,
1.3.2
4.493....
. 7".V. . 1.
h.
...4... .31
In..- 15.1..

.1 at. .1... 4

km.”

.....1

.6: .5:
.ncrnfinfih... . 1
2.. :91) t t .

Iii .. a!
1..

3
".51.. “I”...
... E
..x!’ J. .
(we,

 

 

115.)! 71
7.1.1.- I.

a“ .v

1 u 2.. I
. .1 its}:
‘1‘}:2 7.
51 :. ...
0.. I
. k

. 1. 1 1.11. 1 1 x . q flmmnfifi
.... .1 . . . , , . 11 55%? ..1. . $31.. 1
”w...1.mfl..m...3mm..waxwayé. . , , . .1 . . 1 1 . _ , .. an? 1

 

10 0 ( LIBM%%IWMIW
MICHIGAN STATE
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

HYBRIDITY, COLLABORATION AND RESISTANCE:
LITERACY PEDAGOGY IN AN URBAN ELEMENTARY
CLASSROOM

presented by

JODENE MICHELE KERSTEN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Teacher Education

 

 

@ga/J/M'w Kama ,

Major Professor’s Signature

W A8, 2006‘

Date

MSU is an Afi'irmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

_._.—.—---¢-o--.-.-.-.-o-o-o-n-n-—---c-o-._o-c-a-n--—o-.-.-o-o--------o--o---—.—n-

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 czicficmmom.mp.is

HYBRIDITY, COLLABORATION, AND RESISTANCE: LITERACY PEDAGOGY IN
AN URBAN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM

By

J odene Michele Kersten

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

2005

ABSTRACT

HYBRIDITY, COLLABORATION, AND RESISTANCE: LITERACY PEDAGOGY IN
AN URBAN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM

By
Jodene Michele Kersten

In the current educational political climate overshadowed by No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), elementary teachers are overwhelmed by mandates at the district, state,
and national level. In one mid-sized urban elementary school that has failed to make
Adequate Yearly Progress for the past four years, according to NCLB, teachers are
negotiating district curriculum guides, Reading First mandates, a basal literacy program,
test preparation, and high-stakes testing. Past research of the intended and unintended
consequences of policy meeting practice suggests that the problem lies in how teachers
interpret and enact policy (e.g. Cohen, 1990). Contrary to prior research, this research
suggests that teachers are constantly interpreting mandates and strategically resisting and
hybridizing their current practice with imposed theories of best practice. What appears to
be teachers’ misunderstanding of the reform may actually be a conscious, politically
laden pedagogy informed by the educator’s rich knowledge and experiences in order to
best meet the needs and interests of their students.

This ethnographic case study was designed to learn more about one experienced
third grade teacher’s literacy planning and instruction during the 2004 to 2005 school
year. Through data collection from literacy co-planning sessions with a full-time intern,

weekly observations of literacy instruction, content material analysis, and formal and

informal interviews with the participating teacher four themes emerged. These four
interrelated themes are (1) when policy meets practice and the intended and unintended
consequences, (2) hybridized literacy practices, (3) collaboration, power, and
empowerment; and (4) constraints of time, control, and curriculum. When possible, the
participating teacher’s and ancillary participants’ voices were included to develop an in-
depth portrayal of the emotions involved in the negotiation and resistance of policy, a
critical element often ignored in educational research (Hargreaves, 1994).

Findings from this study challenge the frequent requirement of collaboration as an
element of education reform. It also suggests that the culture of the school and the culture
of teaching are far more complex than curriculum developers and educational policy
makers assume or suggest through mandates. The questions posed and addressed through
this research offer implications for educational policy makers, literacy curriculum
developers, teacher education programs, and practicing teachers and principals. This
study also suggests the need for educational researchers to focus more on the emotional,
or affective, responses of educators when negotiating, resisting, and determining how to

cope with policy reforms and requirements at the district, state, and national level.

Cepyright by
JODENE MICHELE KERSTEN

2005

This work is dedicated to Emily- a passionate individual and role model
for current and future educators

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Teaching can be an isolated, private profession. It requires a balance of
confidence and humility for an educator to open her classroom door to visitors, to discuss
her craft, and willingly produce more questions than answers. “Emily” is this type of
educator. I am fortunate to have met Emily and spent time in her classroom as she taught
and struggled with difficult decisions in elementary literacy instruction She is an
example of possibilities- what literacy instruction can look like, even when conflicting
mandates threaten to control what and how teachers teach. Without Emily, this
dissertation would not exist and I am thankful for her willingness to share her pedagogy
by example and in countless conversations.

I am grateful to the members of my dissertation committee: Dorothea
Anagnostopoulos, Susan Florio-Ruane, Laura Roehler and Cheryl Rosaen. Everyone was
willing to work at a fast pace, even while caring for daughters, grandsons, and mothers.
Despite busy schedules, people found time to respond to too many emails, read through
drafts, and offer words of support and critique to make the final manuscript something to
be proud of. Discussions about scholarship were certainly valued, but I also appreciated
the many conversations about family and priorities with Susan. Two mentors and
members of my guidance committee, who had a profound impact on my development as
a scholar, are Nell Duke and Victoria Purcell-Gates. Nell taught me how to become a

researcher by example. Vicki also taught me a great deal about research by mentoring the

vi

two research projects that were the foundation for this study. I feel honored to have
worked with so many talented scholars while at Michigan State University.

Few people are fortunate enough to have an “unofficial” advisor living in the
same home. Ernest, you have played that role from the application process to securing a
position for next year. Your actions as a scholar were inspiration enough to stay up late in
the red room, adding words to the manuscript. I couldn’t ask for a more caring,
supportive, and dedicated friend or co-parent for Amani and Antonio. You have helped
me to maintain perspective on what matters and what is worth working toward for the
past thirteen years and I thank you.

Finally, I am grateful to my parents, Patricia and David Kersten, for modeling the
importance of dedicating their lives to work that makes a profound difference in the lives
of young people. There are few vocations and avocations more admirable than teaching,
nursing, and coaching. I also recognize that my accomplishments are built on the
struggles of others- particularly my grandparents Dorothy and Tom Nakamura. Education
has always been extremely important in our family and I share this degree with both
grandparents who did not have the luxury of continuing with their own education as far
as they would have liked to. Thank you for making the journey from an internment camp

in Wyoming to a Ph.D. possible.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY ........................................................ 1
The Problem ................................................................................. 1
The Teacher at Work and in Context .................................................... 2
Preliminary Studies: Teachers’ and Students’ Perspective ........................... 6
Research Question ......................................................................... 9
Plan of Dissertation ........................................................................... 10
CHAPTER TWO
INTENDED POLICY REFORM AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. . 16
When policy meets practice .............................................................. 16
Intended and Unintended Consequences .......................................... 22
Hybridity .................................................................................... 23
Researching the Intersection of Teacher Practice and Policy ........................ 26
School Structure and Culture ............................................................. 27
Collaboration, Power and Empowerment .......................................... 29
Teacher Empowerment ............................................................... 32
Constraints within a Context/Structure ................................................. 38
Curriculum ............................................................................. 39
Time ..................................................................................... 44
Control .................................................................................. 48
Summary .................................................................................... 49
CHAPTER THREE
THE STUDY AND ITS DESIGN ......................................................... 51
Introduction ................................................................................ 51
Study Design ............................................................................... 52
School and District Context .......................................................... 53
Emily ................................................................................... 54
Co-planning sessions .................................................................. 59
Classroom observations .............................................................. 60
Content/Material Analysis ........................................................... 61
Formal and Informal Interviews .................................................... 62
Data Analysis and Interpretation ......................................................... 63

viii

CHAPTER FOUR

HYBRIDITY: “SNIPPETS” OF WHAT’S VALUABLE ............................. 68
Introduction ................................................................................. 68
Emily’s Practice through Emily’s Words ............................................... 72

Best Intentions ......................................................................... 78
Hybridized Literacy Practices ......... - ................................................... 81
State Assessment, Houghton Mifflin, and Emily’s Practice ..................... 84
District and State Requirements ..................................................... 86
Houghton Mifflin and Pacing Guide ................................................ 88
Reading First, Houghton Mifflin, and Emily’s Practice .......................... 89
District Pacing Guides and Emily’s Practice ...................................... 92
Centers ................................................................................. 97
Assessments and Emily’s Practice .................................................. 99
Evidence of Student Achievement ...................................................... 101
Observations ........................................................................... 101
Test Scores and Assessments ........................................................ 104
Writing ................................................................................. 105
Looking to Next Year .................................................................... 106
CHAPTER FIVE

“THIS IS GONNA SCREW US UP!” INSTITUTIONAL, FINANCIAL

AND TEMPORAL CONSTRAINTS ..................................................... 108
Introduction ................................................................................. 108
District Requirements and Test Preparation ........................................... 109
Time to Meet with Like-minded Teachers .............................................. 113
Professional Development and Holidays ............................................... 116
Staff Meetings .............................................................................. 119
Limited Programs and Support for Struggling Readers ............................... 121
Curriculum Constraints ................................................................... 123
Limited Choices and Voices ............................................................ 124
Conclusion ................................................................................. 126

CHAPTER SIX

COLLABORATION, POWER/EMPOWERMENT AND RESISTANCE ......... 127

Collegial Relationship and Mandated Policy .......................................... 128
Collaboration ........................................................................... 128
Emily and Maggie ..................................................................... 133
Emily and Linda ....................................................................... 136
Barbara ................................................................................. 144
Barbara and Emily ................................................................... 146

Power and Empowerment ............................................................... 147

Resistance: Practices unrelated to Houghton Mifflin ................................. 148
Centers ................................................................................. 150
Book Club .............................................................................. 152
Final Days: Mystery Unit and Fairy Tale Ball .................................... 156

Mystery Walk ..................................................................... 157

Fairy Tale Ball .................................................................... 159

Partner Read with Kindergarten .................................................... 162
Countries and winter holiday celebration .......................................... 162
Final Comments about Houghton Mif’flin and Reading First ....................... 166
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................ 169
Implications for Theory and Practice ................................................... 171
Curriculum Developers ............................................................... 171
Educational Policy Makers .......................................................... 178
Teacher Education Programs ........................................................ 186
Practicing Teachers and Principals ................................................. 192
Conclusion ................................................................................. 197
APPENDICES ................................................................................. 205
Appendix A — Westside Elementary School Demographics ......................... 206
Appendix B — 2004 — 2005 District Testing Calendar ............................... 207
Appendix C - Emily’s literacy instruction in minutes during classroom
observations ................................................................................. 209
REFERENCES ................................................................................. 211

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Coding system for data analysis ................................................... 64
Table 2: Levels of policy and relevant terminology ....................................... 71
Table 3: Comparison of Emily’s practice and the district curriculum guide ........... 98
Table 4: Weekly activities related to Book Club ........................................... 152

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Student demographics for Middleton School District and Westside
Elementary ....................................................................................... 54

Figure 2: Hybridity of district requirements, Reading First and Emily’s literacy
practices ......................................................................................... 82

Figure 3: Hybridity of Houghton Mifflin, state requirements and Emily’s literacy
practices ......................................................................................... 83

Figure 4: Emily’s literacy instruction in minutes during classroom observations. 166

xii

Chapter 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
The problem

An unyielding demand- perhaps best represented in George W. Bush’s policies

found in No Child Lefi Behind- for testing, reductive models of accountability,

standardization, and strict control over pedagogy and curricula is now the order of

the day in schools throughout the country. (Apple, 2004, x)

Based on continual interactions with urban elementary teachers, teacher
educators, and former education colleagues in California, I can confidently state that the
current political climate has had a tremendous impact on literacy pedagogy. It has pushed
those committed to providing a quality education for children in urban public schools to
become enraged. Former colleagues in California have reacted by taking to the streets in
protest marches and writing letters to the individuals making decisions that impact the
teachers’ students and their profession. They refuse to abandon literacy pedagogy that is
best for their linguistically, culturally, and ethnically diverse children. Educators I work
with in Michigan have reacted to No Child Lefi Behind WCLB) with similar sentiment.
Most educators adamantly dismiss the importance of the policy- assuming this too will
pass like previous reforms.

The impact of NCLB is more salient in some classrooms than others, particularly
those that have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)'. Many schools must comply

with state programs such as Reading First which require districts to select one of five

 

' The district measures Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) based on: (r) the Michigan Education Assessment
Program (MEAP) test, the statewide assessment program used to test and report student achievement in the
core academic subjects at certain grade levels, (2) attendance rates for elementary and middle schools; and
(3) graduation rates for high schools.

basal literacy programs by Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt, Open Court/SRA,
Macmillan/McGraw Hill, or Scott Foresmanz. The reality is that educators must negotiate
their literacy planning and instruction around the requirements and expectations of
NCLB. Fortunately, teachers are finding creative ways to “be in compliance” without
compromising their beliefs or abandoning literacy pedagogy that they know is best for
their unique group of students.
The teacher at work and in context

Rather than focusing on the negative repercussions of NCLB, I chose to research
the innovate ways in which one third grade teacher, Enrily 3, at Westside Elementary
School is actively resisting and negotiating prepackaged literacy curriculum, district
mandates, high-stakes testing, and the requirements of the Reading First grant. She is
fiercely devoted to the literacy development and emotional well being of her children.
Her commitment to the teaching profession is evident by her extensive history of
collaboration with the teacher education program at the local university. Year after year
she opens her classroom to interns and seniors learning how to become teachers. The
reason I wanted to work with Emily was because of the accounts of her practice by
students and fellow educators at the university. I needed to learn more about how this
teacher was managing excellent literacy instruction given the current political climate.

In her January/February editorial for the Journal of Teacher Education, Cochran-
Smith (2001) describes this time as one in which, “standardization and prescription are

being mistaken for higher standards” (p. 4). Cochran-Smith also states that the “political

 

2Elaboration on the five programs, listed on the Michigan Department of Education Reading First Grant
application, can be found on the webpage: http://wwwmicliigangovidocuments/ I -
05_Versi0nt3_Rcading First I l 1599_7.pdf

3 Pseudonyms are used for all participants and locations in this study.

climate emphasizes privatization and deregulation; raising student scores on standardized
tests has become the major and sometimes the only goal” (p. 3 - 4). This emphasis on
high-stakes testing is palpable in conversations with Emily. She is acutely aware of the
importance of standardized test scores, particularly since her school has failed to make
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the past four years. She is preparing her third grade
students for the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAPy‘ to be administered in
October of their fourth grade year. Emily recognizes her responsibility in preparing the
students at least one year prior to the testing date so they can be successful. Her practice
reflects the argument of many researchers that serious repercussions are now impacting
the ways in which teachers are able to select and teach curriculum (Apple, 2004;
Cochran-Smith, 2001; Kohn, 2000; Nieto, 2003). Kohn (2000) argues that, “High-stakes
testing has radically altered the kind of instruction that is offered in American schools, to
the point that ‘teaching to the test’ has become a prominent part of the nations’
educational landscape” and sadly, “the test essentially becomes the curriculum” (p. 29).
Forttmately Emily resists making the tests and test preparation the only curriculum.
However, this study shows that she is still using valuable time to prepare her children for '
tests.

Emily is aware of biases embedded in high-stakes tests that may accormt for the
low scores often associated with urban schools such as her own. Shannon (1989) argues
that these types of tests often sort students along social and class lines, ensuring social
reproduction. Apple (2004) states that basing achievement primarily on a standardized

test fails to consider various factors that seriously impact the outcome of test scores such

 

‘ Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP): the statewide assessment program used to test and
report student achievement in the core academic subjects at certain grade levels. For a complete description
ofthe (MEAP), see http:1//www1michigangov/mdeQ] 607,7-140-22709_3 | l68---,00.html

 

as, “economy, health, education, nutrition, and so on” (p. xi). It also fails to acknowledge
biases embedded in high-stakes testing that account for the low scores ofien associated
with urban schools serving culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse populations.
According to Kohn (2000), “Research has repeatedly found that the amount of poverty in
the communities where schools are located, along with other variables having nothing to
do with what happens in classrooms, accounts for the great majority of the difference in
tests scores from one area to the next” (p. 7). Emily recognizes these factors and her
frustration surfaces in conversations; however, she also uses this as a source of
motivation to work harder in preparing her children to succeed both on tests and in
school.

This research describes how one experienced third grade teacher in an urban
school district is negotiating and resisting current policies at the district, state, and
national level. This is an in-depth study not only of her planning and instruction, but of
her pedagogy. I borrow Simon’s (1992) definition of pedagogy, which he asserts is a far
more complex and extensive term than teaching, since it is the “integration in practice of
particular curriculum content and design, classroom strategies and techniques, a time and
space for the practice of those strategies and techniques, and evaluation purposes and
meth ” (p. 140). Pedagogy suggests a political stance, an integration of the teacher’s
beliefs and values into her practice. In the analysis that follows we will find that Emily’s
pedagogy aims to recognize and honor the linguistic, cultural, and ethnic diversity of her
students. She is deeply concerned with understanding how her children learn best.

Therefore, she shapes her literacy pedagogy in a way that is sensitive to and respects her

students’ varied backgrounds. These values are counter to the spirit and substance of the
testing atmosphere threatening to control pedagogy today.

Before I had the opportunity to spend time in Emily’s room as a researcher and
fellow educator, I heard about her phenomenal practice through an intern and seniors in
the teacher education course I taught at the university. The intern was moved from the
school where I was the liaison for interns, cooperating mentor teachers, and the
university. Her placement was not going well, so she was moved to Emily’s third grade
classroom at Westside Elementary. I continued to speak with this intern and learned more
about Emily’s innovative teaching. Likewise, seniors in the literacy methods foundation
course I taught would return to our university class and share creative, thoughtful lessons
observed in Emily’s class.

Many of the seniors, as well as the intern, marveled at how Emily was able to
teach in a way that did not reflect the basal reading program. They were aware that this
school had not made Adequate Yearly Progress and were expected to follow the
requirements outlined for Reading First schools. However, they typically saw innovative
teaching that included Book Club, engaging centers, and activities that did not appear to
follow the curriculum guides or Houghton Mifflin teacher guides. They also witnessed
students who were actively engaged during literacy instruction, producing authentic text,
and scoring well on assessments. During the year my seniors and intern were in Emily’s
class, she had many English Language Learners. My students were amazed at how well
the students were supported in their English acquisition by Emily’s careful planning and

instruction. At the same time, I continued to have conversations with Emily that reflected

both frustration and a desire to continue teaching in a way that was true to her beliefs and
experiences of how children learn to read and write.

These recounts of her practice led to a broad question for research:

How does one third grade teacher in an urban elementary school negotiate policy

into practice in literacy instruction given the current political climate in

educational policy?

Preliminary studies: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives

This dissertation study grew out of two research projects I conducted in the same
district in spring, 2003 and fall, 2004. Both the middle school and elementary school
involved in the research projects were struggling with the demands of high-stakes testing,
district curriculum guides, and prepackaged curriculum. The first study (Kersten, 2003),
“Moving Toward Critical Literacy Despite Standardized Testing and Curriculum Guides”
focused on two sixth grade classrooms in the most diverse middle school in the district,
where over 70% of the 230 students spoke a home language other than English. As a
researcher and literacy specialist at the school, I framed this study in an action and
collaboration mode. I wanted to support teachers to examine with me the process of
negotiating test preparation and required curriculum with a critical literacy approach. In
the second study (Kersten, in press), “Literacy and Choice: Urban Elementary Students’
Perceptions of Links between Home, School and Community Literacy Practices” I was
interested in the students who were being affected by the elementary school curriculum.
In this case, I wanted to learn about the non-school literacy lives of the students. I
volunteered as an after school leader for a group of nine fifth graders who leemed to

conduct ethnographic research of the literacy practices in their school, community, and

home. The project was similar to work discussed by Heath (1983) in which students
became researchers in their own communities and found, as did Heath, that children were
engaged in a variety of complex oral and written language habits that did not always
reflect the type of literacy practices valued by schools. In the most recent publication,
Heath added an epilogue that emphasizes the importance of teachers understanding their
students’ home and community literacy practices and ways they can bridge these to
academic literacies to increase students’ academic success and engagement. With this
dissertation research, I knew the participating teacher was committed to learning as much
as possible about her students’ home lives to shape her curriculum. However,
understanding the rationale behind her decision making and learning how she was able to
gather information about her students’ literacy strengths and practices required an in-
depth study of her planning and instruction.

Both preliminary studies showed a mismatch in teachers’ beliefs or knowledge of
students’ home and community literacies and how they might capitalize on these out-of-
school literacies to help students acquire in-school literacies. They also showed a further
mismatch between what curricular reforms might impose and the expectations of teachers
and students in addition to the temporal and spatial constraints teachers must contend
with in elementary and middle schools in this district. In working with the two sixth
grade teachers, we continually struggled to link the required curriculum to literacy skills
and knowledge the students brought to the classroom. When I worked with teachers in
the first study we began our weekly planning sessions with the district curriculum guides
as the primary focus and considered ways to teach the required curriculum in meaningful

and effective ways for the students. Our attempts to move toward critical literacy were

often thwarted by unplanned interruptions such as last minute testing and various time
constraints. The best planned lessons did not always come to fruition. Both teachers felt
pressure to resort to skill and drill practice in anticipation of the district quarterly exams
administered at the end of each nine week period in relation to the curriculum guides.

In the second study, I found that the children were indeed coming from literacy
rich environments in their homes and communities which was not surprising, but not
acknowledged by their educators. It was not enough to believe that the participants were
not doing well in school or unprepared for school because they failed to read and write
outside of school or experience literacy use before beginning formal schooling- a
common belief both inside and outside of formal education (Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998). In fact, every student was engaged in literacy practices that included (1) producing
and consuming texts, (2) observing family members engaged with a variety of texts; and
(3) participating in literacy events outside of home including church and extracurricular
activities. Multiple literacies were entrenched in these participants’ lives, suggesting the
cause of their academic struggles lie beyond the individual and their families. As a result
of formal and informal interviews, meeting with the students two hours weekly, and
talking with students throughout the week, I discovered that my research findings were
similar to those of other researchers interested in learning more about the literacy lives of
children outside of school (Purcell-Gates, 1996; Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines; 1988).

Recognizing disconnections between home, community, and school literacies are
an important component of this dissertation study. Given district, state, and national
curriculum requirements as well as the demands of NCLB and AYP, it is imperative that

we learn more about how teachers are keeping students’ out-of-school literacies, needs,

and interests as the focus of their pedagogy. This is particularly important in an urban
school with an ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse student population and the
added pressures of using a basal literacy program that may or may not fit the needs of
their students. Fortunately, the participating teacher maintains a commitment to
multicultmal educations and a focus on linking the home and community literacies of her
students to required school literacies. She plans her literacy instruction through a
sociocultural lens to keep the interests, values, and beliefs of her student at the forefront.
In addition to the broad questions for research, supplementary questions were important
to consider:

1. How does the teacher make decisions about which curricula to include in her

literacy instruction?

a. In what ways are her decisions to include or exclude certain curricula a
form of resistance toward given policy?

b. What factors or resources does the teacher draw upon to make decisions
about what and how to teach literacy? (i.e. previous teaching experiences;
consideration of children’s literacy achievement; linguistic, ethnic and
cultural diversity of student population; current educational research)

2. Given that this teacher has an intern6:
a. How does the teacher ensure that her decision making about planning and

teaching literacy are overt and explicit for the intern?

 

5 Nieto (1999) defines multicultural education as “embedded in a sociopolitical context and as antiracist
and basic education for all students that permeates all areas of schooling, and that is characterized by a
commitment to social justice and critical approaches to learning” (xviii)

‘ For the duration of the study, Emily had an intern from the university teacher education program. She
mentored and eventually supported him as he became the “lead teacher” from January until April.

b. What are the teacher’s goals for the intem’s learning about how to plan
and teach literacy?

Based on the findings in the preliminary studies as well as first and second-hand
knowledge of the participating teacher’s practice, this dissertation research aims to bring
light to how Emily is negotiating her literacy pedagogy given education policy at the
national, state, and district level. Through formal and informal interviews with Emily and
her intern, weekly observations of literacy co-planning sessions with Emily and her
intern, weekly observations of literacy instruction, and material analysis, the goal of the
research is to consider implications for education policy makers, curriculum developers,
teacher education programs, and practicing teachers and principals. I suspect that Emily
is not alone in her frustration, as well as her innovative teaching both in her school and
across the nation. Emily’s school, Westside Elementary, is not turique compared to other
urban elementary schools struggling to meet the interests and needs of a diverse student
population while meeting the demands of policies such as No Child Lefi Behind. In many
ways the current political climate in schools is reflective of the 1980’s, yet the
consequences are far more severe. Through analysis of Emily’s planning and practice,
literacy materials, and conversations with Emily, ideally this research will ofl‘er a case
study of how one teacher is managing requirements while remaining committed to her
students and her own beliefs of excellent literacy pedagogy.

Plan of dissertation

The next chapter, Intended Policy Reform and Unintended Consequences, will

provide a discussion of research related to this study as well as ways that current research

does not address the complexity of hybridized literacy pedagogy, reform elements such

10

as collaboration, and temporal, material, and relational constraints. I will begin with a
discussion of current research regarding what often occurs when top-down policy meets
practice and possible explanations for “depressingly predictable results” (Darling-
Hammond, 1990). This will include a brief comparison of the reform efforts of the 1980’s
and similarities to current reform efforts. Research by Phillippi (1998) will provide an
example of intended and unintended consequences of an educational reform which
replaced basal programs with a constructivist approach to literacy instruction for grades
Kindergarten through second, essentially the reversal of Reading First and NCLB. Next is
a section discussing hybridity, which uses an example by Cohen (1990) to illustrate how
teachers often create hybrids in order to retain some of their former practices in response
to new, mandated curriculum.

The next section, “Researching the Intersection of Teacher Practice and Policy”
considers the influence of school structure and the culture of teaching. School culture and
the culture of teaching are often strongly influenced by types of collaboration, power, and
empowerment. I discuss Hargreaves (1994) four forms of teacher culture as well as his
four types of collaboration, focusing primarily on contrived collegiality teacher culture
and collaborative teacher culture. Finally, I finish this section by examining three
constraints within a context or structure: curriculum, time, and control. A discussion of
curricular constraints provides a brief history of basal reading programs, technical control
which leads to the deskilling of teachers (Apple, 1983), and what teachers consider the
“real” curriculum (Anagnostopoulos & Rutledge, 2004). Time constraints include limited
time for the “imoffrcial” curriculum, time to meet with colleagues, time to plan, time with

students, insufficient time to transition to a new pedagogical paradigm, and time being

11

well spent. The final constraint, control, continues an analysis of technical control and the
deskilling of teachers, as well as simple control.

In chapter three, The Study and its Design, I discuss the rationale for selecting the
participating teacher and her school. As a Reading First school using a basal reading
program as well as district curriculum guides, Westside Elementary provided a 1mique
setting for examining how teachers negotiate an overwhelming number of severe
mandates. Emily, the participating teacher, is an experienced educator in the district with
a reputation for innovative, engaging literacy practices. She was an ideal individual for
learning more about how educators can resist, negotiate, and succeed under constraining
conditions. I also try to. provide an overall, detailed description of Emily’s personality to
include her emotions and desires toward her craft, which Hargreaves (1994) argues is
often omitted fi'om discussions about teacher practice. A description of each data source
includes the method and rationale. Finally, an explanation of the data analysis and
interpretation process takes readers through the six months of data collection, analysis,
and writing of the text.

Chapters four through six discuss data analysis. Chapter 4, “Hybridity: ‘Snippets’
of What’s Valuable” examines Emily’s complex hybridization between the various
required curriculum and her own “unofficial” curriculum. The “official” curriculum
includes district curriculum guides, Reading First requirements, the Houghton Mifflin
basal reading series, preparation for state, district, and national testing, and her own
practices such as Book Club, thematic units, and centers. The chapter begins with a
discussion of Emily’s practice through her own words to capture her voice and emotions

and includes her best intentions for literacy planning and instruction for the school year. I

12

then discuss six distinct hybridizations between Emily’s practice, and state, district, and
national requirements. The hybridized practices often include more than two areas and
are difficult to categorize, so I have created several Venn diagrams to include all
activities, strategies, and hybridized practices discussed in co-planning sessions and
observed during literacy instruction time. The chapter concludes with excerpts from an
informal interview when Emily discusses plans and ideas for next year, given her
experiences fi'om this year.

Chapter five, “’This is Gonna Screw Us Up!’ Institutional, Financial and
Temporal Constraints” examines various constraints in the context of Westside
Elementary. This chapter provides several examples of the way time constraints produce
frustration and tension in Emily’s professional life. Finding time to address district
requirements, including test preparation, the Houghton Miftlin basal reading program,
district curriculum guides, and elements of Reading First subtract valuable time from
Emily’s “unofficial” curriculum. Imposed time constraints, such as holidays, professional
development, and in-service days, leave a limited number of full five day weeks to
maintain consistency in planning and instruction. I also discuss the concept of
collaboration and how this is manifested at Westside Elementary, including various
barriers that hinder positive relationships and opportunities to meet with like-minded
colleagues. Finally, I end with financial and curricular constraint which Emily believes is
harming the literacy development of her students. Many of these constraints are best
explained through Emily’s words and her conversations with others. This chapter
includes a great deal of dialogue to best illustrate the context of Westside Elementary and

the culture of teaching.

13

Chapter six, “Collaboration, Power/Empowerment and Resistance”, focuses on
relationships between colleagues, which includes Emily, the other third grade teacher, the
principal, and the literacy coach. Emily’s intern is mentioned throughout the study, but is
not a significant participant in discussions and situations with the other educators. I
provide analysis of how these relationships run along a continuum from strained to
supportive, landing at various points depending on the context and point in time.
Throughout this chapter is a discussion of power and empowerment and how various
participants exercise these in creative and effective ways. I also discuss various types of
collaboration manifested through structured and unstructured settings. A significant
portion of this chapter is dedicated to in depth analysis of practices completely unrelated
to mandates as an example of the “unofficial” curriculum most valued by Emily. These
include thematic units, centers, Book Club, and special days at the end of units. The
chapter concludes with Emily’s final comments on Houghton Mifflin and Reading First
from co-planning sessions and informal interviews throughout the study.

Finally, chapter seven discusses implications for theory and practice. Data from
this study has the potential to provide insight for curriculum developers and educational
policy makers of elementary literacy through a discussion of the history of basal reading
programs and the knowledge and beliefs teachers bring to policy implementation.
Learning more about how Emily created hybrids and interacted with colleagues is
priceless for teacher education programs. Given the current political climate, it is highly
likely that pre-service teachers will be faced with similar constraints through various
mandates. Emily provides an excellent example of how teachers can exercise their power

to resist, negotiate, and adapt curriculum to fit their students’ and their own needs.

14

Because this study is an in-depth overview of collaboration, power, empowerment,
resistance, and decision making that is required of an effective urban elementary teacher,
both teacher educators and students can learn from these findings. Finally, this study is
both a validation and challenge to teachers and principals in similar situations who are
actively resisting or would like to resist educational policy and mandates. Emily is a
dedicated educator with strong beliefs about what constitutes efl‘ective teaching and
shares her feelings and values on how to remain true to one’s pedagogy under the most

difficult conditions.

15

Chapter 2
INTENDED POLICY REFORM AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a theoretical orientation to addressing
questions posed by this research study. Rather than applying these theories as rigid
flames, I envision them as pliable tools for seeing ways to develop and revise
explanations of complex processes. As such they are useful for contributing possible
readings or interpretations of the data collected in this study. They are important
beginnings, but not entirely adequate for describing and analyzing the dilemmas
presented in the data or any one case. Moreover, there is a reflexive relationship between
researchandtheorysothatwhatlamlearninginthefieldandinmyreadingofattempts
at theorizing shape one another. For these reasons, I will also discuss ways in which these
theories do not adequately address the challenges posed in this research and some
alternative ways of thinking about and approaching the research question and sub-
questions.

When poliey meets practice

Researchers have repeatedly found that there exists tremendous inconsistency
between what policy is intended to do and what actually happens in classrooms (Coburn,
2001; Cohen, 1990; Cusick, 1992; Lampert, 1985; Lanier and Little, 1986; Phillippi,
1998; Tyack and Cuban, 1995). Lampert (1985) states that there is a belief that, “The
teacher’s work is to find out what researchers and policy makers say should be done with
or to students and then do it” (p. 191). However, classrooms are complex environments
where teachers are constantly acting as “dilemma managers” (Britzman, 2003),

negotiating their own identity as well as the teaching challenges that arise each day. They

16

are constructing their practice fiom their personal experiences as students and their
professional education (Cohen & Ball, 1990b). Lanier and Little (1986) describe
classroom situations as “always new and never twice alike” (p. 543) and that “Teachers
understand that teaching is context dependent and usually does not lend itselfto
straightforward generalization and prescription” (p. 553). McDonald (1986) believes
teaching is full of uncertainty and messy practicality which is an important component of
the craft, often ignored by theorists. He states, “Most theory about teaching- and in
consequence much policy too- supposes that teaching is at best simply the rational
application of means to given ends” (p. 377). Certainly this is not the case; ergo, one-
size-fits-all policy may be, and often proves to be, completely inefl'ective.

Cohen (1990) suggests that it is important to remember that schools are social
organizations and “Organizations affect the progress of new ideas and practices” (p. 45)
whether these are coming through the pipeline as new policy or as new concepts about
teaching and learning developed by educators within the school. From a critical theory
perspective, organizations and policy are not neutral. Goodman (1988) asserts that “. . . in
any complex society competing interests struggle to move society in one direction. Public
institutions such as schools reflect and contribute to the struggle” (p. 205). Sarason
(1990) agrees with Goodman’s analysis and states that historically, schools have been
viewed as a vehicle for social change. Recognizing the power of teachers to influence
how policy will eventually look in practice, as well as the social and historical context of
policies and their implementation present a complex, multilayered quandary for

educators. This will be explored through this research.

17

Many researchers (Coburn, 2001; Cohen & Ball, 1990b; Darling-Hammond,
1990; Hargreaves, 1994) contend that schools must respond simultaneously to multiple
initiatives, often contradictory in nature, resulting in teachers finding themselves with
multiple messages about pedagogy and having to sort out policies that land on top of
other policies. Cohen and Ball (1990b) argue:

It costs state legislators and bmeaucrats relatively little to fashion a new

instructional policy that calls for novel sorts of classroom work. These officials

can easily ignore the pedagogical past, for they do not work in classrooms, and
they bear little direct responsibility for what is done in localities- even if it is done
partly at their insistence. However teachers and students cannot ignore the

pedagogical past, because it is their past (p. 334).

Shannon (1989) also believes that educational researchers rarely look to the past to
understand the present when attempting to make sense of classroom literacy practices.
There must be an attempt to align instructional policy (Spillane & Jennings, 1997). Until
this happens, policy makers and others ordering teachers how to do their job must
recognize what they are asking teachers to forget while simultaneously expecting them to
learn and change.

Tyack and Cuban (1995) discuss top-down mandates, similar to NCLB and the
first wave of reforms in the 1980’s, that simply did not produce the dramatic changes the
reformers envisioned. In 1988, Goodman wrote:

During the last decade, concern over teachers’ accountability has increased in the

United States. Dozens of national and state reports have advocawd tighter control

over what happens in our nation’s classrooms. In response to this concern, several

18

educators have promoted and schools have adopted the use of prepackaged

instructional programs as the basis for classroom curriculum. Although the

programs were implemented in the name of improving instruction, some

educators have questioned this development. (p. 201)

This opening paragraph of Goodman’s article could be written today. Policy makers and
policy enforcers are again obsessed with accountability at the district, state, and national
level and assert that prepackaged instructional programs are the answer. How little has
been learned from the 1980’s.

Futrell (1989) provides a history of the four reform movements of the 1980’s and
pinpoints the fallacies of each wave. Similar to today, the first wave came not from
educators, but politicians who called, “’More! ’: more tests for students and teachers,
more credits for graduation, more hours in the school day, more days in the school year,
more regimentation, more routinization, more regulation” (p. 11). The goal was to control
and regulate teachers, much like NCLB today. The second wave, a reaction to the first,
recognized the need to localize reform and include the voices of educators. Shortly after,
the third wave discovered that the top-down, hierarchical initial wave of reform yielded
inefficiency. The idea of efliciency in education was primarily based on the idealized
form of bureaucracy known as scientific management by Frederick Taylor (Goodman,
1988). Scientific management is the analysis of a job in order to determine its separate
components. Each component is then divided among workers to be eflicient and cost-
effective. As industry and institutions became more complex, various mechanisms of

control were developed. Over time, schools have been shaped to look like industries,

19

concerned with efficiency and interested in creating a product, standardized test scores,
with pupils as the raw materials, and teachers as the workers.

F utrell (1989) writes her article during the fourth wave, following the
disappointing results of inefficiency, suggesting that educational excellence for all
students need not look the same. She states that “solid evidence demonstrates that, to
educate young people to their full potential, we must legitimate divergent paths to that
goal” (p. 14). These paths include a variety of curriculum, instruction, plus local control
of reform, and appropriate support and resources for teachers to meet the needs of their
students. Giroux and Freire (1989) wrote the introduction to Shannon’s Broken Promises
during the same year as Futrell and share similar concerns with the conservative reforms
impacting education. They describe the time as a back-to-basics movement for reading
instruction and a major target in the public schools. Giroux and Freire assert that policy
makers at the national and state level ignore the voices of teachers and students for a
more formulaic approach to literacy instruction. Sadly, 2005 reflects the first wave of
education reform in the 1980’s, suggesting that the lessons from that era have been
ignored.

Darling-Hammond (1990) elaborates on the “depressingly predictable results” of
top-down policies similar to the 1980’s and today, and offers possible explanations for
the outcomes:

top-down policies can ‘constrain but not construct’ practice, that local

leadership and motivations for change are critical to policy success; that local

ideas and circumstances always vary (therefore local agencies must adapt policies

rather than adopting them); and that teachers’ and administrators’ opportunities

20

for continual learning, experimentations, and decision making during

implementation determine whether policies will come alive in schools or fade

away when the money or enforcement pressures end. (p. 341)
Tyack and Cuban (1995) make a similar argument, suggesting that as long as teachers are
not involved in the designing and adopting of policy, they will not implement them as
intended by the policy makers. Spillane and Jennings (1997) and Hargreaves (1994)
suggest this is due to the various beliefs, knowledge, and dispositions to learning about
policies that teachers bring to their practice. From their in-depth study of the literacy
practices of three teachers, Spillane. and Jennings state, “These teachers’ stories suggest
that what teachers learn about practice fiom aligned policies depends as much on who
they are as learners as it does on the kinds of opportunities reformers offer to them” (p.
475). Expecting teachers to follow policies in a standardized fashion, with varying
amounts and type of support for learning about the expectations of the policy is foolish.
Teachers simply become “street-level bureaucrats”, leaving their imprint on the policy
and determining how it will be translated into practice (T yack & Cuban, 1995). F lorio-
Ruane (2002) echoes this notion of teachers making decisions that are not determinative
because the circumstances of their practice are complex and open-ended. The work with
individual students is also varied with uncertain outcomes. She states, “Teachers retain
sufficient agency to act in new, creative ways” (p. 210). The sum of these variables can
not possibly be imagined nor controlled by policy makers and curriculum developers. It is
foolish to believe that because teachers receive the same instructional policies, their

practice will appear rmiformed and similar (Cohen & Ball, 1990b). Apple (1983) argues

21

that this type of creative practice and resistance does exist and is worthy of celebration
and investigation.

Bisplinghoff (2002) provides a compelling argument for teacher autonomy in
response to rigid district mandates. In her district, the main concern was improving test
scores on a national standardized test. As a veteran teacher, she understood how to work
within required district mandates to create an individualized planning format for her
students. As a researcher/practitioner she asks, “What changes need to occur in this
curriculum for it to support my ongoing work with students?” (p. 127). While she taught
the required curriculum, she continued to modify her practice to meet the needs of her
students. This resulted in high scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and consistent
student and teacher satisfaction in the classroom. Bisplinghof’f’ 5 practice was appropriate
for her students only when she altered the requirements to fit her students’ needs. Similar
to Bisplinghoff’s approach, in the next section I will discuss the innovative ways that
teachers approach requirements while maintaining their own beliefs about effective
literacy practice.

Intended and Unintended Consequences

Phillippi (1998) discusses in great detail the intended and unintended
consequences of an educational reform which replaced basal programs with a
constructivist approach to literacy instruction for grades Kindergarten through second.
The intended consequences of the grass-roots reform, shaped by local educators, were (1)
professional freedom fiom basal reading programs, (2) abolishing ability grouping, (3) an
increased enthusiasm for reading and writing; and (4) improved classroom atmosphere.

Phillippi found these were achieved to varying degrees, due to differences in teachers’

22

background knowledge and personal attitudes, as well as time and resource constraints.
The policy was also meant to “empower teachers to be professional and to require them
to make informed decisions in their classrooms” (p. 3). On paper it appeared to value
teacher knowledge and experience, and honor agency, but certain barriers did not allow
this to happen.

Phillippi found that along with intended consequences were a range of significant
unintended consequences. These presented tension and frustration for the teachers
impacted by the district literacy reform. Some of the most significant constraints included
an increased work load in terms of preparation, insufficient time to work with colleagues,
lack ofsupport, and pressure to implement a constructivist approach in a short amount of
time. Moving from a more traditional, text-book driven, direct instruction pedagogy to a
developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) created a difiicult paradigm shift for many
teachers. Similar to this ethnographic study, unintended consequences in Phillippi’s study
included teacher resistance to implementing the policy because they did not believe the
new policy would lead to improved student learning. She also found that teachers
developed literacy practice on their own terms, similar to the focus teacher in this
research. Once again, policy makers did not consider how teachers would interpret the
policy or the possible barriers to completely shifting their practice in a short amount of
time.

11be

Some argue that in an effort to negotiate top-down policy into everyday practice,

educators may choose to develop hybridized curriculum and instruction (Bisplinghofi‘,

2002; Cohen, 1990; Cohen & Ball, 1990b). Rather than assuming the mismatch between

23

policy prompted reform and teacher response is a result of the complexity of the teacher’s
work and the contextualized nature of her professional judgment, Cohen (1990) suggests
that this occurs because “entrenched classroom habits defeat reform” (p. 312). In a case
study of the teaching practices of one second grade teacher in California in the area of
mathematics, Cohen discusses at length the ways in which the focus teacher works
unknowinglytocreateahybridofoldandnewmathinstruction. Cohenspentoneyearin
the classroom of “Mrs. Oublier” to learn more about how this teacher was using the new
state mandated mathematics curriculum, or what he calls “the relationship between
instructional policy and teaching practice”. Using the perspective of the new mathematics
framework and what it hoped to accomplish in classrooms, Cohen found that the focus
teacher’s pedagogy was a mixture of old and new practice, a pedagogical hybrid. In
attempting to implement the new frameworks, Mrs. Oublier was doing what Cohen
believed most teachers do when new policy or crn'ricula is introduced as a solution. Her
practice became a result of cobbling new ideas onto familiar practice, which made
instruction look similar to what had previously occurred in the classroom. Perhaps most
surprising to Cohen was Mrs. Oublier’s enthusiasm about her drastic changes in
pedagogy and her perception of implementing the new mathematics in accordance with
the fi'ameworks. From an outsider’s perspective, little had changed in the way of practice
in this classroom. Cohen describes this hybridity of mathematics pedagogy as another
example of when “Policy has affected practice. . . but practice has had an even greater
effect on policy” (p. 311).

From an alternative perspective, rather than assuming Mrs. Oublier did not

understand what was expected of her, it is worth considering the importance of agency. It

24

is likely that teacher hybridity and apparent resistance to change has more than a single
cause, but it would be inappropriate to hypothesize that the resistance was a function
exclusively of professional judgment and autonomy or one of habituation and resistance
to change. It is necessary to learn more about teachers’ local knowledge and the ways
practice is situated. Without an in-depth understanding of their knowledge, researchers
may stereotype teachers and lack ideas for how teachers, both experienced and novice
can be supported in times of change, such as the current No Child Lefi Behind era. Cohen
suggests that Mrs. Oublier needed more professional development and instructional
support, however it may be the case that she was reacting to the mandates in a way that
she believed was most appropriate for her particular students and in alignment with her
knowledge of mathematics instruction. Perhaps she understood far more about her
pedagogy than an outsider could.

Tyack and Cuban (1995) discuss the phenomenon in Mrs. Oublier’s classroom as
each reform building on previous ones, resulting in a century of reforms. Indeed,
practitioners seek, “Refuge through strategies of accommodation, resistance, and
hybridization. In the process schools change reforms quite as much as reforms change
schools” (p. 78). Rather than placing a new curriculum in the hands of teachers, with
insufficient professional development or support, what often happens is similar to what
occurred in Mrs. Oublier’s classroom. Yet, if teachers take reforms not as directive and
limiting, but as opportunities to consolidate resources, collaborate, frame and solve
problems of practice and exercise professional judgment, then the outcome may be
neither the “transfer” of policy to practice nor practitioners “cobbling”. Perhaps teachers

hybridize the strengths of their own previous “best practice” and the policy requirements

25

to create an entirely original pedagogy. This may be the ideal situation policy makers and
curriculum developers should hope for. In this effort to acknowledge teacher agency and
the complexity of applying policy to practice, Tyack and Cuban suggest that, “Reforms
should be designed to be hybridized, adapted by educators working together to take
advantage of their knowledge of their own diverse students and communities” (p. 135).
Perhaps by including educators in reform efforts, the importance of context and respect
for local knowledge and needs could be retained and respected (F lorio-Ruane, 2002;
Tyack and Cuban, 1995).
Researching the intersection of teacher practice and policy

Authors of educational policy and prepackaged literacy curriculum presumably
create these documents with intended purposes and outcomes. However, research shows
that what the reform or curriculum intended to do is not necessarily what occurs in the
classroom. Cohen (1990) has provided a case study to learn more about how one teacher
negotiated a state mandated mathematics curriculum. Bisplinghofi‘ (2002) and Lampert
(2003) discuss strategies that they employed as researchers/practitioners. I offer an
ethnographic case study research design to learn more about the locally adapted
intersection of policies and curricula as they enter one classroom. Over time and in
multiple kinds of data, I use triangulation of evidence (field notes from co-planning
sessions and literacy instruction, formal and informal interviews, and material analysis)
and a constant comparative approach to building, testing, and revising assertions to
research the ways one teacher negotiates the requirements of the curricular documents
whilemaintainingherown literacypedagogy.lalsotracetheworkastheteacher

innovates out of this negotiation. I assume that teachers continue to build on previous

26

reforms and use what Luke (2000) describes as approaches that coexist, blend and create
hybrid approaches to teaching, in light of policy. The data from this study will illustrate
the complex hybrids created by one teacher and what that might mean for curriculmn
developers and educational policy makers.

To understand the need for hybridity in literacy planning and instruction, as well
as the complex relationships among educators at Westside Elementary requires an
exploration of the roles of collaboration, power, and empowerment. The type of
pedagogy practiced by the participating teacher and her colleagues is also a result of
various constraints. The following section will discuss research related to these areas as
wellastheneedtoaddtotheexistingresearchtoaddress questionsandchallengesinthis
study.

School structure and culture

In his book, The Predictable Failure of Educational Refog, Sarason (1990)
contends that when policy makers outside of the system lack a holistic conception of the
system they seek to influence, a program of reform is unlikely to succeed. There appears
to be “an inability to comprehend the nature of schools systems” (p. 27). This leads to an
attack of isolated problems, while neglecting to see the system as an interrelated whole.
He discusses the failure of educational reform and the habit of ignoring the power
relationships that exist between individuals. Sarason states, “Ignore those relationships,
leave unexamined their rationale, and the existing ‘system’ will defeat efforts at reform”
(p. 7). Westside Elementary, like any other institution, has its own distinct cultme with

complex power relationships. Like any other institution, it is complicated.

27

Within the unique school culture is a culture of teaching, which Hargreaves
(1994) defines as “beliefs, values, habits and assumed ways of doing things among
communities of teachers who have had to deal with similar demands and constraints over
many years” (p. 165). In order to understand how teachers make sense of their work
space, one must understand the work culture. Hargreaves suggests that teachers may be
physically separated from one another, but they are psychologically impacted by
colleagues as well as the institution, and that their cultures are bounded by existing
structures. He describes two dimensions of cultures of teaching: content and form. The
content of teacher cultures, “consists of the substantive attitudes, values, beliefs, habits,
assumptions and ways of doing things that are shared within a particular teacher group, or
among the wider teacher community” (p. 166). The form “consists of the characteristic
patterns of relationship and forms of association between members of those cultures. The
form of teacher cultures is to be found in how relations between teachers and their
colleagues are articulated” (p.166). In order to make sense ofwhy and how Emily
negotiates her practice and relationships as she does, it is critical to examine both the
content and the form of the context. This includes the influence of power, empowerment,
and resistance within: (1) the culture of the school, (2) the culture of teaching within the
school; and (3) the various types of collaboration.

Westside Elementary maintains close ties with the university through the
collaboration of classroom teachers with fifth year interns and seniors in the teacher
education program. Teachers and the principal are anxious to slmre their practice with
novice teachers. The teachers take their roles as mentors seriously, with little monetary

compensation, making it evident that they are dedicated to the future of their profession.

28

They believe in taking an active role in influencing future teachers. The collaboration
with the university participants is positive and fi'uitful. Unfortrmately, collaboration
among colleagues, through the participating teacher’s eyes, is not nearly as generative or
satisfying. In the next section I discuss the importance of collaboration, how and why
collaboration is intended through reform, the influence of power and empowerment, and
the realistic outcomes of collaboration in the context of Westside Elementary.
Collaboration, Power, and Empowerment

Collaboration and collegiality have been presented as having many virtues. They

have, for instance, been advanced as particularly fi'uitful strategies for fostering

teacher development. Collaboration and collegiality, it is argued, take teacher
development beyond personal, idiosyncratic reflection, or dependence on outside
experts, to a point where teachers can learn fi'om each other, sharing and

developing their expertise together. (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 186)

Collaboration, or collegiality, has been a common component of education
reforms dating back to the 1970’s. In fact, it has been viewed as critical to “school
improvement, curriculum reform teacher development and leadership development” and
is often viewed as one of the keys to educational change. (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 187).
However, Hargreaves (1994) warns that collegiality is aterm that is quite vague and
imprecise, making it subject to a range of meanings and interpretations. Rather than there
existing a “real” or “true” collaboration or collegiality, he suggests that there are different
forms that have different consequences for different purposes. Hargreaves goes on to
state that it is mostly symbolic and “collaboration and collegiality have become powerful

images of preferred aspiration” (p. 164). Further, “Much of the research associated with

29

organizational improvement is concerned with reforming the faith, not reconstituting it”
(p. 182). It is often believed that the collaborative solution embodies the following
principles: (1) moral support for potential failures and frustrations, (2) increased
efliciency through coordinated activities, (3) improved effectiveness by improving the
quality of teachers’ teaching, (4) reduced overload though a sharing of burdens and
pressures, (5) synchronized time perspectives by narrowing difl'erences in time
perspective between teachers and administrators, (6) situated certainty, (7) political
assertiveness to encourage teachers to interact more confidently and assertively with
sm'rormding systems, (8) increased capacity for reflection though dialogue, (9)
organizational responsiveness through pooled collected knowledge, expertise and
capacities of the teacher workforce, (10) opportunities to learn; and (11) continuous
improvement. (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 245 - 247). Naturally with a list such as this it is not
surprising that collaboration is embedded in reforms, however these are idealized
outcomes. Hargreaves also warns of the possible wasteful, harmful, and Improductive
side of collaboration. Rather than continually calling for more collaboration, additional
questions need to be posed about the challenges and potentials of collaboration or
collegiality.

Little (1990) states that “much ‘that passes for collegiality does not add up to
much.’ Teachers’ collaborations sometimes serve the purposes of well-conceived change,
but the assumed link between increased collegial contact and improvement-oriented
change does not seem to be warran ” (p. 508). In theory, collegiality should work
against the isolation of teachers (Lortie, 1975) and provide opportunities for increased

skills, knowledge, professionalism, and morale. Yet this is not what most teachers

30

experience. Little found that collaborations “often appear contrived, inauthentic, grafted
on, perched precariously (and often temporarily) on the margins of real work” (p. 510).
What is often ignored in reforms calling for collaboration is attention to the type of
collaboration that may develop as well as the complexity of relationships and issues of
power influencing interactions.

Little mentions a lack of attention by reform efforts to recognize what various
parties bring to the exchange, such as teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. She states,
“Teachers are now being pressed, invited, and cajoled into ventures in ‘collaboration’,
but the organization of their daily work often give them scant reason for doing so” (p.
530). Ifteachers do not believe in the potential benefits of collaboration or agree with the
structuring of the collaboration, no reform requirement is going to change this or produce
the type of outcomes outlined in the mandate. Hargreaves (1994) presents both sides to
the collaboration argument, stating “Teacher collaboration can provide a positive
platform for improvement. It can also degenerate into stilted and unproductive forms of
contrived collegiality” (p. xi). Based on research with principals and teachers across a
range of school settings, Hargreaves found that “increased preparation time did not
necessarily enhance the processes of association, community and collegiality among
teachers” (p. 131). Preparation time can not guarantee collaboration or the development
of a collaborative teacher culture.

Hargreaves (1994) describes four forms of teacher culture that include concepts of
collaboration, both productive and authentic and contrived. The first type of teacher
culture is individualism. Since most schools still support an insulated and isolated

environment, teachers are not informed as to how their colleagues teach. It can offer

31

privacy but also promotes isolation and a lack of feedback. The second, the balkanization
of teaching or collaboration that divides, is concerned with people associating in small
sub-groups with four added qualities: (1) low permeability, or insulation from one
another through clearly delineated spaces with clear boundaries, (2) high permanence, or
over time, sub-groups remain relatively stable, (3) personal identification, or when
individuals become attached to sub-communities closely associated with their working
lives which form their identities; and (4) political complexion which is concerned with
self-interests such as the rmequal distribution of promotion, status, and resources. Sarason
(1990) also discusses sub-groups in a complex social system and contends that conflict is
rarely absent. However, what is particularly disturbing to Sarason is the amormt of
adversarialism, particularly in urban schools, and how it becomes self-defeating. What
typically occurs is a litany of blame toward those above or below a group’s role level.
The other two forms of teacher culture, collaboration and contrived collegiality are most
relevant and applicable to this research and are discussed in detail in the following
section, Teacher Empowerment.
Teacher Empowerment

In 1992, White discussed how districts rarely honored the decision making
abilities and authority of teachers. Just seven years later, Goyne, Padgett, Rowicki &
Triplitt (1999) stated that the days are gone when administrators made decisions about
day-to-day operations, and then informed teachers of their final decisions. They stated,
“This idea of how to run a school is vanishing and being replaced by a concept known as
empowerment or more specifically, teacher empowerment” (p. 7). This shifi was

reflective of the four part reform movement during the 1980’s mentioned earlier. Maeroff

32

(1988) strongly argues that empowerment is essential for school improvement and that
when teachers are not adequately valued by themselves and others they can not do their
jobs well. However, Hargreaves (1994) cautions when “trading bureaucratic control for
professional empowerment, it is important we do not trade community for chms as well”
(p. 260). Creating and fostering teacher empowerment can be a delicate process. In order
to move toward teacher empowerment, teachers need to meet with their principals and
each other to build collegiality and share in the decision making process. Researchers
(Darling-Hammond, 1990; Maerofl‘, 1988) argue that collegiality is rare for many
teachers. Therefore, recognizing the importance of collegiality and empowerment,
boundaries related to both, and Opes of collegiality are extremely important (Kane &
Montgomery, 1998) if education is to improve for both teachers and students.

An important component of how teacher empowerment occrns is strongly
influenced by the type of collaboration that develops as well as relationship dynamics.
Collaboration, power, and empowerment each play an important role in establishing the
culture and structure of an elementary school. Collaboration is critical for professional
improvement and satisfaction of the participants within the institution (Acker-Hocevar &
Touchton, 1999; Apthorp, Dean, Florian, Lauer, Reichardt, & Snow-Renner, 2001;
Hargreaves, 1994; Little, 1993; Short, 1992; St. John, Manset, Chung & Worthington,
2001; Symonds, 2003). Acker-Hocevar and Touchton (1999) discuss in their study that
within the structure oftheir research site is an attempt to create what Hargreaves (1994)
describe as a “collaborative culttn'e”. This is comprised of “relatively spontaneous,
informal and pervasive collaborative working relationships among teachers” that “are

both social and task-centered in nature” (p. 135). Hargreaves describes working

33

relationships between teachers and their colleagues to have five key components: (1)
spontaneity, (2) voluntary, (3) development-oriented, (4) pervasive across time and
space; and (5) unpredictable (p. 192 — 193). They are not without problems or limitations;
however, this tends to be the most beneficial context for teacher and student learning and
growth.

Based on a study of Philadelphia’s humanities collaborative and a mathematics
collaborative in Los Angeles, Little (1993) states, “Subject collaboratives equip teachers
individually and collectively to deepen their subject knowledge and to assume a more
assertive role in the reform of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment” (p. 6). A required
element of Reading First includes time for collaboration to improve teachers’ subject
matter knowledge and opportunities to share their practice. Unfortunately, the inauthentic
collaborative meetings created by Reading First have developed a “contrived collegiality
teacher culture” based on regulations, fixed in time and space, with an implementation
rather than development orientation. Hargreaves (1994) describes contrived collegiality
as “more controlled, regulated and predictable in its outcomes, and is fiequently used to
implement system initiatives or the principal’s preferred program” (p. 135). As a result,
the two major consequences are inflexibility and inefficiency. Teachers become delayed,
distracted and demeaned as their professionalism and discretionary judgments become
overridden (Hargreaves, 1994). The contrived collegiality teacher cultme at Westside
Elementary, in opposition to a collaborative one, has incited negative consequences for
those involved, such as tension between the teachers, literacy coach, intern, and principal.
Power struggles between the various players hinders opportunities to create a

collaboration teacher culture, and forces people to embody their prescribed roles. In this

34

study, the principal is less inclined to force the Reading First initiative than the literacy
coach, but she is ultimately responsible for the teachers’ practices and students’ academic
outcomes.

Hocevar and Touchton elaborate on the relationship between structure, culture
and power:

The distribution of power within an institution is as much a part or a reflection of

its culture as it is of its structures. Structure, culture and power interpenetrate one

another. Micropolitical theory seeks to identify the overt and covert ways groups
devise control over what issues, and who acquires and exercises control and
power over others. Often, these rules are explicated in the everyday practices
within the context and relationships in teachers’ work lives. These rules become

part of their tacit knowledge about the culture and micropolitics of the schools (p.

22)

Recognizing the connections between structure, culture, and power is an important
theoretical foundation for this study.

Symonds (2003) states, “The culture in schools, as well as the systems and
structures that support that culture, can be a determining factor in quality teaching” (p. 7).
One important factor influencing the culture at Westside Elementary is the literacy coach.
Symond’s research found that, “In schools where teachers meet with coaches regularly,
teachers, coaches and administrators report distinct cultural shifts, including increased:
(1) teacher willingness and ability to collaborate, (2) peer accountability (3) individual
teacher knowledge about other teachers’ classrooms and instructional strategies, and (4)

support for new teachers” (p. 33). Symond’s findings reflect the best case scenario and

35

theoretical intentions of collaboration. However, meeting with a literacy coach on a
regular basis does not guarantee positive outcomes.

The school structure may appear rigid to an outsider, but participants within the
structure are often able to manipulate relationships by exercising power and
empowerment. Short (1992) defines empowerment as “a process whereby school
participants develop the competence to take charge of their own growth and resolve their
own problems. Empowered individuals believe they have the skills and knowledge to act
on a situation and improve it” (p. 5). Short continues to state that empowerment is a
complex construct which involves six dimensions: involvement in decision making,
teacher impact, teacher status, autonomy, opportrmities for professional development, and
teacher self-efl'rcacy (p. 8). Recurrent themes by other researchers (Irwin, 1990; Klecker
& Loadman, 1996) are similar: autonomy, problem-solving, responsibility, growth,
choice, control, and decision-making (Duhon, 1999). In order to create an empowering
environment for participants, educators need to be aware of these dimensions and themes
and how they intersect and influence teachers’ work lives. Each individual varies in their
degree of empowerment as well as how they exercise their power to influence the
structme and their colleagues, making the structure and culture ever-changing and
complex.

Duhon (1999) discusses three distinct theoretical positions about the role of
empowerment for instruction and achievement. The first, The Teacher Professionalism
View, “argues that teachers are in the best position to assess the needs of their students”
(p. 8). The second, The Bureaucratic Centralization View, “is skeptical about the training,

skills, and goals of teachers.” The final view, The Loose Coupling Perspective, “claims

36

that schools are ‘loosely coupled’, meaning that decisions occurring in one part of the
school do not reverberate in clearly patterned ways elsewhere in the school. Thus changes
in teacher participation in school-level decisions would have little impact on classroom
practice” (p. 8). In this study, the Bureaucratic Centralization View dominates the logic
of literacy instruction given prepackaged cmriculum and a Reading First representative
who holds teachers accountable for using the core cm'riculum. However, when deeply
examining what is actually occurring in one classroom, it becomes apparent that The
Loose Coupling Perspective is closer to the reality. The participating teacher has a sense
of empowerment to make decisions about what is best for her students despite the
Bureaucratic Centralization View which is attempting to enforce top-down mandates
from No Child Lefi Behind

Just as empowerment can exist at varying levels, so can dysempowerment. Kane
and Montgomery (1998) state that dysempowerment is not the opposite of empowerment,
“Rather, it can co-exist with empowerment to varying degrees and levels of intensity” (p.
264). Dysempowerment occurs when one’s dignity is affronted, resulting in “feelings of
humiliation, anger, indignation, and hostility” which can “impair trust, commitment,
motivation, cooperation, and innovation” (p. 264). Through the process of
dysempowerment, the primary outcome is an “individual’s afi'ective response to his or
her interpretation of a perceived negative event; and the subsequent outcome in the
dysempowerment process is an impairment in the individual’s ml: motivation associated
with psychological empowerment” (p. 264).

In this study, there is evidence of both empowerment and dysempowerment which

has a remarkable impact on relationships among colleagues. This in turn influences the

37

day to day interactions between teachers, the principal, and the literacy coach. Chen and
Miller (1997) formd that “Lack of collegial relationships, teacher cohesiveness, fiiendly
and harmonious relations, a sense of school community, and satisfactory relationships
have also been reported as major factors contributing to work-related stress” (p. 8). In
addition, Kane and Montgomery (1998) state that lack of collegiality or instances of
dysempowerment over time can amass and produce strong cumulative consequences.
Issues of empowerment as well as the nature of the relationships between colleagues can
influence not only the school culture but the personal lives of those involved. Kane and
Montgomery (1998) contend that empowerment is closely linked to trust among
colleagues and “a history of trust between individuals leads to trust in the future, as well
as confidence in the trustee’s continuing goodwill” (p. 267). In this study, I discuss issues
of empowerment and trust among colleagues and how this impacts the participating
teacher at both the professional and personal level.
Constraints within a context/structure

In her discussion of teacher empowerment, Duhon (1999) borrows Irwin’s (1990)
definition of context which is, “the full school setting- physical surrotmdings, subject
matter to be taught, socio-economic and racial composition, skills and motivation of
teachers, management style in the building, relationships between teachers and principals,
teachers with teachers, community perceptions, internal and external pressures” (p. 12).
Each element of the context is interrelated, creating an extremely complex structure to
navigate and examine. In the following section I will focus on elements of the context

whichactasmnsuaintsforedmammflhescarebymmeansalloftheconsmints

38

present in this study, but do represent the most serious and challenging ones according to
the participating teacher.
Curriculum
One dimension of teacher empowerment is the opportunity for teachers to make
decisions that impact their practice and the functioning of the school (Short, 1992). What
could be more important than curriculum? Apthorp, Bodrova, Dean and Florian (2001)
state:
A cmriculum that is comprehensive, developmentally sequenced, and aligned
with standards and benchmarks is only as good as the teachers who use it. Recent
research on exemplary literacy teachers indicates that teachers’ knowledge is a
critical link in helping all students become literate. Exemplary teachers, whose
students achieve at high levels, understand their subject matter — literacy,
literature, and language. They also understand the developmental stages of
becoming literate. With this pedagogical content knowledge, they are able to
appropriately select, reinforce, and expand the curriculum in response to what
students need to become better readers and writers. (p. 11)
Having space and support to tailor curriculum to students’ needs and interests is critical
for student success as well as a teacher’s sense of empowerment. White (1992) echoes
this finding in her study with over one hundred personal interviews with teachers and
administrators. When teachers made decisions about curriculum, they felt more
encouraged to invest energy in their practice, students reacted favorably, and it opened
communication within their own school and among teachers and principals fiom other

schools. This also led to an increased sense of professionalism and self-esteem when

39

teachers were granted the opportunity to express their ideas and shape the curriculum. In
fact, White states, “When teachers can define their own curriculum, they feel more
organized and in control of their classroom. Teachers expressed the belief that the more
input they had on curriculum decisions and the more comfortable they were with
teaching, the better lessons students received and the more students learned” (p. 74). The
final outcome in the classroom was less reliance on prepackaged cm'riculum and
textbooks.

Unfortunately at Westside Elementary, and other schools forced to adopt basal
reading programs as a result of No Child Lefi Behind and not making Adequate Yearly
Progress, teachers are limited in their opporttmities to select the best curriculum for their
students. Instead, they are trained in how to use the materials and expected to use the core
literacy program. Many researchers (Apple, 1983; Goodman, 1988; Hargreaves, 1994)
describe this growth of prepackaged sets of curricular materials as technical control
which leads to the deskilling and degradation of educators. Apple (1983) states:

It includes everything a teacher ‘needs’ to teach, has the pedagogical steps a

teacher must take to reach these goals already built in, and has the evaluation

mechanisms built into it as well. But not only does it pre-specify nearly all a

teacher should know, say, and do, but it often lays out the appropriate students

responses as well. (p. 149).
Onceteachershavebeendeskilled,theymustbereskilledintheuseofthematerials.

In the Reading First grant application is an explanation and justification for the
deskilfingofteachers.Awmreadingpmgramisdefinedasmepdmmymsmfionflmol

tobeusedbyteacherstoteachreading.Itshouldserveastheprimaryreadingprogram,

40

but “does not imply that other materials and strategies are not used to provide a rich,
comprehensive program of instruction” (p. 36). Yet the next question, “Why adopt a core
reading program” is answered as “Teaching reading is far more complex than most
professionals and laypersons realize” and “The requirements of curriculum construction
and instructional design that effectively move children through the ‘learning to read’
stage to the ‘reading to learn’ stage are simply too important to leave to the judgment of
individuals” (p. 36). The individuals referred to in this document are teachers. It
concludes by stating that when the core curriculum addresses instructional priorities,
determined by the developers of the core curriculum, then teachers will need to
supplement and modify instruction less. The core reading program supplies all the
answers, requires little thought or ingenuity on the teacher’s part, and ensures ultimate
deskilling.

Shannon (1989) and Goodman (1988) argue that deskilling reduces the teacher to
a managerial role, ignoring the teacher’s intimate knowledge of their own needs and
interests as well as their students’. This in turn reduces the quantity and quality of
instruction. Teachers begin to lose their curricular and pedagogical skills which hurt
students. In addition, prepackaged curriculum is composed of texts that are typically
more age driven rather than skill driven, and fail to consider what background knowledge
the children bring to the curriculum (Apthorp et a], 2001). Policy makers and curriculum
developers are creating and demanding that teachers use this deskilling curriculum that is
developed for the average reader in the grade, rather than letting teachers make these

critical curricular decisions.

41

It is important to note that Apple was still writing about the power and influence
of standardized, grade-level-specific textbooks three years later. Perhaps more disturbing
is the fact that his analysis applies nineteen years later. F utrell (1989) was writing during
the same decade as Apple, practically warning educators and policy makers of the errors
of the four waves of educational reform. Currently we are seeing the same trends toward
deskilling teachers, more testing, reliance on prepackaged curriculum, and the silencing
of educators. Ofien veteran teachers are dismissed as being traditional and skeptical, but
they most likely are seeing policies with an uncanny similarity to the past. Granted the
context may have changed, but educational policy demonstrates a fiightening amnesia
which educators do not always share. Twenty years later, teachers are being told how to
teach, what to teach and when their students will be tested, similar to the 1980’s.

In a study by Anagnostopoulos and Rutledge (2004), teachers make surprising
curricular decisions in response to mandates to improve standardized test scores.
Principals and teachers were followed for a four year period to learn how they made
sense of and responded to both their schools’ failure and high rates of academic course
failure. English teachers at one of the high schools were expected to implement the
principal’s reading initiative to improve student achievement scores. The researchers
found that the teachers “characterized the strategies as ‘superficial’ and as disrupting
what they referred to as the ‘real’ literature-based curriculum” (p. 19). Once the school
was released from probation, the teachers focused less on the reading initiative and began
“aligning the curriculum externally, with district policy, and internally, with their
departmental colleagues” (p. 19). The teachers essentially returned to the “real”

curriculum and with time, reasserted their collective control over the English curricultun.

42

This study challenges the stay-power of initiatives and new curriculum if the educators
do notsupporteitherfiomthebeginning andsee itastakingtimeandfocusaway fiom
the “real” curriculum and their professional identities. In this study, there are significant
literacy practices that are identified as the “rmofficial” crnriculum or curriculum that is
not part of or supported by the Reading First mandate and Houghton Mifllin. Often the
“unofficial” curriculum in this study is part of a thematic unit or practice prior to
becoming a Reading First school.

Bergeron and Rudenga (1993) discuss barriers to thematic teaching, which the
participating teacher in this study manages to incorporate into her literacy instruction
despite pressures to use the core literacy program. What Bergeron and Rudenga formd
was that teachers in their study believed thematic teaching was hampered by time
constraints, curriculum demands, and traditional thinking. They state, “the need to cover
a certain amount of curriculum, to use the textbooks and workbooks provided, and to
implement a new series or other curricular unit was perceived by teachers as obstructing
their use of thematic instruction” (p. 8). One participant commented how someone would
alwaysbepressufingteachersmusethetextbooksandmatefials,whetherthiswasthe
principal or part of a state requirement. Goodman (1988) found a similar case in his
research of a veteran teacher with a closet full of thematic units developed over years
who was not able to use these due to a district implemented policy of “curriculum
monitoring” (p. 204). Teachers were pressured to use prescribed curriculum and follow a
prescribed timetable. As a result, “Unique and original units of study based on teacher’s
and pupils’ interests are no longer considered appropriate to the school district’s goals”

(p. 204). At Westside Elementary, teachers face similar pressures fiom the district as well

43

as the literacy coach who represents the mandated literacy curriculum. Fortunately, Emily
is not the type of teacher to acquiesce to mandates that do not fit her theory of best
literacy practices.
Time
Many researchers have found that time constraints play an important role in the
professional and personal lives of teachers (Bergeron & Rudenga, 1993; Chen & Miller,
1997; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Hargreaves, 1994; Maeroff, 1988). Hargreaves (1994)
states, “Time is the enemy of freedom. Or so it seems to teachers. Time presses down the
fulfillment of their wishes. It pushes against the realization of their wants. . . Teachers
take their time seriously” (p. 95). Participants in the study by Bergeron and Rudenga
(1993) commented specifically on how time constraints impacted their practice. In their
study of international literature on teacher stress, Chen and Miller (1997) found time
constraints to be correlated with stress and bmnout. Through the General Health
Questionnaire and Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) they found that:
o 63% of 168 Northern Ireland teachers reported moderate-high stress levels due to
time constraints
0 Tension between teachers and administrators in regard to time was a problem with
238 Australian elementary and secondary school teachers
0 230 Kindergarten through sixth grade Midwestern public school teachers felt lack
of time was the greatest impediment to job satisfaction
0 337 primary, secondary, and special British school teachers said lack of time was

ranked as the number one stressor (p. 2)

Time constraints may be connected to incorporating the required curriculum as well as
the teacher’s “tmoflicial” curriculum, time to meet with colleagues in an authentic way,
time to plan, time with students, or time being well spent. Maeroff connects issues of
power with time constraints, stating “Teachers have more chances of gaining access to
the mechanisms of power if they operate as a network of like-minded agents of change”
(p. 475). When time constraints limit opportunities for collaboration, not just with
colleagues but like minded colleagues, the outcome is dismal. In this study, time
constraints are a tremendous barrier and the focus of chapter five, “’This is gonna screw
us up!’ Institutional, financial, and temporal constraints”.

Phillippi (1998) found time constraints to play an important role in the lives of
teachers in her study. Teachers in Kindergarten through second grade were expected to
shift their literacy instruction from basal based, teacher directed to a constructivist,
developmentally appropriate approach. This required a great deal of time to prepare
literacy materials, to which one teacher said, “the set up, the preparation of the materials
in order to teach this way is horrendous- simply horrendous” (p. 12). Rather than relying
on the materials from the basal program, they were expected to create materials which
typically took place during their own time before and after school and on weekends. For
many teachers, particularly those with families that included small children, this was very
taxing.

Another type of time constraint in Phillippi’s study was the limited time allowed
to transition to this new approach of literacy instruction. For many teachers it felt sudden
with little support. This created a situation “in which it was difficult for many teachers

and principals to establish personal meaning of the policy” (p. 17). For others, extra

45

training sessions and professional development took a great deal of time. Many teachers
agreed with the philosophy of the mandate; however it required an unreasonable amount
of time and commitment on their part with minimal support. Phillippi concludes that
teachers “worried that all of the work brought on by the sudden and drastic changes
would undermine teachers’ willingness and ability to do all that was required” (p. 13).
Hargreaves (1994) also discusses research in which teachers felt pressure and anxiety due
to excessive time demands to implement new programs. The teachers felt as though their
time perspective was different from the administrators, who appeared to be insensitive to
the time pressures experienced by the teachers.

For novice teachers, time constraints become evident and sometimes.
overwhelming. In this study, readers learn how the participating teacher’s intern quickly
understands that his teaching time is limited by factors such as holidays, professional
development and in-service days, and incorporating the “official” curriculum. Goodman
(1988) offers another example of an intern who tried to develop a meaningful whole-
language approach to literacy development that became increasingly difficult to
incorporate into her daily practice due to an establish system controlled by workbooks.
Children in her classroom were not allowed to participate in individual reading
conferences until they had completed their workbook pages. This typically excluded
children who disliked reading because they had the most difficulty completing the pages.
By the time the intern assumed full responsibility for teaching the standardized
curriculrnn, she formd no time to continue meeting with the students to discuss their
books. Once again, the “official” curriculum dominated the “rmoflicial” curriculum

regardless of how meaningful, engaging or beneficial it was to students and teachers.

Hargreaves (1994) discusses four interrelated dimensions of time, with the first
being technical-rational dimension of time, or “time as a finite resource or means which
can be increased, decreased, managed, manipulated, organized or reorganized in order to
accommodate selected educational purposes” (p. 96). Teachers’ time can, and often is
manipulated by the administration to support desired educational objectives that are not
necessarily reflective of teachers’ desires. It is often shaped for the greatest efficiency and
productivity. Hargreaves suggests that time may be the most important means of breaking
down isolation and developing collegiality curriculum development. However, the way
teachers choose to use extra time can vary and produce diflemnt results.

The second, micro-political time, is concerned with the status of curriculum, or
which subjects receive more time or favorable scheduling. For elementary teachers,
classroom work is the dominant, overwhelming conception of teachers work. As an
individual’s power and prestige increases, so does their time away from the classroom.
Typically this explains why it is rare for elementary teachers to be away fi'om the
classroom, unlike secondary teachers who usually have more planning time.
Phenomenological time suggests that time has its own existence in schedules, timeliness,
and time constraints. Time appears to be external to the teacher despite being a subjective
phenomenon. The final dimension of time, sociopolitical time, refers to way in which
forms of time become administratively dominated or how administrative control rules
teachers’ work and curriculum implementation process. This is a brief overview of the
four interrelated dimensions of time that impact teachers’ work. It suggests that time
constraints are varied and complex and it is not surprising that in this study, issues of

time were extremely important in Emily’s mind and experiences.

47

Control
Another common constraint in elementary institutions is the struggle for control
among participants including teachers, principals, specialists, and district administrators.
Shannon (1989) discusses three types of control, developed by Apple (1982), that include
the following forms: simple, bureaucratic, and technical. In his study, Shannon found that
teachers were contending with simple control. He states:
. . .in the Right to Read school district, the reading coordinator’s insistence that the
third grade teachers continue to follow the basal curriculum even though a basal
author agreed with the teachers’ complaint is a form of simple control. The
teachers, as a group, had little legitimate recourse but to comply with the reading
coordinator’s dictates; there was no further appeal possible. Of course, as
individuals, these teachers could shut their classroom doors and follow their own
conscience. (p. 79).
Shannon’s findings are nearly identical to the findings in this study. He later states that
other teachers relay this incident of teachers resisting the basal program, but are not
certain that those who resisted would avoid being reprimanded. In this study, the third
grade teachers attend meetings where they are cajoled to use the Houghton Mifflin core
curriculum, and then return to their classrooms to teach in an appropriate way for their
students. Emily is reprimanded in various ways by the literacy coach, creating feelings of
fi'ustration similar to the teachers in Shannon’s study that resisted directives that went
against their better judgment. Emily also rejects being told what to do by the literacy

coach who represents Reading First.

48

Shannon describes the third form of control, technical, as embedded in the
commercial reading materials. He found that few teachers and adnrinistrators questioned
the legitimacy of the materials controlling their teaching. The materials, which are typical
of most prepackaged literacy programs, controlled “the program’s goals, methods of
instruction, main source of texts for reading, and evaluation” (p. 80) with little resistance
by teachers or administrators. Contrary to Shannon’s analysis, my analysis. suggests that
teachers are less amenable to technical control by the basal programs and continue to
resist and negotiate the requirements associated with Houghton Mifllin and Reading
First. Shannon states that when the teachers accept the technical control of the basal
program, they become deskilled since the guidebooks govern their practice, allowing
little room for thoughtful reading instruction. Fortunately, Emily rarely accesses a
teacher’s guide which allows her to consider other possibilities for literacy planning and
instruction that is most appropriate for her students’ needs and interests.

Summary

This research draws upon four themes, or conceptual lenses, to view the
participating teacher’s resistance and negotiation of policy within multiple structures.
These include (1) the intersection of policy and practice, (2) hybridized curriculum and
instruction, (3) school structure and culture; and (4) constraints. I discuss research related
to each theme in distinct sections; however it is possible to see how these are also
interrelated. The intersection of policy and practice includes a comparison between
reform policies of the 1980’s and today, as well as an in-depth look at the intended and
unintended consequences of a study by Phillippi (1998). Hybridity, a common reaction

by teachers in an effort to negotiate top-down policy into everyday practices, is often a

49

result of various constraints. School structure, school culture and the culture of teaching
are interrelated and influenced by issues of power, teacher empowerment, and
collaboration. Finally, collaboration is far more complex than perhaps education reform
suggests, often yielding less than promising outcomes that create temporal constraints as
well as tension between colleagues. Hargreaves (1994) offers four types of collaboration,
of which two apply to this research, but rarely in a clear-cut way. Often the type of
relationships or interactions between the participating teacher and her colleagues are
along a continuum of contrived and collaborative teacher culture rather than fitting neatly
into a particular category of collaboration. Chapters four through six will explore these
complex themes, or conceptual lenses, in depth with examples that challenge the current
available research and hopefully add new insight for future research, teacher practice, and

reform.

50

Chapter 3
THE STUDY AND ITS DESIGN

“The Michigan Department of Education admits to incorrectly labeling

three more Middleton elementary schools as not making ‘adequate yearly

progress’” (“Middleton” State Jou_[n_,al April 30, 2004)

Introduction

In the spring of 2004, several months prior to the start of the study, Westside
Elementary School appeared in a list in the local newspaper as one of several schools
incorrectly labeled as failing to make AYP. The implications for this error were immense.
Westside Elementary was designated as a Reading First school by the district and
adopted Houghton Mifflin as its core literacy curriculum in the fall of 2003. Teachers
attended monthly professional development meetings for Reading First, as well as
monthly in-services after school for Houghton Mifllin training during the 2003 — 2004
school year. They were trained in LET'RS7 and expected to use the Balanced Literacy
Program outlined by the districts. Teachers were still required to use district curriculum
guides9 for math, language arts, science, and social studies for grades second through
fifth. Having worked with six of the teachers at Westside Elementary throughout the
school year, I was well aware of their frustration and confusion in negotiating all of these

requirements in their literacy planning and instruction. I also knew there were several

 

7 The Reading First grant provided 30 additional hours for professional development for teachers to learn
LETRS which was led by the Literacy coach who 13 also the representative for Reading First. Complete
description of program available at http: //www. lens. com/

The district Balanced Literacy Program is intended to provide literacy strategy training for washers,
regular literacy professional development and a trained literacy coordinator. More information can be
accessed at h:t_tp //Middletonschools. net/cunicula/balancg! literacy. htrn
’ Pacing Guides were created by a team of educators in the district for social studies, language arts, math
and science. They are intended as a realistic time frame for instruction and assessment which is compatible
withstudentgrowthandachievement. ' a. . -_, ._

 

51

teachers actively resisting various portions of these mandates and continuing to teach in a
way that was best for their students. Given this context, I created a research design that
would delve into the literacy pedagogy of one teacher who refused to abandon years of
experience and success for the sake of being in compliance with district, state, and
national policies.

When designing this research project, it was important to consider Florio-Ruane’s
(2002) suggestion for learning more about teacher practice. She states, “To understand
local knowledge in teaching and teacher education, we need in-depth studies of
individual teachers at work and of the variety of ways that teachers think about and do
that work” (p. 209). Therefore, it was logical to select an urban elementary school in a
district juggling curriculum guides, high-stakes testing, and prepackaged curriculum and
then to research in depth how the teacher was making decisions in her literacy pedagogy.
It was also sensible to select a teacher with whom I had developed a relationship the year
before and who was pushing against mandates and remaining true to her beliefs about
children’s learning and literacy pedagogy.

Study design

This qualitative study was designed to learn more about Emily’s planning and
literacy instruction for the 2004 - 2005 school year. Initially I was concerned that my
involvement might disrupt the mentoring process for her intern, Greg. I found that Emily
needed to be explicit and intentional in sharing her decision making of literacy curricula
and practice and that my presence did not appear to influence his growth or her teaching.
In fact, participating in co-planning sessions created unique circumstances when Greg

could observe conversations between Emily and me about the complexity and challenges

52

of planning and teaching elementary literacy. There were also situations when I could
observe conversations between Greg and Emily as she spoke about her practice in a way
that a novice could learn from and easily understand.

For this study, I used the methodological tools of audio taping weekly literacy co-
planning sessions with Emily and Greg, field observations of literacy insu'uction, both
formal and informal interviews with Emily, and the collection of literacy artifacts and
materials. Through analysis, these data provided insights as to how and why Emily made
certain decisions about literacy instruction, given the various requirements and
restrictions in her school district.

School and District Context

This research is situated in a district which serves more than 17,600 students in
Kindergarten through twelfth grade. The district dates back to 1847, originally as a one-
room schoolhouse in the north side of the city. In 1861 it was formally incorporated.
Currently the district is comprised of forty-one schools, two office buildings, a service
center, warehouse, bus garage, a child care center, and an environmental education and
conference center. The district serves an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse
population with a student body in Kindergarten through twelfth grade of approximately
46% Caucasian, 33% African American, 12% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 1% American
Indian.

The school site, Westside Elementary School, is a school of choice and
approximately 100 of its 376 students take advantage of this district option. The school
also provides bussing. According to the principal, (Barbara, informal conversation,

9/9/04) most of the children who begin the school year are able to complete the school

53

year at the same site, making Westside’s mobility rate approximately average in the
district"). The student population at Westside Elementary closely parallels the
demographics of the district student population. The only significant difference between
the student population at Westside Elementary and the district percentage is for Asian
students. This is due to the significant percentage of Hmong and Vietnamese students.

Figure 1: Student demographics for Middleton School District and Westside Elementary

E] District
I Westside

 

American Asian African Latino White
Indian American

Emily

The participating teacher, Emily, has an extensive history of working with the
local university by volunteering as a cooperating teacher for interns and seniors in the
teacher education program. I met Emily during the 2003-2004 school year when she
volunteered to host seniors for their field placement for a literacy method course I taught
at the university. I also learned more about her teaching practices and view of children
through an intern who was moved from my school site, where I was an intern field
instructor, to Westside Elementary half way through the school year. Emily and I spoke

with one another at meetings for cooperating teachers and field instructors and I felt that

 

‘0 See Appendix A for Westside Elementary School demographics

54

her philosophy of literacy instruction and how children learn would make for a timely,
informative study of how teachers negotiate policy into practice.

Emily has worked in both middle school and several elementary schools for a
total of thirteen years as a classroom teacher in the same district. She has taught at several
schools and believes this is how she has learned a great deal about teaching. I wanted to
work with Emily because she demonstrates a commitment to sharing her teaching
philosophy with novice teachers and is anxious to maintain involvement with the
university. As previously mentioned Emily has had several interns from the lmiversity
and volunteered to have one during the 2004-2005 school year.

Emily has expressed an interest in looping with her third graders to the fourth
grade. During a co-planning session in December, she said:

Now Barbara (the principal) wants me to loop and I love 100ping, I think it’s the

best teaching you can do. Now it would probably be very beneficial to this group

to have me loop because they’re really. . . they know me, we could just start right
off, just go over the rules, they know my language and to get ready for the fourth
grade MEAP, and ‘Remember this from last year’, ‘Oh Yeah!!’, and I could just

do my little chants and stuff. . . (Emily, co-planning, 12/7/04)

She believes that this group would benefit, as would all children with looping, since
beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, third grade teachers will administer the state
mandated test. She hopes to continue working with the same students because she
believes they can do well on both the state required MEAP test as well as the national
IOWA test. During the fourth week, Emily commented on how the MEAP is criterion

referenced and, “at least it is ‘passable’ and I can get most of my kids to pass it if I’m

55

doing good teaching and using good strategies” (Emily, co-planning, 9/21/04). It should
be noted that Reading First schools are required to prnchase and administer the IOWA,
which is described in the Reading First grant application, as a way to measure progress
due to the adopted core curriculum. Ironically, if Emily’s students do well on the IOWA,
it can not be attributed exclusively to Houghton Mifllin or Reading First since her
practice includes activities and approaches to literacy instruction outside of the core
curriculum and district mandate.

When speaking with Emily, it is evident that she is dedicated to the success of her
students and the school. Although Emily lives in a district with a better reputation for
education, she and her spouse have selected to send their two children to Westside
Elementary. Emily regularly shares her love of learning, such as participating in local
Writing Programs and district and national conferences, and her personal desire to
improve her teaching practice through collaboration with colleagues, professional
development days, and teacher in-services. She regularly uses resources, such as books
and intemet sites, outside of the “required” core curriculum and literacy program to meet
the needs and interests of her students.

During various conversations in co-planning meetings and informal and formal
interviews, Emily has expressed an acute awareness of discrimination based on ethnicity
and socioeconomic status. Emily is White; however as a parent of a multiethnic child,
and married to an African-American person, she is sensitive to how children are treated
in schools based on their ethnicity. 0n various occasions she has expressed concern about

how colleagues and her intern view children who do not share their ethnicity or

56

socioeconomic status. The following situation exemplifies her awareness of
socioeconomic status and how this can impact children.

Each year the school schedules a field trip that requires parents to pay part of the
costs. This year the school has planned a trip to Chicago. Colleagues, as well as her
intern, felt that students who could not afford to go should have to raise the money.
Emily became angry, asking others what they would like the children to do and
answering for them, suggested “scrub the floors?” She asked one teacher how it felt to be
poor, to which the teacher could not answer. She then talked about how parents need to
pay for necessities such as food, rather than a trip to Chicago. She believes that if the
students were middle class then their parents would simply pay for the trip, but that there
is a belief that poor students should have to “earn it- to work for it” which she is
adamantly opposed to (Emily, informal interview, 12/5/04).

On another occasion, while observing, students could purchase popcorn for 25
cents. Not all of the students brought money, so Emily bought extra bags of popcorn so
all the children could have a bag for their snack. She commented that sometimes she will
pull kids aside and ask “is it a matter of money” (Emily, informal interview, 12/5/04) and
they will often admit that it is, but are not going to say this out loud. Emily seems to
understand how it feels to be poor and has alluded to being poor at various points in her
life.

Finally, Emily has shared on several occasions how upset she was while teaching
at another school that discriminated against students who were poor and did not have
transportation. The school had an evening performance and Emily felt the school needed

to provide transportation; however colleagues did not feel this was necessary and did not

57

want many of the poorer students at the performance because they felt that the children
did not know how to act appropriately. Emily argued that if the students did not know
how to behave, they needed to be at the performance and should not be excluded for lack
of transportation. Emily also shared that the teachers only wanted White students at the
performance and this was wrong. She finished by saying that the principal wanted her to
be quiet and that some schools would rather have mediocre teachers who won’t speak out
about inequalities such as this.

Emily and I have engaged in many conversations about teaching in urban schools.
She would much rather teach in lu'ban schools and has little patience for those who feel
that the students in her school or schools like it, are “less than” students in other more
affluent schools and districts. This has been an issue with an intern who did not see the
children being “as good as” children in other districts in the surrounding area. Emily
takes this personally since her own children attend the school and she believes her
students deserve a rigorous education and are capable of academic and personal success.
She feels that the rewards of teaching in an urban school are great and discusses how a
wealthier school might have more resources, but different problems.

For the past two years, Emily was teaching in a portable classroom, but has
movedintothemainbuildingandisacrossfi'omthelibrary. Itisnotuncommontofind
her students working in the hall or in the library when it is not being used by other
classrooms. From a phone conversation in August, she commented that it is better since
she felt removed fiom the school; however she is slightly concerned because she likes her
studentstobeabletotalkandsheknowstheytendtogetloud. Ireplied,“Well,youcan

always close the door”, to which she responded that she doesn’t like to close the door so

58

“everyone else will just need to get used to the noise!” (9/1/04). Emily’s room often feels
busy, with students moving around and working with one another. It feels crowded, with
25 desks and chairs, as well as other tables for centers. However, by looking at the walls
covered with student work and bulletin boards related to their literacy focus, it is evident
that this is a serious place of learning and support. During observations, Emily often gets
students attention with “firecracker applause”, “rotmd of applause” and “patting selves on
their back”. She provides space for children to share their own backgron knowledge,
new knowledge, and thoughtfirl inquiries.

The next section will discuss in detail how data was collected fi'om August, 2004
through January, 2005. This included observations and audio recordings of co-planning
sessions with Emily and Greg, observations of literacy instruction, formal and informal
interviews with Emily, and material analysis.

Co-Planning Sessions

Each Tuesday after school for approximately one and a halfhours, I joined Emily
and her intern, Greg, while they co-planned their literacy instruction for the following
week. During these sessions, I audio taped their discussion and used this opportunity to
ask questions about her decision making in terms of which curriculum she chose to
include and exclude. I was interested in how she selected material from the core
curriculum, Houghton Mifflin’s literacy series, as well as her own materials (Book Club,
centers, various units, etc.). I also used this time to learn more about how she plans
instruction and materials around the curriculum guides and how up-coming testing
impacted her decisions. Since Emily has experience working with seniors and interns in

the past, I guessed that she would find it valuable to be explicit in her decision making

59

and rationale behind instruction for novice teachers. This was the case, and offered
excellent opportunities to learn more about how she thought about literacy and her
students’ learning.

I participated in a total of eight literacy co-planning sessions, beginning the
second week of school in September and ending the last week of the first semester in
December. I returned during the second semester to participate in the sessions, but after a
conversation with Emily and Greg, decided that it would not be beneficial to continue
participating in the meetings since Greg would begin his lead teaching in the second
semester. Rather than visiting Emily’s classroom dining the co-planning time, I decided
to continue observing while she taught and using the time when Greg was teaching to
speak more with Emily about her literacy pedagogy.

Classroom observations

I observed literacy instruction on nine occasions during the first semester and
continued to observe during the second semester. However, only observations dming the
first semester are included in this study. During this time I documented the materials used
(both core curriculum and supplemental curriculum), the type of instruction, and the text
consumption and production of the students. I visited the classroom on various days to
get a sense of a typical week, noting changes due to testing or other interruptions that
affected instruction. All observations were handwritten and transcribed as soon as
possible.

During observations 1 often moved arormd the room, keeping my focus on Emily
and Greg, while interactingwithstudentsto seewhattypeoftexttheywereconsuming

and producing. This gave me an opportunity to track the literacy development of several

students. The focus of this research project was on Emily, however noting marked
improvement in the reading and writing abilities of a few students offered evidence of
Emily’s effective literacy instruction.

I also made a point of observing during the last days of the two major imits in the
first semester, the Book Club Mystery Unit and the required disuict cm'riculum guide unit
of fairy tales, folk tales, and tall tales. These are two days that Emily refuses to
relinquish, despite time restraints and a lack of connection to the Houghton Mifilin series.
These days are described in detail in chapter four.

C ontent/Material Analysis

I analyzed Houghton Mifflin’s core curriculum as well as the third grade literacy
curriculum guide created by the district. This was necessary to understand how Emily
was creating hybrids across and between various materials and resources. I also analyzed
district, state, and national tests to see how they related to the other artifacts. Emily
continually mentioned additional resources such as Strategies that Work (Harvey &
Goudvis, 2000), Mosaic of Thought (Zimmerman & Keen, 1997), and Craft Lessons
(Fletcher & Portalupi, 1998) as part of professional development, so it was necessary to
learn how she was accessing these for information and teaching strategies and how they
did or did not coincide with Houghton Mifilin and the district requirements.

During an informal meeting in January, Emily shared two binders that I had not
seen her refer to during co-planning sessions or at any other time. The first binder,
Balanced Literacy, is a district produced program and is intended for use by all
elementary school teachers. The second binder, Language Essentials for Teachers of

Reading and Spelling (LET'RS), is for Reading First schools and is what Emily describes

61

as full of “why we teach certain things, not how”. Teachers received training in LETRS
in the 2003 — 2004 school year, which was led by the literacy coach/Reading First
representative.
Formal and Informal Interviews

In August 2004, before I began meeting with Emily and her intern for co-planning
sessions and before observing literacy instruction time, I met with Emily to discuss her
literacy pedagogy. This was an important time to learn more about her teaching career
and what she hoped to teach her intern about literacy planning and instruction.
Throughout the year, we engaged in a variety of both formal and informal interviews,
similar to think alouds, to gain insight as to how she negotiated the required core
curriculum, test preparation, and curriculum guides. I also include dialogue with other
individuals involved in the school, including the intern, the other third grade teacher,
principal, and the literacy coach/Reading First. This is important because Emily is often
engaged in authentic conversations about her practice with others. Asking about her
practice in an interview format may not have offered the same rich detail and insights.

At the end of the first semester, after coding observations and co-planning
sessions, I developed a list of questions that needed clarification. Emily and I met on
“records day”11 so I could ask her these questions. Many of her responses appear as
question and answer segments throughout chapters four through eight. During the
analysis phase, from January through March, 2005 I continued to ask Emily for

clarification through informal meetings and phone conversations.

 

” Records Day: the district provides teachers with one day at the end of the semester, without students, to
complete report cards.

62

Data analysis and interpretation

Data analysis occurred throughout the research project by continually rereading
transcriptions of interviews, co-planning sessions, and detailed field notes to search for
what LeCompte and Shensul (1999) call “ideas, themes, units, patterns, and structures”
(p. 45). By continually rereading data I was also able to intermittently ask Emily to
clarify or answer questions fiom the data. I followed a three step analytic process which
included (1) inscription, (2) description; and (3) transcription (LeCompte and Shensul,
1999) to locate themes in the data. This three step process began in 2003 and concluded
as data collection ended in January, 2005.

The inscription phase began in 2003 when Emily shared with me her fi'ustrations
with district, state, and national requirements. We occasionally spoke at meetings for
mentors and liaisons in the teacher education program. The settings were rarely private
one-on-one conversations; rather several teachers at a table would be discussing the
politics of the district as they related to their own teaching and their interns. At this time I
noted Emily’s references to literacy pedagogy hybrids, the basis for my research
question. Emily was not the only teacher voicing opposition to the various mandates, but
was willing to share strategies or approaches she had developed to suit the needs of her
students. Eventually, both formal and informal interviews with Emily during the early
months of the research project aflirmed my initial hypotheses regarding her literacy
planning and instruction. It was evident that she was negotiating requirements at the
district, state, and national level in an attempt to continue teaching in a way that was

appropriate and successful with her students.

63

The second and third stages, description and transcription, began in September
2004 and continued through the end of the first semester in January 2005. Thick
description was in the form of detailed field notes of observations and co-planning
sessions, analysis of artifacts, and transcriptions of (1) formal and informal interviews,
(2) audio taped co-planning sessions with the intern; and (3) phone conversations with
Emily. All field notes were transcribed within 24 to 48 hours fi'om hand written field
notes and audio tapes.

Both deductive (top down) and inductive (bottom up) analysis were employed. By
using deductive strategies, codes began to emerge from my observations and co-planning
session field notes. Dming the third week in January, once all the data had been collected,
I developed a coding system that yielded eight categories. These categories emerged as I
began reading the data, and I continued to add categories as needed. As each category
become apparent, it was assigned a color and abbreviation:

Table I : Coding system for data analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Color Category Abbreviation
Red Houghton Mifflin/Reading First HM/RF
Dark blue State mandated (IOWA, MEAP) ST
Orange Student needs SN
Green Colleagues C
Brown Outside resources (books, writing programs, OR

professional deve10pment, etc)
Light blue District (curriculum guides, quarterlies, testing) D
Purple Literacy and school culture L/SC

 

 

 

 

Table 1 .' Coding system for data analysis (continued)

 

 

Pink Literacy instruction other than Houghton Mifflin OLI (other literacy

(Book Club, centers, etc) instruction)

 

 

 

As I read through the data, I underlined any words, sentences, or sections that
related to the eight categories in the appropriate color using colored pencils. Many words
and lines of the text were underlined in more than one color. For example, during a co-
planning session on November 30, 2004, my notes read:

She says the literacy coach wanted to know how much she is doing with parts of

speech. The literacy coach says she would be covering English if she used the

core program.
These two sentences were underlined in purple and red since they related to both
Houghton Mifflin/Reading First and literacy and school culture. By underlining with
colored pencils, I was able to return to the data while writing about hybridity and look for
text that was underlined in two or more colors. This was also a quick way to locate data
since I used abbreviations in the margins for each category.

While writing the dissertation, I found that Reading First and Houghton Mifflin
needed to be separated. Reading First is a grant provided by No Child Lefi Behind for
schools that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). There are certain
requirements unique to the Reading First grant. Reading First allows districts to select
one of five basal reading programs and Middleton district selected Houghton Mifi‘lin.
There are certain materials and resources provided by Houghton Mifllin that are not

necessarily a part of Reading First. The state mandated category remained the same, but

65

 

any text relating to state requirements was often underlined in more than one color. In
chapter four I discuss how test preparation for state mandates (IOWA and MEAP exams)
was never in isolation, rather Emily was able to hybridize state requirements with
Houghton Mifilin and her own practice. Student needs and outside resources are
discussed throughout the dissertation in terms of Emily’s teaching. She is mindful of her
students’ strengths, needs, and interests and this guides her literacy practice. She is able
to find strategies, theories, or ideas for teaching to her unique group of students through
outside resources, such as Strategies that Work (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000), Mosaic of
M (Zimmermann & Keene, 1997), and Craft Lessons (Fletcher & Portalupi, 1998).
Therefore, these categories were used to provide a rationale and resources behind Emily’s
decision making in literacy planning and instruction. Colleagues and literacy and school
culture were closely related and became absorbed into discussions about Westside
Elementary school culture and the culture of teaching. Finally, district and literacy
instruction other than Houghton Mifflin were often underlined in more than one color as
these were typically hybridized practices.

Once the text was color-coded and I had read through the notes and began
writing, I identified five recurring themes: (1) resistance and power, (2) hybridity, (3)
resources (time, materials, and space), (4) structure and agency; and (5) fillfilling the
professional roles. Hybridity became the theme for chapter four. The word “resources”
was changed to constraints as I realized that Emily was more often coping with a lack of
resources, and this became the theme for chapter five. Resistance and power, as well as
empowerment and collaboration were combined to discuss findings in chapter six.

Structure and agency as well as fulfilling the professional role were interwoven through

66

the data analysis chapters as I found that these themes impacted how and why Emily
hybridized her practice, the ways in which constraints occurred in the school and Emily’s
practice, and the ways in which collaboration, empowerment, resistance and power

transpired at Westside Elementary.

67

Chapter 4

HYBRIDITY: “SNIPPETS” OF WHAT’S VALUABLE

As any teacher knows, approaches old and new coexist within staffi'ooms and

across schools despite the best attempts by material developers, researchers, and

governments to swing the system in particular directions. . . In classrooms in

particular approaches tend to coexist, blending and creating hybrid approaches to

teaching that no text book developer, researcher, or bureaucrat could have

conceptualized. (Luke, 2000, p. 451)

Introduction

Apple (1983) echoes Luke’s statement, that both students and teachers may use
curriculum in ways undreamed of by state bureaucrats or corporate publishers. Emily’s
classroom is a site of pervasive hybridization in literacy planning, practice, and discourse
which requires an in-depth study to begin to understand how she shapes her pedagogy in
creative ways. Anagnostopoulos and Rutledge (1994) describe this practice as how
“Teachers can both resist and accommodate policy as they draw and re-draw boundaries
between mandated practices and what they consider the ‘real’ curriculum” (p. 43). Emily
strategically integrates the required Houghton Mifllin core curriculum, district
requirements, and her own practices of what she considers “valuable” instruction or the
real curriculum, and activities in her two hour literacy block. Emily’s resistance to using
a basal reading program that does not, in her opinion teach reading and writing (Informal
interview, 9/1/04) occurs throughout the study. She believes that Reading First does not
motivate students to learn to read and write (Informal interview, 9/1/04). She does not

understand how the required ninety minutes of literacy for Reading First is only reading

68

and does not include writing. Emily asks, “How could they not think that writing is part
of literacy? It is imperative to getting kids to read” (Emily, co-planning, 9/21/04). Emily
also questions the ninety minutes of uninterrupted reading. Based on background
knowledge and experience, she states that children need some variety during the morning
literacy block such as a math center or writing (Emily, co-planning, 9/21/04).

Emily does not oppose policies at the district, state, and national level in an effort
to make a statement or resist for the sake of resisting; rather she creates hybridized
practices and negotiates and resists policy to meet the needs and interests of her students.
Her students in the past have shown noticeable literacy growth with this type of practice.
Fortunately she is supported by her principal who recognizes Emily’s success with
students struggling to read and write. After fourteen years of teaching, she is neither
apologetic nor reticent in sharing what she believes to be good teaching, made evident by
her willingness to speak out in staff meetings and grade level literacy meetings. She
views herself as an advocate for her students, even when her actions create more stress
and tension for her professional life.

Emily is not alone in creating hybridized practices given top-down reforms at the
state, national, and district level (Bisplinghoft’, 2002; Cohen, 1990; Cohen & Ball, 1990b;
Luke, 2000). Often hybridization occurs between two distinct areas such as Houghton
Mifflin and the district curriculum guides. At other times, the hybridization is a result of
several areas coming together as snippets integrated into Emily’s “lmoflicial” literacy
curriculum. Venn diagrams illustrating how the various hybrids exist are included in this
chapter; however, many practices were difficult to place since they cut across multiple

areas. This is a reflection of the complexity of hybridization and an excellent example of

69

the type of innovative thinking and action required on the part of educators. In this
chapter, I discuss the various hybrids Emily has created in response to the current
political climate, in an effort to maintain her own values and beliefs of what is best for
her students and how children learn to read and write.

For this research, the term “hybrid” or “hybridization” is based on Webster’s
(1994) two primary definitions: (1) an offspring of genetically differing parents (as
members of different breeds or species) and (2) one of mixed origin or composition (p.
362). Emily’s hybridized literacy instruction begins with her own practice, or how she
has taught in the past and what she refuses to relinquish in response to mandates. These
include, but are not limited to Book Club, centers, research reports, and a combination of
reading and writing. Various requirements are introduced, such as Reading First, the
Houghton Mifllin basal reading program, and test preparation. Emily must then create
hybrids. She extracts the strengths of her own practice, identifies the strengths of the
various requirements, and then creates a unique pedagogy. By doing this she is able to
stay in compliance, maintain her own pedagogy, tailor instruction to the unique needs and
interests of her students, and include both the “offici ” and “unofficial” curriculum in a
limited amount of time each day.

In this research case, hybridity differs fiom adapting, assimilating or adopting.
Adapting and assirnilating suggest absorption of the new or required practices or
curriculum into the existing ones. Adopting is a method of replacing the former practice
or curriculum with the new or required curriculum or practice. Hybridity suggests the
merging of the strengths of various areas for a new and unique pedagogy in response to

mandates. The various mandates and relevant terminology are listed in the table below.

70

Table 2: Levels of policy and relevant terminology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Policy/Program Level Requirement
No Child Left National Signed into law January 8, 2002 by President Bush for
Behind Act nationwide educational reform
(NCLB)
Adequate State States establish academic achievement goals by setting
Yearly Progress academic standards in core subjects and measuring progress
(AYP) using tests aligned to state standards.
States set annual progress goals for school improvement
Schools are identified as needing improvement if they are
i not meeting these goals.12
Reading First From NCLB established Reading First as a new, high-quality
National evidence-based program, building on findings by the
to state National Reading Panel
level
Funds are dedicated to help states and local school districts
by establishing high-quality, comprehensive reading
instruction in kindergarten through grade 3.
De5igned to select, implement, and provide professional
development for teachers using scientifically based reading
programs, and to ensure accountability through ongoing,
valid and reliable screening, diagnostic, and classroom-
based assessment.l3
Houghton District Basal reading program designed for Reading First schools
Mifflin
Curriculum District Created by a team of educators in the district for social
guides studies, language arts, math, and science. They are intended
as a realistic time fiame for instruction and assessment
which is compatible with student growth and achievement. ‘4

 

 

'2 http://www.ed.gov/nclb/a_ccountabilitv/avp/vearlyhtml

l3

ht_tp://www.ed.gov/progmrs/readingfirst/index.html

" http://wcbrsdkl2.mi.us/cturicula/miug ggides/ghtm

 

71

 

Emily’s practice through Emily’s words

In his book which examines teachers’ practices and theories of educational
research, Hargreaves (1994) states, “Teachers’ voices, though, have their own validity
and assertiveness which can and should lead to questioning, modification and
abandonment of those theories wherever it is warranted. In this book, we will see that
teachers’ words do not merely provide vivid examples of theories at work. They also
pose problems and surprises for those theories” (p. 4). Hargreaves’ words are applicable
to this research. Emily’s practice and insights about literacy pedagogy challenge common
elements of reform, such as collaboration, that are viewed by policy makers as solutions.
Therefore, her voice and exact words are heard throughout this text in reference to
elements of reform and practice. She also resists the tendency Goodman (1988) speaks of
as teachers being socialized into the norms of their occupation in which they hesitate to
employ innovative approaches to instruction or to use more substantive content. Emily’s
theories of how best to teach literacy to meet the particular needs and interests of her
students complicate and challenge supposedly straightforward district and state mandates.
Fm'ther, her own theories of how to teach and teacher’s identity create tension between
herself and certain colleagues, and also serve to build alliances between herself and other
colleagues. Rather than attempting to paraphrase or edit exchanges between Emily and
her colleagues, I include them to allow participants to speak for themselves. Emily’s
views of teaching in her particular context are complex, fi'orn her ideas about best
practices to appropriate curriculum. When sharing her ideas she is often animated,
detailed and passionate, which I have tried to captln'e and include in this text, particularly

this next section.

72

During co-planning sessions with Greg and conversations with me, Emily shares
mixed feelings about the required curriculum and mandates, calling them both “dumb”
and “not so bad”, as opposed to positive descriptors. Her reactions are not so different
fiom teachers that Apple (1983) talked to about prescribed curriculum. One teacher said,
“Look, I have no choice. I personally don’t like this material, but everyone in the district
has to use this series. I’ll try to do other things as well, but basically our curriculum will
be based on this” (p. 159). He later states that this same teacher found interesting ways to
subvert the requirements by using it three days a week instead of the entire week. In
Emily’s case, over the course of the six month study, the data shows a decrease in use of
the prepackaged curriculum and a return to the type of instruction most reflective of her
years of teaching before becoming a Reading First school. Toward the end of the study, I
ask Emily to describe her own practice as she and Greg, her intern, compare their
classroom to Maggie’s, the other third grade teacher.

Jodene: So how would you describe yours, if it’s different than hers?

Emily: I think mine in more hands on, more noise, more, let’s get involved with
the kids, let’s walk around. it’s not a lot, I mean there’s three times in the day
when they do independent work- in the morning, when they come in from lunch I
want them to do DEAR” by themselves and at the end of the day when they do
handwriting. A lot of it is small group, whole group, partners, um, I don’t do a lot
of independent work- just those 3 times a day. And it actually, and you know this
group isn’t even a good group for independent work, you know, because they,
because you have such a diverse group, you need your lower kids to work with
other kids and what I’ve formd is that, that’s usually the kids I get and that’s not
going to change ever and so what I’ve found is that those kids work best doing
partner work where they are working together and conversing and figrning it out-
it’s just like today I was really envious when I walked by Maggie’s room and it
wasjust so quiet and there’s a part ofme that wishes, sometimes... I can’t. And
Barbara (her principal) loves it! And my class is always going to be like that. And
I can’t change my personality but there’s just some days, like when I wish, you
know I really wish I could just say ‘read this story and answer the questions’ and I
can’t- and to me I just need to model it and show it and I know that’s good

 

'5 DEAR is the acronym for Drop Everything And Read, which is their daily sustained silent reading time

73

teaching, it’s just that it’s work and you get tired sometimes and so. . . sometimes I
walk by and I’m not really thinking, ‘oh I would like to teach that way’, but
there’s a part of me that is thinking that would really be nice, just sometimes to be
like that and I haven’t figured out- by the end of the year they do more of it in
math and they’ll do some other transitions

Greg: See I think a big difference between you two is, you want the kids to figure
it out themselves, you’ll be less of the only resource in the room-

Emily: I’m not the only knowledge in the room... because they’re going to have

to go out and find the information and I don’t want to be their only source and I

really want to teach them, ‘how do I go out and find this information on my own’

and I really want to teach them to be life-long learners and to really enjoy learning

and I try to get that intrinsic, but you know, you just don’t know if you do. . . and I

want to get them to think- I want to get them to really think about things, so...

because they are really good thinkers. They can think in third grade, they really

can do it- they can think! (Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04)

Emily is extremely sensitive about the needs of her students. She recognizes that
her style of teaching, which uses a great deal of movement and various grouping patterns,
constant modeling and on-going support, is critical for their academic and personal
growth. She creates opportunities throughout the day for the children to work with their
peers, particularly during the literacy block in centers and Book Club (Raphael, 2002) to
help each other grow. Emily is able to discuss her hopes for her students as well as her
own mixed emotions about her practice. To teach differently might be easier, and at times
Emily says it is appealing. If she were to use more independent seat work, she would
reflect Shannon’s (1989) statement that, “Nearly 70 percent of students’ time during
reading lessons is spent working independently on seatwork- workbooks, worksheets, and
boardwor ” (p. 100). However, she knows what her students need and is adamant about
providing the best literacy pedagogy possible which does not include a significant
amount of time doing independent, quiet seatwork. During a co—planning session in

September, Emily states, “I spent a lot of time over the weekend thinking about

74

Houghton Mifllin and thought it was really dumb that they have to respond to a written
response that I haven’t modeled and I didn’t think they would spend that time engaged in
writing at all” (Emily, co-planning, 9/14/04). From her statement it is obvious that she
spends a great deal of time thinking about how to motivate her students and engage them
in meaningful writing. Using the Houghton Mifflin worksheets has not proven to be
engaging and she believes her students will construct more text by writing a letter to her
or Greg, which she and Greg will respond to in the form of a letter. Not only is she
opening more lines of commrmication with her students, she is teaching them how to
write a letter, providing an authentic writing activity, and supporting their literacy
development with constructive feedback. This type of thoughtful analysis of the
effectiveness of Houghton Mifflin shows how Emily is not resisting the basal reading
program because she simply does not want to use it. She is resisting because it is not
engaging for her students and does not support their literacy development as well as her
other strategies.

Emily is also thoughtful about high stakes testing. She comments how the
students score the lowest on the IOWA test on vocabulary and word usage and she is
concerned with how to teach vocabulary. Emily states, “Houghton Mifflin does not offer
good suggestions on how to teach vocabulary” (Emily, co-planning, 9/21/04) and adds
that it is ridiculous to use the IOWA test since it is not criterion referenced, meaning not
everyone can score above the 50‘” percentile. She then shares her preference for the
MEAP because at least it is “passable” and she can get most of her kids to pass it if she’s

doing good teaching and using good strategies (Emily, co-planning, 9/21/04). Emily is

75

not opposed to assessments, but feels that it is unfair to use a non—criterion referenced test
since it is impossible for all students to excel.

During a co-planning session in the beginning of the school year, the literacy
coach came into Emily’s classroom to mention that a meeting would be held the next
morning to discuss the administration of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA).
Many of the first, second, and third grade teachers were fi'ustrated because they had
recently administered the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) ‘6
and wanted help. Emily replied that she preferred to assess each child herself so she
would know what each child needed. Excessive testing is a reality at Westside
Elementary. Rather than complaining, Emily uses the tests as another source of
information to determine how to support her students’ literacy development (Co-
planning, 9/21/04).

Emily has commented on several occasions that her students are lower than
Maggie’s, since all their scores were lower on the initial DIBELS reading assessment in
September. According to this assessment at the beginning of the year, only seven of
Emily’s students were at grade level. Emily knows that her principal has a great deal of
trust in her ability to motivate students and support their literacy achievement. For these
reasons, Emily tends to have students placed in her class who are at a lower reading level
than the students in the other third grade classroom. This greatly impacts her view of how
to shape her literacy instruction.

Throughout the planning sessions, Emily discusses the various strategies she will

use to support her struggling readers. She lists the ways in which she and Greg will need

 

‘6 For a full explanation and schedule of testing, see Appendix B. Information available on
http://dibelsnoregonedu/

76

to help these students: pulling them aside for additional Guided Reading, using the
Houghton Mifflin CD with the stories rather than having students read the stories
themselves, partner reading, teaching specific strategies, and varying the spelling
program. She knows the Houghton Mifflin anthology is written at a third grade level and
many of her students can not access the text alone at this point in the school year.
Apthorp et al. (2001) identify this issue as critical for teachers and schools to recognize.
They state that basal series are intended for the average student at each grade level and

“. . .if a curriculum is age driven rather than skill driven... then ‘early delays are magnified
at each additional step as the gap increases between what children bring to the curriculum
and what the curriculum deman ”’ (p. 8). For this reason, Emily believes that the core
curriculum is not the best material for teaching her particular group of students. Rather
than relying solely on the literacy program, she employs supplemental resources such as
Strategies that Work (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000), Mosaic of Thougm (Zimmermann &
Keene, 1997), and Craft Lessons (Fletcher & Portalupi,]998) in addition to Book Club,
centers, Guided Reading, and writer’s workshop. Through various instructional strategies
and suggestions from the aforementioned texts, she is able to improve upon her students’
reading and writing abilities.

As a mentor, Emily has agreed to teach Greg about her own literacy pedagogy
and to help him develop as a novice teacher. Perhaps most importantly, Emily uses her
role as a mentor to continually point out the strengths of her students, providing a counter
perspective to the occasional deficit language Greg uses. During the initial co-planning
session, Greg shares that he is smprised by how much the students are able to do (Greg,

co-planning, 9/7/04). Emily is extremely mindful of each student’s feelings and academic

77

success, constantly emphasizing how much the students are able to do and how she and
Greg can best support each student. Future conversations will reinforce Emily’s belief in
the potential of each student and her responsibility to provide a literacy program that is
supportive and builds on their abilities and interests. Emily is a classic example of a
teacher as the ‘street-level bureaucrat’ (Tyack & Cuban, 1995) manipulating top-down
policies to fit her pedagogy. Cohen and Ball (1990a) explain this as “the effects of
education policies and programs depend chiefly on what teachers make of them” (p. 233).
Emily manipulates policy in a principled, responsible, and effective way that considers
her students’ needs and interests. Her resistance and negotiation is thoughtful and in the
best interests of her students. It would probably take less time and energy to follow the
core curriculum, but Emily feels this would not be most beneficial for her students.
Best Intentions

During the first co-planning session on September 7, 2004, Emily laid out the
Houghton Mifflin teacher’s edition between her plan book and Greg’s plan book. She
stated, “One of my goals is to use more Houghton Mifflin this year than last year”
(Emily, co-planning, 9/7/04). However, past experiences with Reading First and
Houghton Mifflin have tainted her view of both programs. In an earlier conversation
(Informal interview, 9/1/04), Emily commented on how much she disliked the Reading
First program and only used it one day per week last year. On multiple occasions, Emily
uses the terms Reading First and Houghton Mifflin interchangeably since the two are
closely linked, but during the informal interview she is referring to the materials fiom the
Houghton Mifflin reading program. During this same discussion Emily said she liked the

leveled books, which she uses for Guided Reading and will continue to use this year, but

78

that the anthologies are “too big” and kids don’t “get excit ” (Emily, informal meeting,
9/1/04). She shares that there are some strategies fiom Reading First that she uses, but
never the workbooks, which she chose not to order this year because, “They [the district]
know that I’m not going to use it and it’s just a waste of money” (Emily, co-planning,
9/7/04). She also states that Reading First was not useful for her ten English language
learners last year. The basal series includes a workbook for second language learners that
Emily believes is simply not effective. Rather than using the worksheets, she taught
vocabulary to her English language learners during Guided Reading or “on the carpet”
during whole class group time and those were the most helpful approaches.

During the co-planning session, Emily explains to Greg that they will read one
story from the anthology each Monday and include activities in the centers that relate to
the story for the week. However, after a few months this changes and it appears that less
of the core curriculum is being used during literacy instruction time. The majority of time
is spent with students engaged in centers (including one center with Emily for Guided
Reading and various centers addressing the requirements from the district curriculum
guide), Book Club, thematic units, and writing. By January it would be difficult for a
visitor to identify the core curriculum required by Reading First, yet students are engaged
in reading and writing and their literacy assessments testify to the effectiveness of
Emily’s practice”. Finally, more fiequently than the Houghton Mifflin materials, Emily
will include the district curriculum guide in the planning sessions. She shares how she
feels fairly comfortable with the curriculum guide and emphasizes to Greg the
importance of continually looking back at the guide to think about when and how to teach

the required skills.

 

'7 Student achievement is measured by growth on DIBELS assessments from September to January

79

From research on educational reform in literacy, Emily’s practice can be best
described as “the connected-text approaches” and “the trade books approaches” (St. John,
Manset, Chung, & Worthington, 2001, p. 11 — 12). The connected-text approach includes
“independent reading, cooperative learning, creative writing, emergent spelling, paired
reading (student-to-student) and reading aloud” (p. 11). The trade books approach
“combines trade books and Big Books, but de-emphasizes basal readers. In this approach,
schools use texts that are literature-based and engaging for students, rather than
structured elements of reading programs that emphasize increasing levels of difficulty”
(p. 12). Rather than Big Books, Emily uses Book Club. St. John et al. discuss these
approaches in terms of school wide programs; however Emily has managed to create both
of these approaches in her classroom despite contrary school wide literacy reform.

The remainder of this chapter will discuss how Emily hybridizes the required
Houghton Mifllin curriculum and district curriculum guide with her own practices. She
develops innovate ways to integrate skills and requirements to be, as she often states, “in
compliance”, while remaining devoted to her own “unofficial” literacy practices. Her
strategy is best described during one co-planning session as she discusses a professional
development day presentation and says, “You know how you can take snippets of what
people say? She had some really good snippets. And she was like, these are just some
things that I think would be helpful and so that was really good about writing their
personal narratives, like the license plate, she did four paragraphs, so little things that
kids can remember” (Emily, co-planning, 12/7/04). Emily is an expert at taking snippets
fi'om various sources to teach the skills and strategies her students need to become better

readers and writers. Her hybridization is intentional, thoughtful, and more complex than a

80

resistance model. Fortunately, having Greg present, similar to a sounding board, forces
Emily to be explicit about her decision making and this often includes her thoughts and
feelings related to policy and her students’ learning.
Hybridized literacy practices

There are five primary areas that Emily hybridizes during her literacy planning
and instruction. These include: (1) district requirements, (2) Reading First, (3) Emily’s
practice, (4) state/test preparation; and (5) Houghton Mifflin. From Figure 2 it is possible
to note that district requirements, Reading First, and Emily’s practice all have qualities
unique unto themselves that are not hybridized. Figure 3 includes state requirements,
which focus on MEAP preparation. Emily does not teach test preparation in isolation.
Rather, any test preparation with her students is hybridized with other areas, such as her
own practice or Houghton Mif’flin. This is the only area that does not feature activities,
skills or strategies separate fi'om other areas. During observations that included MEAP
preparation, it was not possible to know that the activities were strictly related to the
MEAP (Field notes, 11/23/04). The two Venn diagrams show each distinct area as well as

hybrids and are followed by explanations.

81

 

      

 

 

saddle
as? as we seem .Hmeofi co cane:
.8283 xoonboem

mtomoe noaomom

9:88:00 £8336 man: 2882:
8850

n20 xoom

838...:— hoacoi $39525: mama—en.—

 

mmeocO wfieeom 32:0
com meeoemmommes mqmafl 98 «DE
ova—w 8:32.55 Bob mofiofibm a. mac—m

can :9 .25 eon as Ea can caches:

  

6:80 mumma

5:22 3
-fieoE 382$
mama

 

=53 “KGB

     
     

 

Beam .8885 Beam—em
$935 $6930

:88

5&8: 5MB mwewooe

$52 3me 828: ow
ea... mecca:

mueofiocmaaom Etna

 

 

$8893 @332 a. beam 38 NEE 33%ch .ficofichaema SEMSE bfitnkh ..N mark

82

 

 

 

    

ago.

as? one ea seem .amélllloaefi
c9603 goon—scam

$.32 consumed

Cameocomv .Doemzzv 3:3 33:85.
£850

£20 xoom

8933.:— xoacofi inflame—5.. mam—man.—

 

Efiwoa wen—oqm
c350 mew—3m: a. 389083.63 c8388 ”mcoecou

seen e233 menace cease

   
      

 

  

AoHBosbm Adam—2v momma €08.83
as 285 coaches enema 2:235
bee memeeom

EoEmmommd.

awe—0550c

anon—obseom 33m .552 Exam—5:

 

 

ll, I,

3.383% .852: a. Rheum 38 flamfimhaemx 33w S§V< =03M=e~5xe bfitcbfl ..m. 33me

83

State Assessment, Houghton Mrfilin, and Emily ’s Practice

Emily is deeply concerned with preparing her students for the Michigan
Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)18 in October of their fourth grade year.
However, rather than preparing them exclusively for MEAP, she has found innovative
ways to blend the format of MEAP with the requirements of both the district and
Houghton Mifflin. In September, Emily decided that after reading aloud stories from the
Houghton Mifflin anthology, her students would work on comprehension skills, an
important component of the state test. 'She tells Greg, “The Houghton Mifllin teacher
edition is good for that” (Emily, co-planning, 9/7/04). In this way, she is using the
Houghton Mifflin anthology as required by the Reading First grant, but in a read aloud
format to make it accessible to all of her students. This makes it possible for all students
to focus on comprehension and participate in the discussion as Emily prepares them for
the MEAP comprehension section.

In January, Emily plans to teach a short unit on the characteristic, generosity. She
will find books at the library that focus on this topic and use these books for read alouds.
She then plans to have students make T—charts to compare two stories. This is similar to
prewriting for a comparison paper they will write on generosity. Emily plans to use a
rubric that is based on the rubric to score the MEAP. In the comer of her room where she
conducts read alouds is a poster related to the MEAP with the word GLUE, which is an

acronym for the following writing checklist:

 

’8 For a complete description of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP), see
hgpz/Iwwwmichigggov/mde/O. 1 607.7- 140-22709 3 l l68——,00.h_tr_rfl

84

Give your opinion, do you agree?
Link it to the titles you see
Use examples from both texts
Explain how everything connects
During this brief conversation about shaping the generosity unit, Emily has integrated her
own ideas for a thematic unit, generosity, and preparation for the MEAP. Her planning is
deliberate and rather than abandoning her ideas for an engaging unit, she manages to
create a unit that will be interesting to her students and prepare them to do well on the
state test. There is a sense of strategic planning for reading and writing, rather than
plugging in test preparation when possible, which results in an interesting hybridized
practice.
During this same co-planning session, Emily shares why she believes the state test
scoring system has changed. She states:
It used to be 4’s (instead of 6) so when they changed the MEAP I changed it
too... see what they did, part of the problem with the MEAP is that lower-income
kids can write just as well as other kids, and so they’re trying to make it harder
and this is just my belief, and this is just personal but they want to prove that other
kids can write better than- I think they do the test, they want this, they want there
to be this difference. That’s my belief. And so they keep making it harder and
harder. Let’s make them write it in third grade now- I mean, it used to be a fifth
grade thing now, really and now they’re making kids write it in third grade.

(Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04)

85

District and State Requirements

During the second quarter Emily needs to teach a unit featuring folk tales, fairy
tales, and tall tales as required by the district language arts curriculum guide. She uses
this as an opportunity to write comparison paragraphs using two fairy tales, to prepare her
students for the format of the MEAP. Emily spent two days reading aloud We; (San
Souci, 1994) and Rough-Face Girl (Martin & Shannon, 1992) (Ojibwa and Algonquian
versions of Cinderella). Students then created Venn diagrams for the two fairy tales and
Emily walked them through the construction of the paragraph.

Emily begins the lesson by asking, “Do the stories show the theme that beauty is
in the inside?” (Emily, field notes, 11/23/04). She tells the students they will need to
answer a question like this on the MEAP exam in fourth grade. She wants the students to
think about how they might answer this question in paragraph form. Each child received
a piece of lined paper and Emily models on the chalk board how to answer this question
in paragraphs. She wants the students to write along with her, but before they begin
writing, she asks them what they need to do at the start of a paragraph. They answer,
“Indent!” As a class they do a chant and dance that reminds them to indent. She also
reminds them that the holes go on the left side, and draws a picture of a piece of paper
with holes on the white board. She asks the question again, “Do the stories show the
theme that beauty is in the inside?” and begins writing a paragraph while thinking out
loud. Emily pays close attention to details as she models. She stops after each sentence to
ask the students what they think and then they create a sentence together. She writes:

Yes, both The Rough-F ace Girl and Soggy; have the theme that beauty is

in the inside of a person (she stops to have kids explain this first sentence so they

86

can write the second sentence). If you are nice, you are beautiful no matter what
you look like on the outside. (Emily, field notes, 11/23/04)
Emily continues to remind students of when to indent and points out that she is talking
about just one of the stories first. She begins writing the first sentence and a student
reminds her to underline the title which she does and thanks him for noticing. The
paragraph continues:

In The Rwh-liace Girl an example of beauty in the inside is the rough

 

faced girl was nice even though her sisters and the whole village was mean. Her

sisters made her work hard and it caused her to get burned. The whole village

laughed at her because she was ugly.
Emily asks students for examples as she writes, modeling how to write a coherent
sentence and how to provide support for their argument. One of the students points out
that the clock stopped to which Emily laughs and says they can’t go home today. She
concludes the lesson by saying they will just talk about the next paragraph since they
don’t have time to write it. A few minutes later, the art teacher walks in and the kids get
ready to change subjects.

Emily and Greg are walking down the ball when I leave, to co-plan other subjects.
Emily comments on how the students need to know how to write a paragraph with a topic
sentence and supports and how this may seem really boring and tedious, but she feels that
she needs to do this. She is concerned with how they will do on the MEAP if she does not
practice with them. As previously mentioned, the test will be given in October of their

fourth grade year, which would give the fourth grade teacher little time to prepare the

87

students. For this reason, the MEAP is more a reflection of the third grade teacher’s
practice than the fourth grade teacher.
Houghton Mifllin and Curriculum Guide
Emily and Greg comment how the Houghton Mifflin Guided Reading books fit in
well with the tall tales, fairy tales, and folk tale unit from the curriculum guide. Emily
says, “It works out really well with the pacing guide and it should. . . and I think that’s
why they changed fairy tales and tall tales to this time, because last time it was too late
and we’d already read those” (Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04). There is a new curriculum
guide this year, so Emily is referring to changes made to coincide with the Houghton
Mifflin program. Emily also says there is a fifth grade play about Paul Bunyan in the
Houghton Mifflin anthology that is really good. Greg asks if it will be too difficult to read
for the students, to which Emily replies, “No- because they’re all improving” (Emily, co-
planning, 12/16/04).
Emily is able to use the leveled books, but is less optimistic about the utility of the
anthology. She says,
But see Houghton Mifflin doesn’t really coincide; our Houghton Mifflin doesn’t
really coincide with the pacing guide so I’m teaching all the skills but I’m doing it
more with the pacing guide than the Houghton Mifflin. I don’t really look at it and
say, okay what skill is this story doing, I look at it and say, okay, how are we
writing, how can this tie into reading, like that. What am I seeing in their writing?
(Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04)
Emily is concerned with both the curriculum guide and Houghton Mifflin, but her main

focus is on the development and growth of her students as readers and writers. If either

88

source is helpful, she uses them. If not, Emily seeks other sources to achieve the same
ends. Emily’s approach is similar to what Coburn (2001) observed with several teachers
in her study. Some teachers selected particular stories from the textbook, or anthology,
“bringing the new reading series into each of their classrooms in a way that adapted it to
their preexisting program rather than guiding their program by the reading series” (p.
15 7 ). Another group of teachers “used the supplementary set of phonics readers, but not
the main textbook” (p. 157), similar to Emily’s practice toward the end of the study when
she uses less of the anthology but continues to use the supplementary leveled books.
Reading First, Houghton Mifllin, and Emily ’s Practice

In order to “be in compliance” (Emily, interview, 1/12/05) with the requirements
of Reading First, Emily tries to integrate activities related to the Houghton Mifllin stories
into her centers. She also tries to read one story per week, but this is not a priority. Emily
shared during our initial meeting that the anthologies are “too big and kids don’t get
excit ” about reading them (Emily, interview, 9/1/04). She adds that the texts are not
helpful for English Language Learners. There is a workbook for English Language
Learners in the materials provided by Houghton Mifilin, but Emily tried to use this the
previous year and it was “not effective” (Emily, interview, 9/1/04). During the first few
months, students are at the listening center wearing headphones and listening to the
stories fi'om the anthology on a CD. Occasionally Emily will put out worksheets to check
for comprehension. She comments that, “In case someone walks in we can say, ‘Yeah,
they’re writing from this story’” (Emily, co-planning, 9/7/04). However, she found that
the students were not completing these and by the third week the students could either

complete the worksheet or write a letter to Emily or Greg.

89

Emily explains that she and Greg do not have a chance to talk with kids. Often the
kids are trying to share personal stories and information as they are being rushed out the
door, which is why Emily made letter writing an option. At the beginning of a co-
planning session in September she says, “I spent a lot of time over the weekend thinking
about Houghton Mifflin and thought it was really dumb that they have to respond to a
written response that I haven’t modeled and I didn’t think they would spend that time
engaged in writing at all” (Emily, co-planning, 9/14/04). Instead of completing the
worksheets, which she believes is somewhat “over their heads” at this point in the school
year, they are using the time to write letters to Emily or Greg to increase opportunities for
communication. Students will also practice letter writing during Guided Reading. Emily
did not require students to write a formal letter, other than beginning, “Dear Mrs. Smith”.
She is interested in her students doing an activity that is more engaging than a worksheet.
The following week while observing I noticed that all of the students chose to write a
letter rather than complete the comprehension worksheet. Each student wrote more in the
letters than what was required on the worksheet.

Emily has commented several times that she doesn’t mind the stories in the trade
books, also referred to as leveled books, which she uses for Guided Reading. The twenty-
five sets of leveled books are useful since they are divided into four levels: very easy,
easy, on level, and challenge. Emily tries to do Guided Reading at least two times each
week, for approximately fifteen minutes with each of her middle and high group readers.
Four to five times each week during DEAR she meets with her lower readers so they can

work on strategies and skills that good readers employ. Since DEAR time has been

90

extended to twenty-five minutes by January, she uses this time to also meet with her
middle/low readers who need a little extra time to progress to a middle group.

During the second co-planning meeting on September 24, I am surprised when
Emily gets a book from the Houghton Mifilin material box about how to create centers.
She says she is going to try one of the suggestions fi'om the book for a center focused on
writing. She refers to the book in my presence once and decides not to use this idea the
following week. At other times she tries to incorporate Houghton Mifflin into her centers.
Beginning in November, Emily has students access a website by Houghton Mifllin called
eduplace.com. During the planning session, Emily describes the site to me:

Emily: Let’s do that so we can say we’re doing it... (laughing) They have a
website that’s not too bad with games that kids can play... they played a spelling
game... there’s like, the morning message is still too hard like correcting the
sentences, but they have other ones on there that I’ll look at for a good one. It has
different skills on there and there’s like a little game they can play on the
computer. They did the spelling one and it was pretty cool, like they had to find
the correct spelling words and they. . . like they had the beginning of the spelling
word and the end and they had to find the middle sound and what they did was...
run, and they were really good about, they were really good, I said, Okay you
know what level you’re on in spelling and they had to pick the level and it was
kind ofhard for me to say that and I was like, okay the kids that are lower... and
they had to-

Jodene: They already know (meaning all the students are aware of each other’s
reading ability)
Emily: They do! You know, but it wasn’t a big deal, but it was still hard to say it
like that, but it wasn’t a big deal. And because they are in groups that are based on
their ability in reading it’s not a big deal to go over there because they’re gonna
be with the same kind of kids. .. but if we let them choose, then they’re gonna
notice it more. (Emily, co-planning, 9/24/04)
Emily comments that she will also dedicate center time to practicing test taking twice a
month. As a Reading First school, they must administer the DIBELS three times this year

in September, January and May, and submit scores to the Michigan Reading First

91

Management team. The DIBELS is intended to test for phonological awareness,
alphabetic principle, and fluency with connected text”. In the centers, students will read a
passage while their partner times them with a stop watch and then they will switch roles.

By the last co-planning session on December 14, Emily comments that they
haven’t done Houghton Mifflin “in forever”. This is not srnprising since a great deal of
time was dedicated to centers for research reports of different countries and how they
celebrate the winter holidays. Students work in pairs and present their finished reports at
3 “Parents’ Night” in December. This is a thematic unit Emily teaches each year and is
not willing to give up for the “official” curriculum. Data collection concluded in the third
week of January, but it would be interesting to see if Emily tries to use more of the core
curriculum later in the year, which was her intention in September.
District Curriculum Guides and Emily ’s Practice

During our initial meeting, Emily says that she mostly follows the curriculum
guides because of the quarterlies20 and because the curriculum guides follow the state
benchmarks. She refers to the “skills and strategies” listed on the back of the guide and
how she tries to address these as she plans her lessons. Emily then clarifies her statement,
saying she will teach the skills and strategies “as they come up”, not necessarily when
they are listed in the curriculum guides. She gives the example of personification being
taught in the first quarter when she uses $03 of the Trees (Taylor, 1975) for Book Club,
but shows how it is listed in a different quarter on the curriculum guide. Emily comments

throughout the study that she doesn’t mind the curriculum guides, however “they don’t

 

’9 These three areas are listed in the Reading First grant application:

http://www.michiga_n.gov/docrnnents/ 1-05 Version 3 Reading First 111599 mgr
2° Quarterlies are exams in language arts, mathematics, science and social studies that are administered in

November and April and follow the requirements listed in the curriculum guides.

92

tell how to get kids to learn, what are good strategies” (Emily, interview, 9/1/04). She
frequently refers to books such as Stra__;tegies thgat Woer (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000) and
Mosaic of Thought (Zimmermann & Keene, 1997) when she discusses teaching strategies
because they offer specific approaches to teaching comprehension. This is one of many
examples of Emily problematizing the mandated curriculum, while sharing her
professional autonomy and ideas for approaching these problems of practice. Rather than
waiting for someone or a text to tell her how to teach, Emily seeks resources whether it is
people in a professional writing program or professional literature.

When I analyzed my data and the curriculum guide, I found overlaps in Emily’s
practice and the curriculum guide which she did not mention. For example, Emily
comments on wanting to use text-to-text comparisons for making connections between
two folk tales during the fairy tale, folk tale, and tall tale unit required on the curriculum
guide for the second quarter. She states that this is in the book _S§_at_egies tlgrt Work
(Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). However, after looking through the curriculum guide, I found
that in the first quarter, under the narrative test column is the metacognitive strategy:
make text-to-self, text-to-text and text-to-world connections. Whether or not it is
intentional, I found many skills and strategies that Emily teaches through Book Club, the
mystery unit, and the country research project that she did not mention during co-
planning. Regardless, students are learning these skills through centers, Book Club,
Guided Reading, and whole group language arts activities.

Emily teaches thematically and begins each year with a mystery unit to excite her
students about reading and to prepare them for Book Club. All of the books, which are

primarily from the Cam Jansen series and Box Car Children series are read aloud so all

93

students can participate. She includes discussion and a writing component with each
book. When I ask whether the mystery genre is part of the district curriculum guide, she
responds that it fits with the requirement of teaching “realistic fiction and picture books”
during the first quarter. Unlike the curriculum guides for older grades beginning with
sixth grade, the third grade curriculum guide does not list specific texts to be read. This
allows some fi'eedom for teachers to select the texts as long as they fit the required genre.
Emily is able to continue to teach the mystery unit and could reasonably argue that this is
in alignment with the curriculum guide for the first quarter.

The second major unit of the semester is folk tales, fairy tales, and tall tales. This
is listed on the second nine weeks in the curriculum guide. Emily uses this as an
opportunity to select books for Book Club that fit into this genre. She selects IE
Whipping Boy (Fleishman, 1986) and The Min_strel in the Tower (Skurzynski, 1988). She
uses these two texts to comply with the requirements of the curriculum guide, but also as
texts to compare and contrast in preparation for the MEAP. Emily also includes many
fairy tales, tall tales, and folk tales as whole group read alouds and examples for students
when they construct their own tall tale, fairy tale, or folk tale during writing time. She
creatively works this unit into her centers by having gapunzel: Aflpnmin’ Ra_p_(Vozer,
2001), a rap version of the traditional fairy tale, in the listening center, as well as another
center where students make a travel brochure to a fairy tale land. The visiting
paraprofessional works with students on fairy tale plays, at various reading levels, at
another center. During co-planning, Emily says “we won’t be doing Houghton Mifilin for
a while. . .” because of this unit, which brings laughter. It is a perfect example of how she

is having to meet the requirements of the district, but is willing to sacrifice time away

94

from Houghton Mifflin to do this. At no point does she stop Book Club or centers for the
sake of Houghton Mifflin, Reading First, or the curriculum guide. In mid-November the
students begin working on realistic fiction, which is required in the curriculum guide.
Emily knows that some students will want to include elements of fairy tales, tall tales,
and folk tales. She will use this as an assessment to see if the students are able to analyze
their own writing and recognize whether or not it is realistic fiction.

During the final co-planning session, I want to gain a better sense of Emily’s
opinions and feelings toward the curriculum guide at this point in the school year. The
conversation follows a discussion about the quarterly exams that need to be administered
in the spring.

Jodene: When are you doing quarterlies?

Emily: I think they’re maybe in March or something?

Jodene: Are they skipping the second quarterly?21

Emily: Right, so it really shouldn’t be until the end of the year. ..We just do it

twice- like we just do it in Decem— they just shouldn’t do it, really, if they don’t

use it correctly. I mean, I don’t mind doing quarterlies because it gives you some
assessment and that’s fine, but the thing is they don’t use them in the correct way-
we’re not looking at what do we need to reteach, how are we teaching it, they
don’t use it in the correct way

Jodene: I’ve heard, I hear what you’re saying, is that teachers would get the

feedback, but now we’re in the third quarter so we don’t have time to go back and

reteach.

Emily: And you can’t, and that’s dumb.

Greg: Do you like the pacing guides?

 

2' Prior to this year, teachers needed to administer the quarterly assessments four times per year, after each
9 week period.

95

Emily: I like the pacing guides. I don’t mind it at all. I don’t have to look in that
great big book (state standards and benchmarks)

Jodene: They seem logical to me because I had to do 5‘“, 6‘", 7’”, and 8th grade
when I was working with those teachers and it made sense, you could see it
progressing from one grade to the next, but it also assumes that your kids are
coming in with a certain knowledge base that you-
Emily: Yah, and that’s the bad part. Yah, but I do think you have to have
something that you have to say, otherwise you have teachers who don’t teach
anything and I do think it’s made people be on the same page in this district and I
think it has made — and there are parts of it I didn’t like, let me tell you, because I
wanted to do all thematic teaching and this said, but it’s making me teach, I’m
having to check and make sure I’m teaching certain things, so it’s alright. I don’t
hate it or anything like that.” (Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04)
Emily is less opposed to the cruriculum guides than she is to Houghton Mifflin and
Reading First. In fact, she feels that it holds teachers accountable for teaching certain
skills that coincide with the benchmarks in the Michigan Curriculum Framework. At one
point she commented to Greg that it is easier to use the curriculum guides than to go
through the state standards and benchmarks binder. Apthorp, Bodrova, Dean and Florian
(2001) echo Emily’s sentiments regarding standards-based reform, which is the intent of
the district curriculum guides. Apthorp et al state:
Few analysts have considered the fundamental question: If standards and testing
disappeared tomorrow, what would be the alternative? To hear the critics of
standards and tests, the answer would be educational paradise. Such an
assumption rests upon the faith that, absent standards and testing, every classroom
would offer expectations that were clear, rigorous, and objective. (p. 46)
This is the first year that the teachers are only administering the quarterlies twice,

rather than four times. The district decided that because of the excessive testing, with the

96

MEAP, IOWA, DIBELS, and DRA”, two quarterly assessments were sufficient. As a
Reading First school, Emily does not need to administer the Language Arts quarterly
since they must test the students with DRA and DIBELS three times each during the
school year. During an informal interview on February 16, 2005, Emily comments on the
usefulness of the quarterly assessments. She believes the science is easy and the math is
helpful for knowing what areas her students may need more support or reteaching.
However, she believes that the social studies is very difficult, and more of a reading test
and map skills assessment. Although, she notes that it is useful for letting the students
practice how to take a test by filling in the bubbles.
Centers

In the beginning of the year, Emily mentioned trying to incorporate Houghton
Mifflin into centers through the listening center, making sentences, and using Guided
Reading books that relate to the stories. This was often prefaced with a caveat of trying to
be in compliance with the mandated curriculum. Toward the middle of the year there was
less evidence of Houghton Mifflin in the centers. Interestingly enough, she rarely
discusses connections between centers and the curriculum guides. During the last co—
planning session, i asked Emily how she organizes her spelling program. She responds,
“There is no third grade list” and apparently never has been on the curriculum guide for
third grade. Yet on the curriculum guide under the Spelling headings for the second,
third, and fourth quarters says “accurately spell words from 2"d quarter third grade list”,
“accurately spell words fiom 3rd quarter third grade list” and “accurately spell words
from 4th quarter third grade list” (Third Grade Language Arts 2004 — 2005 Pacing Guide)

Emily still refers to the curriculum guide during co-planning sessions and many of her

 

22 See Appendix B for a complete explanation and schedule of district testing

97

lessons match what is suggested in the Language Structure, Mechanics and Grammar
section:

Table 3: Comparison of Emily ’s practice and the district curriculum guide

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Curriculum Guide Emily’s practice
Language Structure Weekly Spelling Focus
Mechanics and Grammar
9/7/04 (lSt qtr) long vowels “i” (spelled i, ie, Long vowel sounds
igh) and “0”

9/14/04 (lSt qtr) Short vowels a, e, i, o, 11 Short vowel sounds

9/21/04 (lSt qtr) long vowels ai, ay Long a

11/9/04 Beginning and ending with -—th,
rimes —in and -on

ll/16/04 Words beginning and ending with
“sh”, rimes —ow and —oL

11/30/04 (2"‘1 qtr) prefixes un- Prefix un-

 

 

On November 30, Emily and Greg discuss how to teach contractions, which is
listed in the second quarter. Emily spends a great deal of time thinking about how to
teach this so that it is a tactile experience the students will remember. She shares a time
when she tried to teach contractions last year by having the students use fishing poles.
Unfortlmately the lines became tangled and she was “yelling like a fanatic- and it was so
stupid!” (Emily, co-planning, 11/30/04). She believed her students would be completely
engaged and excited about fishing, but “it was terrible!” Emily also mentions using a
center to teach dictionary skills, which is listed in the first nine week period. Sharing
these types of stories is important for Greg’s development as a teacher. He can learn how
to plan activities that are pmposeful and engaging and recognize that creative lessons do
not always go as planned. Yet, Emily is still committed to creating exciting activities that

teach specific skills and strategies critical to reading and writing development.

98

Assessments and Emily ’s Practice

Emily has shared on several occasions that she does not feel that the DIBELS is
an effective strategy for learning how the students read, such as which strategies or skills
they use to decode and comprehend the text. She adds that the DIBELS is counter to the
strategies she is trying to teach her students, such as going back to check for
understanding. The test is timed and focuses primarily on fluency. Emily states that there
is a retelling at the end, but it’s difficult for the teacher to check off every word the
students say from the passage (Emily, co-planning, 9/14/04). However, she does use the
scores from both the DRA23 and DIBELS, along with other criteria, to place students into
leveled, but flexible, groups for Guided Reading. At one point she comments, “I won’t
really know (how to place the students) until the (DIBELS) test on Friday” for Guided
Reading groups (Emily, co-planning, 9/14/04). Yet during the actual testing day when I
observed, she said, “it is just one indicator” (Emily, field notes, 9/17/04). She uses the
scores as a beginning indicator, but does not rely on these scores to determine permanent
groups. Within a few weeks, she had altered her groups as students appeared to need
more, less, or different types of support. Her approach differs from research findings that
indicate when test scores are available teachers rely on these to form reading groups
(Shannon, 1989). The researcher found that in some cases, this was the only indicator
teachers used to group students. Fortunately Emily acknowledges both the embedded
biases and potential inaccuracy of these reading tests and keeps her grouping flexible.

During another planning session, Emily is thinking about an activity to use in an

extra fifteen minute block before art. She decides to have the students do “Making

 

‘3 For a full explanation and schedule of testing, see Appendix B. More information available at:
ht_tp://www.mnlearning.comldra/index.cfin

99

Wor ”, a phonics activity by Patricia Cunningham. She comments to Greg that this is an
important activity because there is a similar assessment format on the IOWA test. During
these moments, it is evident that Emily has learned how to make the most of time and
how to integrate as many requirements as possible while respecting the needs of her
students.

In November Emily wants to teach a unit on generosity which is her own idea
rather than something listed on the curriculum guide or in Houghton Mifflin. She wants
to read several books so students can compare them. Emily believes this is a good way to
prepare her students for the MEAP. She explains the format of the test:

What they do on the MEAP test, they have to write a personal narrative. They

read these two texts that have, um, see we’re kind of doing this backwards, but

that’s okay- they have to have the same theme. So they have to read two different
books that show generosity, they have to then... I did it the other day, you were
here... (she is talking to me about observing her teach the paragraph comparing
two fairy tales), right, so the theme was something. So I will have read it earlier
here, so the theme is something... and then I’ll read another one here and then
write a comparison paragraph. So they have to read the two books, then the
comparison paper, and then write a personal narrative. (Emily, co-planning,

1 1/3 0/04)

The past few weeks look like MEAP preparation. Even though these students won’t take
MEAP until October Emily wants them to be ready. In this example, Emily is improving
upon the required curriculum by integrating an engaging unit to prepare her students for

the test and to improve their writing skills.

100

Evidence of student achievement

Emily invests a great deal of time and energy into knowing her students
intimately. Throughout co-planning sessions, Emily and Greg discuss their students’
reading and writing development as they discuss appropriate grouping, activities, and
texts. Emily is able to speak in depth about each child’s development and what she hopes
to see by the end of the school year. During the co-planning session on November 9,
2004, Emily spends a few minutes discussing one student who struggles with his spelling,
to the point that his writing is incomprehensible. She shares with Greg the strategies she
is using with that student. She also talks about one student’s low level of confidence and
how this is severely impacting her writing. Emily refers to this student’s sister who was
similar (Co-planning, 11/9/04). She is mindful of strategies that open lines of
communication, such as letter writing as a center, and is willing to share her own
background with students to build trust. Emily creates a safe learning environment where
she knows her students well and student achievement is evident through observations
during literacy instruction, test scores, and conversations during co-planning.
Observations

In the beginning of the school year, Emily explains to Greg her goal of
encouraging students to think about strategies they use to become better readers and
writers. During the first observation in September, Emily has the students in the carpet
area which she uses for whole class time and Book Club. Before reading for Book Club,
Emily asks students to review what “good readers do”. They respond follow along, use a
finger, read fluently, read with excitement, and reread (Field notes, 9/27/04). Students are

sharing books and reading along as Emily reads aloud Cam Jansen and the Mystery of the

101

Monster Movie (Adler & Natti, 1997). She pauses during reading to check for
comprehension through questioning and discussion. Emily also models visualization, and
allows time for students to make predictions and ask her questions. In the next activity,
creating a character map using a character from the book in Book Club, she encourages
students to make inferences about the character based on information from the text. Two
weeks later, during Book Club, she reminds students that strong readers and writers know
it is important to listen, read for fluency, and follow along (Field notes, 9/22/04). The
terminology she introduces in the beginning of the year becomes embedded in her
students’ discourse when discussing their own reading and writing strategies. For
example, one component of the DIBELS assessment is comprehension questions afier the
student has read a passage. As Emily asked the comprehension questions, she also asked
students how they were able to deduce their responses. Many replied that they were
making inferences. On multiple occasions, Emily validated students’ responses with
comments such as, “good job making an inference” (Field notes, 9/l7/O4).

Emily wants her students to be reflective of the strategies they use to decode text.
She wants Greg to ask students questions as they read such as “How can we figure out
the words?” to encourage students to look at the pictures as they read (Emily, co-
planning, 9/7/04). She also wants to get them into the habit of using context clues (Emily,
co-planning, 9/21/04). She prepares her students to be reflective through explicit
instruction and by modeling. Emily spent the first few weeks of September preparing
students to participate in discussion groups for Book Club by using “fish bowl”. In this
activity, a small group of students participate in a discussion, referring to their written

responses, while the rest of the class watches. With support from Emily, the group

102

demonstrates how to conduct a discussion and their peers learn by example (Field notes,
9/7/04, 9/22/04). By November, it is evident that students are mindful of the strategies
they employ to comprehend text, decide on how to spell words, participate in Book Club
discussions, and compose comparison paragraphs. By December, students are sharing
their Book Club entries with their small groups without support from Emily or Greg.
They read the text and share with each other, then ask and answer questions similar to the
modeling with “fish bowl” in the beginning of the school year. At one point, a student in
the group I joined asked the group next to them to “be quiet” (12/16/04), since the nearby
group was engaged in a heated debate about the text Mvflther’s Drago_n (Gannett,
1948). This is precisely the type of learning and exchanges Emily wants to see happening
in these discussions. Students were challenging one another and referring to the text to
support their position. The months of modeling and explicit instruction by Emily and
Greg are manifested in students’ discussions such as this example, as well as their writing
and reading.

Emily encourages her students to seek answers. During a read aloud of Soot Face
(San Souci, 1994) for the fairy tale, tall tale, and folk tale thematic unit, one student stops
Emily to ask for the definition of “birch” (Field note, 11/23/04). Emily prefaces a
response by demonstrating visualization and sharing this as a comprehension technique.
She makes text-to-text connections while reading and encourages her students to do the
same. At various point, she stops reading to ask students to define words, such as “heed”
and “gleam”. She rereads the sentences to give them context clues, takes suggestions for
the definition of the word, and encourages students to decide on the most sensible

definition as a group. These techniques follow her belief that, “I’m not the only

103

knowledge in the room” (Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04). Emily’s students use one
another for information and support. Through modeling and grouping students for
reading and writing activities, they have learned to use one another as a resource. The
children have also learned the importance of using resources, such as encyclopedias and
informational texts to address their questions and interests for research reports which will
be discussed further in chapter six. As Emily’s students learn more about reading and
writing, they are also learning valuable skills to support their literacy development.
Test scores and assessments

During an informal meeting with Emily to discuss the accuracy of data analysis,
she shares that “all but (2 students) went up in the DIBELS” assessment in January fiom
September (Emily, informal interview, 2/16/05). In December, before she has assessed
the entire class, she is pleased because one of the two lowest readers improved. The
student didn’t feel as though she had, but Emily reassured her that she was making
progress by reading more words and retelling more than the initial assessment in
September. Out of her whole class, only one stayed the same (Emily, field notes,
12/7/04). During an observation in December, Emily shared that most kids doubled their
scores, but she is still concerned about the lowest scoring students. They are making
progress but she wants to see more improvement. The average score for third grade is 90.
She notes that about half of her students are at 90 and is visibly discouraged, even though
they started out much lower and it’s only the middle of the school year. Some scored at
45 in September, which means many students have shown a great deal of growth by

January.

104

Writing

By the fourth week of the school year, Emily and Greg agree that there has been a
turn around this week in terms of the amount of writing students are producing (Co-
planning, 9/21/04). Emily comments that their letter writing during center time has been
“awesome”. Greg discusses how the students are exceeding expectations by writing more
than the required half page for their Book Club predictions. Emily continues to motivate
the children by saying she believes they can do more, which she truly does. I asked Greg
why he thought they were writing more and he said it was because they are excited and
motivated about the text and their confidence is increasing. After a month, Emily believes
this group does best with a lot of structure and now that she has a sense of their needs as a
group, she can provide this structure. As a result, they are doing better in their writing.

Emily relies on various resources when planning her writing instruction. She
wants her students to work together in a writer’s workshop type model. However, she
believes they need specific objectives to help each other with their realistic fiction pieces
in November. During the co-planning session, Emily shares a strategy she learned at the
Michigan Reading Association conference. Students are told to look for a specific
element or “target” and when they find it in their peer’s writing, they place a sticker on
the “target”. She has found this strategy to work for peer editing and believes this also
encourages students to be more mindful of their own writing (Emily, co-planning,
ll/9/O4). After students have worked with peers and developed a complete drafi, Emily
conferences with each child individually. Together they read through the draft as well as
her written comments to help them write a final draft. Emily comments on how some kids

will go back and improve their next writing task based on the conference. She believes

105

the conferencing really helps some students. From the conferencing draft to the final draft
she notices students using dialogue, including a strong ending, and adding more to their
writing. The conferencing is time consuming, but Emily is able to speak in detail about
each student’s writing and this informs her future instruction (Emily, co-planning,
12/14/04). Students then share their final writing during author’s chair (Field notes,
11/12/04) to be questioned and praised by their peers since all students know what is
expected for each genre.
Looking to next year

At the end of the semester on January 21, 2005 I met with Emily to discuss some
questions that surfaced as I began coding data. The following are questions and
paraphrased answers fi'om the informal interview:

Jodene: How different does your practice look as a Reading First School teacher
compared to prior years as a non Reading First school teacher?

Emily: I am using more Houghton Mifflin this year than last year. For example I
am using the computer as a center (students can access the Houghton Mifflin
website and do spelling and parts of speech games) and doing a story every
Friday. I am still choosing based on what is valuable to learning. However, if I’m
pressured for time, the Houghton Mifflin is the first thing to go. So, for example,
today is records day (Friday) and I did not read a story but I’m not going to read it
on Monday or Tuesday— I just won’t do it. In Guided Reading I am teaching
certain skills from Houghton Mifflin. I am doing some of this to be in compliance
with the Reading First mandate. I know the program better this year (this is the
2"d year of using the series) so I have figured out what is valuable. Part of how I
make these decisions is fiorn my credential program that said good teachers use
authentic literacy to teach, not prepackaged curriculum.

[Emily explains how she selects literature based on her class and their interests
and how the contents of the Houghton Mifilin anthology do not always fit. For
example, she will decide what to do in the second semester based on how the first
semester went and what she learned about her students]

The themes and units I use each year changes. During my first year I did a unit on
ocean life and think that perhaps this year I will do a unit on wolves. I always start
the year with the mystery unit because it gets kids interested in literature right
away and this is important for Book Club. I also do the fairy tale unit because it is
required in the district pacing guides.

106

Jodene: How will your practice look next year if you are not a Reading First
school? What will you keep from Houghton Mifflin and what will you definitely
get rid of?

Emily: “I wouldn’t abandon Houghton Mifflin”, but will continue to match

stories to my own themes and use what fits in. I would like to treat the anthology

more like Book Club. (Emily, interview, 1/21/05)

Six months of observing co-planning sessions and literacy instruction in Emily’s
classroom has yielded a wealth of data reflecting her ability to hybridize literacy
mandates with her own best practices. Some teachers in Emily’s position could
reasonably rely on the core literacy curriculum from Houghton Mifflin, which would
meet the requirements for Reading First. However, Emily chooses to honor the
individuality of each student, tailor curriculum to meet their needs and interests, and
develop “unofficial” curriculum that is engaging and challenging. This chapter has
focused on hybridization across two or more areas and attempted to show the complexity

of Emily’s pedagogy. The next two chapters will discuss additional structural and

personal challenges Emily must contend with in any given day at Westside Elementary.

107

Chapter 5

“THIS IS GONNA SCREW US UP!” INSTITUTIONAL, FINANCIAL, AND
TEMPORAL CONSTRAINTS

“We have not had a full five days of school since school started, and this won’t
happen until the fourth week of school.” (Emily, co-planning, 9/7/04)
Introduction

During the first week of co-planning, Emily shares her concerns about time
constraints and having enough time to fit in what she refers to as “everything”. This
includes requirements from Houghton Mifilin, Reading First, the district curriculum
guide, test preparation for district, state, and national exams, and her “unofficial”
curriculum. “We just don’t have enough time” is a recurring phrase throughout the next
six months. As Emily fills in the boxes of her plan book, she is sure to include time to
model each activity she wants her students to accomplish. To her intern she states, “I
have to model every little thing I want them to do” (Emily, co-planning, 9/7/04). She
continues to do this throughout the remainder of the study, making this a priority. This
pedagogical “habit” is something Apthorp, Bodrova, Dean and Florian (2001) state that
exemplary literacy teachers do through “routine demonstrations of how literate people
think as they read and write- including errors and self-corrections” (p. 11). Emily is
adamant about demonstrating and discussing what “good readers and writers do” before
and during literacy instruction, regardless of the amount of time this requires.

Emily is not alone in negotiating the temporal, institutional, and financial
constraints of elementary teaching. Research shows that these are common concerns and
challenges for educators at all academic levels across the world (Chen & Miller, 1997). In

their review of international literature, Chen and Miller found that time constraints and

108

collegiality were positively correlated with teacher stress. In a survey questionnaire of
230 Kindergarten through sixth grade Midwestern public school teachers, the researchers
found that, “Lack of time was the greatest impediment to job satisfaction” (p. 2). Emily
struggles to integrate and accommodate the literacy mandates within a seven hour school
day, yet maintains a positive attitude and desire to continue learning and becoming an
exceptional pedagogue. In the following pages of this chapter, I will discuss five areas of
temporal, financial, and institutional constraints that surface through observations and
conversations with Emily. While exploring these five areas, it is important to consider
how Emily is responding to these constraints both as a teacher and a colleague. The five
areas include: (1) time for test preparation as well as the “unofficial” literacy curriculum,
(2) time to meet with like minded teachers, (3) challenges presented by professional
development days and holidays, (4) staff meetings; and (5) limited programs and support
for students.
District Requirements and Test Preparation

During the first co-planning session on September 9, 2004, Emily continues to
refer to the language arts curriculum guide, ensuring that Greg understands its
importance. I did not see Emily and Greg use the curriculmn guide during co-planning
again until the end of November. This is not to say that they were not referring to it at
other times, but it was not central to their planning while I was present. In November,
they read through the various sections, checking off what they have taught and discussing
which skills, strategies, or concepts they still need to teach (Co-planning, 11/30/04).
Emily comments, “I think in the end we will see that a lot is covered, it’s just hard to do

in this nine week period, so we’ll just keep looking back for different centers so we can

109

see what we can do there” (Emily, co-planning, 11/30/04). Her final comment is that the
only thing she doesn’t like about the curriculum guides is, “It prevents you from really
getting into something [Kwanzaa] the way you could”, since they are now spending time
on the district required unit of tall tales, folk tales, and fairy tales.

As Emily looks through her plan book in mid-November, she simply states, “This
is gonna screw us up!” She is referring to an extra music class. They have three
“specials”24 that day so they will not have time for writing. Professional development
days typically occur on Wednesday, when her class is scheduled for gym. When the
children are not in school, the gym time is moved to the following Wednesday. This
results in two gym classes on the same day and happens once a month. Three times this
year they have had three specials on one day to make-up for a missed special earlier in
the week or the prior week. Emily says this is particularly difficult when they have library
in the morning at 9:00, then music at 11:10, shortening their literacy block.

The following week of co-planning, Emily is agitated as she explains how they
thought they had until the end of the next week to administer quarterly tests based on the
curriculum guides. That day, they learned that the completed tests are due the following
Monday (Co-planning, 11/16/04). Emily and Greg decide they need to skip Book Club
(Raphael, 2002) on Thursday to administer the Science quarterly test. Soon Maggie, the
other third grade teacher, walks in. Emily teaches science to both third grade classes and
Maggie teaches social studies to both groups. Their conversation proceeds as follows:

Emily: Hey, when are giving your test?

Maggie: So, did you review with the kids today?

 

2’ “Specials” include music, art and library which are taught by other teachers.

110

Emily: No! Forgot to. . . do you want me to come in and do 15 minutes tomorrow?
I’ll come in tomorrow- because he’ll be teaching. . . (referring to Greg)

Maggie: I’m not even going to be here tomorrow

Emily: Then it will be fine! (everyone laughing) It’s not even a big deal. Did you
review with my kids? (social studies)

Maggie: No. . . (everyone laughing). There’s that one experiment-
Emily: Shut up! (laughing about an experiment that didn’t go well)

Maggie: You can only review so much with the social studies. Today they’re
looking at the map and go south what do you hit, go west what do you hit. . .

Emily: Okay, what are you doing at 9:00? Because I have library, I can come in at
9:00.

Maggie: Well, why don’t we do it Thursday moming, we’ll flip-flop, I’ll come
down here for 15, 20 minutes, you go to my room for 15, 20 minutes, we’ll just
do a quick review.

Emily: Okay, let’s do that...

Maggie: Then Thursday we can just give the test...

Emily: Okay, that’s fine

Maggie: Is that going to mess up your morning?

Emily: No! That’s fine, because whatever they don’t get done I’m just going to
have them do here (later in the day) (Co-planning, 11/16/04)

Following this exchange, Emily says she feels far behind. She is also concerned about

finding time for her students to practice songs for a school wide program. Emily wants

her students to do well on the quarterlies, so the extra review is important; however it

requires juggling the typical schedule. The tests also take time away from Science and

other activities that are more valuable for the students’ learning.

By December, Greg is sensitive to time constraints, due to various factors such as

professional development days and fitting in the requirements from Reading First,

111

Houghton Mifllin, and the district. A conversation ensues during their co-planning
session when Greg asks, “Did you always feel this crunched on time when you taught?”
Emily: No. I feel more crunched.
Greg: Why is that?

Emily: Because I didn’t do centers, we did centers on Friday. We didn’t do
Guided Reading. I did Book Club, I did morning message, I did writing, I did a lot
of the same stuff, but I did not do centers.

Greg: Now why did you decide to do centers, what made you...

Emily: Because I did, um, I always did them on Fridays. But what made me think
about them was, um, I went to L.I.F.T25 and they had some really good ideas, but
when I went to it they couldn’t tell me any good ideas about what to do for... I
said, okay, what do you do, when you are pulling these groups back, what do you
do with your other students?

Greg: Oh, so they just taught you what to do with the group, not with the others,
and that’s the bigger issue-

Emily: Right!

Greg: ‘Cause, I mean, not that it’s easy to work with that group, but you have to
figure out what to do with the other 20 kids-

Emily: I couldn’t figure it out and they said if I had good management skills, then
I would be able to- I would just know. Well, I didn’t think that was it. So the
first year I didn’t change anything, ‘cause when I went to L.I.F.T it was all year,
so I changed some things, like I was doing Running Records, doing stuff like that,
but I wasn’t putting it into practical use, so then the next year I taught fourth
grade and I did read the article, answer the questions (laughs) and SQ3R, that was
something I did every single week-

Greg: As a center?

Emily: Yes! And I had them doing a workbook page and I’d never had them do
workbook pages before- you know I don’t even teach like that- but I did that
because I didn’t know what to do. So it was like workbook pages, and
handwriting, I had them write their words five times each and then I had a

 

2’ MLPP/L.I.F.T. is the abbreviation for the Michigan Literacy Progress Profile. This is part ofthe district’s
Balanced Literacy approach which provides training for educators in teaching phonemic awareness,
phonics, writing, comprehension, concepts of print, oral reading, oral language and attitudes toward
literacy. For a more detailed description, see httpffwwwniisd.nctVlanguagcart’mlpp.htm

 

112

spelling center and back there I taught them some spelling skills- some phonics-
so I did that with them. And then. .. um, every year I’ve gotten better at it. It just
takes a long time and that’s the part- I mean it did for me- some people can just
jump right into it and feel really good about it but I really loved doing Book Club
and I wasn’t willing to give that up. I thought it was a really good way to teach.
So for me, I wasn’t willing to give it up. . . (Co-planning, 12/7/04)
In the conversation, Emily is trying to explain to Greg how difficult it is to manage time
and create a learning culture where all the children are engaged in literacy activities, even
while she is leading a Guided Reading group. She emphasizes that this takes time to
develop. Emily focuses on literacy practices unrelated to Houghton Mifflin or Reading
First such as Book Club and centers. These are more typical of her “tmofficial”
curriculum and she struggles to fit these in with the required core curriculum. She also
uses this time to reiterate that she is not the type of teacher who uses workbook pages or
has her students write the same word five times. Emily puts a great deal of thought into
her planning, so when she has to take time away fiom her “unofficial” curriculum to
prepare students and administer quarterly exams it is extremely frustrating and in conflict
with her beliefs and values as an educator.
Time to meet with like-minded colleagues
Emily faithfully attends the Tuesday meetings with Maggie, the other third grade
teacher, and Linda, the literacy coach and Reading First representative. Emily often
comments on the tension in the meetings because she feels that Maggie does not talk and
it has something to do with Emily being in the room. She has commented a few times that
when she is not there, Maggie will share and this bothers her. Emily is the type of teacher
who is focused on supporting her students’ learning and believes that collaboration with

colleagues is critical. A more extensive discussion of the goals and realities of

collaboration are discussed in chapter seven, “Collaboration, Power/Empowerment and

113

Resistance”. However, wanting to meet with like minded teachers is appropriate for this
section since temporal and structural constraints do not make this type of collaboration
possible. In December we talk about the possibilities of meeting with like minded
teachers:
Emily: I’d love to be in a meeting with (teachers from other grades). I’d love to
talk with them and say, how can we make this work- but then we have other
teachers who just don’t-

Jodene: There’s no time that you could just do that on your own-

Emily: We have no, no! Because whenever we have stuff we have to go to
meetings and they present how to teach so there’s no real time for us.

J odene: So there are no in-house professional development days that you could
do that?

Emily: Well, we did, but it wasn’t really anything— it was on writing, which is
fine, but really, I’ve already been doing it. It was on MEAP writing. I’ve already
been doing that.

Jodene: So they bring people in, but you don’t really have a chance just to sit and
talk... Well, I guess that is your grade level meetings on Tuesdays. . .

Emily: Yeah, so... and Maggie and I, I think we look at some things the same

but we have such different- we look at teaching so different, wouldn’t you say?

(to Greg) (Co-planning, 12/14/04)
Emily is anxious to collaborate with teachers who want to discuss their practice and think
about how to improve the entire school. Emily’s situation is common for many
elementary teachers. In discussing reform in Kentucky, Holland (1997) states that less
than one-third of the teachers in grades Kindergarten through third had time to meet with
other teachers during their day. If they wanted to meet, it needed to be on their own time
without pay. Similar to Emily, Coburn (2001) found that educators in her study “sought
out like-minded colleagues to talk about their classrooms” (p. 151). Likewise, Little

(1990) states that the organization of space, time, and task constrain potential

114

interactions, yet colleagues still manage to learn indirectly and informally about their
colleagues’ practice through moment-by-moment exchanges outside of required meetings
such as with the literacy coach or staff meetings. Unfortunately, there exists little
research as to how these informal meetings impact practice.

The only time the school provides an opportunity for Emily to meet with
colleagues is each Tuesday for Reading First. Unfortunately this is not the type of
meeting that allows for generative conversations or the sharing of ideas about best
literacy practices. This is an example of the type of isolation Lortie (1970) describes as an
“egg crate school” in which “schools are organized around teacher separation rather than
teacher interdependence” (p. 14). Emily feels isolated and is anxious to collaborate on
topics that she feels are relevant and critical for improving student learning and the
school as a whole. Being forced to sit in a meeting with a teacher who does not speak and
a literacy coach who must act as the Reading First representative is not helpful for
thinking about literacy instruction or conducive to learning. This type of meeting does not
fit Emily’s vision of meeting with like-minded colleagues to improve practice and student
achievement.

Shannon (1989) believes that Emily’s desire to meet with like minded teachers
who are resisting mandates is critical for significant changes in reading programs. He
discusses the failure of past movements that emphasized individual change and goes so
far as to call this selfish and competitive on the individual’s part. Goodman (1988) agrees
that “a single individual or even an identifiable group cannot act alone with much
success” (p. 213). Emily does not exhibit these qualities of selfishness or competitiveness

with colleagues, but it is reasonable to believe that if she were able to meet with others

115

willing to challenge the rationalization of reading programs, they would support one
another and tackle “fundamental issues of their work and work conditions” (Shannon, p.
141). Through conversations with Greg and me, Emily articulates her resistance and it is
possible to see a tremendous difference between the intended Reading First mandate and
what actually transpires dming literacy time. Shannon argues that this type of collective
resistance must begin at the local level and eventually lead to state and national networks.
This type of collective movement offers teachers a chance to defend their students and
their own rights as civic minded professionals and gain control over their literacy practice
and their craft.

Professional Development and Holidays

The most promising forms of professional development engage teachers in the

pursuit of genuine questions, problems, and curiosities, over time, in ways that

leave a mark on perspectives, policy, and practice. They communicate a view of
teachers not only as classroom experts, but also as productive and responsible

members of a broader professional community... (Little, 1993, p. 6)

Emily is not opposed to professional development days. In fact, she has
commented several times on the quality and usefulness of some of the speakers’ ideas.
However, Emily is fi'ustrated by the second week of school, commenting, “We have not
had a full five days of school since school started, and this won’t happen until the fourth
week of school”, due to holidays and professional development days. This is particularly
difficult for consistency with her Guided Reading groups, which she wants to work with
at least twice per week. Emily wants to continually learn through district professional

development days as well as other programs such as the Red Cedar Writing Project

116

(RCWP)26. Unfortunately, the frequency of these professional development days disrupts
the weekly literacy routine which is highly valued in Emily’s practice.

In November, Emily comments again how a professional development day is
disrupting their usual literacy schedule for the week. This is a particularly stressful time
since she is trying to finish their country research reports and feels it is necessary to
extend the center times so that students can complete their reports (Co-planning,
9/16/04). The same comment resurfaces as Greg and Emily are planning in December,
looking ahead to the first few weeks in January. As Emily flips through her plan book she
sees that the following Wednesday is a professional development day. In the third week
of January, Monday is Martin Luther King, Jr. day and Friday is records day”, creating a
three day week. Emily comments that they may not do centers for two weeks and “this
will kill them!” [the kids] since they enjoy centers. She decides there must be a way to fit
in centers, which she will think about over the winter break. Finally, Emily comments
that they need to do the DIBELS assessment in the third week, which requires a great
deal of time for Emily to assess each child individually.

On a more positive note, Emily has commented how the first year of professional
development for Houghton Mifllin felt like a waste of time, but this year seems to be
better. She explains during a co-planning session:

We’ve complained so much about Houghton Mifflin training that they’ve really,

um, our Reading First people have really tried to change it so it’s more beneficial,

so we’re going over strategies that work in that class... it was really good. It was

 

2‘ The Red Cedar Writing Project is sponsored by Michigan State University and provides forn' weeks in
the summer for local teachers and researchers from MSU to work together to share their teaching
experiences and develop classroom-based research projects. See hgp://writing.msu.edu:16080/rcv_vp/

27 Records Day: the district provides teachers with one day at the end of the semester, without students, to
complete report cards.

117

really beneficial. It made me feel really good about what we do in here. A lot of

stuff we do. . . (referring to the literacy specialist’s presentation) she was talking

about how to do a personal narrative and I already do that! (Emily, co-planning,

1 2/7/04)

During a professional development day the prior week, Emily comments how the
presenter discussed reading difficulties and the difference between skills and strategies
(Emily, informal meeting, 1/5/05). Emily says she never thought about it this way and
felt it was very helpful. She is generally positive about professional development days. In
the beginning of the year, she said they were typically very good.

Perhaps if professional development days reflected the type of successful
programs discussed by St. John, Manset, Chung and Worthington (2001), Emily would
find professional development days even more constructive and feel less fi'ustrated when
these days take away from teaching time. St. John et al. state, “The professional
development hypothesis essentially is that teachers need time for professional
development that involves collaboration on strategies for improving educational
outcomes” (p. 3). Emily enjoys the professional development days, but it is not a time for
collaboration. Rather, it is usually someone coming in fi'om outside the school to give
them strategies and tools. St John et al. found that successful professional development
should be, “School based, that is, focused on particular problems of each school and
selected by the teachers and principal to help address those problems” (p. 3) Emily shares
that when they do have the opportunity to meet as an entire group, especially in stafl‘

meetings, to work collaboratively to address school problems, this does not happen.

118

Phillippi (1998) also found in her study that teachers were frustrated by staff
development days and the lack of time to discuss what they were doing in their
classrooms. The teachers wanted to get together to talk about the new policy, but during
the first year of the policy others had decided the content of the meetings and there was
little time to fit in anything beyond what was planned. One teacher commented on feeling
like the district policy makers did not trust teachers to use their time productively, to
discuss their practice, so they planned speakers and kept meetings tightly scheduled. This
added to teachers’ frustration with the new policy.

Stafl meetings

On December 7, Emily talks about staff meetings and the lack of quality
discussions and wasted time. She states:

What they really need to talk about in our building is what things can we keep the

same from grades to grades that when they (the students) are going to another

teacher, what are some things they should really know, so there are so many
power issues. We don’t talk about what makes better instruction. We talk about

issues that, you know, people have those power issues, that I had no idea it was a

problem about the lounge. . . like this lounge is a mess. I talk to (another teacher)

and we don’t have time to talk about that kind of stuff.” (Emily, co-planning,

1 2/7/04)

Emily continues to talk about power issues by saying,

And we don’t really talk at staff meetings, because it’s really, you know how staff

meetings are, who’s in the refrigerator, who’s parking in the wrong spot, it’s just

du-, you know how they are, it’s just stupid! Most schools I’ve been at talk about

119

really dumb things. You know, they talk about, just dumb things (Emily, co-

planning, 12/7/04).

The type of power issues Emily is referring to seem petty on the surface, but suggest
underlying struggles among staff members. Perhaps it is a strategy to avoid more serious
problems, by discussing parking spaces and the appearance of the lounge. Regardless of
the reason, it is a source of frustration for Emily who believes these meetings could be
productive. It is one of the few times when the entire staff is together and could discuss
ways to improve the school, specifically student academic achievement, and Emily feels
that the time is not used productively.

Emily believes that staff meetings would be an excellent time to establish a
common literacy pedagogy discourse among the teachers to maintain consistency from
one grade to the next. She feels that this is particularly important for writing and offers
the example of a colleague interchanging the phrase “personal narrative” with “story”.
Emily talks about how she avoids calling a personal narrative a story because it is not the
same. When her colleague mentioned the students did not know how to write a personal
narrative, Emily was confused since she taught this the year before to the same group of
students. She realized that the teacher was saying “story” which is why the students were
not following the characteristics of a personal narrative. Emily knows that this is
important for the MEAP since they will be asked to write a personal narrative and she has
invested a great deal of time in teaching her children this particular genre. For this reason
she continues speaking, “But we could use some of the same language and that’s what

they need to talk about. It doesn’t necessarily mean you need to teach the same way, but

120

we need to use the same language and do we need to be teaching writing? Yes!” (Emily,
co-planning, 12/7/04)

Staff meetings are a primary example of temporal and institutional constraints.
Emily views this as valuable time to collaborate as an entire staff to improve literacy
instruction school wide. However, this does not happen since people are more concerned
with power issues and petty topics. She mentions at one point that the staff wanted to
have meetings twice a month, but this never happened. She suggests that part of the
problem is that people want to leave the school by 5:00. Emily finishes her thoughts
about stafl‘ meetings by saying, “We don’t really talk about teaching. . . real issues, what
is really best for kids, what do we need to do to make our school better” (Emily, co-
planning, 12/7/04).
Limited Programs and Support for Struggling Readers

In a co-planning session, Emily is particularly concerned with two students who
are not making the type of literacy progress she would like to see. She believes she is not
meeting their needs and is deeply troubled by this. This leads to a discussion of outside
resources and programs to support these children. Both students are in H.O.S.T. (Helping
One Student to Succeed) which is staffed with all volunteers and the Literacy/HOST.
teacher. The students spend ten minutes working on skills and ten minutes reading.
During that time they are reading with someone but not writing. Emily is discouraged by
this, but feels that the reading is still helping. The Literacy/HOST. teacher is working
with the students, but it is three students with one teacher rather than one on one. Emily
believes that her lower readers, which is seven to eight students, are doing extra reading

through Guided Reading, but this may not be enough.

121

Emily refers to how Reading Recovery would not agree with the H.O.S.T.
program since Reading Recovery believes that the lowest students should be receiving
support from the most qualified teachers. Reading Recovery is no longer in the district,
unless the building wants to pay for it separately. This is highly unlikely, since according
to the Reading Recovery Council of North America (2000), districts need to consider the
following costs:

Districts generally report costs per child that range between $2,300 to $3,500.

The investment reduces the number of children who need ongoing, expensive

services. Because a large number of initially low achievers respond quickly and

require only a short-term intervention, the resources saved can be used to support
the small percentage who need longer-terrn help. Costs, then, must be considered
against the costs of retention and/or special provisions for children requiring long-

term specialist help” (p. 27)

The initial cost can seem overwhelming to a district that is losing student population and
trying to cut costs. Unfortunately, what is unrecognized is, “When you compare the
success rate of Reading Recovery with other programs that keep children for years and
never get them reading on grade level, Reading Recovery is a bargain!” (Reading
Recovery Council of America, p. 27)

Finally, Emily mentions a paraprofessional who comes in each day to help with
centers who is good, but, “She is not a teacher. She’s good... but it’s not me.” (Emily, co-
planning, 12/7/04). Emily’s comments show her frustration with not having enough time
to work with kids that are “right on the edge” and ready to show significant improvement

in their reading abilities. She believes that if she had more time to work with them

122

intensely in Guided Reading, she would see the type of improvement and results that are
so important for struggling readers.
Curriculum Constraints

Another constraint Emily faces is financial resources for the type of instruction
that she knows makes a difference for all readers. For the first Book Club (Raphael,
2002) reading, she did not have enough copies for each student. During an observation in
September, all of the students are gathered on the back carpet, listening as Emily reads
aloud a few chapters fiom their mystery book, Cam Jansen and the Mystery of the Movie
Mm (Adler & Natti, 1997). As previously mentioned, there are not enough books for
every student to have their own copy, which may or may not have contributed to students
looking in places other than the book being shared between three students. At one point,
Emily stops to acknowledge the situation, stating, “It’s hard to share with three people...”
but encourages students to “read along” (Field notes, 9/8/04). This situation exemplifies
findings by Chen and Miller (1997) that lack of job materials is a common stressor for
American Kindergarten through secondary school teachers (p. 6).

Emily is determined to use the Book Club curriculum and teach thematically
despite temporal and material constraints. By teaching this way, she is able to share
quality literature with the students, engage students in meaningful textual production, and
share ideas and background knowledge during discussion sessions as part of Book Club.
The students are excited by the texts Emily selects for Book Club, as well as the thematic
units such as the mystery books. This is extremely important to her. Emily wants her
students to be excited about literacy and believes that their excitement is related to their

success as readers and writers. She is willing to hybridize her literacy practices as

123

described in the previous chapter, to be in compliance with mandates, but continues to
teach in a way that is best for her students’ academic and personal growth. Bergeron and
Rudenga (1993) discuss this type of thematic instruction as having the “potential for
integrating classroom content in an authentic and motivating manner” (p. 2). In their
study, they found that teacher participants cited various factors that undermined their
thematic instruction such as, “time constraints, curriculum demands, traditional thinking,
and uncertainty” (p. 7). Emily’s experiences with implementing thematic teaching are
similar to the findings in Bergeron and Rudenga’s study. Teaching more from the
Houghton Mifflin series than last year, preparing students for exams, and including
elements of Reading First take time away fiom her “unofficial curriculum” that is
thematically based, such as the mystery unit. Without a doubt, Emily would agree with a
teacher participant in the study who said, “There’s always going to be somebody
breathing down your throat to use the textbooks. . . whether it be your principal or just the
state requirements” (p. 8).
Limited choices and voices

St. John, Manset, Chung and Worthington (2001) argue, “Given that the new
wave of research-based reading reforms is creating opportunities for educators to make
informed choices about improvement strategies, a better effort should be made to
disseminate useful information into the hands of educators who are making choices about
reform strategies” (p. 24). A significant component missing fi'om the Reading First
reform is teacher choice and voice. The district chose to write the grant for schools not
make AYP and to require Houghton Mifflin as the core curriculum. Representatives from

the district delivered mandates without considering the possibility of various

124

demographics or the voices of the teachers who would need to implement these
mandates. The district ordered the principals and the literacy coaches to coerce teachers
to use Houghton Mifflin as an element of Reading First without providing space for
teachers’ involvement. St John et a1. mention opportunities for educators to make
informed choices, but the choices at Westside Elementary are limited to the materials and
regulations surrounding Reading First. Teachers may choose how to participate in the
weekly meetings or even how much of the core curriculum to access and include in their
literacy instruction. However, their choices are narrowly defined since they did not
choose Reading First in the beginning and were not given the opportunity to share in the
decision.

Finally, it is important to note that the Houghton Mifflin and Reading First
mandate is not “teacher-proof”. The literacy coach may ask if teachers are using the
materials, and in Emily’s case, the answer could be “yes”. She does use the leveled books
for her Guided Reading groups and the anthology and CD for her listening center.
However, this is fairly limited in comparison to how the materials are intended to be used
as outlined by the teacher editions and Reading First grant. Each teacher edition provides
specific strategies in how to use the materials as well as additional teacher guides to
incorporate workbook pages, posters, overheads, and activities into the daily literacy
block. Rather than the curriculum controlling Emily’s practice, as described in Apple’s
(1983) definition of deskilling and reskilling, Emily controls the materials and uses them

to suit her needs.

125

Conclusion

Like other teachers in the building, Emily is struggling to work within the
institutional, temporal, and financial constraints surrounding elementary teaching. She is
frustrated by the time needed for district curriculum guides, Reading First requirements,
Houghton Mifflin, and test preparation. These requirements take valuable time away
from her “unofficial curriculum”. Emily envisions potential for change and growth if she
had the time to meet with like-minded colleagues. She also desires better use of staff
meetings to talk about real issues that concern student learning and school improvement.
All of these constraints could prompt certain educators to give in to policymaker’s
wishes, to retire their vision of effective literacy instruction. Fortunately this is not the
case for Emily. In the next chapter, “Collaboration, Power/Empowerment and
Resistance”, I discuss the complexity of collegial relationships, the various ways that
teachers are reacting to mandates, and the role of power and empowerment in shaping
relationships. The chapter concludes with Emily’s literacy practices completely unrelated

to mandates and her vision for future literacy pedagogy.

126

Chapter 6

COLLABORATION, POWER/EMPOWERMENT AND RESISTANCE

Maggie: So what are you doing?

Emily: We’re planning

Maggie: Wow, I’m impressed - is that the Reading First?

Emily: (looking at me) — Yeah, she knows I did NOT use it- last year, she knows!

Maggie: Yeah, this is Houghton Mifflin, so if anyone asks us what we’re using,
this is Houghton Mifflin-

Emily: This is the bible! This is me in the [Reading First] meeting”... I don’t use
Houghton Mifflin; I don’t use something that doesn’t teach reading. . . (Co-
planning, 9/7/04)

During the first literacy co-planning session Maggie, the other third grade teacher,
came into Emily’s room and the above conversation occurred as Greg and I became the
audience. Emily’s turns are peppered with phrases of resistance, such as “did NOT use it
last year” and “I don’t use something that doesn’t teach reading”, as they discuss the
Houghton Mifflin core curriculum. There is a sense of camaraderie as the two laugh and
sarcastically discuss using the materials to teach reading, “If anyone asks”. From the
exchange above, it appears that Maggie is also resisting the mandates; however this is not
always the case throughout the remainder of the study. Their relationship to one another,
as well as the required curriculum is complex, as are most of the relationships at Westside
Elementary. In this chapter I discuss three individuals who play an important role in
Emily’s literacy pedagogy and her daily experiences. They are Maggie, the other third

grade teacher; Barbara, the principal; and Linda the literacy coach and Reading First

 

2’ Each week, during the lunch period, the Reading First/Literacy coach meets with teachers by grade level
to discuss how they are implementing Houghton Mifflin and to answer questions regarding literacy.

127

representative. This chapter seeks to examine the connections between these individuals
as well as the impact of: (l) collaboration, (2) individuals fulfilling their professional
roles as teacher, principal, and literacy coach/Reading First representative; and (3) power
and empowerment.
Collegial relationships and mandated policy

Many agree that the interaction among personnel in schools is necessary for

promoting and institutionalizing change. At the same time, researchers have noted

the centrality of collegial relationships in schools identified as unusually effective

and the importance of collegiality as an aspect of school climate.

(Short, 1992, p. 4)
Collaboration

Coburn (2001) states that “Not all schools have as many formal opportunities for
teachers to work together or the culture of collegiality that fostered the high level of
informal interaction” (p. 160) found at the school in her study. This was important for the
growth and sensemaking of the teachers in her study. Researchers and policy makers
recognize that time for collaboration is important in organizations such as schools.
According to Symonds (2003), this is critical, since, “For members of a knowledge-based
profession, teachers have remarkably few Opportunities for structured peer interaction
focused on practice” (p. 8). Elementary schools that have received Reading First grants
through No Child Left Behind have added literacy coaches ostensively to their staff to
provide guidance in literacy practice and opportunities for teacher collaboration.
However, the literacy coach is in a difficult position. She is both the literacy coach and

Reading First representative with the primary responsibility of ensuring compliance with

128

the Reading First grant. Weekly lunch meetings for the third grade teachers with the
literacy coach are often a topic of conversation during co-planning sessions. The
retellings frequently include elements of confrontation, tension, and frustration, according
to both Emily and Greg.

The type of collaboration described by Emily and Greg is best defined by
Hargreaves (1994) as, “contrived collegiality teacher culture” in that, “collaboration
among teachers is not spontaneous, but regulated by administration; is compulsory, not
voluntary; is fixed in time and space-scheduled by administration; irnplementation-rather
than development—oriented—teacher are told what to implement; and outcomes are
predictable rather than unpredictable” (p. 15). In theory, providing time and space to
discuss literacy strategies should be a positive approach to teacher development and
learning. Little (1990) states that, “researchers have ascribed various benefits to teacher
collaboration, among them student achievement in inner-city schools, teacher morale in
terms of stress, support for innovation, and an easing of the ‘reality shock’ visited on
beginning teachers” (p. 509). Both Hargreaves and Little suggest that the right type of
collaboration should yield positive outcomes; however under the conditions at Westside
Elementary, this type of collaboration has not produced the desired results at all times.

While the required grade level meetings with the literacy coach have not yielded a
collaborative teacher culture, it is important to note the importance of context. On
different occasions it appears that Emily and Maggie are engaged in a type of co-
resistance as they speak sarcastically about being in compliance and the Houghton
Mifflin Teacher edition as “the bible” (Emily, co-planning, 9/7/04). Throughout the

study, it became apparent that context is critical. During grade level meetings, Maggie is

129.

silent. Outside of these meetings she demonstrates similar mild irritation and sarcasm
toward the required basal reading program as Emily. This suggests that the participants
present in the space, the time of the school year, the physical space, and recent events
influence the type of collaboration that occurs. It would be misleading to state that
Westside Elementary is a collaborative or contrived teacher culture at all times. Rather,
the type of collaboration that occurs can vary along a continuum of more or less
collaborative or contrived due to a number of factors.

Additional research cites collaboration as critical for teacher learning and
development (Apthorp, Bodrova, Chen & Miller, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 1998; Dean,
& Florian, 2001; Little, 1993; St John, Manset, Chung & Worthington, 2001; Short,
1992). St John et al (2001) state that opportunities for collaboration should provide time
so that, “groups of professionals at schools can work together to solve the school
problems most critical to student learning” (p. 3). In this case, the critical problem is
literacy planning and instruction using Houghton Mifflin and following the requirements
of Reading First. Furthermore, in their study, St John et al found that, “when teachers
have time to collaborate, they exhibit an increased capacity to keep more students
achieving at grade level” (p. 19). Stigler and Hiebert (1999) also found that student
achievement increased when, “the school has been restructured to provide time for
teacher collaboration and even cross-school observations by teachers” (p. 145). At
Westside Elementary, teachers have weekly opportunities to work together through the
Reading First mandate; however generative collaboration is not a guaranteed outcome.

Stigler and Hiebert state:

130

Indeed, teachers who are told simply to collaborate often find that they are not
sure what they are supposed to do, or how such collaborations can help them to
improve their teaching. One school district that restructured to allow teachers time
to collaborate found within months that teachers were complaining about the time
they were supposed to spend meeting together. ‘Let’s just go home early,’ said
one of the teachers, ‘and use the time at home to prepare for tomorrow’s lessons.’
(p. 149)

Hargreaves (1994) explains this type of outcome as a result of teachers having different
life circumstances. He states that, “The teachers’ work is highly contexted. It is not and
cannot be standardized in the way that administrators sometimes want it to be” (p. 198).
Providing time for collaboration can not guarantee generative collaboration between
teachers, nor a common vision and motivation to make that vision a reality. St. John et al.
caution against the oversimplification of the complexity of reforming programs, such as
the literacy program at Westside Elementary. A lack of collegiality can also contribute to
work-related stress (Chen & Miller, 1997). This will be examined in depth as I discuss
collaboration and the complex relationships between Emily and various colleagues,
particularly the other third grade teacher, principal, and literacy coach.

Power and empowerment play a tremendous role in the nature of the relationships
between these four women discussed in the next section. This includes Barbara, the
principal; Linda, the literacy coach and Reading First representative; Maggie, a third
grade teacher; and Emily. Barbara has empowered Emily, which is made evident through
interactions with Linda. Acker-Hocevar and Touchton (1999) state that, “Teachers cannot

be given power (empowered) without accepting it. This has to occur on the part of

131

teachers. On the other hand, administrators must know how to create conditions that
foster empowerment and release their control over teachers, alter their roles, and
engender commitment, trust and respect” (p. 26). Emily readily accepts empowerment
from Barbara. She knows she has the trust and respect of her principal and is able to use
this as leverage with Linda in resisting Houghton Mifflin and Reading First.

Short (1992) discusses power and empowerment as, “Empowerment has been
defined as a process whereby school participants develop the competence to take charge
of their own growth and resolve their own problems. Empowered individual believe they
have the skills and knowledge to act on a situation and improve it” (p. 5). Emily has been
granted power from Barbara and uses this, not only in her relationship with Linda, but to
control the type of literacy instruction that occurs in her classroom. Throughout the study,
Emily demonstrates three key components of empowerment described by Short. These
include:

0 Status: Status as a dimension of empowerment refers to teacher perceptions that
they have professional respect and admiration fiom colleagues. In addition,
teachers believe that they have colleague support. Teachers also feel that others
respect their knowledge and expertise. (p. 10)

o Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy refers to teachers’ perceptions that they have the skills
and ability to help students learn, are competent in building effective programs for
students, and can effect changes in student learning. (p. 11)

o Autonomy: Autonomy, as a dimension of empowerment, refers to teachers’

beliefs that they can control certain aspects of their work life. This may be control

132

over scheduling, curriculum, textbooks, and instructional planning. The hallmark

of autonomy is the sense of freedom to make certain decisions. (p. 12)

Emily’s status is increased by her support from Barbara. She believes she can make the
best decisions for the literacy development of her third graders, and builds a program
outside of the required curriculum. Emily is adamant about controlling the type of
curriculum and instructional planning her students receive.

Emily and Maggie

The exchange which began this chapter, between Emily and Maggie, is worth
analyzing at multiple levels. In an earlier Reading First grade level meeting, Maggie
mentions not receiving the money or materials they were promised, and asks why the
teachers should do the program. She is frustrated because by the time the district ordered
materials, they were no longer available. Maggie’s negativity toward Reading First and
Houghton Mifllin is blatant and similar to the sentiment Emily shares throughout the
study. This was a rare instance when the third grade teachers were resisting together
during the mandatory collaborative meeting.

In other conversations with Emily (Co-planning, 9/21/04; Co-planning, 12/14/04)
she shares how Maggie does not speak in meetings, thereby undermining the goal of
collaborative meetings. The effect is opposite to what certain studies indicate, which is,
“collective participation of teachers from the same grade or department provides more
active learning opportunities for the participants” (Apthorp et al, 2001 , p. 123). Emily’s
response is, “I know she’s a good teacher, but she does not share” (Emily, co-planning,
9/21/04). This is incredibly fi'ustrating because Emily typically talks and asks questions

while Maggie listens. Little (1990) describes this type of situation as, “Perhaps the single

133

most pervasive expectation among teachers is that colleagues will give one another help
and advice when asked” (p. 515). This is the best case scenario. Alternative, Little warns:
Discussion about practices of teaching, under such circumstances, becomes
difficult to separate from judgments of the competence of teachers.
Understandably, teachers may show little inclination to engage with peers around
matters of curriculum and instruction if doing so can only be managed in ways
that may jeopardize self-esteem and professional standing (p. 516).
Perhaps Maggie does not speak as a way to protest the required meetings. Or, she may be
protecting her image as a competent literacy teacher who does not need to ask for help.
These are merely speculations since this research focuses on Emily; however Maggie’s
behavior is similar to teachers in related research. Phillippi (1998) found that teachers in
her study did not feel safe to ask questions and their silence is also a form of resistance.
Apple (1983) offers another possibility. He argues that prepackaged curricular systems
require less interaction for teachers since “nearly everything is rationalized and specified
before execution” and that “if everything is predetermined, there is no longer any
pressing need for teacher interaction. Teachers become unattached individuals, divorced
from both colleagues and the actual stuff of their work” (p. 152). This yields little need
for collaboration. In other arenas, such as factories, this type of deskilling led to
contradictory pressures and generated countervailing tendencies. These are all possible
explanations for the type of silence Maggie exhibits. Furthermore, Little argues that
teachers who are in the same unit, in this case grade level, may discover that they are at
odds in terms of literacy philosophy or pedagogy. Being in the same grade level does not

guarantee like-mindedness or a similar desire to share ideas about pedagogy.

134

Emily wishes she had time to meet with teachers who are also actively resisting
Reading First and Houghton Mifflin. She believes that other teachers “are not talking
about what they are doing in their classrooms and good teaching” (9/21/04). In
December, this topic resurfaces and Emily says:

I talk so differently with Maggie than I talk with (1St grade teacher). The

conversations I have with (1St grade teacher) is so different. With (1St grade

teacher) I talk the whole time about strategies and school and what are you doing
in this and I don’t ever talk with Maggie about this. The only time we do is during
grade level meeting and today she actually talked today and I wasn’t there. That’s
when she talks. She talks when I’m not in the room and so that’s only when she
talks... so I don’t know what that’s about. Something’s not right when I’m in the

room. (Emily, co-planning, 12/7/04)
Emily refers to this again the following week by saying, “Maggie doesn’t talk when I’m
in the room, so it’s something to do with me. I don’t know what I do. I make her feel
uncomfortable in some way because she doesn’t discuss when I’m there. So. . . so I don’t
like that” (Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04). From these statements it is evident that Emily’s
ideal culture aligns closely with Acker-Hocevar and Touchton’s (1999) definition of
“collaboration teacher culture”. In collaboration teacher culture, teachers are empowered
which:

...fosters and builds upon qualities of openness, trust and support between
teachers and their colleagues. Within this culture, collaborative working
relationships between teachers are spontaneous, emerging form the teachers

themselves; voluntary because of the perceived value of working together;

135

development-oriented, to meet the need, not the mandate of their won

professional confidence and expertise as a community; pervasive across time and

space, it is not a schedule activity; and outcomes are unpredictable because

discretion and control over what will be developed is within the control of the

teacher, not the mandate. (p. 14)
Westside Elementary has provided opporttmities for collaboration, which is critical for
teacher learning and growth as well as potential student achievement (Apthorp et al,
2001; Darling-Hammond, 1998; St John et al, 2001), however if all teachers are not
willing to speak and share ideas then the potential for growth is limited. The result is
tension and fi'ustration for Emily, who is genuinely anxious to collaborate with
colleagues. During an informal interview (2/16/05) Emily discusses collaboration
meetings the previous year as being more productive and enjoyable since there were three
teachers participating (Maggie, Emily and Mike). Mike, another third grade teacher, was
willing to share ideas as well as his successes and failures. He wanted to learn how to
improve his practice. Emily also recounts how she read Mosaic of Thought (Zimmerman
& Keene, 1997) and Strategies the Work (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000) for their meetings.
As it turns out, she was the only one that read which limited their conversations of the
texts.
Emily and Linda

Linda is the full-time literacy coach at Westside Elementary. Emily has shared
that Linda holds a Masters of Arts in Reading and has a long history of lower elementary
teaching experience. Each week, Linda meets with teachers by grade levels to provide

support for implementation of the Houghton Mifflin literacy curriculum. She is in a

136

precarious position since she represents Reading First, which many teachers at Westside
are covertly and overtly opposing to varying degrees. Roemer (1991) provides a possible
explanation for elements of tension between Linda and classroom teachers. In her study,
Roemer found that it is extremely difficult to create a community among participants
when their statuses and working conditions are unequal. Linda may be on the staff, but
her position represents a more powerful status than the teachers since she has to push the
implementation of an outside policy. Her working conditions are different. She is not in
the classroom planning and teaching the required core curriculum, rather, she acts as a
weekly reminder and enforcer of Reading First. By doing her job, Linda often makes
other people’s jobs more difficult to do.

Linda fulfills her role as literacy coach and Reading First representative by
visiting classrooms, providing resources, leading collaborative meetings, and offering
suggestions for literacy instruction. She was also responsible for teaching the Language
Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) in-service training sessions the
previous year. Emily suggests that Linda is more focused on working with the
Kindergarten through second grade teachers, than the third grade teachers. This year,
Linda has not been able to increase the third grade teachers’ willingness and ability to
collaborate or “increase individual teacher knowledge about other teachers’ classrooms”
(p. 4) which Symonds (2003) states is an important characteristic of an effective literacy
coach. Linda has not been able to act as an advocate between teachers and district
leaders, which Symonds suggests is part of the role of a literacy coach. Linda represents
Reading First and her alliance tends to be with the district more than the teachers. Both

Emily and Barbara have commented on not being a Reading First school next year, which

137

means that Linda will be transferred to a different Reading First school. In a way, the
teachers can wait out this part of the mandate and return to their “real” curriculum
(Anagnostopoulos & Rutledge, 2004) and school culture prior to NCLB and Reading
First.

A thorough description of Linda’s role is provided in the Reading First grant
application”. Her essential duties and responsibilities are tremendous for one person and
particularly difficult given the context. Emily, and possibly the other teachers realize that
Linda may not be at the school next year. They also recognize Linda’s dual role of
literacy coach and Reading First representative. For Linda it may be difficult to enter
other teachers’ classrooms since this is not typical of elementary school culture (Lortie,
1975), but when the individual attempting to enter is forcing a mandate on her colleagues
and representing the district more than her colleagues, it creates futile situations. Linda’s
responsibilities, according to the grant are:

0 Provide leadership and support for Kindergarten through third grade classroom
teachers and Kindergarten through twelfth grade special education teachers

0 Foster a climate of learning and support among teachers

0 Effectively focus group dialogue, cultivate individual and group resources, and
effect attitudes and performance toward best practice

0 Model effective instructional strategies and assessment techniques

0 Coach teachers in implementing effective evidence-based instructional strategies
in classrooms

0 Plan and consult with teachers

 

29 Reading First Grant Application: http:fr'www.michigangov-"documcntsf' I -
05'Versi0n_3 Reading First__l l 1599_7.pdf

 

 

138

0 Document progress of teachers and students through careful data collection

0 Attend regular meetings of Reading First literacy coaches at the regional level
Later in this section, Emily discusses what Linda does to support her and how this does
and does not fit Emily’s idea of an effective literacy coach as well as the description of
her position provided by the Reading First grant.

During a co-planning session in the fourth week of school, Emily is anxious to

share a conversation that occurred between Linda and herself. She is upset by the
exchange and shares what happened:

Linda approached me yesterday and said, are those normal centers that you do on
Friday and let me rephrase that, anyway, we were in the copy room and she said,
are you doing the five parts of literacy30 and I said do you mean phonics, reading,
writing, and... anyways, she said are you doing that and I said ‘yes, I’m doing
that.’ And she said are you using the core cuniculum and I said, what is the core
curriculum? (laughs) and she said Houghton Mifflin. And I said, Linda, you know
I’m not using that. I use it once a week now and that’s really good for me and I’m
doing the vocabulary and I’m doing parts of it but I’m not using it every day. She
said, you need to be using Houghton Mifflin every day and I said I am not going
to use Houghton Mifflin everyday. For one thing, I sat in that meeting with you
last year and I told you that if you were going to make me do Houghton Mifflin
that I am not in the right grade, that I am not going to use Houghton Mifllin, that I
do not think that teaches reading in an appropriate way and I do not think it gets
kids excited about reading. I sat in that meeting and I told you and I told the
Reading First person and I told Barbara and Barbara told me... So I said I am not
the right person for third grade and Barbara turned to me and said ‘yes, you are
the right person to teach third grade.’ So you have to know that part of the reason
that I’m able to do this is because I have principal support. And she told me you
know you need to use it and I said until Barbara tells me I need to use it, I’m not.
I’m teaching in a way that I think is appropriate to kids and you know that way.
You know that this is not the program that gets kids excited about reading.
(Emily, co-planning, 9/21/04)

During this conversation, Emily draws on three types of “gatekeeping” (Coburn, 2001)

against literacy instruction to defend her reason for not using the core cuniculum. Her

 

3° The five essential components of reading instruction that are required by Reading First are: phonemic
awareness, systematic, explicit phonics, vocabulary development, oral reading fluency and comprehension
strategy instruction. Description available at ht_tp://www.michigan.gov/documents/1-

05 Version 3 Reading First 111599 7.9g

139

rationale for not relying on the Houghton Mifflin literacy series, borrowing from
Cobum’s list in gatekeeping against messages about reading, were: (1) “Too difficult for
her students”, (2) “Completely outside the bounds of comprehension”; and (3) “Doesn’t
fit”. (p. 154 - 155). Emily has commented on several occasions that the curriculum is too
difficult for her students, so she chooses curriculum that is more supportive of their
needs. Second, Emily sees some of the approaches as beyond comprehension in terms of
motivating the students. Houghton Mifflin encourages teachers to use repetition to teach
and Emily believes this is boring and disengaging for students. Finally, Coburn (2001)
discusses in her study how, “Most teachers in the school had well-developed and quite
complicated structures for teaching reading in their classrooms- ways of organizing time
and children, materials that they used, and kinds of activity structures” (p. 155), as is the
case with Emily. She assumes that Linda recognizes these barriers and disincentives to
using the core curriculum and treats these as gatekeepers to maintain her own pedagogy
outside of Houghton Mifflin and Reading First.

A common characteristic of the literacy coach’s role is to conduct classroom
observations. Symonds (2003) describes this as “the glue between coached collaboration
sessions and classroom practice. After a collaboration session, a coach will observe a
lesson and then debrief with the teacher or debrief with the grade-level group” (p. 15). At
no point has Emily mentioned collaboration in developing a lesson and having Linda
observe. In the above passage, Linda’s observation was focused on whether or not Emily
was using Houghton Mifflin, rather than the quality of literacy instruction she observed.

Linda has visited Emily’s room on several occasions when I was present, and her visits

140

lasted no more than 10 minutes as she moved about the room to see the activities children
were engaged in during center time.

During the next co-planning session several weeks later, Emily repeats the
exchange between Linda and herself, nearly verbatim, but with increased anger. She says,
“They don’t like me because I’m outspoken” (Emily, co-planning, 11/9/04). Emily
continues to talk about Houghton Mifflin and how a representative visited her room
during the first year of Reading First in 2003 - 2004 and sent a memo to her principal
about how she was not using the materials. Emily said the representative needed to come
in her room for a week to observe her, not a half hour two or three times in the year.
However, the Reading First grant only requires visits by state Reading First Facilitators
three times each year to observe and interview the teachers. Emily says the visitors
believe that, “if I’m not doing Houghton Mifflin everyday, then I’m not teaching”. This is
her belief about Linda as well. Emily completes this retelling by stating, “Fortrmately I
have a very supportive boss”. Her principal has commented, “It’s because you open your
mouth and say I’m going to teach a way that’s appropriate” (Emily, co-planning,
11/9/04). I ask what the consequences are for not using the core curriculum materials and
Emily replies that her principal said not to worry since they will most likely not be a
Reading First school next year since their scores will probably improve. Sarcastically,
Emily says the scores will go up “because I taught Houghton Mifflin.” She also shares
that Linda will be moved to a different school but does not indicate how she feels about
this. Emily’s experiences and feelings are echoed in Phillippi’s (1998) study in which
teachers were also required to use a basal. One teacher in her study comments, “. . .you

had a book and it was mandated fi'om the top and you do it and you feel as if you’re not

141

doing a good job if you don’t get through the whole boo ” (p. 6). Pressure to use the
required basal is present in both studies, making the teachers feel badly about their
pedagogy, even when they know it goes against their beliefs of effective literacy
instruction.

In late November, Emily shares her frustration in not knowing how to teach parts
of speech in a way that is engaging and clear for her students. She spends the least
amount of time on this because she can’t see the value in teaching parts of speech
separate from reading and writing. During their weekly meeting, Emily asked Linda for
suggestions in how to teach this. Linda’s response was if Emily were using the core
curriculum she would be teaching this. This is not helpful. During the co-planning
session, Greg and Emily discuss this matter further:

Emily: If I did a workbook page, then maybe that would Work

Greg: Oh yeah, maybe that would make it sink in (both laugh)

Emily: I mean, do they really think that works?

Greg: Just because they spend time on it doesn’t mean it works. Well, I guess
you’re hitting on it... (Co-planning, 11/30/04)

In the end, they brainstorm centers that they can create to teach and reinforce parts of
speech.

During the final co-planning session on December 14, Emily and Greg are both
irritated by a situation that occurred earlier in the day regarding the required Reading
First grade level meeting, involving Maggie and Linda:

Emily: Okay, they met today at lunch, Linda did.

Greg: Yah, I heard.

Emily: But they didn’t tell us. Why didn’t they come down and get us?

142

Greg: Yah, I don’t know.

Emily: So they must not have really cared. That’s what I felt like.

Greg: Yah. Maggie was like, yah, thanks for skippin’ and I was like, ‘what?’

Emily: 1 went down there and there was no one there. (Co-planning, 12/14/04)
Whether or not Linda was responsible for ensuring that Greg and Emily participate in the
meeting is unclear. However, Linda’s role as the literacy coach is to create situations for
collaboration and to support the teachers. From this exchange it is evident that being
excluded from the meeting is a sensitive topic for Emily and Greg, making Emily feel as
though she is not valued or cared about by her colleagues. Kane and Montgomery (1998)
discuss potential outcomes from this incident of dysempowerment for Emily and Greg.
They state that, “negative attitudes and behaviors resulting from an individuals’
dysempowerment may spread vicariously to others in the group. . . generating a climate of
collective dysempowerment.” (p. 269). In this situation, Emily feels dysempowered, as
though her dignity has been affronted and a “violation of a fundamental norm of
consideration and respect” (p. 262) occurred. As the conversation between Greg and
Emily continued, he recognized this breach of collegiality, agreeing and siding with
Emily.

As a representative of Reading First and the one to enforce Houghton Mifflin,
Linda is at a disadvantage among her educator peers. Symond’s (2003) discusses the
importance of how a literacy coach is brought to the staff. She states:

If literacy coaching is an afterthought or an add-on, teachers won’t buy into the

strategy. Teachers are highly attuned to “fads” thrust upon them from

administrators and if they are truly to trust and welcome literacy coaches into

143

their classrooms and work seriously at changing their practice, they must feel

confident that literacy coaches are connected with their districts’ long-term plans.

(p. 38)
Unfortunately for Linda, the staff knows that once they are released from the Reading
First mandate, she will be transferred to another school. Linda is very much a “fad” of No
Child Lefl Behind. As a result, Emily’s role has become the questioner and talker during
meetings, Maggie is silent, and Linda is policing the use of Houghton Mifflin. The
structure is ideal for creating fi'ustration and tension among colleagues rather than a
collaborative teacher culture.
Barbara

Barbara has been the principal of Westside Elementary for four years. Previously
she spent many years in the classroom as an elementary teacher and substituted as a
principal at another elementary school in the district. In a meeting with seniors from the
teacher education program at the local university Barbara explains how Westside
Elementary is a Reading First school and the focus on literacy achievement is primarily
for grades Kindergarten through third. She is pleased to share that the students were 80%
proficient on language arts for 2003 - 2004 but this makes it difficult to make AYP for
the current school year. They were designated as a failing school since their test scores
decreased for five years. Barbara expresses concern with being a Reading First school
because she feels that, “It does not leave teachers with choice in instruction. Teachers
need choice” (Barbara, presentation, 9/9/04). Goodman (1988) also argues that thoughtful
and creative teachers need space to make meaningful instructional and curricular

decisions to prevent a loss of pride in their work. He warns that, “After enough time

144

passes, even initial talent and craftsmanship will eventually atrophy. Then, teachers may
become permanently disenfranchised” (p. 205).

Barbara recognizes the high-stakes involved for teachers as well as her and
finishes the talk by telling the seniors that during the ninety minutes of literacy each
morning, she can not plan fire drills and teachers can not teach math. The Reading First
grant clearly states that a literacy block cannot be interrupted by announcements,
assemblies, field trips, or other activities3 1. Barbara does not directly state this as a
problem; however, by the context it suggests that this is not something she believes is
reasonable for an elementary school.

In a conversation the previous semester, Barbara told me under no uncertain terms
that the teachers hosting seniors could not teach math one day a week for the seniors’
placement. Barbara knows what is being taught in classrooms, but it was her duty to tell
me- the representative of the university methods course in math and literacy for the
seniors. Eventually the district made an exception so that teachers were allowed to switch
their literacy and Math lessons on Thursdays, when the seniors were in the classrooms to
observe math. I knew that Barbara did not have a personal problem with the teachers
switching the lessons, but she needed to make sure she told me they were following the
Reading First grant guidelines. Like Emily, Barbara is trying to be in compliance, even
when it goes against her better judgment.

Another duty Barbara must contend with is making sure the teachers are
administering the Houghton Mifflin Integrated Theme tests several times per year. When

I asked Emily what the principal does with the scores, she replied that Barbara just

 

3' Reading First grant: h ://www.michi . ov/documents/Readin First FA 115984 7.

145

needed to know teachers were doing the tests. The scores were not used for any particular
purpose to Emily’s knowledge.
Barbara and Emily

Emily is forthright with her negative feelings toward Houghton Mifflin and
Reading First. Before the start of the school year Emily told her principal that she was
questioning whether or not she should teach third grade since it is closely monitored by
Reading First representatives. Barbara, who knows Emily does not rely on the core
curriculum, insisted that Emily remain at third grade. This is an example of Emily feeling
supported by her principal and she made this clear to colleagues, particularly Linda.
During confrontations, Emily tells others that she has the support of the principal and if
they have issues with her literacy instruction then they need to speak with the principal.
Barbara’s relationship with Enrily demonstrates respect and admiration between
educators. In various ways, Barbara is both fulfilling her role as a principal of a Reading
First school and supporting Emily. Acker-Hocevar and Touchton (1999) describe her
actions as when, “Principals might play a sponge role in protecting teachers from
unnecessary pressures from their districts and the state” (p. 27) and “administrators have
a direct influence on power relationships within their schools” (p. 10). Emily knows she
can tell Linda to talk to Barbara if she is not pleased with Emily’s teaching. Barbara’s
support has certainly influenced the power relationship between Emily and Linda. As an
administrator held accountable for the students’ test scores, Barbara is protecting herself
by allowing Emily to teach in an effective way. Maeroff (1988) describes her actions as,
“Administrators must learn that empowering teachers is in administrators’ own best

interests- and, more important, in the best interest of students” (p. 477). Experience has

146

taught Barbara to empower and trust Emily to teach in a way that is most effective, even
when it is out of compliance with the requirements of the Reading First grant.

The relationship dynamics between Linda, Maggie, Emily and Barbara are
complex. Sarason (1990) argues that educational reformers avoid addressing existing
power relationships which undermines reform. According to Shannon (1989), teachers
and administrators in his research functioned in a scientifically arranged organization
similar to a large modern corporation with a formal hierarchy of authority with varying
power. Each worker had a respective role to firlfill and had internalized a system of
thought necessary for production and was able to justify their use, or forcing others use,
of commercially produced basal programs. In short, “There was an acknowledged
separation of roles in the program- administrators were to set policy and teachers were to
follow that policy. Policy was translated into practice through a single set of basal
materials...” (p. 57). From a surface observation, the same might be said of Westside
Elementary. The district selected Houghton Mifflin, in response to being a Reading First
school, and it is the responsibility of the principal and the literacy coach to force teachers
to use the core curriculum. A more in-depth look shows that all participants except Linda
are resisting the organization and its demands to conform to the Reading First mandates.
If educational reformers are truly interested in seeing change in outcomes, these complex
relationships need further consideration and attention in future reforms.

Power and empowerment
Acker-Hocevar and Touchton (1999) define empowerment as:
a cognitive response to work conditions that either increase one’s sense of

intrinsic motivation or decrease it. In terms of hierarchical relations we view

147

teachers’ access to power relations through applying the ‘rules of the game’ to

attain preferred outcomes. In other words by having a working knowledge of the

system and how to get around certain obstacles in the formal power structures,

these teachers might affect change. (p. 3)
The four individuals discussed so far (Emily, Maggie, Barbara and Linda) are working
within and against formal power structures initiated by Reading First and Houghton
Mifflin. Each individual is working to affect change in different ways. Linda is using her
role as the literacy coach and Reading First representative to enforce mandates, while
Emily is resisting and negotiating these same mandates. Maggie is silent in meetings, but
vocal and in agreement with Emily outside of Reading First meetings and away from
Linda. Barbara, who is ultimately responsible for enforcing mandates at the district, state,
and national level, supports the teachers and their right to make choices, but can not make
this known to “outsiders”. In the following section I describe the literacy practices Emily
employs, despite mandates at the district, state, and national level.

Resistance: Practices unrelated to Houghton Mifflin or Reading First
“How could they not think that writing is part of literacy? It is imperative to

getting kids to read.” (Emily, co-planning, 9/21/04)

Reading First requires teachers to use the daily ninety minute literacy block for
reading and language arts. The district, however, has altered the language from the
Reading First grant application, and requires teachers to teach reading, not writing dming
this time (see Pardo, 2005). Ironically, the Houghton Mifflin literacy series includes

reading and writing in the teacher’s edition, making it inconsistent with the district’s

148

interpretation of the Reading First mandate. In the Reading First grant application
section, Frequently Asked Questions, it suggests that teachers continue writing beyond
the ninety minute block, but does not require the exclusion of writing. In fact, it states,
“We always ask districts to think about how effectively/thoroughly teachers are
implementing the comprehensive program and how well teachers understand what
writing shows as a window into students’ literacy understanding” (p. 3).

During every observation of literacy instruction, Emily followed the philosophy
of the district’s Balanced Literacy program which strongly encourages teachers to engage
their students in reading, writing, listening and speaking during the literacy block. Each
of these four areas was included whether students were engaged in centers, Book Club, or
special projects. Emily consistently followed “on-target” literacy practices and avoided
“off-target” literacy practices outlined by the US. Department of Education report. For
“on-target” practices she had created a literacy block in which “(1) students are
surrounded with literature and are given opportrmities to read and be read to; staff also
teach specific skills through reading, writing, speech, and music, and (2) students use
simple rubrics to assess their own and peer students’ work on a regular basis throughout
the year” (p. 5). Emily’s students were reading, writing and speaking with one another
throughout daily center times. As a whole group, the children sang various songs each
morning by reading the lyrics on a handout. The songs ranged from holiday tunes in
German and popular music by Mariah Carey to silly songs that required phonic
substitution and blending. The children also used rubrics for their writing and engaged in
group time to assess one another’s writing during Book Club (Raphael, 2002). Avoiding

“off-target” literacy practices meant circumventing the following: “(1) staff rely on basal

149

textbooks/reading series to determine the balance of phonics and literature, and rarely
supplement the curriculum, and (2) during small group instruction, most students do seat
work using worksheets, while a small group of students receives literacy instruction” (p.
3). Emily’s practice is a blend of “unofficial” curriculum and children are engaged in
various literacy activities while Emily works with small groups for Guided Reading. The
next section will discuss Emily’s pedagogy unrelated to Houghton Mifflin, which met the
effective literacy practices outlined in the US. Department of Education report.
Centers
Emily draws upon a variety of resources for her centers. She shares with Greg and
me how using centers has not always been easy, but has become a valued element of her
literacy practice. During a co-planning session in December, she says:
So when I started centers it was very... l started slow. And no one gave me
permission to do that- I just needed to do that and if I hadn’t I wouldn’t have done
it. No one would have. . . I did dumb things, like write your words 5 times each,
like we did that on the white boards and that is how you have to start it out... to
do all these new things they have NO idea what to do, you know, and we repeated
a lot of the same things- they need repetition and that kind of stuff. If you do one
new thing it’s okay. And I taught fourth grade and it’s very different in fourth and
fifth grade. Third grade, there’s some skills I really need to get done- not the same
skills, I would just do it differently. (Emily, co-planning, 12/7/04)
During the five months I was in Emily’s room, I observed a tremendous range of

activities. These included, but were not limited to:

150

1. Guided Reading with Emily 10. GeoSafari: phonics

2. spelling/phonics 11. ordering sentences into a paragraph
3. listening center 12. ordering words into sentences
4. Wheel of Words: word study 13. magnetic sentences
5. plays 14. guess the covered word
6. Vowel crosses: phonics 15. Venn diagrams
7. poetry and parts of speech 16. art
8. writing center 17. reading
9. computer: spelling, phonics, 18. contractions
parts of speech 19. word wall/stamping

Students enjoyed the centers, which were appropriate for their range of ability levels.
During the beginning of the year, the majority of the planning time was spent teaching
Greg how to organize and coordinate centers for maximum engagement and textual
production. As the year progressed, the time to plan centers decreased as Greg learned the
purpose of each centers and how to pair and select appropriate centers.

Children also used listening centers during DEAR time. Emily had three listening
centers in January, so students could listen to full texts and read along. The centers were
for Mr (Armstrong, 1972), Pippi Longstockjng (Lindgren, 1997), and The Watsons
go to Birmingham (Curtis, 1963). Emily taught them how to look for the last word in the
sentence to read along and know what the reader has just finished reading. She feels this
is another way to teach reading and offers students a chance to read entire novels that are

interesting and appropriate for their reading level.

151

Book Club

Emily makes time for Book Club (Raphael, 2002) nearly every day, whether this
is done as a read aloud and partner reading, or part of a center. For example, during the
mystery unit she made time with the “official” Book Club format, centers, and sustained
silent writing time. For the week of September 21”, Book Club was interspersed in the
literacy block as follows:

Table 4: Weekly activities related to Book Club

 

Day ACtIVIty

 

Monday Writing center: continue work on mystery stories

 

Tuesday 0 Emily read the first two chapters of Box gr Children
0 She uses five students and a sample writing to do fish bowl to model

how students are to discuss in their groups

 

Wednesday Book Club:

0 Model character map from a previous book, Cam Jansen
Writing

0 Emily models how to write a “good” problem

0 Students work on their character and setting for their mystery story

 

Thursday Book Club:

0 Emily discusses the packets that go along with the book and various
writing activities students can choose to do and discuss in their small
groups

0 Emily models illustrating a picture from the text that is not in the text

 

 

Friday No Book Club activities planned

 

 

152

 

When comparing books used in Book Club to the Houghton Mifflin anthology,
Emily discusses how excited the kids are about reading Cam Jansen (Adler & Natti,
1997) mysteries and The Box Car Children (Chandler Warner, 1977). We agree that there
is something special about holding an entire book in their hands rather than the heavy,
awkward anthology. Emily says, “When they are done with a story, there is no reason for
them to go on- to read more. Nobody goes and picks up the anthology” (Emily, co-
planning, 9/21/04) during their free time or sustained silent reading time, whereas
students will ask to continue reading their Book Club book independently. Emily also
recognizes the importance of varying the type of books she uses for Book Club, which
Apthorp et al. (2001) state is important for vocabulary development. They discuss the
impact of “wide reading... that is, reading many books fiom a variety of genres, about a
variety of topics, and at increasing levels of difliculty” (p. 10). Emily applies this theory
both to her selection of Book Club books and use of leveled books for Guided Reading.

During the second quarter, after completing the mystery unit, the genre of books
Emily and Greg select for Book Club shifts. The curriculum guide require a unit on fairy
tales, tall tales, and folk tales. Emily selects the two books, The Minstrel in the Tower
(Skurzynski, 1988) and The Whippmg Boy (Fleischman, 1986). During Greg’s guided
lead teaching32 in late October and early November, he uses the timeless fantasy book,
My Father’s Drggg (Gannett, 1948). A long conversation occurs during one of the co-
planning sessions when Greg asks Emily how she selects books for Book Club:

Greg: So when you select your books for Book Club, how do you, do you worry

about what other teachers have taught or will teach. I mean, how do you know
which books the second grade teacher-

 

” Interns are responsible for planning and teaching math and literacy for two weeks during this time, with
the support of their mentor.

153

Emily: I don’t. But you can look in the urn, Middleton School District pacing
guide. I try to pick text that, especially when I was at (another school) that kids
could relate to. I couldn’t pick the same text that even I pick now because it was
very different... And it depends on the kids you get...

Greg: Right. So how did you pick this- (The Minsftrel in the Tower)

Emily: Well this one I picked as the castle unit, I didn’t pick it- I read the book
and I said, ‘okay, this would be an okay book because there’s a boy and a girl in it
and this will relate well to Whipping Boy and they can make that text to text
connection here. I do think they’re going to be able to relate to the girl in here,
who’s kind of wild and the boy makes voices so I think there will be some things
in there that they’ll be able to relate to in there

Greg: Right. Because the thing is, with like MY Father’s Dragon, I didn’t really
pick it for any reason except that I read it and liked it and I knew it really well. . .

Emily: And that’s okay. I mean, I’ve done, you’ll see in January, I um. I bring in
a book that’s totally about me that I wrote, it’s a picture book, and I say, when I
have them write in January, I say you have to write with your heart. And this
you’ll see. . . my heart writing, and this you’ll see, this is my life - I’ll start to
make more connections with kids. .. and it’s just this picture book and it’s about
my life (there are some very personal, difficult topics in her story)

Greg: And do you think that by sharing they make a connection with you-
Emily: They make a connection with me

Greg: And then does that in turn make them connect with the writing because
they’ve seen you do it?

Emily: Yah, I think that helps and I think what happens is. . . 1 think it depends...
from the group, now some groups want to talk about what I wrote and some
groups sit back and say, ‘oh my gosh!’ and so some groups just really went off on
that tangent with how they relate to the book and other kids are more closed-
mouth and will go write about it. .. something that’s happened-

Greg: Do you ask them to write a response or just write their own?

Emily: No, we talk about it, and say now you need to write with your heart- really
need to do this with your heart. . . but it works really, really well. It’s really hard,
you know it’s really hard for me to do, but it’s worth it, every minute of it. (Co-
planning, 12/7/04)

154

The conversation turns to how some kids have more difficult experiences, related to
poverty and life circumstances to write about and share, while others do not.

Emily: Yah! And that’s fine because those kids can relate to all the other things in
the room, all the ways the middle class ways that I teach. ..

Greg: And the other kids... will have a more positive connection with those other
kids once they’ve heard those stories?

Emily: I think they understand more. I think they look at them and understand. I

don’t know if they think, ‘it’s okay that you don’t act right’, but I think there’s

more of an understanding.

Greg: Really? And they tolerate it more?

Emily: I think that they understand that not everyone is lucky. But those kids will

want me to read it right away, because teachers don’t really share that kind of

stuff. . . (Co-planning, 12/7/04)
The exchange that occms between Greg and Emily is powerful. Emily is explicit about
her pedagogy. She must share her rationale for selecting texts and making connections
with students in order to mentor Greg. These type of exchanges offer the researcher
unique insight into Emily’s decision making process and thoughts on pedagogy. Emily
takes her mentoring role seriously, equally committed to the learning and nurturing of her
students, and the preparation of future teachers in urban elementary schools. If the
researcher had asked the same question, it is not guaranteed that Emily would have
responded in the same way. The particular context allows for a rich, in-depth look at how
Emily is maintaining her craft given the political climate.

The conversation began with Greg asking Emily how she selects texts for Book
Club and developed into a much deeper discussion of how to relate to children through
literature. Emily chooses books that her children can identify with either the topics or

characters, and uses this to encourage and support their writing. She also shares her own

155

writing and how her life has had difficult points, which creates space for conversations
with students who have also had difficult experiences. To Emily, this is a natural
approach to teaching literacy. She is doing what Apthorp et al. (2001) found exemplary
teachers do. They state that teachers in large, urban districts, “designed instruction so that
students could bring their personal experiences to the classroom and didn’t shy away
from sensitive or uncomfortable issues that sometimes arose as a result” (p. 13). In fact,
Emily initiates and encourages difficult conversations in a safe space through literature,
her own writing, and her students’ writing. This is also an instance when Emily accesses
sociocultural theory to guide her practice. She considers the experiences of her students
and uses this to make decisions for selecting literature, knowing that the literature will be
a focal point for discussions. Emily recognizes the importance of knowing her children
well in order to select appropriate literature.

At different points in the semester Emily comments on not willing to give up
Book Club. She views it as an opportunity for children to not only interact with quality
full length narratives, but to make connections with both the text and Emily, and to
improve their writing. Through whole group discussions as well as Book Club groups,
Emily’s students are engaged in the type of thoughtful, literate conversations that
increase understanding and challenge students to make meaningful connections
(Allington, 2001; Apthorp et al, 2001). Emily believes that this is something that could
not be achieved with the Houghton Mifflin literacy program.
Final Days: Mystery Unit and Fairy Tale Ball

Emily enjoys and believes in teaching thematically, so the first semester revolves

around two units: (1) mysteries and (2) fairy tales, tall tales and folktales. Emily begins

156

each year with the mystery unit because the students typically become excited about the
books she selects for Book Club. It is also an effective way to engage students in writing,
by exciting them with quality texts and having them write their own mysteries. The
second unit, fairy tales, tall tales and folktales, is required for the second quarter by the
district curriculum guide. At the end of each unit, Emily organizes a special day when
students engage in a variety of literacy activities that reinforce what they have learned in
a creative, exciting, and memorable way. At the close of the mystery unit, Emily creates a
murder scene in the classroom and students become detectives. For the fairy tale, folk tale
and tall tale unit, Emily organizes a fairy tale ball which lasts the entire morning and
includes a range of centers, dancing, and fine dining.
Mystery Walk

On October 1”, I ducked under criss-cross “caution-crime scene” taped on the
door to enter a darkened classroom. Emily is dressed in a tan trench coat and Sherlock
Holmes type hat. The lights are turned out and the shades half-drawn as students work
silently at their desks. In a very serious tone, Emily tells her students, “There’s been a
crime”. Their interest is piqued and the excitement begins to grow as she gives each
student a packet of papers. Emily reads the directions aloud, interrupted once as a student
yells out, “There’s clues on the carpet!” referring to the “crime scene”. On the floor at the
“crime scene” are several gold jewelry pieces, an empty two liter bottle of Coke, two

piles of dirt with foot prints, a chalk outline of a body, and a note which reads:

157

“Meet me at I I :00 p. m. at Westside Elementary. You need to bring all of your

gold or I will reveal your secret to the world.

From,

You know who.

Students begin to work at their seats as Emily brings one group at a time to
examine the crime scene and take notes on the clues. Another group is guided out of the
room to start meeting suspects in the hall. Once all the students have visited the crime
scene, completed the worksheet and visited the suspects, they return to class for a
discussion. During the 100 nrinute activity, students have had to read, write, discuss,
predict, and rationalize. They used words and phrases Emily taught them during the
mystery unit such as evidence, suspects, guilty, motive, innocent, committed the crime,
detective, and clues. Throughout their discussion and debates as to who committed the
crime, the students are checking their notes to either support or refute classmates’
hypotheses. From this discussion, Emily is able to emphasize the importance of clues and
discusses how many students omitted clues in their mystery stories. Several children say,
“Ooh!” and a few laugh and nod. They are given time to amend their writing later in the
week. The following week the students have completed their mysteries and share with
their classmates during “author’s chair”33 .

It is now 11:00 am. and the crime has been solved. As Emily prepares the
students for recess they continue to ask if the crime was real. One student, who is sure

this was real, suggests that they contact the police before the suspect flees, now that they

 

3’ Authors chair is an opportunity for children to share their finished writing with their classmates. The
author sits in a chair and reads their work while classmates listen. Classmates then ask questions and share
comments about the writing. For a more detailed description see

ht_tp://olc.spsd.sk.ca/DE/PD/instr/strats/author/

158

know who committed the crime. Emily reassures them that once they return fiom recess
they will write a letter to the police explaining the motive and criminal as well as what
should happen to them. It probably helps that the glass door near their classroom is
cracked this morning so several students believe this is how the suspect tried to get into
the building.
Fairy Tale Ball

Today is January 20, 2005 and this is the final day of the fairy tale, tall tale, and
folk tale unit required by the district curriculum guide. Emily stayed late last night to
transform the library into a formal dining room. The tables are assembled into a long row,
covered with pink paper and full place settings with plates, cups, forks, and napkins. The
lights are out and there are pink candles lit and placed along the center of the table where
the children are sitting. Emily is dressed as a witch with a black hat and cape. Like Emily,
several students have dressed up for the ball. Many girls are wearing fancy princess
dresses and some are even in special shoes with their hair done. Most of the girls are
wearing heart headbands that Emily gave them. Three boys are dressed as Pecos Bill and
two are wearing knight costumes. One is dressed as Paul Bunyan, carrying an ax and a
stuffed blue dog made to look like Babe the Ox. The children listen as Emily explains the
centers for this morning. She occasionally refers to a packet that goes along with each
activity while the students read along.

There are five additional adults in the room. Emily’s mother and step-father were
called at the last minute to help. The school counselor as well as a student’s mom and his

aunt have volunteered to help with the ball. Emily has designed four centers which

159

include bingo and Reader’s Theatre in the library, a math center with graphing and
measurement of a giant in the hall, and a scavenger hunt through the halls of the school.
mgr;

Emily’s mom is leading this activity, calling out fairy tale titles, characters and types of
characters (i.e. prince, giant, king, and witch). Each child has a traditional bingo board
with a free space in the middle. When someone wins they are allowed to take a lollipop
fi'om a giant canister. Every student wins at least one lollipop before moving to the next
center.

_S_cavenger Hunt

The school counselor is leading the scavenger hunt. Fortunately she knows the students
by name and since this activity requires time in the halls, following directions to find the
next fairy tale posted in the halls, and a great deal of movement it’s helpful to have
someone familiar with the children. Emily has written extensive directions, which each
child must read to progress to the next clue. She has copied the covers of the stories,
which serve as the clues, and the students must write down the title as well as whether it
is a tall tale, fairy tale, or folk tale.

Mme/eMm the giant and graphing:

1n the hall is a large cut out poster of a giant that the kids are using to estimate parts of his
body and record in their packet. They estimate then measure various parts with a soft
measuring tape. Emily’s step-father is helping with this center. The students also choose
their favorite tale and put a cut out bear in the space to create a graph titled, “Our Class

Graph of Favorite Fairy Tale, Tall Tale or Folk Tale”. The graph includes Paul Bunyan,

160

Rough Faced Girl, Cinderella, Tale of Rabbit and Coyote, Three Billy Goats Gruff, Pecos
Bill and the Gingerbread Man.
gcader’s Theatre: “L_itt_le Late Riding Hood”
One student’s aunt and mother have come to help. His aunt begins guiding the students in
this center once Emily moves to another part of the room. Emily commented earlier that
the student’s mom does not speak English, which is why his aunt has accompanied her.
His mom is busy preparing the food during the centers time. Unfortunately the
paraprofessional arrives halfway through center time and the student’s aunt moves away
from the center to sit in a chair and watch. It was nice to see parents involved, which
Emily also values.
10:20 Dancinjg

Emily has assembled a CD player and a record player on the back table. Some of
the students are curious about the record player and I explain that it is similar to a CD
player and show them how the needle plays the record. They are absolutely fascinated-
particularly the aspiring DJ’s! Emily is encouraging all the students to dance and most of
them are anxious to participate. She plays music for “the cha-cha slide”, which is similar
to the electric slide with someone rapping what to do (move fiont, move back, left foot,
right foot, turn it out...). The second song is the Macarena, which many students seem to
already know. The next song is the Virginia Reel, which takes some time to explain. It is
a type of square dancing, which some of the kids said they hoped it wasn’t as soon as the
music started. However, it took little time for them to start dancing and enjoying
themselves. The final song is the Village People’s YMCA which nearly all the kids seem

to know, or quickly learn.

161

Once the music and dancing are done, the kids sit down to eat. They made pizzas
the day before, which Emily and the counselor pass out. There are also cookies, sweet
treats, J ell-O cups and soda. Two students have put on a Nelly CD and another student
brought a JoJo CD called “Fairy Tales””. Emily lets them play their music and the
majority of the kids are singing along.

Partner read with Kindergarten Class

Each Wednesday, Emily’s students go next door to partner read with the
Kindergarten class. Her students use their Guided Reading books that they have practiced
reading that week, to share with the Kindergarten students. The Kindergarten teacher and
Emily pair the students appropriately and will change partners if it seems necessary so
both students can feel successful and enjoy the time together. Emily believes this is a
great way for her students to practice reading to younger children and learn how to “be
the teacher” (Emily, informal interview, 2/16/05). She helps her own students by
selecting literature that the younger children would enjoy and instructs them in how to
share the pictures and get the younger children interested in the text.

Countries and winter holiday research reports

During the third week in November, Emily has her students begin researching a

country and how the people celebrate the winter holidays. Each pair of students has

selected one of the following countries:

 

3‘ JoJo (2004). Fairy Tales Album. Producer Vincent Herbert, Tre’ Black, Blackground Records.

162

0 Italy 0 Liberia 0 Korea

0 Poland 0 France 0 Hungary
0 Iceland 0 Hawaii 0 Finland
0 Brazil 0 Mexico

0 Norway 0 Germany

Students work in pairs and for the first time this year and are able to choose the
order of the centers they work in. Each student is responsible for their partner and their
own work. They receive a rubric on the first day and spend the next three weeks
completing their projects. The centers are:

1. Computer: Using an encyclopedia program, they look up information about their
country. They must also find the map for their country and print this to add to
their report

2. Make a cover page: This must include their name, the name of the country and an
illustration representative of their country

3. Visit the school library and find an informational book about their country (the
library is across the hall and Greg is there to help students find an appropriate
book)

4. Read an article about their cormtry and answer a set of questions

5. Read their library book about their country

6. Listening center: Make a little book that features various countries and how the
citizens celebrate the winter holidays
On November 23, I sat at the table where students were designing a cover for their

report. Emily is circulating the room, helping as needed. One student studying Iceland

163

has drawn a picture of an iceberg with a penguin on the cover. When Emily comes by, he
wants her to look at his work and says:

Student: Look! I drew a penguin.

Emily: Do they have penguins?

(S shrugs his shoulders and smiles)

Emily: Well, you better check. Is it cold?

Student: Yeah. That’s why I drew a glacier!

Emily: Okay, but you better check (referring to the penguin)
Emily moves around the table to look at the covers for the students who are studying
Hawaii.

Student: It’s hot (while she colors a sun)

Emily: How do you know?

Student: Because I read about it. And there’s not that much clouds in Hawaii

(Field notes, 11/23/04)
Emily then looks at the cover of the student researching Korea The child is uncertain of
what to draw so Emily suggests that she check her library book and read more about
Korea before designing her cover illustration. The student goes to her desk and returns
with her book about Korea. She spends some time flipping through pages, then settles on
a page with a picture of a fence and people and tries to replicate this on her cover. While
sitting at this table, I can hear snippets of conversations, such as:

Student 3: Do you know where the encyclopedia is?

Student 1: Over there

Student 3: Okay, I’ll go check it out. (Field notes, 11/23/04)

164

Students at this table are referring to the encyclopedia and their library books to
accurately portray their country with the cover illustration rather than relying on Emily as
the only source of information. Several students are helping each other with spelling and
discussing the different characteristics of their countries. At no point does Emily tell
students to work since they are motivated and engaged and visibly disappointed when it
is time to stop working.

Once students complete all of the centers, Emily makes time to model how to
write their information into paragraphs for a final report. They will all have the same
beginning and ending for their report, but the main sections will vary depending on the
students’ information. The final reports will be on display at the Parent Night function in
December. At that time, students are experts presenting information about their countries
to the visitors.

The previous examples of how Emily incorporates centers, Book Club, thematic
units, partner reading with the Kindergarten class, and research reports can occur because
she is able to hybridize her practice to address mandates. Her students score well on
assessments, thus validating her literacy practice and ensuring the support of her
principal. After fourteen years of teaching, she has the experience and background
knowledge necessary to navigate the school culture, even as a Reading First school, and
continue to keep her students engaged and improving as readers and writers. Through the
aforementioned practices she is able to teach particular skills and strategies listed in the
curriculum guides and found on standardized tests. Her negotiation and resistance require
a great deal of time and energy for careful planning and implementation, made evident

throughout this research.

165

After nine classroom observations, for a total of 17.5 hours it was evident that
Book Club and thematic units dominated over each of the other requirements. It is
important to note that the 105 minutes for assessment occurred on one day as Emily
administered the DIBELS assessment to her students, individually in the library, while
Greg taught centers in the classroom (Field notes, 9/17/04). The least amount of time was
spent on Houghton Mifflin and Reading First which are required by the district, along
with the curriculum guide. During co-planning sessions (9/7/04, 11/30/04, 12/7/04),
Emily commented on the utility of the curriculum guides and was willing to refer to them
periodically to shape her planning and instruction. By the second quarter she was able to
shape her thematic unit around the requirements of the curriculum guide, making the
curriculum guide more attractive and manageable. Figure 4 shows the total minutes for
each literacy requirement as well as Emily’s own literacy practices”.

Figure 4: Emily’s literacy instruction in minutes during classroom observations

 

Houghton Center: Book Club 8. Reading First DietrictIPaeing Assessment
Mifflin Thematic Units Guide

Final comments about Houghton Mifflin and Reading First
During a co-planning session in December, I ask Emily for some final thoughts

about Houghton Mifflin and Reading First given her comments at the beginning of the

 

35 For a detailed table showing each observation day and minutes per activity, see Appendix C.

166

year about using Houghton Mifflin more this year than last year. This is the end of the
first semester of the second year. She shared a month ago that the school will most likely
make AYP this year, which means they will keep the materials, but no longer need to
follow the Reading First mandates. I ask Emily about the rigidity of the Reading First
program and the use of the materials, to which she replied:

Emily: I think they’re just worried that you’re using it and that I think they do
want you to do certain skills and certain strategies, but I don’t, like I don’t think
they’re gonna have a problem with you teaching in a different way. I think they
want you to teach certain skills- I think it’s because I have a good principal, that it
doesn’t feel that rigid to me. They’ve been really flexible about it- about howl
teach. And Linda tried to be- she tried to be ‘you should be doing that all the
time’, but I said ‘no, I’m not doing it- I’m doing this. Talk to Barbara.’ So for me
it hasn’t been real rigid, but I’ve used more of it than I ever have. I’m really using
the small books all the time which I did last year too. I try to do more in centers, 1
try to do more vocabulary from it and I try to read the stories on Friday so I try to
do more of it. I don’t think it’s bad. I just don’t want to do it every day. I don’t
think it’s bad- and I don’t want to do a bunch of workbook pages because to me

that’s me giving them knowledge, that’s me figuring it out for them. I don’t know,
but maybe if we did they could do more independent work. . . I don’t know (we all
laugh). NO! I’m serious- it’s hard! Don’t you think it’s hard?

Jodene: Well, just by giving them worksheets, they’re doing it independently
Emily: Maybe I should just teach Houghton Mifflin for a year and find out-

Jodene: See what happens! But you won’t next year because you won’t have to
use it-

Emily: So I can’t! I just can’t do it! (all laughing) I guess I’m not very flexible.
(Co-planning, 12/14/04)
Ironically, Emily’s pedagogy is remarkably flexible. Throughout the semester she
demonstrated her knowledge of elementary literacy, attention to students’ literacy
development, and remarkable modeling for her intern in terms of planning and instructing
with Reading First, Houghton Mifflin and the district curriculum guides. She has

managed to balance these priorities and requirements through hybridization and

167

innovative instruction. Emily continually resists certain requirements, takes “snippets” of
what seems reasonable, and keeps her students’ learning as the focal point in literacy

planning and instruction.

168

Chapter 7
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Tests don’t improve student learning, teachers do. A curriculum alone doesn’t

improve student learning. But teacher-guided student interactions with the

curriculum and teacher selections of elements for discussion, expansion, and

emphasis do. High standards alone don’t improve student learning. But teachers

who communicate high expectations by providing intellectually challenging

learning activities and materials do. (Apthorp, Bodrova, Dean, & Florian, 2001)

The guiding question for this research developed two years ago from my curiosity
as to how Emily was managing district curriculum guides, test preparation for district,
state, and national exams, a required basal literacy program, and her own best practices. I
learned of Emily’s innovative teaching through a former intem’s emails and
conversations with seniors completing their literacy field placement in her room. As a
former third grade teacher in California in urban schools similar to Westside Elementary
and a former literacy coach in the district, I wanted to learn more about her pedagogy.
After six months of co-planning sessions, observations of literacy instruction, and
conversations, I realized that Emily’s practice was far more complex than I could have
imagined in August, 2004. While reading through pages of transcription, it became
apparent that multiple theories, such as collaboration and power/empowerment, needed to
be explored while theories I assumed to explain her practice from the beginning, became
irrelevant. The findings fi'om this research add to current research about what happens
when policy meets practice, as well as possible types of collaboration. It exposes the

challenges faced by a third grade teacher in an urban school district who is negotiating

169

and resisting current policies at the district, state, and national level. As I conclude this
study, I believe Emily’s practice has a great deal to both challenge and add to our
knowledge of teacher education programs, cuniculum development, and education policy
in regard to elementary literacy.

Cohen and Ball (1990b) state:

New policies can only reach the practice that they seek to correct by way of the

teachers who have fashioned the practices that want correction. Teachers are at

once the agents who cause the instructional problems that state and federal

policies of this sort seek to correct and the agents for their correction. (p. 336)
Emily does not completely dismiss the mandates, nor does she see her literacy instruction
as problematic. She acknowledges the constraints created by these various policies, but
does not allow these to corrupt her practice and what she knows is best for her students.
Instead she hybridizes her own best practices with the useful materials and ideas fiom
Reading First, the Houghton Mifflin basal reading program, and the district curriculum
guide. She is selective, extremely thoughtful, and intentional. To describe her practice as
resistant to policy would belittle the energy, thought, and time she invests in planning and
instruction. To describe Emily as needing more professional development to understand
the intentions of the policy, similar to Cohen’s (1990) suggestion with Mrs. Oublier,
would also degrade Emily’s practice. She understands the intent of the policies, but
chooses what is appropriate for her students based on her professional experiences and
knowledge and familiarity with her students.

Emily manifests St. John, Manset, Chung and Worthington’s (2001) warning that,

“Policy makers and educators should be more skeptical about the claims made by

170

researcher/reforms. . . while the new wave of research-based reading reforms holds
promise, it is far fi'om a panacea for educators” (p. 23). Emily exercises her power to
make this a reality in her classroom. She shares her skepticism about the core curriculum
based on genuine attempts to use the required materials which yielded dismal results. The
previous year she used the English Language Learning materials in the Houghton Mifflin
reading series and found little success. Eventually she returned to her own practices that
were successful in the past. She tries to get students excited about the anthologies and
worksheets, only to find that students produce more meaningful text when the activities
are more authentic, such as letter writing. Emily is skeptical of Reading First and
Houghton Mifflin and her practice may look resistant on the surface, rather than a
combination of resistance, hybridization, and negotiation.

Based on my findings of Emily’s complex literacy pedagogy I believe this
research offers valuable insights for cuniculum developers, education policy makers,
teachers and principals, and those involved in the development and reshaping of teacher
education programs. Whenever possible, Emily and the peripheral participants’ words
were included to convey their thoughts and emotions rather than being filtered through
my interpretations. This made it possible to learn more about the principled rationale
behind Emily’s decision making about curriculum and practice for her particular students
under the current circumstances.

Implications for Theory and Practice
Curriculum Developers
In discussing a peer coaching program instituted by a school board, Hargreaves

(1994) suggests it was, “Excellent in its rationale and intent perhaps, this program was

171

perceived very differently at the level of practice than it appeared in its ideal form” (p.
205). His analysis sums up the continual mismatch between intended policy and
unintended consequences as they occur in public schools. To explain this phenomenon,
Hargreaves states, “Teachers don’t merely deliver the curriculum. They develop, define it
and reinterpret it too. It is what teachers think, what teachers believe and what teachers
do at the level of the classroom that ultimately shapes the kind of learning that young
people get” (p. ix). The developers of prepackaged curriculum can not possibly image all
the considerations teachers must entertain when planning literacy instruction. Yet,
Phillippi (1998) states that, “Even today most school districts tend to rely on commercial
reading materials to maintain public confidence in the reading programs because these
materials appear to assure the public that district standards are high and that the methods
used are efficient and effective” (p. 21). Similarly, Shannon (1989) states, “Walk into any
American elementary classroom during a reading lesson, and there is a ninety percent
chance that you will observe a teacher and students working with commercially prepared
materials” (p. xiii). He explains how reading instruction has remained fairly constant over
the past sixty years, including commercially produced materials. He asserts that the
lesson contents have slightly changed over the years, “but the basic structure of the
materials and the lesson which result fi'om them have changed little” (p. xiv). In fact, the
rationale for the format of basal reading materials comes from the first two decades of the
twentieth century. Reading standardization was essentially complete by 1960. Certainly,
prepackaged curriculum has improved over time by including more culturally relevant
text to represent the increasing diversity among school aged children. This is a significant

improvement over basal material that has been found to be racist, sexist, and age-biased

172

(Shannon, 1989). However, if the materials are not a valuable component of the teacher’s
literacy instruction, the content becomes irrelevant.

In Emily’s room, the materials for the third grade Houghton Mifflin basal
program fill a large bookshelf with teacher guides, leveled books, transparencies,
Integrated Theme tests, a resource package with reproducible pages, posters, and
handbooks ranging from classroom management to English Language Learners. There
are even specific guides for how to teach skills, outlined as Day 1, Day 2, et cetera for
teachers who want extra guidance. A class set of three large anthologies fill another shelf.
Shannon (1989) describes the typical materials in basal reading series: “graded
anthologies, guidebooks, and workbooks pioneered sixty years ago and their more recent
components- graded worksheets, charts, games, puppets, computers, and floppy disks
produced by publishing companies in seemingly endless supply” (p. xiv). All of these
materials are often difficult for teachers and students to keep track of and use. As a result,
“teachers become a support system for the textbook rather than the other way around” (p.
xiv).

Fortunately Emily makes thoughtful decisions as to which materials she will
include in her literacy block. Three or forn‘ copies of the anthology may be used at the
listening center during center time and leveled books are typically used during Guided
Reading time. However, this is the extent of Houghton Mifflin’s presence in the
classroom. Emily is not resisting for the sake of resisting- rather she has used some of the
other materials and is familiar with the teacher editions. She simply finds the materials
boring or less effective than her own strategies and materials. During a co-planning

session, she discusses the format of the teacher edition in how to use the anthology and

173

workbook, stating, “Some of it’s just boring. It would get boring because you have to
read the same thing over and over again. So, that would get boring. But I think it’s a lot
of workbook. . .” (Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04). She has found other ways to teach the
same skills and strategies through more engaging formats such as Book Club and centers.
She tried to use the materials for English Language Learners the previous years and
found them to be less effective than her own strategies. The materials simply do not meet
her guidelines of effective materials and instruction.

Toward the end of the study, I asked Emily if Houghton Mifflin felt rigid and if
she ever feels constrained in what she is supposed to teach as a Reading First school. She
replied:

So for me it hasn’t been real rigid, but I’ve used more of it than I ever have. I’m

really using the small books all the time which I did last year too. I try to do more

in centers, I try to do more vocabulary fi'om it and I try to read the stories on

Friday so I try to do more of it. I don’t think it’s bad. I just don’t want to do it

every day. I don’t think it’s bad- and I don’t want to do a bunch of workbook

pages because to me that’s me giving them knowledge, that’s me figuring it out
for them. I don’t know, but maybe if we did they could do more independent
work. . . I don’t know (we all laugh). NO! I’m serious- it’s hard! Don’t you think

it’s hard? (Emily, co-planning, 12/14/04)

Again, Emily is not dismissing Houghton Mifflin and Reading First curriculum entirely.
She shares how hard it is to make the best decisions for her students using the materials.

Her experiences and knowledge of teaching tell her that workbook pages and teacher

174

editions do not have the answers for helping her students to become better readers and
writers. Therefore, Emily finds alternative ways to support her students.

NCLB has attempted to steer elementary literacy practice by requiring a basal
reading program. In reality the majority of the materials sit on a shelf gathering dust.
Funding that could have been used to purchase materials chosen by teachers have gone to
waste. This year Emily acknowledges that she probably wouldn’t use the Houghton
Mifflin materials and it would have been a waste of money (Emily, co-planning,
9/07/04). When Maggie tried to order and use the Houghton Miffiin workbooks the
previous year, the district took too long and the teachers never received them. Both
Maggie and Emily have tried to order or use the materials in the past, but these examples
show how discouragement may play an important role in why and how teachers
eventually resist policy and mandated practices. Anagnostopoulos and Rutledge (1994)
argue that, “Teachers can both resist and accommodate policy as they draw and re-draw
boundaries between mandated practices and what they consider the “real” curriculum” (p.
43). Filling shelves with binders, teacher guides, and materials does not guarantee use.
Perhaps if teachers were more involved in the decision making process, districts could
save money or shift ftmds to more useful materials and resources that would be
employed. After more than a century of basal reading programs, perhaps it’s time to
question what teachers are actually doing with the materials and how they might have a
stronger voice in curriculum development to best meet their needs as well as their
students’ strengths, interests, and needs.

Given Emily’s knowledge of her children’s skills and interests and her own

familiarity with the basal program, she rarely uses materials from the resource package.

175

When time is limited, she eliminates activities and readings from the anthology. The only
materials she uses consistently and has discussed positively on multiple occasions are the
leveled books for her Guided Reading groups. Emily’s practice is more similar to
teachers during the first few decades of the twentieth century, than teachers from the past
eighty years.

When basal readers were widely distributed and in use from the beginning of the
twentieth century to the 1920’s, teachers were using the materials according to their own
ideas (Shannon, 1989). In order to gain more control over teachers, commercial
publishers began using reading experts to develop “scientifically based” teacher
guidebooks. This trend has continued into the twenty-first century. In the first few pages
of the Houghton Miftlin teacher guidebooks are pictures and names of several well-
known researchers in elementary reading. Perhaps this is to convince the educator that
these experts have invested a great deal of thought and care into developing an ideal basal
program. This may be the case, but each group of children and teachers is different with a
variety of needs and background knowledge. It is not surprising that during a co-planning
session, Greg mentioned how he might find the teacher guides useful for a novice
teacher. This does not apply to Emily with her thirteen years of experience. In fact, as I
was looking through the materials Emily commented that the core curriculum would be,
“good for a beginning teacher or someone who doesn’t want to plan or think” (Field
notes, 2/5/05).

In Phillippi’s (1998) study, teachers were expected to teach in an opposite way to
Reading First. They were discouraged from using the basal program and materials in

order to focus on a constructivist approach. One teacher describes herself as, “clinging to

176

the textbook”, but this does not guarantee effective instruction. Emily makes this point
throughout the study. The same teacher in Phillippi’s study continues, “Anyone can come
in off the street and read page twenty-five” (p. 15), which is precisely Emily’s argument.
Teaching is more than following a basal focused literacy program. In Emily’s opinion,
powerful teaching requires an in-depth knowledge of her students’ strengths, interests,
and needs as well as appropriate materials to tap into their background knowledge and
improve their reading and writing. A generic basal program such as Houghton Mifflin
can not adequately provide what she and her students need.

Emily invests a great deal of time and thought into her literacy planning and
instruction, making honest efforts to include the Houghton Mifllin materials but not at the
expense of her “unofficial” curriculum. Toward the end of the study, she commented on
wanting to perhaps use the anthology more like Book Club next year, knowing that they
may not be a Reading First school if their test scores improve. Emily, like many teachers
discussed by other researchers (Cohen, 1990; Cohen & Ball, 1990b; Hargreaves, 1994;
Spillane & Jennings, 1997) brings a wealth of knowledge, experiences, and beliefs to her
practice. Curriculum developers must recognize that teachers like Emily may not
embrace the program or use the materials as intended. It is also important for curriculum
developers to consider ways to provide materials that can be adapted and absorbed into
existing practices in unique contexts (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). By learning more about
how a teacher such as Emily uses the prepackaged curriculum to best meet the needs and
interests of her diverse elementary students, curriculum developers can be more aware of
the dilemmas and challenges teachers encounter when attempting to teach the curriculum

as intended by teacher editions, as well as what they may choose to keep or discard.

177

Finally, prepackaged literacy curriculum, such as the Houghton Mifflin series
used at Westside Elementary, is a billion dollar business and has become part of the
“solution” to low test scores. As Kohn (2000) argues, “Too much is invested by now; too
many powerful interest groups are backing high-stakes testing for us to assume it will
simply fall of its own weight” (p. 51). Shannon (1989) echoes Kohn’s statement,
asserting that basal reading materials are, “produced to make the largest possible profit
for their publisher” (p. 53), which tends to be fairly lucrative and conservative. Given this
reality, it is critical to consider how teachers can work within a context dominated by
basal programs, as a result of NCLB as well as publishers attempting to control the
curriculum. Research such as this is encouraging because it is a powerful example of one
teacher resisting a basal program forced on her practice. Whether or not this is happening
in Emily’s colleagues’ rooms, within the district, or across the country can not be certain.
However, these findings offer some explanation for the unintended outcomes of when
policy meets practice via basal reading programs. Teachers such as Emily are not robots.
Emily brings experiences, knowledge, commiunent, and values to her literacy planning
and instruction which results in a unique pedagogy. Hopefirlly more examples such as
this will demonstrate the power teachers have to control elements of their profession for
the well—being of their students and themselves.

Educational Policy makers

Seeing teachers as learners would bring into policy-design conversations that

things we know about leamers- that they respond to learning opportunities in

different ways; that they bring to their learning opportunities in difl'erent ways;

that they bring to their learning dispositions, experiences, and knowledge that

178

influence how and what they learn; and that their learning takes time and hard

work. (Spillane & Jennings, 1997, p. 477)

When policy meets practice, there is little certainty that what policy makers
envisioned actually occurs in the classroom, as reflected in Emily’s classroom. One
example from Reading First is the required ninety minutes of uninternrpted reading.
Emily recognizes that this is unrealistic and hardly conducive to both her own teaching
and her students’ learning. These types of demands practically push teachers to find
altermrtives to teaching exclusively what is required. Hybridization is a logical reaction.
Cohen (1990) states, “It is relatively easy for policy makers to propose dramatic changes
in teaching and learning, but teachers must enact those changes” (p. 327). Policy makers
need to recognize and respect these multiple and varied expectations placed on teachers.
In Emily’s classroom, she is faced with mandates from Reading First, the district, a
requiredbasal readingprogram,andtestpreparationandadministration. Sheisexpected
to raise test scores, use a new curriculum while concurrently being trained in how to use
it, and follow both a teacher guide and curriculum guide. If Emily responded to all of
these demands as they are intended by the policy makers, there would be little if any
room for professionalism and decision making on her part. Therefore, she is essentially
forced to be selective, negotiate, and hybridize her practice to keep the focus on her
particular students and their specific needs and interests. This is not something policy
makers consider.

Some policy has gone so far as to label reforms and materials as “teacher-proof”,
a concept originating in the 1950’s and 1960’s (Apple, 1983; Futrell, 1989). This is not

only insulting, but unrealistic. Teachers possess a great deal of agency and power to

179

shape the new reform to their own conceptions of how it should appear in practice.
Shannon (1989) believes this overwhelming reliance on a basal based approach to
literacy instruction is degrading to teachers and has reduced school literacy to merely
completing materials. Therefore, rather than criticizing teachers for “failing” to
implement policy and curriculum as planned by others, it is far more productive to learn
how teachers negotiate reform to meet their own concepts of sormd pedagogy and the
needs and interests of their unique group of students. Certainly a growing body of
literature addresses teacher and student learning with respect to policy, but this research
is particularly timely given the current rigid and prmishing political climate of high-stakes
testing, cm'riculum guides, and prepackaged curriculum.

Spillane and Jennings (1997) suggest that, “Thinking about teachers as learners
fi'om policy rather than irnplementers or doers of policy makers’ proposals suggests some
new issues for policy makers to consider in designing policy” (p. 478). Many teachers are
overwhelmed with the various constraints and dilemma management of daily life in the
classroom (Britzman, 2003). Emily is a wonderful example of a passionate teacher trying
to “be in compliance” by learning about and following mandates, such as attending
weekly grade level meetings with the literacy coach, administering tests, and occasionally
including the core curriculum. However, “To focus on formal policy alone is to
misrepresent all that teachers are responding to and grappling with as they work to
improve their practice” (Coburn, 2001, p. 162). Policy makers need to recognize all that
teachers must consider in their daily practice and begin to see them as learners with
voices and valuable ideas. After all, teachers are ultimately responsible for their students’

learning and are the ones held accountable and most severely blamed when students do

180

not score well on tests. The insights policy makers could gain through respectful
conversations with educators is immense. If conversation is not an option, research such
as this that includes the voices of teachers, principals, and interns is extremely valuable.
Otherwise, educators’ ideas and words continue to be filtered through researchers and
ignored by policy makers.

Cohen and Ball (1990) contend that “Policy makers behave that they can steer
school practice and change school outcomes. . . Yet educational researchers report that
state and federal policies have affected practice only weakly and inconsistently” (p. 233).
Assuming that one-size—fits-all policy is the solution for low test scores ignores factors
contributing to the context producing these scores. Collaboration continues to appear in
reforms, assuming that if teachers have more time to work with each other and discuss
their pedagogy that their practice and students’ learning will improve. Policy makers fail
to acknowledge the importance of the type of collaboration, whether it is producing a
“contrived collegiality teacher culture” or a “collaborative teacher culture” (Hargreaves,
1994). Inserting a literacy coach, who is also the Reading First representative, and forcing
weekly grade level meetings under the guise of collaboration has not been positive or
productive at Westside Elementary. In fact, this requirement has produced tension among
teachers and even silenced some. This aspect of the policy has certainly created
outcomes, but mostly negative. People can not be forced to collaborate. This is counter to
the definition of collaboration. Emily has faithfully attended weekly meetings for
Reading First, but the outcomes have been less than positive or generative.

Cobmn (2001) states, “Informal networks among teachers are largely

unacknowledged by the policy world. Yet they have enormous potential to play an

181

influential role in teachers sense-making. It is their flexibility, their spontaneity, their
voluntariness, and their situatedness that make informal groups such powerful and
supportive contexts for teacher se ' g” (p. 163). On several occasions Maggie
came into Emily’s room to discuss their teaching and the politics surrounding Reading
First and Houghton Mifllin (Co-planning, 9/7/04, 11/16/04). In the beginning of the
school year their conversations could be construed as co-resistance (Co-planning, 9/7/04).
Could this conversation have taken place with Linda in the room? Perhaps, but given the
context and history of interactions between the three educators, it’s unlikely. Perhaps
policy makers need to learn more about the type of collaboration that is most productive
and supportive for teachers and carve out time and space for these naturally occm'ring
relationships within the policies. Based on the findings from this research, collaboration
is influenced by factors such as the participants, the physical space, the time in the school
year, and recent events. Based on my observations and interactions with Westside
Elementary as a researcher and instructor working with the teachers, the type of
collaboration can shift from a collaborative teacher culture to a contrived teacher culture,
depending on multiple factors. Learning more about what actually happens in classrooms
and across the school may seem irrelevant when creating idealized policy, but the
outcomes will continue to reflect minimal change if these factors are ignored.

Stigler and Hiebert (1999) summarize the need for increased interaction between
policy makers and teachers:

Teachers are caught in a persistent dilemma: Although they frequently receive

advice and recommendations on how to change their teaching, and they know that

some of these changes would probably benefit their students, they also lack the

182

learning opportunities needed to study the recommendations, decide which
changes would be meaningful, and learn how to implement them. This leads
teachers to devalue suggestions proposed by outsiders such as researchers or
policy makers, because they fail to see them as relevant to their everyday
classroom practice. And those who suggest the changes seldom get continuing

feedback fi'om teachers. (p. 155)

Perhaps teachers realize some of the recommendations could be tailored to fit their
students’ learning needs and strengths, but the advice lacks flexibility to fit the local
knowledge and context. Therefore, rather than requiring an element of reform such as
collaboration between educators, who often engage in meaningful and authentic
collaborative projects and conversations with colleagues not outlined by policy, policy
makers should consider collaboration between themselves and those having to translate
policy into action in classrooms every day (Cobmn, 2001). Finally, Cohen and Ball
(1990b) suggest that significant pedagogical change may be possible through
conversations between policy makers and teachers, “Yet creating such a conversation
would be costly, time-consuming, and diffith for many teachers and policy makers.
Teaching would thrive on such a rich and slow enterprise. But policymaking seems to
thrive on schemes for swift change in instruction, swiftly adopted and often just as
swiftly forgotten” (p. 337). Indeed, Emily anticipates an end to Reading First at her
school. Her practice will unlikely look different next year, and hopefully the pressure and
tension will subside. It is questionable whether or not an outsider would recognize that
Westside Elementary was ever a Reading First school by observing Emily’s classroom

this year.

183

From this research, it is apparent that policy makers should consider educational
change as a whole, recognizing the interrelationships between various parts of the context
(Hargreaves, 1994). It would seem that a literacy reform, such as the one discussed by
Phillippi (1998) in which the policy makers were within the same district, would promise
more potential. However, she found that teachers still struggled to interpret the mandates,
implement the new approach as intended by the policy, and contend with temporal and
resource constraints. This strongly suggests that in order for policy shifts and new
practices to be successful, policy makers both in-house and outside of the districts need to
consider potential barriers faced by teachers as well as the backgrormd knowledge and
attitudes of the teachers and principals. They need to consider the local and contextual
factors that influence reform in the classroom as well as the more practical issues, such as
time, curriculum, and control constraints. As previously mentioned, teachers are not
robots. They bring experiences, knowledge, attitudes and values to their practice and
policy is interpreted through these various lenses. It is fairly obvious that Emily brings a
great deal of experience and knowledge to her practice and uses these as lenses to
measure the usefirlness or appropriateness of mandates and curriculum. She must contend
with constraints that policy makers do not need to consider in an idealized policy. This
forces her to make choices.

Roemer (1991) discusses similar conclusions. In her study of a collaborative
effort between university faculty members and secondary English teachers to produce an
assessment for writing, unintended consequences occurred despite specific language in
their proposal. She states an intended consequence in the project as, “There will be

nothing top down or hierarchical in the way the plans are designed or implemen ” (p.

184

440). However, this was impossible since the project began as a state mandate, a district
administrator was in charge, and teachers were forced to enact the assessment. Like
Phillippi’s study, the mandate appeared to be controlled by insiders, but there were still
elements of power struggles and contrived collaboration yielding dismal results. This
argument is discussed in more detail in the final section of this chapter, “Practicing
Teachers and Principals”.

Finally, Sarason (1990) suggests that policy makers must begin asking questions
such as, “In what ways do our recommendations differ fi'om those made by comparable
groups twenty or even fifty years ago?” (p. 13) rather than assuming that what they are
proposing is simply better than what has been happening in the past. Essentially, the
mandates that Emily and her colleagues are negotiating and resisting look very similar,
yet more stringent, to the reforms of the 1980’s. The resemblance is somewhat disturbing
since policy makers should know that the reform efforts of the 1980’s yielded fairly
dismal results. Perhaps they need to be asking why more testing, more technical control,
less teacher voice and choice should yield different results the second time around.
Sarason asks, “Why should similar diagnoses and actions today be more effective?” (p.
14). Amnesia is making the lives of teachers and students as constrained as twenty years
ago, yet this does not seem to make a difference to policy makers.

In the end, it is teachers who must negotiate policies as they enter the classroom.
In Emily’s case, she selects curriculum and practices that are appropriate for her students.
Her decisions are guided by experience, knowledge of her craft, and a view of herselfas a
public servant. She is the professional who knows her students and craft far better than

any policy maker. She is not a maverick or in need of more professional development

185

 

(Cohen, 1990). Emily makes principled decisions about how to teach her children to read
and write. When mandated practices and curriculum are conducive to her goals, she will
employ them. Otherwise, Emily carefully chooses how to teach the necessary skills and
strategies, typically through creative and well-crafted hybridized literacy practices.
Teacher Education Programs
Darling-Hammond (1990) states, “. . .teachers teach fi'om what they know. If
policy makers want to change teaching, they must pay attention to teacher knowledge.
And if they are to attend to teacher knowledge, they must look beyond cuniculum
policies to those policies that control teacher education and certification. . .” (p. 346). In
this study, Emily draws on thirteen years of teaching experience in elementary and
middle schools in the same district. She also considers ideas and strategies learned
through professional development. Emily emphasizes the importance of attitude and
desire when she states:
I learned so much by doing. . . by doing in the classroom and in talking with other
teachers, ‘what do you do’, and MRA (Michigan Reading Association). . . I love
MRA, I’ve learned a lot from MRA, a lot. But it’s not so much fi'om the district. I
did learn a lot about writing my first couple years fi'om conferences. . . but you
have to want to do it. If you don’t want to do it, it’s not going to matter (Emily,
co-planning, 11/9/04).
She also draws upon theories fi'om her teacher education program, stating, “Part of how I
make these decisions is from my credential program that said good teachers use authentic
literacy to teach, not prepackaged curriculum” (Emily, informal interview, 1/21/05).

Emily’s message to Greg is that she has learned a great deal from experience, but her

186

credential program and participation in outside organizations such as the state reading
association and nearby university writing program also influence her literacy practice.

Emily has a wealth of knowledge and experiences to draw upon, but for the
novice teacher, they may be teaching from their own experiences as students (Lortie,
1975) and more recent theories and concepts from their credentialing program. Many
programs require students to spend time in classrooms as an important component of
their methods courses as well as extended periods of time in an internship. Even with
these experiences, pre-service teachers are accessing knowledge from their days as
students and limited experiences in a few other teachers’ classrooms. Their experiences
vary in time and intensity, as well as quality. Given these variations, the way these
individuals will interpret policy in their own classrooms is unpredictable. This begs the
question, what role do teacher education programs play in preparing future teachers to
make rational and principled decisions as educators in the current political context?

Fey and Sinith (1999) provide a model of “constructive interdependence” where
pre-service teachers learn through discussion with one another and reaching agreements.
They found that these social relations became sites of uncertainty and tension during
collaboration as well as instances of resistance, similar to what was observed in this
study. Their goal was to, “encourage college students to assume responsibility for
developing knowledge that would empower them as teachers” (p. 102). This also
provided an experience of having to work with colleagues to reach understandings and to
push their own thinking about lmowledge in math and literacy. Fey and Sinith’s model of
pedagogy prepares teachers for the type of conflict and resistance they may encormter as

professionals. They cite Green (1994) who suggests that this type of “’disruption has to

187

do with consciousness and the awareness of possibility (p. 1)’. Such disruption leads to
‘widening the spaces’ in which we move, recognizing the ‘inevitable tension between the
desire to be and the forces that condition item within and without’” (p. 103). In this
study, Emily’s resistance was in response to outside forces and her desire to teach in a
particular way. This conflict created new spaces and points of dissonance, such as during
grade level meetings with Linda, which would not have existed if Emily was not working
toward new possibilities under the constraining conditions.

Under the conditions at Westside Elementary, Greg may have served as a
sounding board and a support. As he listened to and learned about Emily’s resistance and
negotiation, he also served as a partner in finding fault with elements of policy, such as
the required grade level meetings (Co-planning, 12/14/04). Their co-resistance to the
meetings may have been the most authentic collaboration occurring at Westside
Elementary. Greg was learning more than how to plan and teach literacy. Novice
teachers, such as Greg, must recognize their own ability to resist conditions, grapple with
tension and uncertainty, and contend with conflict as a journey toward empowerment.
Emily created a space for Greg to witness and participate in these types of contexts.

Fey and Sinith (1999) also explain how teacher education students often view
their own education as what Freire (1995) describes as a “banking concept ofeducation”
in which “education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are
depositories and the teacher is the depositor” (p. 53). When the students were forced to
engage in extensive inquiry in mathematics with peers, some resisted and felt that this
was not preparing them to teach math or science. In response, the author developed a

“concern sessions” time for students to voice their resistance. Sinith states, “Such sharing

188

is an essential step toward building a community, and, with the support of a commrmity,
negotiation and reflection about mathematics education become possible” (p. 106). When
teacher education students have an opportunity to share their resistance, which
occasionally occurred at Westside Elementary, they were moving toward community
building. This was the type of outcome Emily desired- opportunities to share her thinking
and feelings with others along with discussions of best practices. Often, during co-
planning sessions, Greg fulfilled that role.

Fey discusses the use of collaboration in her course, which reflects more of a
contrived collegiality since groups were permanent and organized to represent diversity
of gender and ability, rather than ideas. She mentions discussions as sometimes being
intense and confrontational. She appeared to be pleased with this context and states, “I
was able to build a community that allowed space for resistance” (p. 107). For future
teachers it is critical that they engage in groups and experience points of conflict and
resistance since this is more likely to occur than an authentic collaborative culture. Yet it
is just as important that students experience a collaborative context. She contends that
this allowed students to find their voice. I would argue that this is equally possible in a
more supportive collaborative context. Either way, teacher education programs should
consider exposing students to various collaborative situations similar to the type they will
face as practicing teachers. This will provide them with experiences to draw upon,
knowledge of how to possibly resist and co-resist productively, and how to negotiate
when necessary. More importantly, Fey and Sinith argue that resistance can be a catalyst
for growth. Emily’s resistance and mentoring forces her to think deeply about her literacy

pedagogy and how she interacts with peers. It also influences how she approaches

189

professional development, outside resources, and her mentoring of Greg. Cochran-Smith
(2001) encourages educators to teach against the grain, particularly given the current
political climate, and Emily is a perfect example of this philosophy. Future teachers
should experience this type of tension and conflict and what it means to resist so that they
will be prepared to do this in their own classrooms and schools.

One could easily argue that Emily has fourteen years of experience and there
exists a connection between years of experience and the ability to look critically at
curriculum. This may be the case, however, I would argue that even as a novice teacher,
Greg can begin to look critically at curriculum and policy and learn how to begin
hybridizing literacy practice. I certainly would not expect Greg to do the same type of
hybridizing his first year as a teacher that Emily does as a veteran teacher. However, he
will befacedwiththe samerequirementsasEmilyandtobestmeettheneedsofhis
students he will need to consider this type of practice. Emily is providing the mentoring
Greg needs to learn how to negotiate and resist. She encourages agency with comments
such as, “If you’re a good teacher, you can make anything work... you can make it work”
(Emily, co-planning, 11/9/04).

Emilymaybeopposedtoscfiptedbasalpmgramsandmandategbmsheisvery
specific in the type of language she wants Greg to use. For example, druing a co-planning
session, she says to Greg, “Now I’ll say, now look at the story and think about...”
(Emily, co-planning, 11/9/04). Not only is she explaining the concept of a picture walk,
she is also using the same words with Greg that she would use with her students. Her
“scripting” or insistence on certain terms do not limit agency; rather she wants him to use

the common terms that are found in teacher editions (i.e. comprehension, context clues,

190

F_i—_-‘fll

fluency) and literacy related texts. Emily mentions a need for common language ficm one

grade to the next for consistency so students will understand the most accurate and

 

common terminology used in literacy. During the co-planning session, the following
exchange takes place:

Emily: You need to have the same language, and if you don’t, that’s hard,
because people want to teach their own way and you kind of have to give that up.

Greg: Butlthinkpartofthat’sagoodthing. Ithinkteaching yourown way isa
goodthing,becauseldon’tthinklcouldteach.Ineedtoteachmyownway...l l4
mean, me wandering around the room, I don’t know. . . 1;
Emily: You’re right, but we could use some of the same language and that’s what
they need to talk about. It doesn’t necessarily mean you need to teach the same
way, but we need to use the same language and do we need to be teaching
writing? Yes! (Co-planning, 12/7/04)
Emily wants Greg and her students, to have literacy content knowledge including the
specific discourse. She recognizes how important content knowledge is when resisting
and creating hybridized literacy practices. She demonstrates this need for Greg by relying
on various professional resources such as books and organizations. She also wants Greg
to participate in professional development provided by the district to deepen his
knowledge of elementary literacy. Teacher education programs have a responsibility in
preparing students with the content knowledge, and if possible, providing mentors similar
to Emily who model planning and instruction that is appropriate and most beneficial for
her students, even under the demands of various mandates. It would be unrealistic to
expect novices to teach like Emily. However, it is possible to support them with the
academic preparation and mentoring to move in a similar direction.

In closing, Shannon (1989) cites Brophy (1982) who would agree that most

teacher education programs want teachers to feel confident and “responsible for

191

establishing appropriate educational objectives for their students, preparing appropriate
curriculum materials, conducting and evaluating the outcomes of instruction, and making
whatever adjustments should prove necessary in these activities” (p. 84). Brophy goes on
to state that because of the control by school boards, school administrators, and
commercial publishers, teachers are no longer able to use these skills and approaches for
literacy instruction. Fortlmately Emily is dedicated to teaching the way she was taught in
her teacher education program while resisting the type of deskilling that often occurs as ?
described by Apple (1983). Greg is learning this philosophy as well as how to negotiate ll
multiple requirements in a principled and rational way.
Practicing Teachers and Principals

Once mandates have been created by policy makers and curriculum developed by
individuals outside of schools, they are then forced into classrooms by district
administrators. It is the teachers and principals who are left with the overwhelming task
of meshing policy with practice. Research strongly suggests when this top-down mandate
process occurs the outcomes vary a great deal not only from one classroom to the next,
but from the intended policy. As this research shows, the principal and teachers exercise
their power in various ways to produce appropriate practice for their particular context.
Whether or not the majority of teachers at Westside Elementary are employing the
required basal literacy program as intended is not certain. However, given the findings
from this research, it is apparent that the mandates are not implemented as intended by
either the district or Reading First and that Emily’s hybridized practice and resistance are

supported by her principal.

192

Phillippi (1998) discusses the type of resistance that can occur when there are
unequal power relations between the policy makers and the teachers and principals. The
teachers in her study felt as though the policy was not open to dispute, rendering them
powerless to make decisions about their own literacy practice. The policy makers
believed that removing workbooks and basal texts would create room for teachers to
develop appropriate literacy materials and resources. They also believed they were
providing teachers with opportunities to “apply their intelligence, judgment, and
experience to the ways in which they implemented the appropriate practices” (p. 29).
However, they tmderestimated the amount of intellectual work required by teachers and
failed to provide sufficient support. What the policy makers did not anticipate was
teacher resistance to the way the mandates were implemented as well as the removal of
their current literacy program. Some teachers felt the basal program was fine and viewed
the new approach as another fad of “good practice” that would disappear after some time.
Understanding the attitudes and experiences of teachers may have helped the new
program to succeed, rather than requiring yet another top-down mandate for change.

Phillippi also makes the point that introducing a new type of literacy program as
the latest best practice suggests that what the teachers were doing was not good enough.
As a result, some teachers felt insecure about their pedagogy, wondering if they were
“doing it right”, while others “resisted learning. . . because ‘powers that be’ were telling
them how to teach” (p. 20). The powers that be- the district policy makers- truly believed
they were giving teachers the power to decide, but so much lmd already been decided by
the time the mandates landed in the teachers’ classrooms. Teachers eventually dismissed

it since they believed the research for the mandate was done by people who did not know

193

their classrooms or the daily challenges of teaching. Emily’s perspective is similar to the
teachers in Phillippi’s study. She discusses how Reading First and the Houghton Mifflin
curriculum are not appropriate for her students. They do not provide the type of
instruction or materials that she knows are effective for teaching reading and writing.

Phillippi states that, “The unexamined questions about who has the power to
determine classroom practices created an rmdercurrent of power struggles” (p. 38).
Perhaps the most disappointing finding in Phillippi’s study was that teachers who may
have favored the constructivist approach resisted the new practices because it was a
requirement. In the end, the type of learning opportrmities for students varied depending
on how the teachers interpreted and implemented, or did not implement, the policy. Ifwe
assume that literacy policies are intended to improve student learning, then obviously
teachers and principals need to have their voices heard. Phillippi’s study, as well as this
study, clearly show the influence and power teachers and principals have in determining
how a policy looks in practice. By ignoring these key players, there is little guarantee that
change will occur for the benefit of the students or the educators.

F utrell’s (1989) review of four distinct waves of education reform in the 1980’s
suggests that little was learned fi'om that time. Teachers and principals have been
excluded from conversations about how to best meet the needs of students. Instead,
policy makers and curriculum developers have assumed control of reform with little
thought as to how these mandates will look in classrooms. Perhaps the best case scenario
is a repeat of the 1980’s. Perhaps educators can look forward to the second wave in
which decision makers will recognize that top-down mandates are not the magic bullet

for improving test scores and that silencing those with the difficult task of enacting their

194

orders will guarantee dismal results- not to mention unnecessary stress and frustration for
those educators. A quote by a teacher, Irmgard Williams, in Holland’s (1997) article
discussing the Kentucky Education Reform Act suggests a fairly simple move in the right
direction. She states, “You can have the mechanics, but if you don’t have teachers with
heart and a passion to teach, what do you have? From the top down, there ought to be
something we do to show people we’re proud of them. It might make better teachers if
more recognition was given” (p. 268). This same veteran teacher appreciated the
education reform act because it allowed her to diversify her instruction to meet her
students’ needs. Holland describes Williams as, “Like a talented artist, Williams knew
that good teaching requires a continual refinement of the craft, an ability to adjust
techniques as circumstances change” (p. 269).

Policy makers and curriculum developers need to assume that teachers are
working hard, want the best for their students, and believe in their profession.
Acknowledging the dificulties of teaching and recognizing what teachers and principals
are already doing right would be a refreshing change. From a teacher immersed in reform
and required by outsiders to change her pedagogy, Williams asks an extremely important
question, “How can you tell another teacher how to teach?” (p. 27]). Emily shows that
telling others how to teach is neither helpful nor effective. She has been told how to teach
by the state, the district, the literacy coach, and speakers in professional development
sessions, yet in the end she is responsible for how and what her students learn. She knows
her students best and ignoring the insights of teachers such as Emily is irresponsible of
policy makers, curriculum developers, educational researchers, and others interested in

improving literacy achievement.

195

In the concluding part of Shannon’s (1989) book Broken Promises; is a section
titled “Working with and for Teachers.” He contends that teachers have a great deal of
power and by resisting reading programs they can defeat the current basal dominated
literacy instruction seen in most elementary classrooms across the United States. He
encourages teachers to discuss and consider the historical and philosophical foundations
of reading programs in the context of their daily work experience. Research such as this
is important for encouraging teachers to celebrate their practice. Emily was often
surprised and validated by orn- discussions about her literacy planning and instruction.
Greg also played an important role as a sormding board. As Emily needed to be specific
about the rationale behind her practice she could hear her own words. Sharing her
pedagogy with others is an important step in creating conversations that reveal the
complexity of literacy instruction. To take this project one step finther, as Shannon
suggests, might be to have teachers such as Emily begin reflecting on their everyday
practice with colleagues to challenge basal programs. I believe there are many teachers
like Emily who know that prepackaged curriculum is not appropriate for their students
and they are either resisting or want to resist. Teachers need to end their dependence on
basal publishers and reading experts, similar to Emily, and regain control of their
profession. This research offers a rich narrative of one teacher who has formd ways to
resist and negotiate for the good of her students. She is unafiaid to push against mandates
as well as people representing those mandates. Emily is an example of successful literacy
instruction in a time of high-stakes testing, prepackaged cmriculum, and curriculum
guides. This research has a great deal to offer to practicing teachers and principals

wanting to do the same.

196

Conclusion

Teachers must be at the heart of the solution. Not only are they the gatekeepers

for all improvement efforts, they are also in the best position to acquire the

knowledge that is needed. They are, after all, the only ones who can improve

teaching. (Stigler & Hiebert, p. 174)

Hargreaves (1994) states, “People are always wanting teachers to change” (p. 5).
This is often manifested in education as top-down policy, yet this approach has not been
terribly successful. Darling-Hammond (1990) argues that, “One reason for the failure of
any top-down curricular change efforts is that they fail to consider how the new ideas will
lodge in the local policy context” (p. 344). Research suggests that teachers do not enact
policy as it is prescribed by others (Bisplinghoff, 2002; Cohen, 1990; Luke, 2000) and,
“Little is known about how teachers perceive instructional policies, how they interpret
them, and how different kinds of policies influence teaching learning... for policy
research has seldom investigated the effects of policy on the actual work of teaching and
learning” (Cohen & Ball, 1990, p. 234). Therefore, rather than trying to imagine all the
ways in which educators might enact policy into practice, it is most beneficial to use this
ethnographic case study to consider how Emily made important decisions about her
literacy instruction.

Spillane and Jennings (1997) suggest that a case-study approach to investigating
teacher practice, “is well suited to in-depth analysis of complex issues like classroom
teaching. In depth cases can highlight important questions for further investigation and
provide insights that may be useful in other related contexts” (p. 451). Learning more

about how Emily negotiates education policy and hybridizes literacy instruction between

197

policy mandates and her own best practices is invaluable for teacher education,
educational policy, curriculum developers, and other teachers and principals. This is an
attempt to reverse the typical approach of policy studies, or as Cohen and Ball (1990a)
call, “work fiom the classroom outward” (p. 236) to understand one teacher’s decision
making process and views of imposed policy on her practice. Hargreaves (1994) also
states, “We know much less about how teachers feel while they teach; and the emotions
and desires which motivate and moderate their work” (p. 41). He continues, “There has
been rather less focus on how teachers themselves talk about the emotional dimensions of
their work” (p. 141).

Throughout this text I used Emily’s and other participants’ words whenever
possible to describe, justify, and capture the essence of their thoughts and emotions rather
than attempting to interpret for them. McDonald (1986) emphasizes the importance of
including teachers in the discussion of policy meeting practice when he states, “. . . the
teachers’ voice can contribute to school policy essential knowledge that is available fiom
no other source” (p. 360) and that the teacher’s voice includes power and meaning.
Unfortunately, teachers are ofien faced with the difficult decision of voicing what they
know at the cost of giving up their ability to act. McDonald continues, “And so they leave
inquiry to the theorist, who theorizes without benefit of the teacher’s intimate knowledge
of practice, and, in time, the resulting theory comes round to the teacher in the form of
some policy directive” (p. 361). Emily’s voice is strong, confident, and knowledgeable.
She is anxious to share her opinions and her experiences with others, particularly her
intern. The motivation behind Maggie’s silence is not known, however her silence creates

tangible consequences. Learning more about how these teachers are negotiating and

198

 

rr-“f'a

 

resisting policy as it enters their classroom is critical. Sharing Emily’s practice through
this writing is a validation of her politically laden pedagogy.

Data from this research challenges elements of reform that are assumed to make a
difference in the school structure and culture. This is critical for educational policy
makers to recognize. In considering the endemic failure of educational reform, Sarason
(1990) suggests that, “The problem is not what to do but how to think, how to take
seriously the idea that there is a universe of alternative explanations for past failures of
reform” (p. xi). Some of the same concepts, such as collaboration, continue to be recycled
in reforms with little consequence to the problems in education. Collaboration has been
championed as an important component of reforms (Acker-Hocevar & Touchton, 1999;
Apthorp, Dean, Florian, Lauer, Reichardt, & Snow-Renner, 2001; Hargreaves, 1994;
Holland, 1997; Little, 1993; Short, 1992; St. John, Manset, Chung & Worthington, 2001;
Symonds, 2003), yet the forced collaboration by the Reading First mandate and No Child
Lefi Behind has yielded dismal results in this study. Rather tlmn forcing collaboration in
an inauthentic way, policy makers need to consider ways to promote collaboration that is
welcomed and useful for teachers. As noted earlier, the most authentic collaboration
appeared to be between Emily and Greg, and Emily and Maggie as they co-resisted.
Perhaps the imposition of policy encouraged a form of collaboration that policy makers
could not have imagined. Maggie, Greg and Emily’s collaboration was essentially an
effort to resist the policies forcing contrived collaboration.

Policy makers also need to consider the impact of power and empowerment and
how these factors might influence relationships among colleagues. Creating policy that

promote teacher empowerment rather than limiting the strengths of teachers is incredibly

199

important, but not formd in the intended policies impacting the school in this study.
Forttmately, the tmintended consequences of Reading First yield complex power issues
among participants. Emily knows she is supported and empowered by her principal and
canusethistoneutralizepressurefrom Linda. Emilycanalsospeakhermindinmeetings
because Barbara knows Emily is a strong teacher and will support her. Policy makers
must recognize the complexity of these types of relationships and how they envision
policy into practice will be influenced by issues of power and empowerment.

Shannon (1989) ofi‘ers an analysis of teacher identity and pedagogy that is not
surprising, but hardly acknowledged by policy makers. He states,

In short, my experience has been that teachers are quite capable of critical thought

about their work, able to trace the connections of objects and routines to their

societal roots in the social structure, and eager to hypothesize about a future in

which they have greater control over their instruction. Moreover, they seem to

realize quickly that other teachers are their allies in their struggles to resist the

management of their instruction. (p. 139)

Shannon ends his book with a summary that includes the statement, “It will not be easy-
basal publishers, business, government, and school administrators will not give up their
power over reading instruction without a struggle” (p. 147). Fortunately there are teachers
like Emily who are fighting for control over their literacy planning and instruction. There
are also teachers like Maggie who demonstrate co—resistance with Emily at various points
in time. prolicy makers were truly interested in supporting teachers who in turn support
the academic and personal growth of their students, they would begin listening to the

insights and knowledge that teachers have to offer.

200

This research is important for both curriculum developers and teacher education
programs because it illustrates the type of innovative hybridization teachers might enact
when forced to negotiate mandated curriculum with their own “unofficial” curriculum.
For individuals in teacher education programs, this is an excellent example of how one
might plan their literacy instruction to “be in compliance”, without abandoning their own
beliefs about how children learn to read and write. Emily is in a difficult situation, given
the tension between her own knowledge of sound literacy pedagogy and mandates at the
district, state, and national level. Yet, she is able to use “snippets” fi'om various sources,
pulling from her past teaching experiences as well as professional development and the
required curriculum to produce an exciting, engaging literacy program. Not only are
children enthusiastic about literacy, they are showing profound improvement in their
reading and writing abilities. This is the reality of one classroom at a Reading First school
which has a great deal to share with novice, future, and practicing teachers.

It is also important for firture teachers to recognize the impact of policy on teacher
practice, as well as strategies they might employ to maintain their own beliefs and values
about how their particular students learn. It is critical that teacher education students
understand the history of commercialized basal programs and the politics that surrormd it.
Teacher education students need to be aware of the various types of collaboration they
may encounter as well as their own potential power and empowerment as a colleague and
educator. Finally, future teachers need to think about how they will make choices that are
best for their own students as well as their own integrity as an educator. Providing case
studies such as this may help pre-service teachers consider the types of realistic dilemmas

and challenges they will be faced with in the near future.

201

Likewise, curriculum developers would benefit from recognizing the power of
teachers in making curricular decisions. At Westside Elementary, teachers are expected
to use the materials from their Houghton Mifilin literacy program. Emily uses some of
the materials, but not necessarily the way they are intended by the curriculum developers.
She is selective in what she employs and it would be important for curriculum developers
to consider what type of materials they can offer teachers that are useful, sensitive to the
unique backgrounds of children, and flexible enough so that teachers can make the final
decisions about when and how to utilize materials. Shannon (1989) writes that these
programs have been used for over a century with little change. However, a more in-depth
look at Emily’s practice suggests that perhaps teachers are not using prepackaged
curriculum as intended by the developers, district, and colleagues. We know that teachers
often teach from their prior knowledge and can assume that most teacher education
students experienced basal programs as part of their literacy instruction. Ifthis cycle is to
be disrupted, future teachers need to be made aware ofthe political history of
commercialized reading programs and provided models for change. Emily is presenting a
different approach to literacy instruction for Greg, but this needs to be more wide-spread.
If teachers are to gain control over their workspace, they need the knowledge to resist and
access alternative approaches. Teacher education programs are an important place to
start.

This study contributes an in-depth examination of the difficult situations both
teachers and principals are placed in when mandates are created by district administrators
and policy makers and forced into a school literacy program. Those individuals who are

writing and requiring mandates are concerned with quantitative data that shows improved

202

learning through higher test scores. Teachers and principals must be concerned with more
than raw data. They know the names, faces, and lives of the children behind the test
scores. They operate within a unique school structure and culture that cares for the whole
child, not just their literacy scores on district, state, and national exams. The findings
from this research also highlight the nature and complexity of relationships between
colleagues within a context. Each individual brings a set of values and beliefs to their
teaching and leadership, which has various implications for interactions and the type of
collaboration possible.

While researching the history of literacy policy for this dissertation, I became
increasingly frustrated by the similarities between education reforms in the 1980’s and
today. I have taught and worked along side veteran teachers who comment on the
recycling of programs, ideas, and policies. I compare this time to the second wave of the
four part reform in the 1980’s, but I am hopeful that the results may be more promising. I
am hopeful that this return to prepackaged curriculum and deskilling of teachers will not
need to occur again. Teachers such as Emily lead me to believe that there are educators
struggling to regain control of their practice and protect their identities as professionals
with rich experiences and knowledge to draw upon to meet the needs and interests of
their students as well as themselves.

Hargreaves (1994) concludes his book, Ch_a_r_rgrg' g Teachers, Changm' g Times by
stating that his writing is not a litany of solutions to the challenges of restructuring
education. He states that there is no one best model or singular certainty. Context is
important and educators should have choices for how and when to apply and adapt

models to fit their own settings. The same can be said for this study. I do not offer

203

 

solutions for reforms. I am not suggesting that all teachers resist, negotiate, or develop
hybridized literacy practices like Emily. Rather, the purpose of this study is to challenge
concepts of reform, such as collaboration, and to expose the emotions, thoughts, and
creativity of one teacher working under stressful, constrained conditions. I believe her
experiences are similar to other elementary teachers during this climate of top-down
policy. Hopefully this text provides a move toward solutions or answers, or perhaps
generates questions to move forward in empowering teachers and challenging the status
quo.

It is appropriate to end this chapter and text with a quote from Hargreaves (1994)
who challenges the concept of collaboration and the multiple ways this appears in
organizations. He states, “The challenge of restructuring in education and elsewhere is a
challenge of abandoning or attenuating bureaucratic controls, inflexible mandates,
paternalistic forms of trust and quick system fixes in order to hear, articulate and bring
together the disparate voices of teachers and other educatiorml partners” (p. 260). Perhaps
this ethnographic case study offers one strong voice of a teacher engaged in constant
restructuring of her literacy planning and instruction for the benefit of her students.
Sharing her thoughts through writing as well as her on-going mentoring of interns and
seniors in the local teacher education program is promising. Her practice allows others to
understand the innovative ways educators can and do negotiate and resist policies once
they enter the classroom. In closing, this type of ethnographic case study is invaluable for
future teachers in teacher education programs, practicing teachers and principals, as well

as curriculum developers and policy makers.

204

APPENDICES

205

Appendix A
Westside Elementary School Demographics“

 

 

School Name: Westside Elementary District Name: County:
district information schools in comm
Mailing Address: Physical Address: Phone:
NCES District ID: NCES School ID: State District ID: State School ID:

School Characteristics

 

Grade Span: (grades PK - 5)

humor 2 3 4 5 E::::: l

Type: Regular school
Total Students: 376 mCodc: gild-sutzle Centratli Carat?! / 2
Classroom Teachers (FTE): N/A ‘ “Hen Y Opera 0

Student/Teacher Ratio: N/A

Charter: no Magnet: N/A Title I School: N/A Title I School-Wide Program: N/A
Fnrollment Characterlstlcs

L
J
a
o
o
'

Enrollment by Grade:

 

 

          
            

    

,p . 3.1 :Jisl'vf- “'5 .5.el.‘!;f‘.’.':_0;--I-‘;‘:'I_rr'l‘:l'-9- I‘l.‘-':l’d 3‘}- 1’31}... 45.3132?“ . ‘PS'LJE «air 2‘“? a _
, - ._ . I an". '. ' '- '
,«H-w titre-:13 "we-rm 1.“: .l
. '.. ILFJIC' .. ‘
it

-.
. "’15-!“ sh. r:hr‘*~.-r-I-'wr~*--“:-r

l53 (41%)

 

 
   

  

Ethnic minority: 223 (59%)
White: 153 (41%)

Enrollment by Gender:

 

 

 

Free lunch eligible: 175 Reduced-price lunch eligible: 28 Migrant Students: N/A

Note: “N/A” means the data are not available or not applicable.
Note: Details may not add to totals.

 

3‘ Source: cco public school data for the 2002-2003 school year

206

2004 — 2005 District Testing Calendar"

Appendix B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment Dates Grades
DIBELS September 9 - 14 K- 3 : Reading First
schools only
DRA September 1 — 30 K - 5
Fall Curriculum Assessments: Testing: Nov. 18 — 22, District wide
language Arts, Math, Science, Reteaching: Nov. 29 —
and Social Studies Dec. 10
DIBELS January 10 — 14 K- 3 : Reading First
schools only
DRA January 10 — 21 K — 5
Spring Curriculum Assessments: : Testing: March 7 — 18 District Wide
Language Arts, Math, Science, Reteaching: Mar. 10 —
and Social Studies Mar. 18
IOWA Test of Basic Skills April 18 — 26 K — 9
Reading, Mathematics and
Language
DIBELS May2-6 K-3:ReadingFirst
schools only
DRA May 2 — 20 K — 5

 

DIBELS38 — (Required for Reading First Grant schools and Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) schools.) Middleton students in grades K — 3 at Reading First and high priority
schools ONLY, are assessed using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS). The DIBELS are a set of standardized, individually administered measures of
early literacy development that can be used both diagnostically and to monitor student

progress.

DRA - (Required by the School Board). ALL students in grades K — 5 will be assessed
fro the first time this year using the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The
DRA is an assessment that helps teachers identify students’ strengths, abilities, and
reading levels in a one-on-one conference that includes a rlmning record and an oral

retelling.

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (TIES) - (Required by the School Board). A standardized
nationally norm referenced test (2000 Norms) given each spring to Middleton students in

 

37 From the School District Research, Evaluation & Pupil Accounting, August, 2004.
3' Good, lur. & Karninski, rm. (Eds) (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6" Ed.)
Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available:

http://dibelsumgonedul.

207

 

gradesK—9. All studentsareassessedinreading,mathematicsandlanguage arts. AT
grade nine this test is called the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED).

Middleton School District Curriculum Assessments — (Required by the School Board).
These tests aid district staff in evaluating student progress in meeting Middleton
curricular benchmarks and state BLCEs for each content area. This year, curriculum
assessments will be administered to students in grades 2 through 12 inNovember and in
March. ALL TESTING MUST BE COMPLETED ON THE DAY TESTING
OCCURS. If you have any questions about the curriculum assessments, or need
additional materials during the testing periods, call the Curriculum Office at (phone
number).

208

APPENDIX C

Emily’s literacy instruction in minutes during observations

 

has". m..855<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
33 E3 clog 80:33? 988%
mean? 136 a 2 assoc messes 3:
cm on 2 m _ N: S
gas boa»:
as E S:
“oozed—83
communeoaaoo
on 5:80 manages
2
32
822E 853a d 25? 30m
3 mm
boa 89a S3939
35on 6.83 @8260 $25
2 2 2 Ge 23
has?
Es 233
mm “cognate?
nee—EU communeoaaoo
3 d been ”pounce mew—Sufi
8 S 2 c5 8m
mamma
.2: E e :e
53% :30
3 mm 05 ”R
93:0 «:5 cue—:05. .95
use... a sea: a
«523,—. >353: «E:— ufiuaom :20 :25 2850 .8393: 8.5

 

 

209

APPENDIX C

Emily’s literacy instruction in minutes during observations (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82.52
mm“ m: 2: m? e: we .35.
:8
as ham
3 at on:
v.83 @2960
05 $25
fl omammoa
wees: 2b
mm 3 cc 022
gig
£3383
comtmnaou
.83 b3 N
we Bahamas use? 32 €32
58> 2S imam £9382 3550
cm on 3 E S:

 

 

210

REFERENCES

Acker-Hocevar, M., & Touchton, D. (1999). A model of power as social relationships:
Teacher leaders describe the phenomena of eflective agency in practice. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.

Adler, D. & Natti, S. (1997). Cam Jansen and the mystery of the monster movie (Cam
Jansen, 8). New York: Scholastic.

Anagnostopoulos, D. & Rutledge, S. (2004). Making sense of school sanctioning policing
in urban high schools: Charting the depth and drifi of school and classroom
responses. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association,
San Diego, CA.

Apple, M. (1983). Curricular form and the logic of technical control. In M. W. Apple and
L. Weis (Eds.) Ideology and practice in schooling. (p 143 — 165). Philadelphia,
Temple University Press.

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and cuniculum. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Apthorp, H. S., Bodrova, E., Dean, C. B. & Florian, J. E. (2001). Noteworthy
Perspectives: Teaching to the Core—Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Aurora,
CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Apthorp, H. 8., Dean, C. B., Florian, J. E., Lauer, P. A., Reichardt, R. & Snow-Renner,
R. (2001). Standards in Classroom Practice: Research synthesis. Washington,

D.C.: Oflice of Educational Research and Improvement, US. Department of
Education.

Armstrong, W. H. (1972) Sounder. New York: Harper Trophy.

Bergeron, B. S. & Rudenga, E. A. (1993). Delineating and undefining thematic
instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading
Conference, Charleston, SC.

Bisplinghoff, B. S. (2002). Teacher planning as responsible resistance. Language Arts
80(2), 119 - 128.

Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice. Albany: State University Press.

211

Chandler Warner, G. (1977). The box car children, #1. Niles, Illinois: Albert Whitman
& Company.

Chen, M. & Miller, G. (1997). Teacher stress: A review of the international literature.
Retrieved February 3, 2005, from Educational Resources Information Center
(ERIC) database.

Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate
reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis 23(2), 145 — 170.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Learning to teach against the (new) grain. Journal of Teacher
Education, 52(1), 3 - 4.

Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311 - 329.

Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (1990a). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233 — 239.

Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (1990b). Relations between policy and practice: A
commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331 — 338.

Cunningham, P (1994) Making Words: Multilevel, Hands-0n Developmentally
Appropriate Spelling and Phonics Activities Grades [-3. Good Apple Inc.: New
York.

Cunningham, P. (2002) Month-By—Month phonics for third grade. Carson-Deflosa
Publishing Co.: Greensboro, NC.

Curtis, C. P. (1963). The Watsons go to Birmingham New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell
Books for Young Readers.

Cusick, P. A. (1992). The educational system: Its nature and logic. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: ‘The power of the
bottom over the top’. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 339 —
347.

Darling-Hammond, L & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching for high standards: What policy
makers need to know and be able to do. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.

Discover This (2005). GeoSafari by Educational Insights. Retrieved March 15, 2005,
http://www.discoverthi§.com/geosafari.hunl

212

Duhon, G. M. (1999). Teacher Empowerment: Definitions, implementation, and
strategies for personal renewal. McNeese State University, LA. Retrieved March
1, 2005, from Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC).

ETA Cuisenaire (2005). Reading Rods Skills Kit. Retrieved December 9, 2004,
http://wwwetacuisenairecom/readinMreadingmggjsp

Englebaugh, D. (1994) Art through children's literature: Creative art lessons for
Caldecott Books (through children's literature). Portsmouth, NH: Teacher Ideas
Press.

 

Faundez, A. (1998) Learning to question: A pedagogy of liberation. In A. Freire and D.
Macedo (Eds) The Paulo Freire reader (pp 186 — 230). New York: Continuum.

Fey, M. H. & Smith, C. F. (1999). Opening spaces for collaboration and inquiry in
teacher education classrooms: The place of resistance. Action in Teacher
Education, 21(3), 102 — 110.

F leischman, S. (1986). The whipping boy. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Fletcher, R. & Portalupi, J. (1998) Craft lessons: Teaching writing K — 8. York, Maine:
Stenhouse Publishing.

F lorio-Ruane, S. (2002). More light: An argument for complexity in studies of teaching
and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 53(3), 205 - 215.

Futrell, M. H. (1989). Mission not accomplished: Education reform in retrospect. Phi
Delta Kappan, 71(1), 8 — 14.

Gannett, R. S. (1948). My father ’s dragon. New York: Random House, Inc.

Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.) (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (60' Ed) Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of
Educational Achievement.

Goodman, J. (1988). The disenfranchisement of elementary teachers and strategies for
resistance. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(3), 221 — 239.

Goyne, J ., Padgett, D., Rowicki, M. A. & Triplitt, T. (1999). The journey to teacher
empowerment. Auburn University. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC).

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers ’ work and culture
in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.

213

Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000) Strategies That Work: Teaching Comprehension to
Enhance Understanding. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Houghton Mifilin Education Place (n.d.) Retrieved September 25, 2004,
http://www.edupl_ace.com/

JoJo (2004). Fairy Tales Album. Producer Vincent Herbert, Tre’ Black, Blackground
Records.

Johnson, C. (1955) Harold and the purple crayon. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Kane, K. & Montgomery, K. (1998). A framework for understanding dysempowerment
in organizations. Human Resource Management, 3 7 (3 & 4), 263 — 275.

Kersten, J. (in press). Literacy and Choice: Urban elementary students’ perceptions of
links between home, school and community literacy practices. In V. Purcell-
Gates (Ed.) Cultural Practices of Literacy. New York: Erlbaum Publications.

Kersten, J. (2003 ). Moving toward critical literacy despite standardized testing and
curriculum guides. Paper presented at the annual Penn Ethnography Conference,
Philadelphia, PA.

Klecker, B. M. & Loadman, W. E. (1998). Empowering elementary teachers in
restructuring schools: Dimensions to guide the mission. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the
schools. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in
practice. Harvard Educational Review 55 a), 178 - 184.

Lanier, J. E. & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed), Hancfiook of research on teaching (3rd ed) ( pp. 527-69). New York:
Macmillan.

LeCompte, M. D. & Shensul, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic
research: Ethnographer's toolkit. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Lindgren, A. (1997). The adventures of Pippi Longstocking. New York: Penguin Putnam
Inc.

214

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers ’ professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448 - 461.

Macomb Intermediate School District (2004). Michigan Literacy Progress Profile.
Retrieved January 26, 2005, http://www.mi_s_d.net/Lanwgeart/mlpp.htm

Maeroff, G. I. (1988). A blueprint for empowering teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(71),
472 - 477.

Martin, R. (1992). The rough-face girl. New York: Paper Star Book.

McDonald, J. (1986). Raising the teacher’s voice and the ironic role of theory. Harvard
Educational Review, 56(4), 355 - 378.

Michigan Department of Education (2005). 2004-2005 Reading First Grant
Announcement. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from ht_tp://www.michiga£ gov/
dogunentgl 0 5_Version_3_Rea_dr;_ng_En_~st 111599 7.p(_l_f

Michigan Department of Education (2005). Michigan Educational Assessment Program.
Retrieved September 13, 2004, from http://www.michiga_n,gov/mdel0,l607,7-
140-22709 31 168-— 00.html

 

Middleton School District (2002). Middleton school district balanced literacy
description. Retrieved January 16, 2005, httpz/lMiddletonschoolsnet/cgrriculgl
balanced literacyhtm

Middleton School District, The Office of Curriculum, Assessment and Professional
Development (2003). Pacing guides, Language Arts 3'” grade. Retrieved January

16, 2005, httpzl/weblsdkl2.mi.us/curricula/wm' g gu_ides/pg.htm
“Middleton” State Journal. April 30, 2004.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going? New York: Teacher's College Press.

Official DIBELS homepage (2004). Retrieved January 18, 2005, http://dibels.uoregon.
edu/

215

Pardo, L. S. (2005). Beginning teachers learn to teach writing: F inessing teaching
context shapes evolving practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, E. Lansing.

Pearson Reading Group (2004). Developmental reading assessment (DRA). Retrieved
January 18, 2005, httpz/lwww.pegsonlea_r_m'ng.com/dra/index.cfin

Phillippi, K. (1998). Mandating a constructivist approach to early elementary literacy
instruction: The intended and unintended consequences in one school district.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.

Pilkey, D. (1993). Dogzilla. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV Guide: Relationships between
home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research
Quarterly, 31, 406-428.

Raphael, T. (2002) Book Club: A literature-based curriculum (2nd ed.). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association:

Reading Recovery Council of North America (2000). Reading Recovery: Fact Sheet.
Columbus, OH. Retrieved March 3, 2005 from Educational Resources
Information Center (ERIC).

Red Cedar Writing Project (2003). Retrieved January 26, 2005, ht_tp://wri§gg.msu.edu:
16080/rcw+p/

Riverdeep Products, Story Book Weaver. Retrieved September 15, 2004,
http://www.riverdeen.net/product§/storybookweaver/§torybook weaver deluxeih
tml

Roemer, M. G. (1991). What we talk about when we talk about school reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 61(4), 434 — 448.

Routrnan, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Rusch, E. A. & Perry, E. A. (1993). Resistance to change: Fact or stereotype. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.

San Souci, R. (1994). Sootface, New York: A Picture Yearling Book.

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course
before it ’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

216

Saskatoon Public School Division (2004). Instructional strategies on-line (Author ’s
Chair). Retrieved February 9, 2005, h®zllolc.gnsd.sk.ca/DE/PDIhsi/sh;at_s/
author/

Shannon, P. (1989). Broken promises: Reading instruction in twentieth-century America.
Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.

Short, P. (1992). Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment. The Pennsylvania State
University, PA. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from Educational Resources

Information Center (ERIC).
5,"
Simon, R. (1992). Empowerment as a pedagogy of possibility. In P. Shannon (Ed) 3
Becoming Political. Readings and Writings in the politics of literacy education.
(p. 139 — 151). Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann. it.

Skurzynski, G. (1988). The minstrel in the tower. New York: Random House, Inc.

Snow, C., M.S. Burns, and P. Grimn (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sopris West Inc. (2005). LE TRS: Language essentials for teachers of reading and
spelling. Retrieved January 16, 2005, httn://www.letrs.com/

Spillane, J. P. & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious
pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective.
Teachers College Record 98(3), 449 — 481.

St. John, E. P., G. Manset, C. Chung and K. Worthington (2001). Assessing the
rationales for educational reforms: A test of the professional development,
comprehensive reform, and direct instruction hypotheses. Indianapolis: Indiana
State Department of Education.

Stigler, J .W. 8: Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas fiom the world’s
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

Symonds, K. W. (2003). Literacy coaching: How school districts can support a long-
term strategy in a short term world. San Francisco, CA: Bay Area School Reform
Collaborative.

Taylor, M. D. (1975). Song of the trees. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.

Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning fiom inner-city
families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

217

Tyack, D. 8: Cuban, L. (1995). T inkering toward utopia: Reflections on a century of
public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

US. Department of Education (2000). 9 Efi’ective literacy practices: Based on the
indicators of capacity for school reform project ’s Massachusetts Literacy Study
Findings. Washington, DC: Education Alliance/LAB at Brown.

Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (2002). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across
the curriculum (7"I ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Vozer, D. (2001).Me1_:élamg_r_ap. New York: Picture Yearling.

White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site autonomy.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69 — 82.

Zimmermann, S & Keene, E. O. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in
a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

218

 

- 4:.

 

   

IIliliiifliliflijijiflivilli"