samples t -tests with statistical significance contingent on a Type I error rate of alpha = .05 For categorical data, I conducted chi-square tests of independence. I presented descriptive differen ces and similarities both within and across groups by reporting the percentages of teachers responding from each sample for a specific item[s]. When a pplicable, I displayed in tables th e significant differences in teacher responses between the two studies. In addition, I utilized graphs to illustrate descriptive differences within my sample. Profile of Florida Elementary Teachers and Schools Teacher demographics My Florida sample consisted mostly of classroom teachers (64%); however, there was a trend for teachers to hold specialized positions such as reading coaches (10%), special education teachers (10%) and other (16%) (e.g., curriculum resource teach ers, ESOL teachers, assistant principal, music teacher). The teachers were predominately female (96%) and Caucasian (92%). All teachers reported obtaining at least a Bachelors degree (100%) with 41% of those who reported also holding a graduate degree The majority of te achers (76%) attended regular Bachelors programs (through the College of Education) to obtain their certification, although some teachers report receiving post-baccalaureate certi fication (e.g., earned a bachelors degree and then become certified 6%), a masters degree certification program (e.g., become certified while earning a masters 8%), or an alternative post baccalaur eate certification program

PAGE 55

55 (e.g., some other certification route following co mpletion of a B.A. or B.S. degree outside education 6%). As a whole, my Florida sample of teachers were pleased with the overall quality of these elementary teacher certification programs with almost half of respondents rating their programs very good (49%). When rating the quality of preparation they receiv ed for teaching reading and language arts from their certification pr ograms, this sample of teachers rated their preparation adequate (32%) to very good (38%). Only 14% of my sample earned a reading teacher/specialist certification. Of those teac hers, 48% were K-5 teachers, 25% were reading coaches, 14% were special education teachers, and 11% represented other teaching positions. Overall, my sample of Florida teachers averag ed 13 years (SD= 9.96) of teaching experience. School and Student Demographics Teachers rated their school f acilities as adequa te (34%) to very good (34%). The average class had 22 regular education students and seven special education or exceptional students A majority of the teachers re ported their students came from low-income (39%) or middle-income (27%) families. Students are predominately Caucasian (40%) with Black/African (16%), or Hispanic/Latino (14%) also represented. Professional Development Regarding teachers tendency to seek out professional knowledge and development, my Florida sample of teachers were highly motivated as evidenced by their professional activities. The most popular professi onal activities were to attend workshops, in-service or staffdevelopment courses (99%). A majority of these teachers indicated reading professional magazines or journals (80%). Roughly half the sample reported attending local, regional, or state professional conferences (53%), membership in professional organizations (45%), or conducting research in their own classroom (41%). My sample of teachers reported a wide-

PAGE 56

56 range of professional development topics as evidenced in Figures 4-1 and 4-2). These teachers reported attending, on average, 204 h ours of professional development over the last three years. Within my sample of teachers, most attended professional development that was school-based Widely noted school-based topics focused on: reading strategies (62%) progress monitoring and student reading improvement (59%) technology use (53%) FCAT preparation (51%) DIBELS (51%) Fewer teachers reported attending school-based professional development on how to accommodate ESOL students and Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR). Popular districtbased professional development within th is sample of teachers focused on: reading strategies (57%) how to accommodate ESOL students (52%) how to use current basal series (45%) Teachers voluntarily attended professional de velopment related to: reading strategies (48%) related to technology use (47%) how to accommodate struggling readers (43%) The least cited voluntarily attended professional development topics were accommodating ESOL students, DIBELS, and DAR Popular professional development topics that were required included: DIBELS (47%) accommodating ESOL students (45%) reading strategies (42%) progress monitoring and student reading improvement (42%) Professional development for these teachers was least likely to be required when related to reading research, DAR, and designing interventions. Each teacher in this sample of teachers, on

PAGE 57

57 average, reported participati ng in 204 hours of professional de velopment over the prior three years. Philosophy and Goals Philosophies I asked teachers to choose multiple statements that represent their various perspectives, philosophies, or beliefs toward the teaching and l earning of reading. The majority of this sample of Florida teachers described themselves as having an eclectic attitude toward reading instruction utilizing multiple perspectives and sets of materials when teaching reading (76%). These teachers approached reading as balanced, combining skills development with literature and language-rich activities (89%). Consistent with their ecl ectic, balanced view, these teachers believed children should be: immersed in literature and lit eracy experiences in order to become fluent readers (82%) phonics needs to be taught directly/explicitl y to beginning readers in order for students to become fluent, skillful readers (67%). Goals Teachers appeared to be of a similar mind in expressing their goals for instruction. They wanted to develop readers who were: skillful and strategic in phoni cs, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension (92%) independent and motivated to choose, appreciate, and enjoy literature (90%) critical and thoughtful in using reading and writing to learn about people and ideas, and how they might use literacy to positively affect the world in which they live (79%).

PAGE 58

58 Instructional Time and Materials Organizing for Instruction This sample of Florida elementary teachers repor ted teaching predominately in selfcontained classrooms (61%). I asked teachers to select any (i.e., choose more than one) organizational structures they used in their classroom for teaching reading. A variety of organizational structures for teaching reading was reported. They described their typical organizational plans for reading instruction as flexible grouping (e.g., students might be grouped according to interest, genre, or skill need, but these groupings were not fixed and changed regularly 58%) and ability groupings (e.g., placing all the highest readers in one group, all the middle readers in a second group, and all the lowest readers in a third group 44%). I then asked teachers to identify the primary (i.e ., choose only one) organizational structure. Flexible grouping (39%) was the primary organizational structure used among my sample of teachers. Instructional Time I asked teachers to identify the average minutes they allotted daily to specific reading and language arts activities. Figure 4-5 illustrates that teachers repo rted spending a majority of the state required 90-minute reading block actively teaching reading. When I added all categories together, teachers spent an average of 161 mi nutes daily on literacy related activities. Regarding instructional time, I asked teachers to estimate the amount of instructional time devoted to the development of various components or activities within their classroom reading and language arts program using a rating scale of 1 = No time, 2 = Little time, 3 = Moderate time, 4 = Considerable time. The components or activities with the hi ghest percentage of reported responses for the rating of considerable are displayed in Figure 4-6. Although 86% of the teachers reported using a balanced approach the responses selected by teachers to describe the allocation of instructional time to specific classroom activities are not consistent with a

PAGE 59

59 balanced approach. This potential discrepancy could be due to so cial bias in that balanced literacy instruction represents the contemporar y view of literacy in struction. Teachers may describe their approach as balanced, a lthough when asked to identify their enacted instructional practices, they do not align with this approach. When I analyzed my data regarding instru ctional time allotted to different literacy components, I noticed a trend. Responses fa vored either the higher end of devotion of instructional time (e.g., the majority of teachers responses were split between considerable and moderate time) or toward the middle (e.g., th e majority of teachers responses were split between moderate and little) time. It is difficult to quantify the difference between considerable and moderate as a result; I reported teachers responses in groups. It is reasonable to conclude that a major ity of teachers from my Florida sample are spending a significant amount of in structional time dedicated to a variety of components or activities when teaching literacy. Seventy percent or more of the teachers (sum of moderate and considerable rating for these topics) responded wi th moderate or considerable allocation of time to the following com ponents or activities: reading vocabulary comprehension fluency phonemic awareness critical reading silent reading oral reading by students reading in the content areas reading aloud to students students reading independently comprehension strategy instruction process writing or writing workshop For some components and activities, my samp le was less agreeable. The majority of teachers responses were grouped in the moderat e or little devotion of instructional time.

PAGE 60

60 These topics may represent literacy activities or topics that are either newly adopted or simply loosing popularity. These literacy components or activities were: Test preparation Literature circles, book clubs, literature discussion groups Oral or written responses to literature (drop everything and read or reading workshop) Technological applications to literacy Handwriting instruc tion and practice Spelling lists, activities or games Language experience stories or charts One literacy topic, Silent reading did not fit into either a high or middle category. For this topic, the highest percentage of teachers report ed devoting moderate (46%) instructional time; however, teachers were evenly split betw een considerable (24%) and little (24%) instructional time. There seems to be a dissona nce about the importance of silent reading to literacy development as evidenced by the variability in instructional time devoted to this activity. Instructional Materials for Reading Regarding the types of instructional mate rials teachers used for reading, teachers responded on a scale of 1 (Never) to 5 (Exclusive ly) about their use of different materials. Teachers eclectic view of read ing instruction prevailed as illu strated in their use of varied instructional materials. Drawing from the highest percentages for each scale within each type of instructional material used, instructional materi als are presented that were used predominately (Figure 4-7), moderately (Figure 4-8), infrequently (Figure 4-9), and never used (Figure 4-10). None of the provided instructi onal materials in survey questio n 24, had the highest reported percentage as Exclusively. Two instructional materials, phonics workbooks and literature anthologies are reported in multiple categories because there were less than three percentage points difference between amount of use for these ma terials (an asterisk* is used to identify these materials in the following charts).

PAGE 61

61 Specific Use of Basal Reading Materials and Trade Books When teachers were queried specifically abou t how they use basal reading materials and trade books (e.g., childrens books or library books) in their classroom reading program the majority of teachers (7 1%) responded that they use basal reading materials as the foundation of my reading program; in other wo rds, my reading program is st ructured around the basal, but I incorporate trade books w ithin the basal program. Teachers responses to this question continued to reveal their eclectic, ba lanced view of literacy instruction. Type of Basal Series Used and Year Adopted A little over half (54%) the t eachers from the Florida sample responded to the question asking when the last year of a doption for basal series occurred. Of the respondents, the majority of them reported the adoption of a new basal series between the years 2001 and 2004, with most of the adoptions falling in 2002 and 2003. The speci fic basal series used by these teachers are reported in Figure 4-11. Teaching Reading Skills and Strategies in relation to Reading Instructional Materials I asked teachers to choose all of the statements that apply to their teaching of reading skills and strategies in relation to reading instructional materials Accordingly, teachers reported: supplementing the basal program by teaching ad ditional skills not covered well or at all in the basal (68%); using the basal as a general guide for te aching skills and strategies, but adapting or extending instruction from the basal significantly (62%); and teaching skills and strategies on the basi s of ongoing informal observations and assessments of students' learning (58%).

PAGE 62

62 Content Area Reading This sample of Florida teachers also repor ted teaching reading th rough the content areas (85%). They utilized trade books often to suppo rt their teaching of science (41%) and social studies (43%), but only sometim es (37%) for math instruction. Gifted and Struggling Readers Gifted Students Forty-one percent (41%) of this sample of Florida teachers indicated no gifted students in their class. Forty-five percent (45%) adapted their classroom curriculum and instruction to accommodate these learners Thirty percent (30%) of th ese teachers reported that a pullout program was available where students receive in struction from a gifted and talented teacher. For those teachers whose students received outside instruction from a gifted teacher, they rated the effectiveness of these support persons as adequate (35%) to very good (35%). Struggling Readers In terms of struggling readers, 78% of teachers adapt classr oom curriculum and instruction to accommodate the special needs of their students who experience problems in learning to read. A pullout program for struggling re aders is available to 41% of th e sample of teachers. A number of teachers reported the availability of reading coaches (36%) to support them in adapting instruction to meet the needs of their struggling readers. Only seven percent (7%) of the sample of teachers report a reading coach working one-on-one on a weekly basis with their struggling students Of the teachers who reported that a reading coach works w ith them, or their students, these teachers rate their eff ectiveness as very good (40 %) to exceptional (28%). Interventions According to my survey data, almost all sc hools are providing inte rventions for students who are struggling with reading (89%). Teach ers whose schools provided interventions were

PAGE 63

63 asked to specify the type of intervention their st udents received. The following is a list of the commonly referenced interventions: Tutoring (before, duri ng, & after school) Pull-out programs Reading Coach/Teacher Direct Instruction SRA, Reading Mastery Spell, Pat, Read Title 1 iii immediate, intensive, interventions Voyager Computer lab/software Small group instruction Overall, tutoring and pullout pr ograms were cited most often. Assessing Reading Development Over half (55%) of Florida teachers today reported using a mix of conventional assessment measures (e.g., basal and standardized tests) and some informal assessments (e.g., Informal Reading Inventory). These teacher s utilized a variety of assessm ents for wide-ranging purposes. The distribution of teachers who reported on overall approach to reading assessments is given in Figure 4-12. Teachers use of Assessment Results Teachers were asked to what degree, from not at all to considerable, do they use results from various assessments to identify students at risk, for gr ouping decisions, to identify skills to emphasize, to determine if skills are improving and parent conferences This sample of Florida teachers used the FCAT, DIBELS or Basal unit tests to a considerable degree for an array of purposes. The percentage of teachers us ing each type of assessm ent to a Considerable degree and for what purpose is displayed in Figure 4-13.

PAGE 64

64 Teachers use of assessments for Instructional Decision-Making Teachers were given a list of formal and in formal assessments and asked to rate their degree of use (Not at all to a Considerable degree) of the assessment results specifically for instructional decision-making The data illustrating where teachers rated their use highest for each type of assessment result for instructional decision-making is provided in Figures 4-14 through 4-16. Assessments marked with an asteri sk (*) appear in multiple categories because there was only a one percent (1%) difference be tween the highest percentages of teachers reporting for each category. For example, standardized fluency assessments (e.g., DIBELS) teachers reported using to a considerable degr ee (37%) and to a moderate degree (36%). Therefore, standardized fluency assessments a ppear in both the cons iderable and moderate graphs for teachers use. No teworthy, however, is that standardized fluency assessments (e.g., DIBELS) are the only assessment where the highes t percentage of teachers reported using the results for instructional decision-making to a considerable degree. Figure 4-14 presents the data for moderately used assessments for instructional decision-making I asked teachers about how many total hours do you and your students spend each year preparing to take (e.g., test-taking exercises or lessons) and actually taking the required assessments (see question 49). These Florida teachers reported spending, on average, 329 hours, per year, per teacher, prep aring students to take assess ments. There was significant variance in the responses to this question. On the lowest end, some teachers reported spending zero hours preparing for tests, whereas, on th e highest end, teachers reported well over a thousand hours preparing and taking tests. Given that there are not thousands of instructional hours in a school year, the teachers who indica ted over a thousand hours are exaggerating this number. This may be indicative of a high-pressu re testing environment for some teachers (e.g., a failing school or a low SES school). Teachers who reported spending thousands of hours on test

PAGE 65

65 prep may be indicating that they feel all of thei r instructional time was spent preparing for tests. This variability in teachers responses also occu rred when they were asked to indicate on a scale of considerable to none the amount of instru ctional time allotted to test preparation (see question 23). The highest percentages for my teachers were divided between moderate (37%) and little (38%) instructional ti me. Again, this disparity in th e sample could be an indication of the significant pressure that some teach ers are feeling while others are not. Teachers were asked to rate to what degree they modify their teaching to conform to mandatory assessments. A little less than half (48%) of the teachers in my sample responded somewhat modified, while 39% very much modi fied their teaching to conform to mandatory assessments. Consequently, only 14% did n ot at all modify their curriculum. Overall Reading Program School Reading Program In regard to the schools from which the cu rrent sample of teachers was drawn, I asked teachers in question 56, How would you rate your over all school reading program on the following criteria, giving your school a grade of A, B, C, D, or F for each I report the rating A-F that received the highest percentage. This sample of teachers graded their overall school reading programs high on all of the provided criteria: developing readers who are skillful and strategic in phonics/phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension They rated their schools A (41%) and B (41%) for this criteria; developing readers who are critical and thought ful in using reading and writing to learn about people and ideas, and how they might use l iteracy to positively af fect the world in which they live (B 38%); developing readers who are independent in choosing, appreciating, and enjoying literature (A -34%); developing readers who are knowledgeable about literary forms or genres and about different text types or structures (B -34%).

PAGE 66

66 Classroom Reading Program When questioned specifically about their clas sroom reading program, these teachers rated their overall classroom reading program highest, an A rating, for: developing readers who are skillful and strategic in phonics/phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension (49%); developing readers who are independent in choosing, appreciating, and enjoying literature (47%). Grade-Level Specific Questions Pre-K through Grade 2 Teachers Philosophy or Perspective Of the 220 primary grade teachers that respond ed to question 53 regarding their personal philosophy or perspective about read ing programs for young children, 63% believed in an emergent literacy perspective; that is, all child ren can benefit from ea rly, meaningful reading and writing experiences Opinion on the Importance of Teaching Young Children Word Reading Strategies Of the provided list of word r eading strategies from survey question 54, teachers reported their opinion of the importance of each strategy as Essential. Teaching Phonics to Students Of the 209 teachers who believed phonic analys is was Essential or Important, 78% used synthetic phonics (systematic instructi on in which students ar e taught le tter/sound correspondences first and then are taught how to decode words) or word families or phonograms (e.g., -all,-ain, -ake words) to teach their students phonics. Materials, Techniques or Ac tivities Used Regularly I then asked primary grade teachers to select multiple materials, techniques, or activities likely to be used on a regular basis (three or mo re times a week) in their classrooms. Teachers

PAGE 67

67 were almost unanimous in their reported use of the materials, techniques, or activities listed in question 56. Teachers in the primary grades used a variety of instructional materials, techniques, or activities on a regular basis. Those practices receiving the hi ghest percentage of teachers responding were: reading aloud to students (97%); phonics and word identification lessons (92%); working with word cards (e.g., word banks, se ntence strips, word sorts, flash cards, pocket charts ) (87%); Oral language activities (e.g., songs, chant, poems, and rhymes) (86%); Children writing and invented spelling is accepted and encouraged (83%); Trade books used instructionally (82%); Reading response activities (81%); Big books used instructionally (79%). Third through Fifth Grade Teachers Materials, Techniques or Ac tivities Used Regularly I asked intermediate grade teachers to choose al l of the materials, t echniques, or activities likely to be found regularly (three or more times a week) in their classroom. Teachers in the intermediate grades also used a variety of pr actices and activities when teaching. The highest percentage of teachers reported they used: comprehension strategy instruction (e.g., making inferences, drawing conclusions) (93%); and vocabulary lessons or activities to devel op students knowledge of word meanings (90%). The lowest percentage of teachers responses was for: Literature discussion groups (e.g., book clubs) (48%) and Reading Workshop time (50%).

PAGE 68

68 Statistically Signific ant Differences between Teachers in the 1990s and Teachers Today Participation in Professional Activities The professional activities these Florida teachers engaged in to further their professional knowledge and skill related to read ing and language arts were strikingly different from what teachers in the 1996 survey reported. More teac hers today attended national conferences (21%) compared to only 10% of the sample of teachers from 1996. However, a majority of teachers (60%) from the 1996 survey reported attending local state, or regional pr ofessional conferences compared to 53% today. Eighty percent (80%) of teachers in 2006 read professional magazines or journals compared to 68% in 1996. Surpri singly, 41% of todays teachers indicated they conducted research in their own classrooms, either alone or in collaboration with others, as compared to 24% in 1996. On the other hand, teachers from the 1996 sample were more highly involved in pursuing professional knowledge an d skill by furthering thei r college education. Over half the teachers from 1996 indicated they en rolled in college or university courses in education (55%) compared to 18% today. Thirty-eight pe rcent of the 1996 sample indicated they were enrolled in a graduate degree program in education compared to 19% today. Instructional Time Average Minutes Daily to Components of Reading and Language Arts Instruction I highlighted the disparities in teacher reported total aver age minutes daily allotted to different components of reading and language arts activities (Table 4-2). Teachers from this Florida sample reported spending signifi cantly more time than teachers from 1996 on reading instruction (e.g., reading groups, skill or strategy lessons, teacher-guided re ading of selections this does not include worksheet practice or FCAT practice books). However, the national sample of teachers from 1996 reported sp ending significantly more time daily on applying, practicing, and extending reading instructi on (e.g., reading aloud to children, students'

PAGE 69

69 independent reading or DEAR pe riods, student-led response groups, cooperative reading activities) and minutes daily for language arts instruction and practice (e.g., writing workshop, response journals, spelling, oral language activities) Instructional time reporte d for literacy topics The results of nine independent-samples t-te sts comparing the instructional time teachers devote to various literacy topics between surv ey years 1996 and 2006 are provided in Table4-3. I asked teachers to rate the amount of instructional time they de voted to each of the components or activities identified in survey question 23 w ithin their classroom reading and language arts program on a scale of 1 to 4: (1 = No time, 2 = Little time, 3 = Moderate time, 4 = Considerable time. The mean instructional time was significan tly different between the two years for all nine topics. This sample of Florida teachers reported spending significantly more instructional time on reading vocabulary, comprehension, and phonics/decoding Likewise, these teachers reported spending less instructional time than teachers in 1996 on silent reading, oral or written responses to literature, process writing/ workshop, spelling/list s/activities/games and handwriting instruction/practice Instructional Materials The results of ten independent-samples t-te sts comparing the instructional materials between the two survey years are displayed in Table 4-4. I asked teachers to choose one response to rate their amount of use for each instructional material identifie d in the survey on a scale of 1 through 5 (1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Mo derately, 4 = Predominately, 5 = Exclusively). The mean was significantly different between th e two samples for all but one variable. No significant differences were re ported between the samples for chapter trade book use. Todays sample of Florida teachers reported using a single basal series, commercial classroom libraries, phonics workbooks, general reading skills workb ooks, picture trade books, computer hardware

PAGE 70

70 and software and other instructional materials more frequently as read ing instructional materials than teachers in 1996. Conversely, teachers in 1996 reported using literature anthologies and fiction trade books more frequently as reading instructional materials. Assessment Results Used for Instructional Decision-Making The results of nine independent-samples t -tests comparing the use of assessment results for instructional decision-making between the two survey years ar e provided in Table 4-5. I asked teachers to what degree do they use results from the following various types of assessments to make instructional decisions in their classroom. I asked them to rate their degree of use on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 No time, 2 Little time, 3 Moderate time, 4 Considerable time). The means differed significantly between years for all nine variables. Florida teachers, from the 2006 sample, reported using group standardized reading tests; indivi dual standardized reading tests, basal reader program unit/level skills test, informal reading inventories and informal phonics/decoding assessments significantly more often than the 1996 sample for instructional decision-making Although, rarely used by the Florida sample of teachers, but significantly more than teachers from the 1990s, are emergent literacy su rvey assessments and reading miscue analysis, however, the sample of teachers from 1996 reporte d using reading/writing portfolios and student interviews/conferences significantly more than the teachers today for instructional decisionmaking. Given teachers overall approach to read ing assessment, reported in Table 4-5, it is not surprising that teachers from 2006 were using a variety of assessments and teachers from 1996 utilized alternative assessments (e.g., portfolios and student interviews) significantly more.

PAGE 71

71 Descriptive Differences between Survey Years Gifted and Struggling Readers Salient differences emerged between the two samples related to gifted and struggling readers. Noteworthy were the drastic differences in the identification of gifted students in these samples of teachers classes. Forty-one percent ( 41%) of the current sample of teachers reported having no gifted students in their class. Howe ver, in the 1996 sample only 6% reported having no gifted students. Of the teachers who repor ted having gifted students, 79% from the 1996 sample and 45% of the 2006 sample adapted th eir classroom curriculu m and instruction to accommodate the special needs of their gifted and talented students. When reporting on accommodations and support fo r struggling readers, a majority of teachers from both samples indicated they adapte d their classroom curriculum and instruction to accommodate the special needs of students who experience problems in learning to read (1996 sample, 82%, 2006 sample, 78%). Over half (58%) the 1996 sample teachers had pullout programs available for their struggling readers co mpared to only 41% of the 2006 sample. When a reading coach or special support personnel wo rked with these teach ers students, 2006 teachers, as a whole, were more pleased with thei r effectiveness. In this case, they rated their effectiveness Very Good (40 %) to Exceptional (28%). Teachers in 1996 rated special support personnel for struggli ng readers Adequat e (28%) to Very Good (45%). Organizational Structures I asked teachers to choose all the organiza tional structures they employed regularly for classroom reading instruction. Teachers in 1996 favored teaching reading as a whole class activity (52%) whereas teachers in 2006 preferre d flexible grouping for reading (58%). When questioned about the primary organizational struct ure used, the Florida te achers responses were

PAGE 72

72 divided between flexible grouping (39%) and abili ty grouping (28%). W hole class instruction prevailed as the dominant structure (5 2%) among the 1996 sample of teachers. Overall approach to reading assessment When I queried teachers regarding their overall approach to reading assessment, teachers in the 2006 sample agreed in their overall appr oach. Fifty-five percen t (55%) of the Florida sample reported using a mix of conventional assessment measures and some informal assessments. In contrast, the national sample of t eachers from 1996, as a whole, was divided in the overall approaches employed for reading as sessment. The teachers from the 1990s reported using a mix of conventional assessment and informal assessment measures (33%) and moving toward adopting alternati ve forms of assessment (31%). These percentages are substantiated by teachers reported use of assessment results for in structional decision-making as shown in Table 4-5. Significantly, more teachers from 2006 re ported using a variety of assessments for instructional decision-making; however, signif icantly more teachers from the 1996 survey reported using alternative assessments (e .g., portfolios and stude nt interviews). Summary This chapter described the self-reported teachi ng practices of todays teachers in a highly politicized educational context. Significant differences between teachers surveyed in years 1996 and 2006 emerged from the analyses. The next chap ter situates current and past data within the ecological framework thereby illuminating the prev alent changes in practice. I also provide a summary table of relevant substantive differences (Table 5-1). Implications and conclusions are discussed.

PAGE 73

73 51% 51% 26% 47% 41% 59% 36% 35% 44% 53% 47% 29% 36% 36% 62% 43% 30% 33% 31% 24% 36% 30% 41% 30% 37% 45% 42% 52% 29% 57% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% FCAT preparation DIBELS Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) writing for Florida Writes curriculum based measures progress monitoring and student reading improvement reading research how to use your current Basal reading series aligning instruction with the Sunshine State Standards related to technology use how to accommodate struggling readers how to accommodate ESOL students designing interventions Direct Instruction reading strategiesType of Professional Development AttendedPercentage of Teachers district school Figure 4.1. School and distri ct-based professional development topics

PAGE 74

74 27% 18% 33% 39% 21% 25% 47% 43% 31%34% 47% 42% 36% 33% 23% 45% 21%30% 19% 27% 48% 27% 17%24% 30% 42% 19% 28% 18% 27% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% FCAT preparation DIBELS Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) writing for Florida Writes curriculum based measures progress monitoring and student reading improvement reading research how to use your current Basal reading series aligning instruction with the Sunshine State Standards related to technology use how to accommodate struggling readers how to accommodate ESOL students designing interventions Direct Instruction reading strategiesfocus of PDPercentage of Teachers required voluntary Figure 4-2. Voluntary and required professional development topics

PAGE 75

75 FCAT preparation DIBELS Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) writing for Florida Writes curriculum based measures 30% 41% 24% 30% 36% 51% 51% 26% 47% 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%Percentages of Teachers Attendingfocus of PD school district Figure 4-3. School and di strict-based professional deve lopment related to assessment

PAGE 76

76 FCAT p re p a rati o n DIBELS D i agn o s t i c Ass e ss me n t o f R e a d i n g (DA R) w rit i ng for F lori d a W r ites cu r ricu l u m bas e d meas u res 34% 47% 19% 30% 28% 27% 18% 19% 30% 27% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%Percentage of Teachers focus of PD voluntary requiredFigure 4-4. Voluntary and re quired professional development related to assessment

PAGE 77

77 77 33 35 160 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Reading instruction (e.g., reading groups, skill or strategy lessons, teacher-guided reading of selections this does not include worksheet practice or FCAT practice books) Applying, practicing, and extending reading instruction (e.g., reading aloud to children, students' independent reading or DEAR periods, student-led response groups, cooperative reading activities) Language arts instruction and practice (e.g., writing workshop, response journals, spelling, oral language activities) Minutes daily for test preparation (e.g. FCAT practice, timed writing, etc.) Reading and Language Arts ActivitiesAverage Minutes Daily Figure 4-5. Average minutes daily spent on reading and language arts activities

PAGE 78

78 41%41% 48%48% 76%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%Phonemic AwarenessPhonics and DecodingFluencyComprehension strategy instruction Comprehension Type of Component or ActivityPercentage of Teachers Figure 4-6. Literacy component s or activities that received a considerable amount of instructional time

PAGE 79

79 52% 46% 43% 44% 45% 46% 47% 48% 49% 50% 51% 52% 53% leveled guided reading bookssingle basal reading series Type of Instructional MaterialPercentage of Teachers Figure 4-7. Instructional mate rials used predominately

PAGE 80

80 47% 43% 41% 31% 36% 37% 52%52% 32% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%other ins t ructional media computer har d war e and softwa re c hap t er t ra de bo ok s P ic t ure tr ade b ook s general reading s k ills w orkbooks commercial cla s sroom libr a ries no nf iction t r ade b ooks fiction trad e boo k s lit era t ure an t holog ies p honics w or k booksType of Instructional MaterialPercentage of Teachers Figure 4-8. Instructional ma terials used moderately

PAGE 81

81 41% 28% 32% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Magazines and Newspapers*phonics workbooks*literature anthologies Type of Instructional MaterialPercentage of Teachers Figure 4-9. Instructional mate rials used infrequently

PAGE 82

82 31% 44% 25% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Big Booksmultiple basal reading series*phonics workbooks Type of Instructional MaterialPercentage of Teachers Figure 4-10. Instructional materials never used

PAGE 83

83 54% 19% 1% 4% 1% 15% 2% 2% 2% Harcourt Houghton Mifflin Macmilian/McGraw Hill Open Court Scholastic Scott Foresman SRA Combination Other Figure 4-11. Basal Series Adopted

PAGE 84

84 55% 18% 14% 2% 11% Primarily used conventional assessment measures (e.g., basal reader tests and district-administered standardized reading tests) Used a mix of conventional assessment measures (e.g., basal and standardized tests) and some informal assessments (e.g., informal reading inventory) Moving toward adopting various forms of alternative reading assessments (e.g., running records, anecdotal records) and/or a portfolio approach to assessment Relied extensively on alternative reading assessments and/or using a portfolio approach to assessment Didn't engage in any conventional or alternative assessments Figure 4-12. Overall approach to classroom reading instruction

PAGE 85

85 33% 51% 41% 38% 41% 42% 55% 57% 0 36% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% FCAT DIBELS Basal Unit TestsType of AssessmentPercentage of Teachers Grouping Decisions Identify Students at Risk Identify skills to emphasize Determine if skills are improving Figure 4-13. Teachers uses of assessments

PAGE 86

86 28% 38% 40% 42% 33% 37% 31% 34% 29% 36% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%*grou p s ta n d ardized r ea d in g tests ( i.e F C A T) individua l sta n dardized readi n g tes ts b as a l r e a d er pr o g r a m u n it/ le ve l s kills t e sts Informal Reading Inventorie s runn in g r e co r d s re a d in g/ wr itin g por t fol i o s rea d ing m is cue analys i s o b se r va t ion a l check list s/a n e cd o t al recor d s *emergent li ter a cy s ur v eys / assessmen ts *stand a r d ize d fluen c y a s ses s ments (i.e. DI BE LS Type of AssessmentPercentage of Teachers Figure 4-14. Assessments used to a moderat e degree for instructi onal decision-making

PAGE 87

87 34% 28% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% student interviews or conferences*emergent literacy surveys/assessments Type of Assessment Percentage of Teachers Figure 4-15. Assessments used a li ttle for instructional decision-making

PAGE 88

88 27% 28% 37% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% *group standardized reading tests (i.e. FCAT)*emergent literacy surveys/assessmentsinformal fluency measures (i.e. WCPM) Type of Assessment Percentage of Teachers Figure 4-16. Assessments used not at all for instructi onal decision-making

PAGE 89

89 Table 4-1. Chi-square tests of independence comp aring activities teachers engage in to further professional knowledge and skill in teachi ng reading and language arts by survey years 1996 2006 Results %Yes %No %Yes %No 2 p phi Enroll in college or university courses in education 54.7 45.3 18.2 81.8 235.19 <.001 0.35 Attend local, state, or regional professional conferences 59.4 40.6 52.6 47.4 8.09 .003 0.07 Attend national conference 9.9 90.1 20.6 79.4 42.21 <.001 -0.15 Enroll in graduate degree program in education 38.1 61.9 19.4 80.6 69.67 <.001 0.19 Read professional magazines or journals 67.7 32.3 80.0 20.0 32.25 <.001 -0.13 Conduct research in your own classroom, either alone or in collaboration with others 24.4 75.6 41.3 58.7 58.10 <.001 -0.17 Note: All tests are based on one degree of freedom.

PAGE 90

90 Table 4-2. Independent-samples ttests comparing the total average time (in minutes) spent daily for reading and language arts acti vities between survey years 1996 2005 Results M SD M SD t Df p Minutes daily specifically for reading instruction (e.g., reading groups, skill or strategy lessons, teacherguided reading of selections 55.21 34.09 76.99 49.87 -8.83 691.59 <.001 Minutes daily for applying, practicing, and extending reading instruction (e.g., reading aloud to children, students' independent reading or DEAR periods, student-led response groups, cooperative reading activities) 41.88 27.14 32.78 26.90 6.26 927.71 <.001 Minutes daily for language arts instruction and practice (e.g., writing workshop, response journals, spelling, oral language activities) 45.79 23.55 35.18 28.46 7.84 1646 <.001 Note: All tests are based on one degree of freedom.

PAGE 91

91 Table 4-3. Independent-samples t-tests compar ing means for reported relative allocation of instructional time between survey years 1996 2006 Results M SD M SD T Df P Reading Vocabulary 3.17 0.72 3.35 0.66 -4.91 1687 <.001 Comprehension 3.64 0.55 3.73 0.52 -3.21 1028 0.002 Silent Reading 3.03 0.79 2.87 0.85 -0.43 909 <.001 Phonics / Decoding 2.88 0.84 3.15 0.84 -6.14 1679 <.001 Reading Aloud 3.37 0.62 3.25 0.71 3.26 866 0.001 Oral or Written Lit Responses 3.07 0.73 2.67 0.86 9.31 845 <.001 Process Writing / Workshop 3.04 0.82 2.90 0.88 3.21 909 0.001 Spelling / Lists / Activities / Games 2.84 0.82 2.69 0.82 3.60 965 <.001 Handwriting Instruction / Practice 2.58 0.81 2.24 0.83 7.89 1673 <.001 Note: degrees of freedom reduced when t -statistic calculated not assuming equal variances between survey responses.

PAGE 92

92 Table 4-4. Independent-samples t -tests comparing means for range of use for instructional materials between survey years 1996 2006 Results M SD M SD T Df p Single basal series 2.69 1.32 3.32 1.16 -9.42 969 <.001 Literature anthologies 2.62 1.09 2.44 1.03 2.98 879 0.003 Fiction trade books 3.36 0.84 3.17 0.80 4.22 943 <.001 Commercial classroom libraries 3.17 0.80 3.36 0.84 -3.04 906 0.002 Phonics workbooks 1.96 1.15 2.49 1.19 -8.29 865 <.001 General reading skills workbooks 2.48 1.25 2.89 1.11 -6.54 996 <.001 Picture trade books 2.69 1.18 2.83 1.14 -2.27 910 0.024 Chapter trade books 2.78 1.11 2.91 0.99 -2.30 994 0.22 Computer hardware and software 2.65 0.98 3.03 0.96 -7.16 911 <.001 Other instructional media 2.85 0.82 3.08 0.90 -5.03 1645 <.001 Note: degrees of freedom reduced when t -statistic calculated not assuming equal variances between survey responses.

PAGE 93

93 Table 4-5. Independent-samples t -tests comparing means for reported degree of use of assessment results for instructional de cision-making between survey years 1996 2006 Results M SD M SD T Df p Group standardized reading tests 2.09 1.01 2.54 1.17 -7.22 736 <.001 Individual standardized reading tests 2.18 1.05 2.81 1.05 -10.74 1591 <.001 Basal reader program unit/level skills test 2.31 1.13 2.76 1.00 -7.73 937 <.001 Informal reading inventories 2.55 1.01 2.89 0.96 -6.29 876 <.001 Reading / Writing Portfolios 2.87 0.99 2.67 1.01 3.71 824 <.001 Student Interviews / Conferences 2.60 1.03 2.38 0.96 3.94 895 <.001 Reading miscue analysis 2.15 1.03 2.42 1.08 -4.54 812 <.001 Emergent literacy surveys / assessments 1.99 1.01 2.29 1.03 -5.31 827 <.001 Informal Phonics / Decoding Assessments 2.51 1.03 2.71 1.01 -3.55 1604 <.001 Note: degrees of freedom reduced when t -statistic calculated not assuming equal variances between survey responses

PAGE 94

94 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Introduction The purpose of this study was to describe t eachers self-reported reading instructional practices and beliefs during the current educational atmosphere of high-stakes assessment and accountability and compare these reports to thos e of teachers in the recent past. Chapter 4 presented the within-group and between-group si milarities and differences between a Florida sample of teachers from 2006 and a national sa mple of teachers from 1996. The ecological framework, presented in Chapter 2, provided a theo retical perspective for analyzing the evolution of teaching and learning within the context of high-stakes assessment and accountability. This study confirmed that Floridas aggr essive policy agenda has affect ed the instructional practices and beliefs of Florida teachers, providi ng additional research on policy effects. Educational Contexts By contrasting my data with a similar, earl ier survey, I illustrate d variation in teaching reading during two distinct times in educational history. The context of teaching reading during the mid to late 1990s was an unstable time in edu cational history. The Reading Wars were in full swing. Debates focused on the validity of th e child-centered approach es of whole language versus a more curriculum-centered approach of phonics. Just as whole language was gaining momentum in the mid 1990s; it quickly came under intense scrutiny (Pearson, 2004). Opponents charged whole language with the demise of skills in struction, strategy instruction, text structure, and content area reading (Pearson, 2004). By survey ing teachers practices and beliefs, Baumann et. al. (2000) provided a snapshot of teaching and learning during that time. Likewise, the turn of the century brought about radical educational ch anges. The inclusion of the Reading First component of NCLB eschewed the integrated and lite rature-based practices

PAGE 95

95 of the 1990s. Reading First emphasized the explic it and systematic instruction that was arguably neglected during the Whole Language movement. Scientifically based reading research, as identified by the National Reading Panel, now became the acknowledged -or rather mandated -underpinnings of curriculum and instructi on (Pearson, 2004). Through surveying teachers instructional beliefs and practices in a state such as Florida, w ith an instrument that, largely, replicated the survey conducted by Baumann et al. (2000), I provided a picture of the influence of one state policy on teaching a nd learning during an er a of curriculum reform, high-stakes, and accountability. Florida teachers teach in a highl y politicized state with aggres sive structures in place to enforce compliance with state policies. The Just Read, Florida! Initiative mirrored the core elements of the federal NCLB po licies. I collected data for this study six years after the signing of the NCLB Act, which allowed enough time to e xplore the effect of c ontemporary policies in this state. The teachers respons es are illustrative of how policies, in the state of Florida, are articulated in teachers instruc tional practices and beliefs. I re visit my research questions by emphasizing key elements mandated in the K-12 Reading Plan by the Just Read, Florida! Initiative and discuss differences between teachers today and teachers of the past in light of the different political contexts. Research Question 1: What are the instructio nal practices and beliefs related to reading instruction as reported by Fl orida elementary teachers? Contemporary teachers reported a balanced a pproach to reading instruction combining skills development with literature and language-ri ch activities. Howeve r, a majority of the teachers rarely referenced literature-based pr actices an important component of balanced reading instruction in their survey responses These teachers also reported an eclectic attitude toward reading instruc tion. Todays teachers employed a mix of instructional materials

PAGE 96

96 to support the teaching and learning of their stud ents, although they relie d most on a single basal reading program and leveled guided reading books Their teaching centered on the Big 5: fluency, comprehension, phonemic awareness, phonics and vocabulary (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Florida Department of Education, 2005d). Additionally, Florida teachers re ported that they rarely allocated instructional time for independent reading. Todays teachers modified th eir curriculum in order to allocate a sizeable amount of instructional time preparing students for high-stakes assessments. They utilized authentic assessments less often, but relied heavil y on standardized assessments for instructional decision-making. I asked teachers to indicate changes and ch allenges. Commonly not ed changes to their teaching were those mandated by the district or st ate, such as the mandated inclusion of the 90minute reading block. The greatest challenges these teachers cite d were the lack of parental support and students lack of b ackground experiences and motivation. Research Question 2: Are teachers selfreported instructional practices of today significantly different from those report ed prior to the inception of NCLB? Considering the differing political contexts of the two samples of teachers, significant differences were identified that underscore the influen ce of state and federa l educational policy on teaching. Contemporary Florida policies prov ided an outline to illustrate significant differences between teachers to day and those of the past. Comprehensive Core-Reading Programs Just Read, Florida! (Executive Order 01-260) required the FLDOE to inventory, review and recommend statewide standards for reading pr ograms. As such, the Florida Center for Reading Research identified five core-readi ng programs that fulfilled the requirements of scientifically based curriculum materials. Schools acknowledged as Reading First schools and

PAGE 97

97 receiving funding were required to adopt one of the state identified comprehensive core-reading programs. According to the current data, Florid a districts and schools have complied. Only 4% of the teachers sampled from Florida reported not using one of the state approved core-reading programs. Further aligned with contemporary pol icies, Florida teachers reported using a basal series as the foundation to their reading program while incorporating trade books within the basal program significantly more than the 1996 sample of teachers. Although state policies existed in the late 1990s limiting which basal series could be purchased with state funds, waivers were available creating more flexibility to purchas e materials not included on state approved lists. However, strict policy guidelines mandating only scientifically based reading programs as outlined in current Florida policies were not in place. The dominant theoretical trends during th e 1990s wavered between whole language and phonics based instruction moving toward a balan ced approach. Likewise, data from the 1996 sample of teachers was representative of a qui ckly fading whole language approach regarding instructional materials. Within the group of teac hers of the past, teachers reported using fiction trade books and commercial classr oom libraries most often. Indicative of the times, teachers from the mid 1990s used literature anthologies and fiction trade books significantly more than contemporary teachers. However, when looking acr oss the Florida sample of teachers use of instructional materials, these teachers were utiliz ing a greater variety of instructional materials than teachers of the past. Teachers use of a variety of instructional materials represents a contemporary trend towards commercialization. Teachers today use a variety of commercially produced materials (e.g., basals, commercial libraries, guided read ing books, workbooks) significantly more than teachers from the 1990s, which is indicative of the policies mandating the use of commercially

PAGE 98

98 produced reading programs (which have been ma rketed by conglomerates as scientifically research based). Classroom Instruction In addition to using a comprehensive core-read ing program, Just Rea d, Florida! required teachers to use scientifically based reading res earch, as outlined in the Floridas Formula for Success (Table 2-1) within the K-12 Comprehens ive Reading Plan, to guide their instruction. The Formula stipulated that instruction be explicit and systematic focused on fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, phonics and phonemic awareness. Followi ng this instruction, teachers were encouraged to provide differentiated instruction. Comparing the two samples of teachers, it is evident that Florida teachers reported instructional practices aligned with the explicit and systema tic instruction proposed under Florida policy. The explicit and systematic instruction mandated in Florida policies reflects a teacher-centered instructional stance with an emphasis on sk ills. These teachers spent significantly more instructional time daily than teachers of the past on reading instruction where they taught skill or strategy lessons or reading groups. On the other hand, teachers of the past spent more time than todays teachers on stude nt-centered activities such as applying, practicing, and extending read ing instruction (e.g., readi ng aloud to children, students' independent reading or DEAR periods, student-led response groups, cooperative reading activities). These data again illustrated how teachers instruction mirrored the dominant theoretical and political milieus. Looking specifically at what t opics of instruction teachers spent the most time on, teachers in 2006 spent a considerable amount of time on vocabulary, comprehension, and phonics/decoding. Contemporary teachers reported th ey spent significantly more instructional time on these topics than teachers of the past. Likewise, these topics were 3 of the 5 essential

PAGE 99

99 components of reading instructi on identified by the National Readi ng Panel. For the other two essential components, fluency a nd phonemic awareness, statistica lly significant differences were not calculated because these topics were not included on the original survey instrument used in the Baumann et al. (2000) study. The mere fact that these components of reading instruction were not included on the past survey is notable. Phonemic awareness and fluency were not even on the radar then, which speaks to the changed th eoretical assumptions of the present era. Turning to the organization of classroom inst ruction and instructional time, Florida policy, as explicitly outlined in the K-12 Co mprehensive Core Reading Plan states: An initial lesson from the CCRP usually consis ts of 30-40 minutes per day of the required 90 minute uninterrupted reading block (the 90 minutes is a minimum time required). For the remainder of the block, the teacher should then differentiate instruction focusing on the need of students using the CCRP or SRP (Suppl emental Reading Program). In addition to the 90-plus minutes, the classroom teacher, spec ial education teacher, or reading resource teacher will provide immediate intensive interv ention to children in need (as determined by a diagnostic assessment). Florida teachers, as previously described, have adhered to th is policy. A high percentage of teachers use the basal as the foundation to thei r reading program. However, a recent analysis of mandated core-reading program s in Florida (McGill-Franzen et al., 2006) found that corereading programs provided an arra y of side notes highlig hting tips and strategies for working with diverse learners. Overall, however, the in structional focus and or ganization of the corereading programs focused on the average learners. This analysis revealed core-reading program manuals focused on w hole-group instruction with little explicit guidance or materials for supp orting the range of learne rs (McGill-Franzen et al., 2006). In light of this research, using the core-reading program as outlined in Florida policy may be challenging for a novice teacher who hasnt the experience to navigate the core-reading program manuals to sufficiently differentiate inst ruction to instruct a range of learners. As a

PAGE 100

100 result, this policy guideline appears to be c ontradictory: use a core -reading program for a majority of your instructional progr am, but differentiate instruction. In terms of organizational structure reported by the two samples of teachers, significant differences were found. These differences, howev er, do not align with their other reported practices. For example, as already noted, teach ers in 1996 represented th eir instruction as a student-centered approach to re ading and reported their organizat ional structure for reading as whole class, a typically teacher-centered a pproach; whereas, contemporary teachers reported they used flexible grouping as their dominant organizational structur e, a student-centered approach to reading. I present two potential explanations for the dissonance in responses. One explanation could be the lack of cohe rence in professional terminology used by educators. Teachers from both samples reported organizational structures atypical of the dominant theoretical trends of the era. For example, the 1996 sample reported they used a whole class organizational structure to te ach reading, but used fiction trade books and individual conferences with student s. Whole-class instruction, in my view, pertains to instruction in one group on one level with the teacher dominating. Given th e materials and activities used most by these teachers, I hypothesize they did not fully understand this definition. Florida teachers on the other hand reported using flexible grouping and ability grouping most often to organize for reading instruction. I would suggest that Florida teachers do teach predominately using a whole class organizational structure if they faithfully implemented the procedures laid out in the core program manua l. It may be that Florida teachers are grouping flexibly between classes or by ability across clas ses (e.g., one teacher teaches the lowest readers, one teacher teaches the average readers), and thei r definition of flexible and ability grouping is skewed. As previously noted, basals or co re-reading programs are organized to teach the

PAGE 101

101 average student. I contend it would take an expert teacher, as the Florida sample of teachers may be, to differentiate instruction a nd provide flexible grouping to a range of learners. This is a potential explanation; however, I cannot valida te this interpretation. I can only say that the organizational structures reported by both sample s of teachers were not aligned with their reported practices and beliefs. A remarkable finding arose in the data related to instructional time. Florida policy required teachers to provide 90 minutes of instruction to the teaching of reading. However, when adding the average amount of time teachers allotted to different reading activities, both samples of teachers reported an average of 2 hours. It is interesting that teach ers of the past reported spending this amount of time on reading instructi on and then policies were revised requiring a minimum of 90 minutes. Perhaps, teachers of th e past over-estimated the amount of time they spent actively involved in teaching and learning. Or Floridas policy guidelines for instructional time may be nave in assuming that instructional time was a problem. As the past data identified, teachers were already spending over 90 minutes on reading instruction. Returning to the quote provide d in the K-12 CCRP, those students identified through diagnostic assessments as in need, will recei ve immediate intensive intervention (iii) by a special education teacher, classroom teacher, or reading teacher in addition to the required 90 minutes. No baseline data is available from the teachers of the past regarding interventions, however, Allington and McGill-Fra nzen (1989) documented that interventions, often times, impinged on classroom reading instructional time rather than adding instructional time to reading. Looking at the data for Florida teachers, a significant percentage of teachers reported interventions available at their schools. Interv entions most widely not ed included tutoring and pullout programs.

PAGE 102

102 Reading Coaches Districts in the state of Florid a are required to allocate resour ces to hire reading/literacy coaches for their lowest performing schools. Con ceivably, this explains the influx of teachers holding specialized positions (e.g., re ading coach) today as compared to the past. This number is likely to rise. Districts are re quired under current policy to increase yearly the number of reading/literacy coaches from the prior year Florida allotted significant funds to an unprecedented professional development plan for th e training of reading coaches. However, only 25% of the reading coaches held reading teacher/ specialist certification. Apparently, the time and money allotted to developing the expert ise of the reading coaches via professional development may have contributed towards a more positive view of reading coaches by classroom teachers. Teachers in Florida were sign ificantly more pleased than teachers of the past with the support they received from reading coaches. Highly Qualified Teachers According to Just Read, Florida!, any teacher teaching elementary reading courses must have one of the following qualificati ons: K-12 reading endor sement, K-12 reading certification, or elementary education certifi cation. Federal law requirements of NCLB for teacher quality must be met by the end of th e 2005-2006 school year specifically, June 30, 2006 (Florida Department of Education, 2005). I collected data at the end of the school year (2005-2006) in which all Florida teac hers at the elementary level were to be certified. At that time, 1.2% of the Florida sample was not certified. One reason for this ma y be that 12.4% of my sample responded other to the question regard ing their teaching position. Responses varied from assistant principal, assistant superintende nt, music teacher, or phys ical education teacher. Given these other teachers roles, certificat ion may not be required under policy guidelines.

PAGE 103

103 Professional Development Just Read, Florida! required professiona l development addre ssing: fidelity of implementation of all instructional materials, all reading programs, and strategies based on scientific reading research, as well as professional developm ent instructing on the use of screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based progress monitoring assessments and other procedures for meeting the needs of struggling readers (Florida Department of Education, 2005). Again, no baseline data were available for the 1996 sample of teachers. Historically, states have failed to provide, or fund, the professional deve lopment needed to develop teacher expertise (Allington & Cunningham, 2002). By contrast, Fl orida policy outlined the need for and requirements for professional development and provided the money to do so. During the 200304 school year alone, $52 million went toward professional development, teacher materials, reading coaches, and classroom library improvement (Florida Department of Education, 2005b). The FLDOE website reported over 8,000 teachers st atewide attended Just R ead, Florida! reading academies to learn the latest in scientifically based reading research (Florida Department of Education, 2005d). My data revealed an alignment with Just R ead, Florida!. Teachers attended professional development related to assessmen t and instruction as outlined by the policy. My sample of teachers received professional development at their school sites related to standardized assessments (e.g., FCAT and DIBELS). Profess ional development is best found at the school level where teachers have formal and informal opportunities to interact with peers and where coaches and mentors can tailor support to indivi dual teachers working with particular students on specific subject matter (Valencia et al., p.117). Districts also offered profe ssional development related to instruction (e.g., use of instructional reading programs, reading strate gies, curriculum-based measures). Required

PAGE 104

104 professional development topics focused on acc ommodating ESOL students, DIBELS, progress monitoring and student reading im provement, and reading strategies. When left to choose their own professional development topics, teachers attended professional development on reading strategies and technology use. Teachers today, on average, attended 204 hours of professional development over the past three years. This is the e quivalent to over 60 hours a year of professional development. Contemporary Florida policies out lined professional developmen t guidelines and funded this professional development. My data revealed, ho wever, that only 18% of teachers today attended graduate courses as compared to 55% of teachers from the past. As well, only 19% of teachers today enrolled in graduate degree programs as co mpared to 38% of teachers from the past. Perhaps the decline in teachers at tending graduate school is indicat ive of the times. A former Secretary of Education stated that schools of education and formal teacher training programs are failing to produce the types of highly-qualif ied teachers that the NCLB Act demands (as cited in Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006; p.vii). It seems from the data that teachers today are attending professional development rather than seeking knowledge through university programs. Assessments Florida responded to federal legislation by mandating an aggressive standardized assessment (FCAT) tied to retention in grade as well as the assignment of school grades with punitive stakes tied to poor performance (Florida Department of Education, 2007). Florida policy required students to be te sted as early as Kindergarte n (e.g., on the DIBELS) (Florida Department of Education, 2007b). Todays teachers reported they used a mix of assessments for varied purposes. However, these teachers tend to favor conventional a ssessment measures over alternative methods employed by teachers of the past. Florida teachers of today used standardized fluency assessments (e.g., DIBELS ) considerably for grouping students, making

PAGE 105

105 instructional decisions (instructiona l planning), identifying students at risk (screening) or skills to emphasize, and to determine if skills are improving (progress monitoring). Researchers in the field of reading and ps ychometrics agree usi ng one standardized achievement test to measure students success or failure is unreliable (Allington, 2002; Baker, Linn, Herman & Koretz, 2002). Despite the potentia l limitations of using one test, Florida policy continues to mandate this practice. Much research indicates that emphasizing teachers knowledge of their students, incl uding information gathered through the regular use of informal assessments, would arguably provide a more relia ble basis for instructional placement decisions (Buly & Valencia, 2002; Hartke, 1999; Hodges, 1997). Teachers need to observe children actively reading and responding to literature to ascertain their st rengths and weaknesses and to inform their instructional decision-making (Cla y, 1993). In order to provide students with adequate instruction, teachers ne ed valid and useful assessment s to guide their instruction. Nevertheless, Florida policies mandated a hea vy reliance on standardized assessments and teachers have had to comply. Following the dominant theoretical and pedagogi cal trends of the times, teachers of the 1990s reported employing authentic assessment measur es (e.g., student interviews). Again, these teachers reported instructional practices supported a student-cente red approach symbolic of the era. NCLB demanded more accountability. Florida has fully adhered to these policies, and as a result, Florida teachers are under in creased pressure to have stude nts succeed. This conclusion is evident in the amount of time teach ers dedicated to test preparation. Teachers of today reported they spent an average of 329 hours a year on te st preparation compared to a mere 43 hours reported by teachers in the past. It is unlikely that teachers in Florida spent this inordinate

PAGE 106

106 amount of time on test preparation. This inflated number may be another indication of the sense of pressure and the loss of autonom y with regard to curri cular decision-making that teachers feel. Although research doesnt support th e increased emphasis on test pr eparation to improve student scores (Guthrie, 2002), the trend of Florida teachers to do so is apparent. Limitations The design of this study is limite d to self-reported data of teac hers' instructional beliefs and practices. In particular, this study only identified the instructi onal beliefs and practices reported by the Florida teachers who responded to this surv ey. Given that my goal in administering the survey was to describe the impact of current federal policies on the instructional practices and beliefs of Florida teachers and compare these res ponses to those of teachers in the recent past, the self-report design was nece ssary. Sunderman et al. (2004) explained the limitations and values of surveys: opinion surveys have lim its as a source of polic y guidance, but teachers views are very important to the success of any educational reform plan ... (p.8). However, this survey data of self-reported instructional practi ces could not be confir med through observations of classroom teaching. Limited resources did not allow for this element of research. This study is also limited by not being directly comparable to the survey data from the past. The sample in the Baumann et al. (2000) study was a national samp le, representing states whose policies and contexts may have from Florida. It was not possible to extract the responses of Florida teachers from the 1996 national sample to make direct comparisons between past Florida teachers to Florida teachers today. Recommendations for Further Research This study explored and demystified Florida t eachers beliefs and in structional practices related to reading instru ction. I compared the responses of this sample of Florida teachers with those of a national sample of teachers in 1996 in order to assess the influences of the changed

PAGE 107

107 federal and state policy context. Future research is needed to examine teachers instructional practices and beliefs in relati on to student achievement. Research such as this may isolate instructional practices and beliefs that are most likely to contribute to student learning. Researchers have suggested the negative im pact of NCLB on teachers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006). Research exploring how teachers gra pple with their day-to-day decision making while also attending to the complexities of thei r classrooms, as well as the mandated curriculum, could provide insight for policymakers. Implications When comparing reading instruction today to instruction in the 1990s, there are more differences than similarities. Baumann et al. (2000) discussed the original First R conducted in the 1960s and noted that instruction in the 1960s consisted of a skills-based emphasis with a heavy reliance on commercial core reading programs, along with an emphasis on standardized rather than informal assessments. Instru ction during this period focused on the product of learning rather than the process Revisiting those key elements of reading instruction identified in the First R study by Austin and Morrison, a cyclical tren d in instructional practices and beliefs is apparent between teachers today and t eachers in the 1960s. Teachers of today favor instructional practices and beliefs that were more prominent in the 1960s than they are in the 1990s. Is this progress? The design of contemporary policies which focus on the outcome of teaching via highstakes assessments and increased accountability delimit the value of how teaching and learning occurs (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 20 06). States, such as Florida, readily aligned their policies in order to federal policies to qualify for funding. In doing so, according to my data, teachers have significantly modified their cu rriculum and instruction in a manner consistent with the knowledge transmission model of teaching and learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006). The

PAGE 108

108 conundrum with contemporary practices being so clos ely aligned with policie s, as so desired in the past, is that todays policies are the direct result of the repor t of the National Reading Panel, notwithstanding the narrow research base of the NRP report, which ignored pert inent scientific evidence related to reading research and inst ruction (Allington, 2002; Pressley, 2001). The NRP report influenced legislation and, thereby, the instructional practic es and materials mandated for use and now implemented in Florida schools. I contend, if contemporary legislation is going to permeate teaching and learning as extensively as we have seen, then policies need to be designed th at truly support a more balanced approach to literacy that has long been supported in the resear ch literature (Pressley, 1998). Enforcing only scientifically research based practices and materials not only ignores a vast majority of research (Alli ngton, 2002; Cunningham, 2001), but negl ects the extant knowledge and beliefs that teachers posse ss. I argue for, as David Pearson (2004) described, an ecologically balanced approach to teaching and learning. Teaching from an ecologically balanced approach theoretically a nd pedagogically integrates a range of fields of research within education, and respects the basic wisdom of t eachers. This type of approach, if truly implemented and practiced, values the moment-t o-moment decision making of teachers based on what they know about their students and learni ng. Teachers today are limited in their choices around curriculum and instructional practices, le aving them void of agency (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006). An ecologically balanced approach values teachers as autonomous individuals, capable of employing historically proven practices and materials suit able to the complexities of the contexts in which they teach. Perhaps if we adopted this transformative view of teaching and learning, rather than the cyclical view (either or model), that historically has plagued the educational field (Pearson, 20004) we would be making progress rather than backtracking.

PAGE 109

109 Conclusions As we entered the 21st Century, some research ers suggested an overall public opinion that public education has failed and drastic change is needed (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2000). Changes are evident in Florida teachers instruc tional practices and beliefs, but whether these changes are superior to past pr actices cannot be determined from my data alone. Florida is a state that has fully adhered to the back to basics and phonics appr oaches proposed under NCLB and supported through Just Read, Florida! Baumann et. al. (2000) described reading instruction in the 1990s as havi ng great energy in classrooms a nd administrators offices; a commitment to children, teaching, and learning; and a desire to move elementary reading instruction forward in spite of the many challenges public edu cators face (p. 361). Has the energy that teachers of the past i nvested in literature-based instru ction, integrated skills, process writing, and alternative assessment been stifled by the teacher-c entered, top-down classrooms of today? This study identified instructi onal practices and beliefs pr evalent during two distinct political and educational eras. Historically, linking policy to practice was documented as a challenge (Kirst, 2000). McGill-Franzen (2000), in her thorough review of policies effect on classroom instruction, described the waves of policy implementation throughout different historical times in education. She concluded th at although policies have an effect on classroom instruction, they are one of a myriad of influe nces that affect instru ction. Notwithstanding the influence of multiple actors in the day-to-day teaching and learning in classrooms, my data suggests that contemporary Florida policies are om nipresent in teachers reported instructional practices and beliefs. My data verified that teach ers of today, on average, are adopting the basic tenets of contemporary legislation as reported in their instructional practices and beliefs. Perhaps, unlike past federal policy initia tives, NCLB has unequivocally al igned policies with assessments,

PAGE 110

110 materials, curriculum, and profe ssional development. NCLB en sured that federally identified instructional materials, content, and pract ices would be implemented via professional development, promulgation of extant policy doc uments and websites (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006). States and districts either adhered to these policies or risked losing federal funding for reading. Heavy-handed federal mandates such as these, while claiming to provide local control to states and districts, potentially minimized lo cal control at the teacher level (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006). We must question whether all these state propa gated instructional practices, materials and mandated assessments are the panacea? Is this the states way of standardizing teaching? While implementing scientifically research based practi ces and materials appear idealistic on paper, teachers lose the autonomy to choose what and how to instruct their students. As Bronfenbrenner (1977) noted, indivi duals do not develop in isolati on. Teachers must work within their environment as they consider their student s backgrounds, abilitie s, and attitudes, the curriculum and materials they have available, an d the political context at the local, state, and national levels. These variables, rather than poli cies alone, in conjunction with teachers personal epistemologies, background knowledge, and experien ces, ultimately affect the what and how of teaching across classrooms (Sp illane, Reiser, and Reimer, 2002). McGill-Franzen (2000) warns, a coherent policy environmen t is not enough to improve instruction (p. 900). The current educationa l milieu is ignoring the contextualized act of teaching. Spillane and Jennings (1997) contend that if ambitious reading pedagogy is desired, then the tasks and discourse of instruction must change, rather than just the materials and activities (as cited in McGill-Franzen, 2000). Flor ida policy has succeeded in promulgating the scientifically based mantra throughout their adopted philosophies, practices, and materials.

PAGE 111

111 While compliance with contemporary policies is noted, are we neglecting to empower the teacher who possesses the pedagogical and content knowledge necessary to teach a wide range of learners, and whose understanding of the diversitie s within their classrooms are so vital? Could the imposition of a sweeping policy driven context disarm the expert teacher whose practice is contextualized and mindful, centered on individual students rath er than a mandated program? Teaching may be too complicated, too embedded in context and too tied to individual beliefs and knowledge for policy to have a predic table and consistent effect. That is not to say that policy has no effect, because it does, but it does so as one of myriad influences that make up the context of teaching and learning (McGill-Franzen, 2000; p. 21). This study documents changes in teachers prac tice that aligned with contemporary Florida and national policies. Only time will reveal whet her this standardization of curriculum materials and practice leads to the stated goa l of leaving no child behind.

PAGE 112

112 Table 5-1 Summary of Findings Similarities Differences 1996 2006 Overall profile of teachers and schools White females Educated mostly through a regular 4 yrs. Teacher ed. Program Students nationalities are diverse from low to middle income families Vastly professionally active K-5 teachers of one grade level and multi-grade teachers predominates Teachers sought certification in a post baccalaureate program. Average years teaching 16 Lukewarm evaluation of preservice courses in reading trend towards teachers in specialized teaching positions (e.g., special education, reading coach, other) slight movement towards receiving certification through Masters programs or alternative certification routes average years teaching 13 larger student teacher ratio (inclusion of more special education/exceptional students) dominating professional activities included attending national conferences, reading professional magazines and conducting classroom research growing satisfaction with preservice preparation programs Philosophy and Goals eclectic attitude with a balanced approach to literacy pervaded Believed phonics needs to be taught explicitly to beginning readers in order for students to become fluent, skillful readers Instructional goals continued to focus on skillful, strategic readers who are independent, motivated readers believed materials, both basals and literature-based instruction were important whole language teachers represented believed students need to be immersed in literature and literacy experiences in order to become fluent readers and decode words is one of my most important goals for early reading instruction

PAGE 113

113 Table 5-1. Continued Instructional time Significant time dedicated to reading instruction focused specifically on vocabulary, critical reading, oral reading by students, phonics/decoding and reading independently Little Instructional time on literature circles, language experience charts, & handwriting Moderate time allotted to silent reading and spelling instruction Significant amount of time dedicated to reading instruction and significantly less time dedicated to reading independently Considerable time dedicated to comprehension instruction Moderate amounts of time allotted to phonemic awareness, comprehension, phonemic awareness, and fluency instruction. Instructional Materials Moderate use of nonfiction trade books Widespread trade books use Single basal series as foundation to reading program dominated Moderate presence of leveled guided reading books dominated Beginning reading instruction Emergent literacy perspective prevailed High incidences of reading aloud Synthetic phonics taught directly and explicitly in meaningful ways Exposure to literature and independent, self-selected reading Teaching varied word reading strategies is essential Phonic analysis taught predominately through synthetic phonics and word family analysis Phonics and word identification lessons, working with word cards, and oral lang. activities Organizing for instruction Self-contained classroom structures common Whole-class instruction dominates with flexible grouping Existence of pull-out programs and coaching models Flexible grouping dominates with some ability grouping common Reading assessment Teachers relied on a mix of conventional assessments measures Commonly used alternative assessment measures (e.g., portfolios and observational checklists) Considerable use of standardized fluency assessments (e.g., DIBELS) Teachers modified their teaching for mandatory assessments Significant amount of hours spent preparing to take assessments

PAGE 114

114 Table 5-1. Continued Teaching struggling and gifted readers Pull-out programs for gifted students less available than programs for struggling readers Majority of classroom teachers adapt instruction to accommodate diverse learners Lukewarm evaluation of resource teachers for gifted and struggling readers Teachers adapt instruction to accommodate struggling readers and gifted readers, although half the teachers report no gifted students. Lukewarm evaluation of gifted resource teachers Teachers are pleased with reading resource teachers Interventions for struggling readers widely documented Changes and Challenges Changes and innovations in reading programs common Lack of parental support a significant challenge Most common changes: adoption of a new philosophy or program (often literature-based) and accommodating struggling readers Greatest challenges: accommodating struggling readers and lack of support (parent, administrative, funding) for reading programs Most common changes: addition of 90 minute reading block, new philosophy (to balanced), integration of reading strategies and new program Mix of changes spurred by teachers and state or district mandates Greatest challenge: time, lack of parental support, students lack of background experiences and motivation

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX A THEORETICAL SCHEMATIC Years teaching Certification Degrees earned Teaching Practices Professional development attended Beliefs Goals Professional Activities Federal State District Policies School SES Ethnicity Ability Students Special Needs Exceptionalities Instructional support School Reading program Overall facility Ecological Perspective

PAGE 116

116 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT **INFORMED CONSENT SENT VIA E-MAIL TO FLORIDA ELEMENTARY TEACHERS** Dear Florida Teacher, Many teachers across the state are participating with th e University of Florida in a study of the practices of Florida teachers entitled: Reading Instruction during the NCLB Years: The First R Revisited The information gathered will help us analyze if teachers instructional practice has been impacted by the No Child Left Behind legislation of 2001. We would lik e your cooperation taking this on-line survey. Please read this consent document carefully befo re you decide to participate in this study Time Required: Survey completion approximately 15 20 minutes. Risks and Benefits: There are no risks associated with participatio n in this study. By participating in the study, you may help policy makers and other stake holders understand the type of reading instruction students are receiving and how NCLB is understood at the school-level. Compensation: You will not receive compensation for participating in this study. Confidentiality : Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided under the law. Your identity and responses will only be available to the research team members. Identification numbers will be created for all participants to keep track of your specific responses. We will use the ID# in our analyses of data, not your name. After we compile th e data for analyses, your specific answers will be deidentified, as they will be combined together with all the other teachers responses. Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is comp letely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Jacqueline Love Zeig, M.Ed., Doctoral Fellow, School of Teaching and Lear ning, 2403 Norman Hall, 392-9191 (jelove@ufl.edu ) or Diane Yendol Hoppey PhD, School of Teaching and Learning Norman Hall, 392-9191. Whom to contact if you have questions about your right as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 326 11-2250, ph 392-0433 By clicking on the link below, you are stating that you have read the above material, and voluntarily agree to participate in this survey. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=190101937449 Thank you for joining with us in this project. Regards, Diane Yendol Hoppey & Jacqueline Love Zeig University of Florida

PAGE 117

117 APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT Teacher survey: National Reading Research Center (originally published Baumann et al., 2000). Adapted by Jacqueline Love Zeig (2007) Florida Elementary Reading Instruction Survey Directions: Please respond to the follo wing questions that inquire about elementary reading instruction in your classroom and school Teacher education and professional development 1. What is your current teaching position? K classroom teacher of just one grade level (I teach grade ______) K classroom teacher in a multi-gr ade class (I teach grades _______) prekindergarten teacher pre-first-grade/transitional first-grade teacher special reading teacher (e.g., Title I) reading coach special education teacher other (specify position____________________________) 2. What is the highest degree you have earned? Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctorate 3. What year did you earn the degree? (Open-ended) 4. How many total years have you spent as an elementary teache r? (Open-ended) 5. What is your gender (circle one number)? female male 6. What is your racial or ethnic identity? Black/African American White/European American Hispanic/Latino Asian/Pacific Islander Native American/Eskimo multiracial other racial or ethnic group

PAGE 118

118 7. What kind of teacher education program led to your elementary certification? a regular 4-year B.A. or B.S. certification program a 5-year B.A. or B.S. program (which might include hours toward a masters degree) a post baccalaureate certification prog ram (e.g., you earned a bachelors degree and then got certified). a masters degree certification program (e.g., you got certifie d while earning a masters) an alternative post baccalaureate ce rtification program (e.g., some other certification route following your completi on of a B.A. or B.S. degree outside education. I am not certified to teach at the elementary level (continued) I am not certified to teach at the elementary level 8. If you indicated that you received an "alternate" certification in question 7, please specify the type of alternative certifi cation program. (Open-ended) 9. Have you earned Florida reading teacher/specialis t certification? Yes No 10. What is your evaluation of the quality of your overall elementary teacher certification program? 1. totally inadequate 2. poor 3. adequate 4. very good 5. exceptional 11. What is your evaluation of the quality of the preparation you received for teaching reading and language arts within you r teacher certification program? 1. totally inadequate 2. poor 3. adequate 4. very good 5. exceptional 12. What activities do you engage in to fu rther your professional knowledge and skill in teaching reading and language arts? (you may choose more than one response) attend workshops, in-services, or staff development courses attend local, state, or regi onal professional conferences attend national conferences present at local, state, regiona l, or national conferences enroll in college or univers ity courses in education enroll in a graduate degree program in education read professional magazines or journals write articles for professional education newsletters, periodical, or journals

PAGE 119

119 membership in professional organizations serve in a leadership role in a professional organization (e.g., officer, board member, committee chair) conduct research in your own classroom, either alone or in collaboration with others other (please specify) 13. What topics of professional development have you been involved in to improve the reading proficiency of your students? For each topic, you choose please, indicate whether this professional development was school-based or district-based and whether your attendance was voluntary or required professional development with a specific focus on FCAT preparation professional development fo r reading strategies professional development in progress mon itoring and student reading improvement professional development in curriculum based measures Professional development with a specific focus on DIBELS professional development on reading research professional development specifically re lated to how to use your current Basal reading series professional development on how to align you r instruction with the Sunshine State Standards professional development re lated to technology use professional development with a specific focus on Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) professional development with a focus on writing for Florida Writes professional development for how to accommodate struggling readers professional development for how to accommodate ESOL students professional development for designing interventions professional development with a spec ific focus on Direct Instruction 14. How many total hours of prof essional development points have you earned in the last 3 years? 15. How would you assess your school facilities for example, overall physical condition, classroom size and condition, special inst ructional areas, libra ry, playground? 1. totally inadequate 2. poor 3. adequate 4. very good 5. exceptional 16. How many full-time regular education stude nts do you have in your classroom? Do not include here children identifie d as special or exceptional students. (If you teach in a departmentalized organization, describe your homeroom class for items 17 through 19)

PAGE 120

120 17. How many children identified as special edu cation or exceptional stud ents are included or mainstreamed in your classroom on a fu ll-time or part-time basis (e.g., learning disabled, gifted, physically handicapped, emo tionally/behaviorally disordered students)? Write 0 if you have no special/excep tional students in your classroom. 18. What is your assessment of the economic situation of the families of all regular and special/exceptional students in your classroom? Estimate the percentage of students who fit within each classification. Write 0 if you have no students within a particular classification. The combination of your answers should total 100%. ____% of my students families are at a low-income level ____% of my students families are at a middle-income level ____% of my students families are at an upper-income level 19. What is your assessment of the racial or cultural makeup of all regular and special/exceptional students in your classroom? Estimate the percentage of students who fit within each classification. Write 0 if you have no students within a particular classification. The combination of your answers should total 100%. ____% black or African American students ____% white or European American students ____% Hispanic or Latino students ____% Asian or Pacific Islander students ____% Native American or Eskimo students ____% multiracial students ____% students of other r acial or ethnic groups Teacher beliefs/philosophical orientation 20. The following statements represent various perspectives, philosophies or beliefs toward the teaching and learning of r eading. Choose all of the followi ng statements that apply to you personally (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). I would describe myself as skills-based when it comes to reading methods and materials. I have an eclectic attitude toward read ing instruction, which means that I would draw from multiple perspectives and sets of materials when teaching reading. I would describe myself as a whole language teacher. I believe in a balanced approach to r eading instruction, which combines skills development with literature a nd language-rich activities. I believe that teaching students to decode words is one of my most important goals for early reading instruction. I believe that phonics needs to be taught e xplicitly to beginning readers in order for students to become fluent, skillful readers. I believe in a literature-bas ed approach to reading inst ruction in which trade books (e.g., childrens books or library books) w ould be used exclusively or heavily. I believe that basal reading materials are us eful tools for teaching students to read, as the primary instructional material.

PAGE 121

121 I believe students need to be immersed in literature and literacy experiences in order to become fluent readers. 21. The following statements represent various goa ls or objectives that teachers might have for a reading instructional program. Choose all of the following statements that apply to you personally (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). It is my goal to develop readers who ar e skillful and strate gic in phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension. It is my goal to develop readers who are critical and thoughtful in using reading and writing to learn about people and ideas, and how they might use literacy to positively affect the world in which they live. It is my goal to develop readers who ar e independent and motivated to choose, appreciate, and enjoy literature. It is my goal to develop readers who are knowledgeable about literary forms or genres and about different text types or structures. Additional goal(s) I have (open-ended) Instructional time 22. Estimate the total average time (in minutes ) you spend each school day for each of the following reading and language ar ts activities (Note: These three numbers should reflect an estimate of the total amount of time you sp end each day for literacy-related instruction and activities.): ____ minutes daily specifically for reading instruction (e.g., reading groups, skill or strategy lessons, teacher-guided reading of selections this does not include worksheet practice or FCAT practice books) ____ minutes daily for applying, practici ng, and extending reading instruction (e.g., reading aloud to children, students independent reading or DEAR periods, student-led response groups, c ooperative reading activities) ____ minutes daily for language arts in struction and practice (e.g., writing workshop, response journals, spelli ng, oral languag e activities) _____ minutes daily for test preparation (e.g., FCAT practice, timed writing, etc.) 23. How much instructional time do you devot e to the development of the following components or activities within your clas sroom reading and language arts program? (choose one response for each row [1-Consider able, 2-Moderate, 3-Little, 4-None]). reading vocabulary comprehension fluency phonemic awareness critical reading oral reading by students

PAGE 122

122 silent reading test preparation reading in the content areas phonics/decoding reading aloud to students students reading independently (e.g., Drop Everything And Read or Reading Workshop time) oral or written responses to literature Literature circles, book clubs, li terature discussion groups comprehension strategy instruction process writing or Writing Workshop language experience stories or charts spelling lists, activities, or games handwriting instructi on and practice technological applications to literacy (e.g., microcomputers, video, multimedia) Instructional materials and libraries 24. What reading instructional materials do you use in your classroom? (Choose one response for each row [1-Exclusively, 2-Pre dominately, 3-Moderately, 4-Infrequently, 5Never]) a single basal reading series multiple basal reading series literature anthologies fiction trade books nonfiction trade books leveled guided reading books commercial classroom libraries phonics workbooks general reading skills workbooks magazines & newspapers Big Books picture trade books chapter trade books computer hardware and software other instructional media (video/audiotapes and recorders, listening centers, filmstrips, etc.) 25. How do you use basal reading materials and tr ade books (e.g., children s books or library books) in your classroom-reading program? C hoose the one response that best describes your teaching. I use basal reading materials as the only reading instructional materials in my classroom; that is, I use no tr ade books to teach reading.

PAGE 123

123 I use basal reading materials as the f oundation of my reading program; in other words, my reading program is structured around the basal, but I incorporate trade books within the basal program. I use trade books as the foundation for my reading program; in other words, my program is trade book based, but I use basals some of the time to supplement the trade books. I use trade books as the only reading instru ctional materials in my classroom; that is, I use no basal materials to teach reading. 26. If basal reading materials are used in your school (whether you use them or not), when were they last adopted and wh ich basal series was adopted? 27. How, if at all, do you teach reading skill s and strategies in relation to reading instructional materials? Choose all of th e following statements that apply to you personally (e.g., you may choose multiple responses). I teach the skills and strategies as presented in the basal program. I select skills and strategies from the ba sal program, teaching only those skills that I feel my students need to learn. I use the basal as a general guide for teach ing skills and strategies, but I adapt or extend instruction from the basal significantly. I supplement the basal program by teaching additional skills not covered well or at all in the basal. I use the basal to identify reading skills, but I teach them in the context of trade books we are using. I have constructed my own skills program, which I teach in conjunction with trade books we are reading. I teach skills and strategies on the ba sis of ongoing informal observations and assessments of my students learning. I teach reading skills very little or not at alleither from the basal or through trade books. Content Area Reading 28. Do you teach reading through the content areas? 28. Yes 29. No

PAGE 124

124 29. To what degree do you use trade books to support your content area studies in science, social studies, and mathematics; for example, using historical fiction and informational books in a social studies unit (choose one res ponse per row) [Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom, Hardly Ever)? in science in social studies in math Organizing for instruction 30. Which of the following structures comes cl osest to describing your classroom teaching situation (choos e only one)? I teach in a totally self-contained classroom ; that is, I teach all subjects and the same students all day long (with the possible excepti on of sending your students to special teachers for art, music, PE). I teach primarily in a self-contained envi ronment, but I do team teaching with one or more other teachers for reading or language classes; th at is, we group for reading instruction across several classr ooms on the basis of reading ability or interest. I teach in a departmentalized environment; that is, I teach one or two specialized subjects all day long (e.g., reading, mat h, science, social studies), teaching students from other teachers classrooms at my grade level. List specific subject area(s) you teach I teach in another environment (specify) 31. If you answered that you teach in a depart mentalized environment in the last question, please specify the subjects that you teach. (Open-ended) 32. The following statements describe vari ous ways to organize classroom-reading instruction. Choose all of the following statements that describe organizational plans you employ regularly in your classroom (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). I use ability groupings to teach reading; for example, placing all the highest readers in one group, all the middle r eaders in a second group, and all the lowest readers in a third group. I use flexible reading groups in my clas sroom; that is, students might be grouped according to interest, genre, or skill need, but these groupings are not fixed and change regularly (select this category if you use structures such as Book Clubs, cooperative-learning groups, a nd mixed-ability groups).

PAGE 125

125 I teach reading as an individualized ac tivity, designing special programs for each of my students; therefore, I do not formally group children for instruction. I teach reading as a wholeclass activity; that is, I do not generally group students for reading instruction. I use another organizatio nal plan (specify) 33. Which of the organizational structures desc ribed in the last question do you use as the primary or most frequent structure in your classroom reading program (choose only one response)? ability groupings flexible groupings individualized instruction whole-class instruction other organizational plan (specify) Accommodating gifted and struggling readers 34. The following statements describe various ways to accommodate the needs of children in your classroom who may be gifted, talented, or accelerated readers. Choose all of the following statements that apply to your te aching situation (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). There is a pullout program for my gifted readers, which is taught by a special teacher for gifted and talented students. A special teacher for gifted and talented students comes to my classroom and works with me to accommodate my most capable readers. I adapt my classroom curriculum and my instruction to accommodate the special needs of my gifted and talented readers. 35. If you indicated in the last question that there are speci al support personnel who work with your gifted readers either in the classroom or in a pull-out program (e.g., you selected either of the first two options), how do you rate the effectiveness of these support services (choose one response)? 1. totally inadequate 2. poor 3. adequate 4. very good 5. exceptional

PAGE 126

126 36. The following statements describe various ways to accommodate the needs of children in your classroom who may be struggling read ers or experiencing reading difficulties. Choose all of the following statements that apply to your teac hing situation (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). There is a pullout program for my strugg ling readers, which is taught by a special teacher for students experiencing di fficulty in learning to read. A special teacher trained to work w ith children who experience reading difficulties comes to my classroom and works with me to accommodate my struggling readers. I adapt my classroom curriculum and my instruction to accommodate the special needs of my students who experience problems in learning to read. A reading coach supports me in adapting instruction to meet the needs of my struggling readers. A reading coach works one-on-one on a weekly basis with my struggling students. 37. If you indicated in the last question that a reading coach works with you or your students, how do you rate their effectiveness? 1. totally inadequate 2. poor 3. adequate 4. very good 5. exceptional Intervention and support for struggling readers 38. Does your school provide interventions for students who are struggling with reading? Yes No 39. If you answered yes to last question, please describe whic h types of interventions are used (Open-ended) 40. Of students who are involved an intervention, how many receive 1 intervention in addition to regular classroom instruction? 41. How many students receive 2 or more interventions in addition to regular classroom instruction?

PAGE 127

127 42. How many students receive 1 or more interventions instead of regular classroom instruction? Assessing reading development 43. Select the following statement that best char acterizes your overall approach to classroom reading assessment (choose only one response). I rely primarily on conventional assessment measures, for example, basal reader tests and district-administered standardized reading tests. I use a mix of conventional assessment measures (e.g., basal and standardized tests) and some informal assessments (e.g., Informal Reading Inventory). I am moving toward adopting various fo rms of alternative reading assessments (e.g., running records, anecdotal records, observational checklists, and informal inventories) and/or a port folio approach to assess ment in my classroom. I rely extensively on alte rnative reading assessments (e.g., running records, anecdotal records, observational checklists informal inventor ies), and/or I am using a portfolio approach to assessment in my classroom. I basically dont engage in any conventi onal or alternative reading assessments 44. For each use of assessments, to what degree do you use results from the FCAT for these purposes? If your students do not take the FCAT, please skip this question [Considerable, Moderate, Little, Not at all] Identify students at risk Grouping decisions Identify skills to emphasize Determine if skills are improving Parent conferences 45. For each use of assessments, to what degree do you use results from DIBELS for these purposes? If your students do not take th e DIBELS, please skip this question [Considerable, Moderate, Little, Not at all] Identify students at risk Grouping decisions Identify skills to emphasize Determine if skills are improving Parent conferences

PAGE 128

128 46. For each use of assessments, to what degree do you use results from Basal Unit Tests for these purposes? If your students do not take the Basal Unit Tests, please skip this question [Considerable, Modera te, Little, Not at all] Identify students at risk Grouping decisions Identify skills to emphasize Determine if skills are improving Parent conferences 47. To what degree do you use results from th e following types of assessments to make instructional decisions in your classroom? [Considerable, Mode rate, Little, Not at All] group standardized reading tests (e.g., FCAT) individual standardized reading tests basal reader program unit/level skills tests Informal Reading Inventories running records reading/writing portfolios student interviews or conferences reading miscue analysis observational checklists/anecdotal records emergent literacy surveys/assessments informal phonics/decoding assessments standardized fluency assessments (e.g., DIBELS) informal fluency measures (e.g., WCPM) 48. The following statements describe various st andardized or formal assessments. Choose all of the following types of assessments th at you are required to administer to your students each school year (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). district-required standardi zed tests (e.g., FCAT, SAT-9) that include one or more reading subtests state-mandated competency test s in reading and/or writing district-required informal reading (e.g., informal reading inventories) and/or writing (e.g., essay) assessments additional required or mandated assessment (specify) 49. About how many total hours do you and your stud ents spend each year preparing to take (e.g., test-taking exercises or lessons) and actually taking the required assessments you indicated in the last question? ____ hours (write total hours per year)

PAGE 129

129 50. Some teachers report that they feel so pr essured by the required assessments (e.g., those listed in item 53) that they end up modifying th eir curriculum or inst ruction to conform to the mandatory assessments. To what degree do you modify your teac hing to conform to mandatory assessments (Choose one response)? very much somewhat not at all Overall school and classroom reading program 51. How would you rate your overa ll school-reading program on the following criteria, giving your school a grade of A, B, C, D, or F for each (Choose one response per row)? Developing readers who are skillful and strategic in phonics/p honemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and r eading comprehension. Developing readers who are cr itical and thoughtful in using reading and writing to learn about people and ideas, and how they might use lite racy to positively affect the world in which they live. Developing readers who are independent in choosing, appreciating, and enjoying literature. Developing readers who are knowledgeable about literary forms or genres and about different text t ypes or structures. Additional goal(s) my school has (specify) 52. How would you rate your overall classroom reading program on the following criteria, giving yourself a grade of A, B, C, D, or F for each (choose one response per row)? Developing readers who are skillful and strategic in phonics/p honemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and r eading comprehension. Developing readers who are cr itical and thoughtful in using reading and writing to learn about people and ideas, and how they might use lite racy to positively affect the world in which they live. Developing readers who are independent in choosing, appreciating, and enjoying literature. Developing readers who are knowledgeable about literary forms or genres and about different text t ypes or structures. Additional goal(s) I have (specify)

PAGE 130

130 Grade Level-Specific Questions The following sets of questions are age or grade specific. If you teach Pre-kindergarten, Kindergarten, Transitional First, First, or Second Grade, plea se answer items 53 through 56. Then skip to item 58 and complete the rest of the survey. Third, Fourth, or Fifth Grade, please skip to item 57 and answer it and all remaining questions in the survey. Pre-K through second-grade questions 53. What is your personal philosophy or perspective about reading programs for young children? Check the statement below that best matches your personal philosophy (choose one response). I believe in a reading readine ss perspective; that is, a childs physical, intellectual and emotional maturity is directly related to success in reading and writing. Therefore, it is a teachers job to provide students a ppropriate activities (e.g., visual, auditory, motor skill activities) to support or enhance their readiness for reading. I believe in an emergent literacy perspectiv e; that is, all children can benefit from early, meaningful reading and writin g experiences (e.g., invented spelling, environmental print, being read to). Therefore, it is a te achers job to provide students appropriate activities that will enable them to understand the functions and forms of literacy and to grow into conventio nal forms of reading and writing. 54. What is your opinion about the importan ce of teaching young children the following word reading strategies? (c hoose one response per row) [Essential, Important, Not important] teaching phonic analysis skills/strategies (decoding) teaching structural or morphemic analysis skills/ strategies (m eaningful parts of words) teaching contextual analysis skills/strategies (what word makes sens e in a selection) teaching words by sight (whole words) teaching meaning vocabulary (word meanings) 55. If you believe that instruc tion in phonic analysis is esse ntial or important, please choose all the statements below that desc ribe how you teach phonics to your students (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). synthetic phonics (systematic instructi on in which students are taught letter/sound correspondences first and then are taught how to decode words) analytic phonics (systematic instruction in which students are taught some sight words first and then are taught phonics generalizations from these words) instruction in phonics by way of word families or phonograms (e.g., -all,-ain, -ake words) only as needed (not systematic instru ction; rather, stude nts are taught phonic analysis skills as the need arises) in the context of literature (phonics skills are presented and taught through trade books or literature anthologies)

PAGE 131

131 in the context of writing and spelling (phonics skills are presented and taught through childrens writing) 56. Which of the following materials, techniques, or activities are likely to be found in your Pre-kindergarten to Grade 2 cl assroom regularly (define re gularly as three or more times per week)? Choose all of the following statements that apply to you personally (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). Big Books used instructionally trade books used instructionally basal readers used instructionally children writing and conventi onal spelling is expected children writing and invented spelli ng is accepted or encouraged book handling demonstrations or activities phonics and word identification lessons reading aloud to children oral language activities (e.g., songs, chant, poems, rhymes) Reading Workshop time Writing Workshop time Reading response activities (e.g., oral, writ ten, or artistic responses following a reading/listening activity) Free reading periods (e.g., Drop Everything and Read, or Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading time) journal writing time Working with word cards (e.g., word banks, sentence strips, word sorts, flash cards, pocket charts) Note: If you are a prekindergarten, kindergar ten, transitional first, firstor secondgrade teacher, now skip to item 57. Third-through fifth-grade questions 57. Which of the following materials, techniques, or activities are likely to be found in your Grade 3 classroom regularly (define regularly as three or more times per week)? Choose all of the following statements that apply to you personally (e.g., you may mark multiple responses). comprehension strategy instructi on (e.g., making inferences, drawing conclusions) instruction in comprehension monitoring (e.g., self-questioning, applying fix-up strategies such as rereading) instruction in literary elements (e.g., characterization, mood, setting, narrative structure) word identification instruction lessons (phoni cs, structural, or contextual analysis) vocabulary lessons or activiti es to develop students know ledge of word meanings literature response activities (e.g., discussi on, written responses to literature)

PAGE 132

132 literature discussion groups (e.g., book clubs) trade books used instructionally basal readers used instructionally reading nonfiction trade books in order to learn about expository genres teaching reading strategies along w ith content subjects (e.g., teaching chronological text structur e in the context of a soci al studies textbook lesson) Reading Workshop time Writing Workshop time critical reading lessons or activities Open-ended questions 58. Have you made any major changes or innova tions in your reading instructional program over the past several years? If you an swer no, please skip to question 62 1. yes 2. 2.no If you marked yes to the preceding, please re spond to the following questions by telling about the most important or significant changes you have made: 59. What was the nature of the change or innovation? (specify) 60. Who initiated the change and what was the r eason for the change or innovation? (specify) 61. Evaluate the success of the change or i nnovation. How is the change process proceeding? (specify) 62. As you work toward improving the quality of reading instruction in your classroom, what are the greatest ch allenges you face? Thank you for your time and responses

PAGE 133

133 APPENDIX D FLORIDA TEACHERS SURVEY RESPONSES 2. What is the highest degree you have earned? Bachelors 58% Masters 38% Specialist 3% Doctorate 0% 4. How many total years have you spent as an elementary teacher? Average 13 years 7. What kind of teacher education program led to your elementary certification? a regular 4-year B.A. or B.S. certification program 76% a 5-year B.A. or B.S. program 3% a post baccalaureate certification program 6% a masters degree certification program 8% an alternative post baccalaureate certification program 6% I am not certified to teach at the elementary level 1% 9. Have you earned Florida reading teacher/specialist certification? Yes 14% No 86% 10. What is your evaluation of the quality of your overall elementary teache r certification program? exceptional 19% very good 49% adequate 28% poor 4% totally inadequate 0% 11. What is your evaluation of the quality of the preparatio n you received for teaching reading and language arts within your teacher certification program? exceptional 16% very good 38%

PAGE 134

134 adequate 32% poor 14% totally inadequate 0% 12. What activities do you engage in to further your prof essional knowledge and skill in teaching reading and language arts? (you may choose more than one response) attend workshops, in-services, or staff development courses 98% attend local, state, or regional professional conferences 53% attend national conferences 21% present at local, state, regional, or national conferences 15% enroll in college or university courses in education 18% enroll in a graduate degree program in education 20% read professional magazines or journals 81% write articles for professional education newsletters, periodica l, or journals 4% membership in professional organizations 46% serve in a leadership role in a professional organization 16% conduct research in your own classroom, either alone or in collaboration with others 42% Other 11% 13. What topics of professional devel opment have you been involved in to im prove the reading proficiency of your students? For each topic you choose plea se indicate whether this professional deve lopment was school-based or districtbased and whether your attendance was voluntary or required. School-based District-based Voluntary Required professional development with a specific focus on FCAT preparation 51% 30% 27% 34% professional development for reading strategies 62% 57% 48% 42% professional development in progress monitoring and student reading improvement 59% 43% 33% 42% professional development in curriculum based measures 41% 36% 27% 28% Professional development with a specific focus on DIBELS 51% 41% 18% 47%

PAGE 135

135 professional development on reading research 36% 30% 39% 18% professional development specifically related to how to use your current Basal reading series 35% 45% 21% 36% professional development on how to align your instruction with the Sunshine State Standards 44% 37% 25% 33% professional development related to technology use 53% 33% 47% 23% professional development with a specific focus on Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) 26% 24% 19% 19% professional development with a focus on writing for Florida Writes 47% 30% 30% 30% professional development for how to accommodate struggling readers 47% 42% 43% 27% professional development for how to accommodate ESOL students 29% 52% 17% 45% professional development for designing interventions 36% 29% 31% 21% professional development with a specific focus on Direct Instruction 36% 31% 27% 24% 14. How many total hours of professional developmen t points have you earned in the last 3 years? Average 204 15. How would you assess your school facilities, for ex ample, overall physical condition, classroom size and condition, special instructional areas, library, playground? Exceptional 15% Very Good 34% Adequate 34% Poor 14% Totally Inadequate 3% 20. The following statements represent various persp ectives, philosophies, or beliefs toward the teaching and learning of reading. Choose all of the fo llowing statements that apply to you personally (i.e., you may mark multiple responses). I would describe myself as skills-based when it comes to reading methods and materials. 41% I have an eclectic attitude toward reading instruction, which means that I would draw from multiple perspectives and sets of materials when teaching 76%

PAGE 136

136 reading. I would describe myself as a whole language teacher. 19% I believe in a balanced approach to reading instruction, which combines skills development with lit erature and languagerich activities. 89% I believe that teaching students to decode words is one of my most important goals for early reading instruction. 58% I believe that phonics needs to be taught explicitly to beginning readers in order for students to become fluent skillful readers. 67% I believe in a literature-based approach to reading instruction in which trade books 36% I believe that basal reading materials are useful tools for teaching students to read, as the primary instructional material. 44% I believe students need to be immersed in literature and literacy experiences in order to become fluent readers. 82% 21. The following statements represent various goals or objectives that teachers might have for a reading instructional program. Choose all of the following statem ents that apply to you personally (i.e., you may mark multiple responses). It is my goal to develop readers who are skillful and strategic in phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension. 92% It is my goal to develop readers who are critical and thoughtful in using reading and writing to learn about people and ideas, and how they might use literacy to positively affect the world in which they live. 79% It is my goal to develop readers who are independent and motivated to choose, appreciate, and enjoy literature. 90% It is my goal to develop readers who are knowledgeable about literary forms or genres and about different text types or structures. 64% 22. Estimate the total average time (in minutes) you sp end each school day for each of the following reading and language arts activities (Note: These three numbers should reflect an estimate of the total amount of time you spend each day for literacy-related instruction and activities.): Minutes daily specifically for reading instruction 77 Minutes daily for appl ying, practicing, and extending reading instruction 33

PAGE 137

137 Minutes daily for language arts instruction and practice 35 Minutes daily for test preparation 16 23. How much instructional time do you devote to the devel opment of the following component s or activities within your classroom reading and language arts program? (choose one response for each row). Considerate Moderate Little None reading vocabulary 45% 46% 8% 1% comprehension 76% 21% 2% 1% fluency 48% 42% 9% 2% phonemic awareness 33% 23% 3% critical reading 44% 18% 4% oral reading by students \ 51% 16% 2% silent reading 46% 24% 7% test preparation 15% 37% 39% 10% reading in the content areas 38% 42% 15% 6% phonics/decoding 41% 34% 22% 2% reading aloud to students 40% 46% 13% 1% students read independently 28% 50% 18% 3% oral or written res ponses to literature (Drop Everything or Reading Workshop) 16% 44% 31% 9% Literature circles, book clubs, literature discussion groups 26% 39% 23% comprehension strategy instruction 48% 37% 11% 4% process writing or Writing Workshop 26% 45% 21% 8% language experience stories or charts 16% 43% 29% 12% spelling lists, activities, or games 16% 43% 34% 7% handwriting instruction and practice 9% 23% 52% 17% technological applications to literacy 13% 34% 41% 11% 24. What reading instructional materials do you use in your classroom? (Choose on e response for each row) Exclusively Predominantly M oderately Infrequently Never a single basal reading series 10% 45% 21% 10% 14% multiple basal reading series 2% 12% 17% 25% 44%

PAGE 138

138 literature anthologies 2% 14% 32% 32% 21% fiction trade books 2% 32% 52% 10% 4% nonfiction trade books 2% 28% 51% 13% 6% leveled guided reading books 7% 51% 30% 8% 5% commercial classroom libraries 4% 27% 36% 17% 16% phonics workbooks 6% 16% 26% 28% 25% general reading skills workbooks 7% 22% 36% 22% 13% magazines & newspapers 0% 10% 34% 40% 16% big books 5% 21% 20% 24% 30% picture trade books 4% 28% 31% 21% 17% chapter trade books 3% 25% 41% 21% 10% computer hardware and software 5% 25% 43% 19% 7% other instructional media 5% 26% 47% 19% 4% 25. How do you use basal reading materials and trade books (i.e., childrens books or library books) in your classroom reading program? Choose the one re sponse that best describes your teaching. I use basal reading materials as the only reading instructional materials in my classroom; that is, I use no trade books to teach reading. 3% I use basal reading materials as the foundation of my reading program; in other words, my reading program is structured around the basal, but I incorporate trade books within the basal program. 71% I use trade books as the foundation for my reading program; in other words, my program is trade book based, but I use basals some of the time to supplement the trade books. 12% I use trade books as the only reading instructional materials in my classroom; that is, I use no basal materials to teach reading. 3% Other 11% 27. How, if at all, do you teach reading skills and strategi es in relation to reading instructional materials? Choose all of the following statements that apply to you personally (i.e., you may choose multiple responses). I teach the skills and strategies as presented in the basal program. 37% I select skills and strategies from the basal 23%

PAGE 139

139 program, teaching only those skills that I feel my students need to learn. I use the basal as a general guide for teaching skills and strategies, but I adapt or extend instruction from the basal significantly. 62% I supplement the basal program by teaching additional ski lls not covered well or at all in the basal. 68% I use the basal to identify reading skills, but I teach them in the context of trade books we are using. 25% I have constructed my own skills program, which I teach in conjunction with trade books we are reading. 11% I teach skills and strategies on the basis of ongoing informal observations and assessments of my students learning. 58% I teach reading skills very little or not at alleither from the basal or through trade books. 2% 28. Do you teach reading through the content areas? Yes 84% No 16% 29. To what degree do you use trade books to support your cont ent area studies in science, so cial studies, and mathematics; for example, using hist orical fiction and info rmational books in a soci al studies unit (choose one response per row)? Always Often Some times Seldom Hardly Ever In Science 22% 41% 24% 6% 7% In Social Studies 22% 43% 24% 5% 7% In Math 7% 22% 37% 22% 30. Which of the following structures comes closest to describing your classroom teaching situation (choose only one)? I teach in a totally self-contained classroom; that is, I teach all subjects and the same students all day long 61% I teach primarily in a self-contained environment, but I do team teaching with one or more other teachers for reading or language classes; that is, we group for reading instruction across several classrooms on the basis of reading ability or interest. 11% I teach in a departmentalized environment; that is, I teach one or two specialized subjects all day long, teaching students from other teachers classrooms at my 5%

PAGE 140

140 grade level. I teach in another environment 23% 32. The following statements describe various ways to organize classroom reading instruction. Choose all of the following statements that describe organizational plans you employ regularly in your cl assroom (i.e., you may mark multiple responses). I use ability groupings to teach reading; for example, placing all the highest readers in one group, all the middle readers in a second group, and all the lowest readers in a third group. 44% I use flexible reading groups in my classroom; that is, students might be grouped according to interest, genre, or skill need, but these groupings are not fixed and change regularly 58% I teach reading as an individualized activity, designing sp ecial programs for each of my students; therefore, I do not formally group children for instruction. 14% I teach reading as a whole-class activity; that is, I do not generally group students for reading instruction. 27% I use another organizational plan (describe) 20% 33. Which of the organizational structures described in the last question do you use as the primary or most frequent structure in your classroom read ing program (choose only one response)? ability groupings 28% flexible groupings 39% individualized instruction 6% whole-class instruction 19% Other organizational plan (specify) 7% 34. The following statements describe various ways to accommodate the needs of children in your classroom who may be gifted, talented, or accelerated readers. Choose al l of the following statements that apply to your teaching situation (i.e., you may ma rk multiple responses). There is a pull-out program for my gifted readers, which is taught by a special teacher for gifted and talented students. 29% A special teacher for gifted and talented students comes to my classroom and works with me to accommodate my most capable readers. 2% I adapt my classroom curriculum and my instruction to accommodate the special needs of my gifted and talented readers. 45%

PAGE 141

141 There are no gifted students in my class. 40% 35. If you indicated in the last question that there are sp ecial support personnel who work with your gifted readers either in the classroom or in a pull-out program (i.e., you selected either of th e first two options), how do you rate the effectiveness of these support se rvices (choose one response)? Exceptional 17% Very Good 35% Adequate 35% Poor 11% Totally Inadequate 2% 36. The following statements describe various ways to accommodate the need s of children in your classroom who may be struggling readers or experiencing reading difficulties. Choose al l of the following statements that apply to your teaching situation (i.e., you may ma rk multiple responses). There is a pull-out program for my struggling readers, which is taught by a special teacher for students experiencing difficulty in learning to read. 41% A special teacher trained to work with children who experience reading difficulties comes to my classroom and works with me to accommodate my struggling readers. 20% I adapt my classroom curriculum and my instruction to accommodate the special needs of my students who experience problems in learning to read. 78% A reading coach supports me in adapting instruction to meet the needs of my struggling readers. 36% A reading coach works one-on-one on a weekly basis with my struggling students. 7% 37. If you indicated in the last question that a reading coach works with you or your students, how do you rate their effectiveness? Exceptional 28% Very good 40% Adequate 22% Poor 7% Totally inadequate 4% 38. Does your school provide interventions for students who are struggling with reading? Yes 88% No 12% 43. Select the following statement that best characterizes your overall approach to classroom reading assessment (choose only one response).

PAGE 142

142 I rely primarily on conventional assessment measures, for example, basal reader tests and district-administered standardized reading tests. 11% I use a mix of conventional assessment measures and some informal assessments 55% I am moving toward adopting various forms of alternative reading assessments and/or a portfolio approach to assessment in my classroom. 18% I rely extensively on alternative reading assessments and/or I am using a portfolio approach to assessment in my classroom. 14% I basically dont engage in any conventional or alternative reading assessments 2% 44. For each use of assessments, to what degree do you use results from the FCAT for these purposes? If your students do not take the FCAT, please skip this question. Considerable Moderately Little Not at all Identify students at risk 55% 24% 7% 15% Grouping decisions 24% 31% 24% 21% Identify skills to emphasize 38% 35% 12% 15% Determine if skills are improving 33% 28% 19% 21% Parent conferences 27% 35% 20% 18% 45. For each use of assessments, to what degree do you use results from DIBELS for these purposes? If your students do not take the DIBELS, please skip this question. Considerable Moderately Little Not at all Identify students at risk 57% 28% 9% 6% Grouping decisions 36% 32% 19% 14% Identify skills to emphasize 41% 29% 17% 14% Determine if skills are improving 51% 30% 11% 8% Parent conferences 31% 37% 19% 13% 46. For each use of assessments, to what degree do you use results from the Basal Unit Tests for these purposes? If your students do not take Basal Unit tests, please skip this question. Considerable Moderately Little Not at all Identify students at risk 35% 41% 16% 9% Grouping decisions 25% 44% 17% 14% Identify skills to emphasize 42% 37% 12% 9% Determine if skills are improving 41% 40% 12% 8% Parent conferences 25% 40% 22% 13%

PAGE 143

143 47. To what degree do you use results from the following ty pes of assessments to make instructional decisions in your classroom? Considerate Moderate Little Not at all group standardized reading tests (i.e. FCAT) 27% 28% 16% 29% individual standardized reading tests 30% 38% 15% 17% basal reader program unit/level skills tests 25% 40% 20% 15% Informal Reading Inventories 29% 42% 17% 12% running records 31% 33% 17% 19% reading/writing portfolios 23% 37% 24% 16% student interviews or conferences 14% 31% 34% 21% reading miscue analysis 19% 31% 24% 27% observational checklists/anecdotal records 28% 34% 25% 13% emergent literacy surveys/assessments 14% 29% 28% 28% informal phonics/decoding assessments 25% 37% 23% 15% standardized fluency assessments (i.e. DIBELS) 37% 36% 18% 9% informal fluency m easures (i.e. WCPM) 17% 27% 19% 37% 48. The following statements describe various standardized or formal assessments. Choose all of the following types of assessments that you are required to administer to y our students each school year (i.e., you may mark multiple responses). district-required standardized tests (e.g., FCAT, SAT-9) that include one or more reading subtests 84% state-mandated competency tests in reading and/or writing 61% district-required informal reading and/or writing assessments 75% 50. Some teachers report that they feel so pressured by the required assessments that they end up modifying their curriculum or instruction to conform to the mandatory asse ssments. To what degree do you modify your teaching to conform to mandatory assessments (Choose one response)? Very much 39% Somewhat 48% Not at all 14% 51. How would you rate your overall school reading program on the following criteria giving your school a grade of A, B, C, D, or F for each (Choose one response per row)? A B C D F Developing readers who are skillful and strategic in phonics/phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension. 41% 41% 15% 3% 1%

PAGE 144

144 Developing readers who are critical and thoughtful in using reading and writing to learn about people and ideas, and how they might use literacy to positively affect the world in which they live. 28% 38% 25% 7% 2% Developing readers who are independent in choosing, appreciating, and enjoying literature. 34% 33% 23% 8% 2% Developing readers who are knowledgeable about literary forms or genres and about different text types or structures. 30% 34% 26% 8% 2% 52. How would you rate your overall classroom reading program on the following criteria, giving yourself a grade of A, B, C, D, or F for each (choose one response per row)? A B C D F Developing readers who are skillful and strategic in phonics/phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension. 49% 41% 9% 1% 0% Developing readers who are critical and thoughtful in using reading and writing to learn about people and ideas, and how they might use literacy to positively affect the world in which they live. 33% 46% 18% 7% 0% Developing readers who are independent in choosing, appreciating, and enjoying literature. 47% 37% 13% 2% 1% Developing readers who are knowledgeable about literary forms or genres and about different text types or structures. 36% 39% 22% 3% 1% 53. What is your personal philosophy or perspect ive about reading programs for young children? Check the statement below that best matches your personal philosophy (choose one response). I believe in a reading readiness perspective; that is, a childs physical, intellectual and emotional maturity is directly related to success in reading and writing. 32% I believe in an emergent literacy perspective; that is, all children can benefit from early, meaningful reading and writing experiences 63% I do not agree with either of these statements 5% 54. What is your opinion about the importance of teachin g young children the following wo rd reading strategies? (choose one response per row) Essential Important Not Important

PAGE 145

145 teaching phonic analysis skills/strategies 82% 17% 1% teaching structural or morphemic analysis skills/ strategies 58% 41% 2% teaching contextual analysis skills/strategies 67% 32% 1% teaching words by sight 64% 36% 1% teaching meaning vocabulary 71% 27% 2% 55. If you believe that instruction in phonic analysis is essential or impor tant, please choose all the statements below that describe how you teach phonics to your students (i.e., you may mark multiple responses). synthetic phonics 78% analytic phonics 44% instruction in phonics by way of word families or phonograms 78% only as needed in the context of literature 18% in the context of writing and spelling 54% 56. Which of the following materials, techniques, or activities are likely to be found in your Prekindergarten to Grade 2 classroom regularly (define regularly as thre e or more times per week)? Choose all of the following statements that apply to y ou personally (i.e., you may mark multiple responses). Big Books used instructionally 79% Trade books used instructionally 82% Basal readers used instructionally 75% Children writing and conventional spelling is expected 49% Children writing and invented spelling is accepted or encouraged 83% Book handling demonstrations or ac tivities 73% Phonics and word identification le ssons 92% Reading aloud to children 97% Oral language activities 86% Reading Workshop time 58% Writing Workshop time 62% Reading response activities 81% Free reading periods 77% Journal writing time 72% Working with word cards 87% 57. Which of the following materials, techniques, or activities are likely to be found in your Grade 3 classroom regularly (define regularly as three or more times per w eek)? Choose all of the followi ng statements that apply to you personally (i.e., you may mark multiple responses). Comprehension strategy instruction 93%

PAGE 146

146 Instruction in comprehension monitoring 83% Instruction in literary elements 75% Word identification instruction lessons 75% Vocabulary lessons or activities to develop students knowledge of word meanings 90% Literature response activities 77% Literature discussion groups 48% Trade books used instructionally 71% Basal readers used instructionally 80% Reading nonfiction trade books in order to learn about expository genres 67% teaching reading strategies along with content subjects 61% reading workshop time 50% writing workshop time 58% critical reading lessons or activities 60%

PAGE 147

147 LIST OF REFERENCES Afflerbach, P. (2004). High stakes testing and reading assessment Policy Brief Commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Ch icago, IL: National Reading Conference. Allington, R.L. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Allington, R.L. (2000). Effects of reading policy on classroom instruction and student achievement (No. 13011). Albany, NY: Research and Development Centers Program. Allington, R.L., & Cunningham, P.M. (2002). Schools that work: Where all children read and write (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). L ooking back, looking forward: A conversation about teaching reading in the 21st century. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (1), 136-153. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). Sc hool response to reading failure: Chapter 1 and special education stude nts in grades 2, 4, & 8. Elementary School Journal, 89 (5), 529-542. Allington, R.L., & Walmsley, S.A. (Eds). (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools New York: Teachers College Press. Austin, M.C. & Morrison, C. (with Kenney, H. J., Morrison, M.B., Gutmann, A.R., & Nystrom, J.W.). (1961). The torch lighters: Tomo rrow's teachers of reading. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Educat ion/Harvard University Press. Austin, M. C., Morrison, C., (with Morrison, M. B ., Sipay, E. R., Gutmann, A. R., Torrant, K. E., et al. (1963). The First R: The Harvard report on reading in elementary schools NY: MacMillan. Baker, E., Linn, R., Herman, J., & Koretz, D. (2002). Standards for educational accountability systems. National center for research on evaluation, standards, and student testing Policy Brief 5 Winter 2002. Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J. V., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Ro, J. M. (2000). "The First R" Yesterday and today: U.S. Elementary readi ng instruction practices reported by teachers and administrators. Reading Research Quarterly 35(3), 338-377. Bean, R. M., Cassidy, J., Grumet, J. E., Shelton, D. S., & Wallis, S. R. (2002). What do reading specialists do? Results from a national survey. Reading Teacher, 55(8), 736. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975). Reality and resear ch in the ecology of human development. Proceedings from the American Philosophical Society, 119(5), 439-469.

PAGE 148

148 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The e xperimental ecology of education. Educational Researcher, 5 (9), 5-15. Buly, M.R., & Valencia, S.W. (2002) Below the ba r: Profiles of student s who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (3), 219-239. Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate New York: McGraw-Hill. Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement Portsmouth, NH: Heineman. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind. Harvard Educational Review 76(4), 668-697. Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The national reading panel report. Reading Research Quarterly 30(3), 326-335. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35 (7), 13-24. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters mo st: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan 78(3), 193-200. Doyle, J.K. (nd). Introduction to survey methodology and design. Retrieved on June 12, 2007 from http://www.sysurvey.com/tips/ introduction_to_survey.htm. Durkin, D. (1984). Is there a match between what elementary school teachers do and what manuals recommend. The Reading Teacher, 37 734-739. Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to s cale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review 66, 1-26. Florida Center for Reading Research. (2006). Summary table for FCRR Reports: Core-reading programs. Retrieved on January 12, 2007 from http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRRepor ts/CReports.aspx?rep=core Florida Department of Education. (2003). K-12 comprehensive research based reading plans. Retrieved on January 12, 2007 from http://www.justreadflorida.com/Reading_Plans/. Florida Department of Education. (2005a). Reading First Retrieved on January 12, 2007 from http://www.justreadflorida.com/reading_first.asp. Florida Department of Education. (2005b). About Just Read, Florida! Retrieved on January 12, 2007 from http://www.justreadflorida.com/about.asp. Florida Department of Education. (2005c). Reading endorsement Q & A Part 1 Retrieved on January 12, 2007 from http://www.justreadfl orida.org/endorsement/Q_and_A_01.asp.

PAGE 149

149 Florida Department of Education (2005d). Florida: Reading First guidance to LEA's Retrieved on June 12, 2007 from http://www.justr eadflorida.com/docs/guidance.pdf. Florida Department of Education. (2007a). 2007-2008 K-12 comprehensive research-based Reading Plan. Retrieved on June 28, 2007 from http://www.justreadflorida.com/Reading_Plans/Examples/rbrpg_memo.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2007b). Florida department of education: Office of assessment and school performance. Retrieved on May 23, 2007 from http://www.fldoe.org/asp/pdf /06-07-assessment-sched.pdf Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3 ed.). NY, NY: Teachers College Press. Guthrie, J. T. (Ed.). (2002). Preparing students for high-st akes test taking in reading Newark, Delaware: Internationa l Reading Association. Goodman, K.S., Shannon, P., Fr eeman, Y.S., Murphy, S. (1988). Report card on basal readers. NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Hammerness, K. (2004). Teaching with vision: Ho w one teacher negotiates the tension between high ideals and sta ndardized testing. Teacher Education Quarterly Fall 2004, 33-43. Hartke, K. (1999). The misuse of tests for retention. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28 (3), 22-24. Hawken, L. S., Johnston, S. S., & McDonnell, A. P. (2005). Emerging literacy views and practices: Results from a national survey of head start preschool teachers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25 (4), 232. Hodges, C.A. (1997). How valid and useful are alternative assessments for decision-making in primary grade classrooms? Reading Research and Instruction, 36, 157-173. Hoffman, J. V., McCarthy, S. J., Elliot, B., Bayles D., Price, D., Ferree, A., et al. (1998). The literature-based basals in fi rst-grade classroom: Savior, Satan, or same-old, same-old? Reading Research Quarterly, 33 168-197. Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Why do high-poverty schools have difficu lty staffing their classrooms with qualified teachers? Renewing our schools, securing our future: A national task force on public education Retrieved February 10, 2007 Kirst, M.W. (2000). Bridging education research and education policymaking. Oxford Review of Education, 26 (3/4), 379-391. Lefsky, E.B. (2005). Relationship of teacher change to freq uency of teacher interaction with a reading coach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 150

150 McCaslin, M. (2006). Student Motivational Dynamics in the Era of School Reform. The Elementary School Journal 106, 479. McGill-Franzen, A., Zmach, C., So lic, K., & Zeig, J. L. (2006). The confluence of two policy mandates: Core-reading programs & 3rd grade retention. Elementary School Journal, 107 (1), 67-92. McGill-Franzen, A., & Goatley, V. (2001). Title 1 and special education: Support for children who struggle to learn to read. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 471-483). NY: Guilford. McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). Policy and instruction: What is the relationship? In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson, Eds. Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 889908). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1993) Flunk'em or get them classified: The contamination of primary grade accountability data. Educational Researcher, 22(1),1922. McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to lear n to read: Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22 (4), 475-490. McLaughlin, M. (1991). "The RAND Change Agen t Study: Ten Years Later." In A.R. Odden, Eds. Education Policy Implementation (pp. 143). Albany: State University of New York Press. Montero-Sieburth, M. (1989). Restructuri ng teachers' knowledge for urban settings. The Journal of Negro Education, 58 (3), 332. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). R eport of the National Reading Panel: An evidence-based assessment of the scienti fic research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 stat. 1425. (2002). Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., and Hedge, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26(3). 237-257. Pearson, P.D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy 18(1), 216-252. Pellino, K. M. (2006). The effects of poverty on teaching and learning Retrieved on May 24, 2007. from http://www.teach-nology.com/tutori als/teaching/pove rty/print.htm Pressley, M. (2001). Effective Beginning Reading Instruction. Executive Summary and Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Confer ence. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

PAGE 151

151 Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching New York: Guilford Press Rankin-Erickson, J. L., & Pressle y, M. (2000). A survey of instru ctional practices of special education teachers nominated as effective teachers of literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15 (4), 206. Rentner, D.S., Scott, C., Kober, N., Chudow sky, N. Chudowsky, Joftus, S., Zabala. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind act Retrieved on January 10, 2007 from http://www.cep-dc.org/nclb/Year4/NCLB-Year4Summary.pdf Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and wo rthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19 (7), 10-18. Rosenholtz. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools New York: Longman. Shannon, P. (1983). The use of commercial readi ng materials in American elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 19 (1), 68-85. Spellings, M. (2005). No child left behind: A road map for state implementation. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/roadmap/roadmap.doc Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., and Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72(3), 387-431. Spillane, J.P. & Jennings, N.E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy a nd ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the clas sroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449-481. Standerford, N. S. (1997). Reforming reading in struction on multiple leve ls: Interrelations and disconnections across the state, district, and classroom levels. Educational Policy, 11 5891. Sunderman, G. L., Tracey, C. A., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and no child left behind Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. United States Department of Education. (2007). More local freedom: Reading First. Retrieved May 23, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/ programs/readingfirst/index.html. United States Department of Education. (2005). The nation's report card: state reading 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress Retrieved on May 23, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

PAGE 152

152 United States Department of Education. (2003). Fact Sheet on the Major Provisions of the Conference Report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved on January 25, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/ove rview/intro/factsheet.html. United States Department of Education. (nd). Institute of Education Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics Retrieved on January 25, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov Valencia, S. W., Place, N. A., Martin, S. D., & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. Elementary School Journal, 107 (1), 93-120. Weber, D., and Postal, L. (2003). 23% of 3rd-Graders flunk; But FCAT reading grades improve across Florida [Electronic version]. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved on December 4, 2003, from http://pqasb.pqarciver.com/orlandosentinel/332880051.html?MAC=ee90d001a634f Yoon, S. L., Horne, C. H. (2004) Accruing the Sample in Survey Research S outhern Online Journal of Nursing Research 2(5), 1-17. Zmach, C.C. (2006). Navigating the complexities of legi slation: How elementary school principals interpret and implement Fl oridas third-grade retention policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Universi ty of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 153

153 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jacqueline Love Zeig was born in Newark, New Jersey to Linda and Duane Love. She graduated from the University of Tampa with a bachelors degree in elementary education, and then taught elementary school in Tampa, Florid a before attending the University of Florida where she received her masters degree in r eading education and a specialist degree in curriculum and instruction. She has taught both preservice and inservice t eachers in undergraduate as well as graduate courses. She has been involved as well as a re searcher on federally funded grants. Jacqueline also has worked as a professional developer. Curr ently, Jacqueline resides in Gainesville, Florida with her husband, Bryan, a nd their three children.