3.33,
3.:

.u
.

um...

I.
v r... v
:12 J»

:69»:

J . A . km.
.4. 5W“? 45%}. :1
an»: 174.349.? 7.2: .

w. . ’57.: ,3? 9 .
{€30 5.3.5:
3'72"». “ﬁn“

 

{-

‘

Z...

1
£2.13};

h 7
3.1.9“... 3.53s
hﬂﬁrﬂﬁ lb?

55”“? .1 t

a

3‘!
s vii-.5.
.. 3 !.
:.§.!o$1~ﬂvf.ut
lyil» .

lei-s...
aru‘u‘s. .. .l

jaw...

L? 1
F... ‘96! u
I .

 

 

 

 

& ii ‘ L

(.0

‘05

(if

MICHIGAINI‘IBRARIES
STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF RECENT LEGISLATION

ON
THE BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOLS
AND
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

presented by

CHRISTOPHER COOPER

has been accepted towards fuiiillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Educational Administration

 

 

// //

Majoi’ProI‘e/ssor' 3 Signature
//~ /5— &7

Date

 

MSU is an Minnative ActiorVEquai Opportunity Institution

. _--.---—

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p. 1 5

 

 

A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF RECENT LEGISLATION
ON
THE BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOLS
AND
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

By

. Christopher Cooper

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2004

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF RECENT LEGISLATION ON THE
BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOLS AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

By

Christopher Cooper

The purpose of this study was to describe current federal and state legislation and
then describe and explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and elementary
teacher behavior. The research examined the opportunity and transaction costs of recent
legislative reform efforts (No Child Left Behind, Education YESI, and Public Act 25) on
elementary schools and teacher behaviors, including additional time required for
compliance.

A qualitative research design was employed to conduct semi-structured interviews
with 24 elementary school teachers and 6 elementary principals ﬁom three different
school districts in southeastern Michigan during the spring of 2004. Interviews questions
were based upon four research questions: 1. What inﬂuence does legislative reforms such
as NCLB, PA 25, and Education YES! have upon elementary teacher behavior?, 2. What
inﬂuence does legislative reforms such as NCLB, PA 25, and Education YES! have upon
the school organization?, 3. Has elementary teacher instruction changed fundamentally
because of requirements mandated by NCLB, PA 25 and Education YES!?, and 4. How
do local district support, teacher practice, teacher professional learning and testing
requirements work together to advance reform policy at the elementary school level?
Interviews were tape-recorded, coded and transcribed to detail responses from study

participants. The interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method

(Glaser and Strauss, 1967) to create rich narratives describing the ways in which the
school organization and elementary teacher activity has been inﬂuenced by the legislative
reforms being studied.

Analysis of the data collected from participant interviews demonstrated a
convergence of legislative inﬂuence upon six primary areas of elementary school and
teacher behaviors. Respondents indicated that recent legislation had inﬂuenced reform of
elementary teacher instructional practices, student assessment practices, professional time
usage behaviors, student record keeping, teacher professional development and
administrative behaviors. From the narratives, a model (see Appendix E) was created to
depict the inﬂuence of No Child Left Behind and Education YES! upon elementary
school and teacher behaviors.

Study respondents reported that recent legislative mandates have inﬂuenced
elementary teacher and principal behaviors and the manner in which schools operate.
Conclusions concerning the inﬂuences of No Child Left Behind and Education YES!
legislation are presented and discussed in a supportive and expansive manner. The
conclusions discuss the issues studied in the research project. At the time of the study,
No Child Left Behind and Education YES! mandates had been operating in Michigan
elementary schools for approximately two years. Due to the short duration of the
legislation’s implementation, there may be aspects of the study that require future
research to determine the lasting inﬂuences of Education YES! and No Child Left Behind

on elementary schools and teacher behaviors.

Copyright by
CHRISTOPHER COOPER
2004

This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful wife Leann and to my twin sons
Brett and Jack for their unending encouragement and support of my work. I would also
like to dedicate this manuscript to my parents Ron and Monika Cooper for always

believing in their son.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Philip Cusick for his support on this project and always
being available to talk when I needed advice. Thank you to my committee members, Dr.
Susan Printy, Dr. Gary Sykes, and Dr. Suzanne Wilson for asking me the hard questions
and helping me to grow as a researcher and scholar. A special thanks to all of the
elementary teachers and principals ﬁom Sienna Heights, Somerset Community and
Kelsey Creek school districts for telling me their stories with such determination. Thank
you to my principal, Sandra Faber, for supporting me and allowing me the time to
complete my doctoral studies. Finally, to the man who encouraged me to pursue doctoral
study and then stood by me the entire time; unending thanks to my special friend Dr.

John Candela.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................ 1
Federal Involvement in Education ..................................................... 1
State Involvement in Education ......................................................... 8
Results of Legislative Actions ........................................................... 12
Organizational Theory ...................................................................... 15
Educational Policy Implementation ................................................... 22
Research Questions ............................................................................ 27
Methodology ...................................................................................... 28
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................... 33
Introduction ........................................................................................ 33
Deﬁnition of Terms Used in the Study .............................................. 33
Public Act 25 ...................................................................................... 37
No Child Left Behind ......................................................................... 43
Education YES! ................................................................................. 56
Effects and Unintended Consequences of Past Legislation ............... 69
Summary ............................................................................................ 74
Chapter Three: Methodology ......................................................................... 76
Introduction ........................................................................................ 76
The Researcher ................................................................................... 77
Design Tests and Biases ..................................................................... 78
Theoretical Sampling ......................................................................... 79
Participants in the Study .................................................................... 81
Contact and Interview Procedure ....................................................... 87
Technique of Interviewing ................................................................. 88
Human Subjects ................................................................................. 91
Units of Analysis ................................................................................ 92
Summary ............................................................................................ 93
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................. 95
Analysis of the Data ........................................................................... 95
The Model .......................................................................................... 95
Instructional Reforms ......................................................................... 98
Assessment Reform ........................................................................... 1 14
Changes in Use of Time ..................................................................... 123
Professional Development Reform .................................................... 136
Record Keeping and Other Reform ................................................... 143
Administrative Reform ...................................................................... 153
Summary ............................................................................................ 169

vii

Chapter Five: Conclusions ............................................................................. 170

 

 

Introduction ........................................................................................ 170
Research Questions . - 172
Question One Discussion ................................................................... 172
Question Two Discussion .................................................................. 175
Question Three Discussion ................................................................ 178
Question Four Discussion .................................................................. 181
A Framework for Explanation ........................................................... 186
Conﬁrmation of Prior Findings .......................................................... 190
Recommendations for Further Study ........... 193
Summary ............................................................................................ 195
Afterword ........................................................................................... 195
Appendices ..................................................................................................... 199
Appendix A: UCRIHS Application ................................................... 200
Appendix B: UCRIHS Consent Forms .............................................. 207
Appendix C: Contact Letters ............................................................. 210
Appendix D: Interview Guides .......................................................... 213
Appendix E: Model ............................................................................ 219
References ...................................................................................................... 221

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Federal Involvement in Education

The study will describe current federal and state legislation and then describe and
explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher behavior.
When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed on April 11,
1965, it opened the way to more. federal and state involvement in local education. ESEA
legislation encouraged the thinking that large-scale government intervention could
equalize educational opportunities by providing more educational resources. The ESEA
extended federal ﬁnancial assistance to 90% of all schools in the country. The objective
of ESEA was to improve education and life opportunities for disadvantaged students
through the establishment of Titles I, II and HI. Title I of the ESEA provides the single
largest package of federal aid to primary and secondary schools having a large
concentration of students from low-income families. Title I funding exceeds eight billion
dollars per year for numerous programs to meet the compensatory education needs of
educationally deprived children (Carleton, 2002). Additional federal money is available
through Title II of the ESEA which provides funding for the purchase of school library
materials, and Title HI allocates approximately $100 million per year to fund
supplementary education centers and services for at-risk students.

To receive funding under the ESEA, local districts must comply with federal
health and safety, civil rights, and gender equity requirements. Additional conditions

include participation and involvement of parents for ESEA compliance. The federal

govemment’s vast educational expenditures through the ESEA make it ﬁnancially
advantageous for local districts to comply with the mandates and requirements speciﬁed.
The initiation of ESEA was one of the ﬁrst federal programs having the ability to
inﬂuence the behavior of elementary schools and teachers. ESEA opened the door to
increased federal involvement in education and other legislated acts followed.

In this study designed to describe federal and state legislation and its inﬂuence on
schools and elementary teachers, the Bilingual Education Act was another landmark
legislative act passed by the federal government. On January 2, 1968, the Bilingual
Education Act provides federal funding for bilingual and other language-related programs
in schools. The Bilingual Education Act funds training programs for staff who work with
English-deﬁcient students directs services for students classiﬁed as limited English

proﬁcient. Currently, the Bilingual Education Act directs over $300 million per year to
programs aimed at 3.4 million students with limited English proﬁciency. School districts
requesting funding via the Bilingual Education Act must submit a series of applications
and forms conﬁrming the need for bilingual funds and agreeing to comply with the
mandates of the act. The Bilingual Education Act was the ﬁrst legislation having the
ability to inﬂuence schools and elementary teachers in areas of school culture, language
and cultural heritage.

Closely following the thinking of the ESEA and the Bilingual Education Act,
Title IX, referred to as the Civil Rights Act of 1972, was the ﬁrst federal legislation to
address gender discrimination in education. The rights of female students, teachers and
sllpport staff are protected under Title IX, which prohibits illegal gender discrimination in

e(lurcational institutions receiving federal funding. Currently, Title IX is applicable to

more than 16,000 school districts, 3,000 colleges and universities, and 5,000 libraries
across the United States focusing on expanding educational programming and
opportunities for women. Educational institutions receiving federal funding must be in
compliance with Title IX. Since the early 19905, schools that fail to comply with
provisions of Title IX can be held liable for monetary damages. Each of the above
legislative acts allow for greater governmental inﬂuence in the educational community.
The federal govemment’s expanding role in equalizing educational outcomes for
all students led to the enactment of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act on
November 29, 1975. This act signiﬁcantly changed the way disabled students were
treated in American schools. Renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), this legislation mandates that all children, regardless of handicap or disability,
are guaranteed a free and appropriate public education. The IDEA is centered around 6
principles: 1) no student may be rejected, regardless of disability, 2) all disabled students
must be given a nondiscriminatory evaluation to determine their educational needs, 3)
every special education student must have a written individualized education plan (IEP)
which includes their current level of performance, program goals, and an evaluation
system, 4) handicapped students must be educated in the least restrictive environment
(LRE) and integrated with non-disabled children as much as possible, 5) parents must
have access to due process rights if they do not agree with school decisions, and 6)
parents can and must participate in the IEP process by attending meetings, signing forms
and having access to student records. The six principles indicated above aid in
empowering parents of special needs children and allowing parental participation in

planning for their disabled child’s education. Heward and Orlansky (1992) note that

changes in the IDEA now require local school districts to provide transition services for
disabled students from school to ﬁrrther education, independent living and training
opportunities. The IDEA established a new level of federal involvement in local schools
including changes to classroom structure, teaching methods, school administration and
funding.

The expanding federal role in local education, demonstrated above, now includes
acts governing special education, school ﬁnance, gender equity, bilingual education and
socio-economic status. This increase in federal involvement in local districts produced a
need for an organization to manage programs mandated by educational legislation. On
October 17, 1979, the Department of Education Organization Act was passed creating the
United States Department of Education. In 1999, the Department of Education was
responsible for administering over 175 federal programs having an annual budget of
$34.5 billion. The Department of Education Organization Act is a clear illustration of the
expanding authority of federal government inﬂuence on schools and elementary teachers.

The late 1980s produced a continuation of the expanding federal role in school
districts with legislation governing different segments of local education without
addressing the education of gifted and talented students. In 1988, the Jacob K. Javits
Gifted and Talented Students Act was passed to create a coordinated program of
scientiﬁcally based research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar
activities designed to build and enhance the ability of elementary and secondary schools
to meet the special education needs of gifted and talented students (U .S. Department of
Education, 2003a). The J avits legislation extended federal inﬂuence into the domain of

gifted and talented students. Under the Jacob K. J avits Gifted and Talented Students Act,

the Ofﬁce of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) may distribute awards to
state and local education agencies ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 per year. In the
2003 ﬁscal year, appropriations by the OESE are expected to be in excess of eleven
nrillion dollars. With the addition of the gifted and talented legislation, the federal
government extended its inﬂuence into another segment of schools.

Since the publication of “A Nation At Risk” in 1983, the federal government had
been looking for a way to develop the scope of national educational reform more broadly.
On March 31, 1994, the Educate America Act (Goals 2000) was passed establishing
educational reform as a national concern and priority. Goals 2000 designated a set of
speciﬁc educational goals, a national curriculum and student performance standards for
the United States. The Educate America Act requires a cooperative effort among the
federal and state governments by providing a framework, resources and ﬂexibility to
states and schools. Under Goals 2000, federal and state governments can act together in
pursuit of systemic educational change and improvement through a program with goals
such as graduation rates, student competence, literacy, parental participation and drug-
ﬁ'ee schools (Carleton, 2002). While participation in Goals 2000 is voluntary, local
districts that meet the requirements mandated by the act are eligible to receive grants
toward reform efforts. State education reform efforts totaled in excess of $400 million in
1998. The Educate America Act is another example of the growth of the federal
government’s control in local education through legislation that may have inﬂuenced
schools and elementary teacher behavior.

Beginning with ESEA in 1965 and continuing through Goals 2000, the federal

government passed legislation that has become more speciﬁc and restrictive in their

mandates toward schools and elementary teachers. This study will describe current
federal and state legislation and explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools
and elementary teacher behavior. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), titled No Child Left Behind, is an example of recent legislation
passed by the federal government. On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush
signed No Child Left Behind into law. The objective of No Child Left Behind is to close
the achievement gaps between students of different demographic groups. These groups
include students who are of different genders, belong to minority groups, have
disabilities, limited English proﬁciency, or coming from families in lower socio-
economic groups (US Department of Education, 2003c). No Child Left Behind is
possibly the boldest piece of federal legislation ever to affect public schools, for it presses
the idea that all children can achieve high standards of leaming if given the right tools.

To better understand the sections covered under the No Child Left Behind
legislation, Friedrich (2002) dissects the law into four reform principles: accountability
for students' academic achievement, local control of federal education dollars, parental
involvement, and the implementation of scientiﬁcally proven programs and teaching
methods. At the start of the 2002 school year, No Child Left Behind legislation
mandated that each state was responsible for creating their own academic standards for
determining what every child in grades pre K-12 should learn in reading and mathematics
for elementary, middle and high schools. Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, states
must add science standards to those established for reading and math. Student progress
in these subject areas will be monitored by standardized tests as chosen by the state. By

the end of the 2002-2003 school year, assessments must be administered to each student

at least once in grade spans 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 for reading and math; with science
assessments following the end of the 2007-2008 year (US Department of Education,
2003b). These testing standards suggest a greater governmental inﬂuence on schools and
elementary teacher behavior.

The No Child Left Behind legislation contains some of the most speciﬁc and
restrictive language for the federal govemment’s administering programs and oversight
of the act. Districts that fail to comply with the mandates speciﬁed by No Child Left
Behind may face a series of administrative, personnel or ﬁnancial sanctions. One
speciﬁc sanction provides that students in failing schools may transfer to other schools
within the district, while the district provides and bears additional costs, including
transportation for these students. Other sanctions require replacement of the staff at
failing schools or allowing a state takeover of the school not making progress per No
Child Left Behind. The severity and speciﬁc nature of these sanctions may radically
inﬂuence a local district’s operating dynamics and elementary teacher behavior. .

A review of federal legislation affecting the educational system during the latter
half of the 20'h century demonstrates a trend of policy decisions expanding the purview of
the federal government over schools and classroom teachers. These federal policy
decisions appear to have a basic premise in mind, to equalize outcomes for students and
school districts, while improving educational quality. Currently, the federal government
has passed legislation governing school ﬁnance, socio-economic status reform, gender
equity, educational reform frameworks, education for special needs students, as well as
continual school improvement through testing and professional development. Carleton

(2002) explains the expanding involvement of the federal government:

The federal role in education has only been expanded, therefore, in particular
areas of clear need; to bend the principle of localism, federal expansion must be
strongly justiﬁed. Over the years, only four rationales or areas of national
concern have consistently justiﬁed federal expansion: the promotion of higher
education, the needs of national defense, civil rights and expanded access to
education, and improving educational quality. (p. 5)
In attempting through legislation to equalize outcomes and improve educational quality,
the federal interventions discussed above have become continually more speciﬁc and
restrictive, culminating with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. These legislative
acts, which establish standards and mandates, may be viewed as producing legislative

elements inﬂuencing the behaviors of schools and elementary teachers speciﬁcally.

State Involvement in Education

As well as increased federal scrutiny, schools and elementary teachers have been
subject to increased state scrutiny. Since 1965, there have been a series of policy
decisions expanding the involvement of the federal and government over local school
districts and classroom teachers. The State of Michigan has increased its role in
managing local districts and classroom teachers by passing legislation, which in many
cases, expands existing federal legislation. The State of Michigan received its impetus in
the late 1960s, when the federal government began funding its programs by sending the
money directly to the states. Individual states were permitted to draw 5 percent off the
top of the federal ﬁrnds for administration expenses and then disburse the remainder to
local districts. Peters (1997) argues the push for state involvement in school reform
policy began in Michigan under the guidance of State Superintendent John Porter. Dr.

Porter is described as the forefather of the educational reform plan in Michigan while

serving as the State Superintendent for Public Instruction from 1969-1979. He initiated
efforts to bring ﬁnancial and educational reform to Michigan schools.

Porter had a vision for giving public schools in Michigan a means of identifying,
directing, enforcing, and evaluating a quality educational program. To facilitate his
vision, Porter employed the "Six-Step Accountability Model" designed in 1968. This
model consisted of six steps, creating a quality educational program including goals,
objectives, needs assessment, a delivery system, evaluation, and reporting status to the
public. In 1969, the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) began as the
ﬁrst initiative of the six-step model. Peters (1997) describes the role of the state:

State policy-makers felt that, without a push, local districts were not going to

solve the education problems. All programs, laws, and reform elements since

1969 have been related in one way or another to MEAP and the continuation of
performance-based education. (p. 18-19)

Six years after the federal Bilingual Education Act was enacted, the State of
Michigan passed Public Act 294 in 1974. PA. 294 surpassed the guidelines set by the
federal government by mandating that schools with 20 or more students were required to
institute a bilingual program. The State of Michigan enacted Public Act 451 just 18
months after the federal government had passed the Education For All Handicapped
Children Act (IDEA). The requirements of RA. 451 exceeded the standards established
under IDEA by making special education programs mandatory in Michigan public
schools. Five years after A Nation At Risk was published in 1983, Donald Bemis
became the State School Superintendent for Michigan. During his tenure, Berrris worked
to pass legislation regarded as a solidiﬁcation of reform efforts. Bemis, wanting to
continue the work of his two predecessors, Dr. Philip Runkel and Dr. John Porter,

proposed legislation that supported the Michigan Educational Assessment Program

(MEAP) as well as using the "Six-Step Accountability Model" (goals, objectives, needs
assessment, delivery system, evaluation, and public reporting). As a culmination of
Bemis' ”Quality Plan", Michigan's Public Act 25 was passed in 1990 and is considered a
signiﬁcant step taken by the State of Michigan toward education reform (Peters, 1997).
The reform efforts mandated by Public Act 25 further demonstrate the expanding control
of the State of Michigan regarding local districts and classroom teachers.

Public Act 25 is referred to as the Quality Issues Package and was designed to
establish a legislative ﬁ'amework for statewide school improvement. Some of the ideas
for Public Act 25 came from "A Blueprint for Action" (Michigan State Board of
Education, 1984), however, Public Act 25 extended these ideas and combined them with
an accountability model that contained ﬁnancial consequences for non-compliance.
Scheerhom (1995) notes:

The realignment of standards forced schools to redeﬁne their curricula to meet the

state mandates in order to prevent the loss of critical funding incentives (the

quality incentive of $25/student was added for full compliance with the
requirements of RA. 25) in an era of diminished state ﬁnancial support of local

schools. (p. 64)
Addressed in the Quality Issues Package were sections regarding accreditation of schools,
core curricula to be implemented in schools, annual reporting for districts and
requirements for district and individual building school improvement teams to involve
stakeholders (Michigan Legislature, 1990). Stephens (1994) described the theory of
Public Act 25 in four sections:

1. the school improvement plan as the process for change, 2. the core curriculum

as the content of change, 3. accreditation as the veriﬁcation of the change, and 4.
the annual education report as the communication of change. (p. 78-79)

10

The legislative acts passed by the state enhancing federal legislation reinforce the concept
of governmental interventions inﬂuencing schools and elementary teacher behaviors.

Two months after the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, the Michigan State
Board of Education approved Education YES!- A Yardstick for Excellent Schools in
accordance with section 1280 of the Revised School Code and under its authority under
Article VIII, Section 3 of the Michigan Constitution (Education YES!, 2002) . This state
directive is designed to attain rigorous, challenging and focused standards. Many of the
provisions of Education YES! align with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind
Act. The authors of Education YES! advocate a public education system that is intended
to provide all students the following: (1) academic skills and knowledge to succeed in
today's global, information age economy, higher education, the armed services, and other
post K-l2 opportunities; (2) an excellent grounding in the history, principles and form of
our political system of self-government and constitutional liberty, and the ability to fully
and thoughtfully participate in political activities and elections; (3) an excellent
understanding of history, civics, political science and conﬂict resolution; (4) a broad
cultural exposure, including comprehension of the arts, humanities, and the classics; and
(5) the opportunity to participate in community involvement, including volunteering,
social studies and character development, membership in community associations, clubs
and organizations, athletics, student mentoring and similar activities (Education YES!,
2002) .

The objective of the Michigan State Board of Education is to accomplish their
vision and purpose with what they describe as a fair, challenging, and supportive

accreditation system to help all schools be good schools. The Michigan accreditation

ll

system, as described in the Education YES! document, is based upon three standards that
focus on every school working with every child (the same premise as No Child Left
Behind): (1) all Michigan elementary and middle school children will read independently
and use math to solve problems at grade level; (2) all Michigan students will experience a
year of academic growth for a year of instruction; and (3) all Michigan high school
students, in addition to demonstrating high academic achievement, will have an
individual education plan leading them to be prepared for success (Education YES!,
2002). The State of Michigan will evaluate these standards by measuring the adequate
yearly progress (AYP) of each school and district through school improvement measures
and students’ scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Proﬁle (MEAP) tests.
Education YES! provides speciﬁc and restrictive mandates for how AYP is to be
calculated and various sanctions for schools failing to meet the requirements. Education
YES! in combination with other state educational legislative actions may be the most
direct example of the State of Michigan’s expanding scope over local districts and
classroom teachers. A review of current state law affecting schools suggests speciﬁc and
restrictive standards that may have inﬂuenced the conduct and behavior of schools and

elementary teachers.

Results of Legislative Actions

A study of educational policy decisions since 1965 has shown several trends
among federal and state legislation enacted. The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965 began a movement in thinking that large—scale government

intervention could equalize educational opportunities by providing more educational

12

resources. This development encouraged a gradual increase in the federal and state
involvement regarding schools and classroom teachers, and continued through the No
Child Left Behind and Education YES! acts of 2002. Federal and state legislative acts
regarding education have been written with a common focus; to equalize educational
outcomes, while improving education for all students. To accomplish these common
aims, governmental interventions have become increasingly more speciﬁc about
requirements mandated and more restrictive about sanctions levied for noncompliance.
The mandates speciﬁed by existing legislation have progressively moved down the
organization to the point where individual schools and teachers may feel the expanding
presence of both the state and federal government in local education.

Federal and state educational legislative mandates faced scrutiny when James
Coleman and colleagues published Equality of Educational Opportunity in 1966. In a
study of student achievement variance, Coleman analyzed 600,000 students and 60,000
teachers in over 4,000 schools. The results of the study suggested that the quality of
schooling a student receives accounts for only about 10 percent of the variance in student
achievement. Coleman’s research indicated that the remaining 90 percent of variance in
student achievement was inﬂuenced by a student’s natural ability or aptitude, the
socioeconomic status of the student and the student’s home environment (Coleman et a1,
1966). In 1972, Jencks and colleagues reexamined the data collected by Coleman and
published Inequality: A Reassessment of the Eﬂects of Family and Schooling in America.
The conclusions reached by J encks and associates corroborated Coleman’s earlier
ﬁndings. Jencks (1972) notes:

Most differences in. . .test scores are due to factors that schools do not control.

(p. 109)

13

The J encks study claimed that schools do little to lessen the gap between rich and poor
students, nor the gap between more and less able students. J encks (1972) also contended
that student achievement is primarily a function of the background of the student and
little evidence exists that educational reform can improve a school’s inﬂuence on student
achievement.

Both Coleman and J encks came to the conclusion that the effects of schooling
were small and educational reform could do little to counter inequality. Researchers
began to scrutinize the results of Jencks and Coleman and noticed some serious ﬂaws in
the conclusions. Although Coleman (1966) claimed that schools had very little impact on
student achievement, he did note that teacher differences and the quality of teachers
showed more of a relationship to the variation in student achievement. Sanders and Horn
(1994) conducted research on student achievement and noted that the individual
classroom teacher has even more of an effect on student achievement than originally
thought. Wright, Horn and Sanders (1997) concur with these ﬁndings and mention:

Effective teachers appear to be effective with students of all achievement levels,
regardless of the heterogeneity in their classrooms. (p. 63)

Research conducted since Coleman and J encks has shown that individual teachers can
have an inﬂuential effect upon their students’ achievement even if the school does not.
This line of thinking makes sense because within schools, there is variation in the quality
of instruction from one teacher to another. Despite the caveats by Coleman and J encks,
the thrust of improving achievement via school reform persists. Legislation such as No
Child Left Behind, Education YES! and Public Act 25 seem to agree with this paradigm
shift as schools and teachers are held accountable for the education of every child under

these legislative mandates. Being held accountable for the success of each child under

14

Education YES!, Public Act 25 and No Child Left Behind may inﬂuence schools and
elementary teacher behavior.

The No Child Left Behind and Education YES! acts, as well as Public Act 25, are
three of the most current legislative acts that are more speciﬁc and restrictive.
Requirements of the legislative acts are described, in depth, on over 1,000 pages of
legislative text meant to take the guesswork out of administration. Education YES! and
NCLB clearly spell out explicit sanctions for not achieving annual yearly progress (AYP)
and failure to meet the compliance requirements of the acts. Public Act 25 mandates that
all Michigan public school districts participate in school improvement and accreditation
processes and contains speciﬁc penalties for failure to participate. The current movement
of the federal and state governments toward more speciﬁc and restrictive legislation
governing the educational enterprise may change the way schools and elementary
teachers conduct business. The study will explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced

the behavior of schools and elementary teachers.

annizational Theog
Current legislative reforms, such as PA 25, No Child Left Behind and Education

YES!, will most likely cause changes in the educational system. Many of the changes are
attempts by governmental authorities to tighten up the educational enterprise by means of
a more overt bureaucratic system. The principles of organizational theory that underlay
federal and state decision-making will be studied and elementary teachers' actions
described in response to legislative mandates. Weber (1946) described bureaucracies as

being ideally designed to control and systematize personnel on a large scale.

15

Bureaucracies provide a way to systematize the school organization in a rational, honest
and efﬁcient structure that has technical superiority over other forms of organizations.
Weber's ideas regarding a bureaucratic structure's limitation of organizational behaviors
are a result of having written rules of conduct and standardized procedures based upon
ofﬁcial documents. Public school organization is built around a cohesive and systemic
framework that has ﬁxed and ofﬁcial jurisdictional areas structured through a hierarchy
with levels of graded authority. Each level of the organizational hierarchy has graded
levels of responsibility and are accountable for their charges. Ofﬁcials who make
organizational decisions that are impersonal and best for the entire organization govern
the school bureaucracy. The school bureaucracy is driven by both federal and state
mandates, and therefore must stay in compliance with current legislation or face dire
consequences. The requirements mandated by federal and state legislative acts have
_ expanded the educational bureaucracy, thus creating more rules, procedures and
organizational documents. In turn, it can be stated that the legislation may have
signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced elementary teacher and organizational behavior by the expansion
of the educational bureaucracy.

The responsibilities of each hierarchical subgroup within the organization have
limited tasks and specialized workers. Durkheim (1893) describes worker specialization
as the division of labor that affords the educational structure productive power. Simon
(1997) describes the organization as a system in equilibrium, and to keep the organization
efﬁcient, all employees must contribute, as whole group participation is the controlling
determinant for efﬁciency. Within the educational organization, workers have thorough

and expert training in their speciﬁc ﬁelds that enable them to perform their

16

responsibilities and keep the bureaucracy moving ahead. Accommodations made by
workers in educational organizations revolve around the limited resources allocated
within the organization. The expansion of the school bureaucracy by federal and state
legislative acts will trickle down to the elementary teacher and the additional demands
concerning expectations, standards, and responsibilities may have directly inﬂuenced
their performance and the behavior of each.

No Child Left Behind, Education YES!, and Public Act 25 have considerably
expanded the educational bureaucracy with speciﬁc requirements and restrictive
mandates. The expansion of the educational organization, required by the legislation,
may reallocate elementary teacher time and opportunity cost to stay in compliance with
legislative directives. Simon (1997) proposes two questions that ﬁ'ame the discussion of
reallocated instructional time:

If a particular end is to be realized at a given time, what alternative ends must be

relinquished for that time? If a particular end is to be realized at a given time,

how does this limit the ends that may be realized at other times? (p. 76)

Simon's questions demonstrate the rational decision—making process posed in an
organization that is structured to limit behaviors. Whether it is time required for direct
instruction, planning, collaboration, or communication, time is clearly one of the scarcest
resources within the educational organization's structure. Rozycki (2001) describes the
dangers of continually adding organizational requirements to the school day:

Politically popular statewide testing programs, from the teacher's perspective an

organizational activity, inevitably reduce instructional time, because socialization

needs do not shrink when standardized testing are administered. Indeed, one

might expect greater demands for socialization activities to develop- exerting,
consequently, additional pressure for reduction of instructional activities. (p. 158)

17

Flinders (1989) argues that time has become even more limited due to competing
demands from legislative requirements, and that elementary teachers and the organization
have to make choices as to the most efﬁcient and productive ways in which to use time.
It is anticipated that the study results will agree with the ﬁndings demonstrated in the
review of literature as it concerns the allocation of elementary teacher time. It is possible
that elementary teachers will realize the increase of demands made by state and federal
legislation will compete for their time and thus their behavior, instruction and preparation
may have changed.

The study will describe current federal and state legislation and then describe and
explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher behavior.
Current legislative mandates may have inﬂuenced elementary teacher use of time from
different perspectives, and thus time will be a key unit of measure for the study.
Elementary teacher instructional time, lesson preparation time, time spent in collegial
meetings, time spent on professional development, time spent attending to new job
requirements, and time spent with parents are all elements that together, make time a key
unit of measure. The research questions have been designed to provide information on
how elementary teacher behavior may have been inﬂuenced from a perspective involving
time.

Elementary teachers and the school organization make choices among competing
values described by a set of indifference curves (Simon, 1997). The indifference curves
designate which sets of possible consequences are comparable to each other or mutually
indifferent as alternatives. Simon (1997) describes the process of rational choices within

the organization:

18

Almost all human beings have the feeling, at one time or another, that there are

more things that they would like to do than there is time to do them. That is, there

are more possible stimuli for behavior than could be acted out if they were all
simultaneously present to the attention. Rationality demands that a conscious
choice be made among competing " goods" instead of leaving the choice to the

caprice of the attention-directing stimuli. (p. 103)

Legislative requirements, lesson planning, parent correspondences, classroom instruction
and other job duties all vie for the limited time resources available from elementary
teachers. From the list of competing demands within the limiting organizational
structure, teachers must make choices and some demands may be deleted (F linders,
1989). When objectives are forced upon teachers, in the case of legislative mandates,
organizational goals become internalized and limited time resources dictate that
behaviors are affected and opportunity cost demands that some choices be relinquished.
This concept may be applicable to schools and elementary teacher behaviors.

School organizations do not have complete control over cause and effect
relationships that ensure the stability of the structure. Thompson (1967) describes this
phenomenon as the organization having a soft technical core. The soft technical core
afforded by the existing school structure requires schools to establish ﬁrm expectations
by controlling the environment around the bureaucracy as much as possible. School
organizations work hard to buffer environmental inﬂuences by surrounding the technical
core with behavior limiting input and output components (Thompson, 1967). One such
component is the lobbying mechanism that schools employ to gain input to legislative
mandates such as No Child Left Behind, Education YES! and Public Act 25, to ensure a
continued ﬂow of resources into the system and keep the organization in equilibrium.

When new legislation mandates change the educational structure of schools,

elementary teachers ﬁnd themselves in the midst of a policy game. Firestone (1989) uses

19

the policy game metaphor to describe the creation and disposition of public policy.
When involved in the policy game, players (teachers, administrators, parents and
students) attach a different meaning to the policy based upon how the requirements affect
them. According to Stephens (1994), winning the policy game for teachers means
making minimal change to what they are doing in their classrooms. When describing the
behavior limiting functions of the school structure, Simon (1997) agrees:

Attention and behavior, once initiated in a particular direction, tend to persist in

that direction for a considerable interval of time. .. Activity very often results in

"sunk costs" of one sort or another that make persistence in the same direction
advantageous. (p. 105)

It is anticipated that mandates required by recent legislation will cause a change in
elementary teacher behavior, however, the study will measure whether these legislative
acts actually inﬂuence and modify schools and elementary teacher behavior.

To avoid potential non-compliance sanctions imposed by No Child Left Behind,
Education YES! and Public Act 25, it is projected that schools and districts have revised
or adopted new policies and procedures. The organization's administration acts
impersonally by making decisions that beneﬁt the most students, while following
guidelines from official documents and regulations established by the educational
structure. The behavior-limiting structure of schools reﬂects the way teachers behave
within the organization. The graded hierarchy, standard procedures, and ofﬁcial written
documents of schools indicate the magnitude of incentives for employee participation
within the organization. Information ﬂows up the chain of command in schools and
directives ﬁlter down. In the case of legislative mandates, school organizations exercise
authority over teachers, thus affecting teaching behaviors and requiring compliance. The

federal and state Departments of Education hold authority over local districts, which in

20

turn hold authority over the teachers. The school organization limits behaviors by
enforcing teacher responsibility in connection with legislative requirements, making
knowledgeable decisions regarding implementation of legislative mandates, and
coordinating the implementation through the school structure (Chubb & Moe, 1990). The
study will examine how the behavior-limiting ﬁamework of educational systems are
affected by No Child Left Behind, Education YES!, and Public Act 25 and cause a
trickle-down effect, thus potentially modifying elementary teacher behaviors in terms of
time reallocated for compliance activities and opportunity cost.

The educational organization has a cohesive and systemic structure that provides
rules and procedures for daily business operations. Today's educational enterprise is over
a billion-dollar a year venture that requires efﬁciency, strong resource procurement and
allocation, and solid expectations to meet the needs of today's students. By providing
necessary resources in a systemic manner, the educational bureaucracy limits the.
behaviors of individuals working within the organization's structure (Cusick, 1983). In
this manner, an individual’s behavior within the educational organization directly reﬂects
the way the organization is managed. The purpose of this study is to describe current
federal and state legislation and then describe and explain how those efforts may have
inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher behavior. The educational organization
affects elementary teacher behavior, and it can be stated that an expanding bureaucracy,
caused by mandates from No Child Left Behind, Education YES!, and Public Act 25,

may have signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher activity.

21

Educational Policy Implementation

Since 1965 the American educational enterprise has experienced remarkable
developments with regard to educational policy implementation. Spillane and Jennings
(1997) describe current trends in school reform as being centered on ensuring more
ambitious instruction for all students and crafting more coherent and closely aligned
policies that will support this ambitious instruction. Recent legislation such as No Child
Left Behind, Education YES!, and Public Act 25 all demand increased student
performance delivered through improved instruction. A number of common ﬁndings
have emerged from recent research regarding the relationship between reform policy and
teacher practice. The ﬁrst collective belief describes teachers as the main agents when it
comes to changing classroom instruction through policy (Spillane, 1999; Cohen, 1990;
McLaughlin, 1987, 1990). Cohen and Hill (2000) describe the importance of teacher
practice as an intervention:

.. .teachers' practices are a crucial intervening factor, for if instructional reform

were to affect most students, it would mainly be through teachers' practice. (p.

296)
New educational policy implementation depends largely upon whether or not classroom
teachers are putting into practice, the objectives of reformers. Putting into practice new
reform ideas may inﬂuence schools and elementary teacher behavior.

A second common conclusion resulting from a review of recent research on
educational policy implementation indicates that for teachers to meet the requirements of
new policies, teaching practices must change ﬁmdamentally (Cohen & Hill, 2000;

Spillane & Jennings, 1997; Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Weiss, 1990). Policy makers strive to

attain a change in teacher practices through policy initiatives that focus on manipulating

22

on.

 

 

various aspects of instruction including teachers' practice, assessment and curriculum.
Cohen and Barnes (1993) suggest that if policy makers are to get to the core reform ideas,
teachers must raise questions about current practices, discard many deeply rooted
understandings of teaching and learning and focus on the construction of alternative
practices to meet policy objectives. In writing the foreword for J ennings' (1996) work on
policy at work in classrooms, Cohen describes the paradox of fundamentally changing
teacher instruction:
Teachers and other education professionals are the chief problem, because they
stand in the way of better instruction for children. But teachers and other
education professionals also are the chief solution to the problem, for it is difﬁcult
to imagine how most students' learning could be improved unless educators
become the agents of improvement. Learning would seem to be the solution to

this problem — that is, the new policies would only work if teachers and other
education professionals learned a great deal and remade their practice. (p. vii)

Spillane and Zeuli (1999) describe changing teacher practices as one of the most difﬁcult
challenges of reform policy, and Cohen and Hill (2000) note the failure of central policies
to shape practice in street-level agencies such as local schools. Herein lies the challenge
for educational policy writers, writing reform policies that will fundamentally change
teacher instruction. No Child Left Behind, Education YES! and Public Act 25 have the
ability to fundamentally inﬂuence schools and elementary teacher behavior.

The answer to the challenge of fundamentally changing teacher instruction lies
within the third shared belief for policy implementation. To fundamentally change
teacher practices, educators need frequent opportunities to connect policy and practice via
professional learning (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Spillane, 1999). In a study of how reform
changed teacher practices at a southern California elementary school, Barnes (2002)

writes:

23

...both teachers and school leaders at Mission Elementary needed extended
opportunities to learn a new common language and the conceptual foundation
underlying reforms. (p. 137)

Cohen and Hill (2000) assert that when reform policies are focused on teacher learning,
and opportunities for professional learning are abundant, teaching practices and student
performance are likely to improve. Spillane (1999) adds:
. . .the potency of 'extemal' incentives and opportunities for learning and changing
the core of practice is dependent in great part on teachers' zones of enactment.

Enactrnent zones serve a powerful mediating function between reform initiatives
and practice. (p. 170)

The term, zones of enactment, is used to refer to the space in which teachers make sense
of and operationalize for their own practice, the ideas advanced by reformers. Teachers'
zones of enactment facilitate fundamental change of instructional practices when teachers
have ongoing opportunities to deliberate with colleagues regarding instruction and
reform. Additionally, instructional reform is more likely to occur when teacher
deliberations are grounded in understanding reform as opposed to policy edict only.
Fundamental change in teacher practice relative to reform objectives requires that
teachers' enactment zones extend beyond their individual classroom (Spillane, 1999).
Current research supports the notion that when teachers are given multiple opportunities
to learn and practice alternative instruction, teaching practices can be altered
fundamentally.

A fourth common principle advanced by recent policy research indicates that
801100] districts play an inﬂuential role in the local implementation of instructional policy
refom (Spillane, 2002, 1999). McDonnell and Elmore (1987) suggest that to truly

Change teacher practice, local bureaucratic control and accountability mechanisms are

24

needed in support of frequent opportunities for professional learning. Spillane (2002)

agrees, noting:
In the segmented and decentralized American educational system, many
governmental and nongovernmental agencies provide support and sometimes
apply pressure to guide teachers' practice. Pressure, though necessary, is believed
to be insufﬁcient for local implementation. Support is essential, and the local

work setting, because of its proximity to the classroom, is possibly the most
inﬂuential environment with respect to teacher support. (p. 378)

Local districts interpret policy reform and also create local policies, procedures and
curriculum that are designed to guide the change of instructional practices. By
interpreting federal and state policy and providing support to teachers, local districts play
a signiﬁcant role in reform policy implementation. Recent legislation such as Public Act
25, Education YES! and No Child Left Behind demand the attention of school district
administration. These legislative acts may force local districts to create policies and
procedures to meet the mandates within.

A ﬁnal common belief emerging from the review of recent policy literature
maintains that testing is the instrument through which policy is monitored (Hillocks,
2002; Madaus, 1988). Many Americans equate test scores with education. Michigan's
MEAP tests draw correlations throughout the state regarding the quality of school
districts. Testing pervades our culture, and because of this, tests are frequently used to
monitor reform policy at the local level. Hillocks (2002) concurs citing President George
Bush:

Without testing, reform is a journey without a compass. Without testing, teachers

and administrators cannot adjust their methods to meet high goals. Without

testing, standards are little more than scraps of paper. Without testing, true
competition is impossible. Without testing, parents are left in the dark. (p. 11)

25

The current reform policies being studied, No Child Left Behind, Education YES!, and
Public Act 25, all have accountability measures that depend on test scores to demonstrate
student achievement. Madaus (1988) states that researchers have known for a long time
that testing drives the school cuniculum. Because curriculum drives teacher instruction,
testing, curriculum and teacher practices are woven together as elements of policy reform
and dependent upon each other. The accountability measures mandated by recent reform
legislation may inﬂuence school and elementary teacher behavior by creating new
demands for successful test-taking preparation.

Public Act 25, Education YES! and No Child Left Behind are not three discrete
acts, but rather reform policies that follow a certain line of thinking. All three policies
are complex documents that contain the common elements found in recent policy level
research. The common beliefs emerging from recent reform research indicate that 1)
teachers are the key agents of reform, 2) teacher practice must change fundamentally to
meet the requirements of new policies, 3) teachers require opportunities to attend
authentic professional learning sessions in order to change their instruction
fundamentally, 4) the local district plays an inﬂuential role in the implementation of
educational policy, and 5) testing is the instrument through which educational policy is
monitored. The ﬁve common policy beliefs included in Education YES!, No Child Left
Behind and Public Act 25 have the potential to inﬂuence schools and elementary teacher
behaviors. The common ﬁndings mentioned above are incorporated into the design of

the dissertation research and have been used to develop the research questions below.

26

Research tions

From previous research, it is known that teachers learn their practice through a
variety of methods including an apprenticeship of observation, college coursework, and
in-class teaching practice. Teachers learn their practice before they start the job and after
they have been on the job. There is a large amount of organizational learning that
teachers do to acclimate to the school enterprise and meet the requirements of legislation
that affect elementary educators.

Though the research is vast, many questions regarding teacher learning and
development (within organizational contexts) have yet to be answered. Teachers develop
a perspective regarding methods for handling volumes of new information, and employ
strategies to discern what to believe and how to behave. Current research concerning
educational policy implementation indicates that teachers are the key agents in reform
and their practice must change fundamentally to meet requirements mandated by
educational policies. Research has also demonstrated that providing teachers multiple
opportunities for professional learning regarding policy implementation at the local level
is problematic, and the cause of many central policy failures. The following questions
are posed to guide the collection of data for this study:

What inﬂuence do legislative reforms such as NCLB, PA 25, and Education YES! have
upon elementary teacher behavior?

What inﬂuence do legislative reforms such as NCLB, PA 25, and Education YES! have
upon the school organization?

Has elementary teacher instruction changed fundamentally because of requirements

mandated by NCLB, PA 25 and Education YES!?

27

How do local district support, teacher practice, teacher professional learning and testing

requirements work together to advance reform policy at the elementary school level?

Methodology
The focus of this study is to describe Public Act 25, No Child Left Behind, and

Education YES! and to determine the inﬂuence of these legislative reforms upon schools
and elementary teacher behaviors. Due to the nature of the research questions, qualitative
research methods were preferred over quantitative techniques. Qualitative research
methods were selected because of their propensity to produce a rich, thick description of
people, places, and conversations not easily handled with statistics (Bogdan & Biklen,
1998). Examination of various current qualitative research methods revealed that using a
semi-structured interview technique would be best suited for this study because such
interviews are capable of providing inductive, descriptive data while drawing meaning in
a complex subject matter.

Patton (1988) suggests that the semi-structured interview format allows
speciﬁcation of topics and issues to be covered in advance, however the interviewer may
decide the sequence and wording of the questions during the course of the interview.
Using an outline during a semi-structured interview increases the comprehensiveness of
the data and makes data collection systematic for each respondent. The format of the
semi-structured interview remains conversational and situational, and logical gaps in data
collection can be anticipated (Patton, 1988). The ﬂexibility and unrestricted
characteristics of the semi-structured interview make it a good choice for the nature of the

study conducted.

28

Elementary teacher and principal participants were interviewed for approximately
60-75 minutes during the 2004 school year. Interviews were conducted at the
respondents’ schools during regular school hours and were tape-recorded with the
consent of the respondent. Regarding the tape-recording of participants for qualitative
research studies, Whyte (1984) notes:

lnformants are likely to talk more for the record with the machine than without,

even when they have been told that the interviewer is going to write up the

interview later. Where the interviewer has strong rapport, informants may accept

the machine with little hesitation, but in the early stages of the study its
introduction may damage rapport. (p. 114)

Comprehensive ﬁeldnotes were taken during interviews and, in following best practices
in ﬁeldwork research, expanded ﬁeldnotes were added to the raw data upon completion
of the interview (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Sanjek, 1990; Seidman, 1991). After being
carefully coded, tape-recorded interviews were transcribed for further analysis using the
constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). An individualized copy of the
transcribed interview was e-mailed to each respondent with a cover letter. The cover
letter asked respondents to review the transcript for accuracy and to add any additional
thoughts regarding the topics discussed during the interview.

The information collected through semi-structured interviews was repeatedly
analyzed for identifying patterns and commonalties (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Wolcott,
1995). The data was scrutinized for evidence that supported or refuted existing assertions
and built overarching themes (Seidman, 1991) using the constant comparative technique
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). While examining the descriptive data provided from
interviews, preliminary arguments were constructed. Data was organized and collated as
SUpporting evidence to the arguments written. It was expected that review and analysis

of the interview data would provide a deeper understanding of how schools and

29

elementary teacher behaviors have been inﬂuenced by the legislative reforms included in
the study.

The sample of respondents consisted of 24 Michigan elementary school teachers,
drawn ﬁ'om three separate school districts in southeast Michigan. In addition to the
elementary school teachers, the principal ﬁ'om each selected elementary school building
was interviewed to gather additional information regarding the inﬂuence of recent
legislation upon schools. The current study is designed to develop a model that will
describe and conceptualize the ways in which the school organization and elementary
teacher behaviors have been inﬂuenced by Public Act 25, No Child Left Behind, and
Education YES! legislation. To facilitate the study design, a theoretical sampling
technique was chosen. Glaser and Strauss (1967) describe theoretical sampling:

Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory

whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides

what data to collect next and where to ﬁnd them, in order to develop his theory as
it emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory,
whether substantive or formal. The initial decisions for theoretical collection of
data are based only on a general sociological perspective and on a general subject

or problem area. (p. 45)

In addition to theoretical sampling, the constant comparative method of data
analysis was employed. Using the constant comparative method of data analysis (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967) involves studying each participant independently, then looking for
common themes among participants. As themes and patterns evolve, each was analyzed
and contrasted with ﬁndings from other studies concerning the inﬂuence of legislative

reform on schools and elementary teacher behavior. The interviews were used to identify

the degree to which speciﬁc reform efforts have inﬂuenced elementary teacher activity

30

and the organizational structure of the local public school. Glaser and Strauss describe

the process:
In contrast to analytic induction, the constant comparative method is concerned
with generating and plausibly suggesting (but not provisionally testing) many
categories, properties, and hypotheses about general problems (e.g., the
distribution of services according to the social value of clients). Some of these
properties may be causes, as in analytic induction, but unlike analytic induction
others are conditions, consequences, dimensions, types, processes, etc. (p. 104)
We shall describe in four stages the constant comparative method: (1) comparing
incidents applicable to each category, (2) integrating categories and their
properties, (3) delimiting the theory, and (4) writing the theory. Although this
method of generating theory is a continuously growing process- each stage after a
time is transformed into the next- earlier stages do remain in operation

simultaneously throughout the analysis and each provides continuous
development to its successive stage until the analysis is terminated. (p. 105)

Studying the inﬂuence of recent legislative acts on schools and elementary
teacher behaviors requires units of measure that are intellectually coherent following the
logic of the argument. To attain the measurement, schools and elementary teachers will
be examined based upon two units of measure: 1) what schools and elementary teachers
are doing in order to comply with legislative mandates, and 2) what schools and
elementary teachers are not doing because they are focusing on compliance with the
legislation.

Public Act 25, No Child Left Behind and Education YES! have been selected for
measurement because each contains a common central thrust. All three acts follow the
pattern of becoming more restrictive and speciﬁc in their mandates as they ﬂow through
the educational organization. More importantly these three acts push for educational
reform through the school improvement process, ultimately changing teacher behaviors.
Elementary teacher instructional practices, lesson preparations, collegial work, student

assessment, and professional development, were a select few of the conditions that were

31

examined through interview responses to determine what elementary teachers are doing
in order to comply with current legislation.

School decision making processes, resource allocation and public
communications are a few of the criteria that will be scrutinized through elementary
principal interviews to establish what schools are doing in order to comply with
legislative mandates. These same selected subjects were reevaluated to determine what
schools are not doing because of the effort to comply with mandates from Education
YES!, Public Act 25 and No Child Left Behind. It was anticipated that semi-structured
interviews with elementary school teachers and their principals will provide richly thick
description revealing what each are doing in order to comply with current legislation as
well as the opportunity cost of compliance.

The focus of this study is not on theory development, but rather, thick description
of legislative reforms inﬂuencing school and elementary teacher behavior designed to
create a deeper meaning of the phenomenon being studied. Use of theoretical sampling
combined with the constant comparative method of data analysis will facilitate
construction of models describing how schools and elementary teachers make sense of

their experiences related to the legislative reforms studied.

32

CHAPTER H

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to describe current federal and state legislation and
then describe and explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and elementary
teacher behavior. The research will examine the opportunity cost of these legislative
reform efforts on elementary teacher activity, including additional time required for
compliance. The unit of analysis for this study will be how elementary teacher time has
been reallocated due to these reform efforts and how the school organization has been
realigned to meet the requirements of these three pieces of legislation. Included in the
second chapter are a deﬁnition of terms used in the study, an overview of organizational
behavior and recent reform efforts. An introduction to the three legislative acts studied in
this dissertation, Public Act 25, No Child Left Behind and Education YES!, is told
through extensive background research. The chapter concludes with an overview and
summary of how Public Act 25, No Child Left Behind, and Education YES! may have

inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher behavior.

Deﬁnition of Terms Used in the Study
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The amount of annual improvement needed to get all

students to proﬁciency

33

Apprenticeship of Observation. A term coined by Lortie (1975) describing the time

preservice teachers spend as a student in educational settings.

Authorig. The power to make decisions which guide the actions of another (Simon,

1997).

Bureaucracy. A form of organizational structure known for being efﬁcient, rational,
technically superior, and having the functional ability to control and systematize

personnel on a large scale. (Weber, 1946)

Constant Comparative Method. A form of data analysis developed by Glaser and Strauss
(1967), that sets a framework for studying each participant independently while looking

for common themes among respondents.

The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The DRA is a performance assessment

kit developed by Joetta Beaver in collaboration with primary classroom teachers. The
DRA is conducted in the classroom during a short individual reading conference. It
allows teachers to gather information about students' reading interests, use of strategies,

comprehension, and attitudes. (Hawaii Public Schools, 2004)
Education YES! Michigan legislation, passed in 2002, which addresses school and

student improvement issues and measures of school performance. This legislative body

is also referred to as A Yardstick for Excellent Schools.

34

Environmental Pressures. Stresses caused by the setting and demands of one's workplace

which tend to produce a set of relations between the people effected by those demands.

I-IBJ. The Harcourt Brace Jovanovich basal reading series used by certain districts

participating in the study.

Michigan Educational Assessment Proﬁle (MEAP). A statewide assessment given

annually to students in selected grades to assess speciﬁc academic content areas such as

reading, writing, math, social studies and science.

Michigan Literacy Progr_'ess Proﬁle (MLPP). The MLPP is a kit to be used by trained
educators to determine and document student growth in the areas of literacy development

for the purpose of improving the learning opportunities for students. (MLPP, 2004)

NCA. The North Central Association, a non-proﬁt organization, accrediting over 9000
schools divided up into 8 categories: elementary, middle, secondary, college preparatory,
vocational/adult, special purpose, unit (K-12), postsecondary. (North Central Association,

2003)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Another name for the federal reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This act, passed in 2002, mandates

school improvement issues and allocates funding for those improvements.

35

mertunity Cost. The highest valued opportunity foregone in the pursuit of an activity,

in this case, reform legislation. (Amos Dictionary, 2003)

Organizational Learning. On-going knowledge that must be acquired by employees to

become acclimated to an establishment and meet the requirements therein.

Public Act 25 (PA 25). Michigan legislative ﬁamework passed in 1990 addressing
statewide school improvement. Also referred to as the Quality Education Package or

Quality Issues Package.

Qu_alitative Reading Inventopy (QRI). An informal reading inventory, written by Lauren

D. Leslie and J oAnne Caldwell, that provides a variety of diagnostic options designed to

assess individual students’ reading ability.

Scarcity. The lack of an important or critical resource that is needed to obtain some a

priori deﬁned objective. (Bruno, 1997)

School Improvement Plan. A school improvement plan includes an identiﬁcation of the
student performance goals, the assessments that are aligned with each of the goals, the
interventions that are aligned with each of those goals, and an implementation plan.

(North Central Association, 2003)

36

Public Act 25

Michigan’s Public Act 25, also called the Quality Issues Package, was passed in
1990. The purpose of PA 25 was to design and establish a legislative ﬁamework for
statewide school improvement. Addressed in the Quality Issues Package were sections
regarding accreditation of all schools, core curricula to be implemented in all schools,
annual reporting for districts and requirements for district and individual building school
improvement teams to involve all stakeholders (Michigan Legislature, 1990). Stephens
(1994) described the theory of Public Act 25 in four sections:

1. the school improvement plan as the process for change, 2. the core curriculum

as the content of change, 3. accreditation as the veriﬁcation of the change, and 4.

the annual education report as the communication of change. (p. 78-79)

Public Act 25's mandate for accreditation goes hand in hand with the school
improvement process. To meet this requirement, most school districts align themselves
with an accrediting association such as the North Central Association Comnrission on
Accreditation and School Improvement (National Education Association, 2003). The
State Board of Education deﬁned school accreditation as meeting or exceeding the State
Board of Education-approved standards for the following six areas of school operation:
administration and school organization, curricula, staff, school plant and facilities, school
and community relations, and school improvement plans and outcomes (Michigan
Legislature, 1990). The accreditation process varies depending on the accrediting
association, but generally involves a commitment from the school district to meet the
requirements of the accreditation organization through a series of stages. Requirements
include, but are not limited to, maintaining the condition of the physical resources (school

building) and allocation of those resources, meeting standards for technology and the

37

 

information system, providing professional development opportunities for staff members,
achieving adequate levels of parent involvement, development of a vision and mission
statement, conducting building-level decision making and leadershiplgovemance and
development of continuous school improvement teams and plans (North Central
Association, 2003). The accrediting association schedules regular site visits; sending a
team of individuals to evaluate each school against these standards.

One of the procedures scrutinized closely by the accrediting organization is the
development and robust nature of the individual school improvement plans. According
to the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School lrnprovement
(2003), schools must develop plans that emphasize student learning and exhibit
commitment to school improvement that must be pursued continually and aggressively.
Following this guideline, most elementary schools develop anywhere from 2-5 school
improvement plans, each lasting from 3-5 years. This process involves development of a
student proﬁle drawn from the school's information system, whereby a challenging set of
goals that focuses on enhanced learning for all students is developed (McTighe and
Thomas, 2003; North Central Association, 2003). From this stage, improvement plans
are developed that detail the changes to be made and an assessment system is developed
to document increased student success on the goals identiﬁed. To achieve accreditation
status to meet the mandate for Public Act 25 schools must be able to document, in a
variety of ways, that student performance goals are met. In planning for school
improvement, Public Act 25 requires schools and school districts to include stakeholders
such as families, community representatives, and students in the process (Michigan

Legislature, 1990).

38

The State of Michigan and North Central Association Commission on
Accreditation and School Improvement both believe that the value of pursuing
accreditation far outweighs the time commitment constraints of the process. The North
Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement asserts:

A four-year study of schools actively engaged in NCA CASI‘s process revealed
that 79% made veriﬁable gains in student achievement. (www.ncacasi.org)

Claims are also made that the accreditation process eases the transition for students who
transfer ﬁ‘om one accredited school to another as well as facilitating the credit transfer
process. The North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School
Improvement similarly argues that accreditation is a cost-effective way to engage all of
the schools in a district in a coherent school improvement process while aligning local,
state and federal requirements. There are beneﬁts for teachers involved in the process as
well, such as access to a network of school improvement professionals and a given
process for raising their students' achievement (North Central Association Commission
on Accreditation and School Improvement, 2003).

In addition to the requirements for accreditation and school improvement, Public
Act 25 requires school districts and individual buildings to publish an annual report. The
annual reports have subheadings as proscribed by Public Act 25 and include the
following: (1) accreditation status of each school, the process by which pupils are
assigned to particular schools and a description of specialized schools; (2) status of
school improvement plans and the continuing process; (3) a copy of the core curriculum
and a description of its implementation; (4) a report of the aggregate student achievement
based upon test results (local, state, or national); (5) the district membership retention

report for current and previous years; (6) number and percentage of parents, legal

39

guardians, or persons in loco parentis who participated in parent-teacher conferences; and
(7) a comparison of numbers 1-6 above, with the preceding school year (Michigan
Legislature, 1990). Building and district annual reports must be made publicly accessible
through board meetings, PTA meetings and other dissemination vehicles (Michigan
Association of School Boards Accountability Taskforce, 2000). District administrative
staffs spend a great amount of time collecting the information that goes into these annual
reports and classroom teachers are often asked to provide input involving "points of
pride" or "challenges we face" sections of the report.

Another section of Public Act 25 requires the development of a core curriculum
with objectives and performance standards. The wording of Public Act 25 strongly
encourages local districts to align their core curriculum with recommended model core
curriculum outcomes as developed by the state (Michigan Department of Education,
2003). The core curriculum must deﬁne outcomes to be achieved by all pupils and be
based upon the school districts' mission statement, long-range student goals, and student
performance objectives (Michigan Legislature, 1990). Districts accomplish this task
through the organization of curriculum study committees comprised of administrators,
teachers, and parents. Together, these teams review the state standards and develop core
curriculum and performance standards that align tightly with the state. The committees
also author performance indicators to establish concrete examples of success at each
performance standard level for teacher use (Vars, 2000). This committee activity
requires classroom teachers to be absent from teaching time to attend curriculum
development meetings. Additionally, teachers are often asked to complete tasks for the

committee outside of their scheduled meetings and have to complete other committee-

4o

related work on their own time (Stephens, 1994; Eastwood and Tallerico, 1990). Since
the core curriculum is considered a "living and dynamic document", these committees
still exist to initiate change as required.

The areas of Public Act 25 that cause reallocation of elementary teacher
instructional time have been detailed in the previous section. There are other sections of
Public Act 25 not discussed, such as development of high school proﬁciency exams and
requirements for non-certiﬁed personnel, because they do not directly inﬂuence the
teaching time of elementary instructors. To attain school accreditation, elementary
school teachers work within a school improvement committee to analyze needs based
upon student performance criteria (North Central Association Commission on
Accreditation and School Improvement, 2003). Developing goals of improving learning
and increasing student achievement requires an extensive time commitment by the
individuals involved. Currently, many elementary schools schedule "school
improvement days" during the school year, whereby students come to school for a half
day in the morning and the afternoon is used by teachers for school improvement
meetings and planning (Odden, et. al., 2002). Because the school improvement process
revolves around a prescriptive timeline, these half days may not provide enough time to
complete all the work required the plans. It then falls to the classroom teachers to ﬁnish
the work during their individual preparation time or outside of school (Stephens, 1994).
In addition to the time spent planning and developing school improvement goals,
elementary teachers are also required to administer assessments to collect baseline data
for the plans (Eastwood and Tallerico, 1990). Baseline data collection may consist of pre

and post-assessments, writing samples or written anecdotes comprising a learning log.

41

No matter the type or form of baseline data collected, it may be argued that elementary
instructional time is being reallocated to meet these legislated requirements and others
involving the school improvement/accreditation process.

The annual reports that elementary school buildings publish are a visible result of
Public Act 25. Elementary principals spend signiﬁcant time authoring these reports, but
not without staff support. Most principals undertake the writing of the individual
building annual report by asking teachers to sit on committee to draft sections together.
Principals use email and memos to the staff soliciting ideas for "points of pride" and
"challenges we face" portions of the annual report. In her study regarding the
implementation of Public Act 25, Stephens (1994) observed core school improvement
teams spending 2% -3 hours at a time preparing the building's annual report. The teams
of teachers in Stephens' study worked collaboratively with the building principal to
author the annual report as mandated by Public Act 25. Additionally, staff meeting and
block planning agendas are often written to include time to discuss the annual report.
While the value of the information contained in a building annual report, as mandated by
Public Act 25, may be useful and constructive, the time spent authoring and going over
the reports deﬁnitely reallocates elementary teacher activity.

Public Act 25 requires the development of an individual district core curriculum,
modeled after the Michigan Model Core Curriculum Outcomes of 1991 (Michigan
Department of Education, 2003). In theory, this objective is a worthwhile undertaking to
promote equity between and among schools in what is being taught in the State of
Michigan. The time spent by elementary teachers, away ﬁ'om their classrooms, to

develop this core curriculum would logically reduce teaching time in the classroom.

42

Additionally, the time spent outside of curriculum committee meetings preparing
materials and completing necessary requirements for the next meeting would again
modify elementary teacher instructional activity.

Public Act 25 is a valuable and meaningful piece of legislation designed to
improve the quality of Michigan's public schools. Two years after the implementation of
Public Act 25, Shine (1992) surveyed Michigan public school superintendents and noted
that superintendents felt reform conditions and indicators were of sufﬁcient strength in
Michigan public schools to allow educational reform to continue under Public Act 25. It
can be argued that the opportunity costs of meeting the reform requirements of Public Act
25 involve a tremendous shift in elementary teacher activity from the classroom and a

change in the organizational structure of the school.

No Qm'ld Left Behind
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),

titled No Child Left Behind, was signed into law on January 8, 2002. The objective of
No Child Left Behind is to close the achievement gaps between students of different
demographic groups. To better understand the sections covered under the No Child Left
Behind legislation, Friedrich (2002) dissects it into four reform principles: accountability
for students' aeadenric achievement, local control of federal education dollars, parental
involvement, and the implementation of scientiﬁcally proven programs and teaching

methods.
At the start of the 2002 school year, No Child Left Behind legislation mandated

that each state was responsible for creating their own academic standards determining

43

what every child in grades pre K-l2 should learn in reading and mathematics for
elementary, middle and high schools. Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, states
must add science standards to those established for reading and math. Students' progress
in these subject areas will be monitored by standardized tests as chosen by the state. By
the end of the 2002-2003 school year, assessments must be administered to each student
at least once in grade spans 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 for reading and math; with science
assessments following the end of the 2007-2008 year (US Department of Education,
2003b).

Results of these assessments must appear in annual state and district report cards,
another requirement of No Child Left Behind. The purpose of these report cards is to
give parents a vehicle by which to measure their school's performance and their state's
progress. School administrators, teachers, policy makers, and state and local leaders will
also be scrutinizing this critical information (Friedrich, 2002). The long-term goal of
these report cards is to disaggregate the data and identify and close achievement gaps
among the various demographic groups previously mentioned. From these annual district
report cards, individual schools are responsible for improving the academic performance
of all students leading toward making adequate yearly progress (AYP) by the end of the
2013-2014 school year.

The adequate yearly progress section of the No Child Left Behind legislation
appears to be the aspect of the legislation that has school districts concerned the most due
to potential sanctions being imposed for failing to meet AYP. Adequate yearly progress
is measured with a complex formula based upon improvement goals established by

individual schools. AYP for schools and districts is based primarily on the required

assessments such as MEAP tests, however the United States Department of Education
claims that the goal is for 100% proﬁciency for all students by the end of the 2013-2014
school year. The Ofﬁce of the Secretary claims that the goal is ambitious, but achievable
and anything less than requiring 100% proﬁciency means that children will be left behind
(US Department of Education Ofﬁce of the Secretary, 2003). Schools that fail to meet
state academic performance standards face sanctions contingent on the number of years
that AYP is not achieved. If a school does not meet AYP for two years, the No Child
Left Behind legislation permits students to transfer to another school in the district that is
not failing and the district must pay all transportation costs. The failing school must also
receive technical assistance from the district. Schools failing to make AYP for three
consecutive years face the prior penalties and parents of students at the failing school
may take advantage of Title I money for tutoring or other supplemental educational
services. Should a school fail to make AYP for four consecutive years, it will endure the
previous sanctions and must do one of the following: replace staff relevant to the failure,
implement new curriculum, provide staff development, decrease management authority at
the school level, appoint an outside expert to advise the school, extend the school year or
day, or restructure the school. After ﬁve years of failure to make AYP the school must
signiﬁcantly alter its governance method by either allowing a state takeover, hiring a
private management company, or converting to a charter school (US Department of
Education, 2003c). The severity of the sanctions alone causes the No Child Left Behind
legislation to demand the immediate attention of superintendents, school board members,

principals, teachers and other members of the educational community.

45

When President Bush signed No Child Left Behind into law, he noted that
education is a national priority and a local responsibility. That statement is reﬂected in
the legislation as states and local communities now have more ﬂexibility to direct federal
education dollars toward the programs that will best serve their students and teachers
(Friedrich, 2002). Flexible ﬁrnding and spending of federal education dollars is
something new for recent legislation. No Child Left Behind combines and simpliﬁes
programs, so that schools do not have to go through as much red tape to get and use the
federal funding needed. The reauthorization of the ESEA allows states and districts to
transfer up to ﬁfty percent of fturding from any of the major federal programs (Teacher
Quality, Education Technology, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Innovative Education
Programs) to pursue strategies for improving student achievement without receiving
advance approval (US Department of Education, 2003b).

The No Child Left Behind legislation supports local control by requiring a "highly
qualiﬁed" teacher for every classroom by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. A
"highly qualiﬁed" teacher is certiﬁed or licensed by the state, holds a bachelor's degree
from an accredited university or college and demonstrates competencies in their subject
areas as determined by the state's requirements (Friedrich, 2002). Further support for
local control of "highly qualiﬁed" teachers is provided by the No Child Left Behind
legislation in terms of ﬂexible spending for professional development and class size
reduction grants. No Child Left Behind allocates $2.85 billion for states to spend on
training and recruiting teachers through Title II, Part A (Improving Teacher Quality State
Grants). To receive this money, states are required to develop a local improvement plan

detailing exactly what will be done to ensure that all teachers are highly qualiﬁed. Once

46

plans are developed, federal money can be used for recruitment and hiring, certiﬁcation,
licensure, mentoring programs, teacher testing and accountability efforts. No Child Left
Behind requires that teachers be involved in the development of both the state needs
assessment and local improvement plans (Friedrich, 2002).

No Child Left Behind was written to give parents more information about the
schools their children attend and offer them alternatives, if their child's school is
identiﬁed as chronically needing improvement. By the beginning of the 2003-2004
school year, districts must be prepared to transfer students under unsafe school choice
policies. Districts must notify parents of each student in a "persistently dangerous"
school about the unsafe school choice option. The No Child Left Behind legislation also
allows parents with a child enrolled in a school identiﬁed as in need of academic
improvement the option of transferring to a better performing school in the district or
neighboring charter school. The school district must also pay for all transportation costs
associated with the transfer option. Parents with students enrolled in a school identiﬁed
as failing to make AYP for three consecutive years may request $300-$1,000 in Title I
funds for use in supplying supplemental services (tutors, after-school or weekend help,
summer school tuition) for their child (US Department of Education, 2003c). Friedrich
(2002) notes:

These stipulations will place competitive pressures on schools and educators that
policymakers believe will lead to improved student achievement. (p.2)

As mandated by No Child Left Behind, parents will receive report cards about their
school and school district each fall. These report cards will give additional information
regarding the school's performance and Adequate Yearly Progress status to help parents

make informed decisions about enrollment issues for their children.

47

The United States Department of Education will target No Child Left Behind
education dollars toward research-based programs that have been proven to help most
children learn. Schools and districts are expected to use scientiﬁcally proven practices to
meet state standards for literacy and other academic areas, while taking advantage of
increased funding efforts for federal programs such as Reading First, Early Reading First
and Teacher Quality. Reading First and Early Reading First work hand-in-hand with the
No Child Left Behind legislation to provide training for teachers in core literacy
components, while supporting the age-appropriate development of children's oral
language, phonological awareness, print awareness and alphabetic knowledge (US
Department of Education, 2003a; US Department of Education, 2003d). Teacher Quality
enhancement grants support the local control element of No Child Left Behind by
providing funds for teacher preparation and recruitment, improving the State's teacher
preparation programs and helping to reduce shortages of qualiﬁed teachers in high-need
areas (US Department of Education, 2003c). A national clearinghouse is also planned to
provide information to schools about a wide range of programs, tests, practices, and
policies (Friedrich, 2002).

For the purpose of this dissertation, the No Child Left Behind legislation has been
summarized to focus on the four reform principles as identiﬁed by Friedrich (2002):
accountability for students' academic achievement, local control of federal education
dollars, parental involvement, and the implementation of scientiﬁcally proven programs
and teaching methods. The physical document itself includes more than 1,000 pages of
legislative education mandates that would require extensive time to read and synthesize,

not all of which may pertain to the nature of this research. A federal document

48

containing over 1,000 pages raises issues with regard to interpretation of the text. As
Goldhaber (2002) notes:

. . .in the case of the reauthorization of ESEA, the devil is very much in the details,

many of which are sketchy and left open for negotiation between states and the

Department of Education. (p. 2)

No Child Left Behind legislation includes terms such as "high-quality" and "proﬁcient"
which are somewhat unclear and open for interpretation. Much research has been done
indicating that each local school district plays a signiﬁcant position in the local
implementation of legislative reform (Firestone, 1989; Spillane 1996, 2002). Wenning,
Herdrnan and Smith (2002) suggest that the implementation of No Child Left Behind is
the key to its success, and the Department of Education should study the document and
report in simple language how school districts should fulﬁll the responsibilities mandated
within. The way in which the No Child Left Behind legislation is interpreted by state and
district ofﬁcials will determine how the legislation plays out in the elementary classroom
and inﬂuences the activity of teachers. Spillane (2002) concurs:

Speciﬁcally, the manner in which state and federal policy proposals are

understood and disseminated by the district ofﬁce inﬂuences their classroom

implementation. (p. 377)

Because the assessment and accountability sections of No Child Left Behind hold
the threat of potential sanctions for schools and their districts, this portion of the
legislation is likely to be given a great deal of attention. Goldhaber (2002) agrees:

Probably the most common critique of the accountability systems that are based

on student performance on standardized tests is that they create incentives for

teachers to focus their efforts on the assessments for which they (or their schools)

will be held accountable. In common parlance, they will "teach to the test." (p. 4)

Focusing only on content for which students are held accountable can become dangerous

in an educational enterprise that already contains an elementary curriculum bulging with

49

rigorous and challenging academic content tied to performance standards. Since
accountability measures for science are not effective until the end of the 2007-2008
school year, elementary teachers may focus their efforts on the tested subjects; math and
reading. Completely untested subjects such as social studies, problem solving and
handwriting may end up taking a backseat should teachers determine that accountability
measures demand a focus on the narrowed curriculum being assessed. Gulek (2003)
suggests the dangers of this type of practice:

A teacher should not engage in instruction that addresses only those portions of

knowledge included on the test. While this may raise scores, it will not build

students' knowledge and skills in broader subject areas. (p. 42)
Other researchers (Goldhaber, 2002; Koretz, 1998; Schrag, 2000) suggest that elementary
teachers may spend their instructional time merely teaching test taking skills. J akupcak
and Rushton (1992) found that when teachers in their study concentrated on time
management and test taking skill lessons in class, all students, including those with
disabilities scored at the proﬁciency level. Linn (2000) notes that certain legislative
accountability systems have led some teachers to include test-taking skills and a
narrowed curricular focus at the expense of other academic content that is deemed less
important. Clovis (1999) and Loulou (1997) believe that test taking strategies and time
management skills can be built into the daily curriculum to address the requirements
posed by high stakes assessments. However, the argument can be raised that no extra
time exists in the current school day, when elementary cru'ricula are already ﬁlled to

bursting with performance standards and benchmarks as mandated by the Sate and

individual districts. Gulek (2003) concludes this argument nicely:

50

School practitioners need to adequately and appropriately prepare students for
high-stakes testing without detracting ﬁ‘om real learning. Teaching to the state
standards and using various assessment approaches and formats constitutes
appropriate test preparation practice. (p. 46)

Because the pressure for students to succeed is paramount under reauthorization
of ESEA, elementary teachers may feel the need to focus on only certain types of
students (Elmore et a1, 1996; Goldhaber, 2002). Goldhaber (2002) goes on to elaborate:

The new ESEA legislation requires the use of a system, already in place in many

states, whereby schools' performance is judged based upon the students who reach

established benchmarks for proﬁciency. Under such a system, it is the pass rate
that matters for school performance, so schools have an explicit incentive to push
as many students as possible beyond the point where they are judged to be

proﬁcient. (p. 5)

A number of elementary schools in metro Detroit currently subscribe to 60le
concept when they conduct "MEAP analysis sessions". The purpose of MEAP analysis
meetings is for teachers to go over the most current MEAP results for their students and
scrutinize the test items that students, barely missing the proﬁcient cut-off scores,
answered incorrectly. In an overview of data analysis, Darling (2002) describes this
scenario as examining a grid of test scores horizontally, vertically, and diagonally to look
for meaning in one and two-point differences. The elementary teachers decide how to
better teach these concepts to get those students just missing proﬁciency, to succeed. The
extremely high and low performing students are neglected in such a scenario so that more
of the kids who just missed proﬁciency will succeed the next time around.

The No Child Left Behind legislation of 2002 requires all schools to make
adequate yearly progress toward having students meet or exceed the standards in reading,

math and science by the end of the 2013-2014 school year (US Department of Education,

2003b). This requirement may lead elementary teachers to focus on students with

51

disabilities or students learning English as a second language (ESL). In the past, disabled
or ESL students have always taken standardized assessments with accommodations that
are appropriate for their speciﬁc situation. The ambiguity of the No Child Left Behind
document creates more room for interpretation as to how ESL and disabled students will
take the assessments and what types of accommodations, if any, will be permitted.
Should modiﬁcations be allowed for students with disabilities, will more low achieving
students be identiﬁed as special education candidates so they will have a better chance of
reaching proﬁciency on the assessments? If the answer to this last question is yes, one
can only imagine the shift in elementary teacher activity preparing individual educational
planning comrrrittee (IEPC) requirements for all of the newly certiﬁed special education
students.

To accommodate the requirements of the reauthorization of ESEA, elementary
teachers will most likely have to re-examine their teaching practices, techniques, and the
scope of their cuniculum. The No Child Left Behind legislation advocates the use of
research-based, proven methods of instruction (US Department of Education, 20030); yet
fails to specify the established processes. Cohen (2003) suggests customizing instruction
to create a unique and designated program for each individual child and he goes on to
discuss his version of customized instruction:

Creating a differentiated program must begin with diagnostic assessments that

clearly identify speciﬁc learning gaps. Learning styles must also be evaluated to

determine how best to engage each student. While each child's program is
designated to meet his or her own academic need, it must also be aligned with

state standards and district learning objectives. (p. 35-36)

The concepts behind Cohen's plan for differentiated instruction sound very promising in

theory. It can be argued that in practice, the time constraints and opportunity costs of

52

designing such an individualized progarn for each child are signiﬁcant. Elementary
teachers work very hard to accommodate each student's unique learning styles, strengths
and weaknesses. It would be a demanding undertaking for elementary teachers to
complete their existing job responsibilities and the designing of individualized instruction
for each student in alignment with state standards and district learning objectives. Since
the inception of the No Child Left Behind Act, some elementary principals have required
their staff members to include district and state standards in weekly lesson plans. These
elementary classroom teachers scramble to author their lesson plans and upon
completion, open yet another binder with the district standards to further annotate the
objectives of their lessons. Clearly, the argument can be made that the requirements of
No Child Left Behind will signiﬁcantly affect the activities of elementary teachers in
terms of opportunity costs and reallocation of teaching time.

The requirements mandated by the reautlnorization of the ESEA call for
immediate reform of many aspects of the educational enterprise. These changes are
detailed and complex and probably have caught many districts off guard. Studies of
reform and consequent teacher change indicate that tlnrough the district's interpretation of
the legislation come policies and progarns designed to guide teachers' instructional
practice (Spillane, 2002, 1999, 1998). The serious sanctions proposed by No Child Left
Behind have caused districts to rethink and modify their existing literacy, math and
assessment progarns. The Sienna Heights School District in metro Detroit is one of
those districts revamping their literacy assessment progarns. In the past, Sienna Heights
Schools had been using the Michigan Literacy Progess Proﬁle (MLPP) as their adopted

assessment vehicle for elementary students. All elementary teachers have attended 6

53

days of MLPP training and certain assessments are conducted at each grade level as
mandated by the district. With the reauthorization of the ESEA, the MLPP may not be
enough to meet the literacy assessment needs of the Sienna Heights district. Two new
assessment proﬁles emerged at the elementary level, the Developmental Reading
Assessment (DRA) for gades K-3, and the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) for
gades 4-5. Both programs are evaluation tools that assess word identiﬁcation, oral
reading, silent reading and comprehension levels of individual students. From these
assessments, elementary teachers can identify an individual student's instructional and
independent reading levels and make accommodations for literacy group instruction. The
entire elementary staff of the Sienna Heights School District in southeast Michigan
underwent several training sessions (both during and after school) for each assessment
tool and spent numerous hours learning the progams. At the end of the 2002-2003
school year, the district mandated that each elementary teacher was to conduct the
appropriate assessment (either DRA or QRI) for each child's exiting literacy level in
May. This process took from 15 minutes to one hour per child and elementary teachers
were expected to conduct these assessments during instructional time. For students
whose literacy levels were vastly above or below the gade level norm, substitute teacher
assistance was provided so that classroom teachers could either extend or retract the
literacy level of the text being assessed. In order to successfully implement reform
proposal changes, elementary teachers must face pressure from the district (Spillane,
2002). The Sienna Heights School District is mandating DRA or QRI testing in

September, January and May for each student during the 2003-2004 school year. These

54

thrice-yearly assessments are to be conducted during classroom instructional time during
the 2003-2004 school year.

In addition to the time spent learning and administering the new assessment
progams, many elementary school teachers are expected to use gade level block-
planning time discussing the implementation of new assessment progams (Odden, et al.,
2002). Situations of formal and informal meetings regarding new reform efforts are a
common occurrence when the district or state mandates new programs and policies.
Spillane (2002) identiﬁed different situations where teachers spent time meeting and
discussing new reform initiatives being used in their classrooms. Those discussions
included gade level meetings, study goups, coaching/mentoring opportunities, informal
and formal conversations, site observations and workshop study. The teachers in
Spillane's 2002 study indicated that implementing new progams developed through
reform efforts requires a process of trial and error facilitated by opportunities to discuss
and evaluate the actual practice. Speciﬁcally, elementary school teachers require
opportunities to enact reform plans in their classrooms, practice using the new progams,
and have time for reﬂection and critique of the implementation with peers and mentors
(Ball & Rundquist 1993; Schifter, 1996). The considerable amount of time elementary
teachers spend meeting and discussing new reform progams as well as independently
learnning how to implement these new curriculum pieces and then the subsequent
implementation would add support to the argument that the No Child Left Behind
legislation will signiﬁcantly inﬂuence teacher instructional activity and how classroom

time is scheduled.

55

Education YES!

At its March 2002 meeting, the Michigan State Board of Education approved
Education YES!- A Yardstick for Excellent Schools in accordance with section 1280 of
the Revised School Code and under its authority under Article VH1, Section 3 of the
Michigan Constitution (Education YES!, 2002). To insure accuracy and avoid
misinterpretation of the Education YES! document, the researcher has used certain
verbatim citations directly from the Michigan State Board of Education's "Standards for
Accreditation" manuscript (Education YES!, 2002) to describe this milestone legislative
act. This state directive is designed to attain rigorous, challenging and focused standards.
Many of the provisions of Education YES! align with the requirements of the federal No
Child Left Behind Act. The authors of Education YES! advocate a public education
system that is intended to provide all students the following: (1) academic skills and
knowledge to succeed in today's global, information age economy, higher education, the
armed services, and other post K-12 opportunities; (2) an excellent grounding in the
history, principles and form of our political system of self-government and constitutional
liberty, and the ability to fully and thoughtfully participate in political activities and
elections; (3) an excellent understanding of history, civics, political science and conﬂict
resolution; (4) a broad cultural exposure, including comprehension of the arts,
humanities, and the classics; and (5) the opportunity to participate in community
involvement, including volunteering, social studies and character development,
membership in community associations, clubs and organizations, athletics, student

mentoring and similar activities (Education YES!, 2002) .

56

The Michigan State Board of Education means to accomplish their vision and
purpose with what they describe as a fair, challenging, and supportive accreditation
system to help all schools be good schools. The Michigan accreditation system, as
described in the Education YES! document, is based upon the following three standards
that focus on every school working with every child (the same premise as No Child Left
Behind): (1) all Michigan elementary and middle school children will read independently
and use math to solve problems at gade level; (2) all Michigan students will experience a
year of academic growth for a year of instruction; and (3) all Michigan high school
students, in addition to demonstrating high academic achievement, will have an
individual education plan leading them to be prepared for success (Education YES!,
2002) . Because the focus of this research is the legislation's affect on elementary school
teachers, only standards one and two will be addressed in this dissertation.

The three previously mentioned Education YES! standards will be used to analyze
measures of a school performance and student achievement at the building level. In the
Education YES! document, three performance indicators are used to measure school
performance and include: (1) indicators of engagement that focus on engaging students in
the learning process; (2) indicators of instructional quality that focus on the processes the
school uses to improve the quality of instruction provided to students; and (3) indicators
of learning opportunities that include direction, focus and opportunity for learrning
(Education YES!, 2002) .

Each respective performance indicator is presented in speciﬁc subsets, all of
which may be given a score of 0-3 that adds to the composite accreditation score for

individual buildings. The indicators of engagement are broken into three subsets,

57

performance management systems, continuous improvement and curriculum alignment.
In the performance management systems subset, schools will be recognized for systems
that indicate whether each student has attained critical skills. Schools will be encouraged
to use these systems to follow the progess of particular groups such as economically
disadvantaged students. Continuous improvement indicators will recognize programs
that have a focus on consistent improvement, including monitoring of improvement
activities, external support provided through professional development, visitation by peer
reviewers and other selected continuous improvement pro grams. The curriculum
alignment subset will measure a school's progess toward curriculum alignment in the
school and across the district. Attention will be paid to the local curriculum standards for
learning, problem solving, and decision-making to give students the tools to embrace the
information age (Education YES!, 2002).

The performance indicators of instructional quality are separated into four
subgoups, teacher quality and professional development, extended learning
opportunities, arts education and humanities for all students, and advanced coursework.
The teacher quality and professional development subgoup will measure both the
preparations of teachers for their assignment and professional development undertaken to
implement the school’s improvement plan. The teacher quality indicator will align with
the provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Special attention will be paid to
teacher preparedness to use the tools of the information age to enhance teaching and
learning. Extended learning opportunities clearly state that schools will receive credit if
early childhood progams are available for at-risk students in the district. Coordination

between early childhood and kindergarten progams are encouraged. At the upper

58

elementary and middle school levels, extended learning opportunities may be provided
before and after school. Other extended learning opportunities may be made available on
weekends, through summer school or through virtual learrning. Arts education and
humanities for all students states that schools will be given credit for providing all
children with a foundation in the arts; for offering ongoing education in music, drama,
dance, and the visual arts; and for affording opportunities for high levels of achievement
in the arts. The arts education and humanities indicator will also encourage programs that
enrich cultural life by promoting knowledge of human history, thought and culture,
including social studies, the principles of America’s political system of self-government
and constitutional liberty, and the classics. Finally, the advanced coursework indicator
will recognize participation in dual enrollment and advanced placement provided face-to-
face or through distance learning technologies. Evaluation of humanities will include
vocational and technical college courses, as well as those in the sciences and liberal arts
(Education YES!, 2002).

The last group included as measures of school performance for Education YES!
are the indicators of learning opportunities. The indicators are divided into four sub-
categories, family involvement, student attendance and dropout rate, four-year education
and employment plan, and school facilities. The family involvement indicator will
recognize a variety of forms of regular communication with parents, using both
traditional and more modern channels, such as voicemail, e-mail, and web-based parent
reporting. Schools will be asked to demonstrate the communication methods by which
they attempt to involve every family in the progess of their student. Student attendance

will be a measurable indicator of learning opportunities at the elementary and middle

59

school levels. At the high school level, the dropout rate will be used for this purpose. The
four-year education and employment plan standard will recognize the development and
use of individual four-year education and employment plans for each student. The four-
year education plan is a document for students whether they plan to attend college, other
postsecondary education, the military, or enter the work force after lnigh school. The
purpose of the plan is to provide each student with an ongoing, and periodically updated,
record of individual career planning. The four-year education plan will build upon work
already being undertaken by the Department of Career Development. School facilities
will be inventoried through the School Inﬁastructure Database maintained by the State
Center for Educational Performance and Information. This indicator will identify areas
in which school facilities pose barriers to learning and embracing the information age
(Education YES!, 2002). The indicators of engagement, instructional quality and
learning opportunities align well with the Michigan State Board of Education's purpose
for public education. Together, the three indicators and their subsets combine to forrn
33% of the Education YES! composite score weighting to determine accreditation status,
described on page 63.

The remaining 67% of the composite score for accreditation based upon the
Education YES! document is comprised of the measures of student achievement.
Measures of student achievement are calculated based upon tlnree areas: (1) achievement
status to measure how well a school is doing in educating all students; (2) achievement
change to measure whether student achievement is improving or declining; and (3)
achievement growth to measure whether students are receiving at least one year of

academic gowth for each year of instruction. Reporting of achievement status will use

three years of scaled scores from the Michigan Educational Assessment Progarn
(MEAP). At the elementary level, reading and mathematics scores will be used for this
indicator. In future years, the new English Language Arts assessment will be used,
including both reading and writing. Other test scores, not studied in this dissertation, will
be used for middle and high school levels. School status will not only be assessed and
reported on a schoolwide basis, but data will also be disaggregated to be sure that all
goups are evidencing success. The achievement status subset is worth a total of 34
points until the end of the 2004-05 school year and beginning in 2005-06 and after it will
count for 23 points. These points are used toward the composite score rating of which
there may be 100 total points represented on page 63 in Table 2-1.

Achievement change will be reported on the basis of a trend-line computed ﬁom
the data used to report achievement status. Measurement of change is consistent with the
requirements of the new federal No Child Left Behind Act. Adequate yearly progress in
the statute is deﬁned as “continuous and substantial academic improvement for all
students.” The starting points and deﬁnitions in achievement change will be consistent
with the federal statute so that reporting for state and federal purposes will be the same.
As with school status, trend-line data will be disaggegated as required by the new federal
statute. The achievement change category is worth a total of 33 points until the 2005-06
school year when it will be reduced to a maximum of 22 points. These points are used
toward the maximum composite score rating of 100 total points (Education YES!, 2002).

Scores for achievement gowth are designed on the concept that all Michigan
children should be guaranteed at least one year of academic gowth for each year of

instruction. Existing achievement data will be used to recognize those schools that are

61

“adding value” every year for every student. The Michigan State Board of Education
feels this approach encourages curricular alignment from grade-to-gade and from
school-to-school, particularly as students move from elementary to middle to high school.
The authors of Education YES! claim it will reinforce the notion that effective education
and student performance improvement requires a shared responsibility at all educational
levels. Student gowth will be measured by comparing the equivalent scores of the
students on the fourth gade assessment with the equivalent scores for the same goup of
students on the seventh gade assessment (and seventh gade to high school). This
comparison model will be used for all students who continue attendance witlnin the same
school district. The achievement gowth component will currently be applied only to
reading and mathematics achievement. As with status and change, the gowth data
analysis will also include disaggegated student achievement data by identiﬁable student
groups. Based on the recommendation for the Accreditation Advisory Committee, the
student gowth component will be delayed until the MEAP is expanded to assess all
students in gades 3-8. The expanded MEAP will include a cross-gade score scale
which will allow the measurement of a student gowth component. It is anticipated that
the expanded MEAP will be ﬁrst administered in the 2004-05 school year, and that
measurement of student gowth will begin in 2005-06. Achievement gowth will be
worth a total of 22 points, after the 2005-06 school year, toward the maximum composite

score rating of 100 total points (Education YES!, 2002).

62

Table 2-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education YES!
Composite Score Weighting
Point Value
Component Until 2004-05 2005-06 and After
School Performance Indicators 33 33
Achievement Status 34 23
Achievement Change 33 22
Achievement Growth 22
Total 100 100

 

 

 

Source: Weighting (Education YES!, 2002)

After Education YES! composite scores have been tabulated for each school,
common letter gades (A, B, C, D, F) will be the labels used to report to the public on the
three achievement and three performance indicators. The composite school gade will be
derived ﬁom the individual school score and the school's status in terms of Adequate
Yearly Progess under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (Education YES!, 2002).
Using adequate yearly progess status is another method by which the Michigan State
Board of Education will align Education YES! with requirements mandated under the No
Child Left Behind Act (see Table 2-2 on page 65). Accreditation is a measurement of
quality based on a set of education standards determined by the State of Michigan. These
standards incorporate Michigan Educational Assessment Progam (MEAP) test results in
reading, mathematics and science as well as the responses to 103 questions that comprise

the Education YES! School Self-Assessment Instrument for the Measures of School

63

 

Performance (Education YES!, 2003). The School Self-Assessment Instrument for the
Measures of School Performance is completed on-line by district administrators and
assesses categories such as the annual education report, school improvement plan, school
improvement process, and cuniculum. Admirnistrators must cite evidence and verify
every piece of data in each response category for the Michigan Department of
Education's review. After evaluating the results and responses of the School Self-
Assessment Instrument for the Measures of School Performance, the Michigan
Department of Education assigns one of three levels of accreditation to each school;
summary accreditation, interim accreditation or unaccredited. Schools receiving
summary accreditation have met all standards established for accreditation and scored
66% or higher for two of the last three consecutive years on math, science, and reading
story and information MEAP tests. Schools that are accredited on an interim basis did
not meet all of the standards for summary accreditation, but are making progess toward
meeting those standards. Additionally, interim accredited schools must score between
51%-65% for two of the ﬁrst three consecutive years on matln, science, and reading story
and information MEAP tests. Unaccredited schools do not meet all of the standards for
summary accreditation, are not making progess toward meeting those standards, and
scored 50% or lower for two of the last three consecutive years on math, science, and

reading story and information MEAP tests (Education YES!, 2002).

Table 2-2
Uniﬁed Accountability for Michigan Schools

 

 

 

 

 

Education YES!
Composite Score Did Not Make AYP Makes AYP
A B A
B B B
C C C
D D/Alert C
F Unaccredited D/Alert

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Education YES!, 2002 ‘

The Adequate Yearly Progess section of Table 2-2 indicates how closely
Education YES! requirements are aligned with the federal No Child Left Behind
mandate. The Michigan State Board of Education believes strongly that a school tlnat
fails to make AYP will not be given an "A". Furthermore, a school that makes AYP will
not be listed as unaccredited (education YES!, 2002). The Middle Cities Education
Association summarizes the use of adequate yearly progess:

While NCLB uses AYP to determine whether or not a school will be subject to

sanctions, Education YES! uses AYP in determining a school's ﬁnal letter gade

only; there are no sanctions for failing to make AYP in Education YES!

(www.middlecities.org/PDF/eycomp.pdf)

Altlnough schools may not face sanctions for failing to make adequate yearly progess,
Layman (2002) indicates that schools unaccredited for three consecutive years or who fail
to meet mirnimum standards as addressed in the Education YES! document may face
sanctions under the Michigan Revised School Code. One sanction under Education

YES!, similar to the No Child Left Behind Act, allows parents or legal guardians to

transfer their children from unaccredited schools to any accredited school within the

65

 

district. Another sanction included in the Education YES! document requires
underperforrning schools to align themselves with an existing research-based school
improvement model or afﬁliate itself with a college or university. Under Education
YES!, the Superintendent of Public Instruction can appoint new administrators to
unaccredited schools until they become accredited or even close buildings as a ﬁnal
sanction (Layman, 2002).

The ﬁnal section of Education YES! relates to providing assistance for
underperforrning schools. The Michigan State Board of Education pledges to use new
federal resources available under the No Child Left Behind Act to provide substantial and
meaningful improvement for low-performing schools. Funds will be available to
promote literacy acquisition and training, improve teacher quality and maximize efforts
to improve education in general. The composite gades shown in Table 2-2 above will be
used to prioritize assistance to underperforming schools. Every public and charter school
in Michigan will receive their composite score in a report detailing speciﬁc areas in
which individual buildings require improvement and steps for achieving a higher
Education YES! gade the following year. Private schools are exempt from Education
YES! gading (Education YES!, 2002).

Education YES! is the State of Michigan's attempt to align requirements with the
federal No Child Left Behind Act. Like No Child Left Behind, the mandates included in
Education YES! are forceful and rigorous. Since two-thirds of the school's composite
score rating for accreditation is based upon student performance on the MEAP,
elementary school teachers have a direct responsibility to see their students succeed. The

high stakes of MEAP scores may cause elementary teachers to become defensive of their

instructional strategies and techniques. Hafner, Somers, Mojica, and Burns (2002)
comment on this phenomenon:

Clearly, teachers do not want to have their instructional effectiveness judged

without taking into account the effects of noninstructional variables on the scores.

Research shows MEAP scores to be inﬂuenced by a number of variables,

including student mobility, non-English speaking home, parent income, parent

education level, and etlnnic status. (p. 10)

The emphasis on MEAP results determirning a composite score may create a situation
where elementary teachers feel a need to discard other portions of the curriculum in order
to teach only the narrowed content for which their students must demonstrate mastery.
The Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel (2002) agees, and
notes that far too much emphasis is placed upon a single test. If teaching to the MEAP
test and introducing new content areas to an already bulging elementary school
curriculum become common practice, students' krnowledge base and skills in broader
subject areas will suffer (Goldhaber, 2002). Untested subjects such as social studies,
problem solving and handwriting may get shorted due to accountability measures being
focused on reading and math (Gulek, 2003). It can be argued that the amount of
emphasis placed upon MEAP results to determine Education YES! composite scores will
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence elementary teaching activity.

The weighted emphasis of MEAP scores on Education YES! accreditation
measures may also cause elementary teachers to spend precious instructional time
teaching test taking skills in lieu of other content areas (Koretz, 1998; Schrag, 2000).
Spending valuable instructional time on non-curricular areas is not a new phenomenon.

The National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994) reports that US

students and teachers are victims of rigid and counterproductive school schedules.

67

Planning to teach test taking and time management skills will alter elementary teacher
activity (Clovis, 1999) and create a negative spiral effect upon students' gasp of the
elementary curriculum.

The Education YES! document requires school administrators to complete the
extensive web-based School Self-Assessment Instrument for the Measures of School
Performance each year, documenting and citing evidence to demonstrate compliance. In
a memo from Thomas D. Watkins, J r., Superintendent of Public Instruction, to all local
and intermediate school district superintendents (November 5, 2002), administrators were
asked to review school performance indicators, with school improvement team members,
parents, or the entire staff. In turn, some elementary principals asked their staff for
assistance completing the School Self-Assessment Instrument done in committee work
outside of the school day (Odden, et. al., 2002). Bemauer (2002) lauds this approach
noting:

...any reasonable hope of sustaining a focus on improvement requires full
realization of the critical role of teacher-leader. (p.89)

Including elementary instructors as teacher-leaders to document and plan for school
improvement and accreditation is an admirable method for completing compliance
requirements mandated by Education YES!. However, asking teachers to spend precious
time to assist in these endeavors cuts into time needed for other professional tasks and
will inﬂuence the activity of elementary instructors (National Education Commission on
Time and Learning, 1994).

Education YES! mandates that all Michigan students will experience one year of
growth for one year of instruction. With proper implementation and support, this goal is

achievable. To monitor students' academic gowth throughout the year, new assessment

68

progams will need to be implemented. All tlnree school districts participating in this
study require their elementary teachers to administer the Developmental Reading
Assessment (DRA) to each student numerous times per year to assess reading
progression. Other districts are using different assessment tools to monitor the
development of their students' learning in reading, math and other core subject areas.
These assessment options provide valuable information on individual students so districts
can stay in compliance with Education YES! requirements. Administering assessments
to students multiple times during the year adds substance to the claim that meeting the
requirements of Education YES! inﬂuences elementary teacher activity due to the time

required to administer frequent assessments.

Effects and Unintended Consequences of Past Legislation
Elmore and Fuhrman (2001) argue that recent legislative efforts subscribe to a

common theory. The theory states that measuring student performance with standardized
assessments and then coupling it to rewards and sanctions will cause schools and the
individuals who work in them to perform at higher levels. The theory described above is
widespread according to Elmore and Fuhrman (2001 ):

Such systems are now operating in most states and in thousands of districts, and
they represent a signiﬁcant change from traditional approaches to accountability.

(p. 67)

The theory mentioned above applies to the legislation studied in this dissertation as
student performance is measured using MEAP scores and increases in MEAP scores are

met with rewards, while decreases in MEAP scores are met with sanctions. Application

69

of the theory through legislative mandates, as some other researchers indicate, may lead
to unintended effects for schools, teachers and students.

McNeil (2000) studied a number of school districts in Texas that experienced
school reform legislation subscribing to the standardized assessment theory. Sirrnilar to
the MEAP assessment used in Michigan, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills
(TAAS) is the tool that holds teachers and administrators accountable for student
achievement. The districts McNeil studied described the TAAS as the control
mechanism used for decisions about student learning, teacher and administrator practice,
and even whole-school quality.

The effects of the Texas legislation requiring administration of the TAAS were
widespread among teachers and administrators. McNeil described a situation created by
the Texas assessment and accountability system in which the bureaucratic controls had
been strengthened at the expense of teaching and learning. McNeil explains:

...the testing of students increasingly drives curriculum and compromises both

teaching and the role of students in learning. This prescriptive teaching creates a

new form of discrimination as teaching to the ﬁagnented and narrow information

on the test comes to substitute for a substantive curriculum in the schools of poor

and minority youths. (p. 729-30)

Fear of declining TAAS scores has caused Texas schools to substitute test-prep materials
for the usual curriculum. One Texas elementary teacher participating in McNeil’s study
returned from lunch one day to ﬁnd a stack of test-prep booklets with a note from her
principal saying, “Use these instead of your regular curriculum until after the TAAS.”
The TAAS test was three months away. Elmore and Fuhrman (2001) agree with the

ﬁndings of McNeil, noting that legislative accountability systems attract the attention of

70

teachers and administrators, sometimes forcing extreme instructional decisions to be
made.

Texas teachers participating in McNeil’s study reported that a large amount of
instructional time was reallocated to prepare students to take the TAAS. Mitchell (1997)
agreed with McNeil’s ﬁndings, noting that preparation for traditional accountability tests
takes time away ﬁ'om innovative instruction and meaningful learning. Texas teachers
described spending time teaching students how to properly bubble in answers for the
multiple-choice assessment. Lesson time was spent instructing children how to recognize
distractor (obviously wrong) answers on sample TAAS assessments and learning the pep
rally cheer, “Three in a row; no, no, no!” The cheer was designed to teach students that if
they answered the same letter three times in a row, one of their answers is likely to be
wrong. Respondents in the Texas study reported that the kinds of test preparations that
are being done to raise test scores may actually hamper students’ ability to read for
meaning. McNeil (2000) explains:

Behind the test scores and the technical policy debates, however, is the growing

reality that the Texas system of educational accountability is banning children,

teaching, and the content of public education. (p. 731)

The Texas assessment reform inﬂuenced teacher instruction by reallocating large
amounts of instructional time to prepare students for the standardized assessment.

Sandholtz, Ogawa and Scribner (2004) described a school district in Los Angeles
that faced unintended effects of recent state and federal legislative mandates. California
State content area standards were established by legislation requiring districts to adopt
state standards and modify student instruction accordingly. To meet the requirements of

the standards-based legislation, one Los Angeles district created time guidelines for each

71

content area. Teachers in the primary gades were expected to teach language arts for 3.5
hours and mathematics for 1.5 hours each day. To help assure compliance with the
guidelines, teachers were required to label each of their lessons with the standard that was
addressed by the lesson. Lessons not labeled were scrutinized by administration. Los
Angeles teachers participating in the study described a push to cover more topics as
addressed in the standards and a focus on breadth rather than depth. Other teachers
reported teaching the minimum standards to get students up to par and letting go of
enrichment activities to focus on skill-based lessons addressed in the standards. In the
Los Angeles study, teachers faced the unintended effects of legislative mandates with
changes in instruction and record keeping behaviors.

School administrators have also been inﬂuenced by past legislation that measures
student performance with standardized assessments and then couples it to rewards and
sanctions. Berteaux (2003) describes drastic measures taken by New York school
administrators to fund reform requirements in a time of reduced state education dollars.
District administrators made cuts in jobs, alternative education, dropout prevention, art,
music, and special progams in order to provide the materials and training necessary to
stay in compliance with New York reform legislation. Berteaux (2003) quotes New York
State United Teachers president Thomas Y. Hobart Jr., explaining:

Cuts of this magnitude threaten to halt the progess public education has made
and undermine the movement to raise academic standards. (p. 18)

McNeil (2000) describes the role of building principals as severely limited under recent
school accountability systems. Principals have geater authority to allocate resources for
‘ activities aimed at raising standardized test scores, but less discretionary power to

undertake other kinds of work in their schools or to have that work recognized. One

72

elementary principal participating in McNeil’s study spent almost the entire year’s
instructional budget purchasing TAAS prep materials for the teachers. School principals
have been inﬂuenced by legislation measuring student performance with standardized
assessments. Administrators are spending larger portions of dwindling budgets to supply
teachers with materials and training so that they may prepare students effectively to take
the standardized assessments and increase test scores.

Schmoker (2004) describes the unintended consequences of comprehensive
educational reform as causing fragnentation and overload in school districts. Schmoker
(2004) explains:

System overload may be the biggest threat to genuine improvement. I’ve seen the

upshot of this at close range: principals who must spend precious time assembling

and then responding to the needs of committees and governance structures.
(p. 429)

Certain legislative requirements exceed the capacity of schools and districts to implement
them successfully. In this case, the district simply becomes overloaded and has no choice
but to accept the sanctions of legislative non-compliance. Many times, urban districts fall
prey to overload because the resources and personnel are not available to make the
reform-based changes required for compliance. The result is system overload inﬂuencing
teachers, administrators and students in a negative manner.

Although the research on past legislative inﬂuences on elementary schools and
teacher behaviors is limited, several studies have demonstrated the effects clearly.
Teacher behaviors have been inﬂuenced by legislative mandates in terms of reallocated
instructional time. Teachers are spending large amounts of time preparing children for
standardized assessments that will measure student performance and then couple it with

rewards and sanctions. Increased record keeping is another unintended consequence of

73

legislative mandates upon teacher behaviors. Administrators are spending larger portions
of the building budget on test preparation materials and training for teachers. The
increased costs of legislative compliance in an era of reduced school funding have caused
district admirnistration to out other progams, undermining reform efforts. The demands
required to stay in compliance with educational legislation mandates may cause system
overload for resource-challenged districts. Districts with low capacity do not have the
resources available to implement reform-based practices as required and end up facing

sanctions from state and federal authorities.

Summm

When the National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation
At Risk (1983), legislators, policy makers and the public took notice and demanded better
quality from public schools in the United States (Stephens, 1994). A Nation at Risk set
the stage for large government interventions to initiate school improvement and change.
Hall and Hord (1987) describe school change as a process and not an event. The
requirements mandated by Public Act 25, No Child Left Behind, and Education YES! set
the scene for a process of school improvement that signiﬁcantly inﬂuences schools and
elementary teacher activity because it adds a geater time demand to the instructional day.

Fullan (1991) identiﬁed six major reform conditions, that when present, increase
the probability for a successful intervention. These reform conditions include a lack of
turmoil in educational practice, a lack of overload by local district staff, the presence of
decentralized site-based management, a low rate of turnover in district staff and

leadership, the responsibility of a local school person to aid in the implementation of the

74

reform, and a feeling of ownership by staff members regarding reform irnitiatives. Of
these six reform conditions necessary for success, the lack of overload by local district
staff members is of concern when reforms of this magnitude are legislated. When
considering the daily job functions of elementary teachers and the expansive curriculum
they are required to complete, the recent reform requirements directed by Public Act 25,
No Child Left Behind and Education YES! create an educational enterprise that is
endenric with new responsibilities and opportunity for overload. The argument can be
made that the requirements mandated by the three legislative reform efforts being studied
impinge on elementary teacher time and inﬂuence opportunity costs. The National
Education Commission on Time and Learrning (1994) describes the constraints of time on
our educational system:

...our schools and the people involved with them- students, parents, teachers,
administrators, and staff- are captives of clock and calendar (p.1)

The school clock governs how families organize their lives, how administrators
oversee their schools, and how teachers work their way through the curriculum.

(1)-2)

The description of recent legislative reforms Public Act 25, No Child Left Behind
and Education YES! and how they have inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher
activity must be considered because of the signiﬁcant demands made by each. Both
teacher instructional time and opportunity costs have been inﬂuenced by these reform
efforts. The data collection and analysis will establish whether local elementary teachers
share these perceptions and if so, how the tlnree legislative reforms studied herein
speciﬁcally inﬂuence elementary teacher activity and the school orgarnization. The
researcher will make conclusions addressing reallocated teacher time and opportunity

costs caused by No Child Left Behind, Education YES! and Public Act 25.

75

CHAPTER HI

METHODOLOGY

mm

The purpose of this study is to describe current federal and state legislation and
then describe and explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and elementary
teacher behavior. Due to the nature of the research questions, qualitative research
methods were preferred over quantitative techniques. Qualitative research methods were
selected because of their propensity to produce a rich, thick description of people, places,
and conversations not easily handled with statistics (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
Examination of various current qualitative research methods revealed that some form of
personal interview would be best suited for this study because personal interviews are
capable of providing inductive, descriptive data while drawing meaning in a complex
subject matter.

Yin (1994) suggests that researchers conducting qualitative research employ a
basic list of common research skills including asking good questions, being a good
listener, being adaptive and ﬂexible, having a ﬁrm gasp of the issues being studied, and
remaining unbiased by preconceived notions. The researcher followed the guidelines
suggested by Yin to develop interview questions that served as prompts and reﬂected the
actual inquiry sought. The interview questions (see Appendix D) functioned to organize
the data collected and help link recent policy implementation with policy inﬂuences on

elementary schools and teacher behaviors.

76

'I'lne Researcher

The researcher is a Michigan elementary school teacher with 12 years experience
as a classroom teacher who has lived in Olympia County for 15 years and worked in
several different districts in varying roles. As a local elementary teacher and Olympia
County resident, the researcher has a basic knowledge of the three districts studied and
has personal experience working with legislative reform requirements mandated by
Public Act 25, Education YES!, and No Child Left Behind. Having personally worked
with state and federal reform and being an elementary school teacher helped to facilitate
the researchers acceptance with study respondents.

In order to study the detailed perceptions of elementary teachers concerning their
teaching behaviors, it was crucial to have each talk speciﬁcally about their experiences
working with the reform legislation. To attain the detail necessary for the study, a
narrative approach, in the fornn of a semi-structured interview, to the research was
selected. Elementary teacher respondents believed the researcher was a “sympathetic
observer”, since the researcher was experiencing many of the same phenomenon as the
study participants. Being privy to the common perspectives and professional concerns of
elementary teachers frequently enhanced interview conversations between the researcher
and participants and encouraged respondents to discuss reform issues that they may not
have otherwise. The researcher asked participants to propose their own insights into
certain study-related phenomenon and used the concepts mentioned as the basis for
further inquiry. Yin (1994) explains the added value of respondents willing to provide

personal insights to the researcher’s inquiries:

77

The more that a respondent assists in this latter manner, the more the role may be

considered one of an “informant” rather than a respondent. Key informants are

often critical to the success of a case study. Such persons not only provide the

case study investigator with insights into a matter but also can suggest sources of

corroboratory evidence. (p. 84)

The comparative involvement attributes of subjectivity and compassion, while
acting as a “sympathetic observer”, lend tlnemselves naturally to the design of the study.
In this study, using semi-structured interviews while acting as a “sympathetic observer”

involved understanding how school and elementary teacher behaviors have been

inﬂuenced by recent legislative reforms.

@igp Tests and Biases

A source of bias that researchers acting as a “sympathetic observer” must be
aware of, is referred to as holistic fallacy. Researchers experiencing phenomenon similar
to the study participants must be conscious to avoid this potential bias. Cooper (2001)
describes this bias: .

Holistic fallacy is the interpretation of events as more conguent than they really

are, ignoring outliers in the data. This bias is particularly likely to occur later in

the research project when the researcher has already analyzed a number of earlier

cases. (p. 9)

To avoid errors of holistic fallacy, researchers acting as “sympathetic observers” must
purposefully look for outliers in the data and explain them using information gathered
ﬁom previous observations and interviews.

Maintaining construct validity can be problematic for researchers employing
qualitative research methods while acting as a “sympathetic observer”. Construct validity

involves establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied (Yin,

1994). To enhance claims of construct validity, multiple sources of evidence were

78

collected during the study. Sources of information included personal interviews with
elementary teachers, personal interviews with elementary principals and review of
building annual reports for additional data.

After analyzing study interviews and documents using the constant-comparative
method of data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), ﬁndings were written and a model was
developed (see Appendix E). The researcher asked several key respondents to review the
ﬁndings and model for accuracy. Elementary principals, Dr. Craig and Dr. Shea, agreed
to review the model and ﬁndings and found both to be accurate and signiﬁcant to
understanding the inﬂuences of recent legislation upon elementary school and teacher
behavior. According to Yin (1994), having key informants review a draft of the study

report enhances construct validity and reliability claims.

Theoretical Sampling

The study sample consists of 24 Michigan elementary school teachers and 6
elementary principals, drawn ﬁom three separate school districts in southeast Michigan.
The current study was designed to develop a model that will describe and conceptualize
the ways in which the school organization and elementary teacher behaviors have been
inﬂuenced by Public Act 25, No Child Left Behind, and Education YES! legislation. To
facilitate the study design, a theoretical sampling technique was chosen. Glaser and

Strauss (1967) describe theoretical sampling:

79

Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory
whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides
what data to collect next and where to ﬁnd them, in order to develop his theory as
it emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory,
whether substantive or formal. The initial decisions for theoretical collection of
data are based only on a general sociological perspective and on a general subject
or problem area. (p. 45)

In addition to theoretical sampling, the constant comparative method of data
analysis was employed. Using the constant comparative method of data analysis (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967) involves studying each participant independently, then looking for
common themes among participants. The interviews were used to identify the degee to
which speciﬁc reform efforts have inﬂuenced elementary teacher activity and the
organizational structure of local public schools. Glaser and Strauss describe the process:

In contrast to analytic induction, the constant comparative method is concerned

with generating and plausibly suggesting (but not provisionally testing) many

categories, properties, and hypotheses about general problems (e.g., the
distribution of services according to the social value of clients). Some of these
properties may be causes, as in analytic induction, but unlike analytic induction

others are conditions, consequences, dimensions, types, processes, etc. (p. 104)

We shall describe in four stages the constant comparative method: (1) comparing

incidents applicable to each category, (2) integating categories and their

properties, (3) delimiting the theory, and (4) writing the theory. Although this

method of generating theory is a continuously growing process— each stage after a

time is transformed into the next- earlier stages do remain in operation

simultaneously throughout the analysis and each provides continuous

development to its successive stage until the analysis is terminated. (p. 105)

The focus of this study is not so much on theory development, but rather a tlnick
description of legislative reforms inﬂuencing school and teacher behavior designed to
create a deeper meaning of the phenomenon being studied. Use of theoretical sampling

combined with the constant comparative method of data analysis facilitated the

construction of a model (see Figure 4-1, Appendix E) depicting how schools and

80

elementary teachers make sense of their experiences related to the legislative reforms

being studied.

Participants in the Study

Study respondents included 24 elementary teachers and 6 elementary principals
drawn from three separate public school districts located in southeast Michigan.
Teachers were selected to participate by their respective principal. A variety of gade
levels and years of experience was desired from respondents and participants ranged in
age from the mid 20’s to the mid 60’s. The gade level and tenure of all respondents are
indicated in the participant school district tables below. Prior to beginning the interview,
study respondents reviewed and signed the required University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) consent form. As guaranteed on that form, the
names of teachers, principals and school districts were changed to insure anonymity (See
Appendix B).

Three separate school districts, Kelsey Creek, Somerset Community, and Sienna
Heights, located in southeast Michigan's Olympia County were selected to provide a
melange of organizational differences relative to the study. The three districts studied
receive services from the same intermediate school district, Olympia Schools. Research
in best practices suggested keeping the intermediate school district variable constant
since the intermediate school district plays a part in legislative information dissemination.
One structural variable used for district selection was the size of the district in terms of
students serviced, teachers employed and the numbers of admirnistrative staff available to

support reform implementation. Each district represents different student and teacher

81

population sizes and was selected to rule out discrepancies related to district size or
number of employees available to help with reform requirements.

The Kelsey Creek School District is located in the extreme north central section
of Olympia County and contains approximately 55 square miles. Kelsey Creek has a
total enrollment for the 2002-2003 school year of 3678 students with a 172 member
teaching staff. The Kelsey Creek School District retains many rural qualities such as
farms, large acre parcels, woods, ﬁelds, lakes, and dirt roads. For the purpose of this
study, the Kelsey Creek School District is considered a small district in terms of student
and teacher p0pulation. Within Kelsey Creek, two elementary schools were selected to
participate in the study. The Interlake Elementary School currently serves 374 students
in gades K-4. The principal of the school is Mr. Delk and 19 professional teaching staff
members are employed there. Study participants ﬁ'om Interlake Elementary School are

indicated in Figure 3-1 below:

 

Figure 3-1: Interlake Elementary School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent’s Name Grade Level Taught Yrs as a Teacher/Principal
Mr. Delk Principal 20
Mrs. Forrester 4fIi 29
Mrs. Vaughn 2nd 14
Mrs. Bowman 1“ 26
Mrs. Wetzel 3rd 33

 

 

 

Ardmore Elementary School is the second school selected from the Kelsey Creek School

District. Ardmore serves 329 students in gades K-4 and is a Title I school. Mrs. Duncan

82

 

is the principal of Ardmore and the professional teaching staff numbered 21. Study

participants from Ardmore Elementary School are indicated in Figure 3-2 below:

 

Figure 3-2: Ardmore Elementary School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent’s Name Grade Level Taught Yrs as a Teacher/Principal
Mrs. Duncan Principal 11
Mrs. King 75 5
Mrs. Mayer 2nd 16
Mrs. Little la 5
Mrs. Tobin Reading Recovery 30

 

 

 

The Somerset Community School District is located in the middle of Olympia
County and spans three smaller cities. Approximately 6900 students were enrolled in
gades K-12 of the Somerset District for the 2002-2003 school year. Sprawling with
neighborhoods, businesses and parks, Somerset is a typical suburban community. For the
purpose of this study, the Somerset Community School District is considered a medium-
sized district. Somerset became a school of choice district in 1997, meaning that students
from neighboring districts are permitted to attend Somerset Community district schools;
space allowing. Within Somerset , two elementary schools were selected to participate in
the study. Eastgate Elementary School currently serves 434 students in preschool-grade
5, and is a Title I school. For reasons undisclosed to the researcher, the principal of
Eastgate Elementary School withdrew from participation in the study subsequent to his
interview, so no data will be available regarding that segnent of Eastgate. No other

Somerset elementary principals were available to participate in the study, so an additional

83

 

principal from the Sierra Heights School District was selected to maintain the continuity
of the administrative perspective.

Eastgate Elementary School has 25 professional teaching staff members and
houses the district’s “Magnet Program”, servicing gifted and talented students in gades
3-5. Presently 25% of Eastgate’s population is school of choice meaning that students
may attend from eligible surrounding districts. Study participants ﬁ'om Eastgate

Elementary School are indicated in Figure 3-3 below:

 

Figure 3-3: Eastgate Elementary School

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent’s Name Grade Level Taught Yrs as a Teacher/Principal
Withdrawn Principal N/A
Mrs. Daniel 2M 5
Mrs. Lynch 3rd 18
Mrs. Smith 15‘ 3
Mrs. Blaise 4/5 Magnet 5

 

 

 

 

 

Newport Elementary School is the second school selected from the Somerset Community
School District. Newport serves 518 students in preschool-gade 5. Mrs. Jordan is the
principal of Newport and the professional teaching staff numbered 33. Study participants

from Newport Elementary School are indicated in Figure 3-4 below:

 

F igure3-4: Newport Elementary School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent’s Name Grade Level Taught Yrs as a Teacher/Principal
Mrs. Jordan Principal 2
Mrs. Turner 3“r 5
Mrs. Ward Kindergarten 34
Mr. Campbell 47" 34
Mrs. Lewis 5‘“ 7

 

 

 

The Sienna Heights School District is located in southwestern Olympia County
and services all or part of nine municipal units. Total student enrollment for the 2002-
2003 school year exceeds 14,600 students, the largest in Olympia County. Sienna
Heights Schools employ approximately 1020 certiﬁed teachers in 14 elementary schools,
4 middle schools, 3 high schools, and 1 community high school. Sienna Heights boasts a.
community atmosphere brimming with neighborhoods, businesses and more than forty
lakes. For the purpose of this study, the Sienna Heights School District is considered a
large district in terms of student and teacher population. Witlnin Sienna Heights, two
elementary schools were selected to fully participate in the study and one additional
elementary school was selected to replace the withdrawn principal from Eastgate
Elementary School.

Woodridge Elementary School currently serves 507 students in gades K- 5, and
is a Title 1 school. The principal of the school is Dr. Craig and Woodridge employs 37
professional teaching staff members. Study participants ﬁom Woodridge Elementary

School are indicated in Figure 3-5 below:

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-5: Woodridge Elementary School
Respondent’s Name Grade Level Taught Yrs as a Teacher/Principal
Dr. Craig Principal 16
Mrs. Wells 2'“I 16
Mrs. Albright 3rd 7
Mrs. Dodson 1st 9
Mrs. Frost 5'W 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highland Elementary School is the second school selected ﬁom the Sienna Heights
School District. Highland serves 526 students in gades K-S and has a teaching staff of

39. Dr. Lambert is the principal of Highland Elementary School. Study participants from

Highland Elementary School are indicated in Figure 3-6 below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-6: Highland Elementary School
Respondent’s Name Grade Level Taught Yrs as a Teacher/Principal
Dr. Lambert Principal 14
Mrs. Evans 4m 8
Mrs. Burton Kindergarten ‘ 30
Mr. Price 3rd 10
Mrs. Stephens SmILiteracy Coach 23

 

 

 

 

 

Brookﬁeld Elementary School is the third school selected from the Sienna

Heights School District. Brookﬁeld serves 496 students in gades K-5 and has a teaching

86

A /_.

 

staff of 34. Dr. Shea is the principal of Brookﬁeld Elementary School and was the only

study participant from Brookﬁeld Elementary School as indicated in Figure 3-7 below:

 

Figure 3-7: Brookﬁeld Elementary School

 

Respondent’s Name Grade Level Taught Yrs as a Teacher/Principal

 

 

Dr. Shea Principal 18

 

 

 

The Kelsey Creek, Somerset Community, and Sienna Heights School Districts
were selected as study sites to ensure a representative sample of Michigan districts.
Legislative reforms such as Public Act 25, Education YES!, and No Child Left Behind
fall equally on all Michigan districts, however there may be regional differences in the
methods and resources employed in response to these reforms (Peters, 1997). Since
methods and resources used to comply with legislative reforms may vary depending upon
the number of employees available to help with enacting reforms, three different sized

districts were selected for this study.

Contact and Interview Procedure

The researcher initially made contact with the principal of each participating
school via email or telephone communication. Contact letters (see Appendix C) were
sent to interested principals and follow up telephone communications facilitated the
scheduling of interview days and times. The researcher arrived at each participating
school approximately 30-45 minutes prior to the ﬁrst interview scheduled. Upon entering
the school, the researcher introduced himself to central ofﬁce staff members and asked

for a copy of the most recent building annual report. Yin (1994) believes that

87

 

documentary information is likely to be relevant in all qualitative research studies and

describes the importance of collecting documentary infornnation:
. . .the most important use of documents is to corroborate and augnent evidence
ﬁom other sources. First, documents are helpful in verifying the correct spellings
and titles or names of organizations that might have been mentioned in an
interview. Second, documents can provide other speciﬁc details to corroborate
information from other sources. . . .Third, inferences can be made ﬁ'om
documents. (p. 81)

The researcher found the building annual reports helpful in examining the student and

staff population sizes, detailed school improvement plans, challenges faced by the school

and recent MEAP assessment scores. The documentary information collected ﬁ'om

annual reports played an explicit role in the data collection process and analysis provided

the researcher with additional information ﬁ'om which to describe and explain how recent

legislative acts have inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher behavior.

Technique of In_t_e_rviewing

The degee of rich description required by the research questions studied
demanded a narrative focus for data collection. To facilitate the gathering of thickly
descriptive data, the semi-structured personal interview technique was employed with
each respondent. Patton (1988) suggests that the semi-structured interview format allows
speciﬁcation of topics and issues to be covered in advance, however the interviewer may
decide the sequence and wording of the questions during the course of the interview. The
use of an outline during a semi-structured interview increases the comprehensiveness of
the data and makes data collection more systematic for each respondent. The format of
the semi-structured interview remains conversational and situational, and logical gaps in

data collection can be anticipated (Patton, 1988). A separate interview outline was used

88

for elementary teachers and administrators (see Appendix D). The ﬂexibility and
unrestricted characteristics of the semi-structured interview made it a good choice for the
nature of the study conducted.

Elementary teacher and administrator participants were interviewed for
approximately 60-75 minutes during the spring of 2004. Interviews were conducted in a
meeting room at the respondent’s school while a substitute teacher, provided by the
researcher, instructed their teacher’s students. Study respondents appreciated being able
to conduct the interviews during normal business hours. All interviews, with the
exception of one participant, were audio tape-recorded with the consent of the
respondent. The participant and the researcher sat facing each other with a tape reorder
placed on a table between them. Regarding the tape-recording of participants for
qualitative research studies, Whyte (1984) notes:

Infonnants are likely to talk more for the record with the machine than without,

even when they have been told that the interviewer is going to write up the

interview later. Where the interviewer has strong rapport, informants may accept
the machine with little hesitation, but in the early stages of the study its

introduction may damage rapport. (p. 114)

The researcher began the interviews with several background questions regarding the
participant’s tenure and teaching responsibilities. The next sets of questions ask about
current math and literacy instruction and their inﬂuences. The respondent’s use of
professional time was the subject of the next goup of questions, followed by student
testing requirements and their responses to testing. School organization and cultural
changes were the focal point of another set of questions, however, this area of

questioning was modiﬁed after several initial interviews failed to provide the required

data. The researcher and committee chairman kept in close contact during the interview

89

process and developed new questions as required to achieve the research objectives. The
ﬁnal subset of questions was aimed at record keeping and other new requirements that
schools and elementary teachers may experience as a result of the legislation studied.

Comprehensive ﬁeldnotes were taken during interviews and, in following best
practices in ﬁeldwork research, expanded ﬁeldnotes were added to the raw data upon
completion of the interview (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Sanjek, 1990; Seidman, 1991).
After being carefully coded, tape-recorded interviews were transcribed for further
analysis using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Individual
copies of transcribed interviews were e-mailed to respondents with a cover letter asking
each to review the transcript for accuracy and to add any additional thoughts participants
may have regarding topics discussed during the interview. Out of 25 teacher and 6
principal interviews, 5 teachers wrote back with corrections and additional thoughts. One
elementary principal expanded the interview responses and rewrote several deterrrnined to
be unclear.

The information collected through semi-structured interviews was repeatedly
analyzed for identifying patterns and commonalties (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Wolcott,
1995). The data was scrutinized for evidence that supported or refuted existing assertions
of the research subject and built toward overarching themes (Seidman, 1991) using the
constant comparative technique (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). While examining the uniquely
descriptive data provided from interviews, preliminary arguments were constructed. Data
was organized and collated as supporting evidence to the arguments written. Review and

analysis of the interview data provided a deeper understanding of how schools and

ﬂu-

elementary teacher behaviors have been inﬂuenced by the legislative reforms included in

the study.

Human Subjects

The dissertation involved the recording of elementary teachers' attitudes and
perceptions regarding the ways in which No Child Left Behind, Education YES!, and
Public Act 25 have inﬂuenced the organization and their own teaching behaviors. The
largest risk for participants involved the loss of conﬁdentiality concerning their interview
responses. To reduce this risk, teachers were selected from a variety of elementary
schools ﬁ'om the Kelsey Creek, Somerset Community, and Sienna Heights School
Districts. Each elementary teacher respondent, their respective district and the name of
the county were given a pseudonym; only the researcher and doctoral committee
members know the study participants' actual identities. Interviews were conducted with
one respondent at a time and the information collected was treated with maximum
conﬁdentiality. This assurance was discussed with all respondents prior to data
collection, with an emphasis statement that guarantees are not possible. All subjects were
asked to sign a copy of the consent form prior to data collection (see UCRIHS application
in Appendix B).

Appendix A contains a copy of the application presented to the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). The application details
aspects of the study and procedures for providing the protection of participants'
conﬁdentiality, addressing the risks the study might entail for participants and describing

how those risks will be minimized.

91

Al.

*x‘hk‘s‘a‘. ._ s .

Units of Analﬁis

To accurately determine the inﬂuence of Public Act 25, Education YES! and No
Child Left Behind on the school organization and elementary teacher behavior, indicators
of behavior change must be determined. The research questions studied demand units of
analysis that can be measured through participants' rich description of how teaching
behaviors have been inﬂuenced. To accomplish this objective, teacher time and
opportunity cost have been selected to measure the ways in which schools and
elementary teacher behaviors have been inﬂuenced by the legislative reforms studied.

Time is often regarded as the "currency" by which teachers operate on a daily
basis. Bruno (1997) describes this phenomenon:

At both the classroom teacher and the school organization levels, time is the

currency of exchange and is, therefore, fundamental to both successful school

reform design and its implementation in the classroom. (p. 4)

In short, because school time, teacher time, and school leader time are all

interrelated in the school reform and change process, time is the common thread

that joins teachers to school organizations and both to the refornn and change

process. (p. 6)
Raywid (1993) describes teacher time as the key issue that emerged in every analysis of
school reform appearing witlnin the last decade. In semi-structured interviews with the
researcher acting as a participant-observer, respondents were asked to detail the ways in
which their time and the school organization's time has been reallocated or modiﬁed
because of the requirements imposed by No Child Left Behind, Education YES!, and
Public Act 25. Respondents were asked whether or not teaching opportunities have been
forgone due to legislative reform demands, and to describe those opportunity costs.

A review of the literature indicates that time in the school orgarnization is a scarce

resource that is ﬁercely competed for by all interested parties (Cusick, 1983; Flinders,

92

1989; Rozycki, 2001; Weber, 1946). When legislative reform mandates add new
responsibilities to the already full schedule of elementary teachers, something must be
forsaken. Bruno (1997) claims that time cannot be freely given by elementary teachers to
promote school reform; rather time investments entail making choices and choices must
reﬂect the goals, desired rewards and potential consequences associated with the teacher.
Time is one of the most important and limiting resources in the management of schools
and the reform process (Pumell and Hill, 1992), it is a signiﬁcant unit of analysis,
appropriate to meet the requirements of the study. Bruno (1997) sums up the magnitude
of teacher time:

In the school orgarnizational change and reform process, tirne is important to study

because it affects teachers' behavior in the classroom and their willingness to

participate in the "extra" time-consuming change and reform activities of the
school organization. (p. 21)

Summeg

The study investigated the ways in which the school organization and elementary
teachers' behaviors have been inﬂuenced by requirements mandated by Public Act 25,
Education YES! and No Child Left Behind legislation. A qualitative research design was
employed to conduct semi-structured interviews. 24 elementary teachers and 6
elementary principals, selected ﬁom three metropolitan Detroit school districts, were
interviewed. Interviews were tape-recorded, coded and transcribed to detail responses
ﬁ'om study participants. The interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative
method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) to create rich, tlnick narratives describing the ways in
which the school organization and elementary teacher activity has been inﬂuenced by the

legislative reforms being studied. From the narratives, a model (see Appendix E) was

93

created to depict the inﬂuence of No Child Left Behind and Education YES! upon

elementary school and teacher behaviors.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Analyeis of the Data

The purpose of this study is to describe current federal and state legislation and
then describe and explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and elementary
teacher behavior. Upon completion of 24 elementary teacher interviews and 6
elementary principals, the interview audio tapes were transcribed and printed out for
review. Each interview transcript was reviewed by the researcher with the intention of
locating spelling or gammar errors and checking the context of each interview to
conﬁrm accuracy. After the initial readings, interview transcripts were evaluated for
detail using the constant comparative method of data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The researcher designed a simple matrix to organize and code the data by phenomenon
reported, category of respondent reporting the incident and direct citations of the
phenomenon reported. This process was further deﬁned as the matrices were rewritten to
organize the data by subgoup areas. For the purpose of this study, the phenomenon
reported are gouped into 6 categories: instructional reform, elementary teacher use of
time, teacher professional development, elementary testingassessment reform, record

keeping and other miscellaneous areas, and elementary school administrative reform.

The Model
To track the inﬂuence of recent legislation on schools and elementary teacher

behaviors, a model was developed to demonstrate the spheres of inﬂuence leading to

95

educational reform. Figure 4-1 illustrates the two most recent legislative pieces studied,
No Child Left Behind and Education YES!, having a direct inﬂuence on the level of
signiﬁcance that schools place upon standardized test scores. For the purpose of the
study, the Michigan Educational Progess Proﬁle (MEAP) scores is the standardized test
referenced. As detailed in chapter two, scaled MEAP scores weigh heavily on the gade
that is assigned to each school from Education YES! legislation. In addition, adequate
yearly progess is deternnined through a formula that includes improvements in building

MEAP scores, ultimately leading to a level of accreditation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4-1: Legislative Influence on Schools
and Elementary Teachers
No Child Left Signiﬁcance of School
Behind/ ‘ Standardized ‘ Improvement
Education YES! Test Scores Planning (N CA)
School District Curriculum
(via professional

development of teachers,

additional resources,
Teacher Behaviors accountability

mechanisms‘, and school

irrnprovement plans)
§- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- D
*Accountability mechanisms
Arrows represent include items such as:
arses: WWW...
, ’ scores, mdrvndual student
”PM to proﬁles/plans and class
educatronal reform. corrnposites that are recorded

for administrative use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

The increased signiﬁcance of MEAP scores has directly inﬂuenced school
improvement planning through item analysis of past MEAP tests. Planning for school
improvement goals involves analyzing past MEAP assessments and determining areas
where students need the most improvement. Through this process, formal school
improvement goals are written and procedures are detemnined for implementing school
improvement goals in all classrooms.

Implementation of school improvement plans directly inﬂuences the way in which
curriculum is delivered. For example, the staff at Highland Elementary School wrote a
school improvement plan requiring teachers to teach expository writing using the process
writing format at least three times per week. The writing curriculum was directly
inﬂuenced by the school improvement plan that required all teachers to be trained in
process writing, have access to process writing materials and reallocate instructional
time. In this manner, the school curriculum is directly inﬂuenced by the school
improvement plan.

The change in curriculum directly inﬂuences elementary teacher behaviors in
terms of instruction, materials used and time allocated for instruction. The school
improvement example mentioned at Highland Elementary School required that teachers
attend training sessions for writer’s workshop and allocate at least 45 minutes, three times
per week for expository process writing instruction. Teachers received new process
writing materials from school improvement leaders and were expected to use the
materials for writer’s workshop instruction. Elementary teacher behaviors are directly
inﬂuenced by changes in the school curriculum as mandated by school improvement

goals.

97

The path of inﬂuence from recent legislation to school and teacher behaviors is
indirect, but robust. It is clear that elementary school and teacher behaviors have been
inﬂuenced by Education YES! and No Child Left Behind mandates in an indirect manner.
The following sections will detail the changes reported by teachers and administrators

and correlate the relationship of the reform described to recent legislative acts.

Irnstructional Reforms

The ﬁrst major theme to emerge from analysis of the data is that elementary
teacher instructional practices have changed signiﬁcantly over the past several years.
The majority of lower elementary (gades K-2) teachers interviewed reported teaching
reading using a balanced literacy approach. Most lower elementary teacher respondents
believed that the integration of core literacy components including reading, writing,
spelling and word study into a balanced literacy block is the most appropriate method to
instruct today’s students. This balanced literacy approach takes from 2 - 3 hours and is
generally taught during the morning hours each day.

In past years, most teachers were supplied with a basal textbook series from
which to instruct students on reading, writing, listening, speaking and spelling skills. All
students, regardless of their instructional reading level were taught using the same
materials with varying degees of differentiation. The balanced literacy approach to
teaching involves assessing all students to determine exact instructional and independent
reading levels as well as determining literacy skills individual students have mastered and
need to learn. Students are then placed into homogeneous guided reading mum of 2-6

students reading at similar instructional and independent levels. Advanced readers are

98

placed with other advanced readers and struggling readers are placed with similar-leveled
peers. Homogeneously clustered guided reading goups are instructed with materials
appropriate for the irnstructional level of the students within the goup and lessons are
individualized to instruct students in the skills needed. Reading, writing, listening,
speaking and word study skills are taught together as part of a literacy block and are
correlated to allow the maximum content coverage during the balanced literacy block
time. The balanced literacy approach also provides opportunities for students to move
into ﬂexible goups for alternate literacy activities such as shared reading, choral reading
and heterogeneous partner reading.

Mrs. Little, a ﬁrst gade teacher from the Kelsey Creek School District, teaches
using the balanced literacy approach ﬁ'om 9 until noon daily. She describes her reading
workshop progarn:

In reading workshop we start the structure, under the umbrella of reading workshop,

the structure is usually a mini-lesson, guided practice, independent practice and ﬁrm“

we come back and share. During independent practice, this is the time when I'll pull
goups for guided reading or we will do some strategic reading types of activities to
help them with their ﬂuency or expression. If they are in another goup, we rrnight
work on building words, word chunks, depending on where each child is. During

the block of reading workshop, tlnere is time set aside for word building once a

week.

Mrs. Dodson, a ﬁrst gade teacher from the Sienna Heights School District, uses the same
balanced literacy approach. Mrs. Dodson was one of the ﬁrst lower elementary teachers to
pilot literacy instruction in this way and was instrmnental in helping to train her lower

elementary colleagues. When asked to describe the components of her balanced literacy

instruction, Mrs. Dodson notes:

99

...I usually start with a shared reading where I take a big book of some sort,
where we are reading it with the students and by the end of week they are reading
it on their own. Then I usually follow up with a poem, which is also another form
of shared reading then we go into the word study component, a read a loud
component and then they go into literacy centers where they are independently
working on a concept that we have already learned or they are working on
phrasing, inference, or reading of familiar text. Then I will pull guided reading
goups, which is small goup instruction, with students, anywhere ﬁ'om one to six
students, and working on a book that's at their level.
Teachers and adrnirnistrators believe balanced literacy instruction is the best way to teach
students at their instructional level. Advanced readers are challenged with higher level
literacy skills and text appropriate for their higher reading level. Students reading at gade
level expectations or struggling with basic reading concepts can be instructed with materials
designed to meet their individual needs. Lower elementary teachers explained the balanced
literacy approach came about as an initial push ﬁom their districts to move in the direction
of best practices for literacy instruction. Mrs. Bowman, a ﬁrst gade teacher, describes her
exposure to balanced literacy instruction from a more traditional whole goup teaching:
I used to do more whole goup instruction. I always felt comfortable with it but it
was pointed out to us (by district administration) that we were not, maybe focusing
enough on the children who had difﬁculty in that whole goup situation. I ageed
that that made sense.
A preponderance of the other lower elementary respondents had similar experiences during
the recent period. Dr. Craig, the principal of Woodridge Elementary School, explains how

the balanced literacy approach evolved in the Sienna Heights district:

100

When I ﬁrst came to Woodridge, it was the ﬁrst year that the school was in
existence. We did not understand what a literacy library was. Teachers were
teaching using the Harcourt Brace basal (to teach whole goup instruction) which
would have been approved in '88 for our district, and not using it very effectively
because their complaints were that the students in the ﬁrst gade or second gade,
many could not read that book so they were frustrated. We did not know how to
level and how to test and assess and put our kids in appropriate reading materials.

That really sparked an intense interest on the part of the lower elementary teachers to

say that we are not going to be intimidated anymore. We are going to get ourselves

smart. That sort ofwas the very beginning we had at that time.

The balanced literacy approach was implemented into the three districts studied prior to
Education YES! and No Child Left Behind. District administrators believe balanced literacy
instruction is a best practice and lauded the literacy gowtln of students, at all reading levels,
taught using balanced literacy instruction. As MEAP reading and writing assessments
became more signiﬁcant under mandates from No Child Left Behind and Education YES!,
school administration endorsed balanced literacy instruction as the preferred method by
which all elementary students be taught.

Despite the success the majority of lower elementary teachers indicated ﬁ'om the
move to balanced literacy instruction, only half of the upper elementary teachers
interviewed reported such a change in their literacy instructional practice. Many upper
elementary teachers were still using a basal or generic trade paperback for whole goup
reading instruction. Mrs. Forrester, a fourth gade teacher tells about her literacy instruction:

1 do a literacy reading, a novel goup type of tlning. This is whole goup and we
actually all read the same novel.

When asked why upper elementary teachers have been more resistant to this signiﬁcant

instructional change, Mr. Delk the principal of Interlake Elementary School responded:

101

. . .not everybody changes, change is constant and slow, but I think we now focus
more on the individual student ratlner than the whole goup instructed. Guided
reading goups take place at our lowest levels (K-2) and a couple years ago started
with guided reading goups for our at-risk readers in third and fourth gade. Now we
are moving towards doing that at all gade levels and looking at a reader's workshop
and writers workshop concept and I tlnink that will be in our future.

Some upper elementary teachers explained that they knew a balanced literacy approach was
a better way to teach, but they have not yet had the formalized training and guidance
comparable to that provided lower elementary teachers, in order to irnitiate such a
transformation in instruction.

The Somerset Community, Kelsey Creek and Sienna Heights School districts all like
what they have seen with respect to the reading scores of lower elementary students who
have experienced the shift in literacy instruction. All three districts have agendas that
include training each elementary teacher to use a balanced literacy approach to teaching.
Dr. Craig explains:

...we have made full circle and our teachers in third, fourth and ﬁfth gade are now

experiencing that same angst that the lower elementary teachers were ﬁve and six

years ago and trying to ﬁgure out how to handle this. Now we see it as something
that is doable. Fourth and Fifth gade teachers aren’t quite there yet but they are
seeing it and starting to do it.
One third gade teacher from the Sienna Heights School District piloted some of the upper
elementary training and is now teaching using balanced literacy instruction. She reﬂects on
her signiﬁcant instructional change:

Literacy instruction lasts about two hours every moaning. It has changed a lot over

the past three years. I start off with a shared reading lessorn, which tends to be about

15 to 20 minutes. Then we break into our reader's workshop where the children are

working on independent activities, which can vary. The kids work independently

while I pull guided reading goups, which lasts about 15 to 20 minutes per goup.

Then at the end we come back together and review over independent work, go over

answers, discuss word work that they have been working on and kind of pull the
goup back together again. Then we move into writer's workshop.

102

Because of the increased signiﬁcance of MEAP scores due to Education YES! and No Child
Left Behind, the districts studied are currently providing professional development on
balanced literacy instruction for upper elementary teachers. Administrators expect
elementary teachers to instruct students using balanced literacy instruction and anticipate the
signiﬁcant literacy gowth seen in lower elementary students who have already experienced
balanced literacy instruction.

The movement fi'om whole goup teaching of reading to a balanced literacy
instruction reﬂects an awareness by teachers of the success achieved ﬁom individualized
instruction. Study respondents indicated that individualized instruction is not a new
concept. Teachers have been differentiating lessons for individual students for many years,
however, the emphasis and degee of individualized instruction has been increased
signiﬁcantly. When reﬂecting on literacy instructional changes, lower elementary teachers
respond that they now plan and direct their instruction to meet the individual needs of each
student. Plarnrning involves a process whereby individual students are assessed to determine
their independent and instructional reading levels. Learners are then placed with other
students of like reading ability to form a ﬂexible guided reading goup and are taught using
materials at their instructional level. Mrs. Duncan, the principal ﬁ‘om Ardmore Elementary
School deﬁnes the individualization of the balanced literacy approach used by teachers:

They actually write a progam for each child. Not a lot of the children have the

same progam because you know, goups of children go through school that are

alike but with our MLPP they write up a plan for each child.
Somerset Commurnity, Sienna Heights, and Kelsey Creek districts all require their lower
elementary teaching staff to administer the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA),

which is an assessment tool designed to ascertain a child’s independent and instructional

103

reading levels as well as their level of comprehension. Mrs. Dodson explains how knowing
a child’s exact reading levels facilitates the individualization of literacy instruction:
I take a running record on a student with a familiar text that they have read once,
just to see if I am picking appropriate text for that student. From there I get a
good handle on if I am picking appropriate books for those students. I look for at
least a teaching point ﬁom the running record that can help me with the next
guided reading lesson.
Mrs. Vaughn, a second gade teacher from Interlake Elementary, believes that
individualizing literacy instruction allows for geater student growtln during the school
year and more appropriate literacy skills teaching. She explains:
We always knew if they were above or below gade level. But now I can say that
this child is at a level 28 and his comprehension is good. Or, they are reading at a
level 28, but comprehension is only at a level 24. That has helped that we can
truly get a picture of that child, a whole picture of the child.
Lower elementary teachers report that they have been individualizing their reading
instruction through the balanced literacy approach for several years; however, upper
elementary teachers reﬂect that this is a relatively new concept for them. This paradign
shift indicates that balanced literacy instruction is accepted by teachers and
administrators as a best practice and is now a standard practice for the districts
participating in the study. The increased focus on individualized literacy instruction is a
direct inﬂuence of the change in the language arts curriculum of the districts studied.
Administrators recognize individualized literacy instruction as one of the vehicles that
will improve reading and writing MEAP scores, which have increased signiﬁcance under
recent legislation.
Teachers in each of the three districts ageed that in addition to the transformation

to the delivery of literacy instruction, the skills taught have changed signiﬁcantly.

Teachers claim they have gotten smarter about what to look for and emphasize during

104

smaller guided reading goup instruction. Dr. Lambert, a principal in the Sienna Heights
District, explains the trend he sees at Highland Elementary School:
I think that there is a lot more, focus on individual kids. There are a lot more
professional decisions about where we go with instruction. There is a lot less
almost generic teaching. I tlnink that the staff as a whole, has gotten real good at
looking what skills a child has, what skills the kids need next and planning
instruction around that.
Mrs. Wells, a second gade teacher at Woodridge Elementary, remarks that balanced
literacy instruction is a time to individually look for speciﬁc reading skills and see if the'
children are applying them appropriately. She explains:
I stop them in between and ask them questions. Ask, “What do you think is going
to happen?” and during their talking and our commurnication, I see if they have
been using any strategy. When reading out loud is there a ﬂuency problem.
When they came to a word that they were unsure of, what strategy did they use?
When I ask them to make an inference, could they do that, could they draw any
conclusions about what might come next or why this happened? Are they able to
give me any retelling? Are they excited or bored with that book? Through that,
most of the time I can get something that they need work on...
Mrs. Turner, a third gade teacher at Newport Elementary gives each student a kit that
includes bookmarks with speciﬁc reading strategies explaining their applications.
Students take these kits home nightly and part of their homework is to apply a speciﬁc
strategy in their evening reading with their parents. Mrs. Bowman remembers a time,
years ago, when she had to tell a parent that their child was having trouble with reading;
but couldn’t explain why. Now she believes that she can clearly explain to the parents
what reading skills their children may be missing and how to address their needs.
It is clear that elementary teaching practices regarding literacy have changed
dramatically in recent years. Elementary teachers are no longer teaching reading to an

entire group of students using the same text. Instead, teachers are using balanced literacy

instruction to integate reading, writing, word study and spelling into a literacy

105

instructional block of time. Although some form of individualized irnstruction has always
been in place, individual students are now being assessed using the DRA or QRI multiple
times each school year to determine students’ independent and instructional reading
levels. Students are now gouped with other students of similar reading ability and taught
at their instructional level to achieve maximum reading growth. Elementary teachers
have become smarter about emphasizing crucial reading strategies and skills and giving
students multiple opportunities to apply those skills at home and in school. The era of
generic reading teaching has evolved into a complex instructional literacy block where
students’ learning needs are being individually met. The shift to balanced literacy with
individualized instruction is designed to enhance student learning with the secondary
objective of improving MEAP scores that have increased in signiﬁcance due to recent
legislative mandates.

Balanced literacy instruction has been reported by study participants to take from
2-3 hours each school day. Most school days average approximately six hours, not
including lunch, special classes and time passing in the halls. With balanced literacy
instruction requiring such a large portion of the day, it would seem as though other
subject areas are being shortchanged. Several teachers feel as though science and social
studies get the “short stick”, because these subject areas are not tested as heavily as
reading, writing and math. Some innovative teachers have found ways to integate other
subjects into the balanced literacy instructional block to maximize the time students

spend on social studies and science. Dr. Craig clariﬁes:

106

If you don't integate social studies and science into that reading instruction, then
you are dead. There is no time in the day to do it all. There is not a simplistic
response that I can give you. It is very net worked. It's very integated as a ball
and that has been the biggest challenge for upper gade teachers. Lower
elementary have got it pretty well identiﬁed. They have a real good solid handle
on the literacy. The upper gades are still working through it.
Teachers are ﬁnding resourceful ways to integate social studies and science into literacy
instruction. Several teachers described spending time studying mammals through an
animal research unit that spanned reading, writing, word study/vocabulary building,
speaking and science-related skills. A ﬁrst gade teacher explains how she incorporates
all the subject-area teaching in her classroom:
Social studies I really try and integate because I feel that's the best way and most
efﬁcient now a days, with all the pressure coming down on teachers and this is
what we have to teach, and this is all the assessments we have to do, we have ﬁt
everything in. In order to do that, the best way is through integration. For
example, our unit right now is science, so I am taking a lot of time ﬁnding
resources like big books and poems that have to do with science themes with
insects and integating that with my shared reading or my read along. . .. The same
thing with social studies. Finding books that have common good to teach that
concept to the class. That's how I am integating science and social studies.
Elementary teachers are also beginning to integate math into the balanced literacy block in
addition to time already allotted for mathematics instruction. Elementary teacher
respondents believe that when science, math and social studies can be integated into the
balanced literacy block, students are receiving a double exposure to subj ect-area concepts.
“Doubling up” on science, social studies and math concepts allows for maximum exposure
to both subjects without sacriﬁcing the large amount of time required to successfully teach
only reading skills using balanced literacy instruction. Students are taught using integated
irnstruction to increase student learrning with the anticipation that MEAP scores will improve.
Improved MEAP scores correlate into better school gades adnninistered through Education

YES! and a stronger opportunity for schools to attain adequate yearly progess.

107

In addition to “doubling up” on math concepts tlnrough balanced literacy instruction
when possible, teacher respondents discussed a recent signiﬁcant change in mathematics
irnstruction. Study respondents report that parents and school administrators have
encouraged teachers to irrdividualize their math instruction and differentiate lessons to meet
individual students’ needs. Currently, a number of elementary teachers use pre—assessments
to determine which skills individual students have mastery of as they teach matln units.
Students who do well on the pre-assessment are often given extensions to the regular lesson
or the lessons are differentiated to be more challenging. Students in the Sienna Heights
School District who demonstrate mastery of most gade-level concepts are permitted to
attend matln lessons in the next higher gade during regllar math instruction. A third gade
teacher ﬁom Sienna Heights explains:

...tlrere is a lot of differentiation within the work itself. I have kids at various

levels and from a student who has skipped third gade math and goes up to fourtln

grade math. I also have a lot of students that are very high academically and their
work needs to be compacted so I work closely with Mrs. McMann from the

Gifted and Talented Ofﬁce this year and have different materials for those kids to

use. They have pre-tested out of certain urnits in the beginning and move onto

independent activities.
A second gade teacher ﬁ'om the Kelsey Creek District reported that she also
individualizes her math instruction, but with a different focus. Mrs. Vaughn has a goup
of children who have high aptitude for math concepts, and she describes her challenge
goup:

I have a goup of children that I call the challenge goup that meet together after

lunch. It is more problem solving instead of rote things. It has a real strong

concept base, and they are a little more capable than some of the other students.

We meet for about 10-15 minutes and we do some problem solving, we do 5 of
them a week, 1 each day and there are 2 challenge problems for them to try.

108

Mrs. Blaise, a 4/5 Magnet teacher ﬁom Somerset Commurnity Schools believes very
strongly that differentiation in matln instruction is the only way to go:

I always pre-assess. If you are already secure in ﬁve of tlnose (learning objectives),

I'm not going to make you sit through ﬁve more days of instruction on something

that you already get. But, I am going to make you do tlnese two or three mini-

activities so I make sure that you are practicing that skill and that you have really got
it and it wasn’t just a lucky guess on the test kind of a thing. Then I have a series of
games and tlnings that they will work on and I'll pull them into small goups just like
guided reading.
Woodridge Elementary School recently purchased a computer progarnn called ALEX, with
the goal of individualizing math instruction for high-achieving students. The ALEX
progam allows teachers to individualize lessons within the progam to meet the needs of
students who have already mastered the gade-level goals and have been advanced to the
next gade level for math instruction. Differentiated and individualized matln instruction are
believed to be current best practices designed to raise student math achievement which
translates into improved MEAP math scores. MEAP matln scores are crucial in determining
whether or not individual schools will make adequate yearly progess and play a part in the
formula used to determine school gades under Education YES!.

Differentiation and individualized instruction have taken a signiﬁcant role in the
three districts studied. The Somerset Community School District offers a special multi-age
progam, referred to as the Magnet Proganr, to further meet the individual needs of the top
80 percent of third, fourth and ﬁfth gaders. The Magnet Progam is hosted at Eastgate
Elementary, but includes approximately 100 students from all Somerset Community
schools. Students in the Magnet Progam are continually assessed in reading and math
throughout the year. The students are gouped with others of like ability to maximize their

learning and gowtln. There are extra costs incurred by the school district to operate the

109

Magnet Progam including testing (the IOWA test of basic skills given as an indicator of
ability for acceptance into the progam), transportation, and administrative costs. In an era
of reduced school furnding, the Somerset Community School District has demonstrated a
commitrnernt to differentiated instruction by continuing to fund tlne Magnet Progam.
Districts that are in the market for a new matln curriculum scrutirnize potential
textbooks for high levels of lesson differentiation and individualization. Twenty-two of the
twenty-eight districts in Olympia County are now using the Everyday Matln progam
developed by the University of Chicago. Sienna Heights and Somerset Community Schools
are already using the progam and Kelsey Creek is seriously considering the Everyday
Mathematics progam for adoption. Mrs. J ordan, the principal of Newport Elementary
School, claims that Everyday Math was adopted by Somerset Community Schools because
it met all of the district and State benchmarks, prepared kids well for the MEAP assessment,
and includes a spiral curriculum that allows for individualized lessons with adjustable levels
of differentiation. Mrs. Lynch, a third gade teacher from Eastgate Elementary explains:
We used to have a math progam that taught every strand of mathematics
separately. The fact that Every Day Math spirals and you are able to revisit
tlnroughout the course of the year, often times when it came to the MEAP, we did
very poorly on geometry and that was because nobody ever got to chapter 12.
They would be hung up on that.
It is clear that districts are choosing math materials based upon the differentiation ability
of the progam. Lesson individualization is an important characteristic, thought by

teachers and administrators, to lead to increased student learning and improved

standardized test scores.

110

Teacher respondents are also describing a change in mathematics instruction ﬁ'om
pencil and paper to a more hands-on, manipulative-based progam. Mrs. Evans, a fourth
grade teacher ﬁ'om Highland Elementary School explains the difference:

It's like you teach geometry and you get out the three dimensional shapes and

count the sides and then you teach volume and it's just constantly changing and

they are learning something new every couple of days. When you introduce
something new, it's always best to do hands on visual so they can see it and

understand it. Since it's like that kind of a progam, we are doing hands on quite a

bit.

Elementary teachers and administrators believe a hands-on math progam that lends itself
to differentiated instruction has made a signiﬁcant difference in their schools’ MEAP
math scores. Ninety three percent of fourth gaders at Ardmore Elementary School
scored satisfactory or higher on the 2002-03 MEAP mathematics assessment. When
asked how her students achieved such a milestone, the principal of Ardmore responded:

I think it's the approach they (the teachers) are using. They went to classes on

their own time after school because the school did not endorse either Math Their

Way or Chicago Math or any of those types of programs. When you do

something on your own and you make it a goal in the building, and you are using

your own time, you really want to learn it and you use it. Our teachers have a lot
of colleague support amongst each other. What one learns they come back and
teach each other.
Although the Kelsey Creek School District has not formally adopted the Everyday Math
progam, teachers in the district have taken it upon themselves to learn about the progam
and to individualize their math instruction though a manipulative-based approach. Mrs.
Jordan, a principal in the Somerset district, has noticed a signiﬁcant increase in Newport

Elementary School’s fourth gade math MEAP results over the past 2 years. She reports:

111

I've also seen a difference in the kids’ math performance as a result of Everyday

Math. .. .As a result, when they (teachers) turn the quarterly reports into me,

there's a deﬁnite line on math achievement where the kids who have had it this

whole time are doing amazingly well where the kids who haven't had it as long

are still struggling in different areas.
The concrete teaching of math skills through progams that encourage differentiation and
hands-on applications for students has been a signiﬁcant irnstructional change for all tlnree
of the districts studied. Elementary teachers and administrators are feeling pressure to
improve MEAP math scores and teaching using new progams and metlnods involving the
differentiation of mathematics curriculum are meeting the need. The days of teaching the
entire class using one concept with paper and pencil practice have evolved into a new
approach which includes pre-testing, use of manipulatives, individualized instruction and
differentiated math goals for students.

It is clear that both literacy and math instruction have recently undergone
signiﬁcant change. The catalyst for the change appears to be a commitment to move
towards accepted best practices in teaching along with a goal of improving standardized
test scores. Although the stakes are high for individual student achievement and
academic progams are prescriptive, elementary teachers report they still have a fair
amount of ﬂexibility with which to deliver instruction. Mrs. Lynch describes herself as a
deviator when explaining her ﬂexible instructional practices:

I may deviate ﬁ'om it (the progam) and don't tell anybody about this, I'm a

deviator. l deviate hour it because either I don't think the lesson was appropriate

enough for the particular chemistry of my classroom with the concept I cover, so
it would normally be a large group instruction time. Then we break up into small
cooperative goups, working with a manipulative, from that point more of an

abstract and that would be page in there in their Every Day Math series, their
math journal for example.

112

Mrs. Smith, a ﬁrst gade teacher at Eastgate Elementary, remarks that her principal
allows her the discretion to use what she needs from their balanced literacy instructional
progam. Mrs. Smith details the ﬂexibility she experiences:

Instead of just doing absolutely everytlning, in the exact order for day one of my

reading progann, I pick and choose what I tlnink is applicable to the students in my

room at that time because, every year you have a different goup of students. So, I

appreciate the fact that my principal respects us as educators and let's us pick and

chose and differentiate instruction. Maybe I still have kids that need Orton

Gillingharn right now and maybe I have kids that need very high-level Compass

learning computer literacy ideas right now or assignments. So, I differerntiate

knowing that I am respected as an educator and I don't feel that I am a slave to the

cuniculum. I pick and chose what is appropriate for my students.
Several elementary principal respondents discussed the notion that as long as teachers can
achieve the end result of high-level individualized achievement for students, they may
deliver the curriculum as creatively as they wish. The pressure for students to achieve
was reported by nearly all of the study participants. Although the level of anxiety has
risen, teachers recounted numerous experiences that allowed them to use their discretion
to make ﬂexible instructional choices witlnin academic program parameters. The level of
ﬂexibility is indicative of the degee of professionalism teachers exhibit when planning
and conducting individualized instruction for students of differing abilities.

The ﬁrst major theme to emerge from analysis of the data is that elementary
teacher instructional practices in literacy and math have changed signiﬁcantly over the
past several years. A common conclusion resulting from a review of recent research on
educational policy implementation indicates that for teachers to meet the requirements of
new policies, teaching practices must change fundamentally (Cohen & Hill, 2000;
Spillane & Jennings, 1997; Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Weiss, 1990). Policy makers strive to

attain a change in teacher practices through policy initiatives that focus on manipulating

113

various aspects of instruction including teaching practices, assessment methods and
curriculum. It is clear that elementary teacher instructional and assessment practices have
undergone signiﬁcant change.

The signiﬁcant change in teacher instructional practices is an indirect inﬂuence of
mandates ﬁ'om No Child Left Behind and Education YES!. Recent legislation has
increased the signiﬁcance of the MEAP test as results of the MEAP assessment are used
to calculate school gades and factor into the formula for determining adequate yearly
progess. The thrust to improve MEAP scores has caused schools to design school
improvement plans, which directly inﬂuence the content and delivery of literacy and
math curriculum. The change in literacy and math curriculrrnn has directly inﬂuenced
teacher behaviors in the manner in which instruction is delivered. Although the course
from No Child Left Behind and Education YES! mandates to the change in teacher

behaviors is indirect, it is clearly a signiﬁcant factor directing current educational reform.

Assessment Reform

A second major theme to emerge from the analysis of data is that elementary
teacher assessment practices have recently experienced signiﬁcant change. The policy
makers objective was to attain a change in teacher practices through new policy
initiatives. The policy was designed to inﬂuence the diverse features of instruction,
including student assessment and cuniculum, which logically follows the development of
individualized and differentiated instructional practices. To assist with individualized
instruction, elementary teachers are administering the Developmental Reading
Assessment (DRA) or the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) to individual students

several times per year. The QRI and DRA are on-going assessments that allow the

114

classroom teacher to pinpoint students’ exact independent and instructional reading levels
as well as comprehension scores. Mr. Delk, the principal of Interlake Elementary School
explains the process:

The focus has been on the developmental reading assessment which helps and is
based on level texts that we are utilizing with the students. This is initiated
primarily through our work with our reading recovery progam and the successes
we have had there, and our ability to focus instruction on the student's needs so
that we could more accurately tell parents where their child is and where they
need support. You know, we didn't want them teaching new concepts but wanted
them enforcing concepts at home and I think that type of assessment allows us to
give them appropriate things for them to do with students at home. So, we have
done a variety of assignments and learning strategies in the past but, the days of
end of unit tests and things of that nature we ﬁnd are not as valid as a more in-
deptln use of strategies that allow us to assess if the student has the ability to self
correct if they are using appropriate strategies and if they are going to be self
sustaining readers. These types of assessments give us a better picture of that.

Study participants report that the DRA and QRI assessments give them detailed
information that illustrate exactly which reading skills students have and which skills
must still be learned. Witln this diagnostic information, teachers can differentiate lessons
for use with guided reading goups and better monitor individual student gowth. Mrs.
Evans describes how the QRI details individualized student reading skills on which she
can focus balanced literacy lessons:
It's (the QRI) a packet with the different stories at their level and it's like a reading
inventory, it's mis-que analysis the ﬁrst part and then comprehension questions
and we write down their responses. It gives a gade at their comprehension level
and their reading ability, word recall level and it also helps you to understand if
they are having trouble with inferences or questions that are right there in the text.
In addition to the QRI and DRA assessments, study respondents discussed administering the
Michigan Literacy Progess Proﬁle (MLPP), another form of literacy assessment, to their
students. The Michigan Department of Education developed the MLPP in conjunction with

classroom teachers. The MLPP is a kit to be used by trained educators to determine and

115

document student gowth in the areas of literacy development for the purpose of
improving student learning opporturnities for students. Mrs. Burton, a kindergarten
teacher at Highland Elementary School, is required to administer the MLPP to each of
her students. She explains the beneﬁts of MLPP testing:
Now that we have the annual MLPP testing and you know where the kids are, its
just so much easier to plan your lessons, it's not just one lesson for every body.
There is much more going on and what I noticed about it that was so signiﬁcantly
different, I was not sitting home making plans all the time and preparing materials
as much but when I was here, I was teaching a lot harder.
Prior to 2004, the MLPP was designed to be used with lower elementary students only.
An upper elementary MLPP kit has been recently developed, and will be administered by
teachers in gades 3-5. Several upper elementary study respondents have been trained to
use the new version of MLPP and believed it was a beneﬁcial assessment to determine
individual literacy skill levels. Mrs. Stephens, a ﬁfth grade teacher at Highland
Elementary School describes her experience with the upper elementary MLPP:
I think I keep a much closer eye on kids. Through my MLPP training, I've
received a lot of like informal assessments that I'll do, there's a big word out there,
profundity. Right now I'm doing an expository profundity with the kids and it’s

to see if they get the gist of expository text. I've also done it (MLPP assessments)
with narrative text.

Analysis of the study data indicates that elementary teacher practices involving literacy
assessments have changed signiﬁcantly in the past two to ﬁve years. The increased focus on
individualized and differentiated literacy instruction requires that teachers conduct on-going
literacy assessments to determine student instructional reading levels. To this objective,
study respondents indicated that they now conduct either the DRA or QRI assessments at
several times during the year for each student. Additionally, some respondents are required
to also administer the MLPP assessment for each student once per year. The change in the

amount and ﬁequency of individualized literacy assessments is an indirect inﬂuence of No

116

Child Left Behind and Education YES! legislation. The districts studied conducted analysis
of MEAP reading and writing scores and determined that improvement was needed in tlnese
content areas. School improvement plans were subsequently written for reading and writing
that required more frequent individualized assessments to target teachers’ balanced literacy
instruction. The increased signiﬁcance of reading and writing MEAP scores generated ﬁ'om
recent legislation was the catalyst for the change in the amount and ﬁ'equency of
individualized literacy assessments.

Elementary teachers report that maintaining a high level of individualized instruction
for strndents requires a signiﬁcant change in mathematics assessment practices. Teachers
describe the process of pre-testing the students prior to beginning a new unit. Students who
have mastered the skills on the pre-test, are given advanced differentiated lessons while the
teacher instructs the rest of the class on the basic objectives of the unit. Students are also
given post-tests to demonstrate and conﬁrm their level of learning on the unit just taught A
ﬁrst gade teacher from Ardmore Elementary School explains the process:

Today we were doing our math assessments and they are mostly all hands on

because some children aren't reading the math books, or the assessments. I have a

rubric and I individualize it and I have each student come sit next to me. We were

doing interpreting gaphs so I had a gaph out. I had the child read it and I read it
with them or if they could read it, they'd read it individually and I'd say now
interpret this gaph and they will give me the answer.
Upper and lower elementary respondents expressed a need to keep abreast of individual
student learning during mathematics instruction. To facilitate this process, many teachers
give informal assessments during each unit of math instruction. Informal assessments
may involve students writing answers to oral questions on a slate or teachers taking

anecdotal assessments while watching students work through some of the hands-on math

games and explorations. Study participants indicated a signiﬁcant change in assessment

117

practices in recent years extending primarily into literacy and mathematics instruction.
Teachers noted an increase in the amount of math assessments administered during each
instructional unit. The pre and post assessments are administered to assist with the
differentiation of mathematics instruction for individual students. The change in the
quantity of individual math assessments is another indirect inﬂuence of recent legislative
acts. Administrators and teachers believe that individually assessing students in
matlnematics content and differentiating math instruction to meet the personal needs of
students will result in student leanring and improved MEAP math scores. Increased
MEAP math scores translate into to a better school gade and adequate yearly progess
achievement under Education YES! and No Child Left Behind.

Elementary school teachers speciﬁed that assessment practices have recently
changed signiﬁcantly as opposed to those of past years. In addition to assessments that
detail students’ individual skills in reading and math, districts have developed core
subject area tests that monitor individual progess through the district’s subject area
benchmarks and standards. The Sienna Heights District developed a series of benchmark
assessments in reading, math, social studies, and science that are admirnistered quarterly.
Benchmark assessment tests are administered to the whole class and are electronically
scored and sent to central administration. Teachers review their students’ results and are
able to determine which benchmarks or curricular standards need reteaching. Mrs. Frost,
a ﬁfth gade teacher ﬁom Woodridge Elementary School explains why teachers

administer the benchmark assessments:

118

. . .so that everybody in the district is teaching the same tlnings. So we have a way
of tracking kids, not tracking them as putting them in a track but tracking them
ﬁom the beginning of the year to the end of the year. Sometimes I pre-test, to me
the efﬁcient use of a BA is to pre-test and post-test and tlnat's not a very efﬁcient
use of time because we have four BAs every quarter, we would be testing these
kids forever.... I think that's why we have 3A5 and I tlnink the district really
wanted a way of holding teacher's accountable, having speciﬁc skills that the kids
needed to krnow and having a way of seeing if they were being taught.

A third gade teacher described administering the quarterly benchmark assessments as
similar to ﬁnal exams week in high school because all of the tests fall within a week of
the end of the marking period. Dr. Lambert, the principal of Highland Elementary,
defended the benchmark assessments:
I think it was the district's belief that for a curriculum, teach what to test and test
what you teach. I think to just write a curriculum and not have some way of
making certain that it is being taught and seeing how it is being taught, nothing
ever changes. I think it was put into place to make certain that we are doing what
we are supposed to be doing. I think it also is a situation where it allows teachers
to be able to see what they have been successful on and what they have not been
successful on.
The Somerset Community School District created the English/Language Arts (ELA)
assessment; a test designed to monitor how well students were learning the district’s
language arts benchmarks. The ELA assessment is administered quarterly to all students
in gades 1-5 and individualized scores are reported to the administration. Teachers
believe that the benchmark assessments and ELA assessments add an enhanced degee of
accountability to their instruction. Mrs. Stephens explains:
One tlning that we have talked about at common plarnrning, and we do know that
they (the admirnistration) are kind of watching teachers. If my class was the only
class that was failing, failing, failing all the time on the benchmark assessments,

I'm sure that would be a red ﬂag that would go up in the district and they would
be “Okay, what is she doing over there?”

119

A ﬁfth gade teacher ﬁom the Somerset Community School District agrees that the level
of accountability has been raised because of the signiﬁcant change in assessing students.
Mrs. Lewis adds:

.. . with that No Child Left Behind, I think a lot of State standards are coming

down on us and you know, adnninistrators ask us where are your children? We

have to be able to show them where our students are and really keep an eye on

their progess or lack there of.
Teachers participating in the study describe a new level of accountability for individual
student’s learning as reported through assessments such as the DRA, QRI, MLPP,
benchmark assessments and ELA assessments. Scores from the assessments described
are reported out for individual students as well as class composites. Administrators
regularly review the results of the assessments to determine the level of progress for
individual students. The assessments mentioned above are in addition to standardized
assessments that may be administered at various gade levels such as the Michigan
Educational Assessment Proﬁle (MEAP) or the IOWA Test of Basic Skills. The
signiﬁcant change in the amount and frequency of assessments administered in
elementary grades has positively inﬂuenced the level of teacher accountability.

Through semi-structured interviews, elementary teachers and administrators were
asked where the push originated to assess students with increased frequency.
Respondents indicated that the level of accountability for individual student learning was
lacking, and districts needed to mandate increased assessment to satisfy reform

expectations. An upper elementary teacher ﬁ'om Newport Elementary gives her

interpretation of the origin of new assessments:

120

...you krnow, a lot of it is ﬁom our district. A lot of it is from the No Child Left
Behind. MLPP is administered to the younger gades and the DRA is really going to
start tracking where our students are and hold accountable the level of achievement
for each one.
The principal of Newport Elementary requires her teachers to provide assessment reports
on a quarterly basis. The quarterly reports contain a class composite of scores including
individual progess on the DRA, MLPP and ELA assessments. When asked what the
catalyst for the quarterly reports was, Mrs. Jordan replied:
...No Child Left Behind and Education Yes here in Michigan. When we were
ﬁlling out our perforrnarnce rubric for Education Yes, one of the tlnings that we
count our building down for was for a method being in place to monitor children's
gowtln throughout the year. ...So this year, we do the quarterly reports and
quarterly meetings where they turn in their quarterly information and I go through
and highlight any concerns or at risk appearances and trends and then sit down
and talk about what services we are giving and if they are responding to those

services. Then we decide what we need to do differently if the current
interventions are not working.

Teachers describe a change in the frequency and amount of assessments required as well
as an increase in accountability for individual students’ learrning. Administrators are
asking teachers to compile and submit class composites indicating individual students’
test scores for on-going assessments. The change in assessment practices is reﬂected in
the teacher behavior section of model 4-1, which clariﬁes the relationship between recent
legislation and signiﬁcant reforms inﬂuencing elementary teacher behavior. The changes
in instruction and assessment are an indirect outcome of mandates required by No Child
Left Behind and Education YES!. The increased signiﬁcance of MEAP scores has
prompted changes in the school curriculum and as a result has inﬂuenced teacher
assessment practices. Districts participating in the study designed the benchmark and
ELA assessments to have accountability measures in place, ensuring the sanctioned

curriculum is being taught and students are prepared to take the MEAP assessments.

121

Study respondents indicated that school improvement plans are heavily tied to
current assessment practices. MEAP test scores contribute a large portion of the letter
gade schools receive from Education YES! legislation and MEAP scores also contribute
signiﬁcantly to the formula by which adequate yearly progess is detemnined for No
Child Left Behind and Education YES!. i The strong emphasis on MEAP scores is a
driving force behind assessment reform, which in turn inﬂuences the way school
improvement planning is conducted. Mrs. King, a fourth gade teacher from Kelsey
Creek, explains the way assessment and school improvement are connected:

...at our last meeting, we went through all our MEAP scores and the IOWA test
scores for our students in this building last year. We are setting up our three goals
based on those scores. ...Our social studies goal stems from the fact that our
social studies curriculum has changed three times in the last year and a half. So,
that goal is just to become more familiar with our social studies and to prepare our
students better again for the MEAP test.

The second major theme that has emerged from analysis of the data is that
elementary teacher assessment practices have recently experienced signiﬁcant change.
Reform of assessment practices involves teachers administering multiple assessments at
more frequent intervals. Teachers described this phenomenon as the admirnistration of
on-going assessments for the individualization and differentiation of mathematics and
literacy instruction. The three districts studied require their teachers to admirnister either
the DRA or QRI assessments to each student several times during each year.
Additionally, study participants discussed administering additional tests such as the
MLPP as well as district-created assessments including the benchmark and ELA
assessments.

The assessments mentioned are administered in addition to standardized tests

required at speciﬁc gade levels such as the MLPP and IOWA Test of Basic Skills.

122

Teachers and adnnirnistrators conveyed a strong relationship between the change in
assessment practices and the way school improvement planning is managed. The
relationship, demonstrated in model 4-1, conﬁrms a direct connection between the
development of school improvement plans and changes in the school district curriculum
to accommodate the plans. Districts carefully examine the data provided from
assessment scores to plan school improvement goals. The reform of elementary
assessment practices is a logical outcome of the signiﬁcant change in teacher instruction
required to satisfy legislative compliance. One reform carnnot be successﬁrlly

implemented without the other.

Changes in Use of Time

A tlnird major theme to emerge from analysis of the data is a change in the way
elementary teachers use instructional and professional time. Reform involving elementary
teacher instruction and assessment practices has caused a signiﬁcant change in the way
teachers are using time for instruction, assessment, planning and collegial meetings.
Teachers report the shift to balanced literacy instruction requires more planning time than
for past reading instruction. Balanced literacy instruction requires multiple reading
goups of varying ability, and teachers must plan appropriate lessons for each guided
reading goup. A third gade teacher from the Sienna Heights district explains the time it

takes her to plan for balanced literacy irnstruction:

123

I spend a lot more time planing literacy now. As I mentioned before, before it
was more of a whole goup thing, you plan it and it's for everybody and you’re
done. Now, I have four groups in my room right now as far as reading level goes
and they each have their own lesson plan. They have a shared reading lesson
plan. If you are doing some word study for the week, I plan that. Writing is a
separate plan. Before, it was kind of reading and writing and you plan and you’re
done. Like I said, reading was for everyone and it did not take very long. Now
you are giving individualized attention as to what this small goup needs to focus
on this week.
Teachers agee the time they spend planning is well wortln the result in terms of the
reading gowth kids at all reading levels are experiencing with balanced literacy
instruction. Study respondents were very positive about the extra time spent planning for
balanced literacy instruction, but some remarked they could not get all of the planning
done during the school day. Mrs. Dodson from Woodridge Elementary School describes
the time she spends planning for balanced literacy instruction outside of school:
It's usually at night, every night, that I ﬁgure out okay, “Guided reading, what
guided reading goups am I going to meet with next, what books am I going to
pick, what is their focus going to be, where am I headed?”, and that takes little bit

longer. So, I'd say the average time I spend preparing for the week is at least ﬁve
hours, outside of school.

Teachers report an average of three to six hours spent planning outside of the school day,
with some teachers spending more than six hours to complete their individualized lesson
plans. The additional time required to plan for balanced literacy instruction is an indirect
result of recent legislative acts. When teachers made the transition to balanced literacy
instruction, the differentiated lessons took longer to plan as teachers are working to meet
the needs of individual students.

New testing requirements such as the DRA, QRI and MLPP assessments must be
administered individually to each student. Individual assessment and standardized testing
requirements, such as MEAP and the IOWA Test of Basic Skills, are causing a

reallocation of teacher time in terms of lost instructional time. Fourth grade teachers in

124

the Kelsey Creek School District reported that they administer the DRA to each student at
least twice per year, the MEAP reading and math tests, and the IOWA Test of Basic
Skills once per year. Standardized tests such as the MEAP and IOWA Test of Basic
Skills can be admirnistered to the entire class in 1-2 hour increments over several days.
DRA, QRI and certain sections of the MLPP assessment must be administered
individually and can take 15-20 minutes per child for each level of reading assessed.
When teachers were asked how they facilitate individual testing requirements in the
classroom, teachers described a variety of techniques. Mrs. Albright had strong feelings
about the loss of instructional time during individual QRI testing. She explains:
It stunk! I felt like I was ripping off the rest of my class to be honest with you
because I basically, I'm almost ashamed to say it on tape, but that was in lieu of
guided reading goups. So my class went through and did their independent
work, their center work, while I pulled kids for QRI but I felt like at least they are
doing something that is educational learning. They did not get to meet witln me
and we did not have guided reading goups for the entire week.
A ﬁrst gade teacher expressed concern at having to conduct the DRA and MLPP
assessments for all students at the end of the year. She describes the loss of instructional
time and its effect on her as a professional:
I have to stop guided reading teaching instruction in order to do assessments. That's
really hard for me right krnow. That's what I am dealing with personally because, my
gut says, that I‘m done teaching tlnese students. I have a whole ﬁve weeks left. They
are not done. I need to teach them in order, I want to move them in their teaching so
that I feel better with them leaving me. Now, I feel like I have to stop at the
beginning of May, to start assessments. I am kind of nervous about getting it done
because all our data is due at the end of the month on the 27th. It's ﬁustrating
because I feel like I am done teaching these students because now I have to assess.
When actually, I feel like I need to keep teaching them.
Teachers communicated dissatisfaction with the amount of “face time” they were losing

in ﬁ'ont of their students by having to conduct so many on-going assessments. Several

teachers remarked that although they had conducted all of the assessments and gathered

125

the data, they did not have enough time to analyze all of the information to make quality
instructional choices. No Child Left Behind and Education YES! requirements have
indirectly reallocated teacher instructional time due to the amount and frequency of
student testing required to teach students at their instructional level. The reallocation of
teacher instructional time can be observed in model 4-1 as the change in district
curriculum having a direct inﬂuence on teaching behaviors; the individual assessments
required by the district.

Elementary school administrators are aware of teachers’ ﬁustration with loss of
instructional time. Administrators in the Sienna Heights and Somerset Community
School districts provide a substitute teacher for two days each year so that teachers may
conduct their individualized assessments and not omit important instruction. The
principal of Newport Elementary School describes administration’s view regarding loss
of instructional time:

You know something has to be omitted when you add something (new

assessments). I tlnink time in front of their classroom period is being omitted

because we do provide subs as a district for them to get that (MLPP/DRA) done.

So, they are sitting outside their room with a sub in their room and anytime you

lose face time with your certiﬁed teacher with that classroom, everytlning is

suffering at that point. Every subject is suffering... Now, if I were still in a

classroom I would tell you that it was a huge detriment and I would really be

bothered by it and seeing things from a different perspective now, I see how
valuable it (assessment) is. I see that it can make the time in front of your kids
more quality therefore, it feels like an evil but I think it's a necessary evil that
improves what we do when we are with them then if we were with them all the
time with mediocre information.
Teachers ﬁom Somerset and Sienna Heights appreciated having substitute teacher
coverage to administer MLPP, DRA and QRI assessments, but indicated that two days

was not adequate to accomplish the volume of individualized testing required.

126

Reallocation of teacher instructional time due to individualized assessment has
caused teachers to be creative about ways to accomplish the assessments without losing
“face time” with their students. Four of the twenty-four teachers interviewed reported
having a student teacher helped to alleviate lost instructional time due to testing
requirements. Mr. Price, a third gade teacher from Highland Elementary, explains:

I was very fortunate this year because I had an intern and next year I'll have an

intern as well. So, that was very easy for me to pull out (students to test) the last

couple of years. If I did not have the intern, tlnat's where it would be a little more
challenging.
A ﬁfth gade teacher in the Sienna Heights district agreed that having a student teacher
intern helps to alleviate the testing burden, adding:
Well, for the last three years I have had an intern from Michigan State so that has
helped. However, that doesn't, if I don't have one, what do I do then? The district
this year gave us a sub for one day and that was something but the problem is, is
that in ﬁfth gade I have some kids reading some pretty long passages. I can't get
through some of my kids in 20 to 25 minutes. So, with my intern it works,
without my intern, like I krnow my colleagues, they had a difﬁcult time getting
through them and they have some lower kids but, I had some kids that it took me
that long to get through. I can't say hurry up.
Testing requirements indirectly inﬂuenced by recent legislation caused teachers to ﬁnd
different means for administering individualized assessments in ways that reallocate the
least amount of instructional time. Teachers in the Sienna Heights and Somerset districts
receive two days of substitute teacher coverage each year to complete testing
requirements. Some teachers have students work independently on projects or centers
while individually pulling students for MLPP, DRA and QRI assessments. Student
teaching interns have helped maintain instructional time, while classroom teachers

conduct individualized testing. Regardless of which methods elementary teachers

employ, individual and standardized testing requirements indirectly inﬂuenced by No

127

Child Left Behind and Education YES! have resulted in reallocated and reduced teacher
instructional time.

Standardized tests such as the Michigan Educational Progess Proﬁle and the
IOWA Test of Basic Skills have cut heavily into instructional time. In addition to the
time spent admirnistering the tests, teachers spend large blocks of time preparing students
to take the tests. MEAP is a high-stakes assessment in Michigan and scores from the test
are reported in local media outlets and used to determine Education YES! school gades
as well as whether or not schools have achieved adequate yearly progess. The increased
signiﬁcance of MEAP scores, caused by recent legislation, has required classroom
teachers to provide additional time instructing students on test-taking strategies, and
MEAP-content lessons. Mrs. King administers the MEAP reading and matln assessments
to her fourth gaders at Ardmore Elementary School. She describes the irnstructional time
that is used for MEAP preparation:

Every morning we have our morning matln, until the MEAP test. When the kids

come in the morning they have either DOL, daily oral language, which helps them

with their MEAP test as well as their writing score, and then we start our math
lesson with what I call, again, morning math. I have a sample MEAP test
question on the board and we work it out together and talk about how to get the
answers. That's just to get started. Then my instruction every single day is
basically based around the MEAP. As I teach something, I will give them sample
questions, okay, this is something that they might ask you on the test. We talk
about having four choices, there's the geat arnswer, there is a good bad answer
like it's almost right but they are trying to trip you a little bit and then there are
two ridiculous answers usually. So we talk about that all the time. A lot of times
when I do my assessments I will give MEAP-like tests, you know maybe with just
like 10 questions on it where they have to show their work but then still chose the
best answer. So, it's on going.

To prepare her fourth gaders for the MEAP reading assessment, Mrs.Evans claimed her

guided reading goups fell to the wayside. When MEAP testing was over, Mrs. Evans

was able to return to balanced literacy instruction and see her guided reading goups

128

daily. Mrs. Mayer, a second gade teacher at Ardmore Elementary, asserted that even
though she did not have to prep her students for the IOWA Test of Basic Skills,
administration of the test required 90 minutes per morning on each of four days.

Teachers indicated that standardized tests such as the Miclnigan Educational
Progess Proﬁle and the IOWA Test of Basic Skills have required reallocation of
instructional time. Testing preparation and administration requirements have caused
instructional time to become scarcer than ever before. Elementary teachers regard every
minute in the day as a valuable resource not to be squandered. A fourth gade teacher in
the Sienna Heights district sought help in maximizing her instructional time:

I went to see the Gifted and Talented Coordinator a while back and we were

trying to coordinate some ideas. She gave me some pointers of how to make

more use of your time. Just little things like the kids using the bathroom when
they need to as long as you are not teaching as opposed to taking whole goup
bathroom breaks and things like that. Unfortunately, we don't have bathrooms in
our classroom.
Mrs. Frost, a ﬁfth gade teacher, claims that she carefully plans instruction to the nearest
ten rrninutes to avoid loss of teaching time. It is clear that the administration of
standardized assessments, as required by recent legislative acts, has caused teachers to
reallocate and conserve instructional time more than ever before.

School improvement planning is directly related to assessment through analysis of
individualized and standardized test scores. Teachers describe the school improvement
planning process as a method of analysis by which low scoring content areas are
addressed in a school improvement plan. Plans are developed and incorporated into
teachers’ instructional practices to be emphasized and assessed. Despite the structured

process through which school improvement plans are developed and incorporated,

teachers reported no instructional time was reallocated to administer the plans. Teachers

129

described a formal school improvement plarnning process that has existed for 14 years
under Public Act 25, and thus has been incorporated into teachers’ daily instructional
plans. The fact that assimilation of school improvement plans does not reallocate
instructional time is signiﬁcant because teachers have incorporated the mandates of
Public Act 25 into their daily routine. It can be argued that, given a period of time for
teachers and administrators to modify instructional and assessment practices, the
mandates legislated in Education YES! and No Child Left Behind will become a regular
component of a teacher’s daily instructional plans.

The Somerset Community and Sienna Heights districts incorporated collegial
block planning periods for elementary teachers. Collegial block time involves releasing
teachers by gade level for a common period of one hour once per week. The Sienna
Heights District has formal parameters for collegial block planning periods mandated in
their teachers’ contract. Grade level teachers must meet for at least 45 minutes of the
one-hour block to discuss professional education issues. Sommerset Community
provides a one-hour block for gade level teachers, but has no limitations as to how the
time is to be used. Collegial block planning periods have inﬂuenced the way in which
teachers use time at school. Teachers from the Sienna Heights School District, where
block planning meetings are mandatory, claim they have more professional discussions
with their colleagues because of block planning periods. Mr. Price reviewed the points

third gade teachers at Highland Elementary discuss during block planning time:

130

We do some common planning. We go over our benchmark assessments when
we do tests. We pull them out and say, “Here, most kids missed A, why did they
miss A? What can to do to differently teach it so we use that data to better our
instruction?” The bulk of our time though is mainly spent, other than exam week
and going over benchmark tests, common planning. Just really getting curriculum
togetlner, make sure we are all on the same page with reading and meeting the
benchmarks that we are suppose to hit.

Third gade teachers from Woodridge Elementary School report they also spend a
majority of block planning time analyzing assessments and reviewing literacy standards.
Mrs. Albright deﬁnes the use of block planning time by stating:
(During block planning time) we are not checking papers, we are not work booking,
it is the whole big picture every time we get together. There are other issues that
come in to play, but it's the same thing. . . literacy instruction and benchmark
assessments.
The ﬁrst gade teachers at Woodridge Elementary also work through literacy planning
issues, but do not have benchmark assessments to analyze. Instead, ﬁrst gade teachers
spend a portion of their collegial planning time discussing professional reading using a
book study format. Mrs. Dodson explains:
What we are currently doing is a book study on Shaping Literate Minds. We each
took a chapter and we read it and come back together to summarize the innportant
key concepts of that chapter. . . .You can say, let's take this book, let's break it apart,
let's share a chapter and then like later on in the summer I can say, okay, I really
liked this chapter, this chapter in Shaping Literate Minds and I am going to go back
and read those. I have found, tlnrough our book study, that it is really interesting, and
I am going to go back and dig deeper.
Teachers ﬁ'om the Sienna Heights School District reported that mandatory block planning
periods provide a structured time to talk professionally with gade level colleagues.
Some teachers attend inservice training ﬁ'om the building reading recovery teacher,
counselor, or media specialist. Teachers describe block planning time as an opportunity

for conversing with colleagues about student progess, communication issues, school

improvement planning or future assessments. Sienna Heights teachers participating in

131

the study regarded collegial block time highly and indicated that the building principal
was frequently in attendance at gade level meetings. It is observed that regularly
scheduled professional discussions with gade level colleagues have signiﬁcantly
inﬂuenced the time-use behaviors of Sienna Heights teachers.

Teachers from Eastgate and Newport Elementary schools in the Somerset
Community district have collegial block planning periods once per week for
approximately an hour. Block planning schedules are facilitated by the building
administrator and vary in time and frequency ﬁom building to building. In comparison
with teachers from Sienna Heights, non-mandatory block planning periods are used
differently by teachers from Somerset Community Schools. Mrs. Lynch, a third gade
teacher, describes block planning time at Eastgate Elementary:

During my block time, I'm eitlner calling back parents or getting a lesson prepared

for the next, after the kids come back ﬁ'om specials. I don't really utilize the time

for planning. The only time that I can actually sit down and plan is when the

room is quiet and l have the whole place to myself with no time constraints. I‘m

also math coordinator for the building so I run around here and there getting

things ﬁom other people or meeting with my building principal. I just never ﬁnd

a time for sitting down and planning.

Numerous Somerset teachers reported activities similar to that deﬁned above during
block planning time and claimed that they could do whatever they needed to because it
was their planning time with no constraints. Mrs. Turner stated that her third grade team
at Newport Elementary uses a portion of their block time for collegial grade level
planning:

We do (have block planning time) and we are not as always good about using it as

we should be. Our planning times have been scheduled so that they match up

pretty nicely. We meet often casually like, “Did you do this? Are you doing tlnis?

This is what I typed up for the science test, let's look at it. Let's see if this is what

we like and I'll make changes, here's copies for everybody.” We share a lot. We

are not as good at the let's sit down for a half an hour to an hour togetlner. I krnow
we are really being moved in that direction.

132

Mrs. Jordan, the principal at Newport, claims she got the idea for collegial block planning
periods ﬁ'om reading a book titled Professional Learning Communities at Work. Due to
teacher contractual issues, Mrs. Jordan cannot require her staff to meet during the
common time, but she asserts that she is slowly moving the staff in that direction. Few
gade level goups from Newport and Eastgate Elementary schools use their block
planning period for meeting as a goup to discuss professional topics. Teachers maintain
that since block time is not mandatory, the time allotted may be used at the teacher’s
discretion. It can be argued that block time has not signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced the time-use
behaviors of Somerset Community teachers.

Teachers ﬁ'om the Kelsey Creek School District have no common planning times
at gade level, other than a common lunch period. When asked if teachers spend time
analyzing assessment data as a gade level goup, Mrs. Little replied:

We would love to but, like I said, tlnree days a week, 35 minutes, it's so hard. It's

just; there's no planning time. There is no block time to plan. There's no planning

time period. Like I said, we do our own recess. We have a 40 minute lunch
period but we have to eat lunch too so that's when we get to talk at lunch.
Kelsey Creek teachers claim they try to meet with gade level colleagues either before or
after school, but conﬂicting schedules often hamper their efforts. Common lunch periods
are the only times that gade level colleagues can meet witlnout students during the school
day. Mrs. Wetzel, a tlnird gade teacher from Interlake Elementary, spoke candidly
regarding lunchtime discussions with colleagues:

We don't do a lot of talking about school (laughing). We talk about my new

condo and what color I should paint it. We don‘t do a lot of talking about

instruction. If you want to say we talk about school, we talk about speciﬁc

students. I tlnink kids that we are worried about, concerned about how we, what I
am doing to do about so and so, that type of thing.

133

Teachers from the Kelsey Creek district do not have scheduled block times to meet with
gade level colleagues for professional discussions. It is ackrnowledged that time-use
behaviors of Kelsey Creek teachers have not been inﬂuenced through collegial block
planning periods, but the absence of block planning time may be detrimental to
development of teacher best practices.

New testing requirements, more extensive lesson planning, and collegial meetings
may have reallocated teacher instructional time and inﬂuenced the ways in which
teachers plan for instruction. Tirrne is regarded as a scarce resource by most educators
and teachers attempt to use irnstructional time as efﬁciently as possible. When teachers
are required to admirnister individualized assessments to all of their students or spend
time preparing students for high-stakes standardized tests, instructional time is probably
diminished. Teachers described instances of testing taking two to tlnree weeks during
multiple times each school year. During testing periods, teachers report that some form
of instruction was omitted and other instructional time reduced. Teaching using balanced
literacy instruction has required reallocated planning time for elementary teachers
participating in the study.

A guided reading approach involving numerous reading goups at various reading
levels requires more planning time, which includes individualized lessons. Study
participants claim that they now spend more time planning for individualized literacy
instruction than ever before and frequently need to complete planning outside of the
school day. Teachers from the Somerset Community and Sienna Heights districts have
block planning times incorporated into a weekly schedule. Sienna Heights teachers are

contractually required to meet at gade level once per week for forty-ﬁve minutes during

134

their block time for professional discussions involving assessment, instruction and
common planning. Somerset Community teachers do not have to meet as a gade level,
but do so inﬁequently. Block time discussions for Somerset teachers ranged from
professional to personal issues with varying degees of frequency and length of meeting
time.

Kelsey Creek teachers have no common block planning time and meet
occasionally before and after school and during lunch to discuss professional issues. It
can be anticipated that teachers who regularly participate in collegial block planning
meetings with gade level colleagues have experienced a change in time-use behaviors.
Elementary teachers have encountered a reallocation of their instructional and
professional time due to a change in collegial meetings, lesson planning and required
assessments. The current reform of instructional and professional time for elementary
teachers has most likely created a change in the performance, behavior and learrning of
teachers.

To fundamentally change teacher practices, educators need ﬁ'equent opportunities
to connect policy and practice via professional learning (Cohen & Hill, 2000; Spillane,
1999). The Sienna Heights and Somerset Community districts provide teachers with
block planning time designed to facilitate professional learning. The reallocation of
teacher time due to scheduled block planning periods can be indirectly linked to recent
legislative acts. In order to initiate instructional and student assessment reform, instigated
by No Child Left Behind and Education YES! legislation, teachers require opportunities

to practice and scheduled block planning periods afford teachers that opportunity.

135

Professional Development Reform

The recent change in elementary teacher instructional practices created a need to
train classroom teachers how to effectively implement new techniques such as balanced
literacy instruction, individualized assessments and differentiated mathematics
instruction. A fourth major theme to emerge from analysis of the data is that elementary
teacher professional development behaviors have recently experienced considerable
change. Teachers report that professional development regarding best instructional
practices is delivered through a variety of different vehicles. Several novice teacher
participants received their instructional training while ﬁnishing their undergaduate
degrees and during student teaching experiences. Teachers commented that instructional
in-service training was conducted at out-of-district workshops, either during or after the
school day. The majority of teacher respondents indicated that they had received training
on instructional change ﬁ'om colleagues or other indistrict experts.

The concept of using indistrict experts to train instructional staff members is not a
new idea, but is happening more frequently for a variety of reasons. The principal of
Highland Elementary School explains the current trend in instructional training:

. . .for things to change, people have to buy it. One of the tlnings that is happening

here is that we have some really talented people and when these people are the ones

that are showing other people what it is that has been successful for them and that
they truly believe it, we are a lot better off.
There is one math coordinator for every elementary school in the Somerset Community
district. The math coordinator is paid a stipend in addition to being a salaried teacher. In

addition to normal classroom teaching duties, the math coordinator is responsible for

training staff members in current mathematics irnstructional techniques, new materials

136

and new assessments. Mrs. Lynch is a tlnird gade teacher, who is also the math
coordinator for Eastgate Elementary and explains the beneﬁts of using inside experts:

When you empower our own staff members, your own peers, you are more

willing to listen. They have earned that respect and have gotten into those

positions for a reason. It's not somebody cold or somebody you do not know
coming in from the outside, who may have taught in a classroom 10 years ago.

They understand that you know your stuff because you live it every day. So, I

think it is better received when you call on those who are actually staff members

because they are looked up to by their peers because of their positions and they
got tlnere for a reason.
Study respondents value the training received from colleagues that understand the daily
routine of a classroom teacher as well as school demogaphics, student population and
other intimate working details of the school.

The Sienna Heights and Kelsey Creek districts have indistrict experts called
literacy coaches, while the Somerset Community district has a similar position, Reading
Coordinator. Classroom teachers, having had extensive literacy training outside of the
school day, staff these positions. Administrators remark that literacy coach and reading
coordinator positions were designed to get classroom teachers on the same page with
respect to accepted best practices and balanced literacy instruction. Reading coordinators
and literacy coaches coordinate and model a variety of activities to help classroom
teachers become better individualized literacy instructors. Mrs. Stephens is a ﬁfth gade

teacher and one of the literacy coaches at Higlnland Elementary. She explains the job

responsibilities of a literacy coach:

137

We (the 2 lit. coaches) would go into classrooms sometimes and sometimes help
teachers. Otlner times someone might come to me saying I need a really good idea
for some writing things so I would pull out all the writing materials I had and give it
to them. Sometimes I would model sometlning that I would say that I want you to try
this and I would come back in and see them and discuss that. The other coach and I
also took apart the rubric for writing and we made a ﬁle for every teacher in the
building. So if you were teaching the concept of content and ideas in writing, they
had a ﬁle already made for them and we have all the books all ready in the media
center. . . .We facilitated a lot of book studies. What we decided is to use the ones
that we already had ﬁom the district so we did Words Their Way, which is the whole
word study book, and this year we spent a lot of time with Guided Readers and
Writers.

Classroom teachers shared positive experiences regarding the training received ﬁ'om

indistrict experts such as reading coordinators and literacy coaches. Mrs. Forrester, a

fourth

gade teacher ﬁom Interlake Elementary, describes her encounters with the

building literacy coach:

We have a reading specialist that I have worked with and she is wonderful. ...She
comes into my room and models witln the children. I took what she showed me
and just kept growing on it. Along with the MLPP, I saw some good modeling
there. The children enjoy it and I tlnink it is very worthwhile.

Mrs. Evans had similar experiences with the literacy coaches from her building; she

shares:

They would meet with us during one of our prep times and then during class time
they would teach a lesson with us or ﬁrst they would do it for us to kind of model
different strategies and help us to kind of drive the kids towards certain things that
we needed them to learn to do like the cross text and the questioning. I really
liked it. Plus they were right here in our building where we could talk to them
and they were sharing all kinds of stuff that they did in their classroom and
always make extra copies for us. It was very useful and we could use it again the
next week.

Using indistrict experts instead of sending teachers out of district for in-service training

may allow the districts to save money while providing quality professional development.

The districts studied showed a commitment to training teachers with an emphasis on

teacher-accepted best instructional practices and assessments. Although use of indistrict

138

experts saved money for the districts, an irnitial expense was charged to districts for
literacy coach and reading/math coordinator training, release time for teachers as well as
extra duty pay and the purchase of current professional development materials. The
amount of new teacher training necessary, as an indirect effect of Education YES! and
No Child Left Behind legislation, requires school districts to provide professional
development that is effective and cost efﬁcient. The use of indistrict experts to provide
the professional development required, evoked a positive response ﬁom elementary
teachers and saved districts the. added expense of sending teachers out of district for
training.

Study participants have been trained in some form of literacy assessment, either
DRA, QRI, and/or MLPP assessments; and some have been trained in more than one
assessment method. A majority of teachers who have been trained in the Michigan
Literacy Progess Proﬁle attended a six-day preparation program. Mrs. Stephens recalls
the training involved to become certiﬁed for MLPP, gades 3-5:

We did 40 hours last summer and then we've done ﬁve extra days this school year

so another 40 hours and a case study and lots of trying in the classroom, keeping

track of things and turning those kinds of things in to the intermediate school

district.
Education YES! requires each school district in Michigan to administer a standardized
test at each gade level as a measure of accountability. Many Michigan districts are using
the MLPP to fulﬁll the accountability requirement. The accountability requirement
involves having all classroom teachers trained to use the progam and the extensive

training program can be quite costly. Dr. Lambert comments on the cost of MLPP

training:

139

. ..when we sent our lower elementary staff for MLPP training, I mean literally I

don't know how much money we spent but it had to be a fortune. We were

pulling lots of people out and sending them over and bringing people (trainers) in.
Elementary teachers and districts have shown a commitment to professional literacy
instructional development as conﬁrmed by the teacher attendance and considering the
cost of the training and the time spent required to completing the training. Literacy
assessment trairning for study participants, needed as an indirect inﬂuence of recent
legislation, is ongoing and is conducted by both indistrict and outside experts.
Administrators in the districts studied indicated the objective is to train all elementary
teachers in balanced literacy instruction and assessment to insure continuity of
instruction.

Elementary teachers remarked that professional development for new
instructional and assessment practices was delivered in a variety of ways. Some teachers
were sent to in-services outside of the district for training, while indistrict experts at the
building level trained the majority of classroom teachers. Study participants indicated
that a third method of professional development delivery was accomplished through
professional reading done in collegial goups. The districts studied require certiﬁed
teaching staff to complete professional development hours each year outside of the school
day and to provide administration the professional development conﬁrmation for required
hours completed. Collegial discussions facilitated through professional reading is one
way of accumulating professional development hours and study respondents have
participated in reading goups. The Sienna Heights district provided elementary teachers
with eleven texts with which to guide professional development. Elementary principals

from the Kelsey Creek and Somerset Community districts report purchasing professional

140

reading materials for staff members to use for professional development. A ﬁrst gade
teacher from Sienna Heights reﬂects upon new professional reading materials supplied by
the district:

They (the district) are giving us more teacher resources to read, which is
wonderﬁnl, because I think that's where it starts, your move. Getting teachers to
read text that move their thinking along and forwards. They are thinking, “Oh, I

could do it this way, oh I can change this”.
Book study groups are popular with teachers because of the opportunity to discuss
professional reading materials with colleagues and compare how others are using the new
techniques or methods. Mrs. Albright tells about her experience with book study goups:

With receiving the new materials last fall, we formed book study goups and we
have learned more about them. Our administration actually started us on a Fountas
and Pinnell study goup with other principals and have used our block planning time
to have us discuss certain chapters. She (the principal) has been the coordinator to
pull people ill to show us the right way it should be done.

Teachers report signiﬁcant changes in instructional practices due to professional reading
done independently or in collegial book study goups. Mrs. Turner recounts how a
professional book study changed her literacy instruction:

Strategies that Work really puts it into play. Mosaic of Thought I think is more of
philosophy, a really valuable book but Strategies that Work is a book that I've really
gotten, and taken and taken away the meat. I‘m also reading F ountas and Pirnnell
Guided Readers and Writers. I‘ve gotten through a lot of that but not all of that. I'm
trying to implement some of those things. When I did my gaduate work at
Michigan State, I really got some geat ideas and some really good literature that just
gave me ideas of how to be a better literacy teacher. I tlnink I started out with a lot of
energy and excitement about it and that kind of helped guided my kids in that ﬁrst
year and now I think I have become a more informed teacher about ways to more
effectively use their time.

The ﬁfth gade teachers at Newport Elementary read Professional Learning Communities
at Work as a gade level team and now incorporate the strategies discussed into weekly

block planning time. Teachers enjoy the ﬁeedom offered though professional

141

development book study groups. Collegial discussions of professional texts provide
teachers the opportunity to review current teaching practices while examining the
practices of colleagues in a professional development setting. It can be stated that
participating in collegial study groups has inﬂuenced the professional development of
teachers, and having frequent opportunities to discuss and practice techniques learned in
study groups is helping to facilitate the reform objectives of recent legislation.

The fourth major theme to emerge ﬁ'om analysis of the data is that elementary
teacher professional development behaviors have recently experienced signiﬁcant change
in the amount and ﬁ'equency of training as well as the delivery of professional training.
The signiﬁcant change in teacher instruction and assessment, inﬂuenced by No Child
Left Behind and Education YES! legislation, has created a need for teachers to attend
professional development activities. Teachers are asked to use balanced literacy
instruction, differentiated math instruction and individualized assessments to design a
professional learning community that meets the needs of each student. Implementation
of new instructional methods and testing demands that teachers are trained to employ
new techniques and assessments effectively. Although some teachers reported that in-
service training was delivered at the university or through off-site workshops, the
majority of study respondents indicated attendance at professional development sessions
conducted by indistrict experts at the district or building level.

Each district studied has some form of indistrict expert at the building level to
assist in the professional development of teachers involving literacy or math instruction
and the respective assessments that accompany each content area. Teachers believe that

training delivered by colleagues, who have credibility, provides instruction that is quickly

142

accepted. Study respondents discussed participating in collegial book studies using
professional texts that focus upon current instructional and assessment reform. Teachers
believe that participation in collegial book study groups facilitated instructional and
assessment reform to a high degree while fulﬁlling obligations to complete professional
development hours at the district level.

The districts studied demonstrated a commitment to teacher professional
development by the use of indistrict experts, substitute teachers for release time,
opportunities to practice new instructional and assessment techniques and current reform
materials and supplies. Changes required in math and literacy instruction and
individualized assessments create an environment in which teachers are given multiple

opportunities to learn and apply reform practices as inﬂuenced by recent legislative acts.

Record Keeping and Other Reform

It is clear that reform of instructional practices, assessment, use of time and
professional development requires an accountability component to conﬁrm that change is
actually occurring. A ﬁfth major theme to emerge ﬁnal analysis of the data is that
elementary teacher record keeping behaviors, related to accountability, have recently
experienced signiﬁcant change. Teachers report keeping new detailed and more frequent
notations in records for individual children and are required to submit increased
paperwork to the administration. The Kelsey Creek School District requires all
elementary teachers to keep a proﬁle binder for each student. Mrs. Mayer details the

contents of the proﬁle binder:

143

We keep a section on each child so we have materials from starting in
kindergarten with MLPP and DRAs that they might do in kindergarten, ﬁrst and
second grade and that is passed on from teacher to teacher. They have the
entrance and exit DRAs, a writing rubric and writing sample and various works
throughout the year that we put into the binders. We have a major sheet that we
fill out based on everyone's scores and we will go to our curriculum director this
year. That includes other information for grant work and if they’re Hispanic,
Caucasian, male, female, and their scores.
Kelsey Creek teachers described updating proﬁle binders as a lengthy and time
consuming activity, but they value the contents of the binders. Mrs. Tobin, a reading
recovery teacher as well as literacy coach, described the importance of keeping such
detailed and accurate records for each child:
...those (proﬁle binders) are big important things. They have recurrent DRAs
plus, they have a lot of information that each teacher gathers before hand. This is
what's going to go to the teachers next year plus individual information on each
kid. They are going to know the level that they were and observational survey.
Every single thing that you will need to know, here's DRA, here's the OS
(observation survey) that they need plus a writing sample. This is all coming to
them in a notebook. So the ﬁrst thing they are going to do is look at this child and
read where they were.
Sienna Heights and Somerset Community school districts also require record keeping
procedures for individual elementary school students. The record keeping instruments
have different names, such as proﬁle binders, literacy portfolios, and assessment
collections, but each serves a common purpose as an accountability instrument. The
amount of required record keeping for elementary school teachers has increased
signiﬁcantly since the inception of recent instructional and assessment reform inﬂuenced
by No Child Left Behind and Education YES!.
Woodridge Elementary School in the Sienna Heights district is a Title I school.
Being a Title I school demands additional record keeping procedures that teachers

describe as cumbersome. Lower elementary teachers at Woodridge are required to

I44

administer the entire MLPP assessment to all students regardless of the child’s needs.
The data assembled ﬁorn the MLPP assessments is used to fulﬁll a Title I requirement,
but teachers question the validity of the extra testing and paperwork requirements.
Mrs.Dodson comments:
I've always done OS (Observational Survey) on all my students. But, I have six
children reading at a level 30. I don't need to do concepts of print with them
because they already know that. I don‘t need to do letter ID with them, they

already know it. I don't need to do sight word list with them because they already
know it. Yes, they are going to be fast to do this assessment, but why do I need to

do that assessment if they already know it? Meanwhile I am sitting here in the
back of my mind going, “I've got these at risk kids. I've got 11 at risk kids I need
to be teaching, not assessing right now.” It's hard for me because then if I say, I‘m
going to teach them guided reading and still assess, then the math gets pushed or I
don't do the math or I don't do the science or the social studies.
Regardless of personal beliefs, teachers reported administering required assessments as
scores are recorded in students’ literacy portfolios and also submitted to administration
for review. The amount of required record keeping has significantly increased as
reported by teachers participating in the study. Teachers describe keeping more detailed
records for individual students’ assessment scores and speciﬁc literacy and math skills
mastered. Some study participants believe the extra record keeping requirements take
time that could be used to prepare lessons or plan with colleagues. Mrs. Vaughn
describes problems caused by increased record keeping requirements:
There is less common planning time because there is so much paperwork that we
have now. A lot of my current planning time is spent completing paperwork and
trying to be prepared for the next day. You know, having all of your ducks in a
row.

Teachers consider the increased paperwork requirements a burden, but do not question

the importance of the information. Mrs. Bowman clariﬁes:

145

I have devised my own system to keep track of the running records and things. It
is helpful to me, but now we have kind of a lot of paper work required that we
have to do. A lot of it is duplicate information and I think they are beginning to
bog us down and having to keep track of all their scores because they have to
prove to the state and federal government that we are improving all along. I think
that it takes away ﬁ'om our prep time and teaching time.
Accountability mandates from recent changes in student instruction and assessments require
teachers to keep detailed records for individual students. Keeping records of student
assessment data, individual math and literacy skills learned, and literacy proﬁles is now
standard practice in the school districts studied. Teachers believe the new paperwork
requirements provide valuable information, but question the time demands of completing
new record keeping directives. Upon review of record keeping requirements, modiﬁcations
may be initiated to delete duplication of record keeping entries.

Teachers described providing administration with detailed records regarding each
student’s progress and being held accountable for maxirnmn individualized student growth.
The accountability level of record keeping and assessment requirements has created a
heightened degree of anxiety among classroom teachers. A ﬁrst grade teacher ﬁom Sienna
Heights describes the tension felt from accountability mandates:

...the pressure I think for teaching has gotten more so throughout the years. I think

we are much more accountable for our students moving, our students’ progress. A

primary example is that assessment wall. You know, if I have a student that is not

moving on it, am I held accountable for that child's learning or unable to learn? The
pressure is much more now a days then it was ﬁve years ago. Not to say that it was
all ﬂuff, it wasn't, but you are held a lot more accountable for students. Just getting
these children to learn how to read and write and add and get them ready for the

MEAP and getting them reading by third grade and what are going to do with a

student whose not reading. I'm struggling with that right now.

The additional pressure related to new accountability issues has increased professional

growth in teachers. A third grade teacher from Woodbridge Elementary Schools explains

the changes she experienced as a result of additional tension related to accountability:

146

When I say that I am more stressed it's because maybe I care more, maybe I know
this is serious business. When I went into teaching I had no idea that it was going
to be like this. We do have a job to do and it's tough. Another way I am stressed
is because I feel like we still have so much to learn. Kind of like when you are
getting it all and then there is something else.
Teachers feel additional stress and tension now more than ever due to increased
accountability and record keeping requirements indirectly inﬂuenced by Education YES!
and No Child Left Behind legislation. The additional pressures felt have caused teachers
to review teaching and assessment practices in order to maximize individual student
growth. A case can be made that the signiﬁcant change in record keeping and
accountability requirements, as needed by recent instructional and assessment reform, has
caused positive professional development for teachers participating in the study.

In addition to signiﬁcant changes in teacher record keeping, there have been other
changes that inﬂuence the behaviors of elementary teachers. These additional
miscellaneous reform issues do not ﬁt in any of the prior categories, so they will be
discussed in this section as independent miscellaneous changes. Teachers participating in
the study report new reforms in areas of instruction, student assessment, and use of time
have elevated the required level of performance for individual students. Mrs. Vaughn
explains the increased level of expectations for second graders in the Kelsey Creek
district:

In math, there are a lot more expectations, even the reading they are expecting a

lot more of the children than they did 5 years ago. It is much more rigorous and

difﬁcult and I feel that has come ﬁ'om the state, the benchmarks and such. I

would say that probably we have to take them a lot farther and that is the biggest

change that I can see. Some children are ready for it and some are not.

Teachers believe the increased amount of testing and heightened student expectations has

caused a sense of urgency for teachers as well as students. A third grade teacher from

147

 

 

. . w ..s..d.¢w7l.. .(‘qan or .ukfv’
__

L.

 

 

Newport Elementary School describes the increased student expectations and demands
for efﬁciency in the Somerset Community School District:
I think that there is more and more of that demand and that expectation that you
will produce every moment of the day. We will be efﬁcient. We will use our
time well, which I think has positives, but also there is that constant feeling of
urgency. Sometimes I wish that we could step back and let them be kids a little
bit more and that's why I try and incorporate things like multiplication facts and
they go down the slide. You know, it's purposeful learning, but make it as ftm as
possible because we don't get time off for just meaningless breaks.
Overall, teachers believe that the increased student expectations are a positive change, but
the change has come too quickly. Teachers agree that students must be challenged and
taught at their instructional levels to maximize student learning. The changes in
instruction, assessment, and use of time have caused an increase in the expected
performance level of students and inﬂuenced the behaviors of elementary school
teachers. It is evident that the increase in student expectations and stress level is a direct
effect of instructional and assessment changes. In turn, the assessment and instructional
changes are facilitated through the school improvement process which has been directly
impacted by the increased signiﬁcance of MEAP assessments caused by recent
legislation. The path from No Child Left Behind and Education YES! mandates
inﬂuencing teacher behaviors, as shown in Figure 4-1, is indirect yet powerful and bears
a certain level of responsibility for the increase in student expectations and stress level.
Newly increased student expectations have caused an indirect effect in the way
certain programming is selected at the elementary level. Teachers describe instruction as

being very purposeful and geared towards meeting performance standards and

benchmarks. In addition, school assemblies are now being scheduled to meet

I48

benchmarks and performance standards. A fourth grade teacher from Sienna Heights
explains how assemblies are scheduled at Highland Elementary:
...a lot of times they (assemblies) seem to tie in with our benchmarks very well.

We had a storyteller who told stories about Michigan history. She was very good
and it just kind of brought to life all the things that we had been learning in the

unit. Then we had Core Democratic Value assembly and some others that seem
to tie in really well. No more ﬁrn and frilly assemblies and no more Frisbee
throwing assemblies.
In addition to benchmark-oriented assemblies, teachers report that evening events at
school are now designed to meet benchmarks and further develop student learning
objectives. Mrs. Vaughn tells about literacy celebrations held at Interlake Elementary
School:
In 2'“I grade we have an author’s day where the children share their pieces. As
they write their stories, they share them in my room with the other kids and this
excites the other kids to write their little chapter books. We used to have literacy
fair, but that was before we had the science fair. Now we are doing spring
exhibit. All of these things are tied into the reading and writing, research and this
is a celebration of all of those things pulled together.
Teachers report that assemblies and evening celebrations are now being scheduled as
purposeful events that supplement classroom instruction. The days of school carnivals
have been replaced with literacy and math fairs. Carefree school assemblies are gone in
favor of assemblies designed to reinforce district benchmarks and standards. Study
respondents believe the change to more subject-oriented assemblies and programs aids in
the delivery of individualized instruction and supports the increase in student learning
expectations. Teachers report that once on track, benchmark-oriented assemblies include

the fun of past assemblies but now reinforce classroom instruction in a positive way. The

change in the content of school assemblies and evening celebrations can be correlated

I49

with current reform of the school district curriculum; an indirect inﬂuence from
Education YES! and No Child Left Behind legislation as shown in ﬁgure 4-1.

Study participants indicated that mandates ﬁ'om No Child Left Behind and
Education YES! were the catalysts for reform involving teacher instruction, student
assessment, use of time, record keeping, and teacher professional development.
Although listing recent reform as a vehicle of change, teachers exhibited misconceptions
and confusion regarding the requirements mandated by Education YES! and No Child
Left Behind. Reading the local newspaper, union emails and information on the internet
were the approaches most _ selected by teachers when asked how they learned about the
requirements of No Child Left Behind and Education YES! Teachers indicated a general
lack of professional training regarding how recent legislation may inﬂuence teaching job
duties. Mrs. Frost explains her professional indoctrination to recent legislative acts:

The Assistant Superintendent came in and gave us a power point presentation (on

No Child Left Behind and Education YES!) at the beginning of this year or at the

end of last year, I can't remember. So that is very conﬁrsing. He also came to our

PTA and did the same thing. That's how I got to see it twice. Our principal has

helped us a little bit but it is very confusing to all of us. Things keep changing on us.

Other than that, (I learn about the legislation from) probably just whatever we read.
Mrs. Dodson has had a similar experience to Mrs. Frost and relates her experience:

. . .I've seen a nice power point presentation. Overall, I don't think that there has

been too much except for at staff meetings where our principal has talked a lot

about this is this part and this is that. She has talked about different components
but not overall. I have not had any professional come in and say, “Okay, this is it.

This is what you have to do.”

When asked what the district has done to help align math and literacy instruction with recent
reform initiatives, one administrative respondent had no idea. The principal claimed that all

of the cuniculurn aligrment work had been done at the committee level, and since he was

ISO

not on any of the committees, he had no clue as to how the curriculum had been aligred
with No Child Left Behind or Education YES!.

The lack of professional development for teachers regarding the details of recent
legislation has caused teachers to have a variety of misconceptions about Education YES!
and No Child Left Behind. A fourth gade teacher from Interlake Elementary relates her
interpretation of recent legislation and its inﬂuence on education:

I ﬁnd it kind of interesting how NCLB has been on the docket for so long and

now it is in the forefront. I believe the accountability piece is important- The

local control, I’m afraid that we are going to lose that. I almost feel as though this
is why YES Michigan is coming around, to break the local control. This bothers

me. Doing what works is good, but not the same thing works for every child. I

don’t believe that every child learns the same way and every child is going to

progess at the same level.
A kindergarten teacher ﬁ'om the Sienna Heights district is not concerned about the
requirements of No Child Left Behind as she describes her understanding of the
legislation:

What I think is beautiful about this, is that if you got the NCLB requirements,

then you just have to show a year’s gowth. So when my colleagues would say to

me, “Oh you know we can’t...so what”. You test them in the fall and test them

again the spring and if you show a years gowth no problem. And of course a

years gowth is going to looking ﬁom child to child but. . .you are always going to

see gowth.
Administration spends time during staff meetings and other professional venues to
disseminate the details and mandates of recent legislative acts. Despite the time spent
talking to staff members about legislative issues, teachers report feeling confused and
demonstrate misconceptions about Education YES! and No Child Left Behind. Teachers
participating in the study believe that recent legislative mandates contribute to the

changes in teacher instruction, professional development, student assessment, use of time

151

and new record keeping requirements, but cannot pinpoint which act has been a catalyst
for which reform effort.

A ﬁfth major theme to emerge from analysis of the data is that elementary teacher
record keeping and other miscellaneous behaviors, related to accountability, have
recently experienced sigriﬁcant change. Teachers describe keeping new detailed and
more ﬁequent records for individual students as required by school administration. The
records are kept in individual binders or portfolios and provided to administrators for
review at multiple times during the year. Study respondents indicated that the
information collected is valuable, but the rate of testing incidence and subsequent record
keeping is cumbersome. Teachers believe that the scheduled amount and ﬁequency of
assessments and record keeping have taken time away from instruction and caused
instructional time to become an even more coveted and scarce resource than ever before.
Study participants report an increase in the expected level of student performance with
regard to core academic subject areas. Increased accountability for individual students
coupled with increased student performance expectations and the scarcity of instructional
time has created an increased level of anxiety for teachers. Respondents indicated that
the increased tension has been a positive mechanism for professional development and
gowth, although teachers reported that the stress level is often uncomfortable.

Figure 4-1 demonstrates the indirect, yet prevailing, inﬂuence of No Child Left
Behind and Education YES! mandates on elementary schools and teacher behaviors.
Recent record keeping and other miscellaneous changes reported by teachers and

administrators can be traced back to current legislative acts through a series of indirect

152

spheres of reform inﬂuencing school district curriculum, school improvement planning

and the increased sigriﬁcance of MEAP assessment scores.

Administrative Reform
Signiﬁcant changes in teacher instructional practices, student assessment, use of
teacher time, professional development and record keeping and other lesser changes
direct the ﬁnal theme to emerge ﬁ'om examination of the study data. The sixth major
theme to emerge ﬁ'om data analysis is that school administrative behaviors have
experienced sigriﬁcant change. Changes in teacher instruction and student assessment
have caused a shift in the focus of the elementary principal. Elementary principal
respondents indicate a decreased emphasis on school management and increased focus on
curriculum and instruction. Mrs. Albright explains how the principal of Woodridge
Elementary is focused on curriculum:
I feel that our administrator has had a lot of stress on her therefore she has brought
it down to us and made it quite serious that we have a lot of work to do and we
have a tough job ahead of us. She has really stayed on top of every gade level. I
can only speak of third gade because I am not in the other goups block planning
but I would say that she is in ninety percent of our block planning time. That does
not say that she runs the meeting but she sits in and listens. She is a coordinator
as far as making sure that everybody is there but she is a facilitator once a
month along with our literacy coach to help us stay focused with our goals.
The new administrative focus on curriculum demands that elementary principals stay
abreast of current best instructional and assessment practices. This is a challenge for most
elementary principals as they are learning along with their teachers while conducting
administrative duties. Dr. Craig describes the curriculum and instructional learning

demands of elementary administrators:

153

I am learning as we go and I think that the feeling in this building is very much

so. When we had a book study on Strategies That Work last year and Yellow

Brick Road this year and on Fountas and Pinnell guided reading, what we are all

doing is learning together. It's developed trust in many ways because when you

are learning with someone else, you are very open to your own weaknesses where
you are deﬁcit. So, we are all learning together and I think that there is openness
in that which I really do appreciate it in this building.

Principals indicated that adnrinistrative time has been reallocated to attend
professional development training with the teaching staff. Mr. Delk attends most
professional development sessions with the teachers ﬁom Interlake Elementary as he
explains:

I have been trained in MLPP, and attended various other workshops and trained in

cooperative learning. General activities that are either for school improvement

process or goals that we have set for the building and teachers are trained in it, I

take the training as well.

As the sigriﬁcance in MEAP and other assessment scores increases because of Education
YES! and No Child Left Behind legislation, administrators are ﬁnding it beneﬁcial to
attend training with teaching staff members. Principal Duncan relates why she needs to
attend school improvement and instructional inservice sessions with her staff:

. . .we can reinforce what we need to do. When I go in observe I know what to

look for and what to expect. They can also depend on me, for things that they

need because of the training. Our NCA, how can we put something together if the
administrator doesn't really know what you have to do? I just have a dynamite
staff and I have keep up with them.
Elementary administrators are staying up to date with current instructional practices,
paperwork requirements and student assessment by attending training with staff
members. Principals believe teachers respect adrrrinistrators who understand what is
going on in the classroom and support instructional and assessment reform with

professional development, materials and knowledge. In a time when MEAP scores and

school improvement planning dictate curriculum decisions, administrators need to stay

154

abreast of current assessment and instructional practices in order to successfully ﬁrnction
as the instructional leader for the building. Additionally, the new legislation has had an
indirect effect on administrative professional development due to the increased
sigriﬁcance placed upon MEAP scores.

Teacher and principal respondents report an increase in the amount of resources
that districts are providing to support recent educational reform. Somerset Community
and Sienna Heights teachers appreciate release time, using substitute teachers, twice per
year to conduct various individualized student assessments. The districts studied also
supply each teacher with their own DRA or QRI and MLPP assessment kits so that
teachers can assess students when necessary without having to search to ﬁnd the
appropriate materials. Providing substitute teachers twice per year and providing
assessment kits for every elementary teacher demonstrates a strong ﬁnancial commitment
towards supporting student testing reform inﬂuenced by the new legislation.

When asked what the Somerset Community district had done to help support
literacy instruction reform, teachers and administrators were very positive. Mrs. Jordan
comments on the district support that Newport Elementary received to facilitate literacy
instructional change:

They (the administration) give each principal funds and sub.days, kind of a split

pot, for special projects. And for each faculty member you have you get two sub

days for professional development and they allow us to use those however we see
ﬁt, and in our building we have used those to gear towards literacy. So, we were
able to go as a whole staff to go to the intermediate school reader and writer
workshop training. But then any time we do book talks during the day, and
different things, then we can use sub time for. So, they (the administration) have

just really given the principal the resources we need to do professional
development and we've chosen as a building to look at literacy this year.

155

Administrators in the districts studied are purchasing materials to help their teaching staff
members make the transition to new instructional and assessment practices. The Sienna
Heights district purchased reference books for each elementary teacher and provided an
inservice for staff members regarding how to utilize the new materials. Mrs. Stephens
gave her opinion concerning the new resources provided by the district:

We have received a lot of reference books and then, it's called the Blue Book

ﬁ'om the district, and several people have spent a lot of time on it. Once it was

explained to us, it has become very useful. What it does is it takes all the parts of
the literacy wheel and explains what you can do for comprehension, what
reference book to go to, and what are some things you can do (to solve the
problem).
The Somerset Community School District purchased COMPASS, a software progam,
which is a computer-based series of basic skills assessments developed by the American
College Testing Company. Teachers explain that the COMPASS progam allows them to
individualize instruction for students in core content areas, a resource to implement
instructional reform. The purchase of reference texts and relevant software progams for
teachers in the district demonstrates two methods by which districts are supporting
reform in student instructional, record keeping and assessment.

In addition to changes in the amount of substitute teacher time and materials
provided, the districts studied are supporting schools with reform initiatives by
developing new standards in the form of policies and procedures. One such procedure
was the initiation of an instructional support team (IST) to assist classroom teachers with
students who were not successfully learning using new instructional techniques. Mrs.

Wells explains the responsibilities of the instructional support team at Woodbridge

Elementary:

156

. . .the instructional support team has been implemented in the three Title One
buildings. We have seen it is a team of nine people that meet on a weekly basis
and teaches can refer a child if there's a problem. If they have exhausted all of the
classroom resources, they've done guided reading, they have done the literacy
block as it is supposed to be implemented and the child is still experiencing
difﬁculty, they can bring the child to the team and we all brainstorm. We have
psychologist, speech teacher, and resource teachers, who can say, “How about
trying this for six weeks?”, and we put it right back on the teacher and say, “This
is what we would like you to try for six weeks. We will check back in six
weeks.” We have a contact person who is always in communication with that
teacher. The district has supplied us with a lot of stuff to help us implement that.
The increased sigriﬁcance of the MEAP test and attaining 100% student achievement on
the MEAP reading subtest, as required by No Child Left Behind legislation, caused the
administration of Kelsey Creek Schools to adopt a retention policy for students who do
not achieve gade level expectations for reading. The policy states that students who do
not read at gade level expectations by the close of the school year are to be retained in
the same gade for the next year. Administrators believe that students who are not
performing at gade level expectations for core literacy standards cannot be promoted to
the next gade. Kelsey Creek teachers have strong feelings regarding the recent retention
policy as explained by Mrs. Mayer:
I think we are hurting some children and requiring that they are at a special limit
or a certain level, when developmentally they are not quite there yet. I'm not
saying we don't teach it, I'm just saying we shouldn't be requiring mastery to the
point where we are going to retain them or make them feel like failures because
they all are going to learn at their own rate.
Kelsey Creek parents who have students who do not read at gade level expectations may
request that their child be placed rather than retained. Students who are not reading at
gade level expectations are then “placed” into the next gade, but not ofﬁcially

promoted. The increased sigriﬁcance of MEAP scores due to mandates ﬁ'om recent

157

legislative acts is a catalyst for implementing of the new retention policy of Kelsey Creek
Schools.

Recent legislative mandates have indirectly inﬂuenced sigriﬁcant changes in the
school district curriculum and classroom teacher behavior. To facilitate instructional and
curricular reform, districts have adopted new policies and procedures that support student
learning. Teachers and parents have viewed some policies, such as the development of
the Sienna Heights Instructional Support Team, as a positive change. The Kelsey Creek
retention policy is considered a negative, yet a necessary, change in school policy. No
Child Left Behind legislation requires 100% student proﬁciency on MEAP assessments
by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. The NCLB mandate has inﬂuenced
administrators to implement policies and procedures that will increase the probability of
attaining 100% student proﬁciency as required by the legislation.

The districts studied developed benchmarks and student performance standards
that reﬂect current state benchmarks for learning. The State of Michigan benchmarks are
the foundation for the development of questions ﬁ'om MEAP assessments.
Administrators participating in the study report an increased emphasis on student
instruction that meets district benchmark and performance standard goals. Mrs. Lynch
explains how increased administrative emphasis on instruction that meets benchmark
requirements has inﬂuenced her instruction:

. . .if you stick to the standards and benchmarks, you realize that you won't have to

do all these other things that you felt like you had to in third gade even though

it's your passion. I really wanted to do something on the Undergound Railroad,

do this major theme on black history. Now before I plan, I make sure I go to my
benchmarks and see what is it exactly that I need to cover.

158

Teachers can no longer i grore content that is covered by district benchmarks as students
are being assessed on benchmark standards and teachers are held accountable for student
achievement. Mrs. Forrester describes the change in instruction for 4th gaders due to an
increased emphasis on benchmark lesson content:

I can remember when I ﬁrst started teaching I thought I didn’t want to be bothered

by these story problems (as required by Kelsey Creek benchmarks). They are just

too hard for the kids. I would igrore them. ....It is not a choice with MEAP and

IOWA Test of Basic Skills in 4th gade.
Teachers were generally positive when reﬂecting on how instruction is more focused on
benchmark content. Some teachers complained that there was not enough time to include
non-academic activities because of increased emphasis on benchmark content. Mrs.
Albright tells about the change in her lesson focus:

I don't do any more "fun", cutsie projects. I don't do art in my room or draw

pictures. . . .Everything that I do now in the classroom is totally has to do with the

(district) benchmarks.
The development of MEAP questions comes ﬁ'om current State of Michigan benchmarks
and performance standards. The process by which MEAP questions are created has
caused district administrators to accentuate instruction of benchmark content and
encourage teachers to omit instruction that does not meet performance standard
objectives. Teachers believe the increased emphasis on benchmark content has driven
instruction in a positive manner, but some teachers rrriss the days of arts and crafts
projects.

District adminisﬁation recogrizes the challenges that classroom teachers
eXperience during sigriﬁcant instructional, curricular and assessment reform. Principals

report that administration is working to aligr current assessments and changes in

curriculum with reform initiatives by providing professional development and progam

159

materials to teachers impacted by these changes. Mr. Delk, the principal of Interlake
Elementary, describes the work that Kelsey Creek administrators did to aligr reform
initiatives with recent changes in instruction and curriculum:
.. .we did that (rewrite curriculum) to initially aligr ourselves with the state's
bench marks. That was the purpose so our curriculum would be aligred. We
accomplished that and once our curriculum was aligred then we went out looking
for materials that were going to best match or meet what we developed.
The Sienna Heights and Somerset Community districts created their own assessments, the
benchmark assessment and English/Language Arts assessments respectively, to align
teachers’ instruction with benchniarks and performance standards. In addition to aligring
curriculum with state and district benchmarks, the districts provide instructional materials
for teachers to facilitate the change to balanced literacy instruction. Mrs. Bowman
explains how the Kelsey Creek district provides new materials to shape her literacy
instruction:
we have more curriculum materials. When I started out in ﬁrst gade, we did
not have reading books. I provided some kind of reading activity that used a lot of
rhymes that I would type out and give to the children. They would make their
own books. I did a lot of teaching off of that, like ﬁnd the site words, ﬁnd the
chunk and I was very content doing that. Through the last ﬁve to six years, they
(district administration) have provided us with a lot of (literacy) materials and so I
feel that those need to be used.
The literacy coach at Ardmore Elementary School noted that administration provides
guided reading materials for each teacher at the point of instruction, in the classroom.
Providing multiple leveled texts for each teacher to use in the classroom demonstrates a
sigriﬁcant ﬁnancial comrrritrnent to aligring changes in instruction with the reform
initiatives from No Child Left Behind and Education YES!
Elementary principals participating in the study describe sigriﬁcant changes in

administrative spending practices as a result of curricular, instructional and assessment

160

reforms inﬂuenced by recent legislation. Building administrators report spending more
of their budget on leveled guided reading books for the school literacy library. The
principal of Interlake Elementary relates the changes in spending practices:
I might be providing more money towards support materials and resource
materials for teachers to enable them to do to guided reading or buying books in
goups of 6 or 8 of level texts for them to use. I think from that stand point,
instead of focusing on a basal theory or anything of that nature, I have directed
my additional funds from my own building funds for consumables ore
miscellaneous supplies and things like that to augnent and provide materials that
the teachers can use for some new strategies that we are asking them to do.
Dr. Craig claims that the days of spending building funds on balls and benches for the
playgound has been replaced by money spent on materials and training that support the
curriculum and instruction. Instructional, assessment and curricular changes inﬂuenced
by recent legislation have caused sigriﬁcant changes in district spending practices and
administrative support of reform efforts. The objective of district administration is to
aligr and support teacher instruction with benchmarks for learning. The districts created
assessments to ali gr teacher instruction with performance standards and have rewritten
curriculum to better support benchmark instruction. Building principals are spending
more of the budget on materials to support mandated instructional changes in addition to
the extra materials already provided at the district level for instructional reform.
Elementary principal respondents indicated that hiring practices have changed due
to mandates ﬁom Education YES! and No Child Left Behind. Instructional and
assessment reform initiatives have principals looking for teaching candidates that are
already trained in balanced literacy instruction and administration of current assessments

such as DRA, QRI and MLPP. Dr. Shea, the principal of Brookﬁeld Elementary,

elaborates on current hiring standards for teaching candidates:

161

I think ﬁrst and foremost you are looking for somebody that is very skilled at

literacy (instruction) and has a good understanding of what good literacy and

balanced literacy is. Then I also look for the willingress to put in the extra time.

They really have to realize, especially if they come to Sienna Heights, there are

geat demands. Our citizens expect so much. They want the best education for

their child and so we have high expectations ﬁ'om our parents and our
communities so we have to maintain that.
Mrs. Jordan recogrizes the importance of MEAP assessments and looks for candidates
that understand the signiﬁcance of MEAP testing:
Some people have already been trained in MLPP and DRA, but just at least a
knowledge based on that so they can talk about it and understand the importance
of assessment. A big turn off is you talk about the MEAP test in a conversation or
any kind of assessment in a conversation and they (interview candidate) act like
it's evil or a burden. If they already think it's an evil and a burden, then I don't
want them on staff.
The concentration on literacy and math instruction has changed the focus of interview
questions used for teacher candidates. Principals describe current interview questions
based around literacy and math instruction and assessment practices. Mrs. Duncan
regularly asks her building literacy coach to sit in on teacher interviews to get a better
perspective on candidates’ answers to literacy-based instruction and assessment practices.
Recent legislative mandates have also inﬂuenced the hiring practices of elementary
principals. Elementary principals participating in the study maintain that teacher
candidates are now being scrutinized for knowledge of reform initiatives in curriculum,
assessment and instruction.

It has been reported that elementary teacher record keeping practices have
changed sigriﬁcantly as a result of legislative acts. Elementary principals assert that
administrative record keeping practices have changed substantially as a result of No
Child Left Behind and Education YES! mandates. Principals’ must complete the school

performance indicators requirement of Education YES!, which is a self-assessment of

I62

eleven different school success indicators. The school performance indicators section of
Education YES! is a requirement that increases elementary administrator record keeping
requirements. Principals indicated that a large amount of administrative time was
reallocated to complete the school success indicators requirement of Education YES!, as
Dr. Lambert explains:

...the ﬁrst time we did it probably took, I would guess each principal had 8 to 10
hours on it. It was a huge project even with all the help we have from the district.

Other principals indicated a sirrrilar amount of time was spent completing the school
success indicators section. Central ofﬁce administration is credited by building principals
as playing a supporting role in completing new record keeping practices as required by
the legislation. Mrs. Jordan tells about the supportive role the Somerset Community
administration played in completing new form requirements of No Child Left Behind and
Education YES!:
...we have our curriculum director last year who really walked us through as
principals, what it was we were supposed to do. Then she made herself available if
we had questions and then last year at crunch time when it was due and I was still
trying to get it all put together, I was able to go sit over at the district ofﬁce and their
computer lab and they had helpers that were stationed around to help those of us
who were scrambling. I feel like our district has supported us in every way that they
can.
Elementary principals describe a sigriﬁcant increase in the volume of record keeping
required by No Child Left Behind and Education YES! Central ofﬁce administrators are
recogrized as a supportive and knowledgeable staff that collaborate with building principals
to facilitate new reporting requirements.
No Child Left Behind and Education YES! have also increased elementary principal
record keeping practices based on reporting now required by central office administration.

Building principals say that central administration requires principals to complete additional

163

record keeping procedures to satisfy directives of the legislative acts. Principals are
expected to compile and provide central ofﬁce with detailed assessment records for all
students in the building. Dr. Shea describes the paperwork provided quarterly to central
ofﬁce:

We are only required to (submit to central ofﬁce) anything dealing with Education

Yes, that type of stuff. So, we have paper work and there are other things. All of

my literacy, I keep track of all the data now and we have it on Chancery ( a

computer data base) and we track of every student. I do pass that along to the

Student Services Director who likes to know where our kids have gone ﬁ'om the

fall gowth to the end of the year and mid-year, different measuring gauges. We

do testing in March and January and also in May, so we keep that data.

Sometimes we will put gaphs together so they can visually see the gowth and I'll

take the time to do that.

Other principals participating in the study described similar changes in record keeping
practices as required by central adrrrinistration.

Elementary principals report that administrative time has been reallocated due to
the amount of time required to analyze information in report form, submitted by
classroom teachers. Class composites, MEAP test scores, and benchmark assessment
results are a few of the records that building administrators collect and analyze from
teachers. The compiled reports are provided to central administration and are used to
complete the school success indicators report required by Education YES!. It is clear that
elementary principal record keeping practices have increased in volume and time due to
the legislative mandates. Completion of the school success indicators report as a
requirement of Education YES! is an example of the direct impact that the legislation has

upon elementary principal record keeping practices. Principals describe an indirect

inﬂuence of legislation being the record keeping procedures central ofﬁce now requires

164

on individual students’ math and reading achievement as a condition of compliance with
No Child Left Behind and Education YES!.

Sigriﬁcant record keeping changes have increased the elementary building
administrators’ accountability for student learning. Principals report that the ampliﬁed
level of accountability generated by new record keeping requirements has increased the
stress accompanying an elementary administrative job. The principal of Interlake
Elementary School compares completing the paperwork required for legislative
compliance similar to shooting at a moving target. Mr. Delk describes an increase in his
anxiety level because he is never quite sure if the school has demonstrated progess
sufﬁcient to make adequate yearly progess as speciﬁed by No Child Left Behind and
Education YES! Dr. Shea describes the increased pressure felt ﬁ'om new accountability
mandates:

I think there has been a higher level of stress put on us because now the No Child

Left Behind makes us accountable. If you have a failing school that's over three

years, I could be ﬁred and the state will take you over and place somebody else in

your position. I think no matter what your good intentions are as an
administrator, if you don't show performance, it doesn't matter.
Principals talked about the increased tension felt trying to stay abreast of current best
instructional and assessment practices and acting as the instructional leader for the
building. Attending teacher professional development sessions and understanding reform
of teacher practice provides another demand on administrative time and creates additional

stress for building principals. Dr. Craig describes the increased pressure felt ﬁom

legislative mandates just before the MEAP scores are released:

165

...it's (No Child Left Behind and Education YES!) caused a certain amount of
unease, just before the MEAP scores come out. It's knowing that they are coming
out is stressful. It's very stressful even though, to our credit, our district has not tried
to make it a big deal. They don‘t get on you if your scores are bad. You know that
the public is looking at that and it's a very worrisome thing.
Elementary principals believe there has been an increase in the amount of stress created by
legislative acts. No Child Left Behind and Education YES! mandates demand increased
accountability for student learning from teachers and administrators. Building principals are
concerned that they may be replaced if the school they administer does not make adequate
yearly progess as deﬁned by current legislation. Principals believe increased record
keeping, as required by the district, state and federal govemment, has created an elevated
level of accountability for student learning and increased the job—related pressures for
administrators.

When asked ﬁom where principals receive information regarding the mandates
and requirements of No Child Left Behind and Education YES!, elementary principals
gave differing accounts. Building principals ﬁom Somerset Community and Sienna
Heights districts report that the district central administration staff disseminated the
majority of requirement information mandated by legislation. Mrs. Jordan relates how
she learned about requirements stemming ﬁ'om No Child Left Behind and Education
YES!:

I know that our curriculum director and our curriculum coordinator have gone to a

lot of the meetings that the intermediate school district has put on. Then they

present it to the building adrrrinistrators and directors in the district and then we then
give whatever information is needed to the teachers. But myself, I've not gone and
sat through all those No Child Left Behind meetings.

Dr. Craig also credits the district administrative staff with dissemination of important

mandates regarding legislation:

166

We have great leadership in this district. Our Assistant Superintendent is a visionary

and he is right there at the top. The Director of Student Services reports directly to

him and she has been a real visionary in this (reform planning). They have been

wonderful in helping us as a district to form a vision and then to make it happen
Building administrators ﬁom Sienna Heights and Somerset Community districts report
that the local intermediate school district had a small and indirect inﬂuence on
dissemination of legislative reform requirements.

Elementary principals ﬁ'orn the Kelsey Creek School District claim that the
intermediate school district played a much more direct role in their learning about No Child
Left Behind and Education YES! mandates. Mrs. Duncan describes her education on recent
legislative reforms:

We (building administrators from Kelsey Creek) went to two or three

conferences. . . .This year, Olympia Schools (the intermediate school district) did a

No Child Left Behind (workshop) and that tweaks it all for you and then when

you go to read things, you have some prior knowledge.

Principal Delk had a similar experience learning about requirements of recent legislative
acts and how to stay in compliance with mandates.

.. .being in Olympia County obviously, we have a very good resource system, not

only within our own districts, but in our intermediate school district. We had an

ISD consultant come out and she has worked with us. Our district provides us

with release time, as best they can given the economic tender of the times that we

are in, and so we do receive support from those areas.
Due to its smaller size, the Kelsey Creek School District does not have the personnel
resources in the central district ofﬁce that Sienna Heights and Somerset Community
schools do. Principals ﬁ'om Kelsey Creek indicated that the intermediate school district

had a direct inﬂuence on their understanding of recent legislative requirements. Kelsey

Creek principals acknowledged the district’s central ofﬁce staff as providing some

167

information regarding mandates of No Child Left Behind and Education YES!, but not to
the degee that Sienna Heights and Somerset Community district administrators did.
Elementary principals indicated that No Child Left Behind and Education YES!
mandates have inﬂuenced administrative practices and the operation of elementary
schools. Recent legislative acts have directly inﬂuenced administrative professional
development, as principals are attending instructional and assessment reform training
sessions with teachers to stay current as an instructional leader. Principals report that
spending and hiring practices have been directly inﬂuenced by Education YES! and No
Child Left Behind as administrators need to support reform efforts with new materials
and hire staff members based on credentials related to legislative requirements. The
volume of administrative record keeping has increased as a direct inﬂuence of legislative
acts, and principals describe reallocating sigriﬁcant amounts of administrative time for
paperwork analysis and submitting record keeping requirements to district ofﬁcials.
Building administrators explained that new school district policies and procedures are
created to facilitate instructional reform while staying in compliance with mandates from
No Child Left Behind and Education YES!. Central administration has sigriﬁcantly
increased the amount of resources, including new materials, teacher release time, and
technology, allocated to teachers to assist with the increased demand of assessment and
instructional reform, while aligring instruction with district benchmarks. Reform efforts
inﬂuenced by legislation have increased the level of student accountability at the
elementary administrative level and increased accountability for student learning has

created more job-related tension and pressure for elementary administrators.

168

Summag

The purpose of this study is to describe current federal and state legislation and to
describe and explain how those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and elementary
teacher behavior. Upon analysis of 24 elementary teacher and 6 elementary principal
interviews, Figure 4-1 was developed to depict the spheres of elementary education
inﬂuenced by No Child Left Behind and Education YES! legislation. It is clear that the
inﬂuence of recent legislation on elementary teacher behavior is very powerful, yet
indirect. The result is indirect because the mandates of Education YES! and NCLB must
travel through a series of inﬂuential spheres in the school organization before reform
efforts actually inﬂuence teacher behaviors. The impact of recent legislative mandates is
also experienced directly and indirectly by administrators, who channel the reform efforts

into vehicles that inﬂuence elementary teacher behavior.

169

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to describe current federal and state legislation and
then describe and explain how those legislative efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and
elementary teacher behavior. The researcher believed that the mandates included in No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Education YES! legislation would inﬂuence instructional
practices, student assessment, record keeping, professional development and
administrative behaviors in elementary schools and of teachers.

Previous chapters discussed the details encompassing the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), titled No Child Left Behind, the
subsequent development of Education YES! legislation and the tenure of Public Act 25.
Michigan’s Public Act 25 was passed in 1990 to establish a legislative framework for
statewide school improvement. PA 25 requires schools and school districts to develop
formal annual school improvement plans, a core curriculum aligred with state standards,
attain accreditation from an established accrediting association, and publish an annual
report to communicate the reform efforts. The Sienna Heights, Somerset Community and
Kelsey Creek districts work with the North Central Association Commission on
Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA) to maintain compliance with the four
requirements of Public Act 25. Building administrators and staff members complete an
annual report and the district has adopted a core curriculum desigred to aligr with the

State of Michigan standards and benchmarks.

170

NCLB and Education YES! are the two acts that were central to the study and were
written to include several common reform principles. The reauthorization of the federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), titled No Child Left Behind, was signed
into law on January 8, 2002. NCLB was desigred to close the achievement gaps between
students of different demogaphic goups. To achieve the objective, NCLB is organized
around four reform principles: accountability for students’ academic achievement, local
control of federal education frmding, parental involvement, and the implementation of
scientiﬁcally proven progams and teaching methods.

At its March 2002 meeting, the Michigan State Board of Education approved
Education YES!- A Yardstick for Excellent Schools. Many of the provisions of
Education YES! aligr with the requirements of the federal NCLB Act. The Michigan
State Board of Education means to accomplish their vision and purpose with what they
describe as a fair, challenging, and supportive accreditation system to help all schools be
good schools. The Michigan accreditation system, as described in the Education YES!
document, is based upon the following three standards that focus on every school
working with every child (the same premise as NCLB): (1) all Michigan elementary and
middle school children will read independently and use math to solve problems at gade
level; (2) all Michigan students will experience a year of academic gowth for a year of
instruction; and (3) all Michigan high school students, in addition to demonstrating high
academic achievement, will have an individual education plan leading them to be
prepared for success (Education YES!, 2002). Since the focus of this research is the
legislation's inﬂuence on elementary schools and teachers, only standards one and two

were addressed in the study.

171

Research Questions

The study was desigred to include four research questions: l.What inﬂuence does
legislative reforms such as NCLB, PA 25, and Education YES! have upon elementary
teacher behavior?, 2. What inﬂuence does legislative reforms such as NCLB, PA 25, and
Education YES! have upon the school organization?, 3. Has elementary teacher
instruction changed ﬁrndamentally because of requirements mandated by NCLB, PA 25
and Education YES!?, and 4. How do local district support, teacher practice, teacher
professional learning and testing requirements work together to advance reform policy at
the elementary school level? Chapter ﬁve will discuss the four research questions
indicated above and provide answers to the questions supported by the study data

collected.

Question One Discussion

The ﬁrst research question asks; What inﬂuence does legislative reforms such as
NCLB, PA 25 and Education YES! have upon elementary teacher behavior? Study data
supports the fact that the three legislative acts have inﬂuenced elementary teacher
behaviors. The degee to which elementary teacher behaviors have been inﬂuenced
varies contingent on the speciﬁc legislation and the time teachers have worked with the
mandates of the legislation.

The school improvement process effects of PA 25 were evident in the interviews
conducted for the study. Elementary teacher and administrator respondents indicated that
no time was reallocated to complete requirements of Public Act 25. Teachers describe

school improvement requirements of PA 25 as a structured process by which the school

172

day is planned. School improvement goals are incorporated into teacher lesson plans as
explained by Mrs. Albright:

. . .I plan it (school improvement plans) in with the science or reading. In science I

go way ahead and usually plan out the whole unit or at least half of the unit and I

plug in those (school improvement) questions with science. I plug them into the

unit wherever, after we have learned about these things. Usually it is towards the

end and I use them as part of my daily lesson plans. For reading and expository

text, that's just something that we do basically every week.
Elementary principals explain that writing the annual report, as required by PA 25, has
become a routine administrative task completed each year. Shine (1992), determined that
the reform conditions and indicators were of sufﬁcient strength in Michigan public schools
to allow educational reform to continue under PA 25. The study data indicates that reform
conditions initiated by Public Act 25 are still at work, continuing the school improvement
process.

Because PA 25 directives have been in effect in Michigan public schools for the past
14 years, teachers and administrators have become comfortable working within the context
of the mandates. Respondents indicated that no time was reallocated for PA 25 mandates
and transaction costs were minimal. However, classroom instruction and materials have
been modiﬁed to meet school improvement goals. Data from participant’s interviews
indicate that PA 25 directives do inﬂuence elementary teacher behavior despite reports from
respondents that no time is reallocated to meet school improvement mandates. Respondents
described planning instruction to include school improvement goals, conducting
assessments based upon school improvement objectives and working closely with
colleagues to stay in compliance with PA 25 directives.

Study respondents believe the indirect inﬂuences of NCLB and Education YES!

have caused a sigriﬁcant reallocation of instructional time, while requirements of PA 25

173

require no reallocation of instructional time. The reallocation of teacher instructional time is
due to changes in elementary teacher instruction, assessment and record keeping, inﬂuenced
by NCLB and Education YES! Participants discussed the extensive professional
development undertaken by elementary teachers to integate balanced literacy and
manipulative-based mathematics instruction into the daily curriculum. Lesson planning
and assessment analysis desigred to individualize instruction require additional time and
often reallocated instructional time for study respondents.

Respondents indicated that literacy and math assessment practices have also been
modiﬁed sigriﬁcantly to keep up with the changes in instructional practices. Instruction
has become more differentiated and individualized and teachers are administering
different assessments to obtain the individualized information necessary to make good
instructional decisions. Elementary teachers, in the study, conﬁrmed the requirement of
administering individualized literacy and math assessments, such as the DRA, QRI and
MLPP, to students several times during the school year. The individualized assessments
require additional record keeping procedures for each child. The changes in assessments
and record keeping, as an inﬂuence of NCLB and Education YES!, have required a
reallocation of elementary teacher instructional time.

The change in instructional practices is a result of the NCLB and Education YES!
legislation. In attempting to stay in compliance with the directives of NCLB and
Education YES!, the districts studied have adopted instructional approaches to teach core
literacy and mathematics skills. The result of the changes in instruction is a reallocation
of elementary teacher instructional time to learn and implement the new approaches,

conduct individualized assessments and maintain detailed records for each student.

174

Question Two Discussion

Research question two asks: What inﬂuence does legislative reforms such as
NCLB, PA 25 and Education YES! have upon the school organization? Data analyzed
from the study interviews veriﬁes that the three legislative acts have inﬂuenced the
elementary school organization. The three legislative acts studied have imposed
transaction costs upon the elementary school organization. The ﬁrst transaction cost
incurred by the school organization is an increase in the amount of building resources that
are expended to meet legislative mandates. The instructional changes inﬂuenced by the
recent legislation involve the purchase of materials for successful implementation.
Elementary principals report spending large portions of the building budget to supply
balanced literacy support materials, such as books for the literacy library and professional
development for teachers; as well as themselves. New assessment requirements such as
the DRA, QRI and MLPP require the purchase of assessment kits for teachers and teacher
release time so that individual assessments may be completed for every child several
times during the year. The transaction costs incurred by the school organization as an
indirect result of NCLB and Education YES! have caused elementary administrators to
scrutinize budgets to ﬁnd the funds necessary to successfully implement the educational
reform goals of the legislation studied.

NCLB and Education YES! mandates have caused elementary building
adnrinistrators to modify their hiring practices. Because of the push for instructional
reform by recent legislation, elementary principals are now looking for teaching
candidates with a portfolio of literacy and math teaching skills as well as knowledge of

current best instructional practices. The costs of training novice teachers in the

175

techniques they need to teach balanced literacy instruction and manipulative-based
mathematics increased in a time when money and time are less available. Teacher
candidates who arrive with the skills and knowledge to implement hands-on math and
balanced literacy instruction save school districts precious time and money.

PA 25, Education YES! and NCLB mandates have inﬂuenced the frequency and
amount of record keeping and report writing required of elementary principals. Public
Act 25 calls for the publication of an annual school report as well as other school
improvement documentation. Principals report the completion of school improvement
documentation is incorporated into daily administrative duties, however, the time spent
completing the records and reports does require a reallocation of administrative time.
NCLB and Education YES! legislative acts also contain record keeping demands that
must be submitted armually to the school district, state and federal governments. The
record keeping requirements of NCLB and Ed. YES! cause an additional reallocation of
elementary principal administrative time. It can be argued that a third organizational
transaction cost, inﬂuenced by recent legislation, involves a reallocation of administrative
time due to increased record keeping and reporting requirements of PA 25, Education
YES! and NCLB legislation.

The school organization has experienced an increase in accountability for
individual student learning as a direct inﬂuence of the legislation studied. Education
YES! and NCLB administer individual school and school district report cards. The
gades schools and districts receive is determined by a formula which is heavily based
upon students’ past and present performance on the MEAP test. Parents now have access

to more information about the schools their children attend and NCLB offers alternatives, if

176

their child’s school is identiﬁed as chronically needing improvement. Schools identiﬁed as
unsafe or in need of academic improvement under NCLB guidelines must pay for students’
transportation to a better performing school in the district or a neighboring charter school.
Parents with students enrolled in a school identiﬁed as failing to make adequate yearly
progess (AYP) for three consecutive years may request 530051300 in Title I funds for
use in supplying supplemental services (tutors, after-school or weekend help, and
summer school tuition) for their child. As mandated by NCLB, parents will receive report
cards about their school and school district each fall. These report cards will provide
additional information regarding the school's performance and Adequate Yearly Progess
status to help parents make informed decisions concerning school enrollment choice
issues for their children.

Teacher participants describe reform initiatives involving differentiated instruction,
individualized assessments and exclusive student record keeping that combine to increase
accountability for student learning. Administrators discussed increased student record
keeping, procedures for the calculation of adequate yearly progess (AYP), sanctions for not
achieving AYP and public communication of assessment results as four changes which
increase administrative accountability for student achievement. Increased parental
involvement options, as provided by NCLB legislation, have added to the already
heightened level of accountability elementary teachers and principals experience. Dr.
Craig, an elementary principal from Sienna Heights, explains the stress felt when

Woodridge Elementary’s NCLB gade was published in a local newspaper:

177

We were listed as one of the failing schools. Parents went ballistic. When I came
back they were very upset and had written a letter to the Superintendent with all
their sigratures complaining about what had happened and how come Woodridge
was failing and what was going on. We had a huge meeting in August with the

Superintendent and Curriculum Director, four board members and lots of parents.

We tried to explain how the scores were determined and when they left that

meeting, people understood very clearly that we are not a failing school.

Analysis of study data indicates that the ﬁrst reform principle originating from NCLB
legislation, accountability for students’ academic achievement, is operating productively at
the elementary school level and that it has inﬂuenced the way in which the school
organization conducts business.

In response to the second research question which asks, What inﬂuence does
legislative reforms such as NCLB, PA 25 and Education YES! have upon the school
organization; study data indicates that the three legislative acts have inﬂuenced the
elementary school organization. Instructional and assessment changes, inﬂuenced by
recent legislation, require an increase in human and ﬁnancial resource support from the
districts studied. Elementary principals have changed the way they interview and hire
teachers, selecting new staff members who have geater knowledge of current
instructional and assessment techniques. Increased record keeping demands mandated by
PA 25, NCLB and Ed. YES! have caused a reallocation of elementary principal

administrative time. Accountability for individual student learning has been increased by

the legislation studied causing a change in the ways elementary schools conduct business.

Question Three Discussion

The third research question asks: Has elementary teacher instruction changed

fundamentally because of requirements mandated by NCLB, PA 25 and Education YES!?

178

Study data substantiates that the three legislative acts have inﬂuenced elementary teacher
instruction. However, the degee to which the legislation has modiﬁed instruction is, at
this time, unclear. Elementary teachers and administrators gave conﬂicting information
regarding the inﬂuence of recent legislation upon student instruction. The teachers
interviewed reported that instruction has changed sigriﬁcantly over the past two years.
Some lower elementary (K-2) teachers ﬁ'om the Sienna Heights and Somerset
Community school districts indicated that they have been using at least a smaller version
of balanced literacy instruction prior to the time the recent legislative acts were passed.
However, the same lower elementary teachers claim professional development and
materials for balanced literacy instruction have been geatly emphasized since NCLB and
Education YES! legislation were enacted. Teachers in gades 3-5 describe a recent
adrrrinistrative thrust to train all upper elementary teachers in balanced literacy instruction
and cite the catalyst as Ed. YES! and NCLB mandates. Although balanced literacy
instruction is not a proven, research-based instructional technique, the districts studied
believe that this instructional technique is beneﬁcial to students and meets the
requirements of recent legislative acts. It would be fair to say that NCLB and Education
YES! legislation have inﬂuenced elementary teacher instruction, however, the extent of
the inﬂuence is difﬁcult to measure at this time.

Although the extent of NCLB and Education YES! inﬂuence on elementary
teacher instruction is still being evaluated, the inﬂuence on student assessment is more
clear. Education YES! and NCLB legislation have geatly increased the sigriﬁcance of
MEAP scores. Both NCLB and Ed. YES! use MEAP scores in the formula to determine

school gades and adequate yearly progess. Because of the increase in the sigriﬁcance

179

of MEAP scores, the districts studied implemented a variety of new assessment tools to
improve student performance on the MEAP. The Somerset Community School District
requires teachers to administer the ELA, a test desigred to monitor how well students
were learning the district’s language arts benchmarks, to all elementary students. The
Sienna Heights district desigred benchmark assessments that are administered quarterly
to students in gades 3-5 in each core content area. Teachers ﬁom both districts ageed
that the purpose of their respective assessments is to provide elementary students more
opportunities to practice MEAP-like assessments and for teachers to monitor the content
being taught.

The instructional mandates of NCLB and Education YES! require that each
student achieve a year of gowth per school year and be taught based upon their
respective individual needs. The mandates caused districts to begin examining
assessment options whose desigr would provide the information required to make the
best instructional choices, to maintain compliance with recent legislation. The DRA,
QRI and MLPP are assessment requirements of each district studied and each are
desigred to collect individualized information concerning each student. Newport ﬁfth
gade teacher, Mrs. Lewis, explains:

You know, a lot of it is from our district. A lot of it is ﬁom No Child Left Behind.

MLPP is administered to the younger gades and the DRA is really going to start

tracking where our students are and hold accountable the level of achievement for

each one.
Some teachers had been informally using MLPP, DRA and QRI assessments without
consistent guidelines prior to NCLB and Education YES! mandates. To stay in

compliance with the legislative acts, the districts studied created gade-level standards

and time schedules for the assessments to be administered to each student several times

180

during the school year. Study data establishes that fundamental changes in elementary
student assessment practices were geatly inﬂuenced by mandates from Education YES!
and No Child Left Behind legislation.

The answer to research question number three, has elementary teacher instruction
changed fundamentally because of requirements mandated by NCLB, PA 25 and
Education YES!?, is not deﬁnitive at this time. The study data suggests that recent
legislation has inﬂuenced teacher instruction, but the degee to which is still unclear. The
districts studied experience a wide variety of internal and external stimuli that inﬂuence
elementary teacher instruction. The claim that NCLB and Education YES! mandates
have caused the fundamental change in teacher instruction is not able to be made at this
time. It is reasonable to assert that the requirements of Education YES! and NCLB are
the primary inﬂuences responsible for the ﬁrndarnental change in elementary student

assessment practices.

Question Four Discussion

The fourth research question asks: How do local district support, teacher practice,
teacher professional learning and testing requirements work together to advance reform
policy at the elementary school level? Study respondents reported that since Public Act
25 has been in operation for the past 14 years, the standards mandated therein have
become systemic to the school organization. Elementary teachers and administrators
were unable to describe the resources at work that advance the mandates of PA 25. Study
data indicates that there are many sources currently at work to advance the reform

principles advocated by Education YES! and NCLB.

181

Recent legislative acts require that all students must achieve one year of academic
gowth for every year in school, schools must implement scientiﬁcally proven instructional
methods, and an increased accountability for student learning. The robust mandates of
NCLB and Education YES! have encouraged districts to closely examine teacher
instructional and assessment practices. The districts studied believe that requiring all
elementary teachers to use balanced literacy and manipulative-based mathematics
instruction fulﬁlls the requirement to use scientiﬁcally proven instructional techniques.
While the merit of balanced literacy and hands-on math instruction has yet to be proven, the
participating districts believe each approach to be examples of best instructional practices
and thus, in compliance with NCLB and Ed. YES! requirements. Implementation of
instructional proganrs and the requirement of NCLB to administer a common assessment at
each gade level has stimulated districts to adopt various assessment progarrrs. The districts
studied now require elementary teachers to test all students several times during the year
using MLPP, DRA or QRI assessments. The assessments provide teachers with
individualized information regarding each student’s literacy progess and allow for better
instructional choices during balanced literacy instruction. The changes in teacher practices
and testing requirements in the areas of literacy and math combine to advance reform policy
initiatives of NCLB and Education YES!

Olympia Schools, the local intermediate school district, supports the reform efforts
of recent legislative acts by sponsoring workshops that deﬁne the mandates of NCLB and
Education YES! Elementary principals ﬁom the Kelsey Creek School District cited
Olympia Schools as the primary source of information on legislative requirements. The

intermediate school district consultants work with central ofﬁce staff and building principals

182

from the three districts studied. Although elementary principals ﬁ'om the Somerset
Community and Sienna Heights districts claim that the majority of legislative dissemination
comes directly ﬁom central ofﬁce, the intermediate school district consults closely with the
administrative staff to provide the most recent legislative updates.

In addition to supporting legislative reform on an administrative level, Olympia
Schools offers professional development for teachers regarding new instructional
techniques, assessment administration and record keeping related to NCLB and Ed. YES!.
The districts studied indicated that they train elementary teachers using indistrict experts, a
majority of the time. When asked where the inside experts receive their training,
administrators responded that the local intermediate school district provides most of the
professional development. The instructional, assessment and record keeping reforms
advanced by Education YES! and NCLB require professional development for elementary
personnel. It can be stated without reservation, that the intermediate school district works
with local districts to support and advance reform policy objectives of NCLB and Ed. YES!.

Elementary teachers participating in the study reported that they had been trained in
a variety of new instructional, assessment and record keeping techniques to stay in
compliance with mandates ﬁom Ed. YES! and NCLB. Respondents described being trained
to use balanced literacy and hands-on mathematics instructional progams as a result of
recent legislation. Implementation of DRA, QRI, MLPP, and individualized math
assessments necessitate elementary teacher training to correctly assess students on an
independent level. Elementary teachers included in the study attended formal training
sessions regarding record keeping requirements necessary to work within the parameters of

new instructional and assessment techniques. The Sienna Heights, Kelsey Creek and

183

Somerset Community school districts demonstrated a dedication to recent legislative
mandates by allocating sizable amounts of time and money to train elementary staff
members. It is apparent that teacher professional learning plays an integal role in the
advancement of NCLB and Ed. YES! policy at the elementary level.

Data ﬁ'om the study provides the answer to the fourth research question: How do
local district support, teacher practice, teacher professional learning and testing
requirements work together to advance reform policy at the elementary school level?
The mandates of NCLB and Education YES! have changed the way in which local school
districts conduct business. The districts studied are requiring teachers to use balanced
literacy and hands-on math instructional techniques in lieu of past practices. The changes
in instructional practices and mandates of recent legislation have inﬂuenced a change in
student assessment practices and requirements. Changes in instructional, assessment and
record keeping behaviors require teachers to be trained and have inﬂuenced elementary
teacher professional development and new hire speciﬁcations. The districts studied are
working with the intermediate school district and other professional development
agencies to provide materials and training for teachers as required to maintain
compliance. Local district support, teacher practice, teacher professional learning and
testing requirements are interdependent variables that work together to advance the
reform policy initiatives of NCLB and Ed. YES! at the elementary level.

Review of the four research questions provokes an essential question of the
NCLB legislation that requires clariﬁcation; is the driving force behind recent
instructional and assessment reform policy more bureaucratic necessity or pedagogical

effectiveness? According to mandates included in NCLB, schools and districts are

184

 

 

 

expected to use scientiﬁcally proven practices to meet state standards for literacy and
other academic areas. Through the adoption of a balanced literacy approach to teaching
core language arts skills and the implementation of hands-on, manipulative-based
mathematics progams, the Somerset Community, Kelsey Creek and Sienna Heights
school districts believe they are meeting the mandates of the NCLB and Education YES!
legislation. Internal reporting and analysis of Developmental Reading Assessment
(DRA), Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI), and Michigan Literacy Progess Proﬁle
(MLPP) assessments by the districts studied have shown favorable results. However,
there are no longitudinal research studies that conﬁrm the “best practice” status of using a
balanced literacy or manipulative-based mathematics approach to teaching elementary
school children. When asked if balanced literacy instruction has been proven as best
instructional practice, Michael Pressley (2004), co-author of the latest Michigan literacy
standards, responded:

Impossible question to answer. There are versions of all these labels that are
ﬁlled with well-validated practices and versions that are ﬁlled with few to no
validated practices. Also, if there is an important ﬁnding in the lit, the teacher
matters geatly in reading. There is virtually no literature on any of the packages
as wholes-«So what does a year-«let alone 7 years----of experiencing a well-
thought out comprehensive reading instructional progam that attempts to balance
all the components that do in fact impact reading...What does that really do? We
do not know. (personal communication)

Analysis of study data conﬁrms that elementary teacher and administrator
participants believe using a balanced literacy approach to teach core language arts skills
and a hands-on mathematics progam are examples of best instructional practices.
However, manipulative-based mathematics and balanced literacy instruction have yet to

be scientiﬁcally proven as best practices. A fundamental question is again raised; is the

driving force behind recent instructional and assessment reform policy more bureaucratic

185

necessity or pedagogical effectiveness? Allington (2002) explains the connection
between policy and practice:

If certain forms of pedagogical knowledge, instructional methods, and curriculum

materials are mandated by policy, then 1) teachers will offer a particular type of

beginning reading instruction that 2) will positively enhance student reading

achievement in the both the short- and longer-term. (p. 4)

Although NCLB requires school districts to use scientiﬁcally proven instructional
practices to achieve academic standards, the legislation does not advocate a speciﬁc form
of pedagogical knowledge, instructional methods or curricular materials. It is left up to
school district leaders to determine what scientiﬁcally proven best practices are and the
three districts studied believe that balanced literacy and manipulative-based mathematics

instruction ﬁt the deﬁnition, despite the lack of longitudinal research supporting the

claim.

A Framework for Explanation

Legislation intended to close the achievement gaps between students of different
demogaphic goups and improve student achievement has inﬂuenced the behaviors in
elementary schools and teachers. The Education YES! and NCLB legislative acts have
imposed norms of rationality upon school districts in Michigan. The term “norms of
rationality” is used to deﬁne the ostensible relationship that exists between organizational
processes in the school bureaucracy and the intended outcomes of recent legislation.
NCLB and Education YES! put pressure on schools and school districts to demonstrate
increased rationality in the form of student achievement. The legislative acts demand
compliance, because non-compliance with legislative mandates results in monetary and

personnel sanctions. In an era of reduced school funding where every penny is

186

 

 

scrutinized, school districts had little choice but to respond to requirements of Education
YES! and NCLB. The school districts studied responded by more closely deﬁning
instruction and assessment and more closely relating instruction to outcomes.

Elementary schools and teachers are demonstrating sigriﬁcant changes in school
administrative behaviors, student assessment, instruction and record keeping as a result of
the legislative imposition of norms of rationality. Elementary teachers and schools are
exposed to the increased demand for rationality and demonstrate the increased pressure
for rationality through changes in behaviors. Classroom processes, including instruction,
assessment and record keeping, have become more ostensible and publicly scrutinized.
Elementary teachers and adrrrinistrators are allocating more time to common and
organizational matters because of the increased demand for rationality in the school
organization. Teachers are experiencing less autonomous time as instructional processes
are becorrring more deﬁned and instructional time becomes an even more scarce resource
due to increased assessment and instructional content requirements. In years past,
elementary teachers could close their doors and remain isolated with the students for a
majority of the day. Today, increased demands for rationality have caused teachers to
work more in collegial goups discussing and working through professional issues. It can
be argued that concerns for social and economic inequality led to NCLB and Education
YES!, and the legislation led to a demand for increased rationality.

The increased demand for rationality caused by Education YES! and NCLB
legislation has caused certain unintended consequences at the elementary school level.
The focus on increased student achievement in math, literacy and soon science has

caused less instructional time for other subjects. Teachers report squeezing in social

187

‘rrzxv'a “‘4‘!

.5. Or;

lake. »

is (J .. ..s. 1&1. 4|me

studies lessons when time perrrrits and affective component instruction, such as conﬂict
resolution and problem solving, have been nearly eliminated. Due to increased subject
content, assessment requirements and the scarcity of instructional time, study respondents
indicate that instruction is not as thorough or deeply covered as in past years. Teachers
describe a situation where the increased volume of content causes some topics to be
skimmed and the subject coverage is broader.

The increased pressure for rationality at the school organizational level demands a
change in individual student assessment practices. The increased ﬁ'equency and volume
of individual assessment requirements in literacy and mathematics have reallocated
elementary teacher instructional time. Elementary teacher instructional time has been
reduced because students must be evaluated individually to administer assessments such
as the DRA, QRI and MLPP, and less goup instruction is taking place. Because of the
increased sigriﬁcance of standardized test scores, teachers are using instructional time to
prepare students for MEAP assessments; thus reducing instructional time even more.
Reduced elementary teacher instructional time is an unintended consequence brought
about by demands for increased rationality.

Elementary teacher and principal respondents indicated that the quantity of record
keeping and paperwork requirements have increased as an unintended result of NCLB
and Education YES! legislation. Demands for increased rationality require more
ﬁequent, individualized literacy and mathematics assessments. Each individualized
assessment must be documented and the records saved for accountability measures.
Testing each student at least twice per year for accountability using DRA, QRI and

MLPP assessments involves writing and preserving volumes of new records. Teachers

188

 

 

are also required to compose and submit class assessment composites to building
principals for analysis. Authoring class composites for administrative review is another
example of the increased time demands elementary teachers encounter. Elementary
principals describe a similar increase in administrative record keeping as individual
teacher class composites must be compiled into a building report to be submitted to
central ofﬁce. Building administrators indicated other additional forms and reports must
be turned into various state and federal officials as a requirement of Education YES! and
NCLB. The school success indicators section of Education YES! is an example of the
increased reporting requirements completed by elementary school principals. After
reviewing elementary teacher and administrator interviews, it is clear that the increased
amount of record keeping is an unintended outcome of recent legislative mandates.

Education YES! and NCLB legislation imposed norms of rationality upon
Michigan school districts that caused sigriﬁcant changes for elementary schools and
teachers. The changes manifest themselves by causing schools to demonstrate an
ostensible relationship between organizational processes within the school bureaucracy
and intended student learning outcomes. Data from the study documents adnrinistrative,
instructional, student assessment, record keeping, and teacher professional development
changes that have been inﬂuenced by NCLB and Education YES! legislative mandates
and each requires additional time ﬁorn an already busy schedule.

In the school districts studied, increased rationality relates to the cause-effect
relationship and the more certain the cause-effect relationship, the more rational the
outcome. The Kelsey Creek, Somerset Community and Sienna Heights districts made a

systematic effort to reduce uncertainty by gathering common approaches to curriculum

189

 

 

and instruction. The districts studied have adopted balanced literacy and hands-on
mathematics instruction and elementary teachers are expected to employ these teaching
techniques. Common assessments and testing schedules have been developed with
consistent gade level student expectations within individual districts. The districts
believe that by ﬁlling in every step of the instructional and assessment process and
gathering common approaches to curriculum that uncertainty will be reduced. The
districts studied consider a reduction in uncertainty to be synonymous with an increase in

rationality.

Conﬁrmation of Prior Firﬂgg

The conclusions ﬁ'om the study support some of the literature cited in chapter
two. For instance, Elmore and F uhrrnan (2001) argue that recent legislative efforts
subscribe to a common theory. The theory states that measuring student performance
with standardized assessments and then coupling it to rewards and sanctions will cause
schools and the individuals who work in them to perform at higher levels. Study ﬁndings
indicate that the theory applies to NCLB and Education YES! legislation, however, the
levels of student and teacher performance has yet to be established. Elementary teacher
participants reported working harder than ever to prepare students for standardized
assessments while demanding more ﬁom students. The short tenure of Education YES!
and NCLB make it impossible to determine whether the instructional and assessment
changes and higher student demands will lead to increased standardized test scores.

McNeil (2000) described a situation whereby the demands of federal and state

legislative mandates had strengthened bureaucratic controls at the expense of teaching

190

 

 

and learning. Analysis of study data indicates compliance requirements of NCLB and
Education YES! have strengthened bureaucratic control, however, administrators and
teachers from the districts studied do not believe this was done at the expense of teaching
and learning. The last statement is somewhat contradictory since study respondents
reported spending large amounts of time preparing students for MEAP assessments in
place of teaching core subject areas. Participants described large amounts of time
required to plan differentiated instruction and conduct individualized assessments for all
students. Teachers ﬁ'om all three districts studied describe spending more time teaching
core literacy and math skills than other content areas because of the signiﬁcance of math
and reading sections on standardized assessments.

Elementary time has been sigriﬁcantly reallocated due to changes in student
assessment, instruction and teacher record keeping behaviors inﬂuenced by recent
legislation. The fact that elementary teachers and administrators do not believe that the
increased bureaucratic control was done at the expense of teaching and learning indicates
that study participants have bought into the theory described by Elmore and Fuhrman
(2001). Elementary respondents described teaching as a static career that is constantly
undergoing change and were willing to do whatever necessary to achieve the increased
test scores desired. The study participants interviewed believe that the changes mandated
by the bureaucracy to stay in compliance with recent legislation will result in increased
standardized test scores.

McNeil (2000) described a situation in which state benchmarks and performance
standards drive the curriculum that is being taught in Texas elementary schools. Study

ﬁndings conﬁrm that Michigan benchmarks and standards drive the curriculum being

191

taught in elementary schools because the standards are assessed on current MEAP tests.
District benchmarks in the Sienna Heights, Somerset Community and Kelsey Creek
school districts have been modiﬁed to reﬂect state standards and are desigred to prepare
students for MEAP assessments.

Administration for the districts studied appear to have bought into the
standardized assessment theory of Elmore and Fuhrman (2001). Elementary principals
ﬁom the study indicated feeling the pressure to improve MEAP scores and feared the
potential sanctions should scores decrease. Principals reported spending larger portions
of the building budget to provide materials in support of reform efforts in a time of
reduced funding. Sinrilar to the ﬁndings of Berteaux (2003), study data conﬁrms that
elementary administrators and teachers are required to do more with less; an unintended
consequence of NCLB and Education YES!

Schmoker (2004) described the unintended consequences of comprehensive
educational reform as causing fragnentation and overload in school districts. Although
resources were scarce for the districts studied, the Somerset Community, Sienna Heights
and Kelsey Creek districts exceeded the capacity required to implement reform
initiatives. Through support from the local intermediate school district, district
administrators interpreted NCLB and Education YES! mandates and desigred a plan for
compliance. The districts studied possess the capacity and resources necessary to avoid
overload while staying in compliance with recent legislative mandates.

Data collected and analyzed for the study conﬁrms that the district bureaucratic
control was strengthened to facilitate the demands of NCLB and Education YES!.

Administrators and teachers ﬁ'orn the districts studied have bought into the premise that

192

 

 

changing instructional and assessment practices to focus on content covered in
standardized assessments will result in improved performance on MEAP assessments,
leading to rewards as detailed in recent legislation. Teaching and learning opportunities
have been compromised due to requirements for individualized assessment and
instruction reallocating large amounts of instructional time. As indicated in the study
data and the literature cited in chapter two, administrators are spending larger amounts of
the building budget to support reform initiatives for differentiated instruction,
individualized assessment and teacher professional development. Respondents indicated
that the prescriptive test-preparation curriculum, described by McNeil (2000), has been
substituted in place of a substantive curriculum in the school districts studied. There is
nothing in Ed. YES! or NCLB legislation to account for the extra time required for
compliance in an already packed day. Study data establishes the rules and regulations of
recent legislation do not consider the extra time required of teachers and administrators
and charge onward, independent of the evidence that what the mandates require may not

support school reform.

Recommendations for Further Study

The study has described current federal and state legislation and explained how
those efforts have inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher behavior. During the
preparation and analysis of data from the study, several areas for potential future studies
have been developed. The conclusions from the study may suggest additional future

opportunities for research. Future study opportunities include:

193

 

. The data indicated that elementary teachers have sigriﬁcantly changed the
ways in which mathematics and literacy skills are taught. The effectiveness of
new instructional techniques on elementary student literacy and math
achievement is a topic that may require further study.

. Elementary school and teacher opportunity costs were proven to have been
inﬂuenced by recent legislation. Future research could investigate the
opportunity costs for elementary schools and teachers in geater detail.

. The study focused on the inﬂuences that recent legislative acts had upon
elementary school operations and teacher behaviors. Research regarding the
inﬂuence of No Child Left Behind and Education YES! upon middle, high
school, and central ofﬁce personnel or superintendents may warrant further
study.

. There may be a question about whether the reforms in elementary teacher
instruction and assessment were manifestations of bureaucratic necessity or
pedagogical effectiveness. Future research could focus on this question to
provide a more deﬁnitive answer.

. It was suggested that the requirements of NCLB and Education YES! may
become more routine, like the mandates of PA 25, to elementary teachers as
time continues. A further study over time would provide an actual deﬁnition

of the legislation and time demand results.

194

 

 

Summm

Study respondents reported that recent legislative mandates have inﬂuenced
elementary teacher and principal behaviors and the manner in which schools operate.
Conclusions concerning the inﬂuences of NCLB and Education YES! legislation have
been presented and discussed in a supportive and expansive manner. The conclusions
discuss the issues studied in the research project. At the time of the study, NCLB and
Education YES! mandates had been operating in Michigan elementary schools for
approximately two years. Due to the short duration of the legislation's implementation,
there may be aspects of the study that require future research to determine the lasting

inﬂuences of Education YES! and NCLB on elementary schools and teacher behaviors.

Afterword

Upon successfully defending the ﬁndings in the dissertation, the researcher would
like to take the time to discuss some of the issues that came up during the ﬁnal committee
meeting. The ﬁrst issue that deserves consideration is the role of the researcher in the
dissertation. As described in chapter three, the researcher is an elementary school teacher
working in Olympia County. Experiencing many of the same phenomenon as study
participants gave the researcher an advantage as many times he was regarded as “one of
us”. For the most part, respondents were able to relate to the researcher as someone who
understands and sympathizes with the experiences related by the participants. The term,
sympathetic observer, was used to describe the role of the researcher. Being a
sympathetic observer provided opportunities for the researcher to gain access to the

innermost responses of the participants.

195

Being a sympathetic observer also created some challenges for the researcher
during the interview portion of the research. Respondents would frequently talk about
techniques and practices that the researcher was intimately familiar with. To avoid errors
of misinterpretation, the researcher would ask questions such as, “When you talk about
balanced literacy instruction, what do you mean?” Respondents would frequently laugh
and say, “You know you are an elementary teacher too.” The tape recorder provided an
opportunity for the researcher to claim that all of the responses need to be clariﬁed for the
tape and then respondents would give their interpretation of the phenomenon described.
Asking for additional information and deﬁnitions assured the researcher that educational
vocabulary used by the participants would not be misinterpreted.

Past research suggests that reform of teacher practice is a challenging endeavor
that is usually met with failure. The ﬁndings section of the dissertation describes the
majority of elementary teachers who participated in the study had changed instructional,
assessment and time usage behaviors. How can such a claim be made when past research
asserts otherwise? Analysis of the research data suggests that NCLB and Ed. YES!
legislation have accountability components that are much more speciﬁc and restrictive
than past educational legislation. Elementary teachers described individually assessing
students two to three times per year using the DRA or QRI. The results of these
assessments are forwarded to the building administrator who compiles them in a
composite of the school. The composites are turned into central ofﬁce administration for
further review. The accountability chain reaches from the teachers all the way to the
central ofﬁce, which uses the data for reports to state and federal education authorities.

Teachers who fail to turn in their assessment scores to the principal are immediately

196

 

 

contacted to detemrine if there is a problem. As administrators scrutinize the assessment
data, students that fail to show gowth over time are closely watched. Elementary
principals are aware of which teachers are using the newer instructional practices
effectively by constantly reviewing the assessment data provided. Parental participation
in terms of student and school progess is another example of the accountability
components outlined in recent legislation. In chapter four, the principal of Woodridge
Elementary School, Dr. Craig, explained the parental uproar that occurred when AYP and
school gades were published in the local newspaper. The accountability components of
NCLB and Ed. YES! have set the tone for elementary teacher and school compliance in
lieu of serious ﬁnancial and personnel sanctions.

It occurred to the researcher that the convergence of responses by study
participants may warrant further examination. The majority teachers interviewed claim
that they now use formal balanced literacy and manipulative-based mathematics
instruction. In addition, teachers describe administering individualized assessments to
students at multiple times during the school year. Despite the convergence of responses,
the researcher never witnessed the teachers doing the things they talked about. The self
report of changed practices can be viewed as a result of accountability mandates
inﬂuenced by recent legislation. An alternative hypothesis explaining teacher responses
could be a convergence of language and not a convergence of practice. Teachers may
have told the researcher the responses that they thought were appropriate, but truly had
not changed instructional or assessment practices. The alternative hypothesis does not
seem likely judging by the accountability mandates described in NCLB and Ed. YES!,

but deserves examination.

197

Elementary teachers participating in the study believe NCLB and Ed. YES! have
inﬂuenced instructional and assessment practices. Recent legislation had been in
Operation for approximately two years during the study. Another possible explanation for
teacher-reported changes could be the cumulative effects of past legislation coupled with
current legislative requirements. Public Act 25 mandates have been active in Michigan
public schools for 14 years and have made considerable changes to the school
improvement process. The school improvement process is central to the mandates of Ed.
YES! and NCLB and the three pieces of legislation work well to deﬁne school
improvement objectives. It is plausible that the inﬂuences felt by teachers requiring
instructional, assessment, professional development and time management changes are a
cumulative effect of 14 years of pressure driving reform.

One ﬁnal caveat that should be mentioned involves the location and socio-
economic status of the districts studied. Study respondents indicated that parents of
students in the Sienna Heights, Somerset Community and Kelsey Creek districts played
an important role requiring accountability for student achievement. Kelsey Creek, Sienna
Heights and Somerset Community districts serve middle to upper middle class students,
many of whose parents have attended college. While the mandates of NCLB and Ed.
YES! encompass the entire state of Michigan, the inﬂuences on elementary teachers and

schools from other districts not serving middle class populations may look different.

198

APPENDICES

199

APPENDIX A

UCRIHS APPLICATION

200

APPLICATION FOR INITIAL REVIEW
APPROVAL OF A PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1047
Phone: (517) 355-2180
Fax: (517) 432-4503
E-mail: ucrilrs@msu.edu

Office Hours: M-F (8:00 AM.-5:00 PM.)

 

IRB#: 04-253
ID# i019665

 

1a. Responsible Project Investigator:

Name: Philip A. Cusick
ID#: XXX-XX-2031
Department: Ed Admin
College: EDUCATION

Academic Rank:
Mailing Address: 418 Erickson Hall
MSU

Phone: 5-4539
Fax: 3-6393
Email: pacusick@msu.edu; cusickpa@pilot.msu.edu

lb. Secondary Investigator:

Name: Christopher Cooper

ID#: XXX-XX-6570

Department: EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
College: EDUCATION

Academic Rank: PI by Special Arrangement
Mailing Address:

Phone:
Fax:
Email: cooperc8@msu.edu

1c. Additional Investigators:

201

2. Study Coordinator:

Narrre:

ID#:
Department:
College:
Academic Rank:
Mailing Address:

Phone:
Fax:
Email:

 

3. Title of Project: A study of the inﬂuence of recent legislation on the behavior of schools and elerrrentary
school teachers.

 

4. Have you ever received Prelinrinary Approval for this project? NO
5. Category of Review l-l, 1-3, 1-4 ,2-6 EXPEDITED

6. Is this project being conducted to fulﬁll the requirements of an education/training program? PhD.
Dissertation

7. Funding: Project is not funded

8a. List all sites where this research will be conducted.

Two elementary schools will be selected ﬁ'om 3 different school districts located within Oakland County,
Michigan. Preliminary investigation of school districts indicates that the XXX districts may be selected.
8b. Do any of these sites have their own IRB? NO

9. Do you have any related project that were approved by UCRIHS? NO

 

10. Have you submitted this to another IRB(s)? NO
11. Is another institution(s) relying on UCRIHS as the [RB of record? NO
12. Are you using an FDA approved drug/device/diagnostic test? NO

13. Are you using an FDA approved drug/device/diagnostic test for a non-FDA approved indication?
NO

14. Has this protocol been subnritted to the FDA or are there plans to submit it to the FDA? NO
15. Does this project involve the use of Materials of Human Origin (e.g. human blood or tissue)? NO

16. Research Category

Education Research Yes Gene Transfer Research No
Survey/Interview Yes Fetal Research No

Audio/Video Recording Yes Medical Records No

Oral History Yes Stem Cell Research No
Internet-based No Medical Imaging No

Analysis of Existing Data Yes Oncology No

International Research No Clinical Trial (specify below): none

202

17. Project Description (Abstract)
The study proposed will describe current federal and state legislation and then describe and explain how
those efforts may have inﬂuenced schools and elementary teacher behavior.

The researcher will be conducting personal interviews with 24 teachers and 6 principals from 6 elementary
schools located within 3 Oakland County Districts. Additional interviews with central office personnel may
be required to completely answer certain research questions. Interviews will be audio tape recorded,
transcribed and analyzed for common themes using the constant comparative rrrethod. From these
interviews, the researcher will answer the following 2 questions: l.What schools and elementary teachers
are doing in order to corrrply with legislative mandates, and 2. what schools and elementary teachers are not
doing because they are focusing on conrpliance with the legislation.

It is expected that review and analysis of the interview data will provide a deeper understanding of how
schools and elementary teacher behaviors have been inﬂuenced by the legislative reforms included in the
study.

18. Procedures

The researcher will use semi structured personal interviews to collect data from 24 elementary school
teachers, 6 elerrrentary principals and possibly seva central office adrrrinistrators. Interviews will be
audio tape recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Transcribed
interviews will be nrailed to respondents asking for any additional comments and clariﬁcation.

19. Does your investigation involve incomplete disclosure of the research purpose or deception of the
subjects? NO

20a. Subject Population

24 elerrrentary school teachers

6 elerrrentary school principals

potential interviews with central ofﬁce administrators if necessary
20h. Age range of subjects: 22 to 100

20c. The study population may include:

Target Population: Incidental Inclusion:

Minors No Minors No
Pregnant Worrren Yes Pregnant Women Yes
Women of Childbearing Age Yes Women of Childbearing Age Yes
Institutionalized Persons No Institutionalized Persons No
Students Yes Students Yes
Low Income Persons No Low Income Persons Yes
Minorities Yes Minorities Yes
Prisoners No Prisoners No
HIV/AIDS Individuals No HIV/AIDS Individuals Yes
Psychiatric Patients No Psychiatric Patients Yes
Incompetent Persons No Inconrpetent Persons Yes

20d. Expected number of subjects (including controls): 3040

20c. Justify your sample size: acceptable pararrreters for my qualitative research design as approved by
my doctoral committee

203

 

 

 

20f. Describe the criteria for the inclusion of subjects:

First, second, third, fourth and ﬁfth gade teachers who have taught a minimum of 4 years. Elementary
school principals who have been school adnrinistrators for at least 4 years. Potentially certain central ofﬁce
administrators who have been central ofﬁce administrators for at least 4 years.

20g. Describe the criteria for the exclusion of subjects:

Kindergarten teachers and any teachers teaching grades above gade 5. lst-5th gade teachers who have
taught less than 4 years. Elementary principals who have not worked at least 4 years as an elenrentary
principal. Central ofﬁce adnrinistrators who have not worked at least 4 years as a central ofﬁce
administrator.

20h(l). How will the subjects be recruited?

Teacher subjects will be identiﬁed and recruited by their elementary school principals. Elementary
principals will be identiﬁed and recruited by central office administration. Should central office
administration interviews be necessary, contact will be rrrade through elementary principal respondents.

 

20h(2). Will an advertisement be used? YES
(a) Describe:
Contact letters will be sent to all potential respondents asking them to participate in the study.

 

201. Are you associated with the subjects? YES

(a) Nature of the association and what rrreasures you are taking to protect subjects' rights, including

safeguards against any coercion.

Some elementary teacher, principal and central office administrators may be co—workers within the Walled
Lake Consolidated School District where the researcher is employed. Contact letters will be mailed to each
potential respondent asking for their cooperation and fully informing them of their rights and that their

participation is completely voluntary.
20j. Will someone receive payment for recruiting the subjects? NO

20k. Will the research subjects be compensated? NO

201. Will the subjects incur additional financial costs as a result of their participation in this study?
NO

 

20m. Will this research be conducted with subjects in another country? NO

20n. Will this research be conducted with subjects in the U.S. from an ethnic group of sub-group or
other non-mainstream minorities (including non-English speakers)? NO

21a. Risks and Benefits for subjects: Describe and assess any potential risks (physical, psychological,
social, legal, economic) and assess the likelihood and seriousness of such risks.

Since this study concerns the inﬂuences of recent legislation on schools and elementary teacher behavior, it
poses rrrinimal risks to subjects. It falls into UCRIHS exempt category 1, research in an established
educational setting. Participants' responses will not be traceable to individuals, nor will any sensitive
personal information be recorded. Responses that contain sensitive replies or data critical of the school
district will be coded with participants' pseudonyms.

204

21b. Describe procedures for protecting against or minimizing potential risks and an assessment of
their likely effectiveness.

All respondents and their school districts will be provided with pseudonyms for use in all written
documentation, and responses will be kept confidential. Interview documents and audio tapes will be kept
in a locked storage area in the researcher's home. When information is entered into word processing or
spreadsheet prograrm, it will be password protected. Audio tapes will be destroyed upon completion of the
research project so no voice record will be kept beyond this time period.

21c. Assess the potential benefits (if any) to be gained by the sujbects in this study, as well as
benefits which may accrue to society in general as a result of the planned work.

School districts will beneﬁt from learning how recent educational legislation such as Public Act 25, No
Child Left Behind, and Education YES! have inﬂuenced their elementary school teacher behaviors as well
the behaviors governing the schools themselves. This information will prove valuable to teachers and
district personnel for future budget planning, inservice scheduling, and teacher preparation.

22a. How will the subjects' privacy be protected?

All respondents and their school districts will be provided with pseudonyms for use in all written
documentation, and responses will be kept conﬁdential. Interview docurrrents and audio tapes will be kept
in a locked storage area in the researcher's home. When information is entered into word processing or
spreadsheet programs, it will be password protected. Audio tapes will be destroyed upon conrpletion of the
research project so no voice record will be kept beyond this time period.

22b. Where will the data be stored and for how long?
Data will be stored at the researcher's residence and will be kept in locked storage. Upon conrpletion of the
study, all audio tape responses will be destroyed.

22c. Who will have access to the data?
The project investigator, the secondary investigator, and MSU committee members Dr. Gary Sykes, Dr.
Suzanne Wilson, and Dr. Susan Printy.

22d. How will the integrity and security of the stored data be assured?
Only the secondary researcher will be collecting the data and will keep all original data locked at his
residence.

23. Does this project involve protected health information as defined by I-IIPAA? NO
24. (a) Select appropriate consent option. Approval of a consent form and process

(b) Consent Procedures: Consent forms will be provided to all respondents prior to the interviews.
The secondary investigator will provide a physical copy of the consent form to each respondent as well as
reading the form to the respondent. Respondents are asked to initial that they are willing to be interviewed
and are willing to have the interview audio tape recorded. Respondents then print their name, date and sign
their name on 2 consent forrrrs and are given one to keep while the secondary investigator keeps one for the
study ﬁle.

25a. Have you or will you or a member of your immediate family receive, from the sponsor of the
research, financial or other forms of compensation? NO

25b. Do or will you or a member of your immediate family have a vested interest in the
company/agency/firm that is to sponsor the research? NO

25c. Are you submitting FDA form 3454 or 3455 (Conflict of Interest)? NO

26a. When would you prefer to begin this project? 4/20/2004

205

 

 

26b. Estimated duration of project: 12-18 nronths

I N ATTACHMENTS

01. 3/25/2004 Survey Instrument (i019665_Interview_Guide_Principals.pdf)

02. 3/25/2004 Survey Instrument (i019665_Interview_Guide_Teachers.pdf)

03. 3/25/2004 Recruiting Advertisement (i019665_Contact_Letter_Format_Principals.pdf)
04. 3/25/2004 Recruiting Advertisement (i019665_Contact_Letter_Format_for_Teachers.pdf)
05. 3/25/2004 Consent Form (i0l9665_Consent_Form_for_Elementary_Principals.pdf)

06. 3/25/2004 Consent Form (i019665_Consent_F orm_for_Elementary_Teachers.pdf)

206

APPENDIX B

UCRIHS CONSENT FORMS

207

Consent Form for Elementary Principals
Study Title: The inﬂuence of recent legislation on the behavior of schools and
elementary school teachers

You are being asked to participate in a study about the inﬂuence of recent
legislation on the behavior of schools and elementary school teachers. Your participation
would consist of ageeing to allow Chris Cooper to conduct one interview with you for
approximately 60-90 minutes. I will be asking you questions regarding how your
teachers’ classroom instruction, time use, assessments, and the school organization have
been inﬂuenced by recent educational legislation. In addition I am interested to know
how your hiring practices, stafﬁng, building budget and adrrrinistrative duties have been
inﬂuenced by No Child Left Behind, Education YES! and Public Act 25. The
information I collect will be strictly directed to your role as an elementary principal, and
no personal information will be requested.

I would like to tape record the interview because it both assures the accuracy of
the notes and allows me to concentrate on the substance of our conversations. All tapes
will be transcribed and the contents will be reviewed and analyzed. All tapes will be
destroyed after the research is completed. I value your privacy and will consider your
responses conﬁdential to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may feel ﬂee to withdraw ﬁom
the interview, to request that the interview not be taped, to skip any items, or request that
the recorder be turned off at any time during the interview.

I will be contacting you in the following days to answer any questions about my
study that you may have and to request your cooperation. Please feel ﬂee to contact
Chris Cooper at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or cooperc8@msu.edu should you have any
questions about the study or questions asked during the interview. If you have questions
or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel ﬂee to contact Dr.
Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects at (517) 355-2180. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Please indicate your ageement to participate by writing your initials on the small
line by those activities you are ageeing to participate in:

I am willing to be interviewed by Chris Cooper.

I am willing to have our interview audiotape recorded.

Principal's Name (please print):

 

Principal's Sigrature: Date:

208

 

 

Consent Form for Elementag Teachers
Study Title: The inﬂuence of recent legislation on the behavior of schools and

elementary school teachers

You are being asked to participate in a study about the inﬂuence of recent
legislation on the behavior of schools and elementary school teachers. Your participation
would consist of ageeing to allow Chris Cooper to conduct one interview with you for
approximately 60-90 minutes. I will be asking you questions regarding how your
classroom instruction, time use, assessments, and the school organization have been
inﬂuenced by recent educational legislation. The information I collect will be strictly
directed to your professional career as an elementary teacher, and no personal
information will be requested.

I would like to tape record our interview because it both assures the accuracy of
the notes and allows me to concentrate on the substance of our conversations. All tapes
will be transcribed and the contents will be reviewed and analyzed. All tapes will be
destroyed after the research is completed. I value your privacy and will consider your
responses conﬁdential to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may feel ﬂee to withdraw ﬁom
the interview, to request that the interview not be taped, to skip any items, or request that
the recorder be turned off at any time during the interview.

I will be contacting you in the following days to answer any questions about my
study that you may have and to request your cooperation. Please feel ﬂee to contact
Chris Cooper at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or cooperc8@msu.edu should you have any
questions about the study or questions asked during the interview. If you have questions
or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel free to contact Dr.
Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects at (517) 355-2180. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Please indicate your ageement to participate by writing your initials on the small
line by those activities you are agreeing to participate in:

I am willing to be interviewed by Chris Cooper.

I am willing to have our interview audiotape recorded.

Teacher's Name (please print):

 

Teacher's Sigrature: Date:

209

 

 

APPENDIX C

CONTACT LETTERS

 

 

210

 

Contact Letter Format for Elemenm Principals

Dear

 

My name is Chris Cooper and I am a second gade teacher at XXXXXXX
Elementary School. I am also completing my dissertation work for my doctorate degee
in educational administration at Michigan State University. As part of my dissertation
research, I am interested in learning how the recent legislation such as No Child Left
Behind, Education YES! and Public Act 25 have inﬂuenced schools and elementary
school teacher behavior.

I would like to request your assistance in completing my doctoral research. Your
participation would consist of ageeing to allow me to conduct one interview with you for
approximately 60-90 minutes. I will be asking you questions regarding how your
teachers’ classroom instruction, time use, assessments, and the school organization have
been inﬂuenced by recent educational legislation. In addition I am interested to brow
how your hiring practices, stafﬁng, building budget and administrative duties have been
inﬂuenced by No Child Left Behind, Education YES! and Public Act 25. The
information I collect will be strictly directed to your professional career as an elementary
principal, and no personal information will be requested.

I would like to tape record our interview because it both assures the accuracy of
the notes and allows me to concentrate on the substance of our conversations. All tapes
will be transcribed and the contents will be reviewed and analyzed. All tapes will be
destroyed after the research is completed. I value your privacy and will consider your
responses conﬁdential to the maximrun extent allowable by law.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may feel free to withdraw from
the interviews, to request that the interviews not be taped, to skip any items, or request
that the recorder be turned off at any time during either interview.

I will be contacting you in the following days to answer any questions about my
study that you may have and to request your cooperation. Please feel he to contact me
at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or cooperc8@msu.edu should you have any questions. If you
have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel free
to contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects at (517)355-2180. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Chris Cooper

Ph.D. Student

Department of Educational Administration
Michigan State University

211

Qontact Letter Format for Elemenm Teachers

Dear

 

My name is Chris Cooper and I am a second gade teacher at XXXXXXX
Elementary School. I am also completing my dissertation work for my doctorate degee
in educational administration at Michigan State University. As part of my dissertation
research, I am interested in learning how the recent legislation such as No Child Left
Behind, Education YES! and Public Act 25 have inﬂuenced schools and elementary
school teacher behavior.

I would like to request your assistance in completing my doctoral research. Your
participation would consist of ageeing to allow me to conduct one interview with you for
approximately 60-90 minutes. I will be asking you questions regarding how your
classroom instruction, time use, assessments, and the school organization have been
inﬂuenced by recent educational legislation. The information I collect will be strictly
directed to your professional career as an elementary teacher, and no personal
information will be requested.

I would like to tape record our interview because it both assures the accuracy of
the notes and allows me to concentrate on the substance of our conversations. All tapes
will be transcribed and the contents will be reviewed and analyzed. All tapes will be
destroyed after the research is completed. I value your privacy and will consider your
responses conﬁdential to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may feel free to withdraw ﬁom
the interviews, to request that the interviews not be taped, to skip any items, or request °
that the recorder be turned off at any time during either interview.

I will be contacting you in the following days to answer any questions about my
study that you may have and to request your cooperation. Please feel free to contact me
at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or cooperc8@msu.edu should you have any questions. If you
have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel free
to contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects at (517)355-2180. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Chris Cooper

Ph.D. Student

Department of Educational Administration
Michigan State University

212

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW GUIDES

213

Elementag Principal Interview Guide Sample

The questions listed below are presented as a guide to direct the interviewer‘s
questioning. Each question will be asked of every participant. The background
information will be asked ﬁrst of each respondent, followed by the questions regarding
the inﬂuence of recent legislation on elementary teacher behavior. Since a semi-
structured interview atmosphere is desired, these topics will be explored as time allows
with an emphasis on recording the subject's deeply descriptive narratives. This is an

interview guide only and does not represent the researcher's verbatim questions.

Background Information Questions

1. How long have you been an elementary school principal?

2. What have been your administrative responsibilities for the last 3 years (gade levels,
building assigrments, etc.)?

3. What educational credentials have you earned (degees and certiﬁcates)?

 

Influence of Recent ngislation Questions
1. Math & Literacy Inptruction

1. How has your teachers’ literacy instruction changed over the past two years?

2. To what do you attribute those changes?

3. How has your teachers’ mathematics instruction changed over the past two years?
4. To what do you attribute those changes?

5. What has changed dramatically in your teachers’ instructional practices and why has
it changed?

6. Have there been any changes in the district’s math or literacy curriculum within the
past 2 years? If yes, why?

7. What has the school administration done to help aligr math and literacy instruction
with the reform initiatives of No Child Left Behind and Education YES!?

IF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED:

8. Is math and literacy instruction inﬂuenced by your building’s school improvement
plans? Please elaborate.

 

II. Use of Time

1. Have teachers recently changed the amount of time they spend teaching one subject
versus another? If so, why?

2. How are teachers spending time in collegial discussions or common planning times
each week?

3. Has the time teachers spend in collegial discussions and common planning changed
within the past 2 years? If so, why?

4. Has the time you spend working with school improvement plans and their
implementation changed within the past 2 years? If so, how?

214

5. Describe the time you spend working on mandates related to Education YES! and No
Child Left Behind.

6. Are there any other changes in your use of time due to mandates from No Child Left
Behind or Education YES!?

III. Testing Q Rmnses to Testing

1. How have your teachers’ assessment practices in math changed over the past 2
years?

2. To what do you attribute those changes?

3. How have your teachers’ assessment practices in literacy/reading changed over the
past 2 years?

4. To what do you attribute those changes?

5. What has changed in your teachers’ math and literacy assessment practices and why
has it changed?

6. Have there been any changes in your teachers’ math or literacy assessments as
required by the school district within the past 2 years? If yes, why?

7. What has the school administration done to help ali gr assessments with the reform
initiatives of No Child Left Behind and Education YES!?

8. What is being omitted ﬁom the teachers’ instructional day to create time for new
assessment practices?

IV. School annization & Culture

1. Describe the administration/organizational strycture of your school.

2. How has the admin/organization of your school changed over the past 2 years?

3. To what do you attribute those changes?

4. Describe some of the culture/traditions of your school.

5. How has the culture/traditions of your school changed over the past 2 years?

6. To what do you attribute those changes?

7. Does your school receive any assistance in planning for school improvement?, If
yes, please describe.

8. Does your school receive any assistance in planning for school reform such as No
Child Left Behind or Education YES!? If yes, please describe.

9. How have your hiring practices changed within the past 2 years? To what do you
attribute those changes?

10. How have your budget/spending practices changed within the past 2 years? To
what do you attribute those changes?

11. How have your administrative practices changed within the past 2 years? To what
do you attribute those changes?

V. Paperwork/New Rguirements
1. Describe typical paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements related to school

improvement planning and implementation.

2. How have your paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements changed over the past 2
years? -

3. To what do you attribute those changes?

215

4. Have there been any changes in your paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements as
mandated by your school district within the past 2 years? If yes, why? (Accountability)
5. Describe paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements related to new legislative
mandates such as No Child Left Behind and Education YES!?.

6. How have these paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements changed your job duties as

an elementary school principal?

VI. Other Changes
1. Have their been any new challenges to your position as an elementary principal?

(ﬁustrations/surprises?)
2. Have there been any other changes in your behaviors as an elementary principal
within the past 2 years that you would like to discuss?

Questions as needed to clarify or expand upon responses ﬁom elementary teachers.

216

Elementag Teacher Interview Guide Sample

The questions listed below are presented as a guide to direct the interviewer's
questioning. Each question will be asked of every participant. The backgound
information will be asked ﬁrst of each respondent, followed by the questions regarding
the inﬂuence of recent legislation on elementary teacher behavior. Since a semi-
structured interview atmosphere is desired, these topics will be explored as time allows
with an emphasis on recording the subject's deeply descriptive narratives. This is an

interview guide only and does not represent the researcher's verbatim questions.

Background Information Questions

1. How long have you been teaching?

2. What have been your teaching responsibilities for the last 3 years (gade levels, special
education, etc.)?

3. What educational credentials have you earned (degees and certiﬁcates)?

Inﬂuence of Recent ngislation Questions

I. Math & Literacy In_gtruction
1. Describe a typical day of literacy instruction.
2. How has your literacy instruction changed over the past two years?
3. To what do you attribute those changes?
4. Describe a typical day of mathematics instruction.
5. How has your mathematics instruction changed over the past two years?
6. To what do you attribute those changes?
7. What has changed dramatically in your instructional practice and why has it
changed?
8. Have there been any changes in your math or literacy curriculum within the past 2
years? Ifyes, why?
IF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED:
9. Describe how your math and literacy instruction is inﬂuenced by your building’s
school improvement plans.

II. Use of Time
1. Describe a typical instructional day in terms of time spent on various subject areas.
2. Have you recently changed the amount of time you spend teaching one subject
versus another? If so, why?
3. Describe a typical day in terms of time spent on preparation and planning.
4. How has the time you spend planning and preparing changed within the past 2 years?
5. Describe the time spent in collegial discussions or block planning times each week.
6. Has the time you spend in collegial discussions and block planning changed within
the past 2 years? If so, why?
7. Describe a typical week in terms of work done to meet school improvement plans.

217

8. Has the time you spend working on school improvement planning and instruction
changed within the past 2 years? If so, why?

HI. Tes ' g Q Rmnses to Testing

1. Describe typical math assessments that you administer during the school year and the
time allotted to adnrinister those assessments.

2. How have your assessment practices in math changed over the past 2 years?

3. To what do you attribute those changes?

4. Describe typical literacy/reading assessments that you adrrrinister during the school
year and the time allotted to administer those assessments.

5. How have your assessment practices in literacy/reading changed over the past 2
years?

6. To what do you attribute those changes?

7. What has changed dramatically in your math and literacy assessment practice and
why has it changed?

8. Have there been any changes in your math or literacy assessments as required by
your school district within the past 2 years? If yes, why?

IV. School Orggization & Culture

1. Tell me a little bit about the administration/organization of your school.

2. How has the admin/organization of your school changed over the past 2 years?

3. To what do you attribute those changes?

4. Tell me a little bit about the culture/traditions of your school.

5. How has the culture/traditions of your school changed over the past 2 years?

6. To what do you attribute those changes?

7. Does your school receive any assistance in planning for school improvement?

8. If yes, please describe.

9. Does your school receive any assistance in planning for school reform such as No
Child Left Behind or Education YES!?

V. Puperwork/New Requirements
1. Describe typical paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements as an elementary teacher.
2. How have your paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements changed over the past 2
years?
3. To what do you attribute those changes?
4. What has changed dramatically in your paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements
practice and why has it changed?
5. Have there been any changes in your paperwork and ﬁle-keeping requirements as
mandated by your school district within the past 2 years? If yes, why?

VI. Qtper Changes

1. Have there been any other changes in your behaviors as an elementary teacher within
the past 2 years that you would like to discuss?

2. Have things been omitted from your instructional day to make time for instructional
reform? Ifso, please describe.

218

APPENDIX E

MODEL

 

219

 

 

 

Model: Legislative Influence on Schools
and Elementary Teachers

 

 

 

 

No Child Left
Behind/
Education YES!

 

Significance of
Standardized
Test Scores

 

us

 

 

I»

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Behaviors

 

 

 

 

 

Arrows represent
the spheres of
direct inﬂuence,
leading to
educational reform.

 

 

 

 

School
Improvement
Planning (NCA)

 

 

 

 

 

School District Curriculum
(via professional
development of teachers,
additional resources,
accountability
mechanisms“, and school
improvement plans)

 

 

 

 

*Accountability mechanisms
include items such as:
required forms, reports, test
scores, individual student
proﬁles/plans and class
composites that are recorded
for administrative use.

 

 

220

   

 

 

 

REFERENCES

221

Retirees

Allington, R. (2000). Effects of Reading Policy on Classroom Instruction and Student
Achievement. Retrieved August 23, 2004, ﬁ'om http://cela.albany.edu/reports/
policy/index.html

Amos Electronic Dictionary. (2003). Retrieved May 4, 2003, from http://www.
amosdictionary.com.

Ball, D.L., & Rundquist, S. S. (1993). Collaboration as context for joining teacher
learning with learning about teaching. In D. K. Cohen, M. McLaughlin, & J. Talbert
(Eds), Teaching for Understanding (pp. 13-42). San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Barnes, CA. (2002). Standards Reform in High-Poverty Schools: Managing Conﬂict
and Building Capacity. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bemauer, J. (2002). Five keys to unlock continuous school improvement. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 38(2), 89-92.

Berteaux, B. (2003). Budget cuts put New York school reform at risk. American
Teacher, 87(8), 18.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, SK. (1998). Foundations of qualitative research in education:
An introduction. In Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and
Methods (pp. 1-48). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bruno, J .E. (1997). It's About Time: Leading School Reform in an Era of Time Scarcity.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Carleton. D. (2002). Students ’ Guide to Landmark Congressional Laws on Education.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, Markets and America 's Schools.
Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.

222

 

Clovis, D. L. (1999). Take out your no. 2 pencils: Taking the stress out of standardized
tests. Scholastic Instructor, 108(7), 27-28.

Cohen, D.K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 31 1-330.

Cohen, D.K. & Barnes, CA. (1993). Pedagogy and policy, and conclusion: a new
pedagogy for policy? In D.K. Cohen, W.M., McLaughlin and J .E. Talbert (Eds),
Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice (207-275). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, D.K. & Hill, HQ (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The
mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.

Cohen, J.H. (2003). Supplemental Education: Six Essential Components. Principal,
82(5), 34-37.

Coleman, J .S., Campbell, 13., Hobson, C., McPartland, J ., Mood, A., Weinfeld, R., &
York, R. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Cooper, CD. (2001). Not just a numbers thing: Tactics for improving reliability and
validity in qualitative research. Retrieved August 4, 2003 from http://www.aom.pace
.edu/ mid/2001 forum/methods__article_with_refs.pdf

C usick, PA. (1983). The Egalitarian Ideal and the American High School: Studies of
Three Schools. New York, NY: Longman, Inc.

Darling, W. (2002). What "No Child Left Behind" Left Behind. The Education Digest.
68(4), 12-17.

Durkheim, E. (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Eastwood, K.W. & Tallerico, M. (1990). School improvement planning teams: lessons
from practice. Planning & Changing: 21(1), 3-12.

223

Education YES! A Yardstick for Excellent Schools. (2002). Retrieved June10, 2003,
from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Final_Revised_Ed_Yes!_5093 8_7.pdf

Education YES!- A Yardstick for Excellent Schools. (2003). School Self-Assessment
Instrument for the Measures of School Performance. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from
http://www.educationyes.com

Elmore, RF. (2001). Holding schools accountable: Is it working? Phi Delta Kappan,
83(1), 67-72.

F inn, CE. (1996). Corrupted intentions: reforming special education. National Review,
48(4), 46-48.

Firestone, W. A. (1989). Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational
Researcher, 18(7), 18—24.

Flinders, DJ. (1989). Voices from the Classroom. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon
Press.

Friedrich, S. (2002). No Child Left Behind— What it Means to Teachers. National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved June 18, 2003, from
http://www.nctm.org/news/articles/ZOOZ-l lnb_nochild.htm

Fullan, MC. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Gallagher, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind and gifted education. Roeper Review,
26(3), 121-123.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). T he discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Goldhaber, D. (2002). What Might Go Wrong with the Accountability Measures of the
"No Child Left Behind Act?". Retrieved June 4, 2003, from http://www.edexcellence
.net/NCLBconference/Goldhaber.doc

224

 

Gulek, C. (2003). Preparing for High-Stakes Testing. Theory into Practice, 42(1),
42-50.

Hafner, K; Somers, J .; Mojica, Y.; & Burns, M. (2002). Michigan Association of School
Psychologists Response to Education Yes Proposal. Retrieved July 3, 2003, from
http://www.masponline.org/MASP_Input_on_Education_Yes_Proposal.pdf

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. Albany: State
University of New York Press.

Homans, CC. (1950). The Human Group. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Hawaii Public School District. (2004). The Developmental Reading Assessment.
Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.kealakehe.kl2.hi.us/Title%201/dra.html

Heward, W.L. & Orlansky, MD. (1992). Exceptional Children: An Introductory Survey
of Special Education. New York: Merrill.

Hillocks Jr., G. (2002). The Testing Trap: How State Writing Assessments Control
Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

J akupcak, J. & Rushton, R. (1992). C orvalis School Inclusion Project (Report No. 14]).
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357566).

Jencks, C., Smith, M.S., Ackland, H., Bane, M.J., Cohen, D., Ginter, H. Heynes, B.,
Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and
Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.

Jennings, NE. (1996). Interpreting Policy in Real Classrooms: Case Studies of State
Reform and Teacher Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Koretz, D. & Barron, S. (1998). The Validity Gains in Scores on the Kentucky
Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: Institute for
Education and Training, RAND Corporation.

225

Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language In Society, 1,
97-120.

Layman, C. (2002). Education YES!: An Overview of the Pr0posed School
Accreditation Plan. Retrieved July 13, 2003, from http://www.senate.state.mi.us/
sfa/Publications/Notes/2002Notes/NotesJanFeb02Layman.PDF

Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and Accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.

Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1992). T eachers- Their World and Their Work.
Implications for School Improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Loulou, D. (1997). How to study for and take college tests (Report No. NLE-97-252 7).
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404378).

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Madaus, G. (1988). The Inﬂuence of Testing on Curriculum. In LN. Tanner (Ed),
Critical Issues in Curriculum (83-121). 87‘ Yearbook of Education, pt. 1.

McDonnell, L.M. & Elmore, RF. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy
instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.

McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy
implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.

McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives
and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.

McNeil, L. (2000). Creating new inequalities: contradictions of reform. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(10), 728-734.

McTighe, J. & Thomas, RS. (2003). Backward Design for Forward Action.
Educational Leadership, 60(5), 52-55.

226

Merriam, SB. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.

Michigan Association of School Boards Accountability Taskforce. (2000). So All
Succeed. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from http://www.masb.org/pdf/report.pdf

Michigan Department of Education. (2003). A Sample Core Curriculum for Michigan
Schools. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from http://www.michigan.gov/scope

Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel. (2002). Michigan
Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel Response to Education YES! A
Yardstick for Excellent Schools. Retrieved July 3, 2003, from http://www.mftsrp
.org/edyesposition.html

Michigan Legislature. (1990). Michigan Public Act 25. Retrieved April 27, 2003, from
http://www.michiganlegislature.org

Michigan Literacy Progess Profile. (2004). MLPP Details. Retrieved July 4, 2004,
from http://www.mlpp-msl.net/#

Michigan State Board of Education. (1984). Better Education for Michigan Citizens:
Blueprint for Action. Lansing, Michigan.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A sourcebook of
new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Mitchell, K. (1997). What happens when school reform and accountability testing meet?
Theory Into Practice, 36 (1), 262-265.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Retrieved May 25, 2003, from http://www
.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

National Education Association. (2003). School Accreditation. Retrieved July 17, 2003,
from http://www.nea.org/accountability/accreditation.html

227

National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of Time.
Retrieved July 22, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/PrisonersOfTime/
Prisonershtml

Patton, M.Q. (1988). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.

Peters, W.L. (1997). The Effects of State Bureaucratic Reform Efforts on the Role of the
Local Superintendent and the Structure of Local Public Schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Pressley, G.M. (personal communication, August 19, 2004)

Rozycki, E.G. (2001). What can a teacher do? Two myths of responsibility.
Educational Horizons, 79(4), 158-161.

Sanders, W.L., & Horn, SP. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system
(TVAAS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 8(1), 299—311.

Sandholtz, J .H., Ogawa, R., and Scribner, S. (2004). Standards gaps: Unintended
consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6),
1177-1202.

Sanjek, R. (1990). A vocabulary for ﬁeldnotes. In Roger Sanj ek (Ed), F ieldnotes: The
makings of anthropology (92-12 1 ). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Scheerhom, D.M. (1995). The Effects of State Bureaucratic Reform Efforts on the Role
of the Local Superintendent and the Structure of Local Public Schools. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Schifter, D. (1996). What's happening in math class? Reconstructing Professional
Identities ( Vol. 2). New York: Teachers College Press.

Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424-432.

228

 

Seidman, LE. (1991). Technique Isn't Everything, But it is a Lot. In Interviewing as
Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences
(56-69). New York: Teachers College Press.

Shine, E]. (1992). An Analysis of Local Response to State Initiated School Reform
Legislation: Michigan Public Act 25. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University, New York.

Simon, HA. (1976). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organization, Third Edition. New York: The Free Press.

Simon, HA. (1997). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organization, Fourth Edition. New York: The Free Press.

Spillane, J. (1996). Districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional
policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.

Spillane, J. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their

practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Curriculum Studies,
31(2), 143-175.

Spillane, J. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: the pedagogy of district policies
and progams. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 377-420.

Spillane, J. & Jennings, NE. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious
pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers
College Record, 98(1), 449-481.

Spillane, J. & Zeuli, J .S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in
the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.

Stephens, NS. (1994). Michigan's Public Act 25: An Educational Tug of War.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

229

 

 

 

Tannenbaum, A. (1966). Social Psychology of the Work Organization. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.

Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in Action. Social Science Bases of Administration
Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Tolor, A. (1985). Effective Interviewing. Springfield IL: Thomas Books.

US Department of Education, Office of the Secretary. (2003). Back to School, Moving
Forward: What "No Child Left Behind" Means for America's Educators. Retrieved
July 11, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/backtoschool/families/index.htrnl

U.S. Department of Education. (2003a). Jacob K. J avits Gifted and Talented Students
Act. Retrieved November 2, 2003, from http://www.web99.ed.gov/GTEP/
Program2.nsf

U.S. Department of Education. (2003b). Introduction: No Child Left Behind. Retrieved
July 3, 2003, from http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/next/overview/index.html

US Department of Education. (2003c). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 3, 2003,
from http://www.nochildleftbehind. gov

US Department of Education. (2003d). Reading First. Retrieved July 3, 2003, from
http://www.ed.gov/offrces/OESE/readingfirst/programs.html

US Department of Education. (2003c). Teacher Quality. Retrieved July 3, 2003, from
http://www.ed.gov/ofﬁces/OPE/heatqp/tqp.sum.html

Van Hooft, GE. (2002). Creeping federal control of education. Special to the Times
Union, August 11, 2002. Retrieved October 12, 2003, from http://hws.edu/news/
update/showebclip.asp

Vars, GP. (2000). Common leamings: a 50-year quest. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 16(1), 70-89.

230

 

Watkins, T.D. (personal communication, First Look for School Performance Indicator
Criteria in Education YES! Memo sent to all local and intermediate school district
superintendents and charter school directors, November 5, 2002)

Wax, R. H. (1971). Doing Fieldwork: Warnings and Advice. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.

Weber, M. (1946). Chapter VIII Bureaucracy. In H. Gerth & C.W. Mills, (Eds), From
Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weiss, J .A. (1990). Ideas and inducements in mental health. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 19(2), 1-23.

Wenning, R.J., Herdman, PA, and Smith, N. (2002). No Child Left Behind- Who Is
Included In New Federal Accountability Requirements? Retrieved June 28, 2003, from
http://www.edexcellence.net/NCLBconference/NCLBconferenceindex.html

Whyte, W.F. (1984). Learning From the Field. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

Wolcott, H. (1995). Making a study "more ethnographic". In John Van Maanen (Ed.),
Representation in Ethnography (79-11 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P. & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teachers and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.

231

 

 

 

 

 

I '~.‘.

.~‘\ r'

‘3

inlay,» in, II.- rl Ills