Citation
Exploring the Professional Practices of Elementary School Reading Coaches

Material Information

Title:
Exploring the Professional Practices of Elementary School Reading Coaches
Creator:
Jordan, Susan M
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (4 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ed.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Educational Leadership
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education
Committee Chair:
BEHAR-HORENSTEIN,LINDA SUSAN
Committee Co-Chair:
OLIVER,BERNARD
Committee Members:
ELDRIDGE,LINDA BURNEY
CROCKETT,JEAN B
Graduation Date:
8/9/2014

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Coaching ( jstor )
Elementary schools ( jstor )
Literacy ( jstor )
Professional development ( jstor )
Professional development schools ( jstor )
Reading instruction ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
State schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
coach -- coaching -- elementary -- instructional -- literacy -- log -- reading
City of Tallahassee ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.

Notes

Abstract:
The primary aim of this study was to explore the professional practices of elementary school reading coaches and to determine if there was a relationship between the practices of reading coaches within the various levels of differentiated accountability categories. A four-part online survey, which included demographic, coaching activities, professional development, and a coaching log was administered to elementary school reading coaches in one southwest Florida public school district to examine how the practices of reading coaches change within the levels of support provided by the state differentiated accountability model. Data was gathered from the district to compare the participant coaching log with the district averages across all elementary schools. Convenience sampling was employed, and data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings indicate that the preparation of elementary school reading coaches were similar within schools that implemented school improvement interventions with state directed support and monitoring, district directed support and monitoring and schools that implemented their own school improvement interventions. The findings revealed differences in the perceptions and practices of the reading coach within the various levels of state, district and school support. Further, the findings show that the professional development experiences and needs of reading coaches differed within the various differentiated accountability levels of school support. Finally, the respondent's self-reported time spent on coaching activities differed from the recommendations from both district and state guidelines. Implications from this study can be used in assisting district and school leaders in better understanding the role and work of the elementary school reading coach. Future studies should explore the relationships between administrative support and the coaches' decision-making processes and enacted changes to their practice. ( en )
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.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: BEHAR-HORENSTEIN,LINDA SUSAN.
Local:
Co-adviser: OLIVER,BERNARD.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2016-08-31
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan M Jordan.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2016
Classification:
LD1780 2014 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EXPLORING THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL READING COACHES By SUSAN M. JORDAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

© 2014 Susan M. Jordan

PAGE 3

To Jeff, who l oves that his wife is a teacher Also to Ryan and Sydney I love being yo ur mom

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my husband, Jeff, for his unwavering belief in my abilities, numerous sacrifices and endless support. To my daughters, Ryan and Sydney, you have had faith in my ability to do this and I look back fondly at the many nights that I was doing my schoolwork knowing you were across the house doing yours. To my late mother, Patricia, and late father, Fred, I know that I would have made you both proud. And to my friend and fellow educator, Lisa, your bravery during your hea lth struggles have taught me what true courage means. I thank the members of my committee for their service and support. Dr. Linda Behar Horenstein, my dissertation chair, has provided me with guidance, patience and encouragement when I truly needed it. D r. Garvan, your assistance in the statistical portion of my study was very much appreciated. And to Dr. Crockett, Dr. Oliver and Dr. Eldridge, thank you for your dedication and participation on my committee. Life presented some obstacles and challenges for me to overcome during my work. I would like to thank Dr. Letson and my treatment team from the Sarcoma Clinic at Moffitt Cancer Center for taking such good care of me during a difficult time. Finally, I would also like to acknowledge the support of my co lleagues, Collier County cohort members and fellow school administrators who truly understand this type of journey and share my love of educating our youth.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Background of the Problem ................................ ................................ .................... 11 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 16 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 18 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 22 Federal Policies and Programs ................................ ................................ ............... 23 Coaching as Professional Development ................................ ................................ . 26 Coaching ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 27 Definitions of Coaching ................................ ................................ .................... 27 Role and Qualifications of the Literacy Coach ................................ .................. 28 Coaching Models ................................ ................................ .............................. 29 Peer Coaching ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 29 Cognitive Coaching ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 Directive Coaching ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 Responsive Coaching ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 Florida's Reading Coach Program ................................ ................................ .... 32 Coaching Framework and Activities ................................ ................................ ........ 35 Coaching Cycle ................................ ................................ ................................ 35 Levels of Coaching ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 Research on Coaching ................................ ................................ ........................... 36 Background and Qualifications of the Reading Coach ................................ ..... 37 Roles and Responsibilities of the Reading Coach ................................ ............ 38 How Coaches Allocate their Time ................................ ................................ .... 39 Coaching Effects on Instructional Practice ................................ ....................... 45 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 48 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 49 Research Methodology ................................ ................................ ........................... 49 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ........................... 49

PAGE 6

6 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 51 Access to Study Participants ................................ ................................ ............ 53 Survey Review Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ............. 53 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 53 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58 Research Question 1: To what extent are there similarities in the academic preparation of the reading coaches? ................................ ................................ ... 58 Research Question 2: To what extent do reading coaches within schools of differentiated accountability categories agree about t he activities that elementary school reading coaches perform? ................................ ..................... 64 Research Question 3: What is the level of agreement among element ary school differentiated accountability categories? ................................ .............................. 69 Resea rch Question 4: To what extent do reading coaches receive the same type of professional development? ................................ ................................ ...... 72 Research Question 5: How does the time spent on coaching activities reported Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan? ................................ ............... 80 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 85 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 87 Summary of the Findings ................................ ................................ ........................ 87 Discussion of t he Findings ................................ ................................ ...................... 91 Implications of the Findings ................................ ................................ .................... 94 Suggestions for Further R esearch ................................ ................................ .......... 95 Summary of this Study ................................ ................................ ............................ 96 APPENDIX A JUST READ, FLORIDA! READING/LITERACY COACH MODEL .......................... 97 B READING COACH LOG ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION ................................ .............. 99 C SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 101 D INFORMED CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ............. 112 E PRINCIPAL E MAIL ................................ ................................ .............................. 114 F TEACHER E MAILS ................................ ................................ ............................. 115 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 123

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Demographics for the Sample ................................ ................................ ............ 50 3 2 Professional Development Topics for Reading Coaches ................................ .... 54 3 3 Research Questions and Data Analysis ................................ ............................. 55 4 1 Demographics Related to Academic Preparation for the Sample ....................... 59 4 2 Differentiated Accountability Categories for the S ample and District by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ................................ ................ 60 4 3 Differentiated Accountability Levels of School Support for the Sample and District by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ................................ 61 4 4 Demographics Disaggregated by Support Provided to School by Percenta ge and Frequency ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 63 4 5 Literacy Coach Activities that Support Teachers by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 64 4 6 Literacy Coach Activities that Support Administration and the School Reading Program by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ............................. 66 4 7 Coaching Activities and DA Level of Support ................................ ..................... 68 4 8 and Frequency ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 70 4 9 Coaching Activities and DA Level of Support ................................ ..................... 72 4 10 Professional Development in Assessment Reading Coaches Have Had by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ................................ ................ 73 4 11 Professional Development in Assessm ent Reading Coaches Need by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ................................ ................ 73 4 12 Professional Development in Effective Modeling Reading Coaches Have Had by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ................................ ............ 74 4 13 Professional Development in Effective Modeling Reading Coaches Need by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ................................ ................ 75 4 14 Professional Development in Pro viding Effective Support and Feedback to Teachers Reading Coaches Have Had by Percentage and Frequency ............. 76

PAGE 8

8 4 15 Professiona l Development in Providing Effective Support and Feedback to Teachers Reading Coaches Need by Percentage and Frequency ..................... 76 4 16 Professional Development in Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Reading Coaches Have Had by Percentage and Frequency ............................. 78 4 17 Professional Development in Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Reading Coaches Need by Percentage and Frequency ................................ ..... 78 4 18 Summary of Professional Development by Percentage and Frequency ............. 80 4 19 Reading Coach Log Percent R eported by Participants, by District and by Comprehensive Reading Plan ................................ ................................ ............ 80 4 20 ogs Disaggregated by Differentiated Accountability Level of Support and compared to District Comprehensive Reading Plan ................................ ................................ ............ 83 4 21 Time Spent on Coach Activities and DA Level of Support ................................ .. 84

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education EXPLORING THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL READING COACHES By Susan M. Jordan A ugust 2014 Chair: Linda Behar Horenstein Major: Educational Leadership The primary aim of this study was to explore the professional practices of elementary s chool reading coaches and to determine if there was a relationship between the practices of reading coaches within the various levels of differentiated accountability categories. A four part online survey, which included demographic, coaching activities, p rofessional development, and a coaching log was administered to elementary school reading coaches in one southwest Florida public school district to examine how the practices of reading coaches change within the levels of support provided by the state diff erentiated accountability model. Data were gathered from the district to compare the participant coaching log with the district averages across all elementary schools. Convenience sampling was employed, and data were analyzed using descriptive and inferent ial statistics. The findings indicate that the preparation of elementary school reading coaches were similar within schools that implemented school improvement interventions with state directed support and monitoring, district directed support and monitori ng and schools that implemented their own sc hool improvement interventions . The findings revealed significant differences in the perceptions and practices of the reading coach

PAGE 10

10 within schools of differentiated accountability categories in the activities of coordinating activities and meetings between classroom teachers and English Language Learner staff, observing and providing feedback to teachers, planning reading instruction with teachers and assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the n eeds of special education students Further, the findings show that the professional development experiences and needs of reading coaches differed within the various differentiated accountability levels of school support. The reported time spent on coaching activities differed from district and state guidelines. Finally, t here were significant differences in the time coaches spent in the areas of knowledge building , managing reading materials and coaching within schools of differentiated ac countability categories. Study results can be used to assist district and school leaders in developing a better understanding of the role and work of the elementary school reading coach. Future studies should explore the relationships between administrativ e support and the making processes and enacted changes to their practice.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem Government legislation and federally funded programs have intensified public attention to teacher preparation in reading, evidence based reading instruction, a nd student academic performance. High profile policy initiatives such as adequate yearly progress (AYP) (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, 2008) have placed reading instruction squarely in the center of reform policy. Federal , state and district level initiatives have specifically targeted reading instruction (Coburn, & Woulfin, 2010; Matsumura, Garnier, & Resnick, 2010 b ). One of the chief strategies that many policy initiatives are using to accomplish their goals is instructional coac hing, one of the fastest growing forms of professional development . It is proclaimed as a promising strategy to improve instruction (Biancarosa, Byrk, & Dexter, 2010; Neufeld & Roper, 200 3; Poglinco, Bach, Hovde, Rosenblum, Saunders and Supovitz, 2003; Wei, Darling Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). Perhaps the grea test impact on reading reform was the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002. The reauthorization of The Element ary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, emphasizes equal access to education and established high standards and accountability. NCLB requires that every year each school demonstrates increased test scores showing that all students reach proficiency by 201 4. To achieve this goal the U.S. Department of Education collaborated with the National Reading Panel ( NRP ) and established the United States Reading Firs t Initiative. Reading First, a federal reading project, was funded through NCLB with the aim of providing support to states and districts in their implementation of scientifically based reading research to ensure that all

PAGE 12

12 children read well by the end of third grade (Deussen, Coskie, Roninson & Autio, 2007). The intent of this mandate was to ensure t hat local education agencies (LEAs) assist teachers in becoming highly qualified in reading instruction. According to the NCLB Act, demonstrated competence in subject kn Act, 2001). Specifically, as outlined in Title I, Part B, Section 1202, 4 (c) (7) (A) (ff) (iv) of the No Child Left Behind Act, LEAs are directed to meet the professional development needs of teachers in the co mponents of reading instruction. When federal funding became available for professional development, literacy coaching became a central component of federal and reading initiatives, particularly Reading First (U.S. Congress, 200 1). NCLB continues to be the role in education. Reading First, initially funded for fiscal years 2002 through 2007, was extended through 2008 and lost funding in 2009. As reauthorization of NCLB continues to move forward LEAs are str iving to meet the federal mandates of NCLB with funds provided through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA char ges LEAs to ensure that teachers continue to receive learning opportunities that are job embedded, collaborative, data d riven, and focused on student instructional needs (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). The United States Department of Education oversees programs that receive funds under ARRA. Among the programs is Race to the Top, a competitive grant, which urges and reward s States that generate the conditions for educational innovation and reform. One of the criteria for this grant requires that LEAs provide teachers and principals, with the relevant coaching such as , induction

PAGE 13

13 support, and/or professional development that helps their schools reach reading proficiency (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). The statewide system of accountability for increasing student achievement is AYP, a measure by which schools, districts and states are accountable for student perfor mance. The U.S. Department of Education selected Florida to participate in the "Differentiated Accountability Pilot" initiative in 2008. Differentiated accountability is a nuanced system of interventions for improving student achievement at low performing schools (Florida Department of Education, 2008). Through Differentiated Accountability, the state is allowed greater flexibility in providing assistance and interventions to schools with the greatest need. Low performing schools are categorized according t o the extent in which the NCLB performance targets are met. States are allowed to distinguish underperforming schools in need of dramatic interventions from schools that are closer to meeting NCLB targets. The categories established in the State Board of E ducation rule highest to lowest: Schools Not Required to Participate in Differentiated Accountability Strategies; Prevent I; Correct I; Prevent II; Correct II; and Intervene. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education offered states the opportunity to reque st flexibility from certain requirements of the 1965 ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and the associated regulatory, administrative and reporting requirements in exchange for rigorou s and comprehensive state plans (U.S. Department of Education, 2012 a ). In 2012, Florida requested and was granted a waiver. The changes in the State Board of Education bill aligned Florida's Differentiated Accountability system with the state's school grading system. Schools that are assigned a grade of "C" are classified in the Prevent status. Schools that are assigned a grade of

PAGE 14

14 "D" are classified in Focus status. Schools receiving three consecutive grades of "D" and schools assigned a grade of "F" are classified in Priority status (U.S. Department of E ducation, 2012 a ). All differentiated accountability schools must ensure that teachers received professional development to unsure learning needs. Additionally, districts must place highly qualified instructiona l coaches at schools in need of improvement. Instructional coaches must maintain a daily log of activities and LEA's must provide professional development for principals and assistant principals on monitoring classroom instruction and guiding the activitie s of instructional coaches (U.S. Department of Education, 2012 a ). Professional development is a well established method for improving or changing teachers' instructional practice (National Staff Development Council, 20 01; Neu feld & Roper, 2003; Wei et al. , 20 09). One response to improving teacher quality through professional development has been the adoption of coaches, staff members who provide job embedded, ongoing support a nd instruction for teachers. Neu feld and Roper (2003) suggested that since coachi inquiry and focused on improving practice that it holds promise as professional development initiative . Current research claims that instructional coaching is an effective approach to ongoing professional deve lopment (Biancarosa et al. , 2010; Hill, 2007; Marsh, McCombs, & Martorell, 2010; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010; Walpole & Blamey, 2008). I nstructional coaching emerged as a professional development activity in the e arly 1980s as a response to new ideas abo ut teacher learning (Neuman &

PAGE 15

15 Cunningham, 2009; Neumerski, 2013). As it relates to reading, l iteracy coaches serve as facilitators of reform by engaging teachers in ongoing and school specific professional development (Bean, Draper, Hall, Vandermolen & Zig mond , 2010; McKenna & Walpole, 2008). Reading First (Deussen et al., Choice (Poglinco, et al., 2003) relied on coaches to provide job embedded professional development by : 1. working with teachers, 2. observing and 3. modeling instruction, 4. providing feedback and 5. planning lessons. Coaches use direct practice, strategy acquisition and reflection to build the capacity of c lassroom teachers (Poglinco, et al., 2003). Investigating coach based professional development s eems especially important given the increasing evidence that instructional coaching build s teacher expertise and improve s achievement outcomes in classrooms (Biancarosa et al. , 2010; Matsumura, Garnier, Correnti, Junker, & Bickel, 2010 a ; McKenna & Walpole, 2008). The fundamental question of coaching efficacy is complicated by the wide range of activates that coaches engage in (Mraz, Algozzine & Watson, 2008; Scott, Cort ina & Carlisle, 2012). Deussen et al. (2007) found great variation in how coaches in Read ing Firs t schools allocate their time. Research shows that c oaches spend time observing, modeling, conferencing, co teaching, working with teachers to use assessment data to group students and provide intervention and leading book study groups (Duesson et al. ; Marsh et al. , 2010). They also facilitate reform by engaging teachers in ongoing and school specific professional development ( Bean et al., 2010). However, m any coaches also spend time managing assessments and materials, attending district meetings, s ubstituting for teachers and providing coverage for classes (Bean et al., 2010; Gigante & Firestone, 2007; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010).

PAGE 16

16 Coaches are essential to school administrators (Matsumura et al. , 2010 b ; Matsumura, Sartoris, Bickel & Garnier, 2009) . They offer assistance and consult with principals on school wide issues (Bean et al., 2010; Duessen et al. , 2007; Mars h et al. , 2010). Gigante and Firestone (2007) report that administrators can foster successful coaching relations by allowing time for co aching and teacher training on collaboration . Principals' actions and beliefs support efforts to engage teachers and gain access to classrooms (Matsumura et al. , 2009). Statement of the Problem The popularity of coaching precedes the body of research related to effective coachi ng practice. Although reform initiatives, such as Reading First, often call for coaching as a viable professional development component (U.S . Department of Education, 2008 ), studies are needed to assess varying roles of coaches and coaching functions and correlate those with teacher knowledge or behaviors and student outcomes. Instructional coaching is increasingly relied upon as the mechanism for the professional development of classroom teachers. Literacy coaching relie s on the assumption that coaching practices lead to changes in teacher knowledge and practice, resulting in positive changes in student performance (Lockwood, McCombs & Marsh, 2010). Ultimately, teachers' knowledge, skills and instructional practices influ ence student achievement (Blachowicz, O brochta & Fogelberg, 2005; Wei et al. , 2009). Studies such as the Reading First Implementation Evaluation Final Report reveal instructional coaching can increase teacher knowledge and influence changes in their instru ctional practice (U .S. Department of Education, 2011 ). The sustained professional development provided through coaching should yield changes in teacher knowledge,

PAGE 17

17 instructional practices and student achievement, yet empirical evidence as to coaching's eff e ctiveness is minimal and the literature yields mixed evidence of coaching efficacy (Walpole, McKenna, Uribe Zarian , & Lamitina, 2010). Despite the emerging research about the effectiveness of instructional coaching, means that coaching may look vastly different from o ne location to the next. In the Northwest Regional Education Lab report (2007) on R eading First literacy coaches, t he authors pointed out that just because there are literacy coaches in schools does not i nd is a difference between being a coach and (Duessen et al., p. iii). In 2006, t he Florida Legislature developed a K 12 Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan to ensure the provision of highly qua lified reading coaches who report their time to the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN). Reading coaches are expected to play a key role in the professional development efforts to improve reading instruction in order to improve reading achieve ment. For policy makers and administrators to continue providing reading coaches, evidence that demonstrates the extent that reading coaches are increasing teachers' skills and students' achievement is needed. One of the first steps to providing this type of evidence is to gain an understanding of the particular activities that coaches perceive as central to their role and to determine how coaches spend their time on the various coaching activities. This study focuses on the professional practices, beliefs and backgrounds of elementary school reading coaches. This study examined the academic and professional background of reading coaches, compare d their assigned responsibilities,

PAGE 18

18 activities among schools with differentiated accountability categories, to determine the similarities between time spent on coaching activities and the district Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan. The intent of this study is to provide information for administrators and the educational community about the professional pra ct ices of reading coaches and use findings to suggest how administrators can further their influence on the practice of teaching. Research Questions The following questions guided this study . 1. To what extent are there similarities in the academic preparation of reading coaches ? 2. To what extent do reading coaches within schools of differentiated accountability categories agree about the activities that reading coaches perform? 3. What is the level of agreement among elementary school reading coaches perceptions of their central role within schools of differentiat ed accountability categories? 4. To what extent do reading coaches receive the same type of professional development? 5. How does time spent on coaching activities reported by the reading coaches compare to the recommendations of the District's Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan? Limitations of the Study The use of self report measures are dependent on participants' willingness to answer honestly. Survey items are subject to the in terpretation of the reader. The participants were limited to the elementar y school reading coaches who were recruited from one district.

PAGE 19

19 Significance of the Study School based coaching responds to the national priority of improving teacher quality. Many e ducators believe that literacy coaches are the most effective way to provide ongoing professional learning for teachers. In a study of the effectiveness of literacy coaches, Bright and Hensley (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b) discovered that the role of the coach is complex and varied , that educational communities disagree about the roles that literacy coaches should play and the qualifications and characteristics o f an effective coach. F or a coach to be effective, her role must be clear to school adm inistration, the teachers , and the coach. Knowing that researchers agree that coaching has value for school based professional learning means that school districts, administrators and the broader educational community ought to benefit from a study in which elementary school reading coaches identify activities that they perceive to be central to their role, and an overview of how they use instructional time on coaching activities. Definition of Terms The following terms have specific meanings in relation to A MERICAN R ECOVERY AND R EINVESTMENT A CT (ARRA) . A 2009 federal government law created as a direct response to t he economic crisis that offers financial aid directly to local school districts. D IFFERENTIATED A CCOUNTABILITY . A U.S. Departmen t of Education pilot project that differentiate s the status of schools in need of improvement based on the proportion of adequate yearly progress objectives met and the school grade assigned via the state accountability system.

PAGE 20

20 F IVE C OMPONEN TS OF R EADING . Reading skills established by the National Reading Panel that specify what children need to know by the end of third grade in order to be successful life long readers. These include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and compr ehension. L OCAL E DUCATIONAL A GENCY (LEA) . A synonym for a school district. N ATIONAL R EADING P ANEL (NRP) . A panel created by the federal government to review research based knowledge of reading instruction. N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND . A 2002 landmark law that mandated educational reform designed to improve student achievement. Its primary intent is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education. R ACE TO THE T OP (RTTT) . Fund ed by ARRA, this is a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward states that create conditions for education inno vation and reform and achieve significant improvements in student outcomes. R EADING C OACH /L ITERACY C OACH . H ighly qualified tea chers who are excellent teachers of reading, have in depth knowledge of reading processes, acquisition, assessment and instruction and have the experience or preparation that enables them to model, observe, and provide feedback about reading instruction f o r classroom teachers (Deussen et al., 2007; IRI, 2004) R EADING C OACHING . A method of providing the additional support needed for teachers to implement various pro grams or practices (Poglinco et al . , 2003). R EADING INSTRUCTION . E xplicit and systematic ins truction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency and comprehension strategies (NRP, 2000).

PAGE 21

21 S CIENTIFICALLY B ASED R EADING R ESEARCH P ROGRAMS (SBRR ) . Reading programs/instruction that provide rigorous systematic, and objective procedure s to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties.

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This study investigated: 1. the professional practices, beliefs and background of ele mentary school reading coaches . 2. the academic and professional background of elementary school reading coaches, 3. the extent to which coaches agree about activities they believe are central to their role, and 4. the similarities between time spent on 11 key coaching activitie s and the district Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan. School embedded, ongoing, teacher professional development led by full time instructional coaches is a significant component of many school reading reform models. Often school districts utilize coaches to advise, interpret and support reform i mplementation (Denton & Hasbrough , 2009; Walpole & Blamey, 2008 ). Experts agree the student achievement will increa se (Gallucci, Van L are, Yoon & Boatright, 2010; Neu feld & Roper, 2003; Walpole & Blamey, 2008). Investigating the phenomenon of coach based professional development seems especially important given increasing evidence that instructional coaching can be a p owerful lever for improved classroom achievement outcomes (Biancarosa et al. , 2010; Matsumura et al. , 2010 a ). Current reports, policies and position papers provide guidelines and evidence regarding the use of reading coaches . However research to date rema ins unclear regarding the extent elementary school reading coaches perform r equisite activities as reported. Therefore, it is important, to examine the literature on the development of coaching and the roles coaches play in schools.

PAGE 23

23 To understand the devel opment of coaching and policies that have influenced the practices of reading coaches, an overview of the following topics is presented: a ) federal policies and programs related to coaching, b ) coaching as professional development, c ) defining coaching and coaching models, d ) coaching framework and activities, and e ) research on coaching. Federal Policies and Programs Federal, state and district level initiatives have specifically targeted reading instruction (Cob urn & Woulfin, 2012; Matsumura et al. , 2010 b ). In 1998, Congress passed the Reading Excellence Act (REA) as an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The purpose of this bill was to improve students' reading skills and teachers' instructional practices by implementing the f indings of scientifically based reading research. The Reading Excellence Act (1998) defined reading explicitly through five skills that are now commonly known as phonological awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Considered component s of skilled reading, these skills form the content of staff development activities. Established in 1997, the National Reading Panel was asked to assess the status of research based knowledge about reading, including the effectiveness of various approache s to teaching children to read. The Natio nal Reading Panel (2000) reported explicitly defined scien tifically based reading research. They concluded that there was sufficient evidence to recommend systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocab ulary, fluency and comprehension strategies (NICHD, 2000). Additionally, the National Readin g Panel (2000) studies showed that teachers can learn how to teach strategies effectively and with greater proficiency. When No Child Left

PAGE 24

24 Behind of 2001 (PL 107 110) was passed its aim was to increase state, school district, and school accountability; to give greater choices for parents and students, particularly those attending low performing schools; to give more flexibility in the spending of Federal educat ional dollars; and to place a greater emphasis on reading. The Reading First Initiative (RFI) endorsed reading coaches as viable and essential to professional development (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) but emphasized that professional development mus t be ongoing, continuous and embedded in the teacher's classroom work with feedback provided as instructional strategies are put into practice. The long term presence of a Reading First coach brings with it ongoing follow up to other forms of professional development, a safe environment for trying new instructional techniques and an opportunity for honest feedback and collaboration with peers (U.S. Department of E ducation, 2008 ). The Reading First Program was a federal initiative designed to improve reading outcomes for students in low performing schools. This initiative was validated by the same scientifically based reading research as NCLB (2001). To be eligible for Reading First fu nding, school s had to serve K 3 students at schools classified as poverty and have a majority of students reading below grade level. According to the Reading First Impact Study Final Report (2008), states participating in Reading First awarded subgrants t o 1,809 school districts and provided funds to 5,880 schools (Gamse, Jacob, Horst, Boulay, & Unlu, 2008). Although districts and schools with the greatest demonstrated need were intended to have the highest funding priority , states could reserve up to 20% of their Reading First funds to sup port staff development and technical assistance to districts and schools, and to assist in

PAGE 25

25 planning, administration and reporting. According to the U.S. Department of Education, (2002), this accorded states with the resou rces and opportunity to improve instruction beyond the specific districts and schools that received Reading First subgrants. Increased funding for reading programs and teacher professio nal development resulted in hiring reading coaches to provide job embe dded, ongoing professional development on a scale that signified this action as an important public investment. The professional development requirements in the Reading First Program prompted one of the largest recruitments of instructional coaches ( Deusse n et al. 2007). Although t he Read ing First program was authorized for fiscal years 2002 through 2007 funding was automatically extended for one additional fiscal year (through FY 2008) under section 422(a) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (2 0 U.S.C. § 1226a(a)). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided approximately $97 billion to the Department of Education with the primary goal of delivering emergency education funding to the States. As of December 31, 2009 the Dep artm ent of Education had awarded 71% of its budget to States and school districts to help sustain jobs and further educational reforms (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b) . In March 2010, the U.S. Department of Education released A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act which called upo n Congress to reauthorize ESEA. The Department of Education (DOE) continues to administer f unding distributed through t he American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The DOE allocat ed $4.35 billion in competitive funds for the program Race to the Top (RTTT) which is

PAGE 26

26 geared toward reforming America's public schools and increasing student learning. As outlined in the RTTT, states must advance reforms around four specific areas: adoptin g standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy; building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve ins truction; recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed the most; and turning around th e lowest achieving schools . The RTTT selection criteria that support state reform conditi ons includes developing great teachers and leaders, including relevant coaching, induction support and/or professional development (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). Coaching as Professional Development T he recent increase in the use of coaches is in resp onse to the federal, state and district reform request for professional development (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012). I ncreasingly , research shows that teachers continuous development and learning is one of the keys to improv e s tudent achievement (Biancarosa et al . , 2010; Elish Piper & L'Allier, 20 11; Puig & Froelich, 2011; Wei et al. , 2009). R esearch on effective professional development suggests the transfer of new knowledge and skills to is necessary (Dole, 2004; Puig & Fr oelich, 2011). Joyce and Showers' (2002) have shown that effective coaching facilitates the transfer of theory, using demonstration and mentored practice . Thus, the coach has a primary role in professional development. According to Guskey (2000), professio nal development enhances the knowledge, skills and attitude of teachers so that they can improve student achievement. This process is considered purposeful and intentional, ongoing

PAGE 27

27 and systematic (Guskey, 2000; McKenna & Walpole, 2008). There is considerab le agreement that professional development that is sustained, collaborative and focused on deepening teachers' content knowledge and instructional practices improves s tudent achievement (Biancarosa et al., 2008; L'Allier et al. , 2010; Russo, 20 04; Puig & F roelich, 2011; Wei et al. , 2009). School based coaching combines some features of traditional professional development with the need for learning about practice in practice (Wei et al. , 2009). Research suggests that coaching shifts professional development from direct instruction outside the context of practice (such as workshops and conferences) to collaboration, reflective practice and a guided content ba sed focus on adult learning (Neu feld & Roper, 2003; Poglinco et al. 2003). Coaching Definitions of Co aching districts and reform models utilize. In some settings, instructional coaching is viewed as a way to support teachers (Dent on & Hasbrough, 2009; Gallucci et al., 2010) . For many schools, it is a component in change initiatives (Deussen et al., 2007; Gallucci, et al., 2010). Neu feld and Roper (2003) wrote that: C oaching includes activities related to developing the organizational capacity of whole schools (such as increasi ng leadership for instructional reform)... helping principals and teachers reallocate their resources and improve their use of data in the service of improving instruction... includes activities directly related to improving instruction (such as one on one group learning of new content and pedagogy) (p. 12) . Literacy coaching involves sharing knowledge amon g teachers within communities of practice that is: 1. grounded in inquiry and re flection; 2. participant driven and

PAGE 28

28 collaborative; 3. sustained, ongoing and intensive; and 4. tied explicitly to improving practice (Gallucci et al., 2010; Guskey, 2000; International Reading Association, 2004; Neu feld & Roper, 2003). Role and Qualificati ons of the Literacy Coach According to the International Reading Association (2004) reading coaches are ach may also serve as a resource in reading and writing for educational support personnel, administrators, teachers, and the community, provide professional development based on current research, work collaboratively with other professionals to build and i mplement reading programs, and serve as advocates for students who struggle with reading. Poglinco et al. (2003 ) discovered that the coaching effectiveness varied greatly depending on his or her level of knowledge and skills, Based on their research, the IRA (2004) highlighted the qualifications, training and expertise of reading coaches. Reading coaches should demonstrate excellence in teaching reading and have a comprehensive understanding of reading acquisition, assessment and instruction. Their knowled ge should be acquired from the completion of a master's degree, reading certification, or intensive, yearlong training for new coaches. Other recommended skills include expertise in working with teachers to improve their practices, excellence in presenting information to teachers, and experience in conducting observations and providing feedback about instruction to teachers. The IRA recommends that only teachers who meet these criteria have the appropriate depth of knowledge and range of skills to effective ly influence the practice of teaching.

PAGE 29

29 Coaching Models M odels of coaching vary in their delivery, focus and relative intrusiveness (McKenna & Walpole, 2008). In response to the need for greater understanding , s in schools have emerged ( Deussen et al. ; Joyce & Showers, 2002; McCombs & Marsh, 2009 ; Steiner & Kowal, 2007; Walpole & Blamey, 2008). Rather than advocating for one particular approach, the Reading First Initiative suggests having reading coaches who provid e professional development that will increase based practices (Deussen et al., 2007). A review of coaching models peer, cognitive, directive, responsive and Peer Coaching Peer coaching, known as collaborative or collegial coaching, is a non evaluative less intrusive approach to improvement that is a bridge between formal professional development and classroom implementation (McKenna & Walpole, 2008). Teachers work in teams to improve practice or implement a new instructional strategy using the cycle of modeli ng, practice and feedback. C ollaborative teams meet to discuss instructional goals and develop specific lesson plans. They observe and provide feedback to one another as they implement these plans. Joyce and Showers (2002) suggested that the feedback component can be replaced with collaborative conversations between a coach and the teacher after the observation. Duessen et al. (2007) stated that teachers who received this type of coaching were more like ly to use new strategies and use them appropriately than were teachers receiving more traditional professional development.

PAGE 30

30 Cognitive Coaching Knight (2009) describes cognitive coaches as those that "engage in dialogical co nversations with teachers and others, observe them while working, and then use powerful questions, rapport building and communication skills to empower those they coach to reflect deeply on their practices" (p. 18). This process allows the coach to engage teachers in the thinking behind their practices. Based on the premise t hat change in perception is prerequisite to changing behavior; the goal of cognitive coaching is to facilitate the self directed learning of teachers (Costa & Garmston, 2002). The coach ing model has four phases. Initially, the coach meets with the teacher teacher then determine strategies to achieve the goals, and collaborate to identify evidence that d emonstrate the goals are met. Next, the coach observes the teaching to gather evidence and document the teacher's attainment of the goal. Finally, the teacher and coach participate in a reflection conference to share evidence and connect new learning to fu ture planning. The cognitive coaching process provides the teacher opportunities to restructure their educational practice as they engage in dialogue and reflection (McKenna & Walpole, 2008). One limitation of cognitive coaching is the targeted and costly professional development that must be provided for coaches. Yet, its strength lies in the specific strategies provided for building relationships and engaging in reflective conversations. Directive Coaching Directive coaching is closely aligned with the t heoretical work of Guskey (2002) who argues that professional development efforts are most effective if they focus on changing teacher behavior first, so that teachers can witness the results of new

PAGE 31

31 instruction in the form of increased student achievement, and then adopt new attitudes and beliefs bas ed on classroom evidence. One of the mos t widely cited studies explored the roles and functions of Reading First coaches, Deussen et al. (2007) identified five categories of reading coaches' orientations, based upon data collected from five western states. Deussen and colleagues cat egorized coaches as: data orientated, student orientated, managerial, individual teacher orient ed , or teacher group orien ted. The authors made a distinction between coaching approaches that are directive versus responsive. In the directive model, the coach is an expert. The coach implement a program using specific practices. Taking a directive approach , the coach leads in establishing professional development goals. The process is implementation focused rather than teacher focused (Ippolito, 2009). Although some teachers are less likely to change in directive approaches, this model has been more success ful with new teachers who are eager to l earn from an expert (Duessen et al., 2007). Responsive Coaching Responsive literacy coaching has at its core, the development of respectful, caring instructional relationships (Dozier, 2006). Coaches work with teac hers as they apply their learning and improve their capacity to reflect (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). This approach is similar to consultative coaching ( Borman & Feger, 2006 ), coachin g for self reflection (Deussen et al., 2007), and cognitive coaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Dozier (2006) notes the multiple layers of learning in the coaching and teaching engage in a collaborative and collective inquiry around instructional pr actices and literacy learning (p.10). In responsive coaching relationships the focus is on teacher

PAGE 32

32 self reflection, which allows teachers' and students' needs to guide the coaching process. T he teacher initiates the coaching conference. The conferences ar e targeted at strengthening the instructional practice that the teacher has identified. This approach helps cumulative coaching experiences (Steiner & Kowal, 2007; Deussen et al., 2007). Florida's Reading Coach Program A llocation s for reading through the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) were made law by the Florida Legislature . Recommended by Governor Bush and the State Board of Education, reading became a permanent p riority and is funded annually within the public school funding formula. The authority for this provision was established by section 1011.62, Florida Statutes in 2006. To receive this reading funding, districts are required to write a K 12 Comprehensive R esear ch Based Reading Plan each year, explain how they plan to guide reading improvement at the school levels, analyze data, provide systemic professional development, measure student achievement and use research based materials. The plan must ensure th at hi ghly qualified reading coaches provide professional development for school district leaders in scientifically based reading instruction and include strategies for teachi ng reading in content areas with an emphasis on technical and informational text . They are expected to host summer reading camps for all low performing students, and purchase supplemental research based reading materials. In 2006 2007, $111.8 million were granted to districts with approved K 12 plans . In 2010 2011, $101.7 million were a ppropriated to support reading instruction though neither allocation include d the purchase of instructional

PAGE 33

33 materials . A n additional $316.9 million were allocated to fund materials alone (Florida Department of Education, 2010 b ). State Board Rule 6A 6.053 K 12 Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan provides districts with a job description for the minimum requisite qualifications as well as who the coaches should target assistance, how to prioritize time and wh at activities should be avoided. Coaches support and provide initial and ongoing professional development to teachers in: Major reading components, as needed, based on an analysis of student performance data; Administer and analyze instructional assessment s; Provide differentiated instruction and intensive intervention. In addition, coaches are expected to: Model effective instructional strategies for teachers; Facilitate study groups; Train teachers in analyzing and using data to differentiate instruction; Coach and mentor colleagues; Provide daily support to classroom teachers; Ensure that research based reading programs are implemented with fidelity; Increase instructional density to meet the needs of all students; Lead and support school reading leadersh ip teams at their schools; Increase teacher knowledge base in best practices in reading instruction, intervention, and instructional reading strategies; Report coach logs bi weekly through Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN);

PAGE 34

34 Prioritize their time to those teachers, activities, and roles that will have the greatest impact on student achievement, namely coaching and mentoring in classrooms; Work with students in whole and small group instruction in the context of modeling and coaching in other t Not perform administrative functions that can confuse their role for teachers; and Spend limited time administering or coordinating assessments. Although Florida has not adopted a specific coaching model it has adopted Puig (2011) c oaching continuum that places the coach as inter or intra active. The co ntinuum demonstrates that "t ransformation may occur when teachers/coaches are provided opportunities to observe, co teach, confer, study, research, and reflect on pra ctice" (p. 49). An inter active coach will provide more scaffolding to teachers by (a) facilitating workshops, (b) providing observations and offering feedback to teachers, and (c) co teaching with teachers . A more intra active coach provides less scaffolding to direct instruction by facilitating study groups to investigate topics of interest and facilitate action research. The intra active coach engages in more problem solving and reflection versus the inter active coach who places emphasis on subject centered pedagogy . Each of the coaching models discussed serve a particular purpose for facilitating instructional change and teacher learning. An understanding of the various coaching models allows for the flexibility to meet the needs of teachers and students over time. Literacy coaches' work utilizes elements of each, depending on a particular school context and purpose for coaching, as they attempt to balance their roles in schools (Ippolito, 2010).

PAGE 35

35 Coaching Framework and Activities Coaching Cycle The Role of the Coach provides guidance to the Florida school districts regarding the reading coach role and the coaching cycle ( Florida Department of Education , 2010). This document is based on research conducted by the RAND Corporation regarding the coaching model in the sta te (Marsh, McCombs, Lockwood, Martorell, Gershwin, Naftel, Le, Shea, Barney and Crego, 2008) . Based on the findings , the state recommends that coaches use the gradual release model to provide ongoing sustainable support for teachers. Coaches can do this through the intensive, systematic coaching cycle. Using the modified gradual release of responsibility plan, the coach should conference with the teacher, co plan the lesson and teach/model the entire lesson. The coach reflects with the teacher after the delivery of the lesson. G radually the coach reduce s modeling each day until the teacher takes full responsibility for the instruction. The coach continues to observe and reflect with the teacher after each lesson. At the conclusion of the coaching cyc le, the teacher and coach collaboratively determine the need for additional support. The cycle is documented in a written implementation plan. Levels of Coaching Literacy coaches engage in a variety of activities, both formal and informal, as part of their positions. Drawing on the work of Bean (2004), the IRA (2004) outlined three leve ls of coaching activities that vary in intensity for both teachers and coaches. their kn (IRA, 2004). Activities vary according to the context within which the coach practices as

PAGE 36

36 coaches respond to particular teacher and student needs. Level 1 coaching is informa l with the primary goal of developing relationships with teachers and colleagues. These informal activities consist of conversations with colleagues, developing and providing materials and resources for teachers, developing literacy curriculum and particip ating in various professional development structures, such as study groups. In this level, coaches provide useful support and interaction across the school, but do not engage in more specific coaching work with teachers in the classroom. Level 2 is more fo rmal and activities involve co planning lessons, facilitating team meetings, analyzing student work, interpreting assessment data, engaging in individual discussions with colleagues about teaching and learning and making professional development presentations for teachers. In this level, coaches move beyond providing informal support and begin to work with individual teachers and grade levels on literacy curriculum and ins tructional practices. Level 3 coaching more closely mirrors the professional development model of Joyce and Showers. Level 3 activities are formal, more intense and may require a higher level of comfort and willingness to explore and learn about literacy t eaching within the actual teaching context. These activities consist of modeling and discussing lessons, co teaching lessons, visiting classrooms and providing feedback to teachers, analyzing videotaped lessons of teachers and doing lesson study with teach ers. This level builds on the previous coaching activities and focuses on intensive individual coaching with teachers to build specific teacher expertise to benefit students. Research on Coaching The fundamental question of coaching efficacy is complicated by the roles that coaches play across settings. Most studies have focused on what coaches do or how

PAGE 37

37 they should spend their time (Ippolito, 2009; Poglinco et al., 2003; Vanderburg & Stephens, 201 0; Walepole & Blamey, 2008). Background and Qualifications of the Reading Coach The National Reading Technical Assistance Center (NRTAC) offers insights on the qualifications of literacy coaches ( U.S. Department of Education, 2010a ). The findings reported that literacy coaches are most often experienced classroom teachers, with an average of between 11 and 19 years of classroom teaching experience . States reported that an average of 60 % 90 % literacy coaches possess ed advanced degrees, although not always in reading . A dvanced credentials includ ed literacy specialist or reading endorsement certification . Deussen and colleagues (2007) examined survey data and found that most coaches were hired from within their schools and more than half of the coaches had a dvanced degrees, 38 % had advanced training specifically in literacy, and 22 % Although successful classroom experiences form the foundation of any coaches' knowledge base, a graduate degree with in depth knowledge of literacy a nd ongoing professional development does matter. L'Allier and Elish Piper conducted two studies in which weekly coaching logs and students' fall and spring test scores were collected. Analysis of the data using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) indicated that significant student gains in reading among these teachers who received support from a literacy coach who had either a Reading Endorsement or a Reading Specialist certificate suggesting that advanced preparation does make a difference for literacy coa ching effectiveness related to student reading performance (L'Allier et al. , 2010).

PAGE 38

38 Roles and Responsibilities of the Reading Coach Poglinco et al. (2003) studied comprehensive school reform design . One of the essential principles of the America's Choice design involves school embedded, ongoing, teacher professional development led by a full time reading coach . The findings from this study are relevant to the role of the elementary school reading coach. Classro om observations and interviews from principals, teachers, and coaches were collected from 18 elementary schools and 9 middle schools. A total of 130 interviews and 71 observations were conducted. The authors focused on the role of coaches and their work he lping teachers and contrasted the model of America's Choice with what was reported in the study. The authors found minimal variability in the effectiveness of reading coaches depending on their years of experience and background and great variability based on their training, knowledge and skills. The authors also found two barriers that prevented the coaches from coaching teachers effectively coaches being asked to take on additional responsibilities that had little to do with coaching and the general amb iguity of the coaches' role. Poglinco and her colleagues concluded that reading coaches were an invaluable support to teachers as they enacted America's Choice principles. Implications for school leaders were offered in terms of maximizing the positive imp act on teaching. The authors recommended that coaches needed ongoing professional development, support from the principal, a more detailed job description and experience in training adults. Walpole and Blamey (2008) described how coaches' experiences diffe r depending on the school site and principal. They found that principals tended to view coaching in terms of the contradiction between services delivered on a classroom basis as a "Mentor" approach and services on a school wide basis as a "Director" approa ch.

PAGE 39

39 The coaches reported the activities within the broader structure of the mentor versus the director approach. Literacy coaches interviewed for the study viewed their role as multi dimensional and saw themselves as assessors, curriculum managers, observ ers, modelers, trainers and teachers. The authors see the principal as an model of the multiple roles of literacy coaches is consistent with evidence from the work of Neu coach. How Coaches Allocate their Time Consideration to how coaches spend their time has been a major focus of reading coach research (Bean et al., 2010; Elish ier, 2010; International Reading Association, 2004; Duessen et al., 2007; Marsh et al., 2008; McCombs & Marsh, 2009; Walpole & Blamey, 2008). Deussen et al (2007) h and doing p. iii ). They found great variation in how coaches allocated their time. Although coaches were expected to spend 60 80 % of their time working directly with teachers on instruction, the study indicated that, on average, the coaches only spent 28 % of the workweek coach ing teachers individually or in groups . Other activities that took up the remainder of their time included data oriented tasks (25 % ) and planning or providing interventions (10 % ). The largest portion of time (36 % ) was spent on activities that the researche rs call ed activities included planning for and attending meetings, attending professional development rather than providing professional development, completing paperwork and performing other non ac ademic support duties.

PAGE 40

40 Duessen and her colleagues (2007) developed categories of coaches based on how much time they spent on different tasks: data oriented, student oriented, managerial and teacher oriented (individual) and teacher oriented (group). Data oriented coaches spent on average 45 % of their workweek on data and assessment related tasks. They described the focus of their work as facilitating the connection between data and instruction. Student oriented coaches spent more time than other coaches w orking directly with students and the least (on average just 14 % ) working with teachers. They saw students as central to what they did. Managerial coaches spent a substantial portion of their time keeping the systems running in their schools facilitating meetings and keeping up with paperwork. Teacher oriented (individual and group) coaches spent comparatively little time on paperwork and data related tasks; they saw themselves primarily as providers of professional development for teachers. They spent be tween 41 and 52 % of their time working directly with teachers. Many worked with small groups of teachers, and about a third tended to work with individual teachers. Next, they explored three areas that they expected might be associated with the category of coach in a school. Of the three areas; the state in which the coach worked, the size of the school, and the educational background and experience of the coach, the only statistically significant relationship was between the coaching category and the sta te in which they worked. This, according to the authors, can possibly be attributed to the ways that the states structured their programs and the direction given by state provided professional development and assistance. The responsibility of the state Rea ding First staff to organize, plan and sometimes deliver professional development

PAGE 41

41 and technical assistance to coaches seemed to provide an opportunity to influence how reading coaches work within their buildings. A federally funded study of Reading First i mplementation collected survey data from principals, teachers and reading coaches in a nationally representative sample of Reading First school s and non Reading First schools. The key findings were that reading coaches in Reading First schools spend more t ime as reading coaches than coaches in non Reading First schools . Specifically, 75 % of Reading First reading coaches reported that they spend all their time in this role compared to only 19 % in non Reading First Title I schools (U.S. Department of Educatio n, 2008b). Reading coaches in Reading First schools were significantly more likely to rate a variety of instructional and teacher support activities as central to their work (95 % vs. 72 % ) than coaches in non Reading First Title 1 schools. Activities inclu ded assisting teachers in using the core program (89 % vs. 60 % ); forming instructional groups (88 % vs. 77 % ); compiling reading assessment data (92 % vs. 73 % ); and ordering or managing reading instruction materials (75 % vs. 61 % ). In addition, Reading First teachers were more likely to report receiving ongoing, directed support for teaching reading than were teachers in non Reading First Title 1 schools, such as; interpretation of assessment data (91 % vs. 70 % ), assistance from a reading coach or specialist in diagnosing individual student needs (72 % vs. 48 % ) or intervention service help for individual students (73 % vs. 52 % ) (U.S. Department of Education, 2008b). Another more recent study of 20 Reading First coaches (Bean et al., 2010) examined the relationship between coaches' distribution of time, the role of coaching in student reading achievement and the effectiveness of the coaches' work as viewed

PAGE 42

42 through the teachers' perceptions. They found that on average, coaches allocated the highest percent of effort to working with individual teachers (23.6 % ) followed by management (21.1 % ), school related tasks (20.6 % ), planning and organizing (14.2 % ), working with groups of teachers (12.1 % ), and working with students (8.2 % ). Combining the work that coaches did with i ndividual and groups of teachers, coaches spent an average of 35.7 % of their time providing direct support to teachers. The researchers coded coaching activities into five broad categories: working with teachers (individually or in groups), planning and o rganizing that supported the work with teachers, management or administrative tasks, school related meetings and outreach to parents or community, and working with students in assessment or instruction . Time allocation was strongly associated with teachers ' perceptions of the coach as a valuable resource to the teacher . Although the reading coaches were involved in all five activities to a greater or lesser extent, there was a significant relationship between the time coaches allocated to working with teach ers and the teachers' view of those coaches. Additionally, schools in which coaches spent more time on the task of coaching experienced a significantly greater percent age of students scoring at proficiency and a significantly smaller percent age of students scoring at risk than schools that were provided less coaching . Studies confirm that coaches potentially play an important role in supporting efforts at in structional change (Biancarosa et al. , 2010; Matsumura et al., 2010 b ), yet attention is needed regar ding the specific coaching practices that teachers, and ultimately students, benefit from. A study of coach based professional development in Reading First schools offers an in depth look at how reading coaches spend their time

PAGE 43

43 and how th ey structure their work (Scott et al. , 2012). The training and background of coaching were examined to gain a better understanding of practices that are central to the work of literacy coaching. Interactions reported in the co ach logs were coded into 18 categories. Overall, coaches structured their work so that one third of their day involved direct contact with teachers and classroom instruction, approximately one third of their time w as spent planning and doing assessment related work such as making graphs, distributing materials and data entry, 13 % of their time involved working with students, and 13 % of their time was spent meeting with the principal or other school based specialists . The tremendous range of coaching activities each coach reported in his/her log is consistent with ot her coaching research (Deussen et al., 2007; Knight, 2011 ; Roller , 2006). The activities that involved direct interaction with teachers were further analy zed to understand the ways in which different coaches were utilizing coaching structures. Modeling and co teaching emerged as structures in which coaches and teachers were able to focus on improving core instructional practices . The results indicated that grade level meetings were the dominant interaction structure. The core content of grade level meetings emerged as assessment (40 % ), instruction (18 % ), interventions (17 % ), and book study (10 % ). The authors offered that regularly scheduled grade level meeti ngs provided coaches a chance to engage in informal professional development. Analyses provided some evidence that teacher satisfaction with the coach was related to the structures in which coaches provided interaction . Teachers valued professional develo pment opportunities that focused on practical learning and was

PAGE 44

44 integrated into the daily life of the school. The authors conclude that close examination of the work of coaching will further identify the high leverage coaching activities and allow coaches t o structure their work so that teachers, and ultimately students, benefit. Although the current study focuses on elementary grades, the research regarding the work of middle school coaches in Florida is worth consideration. A report entitled Supporting Lit eracy Across the Sunshine State examines the impact of coaching in the statewide literacy initiative Just Read, Florida! established in 2001 by then Governor Jeb Bush (Marsh, et al., 2008). (See Appendix A). This mixed methods study focused on the followin the reading coach program being implemented by the state, districts, schools, and coaches? What has been the impact of coaching on achievement in reading and mathematics, and other outcomes? What features of (Marsh et al., 2008, p. xvi). The study showe d that many districts shared a similar coaching model and relied on the sion of time. Some administrators suggested that , is indicated a desire for specific kinds of pr ofessional development such as supporting adult learners and working with teachers to improve practice across content areas. Day to day work of coaches took many forms . Coaches in all districts reported activities that fell into six major categories; forma l work with teachers, informal coaching, coaching related administrative work, data analysis, non coaching administrative duties

PAGE 45

45 and their own professional development. These findings concur with Duessen et al. ( 2007). Although individual instructional wor k with teachers topped the list of activities to which coaches gave significant time, the reported time spent on these activities did not represent half of their overall time, as the state encouraged. Additionally, more experienced coaches spent significan tly more time than less experienced coaches analyzing data and working with groups of teachers . Yet, the frequency with which coaches reviewed assessment data with teachers was associated with positive outcomes. Coaches in low performing schools spent sign ificantly more time than coaches in high performing schools administering and coordinating assessments and analyzing data. The second set of analyses explored whether coaches who give more time to certain activities are associated with better outcomes. Overall, teachers who had a one on one interaction with the coach were significantly more likely than teachers without this experience to attribute improvements in their instruction to the coach. Specifically, almost half of all reading teachers and 40 % of social studies teachers reported that the reading coach had influenced them to change their instruction. While few coaching features were associated with student achievement, the number of years a school had a coach was significantly related to higher rea ding test scores, suggesting that the benefits of having a coach accrue over time. Coaching Effects on Instructional Practice Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers pioneering work demonstrated that coaching is a positive and essential component of effective pro fessional development. In 2002, Showers reported that coaching contributed to t eacher training in five ways: 1. coaching resulted in teachers practicing the new strategy more frequently in their cl assroom, 2.

PAGE 46

46 teachers demonstrated greater r etention of the new strategy; 3. teachers achieved higher levels of appropriate u se of the strategy over time; 4. teachers were more likely to teach the purpose and expected behaviors inherent in the new strategie s to their students; and 5. teachers demonstrated clearer c ognitions about the purposes and applications of the new strategies (Joyce & Showers, 2002) . Additional studies demonstrate d that coaches participate in specific functions. Gigante and Firestone (2008) suggest that support functions help teachers do their job without influencing teaching practice while developmental functions contribute to their instructional knowledge and skills. Evidence revealed that support tasks did not impact the practice of teaching. In contrast, developmental tasks led to a long ter m gain in . 21). Elish found that coaching activities included conferencing (6.69 % ), administering and discussing assessments (9.8 % ), modeling lessons (6.8 % ), observing (2.17 % ), coaching related to comprehension (10.79 % ) and coaching relate d to the additional components of reading (9.28 % ). The hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analysis suggest that the coaching activities of conferencing, administering assessments, modeling, and observing predicted reading gains at one or more grade levels . In addition, coaching related to the content area of comprehension was a significant predictor at the second grade level. The researchers used the results of this study to propose a research based model of literacy coaching focused on promoting student r eading gains. This model allocates at least a third of total coaching

PAGE 47

47 time to working with teachers and proposes options for administrators and literacy coaches to consider regarding the amount to time coaches spend with teachers and the specific coaching activities in which they engage. Vanderburg and Stephens (2010) found that 77 % of the teachers valued the time coaches created for collaboration with other teachers. More than two thirds of teachers valued the ongoing support and almost 49 % valued professi onal development regarding research based practices offered by the coach. Finally, teachers credited their coach with helping them try new teaching practices, incorporate more authentic assessments, use more educational theory and research, and base instru Positive results for literacy coaching are also being found in non Reading First schools . Using a value added model, Biancarosa et al. (2010) found positive effects for the model on improvements in literacy learning. S tudent liter acy increased by 16 % in its first year, 28 % in its second year , and 32 % in the third. The value added effect remained strong after the summer break . The study looked at the relational practice of the reading coach and found that student improvement was pre dicted by the amount of coaching a teacher received. The researchers offer that increasing coaching expertise over time and the quality of the relationship that a coach is able to establish as possible explanations for the study results. This study is cons istent with the findings of Marsh et al. (2008) who reported that larger effects on student literacy learning were associated with coaches who had been coaching for a longer period of time and serves to contribute new evidence of the potential for literacy coaching to yield improvements in student achievement in reading .

PAGE 48

48 Summary This chapter has provided a broad discussion of the literature on coaching as a job embedded component of professional development. The empirical evidence sheds some light on how e lementary school reading coaches enact their role, but more manage and structure time to provide regular and sufficient opportunities for coaching tasks that impact the practice of teaching is an implication reflected in numerous studies thr oughout the literature ( Poglinco et al . , 2003; Walpole & Blamey, 2008 ; U.S. Department of Educa tion, 2010a ). Exploring how elementary school reading coaches enact their role is necessary to further explore the impact of coaching on teaching. Further, a better understanding of the influences on the practices of elementary school reading coaches will provide opportunities for improving the potential of reading

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Th is chapter presents the methodology used in the study . This chapte r provides an overview of the: research methodology; p op ulation and sample; data collec tion; data analysis ; and limitations . Research Methodology Survey design was selected for this study to provide an opportunity to explore the relationship between variables (coaches) within conditions (differenti ated accountability categories) . Statistical analysis of survey data allows researchers to examine how variables relate to other variables (Ahmadi & Simmering, 2006; Creswell, 2008). However, the use of surveys does not enable the determination of a causal rela tionship (Creswell, 2008). Population and Sample Purposive sampling, a form of non probability sampling, was used in the selection of the school district. It is important to point out that while this sampling approach is not representative of a larger pop ulation, it allows the researcher to study a clearly defined and relatively limited group. The school district was located in southwest Florida. The district was recognized 2011 and an "A" school in 2009 and 2010 . The district serves a bout 43,793 students within its 29 elementary schools, 10 middle schools, 8 high schools, 12 alternative schools and a PreK through 12 school. More than 63 % of the students are categorized as r free or reduced priced lunch; 48 % of the students live in non English speaking homes and 14 % of students receive support in the English

PAGE 50

50 Language Learners ( ELL ) program , 13% are classified as students with disabilities (SWD). White stude nts comprise 38 % of the student body, while 12 % of the student population is African American or Haitian . The target population in this study included e lementary school reading coaches . One school was purposely omitted from the study because the researcher is affiliated with that school. Each participant was a full time reading coach serving a single K 5 elementary school . Of the 29 potential participa nts, 20 coaches responded, a 69 % response rate . However three i ncomplete surveys were removed from further analysis . The sample included including 16 females and one male. The median years experience as an educator was 17. Of the participants , 24 % (n = 4) had 4 10 years, 35 % (n = 6) had 11 20 years, and 41 % (n = 7) had greater than 20 years of teaching experien ce . Of the participants, 24 % (n=4) had 3 years or less of coaching experience and 76 % (n=13) had 4 10 years of coaching experience. Participants were asked to indicate the degrees or endorsements they have earned. Based on highest degree earned, one (5% , n = 1) reading coach had a ) . Almost 25 % (23.5%, n = 4) had a specialist degree (n = 3), and one held a doctorate degree. Table 3 1. Demographics for the Sample Demographic Variable n % Gender Female 16 94.10 Male 1 05.90 Degree 1 05.90 12 70.60

PAGE 51

51 Table 3 1. Continued Demographic Variable n % Specialist 3 17.70 Doctorate 1 05.90 Years of Experience in Education 0 3 0 00.00 4 10 4 23.50 11 20 6 35.30 >20 7 41.20 Years of Experience as a Coach 0 3 4 23.50 4 10 13 76.50 11 20 0 00.00 Differentiated Accountability Status Prevent I 2 23.53 Correct I 2 11.76 Prevent II 2 11.76 Correct II 7 41.18 Intervene 0 00.00 Not Required to Participate in DA 2 11.76 Participants were asked to indicate the Differentiated Accountability (DA) status of their current school. Of the participants, 24 % (n = 4) worked in a school w ith the status of Prevent I; 12 % (n = 2) worked in a school w ith the status of Correct I; 12 % (n = 2) worked in a school with the status of Prevent II; 41 % (n = 7) worked in a school with the statu s of Correct II and 12 % (n= 2) worked in a school that was not required to participate in D ifferentiated Accountability. Table 3 1 provides the demographic information for the sample. Data Collection Two sources of data were used to address the study's research questions: 1) a survey of elemen tary school reading coaches, and 2) the school district's Professional

PAGE 52

52 Development Log for Reading/Literacy Coaches for the first semester of the 2011 2012 school year (See Appendix B). Data collection occurred during the second semester of the school year to allow coaches to reflect on the first semester when responding to survey questions. The survey was administered using an internet survey service provider. Survey questions were derived from an existing survey designed for the U.S. Department of Education Reading F irst Implementation Eva luation. The survey asked questions related to coaches background, coaching responsibilities, coaching activities, and professional develop ment for coaches (See Appendix C ). The latter three represent three subsections of the national survey. They were used in totality from t he survey that was generated using Qualt rcs software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). In section one of the survey, p articipants were asked to provide information related to their background and experience , and their schools' Differentiated Accou ntability (DA) category for the 2011 2012 school year. Next, participants were survey asked about the importance of different coaching activities to their work. C oaches rate d a set of activities performed for the school using a five point Likert scale. The coaches rate d items on a continuum of not central at all to their role as a reading coach to absolutely central to their role as a reading coach. P articipants were also asked to rate activities related to coaching staff using the same Likert scale and to identify any professional development topics that were addressed during the current school year, as well as, topics in which the coach needed more professional development. The bi s for the first semester of the 2011 2012 school year were also included

PAGE 53

53 percent of time spent on eac h of the twelve task areas . These data were used to identify disparities and similarities between the survey participants within each DA category and the dis trict average Access to Study Participants Before contacting the school district regarding coach participation in this study and access to the log, the researcher submitted the required materials to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Florida. Upon receipt of IRB approval, the researcher submitted a request to the district data committee and obtain ed permission to conduct t his study . Once approval was granted, the researcher contact ed the distric t Coordinator of Reading and each elementary school principal and provide d a description of the study. After contacting each school principal, the researcher sent an e mail with a de scription of the study and the Informed Consent to the reading coach . After receiving informed consent , an e mail with a link to the survey was sent to the participants . (See Appendices D F ). Survey Review Pilot Study The researcher asked a reading coach from a school not participating in the study to review the survey overall length and clarity of the survey questions. The reading coach reported that the questions were clear, easy to follow and understand, and that the time spent completing the survey wa s comparable to the time indicated in the letter of consent. Therefore, no revisions were made to the original survey. Data Analysis The participants' responses to the survey were entered into the statistical software program, Statistical Package for the S ocial Sciences (SPSS) 17.0. This study

PAGE 54

54 used simple descriptive statistics and frequencies were calculated for the forced choice questionnaire items. Three types of analyses were employed and results were determined and presented in tables, accompanied by b rief narrative highlights. Specifically, the data pertaining to research question 1 required descriptive statistics to the survey questions. To analyze the data for questions 2 and 3, which required a rating on an ord inal scale, the researcher calculated percent ages and frequencies for all respondents within each of the levels of differentiated accountability school support. Differences between the activities of readi ng coaches within the levels of school support provided by the state differentiated accountability model were determined using Fishe independence. The alpha level was set at p 10 to test for a practical significance due to the low level of participants and the practical application of this study . Tests were performed rather than Chi square analysis due to the relatively small evaluating the difference between groups when there are small numbers of observation. Table 3 2. Professional Development Topics for Reading Coaches may have participated. In column A, identify any topics that were addressed in a. How to use reading assessment data to guide instruction. b. What are the types of assessments: screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome? c. How to use assessment data to form instructional groups. d. How to p rovide constructive feedback to teachers . e. How to e stablish credibility with teachers . f. E ssential component s of scientifically based reading instruction . g. W hat is the role of the reading coach in fostering change?

PAGE 55

55 Table 3 2. Continued may have participated. In column A, identify any topics that were addressed in h. How to plan instructional interventions for struggling students. i. Classroom management within the literacy block time. j. How to conduct effective grade level meetings k. How to help teachers identify appropriate instructional materials. l. How to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and explicit m. How to condu ct demonstration lessons. n. How to conduct classroom observations. o. How to provide onsite professional development. p. How to provide instructional supports for ELL students learning to read q. Other (Please specify): Research Q uestion 4 required teacher s to choose multiple responses. The researcher calculated percent ages and frequencies were computed for all respondents. Between group and within group differences were highlighted. Table 3 2 shows the professional development topics presented in the survey . Table 3 3. Research Questions and Data Analysis Research Question Statistics Data analysis 1. To what extent are there similarities in the academic preparation of reading coaches ? Descriptive Frequencies and percentages 2. To what extent do reading coaches withi n schools of differentiated accountability categories agree about the activities that elementary school reading coaches perform? Inferential Frequencies and percentages , p value 3. What is the level of agreement among elementary sc hool reading coaches perceptions of their central role within schools of differentiated accountability categories ? Inferential Frequencies and percentages, p value

PAGE 56

56 Table 3 3. Continued Research Question Statistics Data analysis 4. To what extent do reading coaches receive the same type of professional development? Descriptive Frequencies and percentages 5. How does time spent on coaching activities reported by the reading coaches compare to the recommendations of the District's Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan? Inferen tial Frequencies and percentages, p value Research question 5 explored the coaches' distribution of time reported in the Professional Development Log for Reading/Literacy Coaches. Descriptive statistics were used to compare time spent on various coaching activities as outlined in the district reading plan and the time reported by all coaches within the district to the state. Percent of time spent on coaching activities were compared by the levels of support and monitoring required by the school status wit hin the state differentiated accountability model. The Kruskal Wallis test was performed to determine whether there was a relationship between time spent on various coaching activities and the differentiated accountability level of support . The alpha level was set at p 10 to test for a practical significance. Table 3 3 presents the statistics and data analysis used for each research question. Limitations There are several limitations to the findings presented in this r eport. First, the data sources are r reported subjective perceptions and judgments about their responsibilities, activities and professional development. Another disadvantage of using surveys is the lack of control over who does or does not respond.

PAGE 57

57 Due to this lack of contro l, the survey responses may not be representative of the general population for whom the survey was intended.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the study. The purpose of this study was to explore the professional practices of element ary school reading coaches. The researcher analyzed descriptive data using a web based survey administered to elementary school reading coaches in one public school district in Florida, as well as, the reading coach log reported to the state during the sur vey period. This chapter presents the findings as they relate to each research question. Research Question 1: To what extent are there similarities in the academic preparation of the reading coaches ? State Board Rule 6A 6.053 K 12 Comprehensive Research Ba sed Reading Plan provides districts with a reading coach job description that describes the reading . The coach must g was highly recommended. This rule required that the reading coach be reading endorsed or K 12 certified in the area of reading, or working toward reading endorsement or K 12 certification in the area of reading (Florida Department of Education, 2010). In addition to the state requirements, the district comprehensive research based reading plan required school principals to select reading coaches for their buildings from a district approved Reading Coach pool of applicants. To address this research questi on, respondents were asked to report their experience and educational levels. The researcher used descriptive statistics to identify similarities in the background and preparation of the coaches and compare this to the expectations of the state. The respon dents in this study included 17 reading coaches from 29 elementary schools. Of the participants, 94 % (n = 16) met the minimum

PAGE 59

59 requisite qualifications based the K 12 Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan. Just over half the participants (53%, n = 9) ha d advanced degrees in Reading with certification, followed closely by the number of coaches (42%, n = 7) that had an endorsement in Reading. Fewer than 6 % (5.88, n = 1) did not indicate an advanced degree, a certification or an endorsement. Table 4 1. Demographics Related to Academic Preparation for the Sample Demographic Variable n % Degree 1 05.90 12 70.60 Specialist 3 17.70 Doctorate 1 05.90 Reading Preparation Advanced Degree in Reading 7 41.18 Endorsement in Reading 7 41.18 Advanced Degree and Reading Endorsement 1 5.88 Years of Experience in Education 0 3 0 00.00 4 10 1 5.88 11 20 7 41.18 >20 9 52.94 Years of Experience as a Coach 0 3 4 23.50 4 10 13 76.50 11 20 0 00.00 Respondents reported the number of years of experience in education and the number of years of experience as a coach. The median years experience as an educato r was 17. Of the participants, none had 3 years or less of teaching experience, 24 % (n = 4) had 4 10 years, 35 % (n = 6) had 11 20 years, and 41 % (n = 7) had greater than 20 years of teaching experience. The median years experience as a coach was 4.

PAGE 60

60 Of the participants, 24 % (n=4) had 3 years or less of coaching experience and 76 % (n=13) had 4 10 years of coaching experience. The Florida statute that implemented the use of reading coaches was enacted in 2008. This is a possible explanation for the comparatively low median years experience as a reading coach reported by respondents. Overall, the lite racy coaches surveyed were experienced educators and almost all had advanced training in their chosen field . Table 4 1 provides the demographics for the sample. T able 4 2. Differentiated Accountability Categories for the Sample and District by Percentage a nd Frequency Differentiated Accountability Category S ample District Prevent I 23.53 4 20.69 6 Correct I 11.76 2 13.79 4 Prevent II 11.76 2 17.24 5 Correct II 41.18 7 41.38 12 Intervene 0.00 0 0.00 0 Not required to participate in Differentiated Accountability 11.76 2 10.34 3 Total 17 29 Florida participates in the U.S. Department of Education Differentiated Accountability Model. Under differentiated accountability, low performing schools are categorized according to the severity of the substandard student achievement. In the differentiate d accountability model, Florida first categorizes schools based on performance (Category I or II). Schools in Category I were A , B , and C graded schools that met at least 80 % of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) performance criteria.

PAGE 61

61 Category II schools inc luded those that met less than 80 % of AYP criteria, as well as all D and F graded schools. The schools were further labeled Prevent, Correct, or improvement interventions and whether the interventions were directed and monitored by the school, the district or the state (U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy D evelopment, Policy and Program Studies Service , 2012) . Table 4 2 presents the differentiated accountability categories for the sample and the district. The percent of schools within each category in the sample was well aligned with the percent of schools within the district. The difference in percent ages between the sample and distr ict schools ranged from .2 % in the Correct II category to 5.48 % in the Prevent II category. T able 4 3 . Differentiated Accountability Levels of School Support for the Sample and District by Percentage and Frequency Level of school support Sample District School Directed Support (schools not required to participate in differentiated accountability and Prevent I ) 35.29 6 31.03 9 District Directed Support (schools in Correct I and Prevent II) 23.53 4 31.03 9 State Directed Support (schools in Correct II and Intervene)* 41.18 7 41.38 12 Total 17 29 *No schools in the district received the Intervene designation in 2011 The roles of the school, district, and state were defined separately for each differentiated accountability classification. For schools in the Prevent I category, the school directed the intervention, the district provided assistance in implementing the in tervention, and the state reviewed the progress of the implementation. For schools in

PAGE 62

62 the Prevent II and Correct I category, the district directed the interventions and provided assistance while the state monitored progress. Schools in the Correct II and I ntervene category, considered to have the most critical need, required the district to comply with state directed interventions and monitoring. The researcher used these categories to disaggregate the data for the research questions. The percent of schools necessitating each level of support in the sample aligned closely with the district. All samples were within 10 percentage points of the district. Table 4 3 presents the data disaggregated by the level of support the sample schools and the district receiv ed showing the similarity between the sample and the school district. Reading coaches perform ed a wide variety of activities while supporting teachers. A closer look at the academic preparations of the reading coach participants is presented in Table 4 4. T he demographics of the sample is shown by the level of differentiated accountability support p rovided to the school. The majority of coaches one coach in each of the reporting categories. Reading coaches in schools that received district (50%, n=2) and state (42.8 6%, n=3) directed support were more likely to hold an advanced degree in reading than coaches in schools that directed their own support (33.33%, n=2). Coaches in schools that directed their own support were more likely to hold a reading endorsement (66.67 %, n=4) than an advanced degree in reading (33.33%, n=2).

PAGE 63

63 T able 4 4 . Demographics Disaggregated by Support Provided to School by Percentage and Frequency Demographic Variable All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Coaches in District Directed Sup port Coaches in State Directed Support Highest Degree 05.90 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 14.29 1 70.60 12 83.33 5 75.00 3 57.14 4 Specialist 17.70 3 16.67 1 25.00 1 14.29 1 Doctorate 05.90 1 16.67 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 Reading Preparation Advanced Degree in Reading 41.18 7 33.33 2 50.00 2 42.86 3 Endorsement in Reading 41.18 7 66.67 4 50.00 2 14.29 1 Advanced Degree in Reading and Reading Endorsement 5.88 1 16.67 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 Years of Experience in Education 0 3 00.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 4 10 5.88 1 16.67 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 11 20 41.18 7 50.00 3 50.00 2 28.57 2 >20 52.94 9 33.33 2 50.00 2 71.43 5 Years of Experience as a Coach 0 3 23.50 4 16.67 1 0.00 0 42.86 3 4 10 76.50 13 83.33 5 100.00 4 57.14 4 11 20 00.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

PAGE 64

64 More coaches (71.43%, n=5) in schools that received state directed support reported twenty or more years of experience in education than coaches (50%, n=2) in schools that received districted directed support or coaches (33.33%, n=2) in schools that directed their own support. Coaches in schools that received district directed support and directed their own support reported similar years of experience as a coach. Three reading coaches in schools that received stat e directed support had three or less years of experience as a coach (42.86%, n=3). The academic preparations and experience of the participant reading coaches were similar across the reporting categories in highest degree earned and years of experience in education. Reading coaches in schools that received district and state support were more likely to hold an advanced degree in reading than a reading endorsement. Coaches in schools that received state directed support had less experience as a coach compare d to schools that received district or school directed support. Research Question 2: To what extent do reading coaches within schools of differentiated accountability categories agree about the activities that elementary school reading coaches perform? Tab le 4 5 . Literacy Coach Activities that Support Teachers by Percentage and Frequency Teacher Support Activities* All Schools Coaches in School Directed Support Coaches in District Directed Support Coaches in State Directed Support Providing training/professional development in reading materials, strategies, and assessments 100.00 17 100.00 6 100.00 4 100.00 7

PAGE 65

65 Table 4 5. Continued Teacher Support Activities* All Schools Coaches in School Directed Support Coaches in District Directed Support Coaches in State Directed Support Coach ing staff on a range of topics 16 RESPONDENTS 100.00 16 100.00 6 100.00 3 100.00 7 Organizing professional development for teachers 88.24 15 66.67 4 100.00 4 100.00 7 Providing direct rea ding instruction to students 64.70 11 66.67 4 75.00 3 57.14 4 Facilitating grade level meetings 58.82 10 66.67 4 50.00 2 57.14 4 Coordinating activities and meetings between classroom and special education teachers 29.41 5 16.67 1 50.00 2 28.57 2 Coordinating activities and meetings between classroom teachers and English Language Learner (ELL) staff 17.65 3 16.67 1 25.00 1 14.29 1 Reading coaches perform a wide variety of activities in their role of supporting teachers. Table 4 5 presents coaching activities that support teachers beyond implementing their reading program. Coaches rated a variety of activities that support teachers, school administration and the school reading program as not central at all to their role as a coach to absolutely central to their role as a coach. Activities that all coaches across all levels of support rated as central to their work included providing p rofessional development (100%, n=17) and coaching staff on a range of topics (100%, n=17). All coaches in schools that receive district directed support and state directed support rated organizing professional development for teachers (100%, n=17) as centr al to their work compared to coaches in schools that receive school directed support

PAGE 66

66 (66.67%, n=4). It is noteworthy that coaches in all schools (64.70%, n= 11), ranked providing direct reading instruction to students as central to their work compared with schools that received school directed support (66.67%, n=4), schools that received district directed support (75%, n=3) and schools that received state directed support (57.14%, n=4). The district comprehensive reading plan guidelines state that coaches s hould only be working with students wh en modeling for teachers. These findings demonstrated that coaches that were directed by the state were less likely to provide direct reading instruction to students. More than 50 % of coaches across all categories repo rted that providing direct reading instruction to students was central to their role. This practice is not aligned with the district comprehensive reading plan. Table 4 6. Literacy Coach Activities that Support Administration and the School Reading Program by Percentage and Frequency Administrative and School Support Activities * All Schools Coaches in School Directed Support Coaches in District Directed Support Coaches in State Directed Support Participating in school leadership team meetings 100.00 17 100.00 6 100.00 4 100.00 7 Participating in professional development provided by the district, state or other consultants 94.18 16 100.00 6 100.00 4 85.71 6 Ordering/managing reading instruction materials 88.24 15 100.00 6 100.00 4 71.43 5 Administering/coordinating reading assessments 82.35 14 83.33 5 100.00 4 71.43 5 Compiling reading assessment data for teachers 82.35 14 83.33 5 75.00 3 85.71 6 Facilitating or coordinating family literacy activities 58.82 10 50.00 3 50.00 4 71.43 5

PAGE 67

67 Table 4 6. Continued Administrative and School Support Activities * All Schools Coaches in School Directed Support Coaches in District Directed Support Coaches in State Directed Support Providing sub time for teachers to observe other more experienced teachers 23.53 4 0.00 0 0 25.00 1 42.86 3 * Responding with a 4 or 5 on the Likert Scale Administrative support activities are another key responsibility of reading coaches. Table 4 6 shows coaching activities that support administration and the school reading program. While all coaches (100%, n=17) regardless of the level of support the school received agreed that participating in school leadership team meetings was central to their r ole, the agreement with other administrative and school support activities varied. More activities (57.14%, n= 4) were ranked as central to the role of the coach by 100 % of coaches in schools that receive district level support compared to schools receivin g school level support (42.86%, n=3) and schools receiving state level support (14.28%, n=1). More coaches in schools receiving state directed support ranked facilitating or coordinating family literacy activities (71.43%, n=5) and providing time for teach ers to observe more experienced teachers (42.86%, n=3) as compared to coaches in schools receiving school directed or district directed support. The activities that received the fewest percent of coaches reporting the activities as central to their role, f acilitating or coordinating family literacy activities (58.82%, n=10), and providing time for teachers to observe experienced teachers (23.53%, n=4) are activities that are not considered the primary function of the coach in the district comprehensive read ing plan.

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 7. Coaching Activities and DA Level of Support Note. * p was used to test whether there was any non random association between the variables of the coaching activity and the level of differentiated accountability school support. Table 4 7 shows that the relationship between the activity of coordinating activitie s and meetings between classroom teachers and English Language Learner (ELL) staff is statistically significant ( p = . 0067). Variable p Providing training/professional development in reading materials, strategies, and assessments 1.000 Coaching staff on a range of topics 1.000 Organizing professional development for teachers .2087 Providing direct reading instruction to students .9309 Facilitating grade level meetings 1.000 Coordinating activities and meetings between classroom and special education teachers .2979 Coordinating activities and meetings between classroom teachers and English Language Learner (ELL) staff .0067* Participating in school leadership team meetings 1.000 Participating in professional development provided by the district, state or other consultants .3559 Ordering/managing reading instruction materials .5631 Administering/coordinating reading assessments .3741 Compiling reading assessment data for teachers .5788 Facilitating or coordinating family literacy activities .1238 Providing sub time for teachers to observe other more experienced teachers .3752

PAGE 69

69 Research Question 3: What is the level of agreement among elementary school reading coaches within schools of differentiated accountability categories ? Research question 3 measured the level of agreement among elementary school reading coaches in their pe rceptions of their central role within activities that support ress this topic in more depth, the researcher analyzed the role of the coach within various levels of differentiated accountability support provided to the school. Su rvey participants rated different activities as central to their role and responsibilities. As outlined in the district comprehensive reading plan, coaches are expected to work primarily with teachers in implementing their reading programs. The table below instruction of teachers. The table indicates the percent of coaches within all participating schools and within each school support category that describe d the activity as fairly or a bsolutely central to their work as a coach. The activities are rank ordered by the all school percent age. The findings show that 100 % of coaches in all schools, regardless of the level of support and monitoring provided, stated that assisting teachers in a ddressing the needs of struggling readers (100%, n=17), monitoring the effectiveness of strategies used with struggling readers (100%, n= 17) and assisting teachers in interpreting assessment results (100%, n= 17) were central to their role as a reading co ach. Coaches in schools that received no district or state directed support were less coaches in schools that directed their own support ranked observing and p roviding feedback to teachers (83.33%, n=5), assisting teachers in using the core program

PAGE 70

70 (83.33%, n=5), giving demonstrations on assessments (66.67%, n=4), giving demonstration lessons using core or supplemental materials (66.67%, n=4) and assisting teach ers in forming instructional groups (50%, n=3) as central to their role as a coach. Table 4 8 by Percentage and Frequency Activities that Support All Schools Coaches in School Directed Support Coaches in District Directed Support Coaches in State Directed Support Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of struggling readers 100.00 17 100.00 6 100.00 4 100.00 7 Assisting teachers with monitoring the effectiveness of strategies addressing the needs of struggling readers 100.00 17 100.00 6 100.00 4 100.00 7 Assisting teachers in interpreting assessment results 100.00 17 100.00 6 100.00 4 100.00 7 Observing and providing feedback to teachers 94.18 16 83.33 5 100.00 4 100.00 7 Assisting teachers in using the core program 88.24 15 83.33 5 100.00 4 85.71 6 Giving demonstrations on assessment administration and scoring 88.24 15 66.67 4 100.00 4 100.00 7 Giving demonstration lessons using core or supplemental materials 82.35 14 66.67 4 100.00 4 85.71 6 Assisting teachers in forming instructional groups 76.47 13 50.00 3 100.00 4 85.71 6 Planning reading instruction with teachers 70.59 12 33.33 2 100.00 4 85.71 6 Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of special education students 64.70 11 66.67 4 75.00 3 57.14 4

PAGE 71

71 Table 4 8. Continued Activities that Support All Schools Coaches in School Directed Support Coaches in District Directed Support Coaches in State Directed Support Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of ELLs 64.70 11 50.00 3 75.00 3 71.43 5 plans and providing feedback 16 RESPONDENTS 31.25 5 0.00 0 75.00 3 33.33 2 Responding with a 4 or 5 on the Likert Scale Table 4 8 shows that r was reported by all coaches (32.25%, n=5) as an activity that was less central to their work. The percent of coaches in schools receiving district directed support that reported this activity as central to their work (75%, n=3) differed significantly from coaches in schools that received state directed support (33.33%, n=2) a nd schools that provided their own support (0.00%, n=0). activities that were central to their role as a coach. Reading coaches in schools that received district level support rank ed more activities (75%, n= 9) as central to the role of the coach compared to schools that received state level support (41.67%, n=5) and schools that directed their own support (25%, n=3). Evidence suggests that the role of the coach might be different w ithin the various levels of differentiated accountability support schools receive.

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 9 . Coaching Activities and DA Level of Support Variable p Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of struggling readers .7529 Assisting teachers with monitoring the effectiveness of strategies addressing the needs of struggling readers .3088 Assisting teachers in interpreting assessment results 1.000 Observing and providing feedback to teachers .0175* Assisting teachers in using the core program .8951 Giving demonstrations on assessment administration and scoring .6131 Giving demonstration lessons using core or supplemental materials .9661 Assisting teachers in forming instructional groups .5690 Planning reading instruction with teachers .0582* Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of special education students .0950* Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of ELLs .1443 Reviewing te .1320 Note. * p Differences between the coaching activities and the level of differentiated accountability school support were determined using independence to test whether there was any non random association between the variables. Table 4 9 shows that the relationship between the coach activity of observing and providing feedback to teachers ( p = .0175) planning reading instructional with teachers ( p = .0582) and assisting teache rs in designing strategies for addressing the needs of special education students ( p = .0950) were significant. Research Question 4: To what extent do reading coaches receive the same type of professional development? The tables below show professional development reading coaches had or reported they needed during the survey reporting period. The data is ranked by

PAGE 73

73 professional development reported by all coaches. The researcher disaggregated the data by the differentiat ed accountability support that the school received and arranged the data by categories of professional development (assessment, effective modeling, how to provide effective support and feedback to teachers and scientifically based reading instruction). T ab le 4 10 . Professional Development in Assessment Reading Coaches Have Had by Percentage and Frequency Assessment PD All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to use assessment data to form instructional groups. 75.00 12 66.67 4 75.00 3 83.33 5 How to use reading assessment data to guide instruction. 62.50 10 50.00 3 100.00 4 66.67 4 What are the types of assessments: screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome? 50.00 8 50.00 3 50.00 2 50.00 3 T able 4 11 . Professional Development in Assessment Reading Coaches Need by Percentage and Frequency Assessment PD All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to use assessment data to form instructional groups. 00.00 0 00.00 0 00.00 0 00.00 0 How to use reading assessment data to guide instruction. 6.25 1 00.00 0 00.00 0 16.67 1 What are the types of assessments: screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome? 18.75 3 00.00 0 50.00 2 16.67 1

PAGE 74

74 Table 4 10 presents the professional development related to assessment that coaches have had. Table 4 11 presents the professional development related to assessment that coaches revealed they needed. The majority of coaches attended professional development in using assessment data to form in structional groups (75%, n=12) and using assessment data to guide instruction (62.5%, n=10). The data varied slightly across schools that received school directed support (66.67%, n=4) and schools that received state directed support (83.33%, n=5). Half of the coaches surveyed attended professional development in the types of assessments. Coaches reported that professional development related to types of assessments was needed more than other assessment training. Coaches in schools that received school dire cted support reported no need for this type of training (0%, n=0). Table 4 12 . Professional Development in Effective Modeling Reading Coaches Have Had by Percentage and Frequency Effective Modeling All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to conduct demonstration lessons. 56.25 9 50.00 3 50.00 2 66.67 4 How to conduct classroom observations. 50.00 8 33.33 2 75.00 3 66.67 4

PAGE 75

75 Table 4 13 . Professional Development in Effective Modeling Reading Coaches Need by Percentage and Frequency Effective Modeling All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to conduct demonstration lessons. 12.50 2 00.00 0 25.00 1 16.67 1 How to conduct classroom observations. 6.25 1 00.00 0 25.00 1 00.00 0 Table 4 12 and 4 13 present the professional development that reading coaches had or reported they needed related to effective modeling during the survey reporting period. Coaches in each support category attended training in effective modeling. The number of coaches that received training in conducting demonstration lessons was similar for all coaches (56.25%, n=9) and coaches that worked in schools with school (50%, n=3) or district (50%, n=2) directed support. More coaches in schools that received state directed support received training in conducting demonstration lessons (66.67%, n=4) than other coaches. Fewer coaches in schools that received school directed support received training in conducting classroom observations (33.33%, n=2) than coaches in sch ools that received district directed support (75%, n=3) or state directed support (66.67%, n=4). Although very few coaches reported needing professional development in effective modeling, coaches in schools receiving school directed support report no need for training in conducting demonstration lessons or observing teachers.

PAGE 76

76 Table 4 14 . Professional Development in Providing Effective Support and Feedback to Teachers Reading Coaches Have Had by Percentage and Frequency Effective Support and Feedback All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to help teachers identify appropriate instructional materials. 62.50 10 16.67 1 100.00 4 83.33 5 How to provide onsite professional development. 56.25 9 66.67 4 50.00 2 50.00 3 How to provide constructive feedback to teachers. 50.00 8 50.00 3 75.00 3 33.33 2 What is the role of the reading coach in fostering change? 43.75 7 33.33 2 25.00 1 66.67 4 Classroom management within the literacy block time. 43.75 7 50.00 3 50.00 2 33.33 2 How to establish credibility with teachers. 25.00 4 33.33 2 25.00 1 33.33 2 How to conduct effective grade level meetings 6.25 1 00.00 0 25.00 1 00.00 0 Table 4 15 . Professional Development in Providing Effective Support and Feedback to Teachers Reading Coaches Need by Percentage and Frequency Effective Support and Feedback All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to help teachers identify appropriate instructional materials. 12.50 2 16.67 1 00.00 0 00.00 0 How to provide onsite professional development. 12.50 2 00.00 0 25.00 1 16.67 1 How to provide constructive feedback to teachers. 25.00 4 33.33 2 25.00 1 16.67 1 What is the role of the reading coach in fostering change? 37.50 6 33.33 2 50.00 2 33.33 2

PAGE 77

77 Table 4 15. Continued Effective Support and Feedback All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools Classroom management within the literacy block time. 18.75 3 22.00 0 25.00 1 16.67 1 How to establish credibility with teachers. 25.00 4 16.67 1 50.00 2 16.67 1 How to conduct effective grade level meetings 31.25 5 16.67 1 50.00 2 50.00 3 The third category of professional development related to providing effective support and feedback to teachers. Tables 4 14 and 4 15 presents the professional development reading coaches had or revealed they needed during the survey reporting period. The majority of coaches attended professional development related to helping teachers identify appropriate instructional materials (62.5%, n=10) a nd how to provide onsite professional development (56.25%, n=9). Fewer coaches in schools that received school directed support reported attended training to help teachers identify instructional materials (16.67%, n=1) than coaches in schools that received district directed support (100%, n=4). Very few coaches across all schools attended training in establishing credibility with teachers (25%, n=4) and conducting effective grade level meetings (6.25%, n=1). Slightly less than half of the coaches reported a ttending a training on the role of the reading coach in fostering change (43.75%, n=7) while more coaches reported needed this training (37.5%, n=6). Data for this professional development was similar across all schools.

PAGE 78

78 Table 4 16 . Professional Developmen t in Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Reading Coaches Have Had by Percentage and Frequency Scientifically Based Reading Instruction All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to plan instructional interventions for struggling students. 68.75 11 50.00 3 75.00 3 83.33 5 How to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and explicit 62.50 10 33.33 2 100.00 4 66.67 4 Essential components of scientifically based reading instruction. 50.00 8 33.33 2 50.00 2 66.67 4 How to provide instructional supports for ELL students learning to read 37.50 6 16.67 1 25.00 1 66.67 4 Table 4 17 . Professional Development in Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Reading Coaches Need by Percentage and Frequency Scientifically Based Reading Instruction All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to plan instructional interventions for struggling students. 12.50 2 16.67 1 25.00 1 00.00 0 How to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and explicit 6.25 1 00.00 0 00.00 0 16.67 1 How to plan instructional interventions for struggling students. 12.50 2 16.67 1 25.00 1 00.00 0 How to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and explicit 6.25 1 00.00 0 00.00 0 16.67 1 Essential components of scientifically based reading instruction. 12.50 2 00.00 0 25.00 1 16.67 1

PAGE 79

79 Table 4 17. Continued Scientifically Based Reading Instruction All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools How to provide instructional supports for ELL students learning to read 25.00 4 16.67 1 50.00 2 16.67 1 The final category of professional development related to scientifically based reading instruction. Tables 4 16 and 4 17 presents the professional development reading coaches had or revealed they needed during the survey reporting period. Professional deve lopment related to planning instructional interventions for struggling students was attended by the majoring of all coaches (68.75%, n=11). More coaches in schools that received state directed support (83.33%, n=5) reported attending this training than coa ches in schools receiving district directed support (75%, n=3) and coaches in schools that received school directed support (50%, n=3). All coaches in schools that received district directed support (100%, n 4) and the majority of coaches in schools that r eceived state directed support (66.67%, n=4) attended training to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and explicit compared to coaches in schools that directed their own support (33.33%, n=2). Coaches were less likely to report a need for professional development in scientifically based reading instruction than professional development in assessment, effective modeling, or providing effective su pport and feedback to teachers.

PAGE 80

80 Table 4 18 . Summary of Professional Development by Percentage and Frequency Average Across all Professional Development Topics All Coaches Coaches in School Directed Support Schools Coaches in District Directed Support Schools Coaches in State Directed Support Schools Professional Development Coaches Had 51.17 256 39.58 38 59.38 38 57.29 55 Professional Development Coaches Need 16.01 256 9.37 9 26.56 17 15.92 15 Table 4 18 presents a summary of professional development that coaches had during the study period and reported they needed during the study period . A greater percent age of coaches in schools that received district (59.68%, n=38) and state (57.29%, n=55) directed support attended professional development. Coaches in schools that received district directed support (26.56%, n=17) needed more professional d evelopment than coaches in schools that received state directed support (15.92%, n=15) . Coaches in schools that received school directed support attended less professional development (39.58%, n=38) and revealed that they needed less professional developme nt (9.37%, n=9). Research Question 5: How does the time spent on coaching activities reported by Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plan? Table 4 19 . Reading Coach Log Percent Reported by Participants, by District and by Comprehensive Reading Plan Reading Coach Activity Average Percent age of Time Reported District Comprehensive Reading Plan Reading Coach Survey District Coaches Log Reported to PMRN Professional Development * 25 .00 9.47 6.1 1 Planning * 5 .00 8.70 8.68

PAGE 81

81 Table 4 19. Continued Reading Coach Activity Average Percentage of Time Reported District Comprehensive Reading Plan Reading Coach Survey District Coaches Log Reported to PMRN Modeling Lessons * 20 .00 13.29 9.57 Coaching * 20 .00 12.18 10.4 3 Coach Teacher Conferences * 10 .00 19.0 0 15.4 3 Student Assessment 3 .00 6.8 0 4.2 5 Data Reporting 5 .00 2.0 0 00.79 Data Analysis 6 .00 9.29 6.96 Meetings 2 .00 8.1 3 9.89 Knowledge Building 2 .00 8.00 8.2 1 Managing Reading Materials 2 .00 5.30 5.25 OTHER 0 .00 21.56 14.29 *Total Percentage of Most Critical Categories 80.00 62.64 50.22 Source: Florida Department of Education (2011 a ). District K 12 Comprehensive Research Based Reading Plans The Florida Department of Education requires reading coaches to utilize the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN) to document bi weekly how they spend their time. When coaches upload the time they allocated to each category during a two week period, the system automatically tabulates the total task time for each category. The Florida Department of Education provided school districts in Florida with guidance regarding the role of the re ading coach . The guidance document identified the activities that coaches should perform that have the greatest impact on student learning (professional development, planning, modeling lessons, coaching and coach teacher conferences) and set the expectatio n that reading coaches spend at least 75 % of their time on these activities (Florida Department of Education, 2011a). These activities,

PAGE 82

82 when executed, placed the coaches directly with teachers. The district comprehensive reading plan set the expectation th at coaches would spend 80 % of their time on activities that directly support teachers (Florida Department of Education, 2011b). Table 4 19 presents the percent ages of time allocated for each coaching activity as outline in the district comprehensive readin g plan and compares this with the time reading coaches reported in the survey and the average time reported by the district to the state progress reporting network. According to the state comprehensive reading plan guidance document, professional developme nt activities such as presenting small or whole group professional development, conducting faculty seminars and facilitating action research or study groups should take 25 % time reported for professional development by sur vey participants (9.47 % ) and reported to the state by all coaches in the district (6.11 % ) was significantly lower. Survey participants reported spending less time on coaching activities that placed the coach directly with teachers (62.64 % ) than the time re quired by the district comprehensive reading plan (80 % ). The average percent reported by the district to the state (50.22 % ) was also less than the district plan requirement. The district reading plan directed coaches to refrain from spending time on activities that are not included in the plan. The plans set that expectation that coaches are not resource teachers and should only be working with small groups of students when they are modeling for teachers. The state reporting tool for reading coaches a nd the participant survey included a category for other activities not related to the categories listed. Survey participants reported spending more time on other activities (21.56 % ) than any other coaching activity listed in the district plan. The average time

PAGE 83

83 % ) was greater that the majority of coaching categories. Table 4 20 . Percent of Reading Coach Activities in Logs Disaggregated by Differentiated Accountability Level of Support and compared to District Comprehensive Reading Plan Reading Coach Activity Average Percent age of Time Reported District Comprehensive Reading Plan DA School Directed Support DA District Dir ected Support DA State Directed Support Professional Development * 25 .00 6.67 17.00 7.57 Planning * 5 .00 10.80 11.00 6.14 Modeling Lessons * 20 .00 9.00 18.50 14.00 Coaching * 20 .00 8.00 8.50 17.86 Coach Teacher Conferences * 10 .00 16.60 16.50 22.14 Student Assessment 3 .00 5.40 9.67 6.57 Data Reporting 5 .00 2.25 3.33 1.17 Data Analysis 6 .00 7.50 12.00 9.29 Meetings 2 .00 9.67 9.00 6.42 Knowledge Building 2 .00 8.80 15.70 4.14 Managing Reading Materials 2 .00 4.80 11.70 2.86 OTHER 0 .00 20.83 18.75 2.00 Total P ercent age of Most Critical Categories 80.00 51.07 71.50 67.71 A closer look at the data is presented in Table 4 20, which presents the percent of time spent on coaching activities reported by the level of support the school received. Coaches in schools that received district directed support reported spending more time on professional development (17 % ) than coaches working in schools that receiv ed school directed support (6.67 % ) and state directed support (7.57 % ). The time coaches

PAGE 84

84 in schools that received state directed support reported spending on coaching (17.86 % ) was very closely aligned to the district reading plan as compared to coaches that received district support (8.50 % ) and coaches who worked in schools that directed their own support (8 % ). Coaches in schools that received state directed support reported spending very little time (2 % ) on activities that are not listed as coaching activit ies compared to coaches that received district directed support (18.75 % ) and coaches in schools that directed their own support (20.83 % ). A written response included in the Participants in schools that directed their own support reported spending a minimum of 25 % and a maximum of 50 % of their time providing reading interventions to small groups and teaching students. Participants in schools that received district directed sup port reported spending time providing reading interventions to small groups of students, attending meetings not related to reading and attending school functions not related to reading. Coaches in schools that received state directed support reported spend ing time working with small groups to address limited reading proficiency. A look at the coaching activities that placed coaches directly with teachers revealed that the percent age of time coaches in schools that received district directed support (71.50 % ) and coaches in schools that received state directed support (67.71 % ) were significantly closer to the district expectation than coaches in schools that directed their own support (51.07 % ). Table 4 21. Time Spent on Coach Activities and DA Level of Suppor t Variable p Professional Development .1670 Planning .2472 Professional Development .1670

PAGE 85

85 Table 4 21. Continued Variable p Planning .2472 Modeling Lessons .3511 Coaching .0834 * Coach Teacher Conferences .1219 Student Assessment .2514 Data Reporting .7865 Data Analysis .3158 Meetings .2295 Knowledge Building .0250* Managing Reading Materials .0448* Note. * p The Kruskal Wallis test was performed to determine whether there was a relationship between time spent on various coaching activities and the differentiated accountability level of support. Table 4.21 shows that the relationship between coach ing ( p = .0834 ) , knowledge building ( p = .025 0) and managing reading materials ( p = .0448) w ere statistically significant within the schools of differentiated accountability categories. Summary The findings indicate that there are significant differences related to the ro le of the elementary school reading coach within schools of differentiated accountability categories. In regard to activities that the coach identifies as central to their role the activities of coordinat ing activities and meetings between classroom teache rs and English Language Learner staff, observing and providing feedback to teachers, planning reading instruction with teachers and assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of s pecial education students are significant. Coaches s pent less time on activities that placed them directly with teachers than the time required by the

PAGE 86

86 district and state. In regard to time spent on knowledge building, managing reading materials and coaching were statistically significant within the schools of differentiated accountability categories.

PAGE 87

87 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This chapter presents a summary of the findings, their implications, and recommendations for further research. The primary aim of this study was to explore the professional practices of elementary school reading coaches and to determine if there was a relationship between the practices of reading coaches within the various levels of differentiated accountability categories. A quantitative, non experimental design, using survey research an d the reading coach log reported to the state, was employed by the researcher to address this objective. Using elementary school reading coaches in one southwest Florida school district, the researcher administered a web based survey to determine reading c and the types of professional development that coaches have had or reported they needed. Coaching activities were further analyzed by comparing time spent on activities with the district aver age reported to the state and the expectation of the district reading plan. The researcher disaggregated the data related to coaching activities, professional level of su pport the school received to determine if there are similarities or differences in the professional practices of reading coaches within schools that provided their own school improvement interventions, schools that complied with district directed intervent ions and schools that were required to comply with state directed interventions. Summary of the Findings As a whole, reading coaches in this study possessed the reading credentials and teaching experience state administrators and national experts identify as an important qualification for reading coaches. Coach credentials and experience were similar within

PAGE 88

88 the levels o f differentiated accountability. S upport and monitoring provided to the schools and were aligned with research related to coaching qualifica tions ( Bright & Hensley, 2010; Duessen et al., 2007; IRA, 2004 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2010a ). Coaches in schools with less differentiated accountability support were less likely to hold an advanced degree in reading than coaches with more support. Coaches rated a variety of activities that support teachers, school administration and the school reading program as not central at all to their role as a coach to absolutely central to their role as a coach. All coaches reported providing professional dev elopment and coaching staff on a range of topics as cent ral to their ro le. These data are in keeping with much of the literature that r eading coaches have been charged with the task of providing professional development to teachers to help them understand and implement scientifically based reading research strate gies within their instruction ( Al Otaiba, Ho sp, Smartt, & Dole, 2008; Bean et al. , 2010; Intern ational Reading, 2004; Walpole et al., 2010). All coaches across all reporting categories reported that participating in school leadership team meetings was a priority. Much of the literature indicates that reading coaches must work closely with school administrators to ensure that the leadership at the school level guides and supports the literacy initiati ves (Florida Department of Education, 2012; Marsh et al . , 2008 ). While coaches at schools that received state oversight were less likely to indicate that providing direct reading instruction to students was a priority, more than 50 % of coaches across all d ifferentiated accountability categories reported that providing direct reading instruction to stud ents was central to their role. This practice is reflected in the self reported log and the log provided by the study district . Coaches reported

PAGE 89

89 that the majority of their time spend on activities not listed in the coaches log were providing reading intervention to students. This practice is reflected in the literature on time spent coaching. coaches, Marsh et al. (2008) concluded that the majority (60%) of reading coaches were spending less than half their time working directly with teachers. Working directly with students is contrary to the district comprehensive reading plan guidelines which indicate that reading coaches should only be working with students when they are modeling for teachers. The state and district comprehensive reading plan expected coaches to spend the majority of tim e working directly with teachers to support instruction. The study findings indicated that coaches across all differentiated accountability levels of school support did not agree about the centrality of their role when directly supporting teachers. All coa ches reported that assisting teachers with addressing the needs of struggling readers and interpreting assessment results were central to their role. Reading coaches working at schools that received distric t and state oversight were more likely to rate act Coaches in schools that had no di strict or state oversight were less likely to view activities such as assisting teachers in forming instructional groups, giving demonstrations on assessm ents, and planning reading instruction with teachers as central to their role. An analysis of the professional development coaches had and reported they needed during the study period showed that reading coaches participated in different types of professi onal development. The majority of coaches across all differentiated accountability categories attended professional development in how to use assessment

PAGE 90

90 to form instructional groups and guide instruction, how to conduct demonstration lessons, how to help t eachers identify appropriate instructional materials, how to provide onsite professional development, how to plan interventions for struggling students and how to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and explicit. It is noteworthy that althoug h the district comp rehensive reading plan indicated that coaches were provided professional development through monthly meetings, no professional development topic was selected by all reading coaches. Coaches reported very little need for additional profes sional development. The data showed some agreement among coaches regarding the role of the coach in fostering change, how to conduct effective grade level meetings, how to provide constructive feedback to teachers and how to provide instructional supports for ELL students learning to read. Data analysis across the categories of differentiated accountability school support and monitoring showed that reading coaches in schools that received district and state oversight participated in significantly more profe ssional development than coaches in schools that directed their own support. These findings align ed with the district comprehensive reading plan which outlines support by district literacy coordinators and coaches for schools based on student performance o utcomes. activities identified by the state and school district ( Florida Department of Education , 2010). A review of the log of study participants and the log provided by the study district revealed discrepancies between the district and state requirements and the actual work of the coaches. Coaches are charged with facilitating small or whole

PAGE 91

91 group professional development sessions with administrators, teachers and parapr ofessionals with the goal of increasing the knowledge of Scientifically Based Reading Research (SBBR). Participant coaches rated providing professional development as highly central to their work as a coach. The results of this study showed that participan t coaches and reading coaches across the study district reported spending very little time providing professional development. These findings were consistent with coaches working in schools that received no district support and oversight and coaches working in scho ols with state oversight. Coaches working in schools that received district support and oversight were closely aligned with the expectati ons for this coaching activity. Coaches across all school support categories self reported that they spent more time pl anning with teachers and participating in coach teacher conferences and less time modeling lessons and actually coaching teachers. Coaches in schools that received district oversight modeled more lessons for teachers and coaches in schools with state overs ight provided more direct coaching. Coaches in schools with no district or state oversight spent significantly less time modeling lessons and coaching teachers. Findings related to time spent on activities that placed coaches directly with teachers reveale d that all coaches spent less than the expected amount of time with teachers. Coaches in schools with no district or state oversight spend nearly half their time on coaching activities that were not directly related to supporting teachers. Discussion of th e Findings Previous studies that looked at the practices of reading coaches found that coaches took on a multitude of activities (Bean et al., 2010; Deussen et al., 2007; Walpole & Blamey, 2008), vary in the ways they define themselves (Matsumura et al. ,

PAGE 92

92 2 010 a ) and vary in how they spend their time (Ippolito, 2010). There is considerable literature on whether coaches should be directive, responsive or a balance of both may stem from their school context and may be linked to how they spend time (Bean et al., 2010). This study demonstrated that the professional practices of elementary school reading coaches varied within the differentiated accountability categories of supp ort . Reading coaches in higher performing schools with no district or state required interventions and oversight held working with students as a priority, attended less professional development, reported needing less additional professional development and reported spending more time with activities not directly related to supporting teachers in scientifically based reading instruction. In the Standards for Reading Professionals (IR A, 2010), the International Reading Association redefined literacy coaches a s professionals whose goal is to improve reading achievement in their assigned schools. Coaches in high performing schools in this study seem ed to work towards this goal with activities such as providing reading interventions to students. Coaches across a ll differentiated accountability categories rated providing professional development and coaching staff as central to their work as a reading coach. The study demonstrated that coaches in schools with no district or state oversight spent very little time a ctually performing these activities. Coaches in schools that received state support and oversight spent less time providing professional development. Under differentiated accountability, Florida created regional support centers housing teams of specialists who worked in the lowest performing schools. The

PAGE 93

93 regional support teams provided targeted professional development ( U.S. Department of Education , 201 2b). This could be a factor in the amount of professional development provided by the reading coach in a school under state oversight . Reading coaches in schools that received interventions, support and monitoring by the district held more advanced degree s, rated working directly with students and providing and organizing professional development for teachers, administrators and paraprofessionals as central to their work. Coaches rated more activities that directly l to their role as a coach, attended more professional development and aligned time spent on coaching activities more closely with the district comprehensive reading plan in the areas of professional development and modeling lessons. Reading coaches in sch ools that received interv entions, support and monitoring by the state held more advanced degrees, rated providing and organizing professional development, coaching teachers and supporting family literacy as highly central to their work as a coach. The time coaches spent on coaching activities in schools under state oversight was aligned with the expectations of the district comprehensive reading plan. The support provided by the district and state seemed to provide an opportunity to influence how reading co aches work within their buildings. Coaches in this study fulfilled their roles as their individual realities dictated. R esearch on coaching found similar results that coaching can be situational (Bean et al . , 2010, Deussen et al . , 2007). The challenges of coaching require professional support for coaches, yet coaches are often left alone to define their role as they learn to do it (Marsh et al . , 2008; Bean et al . , 2010). The study requested coaches to report on professional development

PAGE 94

9 4 that they participat ed in during the current school year. Coaches in this study reported varying needs for professional development. The majority of coaches reported attending professional development that focused on the process of coaching. Fewer coaches reported attending p rofessional development on scientifically based reading instruction during the study school year. Professional development needed by coaches centered on the role of the coach , establishing credibility with teachers and the process of coaching . Profession al development that addresses both the content and process of coaching and is differentiated based on the needs and experience of the coach is necessary to help coaches learn how to support adult learners (Gallucci et al . , 2010 , Marsh et al . , 2008 ). Implications of the Findings demonstrate that the role of the coach is multifaceted, complicated and dependent on a variety of factors ( Walpole, McKenna & Morrill, 2011 ). Schools that r eceived funding through the Reading First initiative were required to hire reading coaches who would work directly with teachers to improve reading in struction and ultimately increas e student reading achievement. Schools proceeded to employ reading coaches though there was limited research supporting their activities and their effectiveness in changing improving student achievement (Bean et al., 2010). Coaches are influenced by school, district and state leadership (Neumerski, 2013) . The results of this study demonstrate a clear need to understand and negotiate between the role of the coach and the influence of local and state contexts. With the demands placed on the coach by the state, district and principal, the coach will always be challenged to fulfill multiple roles. The district and the school

PAGE 95

95 administration should work together to establish the functions of the reading coach. Principals need to build their own knowledge of reading research and instruction and hold a strong partn ership with their coach. Principals, as well as coaches, should be held accountable for adhering to the guidelines established by the district. In order for the school to benefit from having a reading coach, the coach must spend time with teachers sharing best practices, analyzing data, reviewing student work and developing interventions for students. Principals can use the coaching log to determine how much time is spent with teachers and work to prioritize and protect coaching time to ensure that the coac h is engaged in the top six coaching categories defined by the district. It is the role of the principal to have structures in place to ensure that this happens. Suggestions for Further Research Within the context of this study, the researcher considered coaches preparation, and perceptions of their central role, professional development coaches participated in or reported a need for and the relationship between the self reported time spent on coaching activities and the state and district expectations i n a sample of 17 elementary school reading coaches working at schools with varying levels of differentiated accountability support and monitoring in one school district. To move this research toward more practical applications, further research related to the practices of coaches and the support coaches receive from the state, the district and the school and how this directly affects the professional practices of reading coaches must be conducted with larger, randomized samples across school districts in a variety of locations. Studies that move beyond reporting how much time coaches spend on activities and investigate how coaches are using the various activities to impact instruction are necessary.

PAGE 96

96 Additionally, further research could examine the impact of professional development for e fficacy and time spent on coaching activities. To address some of the external forces that influence the activities of coaches a study that examines the contextual factors that either contribute to or hinder the reading coach working directly with teacher s could be performed . Principal support can are the major change agents within their schools and set the tone for what is and what is not important within the school. A study that explores the relationship between principal support and the decision making and the enacted changes to their practice would add to the research base on instructional coaching. Summary of this Study The phenomenon of reading coaches seem s to be a promising and practical approach t o support teachers in their quest to improve instructional practices with the overall purpose of improving student achievement in reading. Using survey methods, this study explored the professional practices of e lementary school reading coaches within the various levels of differentiated accountability school improvement interventions and support. Coaches differed in their perception of their central role, the type of professional development they received and nee ded and the time they spent on various coaching activities. Findings in this study differential accountability status. Understanding more abou t how coaches support teachers and how they shift their practice based in the influences of the state, district and school can only serve to help improve the support and preparation coaches receive as they enact their role.

PAGE 97

97 APPENDIX A JUST READ, FLORIDA! READING/LITERACY COACH MODEL Just Read, Florida! Reading/Literacy Coach Model The reading/literacy coach will serve as a stable resource for professional development throughout a school to generate improvement in reading and literacy instruction and studen t learning. Coaches will support and provide initial and ongoing professional development to teachers in: each of the major reading components, as needed, based on an analysis of student performance data. administration and analysis of instructional assessments. providing differentiated instruction and intensive intervention based on assessments. Coaches will: model effective instructional strategies for teachers co teach in classrooms. facilitate stud y groups. train teachers in data analysis and using data to differentiate instruction. coach and mentor colleagues. provide daily support to classroom teachers. work with teachers to ensure that research based reading programs (comprehensive core readi ng programs, supplemental reading programs and comprehensive intervention reading programs) and strategies are implemented with fidelity and adjusted to meet the needs of all students. help to increase instructional density to meet the needs of all studen ts. help lead and support reading leadership teams at their school(s). continue to increase their knowledge base in best practices in reading instruction, intervention, and instructional reading strategies. report their time bi log on the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network (PMRN). While the reading coach should not be assigned a regular classroom teaching assignment, they are expected to work with students in whole and small group instruction in the context of modeling, co classrooms. This should be the primary function of the coach and occur as frequently as possible, given the relative impact on teacher knowledge and practice compared to other roles and duties of the coach. A c oach may be utilized as a part time coach in two different schools and still be considered a full time coach.

PAGE 98

98 The reading coach is responsible for working with all teachers (including ESE, content area, and elective areas) in the school they serve; howeve r, they must prioritize their time to those teachers, activities, and roles that will have the greatest impact on student learning, namely coaching and mentoring in classrooms. The reading/literacy walkthroughs that are discussed in the K 12 Comprehensive Reading Plan require that the principal or a designated administrator conduct the walkthrough. Coaches should not be asked to perform administrative functions that will confuse their role for teachers. Districts are highly encouraged to limit the time read ing/literacy coaches spend administering or coordinating assessments, as these tasks prohibit them from providing professional development to teachers. QUALIFICATIONS (Districts are free to add to these basic qualifications) Coaches are expected to have experience as successful classroom teachers. Coaches are expected to exhibit knowledge of scientifically based reading research, special expertise in qual ity reading instruction and infusing reading strategies into content area instruction, and data management skills. They should have a strong knowledge base in working with adult learners. Coaches should be excellent communicators with outstanding presentat ion, interpersonal, and time management skills. The coach must have a recommended. It is required that the coach become endorsed or K 12 certified in the area of reading or be work ing toward endorsement or K 12 certification. The coach should be employed the entire teacher contract year or for an extended contract period where necessary to provide adequate planning time for professional development activities .

PAGE 99

99 APPENDIX B READING COACH LOG ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Activity Description Professional Development Providing or facilitating small or whole group professional development sessions such as faculty seminars, action research, and/or study groups designed to increase the knowle dge of Scientifically Based Reading Research (SBRR) for administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals. Planning Planning, developing, and/or preparing professional development, including: surveying teachers for PD needs; preparing content for PD for teachers, parents, and others; planning a schedule of PD delivery; gathering PD materials; preparing a lesson for modeling and planning a coaching session with a teacher. Modeling Lessons Demonstrating lessons while teachers observe or co teaching lessons in classrooms. Coaching Coaching (initial conversation, observation, and reflecting conversation) teachers in classrooms which includes observing teachers, formulating feedback regarding lessons, discussing feedback with teachers, and reflectin g with teachers relating to reading or content area lessons. Coach Teacher Conferences Conferencing with teachers regarding lesson planning, grouping for instruction, intervention strategies, and other topics related to reading. Informally conversing w ith teachers in a variety of ways (phone, e mail or face to face) on topics concerning reading such as fluency building, organizing literacy centers, students in need of intervention, etc. Student Assessment Facilitating and coordinating student assessm ents, including scheduling the time and place for assessments, and notifying teachers of the assessment schedule. Data Reporting Entering assessment data into the management system. Data Analysis Analyzing student data to assist teachers with informing instruction based on student need. This includes personal study of data reports, principal/coach data sessions, and teacher/coach data sessions. Meetings Attending meetings in the school, district, or region regarding reading issues. Examples include meeting with school/district administrators or coaches, school/community groups, curriculum teams, Reading Leadership Teams, School Improvement Plan Teams, etc.

PAGE 100

100 Activity Description Knowledge Building Building knowledge of SBRR and/or assessment through personal study or professional development. This includes activities such as: attending a workshop and completing follow up; attending reading conferences; reading journal articles; participating in a study group; attending state sponsored PD; attending publisher s ponsored PD and attending assessment training. Managing Reading Materials Preparing the budget for reading materials, reviewing and/or purchasing the materials, maintaining inventory, and delivering reading materials. Also included are duties such as gathering teacher resources and organizing leveled books for classroom libraries in collaboration with school staff.

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX C SURVEY THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL READING COACHES Instructions: Unless otherwise noted, your responses should reflect your experiences during the first semester of the 2011 2012 school year in the school to which this survey was sent. Please complete all questions; each question includes directions for recording your answer. If you have any questions abo ut how to complete the survey, pl ease e mail jordansu@ufl.edu Part A. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCES Q1 Including this year, for how many years have you been the reading coach for this school? (If less than one year, enter 1.) Q3 Including this year, for how many years have you worked at this school in any capacity? (If less than one year, enter 1.) Q4 Including this year, how many years of classroom experience do you have, as either a teacher and/or reading coach? (If less than one year, enter 1.) Q 5 a. Number of years experience as a reading coach Q6 b. Number of years experience as a teacher Q7 Please list graduate degrees or endorsements earned

PAGE 102

102 Q8 Please list graduate degrees or endorsements in process Q9 This school year, for how many schools do you serve as the reading coach (including this school)? Q29 Please indicate the Differentiated Accountability (DA) status of your current school. Prevent I (1) Correct I (2) Prevent II (3) Correct II (4) Intervene (5) Not required to participate in Differentiated Accountability (6) Part B. COACH RESPONSIBILITIES How central is each of the following activities to your work during the first semester of this year (since July 1st) at this school? o not do the activity or if it is not at all central to your your work . English language learner (ELL) indicates a student who is in the process of acquirin g English and has a first language other than English. Other common related terms include language minority or limited English proficient (LEP) students, students in English as a second language (ESL), or students in classes for English for speakers of oth er languages (ESOL).

PAGE 103

103 Do not do or not central at all to my role (1) Partially central to my role (2) Somewhat central to my role (3) Fairly central to my role (4) Absolutely central to my role (5) a. Administering/coordinating reading assessments (1) b. Compiling reading assessment data for teachers (2) c . Facilitating grade level meetings (3) d. Participating in school leadership team meetings (4) e. Facilitating or coordinating family literacy activities (5) f. Ordering/managing reading instruction materials (6) g. Participating in professional development provided by the district, state or other consultants (7) h. Providing sub time for teachers to observe other more experienced teachers (8) i. Providing direct reading instruction to students (9) j. Providing training/professional development in reading materials, strategies, and assessments (10) k. Coaching staff on a range of topics (note: specific coaching activities are asked about in the next item) (11) l. Organizing professional development for teachers (12) m. Coordinating activities and meetings between

PAGE 104

104 classroom and special education teachers (13) n. Coordinating activities and meetings between classroom teachers and English Language Learner (ELL) staff (14) o. Other (Please specify): (15) p. Other (Please specify): (16) q. Other (Please specify): (17)

PAGE 105

105 Part B 2 When you coach staff, how central has each of the following activities been to your work during the first semester of this year (since July 1st) at this school? o your role as the reading your work. Do not do or not central at all to my role (1) Partially central to my role (2) Somewhat central to my role (3) Fairly central to my role (4) Absolutely central to my role (5) a. Giving demonstration lessons using core or supplemental materials (1) b. Assisting teachers in using the core program (2) c. Observing and providing feedback to teachers (3) d. Assisting teachers in forming instructional groups (4) e. Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of struggling readers (5) f. Assisting teachers with monitoring the effectiveness of strategies addressing the needs of struggling readers (6) g. Giving demonstrations on assessment administration and

PAGE 106

106 scoring (7) h. Planning reading instruction with teachers (8) lesson plans and providing feedback (9) j. Assisting teachers in interpreting assessment results (10) k. Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of special education students (11) l. Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing the needs of ELLs (see above for definition of ELL) (12) m. Other (Please specify): (13) n. Other (Please specify): (14) o. Other (Please specify): (15)

PAGE 107

107 Part C. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR READING COACHES Below is a list of professional development topics for reading coaches in which you may have participated . development activities during the first semester of the current school year, including summer 2011. In column B, please identify the to pics in which you need more professional development, whether or not this year's professional development activities have covered these topics. Please check all that apply in columns A and B. Column A Check all that apply: Topics addressed in professiona l development for reading coaches (1) Column B Check all that apply Topics in which you need more professional development. (2) a. How to use reading assessment data to guide instruction. (1) b. What are the types of assessments: screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome? (2) c. How to use assessment data to form instructional groups. (3) d. How to provide constructive feedback to teachers. (4) e. How to establish credibility with teachers. (5) f. Essential components of scientifically based reading instruction. (6) g. What is the role of the reading coach in fostering change? (7) h. How to plan instructional interventions for struggling students. (8) i. Classroom management within the literacy block time. (9) j. How to conduct effective grade level meetings (10)

PAGE 108

108 k. How to help teachers identify appropriate instructional materials. (11) l. How to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and explicit (12) m. How to conduct demonstration lessons. (13) n. How to conduct classroom observations. (14) o. How to provide onsite professional development. (15) p. How to provide instructional supports for ELL students learning to read (16) q. Other (Please specify): (17) r. Other (Please specify): (18) s. Other (Please specify): (19) Part D. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT LOG FOR READING/LITERACY COACHES For the first semester of the school year 2011 2012 (July 2011 until February 2012), please indicate how you spent your time as a Reading Coach using best estimates (%) of time. If necessary, please use the data from your Professional Development Log for Reading/Literacy Coaches to assist with an accurate report of the percent ages of time you spend on each activity. Q17 Professional Development Providing or facilitating small or whole group professional development sessions such as faculty seminars, action research, and/or study groups designed to increase the knowledge of Scientifically Based Reading Research (SBRR) for administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals. Use best estimates (%) of total time.

PAGE 109

109 Q18 Planning Planning, developing, and/o r preparing professional development, including: surveying teachers for PD needs; preparing content for PD for teachers, parents, and others; planning a schedule of PD delivery; gathering PD materials; preparing a lesson for modeling and planning a coachin g session with a teacher. Use best estimates (%) of total time. Q19 Modeling Lessons Demonstrating lessons while teachers observe or co teaching lessons in classrooms. Use best estimates (%) of total time. Q20 Coaching Coaching (initial conversation, observation, and reflecting conversation) teachers in classrooms which includes observing teachers, formulating feedback regarding lessons, discussing feedback with teachers, and reflecting with teachers relating to reading or content area le ssons. Use best estimates (%) of total time. Q21 Coach Teacher Conferences Conferencing with teachers regarding lesson planning, grouping for instruction, intervention strategies, and other topics related to reading. Informally conversing with teachers in a variety of ways (phone, e mail or face to face) on topics concerning reading such as fluency building, organizing literacy centers, students in need of intervention, etc. Use best estimates (%) of total time.

PAGE 110

110 Q22 Student Assessment Facil itating and coordinating student assessments, including scheduling the time and place for assessments, and notifying teachers of the assessment schedule. Use best estimates (%) of total time. Q23 Data Reporting Entering assessment data into the manage ment system. Use best estimates (%) of total time. Q24 Data Analysis Analyzing student data to assist teachers with informing instruction based on student need. This includes personal study of data reports, principal/coach data sessions, and teacher/coach data sessions. Use best estimates (%) of total time. Q25 Meetings Attending meetings in the school, district, or region regarding reading issues. Examples include meeting with school/district administrators or coaches, school/community g roups, curriculum teams, Reading Leadership Teams, School Improvement Plan Teams, etc. Use best estimates (%) of total time. Q26 Knowledge Building Building knowledge of SBRR and/or assessment through personal study or professional development. This i ncludes activities such as: attending a workshop and completing follow up; attending reading conferences; reading journal articles; participating in a study group; attending state sponsored PD; attending publisher sponsored PD and attending assessment trai ning. Use best estimates (%) of total time.

PAGE 111

111 Q27 Managing Reading Materials Preparing the budget for reading materials, reviewing and/or purchasing the materials, maintaining inventory, and delivering reading materials. Also included are duties such as gathering teacher resources and organizing leveled books for classroom libraries in collaboration with school staff. Use best estimates (%) of total time. Q28 Other (please describe and indicate % ). Use best estimates (%) of total time. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION Q30 As stated in the informed consent, you have a right to request a copy of your completed survey. If you wish to have a copy sent to you please indicate below. Yes (1) No (2)

PAGE 112

112 APPENDIX D INFORMED CONSENT FORM Dear Educator: I am a graduate student at the University of Florida working on my doctoral degree in Educational Leadership (K 12). I am asking you to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to explore the professional practices of elementary school reading coaches. The anticipated benefits of this study include (a), adding value to the professional role of the reading coach through legitimate study (b), predicting successful professional practices of elementary school reading coaches and (c), addi ng content to the literature on the subject of reading coaches. In this survey you will be asked some demographic information as well as some information about your academic and professional background as a reading coach. Survey questions were derived from an existing survey designed for the national implementation study for Reading First (Reading First Implementation Evaluation Final Report, U. S. Department of Education, 2008b). In addition, you will be asked to report the time spent on particular coachin g activities from the months of July 2011 to February 2012. If necessary, please use the data from your Professional Development Log for Reading/Literacy Coaches to assist with an accurate report of the percent age of time you spend on each activity. The r esearcher will know the identity of each respondent; however, a code will be assigned to each respondent so that all data from survey responses will be analyzed and reported in aggregated form. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. All data will be kept as confidential, and only the research study team will have access to data. Neither your school nor your district will have access to any of the completed surveys at any time. All information will be kept in a password protec ted computer and any associated paper documents will be stored in a locked filing cabinet. The data will be collected using a secure, encrypted website. The survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Following the completion of the survey, you will be given the opportunity to request a copy of the results. Your participation is in this study is voluntary. There are no direct benefits to your for participating in the study. There are no known risks associated with your participation in this resea rch. You have the right to withdraw consent at any time. You do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. No compensation for completing this survey will be provided. If you have questions about this research, please contact me (Sus an Jordan) at (239) 398 9132 or my faculty supervisor Dr. Linda Behar Horenstein at ( 352) 273 4330.

PAGE 113

113 Research at the University of Florida involving human participants is carried out under the oversight of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Questions or concerns about research participants' rights may be directed at UF IRB02 office, PO Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; ph (352) 392 0433. Please sign and return this copy of the letter in the enclosed envelope. A second copy is provided for your records. By signing this letter, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor. Susan M. Jordan, Ed.S. I have read the procedure described above for the Reading Coach Survey. I voluntarily agree to participate in the survey and I have received a copy of this description. ___________________________ _________ Signature Date

PAGE 114

114 APPENDIX E PRINCIPAL E MAIL February 29, 2012 Dear Principal, I am a graduate student at the University of Florida working on my doctoral degree in Educational Leadership (K 12). I am also an Assistant Principal at Vineyards Elementary School here in Collier County . I am sending this correspondence to introduce you to my research study and to respectfully request that you present the enclosed documents to your Reading Coach . I am conducting a research study entitled Exploring the Professional Practices of Elementary Schoo l Reading Coaches. The anticipated benefits of this study include (a), adding value to the professional role of the reading coach through legitimate study (b), predicting successful professional practices of elementary school reading coaches and (c), add ing content to the literature on the subject of reading coaches. I have received approval from the UF Institutional Review Board and the CCPS Collier County Research and Data Committee (approval letters included in this communication). The participation of the Reading Coaches is voluntary . Survey questions were derived from an existing survey designed for the national implementation study for Reading First. The survey will be conducted online on a secure, encrypted website and should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. There are no known risks associated with participation in this research. Reading Coaches have the right to withdraw consent at any time . Reading Coaches that share a full time position will complete the survey together as it is based on the total time spent on various activities. Please present the enclosed introductory letter and informed consent to your Reading Coach(s) . Two copies have been provided so that one copy can be kept by the Reading Coach . A stamped self addressed envelo pe has been provided to return the survey to me . I will then send a link to the survey to your Reading Coach. If you have questions about this research, please contact me (Susan Jordan) at (239) 398 9132. Respectfully, Susan M. Jordan, Ed.S.

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX F TEACHER E MAIL S Dear Reading Coach , Thank you for returning the letter of informed consent thus agreeing to participate in my research project . I will be sending the link to my survey this week. The survey can be completed in one sitting or sa ved and completed over time . The survey will remain open during the month of April to allow all participants the opportunity to respond. Please save this e mail so that you can easily contact me should you need to. Best regards, Susan Jordan University of Florida jordansu@ufl.edu 239 398 9132 Dear Reading coach, Thank you for participating in my research . The survey is designed to explore the professional practices of elementary school reading coaches . The survey will be open for thirty days (until May 15, 2012) to allow all participants to respond . The survey includes directions for each section, as well as, my contact information should you need assistance . Follow this link to the Survey: Take the Survey Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://qtrial.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q_SS=e4fmYvm6fKm8RB a_cO0 OROtYa3yB2MQ&_=1

PAGE 116

116 REFERENCES Al Otaiba, S., Hosp, J. L., Smartt, S., & Dole, J. A. (2008). The challenging role of a reading coach, a cautionary tale. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18 (2), 124 155. doi:10.1080/10474410802022423 Ahmadi, M., & Simmering, M. (2006). Research methods and processes. In M. M. Helms (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management (5th ed., pp. 751 757). Detroit, MI: Gale. Bean, R., Draper, J., Hall, V., Vandermolen, J., & Zigmond, N. (2010). Coaches and coaching i n reading first schools: A reality check. The Elementary School Journal, 111 (1), pp. 87 114. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/653471 Biancarosa, G., Bryk, ,Anthony S., & Dexter, E. (2010). Assessing the value added effects of literacy co llaborative professional development on student learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111 (1), pp. 7 34. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/653468 Borman, J.,& Feger, S. (2006). Instructional coaching: Key themes from the literature. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved August 14, 2013 , from http://www.brown.edu/academics/education alliance/publications/instructional coaching key themes lit erature Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (1), 5 30. doi:10.1002/RRQ.008 Costa, A., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for Renaissance schools (2 ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon. Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear son. Darling Hammond, L. (2008). A future worthy of teaching for america. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 (10), 730 736. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip, uid&db=tfh&AN=32537464&site=ehost live D enton , C. A., & H asbrouch , J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educati onal & Psychological Consultation, 19 (2), 150 175. doi:10.1080/10474410802463296

PAGE 117

117 Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007 ). "Coach" can mean many things: five categories of literacy coaches in reading first. Issues and Answers Report Wash ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest, REL 2007 (No. 005) doi : http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs Dole, J. A., & Donaldson, R. (2006). "What am I supposed to do all day?": Three big ideas for the reading coach.(the reading coach's corner) DOI: 10.1598/RT.59.5.9 Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching: Tools for creating and sustaining purposeful change. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Elish coaching and student reading gains in grades K 3. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), pp. 83 106. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660685 Florida Department of Education. (2008). Differentiated accountability pilot program: Florida's proposal. Tallahassee, FL. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/news/2008/2008 05 05/daproposal.pdf. Florida Department of Education. (2012). Striving Readers State Literacy Plan . Florida Department of Education. Retrieved from: https://www.justreadflorida.com/pdf/StrivingReaders.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2010). Just read, florida! Reading/Literacy coach model. Florida Department of Education. Retrieved from: https://app1.fldoe.org/Reading_Plans/Examples/Coach_Model_2010 11.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2011 a ). 2011 2012 K 12 Comprehensive research based reading plan guidance. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from https://app1.fldoe.org/Reading_Plans/Examples/Reading_Plan_guidance_2011 . Florida Department of Education (2011b). 2011 2012 K 12 Comprehensive research based reading plans. Tallahassee, FL. Retrieved from https://app1.fldoe.org/Reading_Plans/Narrative/CompleteReport1112.aspx?DID= 11 Gall ucci, C., DeVoogt Van Lan e, M. D., Yoon, I., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47 , 919 963. doi:10.3102/00028312103714 97

PAGE 118

118 Gamse, B.C., Jacob, R.T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., and Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First Impact Study Final Report Executive Summary (NCEE 2009 4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Gigante, N. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2008). Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 46 (3), 302 331. doi:10.1108/09578230810869266 Guskey, T ., (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.. Hill, H. C. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. The Future of Children, 17 (1), 111 127. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150022 . International Readi ng Association. (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the united states. (Position Statement). Delaware: International Reading Association. Retrieved from: http://www.reading.org/Libraries/position statements and resolutions/ps1065_reading_coach.pdf International Reading Association. (2010). Standards for reading professionals revised 2010 . Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ippolito, J. (2009). balancing responsive and directive coaching stances. (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.). Ippolito, J. (201 0). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive relationships with teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 111 (1), pp. 164 190. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.or g/stable/10.1086/653474 Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. K 12 comprehensive research based reading plan . , Florida Statute, 6A 6.053U.S.C. (2008). doi: http://www.justreadflorida.com/docs/6A 6 053.pdf Knight, J. (2009). Coaching. Journal of Staff Development, 30 (1), 18 22. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip, uid&db=eft&AN=508118521&site=ehost live Knight, J. (2011). What good coaches do. Educational Leadership, 69 (2), 18 22. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.u fl.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip, uid&db=tfh&AN=66319687&site=ehost live

PAGE 119

119 Piper, L., & Bean, R. M. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching? guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. Reading Teacher, 63 (7), 544 554. DOI: 10.1598/RT.63.7.2 Lockwood, J.R., McCombs, J.S., & Marsh, J. (2010). Linking reading coaches and student achievement: Evidence from Florida middle schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 32(3), 372 388. do i: 10.3102/0162373710373388 Marsh, J. A.,McCombs, J. S., Lockwood, J. R.,Martorell, F., Gershwin, D., Naftel, S., Le, V, Shea, H.B.,& Crego, A. (2008). Supporting literacy across the Sunshine State: A study of Florida middle school reading coaches . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Marsh, J.A., McCombs, J.S., & Martorell, F. (2010). How instructional coaches support data driven decisionmaking: Policy implementation and effects in Florida middle schools. Educational Policy , 24(6), 872 907. doi: 10.1177/0 895904809341467 Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., & Martorell, F. (2012). Reading coach quality: Findings from florida middle schools. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51 (1), 1 26. doi:10.1080/19388071.2010.518662 Matsumura, L., Garnier, H., Correnti, R., J unker, B., & DiPrima Bickel, D. (2010 a ). Investigating the effectiveness of a comprehensive literacy coaching program in schools with high teacher mobility. The Elementary School Journal, 111 (1), pp. 35 62. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/653469 Matsumura, L.C., Garnier, H., & Resnick, L.B. (2010 b ). Implementing literacy coaching: The role of school social resources. Educational Evaluat ion and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 249 272. doi:10.3102/0162373710363743 Matsumura, L. C., Sartoris, M., Bickel, D. D., & Garnier, H. E. (2009). Leadership for Educational Administration Quarterly, 45 (5), 655 693. doi:10.1177/0013161X09347341 McCombs, J. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2009). Lessons for boosting the effectiveness of reading coaches. Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (7), 501 507. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.u fl.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip, uid&db=tfh&AN=36801522&site=ehost live McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2008). The literacy coaching challenge: Models and methods for grades K 8 . New York: Guilford.

PAGE 120

120 Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Watson, P. (2008). Per ceptions and expectations of roles and responsibilities of literacy coaching. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47 (3), 141 157. doi:10.1080/19388070802059076 National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the s cientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroup. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. National Staff Development Council (2001 ). Standards for staff development revised. Oxford, OH: Author. Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity: Promises & practicalities . Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute : Annenberg Institute for School Re form. Retrieved from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/pdf/Coaching.pdf Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early lan guage and literacy instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 46 (2), 532 566. doi:10.3102/0002831208328088 Neumerski, C. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we knwo about principal, teacher, and coach instructional lead ership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration, 49 (2), 310 347. doi:10.1177/0013161X12456700 Poglinco, S. M., Bach, A. J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. A. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model schools. ( No. AC 06). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy and Research in Education. Puig, E.A. & Froelich, K.S. (2011), 2nd ed. The literacy coach: Guiding in the right direction. Allyn & Bacon/ Pearson Qualtrics s oftware, Version 5 6,686. Qualtrics Research Suite. Copyright © 2014 . Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA. http://www.qualtrics.com Reading Ex cellence Act, Pub. L. No. 105 277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998) Roller, C. M. (2006). Reading and literacy coaches report on hiring requirements and duties survey. (Professional and Learning Standards). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

PAGE 121

121 Scott, S. E ., Cortina, K. S., & Carlisle, J. F. (2012). Understanding coach based professional development in reading first : How do coaches spend their time and how do teachers perceive coaches' work? Literacy Research and Instruction, 51 (1), 68 85. doi:10.1080/19388071.2011.569845 Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53 (6), 12. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip, uid&db=tfh&AN=96 03172616&site=ehost live Steiner, L. and Kowal, J. (2007, September). Issue brief: Principal as instructional leader: Designing a coaching program that fits . Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Retrieved from http:// www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept07Principal.pdf U.S. Congress. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107 110, 107th Congress. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Guidance for the reading first program . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Differentiated accountability: Targeting resources to schools with the greatest need . Washington , DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/differentiated/factsheet02.html U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). Race to the top: Executive summary and key policy details . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov /programs/racetothetop/executive summary.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2009b). Ed performance and accountability: 2009 Year in Review. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www2. ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2009review.html . U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). A study of the effectiveness of K 3 literacy coaches. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/effectivenessfinal.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Department of education recovery plan . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/recovery plans 2010.pdf U.S. Department of Education (2012 a ). Florida Approved ESEA Flexibility Requ est, Washington D.C.. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/requests

PAGE 122

122 U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy D evelopment, Policy and Program Studies Service, (2012 b ). Early Implementation of State Differentiated Accountab ility Plans Under the No Child Left Behin d Act, Washington, D.C.. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title i/early implementation accountability plans/report.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2008 b ). Reading First implementation evaluation: Final report . Washington, D.C.. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/readingfirst final/readingfirst final.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act . Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint /. U.S. Departme nt of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2011) Reading First Implementation Study 2008 09 Final Report , Washington, D.C.. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/reading firs t implementation study/report.pdf Vanderburg, M.., & Stephens, D.. (2010). The impact of literacy coaches: What teachers value and how teachers change. The Elementary School Journal, 111 (1), pp. 141 163. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/653473 Walpole, S., & Blamey, K. L. (2008). Elementary literacy coaches: The reality of dual roles. The Reading Teacher , 62 , 222 231. Walpole, S., McKenna, M., Uribe Zarain, X., & Lamit ina, D. (2010). The relationships between coaching and instruction in the primary grades: Evidence from high poverty schools. The Elementary School Journal, 111 (1), 115 140. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/653472 Walpole, S., McKenna, M . C., & Morrill, J. K. (2011). Building and rebuilding a statewide support system for literacy coaches. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 27 (3), 261 280. doi:10.1080/10573569.2011.532737 Wei, R. C., Darling Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos , S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council.

PAGE 123

123 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Susan M. Jordan attended Cypress Lake High School in Ft. Myers, Florida . She graduated from University of South Florida in 1989, receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education and Early Childhood Education. She began her teaching career at Edison Park Elementary School in Ft. Myers, Florida. In 199 2, she earned her Master of Education in Curriculum with an emphasis in Instructional Technology from the University of South Florida. Susan worked as a classroom teacher, a technology teacher and a program specialist for 21 years. In 2009, she graduated f rom the University of Florida with a Specialist degree in educational leadership. Susan started her first administrative position in 2010 as an assistant principal at Vineyards Elementary School in Naples, Florida. After three years, Susan joined Village O aks Elementary School in Immokalee, Florida as an assistant principal and is currently the principal at Pinecrest Elementary School. Susan completed her doctoral degree at the University of Florida and graduated in the summer of 2014. Susan is married to Jeffrey Jordan and is the mother of two girls, Ryan and Sydney. She enjoys gardening and walking her three Catahoula Leopard dogs.