R

x

' "'r' “l‘:'ur<. up.

rm“,

7 ..,

'53:?

. w..- .

4,. ..
_, 3,“.

_

>

,‘
.

V.

.

-

H M,

.

.

_

I

“I
.
73...: ,4”.

.. “mug,

.

»

.

.

.

1,7,

”my

. Human/"‘1"

‘ “.....ruzmw-..

....H.,..,.,,.,.
“Hm“.
A. , . M.”
..... ‘ ...

152’," . ,. 

‘fill‘numw.
r“;,;="r“

J
...
4.,Nfln,
,JPK.
,..H,mu

--v-T?f,‘:"':" mm. .

:r-mu..‘.......v_,v,._

. .4. .4, wry,“ ,V

.».-.....

v n, .....'.'." "‘ ‘ '

V “10...,” .;

.; “...”...A-..

,H. 537:”

{<I'.-y. .., ,

' w

._
"I‘r‘: ,,

,

" '4 "me‘

.....,
“-5.

”vs->2.” .

..

.

. n w. .

_

Juwu

-.-

'1']

. .

,..“A

h

Nu

.
,r,

_

”.ww

g,

.

.

.. M

-

:nnv

>

>

_

_

_

.

.

.

- vw-r,

1m .

A.

"‘

‘

V

‘

.

A//L‘(/Qi

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ' l T S ' H ' W T

\l

3 1293 00791 AWL

F.

LIBRARY

Michigan state

University

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Implications of Teacher Empowerment in Staff Development

Toward Reading Curriculum Development/ Implementation

presented by

Marlene Joy Willink Braunius

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Eb

2

degreein [211331.

8:

nstr.

College of Education

     Major professor

MSUis an Affirmative Anion/Equal Opportunity Institution

0-12771

 

    

   

 

 

 

   

      

 

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

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

ment

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

czmlmmnma-p:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMPLICATIONS OF TEACHER EMPOWERMENT IN STAFF DEVELOPMENT

TOWARD READING CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION

BY

Harlene Joy Willink Braunius

VOLUME I

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

College of Education

1991

IMPLICATIONS

TOWARD REAI

This stu<

district to b

Opportunities

decision-mak;

empowered its

ABSTRACT

IMPLICATIONS OF TEACHER EMPOWERMENT IN STAFF DEVELOPMENT

TOWARD READING CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION

BY

Marlene Joy Willink Braunius

This study focuses upon the determination of one school

district to bring about curriculum reform through providing

opportunities for teachers to become more active in the

decision-making

process.

That

district

specifically

empowered its teachers to design, write, and implement a new

reading curriculum.

The overriding research questions addressed within this

paper are:

How does one district attempt to empower its

teachers for reading curriculum change? and, What do its

teachers require if they are to feel empowered in 'their

attempts

to

recommend and

implement

changes

in

reading

instruction?

The methodology of this research was qualitative.

The

researcher’s mission was to report:

What is happening in

this field setting?

What do the happenings mean to the

participants?

What must these participants know in order to

do what they do in this setting?

How does what is happening

 

essential

t<

increasing kn

making)

formec‘

evidence

conf

within the dis

Against

aspects of

th

implementing

:

were highligh'

expert was br

site

traine:

Inservices;

3

Group was for

humanistic te;

empowerment i,

here relate to/differ from that found in other places at

other times?

The three components which Maeroff (1988) identified as

essential

to

empowering

teachers

(boosting

status,

increasing knowledge,

and providing access

to decision-

making) formed the framework for the research data.

Cited

evidence

confirmed

the presence of

these three

aspects

within the district studied.

Against that backdrop,

empowering and disempowering

aspects of three types of staff development aimed. toward

implementing innovation in the area of reading curriculum

were highlighted:

1)

a top down model, where an outside

expert was brought in;

2) an interactive model, where on-

site

trainers

conducted

voluntary

Reading

Strategy

Inservices;

3)

a bottom-up model, where a Reading Support

Group was formed in keeping with the characteristics of a

humanistic teacher center.

Deterrents and contributors to

empowerment in each model were noted.

The study specifically demonstrated that the Reading

Support Group represented one type of staff development that

has the potential for empowering its participants, and the

path to empowerment for that specific group was traced in

detail.

This document concludes with a number of implications

and

recommendations

related

to

empowerment,

staff

development, and implementation issues.

 

1991  

..

Copyright by

Marlene Joy Willink Braunius

 

For

ship

has

th‘

reciprocity.

meaning of th

and Gratitude

Dedicated to my husband,

Burt

For the past quarter of a century, our relation-

ship

has

thrived

upon

the

concepts

of

mutuality

and

reciprocity.

You have consistently embodied for me the

meaning of the word, commitment.

This is my gift of love

and gratitude to you.

Happy 25th Anniversary!

ii

 

First and

empowered me ‘

gave me the.‘

support requir

That sup

variety of son

begin to cite

I express

members, Dr.

Dr. Donald N

direction and

An overwl

family.
advised, encom

Burt

0f your love,

Stephen

and

Physically an

mOther'S

St]

Professional.

900d insights

1 am thrills

Parents into

mind and comp

being availab

Problem.

The

ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS

First and foremost, I give glory and praise to God, Who

empowered me through His Spirit to complete this task.

He

gave me the vision, the resources, the capacity, and the

support required to make this event possible.

That support was provided in diverse ways,

from a

variety of sources, through many special people.

I can only

begin to cite them.

I express my appreciation to my MSU guidance committee

members, Dr. George Sherman (Chair), Dr. Charles Blackman,

Dr.

Donald Nickerson,

and Dr.

Joanne

Simmons

for their

direction and input throughout this project.

An overwhelming sense of indebtedness is felt toward my

family.

Burt, you have unconditionally loved, supported,

advised, encouraged, and believed in me.

Within the warmth

of your love, I have achieved what I never dreamed possible.

Stephen

and

Peter,

as

you

have

grown

and

developed

physically and emotionally, you have also witnessed. your

mother’s

struggle

and

growth

as

a

person

and

as

a

professional.

Stephen, I value our many dialogues and your

good insights, now including the field of education as well.

I

am thrilled that you have determined to follow your

parents into the teaching profession.

Peter, your sharp

mind and computer expertise are astounding.

Thank you for

being available day and night to unravel many a perplexing

problem.

The prayerful concern and loving support of our

parents,

Gertrude

and

Willard

Willink

and

Josie

and

lambertus Braunius, throughout the years are also hereby

acknowledged with gratitude.

I am profoundly grateful to the Omega school district

for their tolerance and patience with my presence as an

ethnographer among them.

To the Superintendent of Schools,

the Board of Education, the Curriculum Director, the Reading

Study Committee Chairperson and membership, the elementary

school principals and teaching staff, the Reading Support

Group, and the Reading Teachers, I express my appreciation.

iii

 

In order to P1
given names; 1
have you inse:

through this S

the Omega dist

Words cannot :

called Laura 2

Bonnie,

Karin:

their active a

In order to protect your identity, I am unable to list your

given names; however, you know who you are, and I wish to

have you insert your own names on this page.

I realized

through this study how truly fortunate I am to be working in

the Omega district alongside such professional individuals!

Words cannot adequately express my thanks to those whom I

called Laura and Shar, Chloe and Patrick, along with Truda,

Bonnie,

Karina,

Chris,

Suzann, Jennifer, and Rebekah for

their active and/or supportive roles in this drama.

iv

 

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER

I .

INTRC

The

Defi

Rese

Par1

Sum

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ix

CHAPTER

I.

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

The Problem

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Statement of Purpose. .

.

.

.

Background of the Study .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Providing Access to Decision-

Making .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Significance of the Study .

Definitions

.

.

.

.

Research Questions .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Participant Sample Used for Study

Qualitative Research Methodology .

Summary Procedures .

.

Data Collection .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Data Analysis Procedures. .

Limitations

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Organization of the Study

.

.

.

.

II.

REVIEW OF PRECEDENT LITERATURE

Teacher Empowerment

.

.

.

.

.

Introduction

Definition

.

.

.

.

.

Characteristics .

.

.

.

.

.

.

Boosting Status

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Increasing Knowledge .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

1

3

3

7

10

13

15

16

17

17

18

20

27

28

32

32

34

36

37

44

.

.

47

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Staf

Reac

III.

SITUAI

COIT

Importance

Cautions

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Historical Roots

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Resolutions for Empowerment .

Staff Development

Introduction

Definition

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Stages of Teacher Development .

Inservice Education .

Necessity. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

Nature of Teaching .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Nature of Adult Learning .

Teacher as Learner.. .

Kinds. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

54

58

61

63

64

64

65

66

68

68

69

75

76

79

Characteristics of Effective Staff

Development

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

81

Teacher Centers: Staff Development

for Empowerment

.

.

Reading Curriculum Implementation

Basis for Change

.

.

.

.

Inevitability of Change .

Attitudes Toward Change .

Models of Change

.

.

.

.

Implementation of Change

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Considerations Related to Change

III.

SITUATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

Overview of the Site .

.

.

.

.

The Omega Community .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Omega Public Elementary Schools .

Context for Data Collection

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The District’s Curriculum Re-

Organization Efforts .

.

.

.

.

Origins: Growing Frustration .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

83

89

89

92

92

94

97

100

104

104

104

106

109

111

.111

First Steps: Instructional Program

Needs Assessment .

.

.

.

.

.

.

112

Formation and Functions of a Reading

Study Committee

Orientation

.

.

.

.

.

.

Initial Activities .

Committee Work .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Reading Strategic Inservices .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

114

114

118

125

129

vi

 

 

 

IV-

FINDII

Teacl

Sta:

 

Formation and Functions of a Reading

Support Group

.

.

.

.

Information Meeting. .

.

.

.

.

First Meeting: Let’s Get

Acquainted

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Second Meeting: Reaching Topic

Consensus

.

.

.

.

.

.

Third Meeting: New Definition of

Reading and Story Mapping .

Fourth Meeting: Reciprocal

.

.

.

.

.

Teaching

.

.

Fifth Meeting: KWL, .QAR, Probable

Passages .

.

Sixth Meeting: Skills as Strategies,

District's New Reading

Curriculum .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Seventh Meeting: Formal/Informal

Assessment .

.

.

.

Eighth Meeting: Remedial

Techniques

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ninth Meeting: Emergent Literacy .

Tenth Meeting: Alternative

137

137

143

151

156

158

162

165

167

171

177

Approaches: Whole Language,

Literature

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

181

Eleventh Meeting: Alternative

Approaches: Basals, Content

Area

.

.

.

.

Twelfth Meeting: Debriefing,

Smorgasbord, Management

Debriefing Session .

IV.

FINDINGS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

Teacher Empowerment .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Evidences of Empowerment

Boosting Status

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Increasing Knowledge .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Providing Access to Decision-

Making .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Reactions to Empowerment. .

Staff Development

.

Outside Expert

On-Site Trainers

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Humanistic Teacher Center .

Information Meeting

First Meeting

Sixth Meeting

.

.

.

.

.

.

Debriefing Session .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

vii

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

185

191

197

206

207

208

208

214

217

223

233

236

241

249

253

258

265

272

 

Towa

V

SUMMARY

RECC

SumII

Conc

Imp]

Ques1

.

.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES.

Appendix

Inv.

M4

Inf.

Gen

Con

Rea

My

Rea

Bur

Emp

A

3

C

D

E

r

G

H

I

J

Portrait of an Empowered/Disempowered

Teacher .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

278

Empowerment Questionnaire

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

281

Toward Reading Curriculum Implementation .

.

293

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

Summary of the Study

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Evidences of Empowerment .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Mixed Reactions to Empowerment .

Impediments to Empowerment .

.

.

staff Development for Empowerment

.

.

.

.

.

Conclusions of the Study

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Implications/Recommendations Resulting from

the Study

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Empowerment Issues

.

.

.

.

Staff Development Issues

Implementation Issues .

Questions for Further Study

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

295

296

296

297

297

298

299

302

303

305

‘

308

309

BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................312

APPENDICES. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

329

Appendix

A

Invitation: Reading Support Group Information

Meeting

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Information Session Outline

General Consent Form

Consent Form for Reading Support Group Members

Reading Support Group First Meeting Invitation

My Hopes for This Group

Reading Support Group Topics

Burke Reading Interview

Empowerment Questionnaire

J

Final Session of Reading Support Group—-Debriefing

viii

Table

Chrc

Omeg

Gal]

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1

2

Chronology of Events .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

109

Omega Public Schools’ Organizational

Structure .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

117

3

Instructor’s Elementary Education Policy

Poll Results

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

284

4

Gallup/Kappa Poll Decision-Making

Responses .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

291

ix

 

During th‘

today’s educat

Paideia Propos

proposals were

Holmes

Group,

distinctly dif

were taken.

C

control and c_

just the

opp<

control

and

involved

in

improvement.

This Stu

Omega (a pseu

travel the 15

have a greats

evidenced

in

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

During the first half of the 19805, the deficiencies in

today’s educational system were widely broadcast (e.g., The

Paideia Proposal, 1982; A Nation at Risk, 1983) and numerous

proposals were made to remediate those faults (e.g., The

Holmes

Group,

1986;

The

Carnegie

Forum,

1986).

Two

distinctly different routes to accomplish educational reform

were taken.

One approach was to impose tighter bureaucratic

control and greater regulation of teachers.

The second,

just the opposite approach,

called for less bureaucratic

control

and

more

opportunities

for

teachers

to

become

involved

in decision—making processes

related

to

school

improvement.

This study is focused upon one school district,

the

Omega (a pseudonym) Public Schools, which has determined to

travel the latter path, that of empowering its teachers to

have a greater say in educational matters, specifically as

evidenced

in

the district’s attempts

to develop and to

implement a new reading curriculum.

The Problem

The

decision

on

the

part

of

the

Omega

district

administration 11) empower its teachers to take charge of

this change process was a conscious and deliberate effort.

When I first approached the district’s Superintendent. of

l

 

 

Schools to gai

proposed

reset

positive.

He

role of reseai

his

frustrat

teachers

in

t

cmfld be alte

role in the fi

had heard

hi]

attempted to c

As Curri

teachers

but they

make it i

dynamite

said the

and ther

jUSt wen‘

In a later i

2

Schools to gain access to the site and to inform him of my

proposed research project,

I

found him to be extremely

positive.

He said that he would welcome my presence in the

role of researcher in the district.

He went on to talk of

his

frustration

with

the

passivity

of

the

district’s

teachers in the past and of his desire that this apathy

could be altered or could be replaced by a more assertive

role in the future.

He illustrated this with a story that I

had heard him tell three years earlier' as he apparently

attempted to challenge the Omega staff in this direction:

As Curriculum Director in my former district, I told

teachers what I wanted them to do regarding writing,

but they got up in arms and changed the mandate to‘

make it their own.

And what

they came

up with was

dynamite!

When I came to Omega as Superintendent, I

said the same things [related to a writing mandate],

and there was not one word about it.

Here teachers

just went along with it. [Fieldnotes, 10/28/88]

In a later interaction with him,

the Superintendent said

that his vision of teacher empowerment had been eight years

in reaching fruition in the district,

and the Board of

Education was impatient at times.

He also alluded to future

implications: "Once you give teachers power, it’s difficult

to

take

it

away,

as

they

discovered

[in

my

former

districtj." [Fieldnotes, 8/29/90].

The process of encouraging Omega teachers to take a

greater

role

in

curriculum

development

was

originally

articulated publicly in the fall of 1986, when a three-page

document was sent from the Curriculum Council to teachers

and

administrators

entitled,

"Curriculum

Leadership

and

Change."

Within the body of that text, a reorganization of

the district’s

of

1988, base

constituted

cc

schools’ have

ranks." [Site

Statement of P

It is the

investigate

t

system’s atteI

district.

As

Committee

was

to empower

it

decisions

rel:

that

end,

th

congruent

s

imPlementatioi

fiflis:eund_g:

From Jan

3

the district’s Curriculum Council was proposed for the fall

of 1988, based on the claim that "authors and nationally

constituted committees have uniformly noted that ’success

schools’ have developed curriculum leadership from teacher

ranks." [Site document, 10/21/86]

Statement_gf_zurpese.

It is the purpose of this fieldwork research project to

investigate the processes involved in one public school

system's attempt to redefine reading instruction within the

district.

As will be shown, the work of the Reading Study

Committee was being grounded in the desire of that district

to empower its teachers, to give them a greater voice in

decisions related to reading curriculum and instruction.

To

that end,

the

issue of teacher empowerment,

along with

congruent

staff

development

for

reading

curriculum

implementation, formed the major focus of this study.

Background of the study.

From January 1988-January 1990, I gathered and analyzed

fieldwork research data in the Omega district where I had

been employed for the previous ten years as a Chapter I

Reading Teacher/Reading Consultant.

As an ethnographer, "to

make the familiar strange“ (Clark, 1984) was my mission.‘ It

was an exhilarating task to attempt to make sense of what

motivated my colleagues to think, to speak, and to act as

they did.

I was constantly challenged to listen for and

attempt to understand their reality

(their motivations,

concerns,

frustrations,

and

satisfactions)

as

they were

 

 

   

ammonium whi

 

dicing with con

Historica

teachers had

reading progra

became the red

an opportunit

and/or discuss

A moveme

"teachers have

the reading p

has become the

for 

with the

Fourteen perm

to

an open

chairperson

1

Curriculum Di

Committee .

The

miss

examine the p

district, to

("new") def ir

of reading i

Committee

WE

reading curr:

 

 

4

faced with developing and implementing a district reading

curriculum which included a district philosophy of reading,

along with concomitant methods and materials.

Historically within the district, elementary classroom

teachers had been handed basal reader materials as the

reading program and the basal reader teachers' manual, thus,

became the reading curriculum.

Seldom, if ever, was there

an opportunity for colleagues to think,

reflect,

argue,

and/or discuss issues pertaining to reading instruction.

A

movement

to

change

the

former

situation

(i.e.,

"teachers have simply been handed basal reader materials as

the reading program and the basal reader teachers' manual

has become the reading curriculum") began in January of 1988

with

the

formation

of

a

new

Reading

Study

Committee.

Fourteen percent (24) of the Omega K—12 teachers responded

to

an

open

invitation

from

the

Curriculum

Council

chairperson

(who

was

appointed

as

the

district’s

first

Curriculum Director six months later) to be a part of that

Committee.

The mission of the Reading Study Committee was

to

examine the present status of reading instruction within the

district,

to familiarize itself with the state’s current

("new") definition of reading, and to determine the course

of reading instruction in the future.

As a result, the

Committee

was

to

provide

the

district

with

a

written

reading curriculum and to make recommendations for materials

and inservices in order to implement that curriculum.

 

  

Earn; ‘im

  

specifically

a

initiated,

tea

assessed/monito

he referred to

12/1/88]

Shari

was on both t1

Committee was

presence when

and knowing t]

[Interview trail

The Commi

First, the Con 

performed thre

through inf on

it studied the

the district

Definition of

strategies.

E

elementary

te

Strategy

Inse

tentative

(June-August

teachers

(56

revision.

My resen

 

 

5

Early

into

the

study,

the

Curriculum

Director

specifically

avowed

that

the

study was

to

be

"teacher

initiated,

teacher

led,

teacher

developed,

and

teacher

assessed/monitored." [Fieldnotes, 3/17/88]

Later that year,

he referred to it as "a grass roots effort." [Fieldnotes,

12/1/88]

Shortly thereafter, one of the administrators who

was on both the Curriculum Council and the Reading Study

Committee was the first to use the word,

empower,

in my

presence when speaking of this phenomenon: "

.

.

. seeing

and knowing that we wanted to empower teachers .

.

.

"

[Interview transcript, 2/9/89]

The Committee

(convened originally in January 1988)

performed three major tasks during my time in the field.

First, the Committee built a foundation for its later work

through information-gathering (January 1988-October 1988):

it studied the current views of reading instruction within

the district and familiarized itself with the state’s New

Definition of Reading along with a variety of attendant

strategies.

Second, it disseminated this information to the

elementary teaching

staff

by

offering voluntary Reading

Strategy Inservices

(November 1988-May 1989).

Third,

a

tentative

reading

curriculum

guide

was

written

(June-August

1989)

and placed in the hands of classroom

teachers

(September 1989)

for the purpose of revieW' and

revision.

My research project not only included the work of the

Reading Study Committee, but I also studied the activities

 

  

1“ 'QIdér to o
if ‘

("Seldom

to think, re fl

Pertaining

1:

teacher Center

the first gem

the Plirpose 011

and PraCtiCe

guide

and

in

district_n

The inv'lr

[Si

SC 

the Omega

Statement ;

During

Opportun;
0f Readj
With tha

reading

our dist

that the

an

fall!
fall of

Ithen went 0

 

 

 

 

 

6

of a second group, a Reading Support Group, which I proposed

in order to deal with the second concern listed on p.

3

("Seldom, if ever, was there an opportunity for colleagues

to think, reflect, question, argue, and/or discuss issues

pertaining

to

reading

instruction").

This

humanistic

teacher center-like group (Feiman, 1977 [cited by Zigarmi in

Lieberman & Miller, 1979]) met on an almost—weekly basis for

the first semester of the 1989-1990 school year "

.

.

. for

the purpose of reflecting upon and discussing reading theory

and practice as it relates to the new reading curriculum

guide

and

its

implementation

in

classrooms

within

the

district." [Site document, 6/1/89]

The invitation I sent to all 54 elementary teachers in

the Omega School District was prefaced by the following

statement:

During

the

past

school

year,

you

have

had

the

opportunity to be exposed to [the state’s] Redefinition

of Reading, along with strategies that are congruent

with that philosophical statement.

This summer a new

reading curriculum will be written by the members of

our district’s Reading Study Committee.

It appears

that the new curriculum will be in teachers’ hands this

fall, and that textbook adoption will take place in the

fall of 1990.

I then went on to state briefly the proposed purpose:

As I envision it, this would be a voluntary group of

elementary teachers who wish to meet on a weekly basis

for

the

purpose

of

reflecting upon

and discussing

reading theory and practice as it relates to the new

reading curriculum guide

and

its

implementation

in

classrooms within the district. [Site document, 6/1/89]

The eight individuals who elected to participate in

this venture represented a variety of placements (two first

grade teachers, two second grade teachers, two fourth grade

 

    

fv essenee;-sn ad

professional l
I

.
2
:

2 '3—

r
M

(Site

off]. '

 

 

twenty-four yq'

degrees in re:

past two decal

the group in I

It was

Committee an

   

data for this

Si

i icance

 

  

  

look like wit

implement a n

hoped that the

prior

studir

development

inplementatio

The fol

change, and t

underscore th

Accordir

tubes, and hi

Schools

called ‘

done

t6

engage

 

7

teachers,

one special education teacher,

and one reading

teacher, in addition to myself, a district reading teacher),

professional experience

(from a

first year novice to

a

twenty-four year veteran), and reading savvy (from masters’

degrees in reading to no formal reading courses within the

past two decades).

More will be said about the make—up of

the group in relationship to the first meeting.

It was

in conjunction with both the Reading Study

Committee and the Reading Support Group that I collected

data for this study.

Significance of the Study.

Specifically,

this

study

should

provide

a

focused

picture of what teacher-empowerment and staff development

look like within a district that is attempting to plan and

implement a new reading curriculum.

More generally, it is

hoped that the findings will add new insights and/or confirm

prior

studies

related

to

teacher-empowerment,

staff

development,

and

reading

curriculum

design

and

implementation.

The

following quotes

related

to

staff

development,

change, and the role of qualitative research should help to

underscore the significance of this study.

According to Loucks—Horsley, Harding, Arbuckle, Murray,

Dubea, and Williams (1987),

Schools need to transform what has heretofore been

called 'inservice’ and interpreted by many as something

done to teachers into opportunities for teachers to

engage in a wide range of growth experiences that have

real meaning to them [Italics, mine] (p. 1).

    

sngheen

research

More wozi

believe ,

[Ital ics I

In thei

research for

particularly 1

change i

for pea;

life sty

who try

classroor

how peop.

they

arr

particip

setting

definiti

change i

As the passer;

research spec

These 11‘

qualitat

Their em

their or

sort out

orientat

deal wit

classroc

educatic

see behr

to the e

Clark (

of teaching ,

benefits for

 

8

Showers

and

Bennett

(1987)

in

their

summary,

"A

synthesis

of research on staff development," make these

observations:

Teacher involvement in the governance process has been

advocated

with

increasing

intensity

for

the

last

fifteen years.

Since

few advocates have generated

research, only a handful of studies are available .

.

.

More work is needed on the issue of governance.

We

believe that involvement is important and desirable

[Italics, mine] (pp. 81-82).

In

their

chapter

entitled,

"Applied

qualitative

research for education,"

Bogdan and Biklen

(1982)

speak

particularly to concerns of teachers in regard to change:

Change is serious because the goal is to improve life

for people.

Change is complicated because ibeliefs,

life styles and behavior come into conflict.

People

who try to change education,

be it in a: particular

classroom or for the whole system, seldom understand

how people involved in the change think.

Consequently,

they

are

unable

to

accurately

anticipate

how

the

participants will react.

Since it is the people in the

setting that must live with the change, it is their

definitions

of

the

situation

that

are

crucial

if

change is going to work (p. 193).

As the passage continues, the validity of using qualitative

research specifically in regard to this topic is discussed:

These human aspects of the change process are what

qualitative

research

strategies

.

.

.

study best.

Their emphasis on the perspectives that people hold and

their concern with process enable the researcher* to

sort out the complications of change.

The qualitative

orientation allows for the researcher to simultaneously

deal with participants in change, whether in a single

classroom

or

at

the

many different

levels

of

the

educational bureaucracy.

The perspective directs us to

see behavior in context and does not focus on outcomes

to the exclusion of process (p. 193).

Clark (1984), in his article, "Research in the service

of teaching," feels that research should have at least four

benefits for teachers; namely, information (describes how

     

doing well).

When teat

informants ,

E

opportunity ti

reflective , a1

Teacher 1

the form

but of s]

gathering

multiple

participr

enhancing

but they

stand

t]

problems

I belies

simply know a

articulate . "

teacher benef

.

.

. a

next dec

the prac

establis

principl

In that

descriptions

Perspective

setting.

Not

anticipated

:

this study, :

 

9

teaching and learning worked under various conditions and in

various settings),

inspiration (pictures of how schooling

could be improved), vision (sees familiar surroundings in

new ways), and support (validates what teachers are already

doing well).

When teachers themselves participate in the research as

informants,

Florio

(1981)

says that they are given the

opportunity to look at their own teaching afresh by being

reflective, analytic, and constructively critical:

Teacher participation in fieldwork research that takes

the form not only of answering researchers’ questions

but of sharing the activities of question framing, data

gathering, and drawing and testing inferences can yield

multiple professional benefits.

By means of their

participation,

teachers not only stand a chance of

enhancing the quality of theory about their practice,

but they develop inquiry skills and experience that may

stand

them

in

good

stead

as

they

approach

daily

problems within that practice (p. 16).

I believe,

like Shulman

(1986),

that "practitioners

simply know a great deal that they have never even tried to

articulate."

His

perspective

looks

beyond

individual

teacher benefits to the educational community as a whole:

.

.

.

a major portion of the research agenda for the

next decade will be to collect, collate, and interpret

the practical knowledge of teachers for the purpose of

establishing

a

case

literature

and

codifying

its

principles, precedents, and parables (p. 12).

In that light,

it

is envisioned that the resultant

descriptions

and

findings

from

this

fieldwork

research

perspective

will

have

significance

beyond

the

present

setting.

Not only can personal and professional benefits be

anticipated for the teachers who were directly involved in

this study, as well as for the district as a whole, but the

education de

4

For this

our thinking.

C l

r

assuming that

ones“ (Loucks'

mime

level with

1

advice, at for

et a1., 1987,

Coordi n;

"cultural cir

The coordinat

hope, love, a

possibility t

the certainty

both the coo:

is the convi<

is the liber

Humility:

the

become a par‘

than claiming

gurricul

the what and

where, the w

Omega distric

the learning

children and

dynamic prog

studied, eval

the ever-shi

community whz‘

Currier

administrator

0mouse“ the
council is tl

high school

I

 
 

 

 

10

issues

addressed

here

should

also

be

of

interest

to

curriculum directors, administrators, reading consultants,

inservice

planners

and

staff

developers,

plus

teacher

education departments of colleges and universities.

Definitions

For this project, the following definitions will focus

our thinking.

Collaboration.

"

.

.

mutual

problem

solving,

assuming that multiple perspectives are better than single

ones" (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987, p. 9).

Collegiality.

"

.

.

.

connecting' on a professional

level

with

other

school

staff,

looking

for new ideas,

advice, a forum to test models of teaching" (Loucks-Horsley

et al., 1987, p. 8).

Coordinator.

Freire’s

(1971)

description

of

his

"cultural circle" coordinator is adopted for this setting.

The coordinator is a person who is characterized by faith,

hope, love, and humility.

Faith: there is the belief in the

possibility to create and to change things.

Hope: there is

the certainty that each meeting with the group will leave

both the coordinator and its members enriched. Love: there

is the conviction that the fundamental effort of education

is the liberation of wo/man, never his/her domestication.

Humility: there is the desire to grow with the group, to

become a part of the group and one of its members, rather

than claiming to direct the group.

Curriculum.

Curriculum is the dynamic interaction of

the what and why of instruction, along with the who, the

where, the when, the how, and the with what results.

The

Omega district (1984) has defined curriculum as "

.

.

. all

the

learning

experiences which the

schools

provide

for

children and. youth.

The curriculum: of the schools is a

dynamic program of learning activities to be continually

studied, evaluated and changed if it is to continue to serve

the ever-shifting needs of the student population and the

community which the schools serve."

Curriculum

Council.

A

group

of

teachers

and

administrators whose purpose it is to "study, evaluate, and

change"

the district’s curriculum.

The make—up of

the

council is the curriculum director (non-voting chair), three

high school teachers,

three middle school teachers,

five

  effectively

1’

(Ashcroft, 19?

E

.1 . l

1

members

are

meaningful 1s:

Mum

guidelines

fl

approaches (5‘

Inngvgti

going to us

individual wh

1987, p. 55) .

-W-

S

involves stuc‘

they know,

V

learned.

Locus of

relationships

(Rotter [0miz

flaming-

graphic form.

Ilelpefii

state's readi

says that "B

through the I

knowledge,

ti

context of ti

0

efi

of reading, \

transforming

meaning.

Th1

written page

mom
which the t:

 

ll

elementary school teachers, three administrators, one Omega

Education Association representative—at—large.

Empowered

Teacher.

The

teacher who

is

active

in

his/her

own

education

(Freire

[Timpson,

1989]);

a

professional decision—maker (Keyes,

1988);

one who is in

control of,

and responsible for,

the changes which s/he

her/himself

initiates

or

takes

on

(Lieberman

[Brandt,

1989]).

Empowerment.

To bring into a state of ability to act

effectively with

strength,

capability,

vigor,

or energy

(Ashcroft, 1987).

Facilitator.

One who creates a context in which group

members

are

free

to

have

personal

interactions

about

meaningful issues or themes (Braunius, 1983).

Implementation.

The

carrying out

of

the

specific

guidelines

for

instructional,

curricular,

or

management

approaches (specifically here as it relates to reading).

Innovation.

Something new' to the individual who is

going

to

use

it--requires

behaviors

not

usual

for

the

individual who is going to use it (Loucks-Horsley et al.,

1987, p. 55).

'

K-W-L Strategy.

A reading comprehension strategy that

involves students in three cognitive steps: assessing what

they know,

what

they want

to

find out,

and what they

learned.

Locus of control.

How a person perceives contingency

relationships between his or her actions and their outcomes

(Rotter [Omizo et al., 1987, p. 737]).

Mapping.

A technique of

structuring' information in

graphic form.

New DefinitiongRedefinition of Reading.

Adopted by the

state’s reading association in 1983, the current definition

says that "Reading is the process of constructing meaning

through the dynamic interaction among the reader’s existing

knowledge, the information suggested by the text, and the

context of the reading situation." (Wixson & Peters, 1984)

Old Definition of Reading.

The state's 1977 definition

of reading, which defined reading ".

.

.

as the process of

transforming

the

visual

representation

of

language

into

meaning.

Thus, .

.

. an idea is being transferred from the

written page to the reader’s mind." (Wixson & Peters, 1984)

Probable Passages.

A reading comprehension strategy in

which the teacher selects the key words and phrases of a

 

BefOFe
text.
(e.g., settin

these keY wor

into

a

"prob:

they modify t

actually happl

M

comprehension

clarifying

tr

for

answerin

information

i

background kn'

Ream.

district phi:

objectives, a

teach those 0.

Reading

reading inter

developed by

(bottom 20%).

Reading

volunteer one

the current

familiarize 1
reading, and

guidelines f<

 

 

12

text.

Before reading the passage, the students categorize

(e.g.,

setting, characters, problem, resolution) and slot

these key words according to the elements of a story frame

into a "probable passage."

After reading* the selection,

they modify their predicted passage to correspond with what

actually happened.

QAR

(Question-Answer

Relationship).

A

reading

comprehension

strategy which provides

the

framework for

clarifying the different sources of information available

for

answering

questions.

The

two

basic

sources

are

information in the text and information from the readers’

background knowledge.

Reading Curriculum.

A written document containing the

district philosophy of reading,

goals and grade-specific

objectives, as well as suggested activities (strategies) to

teach those objectives.

Reading Recovery.

A highly individualized, intensive

reading intervention program originating in New Zealand and

developed by Marie Clay (1979) for high—risk first graders

(bottom 20%).

Reading Study Committee.

Originally a group of

24

volunteer Omega district teachers who came together to study

the

current

view

of

reading

within

the

district,

to

familiarize themselves with the state’s new definition of

reading,

and to write a curriculum which would set the

guidelines for the district's future direction in reading

instruction.

The group membership at the time of this

writing

consisted

of:

the

elementary

language

arts

chair/second grade teacher (chair), the curriculum director,

one

elementary

principal,

one high school

teacher,

two

middle school teachers, one middle school reading teacher,

one fifth grade teacher,

two fourth grade teachers,

two

third

grade

teachers,

one

first

grade

teacher,

one

kindergarten teacher,

and three elementary school reading

teachers.

Reading Support Group.

The eight voluntary elementary

teachers, plus myself as coordinator, who met on a weekly

basis from September 7-December 12, 1989, for the purpose of

discussing reading—related concerns.

The group composite

will

be

described more

extensively

in

the

"Situations"

section of this paper.

Reciprocal Teaching.

A reading comprehension strategy

which

is

a

dialogue

between the

teacher and

students,

utilizing

four

components:

generating

questions,

summarizing, clarifying, and predicting.

Staff Developmenthrofessional Development. Individual,

personal self-improvement efforts which engage teachers in a

wide variety
skills withir
31., 1987).

Stages.

(Katz,

1972)

stages;

1.e

Maturity.

Story G1

which stories

mi

were carried

conjunction w

the purpose

related to t

concomitant s

Strategi

flexibly and

result.

Teacher

both

a place

teachers exCr

and have acce

own classroom

0f teachers’

development a
how children

thinking and

Miller, 197

 

 

13

wide variety of opportunities for growth in knowledge and

skills within the education profession (Loucks-Horsley et

al., 1987).

Stages.

A cluster of concerns, a set of preoccupations

(Katz,

1972);

as

in

Katz’s

four

teacher

developmental

stages;

i.e.,

Survival,

Consolidation,

Renewal,

and

Maturity.

Story Ggammar.

The explicit structure or pattern by

which stories are constructed.

Strategic Inservices.

Voluntary monthly meetings which

were

carried

out

during

the

1988-1989

school

year

in

conjunction with the work of the Reading Study Committee for

the purpose of disseminating information to K-5 teachers

related to the state’s New Definition of Reading and its

concomitant strategies

Strategies.

Systematic plans which the

reader uses

flexibly and adaptively for achieving ea specific goal or

result.

Teacher Center.

A teacher center can be looked upon as

both a place and a concept.

As a place,

it

is where

teachers exchange ideas, talk over problems, acquire skill,

and have access to resources they can use and adapt to their

own classroom situations. As a concept, it shows the value

of teachers' taking more responsibility for their own staff

development and fosters teachers’ understanding more about

how children learn and is concerned with what a teacher is

thinking and doing in his/her classroom (Zigarmi [Lieberman

& Miller, 1979]).

Research Questions

I have raised several questions to give direction to

this research.

While many will be answered specifically by

the data gathered in this setting, others guided the process

of investigation but were not directly answered within the

parameters of this project.

They may bear further research.

The overriding research questions addressed within this

paper are: How does one district attempt. to empower its

teachers for reading curriculum change? and What kind of

SUpport (i.e., staff development) do its teachers require if

they are to

and implement

The

sul

questions car

specified

wii

empowerment,

implementatio

Teacher Empow

1.

How

teachers for

2. What

the governanc

structure?

3. How <

view teacher

district's

a

students?

4. When

How do they

not have?

Professional

unfillarfllm

Three dj

made in relat

Reading

.

‘

‘1 .

Ht

1nltlated,

assessed/men:

.
Wha1
Inform itSel;

2~

3-

Wh.

chanve?

 

 

14

they are to feel empowered in their attempts to recommend

and implement changes in reading instruction?

The

subsidiary

questions

arising

from

the

main

questions can be categorized according to the three areas

specified within the title of this thesis; i.e., teacher

empowerment,

staff

development,

and

reading

curriculum

implementation.

Teacher Empowerment.

1.

How

does

one

district

attempt

to

empower

its

teachers for reading curriculum change?

2. What happens when these teachers become involved in

the governance process?

How do they react to an empowerment

structure?

3. How do teachers and administrators in this district

View teacher

empowerment?

What

does

it mean

for the

district's administrators,

teachers,

and, ultimately,

the

students?

4. When do these teachers feel empowered/disempowered?

How do they feel about the amount of control they have/do

not have?

What are the conditions that deter/encourage

professional growth and development within this setting?

Staff Development.

Three different types of staff development efforts were

made in relationship to the three headings specified below.

Reading Study Committee.

1.

How

does

this

Committee,

billed

as

"teacher

initiated,

teacher

led,

teacher

directed,

and

teacher

assessed/monitored" carry out its duties?

2.

What process does the Committee undergo in order to

inform itself about current reading research and practice?

3.

What kind of situations will be experienced as

teachers attempt to plan and implement reading curriculum

change?

4.

How do these attempts at staff development cause

the Committee members to feel empowered/disempowered?

Reading Strategic Inservices.

1.

What kind of staff development efforts does the

Committee

propose

to

prepare

and

equip

the

elementary

teaching staff for reading curriculum change?

2 .

Who

knowledge

dis

3.

How

to characteri

compare

to

1

staff develop

4.

W!

development c

Reading

1.

Wh.

provided

wit

reflection of

2.

Wh

Reading Supp:

give for part

needs of the

reading progr

3. How

traditional

1'

does it diff

what ways d0<

impede teache

4-

Wha'

influence in

the research

and key decis

.1-

How

Curriculum?

2.

Wha

attempt to i)

3-

How

or address t]

4-

Wha
emPowered/d i

C[irriCulum

dlStrict?

15

2.

Who determines what is to be taught?

How is that

knowledge disseminated?

3.

How does what happens within this setting compare

to characteristics of traditional inservices?

How does it

compare to the identified characteristics of

"effective"

staff development?

4.

What

is

the

impact

of

this

kind

of

staff

development on teacher empowerment?

Reading Support Group.

1.

What will happen when a group of teachers is

provided with

the opportunity

for engaging in critical

reflection of teaching reading with each other?

2.

Who becomes a part of the proposed voluntary

Reading Support Group?

What rationale do these individuals

give for participating in the group?

What are the perceived

needs of these teachers as they seek to implement a new

reading program?

3. How does what happens in this setting differ from

traditional inservices or continuing teacher education?

How

does it differ from the Reading Strategic Inservices?

In

what ways does this type of staff development facilitate or

impede teacher empowerment?

4.

What are the results when the balance of power and

influence in research-based staff development is moved from

the researcher and her findings to teachers as initiators

and key decision—makers for their own professional growth?

Reading Curriculum Implementation.

1.

How does the district attempt to implement its new

curriculum?

2.

What kinds of concerns do teachers express as they

attempt to implement this new reading curriculum?

3.

How does the district attempt to meet those needs

or address those concerns?

4.

What evidences are there that these teachers feel

empowered/disempowered

as

they

seek

to

effect

reading

curriculum

change

within

their

own

classrooms

and

the

district?

Participant Sample Used for Study

Three specific groups, already alluded to throughout

this chapter, formed the focus for this study.

The first

two, the Reading Study Committee and the Reading Support

Group,

were

described according to group composite

and

purpose on pages 4-6.

Those who comprised the third group

were members

the monthly

information

teachers

ab01

concomitant s

Consiste

is the methor

research, and

this type of

participant <

particular or

(Bogdan & Bi‘

kind of resez

information?

group?

Who

qUantitatiVe

“Searcher.

PUts then im

Researc]

experts,

rea

prescribe .

 

 

16

were members of the elementary teaching staff who attended

the monthly voluntary Reading Strategic Inservices, where

information

was

disseminated

by

the

district’s

reading

teachers about the state's New Definition of Reading and

concomitant strategies.

Qualitative Research Methodology

Consistent with the components of teacher empowerment

is the methodology chosen for this study; i.e., qualitative

research, and specifically, an observational case study.

In

this type of study, "the major data-gathering technique is

participant observation and the focus of the study is on a

particular organization or some aspect of the organization"

(Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, pp. 59-61).

A major issue in this

kind of research is that of control:

Who is to provide the

information?

Who reaches the conclusions for the research

group?

Who decides what actions are to be taken?

In

quantitative

research,

these

are

the

functions

of

the

researcher.

Ideally,

ethnographic participatory research

puts them into the hands of the subjects, as well.

Researchers have traditionally gone into schools as the

experts,

ready to

criticize or to analyze

in order to

prescribe.

In this particular situation, the qualitative

method’s

mission

became,

instead,

to

understand

the

proposed change from the perspective of those individuals

who

are

closest

to

the

change,

i.e.,

the

elementary

classroom teachers of the Omega district.

McDonald (1988)

calls this listening for the teacher’s voice.

Florio (1981)

 

says it is ar

those goings-

setting.

In sum,

specification

in order to 1

the behavior:

field

settir

participants?

do what they

here relate t

other times (

W

Thirty—s

transcriptior

data for this

With the

t

Director, th

the district

third

grade

e1““9“er b1

InserviCes d1

 

 

says it is an attempt to find out what’s going on and what

those goings—on mean to the "very special natives" in that

17

setting.

In sum, it is the role of the ethnographer to report a

specification of what the members of a community must know

in order to behave sensibly within it and to make sense of

the behaviors of others; i.e., What is happening in this

field

setting?

What

do

the

happenings

mean

to

the

participants? What must these participants know in order to

do what they do in the setting? How does what is happening

here relate to and differ from that found in other places at

other times (Erickson, 1985)?

Data Collection.

Summary Procedures

Thirty-seven audiotapes, plus several hundred pages of

transcriptions, fieldnotes, and site documents provided the

data for this dissertation study.

Interviews were conducted

with

the

three

elementary

principals,

the

Curriculum

Director, the chairperson of the Reading Study Committee,

the district’s three reading teachers, and nine second and

third

grade

teachers

(three

from

each

of

the

three

elementary buildings) who had attended the Reading Strategic

Inservices during the 1988-1989 school year.

As an observer

participant during that time,

I myself attended all seven

Reading

Strategic

Inservices

(both

Information

and

Debriefing

Sessions)

and

eight

Reading

Study

Committee

meetings.

I made eight visits to the classrooms of each of

two teachers;

attempt to

5

expressed

an

specifically

documents

(

Reading Study

minutes)

fror

Additior

and particip;

Reading Supp(

through

infc

questionnai

M’s

9011"

(p. 20

teachers’

a.

control of

1

sent to all

and

all

1-

district

ga'

Under Which

 

 

18

two teachers, one a novice and one a veteran, in order to

attempt to determine the levels of concern and. use each

expressed

and

evidenced

as

she

attempted

to

implement

specifically

the

Reciprocal

Teaching

strategy.

Site

documents

(e.g.,

staff

bulletins,

district

newspapers,

Reading Study Committee newsletters, and Curriculum Council

minutes) from as far back as 1984 were perused, as well.

Additional data were gathered from audiotape recordings

and participant observations made during the twelve weekly

Reading Support Group meetings (9/7/89-12/12/89), as well as

through informal

interviews with group participants.

A

questionnaire,

which

combined

aspects

of

both

the

Instructor’s

(1986,

January)

"Elementary education policy

poll“ (p. 20) and "The second Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa poll of

teachers’

attitudes

toward

the

public

schools:

Teacher

control of the educational process" (Elam, 1989, p. 793),

sent to all Reading Support Group Members (87.5% response)

and

all

1-5

classroom

teachers

(60%

response)

in

the

district gave

additional

insight

into

the

circumstances

under which and the degree to which Omega teachers feel

empowered/disempowered.

Data Analysis Procedures.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) talk about "grounded theory,"

a method for developing formal theory from the substantive

data collected.

Hall (1975) says that grounded theory is "

.

.

. theory that is based on real world experiences and

phenomena rather than theory that has been developed in some

ivory tower"

components of

The

fi

construction

collected,

b

precedent

lii

information

fieldnotes,

settings

(b.

typicality

or

The sec

data.

This I

and accurate]

categories

a:

162)

list

5

according

to

perspectives

thinking

abc

events I Chan

l9

ivory tower"

(p.

4).

The following five stages are the

components of grounded theory construction.

The

first

stage

is

data

collection.

Theory

construction

begins

with data that has been previously

collected,

both within the field and from the body of

precedent literature.

The goal is to obtain a variety of

information

from

a variety of

sources

(site

documents,

fieldnotes,

interviews, observations) and in a variety of

settings

(both

formal

and

informal)

to

determine

the

typicality or atypicality of events.

The second step is the codification of the gathered

data.

This requires that the data be organized conceptually

and accurately in order to codify each incident into as many

categories as possible.

Bogdan and Biklen (1982, pp. 156—

162)

list

several

ways

in

which

coding

may

be

done:

according to setting/context, definition of the situation,

perspectives held by the subjects, the subjects’ ways of

thinking about people and objects,

process

(sequence of

events, changes over time, passage from one type or kind of

status to another), activity, event, strategy, relationship

and social structure, methods, or preassigned codes.

Next,

an attempt is made to integrate categories and

their properties.

As categorical incidents are compared,

properties, or specific elements of the categories, should

begin to emerge which fit specific headings.

At this point,

categories

become

more

general,

conceptual

aspects

of

theory.

 

Fourth,

"on

the

or

nonrelevant

1

properties

categories,

Strauss, 1967

of categories

The fine

involves the

into

major

findings

(for

particular

5

what bearing

general?).

 

20

Fourth, delimiting the theory, involves making changes

"on

the

order

of

clarifying

the

logic,

taking

out

nonrelevant properties, integrating elaborating details of

properties

into

the

major

outline

of

interrelated

categories,

and--most

important——reduction"

(Glaser

&

Strauss, 1967, p. 110).

Reduction synthesizes a smaller set

of categories into a higher level concept.

The final stage is that of writing theory.

This step

involves the writing of coded, integrated, delimited data

into

major

themes

of

theory,

linking

the

substantive

findings (focused on this particular setting and with these

particular subjects)

to formal theoretical issues

(i.e.,

what bearing will these findings have on human behavior in

general?).

Limitations

My first concern as I went back into my district as a

researcher was my own objectivity.

I questioned whether I

would truly be able to act with "disciplined subjectivity"

(Clark, 1984) in the context of a school setting where I had

been employed for a decade, and where, indeed, I was still

employed.

In conjunction with that,

I wondered how my

colleagues/peers, as well as my supervisors, would View my

attempts to discover and report on what the members of that

community must know in order to behave sensibly within it

and to make sense of the behavior of others.

How would they

respond to my genuine or feigned naivete as I probed in an

attempt to discover answers to my questions about "what is

going

on?"

participants?

My conc

From my jour

tended to be

to be unobti

part of the v

varied,

and

honestly the}

surpris

(School Secr

terminology:

encoura

district.

1

Superintendel

support

help you wit]

wonder.

to be a read.

 

 

21

going

on?"

and

"what

do

these

goings

on

mean

to

its

participants?" (Erickson, 1985).

My concerns in this regard were largely ungrounded.

From my journal came numerous examples of how individuals

tended to be "helpful," making it difficult at times for me

to be unobtrusive or fade into the background and become

part of the woodwork. Reactions to my presence were many and

varied,

and the following examples demonstrate just how

honestly they spoke in my presence:

surprise.

"Are

you

’hanging

around’

here

again?"

(School Secretary)

[I complimented her on her ethnographic

terminology: "That’s just what I’m supposed to be doing"];

encouragement.

"I

welcome

your

research

in

our

district.

Your project has my full approval."

(District

Superintendent);

support. "Let me know if there is anything I can do to

help you with your study." (Reading Study Committee Member);

wonder. "Mrs. Braunius, our teacher said you are going

to be a reading doctor!" (Second Grade Student);

respect.

"I’ve been encouraged to go on to get my

Ph.D., but I don’t think I’ll ever do it.

I’ve had too many

friends get to the research stage and drop out.

Now it

makes me feel good to give you that support." (Curriculum

Director);

curiosity.

"Just what is the topic of your research?"

(Classroom Teacher);

caution.

"I guess I could help you out.

What kind of

questions would you want to ask me?

Could I see them ahead

of time?" (Administrator);

misunderstanding.

"So you’re here to evaluate what

we're doing?" (Classroom Teacher);

tolerance. "If it [an interview] has to be done, let’s

do it now and get it over with." (Classroom Teacher);

cooperation.

"Please let me know if I can help you in

any way.

I’d be happy to tape meetings, save memos, or meet

again to keep you up to date." (Reading Study Chairperson);

apprecia

book as we’ r

you’re asked

My

seci

gathering.

the situatio:

participants

they tell me

In respv

my greatest

this project

not interact

aside my con

It was

diff:

Study Commit

advocate

in 1

made Would i

also difficu

Support Grou

22

appreciation.

"I feel like I’m writing a philosophy

book as we’re talking.

It’s amazing what comes out when

you’re asked some good questions." (Administrator).

My

second

anticipated

dilemma

related

to

data

gathering.

In observations, how would my presence affect

the situation It was observing?

In interviews, would the

participants be truthful in answering my questions, or would

they tell me what they felt I wanted to hear?

In respect to participant observations, I experienced

my greatest sense of frustration and helplessness during

this project.

It was difficult to sit in a classroom and

not interact with the children.

It was difficult to lay

aside my consultant role in my relationship with teachers.

It was difficult to be a silent observer during Reading

Study Committee meetings, when I had been its most vocal

advocate in the past and since I realized that the decisions

made would impact the district for years to come.

It was

also difficult to be sensitive to the needs of the Reading

Support Group on a weekly basis:

I realized that each

participant came with her own biases and agenda, her own

personal and professional perceptions and preoccupations.

I

felt the heavy weight of responsibility as group coordinator

to manifest Freire’s (1971) characteristics of faith, hope,

love, and humility without manipulating the meetings.

I found the interviews to be exciting and enlightening.

I was forced to listen to what my collaborators were saying

without becoming preoccupied with considering how I[ would

respond.

I felt that the respondents were attempting to be

 

open

and

fC

admission,

"

express opini

beliefs into

The thi

earlier, cha1

the Omega di:

approach to <

Reading

Stud

before comin:

that rough <

school year

draft).

One

I feel

lasting

was tal

that sh

three y.

took

a)

studyin

to use

23

open

and

forthright:

to

paraphrase

one

administrator’s

admission,

"It’s

easier to talk about these

issues

and

express opinions about them than it is to actually put those

beliefs into practice." [Interview transcript, 2/15/89]

The third concern related to time.

As was stated

earlier, change takes time.

This was especially evident in

the Omega district with its new emphasis upon a "bottom-up"

approach to curriculum writing and implementation (e.g., the

Reading Study Committee met for a whole year—and-a-half

before coming up with a written curriculum rough draft, and

that rough draft is to be in teacher’s hands for a full

school year before it will be modified/revised as a final

draft).

One teacher put it this way:

I feel

that it takes at least three years for any

lasting changes to really take place in a classroom.

I

was talking to [a first grade teacher], and she said

that she had attended a cooperative learning workshop

three years ago.

First she learned about it.

Then she

took another year to assimilate it by reading and

studying about it.

It is just now that she is starting

to use it in her classroom. [Fieldnotes, 2/2/89]

What I was able to investigate during my time in the field,

therefore, was merely the beginning stages of what promises

to be a long process of reading curriculum development and

implementation.

In that regard, another Reading Study Committee member

spoke to the related issue of overload:

"We get so bogged

down with everything new.

Everyone comes in so excited, you

feel like you have to try it.

You get bombarded with new

things."

[Fieldnotes, 2/17/89]

 

One pril

innovations v

would--and

S

"backlash"

f

of that occu:

grade teache

written list

affected her

-New Rea

-Doing :

-New SO(

-New Sc:

-Cluste:

-Joyce .

-"Innov:

-Junior

day)

-AIMS,

Thinki

-[Build

Monthl

-Increa

Parent

‘(Futur

Art

*Increa

Which

24

One principal expressed similar constraints related to

innovations within the district.

He predicted that teachers

would—-and some were even now beginning to—-experience a

"backlash" from everything new being proposed.

An example

of that occurred concretely some weeks later when one fourth

grade teacher brought to a faculty meeting the following

written list of such proposed changes had which directly

affected her during the previous eighteen months:

-New Reading Strategies

-Doing away with basals and workbooks

-New Social Studies curriculum and texts/or lack of

-New Science curriculum

-Cluster training and teaching [Gifted]

-Joyce Juntune (3 year commitment)-Creative thinking

-"Innovate, Communicate, Motivate" [School Improvement]

-Junior Great Books and Mary Bigler (read 2 times a

day)

-AIMS, GEMS, Reading—Writing Workshops, Math--A Way of

Thinking

-[Building-wide]: Spring Science ’89, Oceanography,

Monthly Affect Themes

-Increased social/discipline problems and decreased

parent support

-(Future)

Problem Solving,

Math, Reading Curriculum,

Art

*Increase in curriculum expectations and new methods

which require increase in planning and implementing

*Increase in classroom management

*Time in school day remains constant!

@Human energy potential

Her written comments concluded with, "Elementary is feeling

a tremendous crunch!

Would any‘ high school teacher be

expected to change so much so fast???"

[Site document,

11/28/89]

As

a

result

of

her

presentation,

one

teacher

representative

from

each

grade

met

with

the

school’s

curriculum Council representative to discuss his/her grade

 

level’s related

Curriculum Counc

In additio

elementary buil

to add from 4-1

of the 1989-19

principal,

st

proportions

for

of so many ch:

often difficul‘

most pertinent

My freedo

three elementa

realities of

constraints 0:

25

level’s related concerns. These were presented at the next

Curriculum Council meeting.

In addition to curricular concerns, each of the three

elementary buildings has been involved in a building project

to add from 4-8 additional classrooms throughout the course

of the 1989—1990 calendar years.

This means, of course,

principal,

staff,

and

student

readjustments

of

major

proportions for a rapidly growing school district.

Because

of so many changes being introduced and occurring, it was

often difficult to focus and isolate the factors which were

most pertinent to this study.

My freedom of access and mobility within and among the

three elementary buildings greatly enlightened me as to the

realities of teaching/administering and, consequently, the

constraints «of innovation implementation.

I learned that

each teacher and administrator has his/her own agenda, based

on his/her strengths, weaknesses, past/present/future goals

and experiences.

I became more aware of the four kinds of

curriculum of which the Curriculum Director spoke; namely,

the approved curriculum, the written curriculum, the taught

curriculum, and the learned curriculum.

As he stated, "It's

not

always

the

written

curriculum

that’s

the

learned

curriculum." [Fieldnotes, 2/9/89]

With this bit of background related to the limitations

of the study within this context, I realize that the issues

in

any

research

project

of

objectivity,

validity,

and

generalizability must be addressed.

 

Objecti:

forwardly id!

from a stanc<

the research

explaining t

influenced by

the values

<

This I attem]

Validit}

Social knowl

such

a

way

eXperiencec'

participants

extensive fi

involved and

the Percepti.

 

26

Objectivity is addressed when the researcher straight—

forwardly identifies her own values, by doing investigation

from a stance that openly and accurately attempts to delimit

the research because of those values, by describing and

explaining the way in which procedures and findings were

influenced by her values, and by seeking to be vulnerable to

the values of the co-participants in the research group.

This I attempted to do throughout.

Validity is concerned with the accuracy of the data.

Social knowledge is accurate when it is reported upon in

such

a

way

that

it

actually

describes

what

has

been

experienced

according

to

the

perceptions

of

the

participants.

In

this

study,

this was done by taking

extensive fieldnotes and checking back with the individuals

involved and by triangulating the data to make certain that

the perceptions were correct.

Generalizability

is

limited

for

ethnographic

approaches;

indeed,

some qualitative researchers are not

even concerned with that question.

It is, however, often

possible to generalize based on the assumption that there

are other similar situations with similar characteristics.

LeCompte

(1982)

says

that

"although

research

results

generated by ethnographers whose positions are limited in

scope may be only narrowly applicable, they are none the

less legitimate" (p. 37).

Cusick (1973) also speaks to that

issue when he points out that those who are involved in

qualitative studies “feel that men[/women] are more alike

 

 

situation" (

The wri

contain the

narrative vi

synoptic dat

particular a

history

of

discussion a

Followi

issues ember

development ,

2):

I Will

.
.
.
I

27

than they are different, and what is reasonable behavior for

one human being in a given situation will, at least in some

way,

be

reasonable

behavior

for

others

in

the

same

situation" (p. 5).

Organization of the Study

The written report of this ethnographic case study will

contain the following items:

empirical assertions, analytic

narrative vignettes, quotes from fieldnotes and interviews,

synoptic data reports, interpretive commentary framing both

particular and general descriptions, a report of the natural

history

of

inquiry

in

the

study,

and

a

theoretical

discussion about the findings (Erickson, 1985, pp. 89-90).

Following a review of precedent literature related to

issues embedded within the terms teacher empowerment, staff

development, and reading curriculum implementation (Chapter

2),

I will describe the site and context within which the

data

collection

took

place,

as

well

as

an

expanded

chronology

of

Reading study Committee

activities

and

a

summary

of

each

of

the

thirteen Reading Support

Group

meetings (Chapter 3)

.

A description and interpretation of

the major findings will then occur (Chapter 4).

The final

section will contain a summary and conclusions, including

"Implications of teacher" empowerment in staff development

toward reading curriculum design/implementation," along with

recommendations for future research (Chapter 5).

 
 

The tit

project is "

development

implementati

order to dis

theoretical/

insights int

events which

this thesis

 

From tj

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF PRECEDENT LITERATURE

The title of this fieldwork research dissertation

project is "Implications of teacher empowerment in staff

development

toward

reading

curriculum

design/

implementation." I will now attempt to dissect that title in

order to discuss the various components forming the

theoretical/philosophical underpinnings as they give

insights into understanding and hypothesizing about the

events which are described and addressed within the body of

this thesis and as they relate to further research.

To set the stage, Savage (1989) talks about a recent

"shift in theory in reading research:"

The

current view of

reading comprehension suggests

three components: the person reading, the text being read,

and the process of interaction between them.

These have

become the major foci of research.

The next step might be

to investigate what might be done in instruction to improve

this interaction.

In this aspect of research, teachers

will play a crucial role [Italics, mine] (p. 53).

From this summary paragraph came my focus upon the

crucial role that teachers in the Omega district play in the

implementation of aa new reading curriculum based upon the

current view of reading in the state:

"Reading is the

process

of

constructing

meaning

through

the

dynamic

interaction

among

the reader’s existing knowledge, the

28

 

information

context of ti

5L

A

sign

implementati

is to occur]

encouraged

autonomous

r

terminology,

reflects

on

today's

scho

The fut

and boa

state

standar

client

educati

teachin

In the

teacher is ,

subjECt,

cal

Superseding

Us that

al:

development

materials a1

or unable tc

happens Wher

when teache:

29

information

suggested by the written

language,

and

the

context of the reading situation“ (Wixson & Peters, 1984, p.

5).

A

significant

factor

to

be

considered

in

this

implementation process is the overall setting in which this

is to occur; i.e., within a district that has consciously

encouraged

and

enabled

its

teachers

to

take

a

more

autonomous role in curriculum development.

In Wise's (1988)

terminology,

this

is

called

"client

control,"

and

it

reflects

one

of

the

two

conflicting trends

present

in

today’s school reform:

The future will be determined by local administrators

and board members, who must decide whether they prefer

state

control,

with

its

emphasis

on

producing

standardized

results

through regulated teaching,

or

client

control,

with

its

emphasis

on

meeting

the

educational

needs

of

students

through

professional

teaching (p. 329).

In the body of

literature,

the crucial role of the

teacher is acknowledged.

Berliner (1987) says that in any

subject, caliber and ability of the teacher comes first—-

superseding methods and materials.

Schiffer (1979) reminds

us that all

of the funding for curriculum research and

development

culminating

in

teacher

proof

and

scripted

materials and programs will fail if teachers are unwilling

or unable to implement them.

Apple (1983) talks about what

happens when curriculum is conceived outside the schools and

when teachers are asked to do little more than execute

 

someone

else

else’s activ

When ir

work,

t

are for

that ma

of

one‘

323).

This co

the reductio

all of read:

skills

(as

charts, indi

referenced/s

is often

d

manager of T.

30

someone else’s goals and plans and to carry' out someone

else’s activities:

When individuals cease to plan and control their own

work, the skills essential to these tasks atrophy and

are forgotten .

.

.

In the process, the very things

that make teaching a professional activity—-the control

of one’s expertise and time--are also dissipated (p.

323).

This concern has been expressly stated by opponents of

the reductionist view of reading, a view which purports that

all of reading can be broken down (reduced) into discrete

skills

(as evidenced in basal reader scope and sequence

charts, individual state reading objectives, and criterion-

referenced/standardized tests).

In this view, the teacher

is

often

deskilled

and

relegated to becoming merely a

manager of materials and checklists, inferring "

.

.

. that

the teacher's most important role in reading instruction is

to put into practice the instructional decisions made by

others higher up in the chain of command" (Winograd & Smith,

1987,

p.

308).

Shulman

(1983)

calls this

"the remote

control of teaching."

When reading is fractured and tested according to a

prescribed schedule, then most of the teacher’s decisions

about what to teach and how to teach have already been made,

thus

reducing

the

teacher’s

sense

of

efficacy

and

professionalism.

As

an

April

27,

1986

Harris

Poll

indicated, the need to increase their professionalism is a

major issue of teachers.

An additional problem: is that

teachers’

boredom

or

dissatisfaction

with

being

mere

technicians

attitudes to

Indeed,

curriculum t

in the decis

control, fro

from top dov

in the

lite

educational

(January

1

Professional

0f empowerme

More

1988]. The 1

[February 15

the State I S

Curriculum

 

31

technicians may be passed on

to affect their students’

attitudes toward learning, as well.

Indeed, this shifting from bureaucratic mandating of

curriculum to allowing teachers to take a more active role

in the decision-making process, from state control to client

control, from loss of control to increased professionalism,

from top down to bottom up--these are the issues dealt with

in the literature on teacher empowerment,

a buzzword in

educational circles today.

A recent issue of Instructor

(January

1990)

calls

it

"education’s

hottest

topic."

Professional journals have dedicated issues to the concept

of empowerment (e.g., Educational Leadership [May 1989], Phi

Delta Kappan [March 1988], Teachers’ College Record [Summer

1988], The Reading Teacher [April 1989], and Language Arts

[February 1987]), conferences have been named for it (e.g.,

the state’s October 1988 Association for Supervision and

Curriculum

Development

Conference

had

as

its

motto,

"Empowering the Vision"), books have been written about it

(e.g.,

Gene

Maeroff’s

(1988b)

book,

The

Empowerment

of

Teachers: Overcoming the Crisis of Confidence), and polls

and surveys have verified its importance (e.g., Instructor’s

"What Do You Care About Most?" [1986, January]/"Here’s What

You Care About Most!" [1986, May], "The Second Gallup/Phi

Delta Kappa Poll of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Public

Schools" [1989, June], and the National Education

 

Association ’

study [1988]

Introduction

“Are yc

is the quesi

of her EM

ever nation:

Conditions

1988), the a

the majority

were sampler

necessary t.

and materi

authority ,

‘

(Weiss, 198E

An esse

Association's Conditions and Resources of Teaching (CART)

32

study [1988]).

1mm.

Teacher Empowerment

“Are you treated like a professional or a tall child?"

is the question Weiss (1988) poses to teachers in the title

of her NEA Today article.

Citing the results of "the first-

ever national survey of teachers’ working conditions," the

Conditions and Resources of Teaching (CART) survey (NEA,

1988), the answer is supplied: it is probably the latter for

the majority of America’s teachers.

The 2,000 teachers who

were sampled indicated that “they lack the basic conditions

necessary to do their jobs .

.

. time and space, supplies

and

materials,

administrative

support,

decision-making

authority, and opportunities for professional development"

(Weiss, 1988, p. 4).

An essay by the research team which helped prepare the

survey provides an overview and appraisal of

"the first

national

effort

to

empirically

identify

the

specific

problems teachers have with the work conditions of schools"

(Bacharach,

Bauer,

& Shedd,

1986,

p.

9).

Four elements

which have been identified by both the private sector and

academic research as basic to effective organizations are

discussed in this connection; i.e., Job Resources, Decision

Making,

Communication with Building-Level Administrators,

 

 

and

Correla

Commitment.

The sec

pertinent

fr

brief,

the

extremely 15

basic schooi

commentary

characterist

moves on to

happen-~whe

finally,

ma

Organizatior

individuals

has shown t

is typica
participath

and accuratt

Furthermore

OPPOrtunity
more commiti

t0 aChieve (

'

'

-

0v

results

iy-

°°°Perationl

reduced Stre

AlternatiVe:

Where few

deCiSiOns m

dissatisfaa

c0ntrol 0V6]

gventllally

1npm’atiVe,
brlng to th

the overall

I

‘

- Tea

int

Ch
he deci

33

and

Correlates

of

Teacher

Job

Satisfaction

and

Career

Commitment.

The second theme, Decision Making, seems to be the most

pertinent for our discussion on teacher empowerment.

In

brief,

the

CART

survey

found

that

teachers

are

given

extremely little opportunity to exercise their influence on

basic school decisions. The study's following interpretive

commentary

related

to

Decision

Making

begins

with

the

characteristics of effective organizations in general, then

moves on to speculations related to what happens-~or might

happen—-when

these

characteristics

are

lacking,

and,

finally,

makes application to the teaching profession.

Organizational effectiveness is directly linked to how well

individuals in an organization make decisions .

.

. Research

has shown that in effective organizations, decision making

is

typically

a

decentralized

process.

A

highly

participative decision-making process yields more complete

and accurate information upon which to base decisions .

.

.

Furthermore,

because

participation

gives

employees

an

opportunity to be involved in problem solving, they become

more committed to the solution chosen, and might work harder

to achieve desired results.

.

.

Over

time,

researchers

maintain,

participation

results

in

higher

levels

of

satisfaction,

increased

cooperation, lower levels of turnover and absenteeism, and

reduced stress.

Alternatively, a highly centralized decision-making system

where few individuals retain control over organizational

decisions might breed suspicion,

contempt,

and.

a general

dissatisfaction with work .

.

. powerlessness and lack of

control over the work environment may be demoralizing and

eventually might lead to the collapse of the generally

innovative,

almost

entrepreneurial

spirit

professionals

bring to their jobs [and] can have a devastating impact on

the overall quality of an organization.

'

.

. Teachers, as professionals, should be highly involved

in the decision process in schools if peak quality is to be

  

attained.

I

in goal sett

in schools,

allocation (

Definition.

As a te

broadly, and

own shades o

Ashcrof

word,

since

person

cont:

empowerment

endorsing

development

her article,

strict dict;

 

34

attained.

In particular, teachers should be highly involved

in goal setting, in decisions concerning the work processes

in schools,

and in decisions governing resource use and

allocation (p. 19).

De_f_i_n_iti_on.

As a term, empower can be defined very narrowly or very

broadly, and each author who writes about it paints his/her

own shades of meaning and highlights upon it.

Ashcroft (1987) says that empowering is a controversial

word,

since the idea of power often intimates that one

person. controls another.

She argues, nevertheless, that

empowerment is "a vital concept in any educational system

endorsing

the

philosophy

of

personal

growth

and

the

development of critical, creative learners" (p. 142).

In

her article, Ashcroft begins "diffusing empowering" with a

strict dictionary definition, where the prefix em and the

root

word

power

combine

to

make

the

literal

meaning

approximate

"to

bring

into

a

state

of

ability

to

act

effectively

.

.

.

with

strength,

capability,

vigor

or

energy"

(p.

144).

Lieberman (Brandt,

1989) gives a less

dictionary—bound

meaning.

She

defines

empowerment

as

"involving people authentically in dealing with their own

personal lives" (p. 24).

From these generic definitions come applications to the

educational setting, an arena in which Lieberman says there

has been little evidence of empowerment in the past.

The

ability to act "effectively" and "authentically" in 'this

setting

may

entail

many

things.

According to Goodman

 

(1987): the

reflective

personally 2

Keyes (1988

with which v

teacher pari

(1989) adds

process

in

opportunity

repercussior

Timpsor

says that er

in his/her

(1956)

phi]

where he ta]

the learner

hisi/her]

a

Ambrosie

(1

lacking for

35

(1987),

the empowered. teacher is an individual who is a

reflective practitioner,

one who assumes a critical and

personally active approach toward the teaching profession.

Keyes (1988) calls him/her a gucfessional decision-maker,

with which Whitelaw (1989) concurs: "

.

.

.

empowerment is

teacher participation in decision-making" (p. 84).

Lagana

(1989) adds a new dimension: “Empowerment is defined as a

process

in

which

a

person

or

persons

are

given

the

opportunity

to

take

risks

and

to

compete

without

repercussions of failure" [Italics, mine] (p. 52).

Timpson

(1988),

in summarizing the Views of Freire,

says that empowerment meets the learner’s need to be active

in his/her own education.

This is reminiscent of Dewey’s

(1956)

philosophical

emphasis

in

progressive

education,

where he talks about "the importance of the participation of

the learner in the formation of the purposes which direct

 

his[/her]

activities

in

the

learning process"

(p.

67).

Ambrosia

(1989)

says that Dewey found such. participation

lacking for teachers already in 1903.

Although the discussion on empowerment up to this point

has placed the emphasis upon the individual (Mead’s [Greene,

1979]

"I," Keyes’,

1988,

"the personal self"),

it cannot

stop

there.

It

must

also

take

into

account

the

interpersonal "me," "the professional self."

In that vein,

Lieberman

(Brandt,

1989)

does

not

see

merely

the

individual's autonomy at the heart of empowerment.

She,

 

rather,

tal

empowering '

have real

c

which in mc

states that

being put

customary,

responsible

take on" (p.

Ashcrof

be 92g; som

Gibboney

ar

capacity of

practice

intelligence

administrat(

%

Maerofj

whiCh the ts

Sees

three

empowerment

providing a‘

36

rather,

talks about a collective autonomy:

"[I]t means

empowering teachers to participate in group decisions, to

have real decision—making roles in the school community,

which in most places they don’t have now"

(p.

24).

She

states that this approach is "

.

.

. different from teachers

being put on committees by administrators,

as has been

customary,

as

opposed

to

being

in

control

of—-and

responsible for--the changes they themselves initiate or

take on" (p. 25).

Ashcroft (1987) says that for Freire, "power should not

be over someone, it should be with someone“ (p. 147).

For

Gibboney

and

Gould

(1987),

teacher

empowerment

is

"the

capacity of education to improve the quality of educational

practice

through

democratic

means

to

enhance

the

intelligence and sensitivities of students, teachers,

and

administrators" [Italics, mine] (p. 4).

Characteristics.

Maeroff

(1988)

says that for a teacher, empowerment

means-—more than anything else--working in an environment in

which the teacher acts and is treated as a professional.

He

sees

three

complementary

principles

as

essential

to

empowerment:

boosting

status,

gaining

knowledge,

and

providing access to decision making.

These would appear to

correlate with Keyes'

(1988) categories of personal self,

self as learner, and self as teacher.

The personal self is

addressed

through

boosting status,

the

self

as

learner

 

 

through

inc

through prOV

Boostiz

way

in

whi

colleagues,

by society a

the

lowly

professions;

characterist

service,

sei

characterist

now profess

based upon

Collegiality

"Providing

2

Contra

PrOfessiona]

Pressures f;

his/her

pro

teacher alltc

allthority

c

Classy-00mg,

enviromnents

Often

this

theIDSelves .

37

through

increasing

knowledge,

and

the

self

as

teacher

through providing access to decision making.

Boosting status.

This first principle refers to the

way

in

which

teachers

are viewed and treated by their

colleagues, by their administrators, by the community, and

by society as a whole.

Much has been written and said about

the

lowly

status

that

teaching

occupies

among

the

professions;

in

fact,

Romberg

(1988),

in comparing the

characteristics of a profession (i.e., collegiality, public

service, self-regulation, vocation, and autonomy) with the

characteristics of teaching, concludes that teachers are not

now professionals.

He

draws

that

conclusion

essentially

based upon the lack of collegiality and teacher autonomy.

Collegiality will be discussed further under the heading,

"Providing Access to Decision Making."

Contrary

to

other

professions

that

allow

the

professional to make his/her own decisions without external

pressures from clients, from others who are not members of

his/her profession,

and from the employing organization,

teacher autonomy is limited and contradictory--teachers have

authority over their own students

and within their own

classrooms, but they often lack authority over school-wide

environments and over themselves (Romberg,

1988,

p.

233).

Often

this

affects

the

way

that

teachers

think

of

themselves.

 

 

.

This it

Poll of Tea<

(Elam, 1989

complex meni

Overw

unapprt

everybc

value

great 2

princi

author:

not ha

instru<

standai

schedi

determ

classrr

and

d

instru<

There

contribute

Personal cc

this area 0

and Swick

Studies

anc

i

fOrces.

They 5]

Who] bur:

debilitatim

salaries,

1‘“

rescurCeS .

38

This is verified in the “Second Gallup-Phi Delta Kappa

Poll of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Public Schools"

(Elam, 1989), where the teachers surveyed reflected a martyr

complex mentality:

Overwhelmingly,

they

believe

that

they

are

unappreciated and underrewarded, and they blame almost

everybody but themselves for recognized school problems

.

.

. Teachers see a great discrepancy between their

value to society and their prestige, three times as

great as the gap for doctors, clergy, and public school

principals.

Teachers

don’t

think

they

have

the

authority they need.

They are convinced that they do

not have enough control over .

.

. vital aspects of

instruction

(p.

785),

[i.e.,]

determining

academic

standards for their schools and establishing the school

schedule,

as

well

as

setting

grading

policy,

determining

which

students

are

placed

in

which

classroom, setting discipline policy for the school,

and

determining

how

school

funds

are

spent

on

instructional materials (p. 793).

There are many forces

in teachers’

lives which may

contribute to

the

low morale,

lack of professional

and

personal confidence, and general sense of impotency which

this area of boosting status addresses, according to Hanley

and Swick

(1983).

Their synthesis of over 100 research

studies

and

journal

articles

identify

several

of

these

forces.

They specify unrealistic expectations by highly complex

school

bureaucracies

and

by

parents

and citizens

as

a

debilitating factor.

They also cite a negative valuing of

teachers

in

today's

society,

evidenced

by

inequitable

salaries,

negative

attitudes,

as

well

as

inadequate

resources .

 

Their

effectivene:

and in soci

they

ident

profession

explosion,

new emphasi

and profess

in

the my

environment

Focusi1

issue, it c

to schools

by the quot

post of m

 

39

Their synthesis also reveals that present-day teacher

effectiveness is reduced by changes in both the profession

and in society.

In regard to changes in the profession,

they

identify

that

the

"educational

ecology"

of

the

profession

has

been

transformed

by

today’s

knowledge

explosion, altered social values, technological demands, a

new emphasis in teacher certification, along with personal

and professional stress.

There has also been a revolution

in

the way

society

functions

and

in

the technological

environment.

Focusing on the societal expectations and public trust

issue, it can be noted that parents and citizens often look

to schools to cure all of society’s ills.

This is evident

by the quote of Lauro Cavazos upon his appointment to the

post of U.S. Secretary of Education in 1989:

"I pledge I

will work very, very hard for the strongest Department of

Education.

I think that education will solve most of the

problems of the world" [Italics, mine].

Throughout history,

the question has

been

asked,

"What

is

the

job of

the

school/teachers?”

For example,

Smith’s

(1986,

rev.) The

Ifistory of American Reading Instruction provides specific

evidence for the fact that reading education’s roles and

emphases changed to reflect and meet the current, immediate

needs of society at any one point in history.

Society has also often failed to treat teaching as a

profession.

Lortie

(1975)

claims that this

is because

 

everyone ha:

and from ea

that teachi

(1979) talk

way:

The fa

financ

experi

taxpay

to

de

aPPTOP

obliga

of

te

platit

natura

a tent

the te

Accord

nonsupporti

 

 

40

everyone has been exposed to teaching in his/her lifetime,

and from each person’s egocentric perspective, it appears

that teaching requires little effort.

Leiter and Cooper

(1979) talk about the public perception of teachers in this

way:

The fact that education is a highly visible, publicly

financed activity,

one

that

every

citizen

has

experienced

to

some

degree

.

.

.

allow[s]

all

taxpayers to substitute themselves for the teacher and

to

determine

the

worth,

the

scope,

and

the

appropriateness of a teacher’s professional

obligations .

.

. the adult public bases its perception

of

teaching

on

childhood

memories

combined

with

platitudes

of

the

marketplace.

The

memories,

naturally, are vague and undiscriminating, and there is

a tendency to confuse the child’s day in school with

the teacher’s (p. 115).

According to Hanley and Swick (1983), teaching within a

nonsupportive setting produces negative teachers who have

little opportunity to renew themselves.

They emphasize that

the home-community support system needs to be positive and

visible to classroom teachers,

and teacher salaries have

often

been

targeted

as

one

way

in

which

society

can

demonstrate validation for the belief in the importance of

the teacher’s role in a tangible way.

Elam’s (1989) study

validates this.

When teachers were asked why they think

others leave the profession, their most frequent responses

were "low teacher salaries" and "parents do not support the

schools" (p. 789).

Bureaucratic structures also need to be recognized as

potentially prohibitive.

Gibboney and Gould (1987) set the

scene for this area of concern when they state that "the

 
 

pervasive

mindset amc

schools bet

9).

McNei

bureaucratic

thing which

efficiently'

idea was tr

businesses,

[Schoo

busine

needed

factor

proces

final

adults

became

"plant

became

What t

he conten

 

41

pervasive

and

unexamined

presence

of

the

technocratic

mindset among practitioners is a major obstacle to making

schools better places within which to teach and learn" (p.

9).

McNeil

(1988)

and Wise

(1988)

have examined this

bureaucratic mentality and have concluded that the very

thing which was supposed to facilitate learning, i.e., an

efficiently—run school, did just the opposite.

The original

idea was that schools would improve if they were run like

businesses, which McNeil (1988b) describes in this way:

[Schools

were

to

possess]

strong

management

by

business—trained

executives,

not

scholars,

and they

needed to be reorganized to be more efficient like

factories:

raw materials are the students, who are

processed by means of teaching and the curriculum.

The

final "products" of this process of schooling are young

adults with diplomas.

In this model, administrators

became

managers,

charged

with

keeping

the

school

"plant" functioning rationally and smoothly; teachers

became the workers (p. 432).

What frequently happened in this business—like setting,

he

contends,

was

that

the

educational

goals

were

subordinated to procedural controls, and states mandated the

curriculum and legislated learning through competency and

state—wide testing.

The result has been just the opposite

of what was intended.

Teachers reacted in ways that reduced

the quality of education.

They began to control their

classrooms as tightly as they felt they were controlled.

Consequently, teachers became marked by a lack of creativity

and risk-taking.

Teachers became defensive and simply went

through the motions of teaching,

a teaching intended to

merely

comply

with

minimum

competency

requirements

 

characteriz

required st

This

a

individuals

location,

r

and teacher

and demonst

mandated cu

predictable

development

knowledge,

their teach

As a 1

Puts forth

[1?]

i

Primer

qualit

[the t

[the

servic

In this Wa

determined

PrOfESSions

The au

None 0

issue

42

characterized by a fragmented content in order to pass the

required standardized test.

This external control, where decisions were made by

individuals

far

removed

from

the

actual

implementation

location, reduced the responsiveness of schools to students

and teachers by ignoring the needs and interests of students

and demonstrating a distrust of teachers.

In the case of

mandated curriculum, a required stimulus does not lead to a

predictable response because of the varied needs, stages of

development,

home

environments,

learning

styles,

prior

knowledge,

and dispositions of

the students--as well as

their teachers.

As a reaction to the concerns just cited, Wise (1988)

puts forth the challenge:

[It] is time to make teaching a profession where the

primary rationale is a need to exercise control of the

qualities of £1 process in which the service provider

[the teacher] provides important services to a client

[the

student]

who

inevitably

knows

less

than

the

service provider (p. 331).

In this way, the appropriateness of instruction would be

determined

within

each

unique

context,

much

like

the

professions of medicine and law are practiced.

The authors of the Holmes Report (1986) would concur:

None of the reform proposals has addressed the central

issue of the improvement of teaching—-the professional

status of teachers.

Until this is addressed, we will

continue

to

attempt

educational

reform

by

telling

teachers what to do, rather than empowering them to do

what is necessary [Italics, mine] (p. 61).

 

 

In thi

Blue rint

1

this specif

Decisi

implem

affect

who kn

In the

teachers a:

underacknow

recommit t

(xi).

The

(i.e., the:

creative pr

will change

the

boosti

autonomy;

[Teac

educat

learni

They .

and i

throug

membei

43

In this regard, the New York State Task Force Report, A

Blueprint for Learning and Teaching (Abrosie,

1989) gives

this specific recommendation:

Decisions should be made closest to their point of

implementation--and in schools, that means decisions

affecting children should primarily involve teachers

who know the students’ capabilities and needs (p. 57).

In the introduction to Maeroff’s (1988b) book, today’s

teachers are described as ".

.

. determined and burdened,

underacknowledged but eager, cynical yet hopeful, ready to

recommit themselves to the schools and ix) the students“

(xi).

The

claim is that when teachers’ lives are changed

(i.e., their autonomy is increased and they are given the

creative power to make institutional change), then schools

will change.

Consequently, Maeroff (1988b) also calls for

the

boosting

of

teachers’

status

by

giving

them

more

autonomy:

[Teachers

must]

be

recognized

as

the

critical

educational

authorities; the ones who will guide the

learning, growth,

and development of students .

They give shape to what is taught, how it is taught,

and in what context it

is transmitted .

.

.

It is

through involvement in curriculum planning and policy

making that teachers can become valued and contributing

members of their profession (p. 34).

Barth (1985) succinctly summarizes the contrast between

Wise’s (1988) "regulated teaching" and "client control":‘

Ultimately, there are probably two workable strategies

for improving the schools: 1) somehow get teachers and

principals to work on closing the gap between the way

their schools are and the way people outside these

schools would have them be or 2) work toward closing

the gap between the way schools are and the way those

within the schools would like them to be.

The latter

  

 

define

mine]

Lortie

hold the be

they do not

specialized

of the

art

answer to t

Increa

giving teac

irrelevant

something

t

is

power,

profession

matter know

for grante<

ill~informe

current! mu

Moreo

princiPles

SpeCificall

44

defines a professional: the former does not [Italics,

mine] (p. 20).

Lortie (1975) argues, however, that "teachers do not

hold the beliefs necessary to assuming such responsibility;

they do not claim to be common partakers in a shared body of

specialized knowledge or common contributors to ’the state

of the art’"

(p.

80).

The succeeding section comes in

answer to that claim.

Increasing Knowledge.

All of the foregoing talk about

giving teachers credibility through boosting their status is

irrelevant

to

empowerment

if

teachers

do

not

possess

something that is worth voicing.

Bacon’s adage, "Knowledge

is

power,"

is

especially

applicable

in

the

teaching

profession because teachers are knowledge brokers.

Subject

matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge cannot be taken

for granted.

If teachers are uninformed, misinformed, or

ill-informed,

if

their knowledge

is

not up—to-date

and

current, much harm can be done to their students.

Moreover,

teachers

cannot

explain

to

students

principles

that

they

themselves

do

not

understand.

Specifically applied to the reading field,

Fagan

(1989)

claims that

in order to help students become literate,

teachers themselves must be empowered as literates.

When

teachers

lack

knowledge,

they

lose

instructional

flexibility and credibility.

As a result, they are forced

to give up control and to lose power by deferring to those

who are viewed as "experts."

  

Loucks-

knowledge t!

The

i1

partie:

T00 of

roles

ensuin<

the

c

decish

Romber<

teachers as

(1)

k1

includ:

how

(R

will),

areas;

(2)

k;

chara

commun

instru<

 

 

Loucks-Horsley et al. (1987) iterate the importance of

45

knowledge to empowerment:

.

.

. quality decisions mean informed decision-makers.

The

importance of continued education of responsible

parties in a support system cannot be overemphasized.

Too often teachers are thrown into new decision-making

roles without appropriate support and knowledge. The

ensuing decisions are frequently poor ones, adding to

the

conviction

that

teachers

should

have

limited

decision—making power (p. 28).

Romberg (1988)

lists three types of knowledge which

teachers as professionals should possess:

(1)

knowledge

of

the

subject

they

are

to

teach,

including the know-how (skill), the ability to explain

how

(knowledge),

and the confidence

(disposition or

will),

as well as its relationship to other content

areas;

(2)

knowledge

of

pedagogy,

including

developmental

characteristics,

social

interactions,

and

communication/cases/specific instructional techniques/

instructional materials;

(3) knowledge of roles and responsibilities and how to

manage

a complex instructional

setting

involving a

large

number

of

students,

space,

resources,

and

technology.

Garrison

(1988)

is concerned with the way in which

teachers gain such knowledge, an approach which he calls the

scientific technique and which he claims is binding.

His

hypothesis

is

that

teachers

are

presently

disempowered

because

of

the

way

in

which

knowledge

is

produced,

distributed,

and

consumed.

According

to

Garrison,

researchers who produce knowledge and administrators who

distribute that knowledge are the ones who are empowered:

teachers who blindly and unquestioningly consume mandated

products do not identify themselves with the process by

which

the

therefore,

responsible

activity.

teachers

"

materials (

often

as conceptu

In cor

traits

tha‘

(which he s

be used

t<

teachers mu

knowledge

Passive cor

POSitive cc

(1984) deSC

 ’

46

which

the

final

outcome

is

obtained,

and

they

are,

therefore, not as likely to think deeply about them nor feel

responsible for the consequences of their’ decision-making

activity.

Fagan

(1989)

agrees,

saying that unempowered

teachers

"are

inclined

to

follow

a

set

of

curriculum

materials (e.g., basal readers) slavishly, materials which .

.

.

often deny the intelligence of teachers and their roles

as conceptualizers, planners, and implementors" (p. 574).

In contrast, Garrison advocates that teachers develop

traits that

are characteristic of the scientific temper

(which he sees as liberating), a research base which could

be used

to democratically

empower

teachers:

"individual

teachers must be empowered to participate in the process of

knowledge

production

and distribution and

not

just

its

passive consumption"

(p.

501).

Garrison claims that the

positive consequences of such an endeavor, which Duckworth

(1984) describes as "teacher as researcher," would include:

(1)

more

valid,

more

reliable,

and

more

relevant

results;

(2) a legitimation of the practitioner's knowledge;

(3) the empowerment of teachers, since knowledge, and

the ability to obtain it, is power;

(4) this epistemological empowerment of teachers .

.

.

would

produce

a

reorganization

of

the

current

hierarchical

structure

advocated

by

an

expert-

systems, scientific-management approach (pp. 501-502).

Chall

(1986)

states that teacher collaboration with

researchers was common earlier in the 19005; during the

1940s and 19505, however, this practice was greatly reduced

 

  

 

until by th

based

rese.

presented t

researcher/

educators,

for years

painfully a

Maerof

using

knox

Maeroff,

n

certainly

gained, att

frl

teaching p]

(p. 48).

In or(

decision-ma

about the t

iIllplies a (

he Stresses

one,

47

until by the 19605 and 19705 the emphasis was on university—

based research,

the applications of which, would then be

presented to teachers.

It is predicted that reassuming the

researcher/collaborator role will

be

a slow process for

educators, since, "basically they have followed the textbook

for

years

and

let

that

set

the

tone.

Now they are

painfully analyzing how they teach" (Maeroff, 1988b, p. 45).

Maeroff (1988b) and Cohen (1989) both acknowledge that

using

knowledge

is

more

problematic

than

gaining

it;

Maeroff,

nevertheless,

claims

that

"

.

.

.

there

is

certainly a better chance that once knowledge has been

gained, attitudes will change and behavior will be affected

.

.

freeing

[teachers]

from ways that stifled their

teaching practices and empowering them to act differently"

(p. 48).

In order to provide the bridge between knowledge and

decision-making, McDonald (1988) feels that those who talk

about the teacher’s voice today do not understand that voice

implies a duality, referring to knowledge as well as power:

he stresses that giving a say may not be the same as hearing

one.

Providing' Access to Decision-Making.

Continuing in

that vein, when teachers are respected (status) and have

something to say (knowledge), they also need to be assured

that what they say can and will make a difference.

This

topic highlights the necessity of building better bonds to

  

 

connect

1

administrat

collaborati

must be fos

In

95

mm

collaborati

Collal

assumi

single

streng

indivi

demand

8-9).

Colleg

connec

staff,

models

Lieber

and collegi

The pc

become

not or

begin

Solve

tremen

Both j

Chism. 1985

and HOImes

addreSSEd .

   

48

connect

teachers

with

each

other

and

with

their

administrators,

where each one

sees the relationship as

collaborative, not competitive.

In that light, collegiality

must be fostered and power must be shared.

In

Continuing

to

Learn:

A

Guidebook

for

Teache;

Development, Loucks-Horsley et a1.

(1987) define the terms

collaboration and collegiality in the following way:

Collaboration

relates

to

mutual

problem

solving,

assuming that multiple perspectives are better than

single ones.

It can increase collective understanding,

strengthen

a

sense

of

common

mission,

and

buoy

individuals

who

might

otherwise be

swamped by the

demands of facing children alone in the classroom (pp.

8-9).

Collegiality

is

more

than

congeniality;

it

means

connecting (n1 a professional level with other school

staff, looking for new ideas, advice, a forum to test

models of teaching (p. 8).

Lieberman (Brandt, 1989) sees that this collaboration

and collegiality lead to power:

The power I see in collective behavior is that when it

becomes legitimate for teachers to work together, they

not only get a sense of themselves as a group; they

begin to help each other solve problems they cannot

solve by themselves-~and we know ‘that teachers have

tremendous problems to solve (p. 24).

Both in individual studies (Little, 1982, and VanNote

Chism, 1985b) and in group studies (Rand Change Agent, 1974,

and Holmes Group, 1986), the importance of collegiality is

addressed.

Romberg (1988), in summarizing Little’s (1982)

research,

states that a high level of collegiality (in—

school, across—school, and outside-of-school) “was related

to a positive school environment which in turn was the best

  

 

predictor

collegialii

learning,

researching,

each other

congruent w

of collegia

teachers

at

interaction

of

profess

contained

1

mentioned.

Althou

important,

such colleg

work of

C0j

(1988),

ide

PrOblem

i}

hypothesis

49

predictor

of

school

effectiveness"

(p.

231).

This

collegiality

comes

through

talk

about

teaching

and

learning,

observing

and

critiquing,

planning/designing/

researching/evaluating

curriculum

together,

and

teaching

each other the practice of teaching.

These descriptors are

congruent with the Loucks-Horsley et a1. (1987) definitions

of collegiality and collaboration.

VanNote Chism’s (1985b)

teachers at Riverside themselves stated the importance of

interaction with colleagues as one of their greatest sources

of

professional

growth;

their

interactions,

however,

contained limited professional interchange of the kind just

mentioned.

Although

it

is

acknowledged

that

collegiality

is

important, there are, nonetheless, several impediments to

such collegiality.

Both the Carnegie Report (1986) and the

work of Copeland and Jamgochian (1985), cited by Romberg

(1988), identify time and schedule constraints as a major

problem

in

fostering

collegiality.

Jackson’s

(1975)

hypothesis

in

this

regard

is

not

that

teachers

are

overworked; he claims that they are underworked.

Many of

the time-consuming tasks that are required of them are

unproductive and could easily be assigned to non-teaching

personnel.

He says that teacher time must be spent more

wisely: what teachers need if they are to benefit from the

experience of teaching is time for reflective thinking.

He

concludes

that

".

.

.

if

teachers

were

really

given

 

 

sufficient

overall sev

increase, n

It als

in a diffei

expresses

(

won’t

last

pooping 11p

(p.

25).

I

.

the

proc

patience.

of

shared

teachers’

significant

schools"

(2

Little

summary

re

amount

of

are require

In

additic

(administ;

°rganizatj

experienm:J

there

is

Community,

50

sufficient time to think about what they were doing, the

overall severity of the demands made upon them likely would

increase, not decrease" (p. 30).

It also takes time to organize and get people working

in a different way.

To that end, Lieberman (Brandt, 1989)

expresses caution:

"My fear is that the political energy

won’t

last

long

enough

to

allow the

little beginnings

popping up everywhere the time they need to grow and mature"

(p. 25).

Karant (1989) also emphasizes this concern: "

.

.

the process is slow, may be inefficient, and 'requires

patience.

And yet, in spite of the obstacles, the payoffs

of

shared

governance

can

be

substantial.

Expanding

teachers'

responsibilities

in

ways

that

give

them

significant influence may be the key to developing better

schools" (29).

Little

(1984)

has

expressed

some

skepticism

about

summary reports, which she claims often underestimate the

amount of organization, energy, skill, and endurance that

are required to get educators to work in collaborative ways.

In addition to time and schedule constraints,

personnel

(administrator,

principal,

teacher)

characteristics,

organizational

and

normative

barriers,

and

lack

of

experience all come into play in addressing the issue of why

there

is

a

lack of collegiality within the educational

community.

  

In

re

misconceive

paid to be

not be qual

defend/proti

typically

s

Then, too,

(1990),

a:

restructuri:

their autho

Teache

Because of

teachers

me

good and t1

and Sleeter

Anothe

0f their

5

Cited by Ba

as '5
their

the p1

connec

have p

TeaChe

51

In

relationship

to

personnel,

administrators

may

misconceive the nature of the teacher’s job ("Teachers are

paid to be in the classroom").

Principals, themselves, may

not be qualified to set expectations, model, sanction, and

defend/protect teachers--practices for which they are not

typically selected, prepared, or rewarded (Little,

1984).

Then, too, they may feel threatened, according to Bradley

(1990),

as

they

become

“baffled

by

the

demands

of

restructuring

and

worried

that

powersharing

will

erode

their authority" (p. 22).

Teachers may be

the cause of their own isolation.

Because of a "middle class conservative" view of teaching,

teachers may feel that the current practice is basically

good and they see no need to change the status quo (Grant

and Sleeter, 1985, cited by Romberg, 1988).

Another reason why teachers may be isolated is because

of their social misperceptions.

Lortie’s work

([1975],

cited by Barth [1985]), discovered that

.

. in the eyes of most teachers, learning, success,

and satisfaction come

largely

from

students within

their classrooms and that "all other persons (parents,

the principal, other teachers) without exception were

connected with undesirable occurrences.

Other adults

have potential for hindrance but not help" (p. 5).

Teachers’ own insecurity may also be an impediment to

collegiality.

The "I" and "me" conflict of Mead (Green,

1979) appears to come into play here.

The idea of teachers

interacting with colleagues, according to Maeroff (1988),

  

 

yourse

acknowl

from t]

deficil

is sup

(p-

50

In

ad

innovations

gulf is for

teachers wh

do

not

p0:

normative b

non-interfe

Teache

Goodlad

(1

accustomed

Lieberman I

collaborati

52

.

.

. can be unsettling because it means unmasking

yourself

to

the

person

in

the

next

room

and

acknowledging that you might have something to learn

from that person.

No one likes to admit to

deficiencies, especially in areas in which the person

is supposed to have enough expertise to earn a living

(p. 50).

In

addition,

Little

(1984)

states

that

outside

innovations may result in "creeping exclusivity,"

where a

gulf is formed between the "haves" and the “have nots," the

teachers who possess certain knowledge/skill from those who

do

not

possess

that

knowledge/skill.

She

claims

that

normative barriers related to self-sufficiency, privacy, and

non-interference may hinder collegiality, as well.

Teachers

generally

lack

experience

in

this

area:

Goodlad

(1984)

talks

about

the

fact that teachers

are

accustomed

to

being

isolated

in

"Classroom

cells."

Lieberman (Brandt, 1989) highlights the fact that "working

collaboratively requires a new set of skills and attitudes.

Ways have to be found to give teachers experience in working

together so they can begin to see how other adults can be

important in their lives" (p. 25).

Goodlad

(1984)

speaks of the need to address these

deterents:

If teachers are potentially powerfully influential in

the education of children and youth in schools but the

circumstances of teaching inhibit their functioning,

then we need to modify these circumstances so as to

maximize teachers’ potential.

The directions of school

improvement become reasonably clear: diagnose and seek

to remedy the impeding conditions;

improve teachers’

knowledge and skills

(p. 168).

 

To that

does not jus

not form a g

to work toge

if isolatio

1987,

p.

28

however.

I

(Barth,

198

impediments

identifying

educational

(1985a)

gj

individual

occasion

fo

issues

dir.

encouraged

engage in p

and issues

en(lagement

for actiOn

In

SUI

the import.

maintains

.

most part,

buildings.

frequently

1

1

i

-
F

53

To that end, professionally productive peer interaction

does not just happen by itself--a collection of bodies does

not form a group; "one shouldn't assume that people know how

to work together and make thoughtful decisions, particularly

if isolation has been the norm"

(Loucks—Horsley et al.,

1987, p. 28).

Successful collegiality can be facilitated,

however.

It depends upon the availability of leadership

(Barth,

1985; McEvoy,

1985) that can help to offset the

impediments listed above by involving classroom teachers in

identifying problems and solutions relevant to their own

educational setting.

To emphasize this point, VanNote Chism

(1985a)

gives

the

example

of

a

cadet

principal,

an

individual

who

was

able

to

structure

in

the time

and

occasion for teachers to meet and work together to examine

issues

directly

arising from their own situations,

who

encouraged both the more and less reflective teachers to

engage in professional learning that was rooted in problems

and issues that commanded a high degree of engagement.

This

engagement both generated knowledge and resulted in plans

for action which used that knowledge.

In summary,

in spite of the overwhelming evidence of

the importance cyf collegial relationships, Romberg (1988)

maintains that the reality is that teachers are, for the

most part, isolated from each other both within and between

buildings.

He feels that only by creating a workplace where

frequently and over long periods of time teachers can focus

 

on crucial

to their ow1

where they

the rewards

Importance.

The di

undergoing

reading cur:

the natural

to resist c2

Kanter

ten reasons

loss of con

t0 them as

Crucial

to

Control: th

individual

a construci

relationshi

54

on crucial problems of curriculum and instruction relevant

to their own setting through collaborative participation and

where they share equally in the risks, the investment, and

the rewards will the desired collegiality result.

W-

The district in which I did my research is presently

undergoing a reading study which is intended to result in a

reading curriculum change; however, Cohen (1988) states that

the natural tendency of teachers is to be conservative and

to resist change.

Kanter (1985) speaks to that issue when she discusses

ten reasons why people resist change.

The first of these is

loss of control.

She says that individuals see what is done

to them as a threat, what is done by them as an opportunity.

Crucial

to this discussion on empowerment is who is

in

control: the organization (external locus of control) or the

individual (inner locus of control).

("Locus of control, as

a construct, refers to Inna a person perceives contingency

relationships between his or her actions and their outcomes"

[Rotter, 1966, cited by Omizo, Omizo, & Michael, 1987], p.

737).

If the individual feels powerless with no choice in

the matter, s/he is likely to feel out of control.

Kanter

says that before commitment must come involvement, and with

participation come higher self-set goals.

Guskey

(1986)

has also hypothesized that change in

teacher attitudes and beliefs occurs after teachers have had

 

a chance to

results.

Omizo

possessing

possessing 2

internal lo<

perceptive,

information

superior in

Halpin,

general

c2

characterisi

0f control

teacher dis

Pr0fession

educational

importance .

Sees

a

c1.

55

a chance to practice strategies with students and see the

results.

Omizo et

a1.

(1987)

have contrasted the individual

possessing an internal

locus of control with the person

possessing an external locus of control.

The person with an

internal locus of control, they say, is noted as being more

perceptive,

inquisitive,

and

efficient

in

processing

information,

better

able

to

delay

gratification,

and

superior in intentional and incidental learning (p. 738).

Halpin, Harris, & Halpin (1985) have gone beyond those

general

characteristics

to

identify

the

behavioral

characteristics specifically related to the internal locus

of control for teachers.

They claim that the internal

teacher discounts the importance of luck or fate in his/her

professional

life,

accepts

responsibility

for

the

educational consequences of his/her actions, stresses the

importance of ability and hard work in successful teaching,

sees

a

clear

connection

between

effort

and

payoff

in

teaching,

tends to be goal—directed and task-oriented. in

his/her teaching

behavior,

feels

influential

in his/her

educational environment, discounts the importance of luck or

fate in the professional life of other educators (pp. 138-

139).

Their research also hypothesized that teacher locus of

control was related to stress:

The external teacher, feeling that he/she has little

control

over what happens,

does not seem to value

,
a

 

plannii

educat

Teache]

with t

externz

The re:

whether the

of their se

became

over

They conclu

depleted

a

potentially

burnout may

overall

fee

being overv

Halpin et ;

al-

[p-

131

frustration

reward . n

56

planning,

ability,

or effort but instead attributes

educational

outcomes

to

luck,

fate,

and

chance.

Teachers reporting the most stress factors associated

with the act of teaching .

.

. were those ‘with an

external locus of control (p. 138).

The researchers admit, however, that they are uncertain

whether these external teachers experienced stress because

of their sense of feeling out of control, or whether they

became overwhelmed by a prolonged stressful environment.

They conclude that, whatever the reason, if teachers have

depleted

all

psychological

and

physiological

energy

potentially available to deal with the stressful events,

burnout may result.

Burnout can be defined as "

.

.

. an

overall feeling of helplessness, of losing self-control, of

being overwhelmed and made helpless" (Ban, 1980, cited in

Halpin et al.

[p. 139]).

Brody (1982, cited in Halpin et

al.

[p. 139]) says that burnout is a "state of fatigue or

frustration brought about by devotion or a cause, way of

life or relationship that failed to produce the expected

reward."

Apple

(1983)

concluded:

"There

is

no better

formula for alienation and burnout than the loss of control

on the job" (p. 323).

Loucks-Horsley

et

a1.

(1987)

begin

their

book

by

stating that the Carnegie Forum (1986) predicted that 1.3

million new teachers would be joining the teaching force

from 1986—1992, replacing current teachers who leave at the

rate of 40% a year.

The rationale given for 'this

‘mass

exodus supersedes the commonly-touted reason of low pay; it

 
 

is, rather,

(p. 1%

0n the

the payoff

Expanding 1;

significant

schools"

(;

expressed it

When t

their

see th

and th

into t

themse

rededi

The l

response tc

schools re:

empowered

COHditions

important t

by reducin

The c

teache

decisj

the

1

decisj

her 111C

strong

Profes

(p. 3:

57

is, rather, "the absence of a professional work environment"

@- 1).

0n the positive side, Karant (1989) claims that "

.

.

.

the

payoffs

of

shared

governance

can

be

substantial.

Expanding teachers’ responsibilities in ways that give them

significant influence may be the key to developing better

schools" (p.

29). The importance of empowerment has been

expressed in this way:

When teachers set out to improve their own learning and

their contributions to schooling, it is thrilling to

see the depth of their concerns for their disciplines

and their students, the energy they are willing to put

into their work, the degree to which they can renew

themselves and their classrooms, and their readiness to

rededicate themselves (Maeroff, 1988, p. xi).

The

Instructor

poll

(May

1986),

in discussing the

response to their February 1986 survey, states, "Effective

schools research tells us that decision-making teachers—-

empowered teachers--are crucial

to creating the optimum

conditions for learning.

Teacher empowerment is especially

important because state reforms so often go against research

by reducing opportunities for teachers to exercise their

professional judgment" (p. 30).

It summarizes:

The current reform. movement promotes the concept. of

teacher empowerment.

Some studies show that the more

decisions a teacher makes concerning her students and

the

more

involved

she

is

in

making

schoolwide

decisions, the better her performance and the higher

her morale.

Decision-making

power .

.

. produces a

stronger commitment to the profession.

Respect. for

professionalism breeds both respect and accountability

(p. 31).

 

 

Cautions.

/

Althou<

looked upon

years

down

results if

radical dec

the issues <

He env

fragmented

toward comm

uneven schc

and weak sci

in school I

Murphy

is

Wing, wher

hard-nosed

From

Catholic Ch

appliEd to

 
 

Cautions.

58

Although up to this point teacher empowerment has been

looked upon le a positive light, Murphy (1989) looks ten

years down the road and sees

some probable distressing

results if teacher empowerment is carried to the point of

radical decentralization.

His concerns can be condensed to

the issues of fragmentation and inequity.

He envisions, first, that teacher autonomy may lead to

fragmented

school

systems,

with a

lack of

coordination

toward common goals.

He also is worried that there may be

uneven school performance as strong schools grow stronger

and weak schools grow weaker, resulting in growing disparity

in school resources, teacher quality, and student outcomes.

Murphy is concerned that the results may be a pendulum

swing, where "decentralizers are pursued by a new wave of

hard-nosed centralizers" (p. 808).

From

the

world

of

business,

government,

and

the

Catholic Church, Murphy excerpts five lessons which can be

applied to

the

schools

in order to avoid the problems

associated with "radical decentralization."

First, there

should

be

a

shift

in

the

idea

of

what

a

strong

superintendent

means,

attending

more

to

the

gentler,

unheroic dimensions of leadership if they are to promote

local autonomy.

Second, the core values, beliefs and goals

of the school system must be identified and articulated

throughout the system.

When those are explicitly stated,

 

teachers sh

those

goals

Third,

the

where

the

coordinator:

office must

to

give

development

control.

responsibil

Fourth, the

exception"

managers

cc

problems/um

giving

max:

Fifth, boar

What

it

important

1,

1

SuPerintend

The need

e

“Vine

the

before bein

59

teachers should be encouraged to have the freedom to reach

those goals in whatever manner is appropriate for them.

Third,

the central office must become a service agency,

where

the

personnel

take

the

role

of

facilitators

and

coordinators.

This means that those who work in the central

office must have the knowledge, skills, initiative, and time

to

give

help

(through

technical

assistance,

staff

development, additional resources, released time), not to

control.

This

requires

a

rethinking

of

roles

and

responsibilities,

and a development of

local

leadership.

Fourth, the central office needs to shift to "management by

exception" for a system of checks and balances, where middle

managers concentrate their attention on those units with

problems/unrealized

potential

("tight

management")

while

giving maximum freedom to others

("loose management“).

Fifth, boards need to think differently about their role and

what

it

means

to

exercise

control.

The

board’s

most

important role,

other than raising money,

is choosing a

superintendent who shares their values, goals and beliefs.

The need exists to develop a greater trust of educators,

giving the professionals the benefit of the doubt--even

before being fully confident they deserve such trust.

Greer (1989) also expresses some reservations with the

teacher empowerment "buzzword."

He says that it may well be

that

we

are

deceiving

ourselves

into

believing

that

something serious is going on, but "a cliche' does not a

 
 

substantive

over-famili

heart to

w

paying any

He ch:

very narrow

in empower]

strategies

traffic flc

implicatior

purpose

is

feels that

ultimate s<

to put ther

60

substantive program make" (p. 294).

He also says that the

over-familiarity of the terminology may close the mind and

heart to what it really means and lead to no one really

paying any attention to it.

He challenges that it may be time to refocus from a

very narrow View to a broader perspective: "those interested

in empowerment tend to talk along a continuum limited to

strategies for redirecting the political and administrative

traffic flow from ’top—down’ to ’bottom-up,’ with the clear

implication that teachers are at the bottom and the avowed

purpose is moving them closer to the top"

(p.

294).

He

feels that "

.

.

. to empower teachers, we have to go to the

ultimate source of power-—the children themselves:

we have

to put them at the center, and work our way out to the stuff

on the periphery"

(p.

297),

for "

.

.

. the essence of

education is to bring about change in human beings, and that

the power that finally accomplishes the really important

changes

in

people

lies

not

in

the

curriculum

or

the

administration or the system, but in the very persons we try

to educate" (p. 297).

Finally,

Tifft

(1990)

poses

the

question

which

underlies the topic of teacher empowerment: "Does school—

based management lead to more effective teaching or merely

create problems for already overburdened educators?"

(p.

56).

She provides specific examples of "gains" and "pains"

in schools throughout the United States and concludes that

 

the results

student

pel

predicts tlr

that school

make decisi

once you st

mm

The ir

of Teachers

bit of hisi

0f the fiv«

within this

teachers

t1

Risk

(1983:

in America

referring

1

be mere

p-

61

the results of the relationship between self—governance and

student performance is mixed at this point in time.

She

predicts that more innovation in this area will occur, and

that school districts may discover that allowing teachers to

make decisions about education is "like dancing with a bear:

once you start, you cannot decide to stop" (p. 57).

Historical Roots.

The introduction to Maeroff’s (1988b), The Empowerment

of Teachers: Overcoming the Crisis of Confidence, gives a

bit of history related to the topic of teacher empowerment.

Of the five documents cited within that text and published

within this decade, three of them speak to the inefficacy of

teachers to bring about educational reform.

A Nation at

Risk (1983) emphasized the belief that one of the problems

in America’s schools is the teacher.

McDonald (1988), in

referring to that report, claimed that it took teachers to

be mere puppets of

school policy.

Horace's Compromise

(Sizer, 1984), represented the teacher, although the "key"

to

reform,

as

immobile.

The

Holmes

Group

(1986)

saw

teachers

as

prisoners

who could be

set

free by better

management.

In contrast, two subsequent reports see hope through

teachers taking charge of change.

The Carnegie Forum on

Education and the Economy (1986) envisions schools in which

teachers help decide what should be taught and how, where

teachers are seen to be the school’s chief agents, according

 

to McDonald

American

Te

teachers in

in educatic

charged wit

their schoo

What c

(1988) says

and 1984 wi

and Sizer (

parallels

highly cent

Michae

wave

refori

reform was

Concept of

raising St

62

to McDonald

(1988).

The Metropolitan Life Survey of the

American Teacher

(1986)

focuses on the participation of

teachers in school management, seeing the teacher as an ally

in educational reform, where more autonomous teachers are

charged with the responsibility of improving education in

their schools.

What caused the change?

Answers are mixed.

McDonald

(1988) says that the roots of this shift occurred in 1983

and 1984 with the works of Goodlad (1984), Lightfoot (1983),

and Sizer (1984).

Shanker (1988), on the other hand, draws

parallels

with

the

auto

industry’s

attempts to

abandon

highly centralized assembly—line production methods.

Michaels (1988),

in his editorial,

"Caution: Second-

wave reform taking place,"

says that the first wave of

reform was based upon an earlier, more rigorous, and narrow

concept of education.

Its attempts to reform schools by

raising

standards,

increasing accountability,

lengthening

school days and years, and generally raising the rigor of

American

public

education

was

a

"looking

at

education

through the rear-view mirror," rather than facing the road

ahead.

He advocates that the second wave be characterized

by the following:

The individual school is the unit of decision making;

the

development

of

a

collegial

participatory

environment among both students and staff; flexible use

of

time;

increased

personalization

of

the

school

environment with a concurrent atmosphere of trust, high

expectations,

and a sense of fairness;

a curriculum

that focuses on students' understanding what they

 

learn-

higher

Resolutions

/

Landsm

teacher em;

her ten res

she

chall

professiona

(1)

D1

think

lead p

(2) R

vocabt

(3) M

world

about;

(4)

D(

People

63

learn-~knowing "why" as well as "how;" an emphasis on

higher order thinking skills for all students (p. 3).

WW.

Landsmann

(1988)

captures

many

of

the

aspects

of

teacher empowerment that were addressed in this section. In

her ten resolutions whereby teachers can empower themselves,

she

challenges

teachers

to

think,

talk,

and

act

professionally:

(1) Don’t give up your birthright.

In every action,

think about what a teacher OUGHT to

do.

Take the

lead professionally;

/
i
‘

(2) Remove the words,

"They won’t let us" from your

vocabulary.

Make it, rather, "We can!";

(3) Market your profession.

Once a month, tell the

world what a teacher does and what. teaching is all

about;

(4) Don’t let your school try to be all things to all

people;

(5) It only takes a few waves to start a sea change;

(6) Build your professional base from the bottom up and

the

top

down.

Establish

your

own

brain

trust.

Network.

Participate

in

your

own

classroom-based

research.

Collaborate

on

research

projects

with

colleagues, and share the results;

(7) Shape up your school’s recruitment, selection, and

induction system;

(8) Acknowledge that there are and will continue to be

certain tensions in the area of curriculum;

(9) Enlist your local, state, and national unions on

the

professional team;

(10) Provide for your own renewal (pp. 373-374).

Having

components .

look into

:

characteriS‘

Introductio:

Maerof

empowermen'

however

educat

the (it

manner

inserv

networ

subjec

learni

the ki

making

The Rt

64

Staff Development

Having

just

completed

an

investigation

of

the

components of teacher empowerment, it is now appropriate to

look into staff development that is congruent with these

characteristics.

W.

Maeroff (1988a) claims that one vehicle for pursuing

empowerment

is

already

in

place-—inservice

education,

however

.

.

.

a thorough overhaul

is needed if

inservice

education is to fulfill its potential for prying open

the door to empowerment.

At best,

operating in

a

manner that has been all too infrequent in the past,

inservice education can break down isolation and build

networks,

bolster

confidence,

increase knowledge of

subject

matter

and

pedagogy,

provide

the

kind

of

learning that fires enthusiasm and involve teachers in

the kinds of projects that provide access to decision

making (p. 474).

The Report of the Commission on Reading, Becoming a

Nation of Readers (1985), acknowledges the important role

that teachers play in implementing the principles advocated

within

the

body

of

that

text

for

improved

reading

instruction.

To this end, they recommend that

.

.

.

renewed

attention

should

be

given to

the

professional growth of veteran teachers so that they

can continue to approach teaching with zest and can

have access to new knowledge that will allow them to

improve their teaching.

The nation’s core of teachers

is older, more stable, and more experienced than any

time in history.

It is a simple matter of arithmetic

that reforms iJi education depend upon sustaining the

vigor and the skill of veteran teachers (p. 111).

After all,

as has been stated earlier, the classroom

teacher is the ultimate change agent,

for in the final

analysis, it is what the individual teacher decides to do

 

 

day-by-daY

really

mati

needs to be

Miller

development

schools

th

teaching

.

concern an<

work in st

teachers

a

teacher gr<

(1989)

pu

development

coin" (clas

A ques

COHtinuing

inservice-

Staff deve.‘

65

day-by-day with

the

students

in his/her classroom that

really matters,

and the quality of this daily encounter

needs to be the focus of change.

Miller and Wolf

(1979)

say that "the goal of staff

development is the promotion of change in educators and

schools

that

improves

the

conditions

for

learning

and

teaching

.

.

.

[and which]

focuses on both levels of

concern and need" (pp. 144-145).

They see dual forces at

work in staff development; i.e., to impact on individual

teachers

and

on

the

social

system

of

the

school,

for

teacher growth and school change are interdependent. Feiman

(1989)

put

it

this

way:

“I

think

about

curriculum

development and teacher development as two sides of the same

coin" (class notes).

Definition.

A question of semantics has arisen concerning what this

continuing education for teachers should be called, whether

inservice--as

contrasted

with

preservice--education,

or

staff development, or professional development.

As was stated earlier, Loucks-Horsley et al.

(1987)

feel that "inservice" is interpreted by many as something

done to teachers.

Lieberman and Miller (1979, p. ix) prefer

the word staff development, a term which puts emphasis both

on

staff

(acknowledging

the

interdependence

of

the

individual

with

the

school

context)

and

development

(referring to

its

personal,

positive,

continuous,

often

nonlinear and nonrational nature).

They say that this term

 

 

rejects

the

growth;

it

planning an

Loucks

development

refer to "

in knowledg

3).

Whatet

focus

be

efforts,

f

teacher

ec'

themselves'

use

inse

developmen

M

Katz'

research,

identified

with their

Accoi

enCounters

Character

disparity

ClaserOm,

available

Semeone w}

 

66

rejects the notion of training and accepts the notion of

growth; it also acknowledges the teacher's crucial role in

planning and implementation.

Loucks—Horsley

et.

al.

(1987)

use

the words

staff

development and professional development interchangeably to

refer to "

.

.

. a wide variety of opportunities for growth

in knowledge and skills within the education profession" (p.

3).

Whatever its nomenclature, it is imperative that the

focus

be

upon

individual

and

personal

self-improvement

efforts,

for in the final analysis,

"the essence of all

teacher education

.

.

.

is to train teachers to train

themselves" (Leiter & Cooper, 1979, p. 122).

[Note: I will

use

inservice

education

interchangeably

with

staff

development throughout this paper.]

Stages of Teacher Development.

Katz’s

(1972,

reviewed

by

Feiman

&

Floden,

1980)

research,

an extension of

Frances Fuller’s

(1969)

work,

identified four developmental stages of teacher concerns

with their concomitant training needs.

According

to

Katz,

the

beginning

teacher

first

encounters Stage 1, or the Survival Stage.

This stage is

characterized

by

feelings

of

inadequacy

based

on

the

disparity between one’s

ideals and the realities of the

classroom.

It is crucial within this stage to make readily

available non-evaluative support and technical assistance by

someone who knows well the novice and his/her setting.

 

By

thi

Consolidatif

begins

to

children ar

required

b‘

fellow novi

The Re

or fourth

look beyo

materials,

technical

teachers' <

Professim

classroom \

In St

teaching p

”mature

te

Profession;

fundamenta

teacher’s ‘

Confer.“1C

Collaborat

Feima

to teach

Years .

A

67

By

the

end

of

the

first

year,

Stage

2,

or

the

Consolidation Stage, generally emerges.

Here, the teacher

begins

to

concentrate

on

difficulties

encountered

with

children and situations.

In this stage, support is also

required by specialists,

more experienced teachers,

and

fellow novitiates.

The Renewal Stage, or Stage 3, occurs about the third

or fourth year.

At this stage, the individual begins to

look

beyond

the

mundane

and

routine

for

new

ideas,

materials,

and

methods.

This

renewal,

thought

of

in

technical

terms,

is

gained

through

participation

in

teachers’ centers, attendance at workshops and conferences,

professional

memberships,

professional

reading,

and

classroom visitations.

In Stage 4, usually after three to five years in the

teaching profession, the Maturity Stage is reached.

Here,

"mature teachers have

come to terms with themselves

as

professionals and have the perspective to reflect on more

fundamental educational questions"

(p.

11).

The mature

teacher’s developmental needs may be met through coursework,

conferences

and

seminars,

wide

reading,

and

peer

collaboration.

Feiman (1983) concludes that a major part of learning

to teach comes on the job within the first five to seven

years.

After this, experienced teachers fall into one of

two camps: the first group stabilizes its basic teaching

style, settling into workable routines and resisting efforts

 

 

to change;

become mor

and intelll

The questi

One

of

hi

discussed

example wt

of inservi

Inservice

Neces

crisis

in

today.

Ir

breed of

characteri

Hanle

Many

Physi

the

68

to change; the second group searches for ways not only to

become more effective with students, but also to challenge

and intellectually stimulate themselves in their profession.

The question she raises is, How can the latter be fostered?

One

of

her

answers

is

teacher

centers

(which will

be

discussed further at a later point in this paper) as one

example which meets the criteria of a developmental style

of inservice education.

Inservice Education.

Necessity.

Lieberman and Miller (1979) talk about a

crisis in nfission and a crisis in resources in education

today.

In the former, there is a confusion of goals, a new

breed of student, and increasing demands.

The latter is

characterized by budget restrictions and low morale.

Hanley and Swick (1983) put it this way:

Many effective

teachers

are

leaving the profession

physically and/or psychologically, more often than in

the

past,

and

with

more

dramatic

effects

on

the

education of children and young adults.

For teachers

who stay as well as for those who leave there are

negative effects:

low morale,

lack of self—respect,

decrease in professional and personal confidence; and a

general

sense

of

impotency——all

of

which

decrease

effectiveness (p. 3).

Feiman and Floden (1980) talk about the high priority

that must be placed upon inservice education for those who

stay: the longer a person is in teaching, the greater the

need for inservice education and renewal.

They make a

distinction between inservice education that is oriented

toward development and growth ("a View of children and adult

learning as

mental

growth

spurred

from within"

[p.

2,

 

quoting

DE

oriented

system whe

and

sche

’implementi

inservice

contrast k

(discussed

strongly r

approach

judgments"

DiShi

Seminar wa

story, 015

the

semi]

empowering

69

quoting Devaney,

1978])

and

inservice education that is

oriented

toward

competency—based

training

(a

delivery

system where an expert "deluges [teachers] with materials

and

schemes

that

guarantee

success

if

properly

’implemented’" [DiShino, 1985, p. 30]).

These two types of

inservice

education

appear

to

somewhat

represent

the

contrast between an inner and an outer locus of control

(discussed earlier under "Teacher Empowerment").

DiShino

strongly reacts against the latter, saying, "certainly this

approach

undermines

anyone’s

ability

to

trust

in

her

judgments“ (p. 30).

DiShino’s experience in Duckworth’s Teacher-Researcher

Seminar was an example of the former.

According to her own

story, DiShino’s perspectives and conclusions at the end of

the

seminar

contained

specific

allusions

to

Maeroff’s

empowering principles:

boosting status ("teachers need to

feel respected .

.

. need to be helped to trust themselves"

[pp. 30-321), increasing knowledge (quoting Bill and Sarah

Hull, 1978, "Teachers need to be in the process of learning

themselves in order to be sensitive to kids’ learning and

respect

it"

[p.

31]),

and providing access to decision

making ("opportunities need to be provided for teachers to

shape——to reflect on their own practice as the source from

which determinations about curriculum are made" [p. 30]).

Nature of Teaching.

Gage (1978) defines teaching as

"any

activity

on

the

part

of

one

person

intended

to

facilitate learning on the part of another“ (p.

14), and

  

Feiman (19

developmen‘

Liebe:

social

rea

following

they

feel

generalize

reflection

teacher le

claim

tha

personal c

to work nc

their indj

also on t1

70

Feiman (1983) says that this teaching is a growth process,

developmental in nature.

Lieberman and Miller (1979),

in their article,

"The

social realities of teaching"

(pp.

54-68),

discuss the

following generalizations drawn from research studies which

they

feel

have

staff

development

implications.

These

generalizations

are

based

on

personal

observation

and

reflection,

along with precedent literature on how “the

teacher learns the job and becomes a teacher" (p. 55).

They

claim

that

teachers

are

constantly

vacillating

between

personal concerns and institutional concerns.

Teachers need

to work not only on the instructional needs and problems of

their individual classroom (i.e., personal concerns), but

also on the common functions and goals of the organization

(i.e., institutional concerns).

One social reality refers to the fact that teaching

style is highly personalized, based on individual trial and

error.

It is,

according’ to Shulman (1987),

devoid. of a

history

of

practice;

consequently,

teachers

get

their

knowledge from practice and from other teachers rather than

from

academics

or

scholarly

articles

when

reforming

practice,

according to Lortie

(1975).

Carr and Kemmis

(1984)

state

that

experience

(habit,

ritual,

precedent,

opinion, and mere impressions) affects teachers’ theory and

practice.

Some of this is, they say, justified, but other

is merely

"folk wisdom."

Brophy

(1984)

concludes that

teachers are "more reactive than reflective, more intuitive

 

 

than rational

Practice depe

personal exper

perspective 01

found that th

which occurs

specifically

c

and utility.

Another 5

in isolation.

Peers, and tea

peer dependenc

practitioners

educators.

astonishing

de

largelY uninfc

 

71

than rational,

more routinized than conscious“

(p.

72).

Practice depends on what "works," from the viewpoint of

personal experience and individual personality, not from the

perspective of history or research.

VanNote Chism (1985a)

found that the knowledge that teachers value most is that

which occurs primarily on the job,

a knowledge that is

specifically characterized by relevance, active engagement,

and utility.

Another social reality is that teachers learn the craft

in isolation. Teaching is conducted without an audience of

peers, and teachers work in isolated classrooms with limited

peer dependence.

As a result, the best creations of its

practitioners

are

lost

to both

contemporary and

future

educators.

Lortie

(1975)

asserts

that

".

.

.

to

an

astonishing degree the beginning teacher must start afresh,

largely uninformed about prior solutions and alternative

approaches

to

recurring

practical

problems"

(p.

70).

Without

a

system of notation and memory,

the

steps

of

analysis, interpretation, and codification of principles are

hard to pursue (Shulman, 1987).

Because of that isolation,

feedback/rewards come from their students, rather than from

other adults (Lortie, 1975).

The next reality, according to Lieberman and Miller, is

that since there is a great deal of uncertainty about the

links between teaching and learning,

teachers are never

completely sure that what they are doing will work with

these particular students.

 

This

fac

that

teacher:

materials,

a

teachers

alle

theoretical"

Lortie

(quoti

“the profess<

goals

in

St!

achievement"

knowledge

has

lacks

"case

medicine

and

An addii

0f

experim

r‘iddjustments

daily

strugc

Miller,

1979

me“ conf:

interpret

tr

Classes 01‘ S

There

“eceSSarx. t

Their

Purp

72

This fact leads to the subsequent reality, which is

that

teachers

are

constantly

in

search

of

new

ideas,

materials,

and

methods.

According

to

Lortie

(1975),

teachers alleged that their preservice education was "too

theoretical" and contained "scant intellectual substance."

Lortie (quoting Ladd,

1966), interprets this to mean that

"the professors of education inculcate high and difficult

goals in students without providing the means for their

achievement"

(p.

69).

As

Shulman

(1987)

confirms,

the

knowledge base of teaching is weak: the teaching profession

lacks "case studies," common in other professions (e.g.,

medicine and law).

An additional reality is that teaching is an art, full

of

experimentation,

with

constant

adjustments

and

readjustments and routinizations:

"it becomes for most. a

daily struggle to control

the intangibles"

(Lieberman &

Miller, 1979, p. 56).

The goals of teaching are vague and

often

conflicting.

Each

teacher

must

translate

and

interpret the goals for him/herself and his/her specific

classes or subjects.

There

is

also

the

reality that control

norms

are

necessary, both within the classroom and within the school.

Their

purpose

is

to

provide

direction,

control,

and

movement.

Cuban (1984) especially views external controls

or bureaucratic factors (i.e., mandates from the district

and

state,

public

expectations

for

schools,

and

organizational configuration/structures) as constrictive.

 

 

Final

even for t

calls it a

is

a dema

support,

<

Sikorski,

Liebe

dailiness

behaviors.

opposed

t

former,

ti

experience

range in ‘

learns

to

Rees,

19',

bureaucra:

and Mills

Practical;

t0 expand:

The

up the Op

the right

73

Finally,

professional support is lacking:

isolation,

even for the beginning teacher, is the norm.

Lortie (1975)

calls it a "sink or swim" experience for the novice.

There

is

a demand for improved practice without the authority,

support, or incentive to carry it out (Zaltman, Florio, &

Sikorski, 1977).

Lieberman and Miller (1979) next go on to describe the

dailiness of teaching.

There are rules which affect teacher

behaviors.

The first of these rules is being practical, as

opposed to being theoretical and/or idealistic.

In the

former, the emphasis is upon products over processes, on

experience over research, on the short-range over the long-

range in thinking and planning.

In the latter, the teacher

learns to accept the school as it is and to adapt.

Hoy and

Rees,

1977,

discuss

this

phenomenon

in

regard to

"The

bureaucratic socialization of student teachers."

Lieberman

and Miller claim that,

"In essence,

the value placed. on

practicality is a value placed on resistance to change and

to expanding the possibilities of teaching" (p. 60).

The second rule focuses on being private, thus giving

up the opportunity to display one’s successes and reserving

the right to conceal one’s failures: observation is equated

with evaluation and evaluation risks exposure.

Lieberman and Miller’s generalizations next relate to

the interpersonal relationships of teachers.

They" found

that teacher interactions vary according to the contact.

With other teachers, the nature of discussion is typically

 

     

either jousti

both

person

interaction w

the principal

to

influence

functions:

t

probability 1

and experimen

The

to;

Lieberman

a

teaching.

frustrated

a]

have~-or

dOn

once outside

disappears.

almost complt

powerlessness

Based 0‘

Several

impl

Lieberman an:

a. Adop

Somethi:

Salespe;

b'

Take

DSOple i

?'

Ge

lmpleme:

the prc

   

74

either jousting or griping.

Their student interaction is

both

personal

(role

model)

and

instructional.

The

interaction with the principal is extremely important, since

the principal’s power, support, and criticism will do much

to

influence

the

way

in

which

the

classroom

teacher

functions:

with

a

supportive

principal,

there

is

the

probability that the teacher will feel free to take risks

and experiment with new methods and materials.

The

topic

of

empowerment

comes

up,

as

well,

in

Lieberman

and

Miller's

reflections

on

the

nature

of

teaching.

They talk about the

fact that teachers are

frustrated about the quantity and quality of control they

have--or don’t have—-in a school. Control is territorial--

once outside the classroom,

all of the teacher's control

disappears.

Teachers are constantly moving from a level of

almost complete and always necessary control to a level of

powerlessness.

Frustration and resignation result.

Based on these characteristics of teaching, there are

several

implications for staff development,

according to

Lieberman and Miller (1979):

a. Adopt a public relations facade to engage staff--

something which

requires

an energetic,

enthusiastic

salesperson;

b.

Take a reactive stance, which starts from: where

people are, not where we would like them to be;

c.

Get

individuals

personally

involved

in

implementation,

a process

carried on by people who

care

about

and

understand

the

needs

of

the

participants (not a "canned" presentation)

and

with

the provision of additional resources (people,

time,

material, expertise);

 

d.

Dis

based or

type

of

social r

one

91"

(trainee

"growth

e.

Est

personn

support,

(pp. 65-

Nature .

claim that t

ignore

adult

several of t

conducting 51

a.

The

Pregrai

specifi:

b-

Th:

relevan‘

0.

Res

be give

d-

The

0f anxi

may eme

75

d.

Discard the idea of a "training model," which is

based on a deficit model of teacher education.

This

type

of

training does

not acknowledge the complex

social realities of teaching, but, rather, assumes that

one

group

(trainers)

is

more

able

than

another

(trainees).

Jackson (1975) would, rather, advocate a

"growth model;"

e.

Establish supportive conditions: e.g., principal,

personnel/time/materials,

peer

support,

district

support, activities, a professional supportive climate

(pp. 65-68).

Nature of Adult Learning.

Wood and Thompson (1980)

claim that those responsible for staff development largely

ignore

adult

learning

characteristics.

They

highlight

several of these factors to be considered in planning and

conducting staff development:

a.

The goals and objectives of the staff development

program

must

be

perceived

by

the

learner

as

specifically job-related and immediately useful;

b.

These goals and objectives must be presented as

relevant to their personal and professional needs;

c.

Results must be evident and accurate feedback must

be given;

d.

There is ego-involvement; consequently, evidences

of anxiety, guilt, fear, and/or a negative self-concept

may emerge as the new learning takes place;

e.

The learners come to the learning situation with a

vast array of baggage, both positive and negative prior

knowledge

and

experience;

therefore,

individuating

instruction

is

as

appropriate

for

adults

as

for

children;

f.

Teachers may resist imposed, prescribed inservices,

especially if they are made to feel that they are

deficient or that their professional competence and/or

present method of teaching is being attacked;

9.

Adult motivation for learning is on two levels: one

is to participate and do an adequate job (resulting

from

a

good

salary,

fringe

benefits,

and

fair

treatment),

while

the

second

is

to commit oneself

deeply

(resulting from recognition,

achievement,

and

increased responsibility);

 

 

 

 

 

76

h.

Motivation rests within the adult learner;

the

purpose of the staff developer is to encourage and

create favorable conditions for the learning to take

place;

i.

Respect, trust, and concern for the learner must

characterize adult learning activities (p. 376).

Teacher as Learner.

Feiman (1983) cautions:

The work of teaching cannot be based on past knowledge

of teaching.

It must be informed by knowledge derived

from studying the particular students and classroom

situations.

The classroom is not only a place to teach

children, but a place to learn more about teaching and

learning.

Learning is part of the job of teaching

(p.150).

She

goes

on

to

say,

"Effective

schools

have been

defined as places where students learn.

It is time to

include

in our definition a requirement about teachers’

learning as well" (p.

152).

Loucks-Horsley et al.

(1987)

carry this theme into their book by stating that "schools

that are true learning communities for adults and children

alike are the only kind that hold promise for the future"

(p.

1).

As

can

be

documented

within

the

following

paragraphs, from many voices comes the call for teachers to

be reflective, rational, and conscious about their practice.

According to Shulman (1987), teaching is essentially a

learned profession.

In citing Fenstermacher (1978, 1986),

he emphasizes that "the goal of teacher education .

. .‘is

not

to

indoctrinate

or

train

teachers

to

behave

in

prescribed ways, but to educate teachers to reason soundly

about their teaching, as well as to perform skillfully" (p.

13).

In that regard,

Shulman lists four components as

 

 

 

essential

transforma

When

specifies

knowledge,

Carr

and

knowledge''

in

order

revision")

should be

staff deve

when

its

renew ther

With cliei

available

Acco:

attitudes,

reflectiw

closdmin,

°PPOsed

t

egotism).

as indivi

SCieDtifi:

fomillllate:

developed

procemure

77

essential

to

teaching:

comprehension

and

reasoning,

transformation and reflection.

When Keyes (1988) talks about Teacher as Learner, he

specifies

the

attributes

of

reflection,

empowerment,

knowledge, collaboration, articulation, and self-evaluation.

Carr

and

Kemmis

(1984)

call

for

theory

("organized

knowledge") and practice ("organized action“) to be combined

in

order

to

ensure

critical

analysis

("reflection

and

revision").

Lortie (1975) intimates that teacher knowledge

should be explicit and analytical.

Griffin (1979) says that

staff development fulfills the requirements of a profession

when its members somehow continue to learn, to grow, to

renew themselves, so that their interactions with ideas and

with clients are reflective of the best knowledge and skill

available to them (p. 127).

According

to

Dewey

(1933),

the

inquiry

skills,

attitudes, and dispositions which should characterize such a

reflective practitioner are open-mindedness (as opposed to

close—mindedness or empty-mindedness), whole heartedness (as

opposed to duplicity),

and responsibility (as opposed ‘to

egotism).

He says that theories in the past were developed

as individuals thought systematically, using the tools of

scientific inquiry:

i.e.,they observed. phenomena/problems,

formulated tentative hypotheses, tested the hypotheses, and

developed theories.

Teachers today can also follow this

procedure, he asserts.

 

 

Duckwort

of researche

that learning

being told.

they should

that,

ideall

one.

In tha

provoking

qu

part in the

empower them

Berline:

task force, ]

inquiry to e.

understandin

empowered

production

t

a

Talking

abo

reinforce,

3

cOmscious or

An exam

DiShino i198

experienced

researcher

amemers to I

and "What S:

clarify the;

explaining")

78

Duckworth (1984) encourages teachers to take the role

of researcher, where teachers become learners.

She says

that learning by figuring out for oneself is different from

being told.

Teachers should not only use knowledge, but

they should also produce knowledge.

Indeed,

she claims

that,

ideally, the two (research and teaching) should be

one.

In that connection, Garrison (1988) asks the thought-

provoking question:

"Is it not odd that teachers have no

part in the production of scientific knowledge that is to

empower them as professionals?

Unbelievable!"

Berliner (1987) encourages schools to develop a local

task force, where individuals and faculties can relate their

inquiry to each other (deliberation) and begin to develop an

understanding of

practice.

Individual teachers must be

empowered

to

participate

in

the

process

of

knowledge

production and distribution, not just passive consumption.

Talking

about

practice

permits

individuals

to

examine,

reinforce,

refine, and expand their own theories (whether

conscious or unconscious, explicit or tacit).

An example of this is related in the journal of Mary

DiShino (1985), a participant in Duckworth's seminar, where

experienced teachers were encouraged to take the role of

researcher

and,

within a

social

setting,

to

articulate

answers to "What did you notice [about a given phenomena]?"

and "What sense do you make of that?“

This forced them to

clarify their own thinking ("much of the learning is in the

explaining“) and to determine what they still had questions

 

 

about and wa:

community

Of

other’s

idea

knowledge.

fluid, chang.

knowledge bu?

knowledge but

Kinds.

for becoming

intelligent

creating

a

understandin:

Growth of te

stimulated

i

purposes.

Profess

motivated, w

on practice

research

(,

replication

from Onesel:

Cam be coll

and With 01-

teaCher

C‘

relations“

deVEIOPment‘

SUDErior‘mo

 

79

about and wanted to understand.

Through this process, the

community of learners both reinforced and challenged each

other's

ideas.

They

became

resources

and

sources

of

knowledge.

Together they discovered that knowledge

is

fluid, changing—-a human product; individuals not only use

knowledge but they also generate it, they not only produce

knowledge but they know they have produced it.

Kinds.

DiShino (1985) gave the following motivation

for becoming involved in that seminar: "I needed to become

intelligent

about

my

work——thinking

about

my

work

and

creating

a

role

for

myself

based

on

my

beliefs,

my

understandings, nu! awareness" (p.

23).

This professional

growth of teachers can take a variety of forms and can be

stimulated in a variety of situations for a variety of

purposes.

Professional development can be autonomous or self-

motivated, where the individual learns by doing.

Reflection

on practice and professional readings, along with original

research

(quantitative,

qualitative,

or

action)

and/or

replication of previous research are examples of learning

from oneself and/or by oneself.

Professional development

can be collegial or peer—motivated, where one learns from

and with one’s peers.

Staff dialogue, staff membership,

teacher

centers,

peer

coaching

and

mentor-novice

relationships

are

examples

of

this

type

of

staff

development.

Professional development may be heteronomous/

superior-motivated,

where

the

teacher

learns

from

the

 

"experts . " G

supervision 2

Another

through Lamp:

Model #

teacher

Model

1

change,

institu

Model

knowled

practic

academi

Model #

of

tea

improve

Model

.

through

(accord

own bes

their <

instruc

80

"experts." Graduate/postgraduate courses and instructional

supervision are in this category.

Another way of categorizing professional development is

through Lampert’s (1989) five models of staff development:

Model #

1, Individual teacher development, where each

teacher's personal and professional growth is the goal;

Model #

2,

Staff development through organizational

change,

where

restructuring

or

reorganizing

the

institutional structure is done to improve teaching;

Model

#

3,

Bridging

from

research

to

practical

knowledge, where the attempt is made to affect teaching

practice by applying the knowledge gained from the

academic community;

Model # 4, Curricular innovation, where the improvement

of

teacher

instructional

materials

is

intended

to

improve teaching;

Model

#

5,

Collaborative school-based change,

where

through collaborative efforts participants assess needs

(according to Hanley & Swick, 1983, "Teachers are their

own best resource for identifying and solving many of

their own problems" [p.

16]) and design programs for

instructional improvement.

Leiter and Cooper (1979), who claim that one cannot

impose staff development--one must generate and motivate

it--list five somewhat different emphases in their models of

staff

development:

i.e.,

inservice

teacher

corps,

an

individualized staff development program model (similar to

Lampert’s

#

1),

helping

teachers,

teacher

centers

for

teacher-initiated staff development (similar to Lampert’s #

5), and faculty development in higher education.

Loucks—Horsley

et

al.

(1987,

pp.

43-141)

provide

extended descriptions of several alternatives to traditional

inservice training:

teacher as researcher,

implementing

 

innovative P?

advising tea

networks,

p6

beginning

1:6

development .

mesh with in:

43).

Charact:

Maeroff (198

out under

t

revealed

5:

teachers

to

empowerment

.

these charac

insights,

ar

students

or

emcouragemer

81

innovative practices, clinical supervision, peer coaching,

advising teachers,

teachers’ centers, teacher institutes,

networks,

partnerships,

training

of

trainers,

mentoring

beginning teachers,

and

individually guided professional

development.

"The challenge is to select approaches that

mesh with individual, school, and district goals .

.

.

" (p.

43).

Characteristics of Effective Staff Development.

Maeroff (1988b) claims that a look at the projects carried

out under the

aegis of Rockefeller,

Ford,

and Carnegie

revealed

some

patterns

that

hold

promise

of

enabling

teachers

to

go

on

learning

in

ways

that point toward

empowerment.

Approaches most likely to yield dividends had

these characteristics in common:

fresh information and new

insights, and ways to put this knowledge at the disposal of

students

or

at

least the opportunity for the time and

encouragement to develop those ways;

the building of an

esprit de corps so that teachers, usually in ‘teams,

are

fired with enthusiasm and not isolated when they return to

their schools with new ideas; follow-up mechanisms to lend

support

to

the

teachers

throughout the

school

year

in

implementing new knowledge and keeping the enthusiasm at a

high pitch (p. 41).

Loucks-Horsley et al.

(1987)

contend that there. are

eight "critical attributes" of effective staff development,

namely: collegiality and collaboration, experimentation and

risk taking, incorporation of knowledge bases, appropriate

 

participant J

and

rewards

integration <

characterist:

In rega‘

and Thompson

effective

:

control over

related

tas

important; p

the differei

for particip

are to learr

their train

groups and

threat

of

allowing

pe

377i:

Beca

82

participant involvement, leadership and support, incentives

and

rewards

both

from within and

from

one's

students,

integration of school and district goals, and adult learning

characteristics (pp. 8—17).

In regard to the final attribute, adult learning, Wood

and Thompson (1980) proposed the following guidelines for

effective

staff

development:

include

more

participant

control over the what and .hOW’ of learning; focus on job

related

tasks

that

the

participants

consider

real

and

important; provide choices and alternatives that accommodate

the differences among participants;

include opportunities

for participants in inservice training to practice what they

are to learn in simulated and real work settings as part of

their training;

encourage the learners to work in small

groups and to learn from each other; reduce the use and

threat

of

external

judgments

from one's

superior(s)

by

allowing

peer-participants

to

give

each

other

feedback

concerning performance and areas of the needed program (p.

377).

Because adults prefer to learn in informal learning

situations where social interaction can take place among the

learners, there is the need to plan inservice that occurs in

the normal work setting (pp. 376-377).

.

In

addition

to

all

these

considerations,

Wood and

Thompson

(1980)

also cite research from the 19705 which

gives evidence that a higher proportion of

adults than

formerly

thought

may be

operating at Piaget's

concrete

operational stage, rather than formal operations stage, of

 

 

 

 

intellectual

experiences a

Teacher

The

questi:

professional

sensitive

t<

opposed

to

empowerment

center conc

development

teachers of

break

thro

teachers’

tj

institution

whole.

Altho:

teacher cen

early 1980:

that,

u

83

intellectual development; if that is true, direct, concrete

experiences and experiential learning would be warranted.

Teacher Centers:

Staff Development for Empowerment.

The

question

now

arises,

How

can

we

stimulate

the

professional growth of experienced teachers in ways that are

sensitive to and congruent with a view of development as

opposed

to

training,

liberating as opposed to binding,

empowerment

as

opposed to disempowerment?

The teacher

center concept is provided here as one example of staff

development

that

has

the

potential

to help experienced

teachers of any age or stage to share their problems and

break

through

their

isolation,

as

well

as

to

expand

teachers' thinking from their own classrooms to the entire

institution and beyond--to the field of education as

a

whole.

Although

officially-sanctioned,

federally-funded

teacher centers reached their heyday in the late 19705 and

early 1980s, their legacy remains.

Yarger (1990) claims

that,

"

.

.

.

teacher centers were,

in many ways,

the

precursor to teacher empowerment, which has been central to

the increasing movement toward the professionalization of

teaching.

This basic empowerment of teachers constitutes

perhaps the most important teacher center legacy" (p. 115).

Lieberman and Miller (1979) talk specifically about the

uniqueness of teacher centers:

"What distinguishes teacher

centers from other staff development practices is the degree

to which teachers themselves control the goals

and the

 

process

of

‘

Yarger

(1990

and

"releva:

114).

Zigarmi

their prime

centers: A 1

she sees tea

a place,

it

problems,

a<

can use and

responsive,

promotes

st

possibilitie

and emphasi:

for teacher

demonstrat

reSponsibil

teachers!

,

well as Wit

ClaSsroom (

Zigarmi

American

e‘

mreas

of

(1977) has

terms behat

84

process of their own professional development"

(p.

142).

Yarger (1990) emphasizes teacher centers’ "responsiveness"

and

“relevance"

to

teachers'

self

determined needs

(p.

114) .

Zigarmi

(1979)

writes

about teacher centers

during

their prime in the United States.

In her article, "Teacher

centers: A model for teacher-initiated staff development,"

she sees teacher centers as both a place and a concept.

As

a place,

it

is where teachers exchange ideas,

talk. over

problems, acquire skill, and have access to resources they

can use and adapt to their own classroom situations; it is a

responsive,

supportive,

non-threatening

environment

that

promotes

sharing

and

a

sense of

community,

models

new

possibilities, promotes the active exploration of materials,

and emphasizes the study of Children’s learning as the basis

for teachers' professional development.

As a concept, it

demonstrates

the

value

of

teachers’

taking

more

responsibility for their own staff development and fosters

teachers’ understanding more about how children learn, as

well as with what a teacher is thinking and doing in his/her

classroom (pp. 192-193).

Zigarmi sees no one single model of a teacher center in

American education; rather, teacher centers differ in the

areas

of

organization,

function,

and

ideology.

Feiman

(1977) has identified three distinct categories, which she

terms behavioristic, humanistic, and developmental.

 

! 

The beh

teaching beh

of research

programs,

pi

often

shor‘

environment

places where

(Zigarmi,

11

long-term,

help them d

and their st

Maerof

Insurance

5

that

7190

o

formal syst

and

ideas

improve the

the Teacher

FOundation

85

The behavioristic center focuses on improving specific

teaching behaviors through collaboration and dissemination

of research findings,

possibly also including ready-made

programs,

packages,

or methods.

The humanistic center,

often

short-term,

focuses

on

"creating

a

learning

environment where teachers feel psychologically supported,

places where they can benefit from each other’s expertise"

(Zigarmi,

1979,

p.

191).

The developmental center, often

long-term,

provides classroom teachers with advisors who

help them develop new understanding of their own teaching

and their students’ learning.

Maeroff

(1988b),

in

citing

the

Metropolitan

Life

Insurance Survey of the American 'Teacher

(1986), reports

that 71% of the teachers surveyed thought. that having' a

formal system of teacher centers where they could get help

and

ideas

from other

teachers

and

administrators

would

improve their working conditions.

He goes on to quote from

the Teacher Development in Schools (1985) report to the Ford

Foundation by the Academy for Educational Development, where

a dominant theme in teachers’ centers was that teachers

should control decisions about instruction and that

they should also control

decisions about their own

professional

development

.

.

.

the

process

of

information exchange and reflection is the essential

stimulant for professional growth.

An elemental appeal

of teachers’ centers is that they provide opportunities

for collegial exchange about pedagogy that are rarely

encouraged in typically organized and managed schools

(p. 40).

Maeroff concludes that relatively few teachers across

the country have had this as a formalized experience.

He

states

that

there

is

a

desperate

need to

improve

the

 

   

delivery SYS

pedagogical

reflective p

Accordi

193-195),

t

centers

(ir

“components

emphasized 1

teachers

ge

reflective

more about 1

teaching);

developmen:

knowledge) ,

Helpin

 

 

86

delivery system of inservice education to include the Holmes

Group Report's

(1986)

components

of

competent teaching,

i.e.,

subject

matter

knowledge

(both

in

liberal

and

pedagogical studies), systematic knowledge of teaching, and

reflective practical experience.

According to Zigarmi

(Lieberman & Miller,

1979,

pp.

193—195),

the three activities characteristic of teacher

centers

(in

many

ways

congruent

with

the

above—listed

"components

of

competent

teaching")

which

are

to

be

emphasized within the context of this project are: helping

teachers get together to work on common problems (i.e.,

reflective practical

experience);

helping teachers

learn

more about how children learn (i.e., systematic knowledge of

teaching); helping teachers acquire skills

in curriculum

development

and

implementation

(i.e.,

subject

matter

knowledge).

Helping teachers work on common problems. Activities

are planned around teachers' expressed interests and

their perceptions of their own staff-development needs.

They provide opportunities for dialogue .

.

. In many

ways, the skills or knowledge participants acquire in a

workshop at a teacher center may be less important than

the

new

attitudes

they

develop

about

their

own

resourcefulness

and

expertise

through

this

joint

problem-solving process.

Helping teachers learn more about how children learn.

These

activities

include

.

.

.

interviews

with

teachers, .

.

. curriculum development projects, and

.

.

. efforts to help teachers do research .

.

. bring[s]

teachers together to talk about specific problems and

ways

of

dealing

with

them

.

.

.

provide[s]

opportunities

for

sharing

among

teachers

and

collective reinforcement for teachers trying out new

ideas.

The activities in teacher centers that help a

teacher explore his/her ways of working with children

and

he

classn

confide

teacher

greater

esteem,

The no

his/her

practic

self-mt

likely

it.

Helpir

develoy

many t

not wh

critic

them i:

Implic

For tl

percep

staff

unders

change

center

the e)

enhanc

Center

teache

resist

rather

Study

. Char

be ex:

Liebe:

 

 

87

and help that

individual

systematically reflect on

classroom

problems

may

shake

a

teacher’s

self

confidence at

first,

.

.

.

But the more access a

teacher has to other teachers’ classroom problems, the

greater his/her ability to tolerate losses in self—

esteem, the more open he/she will be to feedback. .

.

.

The more a teacher is open to feedback, the greater

his/her ability is to self—monitor' his/her classroom

practice.

.

.

.

The

more

able

a

teacher

is

at

self-monitoring his/her classroom practice,

the more

likely he/she is to bring about fundamental changes in

it.

Helping

teachers

acquire

skills

in

curriculum

development and implementation. There is

a sense in

many teacher centers that new curriculum packages are

not what teachers need.

What they need is supportive,

critical help le evaluating new nmterials and using

them in their classrooms.

Implications arising from these assumptions are:

For the most part,

teacher centers accept teachers'

perceptions of their own needs as starting points for

staff development [and] help teachers uncover their own

understandings of teaching/learning so that they can

change their approach or attitude or skill.

Teacher

centers also accept teachers as resources and encourage

the exchange of resources among teachers as a way of

enhancing

personal

and

professional

growth

.

.

.

Centers

involve

teachers

as

collaborators,

provide

teachers

with

support

in

a way that

lowers their

resistance to change,

and encourage local leadership

rather than reliance on outside consultants [all Rand

Study characteristics of successful change efforts] .

.

. Change is more than getting started and support must

be extended throughout the change process (Zigarmi in

Lieberman & Miller, 1979, p. 199)

Warmth, concreteness, time, and thought are the four

components which Devaney (1977)

stresses as necessary to

make a teacher center work.

As she envisions it, warmth

means access to support, freedom to take risks, a sense of

being engaged with colleagues in an important undertaking.

Concreteness means a focus on particulars and specifics, not

generalizations and abstractions.

This does not mean "make

and take" workshops or "how to" discussions with an emphasis

 

only on

"Wt

specific

di

specific

co

specific chi

time

fror

responsibili

ideas,

ways

questions:

need suppor‘

It is assum:

more

owneJ

instruction

intrinsic

professiona

been tapped

Lieberman 8

Severe

teacher cei

who

and

assistance

Control (Z:

88

only on "what works;"

it means,

rather,

talking about

specific dilemmas or problems or instances of

learning,

specific concepts and how to embody them in activities,

specific children and their learning.

Learning takes time,

time

from

the

pressure

of

ongoing

classroom

responsibilities.

In regard to thought, the emphasis is on

ideas,

ways

of

thinking,

powerful

concepts,

penetrating

questions:

teachers

deserve

intellectual

stimulation and

need support in becoming serious students of their teaching.

It is assumed that in such an atmosphere, teachers will take

more

ownership

and

responsibility

for

curricular

and

instructional

decisions.

Devaney

says

that

"teachers’

intrinsic

aspirations

(motivations)

for collegiality and

professionalism are hidden resources that as yet have not

been tapped in traditional in-service programs" (Zigarmi in

Lieberman & Miller, 1979, p. 201).

Several

areas

of contrast can be

seen between the

teacher center concept and traditional inservice programs:

who

and

what

are

seen

as

resources,

the

nature

of

assistance,

and the

issue

of teacher responsibility and

control (Zigarmi in Lieberman & Miller, 1979, pp. 198-202).

The teacher center concept would seem to be in keeping

with

what

Paquette

(1987)

called

"voluntary

collegial

support

groups,"

based

on

the

following

"principles

of

professional growth":

a. Teachers benefit from individual, small-group, and

large-group

professional

development

activities,

so

each must be encouraged in the school;

 

b.

Pro

underta

c.

Grow

interes

relevan

d.

Pr

awaren

develop

e.

Gn

system

suppori

(PP- 3‘

This se

inservice er

the realiti.

adult learn

discussion

aPpear to

empowerment

89

b.

Professional

development

is

most

effective when

undertaken voluntarily by individuals;

c. Growth activities should build upon the strengths,

interests,

and talents of each teacher and. must be

relevant;

d.

Professional development activities can stimulate

awareness

in

teachers

of

their

level

of

skill

development, leading to celebration as well as growth;

e.

Growth can be enhanced through a collegial support

system that values group activities,

provides moral

support and facilitates small groups of 8-10 per group

(pp. 36-39).

This section investigated issues embedded within

inservice education.

There was first an acknowledgement of

the realities of teaching and learning with a recognition of

adult learning characteristics.

This led, ultimately, to a

discussion of

a model

of

staff development which would

appear to complement and foster the concepts of teacher

empowerment.

Reading Curriculum Implementation

The goal (improved reading instruction) and content (a

redefinition of reading, along with attendant strategies) of

staff development in this setting will now be addressed.

Basis for Change.

Current reading research as

it

is embodied in the

philosophical statement known as the state's New Definition

of Reading/Goals and Objectives (Wixson & Peters, 1984) was

adopted by the Omega Reading Study Committee and formed the

basis

for

its

work.

The

following

basic

assumptions

highlight

reading curriculum perspectives congruent with

that philosophy:

QV‘

 

Who.

'

his/her

st

instruction ,

passive recr

What.

encompass a

variety of 1

be upon int

discrete am

Why.

produce

re

comprehensit

(they read

desire as w

How.

possess

a

teachers ca

(i.e., desc

model,

proi

control to

Where.

variety of

9f reading

integratec

listening,

classroom v.

When.

all content

the "formal

 

 

Who.

The teacher does make a difference in affecting

90

his/her

students’

reading
instruction, the student is an active participant, not, a
passive recipient.

achievement.

In

reading

What.

The materials for reading instruction should
encompass a wide variety of genre and be read for a wide
variety of purposes.

Emphasis in reading instruction should
be upon interacting with the text (comprehension), not upon
discrete and isolated skills.

Why.

The purpose of reading instruction should be to

produce

when
comprehension breaks down and how to restore it), analytic

know

(they

strategic

are

who

readers

(they read critically),

and motivated (they possess the

desire as well as the ability to read).

How.

In order to construct meaning,

students must

possess

a variety of strategies

(specific plans),

which

teachers can effectively teach through direct instruction

(i.e., describe [what it is, when and where it can be used],

model,

provide guided practice,

and,

eventually,

release

control to students).

Where.

A literate environment (both in materials [a

variety of materials on a variety of subjects at a variety

of

reading

levels]

and

in

uses

[as

a

social

activity

integrated

with

the

other

language

arts--speaking,

listening,

and writing])

should be characteristic of the

classroom where reading instruction occurs.

When.

Reading instruction should be integrated with

all content areas throughout the school day, not just during

the "formal" reading instruction period.

The rough draft of the Omega Reading Study Committee’s

philosophy reflects many of these components:

We believe in developing students who will be lifelong

readers,

capable

of

and enthusiastic

about

reading

independently for meaning and pleasure.

We W111 teach

our students at their own rate and level, developing a

reading ability consistent with their potential

as

learners.

Those

responsible

for

the

development,

implementation,

and

support

of

our. reading “program

include

our

Superintendent,

Curriculum

Director,

principals,

reading

consultants,

teachers,

support

staff, media specialists, and parents.

We consider reading to be the process of constructing
the

among

interaction

dynamic

the

through

meaning

 

reader]

situat:

languai

as

a

every 4

This a

thinki1

meet t

classrl

With

proposed

re

section

wi.

carrying

o

curricular,

al'] p. 33)

The we

to recommei

both

from

inservices

guide:

in\

innovation

the

indiv

behaviors

1987,

p_

5

of

Change

evideDCed

that is

a

Support

G

Charac’cer j

91

reader,

the

text,

and

the context of

the reading

situation.

We, therefore, choose to use an integrated

language arts approach which does not isolate reading

as a separate entity,

but includes it in virtually

every aspect of a student's learning curriculum.

This approach will help students to make higher level

thinking connections as they read, enabling them to

meet the demands of modern life inside and outside our

classrooms. [Site document, 8/89]

With that

brief

look

at the underpinnings of

the

proposed reading curriculum change, the emphasis in ‘this

section will

be upon the word,

implementation,

or

"the

carrying

out

of

specific

guidelines

for

instructional,

curricular,

or management approaches"

(Loucks-Horsley et

al., p. 33).

The way in which teachers in the Omega district respond

to recommended implementation of a new reading curriculum,

both

from

the

perspective

of

the

previous

strategic

inservices

and the present tentative reading curriculum

guide,

involves

individuals

in

a process of change and

innovation.

The latter can be defined as something new to

the

individual

who

is

going

to

use

it

and

requiring

behaviors not usual

for that individual

(Loucks-Horsley,

1987, p. 55).

In that sense, this paper looks at the issue

of

change

and

teachers'

reactions

to

that

change

as

evidenced within a supportive environment (i.e., a district

that is attempting to empower its teachers and a Reading

Support

Group

fashioned

on

the

concepts

and

practices

characteristic of a teacher center).

 

Miami—13

Mager I

educational

Paideia

Pr<

5mm, SE

teachers to

345) in reg

or organiza

the reform

teachers' r

Attitudes T

Althou

change, n01

"Some teac]

Others

acc

another.

s

p. 346).

hie—\ritflimw—ofimg.

92

Mager et. al (1986), in citing the recommendations for

educational reform today (e.g., A Nation at Risk, 1983; The

Paideia Proposal,

1982;

Goodlad's,

1984,

Place

1 ed

School),

says that "each of these reports would require

teachers to re-form their thinking and their practice" (p.

345) in regard to subject matter, students/grade level, and/

or organizational structure.

He concludes, "the success of

the

reforms

will

be,

in

large

measure,

a

function of

teachers’ responses to such demands" (p. 345).

Attitudes Toward Change.

Although

teachers

have

frequently

been

faced

with

change, not all teachers respond to change in the same way:

"Some teachers welcome changes and are stimulated by them.

Others

accept

changes

without

much feeling one way or

another.

Still others are overwhelmed" (Mager et al., 1986,

p. 346).

Duffy

and

Roehler

(1989),

in

talking

about

the

complexities of teacher change, relate this complexity to

four

categories:

complexity

of

the

information to

be

conveyed, complexity of the teacher as learner, the context

of instruction, and human resistance to change.

The latter

specifically focuses on the fact that many teachers are

overwhelmed by change:

Instructional

improvement

is

difficult

because

teachers, like all humans, resist change.

Change

signals the end to comfortable practices of the past,

the need to generate high levels of energy and the very

 

 

real r

change

drainii

It

is

respond to

satisfactio

positively

the other

and inhibit

them not t

expect frus

One of

change may

is present

article, "'1

that

the

remediatiol

is somethi

This viewp

AS a refle

on the

S‘

<30r1'6ctiw

"ignorance

93

real risk of failure.

change

because

it

is

Simply stated, teachers resist
emotionally

sapping,

energy

draining and risky (p. 32).

It is crucial to look at the way in which teachers

respond to

change,

for

as

Goodlad

(1984)

says,

teacher

satisfaction

influences the classroom learning environment:

positively oriented teachers have a positive influence.

On

the other hand,

“when teachers find themselves restrained

and inhibited by problems of the workplace that appear to

them not to be within their control,

it is reasonable to

expect frustration

and dissatisfaction

to set in" (p. 180).

One of the reasons why there are differing reactions to

change may be due to the way in which that proposed change

is

presented,

whether as

defect or

as

growth.

In his

article, "Teaching old dogs new tricks," Jackson (1975) says

that

the

deficit

point

of

view

looks

upon

change

as

remediation and repair based upon the assumption that there

is something wrong with the present way of doing things.

This viewpoint sees the old as bad and the new as better.

As a reflection

of this mentality,

an outside expert ("Sage

on

the

Stage“)

is

frequently

called

in

to

set

up

a

corrective

training

program

to

rectify

the

teachers’

"ignorance."

Jackson

discounts

this

type

of

thinking,

arguing that the "new" is often only a new facade, while

Bader (1989) makes a case for the fact that what is touted

as new is often merely "old wine in new wineskins."

Freire

(Timpson,

1989)

claims that this type of

inservice for

 

"change"

i5

involuntary

The

c

acknowledg

According t

motivation

fulfillment

knowledge 1

the

experi

experience

through the

The goal of

every stag:

growth

in

change as v

1%

Miller

94

"change" is resisted because of its external control and

involuntary nature.

The

opposite

point

of

view,

change

as

growth,

acknowledges

teaching

as

complex

and

multifaceted.

According to Jackson, the roads to wisdom are many, and the

motivation

for

learning

should

be

to

seek

greater

fulfillment.

He contends that the most important source of

knowledge is the act of teaching itself, although it is not

the

experience

alone

but

rather

the

benefits

of

that

experience which cause the growth.

Such. benefits occur

through the avenues of reflection and professional inquiry.

The goal of this type of inservice is to produce teachers at

every stage who are as wise as possible and who evidence

growth in

all

directions,

resulting in

a perception of

change as voluntary and internally motivated.

Models of Change.

Miller and Wolf (1979) discuss the fact that "tension .

.

. exists between the personal concerns of teachers and the

institutional

needs

of

the schools

.

.

.

Teachers are

constantly moving between institutional and personal levels

of concern. This situation is exacerbated when the school in

which they work is

itself undergoing change"

(p.

144).

Although the change in the Omega district is not one of

situational/organizational change as it was in the school

which Miller and Wolf studied, there is a change in the area

of reading curriculum that is being proposed.

 

Miller

two Change

establishme

The Cc

pattern

fo:

innovation,

"Few seem 1

i

fact when 1

1).

He co

and

our

f

individuals

problem"

Q

has

been

structures,

little cha1

discount

t]

think that

Unless the

The f

'thending

Devel

conce

teach

persc

lmph

C011a

use

Orien

mOVe

routi

innov

 

95

Miller and Wolf (1979) highlight the characteristics of

two change models (CBAM and /I/D/E/A) that influenced the

establishment of their own model (SD/SC).

The Concerns Based Adoption Model

(CBAM) presents a

pattern for individual teacher adaptation of a teaching

innovation, since its creator, Hall (1975), contends that,

"Few seem to recognize that change is only accomplished in

fact when the individuals that use these things change" (p.

1).

He continues, "Our focus on changing by adding things

and

our

failure

to

be

sensitive

to

the

changes

that

individuals must make to use these things have become the

problem" (p.

2).

He warns, "At the overview level, there

has

been

addition

of

curricula,

new

organizational

structures, etc.; however, on the individual level, there is

little change--just system overload" (p. 2).

Hall does not

discount the importance of system level change; “however, we

think that change at this level will not be accomplished

unless the individual members are attended to" (p. 2).

The following summary paragraph demonstrates how this

"attending to individual members" is reflected in his model:

Developmental stages are documented based on levels of

concern and levels of use.

In the concerns domain,

teachers

move

from

the

need

for

information

and

personal

meaning

to

concerns

about

strategy

and

implementation

and

impact,

to

concerns

about

collaboration, and finally to redefining goals.

In the

use

domain,

teachers

go

through

a

process

of

orientation to

and preparation

for

the

innovation,

move

toward

a

mechanical

use,

and

then

on

to

routinizing,

refining,

and

finally

integrating

the

innovation into their teaching repertoire.

Finally,

 
 

teache:

1979, i

The /I

for the De‘

similar pro

1. Fir

about

2.

Ac

someth

begin

begins

questi

for ti

and th

Shiman

Miller

(SD/SC) use

conceptual

between sci

individuals

through th

institutior

institutio,

framework

and instit

cYClical (;

Mille

developmen

restructur

Were:

to

that Were

96

teachers begin a renewal process (Lieberman & Miller,

1979, pp. 145—146).

The /I/D/E/A studies (Kettering Foundation’s Institute

for the Development of Educational Activities) indicate a

similar process of development, beginning with individuals:

1. First, people talk about the possibility of bringing

about some kind of change within the school .

.

2.

Activity

ensues.

Some

teachers

begin

to

do

something

.

.

.

3.

Out of such activity,

teachers

begin to ask questions

.

.

.

4. The whole program

begins to look shabby .

.

. 5. The large philosophical

questions are asked.

Teachers begin to deal with goals

for the first time.

These questions open up others,

and the process begins again (quoting Lieberman &

Shiman [1973] in Lieberman & Miller, 1979, p. 146).

Miller and Wolf’s Staff Development/School Change Model

(SD/SC) uses both the CBAM and /I/D/E/A Models to provide a

conceptual basis.

SD/SC sees an interdependent relationship

between school change and teacher change.

It begins with

individuals

and their concerns,

moves

to collaborations

through the use of extensive dialogue, and then moves to

institutional change based on those collaborations.

The

institutional changes,

so developed, provide a supportive

framework for new growth and change--on both the individual

and institutional levels.

The process is developmental and

cyclical (Lieberman & Miller, 1979, pp. 146-147).

Miller and Wolf had three goals as they attempted staff

development/staff change to prepare for an organizational

restructuring within the reported district.

Those goals

were:

to develop a variety of teaching/learning strategies

that were necessary and appropriate for the new organization

 

(individual

within the 1

taking,

re

appropriate

action/col:

learning pr

changes

w]

(Lieberman

The /1

both

look

independent

1.

Th

the ch

2.

Te

skills

schoo]

3.

s

be re

staff

staff-

needs.

4-

Te

a con:

the p]

among

deveh

1979

I

W

ACCOr,

are

tWo

planning a

:

’

,

i

L

‘

97

(individual

goals/individual

action);

to

develop

norms

within the faculty (sharing, collaboration, innovation, risk

taking,

reflective

thinking)

that

were

necessary

and

appropriate

for

the

new

organization

(dialogue

about

action/collaborative

action);

and

to

develop

optional

learning programs for the new organization (organizational

changes

which

support

the

other

levels

of

change)

(Lieberman & Miller, 1979, p. 150).

The /I/D/E/A (1967—1972) and Rand (1974) studies have

both

looked

at

school

renewal

and

change

and

have

independently reached similar conclusions:

1.

The school site should be an important component of

the change process.

2.

Teachers and administrators should be provided the

skills and time necessary to focus their attention on

school—site problem solving.

3.

Staff development activities should flow from and

be related to problems identified by the staff.

The

staff

should play a major role

in determining the

staff-development and

in-service

activities that it

needs.

4.

Teachers and administrators have within themselves

a considerable amount of expertise to bring to bear on

the problems they face.

Collegial sharing within and

among schools should figure prominently in staff-

development activities (Williams in Lieberman & Miller,

1979, pp. 99-100].

Implementatign of Change.

According to Loucks-Horsley et al. (1987, p. 57), there

are

two

phases

to

implementing

innovative

practices:

planning and institutionalization.

 

Phase

acquiring

d

teachers an

classroom

a

conducted.

Joyce

needed

for

theory,

de:

application

much greate

that "when

think

diff

children

a

approaches,

intensive

t

This train

Sparks

(1

aPplicatim

Train

Preferred

Problems (1

followup

class

der

1°gistica1

98

Phase 1:

Planning.

The change process begins with

acquiring descriptive information and a cflear picture for

teachers and administrators of how it will affect lives in

classroom and school.

Then "how to do it" training is

conducted.

Joyce and Showers (1980) have identified five elements

needed

for

this

training to be effective and durable:

theory,

demonstration,

practice,

feedback,

and classroom

application.

When used together, they contend, each has

much greater power than when used alone.

They also conclude

that "when we change our repertoire, we have to learn to

think

differently,

to

behave

differently,

and

to

help

children

adapt

to

and

become

comfortable with the new

approaches,

so

mastery of

new techniques

requires more

intensive training than does fine tuning" (p. 380).

This training is followed by practice with some coaching.

Sparks

(1983)

also

adds

the

component

of

discussing

application with peers.

Training in small increments rather than all at once is

preferred so that parts can be mastered one at a time and

problems dealt with as they come up.

At least one year of

follow-up support is needed (problem-solving gatherings, in-

class

demonstration

and

assistance,

and

materials

and

logistical help).

At the end of the year, sessions can be

planned to focus on evaluation of progress and refinement of

the use in practice (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987, p. 57).

 

 

 

McLauq

their

sync]

(1974), ta]

for bringir

those strat

1.

To

entirely

i

implementor

or indiffei

2.

G1

or school-

district a.

to sustain

little

ind

3.

imported

i

3‘

from the a

4.

deVeloped

managers.

institutic

and

to

prepropo:

consensus

OffiCe p9]

99

McLaughlin and Marsh (in Lieberman & Miller, 1979), in

their synopsis of The Rand Corporation Change Agent Study

(1974), talk about four Project-Planning Strategies utilized

for bringing about change, as well as typical responses to

those strategies:

1.

Top-down planning: project plans are made almost

entirely in the central office and announced to would-be

implementors.

This approach is usually met with resistance

or indifference from the school staff.

2.

Grass—roots planning: plans are devised by teachers

or school-based project staff with little involvement of

district administrators.

Here, it was found to be difficult

to sustain initial enthusiasm and motivation when there was

little indication that district officials cared.

3.

No planning: project plans and project funds were

imported into the district with little or no involvement

from the district staff at any level.

4.

Collaborative

planning:

project

plans

were

developed

with

equal

input

from

teachers

and

district

managers.

This approach proved to generate the broad-based

institutional support necessary to effective implementation

and

to

the

continuation

of

successful

practices

from

preproposal

through

implementation,

thereby

gaining

consensus and support from teachers, principals, and central

office personnel (pp. 73-75).

 

 

Phase

nurtures te

written

i

automatical

are

routi‘

sessions

a

practice

teachers,

k

5

Considerati

Loucke

the

condi

innovative

100

Phase 2: Institutionalization.

Here, the organization

nurtures teachers’ use of practice.

The proposed change is

written

into

curriculum

guidelines,

new

teachers

are

automatically trained, it is funded in the budget, supplies

are

routinely

ordered,

refresher

and

renewal

training

sessions are held for teachers.

As a consequence,

the

practice

becomes

part

of

the everyday

life

of

school,

teachers, students (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1987, p. 57).

Considerations Related to Change.

Loucks-Horsley et al.’s (1987) work has also identified

the

conditions

necessary

for

success

in

implementing

innovative practices.

These include an acknowledgement of

the fact that change takes time, resources, and attention.

It is also imperative that attention be paid to the needs

and concerns of teachers and administrators,

since these

fluctuate

as

implementation evolves.

In

addition,

the

leadership must state clearly that using the practice is a

priority and that teachers will get the support they need to

do it and do it well.

This support, both within and outside

the school

setting,

may be

a combination of direction,

guidance,

a realistic picture of what it looks

like in

practice, and clear expectations for the outcomes (pp. 56-

58).

Individuals

implementing

innovative

practices

may

experience many mixed emotions at the beginning stages.

Loucks-Horsley et al.

(1987) specifically list these: they

 

 

may need

trainer,

t

impossible

unsuccessfi

possibilitj

villains,

against thi

Duffy

 

101

may need to suspend disbelief for a while,

to trust a

trainer,

to try something new that feels awkward or even

impossible

for

an

extended

period

of

time,

to

feel

unsuccessful before feeling successful.

There is also the

possibility

that

the

staff

developers

may

be

seen

as

villains, forcing individuals to implement a new practice

against their will (pp. 58-59).

Duffy and Roehler (1989) speak to that latter issue:

.

.

.

staff

developers

must

bring

patience

and

sensitivity to in-service projects, understanding that

teacher resistance to change is natural, and providing

emotional and physical support as teachers struggle to

implement innovations (p. 32).

Goodlad

(1984)

sees

a

logical

connection

between

conditions

such as

supportive

and sensitive

leadership,

availability

of

help,

and

involvement

in

schoolwide

decisions

on

the

one

hand,

and

teacher

enthusiasm,

professionalism, and career fulfillment on the other.

"Implications for Decision-Makers" (Hall, 1975), based

on CBAM research,

appear to be extremely relevant to the

issues I encountered as Omega teachers face er change in

reading curriculum which represents a new philosophy of

reading,

new

goals

and

objectives,

new

methods

and

materials.

1.

The Legitimacy of Self-Concerns.

The crime should

not be to have self concerns, but to not accept their

legitimacy and address them constructively.

2.

Innovation Bundles.

It doesn't really matter how

we as innovation developers or product disseminators

define

the

innovation.

In

order to research

its

effects

we have to define the

innovation from the

 

102

user’s perspective.

There are always several different

innovations within it ("the innovation bundle").

The

Stages of Concern (30C) and Levels of Use (LoU) with

regard

to

each

component

of

each

bundle

must

be

acknowledged

in

order

to

provide

appropriate

assistance and guidance to the users.

3.

Interventions.

Interventions

could

be

more

systematically

thought

about

and

planned

if

considerations were given to 3°C and LoU.

This is also

true when the selected adoption strategy employed to

implement the innovation is not fully thought out in

terms of its consequences for the concerns and use of

the individuals directly involved.

If something' is

going

to

be mandated,

then the

interventions

that

accompany the mandate need to take into account the

likelihood of a significant increase in self concerns

which will have to be addressed before movement toward

sophisticated use of the innovation is likely to occur.

4.

System Overload.

An overall game plan or adoption

strategy is required.

Each of these innovation bundles

requires additional outside personnel in the school,

staff development activities, and conflicting signals

and requirements in terms of use.

The result of this

we

call

system

overload.

If

80C

and

LoU

were

identified and sorted out for all of these different

innovations, it would be impossible to focus on anyone

of them long enough to accomplish very much.

In

practice,

this results in the grapevine’s reporting

which innovation’s representative will be in the school

for that day, then that’s the innovation that is pulled

off the shelf for use.

Much more serious thought must

be given to the systemic and systematic planning' of

innovation adoption in schools and colleges if we are

going to get the pay off that we wish.

5.

Evaluation.

Innovation of practices probably means

that the outcomes that are being attained are likely to

be worse,

at least initially, than they would have

been if the innovation had not been implemented at all.

We suspect that evaluators need to take into account

LoU when they are involved in evaluating curriculum.

6.

Time.

Implementing

even

relatively

simple

innovations takes time—-3-5 years.

There should be

restrictions

on

how

many

innovations

are

being

"adopted" by an institution at any one time.

The

nominal time for users to reach LoU IV—A (Routine)

should be published with the promotional materials for

that innovation and support for implementation should

cover that time period.

 
 

 

7-

.I.

Decrsr

to th‘

given

It wor

that the ‘

project as

Omega dist

process,

a

from three

within

a

bundles,

itself nec

Project th

emphasis w

teacher

e

toward imp

This

emPovermei

implementa

Sitnations

103

7.

Planned Change by Adaptive-Systematic Data-Based

Decision-Making.

As much attention needs to be given

to the adoption of innovations as is presently being

given to their development (pp. 27-32).

It would seem appropriate here to acknowledge the fact

that the title of this dissertation changed during this

project as the data were gathered and studied.

Because the

Omega district has just begun the Reading Curriculum change

process,

a process which admittedly takes time (minimally

from three to five years,

as stated above),

as well as

within a system with many other innovations

(innovation

bundles,

system

overload),

the

issue

of

implementation

itself necessarily occupied a less-prominent place in this

project than had originally been planned.

The greater

emphasis was, rather, placed upon the first two components,

teacher

empowerment

and

staff

development,

with

a view

toward implementation.

This review of

the precedent literature on teacher

empowerment,

staff

development,

and

reading

curriculum

implementation serves as a lens for bringing into focus the

situations and findings of the following two chapters.

 

 

The p1

setting

(

for Data C

and the Re

this study

The Omega

A com

and a str,

safe neigl

recent pub

the locall

located.

Contains 4

The d;

growth are

growing

5

studentls

kindergary

S/he gOes

school! a]

"A

tradition,

 

CHAPTER 3

SITUATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to describe both the

setting

(Overview of the Site) and the activities (Context

for Data Collection) related to the Reading Study Committee

and the Reading Support Group which provide the basis for

this study.

Overview of the Site

The Omega Community.

A community "steeped in traditional Christian values

and a strong work ethic" which attracts "families seeking

safe neighborhoods and good jobs"

is the way their most

recent publicity brochure [Site document, 3/13/89] describes

the locale in which the Omega Public School district is

located.

The city proper is home to 4,900 residents and

contains 46 industries which employ 7,000 individuals.

The district itself covers 94 square miles in a prime

growth area in a midwestern state.

The student population,

growing

5%

annually,

is

at

the

3,000

mark.

An Omega

student’s K-12 career begins with all-day,

alternate-day

kindergarten in the new Early Childhood Center.

From there,

s/he goes on to one of the three elementary schools, middle

school, and high school.

"A

community

long

recognized

for

both

its

rich

traditions and its openness and acceptance of new ideas" is

104

 

 

the

way

Special

1

principals

The

new

teacher

V

offerings

challengir

district (

written 0

curriculu

presently

such stud

summer of

the hands

0f feedba

were

com]

guides

aw

SChool ye

the suMe

The

Offerings

level.

r1

to me

settings,

music! a}

Dr0p~0ut

105

the

way

the

Outstanding

Practicing

Principal

for

1988

Special

Award

(presented

to

one

of

the

elementary

principals) described the district. [Site document, 1/24/89]

The

new

Curriculum

Director,

along

with

committees

of

teacher

volunteers,

have

begun

to

update

K-12

course

offerings

to

provide

what

they

call,

"consistent,

challenging

education."

[Site

document,

3/13/89]

The

district goal is to have a clear, concise, and attractive

written curriculum guide in place by 1992 for each major

curriculum

strand

and

department,

something

that

is

presently lacking and which is now a state requirement.

One

such study (Social Studies K—5) was conducted during the

summer of 1988: its written curriculum guide was placed in

the hands of elementary teachers that fall for the purpose

of feedback and evaluation.

Reading and science "writes"

were

completed

during the

summer,

1989,

with tentative

guides available for teacher input during the 1989—1990

school year.

The math curriculum guide was written during

the summer of 1990.

The

core

curriculum

is

rounded

out

with

advanced

offerings in math, physics and chemistry at the high school

level.

The gifted and talented program has been reorganized

to form "cluster groupings" within 3rd-6th grade classroom

settings, initiated in the fall of 1989.

Special education

and reading support services, library, physical education,

music, and hot lunch programs are provided in each school.

Drop-out rate for high school students is less 'than

3%,

 
 

compared t

graduates

universiti

At th

Department

1987.

Ei

Omega Pub:

rating ac]

conducted

polled gar

statewide

Education

last time

enough pr

The

comm]

system,

through

   

106

compared to 7% statewide.

In 1988, 64% of Omega High School

graduates went on to further their education at colleges,

universities, or trade schools.

At the district Board of Education’s request, the state

Department of Education conducted a survey in November,

1987.

Eighty-five percent of area voters polled gave the

Omega Public Schools an "A" or "B", the highest percentage

rating achieved in the survey’s history.

A similar survey

conducted at the end of October 1989 showed 79% of those

polled gave the district a "B" or better, "far exceeding the

statewide average of 50%."

According to the State Board of

Education’s pollster, "Your grades were not quite as high as

last time, but they were still excellent.

I can’t think of

enough praise for this school system." [Site document, 1/90]

The community not only verbally approves its educational

system,

but

it

also

consistently

supports

its

schools

through

the

passage

of

millage

renewals

and

increase

requests.

The Omega Public Elementary Schools.

The

three

elementary schools with their respective

faculties provided the focal point for this study.

Eisenhower.

The first school, Eisenhower Elementary,

is the largest and serves the lower central and. eastern

areas of the district.

This includes a farming community

which had shared a great deal of loyalty and pride in its

own small elementary school.

When that school had to be

closed three years ago due to health safety hazards which

 

 
 

were deeme

locale beg

was comple

An

additi

Twenty-sew

students v

Its 1

Until

fou

Omega Mid

principal

administr

busineSS‘

allows

r

teaching

W3Y").

[I

teacher

 

107

were deemed too costly to rectify, the students from that

locale began to be bused to Eisenhower.

An 8-room addition

was completed three years ago to accommodate those students.

An

additional

four

rooms were added the

fall

of

1989.

Twenty-seven full-time and part-time teachers serve the 470

students who are enrolled there.

Its principal has been with the district for 21 years.

Until four years ago,

he was assistant. principal at. the

Omega Middle School, but at the retirement of Eisenhower’s

principal,

he requested to be reassigned there.

As an

administrator, this principal is primarily concerned with

business matters ("the dollar is the bottom line"), while he

allows

his

teachers

to

assume

the

responsibility

for

teaching matters ("there isn't anything standing in their

way"). [Interview transcript, 3/28/89]

He told the reading

teacher

in

his

building

that

he

sees

himself

as very

supportive of the reading program.

Washington.

The second largest elementary building,

Washington, has 432 students and twenty-six full-time and

part-time teachers.

It,

too,

has undergone a building

project of four additional rooms completed the fall of 1989.

The school draws its clientele from the northern and central

tier of the district where farming and factory work are the

norm.

The principal of this school has been with the district

for 16 years.

He began as a third—grade classroom teacher

at Amsterdam Elementary, was promoted to assistant principal

 
 

 

in that b1

the

retir

district.

Washington

coming up

a

change

innovative

special

legislator

as the st

by the

s

Associatil

as Chapte

has, acco

in experi

t0 replac

108

in that building, and two years later became principal upon

the retirement of his predecessor,

a

34-veteran of the

district.

At

his

own

request,

he

was

reassigned

to

Washington four years ago both because his own children were

coming up in the Amsterdam School and he himself was seeking

a

change.

This

principal’s

"remarkable

genius

for

innovative leadership“ was listed among his credits in the

special

tribute

plaque

awarded

to

him

by

two

state

legislators in January 1989 in recognition of his selection

as the state’s "Outstanding Practicing Principal for 1988"

by the state’s Elementary and Middle School Principal’s

Association.

[Site document, 1/24/89]

He formerly served

as Chapter I Reading director and throughout the years he

has, according to his own admission, supported his teachers

in experimentation with a variety of methods and materials

to replace outdated reading workbooks.

He has also taken an

active role in supporting the gifted/talented program and in

updating the schools’ libraries.

Amsterdam.

Amsterdam

Elementary

has

a

student

population of 344, with a teaching staff of twenty-one full

time-and part-time teachers. The school serves the western

portion of the district, where the more affluent, business

and white—collar families of the community reside.

Eight

additional classrooms were completed by the fall of 1990.

Its principal, hired four years ago when Amsterdam’s

principal moved

to

Washington,

described his

leadership

style in the following way:

"When I came to Omega, I was

  

 

2/9/89]

reading-re

in

the

d

representa

Reading

S

Associatic

attend th.

New

Orlee

district-1

The

dominant

:

the work

ourriculu

This

beginninw

chronolog

StUdy.

N0Vemher

109

very autocratic.

But since I got messages that I had come

on too strong, I took a nosedive, and now I’m trying to go

from the visible to the invisible." [Interview transcript,r

2/9/89]

He has expressed a great deal of interest in

reading—related concerns, is the Chapter I Reading director

in

the

district,

and

is

the only elementary principal

representative

on

both

the

Curriculum

Council

and

the

Reading Study Committee.

He attends the state Reading

Association Convention each year, and he also elected to

attend the International Reading Association Convention in

New Orleans

in

the

spring

of

1989

for

his

one major

district-funded conference.

The individuals

in these buildings played the most

dominant role in——and were the most directly influenced by--

the work of the Reading Study Committee and. the reading

curriculum write described in this thesis.

Context for Data Collection

This section describes the context for data collection,

beginning

with

a

calendar

of

events

which

gives

a

chronological overview of the activities related to this

 

 

study.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

1986

November

Curriculum Council Reorganization Proposal

1. Reorganizing the Teaching Staff

2. Writing Curriculum Guides

3.

Defining

and

Addressing

Inservice

Needs

 

 

December

January

April

April

September

October

December

January-

February

March

May

August

October

NoVember

December

110

1987

December

District-Wide

Inservices:

Defining

Grade

January

April

Group/Department Curricular Concerns

April

Presentation of Concerns to Board of Education

Need Expressed for Reading Study

September

Invitation Extended to Serve on Reading Study

Committee

October

District-Wide

Inservice:

Curricular

Issues/Writing Curriculum Guides

December

Subcommittee of Volunteers Selected to

Determine Starting Point of Committee’s

Work

1988

January-

Orientation of Reading Study Committee:

February

Inservice of Committee in New

Definition/Reading Strategies

March

Reading Study Committee Leadership Emerges

Subcommittees Formed

State Reading Association Conference Attended

May

Reading Study' Meets with Another District's

Reading Curriculum Committee

August

Reconvening of Committee:"Where do we go from

here?"

October

Elementary Staff Awareness Session/Needs

Assessment Survey

November

Reading Strategy Inservice: Story Mapping

December

Reading Strategy Inservice: Debriefing Story

Mapping, Probable Passages

1989

January

Reading Strategy Inservice: Reciprocal

Teaching

February

Reading Strategy Inservice: Debriefing

Reciprocal

Teaching

March

Reading Strategy Inservice: Question Answer

Relationships, State Reading Assessment

  

May

June

August

September

October

 

November

December

February

April

May

empower

111

May

Reading Strategy Inservice: KWL--Know, Want to

Know, Learned

June

Reading Support Group Information Meeting

Reading Curriculum Guide "Write“

August

Reworking Reading Curriculum Guide

September

Reading Support Group Meetings 1, 2, 3, 4

Presentation of Reading Curriculum Guide Rough

Draft at Grade Group Meetings

October

Reading Support Group Meetings 5, 6, 7, 8

Teacher Inservice Day: Feedback Elicited on

Reading Curriculum Guide Rough Draft

in Grade Group Meetings

November

Reading Support Group Meetings 9, 10

December

Reading Support Group Meetings 11, 12

1990

February

Reading Curriculum Guide Presented to

the Omega Board of Education

April

Reading Curriculum Guide Approved by Board

May

Reading Inservice: Creating the Literate

Environment

Table 1: Chronology of Events

The District’s Curriculum Re—Organization Efforts.

A

chronology

of

the

Omega

district’s

attempts

to

empower its teachers for reading curriculum change can be

traced back to

a November 20,

1986 memo sent from the

District-Wide Curriculum Council to the Professional Staff

of the Omega Public Schools.

Origins: Growing Frustration.

The Council, up to that

point merely a figure-head committee with no authority and

no

financial

backing,

had

reached a

point

of

"growing

frustration," finally asking, “What are we doing for this

 

 

   

 

school syS

proposed 2

teaching 5

have been

of gettin

role

in

organizati

Effec

with

curr:

Publ

deve

orga

you

docu

The three

the depar

grade

1e

 

112

school system [in the area of curriculum]?" The Council then

proposed a Curriculum Re—organization reflecting "what the

teaching staff, administrative staff, and Board of Education

have been concerned about for several years."

The process

of getting teachers to take a more active and autonomous

role

in

curriculum

development

through

Curriculum

Re-

organization was recommended under the following assumption:

Effective curriculum change begins at the grass roots,

with the classroom teacher who works directly with the

curriculum each day .

.

. The curriculum of the Omega

Public School will be the most effective if

it

is

developed by the teaching staff which has formed the

organizational structure to accomplish change.

Each of

you are [sic] being challenged with that task.

[Site

document, 11/20/86]

The three-prong proposal called for:

1. Re-organization of

the department chairperson structure and the addition of

grade

level

chairpersons;

2.

Development

of

a

written

curriculum scope and sequence

for each major curriculum

strand by 1992; 3. Defining inservice education needs of the

staff and addressing those needs in an organized way. [Site

document, 11/20/86]

First Steps:

Instructional Program .Needs Assessment.

Following

that

memo,

a

number

of

consecutive

monthly

release—time inservices were held at the district’s high

school.

The first meeting occurred on December 1,

1986,

where subgroups (according to grade level or department) met

to

first

discuss the Curriculum Council memo described

above, giving answers to the questions: "Does the plan have

merit?" and "What specific suggestions do you have?"

Next,

an

“Instructional

Program

Needs

Assessment"

was

to

be

  

 

 

compiled,

twenty-ODE

as they 13

what was I

largt

actil

inpui

to p1

final

tota

12/1,

0n J

met at th

discuss w

reorganiz

and to r

(reducing

areas

0

departmer

April 13,

One

i

grade gr

Prioritig

Educatior

113

compiled, where teachers were asked individually to list

twenty—one of their instructional program improvement needs

as they algae saw the district.

This was the first step in

what was billed as

.

.

a research-proven technique that facilitates

large groups in formulating their major priorities for

action.

The process assures equal opportunity for

input and builds group members' confidence and ability

to pursue the means for meeting

unmet

needs;

and

finally,

the

priority

listings

bring focus

to

the

total community on unmet needs. [Site document,

12/1/86]

On January 16,

1987, the entire teaching staff again

met at the high school to hear the superintendent speak, to

discuss within grade groups and departments the "curriculum

reorganization plan" (signifying approval or disapproval),

and to provide an instructional program needs assessment

(reducing the compiled list to a consensus of the seven

areas

of

greatest

concern

within

that

grade

group/

department).

These seven were later further pared down on

April 13, 1987, to reflect each group’s three top needs.

One individual representing each of these departments/

grade groups was then invited to present its top three

priorities to the Education Subcommittee of the Board of

Education

on

April

30,

1987,

in

order

to

"facilitate

possible

priority

items

and

proposals

being

further

developed for the Omega Education Association, the board and

building faculties," while at the same time acknowledging

the “limitations imposed by human and financial resource

constraints." [Site document, 4/23/87]

 

malign—

Oriel

priority i

study,

at

rationale

The 1

such

a

si

reading

i

several r

district

consequen'

driving 1;

the three

 

 

114

Formation and Functions of a Reading Study Committee.

Orientation.

One

of

the

reading

teachers'

three

priority items was the recommendation for a district reading

study,

an

event

which was

initiated

that

fall.

The

rationale for such a study was two-fold.

The first factor to be considered was that the need for

such as study existed because of some deficit in the way

reading instruction had taken place in the past.

Indeed,

several realities would warrant such an assumption: 1) the

district had no written philosophy or reading curriculum;

consequently,

the basal reader teacher's manual had. been

driving the curriculum; 2) to further complicate that fact,

the three elementary buildings all had different reading

series

representing

differing

philosophical

bases

for

instruction, which resulted in a lack of articulation both

horizontally and vertically ("We’ve got three systems, and

the effectiveness of those systems may be very good in a

single school, but they won’t be very good when it comes to

sharing talents,

sharing information,

stopping gaps from

occurring over time" [Superintendent of Schools, Audiotape

transcript

of

3/14/89

Board

of

Education:

Education

Subcommittee

Meeting];

3)

these

basals

had

mid

1970s

copyrights, and they did not, therefore, reflect the most

recent reading research and practice; 4) that concern was a

reflection of the orientation of many individuals within the

district:

a

previous

reading

study,

scheduled

for

the

1984-1985

school

year,

was

preempted

for

"more-pressing

 

 

concerns,‘

that

time

frequent 1

additional

these

are

mine]."

opinion i

In

twentj

relates

transcrip

The

growth.

gleaned l

"what we

not bad--

definitic

 

115

concerns," since, as the Curriculum Council chairperson at

that time stated,

"Science and social studies need. more

frequent updating than does reading, because of the constant

additional new information being discovered and occurring in

these areas.

Reading does not outdate itself

[italics

mine]."

A Board of Education member expressed a similar

opinion in the April 14, 1989 meeting: "A basic is a basic.

In twenty years they haven’t changed.

This discussion

relates

to

how

old

the textbook would be."

[Audiotape

transcript, 4/14/89]

The second factor looked at the study as a means of

growth.

Here the emphasis was upon using the information

gleaned by the committee as a way to help teachers evaluate

"what we are already doing that is working .

.

. The past is

not bad—~we’re already doing many of these things.

[The new

definition] gives a new emphasis," according to an Awareness

Session presentation. [Fieldnotes, 11/30/88]

The

chairperson

of

the

Reading

Study

Committee

presented the proposed changes positively in her' meeting

with the Board of Education, as well:

The different approaches help the teachers to meet the

needs of the kids who aren't developmentally ready for

that basal

reader but who can start to experience

reading through different kinds of methods.

And I

think we've done a pretty good job of enlightening the

teachers as to some of those different methods which

may have changed since they went to college.

[Audio

tape transcript, 4/14/89]

In this positive light,

it was envisioned that the

Committee’s recommendations would help to bridge the gap

between on-paper curriculum and its practice in classrooms

 
 

 

and,

U1

achieveme

to choose

and learn

In

Curriculu

appointel

Director)

reading c

the Read

January ,

status

c

familiari

Reading,

for the

provide

along wi

order to

 

116

and,

ultimately,

lead

to

greater

articulation

and

achievement in the entire district:

"Our goal is not just

to choose a new textbook: our goal is improved instruction

and learning." [Site document, 5/10/89]

In

response

to

an

open

invitation

issued

by

the

Curriculum Council chairperson (who was six ‘months later

Iappointed

to

become

the

district’s

first

Curriculum

Director), a volunteer group of twenty-four K-12 teachers,

reading consultants, and administrators came forward to form

the Reading Study Committee.

They initially convened in

January of

1988 for the purpose of studying' the present

status

of

reading

instruction

within

the

district,

to

familiarize themselves with the state’s New Definition of

Reading, and to determine the course of reading instruction

for the future.

The Committee was given the mandate to

provide the district with a written reading curriculum,

along with recommendations for inservices and materials in

order to disseminate and implement that curriculum.

The Curriculum Council chair’s first letter stated:

I want to commend you on volunteering to serve on a key

committee at a most opportune time.

Combined with the

"New

Definition

of

Reading/Goals

for

Reading

Instruction"

and Omega

Public

Schools

initiating a

renewed

effort

of

school

improvement

through

a

commitment to write curriculum guides,

this team of

interested,

enthusiastic,

and

strongly

committed

teachers has the honor of being the first discipline to

start us on the implementation of a reading curriculum.

[Site document, 1/18/88]

His stated goal was that the reading study be "teacher

initiated,

teacher

led,

teacher

developed,

and

teacher

assessed/monitored." [Fieldnotes, 3/16/88]

 
 

 

Public

, Relations

lConrnite

%

Table 2

117

A diagram of the most pertinent groups for this study

is included here, followed by a membership composite of each

group.

These are included as a way to help the reader

envision the position of the Reading Study Committee within

the district’s organizational structure.

OMEGA PUBllC SCHOOLS’ ORGAN l F

!
s
‘

ARON/lit STRUCTURE

éhm
lEBLJ/XFREJ C3F3iECJLK3/RllLJDJl
l
,
   

mance

1
l
Education Budding and“ Personnel .
T

g

i

lCorjnrnitte-e‘l Grounds [Connthittee

l

{IComz‘nitte-e 'l

!

.l,

l
‘

lr

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

E

e

l

PLl—JllC

|

Relations

!
: Committee

.

l

l

l

 

 

‘Adnniriistrative

‘

 

1

Council

 

 

i
_e

«CLW‘FlCILIlUH‘l
l
%

r‘\
.,
(Louncu

l
l

l

l

l
L_____—_l

l

l

I————-—‘—‘.—1

i Grade/Subject 1

,

Groups

l

llF’xeading Study

', Committee ,

L_____—______J

Table 2: Omega Public Schools’ Organizational Structure

 

 

Membershi]

hear

superinter

community‘

Educ

members

Admil

and

assi

assistant

superinte:

education

director

Qurr

chair),

l

teachers

adminiS'

represent

§I§§

elementar

each elem

(science,

chairpers

music,

i]

and art)

divisions

Read

dmir/ s

 

 

118

Membership Composite within the Organizational Structure

Board

of

Education.

Board

member

(chair),

superintendent of schools, assistant superintendent, seven

community—elected board members

Education

Committee.

Superintendent,

three

board

members

Administrative Council.

High school principal (chair)

and

assistant

principal,

middle

school

principal

and

assistant principal,

three

elementary school

principals,

superintendent of schools, curriculum director, community

education

director,

athletic director,

special education

director

Curriculum Council.

Curriculum director (non-voting

chair),

three high school

teachers,

three middle school

teachers,

five

elementary

school

teachers,

three

administrators,

one

Omega

Education

Association

representative at large

GradeZSubject

Groups.

One

chairperson

for

each

elementary grade (K,

1,

2,

3, 4, 5, 6); one chairperson for

each elementary, middle school, and high school department

(science,

social

studies,

math,

and language arts);

one

chairperson

for

each

K-12

subject

(physical

education,

music,

industrial arts, computer science, home economics,

and art), plus the teachers appropriate to each of those

divisions

Reading

Study

Committee.

Elementary

language

arts

chair/ second grade teacher (chair), curriculum director,

one

elementary

principal,

one

high

school

teacher,

two

middle school teachers, one middle school reading teacher,

one fifth grade teacher,

two fourth grade teachers,

two

third

grade

teachers,

one

first

grade

teacher,

one

kindergarten

teacher,

three

elementary

school

reading

teachers

Initial Activities. Preparation. Since the twenty-four

volunteers on the Reading Study Committee were the ones who

had been entrusted with the task of writing a new reading

curriculum, selecting appropriate textbooks, and providing

inservices for teachers to ensure that articulation occurs

both horizontally and vertically, it was imperative that the

basis for those major choices be credible and reliable.

 

 

The

the Commi

the New B

hear abor

be on the

of

a

le:

transcri;

Council

meet witl

determine

Upor

effort t

be made,

unique

:

hours of

 

119

The only elementary principal to volunteer to serve on

the Committee took the initiative: "I wanted us to look at

the New Definition [of Reading].

I had been lucky enough to

hear about it, where some people hadn’t.

I volunteered [to

be on the Reading Study Committee] thinking it would be more

of

a leadership role at that point

.

.

.

"

[Interview

transcript,

2/9/89]

After consulting with the Curriculum

Council chairperson, he invited two of the volunteers to

meet with him in November, 1987, for the purpose of making a

determination about how to begin the process.

Upon his recommendation, the first step taken in an

effort to ensure that informed and credible decisions would

be made, as well as to provide a common ground for the many

unique individuals with varied reading backgrounds,

nine

hours of intensive training was given the Committee by a

member

of

the

team

who

had

written

the

state's

New

Definition (fl? Reading.

This occurred in three three-hour

long sessions during February,

1988

(one after school on

February 4 from 5:00—8:00 p.m.,

a second one on Saturday

morning, February 13, from 8:30-11:30 a.m., and the third

one on release time the following Monday, February 15, from

9:00

a.m.-12:00

noon).

The

presenter’s

role

was

to

inservice the committee [i.e., the "decision-makers"] and to

help

screen

the

vast

amount

of

[reading]

materials

available.

Her agenda was as follows:

 

 

SGSS

Sese

Moni

Ses:

Wri

an

appr

foundati

 

120

Session One: Introduction and Purpose Setting

Reading Curriculum--Literacy

is

the Measure of

Success

Research and the New Definition of Reading/Goals

for Reading Instruction

Schema Theory and Comprehension

Two Instructional Strategies which Employ Schema

Theory:

DRTA Fiction and KWL

Charge to the Group

Session Two:

Megacognition and Strategic Reading

Strategies to Insure Meaning--Comprehension

Monitoring

Strategies to Repair Meaning

--Click and Clunk

--Repair Strategies

——Mental Modeling

--Think Alouds

Narrative Text Structure and Comprehension

--Story Grammar

-—Story Mapping

Reciprocal Teaching as a Metacognitive Strategy

Session Three: Literate Environment

Construct an Advisory Statement about this Issue

QAR’s and Expository Text Structure

Semantic Mapping and Concept Mapping

Wrap-up: Seeking New Reading Objectives

Written comments after the inservice sessions reflected

an

appreciation

for

the

information:

"Provided

a

good

foundation base," "Helped give direction," and "Helped ease

the insecurity of not being an expert."

One comment to the

presenter summarized,

"Your knowledge will benefit us in

further study, sharing with peers, inservice planning and

desire to improve Omega reading curriculum." [Site document,

2/15/88]

Concerns

surfaced:

"Where

do

we

go

from

here?",

"Changes should not be a directive but should come from

teachers,"

"We need a clear goal—-plan as a group in order

to be effective," "Dissemination of information [must. be

made] to all teachers in the district so we can make a

 

knowledge

overridir

people

l

2/15/88]

Leac

immediate

Council

Study Co

invitatil

Curriculr

think abl

The

already

needed t

Excerpts

expresse

Committe

I

phi

spe

our

tha

igr

new

I v

is

our

 

 

121

knowledgeable decision about curriculum and materials."

The

overriding question appeared to be,

"How are this many

people

going

to

write

a

curriculum?"

[Site

document,

2/15/88]

Leadership Emerges.

That concern began to be addressed

immediately.

At the close of the nine hours, the Curriculum

Council chair asked for a volunteer to head the Reading

Study Committee.

A long period of silence followed that

invitation, and no one on the Committee volunteered.

The

Curriculum Council chair asked the members to go home to

think about it.

The person who did offer to assume that role was an

already very active lower elementary classroom teacher who

needed to resign from her Curriculum Council post to do so.

Excerpts from a letter she wrote to me after the meeting

expressed her rationale for taking a leadership role on the

Committee:

I

am

definitely

biased

toward

a

language

arts

philosophy

including

reading,

writing,

thinking,

spelling, etc.

I got the feeling that many people on

our committee were not familiar with the concept of

that big picture .

.

. I guess I’m afraid that we might

ignore those relationships!

I’m also afraid we’re

never going to get off the ground without Chairpersons!

I would be willing to help .

.

. because I think this

is the most important revision that will be made in

our curriculum! [Site document, 2/25/88]

One reason for the reluctance on the part of any others

to spearhead the Cbmmittee may have been due to the past

history of the district.

Prior to this time, according to

the most veteran teacher (Na the Reading Study Committee,

Omega’s curriculum study committees had been automatically

 

chaired

administr

knowledge

She said

just wroi

all toge

and

that

[Intervie

In l

from

ea

material:

each com

as one

became t

As

the Comm

Committe

great de

had

bee

Opiniona

seeing

[Intervj

He

Curricul

COnSpic,

aroUnd

 

 

122

chaired by the district’s elementary' principals.

These

administrators would then recruit those whom they' deemed

knowledgeable and interested to comprise their committee.

She said that the former reading curriculum guides were

".

.

. not significant.

They were so general--everybody

just wrote down what they did, and somebody just put it

all together.

They were put in a drawer or on the shelf,

and

that

was

it.

We

never basically

followed them."

[Interview transcript, 3/9/89]

In other instances, a variety of textbooks was ordered

from

each

of

several

publishing

companies,

and

these

materials were perused by the committee.

The end result of

each committee’s work would be a textbook adoption, where,

as one principal told me,

the textbook teacher’s manual

became the curriculum.

As was stated earlier, the only elementary principal on

the Committee had originally assumed that the Reading Study

Committee would also give himself as an administrator a

great deal of influence, but he told me that his perception

had

been

altered:

"I’ve

had

to

step

back.

I

was

opinionated and had certain ideas I wanted covered .

.

. yet

seeing and knowing that we wanted to empower teachers."

[Interview transcript, 2/9/89]

He

related

to

me

instances

throughout the Reading

Curriculum Study which forced him to view himself in a less

conspicuous role.

Reading teachers asked him to merely go

around and take pictures at the Strategy Inservices, while

the Readz‘

that he 4

2/9/891

needed t1

into enc:

building

I tl

and

her

on

ml

and

to l

 

123

the Reading Study Committee chairperson explicitly told him

that he should "back off a little."

[Interview transcript,

2/9/89]

Upon the discovery that his initial expectations

needed to be revised, this principal put his energy instead

into encouraging the chairperson, Chloe, a teacher from his

building, in her role:

I tried to kindle her leadership.

She’s been building

and showing leadership ability, organizational skills,

her

peers respect her, she’s a worker.

She went out

on a limb.

When she volunteered, I was surprised.

I

felt it would be a reading teacher.

But I went to her

and said,

"No problem.

I’ll back you whenever I can

to support you on that." [Interview transcript, 2/9/89]

Apparently,

he still had been anticipating that 'the

leadership would come from another "expert," i.e., a reading

consultant.

His change in thinking about that issue was

also addressed:

I did wonder about it not being a reading teacher.

But

I think it's worked out well, because it’s freed those

reading teachers up to do what we needed to do in the

inservice,

whereas

the

Reading

Study

Committee

chairperson wouldn't have been able to do that.

The

reading teachers are able, because of their schedules,

to

get

together

and

do

a

bit

of

the

planning.

[Interview transcript, 2/9/89]

Although the specifics of her principal's support are

not

stated

explicitly,

the

Curriculum Director provided

funding

and

release

time

for

Chloe

to

attend relevant

conferences (specifically, Reading, Leadership Training, and

Curriculum Adoption).

Chloe was impacted by all of this

encouragement.

She talked specifically about one Curriculum

Adoption Conference that had legitimized for her all the

work of the Reading Study Committee up to that point:

 

It w

pres

went

ever

a-ha

tall

real

tall

cur]

[Fie

Aft

continue(

with an

who wish

followin

half of

session

that mo:

brochure

 

 

124

It was good because it validates all we’re doing.

The

presenter said, "You should do research for a year."

I

went up to her and said, "You've just validated

everything we’ve been working on for the last year—and-

a-half."

That's what she was talking about, not just

talking

about

the

book

that

implements,

but

it’s

really the whole change that we're going through and

talking about,

"When you get your research, do your

curriculum so you know what you’re talking about."

[Fieldnotes, 3/7/89]

After

the

leadership

came

forward,

the

Committee

continued to educate itself.

In addition to the nine hours

with an "outside expert," Reading Study Committee members

who wished to attend the statewide reading conference the

following month (March 1988) were funded.

Approximately

half of the membership attended and came back with written

session summaries to share at a total-group meeting later

that month.

Reading materials (books,

journal articles,

brochures,

and state-of-reading bookmarks)

and videotapes

(the

more

generic

"Teaching

Reading

as

Thinking"

and

"Pitfalls

of

Textbook

Adoption,"

and

several

strategy-

specific ones) also provided increased knowledge.

The Curriculum Director, Patrick, spoke of the effect

of this accumulated knowledge in comparing it with another

group that had, within the course of one week the previous

summer,

begun

and

completed

their

mandate

to write

a

district K-6 Social Studies curriculum:

I think this group is probably a lot better prepared

than the Social Studies group was.

I think we have in

the time we have spent so far, which some people think

is foot-dragging or not going at the speed they would

like .

.

.I think this group has done their homework .

.

You' ve trained yourselves,

developed a

common

language that needed to be there. [Fieldnotes, 2/9/89]

He

in

keeP

Superintl

[Th

sta

min

and

thi

tot

tea

tal

1/1

Chl

Thr

But

it

phi

and

the

One

We were

which Cl

Wh:

COI

 

125

He felt that this deliberate, painstaking process was

in

keeping

with

the

original

goal

set

forth

by

the

Superintendent of Schools:

[The Superintendent’s] statement to me was—-although we

started

a

year

ago

this

time--he

said,

"Two year

minimum,

laying the groundwork and staff development

and doing the research," ’cause you're not replacing

this book with another book.

You’re talking about a

total

curriculum

improvement,

a

rethinking

of

the

teaching strategies, and what it’s all about.

We’re

talking about a major crossover here.

[Fieldnotes,

1/17/89]

Chloe iterated:

Through the course of research and work, we have come

to see that it's not just the basal, not just the text.

But now we're at the point of realizing how important

it

is,

too,

that

we

have

some

kind

of

focus,

a

philosophy, a mission, a written curriculum, and scope

and sequence,

before we decide what’s going to fit

that. [Fieldnotes,1/17/89]

One member of the committee said, "We didn’t know that

we were getting into a five-year commitment, did we?", to

which Chloe replied with a laugh:

What

the

presenter

on

"The

Pitfalls

of

Textbook

Adoption"

videotape

said

is that

it’s

a

life-time

commitment, because once you implement it, you need to

monitor the program.

So it really is a big commitment.

[Fieldnotes, 3/7/89]

Committee

Work.

Individuals

on

the

Committee

were

initially

asked

to

sign

up

to

be

on

one

of

three

subcommittees:

Information

Gathering,

Information

Dissemination,

and

Needs

Assessment.

The

Information

Gathering’s task was to make opportunities available to

increase

the

knowledge

base

of

the

individuals

on

the

Committee.

The

Information

Dissemination

Subcommittee

planned the following year’s Reading Strategy Inservices,

 

 

 

descripti

beginning

the role

Director

The

1989 at

district

large ta

been pla

the norl

overhead

east

si

cheese,

Eleven c

was stat

and that

The

Pitfalls

complet

Chairpe]

had alr

 

  

126

while the Needs Assessment Subcommittee put together an

instrument

for

determining

the

initial

interests

and

concerns of the district’s elementary teachers.

The

following

vignette

from my

fieldnotes

gives

a

description of one Reading Study Committee Meeting at the

beginning of the second year of the study.

It illustrates

the role of both the chairperson, Chloe, and the Curriculum

Director, Patrick.

THE READING STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING

The Reading Study Committee convened on January 17,

1989 at 4:00 p.m.

in the spacious conference room of the

district’s newly remodeled Early Childhood Center.

Two

large tables had been put together, and sixteen chairs had

been placed around the outside perimeter of the tables.

On

the north side of the room, both a television set and an

overhead projector were resting atop utility carts.

On the

east side of the room was a countertop which contained

cheese,

crackers,

fruit,

nuts,

soft drinks,

and coffee.

Eleven of the twenty-one committee members were present. It

was stated that the meeting had been called on short notice,

and that the others had either school or personal conflicts.

The meeting began with a 30-minute videotape,

"The

Pitfalls of Textbook Adoption."

After the videotape was

completed,

Chloe

Hawkinson,

Reading

Study

Committee

Chairperson, used the videotape to validate the work that

had already been accomplished by the committee and to set

the stage for their future work: "I thought it would be good

to see this.

We've done a lot of those things already.

It’s a good overview for us now, and it should help us in

our summer write and textbook selection."

Chloe

then

went

on

to

follow

her

posted

agenda.

Because the group had not met as a whole for almost four

months due to Chloe’s maternity leave,

Chloe used this

meeting as a stock-taking session.

She turned the overhead

projector on and. pointed out. the group's progress toward

their

timeline

(Curriculum Review Plan)

which had been

compiled

as

a

result

of

the

committee’s

input

at

the

previous meeting in September:

"You’ll notice that. we're

making some headway on this."

Committee Updates,

Assessment Results,

and Strategy

Inservice Feedback were the next agenda items.

In regard to Committee Updates, Chloe first expressed

appreciation

to

individuals

from

the

Curriculum Review

Subcommittee who had "graciously agreed to help us work on

[philosophy], because we had a low (chuckle) turnout for the

 

 

Philosop

passed

c

committe

'uook at

is all a

The

inservi<

Subcommi

near

fut

going on

Chl

Assessme

element:

Sessions

concern

were

tht

future:

think

a

curricul

to inclt

trade

bl

that?"

In

of the f

her frd

900d th:

committe

each of

examples

relayed

Curricul

inservic

from pe,

with the

At that

aPpearec

.

Chl

said th

Directo]

foe

the
CheeSe,

Aft

and 00m

Which h

line.

 

 

127

Philosophy, Goals, and Objectives Subcommittee."

She then

passed out a copy of their first draft and asked for the

committee to give her feedback after they had the chance to

"look at and decide if that’s what you think our committee

is all about."

The

Inservice

Subcommittee

plans

for

strategic

inservice

sessions

were

mentioned.

The

Newsletter

Subcommittee would be putting together a newsletter in the

near future "as ea means for letting people know what is

going on."

Chloe had brought with her a synopsis of the Needs

Assessment instrument which had been filled out by the

elementary

teachers

in

the

November

(1988)

Awareness

Sessions.

She

expressed a great deal

of

interest and

concern for respecting what elementary teachers had. said

were their felt needs, both for the present and for the

future:

"Now what do we do with that?

Well, we have to

think

about

that,

especially when we're developing our

curriculum, not just the basal, but what else are we going

to include to satisfy those people who want that new set of

trade books, or whatever. How are we going to deal with

that?"

In regard to Strategy Inservice Feedback, Chloe spoke

of the fact that, although her maternity leave had prevented

her from attending the initial inservices, she had heard

good things about them from those who had attended.

Two

committee members talked about the positive response from

each of their elementary buildings and pointed to specific

examples of evidences of uses of the strategies.

Patrick

relayed

the

positive

reaction

he

had

received

from

Curriculum Directors from other districts regarding the way

inservices were being conducted

("from the grass roots,

from peer to peer and colleague to colleague"), concluding

with the exclamation, "They’re excellent!

Just excellent!"

At that, the members of the group then broke out in what

appeared to be spontaneous applause.

Chloe suggested a 10—minute break, after which time she

said that she had asked Patrick to give The [Curriculum]

Director’s Viewpoint. Committee members helped themselves to

the

food upon Patrick’s

insistence:

“We’ve got

lots

of

cheese, folks.

There are cokes in the refrigerator."

After the break, Patrick stood in front of the group

and complimented them on the work they had already done,

which he described as "100% dynamite! I wouldn’t change a

line.

We have established credibility, we are a *viable

group, we have viable teacher leadership, heading in ‘the

right direction in staff development, and, ultimately, when

we

get

to writing curriculum,

we

are going to have a

dynamite reading program.

We can’t miss ‘because of the

people who have committed themselves to working on this.“

He then went on to give a word of caution about the

fact that the work of writing curriculum. is

'%a process,

something

that’s

going

to

take

time,

and

we

must

be

patient."

He said that the Reading Study Committee’s work

 

was "a H

we're

a

talking

Fol

Reading

curricul

attentio

work, as

of negot

clerical

environm

He

ende

committe

Chl

of the

inservic

everyone

there we

As

in their

go nose-

As

great de

continue

and of

 

 

128

was "a multi-tined fork: we're not just writing curriculum,

we’re

also

talking about

staff

development,

we’re

also

talking about textbook selection."

Following that, he gave a more global picture of the

Reading Study Committee’s work as he talked about other

curricular issues and financial constraints competing for

attention.

He assured the members of the priority of their

work, as well as of his continued support, running the gamut

of negotiating with the board about finances to providing

clerical help with the summer write project to supplying an

environment amenable to the demands of the task before them.

He

ended

his

comments

by answering questions

from the

committee members.

Chloe concluded the meeting by stating the Future Plans

of the Inservice Subcommittee regarding the next sets of

inservices.

She said

it was good to be back,

thanked

everyone for "coming on such short notice" and promised that

there would be more advance notice for the next meeting.

As the membership left, Patrick reminded them to hand

in their feedback and comments to Chloe, because "Chloe will

go nose—to—nose with me, and we can get a plan together."

As can be seen from this vignette, Patrick spends a

great deal of time both giving encouragement and promising

continued support.

He sees his role as that of facilitator

and of director.

He also validates Chloe’s leadership by

meeting with her and taking' a more visible role as she

requests.

Several

examples of eliciting and addressing

teacher needs both within and outside the group are evident,

from the edibles to the feedback on the philosophy statement

to the Needs Assessment.

In an interview with him prior to this meeting, Patrick

had told me that for him, "teacher ownership means empowered

with

support

and

partnership."

[Interview

transcript,

1/7/89]

Shortly thereafter, Chloe talked of her perception

of Patrick’s support and partnership: she said that he was

no longer advocating basal adoption, but, rather, "listening

 

to

what

1/11/39l

Real

to in th

Reading

district

which tr

result c

the init

of Readi

the vari

the writ

summary

Literate

One

spr

rea

was

mee

 

 

to

what

teachers

are

saying

they

want.“

[Fieldnotes,

129

1/11/89]

Reading Strategic Inservices.

The Inservices alluded

to in the previous vignette represented the attempt of the

Reading Study Committee to familiarize the teachers in the

district with the new philosophy and congruent strategies to

which they (the Committee members) had been exposed as a

result of the Information Gathering Committee’s work: from

the initial nine—hour presentation by a member of the State

of Reading Curriculum Committee (previously described), to

the various conferences they had attended, and, finally, to

the written and audio-visual materials they had gathered.

A

summary

was

stated

in

the

Committee’s

newsletter,

The

Literate:

One of the major undertakings of our committee was to

spread the good news about the "new" definition of

reading and the strategies associated with it.

This

was accomplished through a series of voluntary morning

meetings at which our dedicated reading consultants

enlightened and awakened 95% of our K-5 staff with:

—-An overview of the new definition and the "M" word—-

meta-cognition

(helping

students

understand and use

their thinking skills to become good readers);

-- tory Mappingzstory Grammar used to help students

identify the basic structure of narrative stories and

enhance their sense of story;

—-Probable

Passages--the

writing

aspect

of

story

mapping;

--Reciprocal Teaching—-a dialogue between teacher and

student using questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and

predicting;

--Q.A.R. (Question-Answer Relationships)--helps student

to know where to find answers and questions and is

directly tied to the new [state assessment].

[Site

document, 5/10/89]

As was stated previously, it was decided to begin the

reading inservices at the elementary level, since it was

 
 

assumed

there,

6

exciting

the midd

informat

The

what the

Teaching

held on

Awarenes

(each

Mapping,

November

Element

all thr,

were di

2'3 wit

RT inse

Element

meeting

 

130

assumed that the initial impact would be most directly felt

there, although one reading teacher stated:

"What’s also

exciting is that the same things are appropriate for both

the middle school and the high school .

.

. and the same

information works. [Interview transcript, 2/3/89]

The following vignettes are provided as an example of

what the reading strategy sessions entailed.

The Reciprocal

Teaching (RT)

Information and Debriefing Inservices were

held on January 25 and February 22, 1989.

They followed an

Awareness/Needs Assessment Session in late November,

1988

(each

elementary

building

held

its

own)

and

Story

Mapping/Probable Passages Information/Debriefing Sessions on

November

29

and

December

14,

1988

(held

in Eisenhower

Elementary School).

For the strategic inservice sessions

all three elementary building teachers and reading personnel

were divided according to grade levels: K-l with Kim Jerard,

2-3 with Shar Richards, and 4-5 with Laura Glenn.

For the

RT inservices, all of the grade sections met at Eisenhower

Elementary, where I attended Shar Richards’ 2-3 grade level

meeting.

The Friday prior to the Wednesday session, publicity

had been placed in the mailbox of each elementary teacher in

the district.

The cover sheet was an invitation and the

attached 2 1/2 pages contained a state reading association

journal article condensation of the strategy, apparently an

attempt to create an awareness ("prior knowledge") of the

Reciprocal Teaching strategy-

 

REC

7:4

Elementa

southern

the norl

posters

equipmer

terminol

poster

Reciproc

and evai

projectc

had beer

a set 0

books ar

Wit

percent

(Washin

director

by the

center

front t;

of the

0f

matl

illustr

cover p;

7:

Eisenho

today.

Amsterd

importa

the pre

Sh

weren't

session

YOU lea

Sh

the f0]

SUCCesS

inaudir

Club [,

better

Si

"Resea1

Riffici

it’s (11

S

Teachi]

Schema

 

  

131

RECIPROCAL TEACHING INSERVICE INFORMATION SESSION

January 25, 1989

7:40

a.m.

I

entered

the music

room of

Eisenhower

Elementary

School.

Upon

my

entry

through

the

room’s

southern entrance, my attention was immediately focused on

the north bulletin board where there were seven colorful

posters

replete

with

illustrations

of

football-type

equipment

(footballs,

helmets,

and

score-boxes)

and

terminology (Game Plan,

Goals,

Coach,

Possession).

Each

poster

gave

some message

related

to

an aspect

of

the

Reciprocal Teaching strategy:

roles, components, purpose,

and evaluation.

Behind utility carts holding an overhead

projector and as videocassette player/television, a screen

had been pulled down over the west wall chalkboard. Piled on

a set of music risers in the southwest corner were several

books and stapled packets of papers.

Within the next five minutes,

fifteen teachers

(74

percent

of

the

possible

total)

and

two

administrators

(Washington’s

principal

and

the

district

curriculum

director) entered the room with coffee and rolls (provided

by the Reading Study Committee) and made their way to the

center of the room,

where three tables angled toward a

front table.

At the front table sat Shar Richards. In each

of the seven places set at each table were 33-page packets

of

materials

with

"Reciprocal

Teaching"

and

a

diagram

illustrating teacher/student responsibility in RT on the

cover page.

7:45 a.m.

An announcement came over the intercom from

Eisenhower’s principal: "We welcome all of you to our school

today.

It’s

great to have people from Washington and

Amsterdam here to work together on a project you think is so

important."

Shar, the reading teacher from Eisenhower and

the presenter of this 2-3 session, iterated her welcome.

She

pointed to

the risers and

said,

"In case you

weren't here before, we have extra materials from the other

sessions on the risers.

You may help yourselves to them as

you leave."

Shar began her presentation by asking the participants

the following questions:

"To what would you attribute your

success if you were successful at a chess game [response

inaudible], or a ball game [’other members’], or a gourmet

club [’good recipe’], or if your students’ test scores were

better [’they learn in spite of us']?"

She

gave

the

rationale

for

Reciprocal

Teaching:

"Research

has

shown

that

poor

readers

attribute

their

difficulties to luck or teachers, whereas good readers say

it’s due to hard work.

Our students need to be aware of how

to control their learning."

She then went on to emphasize that the Reciprocal

Teaching strategy is research-based, and she reviewed what

she said had been stated in previous sessions regarding

schema theory, metacognition, and text structure.

Using the

 

posters,

aim and

definiti

8:0

up the 1

going to

Th1

overhead

with eni

Shar), I

building

so

well

transpar

their p

example,

here

(a

summariz

day on

students

mouths *

out whai

had

trc

beginnil

commitmi

A

you do ‘

Sh

groupin

and gav

to kids

to them

a quest

Questio

A

RT the

my kids

that.

 

  

   

 

132

posters, Shar gave a brief overview of RT, along with its

aim and the process.

She also tied it in to the state’s new

definition of reading.

8:00 a.m. After she put down this foundation, Shar gave

up the floor to as Washington third-grade teacher, "who is

going to tell us how she uses it."

This teacher came to the front and stood next to the

overhead projector.

she spoke in a voice that I associate

with enthusiasm:

"Shar did such 21 good job (turning to

Shar), I'd like you to keep on.

[The reading teacher] in my

building was such a great help last year.

The material is

so

well

organized.

In

your

blue

packet

(she

put

a

transparency on the

overhead projector corresponding to

their page) has four parts.

You teach one a day.

For

example,

in predicting, walk through the questions listed

here

(at which time she gave examples).

Clarifying,

summarizing, and guestioning go the same way.

Spend a whole

day on all four strategies.

With

uestionin , encourage

students to use the 4 W's.

Almost put words into students'

mouths to begin with.

I find that this helps them to find

out what they know.

My personal experience for children who

had trouble--our auditory learners--just excel.

At the

beginning, I would read to them.

You should make a 20-day

commitment.

The quality of thinking rises."

A second grade teacher from Washington asked her, "Did

you do this with the whole class?"

She answered, "I just had one group-~we do homogeneous

grouping, and I had the low group.

I did a lot of modeling

and gave a lot of positive feedback: from teacher modeling

to kids.

The kids get pretty excited when it is turned over

to them as teachers.

It’s so cute.

Sometimes when they ask

a question, they don't realize they have to answer their own

question, too."

A third grade colleague from Washington had also used

RT the previous year.

She added a new dimension:

"I have

my kids write out questions.

I only had one who couldn’t do

that.

The kids would trade papers and try to answer the

other kids’ questions.

The one who got the question from

the

one

who

had

trouble

helped

her

write

some

good

questions."

At this point, the Eisenhower school principal came and

stood in the doorway for about five minutes.

8:10

a.m.

Shar

resumed her

role

by tying the RT

strategy in with the previous sessions: "This kind of ties

in with Story Grammar/Mapping.

Use [RT] to clue in to the

most important parts of the story."

She then turned on the videocassette player:

"This

video is a group of first graders using [RT] as a listening

activity.“

8:15

a.m.

When she had shown five minutes of the

demonstration tape,

Shar turned the VCR off and stated,

"Just a few other things. This videotape is available if you

would like to see more of it.

Also, the strategy can be

modified by children tutoring others, by using it in content

 

areas

W

activiti

writing,

using i1

your bui

before u

Sha

invited

the ris¢

She enc

library.

8:]

you Feb:

As

grade c<

to hang

made."

unable‘

Tea

obligat:

teacher

class.

  

133

areas

with

science,

with

non-readers,

and

for

writing

activities.

Evaluation can be done by tape recording,

writing, or asking orally.

If questions arise while you're

using it,

feel free to call me or the reading teacher in

your building or ask others who’ve used it.

Try to use it

before we come back on February 22."

Shar pointed out specifics from the packet.

She also

invited the attendees to look at the materials displayed on

the risers as materials appropriate for RT implementation.

She encouraged them to look for other materials in the

library.

8:18

Shar dismissed the group by saying, "Thanks.

See

you February 22."

As teachers stood up, the original Washington ‘third

grade co-presenter offered, "If any of you want posters made

to hang around your rooms, let us know and we’ll have them

made." [There seemed to be a show of interest, but I was

unable to determine the number.]

Teachers

filed

out

quickly.

I

had

no

immediate

obligations; therefore, I stayed behind to help the music

teacher pack tun chairs and dismantle tables for her 9:00

class.

I met with Shar prior to the Debriefing Session, at

which time she told me of her plans for the structure of

that meeting.

She related that she was prepared to talk for

the entire time if no one had anything to share, but her

agenda was to be subservient to the differing levels of

concern and use expressed by those in attendance:

[I will begin] with them sharing about it.

And I

really don't want to get into anything until they've

had a chance to hammer it out.

If that finishes, I

might even do [a Reciprocal Teaching lesson] with them,

because I know that there are some of them who have not

tried ii: at all and haven’t even read it.

Some, I

know, do know it well [and] have had more exposure to

it .

.

. I’m going to have to make some decisions as

we’re

going.

I

hope

I

can make good decisions.

[Interview transcript, 2/17/89]

The vignette which follows illustrates what actually

occurred in the Debriefing Session.

 

As

past

thfi

another

have lot

I

l

same

m;

Informat

missing.

7:4

third g1

the Amst

talk abr

not sur.

RT:

h

questiox

A :

kind of

third g

like,

’l

my unit

nutriti

all the

the

chj

formula

And the

And we

groups

questio

One

ch:

And it

also us

to com
else We

7:

teacher

Context

St

 

134

THE RECIPROCAL TEACHING DEBRIEFING SESSION

February 22, 1989

As

I entered Eisenhower Elementary School,

I walked

past the door of 21 4th grade teacher who was talking to

another teacher,

"Are you going to the meeting today?

I

have lots of questions.

I didn’t do very well."

I walked to the music room, which was set up in the

same

manner

as

described

in

The

Reciprocal

Teaching

Information Session, except that the videotape machine was

missing.

7:49 a.m.

Shar Richards greeted the 13 second and

third grade teachers (68 percent of the possible total) and

the Amsterdam principal

with, "Good morning.

We’re here to

talk about Reciprocal Teaching and Probable Passages.

I’m

not sure how it went for you.

Let’s start with discussing

RT:

how you have liked it or how it evolved or what

questions you have about it."

A second grade teacher from Washington began:

"Well, I

kind of jumped into RT.

I didn’t use everything that [the

third grade teacher from the previous session] had.

It was

like, ’Oh, do I have time to fit all this in before I start

my unit?’

So I used it as an introduction to a unit on

nutrition.

I used it with the different food groups, and

all the children were given the material and I read them to

the children.

Then the first day I modeled hOW'

I had

formulated my questions with the meat group.

And then the second day, I had them come up with questions.

And we also did it as a group activity.

We divided into

groups

of

four,

and the

four children came up with a

question and they came up in front of the room as a group.

One child was the spokesman and the others gave support.

And it worked really well as a group activity.

And then I

also used it with one of the reading groups.

I asked them

to come up with a question that they didn’t think anyone

else would think of.

It worked out quite well."

7:52

a.m.

A third grade teacher then asked this

teacher questions related to procedures used within the

context she had just described.

Shar gave assurance,

"It takes a while--20 days to

introduce.

You will see carry—over later."

A

first

year

teacher

told

how

she

had

used

the

strategy:

"I took four days and explained to the children

they would take my role as teacher.

I did each category

with the whole class.

Then I moved it to individual reading

groups, where I first read to them.

Then the children were

in that role.

Some groups are now in their third or fourth

time.

They are really taking over.

With the stories in the

reader, each child takes a page and is teacher for that

page.

When I first started it,

I thought it would take a

lot of extra time, but once we got started, after getting

over the initial thought of a lot of extra work, it went

fine.“

 

Sha

That’s W

III

comment

introduc

Then I

L‘

left

f0]

the

14.

teachers

them,

tl

When I

1

have thi

She

as more

The

finds h

especial

I'm mort

Sha

isn’t t]

differe1

it in a

A

had

sa.

childre

answer

NT

use dif

childre

As

had usg

number

detecte

Sh

WaY-

]

read 11

and fo]

 

 

135

Shar interjected,

"It varies with time and material.

That’s what I’ve found, too."

"I went pretty much as it said in the book," was the

comment of

an eighteen-year veteran teacher.

"I

first

introduced [each strategy] to the whole class in four days.

Then I used it with my better 14 readers, while the other 8

left for [Chapter I] Reading.

It worked really well with

the

14.

They had good

questions

and were eager to be

teachers.

It started out slow, but as I modeled and read to

them, they became better listeners.

It carries over, too.

When I read to them after lunch, the children are asking to

have things clarified.

It really helped."

Shar suggested, "It will be interesting to share later

as more use it longer."

The experienced teacher then went on to say that she

finds herself using the strategy with her reading groups,

especially the terminology.

"I always used some of it, but

I'm more conscious of it now."

Shar picked up on that:

"With the new redefinition, it

isn’t that the old is all bad and the new is all good or all

different.

It really is much the same, but maybe we can do

it in a more organized way."

A Washington third grade colleague restated what she

had

said

at

the

previous

session,

i.e.,

that

she had

children write questions that the others would have to

answer about their story.

"There are a lot of different ways to use it.

You can

use different materials.

There is a lot of repetition, and

children learn at the same time," stated Shar.

As she heard the classroom teachers talk about how they

had used the strategy, another third grade teacher had a

number of procedural questions pertaining to differences she

detected in the way she had used it.

Shar answered her by saying,

"It can be done either

way.

It can be used as a listening activity, or they could

read it to the others, or they could all have a paragraph

and follow along as you read it."

That teacher then went on to speak of the adjustments

she had made and the benefits she had witnessed, especially

in

the

fact that

“children are asking not

just

’who,’

’what,’ but more feelings, more meat of the story."

She

also

saw

an

application

when

she

was

reading

to

her

students.

Shar confirmed,

"More thinking.

Good to see carry

over."

The third grade co-presenter from the previous session

repeated what she had said earlier,

"With

low readers,

auditory learners, when I read to them, they’re excelling.

They finally have a chance to excel, too.

They’re thinking

all along."

The

second

grade

veteran

teacher

discussed

some

adjustments she had made, based on her students’ needs:

had a short story, but it had three short paragraphs.

"I

At

first I started out reading the whole story.

Even though

  

 

they we]

remember

shorteni

would te

Sha

everythi

on the

spend mt

they do

Th1

had

t1

("teachi

8H

Probably

were as

8:

just wa

reading

comment

reading

transpa

He

AMSTERD

It

solved

the pre

their I

back t(

encoura

Tl

Commit1

gathei

dissem.

Volunt

 

  

136

they were short, one of my girls brought out that, ’I can't

remember what happened at the beginning.’

So then I started

shortenimg my paragraphs and cutting them in half.

They

would tend to ask questions about the end of the story."

Shar stated,

"It is difficult for then: to remember

everything.

Sometimes I would feel like when I was working

on the four days, one for each strategy, I would like to

spend more time on one.

But when you put it all together,

they do get the chance to practice them all more."

The previous co-presenter referred another teacher who

had

trouble

keeping

track

of

student

participants

("teachers") to the materials packet for an answer.

8:07 a.m.

Shar asked,

"Anything more?

How about

Probable Passages?"

Some sharing and procedural questions

were asked.

8:13 a.m. Shar pointed to the RT posters and said, "I

just want to go through the posters from last time.“

After

reading

through

each

one

and

adding

additional

brief

comments, she put a visual map showing the redefinition of

reading and the strategy interrelationships on the overhead

transparency, claiming,

"This ties it all together."

Her final transparency said,

"TUNE IN NEXT TIME--QAR

AMSTERDAM, March 22"

It can be seen that these teachers collaborated as they

solved the problems they encountered in implementation of RT

the previous month.

Collaboration occurred as they shared

their own successes/failures/adaptations, as they referred

back to the printed materials, and as they spoke words of

encouragement to each other.

This

section

has

portrayed

the

Reading

Study

Committee’s work

in

staff

development through

initially

gathering

information

for

themselves

and

then

in

disseminating that information to their colleagues through

voluntary Reading Strategic Inservices.

  

Lormw

As

elementa

volunta

partici]

argue,

instruC‘

teacher

group

(

basis d

reading

curricu

the dis

 

 

137

Formation and Functions of a Reading Support Group.

As was stated in Chapter I,

I had proposed to the

elementary

teachers

of

the

district

the

concept

of

a

voluntary

Reading

Support

Group

which

would

give

participants an opportunity to "think,

reflect, question,

argue,

and/or

discuss

issues

pertaining

to

reading

instruction."

Fashioned on the guidelines of a humanistic

teacher

center

(discussed

in the previous

chapter)

the

group of nine

(including myself) met on almost a weekly

basis during the first semester of the 1989-1990 school year

"

.

.

. for the purpose of reflecting upon and discussing

reading theory and practice as it relates to the new reading

curriculum guide and its implementation in classrooms within

the district."

[Site document, 6/1/89]

Shulman (1987) has called for educators to record cases

from which conclusions can be drawn and lessons can be

learned: so much of what happens in education is isolated

and lost to future educators.

This section is intended to

present a verbal portrait of, to borrow a phrase from the

state’s New Definition of Reading,

"a dynamic interaction

among the participants’ prior knowledge, the needs expressed

by

these

participants,

and

the context of

the Reading

Support Group."

6/8/89

Information Meeting

Fifteen

persons

attended the

7:45

a.m.

Information

Meeting.

The composite of that group included 6 individuals

from Washington, 5 from Eisenhower, and 4 from Amsterdam.

These in

along wi

1 third

disabili

teachers

46.7%)

includil

with th

that 11

are

me

solicit

school

teacher

four of

At

first

announc

Suppori

concern

reacti

:
7
7
:
0
0

 
 

 

138

These individuals were comprised of Washington's principal,

along with 2 first grade teachers, 5 second grade teachers,

1 third grade teacher, 2 fourth grade teachers, I learning

disabilities teacher, and all 3 of the district’s reading

teachers.

Nearly half of those in attendance

(7/15 or

46.7%)

were

members

of

the

Reading

Study

Committee,

including its chairperson.

All of the attendees were women,

with the exception of the principal, in spite of the fact

that 11 (or approximately 20%) of the 1-5 classroom teachers

are

men.

(One

male

teacher

confided

to

me

without

solicitation that many of the men were involved in after-

school coaching during the fall season.)

Eight of the

teachers had been teaching for less that ten years, while

four of them had taught more than 20 years.

At the

information meeting,

these

individuals were

first asked about their expectations ("When you read the

announcement, what did you envision or hope such a reading

support group would entail?") and anxieties ("What kinds of

concerns did you have related to this proposed study?").

These

two

questions

elicited

the

following

verbal

reactions which expressed both hopes and concerns.

Positive Peer Influence.

Karina:

I'm just so excited about the people in ‘my

building

and I was feeling, gosh, if other teachers in

Omega are coming out with the good ideas that are

coming out in my building, I would really benefit.

Desire for Peer Support.

Grace: I did it!

I got rid of the reading workbooks.

I don’t have any for next year [laughing, clapping].

I

have a commitment from our principal that he’s going

 

 

 
 

 

Ir

person

inservi

 

139

to let me order paperbacks monthly ["Whoa“] from book

companies, and I'm going to need some help getting that

all organized ["Good!" "That’s greatl"].

Fear.

Truda: I came out of fear [laughter].

You can’t teach

an old dog new tricks [background laughter].

No, I’m

serious .

.

. that’s what we would need in a group like

this--to sit down and say, “This and this bombed.

What

did I do wrong?

What should I do now?"

So, I wasn’t

kidding when I said, “Fear."

There's fear involved in

this, as far as I’m concerned.

I love the concept [of

the new reading strategies], I love the idea.

We’ve

thrown

out

our

workbooks

.

.

.

and

we’re

into

paperbacks .

.

. I’m really fearful.

Lack of Confidence to Implement.

Rebekah (referring to Truda’s preceding remark): The

same thing.

I remember we would come from one of our

[strategy inservice] meetings with Laura, and I would

stand up in the front and I wouldn’t dare put my sheet

[of steps in the specific strategies] down,

and [I

would say], "We’re supposed to do this now."

I don’t

want to have to do that.

I want it to flow and for me

to know exactly what I’m doing--which I didn’t.

And to

know

when

to

use

each

one:

when

would

be

an

appropriate time to use this strategy versus another?

In response to these latter two comments, Laura, the

person who had conducted their upper elementary strategy

inservices, spoke:

Laura:

It

takes

a

long

time

for that to become

automatic.

We

[presumably,

the

reading personnel]

were exposed to this concept three years ago, and even

when

I

went

over it,

I

reviewed and reviewed and

reviewed, and I researched and researched to even get

to the point that I could explain it to my peers--which

is the most difficult concept [laughing].

So, it does

take time and refreshers and review,

and the whole

thing.

It isn’t just a one-time presentation.

Time.

In

addition

to

content-related

concerns,

the

time

element issue (specifically related to a weekly commitment,

time of day and day of week) was also raised:

  

 

Ch:

was

thi

wee

wee

at1

Kai

thi

Af

express

Support

 
 

140

Chris: I have one [other concern].

And it’s one that

was expressed to me by other people I don’t see here

this morning.

That was the time commitment of the

weekly thing.

And I was just wondering how viable a

weekly meeting

is,

and how regularly people would

attend.

That would be my major thing.

Karina

(a half-time teacher): My concern is whether

these meetings would be in the morning or afternoon.

After

everyone

had

been

given

the

opportunity

to

express

him/herself,

I

described

the

proposed

Reading

Support Group in an outline format:

What.

Role of TEACHER AS RESEARCHER, an active way of

thinking about how we can improve our work as teachers

within a Teacher Center atmosphere characterized by:

warmth, concreteness, time, thought

How.

During weekly meetings, we will work. on case

studies,

journal

entries,

reading curriculum guide,

and/or literature related to common problems

Why.

Learn more about how children learn,

acquire

skills in curriculum development and implementation,

increase

self—esteem

and

confidence,

increase

resourcefulness

and

willingness

to

seek

and

share

advice

When.

[day and time were left blank--to be decided by

actual group]

Where.

[location will also be determined by the group]

Following that, I proposed several examples of TEACHER

AS RESEARCHER QUESTIONS related to the Reading Process, the

Teacher’s Role, and Teacher Professional Growth.

The first

 

page of Reimer and Warshow’s article, "Questions we ask of

ourselves and our students," (1989, p. 596), was handed out,

as well,

to provide a concrete picture of what such a

Reading Support Group might look like.

Leadership Role.

After this, additional concerns were expressed related

to who would be in charge of such a group.

 

 

 

h
c
:
9
=

:
O
T
I

 

141

Grace: Will you chair the group, Marlene? .

.

. We want

to pick

your brain.

Truda:

There has to be someone to hold the group

together as far as leadership is concerned, whether

it’s you or one of the reading teachers.

Laura:

You kind of intimated last month that you would

be

willing

to

provide

materials,

etc.

Has

your

thinking changed?

Personal and Professional Conflicts.

Although these were not expressly given during the

information meeting, several individuals later specifically

stated the following items as reasons for their inability to

participate:

Grace:

I'd love to attend your meetings.

I’m doing

some new things and I would like the support, but I

have some health problems that are stress-related.

My

doctor said that I have to eliminate everything that is

not absolutely essential. [Fieldnotes, 9/26/89]

Chloe: I’m sending my regrets as to the Reading Support

Group.

I

was

really

torn

but

have

had

to make

decisions with family as priority this year.

I think

it’s a wonderful opportunity and I hope you will have a

great group to work with. [Site document, 9/12/89]

Shar called school today to tell me that she would be

unable to attend the group.

She was just too busy.

I

told her that she didn’t need to feel like she owed me

an explanation or was obligated to attend.

She said,

"I know, but I felt I should tell you."

She iterated

her busy schedule, and said, "I know the worst thing I

can do is feel sorry for myself.

I know everybody’s

busy." [Fieldnotes 9/5/89]

Jacki:

I’m being trained for cluster grouping

[for

gifted/ talented education].

I have too many things

right now.

[Fieldnotes, 8/30/89]

Phyllis was at the first meeting, but she left after 40

minutes for an appointment.

As she left, she said,

"I’ll talk to you tomorrow." She saw me in the lounge

and said,

"I don’t think I can commit myself to that

amount of time right now." [Fieldnotes, 9/8/89]

 

Ki

teacher

 

co-cha

expres

becaus

a Mast

   

Kim had been in the position of full—time reading

142

teacher in the district the previous year and had conducted

the K-1 strategy inservices; however, in September (upon my

return

from

sabbatical

leave)

she

was

assigned

to

a

classroom.

The reality of that affected her decision to

participate:

I stopped by Kim’s room today.

She said,

"I tried

calling you last night, but your line was busy.

I

just can’t make the Reading Support Group meetings.

My husband said I have to give something up.

I’m so

busy with my new assignment."

[Fieldnotes, 9/14/89]

Even Laura, who played a prominent role in chairing,

co-chairing,

and

providing

resources

at

the

meetings,

expressed reservations after the first meeting in September

because of

demands related to completing her coursework for

a Master’s degree in learning disabilities:

Laura told me today that she didn’t know how long she

would be attending.

Her coursework (both auditing a

class and taking an independent study) obligations this

fall may impede. [Fieldnotes, 9/8/89]

Note: It turned out that Laura put her own work on "hold" in

 

order to follow-through on the Reading Support Group.

I

wondered whether it might be due to the fact that she had

invested a great deal of time and effort in the initial

stages of information dissemination and reading curriculum

writing.

Although

he

did

not

speak

during

the

meeting,

Washington’s principal

personally expressed to me these

thoughts as we were departing together:

I would say that the reading study has gone very well.

The interest has been very high by teachers.

We’ve had

excellent participation in the morning meetings.

Where

the rubber hits the road .

.

. we’ve seen lots of stuff

hanging around classrooms that prove that they are

implementing,

trying

new

strategies

with

children.

Teachers

feel

wonderful,

but there is some concern

about losing control: there’s always a bit of a feeling

 

ab

[F

Fr

Keyes’

teacher

empower

decisi:

appears

"exper1

didn’t

what t1

9/7/8

antici

number

commit

week

elemex

comme]

meeth

the ll"

distr

 

 

143

about totally losing your structure in a reading plan.

[Fieldnotes, 6/8/89]

From the beginning, I could sense the conflict between

Keyes’

(1988) self as person, self as learner, and self as

teacher.

Two of Maeroff’s (1988) principles necessary for

empowerment,

increasing knowledge and providing access to

decision-making, are also being sought.

At this point, what

appears

to

be

a

traditional

inservice mentality of

an

"expert" doing something to us or "telling us why something

didn’t: work" comes through i1: individual expectations of

what the Reading Support Group would entail.

9/7/89

First Meeting: Let’s Get Acquainted

Overview

Let’s Get Acquainted Interviews

My Hopes for this Group Questionnaire

Possible Topics Brainstorming

Consent Fbrms-—Highlight, Discuss

Miscellaneous

Journal assignment: Good vs. Poor Readers

Next meeting: date/location, refreshments

I approached the first meeting with a sense of nervous

anticipation and excitement:

would there be a sufficient

number of individuals who would be willing and able to

commit themselves to my proposed project?

During the first

week

of

school,

I

had

placed

an

invitation

in

each

elementary

teacher’s

box,

but

I

had

not

received

any

comments or acknowledgements as teachers busily attended

meetings and prepared themselves and their classrooms for

the upcoming school year.

Ten

persons

(excluding

myself)

appeared

at

the

district’s Early Childhood Center on September 9, nine of

 

whom

Informa

first 9

to det

part

c

meetin<

take t

group

their

role

coordi

"cultu

who is

 

144

whom

had

attended

the

previously-described

June

8

Information Meeting.

(The tenth individual was a novice

first grade teacher.)

I envisioned that the purpose of this meeting would be

to determine the level of interest and commitment on the

part of the attendees and to set the stage for future

meetings.

To that end, I very intentionally made efforts to

take the spotlight off myself as leader and upon this as my

group and to place it on the cast who were present and upon

their needs/interests.

Throughout the project,

I saw my

role

as

group

coordinator

and

facilitator.

As

group

coordinator, I embraced the description of Freire’s (1971)

"cultural circle" coordinator as my model, i.e., a person

who is characterized by faith (a belief in the possibility

to create and to change things), hope (the certainty that

each meeting with the group would leave both the coordinator

and its members enriched),

love (the conviction that the

fundamental

effort

of

education

is

the

liberation

of

[wo]man, never [her]/his domestication), and humility (the

desire to grow with the group, to become a part of the group

and one of its members, rather than claiming to direct the

group).

As group facilitator, I attempted to become one who

created a context in which group members were free to have

personal interaction about meaningful issues or themes.

One way in which I attempted to set the stage was to

provide refreshments that were plain and simple,

in this

case, doughnut holes and apple cider.

This model, however,

 
 

was not

increa

pineapp

cheese)

and fri

One in:

instru

inadegi

volunt«

"I’m

g

buildi

regula

can yo

A

person

group

(Becau

partic

follow

Proces

  

145

was not emulated by the others in subsequent weeks.

Rather,

increasingly

lavish

spreads

of

fresh

fruits

(melons,

pineapple,

apples,

bananas,

grapes),

nuts,

crackers with

cheese/pepperoni/dip, homemade tarts, cookies, and muffins,

and fruit juices, herbal teas, and soda pop became the norm.

One individual who spoke of her feelings related to reading

instruction

at

the

final

meeting

("I

felt

terribly

inadequate .

.

." [Fieldnotes, 12/12/891) was the first to

volunteer

in

the

refreshment department by

emphasizing,

"I’m good at food."

[Fieldnotes,

9/7/89]

In fact,

the

building principal and the school librarian stopped by on a

regular basis to partake of the "goodies" and comment, "How

can you all not put on weight?"

At the very beginning of the meetingy

I

asked. each

person in the group to interview and introduce to the total

group one other person "whom you do not know very well."

(Because I made the odd-numbered person, I decided not to

participate in the interview part of the meeting.)

The

following questions were listed to aid in the interview

process:

How long have you been teaching?

What position do you presently hold?

What other teaching-related positions have you

held?

Where?

Who/what most influences your teaching of reading?

What formal reading courses have you taken since

graduating from college?

The responses of each individual

(in order of years of

teaching

experience)

to

those

interview

questions

are

summarized here:

 

 

146

Jennifer

-1st year of teaching

—teaches first grade

-"will take any information you can give me on reading"

~looking for different new ideas

~"My biggest fear is that my lst graders are going to

leave, and I'm not going to have taught them how to read.

How do II get these kids to read?

It scares the living

daylights out of me!"

-toured Europe with college musical group the previous

year

Karina

—paid for 6 years of teaching, but "taught" 20 years

(Sunday School, Boys’ Scouts, own sons)

-shares a second grade teaching position

—does not teach reading, but integrates reading across

the curriculum

-has just earned her Master’s Degree in Reading from a

state university, with those classes having the greatest

impact on her reading teaching

-is

influenced

by

Bonnie's

(grade-level

colleague)

creative

approach,

hands-on

activities,

and

cooperative

learning

-observes

in

other

classrooms

(e.g.,

Suzann’s,

Bonnie’s)——"one of the advantages of half time teaching"

-concerned

with

whole

language

and

its

assessment,

skills as strategies, goals/purposes of reading (i.e., will

or skill)

Rebekah

-5th year of teaching

-teaches fourth grade

-member of the Reading Study Committee

-returned to college after her sons were in school

-student taught with Bonnie as her supervising teacher;

influenced to return to college by Bonnie's husband, who had

been her sons’ teacher ("I was afraid I couldn’t do it, but

he said,

’You’re going, and I’ve made the appointment for

you.

Be there!’")

-teaching

of

reading

influenced

by

[the

State's]

Educational .Assessment. Program tests and the state’s New

Definition of Reading

-reading courses: Children’s Literature and Workshop Way

-concerns: "We’ve done so much w/reading strategies, but

I’m still not comfortable with all of them.

I was hoping

for a lot of feedback .

.

. going out and doing it and then

coming back and sharing how it went and how it didn’t go,

and you can tell me just how I goofed up"

 

up}

-di

-m

-h

-m

"probm

teache

while

activi

 

 

147

Suzann

-7th year of teaching

-presently first grade teacher (3rd year)

-did student teaching with Chris

-4 years in learning disabilities classroom

-has taken courses in Workshop Way and Schmerler

-influenced by Chris, Bonnie, and Marlene

-wants to be lst woman president of the U.S., but is

"probably

more

influential

and

popular

as

first

grade

teacher"

—concerns: how to keep students meaningfully occupied

while

teacher

is

working

with

groups--station-type

activities without Workshop Way or worksheets

Chris

-10th year of teaching

-teaches learning disabilities

-just completed Master's Degree in learning disabilities

from a local state university

-raised four children and then "went off to do my own

thing"

—influenced by needs of her students

-has taken courses in Content Area Reading, Workshop Way

-concerned with skills vs. content and how to meet the

needs of all children

Laura

-l9th year of teaching

-reading teacher

-previously taught second, fourth, and sixth grades

-member of Reading Study Committee

-influenced by reading professor in her ‘undergraduate

reading course

-has had "too many reading courses to count" (M.A. in

Reading from a state university, presently working on L.D.

certification through a private college)

-concerns: literature-based reading instruction

—highly respected by Truda: "after those workshops that

she held for us, I almost thought that she wasn’t [human]—-

marvelous!"

Bonnie

-21st year of teaching

~presently teaches second grade, but previously taught

remedial reading and 1st and/or 2nd grades in each of the

three elementary buildings

-member of Reading Study Committee

-influenced by people/materials related to the reading

rewrite, books on reading/writing, workshops

'
3
‘

.

 

-has

philosc

-cor

feel 0

..Il

scares

‘

-c

thinki

frustr

C
-.

their

given

fille<

respm

does

hope

gain

like

expec

Willi

 

148

-has taken a course in Workshop Way reading, but "my

philosophy has changed"

-concerns: reading-writing connection

Trude

-24th year of teaching

-teaches fourth grade

-began in 2-room country school teaching grades 4-8

-presently 4th grade teacher

—has a "real desire to do something special for kids"

-one formal reading class through a state ‘university

years before

-Suzann graduated with her younger son ("so then you

feel old") and Suzann’s father taught her sons

—“[State] Educational Assessment Program test absolutely

scares us to death"

-concerned with

teaching

comprehension/higher

level

thinking and how to evaluate--"the measuring part is quite

frustrating"

Since Phyllis and Kim only attended this one time,

their profiles will not be highlighted here.

Upon completion of the introductions, each attendee was

given a sheet entitled,

"MY HOPES FOR THIS GROUP," to be

filled out during the next 10 minutes.

The areas inviting

responses were:

1. This was billed as a Reading Support Group.

What

does that mean to you?

What are some of the things that you

hope this group might do or try to do?

What do you hope to

gain by being a part of this group?

2. Name three reading-related topics that you would

like this group to address.

3. What do you think the group should have a right to

expect from its members?

4. Tell what skills/abilities/leadership/jobs you are

willing to contribute to the group.

After that time was

up,

a period of brainstorming

occurred related to the second question on the sheet, "Name

three reading—related topics that you would like this group

to address."

The generated topics are listed in Appendix F.

to "h

forgo

(acco

the r

“Teac

reade

reads

Thro:

two

reacl

 

  

149

I discovered, however, that after all of the "My Hopes

for

this

Group"

worksheets

had

been

collected,

no

one

responded to my invitation to assist in the compilation,

categorization, and/or prioritization of the proposed topics

prior to the next meeting.

Consequently,

I decided to

compile the list myself and let those in attendance help to

categorize and prioritize the following week.

Throughout

the

meeting,

I

found

it

necessary

to

reiterate:

I don’t want this to be my group, I want this to be

something that as a group this group decides.

What

kinds of things are concerns of yours, and what kinds

of things do you want to address?

And those are the

things that we make arrangements to talk about.

If

it’s a reading support group, then it’s not my group,

it’s our group together.

I next gave each individual a blank journal as a way

to "help us to recall, to recall what we forgot that we'd

forgotten,

and

to

be

more

careful

in

our

thinking"

(according to Bill Hull, 1978).

An assignment was given for

the next time to begin the practice of taking the role of

"Teacher as Researcher."

Each one was asked to choose two

readers in her classroom: one whom she judged to be a good

reader

and

one

whom

she

judged

to

be

a

poor

reader.

Throughout the week she was to observe and interview these

two children and jot down in her journal conclusions she

reached related to the following:

What does a good reader look like?

What does a poor

reader

look

like?

What

things

do

you

feel

are

important in reading that this child does not yet have?

Look at the affect aspect, too.

How does the child

feel about him/herself in relationship to the group?

   

Way of

the mc

like t

ready

appoir

contir

to jug

most .

week .

provec

Eisenl

the t

leade

facil

would

locat

dUriI

 

150

Consent forms did not pose a problem to the attendees,

but the scheduling of our next meeting did.

Preferences for

days

and

times

were

stated,

as

were

conflicts

(e.g.,

"Wednesday is church," "Once a month on Thursday is Math a

Way of Thinking Support Group,"

"I can’t get a sitter in

the mornings,"

“I have to walk my dogs after school," "I

like to clean my classroom after school on Thursdays to get

ready

for

the

next

week,"

"I

have

a

standing

social

appointment on Tuesdays").

This difficulty of scheduling

continued to be a problem to the end as teachers attempted

"
?
.
.
.

to juggle their personal and professional lives; indeed, in

most instances it was impossible to schedule more than one

week at a time.

The determination of a permanent location

proved a much easier decision to make.

The teachers from

Eisenhower (who in the final analysis were outnumbered by

the teachers from Washington 4:1), readily volunteered that

they would prefer to come to Washington than to alternate

buildings.

Summary.

This first meeting established the climate

for

future

Reading

Support

Group

meetings.

As

a

leader/participant, I took on the role of coordinator and

facilitator, establishing a context in which group members

would themselves be responsible for deciding issues relating

to

meeting

content

and

process-~including

schedule,

location, refreshments, topics, and leaders.

During

the

meeting,

persons

interacted

informally

during

refreshment

time,

relationally

through

the

get-

 

acquair

througl

sheet.

to the

wanted

teach

storie

to the

9/14/8

brief

previt

the b

other

[Fiel

able

compo

were

 

151

acquainted activity, and openly about their support needs

through the use of a

"My' Hopes for 'this Group" activity

sheet.

Each person expressed a willingness to contribute

to the group.

The reading—related topics that participants

wanted the group to address ranged from the broad ("How to

teach

reading")

to

the

narrow

("Writing

experience

stories"), from the philosophical ("New reading concepts")

to the practical ("Productive seatwork/group work").

9/14/89 Reaching Topic Consensus

Overview

Review Personal Histories

Highlight written Responses to My Hopes for this

Group

Reaching Consensus

Reading Support Group Worksheet

Good vs. Poor Readers

The meeting was begun with what was intended to be a

brief overvieW' of the individual life histories from ‘the

previous week, with the rationale being given that "

.

.

.

the better we know each other, the more we will trust each

other,

and the more we can do in the way of support."

[Fieldnotes, 9/14/89]

Twenty minutes later, I was finally

able to introduce the next item,

a summary of the group

composite of "My Hopes for this Group" statements as they

were revealed in the written comments at the first meeting.

I saw the main goal of this second meeting to be for

the group to reach topic consensus.

To that end, I brought

in the compilation of the list of

38

items

(with some

duplication)

which had

been

collected

from

verbal

and

written comments at the previous meeting under the question

  

 

    

152

related to, "Reading related topics that you would like this

group to address" [Appendix F].

First, individually, then

as part of a triad, and finally as a whole group, the nine

participants

prioritized

and

categorized

the

list.

I

promised to return the following week with an outline and

tentative schedule of these topics for group feedback, i.e.,

discussion, confirmation and/or disconfirmation.

Through dialogue, the group determined to begin with

Story Mapping ("the easiest one") for the following week.

Laura offered to lead with a brief look first at the state’s

New Definition of Reading.

Chris said that she would "help

in any way I can."

Laura encouraged group members to bring

in

examples

of

story

maps

they

themselves

or

their

colleagues had used.

In order to carry through on the idea of Teacher as

Researcher,

as

well

as

to

help

participants

begin

to

articulate

their

present

perceptions

and

beliefs

about

reading, I asked the attendees to share from their journals

their student profiles, based on observation, of what a good

and poor reader looked like.

Chris shared her research with one of her fifth grade

learning disabled students who had "made some excellent

gains." She said that as he read a passage specifically for

this project, he had approached the task with confidence,

and he had interacted with the text and made sense of it

through the use

of

context clues.

He had also noted

punctuation and read with expression.

She concluded, "So I

 

felt l

listen

betwee

"get

confid

"his I

"the l

  

reads

atte

631e,

153

felt like I got some good insights into his reading just by

listening to him."

Karina spoke about the contrast that she had observed

between good readers’ and poor readers’ actions when they

"get

stuck."

The

poor

reader,

she

said,

loses

all

confidence and has no strategies to figure anything out:

"his brain turns off."

The good reader’s voice stops, but

"the brain is still going," and he has the confidence that

he can figure it out:

"It’s sort of like a plug comes out

of the tub for the poor reader .

.

. and all the water

drains out, and he can’t figure out that word.

With the

confident readers,

the tub stays full and they know that

they’re going to be able somehow to figure it out."

Grace,

although she was

only present for this one

meeting,

contributed

as

well.

She

observed that poor

readers lacked self—-confidence and were overly dependent on

the teacher.

To that, Truda made the observation, "Maybe

that’s where the Reciprocal Teaching [strategy] might be the

biggest benefit of all."

Based on her previous experience

with Reciprocal Teaching, Chris concurred:

"I did feel that

[my students] would risk more, that they started to question

and became more active readers."

Suzann referred to her journal entry and said that she

had listed the distinction between good and poor first grade

readers

as

“Kids

that

can

focus

and that can’t

focus

attention."

Truda responded, "That’s in the brain, not the

eye, isn’t it?"

  

 

characi

careful

reader

postur

diffic

freque

reader

happy

and

<

concli

head’

pages

chalL

while

respo

table

her 1

haver

like

OPPOI

 

154

Bonnie

had

a

specific

list

of

observable

characteristics jotted down, based on a morning devoted to

carefully watching

one

good

and

one

poor

second grade

reader.

According to her, the poor reader had very poor

posture,

limited verbalization,

many off-task behaviors,

difficulty

following

directions,

used

the

rest

room

frequently, and was eager for recess to come.

The good

reader was on-task, was respected by his peers, and was a

happy child.

Rebekah responded that, in spite of the age

and

grade

level

differences,

she

had

reached

similar

conclusions about her fourth grade students.

Truda spoke of her top reader as "a bit of a ’space

head’ .

.

. who will join us when we catch up with her three

pages

later."

She questioned herself:

"Shouldn’t

I

be

challenging her so that she’s doing something constructive

while we’re following the rest of these kids around?"

Laura

had

left

early

because

of

a

family

responsibility, so Jennifer was the only one left at the

table who had not yet spoken on the subject.

She did have

her journal open in front of her, so I addressed her: "We

haven’t heard from you, Jennifer.

You may pass if you’d

like, but if you are waiting to talk, we’ll give you this

opportunity."

She

had

listed

specific

behaviors

connected

with

Workshop Way-type homework sheets:

"The good reader' goes

bam,

bam,

ham,

and she self-corrects when the word is

incorrect.

The poor reader is fidgety and looks all around

 
 

 

 

but at

are uni

needed

resour

chara

observ

resear

interv

with y

begin:

with 2

very

activ

conce

activ

Spoke

not t

liste

appea

warm

 

155

but at the page.

She says words that she may have heard but

are unlike those on the printed page.“

As time was rapidly passing, I realized that closure

needed to be brought to this meeting.

I passed out a set of

resources:

a list of research-based good vs. poor reader

characteristics

("for

you

to

compare

with

your

observations“), a three-page paper I had written summarizing

research on good and poor readers, and a list of Burke’s

interview questions [Appendix H] ("which you may want to use

with your own students").

I had felt very disappointed with the slow pace at the

beginning of the meeting, and I regretted having started it

with a review of personal histories.

These individuals were

very relational, and what was intended to be a five—minute

activity had lasted about twenty.

When I spoke of my

concern to Laura the next day, she said that she felt the

activity was necessary.

Chris, at a separate time, also

spoke of the value of the exercise: it helped participants

not to be "cliquish," it helped "bond," and it "modeled good

listening

skills."

[Fieldnotes,

9/15/89]

This

would

appear, then, to be an initial step toward establishing a

warm climate, one of the previously-stated goals for this

 

 

group.

Summary.

The primary purposes of this meeting were to

reach consensus about future meeting topics and to lay the

foundation for the role of Teacher as Researcher.

We also

reviewed personal histories,

an activity associated with

 

group 1

poor r4

ideas

9/19/

the r

Octob

for <

exten

the c

have

won't

woul<

fOlll

calL

don!

uPpe

  

156

group relationship building.

The discussion about good vs.

poor readers reflected positive, practical, experience-based

ideas about the differences between the two.

9/19/89 New Definition of Reading and Story Mapping

Overview

Business

Next meeting: topic, leader(s), refreshments

Dates for October meetings

Good vs. Poor Readers

Low, average, high readers

Story Mapping

Video

Samples

The third meeting began with business-related concerns:

the next meeting topic,

leader(s),

as well as dates for

October meetings.

The topics themselves were handed out in outline form

for discussion.

Comments were expressed related to the

extensive nature of the topics ("There’s a lot herel") and

the correlation between specific nights and topics ("Will we

have enough nights?"/ "No,

but there are some things we

won’t go through separately."/ "Could we combine some?")

There was silence when the question was asked as to who

would be willing to assume leadership/co-leadership for the

following week’s topic, the reading comprehension strategy

called Reciprocal Teaching.

Truda stated, "Well, you see, I

don't feel comfortable with any of these things yet.

That’s

Why I’m here." Laura, the reading teacher who had been the

upper elementary level strategic inservice presenter the

 

 

 

 

previo

volunt

T

discus

stated

we’ve

minute

seven

"Maybe

imposs

]

a tap

[APPE

third

react

the

a

towar

 

157

previous

year,

offered:

"I

don’t

mind,

Marlene."

I

volunteered to help her.

The dates for future meetings caused a great deal of

discussion.

Although the feeling seemed to be, as Karina

stated, "In terms of dates, it would be helpful to know what

we’ve got,"

the conclusion Suzann reached after several

minutes of discussion related to both professional (at least

seven were specifically named) and personal conflicts was,

"Maybe we’ve got to

’hang loose’

.

.

.

yet."

It was

impossible to schedule beyond October 3.

Each of a group of three was then given a transcript of

a tape I had made on interviews using Burke's questionnaire

[Appendix H] with low, average, or high readers from second,

third, fourth, and fifth grades.

The groups were asked to

react to the responses in order to draw conclusions about

the attitudes and perceptions these children demonstrated

toward reading.

This led the way to a discussion on the state’s "old"

and "new" definition of reading, led by Laura.

She then

showed a video on story mapping being modeled within a

classroom context.

After that,

Laura presented several

examples

of

story

maps

she

had

garnered

from

various

teachers.

Chris and Karina both shared story maps that they

had found to be helpful in their own classrooms.

Truda and

Rebekah had bought their' material from. the story' mapping

strategic inservice and referred to the maps within.

A

great deal of verbal interaction arose from both the video

 

and

f1

differ

Laura,

mappir

wonder

were i

respe

chara

consf

schec

read

model

meet:

9/2

  

 

158

and from the application/adaptation of story mapping to

different specific grade levels.

A decision was made by Chris, who had agreed to assist

Laura,

to forego the original plan to demonstrate story

mapping with The_;Thpee__Lipple__Eig§.

She

mused,

"I'm

wondering if this conversation is more valuable than what we

were thinking of doing, because I hear such good questions."

Already at the end of this meeting, the tone was set

for future meetings when Truda spoke up,

"Hey,

if we’re

nothing else,

we’re honest!" to which Karina responded,

"Aren’t teachers learners?

Model that to children."

Summary.

By this third meeting, a climate of mutual

respect

("I

hear

such

good

questions")

has

become

a

characteristic

of

the

group.

Participants demonstrated

consideration

for

one

another

during

discussion

about

scheduling and leadership.

Discussion about good vs. poor

readers

was

concluded.

Story

mapping

was

presented,

modeled,

and

discussed

as

the

final

activity

of

this

meeting.

9/28/89 Reciprocal Teaching

Overview

Business

Topical order

Next meeting: date, topic, leader

Story Mapping, revisited

Journal entries

Examples

Benefits

Reciprocal Teaching

Components: Predict, Clarify, Q u e s t i o n ,

Summarize

Video

the h

table

four

into 1

respo

table

for

t

leade

strat

who i

  

 

 
 

159

For the first time, we met in the library, which became

the home base for all future meetings.

Although a round

table was not available, I attempted each week to position

four library tables (two rectangular and two trapezoidal)

into some semblance of a circular arrangement.

This was in

response to Chris’ comment from the previous week: "a round

table would be nice."

The first item I passed out was a topical order agenda

for group reaction.

Next,

individuals were sought for

leadership

for the

following week’s

three

comprehension

strategies; i.e., KWL, Probable Passages, and QAR.

Bonnie,

who had demonstrated KWL at the strategy inservice the

previous spring, responded when specifically asked that she

would be willing to lead the group in that strategy.

Laura

said she could do QAR, but said that "we need others" for

Probable Passages.

Karina said that she had "done a few"

and "could talk about it.“

When another involved attempt was made to schedule

beyond the next week, Karina said,

"We probably have the

very busiest people in the district here--I keep seeing them

everywhere," and II concluded, "I guess we’ll just go one

week at a time."

After

an

overview

of

the

proposed

scheduling,

individuals shared story mapping successes:

Rebekah with

Charlotte’s

Web,

Suzann

with

The

Berenstain

Bears

and

Goldilocks, Laura with I Know an Old Lady who Swallowed a

Ely, and Bonnie with a dinosaur story.

Truda asked specific

 

guest

with

sever

great

duplb

had e

Teach

video

with

compo

of th

exper

said

 

160

questions about mapping a whole book, and Chris responded

with

a McCracken

technique

for previewing a book with

several chapters that she had just discovered and used with

great success.

All responded positively to Chris’s offer to

duplicate a description of the technique.

In order to take some of the pressure off Laura, who

had experienced a busy week, I offered to review Reciprocal

Teaching for the group.

Laura had provided me with a

videotape of Annemarie Palincsar demonstrating that strategy

with a group of children.

After highlighting the four

components of Reciprocal Teaching, I showed a brief section

of the tape and the group discussed it.

Individuals

within

the

group

spoke

of

their

own

experiences with Reciprocal Teaching in the past.

Rebekah

said that she had needed to keep referring back to the

script,

and

that

she

did

not

follow

through

on

the

recommended twenty days.

Chris said that she had read

"glowing" research reports on Reciprocal Teaching, but that

because of her scheduling, she had also not given it the

full amount of time.

Laura spoke of the fact that Palincsar

had designed the Reciprocal Teaching strategy for children

who had difficulty comprehending but did not have trouble

decoding, a new insight for Chris, who responded, “I’m glad

you shared that with me."

Suzann spoke of her experience:

“When I used this, the best thing for first graders was that

they would stop me and say, ’I need that clarified,’ and I

 

 

and

l

inser

with

could

Rebek

“1 tr

said,

Teach

preps

it."

lessc

yes.

for '

week

Marl!

    

  

161

didn’t change the wording either.

I just taught them what

it meant."

Applications were made to individual classrooms.

Truda

and Rebekah made

reference

to their previous

strategic

inservice where one classroom teacher had spoken of using it

with cooperative groups.

Chris felt that Bloom’s Taxonomy

could

be

introduced

into

the

questioning

component.

Rebekah’s self-evaluation upon completion of the video was,

"I tried to stay out of it too much."

After the discussion had continued for a time, Karina

said,

"I

copied

for

everyone

a

sheet

[on

Reciprocal

Teaching] that a teacher in one of my [Masters’] classes had

prepared.

It has good suggestions from somebody who used

it."

Although my offer to role play a Reciprocal Teaching

lesson with the group was met with enthusiasm ("Model? Oh,

yes.

Oh, wonderful, marvelousl"), the allotted time was up

for that evening, so this was carried over to the following

week.

Upon leaving, two individuals said, "Thank you so much,

Marlene."

Summary.

This fourth meeting was a continuation of the

supportive, appreciative, and participative meetings of the

past.

Four members gave specific evidence of implementing

the story mapping techniques from the previous meeting,

while two others brought in resources to share with the

group.

A presentation was made about Reciprocal Teaching

 

 

 

minus

meeti

probe

When

Suzar

up?"

tent:

ll.

canc

that

1nVo

unab

cons

meet

 

 

  

162

with application made to individual classroom situations.

10/3/89

KWL

Know

Want to Know

Learned

AR

uestion-

Answer Relationships), Probable Passages

Overview

Business

Weekly Topic Agenda Calendar

Next Meeting: Date, Time, Leader(s)

Topics

KWL

QAR

Probable Passages

Reciprocal Teaching, revisited

After handing out the weekly topic agenda calendar,

minus the dates,

another attempt was made to schedule a

meeting for the following week.

Karina reiterated, "We’re

probably the busiest people of the school who come to this."

When I pucffered the option of cancelling the next week,

Suzann asked me directly, "But isn’t that going to mess you

up?"

I assured her that we had to deal with realities.

We

tentatively decided to try for the next Wednesday, October

11.

(As will

be noted,

that meeting in actuality was

cancelled the very afternoon of that day, due to the fact

that

over

half

of

the

individuals who would have been

involved told me throughout the day that they would be

unable

to

attend.

The remainder were polled,

and the

consensus

was

that

it would be better to postpone the

meeting for a week, rather than try to hold it for so few.)

An attempt to find a chairperson for the following

meeting was met with the offer of Karina to "wing it."

I

distributed

a

journal

article

(Duffy

&

Roehler,

1987,

"Teaching skills as strategies"); an additional article was

 

sent

(Wino

readi

spoke

Rebek

from

sees

remec

agair

to g:

made

under

Lite]

to h

She

prep

expe

ther

when

and

mate

dire

mate

 

163

sent out the

following week as

a basis for discussion

(Winograd

&

Greenlee,

1986,

"Children

need

a

balanced

reading program").

Photocopies of the McCracken article that Chris had

spoken of

the previous week were handed out,

as

well.

Rebekah shared the fact that she had tried the technique

from Chris’s description, but she concluded: "The kids Chris

sees are not as good at predicting.

It’s a bit more of a

remedial type exercise .

.

. I’m not saying I’d never do it

again .

.

."

Both Rebekah and Truda asked for suggestions

to give literature-based approaches variety.

A promise was

made to cover that in more depth at a later meeting (i.e.,

under the topic,

"Alternative Approaches: Whole Language,

Literature").

Bonnie had brought three posters she had used related

to her ocean unit which illustrated the components of KWL.

She walked the group through a packet of materials she had

prepared.

Several

in

the

group

then

shared

personal

experiences related to their use of the strategy within

their classrooms and asked Bonnie specific "What do you do

when .

.

. ?" questions.

Laura handed out stapled sheets which reviewed QAR, and

she had charts posted with diagrams related to "In the Book"

and "In the Head."

She then role—played the strategy with

materials within that packet, materials which could be used

directly with students.

She offered to provide additional

materials to anyone who might desire:

"We have the whole

 

packt

stra1

teacl

Probe

that

Bonni

stude

sitti

I'm 5

of gc

again

to "k

SPite

Durinl

QAR,

Play (

for t

 

164

packet [which had been handed out at the previous year’s

strategy inservice] stored away."

Karina, although lamenting the fact that she doesn’t

teach reading in her present position, then gave a review of

Probable Passages and showed examples of how she used it

that week in relation to a science unit on "sponges."

Both

Bonnie and Laura talked about the positive reaction of

students to the strategy.

Truda mused,

"I’ve just: been

sitting here thinking, ’When am I going to get all this in?’

I’m so excited about it.

That’s the problem.

Then it kind

of goes back in your head and it has to be brought forward

again."

She asked her across-the-hall colleague, Rebekah,

to "keep hitting me, O.K.?"

I

concluded

the

meeting

with

a

role-play

of

a

Reciprocal Teaching lesson, after which Truda replied, "This

is exciting, marvelous.

It’s all there.

Now if I can only

do it."

Suzann offered that the strategies helped her in

her planning to use her time more wisely and to focus on

things that were most important, rather than mere "busy—

work."

Summary.

These are very active professionals who, in

spite of their schedules, remain excited about their group.

During this meeting, there were presentations about the KWL,

QAR,

and Probable Passages techniques, as well as a role

play of Reciprocal Teaching.

Members expressed appreciation

for the techniques and related materials which enabled them

 

 

their

10/19

(coni

cance

indr

atte1

Schm

wouL

Kari

Jenn

and

 
 

165

to more fully understand and implement the strategies in

their own settings.

10/19/89

Skills as Strategies, District's New Reading

Curriculum

Overview

Where the Basics Fit

Skills as Strategies

Goals of Reading Instruction

District’s New Reading curriculum

Business: date, leader(s)

This

sixth

meeting

began

after

a

16-day

hiatus

(conflicts on the part of half of the individuals forced

cancellation of the previously—scheduled meeting) with six

individuals present.

Karina,

Bonnie,

and Jennifer were

attending a: Writing Workshop at the county’s Intermediate

School District headquarters and had informed me that they

would be coming at the conclusion of that meeting.

Both

Karina

and

Bonnie

arrived within the

half

hour,

while

Jennifer did not appear at all.

Truda, the most veteran teacher of the group arrived

early not only with three varieties of home—made muffins but

also with an exuberant spirit:

"I feel such a sense of

accomplishment!"

She spoke about her feeling of success

related to teaching reading, specifically the QAR strategy

which she had introduced within her classroom since the

previous meeting.

Both she and Chris addressed the changing

nature of both classroom and reading support services.

The members present were then asked to map the Winograd

and Greenlee

(1986)

article,

"Students

need a balanced

  

readi

indiv

the a

artic

Karir

strat

read

read:

Read

earl

curr

had

teac

of

docu

talk

it,

espe

the

Rebt

frm

pro

COn

 

166

reading

program."

Discussion

occurred

throughout

as

individuals reacted to and personalized the main points of

the article.

The original plan to discuss Duffy and Roehler's (1987)

article, "Teaching skills as strategies," was preempted as

Karina walked us through her outline of teaching skills as

strategies from one of her recent Master’s level courses in

reading,

plus

a

handout,

"Children

use

questions

as

reading."

Laura, Rebekah, and Bonnie had been volunteers on the

Reading Study Committee from its inception nearly two years

earlier, and they had taken an active role in the reading

curriculum write during the previous summer (1989), which

had resulted in the 89-page document which had been put into

teachers’ hands six weeks before this meeting.

Bonnie spoke

of

the

skills/

strategies

interrelationship

within

the

document.

Laura gave an overview of the curriculunl and

talked about the decisions the Committee faced as they wrote

it, specifically emphasizing the fact that they had been

especially sensitive to the feedback they had gotten from

the district’s elementary teachers prior to the "write."

Rebekah said that they had tried to fit this into the

framework of the state’s philosophy of reading.

Karina reacted strongly against one section of the

proposed curriculum and offered to rewrite it to be more

congruent

with

the

state’s

"new"

definition.

All

individuals

were

asked

to

get

peer

feedback

on

the

   

curri<

next (

attem

final

"asse

Bonni

paren

the

mate:

share

an a

disu

teac

expr

inte

expl

10/2

 

167

curriculum guide at their grade level meetings during the

next day's district inservice.

As

before,

several

conflicts

were mentioned as

an

attempt was made to schedule the following week.

Monday was

finally decided upon--on1y four days hence--on the topic of

"assessment."

Because no one else volunteered (although

Bonnie did say that she needed material on that topic with

parent-teacher conferences and report cards coming up within

the

next

couple

of

weeks),

I

offered to collect some

material for the next meeting.

Summary.

At this sixth meeting,

one group member

shared experiences with the QAR strategy, the group mapped

an article, and the district’s new reading curriculum was

discussed.

Expressions of changing perceptions toward the

teaching of reading as a result of classroom success was

expressed.

The

group

continued

to

be

supportive

and

interactive,

sharing

each

other’s

accomplishments

and

exploring ideas of altering support services.

10/23/89

FormalgInformal Assessment

Overview

Business

Reading CHrriculum Input from Inservice Grade Groups

Assessment: Formal/Informal

There were seven individuals at this seventh meeting.

Karina had experienced difficulty getting a sitter for her

children, and Jennifer, who had been absent the week before,

was unaware of the revised schedule.

Truda commented, "With

fewer people, there could be a lot less conflict .

.

. and

maybe

Becau

eveni

deter

follc

aske<

and

"The

read

look

out

hect

year

and

we’r

ref]

gr01

“Ym

to

and

dis

say

tim

   

168

maybe if we talk fast, we can finish a little early today."

Because both Chris and Laura had spoken of obligations that

evening

(a

hospital

visit

and

picking up a

child),

I

determined that an early dismissal would be the goal. The

following week’s meeting day was narrowed down to Monday.

Input from the grade group meetings was solicited.

I

asked, "Did you have a feel for whether people had read it

and read it. carefully?"

Representative comments stated:

"They ’fessed up, so we didn’t have to feel--one person had

read it," "In our group, no one had even had a chance to

look at it."

Individuals spoke of the poor timing ("It came

out right at the beginning of the year when things are so

hectic") and overload ("I think having social studies [last

year] and .

.

. having two ready at the same time [reading

and science]

.

.

. and then math next year .

.

. and now

we’re being hit with computers") as being factors which

reflected the feelings Bonnie openly expressed in her grade

group meeting in the district Superintendent’s presence,

"You’re pushing too much at us too fast.

And what’s going

to happen is that people are going to throw up their arms

and say,

’I can’t do it!’"

Truda, a representative on the

district’s Curriculum Council, responded, "Maybe we should

say to Curriculum Council, ’Teachers feel overwhelmed.

It’s

time now to sit back.’"

Several spoke about the Reading Curriculum guide: "It

takes time.

Teachers need direction, but it can’t be

 

 

forcet

will

what

teach

strat

curri

furtl

persc

But I

over

ques

it?"

voca

enjc

asse

inve

Whel

 

169

forced;"

"But,

according' to the Curriculum Director, you

will be held responsible;" "Reading curriculum should verify

what we’re doing.

It should contain intelligent input from

teachers."

Chris suggested that "experts" on each of the

strategies

could be

listed

as resource persons

in

the

curriculum guide,

so that if someone wished to receive

further information or tutoring,

s/he could contact 'that

person: "How many experts do we have in our district? Lots.

But no one’s an expert on everything--or very few."

The assessment theme was introduced with a structured

overview

which

proposed

a

variety

of

answers

to

the

questions, "What do we need to assess?" and "How do we do

it?"

After highlighting five areas of assessment (sight

vocabulary,

decoding

skills,

comprehension,

fluency,

and

enjoyment/appreciation), a variety of formal and informal

assessment

procedures

was

reviewed

and/or

introduced

(criterion

and

norm-referenced

tests,

informal

reading

inventories,

cloze,

kid-watching,

observational

charts).

When I described a circular chart that I had used to report

the strengths and needs of my Chapter I students, there was

a great deal of interest exhibited, and members asked that I

share a sample.

I promised to make copies and sent them to

the individuals in the group the following day.

Laura walked

the

group through an evaluation

form

related to the whole language approach, along with the idea

of student portfolios for assessing growth in the language

 

arts

prov

pres

Know

Ther

to t

pres

card

chan

Suza

Trud

boxe

ther

leav.

to p

Karn

Whih

mate

 

  

170

arts.

Chris referred to a professional book which had

provided her with "a lot of ways to evaluate."

Individuals spoke of appreciation for the information

presented:

"This gives me a lot of avenues to go .

.

.

Knowing all these things helps you to pick and. choose."

There was also a sense of frustration that came up related

to the method of assessment spelled out on the district’s

present accounting system: "It's hard to put into our report

cards.“

Truda

said that the report cards wouldn’t be

changed until the whole curriculum is finished, to which

Suzann asked, "In the meantime, do we send them home blank?"

Truda answered, "I’m not paranoid about those little check

boxes if they don’t apply."

At 5:07, when I brought an early close to the meeting,

there were multiple expressions of gratitude.

As they were

leaving, I reminded the participants that they were invited

to present remedial techniques for the following meeting.

Karina offered to do Reader’s Theater and Reading Recovery,

while

Laura

wondered

aloud

whether

the

Glass

Analysis

material would be adaptable for this group.

Summary.

During the meeting, participants reflected

the overwhelming feelings of themselves and their colleagues

related to the innovation overload resulting from several

new curriculum guides.

Specific informal and formal reading

assessment techniques were discussed,

a topic which the

participants

felt

to

be

applicable

to

their

immediate

concerns stemming from the upcoming report cards and Parent

 

Teac

obli

10/3

was

SW93

wee

the

cur:

duri

she

dSSE

 

171

Teacher Conferences.

Sensitivity to other group member

obligations that evening resulted in early dismissal.

10/30/89

Remedial Techniques

Overview

Business

Journals

Assessment Applications

Remedial Techniques:

—Sight Vocabulary

-Decoding, Context Clues

—Writing

-Comprehension

—Fluency

For the first time in a month, the entire group of nine

was present.

Jennifer came into the meeting dressed in

sweat pants announcing that, "I’m going to be here till the

wee hours of the morning working on report cards."

Suzann said that she had been greatly impressed with

the organization and thoroughness of the district reading

curriculum as she had "pored over" it for the first time

during the previous weekend.

In addition, she stated that

she

had

begun

working

on

formulating

a

first-grade

assessment instrument that would correlate to that document.

Business

related

to

the

topic

in

two

weeks

(the

following

week

contained

Parent

Teacher

Conferences),

"Emergent Literacy."

Suzann offered,

"I do so much with

Langauge Experience, I can share examples."

Jennifer said

that she could bring samples, as well.

A booklet, Primer

for Parents (McKee, 1975), which illustrates the process of

beginning reading,

was distributed and

individuals were

 

aske

read

resp

thei

diff

and

imme

By1

to,

990!

they

besi

asse

the

ofi

cur

ass

obj.

  

172

asked to think about the question,

"How did I learn to

read?"

The

participants

expressed

less

than

enthusiastic

responses when II asked whether they had been writing in

their

journals.

They questioned themselves:

"Why is

it

difficult?

Is it just that we don't want to write?"

Chris

and Truda both spoke of the fact that,

"I can’t do it

immediately after the lesson; therefore, it slips my mind.

By the end of the day .

.

. It’s not because I don’t want

to,

I do."

Truda wondered:

"It boggles my mind, these

people who write books on their family and things like that,

they have diaries on their entire lives.

What do they do

besides sit and write?"

I

had

seen

Suzann,

Bonnie,

and

Chris

working

on

assessment circles since the last meeting in preparation for

the upcoming parent-teacher conferences.

Bonnie, a member

of the Reading Study Committee which had written the reading

curriculum,

said

that

she

had

formulated

a

circular

assessment

instrument

to

highlight

her

grade

level

objectives,

starring the ones she had covered thus far.

Suzann, upon seeing Bonnie’s work, determined that she would

do a similar one for the first grade objectives.

Chris said

she had carried the assessment circle into the math area.

Rebekah and Truda,

upper elementary teachers,

said that

their

grade

level

peers,

not

members

of

this

group,

determined that such a format was impractical for their

grade

level:

"In

the lower grades,

reading is

a more

   

 

cent]

time

just

of s

own

succ

pers

adop

VAKT

roll

IN

.

dis;

in.

int<

she

per:

off

day

doi

pro

loo

cle

fir

 

173

central thing.

But with us, we really wouldn’t have enough

time to go into our science, social studies, etc.

So we’re

just using report cards."

Remedial techniques were next discussed.

In the area

of sight vocabulary, both Suzann and Bonnie spoke of their

own personal, experimental techniques they felt had worked

successfully

with

their

students.

The

two

support

personnel, Laura and Chris, shared techniques which they had

adopted or adapted from published procedures (e.g., SIMS,

VAKT).

Truda had earlier arrived at the meeting with a poster

rolled under her arm, exuding, "I have something for ’Show

’N Tell'U'

Since I was unsure as to the content of her

display, I asked Truda where her "Show ’N Tell" would come

in.

Although she said that it would probably fit better

into the next session’s theme on Reading/Writing Connection,

she seemed eager to share this evening.

It took little to

persuade her that we were all

interested in seeing her

offering.

She recounted that she had spent 2 1/2 hours that

day on a writing project with mapping ("Can you believe [in

a whisper] Truda didn’t do math? .

.

. You guys, what you're

doing to mel").

She unrolled her paper and read the final

product aloud:

"This is going to take forever," I exclaimed as I

looked at the mess in our attic.

Mother had ordered us to

clean out the attic.

She was having a garage sale.

Grandmother said, "We’d better get started."

As we started to sort through the boxes, I opened the

first one and took out a big book.

"Look what I found,

Grandma!"

 

   

 

0111‘

some:

alon

publ

woul

Rebe

proj

acti

witl

gue

was

wit

res

say

out

 

174

A surprised grandmother took her old photograph album

from me and dusted it off.

Her hand lovingly smoothed the

covers.

As she paged through, tears rolled down her cheeks

as memories filled her mind.

We were almost finished and ready to open the last box.

It was filled with my baby clothes.

Folded neatly on the

top was my baby guilt.

"I made that quilt for you," Grandmother told me.

As we went downstairs, we told Mother we wanted to keep

our memories.

We would find things for the garage sale

somewhere else.

At the conclusion of the reading, there was clapping,

along with comments: “Great!" “Loved it" "You should have it

published.“

Truda, herself, exclaimed: "I never thought it

would turn out like this!

Never in my wildest dreams!"

Rebekah, who worked with Truda’s class on written research

projects, claimed the credit: “It was my idea.“

Group

members

then

made

comments

about

extension

activities and Chris recommended "a book you have to share

with your kids on memoriesfl'

There were also procedural

questions asked of Truda, Laura related how this approach

was similar to Probable Passages, and Rebekah interjected

with examples of her teaching fourth graders how to do

research with "buzz wordsJ'

Truda ended this segment by

saying,

“My

whole

outlook,

and

I'm

serious,

my

whole

outlook on reading and writing have both changed.“

As to context clues, Truda expressed concern related to

the difficulty of teaching context clues with inconsiderate

text.

Because rm) one had anything to share in that area

this evening, I offered to put together some things related

to teaching context clues,

to which Truda replied,

"I’d

appreciate that."

 

year

that

ways

that

I ti

stuc

pup:

wed

chi

dec

wen

wer

rem

ins

bei

lit

Kar

for

re:

mm

cm

th

   

175

In the area of comprehension, I alluded to the previous

year’s strategy inservices when I said, "We did so much on

that last year.

Does anyone have any comments?"

Chris responded,

"I'm just so excited that there are

ways to teach comprehension now, because that's something

that not so long ago we just floundered on how to teach it.

I think it’s really exciting!"

Both Truda and Chris spoke of the ways in which their

students’ comprehension had improved.

Truda related her

pupils’ positive experiences with the QAR strategy in recent

weeks, while Chris gave evidences of her learning-disabled

children’s

success

with

Reciprocal

Teaching

since

she

decided to utilize it the full 20 days of training.

Chris

went on to say that more upper elementary classroom teachers

were now requesting that their learning disabled students

remain within the regular education classroom for reading

instruction because of the way in which reading was now

being

taught

there;

i.e.,

whole—group,

whole

language,

literature-based.

The

area

of

fluency was

particularly

addressed by

Karina, who talked about the benefits of Reader's Theater

for fluency and for classroom! management, based on both

research

and

her

own

personal

experiences.

She

also

directed a role play of a Reader’s Theater script with five

members of the support group.

After

the

production,

Chris said that her first—time exposure to Reader’s Theater

the previous week was "just so excitingfl'

Rebekah asked

 

   
 

 

proc

to

a

pres

brou

shar

pron

unfi

Kari

for

to i

Chr

top

cur

mem

cur

It

  

 

176

procedural questions of Karina as it related to her attempt

to adopt Reader’s Theater to her own grade level and her

present Tall Tales unit.

Although

I

acknowledged

that

Chris

and

Laura

had

brought something they had not yet had the opportunity to

share,

I stopped the meeting at the 5:30 hour' with the

promise that we would have to build a "smorgasbord" of

unfinished business into one of our succeeding 'meetings.

Karina handed out a Reading Recovery article "in preparation

for next week."

Truda stood up and said, "When this is over, we’ll have

to get together for breakfast once in a while."

With that,

Chris stated, "You are really growing, Truda!"

Summary.

This meeting was filled with a variety of

topics.

Issues from the previous meetings on the reading

curriculum

and

reading assessment again

surfaced.

Two

members spoke of correlating assessment instruments with the

curriculum guide, as well as with content area instruction.

It was conceded that. writing' in their journals had. been

preempted. by ‘the pressures of their personal/professional

schedules.

Four

members

participated

in

the

remedial

techniques

section

of

the

meeting,

with

examples

of

procedures or materials that they had found to be useful.

One member shared a classroom story based on writing from a

story map introduced earlier.

Numerous examples were given

of how appropriation. of their new/extended knowledge ‘had

affected these teachers and their students in recent weeks.

 

 

The

Read

Read!

11/1

becz

pre:

bee:

aga

bes

mee

rea

Wh

an

ea

SC

 

177

The meeting ended with one member giving a synopsis of

Reader’s Theater, concluding with group participation in a

Reader’s Theater role play.

11/13/89

Emergent_LiterasY

Overview

Business

Conference Sharing: Reading Assessment, Revisited

Reader's Theater, Revisited

Reading Recovery

Emergent Literacy

Language Experience Approach

Two

weeks

had

elapsed

since

the

previous

meeting

because of Parent—Teacher Conferences.

All members were

present, along with Karina’s preschool son, for whom she had

been unable to obtain a babysitter.

Determination of the date for the next meeting was

again a matter of lengthy discussion.

(It had originally

been

determined

to

keep

Thanksgiving

week

free

of

a

meeting.)

The

week

after

Thanksgiving brought up the

reality of additional conflicts.

Although Mondays had been

utilized in the past,

Truda reminded the group that it

should be considered as an option only as a last resort:

"Monday is really not a good day, it came in by default."

Thursday, November 30, was selected, instead.

The topic for that meeting,

Alternative Approaches:

Whole Language and Literature, was stated.

Laura had done

an inservice for a neighboring school district several weeks

earlier on the subject, and she offered to "try to round up

some things."

 

pres

on :

that

of

‘

grac

tha1

fro:

woul

The

for

add

wou

grc

scr

ads

a v

of

Re(

ex

co

ha

ow

he

th

 

After those items were out of the way, the teachers

178

present were asked to give feedback on how they had reported

on reading at the previous week’s conferences:

"How was

that done and how was it received by parents?"

Bonnie spoke

  

of the fact that both she and Suzann had used their own

grade level curriculum-correlated assessment circles,

and

that "I think it went very well .

.

. it was easy to talk

from."

Others expressed the opinion that a similar figure

would be profitable at all grade levels in the future.

There

was

additional

carry-over

from

the

Reader’s

Theater theme, as Laura had photocopied a three-page script

for each individual, as well as an address for publishers of

additional scripts.

Laura also asked the group whether they

would like to hear an audiotape of one of her third grade

groups performing that script.

Chris had written her own

script the previous week for Veteran’s Day

and spoke of how

adaptable the procedure was, even using it as a take-off for

a writing lesson.

The suggestion was made to compile a list

of district—available scripts.

Another carry-over from Remedial Approaches was Reading

Recovery,

an

area

in

which Karina had previously done

extensive research for one of her master’s level reading

courses.

Prior to the meeting, Karina had made numerous

handouts of Reading Recovery materials for the group at her

own expense, and she now spent a good deal of time relating

her theoretical understanding of the procedure. Because of

the restlessness of her own child, Karina suggested that the

 

grou

ques

bott

the

dis<

ab01

sta‘

mea

ser

our

you

tea

pro

sys

tea

mak

wit

gra

vi:

th

Qu

Se.

an

  

 

 

179

group read through the materials and come with additional

questions or reactions the following week.

The Reading Recovery topic (i.e., a 1:1 program for the

bottom 20% of first graders to provide prevention "before

the child practices unproductive

responses")

brought up

discussion by both classroom teachers and support teachers

about the difficulty of receiving support services due to

state guidelines:

"It’s hard to get into any program.

I

mean, you’ve got to fail before you can get any kind of

service, so they’ve already met a failure," and "That’s not

ours--that’s the State's [guideline]." Truda asked, "How do

you change the powers that be?"

Chris asked how to get

teacher

commitment

and

financial

backing

for

such

a

project.

Karina stressed that "[Reading Recovery]

is

a

system intervention.

It's not something that a bunch of

teachers can get together .

.

.

"

Karina was thanked for

making the group aware of Reading Recovery, and she left

with her son.

Emergent Literacy was the next topic, and both first

grade teachers,

Jennifer and Suzann, had come with both

visual and verbal examples of ways in which they had used

the

Language

Experience

Approach

with

their

children.

Questions

were

asked

regarding

management

procedures.

Bonnie then demonstrated how she used LEA with her low

second grade readers.

The fourth grade teachers talked about their successes

and

failures

(which

they

termed,

"bombs")

with

their

 

chilc

In

I

mate:

reso

stud

a ta

time

ins1

mm

00“

stu

thi

Lar

rel

th

to

"E

m

01

180

children regarding Halloween stories and research projects.

In regard to

the

latter,

a discussion arose about how

materials already present in the district could be used as

resources to correlate with the new science and social

studies curriculum.

The attendees agreed that this would be

a task for the district librarians, since "we don’t have the

time."

Truda summarized her changing perspective on reading

instruction:

"Here again, you feel so much better about

reading, because I used to think I’m not teaching reading an

’x’

number of

[minutes],

and,

bird-brain,

you know,

of

course I’m teaching reading!

I’m teaching reading in social

studies,

I’m teaching reading in science, those kinds of

things.

But that’s never been brought out before."

A reminder was given as to the next week’s topic: Whole

Language and Literature Base.

Rebekah offered to bring

refreshments the next time, but Karina entered the room just

then

with

her

son

(they

had

been

circumventing

the

playground since they had left a half hour earlier) to offer

to take her turn.

As

we

packed

up

our

things,

Truda

exclaimed,

“Excellent!"

Summary;

A number of

items were continued at this

meeting; namely, assessment and Reader’s Theater.

The topic

of Emergent Literacy was begun when one member gave an

extensive

overview

of

Reading

Recovery.

Three

lower

elementary

teachers

related

their

classroom

activities

 

surr

elem

inde

conc

chan

11/3

res

and

H01

wa

in:

co

co

en

be

we

1M

181

surrounding

Language

Experience

stories.

Two

upper

elementary

teachers

extended

the

discussion

to

include

independent writing and research projects.

One teacher

concluded with a: statement of a growing awareness of her

changing perceptions related to reading instruction.

11/30/89

Alternative Approaches: Whole Language, Literature

Overview

Personal Histories: ”How did you learn to read?"

Context Clues

Readers’ Theater for Reading/Writing Connection

Reading Recovery Question—Answer

Business: Topics/Dates

Questionnaire

Whole Language, Literature

Chris

was

unable

to

attend

because

of

her

own

rescheduled Math

Support

Group.

She

did ask

for

the

audiotape of the session. Jennifer was ill.

In

a previous meeting

[10/30/89],

I had handed out

Houghton-Mifflin’s

A Primer for Parents (McKee, 1975), as a

way for teachers to begin to think about beginning reading

instruction.

Bonnie had made copies of the coded story

contained

within

that

booklet

for

her

parent-teacher

conferences

to

simulate

for

parents

the

difficulties

encountered in beginning reading.

Now, as I collected those

booklets, I asked the members present what their memories

were about learning to read,

or what.

their‘ own earliest

memories of reading were.

Rebekah, who had as a: child been in the same first

grade

classroom

as

her

husband,

spoke

about

their

contrasting reactions to the same reading instruction from

 

the

and

Trud

read

Suza

only

and

Laue

phor

wha1

mod

rea

muc

Bon

sub

wee

Cor

am

Re

se

sa

an

at

OI

 

182

the same teacher.

She also related examples of her son's

and her niece’s responses from being read to extensively.

Truda

admitted

that she had always been a very fluent

reader, but that her comprehension still was rather weak.

Suzann had "picked it up right away [in first grade]," and

only recently had she encountered her first grade teacher

and inquired of her how she had taught beginning reading.

Laura said all she remembered was that she had hated the

phonics group.

Suzann queried Bonnie, "I’m curious about

what you remember."

With that,

Bonnie shared that her

mother

frequently

still

recounts

that

she

had

trouble

reading in first grade, apparently due to the fact that her

much-beloved first grade teacher took a maternity leave and

Bonnie

had

trouble

adjusting

to

a

new,

overbearing

substitute.

In response to the request from Truda and others in the

week on Remediation, I had prepared a two-page handout on

Context Clues, which I briefly highlighted. I also had come

across

an

article

the

previous week

about the use

of

Reader’s

Theater

for

Reading/Writing

Connection,

which

seemed appropriate to the previous week’s topics.

Rebekah

said that she had tried a Reader’s Theater in her classroom,

and her "kids loved it."

There

were

few

questions

on

last

week’s

Reading

Recovery for Karina.

Bonnie said she would talk to Karina

about her specific questions related to the topic privately

on their own time.

 

 

f as1

expl

opp:

the

mee‘

Top

for

deb

lea

anc‘

que

All

012

the

se)

di

ot

Su

1‘10

1c

 

 

 

183

I had been concerned that, with the Christmas holidays

fast

approaching,

individuals

within

the

group

would

experience

increased

pressures

and

would

welcome

an

opportunity to condense the following two meetings into one.

I did not find that to be the case, however.

In looking at

the next two weeks,

it was decided to hold the final

meetings on consecutive Tuesdays for whomever could attend.

Topics would be "Alternative Approaches: Basals" for 'the

former and "Classroom Management" for the latter.

I

also

stated

that

I

would

need

to

do

a

little

debriefing

at

the

final

meeting to

determine

"what we

learned."

with that came a great deal of laughter, joking,

and statements about "deprogramming."

I

handed. out. the

questionnaire

related

to

empowerment.

[See

Appendix

I]

Although this questionnaire would be sent to all elementary

classroom teachers in the district,

I addressed the fact

that IE wanted the input from this group to be looked at

separately for a comparison.

Karina said,

"To see how

different we are."

I said,

"To see whether we represent

other people in Omega/the rest of the U.S. teaching force.“

Suzann queried, "You should do it as to how you feel right

now? .

.

. That would have been a hard thing for me to do a

year or two years ago—-my answers probably would have been a

lot different then."

Laura then took the rest of the time to very thoroughly

present the area of "Whole Language/Literature."

She began

with a videotape of Jeanette Veatch and reminded the group

    

lessons,

 

bibliograp

Laura als

resources .

v

books, mag-

; 53y

In re

Laura had

this fit :

her mixed

victoriou:

kids

lov.

great!"]

do it al.

 

184

that this approach has been around "from way back-—the 30's

and 40's .

.

. so it’s not so new."

Laura then walked the

group through a booklet she had originally compiled for the

inservice she had presented in the neighboring" district.

The booklet included samples of integrated whole language

lessons,

schedules

of

classroom

management,

and

a

bibliographic "survival kit."

In addition to the booklet,

Laura also had a table filled with her own library of

resources she had found particularly' useful: professional

books, magazines, journals, and specific story guides.

In reaction to the many different methods and materials

Laura had described and displayed, Truda asked, "How does

this fit in with our new approach to reading?"

She spoke of

her mixed emotions.

She began by exuding, "I just felt so

victorious over getting through a literature book and the

kids

loved

it."

[To

which

Laura

replied,

"And

that's

great!"]

Truda went on to bemoan the fact that, "I didn’t

do it all last year,

’cause I was scared to death.

Now

you're putting something else on me.

I don’t think I can

handle it!"

[Laura responded softly, "No, I’m really not.

This is just one way."]

Karina offered:

What interests me is the struggle. [To Laura] I see you

have Transitions (Routman, 1988).

I brought it, too,

because that’s all about a lot of the struggle that we

go through, struggling through observation of children

and

through

a

dawning

awareness

of

the

research,

struggling to bring this knowledge of research and this

knowledge of children together in the classroom into

some kind of manageable way of teaching reading.

 

 

 

that we

suggested

§Qmm

of the p

Resources

Reader’s

eliminate

members I

question:

majority

rationale

Literatur

were expr

attempt i]

aPplicati

12/5/89

 

Cont

 

185

After Laura gave several more examples of methods and

materials, the participants expressed appreciation for the

variety of resources available and spoke of their desire to

have

such

a

professional

library

available

to

each

elementary building in the district.

As it came time to close the meeting, Karina stated

that

we

had

not

really

defined

“whole

language."

I

suggested that we come back to that the following week.

Summary.

The discussion began with personal accounts

of the participants'

own histories of learning to read.

Resources were given on the topics of Context. Clues and

Reader’s Theater.

Although the opportunity was given to

eliminate one meeting due to busy Christmas schedules, the

members were not willing to forego it.

An empowerment

questionnaire

was

distributed.

One

member

spent

the

majority

of

the

meeting

presenting

and

discussing

the

rationale

for

and

implementation

of

a

Whole

Language/

Literature-Based approach to reading instruction.

Concerns

were expressed by individuals as to the struggle involved in

attempting

to

make

the

transition

from

research

to

application of this approach within the classroom context.

12/5/89

Alternative Approaches: Basals, Content Area

Overview

Unfinished'Business

Questions/Concerns

Whole Language Defined

Basals

Strengths

Weaknesses

Content Area Reading Strategies

 

 

      

.J:!i-;Jdib 911:! at

1111211529319“

M d- «new. tutu.“

Inna!  

2':-:::'.'a:-

r—irz-“..'..'.‘

yuan-'2': '

-..'i"

2.3-

3;.

{:1

anti:

  

4:15.

 

----.\ t

"on

-'.---.' fart?

     

. fiffie',’

depth on

.

.

an: )0

no respon:

:,--- wise-25

"any othe

i

even allu

the hope

her class

and prod

experiene

Sine

meeting l

how she

Who

  

 

 

 

186

This eleventh meeting felt like there was a revolving

door:

only five individuals were present the entire time.

Suzann, who was singing in an Operetta that weekend, had

laryngitis and did not attend at all.

Chris had to meet

with some parents after school and arrived at our meeting at

4:15.

Jennifer arrived at 4:45.

Laura departed at 5:00.

I

began

the meeting with the

acknowledgement that

scheduling had been difficult throughout and the degree of

depth on any one topic was necessarily minimal.

There was

no response to the question as to whether there were still

"any other topics——burning issues to you--that we haven't

even alluded to?"

For the week on Management, I expressed

the hope that, among other things, Suzann would talk about

her classroom stations (to which she had previously alluded)

and productive seatwork, and that Bonnie would share her

experiences related to grouping and cooperative learning.

Since Karina had questioned at the end of the previous

meeting what was meant by "whole language,"

I now asked her

how she would define the term.

She replied:

Whole language, to me, includes all the expressive and

receptive forms of

language,

and.

it. would. encompass

book sharing of various sorts and the writing that

we've talked about.

But it’s always continuous print,

or words in context kind of thing.

Not that phonics

isn’t done, but you work from Brown Bear, Brown Bear

(Martin, 1970), or whatever.

It’s done in a meaningful

context.

I see that as being the emphasis and what I

regard as the gift of the whole language approach.

That even as we learn to speak, not by getting ready to

speak

and

having tedious

exercises

of

learning to

speak .

.

. we should learn to read the same way we

learn to speak: by immersion and modeling.

That all

sounds so "pie in the sky."

Now how do you make that

happen?

 

  

$3291

   
 

Kar

To l

fractured

picture.“

planner 1

don’t se

osmosis.

when he I

Kari

whole la

think at

letter 1.

weak poi]

 

 

Truda reacted to that:

187

That’s what I have a problem with these theorists who

don’t teach [skills] until [students] need it or are

interested in it.

Let’s face it, if [students] don’t

have the skills when they’re interested, do you break

away from it when they are interested?

I don’t know

.

.

. To me, whole language is everything: spelling,

speaking,

writing,

reading.

To

me,

that’s

whole

language.

Because what you’re talking about is still

only reading.

Karina

said

that

the

curriculum

should

not

be

fractured:

"It takes a master planner to see the whole

picture."

To which Truda responded,

"It doesn’t take a master

planner to see it--it takes a master planner to d9 it.

I

don’t see how it can be done .

.

.

It doesn’t. come by

osmosis.

You have to teach spelling at a given time, so

when he needs it, he has it."

Karina acknowledged, "You have put your finger on where

whole language backfires.

If

it makes sense, you. don’t

think about spelling.

The child is not operating on a

letter level but on a metacognitive level.

Maybe that’s a

weak point if we don’t do the other."

Upon that, a rather intense discussion occurred related

to spelling.

Truda expressed herself in this way: "I have a

hang-up with propriety.

In society, we should spell things

correctly, and not doing it is a sheer lack of discipline."

Chris and Karina both spoke as parents.

Chris said, “I

talk as the parent of a child who has tremendous spelling

problems."

Karina told the “tale of two sons," with the

 

    

-._.

II

: ‘lfldvtava a

egaupnst

:af'Njgu‘f

':'
l2."

'1'

I.

'

n'i‘

_--

.

.

_-._

l

 

      

‘

I.

II'JW

...,

questionl

question!

' 'fl'q

whole 1a

arts.

‘

taken an

approach

decide

i

Everyone

by Bonni

laughter

At

and jokj

hallway ,

they ' re

SUggest;

I

debrief

Questio

 

 

188

conclusion that, "If I had to give up something, I’d make my

priority the fluency rather than the correct spelling."

Although I had stayed out of the discussion up to this

point, I felt that I had to bring closure to this segment.

I summarized by saying that the opinions expressed appeared

to be typical of the debate between process and product.

I

stated, "I didn’t mean for us to spend a lot of time on this

.

.

.

I

just asked a question

[group laughter].

That

question was,

'What

is whole language?’

That was the

question we left with last time."

I gave my own version of

whole language as being synonymous with integrated language

arts.

With that,

If asked whether anyone had mistakenly

taken an article the previous week which demonstrated this

approach within a third grade classroom,

"When teachers

decide to

integrate the

language arts"

(Buckley,

1986).

Everyone looked through her materials and it was discovered

by Bonnie: "so much came around last week."

A loud round of

laughter followed.

At that, the building principal walked into the room

and jokingly said, "I can hardly conduct my meeting down the

hallway.

Would you please

[quiet down]?"

"Tell them,

they’re your overly-dedicated teachers .

.

.," was Truda’s

suggestion.

I

restated

that

the

following

week

would

be

the

debriefing.

Although I orally gave a list of possible

questions, Truda asked whether I

"

.

.

. would send us a

  

,

p,

f

'Illlilillr'

,-

   

l

thin-gun hoaaarqxu anointqc J“? Ind! pnIYOU‘     

m as mm sand as M!-

  

.f.-.:,l r. 'C

-"- r.

-.V'

'l.'

'. :-_‘."-v' " '

'3 75(55):: 9“, 1‘

.

\l! -.

.

..

.

I

.

I.

-

‘-

.

'_'.

'. Eh"? J ‘03.”!

.

- A a

.‘artt

I

 

-.

work

In contre

old basa

best offe

Kar:

of basal

concept

   

 

  

 

189

little something so we could think about them ahead of time?

That would be helpful."

In introducing the topic of Basals, I began by asking

for a list of strengths and weaknesses, starting with the

strengths.

Laura listed the fact that the new ones contain

good literature, and that basals are helpful for beginning

teachers.

Chris Spoke about their continuity.

Both Truda

and Rebekah told of how their views of basals had changed.

Truda said that formerly basals had "led" her:

Those were the most miserable reading teaching years of

my life, because I felt like I was doing nothing more

than reading the story, assigning the workbook, calling

the next group up, reading the story, assigning the

workbook.

It was a vicious cycle.

And finally I had

had it.

In contrast, she and Rebekah agreed that they now use their

old basal readers flexibly, picking and choosing only the

best offerings to supplement trade books.

Karina was eager to talk about the major disadvantage

of basals: i.e., what she perceived to be the damaged self-

concept of the child in the "low" basal reader and in the

"low" reading group.

She saw that the advantage of using

literature resulted in increased self-esteem and a feeling

of accomplishment.

When

Chris

asked,

"Do

we

need to

spend money on

Teacher’s Editions?",

Karina suggested,

"Couldn’t we use

that money for paperbacks?

'I might go for a basal if we

didn’t have to have the Teacher’s Edition.“

Rebekah asked, "Do [the new basals] have workbooks?

I

wouldn’t order it," and Truda laughingly suggested, “Get

 

   
    

iiutaihiihqhnflt-eu .lncuuqliuw ell

_

  

«dunno: sane won an: :Lm: Jae: as: hornl£-.

    
       

..U-t-lxl “I!”

v.1 3.11., .:-'.-

«I .I‘ij m 0

. I ;

:-

-

_'.

-

I

t

.

-

-

-"

-

,

.

.

_

.

'

'.c:

'1 .'

  

handed o:

with the

. so tha‘

somethim

for the

Educatio:

partici

appropri

that tak

how the

take thi

so the c

such an

the ent

anyone :

Educati<

At

is,

III.

 

 

 

190

your

picket

signs

ready,

girls.

If they make us

use

workbooks,

I’m

going

to

get

my

picket

sign

out:

NO

WORKBOOKS!"

I had taken samples of some of the new basals on the

market to the meeting.

The participants agreed that it

might be more profitable to take them home to peruse at

their leisure, rather than to spend time this evening for

that task.

In regard to the topic of Content Area Reading,

I

handed out a map of before/during/after activities congruent

with the strategies which had already been introduced, “

.

.

so that we don’t have to say like last week, ’Oh, no, not

something else!’"

I had wanted to provide the opportunity

for the group to work through the fourth grade

[State]

 

Educational Assessment Program informational section so the

participants

themselves

might

suggest

relevant

and

appropriate before/during/after activities:

"I was hoping

that taking something like this would show very concretely

how the things we’ve already learned will help the child to

take this test.

It helps us know how to teach the material

so the child has that kind of information."

Chris said that

such an idea would make for a valid workshop/inservice for

the entire staff.

Truda agreed:

"I really don't think

anyone from K,

1,

2,

3 fully understands what the [State]

Educational Assessment Program test is like."

At the end of the meeting, Truda stated: “My comment

is, ’I’ve just had a great time!’

I know we're coming next

   

spite of   

appearanci

 

extendedi

basal st

based on

There wa

to break

spirit q

overview

material

af f irmat

12/12/85

Ha

At

The ta]

 

191

week, but I really have! .

.

. I’ve had a couple of teachers

remark to me that they just didn’t feel like they could do

it.

I said, ’Hey, that’s your loss, ’cause we’re having a

great time!’"

Summa y.

Personal

and professional

schedules made

continuity difficult within the context of this meeting.

In

spite of that, all members but one (who was ill) made an

appearance for at least part of the meeting.

There was

extended dialogue related to whole language, spelling, and

basal strengths and weaknesses.

Opinions expressed.'were

based on readings in the field and. personal experiences.

There was such a great deal of discussion that I was forced

to break in, summarize, and redirect.

Through it all, a

spirit of congeniality existed.

A content area reading

overview stressing the utilization of previously-introduced

material

was

presented.

The

meeting

was

closed

with

affirmation of the value of the experience.

12/12/89

Debriefing, Smorgasbord, Management

Overview

Debriefing

Smorgasbord

-Leveling vs. Readability Formulas

—Graphic Organizers

—Semantic Maps--W0rd Sorts

—Reader’s Theater in the Content Areas

-Paired Repeated Readings

-Basal Reader Evaluations

—"Alternatives to Basal Instruction"

Management

-Reading Stations

-Cooperative Learning

At this last meeting, all were present except Jennifer.

The table was laden with a variety of fresh fruits and sour

 

 

 

192

cream

dip,

crackers

and

shrimp

cocktail/cream

cheese

spread,

homemade

pecan tarts

and cinnamon

squares,

and

chicken croissants.

The school’s principal came, supposedly

for some of the refreshments, but, unlike previous visits,

he sat down and stayed for the entire meeting.

After the first half hour was spent on debriefing

(presented in toto at the conclusion of this section), we

went from the smorgasbord of food into a smorgasbord of

topics left over from previous weeks.

Karina had spoken to me after the Content Area topic of

her

preference

for

the

term

"leveling"

rather

than

readability formulas, of her possession of various graphic

organizers,

of the

idea of word sorts,

and of Reader’s

Theater in content areas.

With her description of graphic

organizers,

Laura

and

Truda

recalled

"mountains"

of

varieties shared during a recent Virginia Soper' workshop

held in the district for upper elementary and middle school

teachers.

Karina’s

offer

to

make

copies

of

both

a

"leveling"

list from a former class,

as well as several

generic

expository

maps,

was

met

with

expressions

of

affirmation and appreciation.

With the comment,

"If you want more information, we

have experts here on all of these topics," I switched the

focus to Chris who had previously been prepared to share

with the group a technique which she had found helpful with

 

her students.

 

 

 

 

 

193

Chris

began,

"[Paired Repeated Reading]

has

really

worked for my kids .

.

.

I have more fluent readers this

year than ever before, and I know it’s been because of the

strategies

we’ve

been

using."

She

then handed out

a

procedure for helping children to honestly evaluate and

critique

each

other.

"This

is

another

one

of

those

strategies that is really good for them to go off and work

on while you are working with someone else."

In spite of the fact that everyone had gone home with a

sample

of

some new basal reader the previous week,

it

appeared that Chris was the only one who had looked at hers

in any depth.

She felt that there was a big improvement in

this series as compared to previous ones she had seen (she

herself had never used a basal) in the area of varieties of

literature, but she still did not feel that the language was

natural or rich.

Discussion ensued in regard to controlled vocabulary.

"If Reading Recovery kids can succeed without. controlled

vocabulary, then no one needs it," was Karina’s summation.

"It’s hard to make a blanket statement," countered Laura.

"I wouldn’t say that nobody needs it."

"Alternatives

to

traditional

reading

instruction"

(Eldredge & Butterfield, 1986) was an article that had been

handed out the previous week.

In response to that, Truda

asked, "Why can’t we have basals plus literature?"

"That’s

what was done in this article,

’When teachers decide 'to

integrate the language arts,’" said Chris.

"I could see

 

 

 

194

using basals with literature in the whole language approach,

using basals for the guided reading part and individualized

self-selection for the literature part."

Truda related, "For example, when I did the B1

Wave, I

used the folk tale which is set in Japan from the basal

about the gold fish, which I thought was an enrichment for

the kids.

Otherwise, you get it stuck in the middle of a

bunch of folk tales with not all that much meaning, where

here it had some meaning.

I don’t know why they divorce

them completely as though if you have one, you can’t have

the other."

A lively debate ensued about functions and uses of

basals with Karina, Chris, Suzann, and Truda, representing

the continuum of Karina’s ("I will absolutely not use them

unless they contain real authors’ real works"), to Chris’s

("They often turn out children who read nothing other"), to

Suzann’s ("Use them for your own purposes and according to

children’s needs"), to Truda's ("I see nothing wrong with

children reading cute little stories from the basal.

What

does it matter what kids read as long as they read?").

Truda acknowledged that she had been in education long

enough to see the pendulum swinging: "We go in cycles--’Now

it’s time to throw everything out,’ and then in a few years,

’Bring everything back.’

And that scares me.

We have to be

a little bit reasonable as far as doing these things."

To

which Karina admitted, "Yes, we’ve seen this coming down the

pipe before."

 

 

 

195

I attempted to redirect and begin to bring closure to

the meeting with the comment, "We’re not going to solve all

of these problems tonight ["Aw, shucks!" "We’re not going to

leave here until we do."], and we haven’t even gotten to the

management and grouping topics [Truda: "That’s going to come

when

you

model

for

us"].

We

need

something

about

cooperative learning and reading stations.

Could we just

quickly do that?"

Suzann

talked

of

her

reading

stations,

and Bonnie

brought

in

a

sample

of

what

her

class

had

done

in

cooperative groups.

In response to Bonnie’s examples, Chris

affirmed that this was an example

of a ‘very integrated

curriculum (math,

reading,

social skills, moral lessons).

Suzann asked procedural questions related to this activity.

I spoke to the fact that this was also productive seatwork

(in lieu of workbook pages): "We’ve had a lot of these kinds

of things come out as we’ve talked over the past several

weeks."

Truda spoke from her experience that in total group

instruction,

management is

not that much of

a

problem.

Chris suggested, "Using total group and then breaking into

cooperative

groups

would

be

beautiful."

And

Rebekah

responded, "Partner things provide a good variety, because

you can’t be with that total group every day."

It

was

difficult

to

close

the

meeting

and

the

experience: "This is too good to end."

 

 

 

 

196

Karina

stated,

"I’m

going

to write

in my

journal

tomorrow." Truda responded,

"Show—off!"

"No,

I think she

means for the first time," Chris joked.

The principal said that he had enjoyed the hour and a

half very much [Someone commented, "It never seemed like an

hour and a half"], and he then asked the group whether they

had felt uncomfortable with his being there.

Comments from

the group were that had it been another administrator they

might have, but he was perceived to be a non-threatening

individual.

As I handed out "Merry Christmas/Thank You Very Much"

notes with personalized messages of appreciation to each of

the participants,

I was given a beautifully wrapped box

"from all of us." Inside was a delicate clay statue of a

child reading.

The card was entitled, "We believe in you."

I was emotionally touched.

Summary.

The

meeting

began

with

a

debriefing:

individuals spoke of the benefits of the group to themselves

as

persons,

as

teachers,

and as

learners.

One member

presented

several

content

area

offerings

from

former

classes.

Another member shared classroom success with Pair

Repeated Readings and commented on the new basal textbooks.

As a springboard for an article, suggestions were made to

incorporate basal readers with literature, leading to more

discussion on basal readers.

With an acknowledgement that

there were many unresolved topics, the issue of classroom

management was briefly addressed through personal examples.

 

 

 

197

The principal, who had not spoken throughout, stated that he

had enjoyed the experience.

The meeting was closed with

mutual concrete expressions of appreciation between myself

and the group.

12/12/89

Dre—MiLfLmSLS'lOn

I will present, in toto, the Debriefing Session from

the Final Meeting.

Although it is lengthy, it will be used

to illustrate a number of prominent themes that were present

throughout the course of this project related to deterring

and contributing factors toward empowerment as I "listened

for the teacher’s voice."

Deterrents included: lack of time

(due

to

personal

and

professional

conflicts);

lack

of

adequate inservice training in the reading strategies; lack

of support

(district/administrative,

collegial);

external

locus of control; lack of readiness.

Contributors included

those descriptors which mark a humanistic teacher center;

namely, the centrality of the teacher (beginning with her

perceived

needs

and

acknowledging

adult

learning

characteristics), warmth (an esprit de corps), concreteness

(what

works

and

how

we

know

that),

time

(extended,

non-pressured),

thought

(open-mindedness,

reflective

thinking).

DEBRIEFING SESSION

December 12, 1989

Debriefing Questions

1.

Throughout

this

support

group,

what

kinds

of

feelings/dispositions did you experience?

2.

What

kind

of

information

(attitudes,

skills,

knowledges)

have

you

gained

 

thinking?

   

that

has

influenced

your

 

 

 

198

3.

How does

what

you

learned relate

to what you

previously knew or believed about reading (e.g., confirmed/

disconfirmed)?

4. What conclusions have you reached about the issues

of reading curriculum implementation and/or staff develop—

ment as a result of this experience?

(To put it another

way, What would you recommend to the Reading Study

Committee as a result of this type of inservice?)

Marlene: I just want us to kind of look at where we started,

what kinds of feelings you had as we went through, and what

you think this all says, if anything.

As you look at your

Debriefing packet and looked at the sheet, My Hopes for This

Group, from the original meeting, did you have a feeling for

whether or not we had done the kinds of things that were

listed here?

Karina: As I read the list,

I was amazed at how much we

seemed to have done that was on that list. "Talking about

approaches

in

a non-threatening way,"

I

mean,

I’ve got

stars, I've got about 8 stars on the side of all things that

I feel that we more than adequately did.

The only thing

that I didn’t have starred, and it was the time I missed

about assessment, "I hope we look at what works and how we

know that," that’s where I felt a little shaky, but that was

discussed that one time.

So probably the group as a whole

covered just about everything here.

A surprise for me came

at the bottom,

"What motivates people to change teaching

behavior over the years," the surprise for me along those

lines was how much we tend to do what we enjoy.

That seems

very simple, but our enjoyment seems to be keyed in to what

is good for kids.

I mean,

if something’s going well or

working well, we enjoy doing it.

That impressed me at how

much more people seem to be enjoying teaching reading now

than formerly.

And I thought that was a good motivation.

Marlene:

I appreciate that input, Karina.

Did anyone else

have a chance to look over that and have any feelings about

it?

Chris:

I also felt like We covered the areas really well,

whether it was accidentally or very planned and. we just

didn’t know how planned it was.

I did think the areas were

covered.

Marlene:

Did you feel from the next page, then, the things

that we should have a right to expect from the members of

this group, that we lived up to the expectations that we had

of each other?

Truda:

We

could

put

a

big

star

next

to

"honesty!"

[laughing]

That’s what was so great about it!

Karina:

Yes, I know of forums where honesty is there, but

the good feeling isn’t.

And what’s really impressed me is

the fact that we can live with the fact that we teach in

different ways.

And I think that's great!

I mean, that’s

the way to be a community is to be together and be different

and to be glad about it.

 

 

199

Laura:

That’s what I felt, too.

I was apprehensive when I

started with a group like this, knowing our vast

philosophical differences.

I thought, "Will it work?

Will

it all jive together?"

Chris:

And I think the openness,

too,

even though you

didn’t agree, there was a lot of opening of the way you

believed--listening to other people and thinking,

"Well,

let’s try that," or "Maybe this is valid."

And there was a

lot of persuasion' going each way. And it wasn’t by one

person.

It was a real sharing.

Laura:

And I think what I also came away with is that there

is not just one real way to teach reading.

Marlene:

Let’s go to that first page where there are four

questions, stated briefly but maybe not so briefly talked

about.

1.

Throughout the support group,

what kind of

feelings

or dispositions

did

you

experience?

Have we

already hit that and talked about that?

Rebekah:

One thing, too, I felt terribly inadequate.

You

know, I still feel, compared to many of you, but I do feel

more comfortable with what I (kn

You know,

like Karina

said,

"We each have our own thing that we like doing and

works well."

Truda:

I ditto that.

When I saw those people sitting

around here, “Just what I need!" I thought.

Bonnie:

I put down that at times there was frustration due

to

a

lack

of

time

for

preparation

and

classroom

implementation on things.

There were so many ideas tossed

out and I thought, "Wouldn’t that really be wonderful if I

had time to do that, to sit down and go through what I was

doing and plug in all those strategies?"

And I think that’s

where my frustration came in, you know, lack of time.

Chris:

And yet-—I think I’m skipping ahead a little bit—-I

put the

same sense

of

frustration,

and yet to me this

clarified so much.

The validity of

just having such a

support group was the fact that what we were introduced to

over the last two years came just in brief meetings,

45

minutes, two little meetings and then you were out there on

your

own.

And

I

just

don’t

think

we

can

learn

and

implement, so this then was a further follow-up.

Truda:

start to put it together.

Chris:

How much more we were able to use it.

So a lot of

growth has come out of it, even though there are still those

areas when it went too fast for us.

Laura:

It showed me, too, that it does take time.

I look

back to about five years ago when I went to a workshop on

story schema.

At that point in time,

it was like a new

concept to me, and I felt like I wasn’t interested, and I

came away and I didn’t get much from it.

Until a few years

ago when I got back into it again, and then when we did our

strategy inservices, it was really familiar to me, but then

I thought everyone else should have had it quickly, too.

And I almost forgot that .

.

Chris:

And really when you did that, one month and then a

month later you did a quick follow-up thing.

If you look at

 

 

 

200

that,

that’s

no

where

near

enough

in

order

to

truly

implement.

You use a little, but now it seems to be fitting

together.

You look at your reading lesson and you say, "Now

what could I use with this story?

What would work the best

with that?"

Now you've got it.

It’s like you’ve got so

many more bags of tricks out there to pull from.

Karina: I think in order to own anything, to be able to use

it as though you own it, you need a lot of hand—holding--at

least I need a lot of hand-holding, you know, for a couple

of years' worth.

And I don’t think it's realistic to say,

"Okay,

we’re

going to have

an

inservice and then

our

teachers will have it."

I think you’ve got to inservice

them, and inservice them again, and hold their hand for a

couple of years and get them in support groups, and then you

might see some change.

Otherwise it’s just going to be

filed.

"Well, it's really pretty interesting, but I really

don’t know if .

.

.

"

Truda:

That’s why teachers are frustrated.

They ‘throw

something at us one time and then they leave us.

Karina:

I don’t think administrators realize this--how much

hand-holding is needed.

Truda:

Working it through.

Rebekah:

Think of all the conferences you’ve attended and

taken wonderful notes and then you’ve never done anything

with it.

Truda:

The notes are somewhere in a drawer.

Maybe the

leader was peppy and interesting, and that kind of thing,

but when you lose that high, well .

.

Karina:

Well, the key is to be tied in to colleagues who

are peppy and interesting, and then you can .

.

. That’s why

even

coming

together

here

has

been

so

good,

because

different ones of us have caught on to different things and

we’re using different things.

Laura:

But you need a readiness.

Like Truda, you were so

ready and you wanted to know more.

If you weren’t ready .

.

Truda:

Desperate, desperate is the word!

[laughing]

No,

this is right and this is something we have to realize, but

it should be available to those who need it.

And I think

that there are those .

.

. for example, I know there were a

lot more people interested in this until it became a once a

week.

And moving ahead to number 4, if I may for a minute,

I think a once a month or a bi-monthly support group is not

out of the question.

I think it's very, very feasible on a

long-term basis.

For me it would be great.

Karina:

That's talking about on our own time.

But I think

meeting once a week is a bit much when you think of it as

over and above everything else that we run around and do.

Truda:

Inn not talking about once a week.

I’m talking

about once a month or once every-other month.

Karina:

That’s right.

I grant that.

I think if it's to be

on our own time after school, every two weeks or once a

month is a much more viable meeting schedule; however, I was

wondering what would happen if we met during a half hour of

 

 

 

 

 

201

lunch hour plus our special, an hour to meet not on own

time.

When

I

think

of

the

hassle

we

had

trying to

coordinate

calendars

and

people

with

meetings

and

appointments and everything.

That is such a burdensome

thing to have to deal with.

If the district thinks that

it’s important for this kind of thing to go on, and if the

district regards its teachers as professionals,

it. would

seem to me that it would not be unfeasible to make some

provision

that

would

facilitate

those

persons

meeting

together who voluntarily chose to during the week somehow.

Because I think it’s really important to continue to meet

together.

Truda:

We have noon hours. Someone could easily eat with

our kids .

.

.

Chris:

The ideal thing would be to cut that noon hour down

and have that time either before school that you were

mandated to be here for that kind of thing, or after school,

too.

You see, that whole hour noon hour .

.

.

Karina:

The pioneers are willing to do it, come what may,

but

for everyone to get into this kind of thing,

it's

something that the administration backs up and makes it much

easier to do than it is right now, because right now it’s

hard to do.

Chris: It’s been a real commitment.

Suzann:

I think it’s really hard to squeeze anything in

during the day when the kids are here .

.

.

Chris:

That’s my thought, too.

Suzann:

Because one of the reasons we can communicate and

share so much and so well is because we’re not stressed out

[laughing].

We come here and we’re relaxed .

.

.

Truda: And eat!

Suzann:

If we want to stay and talk to Marlene until six,

we can.

If we want to, you know, there’s no time when we’re

not interrupted.

And to do anything to not rush that-—just

forget it.

Karina:

In Princeton, New Jersey they send the kids home

every Wednesday afternoon.

Suzann:

Even at 2:30.

Like if you had a day a month and

they left at 2:30, and then you did something.

But to have

to be at a meeting where you want to just be free to share,

and then go back to teach for 2 hours [laughing]. .

.

Karina:

Yes, I guess that would be .

.

Chris:

If it were at the end of a day, though .

.

.

Suzann: At the end of a day, and not even at the beginning

of the day .

.

.

Bonnie:

Or every-other week .

.

.

Chris:

There are a thousand other things so that one day

every week could be used for something special.

I mean,

everyone is crying for time to communicate with each other

on different subjects .

.

Marlene:

It sounds to me like what we’ ve been talking about

is some of the conclusions we’ ve reached and some of the

recommendations related to question 4 [What conclusions have

 

 

 

202

you

reached

about

the

issues

of

reading

curriculum

implementation and/or staff development as a result of this

inservice?]

Truda:

I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to get us down there.

Marlene:

No,

that’s

fine,

that’s fine.

It’s kind of

appropriate to talk about this—-the Reading Study Committee

is going to be meeting tomorrow morning, and they’re going

to be talking about, "Where do we go from here?"

Number 2:

Any information, attitudes, skills, knowledges you’ve gained

that has influenced your thinking.

Have we talked about

that?

Did anyone else have anything that she wanted to add

to that?

Laura:

One thing I do a lot more of is listen to the kids,

doing more of the think alouds, verbal rehearsal.

I say,

"When you look at this word, what are you doing?"

I try to

figure out what they do.

And it's been really amazing: when

I show them a beginning word, I say, "What do you do when I

show you this word?"

And there’s absolutely nothing.

So

they try verbal rehearsal, and they usually say the word

over and over in their head, and then they write it down,

and they improve dramatically.

Suzann:

I don’t know if this goes in at this number, but I

thought the thing that has helped me the most is all the

stuff we’ve talked about, I would consider the "good stuff."

So now II hit the "good stuff," and it helps me with my

planning, because I don't spend so much time flummin' around

with stuff that’s not so important, you know.

I figure that

if I hit some of these things that we are doing, that you’ve

taught us, and focus in on those, and sure, you can make

those as creative as you want, but I feel confident that I’m

hitting the "good stuff" and I don’t have to worry so much

about all this fun and games stuff.

So it helps me to

focus.

And the second thing that I like, you know we’ve

been meeting with grade levels, but I really like meeting 1,

2,

3, right up to 5-—that went well, because when you meet

with your grade level, you don’t get the view.

When I hear

4th grade teachers talk and 2nd grade--boy, it lifts the

burden from me to think that I don’t have to do all this

stuff.

I hear what they're doing, and I think, "Oh, shoot,

I don’t have to spend all this time .

.

."

Truda:

Put

all

that

college

material

away,

Suzann

[laughing].

Suzann:

It really relaxed me a lot to think, "Oh, shoot,

why am I: so worried about that? They’ll get that in third

and fourth and more so than just at my grade level."

Good

at up and down level rather than just the horizontal.

Chris:

I think just hearing the philosophy of different

unique and individual persons-—it helped me to clarify some

of those things that were just kind of spinning around in

here and I was just questioning so much.

It kind of pulled

some of that together.

Each person’s philosophy and sharing

together has clarified for me, and I’m more confident than I

was when we started.

Truda:

I guess it was good for me to hear other people have

 

 

 

203

failures when they’re doing something.

Things don’t always

work out.

Chris:

And 1J1 turn their joys, too, like the things you

shared, Truda, the specific things.

Truda:

And the accomplishment, the sense of accomplishment

I feel now when I teach reading that I have never ever felt-

-that finally the kids-—for example, the book I finished .

.

. That really' makes you feel good.

That really, really

does.

Suzann:

I loved that day, when you came in here, those

words, "The feeling of accomplishment!"

I think that is,

when you feel that--some people don’t [ever] feel that.

Truda:

I never did in reading--I never did.

Chris:

And that means the kids .

.

.

Truda:

Laura is so happy over me.

She feels a kindred

spirit.

Laura:

We love you, Truda.

Marlene:

Is there anyone who would like to add anything to

#

4 about conclusions you have reached?

Things we should

talk to the Reading Study Committee about?

Truda:

Oh, I've got a list here.

Marlene:

Please.

Truda:

Well, the first thing has been talked about.

I

think we need guidance and inservice, but not one-time shot.

Continuing help for teachers on a regular basis, realizing

as Karina said, "We need to be spoonfed for awhile if we’re

going to do it."

You know, we get these things thrown at

us-—the New Definition of Reading-~now I would like to have

someone carry us through for a couple of years, as you said.

Modeling-~I think that would be such a help to me, to have

you

reading

teachers

come

in

and

model

each of

these

strategies for me with my class.

Not on a TV tape, not with

people who

get

these small

groups,

but with my class,

exactly.

To me, that would be such a benefit for me.

Rebekah:

Virginia Soper was saying that she does that.

Truda: That’s all she does.

Rebekah:

I mean, she showed us her yearly schedule: on this

particular day she’s doing a: KWL here.

And it would be

wonderful for us to sit back and watch.

Bonnie:

Watch.

Karina:

And then be critiqued as you’re doing it.

Truda:

Yes, yes, tell me what I’m doing wrong.

I don’t

have a problem with that at all.

Tell me what I’m doing

right [laughing].

Rebekah: I can critique you from across the hall [laughing].

Truda:

I have such a fog-horn voice—-everybody hears me—-oh

[to Bonnie and Suzann], can you hear each other, too?

Suzann:

I know it’s not going well when that door closes.

Marlene:

Any other comments under that?

Bonnie:

I put that we must not rush into getting a new

text, but we also have to be aware of the need on the part

of

children

and

teachers

for

something

concrete

and

realistic.

I

just have the sense that some people--for

people who haven't had this type of support group, to go

 

 

 

 

204

back and say,

"This works,

this doesn’t work, how can I

change, what can I do?"

Truda:

But even for the "experts"--you know, we talked

about, “Don’t throw out the basal."

Well, it's fine if you

use it correctly——that’s one little note I have.

I learned

that the basal is not the Bible, okay?

I can use it in an

order other than what it’s printed, and I’m doing that.

And

that makes me feel much better.

But still, I like to use it

for some of the stories.

Rebekah:

I found out it's not so terrible.

For a few years

there, they said, "You don’t want to use it."

But there are

some wonderful .

.

.

Truda:

Like they’re short and you can put them in between

your literature sorts of things. And some of these stories

in the basal are literature, and they get a taste of it.

Karina:

I think one of the things that has happened in our

relationship to tmsals is that back when our basals were

new, they kind of controlled the reading program. And now we

know that we can control .

.

.

Truda:

That’s right!

Karina:

And we can do the managing, and not be controlled

by

the

teacher's

manual.

And

I

think

that’s

real

significant.

Truda:

I think if you threw them out there would be real

pandemonium, there would be real panic through the system.

Don’t you think so?

Marlene:

I have a question related to the voluntary-ness of

those strategy workshops and people who were not trained in

them.

Do you have any recommendations for that kind of

thing for the future?

Truda:

I recommend that everyone do it, but how can you

make everyone do it?

Bonnie:

There’s got to be a time release.

They’ve got to

deem it necessary that they’ve got a time release, because

some of us will say, "Hey, look, I spent all my time and I

went to those before school meetings," and you know, we can

pat ourselves on the back for doing that, but .

.

.

Truda:

Not on a continuing basis.

Bonnie:

No, and I think if the administration thinks it’s

important enough, then they've got to give us time-release.

At 2:30, they can dismiss us at 2:30.

They don’t have to

dismiss the high school and middle school.

They can dismiss

just the elementary buildings, and they can still run the

bus runs backwards that day, or something.

Rebekah:

And it [teaching of reading strategies] needs to

go according to grades.

Right now our lst and 2nd grade

teachers don't do anything with it, and they have to.

Truda:

That's what the state assessment is based on.

Rebekah:

I mean, we give that thing in September.

Truda:

I don't think even all of our 3rd grade teachers do

it.

Rebekah:

No.

Laura:

They aren’t really using?

 

 

 

 

 

205

Truda:

No.

So the kids that come to us really start out

cold.

I mean, we teach from day 1.

Laura:

I wonder, too, about the feasibility of a refresher

of the strategies.

Truda: Yes.

At this point, because of a full "smorgasbord" of left—

over

ideas

from

previous

sessions

that

needed

to

be

addressed, I felt it necessary to bring this portion of the

meeting to a halt, although it appeared that the discussion

could have continued for some time.

The events described in this section, Situations, will

be discussed and interpeted further within the next chapter,

Findings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIE

1111111211191111111111!111111111111111

3007911104

“
.
4
n

.
v
u
-
w
-
M
L
m
r
-
y
u
H
”

;
p
u

'

.
”
u
m

,.,.-).,..

\

,.».,.

.

....;

.,m

,

.... .

,

.

.

,

.... , ....

.....P.‘

m. -»

...

.....

I.i|v§n.~‘h\\l\-

x.m m 

.v.m-,..
..‘,-_
H...
4"? .’

.... ..:,-...
. ... . ,......,.

“......n- ..x. »

....,,.......,.......

.2-“.'<2.
“h...

......

1‘. ...”....

H“... ......m.

........m...

......p...

...”...m.

u... .. ,.... ...”

.....\.,........--

.,~-....y~-.,..,.,,..

» “m...”

“......nhmw

.[.~.».».....,..

....y.
m...-,\

.,..

.v.‘

.....

.,.,...........».,

‘I-‘~'\n:l

....

...\.. W

....

.wyn

,

”rum...

«......

.qy-.,.\.....

,

..

.

.

...., ...”...

...u

.

...“...

.........,..u-..,

_... u...

...

....a...,....,

....,.._...

.1...

...

.,...
_...,

run...“

"J

‘:.‘
.

“...-....

...

.

.

...

”......

a...» -

'

.

-.

l

...,....,.

....

,

.

.V

.

..\

\.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.-

.. .u

.

.‘w

... .. .

....

..

.

.

,

1....

,,..

...~

mm...

  

 

”3:”; ,
I

Art

»
.
,
4
V

L
.
;
:
:
-

.

,
u
.

v
»
<
p
~
4
.
fi

!
A
r"

q

.
.
5

M

.

.
.
4
«

i

m
"
)
q
.
n

|

r! Burn -ul

fly

~,.

"1.,- ,,. ‘lwif'.; .,

,..,.,.,.vr

z

- n,» --—.'; ‘- .""' .

..--';' -f"".‘,'

' “flu": . u.

um, a““an 

w - g3“ r...” ’5'?“ 7'1" tau—1.“

-n:.TF,I.'J,I.".-,.:. ‘, LT '7

1 .:":t;::";s~::

,. 4-,..‘71
.3.;vu..-

~'1 ,.,'r;!.:.. :3:

w. .,. .._. .,.

'5.

.T..L‘w~m

‘~J:'v nv'u "r-

v}? I.

'5‘ , r

T.

’..

-.2

l .m 1

r2

r

.. "5..“

_v-\

"u:.v -

.

.

M

u

.

.

 

I

LIBRARY

“sauna State

University

 

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

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

   

 

 

IV

 

  

 

F

I
I

 

 

 

i

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  
 
  

 

  

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

czwmmnma-p.‘

 

 

 

IMPLICATIONS OF TEACHER EMPOWERMENT IN STAFF DEVELOPMENT

TOWARD READING CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION

BY

Marlene Joy Willink Braunius

VOLUME II

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

College of Education

1991

 

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

This

fourth

chapter

will

describe

and

interpret

findings related to empowerment and staff development toward

reading curriculum implementation.

The descriptions and

interpretations will identify areas that answer previously

stated research questions (Chapter 1), are consistent with

precedent literature (Chapter 2), and have emerged during

the various activities/situations of this research (Chapter

3).

Because the issue of teacher empowerment permeates my

research

data,

its

evidences

within

the

district

in

relationship to the work of the Reading Study Committee will

first be specifically noted.

Subsequent to that will be a

discussion of the kind of support,

or staff development

toward reading curriculum implementation, that is congruent

with the principles of teacher empowerment.

The following structure will be used in this chapter to

describe the findings of the research.

First, the raw data

will be interpreted in the light of literature on teacher

empowerment and staff development.

I will draw from Maeroff

(1988, 1989) as a primary source on teacher empowerment and

from Loucks-Horsley et al.

(1987) as a primary source on

staff development.

In conjunction with the latter, the

responses of individuals in the district to three types of

206

 

 

207

staff development (outside expert, on-site expert, and

humanistic

teacher

center)

will

also

be

cited,

with

particular attention paid to the pre—and post-participation

comments from those who were part of the humanistic teacher

center group.

At the conclusion of this chapter will be a

report of questionnaire findings from two national polls on

teacher

decision-making.

The

responses

of

the

Omega

classroom teachers and the Reading Support Group members to

those same questions will be compared.

Teacher Empowerment

The research questions proposed in Chapter 1, which

will be addressed in this section on teacher empowerment,

are these:

1.

How does one district attempt

to empower its

teachers for reading curriculum change?

2.

What happens when these teachers become involved in

the governance process?

How do they react to an empowerment

structure?

3.

How do teachers and administrators in this district

View

teacher

empowerment?

What

does

it

mean for

the

district’s administrators,

teachers, and, ultimately,

the

students?

4.

When do these teachers feel empowered?

How do they

feel about the amount of control

they’ have/do not have?

What are the conditions that deter/encourage professional

growth and development within this setting?

I will first examine the three components which Maeroff

claims are essential

if empowerment is to take place.

Whether consciously or unconsciously, it can be demonstrated

that

the

Omega district has

followed Maeroff’s

(1988a)

"blueprint"

for

empowering

its

teachers:

the

data

are

replete

with

examples

of

these

components

(status,

 
 

 

knowledge, and power) in the specific context of the work of

208

the district’s Reading Study Committee.

Evidences of Empowerment.

Boosting

Status.

Three

major

ways

in

which

the

district is attempting to boost the status of its teachers

are evident.

First,

administrative

support

is being given.

An

overview of

the

events which led to the present state

illustrate this point: the Superintendent of Schools caught

the vision through his previous research and experiences as

Curriculum

Director

in

a

former

school

district;

the

Superintendent shared his vision with the Board of Education

and the Curriculum Council; the Curriculum Council passed

the vision on to teachers through a proposed Curriculum

Reorganization effort; the district’s teachers were asked to

give input into the Curriculum Reorganization efforts; the

call went forth from the Curriculum Council for volunteers

to serve on a Reading Study Committee, the first Curriculum

Writing

Committee;

the

Board

of

Education

hired

the

Curriculum

Council

Chairperson

for

the

newly-created

position of Curriculum Director; the new Curriculum Director

stated that the Reading Study Committee's work was to be

"Teacher initiated, teacher led, teacher developed, teacher

assessed/monitored."

The Curriculum Director explicitly spoke to the Reading

Study Committee of support front the top:

"I went to the

Board of Education Curriculum Committee, and they were very

 

209

receptive.

I was encouraged by that.

[The Superintendent]

is in our corner." [Fieldnotes, 2/9/89]

The Reading Study

Committee chairperson also received positive feedback from

the Board of Education in her two presentations on behalf of

the Committee.

[Audiotape transcript, 4/17/89, Fieldnotes,

2/12/90]

The Curriculum Director himself promised his support in

several ways as noted in the Reading Study Committee Meeting

vignette, where he gave his viewpoint on broad and specific

curricular issues, offered his secretarial staff "to help

with the

’nitty—gritty’

things that turn teachers off,"

served as liaison between the Reading Study Committee and

the

Board

of

Education,

provided

amenities,

validated

Chloe’s leadership and met with her regularly to discuss the

Committee’s future direction, encouraged feedback and input

from Committee members, and verbally praised the efforts of

the Committee.

Maeroff (1989) specifically states that the "good will

and understanding of principals is essential if empowerment

is to take root" (p.

9).

On the basis of my participant

observations,

interviews, and site document collection,

I

concluded that although they show their support in various

ways and in differing degrees,

the elementary' principals

are, indeed, attempting to boost teacher status by exerting

efforts to provide a supportive climate in which the process

of teacher empowerment can take root.

To illustrate that

point, during my interview with each principal, a decision

 

210

which they had made jointly during the previous summer was

brought up.

Washington’s principal is quoted here:

During the summer, the elementary principals met to set

goals for the coming year.

Reading was the number one

goal.

For me, that means to support the Reading Study

Committee with inservice time, materials, and budget

.

. [Interview transcript, 2/15/89]

By putting the work of the Reading Study Committee on

such

a

pedestal,

however,

it

became

evident

that

the

principals’

own agendas had to be rearranged.

For one

principal,

this

meant that he

intentionally held

fewer

faculty meetings throughout the 1988-1989 school year in

order to encourage his teachers to attend the voluntary

Reading Strategy Inservices.

Another principal allotted at

least ten minutes of each faculty meeting time for Reading

Study Committee updates.

The third principal/Chapter I

director allowed reading teachers release time to plan for

the inservices.

One of these principals explicitly stated the need for

the

administration to

actively support teacher-initiated

change:

I would say that there are staff people, professional

teachers, who have been pushing for the need to have

changes--teachers themselves.

Some of them are reading

teachers, and the classroom teachers have felt, “Some-

thing’s got to be done [in reading]."

And that’s going

to be the most effective way.

And I think our role as

administrators has to be supportive, keeping in touch

with research and materials that are available,

[as

well as] what’s going on in the classroom.

But a

forced change will not be as effective

as what I think

is happening now.

It’s pretty much a grass-roots

desire. [Fieldnotes, 2/15/89]

As

can

be

seen,

administrative

support

is

being

deliberately and overtly given to the district’s teachers.

 

211

The second way in which the district is attempting to

boost

teacher

status

is

through

the

encouragement

of

internal

leadership.

Not

only

are

the

district

administrators giving support, but they are also beginning

to acknowledge local teachers as the educational authorities

in reading curriculum change by actively encouraging them to

assume leadership roles.

This can be seen in the Curriculum

Reorganization,

where

department/chair

subgroupings

have

internal

Chairpersons

who

are

remunerated

for

their

additional responsibilities.

It can also be seen in the

effort

to

encourage

leadership

for

the

Reading

Study

Committee from within the volunteer ranks rather than with

administrative personnel as had previously been the case.

In both instances, off-site training was provided for these

individuals in the work of leadership and curriculum through

giving them opportunities to attend specifically-designed

workshops and relevant conferences.

Utilizing the expertise of on-site personnel (reading

teachers,

Reading Study Committee members,

and classroom

teachers)

to

conduct

district

inservices

was

not

only

condoned, but it was publicly acknowledged.

The district’s

public relations newspaper, the elementary staff bulletins,

the Reading Study Committee’s newsletter,

the Curriculum

Director’s presentations in other communities all praised

the work of "us teaching us" and the grassroots efforts of

"spreading from peer to peer and colleague to colleague."

These illustrate the encouragement of internal leadership.

 

212

The third way in which attempts are being made to boost

teacher status is through eliciting and addressing teachers’

needs.

The

fact

is

being acknowledged that

classroom

teachers have concerns

and that these concerns must be

recognized and resolved.

The district is listening for and

to the teacher's voice as it pertains to the Reading Study

Committee membership itself, to the Reading Needs Assessment

and Reading Curriculum Guide Evaluation given to the entire

elementary teaching staff,

and to the ways in which the

reading teachers are offering support to classroom teachers.

The Reading Study Committee vignette gives examples of

the ways in which the opinions of the membership are brought

to light.

Their input was requested on matters of the

district reading philosophy ("Look at this rough draft and

decide

if

you

think

that’s

what

our committee

is

all

about"), subcommittee membership ("We need to talk and think

about where we are right now"), reactions to the inservices

("I wanted to ask just quickly for any feedback on the

strategy

inservices

that

you

got"),

and

plans

for

the

writing of the curriculum guide ("will it be release time or

summer

sessions?").

The

Curriculum Director

explicitly

stated:

We welcome your input.

I think that’s the thing we

need to think through.

[The chairperson] needs to

think through the direction,

"Where do we go

from

here?"

[She will] talk to you. personally and say,

"What do you want to do? How do you want to proceed

from here?"

Yes, there are some tasks

‘that

we

can

fulfill, meaningful, good hard work. [Fieldnotes,

1/17/89]

 

 
 

213

The needs of classroom teachers are taken seriously by

the

Committee.

The

compilation

of

their

concerns

as

expressed on the Needs Assessment was discussed:

I know trade books are very popular, and the literature

base

is,

too,

but we still have that big core of

teachers-~90%--who want that structure that the basal

will provide them, even those teachers who are totally

using trade books now.

They say that they would still

like the structure of the basal and then go out from

there and expand it.

[Fieldnotes, 1/17/89]

Teacher input was also sought for the writing of the

curriculum

guide,

itself,

through

specific

grade-level

reports to the appropriate Committee membership.

As one

member stated, “We took what teachers already were doing in

the field of reading and expanded on it to fit. the New

Definition of

Reading."

[Fieldnotes,

10/20/89]

Written

comments on the rough draft of the reading curriculum guide

were

solicited,

compiled,

and

made

available

to

the

Committee, as well.

Classroom teachers took advantage of the fact that the

local trainers were available to give ongoing assistance and

support as the need arose:

When they have trouble, they come to us.

[E.g.,] after

they introduce the four parts [of Reciprocal Teaching]

to the whole class, then they aren’t sure how to do it

and [have children] take turns being the teacher and

how to manage and still keep it interesting. [Interview

transcript, 2/3/89]

The fact that local trainers are being used makes it

possible for immediate support to come in at least three

different ways: the provision of materials (handouts in the

inservice sessions and additional pertinent materials as the

need

arises

between

sessions),

the

sharing

of

ideas,

 

214

successes,

and

difficulties

(again,

both

within

the

inservice

sessions

and

between

sessions),

and

the

demonstration of techniques within classrooms, as one had

done:

[A teacher] didn’t feel like he knew enough from the

half hour,

so I’m going to go in and help him this

week.

I’ll introduce the two harder ones to his whole

class, and we’ll cancel my reading group from his room

during that time.

Then he'll do the next two.

[Interview transcript, 2/3/89]

As can be seen, the Reading Study Committee members are

told that their opinions are valued, the elementary staff’s

collective assessment of

its

needs

is prominent in the

decision-making process, and the unique concerns of teachers

are being dealt with in a personal way by support staff.

In

summary,

then,

boosting

status

occurs

as

administrative

support

is

being

given,

as

internal

leadership is being encouraged, and as teachers’ needs are

being elicited and addressed.

Increasing Knowledge. Within this second of Maeroff’s

components, three major areas can again be identified as the

knowledge base is being built.

The first way that knowledge is increased is through

the conscious attempt to

inform the district’s decision

makers.

These decision makers are the Curriculum Director,

the Reading Study Committee members, elementary classroom

teachers, administrators, the Board of Education, and the

community.

The methods used for informing the decision

makers are through both external (conferences, inservices,

coursework,

own

professional

reading)

and

internal

 

215

(Curriculum Director, reading personnel, Committee members)

experts.

This

occurs

on-site

(newsletters,

modeling,

presentations, word-of-mouth) and in other locales.

Several

examples are given in the Staff Development section which

follows.

The second way in which knowledge is being increased is

directly

related

to

the

fact that

local

personnel

are

becoming trainers.

The district reading consultants, along

with members of the committee, prepared themselves through

conferences,

their own

reading,

practice/experience,

and

dialogue.

When I asked both the principals and the reading

teachers how that leadership role had come about, who had

"authorized" it, their responses indicated that the origin

of the flow was not from a top-down, authoritarian, external

locus of control, but rather, from a bottom-up, autonomous,

internal locus of control.

The latter can be seen by the

fact that this leadership is attributed to two sources, both

teacher-centered.

One principal put it this way:

I believe it’s two-pronged.

From the Reading Study

Committee who said,

"We ought to

do

some of these

inservice things."

And maybe

it’s coincidental that

it’s the reading teachers themselves, maybe they took

it over.

So I guess the main thrust may have come from

the Reading Study Committee and was then given to the

reading teachers. [Interview transcript, 2/15/89]

The reading teachers confirmed his diagnosis when they

said that they had assumed the role on the basis of their

training and their confidence in the strategies’ potential

to improve student learning.

.. 7 7

,

_.

-

_ ~ 7

j:._.'

11:99:15"

'r.-_._--!=A1

 

216

Another principal also talked of the leadership 'the

reading teachers had demonstrated in the inservices:

So these ladies took it upon themselves after all this

talk, and knowing that it needed to be done and that

they were the most knowledgeable with those strategies,

since they had been to the workshops and had used some

of them.

They worked their tail off and got them

planned.

I think the thing here that’s important is

that they didn't go to the Curriculum Council to get

official backing so that they could have it during

school time, or they didn't go to get official backing

to have an inservice day.

They saw the parameters and

the teachers were saying, "We don’t want to be out of

our classrooms."

They listened, and [asked], "What is

the need?"

They made those decisions.

I don't know

how,

but

they

made

those

decisions.

[Interview

transcript, 2/9/89]

This "teachers teaching teachers" model was looked upon

so favorably within the district that the Reading Study

Committee chairperson informed the Board of Education that

this process would continue:

Basically,

we

plan

on

doing

a

lot

of

in-house

inservices on not only the strategies, but whatever we

come up with on our reading curriculum to let people

know what we’re doing, how they can implement it, and

monitor the program once it’s in place to make sure

it’s going along smoothly, to make sure it’s meeting

the students’ needs, the teachers’ needs.

I

think

inservice, though, is a real key, and on our survey ,

teachers really ask for

[it].

The two things they

asked for most were inservice and quality tools to do

their job, materials that were effective and up-to-

date.

[Audiotape transcript, 4/17/89]

The third aspect of increasing knowledge is through the

fact

that

the

elementary

classroom

teachers

and

administrators are being educated through Reading Strategy

Inservices.

The

Reciprocal

Teaching

Information

and

Debriefing Sessions portrayed as vignettes in the previous

chapter

give

a

visual

picture

of

what

the "in-house

 

217

inservices"

looked

like.

These

will

be

discussed

in

greater detail under the Staff Development section.

In summary, knowledge is increasing as decision makers

are being informed, local personnel are becoming trainers,

and Reading Strategy Inservices are being conducted.

Providing

Access

to

Decision-Making.

This

third

category of Maeroff can be illustrated with three subpoints,

as well.

The first aspect of providing access to decision-making

can be seen as collaboration is being facilitated.

This is

evident in several ways within the district.

The Reading

Study Committee members are collaborating to make decisions

regarding the district’s reading curriculum,

the reading

teachers are collaborating to make decisions regarding the

inservices, and the elementary teachers are collaborating to

solve

their

questions

and

concerns

regarding

strategic

inservice implementation.

That

the

Reading

Study

Committee

members

are

collaborating to make decisions regarding the district’s

reading

curriculum

can

be

seen

in

the

Reading

Study

Committee Meeting vignette presented earlier, especially as

input is requested and difficult issues are discussed.

One

member

of

the

Committee

gave

his

perspective

on

that

collaboration:

On the inservice of all teachers, [the Committee] kept

talking about, "How do we pass this knowledge on?

How

do we get our peers to use it?"

It’s radical!

It’s

much different from what we’ve been doing!

It’s going

to mean a big change in [teachers’] philosophies and

practices.

Practices--that’s the big thing.

And we

 

I.

.

.7?

-

.-c moneys!)

-

K

.

.-'N 35

 

218

talked and we talked and we talked:

"How can we do

it?"

Well, they kept looking at it, and I’m not sure

how it evolved, but at one of the meetings I remember

sitting there,

and they were saying,

"What are we

going to do the following year?

We’ve got to run some

inservices for our teachers.

How do we do that?"

[Interview transcript, 2/9/89]

The reading teachers themselves talked about the amount

of

time

they

had

spent together collaborating to make

decisions relating to the inservice presentations.

They

alone took the burden of deciding what strategies to present

and how to present them,

realizing that,

although they

possessed

knowledge

and materials,

there was

still

the

necessity' to integrate and adapt. this information to ‘the

realities of the district.

They also made visual aids

(posters, charts), tracked down audiovisual materials, and

prepared and collated the multiple pages of handouts.

This

was done in frequent meetings primarily on their own time,

in addition to teaching a full case load of remedial reading

students.

Two

administrators

said

that

they might have

done

things differently had they been consulted:

one felt that

both information giving and training for implementation were

too much to expect within the constraints of a half hour

presentation,

and the other felt that the order of the

topics was different from what he would have chosen.

Each,

however, gave the reading teachers the benefit of the doubt

and expressed trust in their professional judgment.

Classroom teachers were also collaborating to solve the

problems they encountered in attempting to implement ‘the

 

219

strategies,

as

is

evident

in

the

Debriefing

Session

vignette.

This was done by sharing their own successes,

failures and adaptations, by referring back to the printed

materials, and by words of encouragement.

The second way iJi which access to decision—making is

being provided is through. the collegiality’ that is being

developed

as

teachers

connect

with

their

peers

on

a

professional level during the voluntary inservice meetings.

Again, many examples of this can be seen in the Debriefing

vignette.

Just the fact that these teachers were there at

all denotes collegiality, as one administrator noted:

It should not be voluntary, everybody should have to

go, everybody needs it.

The best is to have it [on

release time],

but

it

is easier this way,

because

they’re saying to each other and their peers, “This is

important."

The message they're giving is, "We are a

group.

We're Omega teachers.“

So I think, together as

a team, trying to build that team--here we’re headed

toward something.

[Interview transcript, 2/9/89]

The Curriculum Director also spoke positively of the

collegiality within one Committee meeting:

The

strategies,

teacher

inservices,

the

getting

together

with

various

elementaries

is

absolutely

dynamite .

.

. The demonstrations of the strategies,

the sharing of experiences, the talking about the way

we do our reading business is absolutely great

.

.

.

Talking about theory, talking about teaching, talking

about feedback and evaluation.

I just don’t know that

you can do any better than that!

[Fieldnotes, 2/9/89]

The third aspect of providing access to decision-making

relates

to

the

fact

that

power

is

being

shared.

Administrators

are

sharing

their

power

with

teachers,

reading teachers

are

sharing their power with classroom

 

220

teachers,

and classroom. teachers are sharing their power

with students.

Administrators are sharing their power with teachers,

albeit,

sometimes

with

a

bit

of

uncertainty,

as

one

principal admits:

Now, I’m not sure where the principal stands .

.

. Now

we have these grade group and department chairs, and in

the curriculum areas we’re trying to work that out,

because we want [teachers] to be facilitators.

So as

three elementary principals, we’ re having problems

.

.

I want to know what’s going on in curriculum,

[but] I really don’t know what

[teachers]

are

doing.

I

have

some

ideas,

the

strengths

and

weaknesses, and so forth, but I have to trust them in

the things that I do see to support that.

[Interview

transcript, 2/9/89]

One example of such shared power occurred in my initial

visit to the field, when one reading teacher told me that

she had talked with her principal the previous day about her

discomfiture with the fact that her Awareness Session was

billed

as

the

final

item on

a

20-item faculty meeting

agenda.

He told her that he would see what he could do.

At

the

7:45

a.m.

faculty

meeting,

that

principal

quickly

highlighted or dismissed the preceding items, and fifteen

minutes later, he said to her, "The rest of the morning is

yours." [Fieldnotes, 11/1/89]

The fact that reading teachers are sharing their power

with

classroom

teachers

can

be

demonstrated

in

the

Reciprocal Teaching Information and Debriefing vignettes.

In the Information Session, the reading teacher shared the

stage with a

classroom teacher and gave her the tools

(overhead transparencies,

packets of materials)

ahead of

 

221

time to prepare her for her task, while in the Debriefing

Session, this same reading teacher put aside her own agenda

so that priority could be placed upon the attendees’ own

attempts to implement the strategy in the preceding weeks.

One principal spoke, as well, of a "professional decision"

which had been made by another reading teacher to change the

content of her agenda to meet the expressed concerns related

to the relevance of the strategies to the participants’

grade levels.

Classroom teachers are also sharing their power with

students.

This was especially evident in the instance of

the Reciprocal Teaching strategy, where the ultimate goal is

that

children

eventually

assume

the

role

of

teacher.

Respondents

to

my

Reciprocal

Teaching

Participants’

Questionnaire

intimated that they were aware that their

students are being empowered:

"The teacher is trying not to

be a dictator.

Hopefully, we’re sharing responsibilities,

and I think that's the aim of the

[Reciprocal Teaching

strategy] anyway." [Interview transcript, 3/1/89]

Teachers

see

that

the

new

strategies

have

helped

children to take an active role in their own learning,

another empowerment issue:

[The new strategies] make them more aware that they’re

here to learn, and it’s not I’m here to learn reading,

but they’re here to learn reading, so they take more

responsibility for it. [Interview transcript, 3/1/89]

In summary, there are three ways in which access to

decision—making is provided in this setting: collaboration

-.:.-—-;-

:=: main“:

 

222

is being facilitated, collegiality is being developed, and

power is being shared.

In this section, I have drawn from the Reading Study

Committee’s activities to identify those situations which

demonstrate the components of boosting status,

increasing

knowledge, and providing access to decision making, which

Maeroff

has

claimed

are

the

underpinnings

for

teacher

empowerment.

When I mentioned these three characteristics to 'the

Omega district’s Curriculum Director,

he stated that he

would add

a fourth characteristic;

i.e.,

celebration of

success:

"I think it’s really important that we recognize

the workers, the people who put their elbows down and can

get the job done." [Fieldnotes, 7/26/90]

He spoke of the

custom

he

had

initiated

of

taking

the members

of

the

Committee out to a local restaurant for dinner just before

they went en masse to present the Curriculum guide they had

written corporately to the Board of Education.

He also said

that he was contemplating purchasing special curriculum pins

to be given those who were part of any one of the many

curriculum "writes."

My conclusion to his statements are

that these efforts to "recognize the workers," rather than

forming

a

separate

category,

would well

correlate with

Maeroff’s category of “boosting status."

The

reactions

to

teacher

empowerment

within

this

setting will now be identified.

,

'

,

i

" '

”I“: 7'

7

-

:

t

"13:;- Mz.-.

13031.... I

-r --._ ".vnyqqe

 

Reactions togfimpowerment.

223

How do teachers and administrators in this district

view teacher empowerment?

Their mixed reactions to teacher

empowerment can be associated with the following facts:

empowerment

represents

a

change

in

the

status

quo,

empowerment

shifts

authority

and

responsibility,

and

empowerment takes time.

The

first

issue

deals

with the

fact that teacher

empowerment reflects a change in the status quo.

This looks

at attitudes toward change itself, as well as the social

realities

and

the

dailiness

of

teaching

about

which

Lieberman and Miller (1979) wrote.

The Superintendent, who had witnessed the effectiveness

of

teachers making decisions

about curricular issues as

"dynamite"

in his previous district,

was initially taken

aback by the apparent apathy of the Omega staff to his

writing mandate.

By planting the seed of discontent prior

to the Curriculum Reorganization attempt, by educating the

Board of Education, and by placing key people in strategic

spots, the Superintendent had been preparing the soil for

years, according to the Curriculum Director’s assessment.

[Audiotape

transcript,

7/27/90]

Consequently,

the

Superintendent's reaction to the change was one of deep

satisfaction.

For him,

an eight-year effort had finally

begun to reach fruition:

"[the Superintendent’s]

in our

corner."

[Fieldnotes,

1/17/89]

The

Superintendent

also

expressed

to

me

the

fact

that

he

was

aware

of

the

 

224

implications: once teachers gain power, it is difficult for

them to release it. [Fieldnotes, 6/5/90]

The Curriculum Director was the administrator who was

most directly involved with the more overt and visible

attempts at empowering teachers, i.e., writing the various

curriculum guides.

He spoke of his allotted. budget for

curriculum as being a "sacred cow," from which the Board

could not dip to buy a new bus or to balance out another

financial shortfall.

He interpreted that to be evidence of

the Board’s approval for the work being done. He also spoke

of the fact that the Board had been "excited and impressed"

with the resultant curriculum guides. [Audiotape, 7/27/90]

The Curriculum Director expressed his own pleasure with

the professional way in which teachers were reacting to

their

new

responsibilities

related

to

expenditures

and

collegiality.

He was pleased that many of the decisions in

the district were now being made by those closest to the

action, by classroom teachers who will directly affect what

goes on in the classroom.

He said that he was encouraged by

the caution with which they carefully analyzed first their

resource needs ("That’s different from their wants"), thus

justifying

his

faith

in

their

decision

making

ability

regarding

expenditures.

In

addition,

he

spoke

with

enthusiasm

about

the

group

power,

peer

support,

and

professional

dialogue

that

was

occurring

during

the

curriculum writing activities.

 

225

Under

the

umbrella

of

teacher

empowerment,

Omega

teachers were being asked to reform their thinking and

practice toward the organizational structure, as well as the

philosophy, methods, and materials of reading instruction.

Teachers, who had formerly been accustomed to being private

and isolated from their peers, were now put into working

relationships with them as they accepted responsibility for

a major joint project.

This required that they learn to

work with their peers in collegial and collaborative ways.

In

addition

to

breaking

down

their

own

isolation

and

building supportive networks, this also demanded that they

take risks and expose themselves to each other.

One teacher

who worked on another curriculum "write" confided to me:

"They’ve said to us, ’You’re the experts.

You do it.

Who

wants to work on this area?’

We begin with our strengths

and then go from there.

There’s a lot of feeling of panic,

because we have to take the finished product to our peers."

[Fieldnotes, 10/20/89]

Empowerment

also

shifts

power

and

responsibility.

Teachers and administrators have to be prepared to assume

new roles.

Teachers writing the reading curriculum needed

to

be

willing

to

give

themselves

to

many

hours

of

subcommittee and committee work, as well as additional time

for informing themselves of the issues.

Many of them needed to take leadership roles outside

their own classrooms that they had never before adopted.

The Reading Study Committee chairperson, Chloe, was one of

 

226

these individuals.

She asked to meet with me at least four

times during the first year of the study to talk of various

issues:

the

role

of

the

Curriculum

Director

and

what

could/should be expected of him in the way of support; the

role of the members of the Committee who, while they were

developing a common mission, demonstrated both distrust and

impatience

at

times;

and

the

role

of

the

district

elementary teachers to the Committee.

In regard. to 'the

latter,

Chloe

asked

five

individuals

to

gather

some

background data from their grade level peers as a starting

point for the Committee’s summer write.

One of them wrote

back to her in protest:

1.

What you want is the job of the committee;

2.

3.

4.

We don’t know what you want;

This is terrible timing;

Who made the decision?

Who does make decisions?

It seems like someone is shooting themselves in the

foot or [there is]

just not a good communication

line.

[Site document, 5/5/89]

Reading teachers, especially, had assumed much of the

responsibility for planning and carrying out the inservices.

This turned out to

be somewhat disempowering for

them,

however: "There was not much of a choice not to:

there was

the choice of how to but not whether to."

[Interview

transcript, 2/3/89]

The changing responsibilities for the reading teachers

resulted in

a greater work load as they sought to add

reading staff development to an already full-time case load

of remedial reading students.

They experienced a great deal

of ambivalence regarding that dual role: on the one hand,

 

227

they were committed to staff development, but on the other

hand, they felt "put upon" because they were having to do so

much additional preparation without having either financial

or time remuneration ("Even grade group Chairpersons and

coaches of sports get an extra $2,000-4,000 per year for

their work").

[Interview transcript, 2/3/89]

I felt their intense commitment ("I eat and sleep it"),

their fears--and. tears ("It’s so difficult to present to

one’s peers.

Ifin a basket case the whole week before"),

their frustration

("Sometimes

I think,

’What is my main

responsibility here?’

Here I am with the kids I see daily,

and yet I have this many teachers that I’m preparing for on

the side.

And that is something new to me, so it seems more

dominant.

I am really pressured in both of those areas"),

their exhaustion ("I’ll be dead by the end of the year if I

have to do another

inservice").

Principals, nevertheless, made note of the personal and

professional

growth

in

these

reading

teachers

as

they

enacted their new roles.

This was expressly stated by two

administrators in regard to Shar:

I always thought of Shar as being the most shy and

quiet of the group,

but she was great today!

She

really jumped in there and was assertive.

I really

liked the way she did it all together like that at the

end.

I never would have thought of that.

Just think

what this is doing to those three reading teachers!

[Fieldnotes, 2/22/89]

I

think

she

was

nervous

[at

the

inservice

presentations], but she’s really starting to blossom.

Sometimes we have to be forced into those situations

. [Interview transcript, 3/28/89]

 

228

The attendance at the Reading Strategic Inservices was

an issue which proved to be problematic.

Although it was

billed as "voluntary," a great deal of emphasis was placed

upon the percentage of attendance, which was consistently

portrayed as being higher than it actually was (the numbers

90-95 percent were constantly bandied about; my calculations

ranged from 68—76 percent).

In that vein, at least five

members of the Reading Study Committee explicitly discussed

their discontentment over the fact that two of the grade

group Chairpersons had not attended the

inservices.

A

complaint was registered with the Curriculum Director, who

said,

"I’ll

take

care

of

it."

The

two

grade

group

Chairpersons were at the following meeting.

It is probable

that their leadership responsibilities had been appealed to,

since during the next school year the new reading curriculum

guide would be discussed in grade group sessions, something

which would potentially be difficult if the leadership were

uninformed.

Whatever method was used behind the scenes, the

"desired" outcome was achieved.

The question may be asked,

"How

empowered

did

these

two

individuals

feel

in

this

situation?"

This area of enforcement is an issue that needs to be

addressed within a teacher-empowered setting.

How can the

topic be addressed without "disempowering" individuals?

If

all of this is done by volunteers, what happens when the

time comes to ensure that the curriculum guide is followed

and not

just put on the shelf or in

a drawer,

as had

 

229

previously

occurred?

Who makes

the

decision

regarding

implementation

and

evaluation:

the

Curriculum

Director,

building

principals,

the

Reading

Study

Committee

chairperson,

or

peers?

How

will

articulation

and

consistency and continuity be addressed?

The Curriculum

Director said, "I’ve already had teachers tell me, ’I’m not

going to use [the new textbook].

Go ahead and adopt one,

but I’m not going to use it.’ That’s my problem.

So that’s

difficult." [Fieldnotes, 1/17/89]

Administrators needed to trust teachers to areas that

they had previously controlled and for which they had been

responsible.

This was true especially in chairing committee

meetings.

The Curriculum Director said at one time that he

was unsure whether the Committee was where it should be, and

that he needed to be patient.

Principals also expressed

confusion as to their roles.

One principal specifically

said

that

he

had

to

"take

a

back

seat,"

"go

into

a

nosedive," "go from the visible to the invisible," "wait for

them to tell me what they wanted me to do."

In spite of the fact that the administrators stated

that they were consciously attempting to provide support,

their attempts were not always interpreted in that way.

For

example, at the Reading Support Group Information Meeting,

one teacher mentioned that her principal had allowed her to

spend workbook money on tradebooks.

Later, however,

she

related to me that this had not. worked out as had. been

 

230

planned or promised: funding dried up before her allotment

of moneys was spent.

Teachers

were

not

reluctant

to

make

public

their

concerns about the perceived lack of support in front of the

administrators themselves.

One individual related a time

when she had stated the need for administrative support in

the presence of the district superintendent:

Bonnie: Well, [the superintendent] was in there when I

was making my statement,

"You’re pushing too much at

us too

fast.

And what’s going to happen is that

people are going to throw up their arms and say,

’I

can’t do it!’"

Laura: How did he respond to that?

Bonnie: [He was] just listening.

[Fieldnotes,

10/23/89]

Later,

both Karina

and

Bonnie

explicitly expressed

their concerns about a perceived lack of administrative

understanding and support,

in spite of the fact that the

principal of their school was sitting in the session:

Karina: I don’t think administrators realize this--how

much hand-holding is needed

.

.

.

If the district

thinks that it’s important for this kind of thing to

go on,

and if the district regards its teachers as

professionals, it would seem to me that it would not

be

unfeasible

to

make

some

provision

that

would

facilitate

those

persons

meeting

together

who

voluntarily chose to during the week somehow.

The

pioneers are willing to do it, come what may, but for

everyone to get into this kind of thing, it’s something

that the adminstration backs

up and makes

it much

easier to do than it is right now, because right now

it’s hard to do.

Bonnie:

There’s got to be a time release.

They’ve got

to deem it necessary that they’ve got a time release,

because some of us will say,

"Hey, look, I spent all

my time and I went to those before-school meetings,"

and, you know, we can pat ourselves on the back for

doing that, but .

.

.

Truda: Not on a regular basis.

Bonnie: No, and I think if the administration thinks it

is important enough, then they’ve got to give us time-

release.

[Fieldnotes, 12/12/89]

 

231

At

one

Curriculum

Council

Meeting,

the

Curriculum

Director showed a sensitivity to this issue in his beginning

statement:

Teachers are feeling like a lot is happening, a lot is

being asked of them in the change process; for example,

school improvement, curriculum guides, core curriculum.

The concern was brought up at the last meeting, but

there wasn’t enough time.

We will allow people time

to talk today .

.

. Thank you for bringing this issue

before us.

Curriculum is not a one-legged giant: the

second leg is staff development.

It has not been

addressed,

but

it

needs

to

be.

We

need

to

be

proactive,

not reactive,

in this area.

[Fieldnotes,

12/14/89]

The most frequently-articulated difficulty in the area

of teacher empowerment was that of time.

As was stated

earlier, the Superintendent said that it had taken eight

years for the concept to come to this point, and “the Board

was

impatient at times."

The Curriculum Reorganization

efforts took time to take effect, since teacher input was

first

solicited.

The Curriculum Director spoke of

a

conversation with the Superintendent, where the expectation

was stated that the work of the Reading Study’ Committee

would take a minimum of two years.

By the time of the curriculum write, six Reading Study

Committee

members

had

resigned

because

of

what

they

interpreted to be an unreasonable amount of time:

"Why do

we have to get their input?

Why don’t we just tell them

what to do?

We’re wasting taxpayers’ money.

Teachers are

laughing at us behind our backs," [Audiotape, 8/6/88] was

the way one frustrated member said at her final meeting.

A

principal said, "Teachers are expecting to have basals this

I

  

  

.93“. '19? :aaou-u-m- 01:11:!" ".41!

.‘n1 a nut pair-e! m

u a: I .mp1: 2.:

u.

no.1! 10 m

.:wfu:'7h*.- a: 91m: .

-.- .J- ..u.

-: 1....

. 'nmutwo'mll

  

:‘UI'J

.:-;n‘".::‘|

.'.-r-..

I"

.-

=1."

-'

-:

-.;._

-

-

-

-

:.

'~.:.-- 21.9mm

-

-.'-'.-

d‘nanlo

    

-

-.

.

.

Eta? a,

'

'.1 {fl

 
  

232

fall.

Now what are they going to say when we have to go

back and tell them it won’t be for at least another year?

What will happen to our before-school meetings if teachers

don’t get their basals?

They’ll

just fizzle out, won’t

they?"

[Interview

transcript,

3/17/89]

Both

classroom

teachers and reading teachers expressed reticence to return

to the teachers in their building without a textbook.

It was evident that empowerment increases the time

demands on teachers,

those on the Committee,

those who

attended the inservices, and those who have to find time to

fit new strategies into an already-filled curriculum.

Many

saw the new curriculum guides as additional isolated pieces,

rather than as part of an integrated whole.

It took time to educate members of the committee as

well as classroom teachers, to gather materials for training

and

implementation,

to write the curriculum,

to receive

input on the curriculum guide, and to make decisions related

to materials.

In

short,

there

are

realities

that

have

arisen

surrounding the topic of teacher empowerment and reactions

to it within the Omega district: empowerment changes the

status quo, empowerment shifts power, and empowerment takes

time.

Omega elementary teacher perceptions of their own

empowerment,

elicited

from

two

nation-wide

empowerment-

focused

questionnaires,

will

be

relayed,

compared,

and

discussed at the conclusion of this chapter.

 

233

Staff Development

The

guiding

staff

development

research

questions

proposed in Chapter 1 are listed belOW’ according' to the

various groups and/or activities described in Chapter 3:

Reading Study Committee.

1.

How

does

this

Committee,

billed

as

"teacher

initiated,

teacher

led,

teacher

directed,

and

teacher

assessed/monitored" carry out its duties?

2.

What process does the Committee undergo in order to

inform itself about current reading research and practice?

3.

What kind of situations will be experienced as

teachers attempt to plan and implement reading curriculum

change?

4.

How do these attempts at staff development cause

the Committee members to feel empowered/disempowered?

Reading Strategic Inservices.

1.

What kind of staff development efforts does the

Committee

propose

to

prepare

and

equip

the

elementary

teaching staff for reading curriculum change?

2.

Who determines what is to be taught?

How is that

knowledge disseminated?

3.

How does what happens within this setting compare

to characteristics of traditional inservices?

How does it

compare to the identified characteristics of "effective"

staff development?

4.

What

is

the

impact

of

this

kind

of

staff

development on teacher empowerment?

Reading Support Group.

1.

What will

happen when a group of teachers is

provided with

the opportunity for engaging in

critical

reflection of teaching reading with each other?

2.

Who becomes a part of

the proposed voluntary

Reading Support Group?

What rationale do these individuals

give for participating in the group?

What are the perceived

needs of these teachers as they seek to implement a new

reading program?

3.

How does what happens in this setting differ from

traditional inservices or continuing teacher education?

How

does it differ from the Reading Strategic Inservices?

In

what ways does this type of staff development facilitate or

impede teacher empowerment?

4.

What are the results when the balance of power and

influence in research-based staff development is moved from

the researcher and her findings to teachers as initiators

and key decision-makers for their own professional growth?

234

In this area of staff development, precedent literature

will again help to focus the raw data.

Loucks-Horsley et

al.

(1987)

will

be

consulted

for

characteristics

of

effective staff development.

In addition, Devaney (1977)

will give congruent humanistic teacher center distinctives,

and

Hall

(1975)

will

give

implementation of

innovation

insights.

Going back to the third goal in the original Omega

Curriculum Reorganization

document

("Defining

inservice

education needs of the staff and addressing those needs in

an organized way" [Site document, 11/20/86J), the question

that the district is now facing as many new curriculum

guides

are

being

written

almost

simultaneously

is

the

necessity

of

meeting

the

inservice

needs

of

classroom

teachers who are challenged with multi-faceted curriculum

implementation.

The Curriculum Director recognized that

fact:

I think clearly we’re being sent a signal that we need

staff development.

I’m going to throw my financial

backing as much as I can in that direction.

We need

to launch that ship and take it out of the harbor.

We

need to be proactive and take it back to grade group

teachers and say, "What can we do to help you in the

next two years?"

[Fieldnotes, 1/24/90]

Having just established from the data that there are

numerous evidences within the district of the conditions

which Maeroff asserts are essential for teacher empowerment,

it is now time to consider the naturally evolving question

in this setting (the work of the Reading Study Committee),

What kind of support/staff development is congruent with the

 

235

concepts of empowerment as teachers attempt to implement

proposed changes in reading instruction?

As was stated earlier, the teacher is at the heart of

curriculum change, for it is what s/he knows, believes, and

practices

behind

closed

doors

that

constitutes

the

curriculum for his/her students.

The district’s Curriculum

Director

put

it

this

way:

"There

are

four

types

of

curriculum: the written curriculum, the taught curriculum,

the approved curriculum, and the learned curriculum.

And

it’s not always the written curriculum that’s the learned

curriculum."

[Fieldnotes, 2/9/89]

If we

look at teacher empowerment as focusing upon

Keyes’

(1988)

personal

self,

we can now build on that

foundation

to

explore

the professional

self

as

learner

(staff development)

and the professional self as teacher

(reading curriculum implementation) within this setting.

Three types of staff development are described within

this

paper

as

they

occurred

during

my

research

data

collection activities.

These three (outside expert, on-site

trainers, and humanistic teacher center) will be studied and

conclusions will be drawn related to teacher-empowered staff

development for reading curriculum implementation.

'

The first type reflects the more traditional inservice

education, where an outside expert is contracted for the

explicit purpose of informing an audience of a predetermined

body

of

knowledge--here,

bridging the

gap

from reading

  

  
.-ipwufl .umnr arm sostu .1 1: 101 .      
    

"yawn-rm..-

um:-

..---.

--..._-.m-

mule!-

 

236

research to its classroom implications.

My role in this

regard was participant.

The second type is conducted by on—site trainers who

present a set content (i.e., strategies congruent with the

state’s

New

Definition

of

Reading)

and

encourage

its

implementation in participants’ classrooms.

Here my role

was observer as participant.

The third type

is

a humanistic teacher center-like

model,

where through collaborative efforts,

participants

assess their own needs and become their' own sources and

resources of knowledge.

In this, my role was participant

(coordinator/facilitator) as observer.

Outside

Expert

(Reading

Study Committee

Inservice).

The

staff

development

model

selected

for

initially

inservicing the Committee was conducted for the specific

purpose of establishing a common groundwork and of laying a

foundation

for

future

informed

decisions.

Its

format

closely resembled that of a "traditional" inservice.

An

administrator, who related to me that. he had anticipated

that he would be taking an active role in the Committee’s

leadership,

was

the

individual who spawned the

idea of

calling upon someone outside the district to inservice the

Committee.

This outside expert was a member of the state’s

Curriculum Review Process: Reading Committee, and she was

contracted to come to the district in order to inservice the

Committee (i.e., the decision makers) and to help screen the

vast amount of reading materials available.

She planned

 

237

three three—hour long meetings, which were conducted solely

for the members of the Committee.

Her audience represented teachers with a wide range of

reading savvy (from recent Master’s Degrees in reading to no

formal reading courses in at least two decades), with a

broad scope of teaching experience

(from

five years to

thirty-four years), and spanning the gamut of grade levels

(from kindergarten through high school).

The one thing they

all

had

in

common was

an assumed common motivation in

reading-related issues.

They were billed by the Curriculum

Director

as

"[A]

team of

interested,

enthusiastic,

and

strongly-committed teachers." [Site document, 1/18/88]

The methodology used was mainly lecture, highlighting

printed materials with some related discussion/participation

activities.

Comments at the conclusion of the sessions

stated that "more [participation] would have been helpful"

and "more examples would have been useful."

In written

responses,

the recipients expressed appreciation for the

content (expressed by one as "your knowledge") and for the

organization

of

the

presentation,

with

some

concerns

expressed

as

to

the great amount of content

("tons

of

information!")

and

the

difficulty

in

organizing

and

assimilating ("It will take us many hours to soak in and

determine the direction proper

for Omega").

Additional

reactions demonstrated the various levels of knowledge base

these Committee members represented, from those on one end

who said that it gave a clearer understanding and pulled

 

238

everything together for them to those on the other end who

said it introduced them to the new strategies.

This type of inservice reflects a top-down model, where

the phrase,

"I'll do it to you,"

is descriptive of the

process.

Here,

the knowledge base is fixed, and subject

matter is central.

A deficit is assumed, since the need is

perceived

by

someone

other

than

the

participants,

and

success in reading instruction is presupposed if teachers

properly implement the strategies presented.

Unresolved

comprehension

and

contextual

application

questions

surfaced

(e.g.,

"What

to

use

when?"

"How

do

phonics and the

strategies

fit together?",

"How do you

introduce [this]

into all areas?") and, at least for the

time being, they remained unanswered.

The impact of the inservice was seen by one member of

the Committee as "

.

.

.

a slight introduction into [the

strategies]

.

.

.

" [Interview transcript,

3/1/89]

This

emphasis

on

"slight

introduction"

was

verified

by

the

reading teachers, who had originally assumed that they would

receive assistance in the Reading Strategy Inservices from

the members of

the Committee.

Although there was some

assistance with refreshments, the bulk of responsibility for

preparation and presentation of the strategies rested on the

reading teachers, who had prepared themselves for the task

outside the parameters of

their Reading Study Committee

membership.

 

239

It

can

be

seen

that

the

effect

of

this

type

of

inservice education has the potential to be empowering in

the sense that there is the basic assumption that knowledge

will be increased.

It is time efficient, for in nine hours

of instruction

(supplemented by additional readings)

the

seeds were sown upon which future decisions for curriculum

writing would take root and grow.

Because the presenter

could control the content and condense it, the process was

information efficient:

"tons of information!" could pass

from the presenter to her audience.

In short, she could

ideally

"educate" a large group of people with a great deal

of information in a brief period of time.

There

are

also

some

disempowering effects

of

such

inservice education.

Basically, it does little to boost the

status

of

the

attendees,

although,

one participant did

respond,

"It helped ease the insecurity of not. being an

expert."

[Site document,

2/15/88]

Since decision making

lies solely with the presenter,

in this case an outside

source who does not know the district or the individuals in

the

group,

she

needs to be trusted

(external

locus

of

control).

A deficit is assumed: "You don’t know, so I will

tell you."

This type of inservice also gives the presenter and the

learner minimal interaction with little recognition of prior

knowledge or individual needs.

Retention may be limited if

this

is

the

sole

exposure,

since

individuals

are

infrequently active participants in the process, a process

    will! ill li'
    
  

lobed-snin 51 1o: .saniai‘23 sat: at 31

,3!!fl.-_!‘f"rg

'.--v..*

art.‘

.

._..

"'.' mat)

1

«was cuui

'.-I'~'l

biuoo

‘3"11‘12

  

240

which often requires little reflective thinking and makes

accommodation and/or assimilation difficult.

The

Reading

Support Group members,

in

their

final

meeting, dialogued about some of their perceptions regarding

the

disempowering

aspects

of

traditional

inservices

in

general.

(Rebekah was the only one of these individuals who

had attended the Reading Study Committee Inservice just

described.)

Karina: I think in order to own anything, to be able

to use it as though you own it, you need a lot of hand-

holding--at least, I need a lot of hand-holding, you

know, for a couple of years’ worth.

And I don’t think

it’s realistic to say,

"Okay, we’re going to have an

inservice and then our teachers will have it."

I think

you’ve got to inservice

them,

and

inservice

them

again, and hold their hand for a couple of years and

get them in support groups, and then you might see some

change. Otherwise, it's just going to be filed.

"Well,

its really pretty interesting, but I really don't know

if .

.

."

Truda: That’s why teachers are frustrated.

They throw

something at us one time and then they leave us.

Karina: I don’t think administrators realize this--how

much hand-holding is needed.

Truda: Working it through.

Rebekah: Think of all the conferences you’ve attended

and taken wonderful notes, and then you’ve never done

anything with it.

Truda: The notes are somewhere in a drawer.

Maybe the

leader was peppy and interesting,

and that kind of

thing,

but when you

lose that “high," well

.

.

.

[Fieldnotes, 12/12/89]

If

we

look

at

Loucks-Horsley’s

(1987)

critical

attributes of

effective staff development,

we note that

there was

little

collegiality and collaboration,

little

experimentation

and

risk—taking,

little

participant

involvement in goal setting, implementation, evaluation, and

decision making.

There was little time to assimilate new

learnings

and

little

recognition

of

adult

learning

 

241

characteristics.

Because

the

inservice

was

district-

funded,

it

could

be

considered

as

having

a

place

in

attempting to integrate individual goals (or at least the

Reading

Study

Committee’s

goals)

with

the

schools’

philosophical and organizational structure.

Qn-site

Trainers

(Reading

Strategic

Inservice:

Reciprocal Teaching). The second type of staff development

effort

conducted

in

the district to

facilitate reading

curriculum implementation was

a series of seven Reading

Strategic Inservices espousing the new definition of reading

(theory)

and congruent strategies

(practice).

Here the

attendees (in the second and third grade level, 71% of the

possible total was present at the Information Session and

76%

at

the

Debriefing

Session)

were

the

elementary

classroom teaching staff who voluntarily chose to attend the

meetings on their own time (from 7:30-8:15 a.m. one day a

month during the 1988-1989 school year).

The Reciprocal

Teaching Inservice/Debriefing Sessions can provide insights

into the way in which the Committee decided to disseminate

the information it had acquired.

This interactive model can be summarized by the phrase,

"I’ll do it with you."

The presenters of these inservices

were

on-site

trainers,

i.e.,

primarily,

the

district’s

reading teachers and, upon occasion, members of the Reading

Study

Committee

or

classroom

teachers

familiar

with

particular strategies.

The reading teachers said that the

 

242

intent of the meetings was two-fold, to provide information

and to encourage implementation:

Shar: We are trying to inform them and I[ know some

people in there were exposed to [Reciprocal Teaching]

before, but they wanted to again go over it.

And for

some people, it was totally new.

To inform them and

also so that they will really use it.

I think we’re

doing a real selling job, too, not just so that they

know it and can say, "Oh, yes, I’ve heard of it," but

actually try it.

Laura: That's the thing, not only inform, but you’re

providing them with the materials.

"This is what you

can do.

You can use this and come back and talk about

how it works."

Kim:

And

I

think

the come-back session

is

really

important to

share

how

they’re

doing.

[Interview

transcript, 2/3/89]

Two

principals,

from

an outsider perspective,

gave

their perceptions.

One saw the inservice goals in this way:

For me, the priority would be the information, but they

have also gone, secondly, into the training aspect of

it.

In fact, they are encouraging the use of it by

scheduling

a

sharing

session

2- 3

weeks

after

the

initial presentation.

[Interview

transcript,

2/15/89]

The

other

emphasized

the

affective

aspect

of

the

inservices:

To challenge, to give encouragement to others, and just

that interaction that I’ve seen in those groups.

The

mere fact that some of their ideas have been around for

a long time, but they’ve just kind of been forgotten.

A reinforcement.

There are the teachers who attend

faithfully, and they are really anxious and willing and

want to experiment and try some changes for the kids’

sake. [Interview transcript, 3/28/89]

Since the individuals making the decisions (the reading

teachers)

were

cognizant

of

the

district’s

endemic

situation, they were able to tailor the material to local

teachers’ needs.

According to their own admission, they

assumed responsibility for the task based on the fact that

Na- na mam,

ammo. ed: a

.& Mm m 2!.4‘ gnu... A- n.

 

243

they were the most knowledgeable due to their prior training

and

experience,

and

because

they

believed

that

the

information/strategies would empower teachers and students

alike.

The relationship between the presenter and the audience

still

had

the

"them"/"us"

mentality,

since

the

reading

teachers were looked upon as the "experts:“ “I think the

reading teachers are offering us teachers different new

ideas that are coming out." [Interview transcript, 1/25/89]

Indeed, instead of seeing them as "just reading teachers,"

some were now raising them to a new status, as was stated by

a former reading teacher-turned classroom teacher: "I see

reading teachers becoming more consultants--which 1: never

wanted to be." [Interview transcript, 3/7/89]

In

planning

the

meetings,

these

"consultants"

determined the time, location, and content, all the while

being

aware

of

the

parameters

of

classroom

teachers’

concerns.

The format of the Reciprocal Teaching Information

Inservice followed this outline: Anticipation Set, Overview,

Explanation,

Modifications/

Adaptations,

Videotape

Demonstration, Reinforcement and Extension (highlighting a

33-page booklet "to get you through the month"), Challenge

(with the promise of

support throughout the month from

building reading teachers).

This all occurred within thirty

minutes.

It is not surprising to have heard the comment

upon leaving the meeting from both presenters and attendees,

"There just wasn’t enough time."

 

244

Evidences of empowerment took various forms.

Teachers

were given the opportunity to gain knowledge of and exposure

to new reading methods.

Decision-making occurred as they

had the option of attending, and if they decided to attend,

they had the choice of whether or not to implement.

If they

did decide to utilize the strategy, they were given varied

on—site support if and when they determined they needed it,

from modeling within individual classrooms to the provision

of additional materials.

The presence of the district’s

elementary principals and the Curriculum Director boosted

the status of both the presenters and the teachers in that

they thereby validated the efforts exerted and demonstrated

the fact that they, too, were learners.

I used an open—ended questionnaire to interview nine

second and third grade teachers (three from each elementary

building)

who

had

attended

the

Reciprocal

Teaching

Inservices to determine their reactions to the sessions.

The respondents listed the total composite of the voluntary

Reading Inservices as having the greatest impact on their

current reading thinking and practice, while their building

colleagues

(peers

and reading teachers)

came in second.

Conferences and workshops (external experts) were listed as

far less impactful than their local indigenous context.

The

respondents

gave

reasons

for

attending

the

inservices as a way to learn new things and get helpful

ideas.

The emphasis in "learning new things" and "getting

helpful ideas" was on the practice, not the theory.

The

 

245

references to the fact that a classroom teacher had shared

from her experience (which was interpreted as being closely

identifiable with their own situation) "sold it" for several

teachers:

"If she says it works, I believe her," and "I

didn’t think I would try it until [she] told us how well it

worked for her."

Those who had not attempted the strategy

said that they

would ask a grade level peer as frequently

as they would a reading teacher when they were ready to

attempt to implement Reciprocal Teaching.

This confirms

what Loucks-Horsley et

al.

(1987)

discovered:

"Teachers

accept new learning better from peers and colleagues who

understand their reality and with whom they can identify"

(p. 128).

The presentation itself was rated as helpful and the

packets were seen as reinforcing the session; however, some

mention was made of wishing to see the strategy enacted more

concretely

"in

our

own

district,"

as

opposed

to

the

videotape presentation.

Overall, these teachers viewed the Reciprocal Teaching

strategy in a very positive light.

Three, although they had

not used it yet, were making plans to do so, "possibly later

this year."

Two others were beginning to use it, and two

others had made major adaptations (correlating aspects of it

with predetermined lessons or previous reading practices).

The final two were continuing their use from the previous

year ("It’s a vital part of my reading program.

I would be

at a loss without it").

Nearly half (six of the thirteen)

 

246

of

the

individuals attending the Debriefing Session had

shared their implementation attempts.

Those who used the strategy saw both students

and

teachers as benefiting.

Five teachers saw greater student

accountability and two spoke of success for all levels,

especially reading disabled students.

As for benefits to

themselves,

five teachers stated that it validated. their

beliefs

and

practices,

while

another said that

it was

generic enough to integrate well with other subject areas.

The principals related evidences of the use of the

strategies in general as they visited classrooms and walked

through

the

halls;

however,

Reciprocal

Teaching

was

perceived by these administrators as more complex and less

visible.

One reading teacher spoke of the empowering impact

of the reading strategies as a whole:

I

think

the

information

flow

is

changing.

It’s

exciting to see,

it really is.

There is more common

ground to discuss with teachers.

To get a 'teacher

that’s excited about it, that makes it worthwhile .

.

.

[I’ve been] seeing it with teachers who aren’t noted

for

trying new

things get so

excited.

One said,

"[Probable Passages] worked so well that I’m going to

do it every week!"

They’re looking at how they can do

it with other than the basal, with whatever content

area.

It’s an empowering thing we’re giving them.

[Interview transcript, 2/3/89]

Disempowerment resulted from the fact that classroom

teachers were exposed to a great deal of new information in

a very brief time.

Many also perceived the fact that the

inservices were held on teachers’ own time as a lack of

administrative support.

 

 

247

Members

of

the

Reading

Support

Group

specifically

dialogued about the disempowering aspects of the strategy

inservices in the Debriefing Session several months later:

Chris: The validity of just having such a support group

was the fact that what we were introduced to over the

last

two

years

came

just

in

brief

meetings,

45

minutes, two little meetings,

and then you were

out

there on your own.

And I just don’t think we can

learn

and

implement,

so

this

then

was

a

further

follow-up.

Truda: Starts to put it together.

Chris: How much more we were able to use it.

Laura: It showed me, too, that it does take time.

I

look back to about five years ago when I went to a

workshop on story schema.

At that point in time, it

was like a new concept to me, and I felt like I wasn't

interested, and I came away and I didn’t get much from

it until a few years ago when I got back into it again.

Then when we did our strategy inservices, it was really

familiar to me, but then I thought everyone else should

have had it quickly, too.

And I almost forgot that

Chris: And really when you did that, one month and then

a month later you did a quick follow-up thing.

If you

look at that, that’s no where near enough in order to

truly implement.

You use a little, but now it seems to

be fitting together.

You look at your reading lesson

and you say, "Now what could I use with this story?

What would work the best with that?"

Now you’ve got

it.

It’s like you’ve got so many more bags of tricks

out there to pull from. [Fieldnotes, 12/12/89]

If

we

see

the

Omega

district’s

strategic

reading

inservices as an attempt to master new teaching strategies,

rather

than

fine

tuning

skills

already

in

place,

the

research conclusions of Joyce and Showers (1980) regarding

more intensive training applies.

The five elements they

claim are essential for training to be durable are: theory,

demonstration,

practice,

feedback,

and

classroom

application.

By looking at the inservices as they' were

conducted, we see that the time factor significantly affects

the amount of things that can be accomplished.

What we see

 

248

there does not smack of intensive training; rather, in the

half hour allotted to the presentation of new information,

the theory and a bit of "demonstration" (e.g., videotape and

a teacher relating what she had done) were in place.

It

appears that the extensive packets of materials chosen to be

handed out at the sessions were intended to provide extra

support

in

this

area,

assuming that classroom teachers

themselves would be responsible for studying and making

application.

Practice and feedback did not occur within the

Information

Sessions.

Classroom

application

(i.e.,

practice)

was

encouraged between the

strategy

inservice

Information

and

Debriefing

Sessions;

consequently,

some

feedback took place in the Debriefing Sessions.

According to this brief overview, it would appear that

teachers received little more than an awareness of the new

strategies,

rather than a training in them.

Therefore,

judged solely on the format of the inservices, it is not

surprising

that

concerns

would

be

expressed.

Without

further

support

(e.g.,

Spears’

(1983)

coaching

and

discussion), it would follow that minimal long-term effects

could be expected.

Looking at this type of staff development in the light

of the Loucks-Horsley et al.

(1987) characteristics once

again, we see that each area could be rated as "somewhat"

meeting those requirements in each case:

there was some

collegiality and

collaboration,

some experimentation and

risk-taking, some incorporation of knowledge bases, a little

 

249

participant

involvement

in

goal-setting,

implementation,

evaluation, and decision making.

There was some time to

work on staff development and implementation of the new

learnings,

some

leadership

and

sustained

administrative

support,

some incentives and rewards,

some principles of

adult

learning

characteristics,

some

integration

of

individual goals with school and district goals, plus, some

placement

within

the

philosophical

and

organizational

structure of the school and district.

The crucial issue to be considered, now, would be the

follow-up

or

support

that

is

provided

for

the

Omega

elementary teachers in the future if they are expected to

implement the reading curriculum guide, since the written

curriculum is not always the taught curriculum.

As Hall

(1975) cautions, "As much attention needs to be given to the

adoption of innovations as is presently being given to their

development" (p. 32).

He also legitimates teacher concerns

by saying that it is not wrong for teachers to have self—

concerns: it is wrong for change agents to fail to recognize

and address those concerns.

The next type of inservice was

introduced to provide just such an opportunity to recognize

and address teacher concerns as they began to implement new

reading methods.

Humanistic

Teacher

Center

(Reading

Support

Group).

This third type of staff development was the one which

provided the major

focus

for my study.

These Reading

Support Group Meetings were summarized in Chapter 3.

Here

  

250

the model could be described as bottom-up or grass-roots,

with an

emphasis

on the teacher,

not the content.

The

descriptive phrase in this setting might be, "You will do

it."

It was my underlying assumption in proposing this

support group that a humanistic teacher center-like setting

would be one type of staff development that would have the

potential to empower a group of volunteer Omega teachers for

reading curriculum implementation.

The most obvious and evident impact of the Reading

Support Group meetings could be seen upon one individual,

Truda,

the senior member of the group.

(It should be

realized that,

although

Truda’s

comments

are

frequently

cited throughout the Reading Support Group meetings, she did

not dominate.

Her comments and actions were deemed most

pertinent for the topic under scrutiny.)

Truda's following

excerpted

comments

from

each

of

the

thirteen

meetings

reflects a shift in

focus

from self concerns to impact

concerns,

from anxiety to exhilaration, from passivity to

accomplishment, or, I would contend, from disempowerment to

empowerment:

Information Meeting:

I came out of fear.

You can’t

::::h an old dog new tricks.

There’s fear involved in

Meeting # 1: The measuring part is quite frustrating--

educational assessment absolutely scares us to death!

Meeting # 2: I am so unsure of those things.

It scares

the living daylights out of me!

I’m not kidding!

Meeting # 3: I don’t feel comfortable with any of the

strategies.

That’s why I’m here.

I definitely need

help.

 

251

Meeting #

4:

My doing it unsuccessfully all

these

years--If we don’t pull it all together, we’re still

stumbling along.

Meeting # 5: We come here with bated breath.

This is

exciting, marvelous!

It’s all there if I can only do

it.

I’m so excited about it!

Meeting #

6:

I am having a ball!

It's fun!

It’s

marvelous!

It’s just so much fun!

I just have so

much a feeling of accomplishment, which I never had in

reading before.

Meeting # 7: Knowing all these things helps you to pick

and choose.

Meeting #

8:

I never thought it would turn out like

this-—never in my w1ldest dreams!

My whole outlook,

and

I’m

serious,

my whole outlook on reading and

writing have

changed.

Oh,

it makes me

feel

just

wonderful!

Meeting # 9: Here again, you feel so much better about

reading,

because

I

used to think I’m not teaching

reading an "x" number of [hours], and, bird brain, you

know,

of" course I’m ‘teaching’ reading!

I’m teaching

reading

in

social

studies,

I’m teaching reading in

science, those kinds of things.

But that’s never been

brought out before.

Meeting #10: I didn’t do it all last year, ’cause I was

scared to death.

Now you’re putting something else on

me.

I don’t think I can handle it.

Meeting #11: Get your picket signs ready, girls.

NO

WORKBOOKS!

If they make us use workbooks, I’m going to

get my picket sign out: NO WORKBOOKS!

Meeting #12: And the accomplishment, the sense of

accomplishment I feel now when I teach reading that I

have never ever felt—~that finally the kids .

.

. that

really makes you feel good.

That really, really does!

A note might be inserted here as to the comments of

Meeting

#10,

which

stand out

in sharp contrast to the

progression of the remainder of the quotes, and it could be

viewed as a discrepant case.

When one sees this statement,

however,

in

the

context

of

the

Tenth

Meeting,

it

is

discovered that the excerpt

follows a forty—five minute

 

252

presentation by Laura on Whole Language/ Literature.

The

awe

that

Truda

had originally expressed toward Laura’s

reading expertise in the Information Meeting now seemed to

come back to haunt and overwhelm Truda once again.

The

interesting thing to observe, however, is that at the Final

Meeting,

Truda

closely

identified

herself

with

Laura:

"Laura is so happy over me.

She feels a kindred spirit."

[Fieldnotes, 12/12/89]

Set against the backdrop of Fagan’s (1989) claim, "When

teachers

lack

knowledge,

they

lose credibility and

are

forced to give up control and lose power by deferring to

’experts’" (p. 574), it is possible to follow Truda’s newly-

discovered feelings of empowerment beyond the parameters of

the Reading Support Group and her own classroom.

Five

months later, she became the "expert" as she volunteered to

model a QAR lesson before an audience of her peers in a

district-wide

Reading

Inservice,

Creating

the

Literate

Environment (5/2/90).

Truda’s changing perception illustrates the fact that

the longer a teacher is in the profession the more crucial

is

the

need

for staff development

(Feiman,

1983).

In

addition,

it

also

discounts

Truda’s

own

claim

at

the

Information

Meeting,

"You

can’t

teach

an

old

dog

new

tricks." [Fieldnotes, 6/8/89]

Other members spoke of the impact of the group on their

emotional and psychological state, as well.

The following

 

terms from the final meeting [12/12/89] illustrate several

253

of these components by contrast:

then

now

terribly inadequate

more comfortable

apprehensive

sense of accomplishment

shaky

threatened

frustration

confident

makes you feel good

satisfaction

need support

lifts the burden, frees

burdened

relaxed

What caused this change in Truda and the others?

I

would assert that their participation within the IReading

Support Group was

a major factor in that personal

and

professional growth, and

a focus upon four specific Reading

Support Group meetings makes that growth toward empowerment

more vivid and explicit.

On that journey, these meetings

represent a starting point, a mid-point, and a culminating

point:

the Information Meeting

(6/8/89),

where initial

hopes and concerns were expressed by the somewhat-interested

and

the

First

Meeting

(9/7/89),

where

the

"committed"

group’s characteristics and potential contributions, hopes

and expectations, concerns and proposed topics were stated;

the Sixth Meeting (10/19/89), where a conscious awareness of

changes

in

knowledges,

skills,

and

attitudes

was

acknowledged; and the Final Meeting (12/12/89), where the

participants’ personal evaluations of the experience were

articulated.

Information Meeting. All fifteen of the teachers who

attended this

Information Meeting could be described as

being at the highest level

(Stage 4: Maturity) in Katz's

254

(1972) stages of teacher development.

Within this context,

however, these same individuals (with the probable exception

of the three reading teachers who had been the presenters at

the previous strategic inservices) were at the lower levels

of

innovation-related

concern and

use

in

Hall’s

(1975)

Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) hierarchy.

Because of

their very presence, it can be assumed that no one attending

this meeting represented Stage 0, Awareness, where there was

"no

indication

of

interest

in

or

concern

about

the

innovation."

It can, rather, be illustrated that the levels

of concern in the Information Meeting ranged from Stage I-

Informational (at least two had not attended the inservices)

to Stage II-Personal.

Allusions to beginning Stage III-

Management Concerns were evident.

The Levels of Use ranged

from O—Non-Use to I-Orientation to II-Preparation to III-

Mechanical Use.

The following are examples of each of these 80C and

LOU.

SoC I-Informational

Karina:

I’m just so excited about the people 1J1 my

building

and I was feeling, if other teachers in Omega

are coming out with the good ideas that are coming out

in my building, I would really benefit.

(Here it can be seen that Karina’s attitude to change

is positive, i.e., for growth.)

Soc II-Personal

Grace:

I got rid of the reading workbooks.

I don’t

have any

for next year.

I have a commitment from our

principal that he’s going to let me order paperbacks

monthly from book companies, and I’m going to need some

help getting that all organized.

 

(With

this

comment,

Grace

legitimates collaborative

255

learning.)

Soc III—Management

Principal

(based on his observations): There is some

concern about losing control.

There’s always a bit of

a feeling about

totally

losing

your

structure

in

a

reading plan.

(He acknowledges the fact that change involves risk-

taking.)

Rebekah: While it was still fresh in your mind, it was

okay, but we don’t have the confidence to pull that out

like we would.

(Rebekah demonstrates that change is more than getting

started.

Support is needed throughout.)

LOU O-Non-Use

I had assumed from Karina’s statement, "I would really

benefit," that she had not used the strategies.

I learned,

however,

later within the context of the Reading Support

Group Meetings,

that she had

just completed a Master’s

Degree

in Reading and was very knowledgeable about the

strategies.

Since

she

had not

attended the

strategic

inservices, her knowledge did not come from the district

inservices.

Others who had not attended did not speak at

this Information Meeting.

LoU I-Orientation

Truda: I came out of fear.

You can’t teach an old dog

new tricks. I love the concept [of the strategies], I

love the idea.

 

256

LoU II-Preparation

Truda: We’ve thrown out our workbooks, and we’re into

paperbacks.

Grace:

I got rid of the reading workbooks.

I don’t

have any for next year .

.

. and I'm going to need some

help getting that all organized.

LoU III—Mechanical Use

Rebekah:

I remember we would come from one of our

meetings and I would stand up in front and I wouldn’t

dare

put my sheet down and

[I would say],

"We’re

supposed to do this now," and you know, I don’t want to

have to do that.

I want it to flow and for me to know

exactly what I’m doing-~which I didn’t.

The similarity between the lower levels of the CBAM

hierarchy (Hall, 1975) and the Survival/Self-Adequacy Stage

of Teacher Development in the first year teacher

(Katz,

1972)

is

striking.

Just

as

in

the stages of teacher

development, one level must be satisfied before the next can

occur, so in the CBAM model, one level of concern must be

met before the next can appear.

The Reading Support Group

was proposed as one way to help alleviate those lower stages

of concern and raise their levels of use.

From the beginning, I could sense the conflict between

Keyes’

(1988)

personal self

["One of our teachers has a

younger child.

She was concerned about morning meetings,

and

she

would

be

interested

if

it

were

afternoons"],

professional self: learner ["That’s what we need in a group

like this--to sit down and say, ’This and this bombed.

What

did I do wrong?

What should I do now?’"], and professional

self: teacher ["I want to know exactly what I’m doing .

.

.

and when to use each one.

When would be an appropriate time

to use this strategy versus another?"].

These latter two

 

257

quotes

also

illustrate

Maeroff’s

(1988)

principles

for

empowerment related to increasing knowledge and providing

access to decision-making.

At

this

point,

what

appears

to

be

a

traditional

inservice mentality of an "expert" doing something to us

["Will you chair the group, Marlene?

We want to pick your

brain."] or for us ["

.

.

. telling us why something didn’t

work"] comes through in individual expectations of what the

Reading Support Group would entail.

This is in contrast to

what I envisioned a Reading Support Group to be: a group of,

by, and for the teachers.

In summary, then, the feelings of disempowerment at the

Information

Meeting

reflected

on

individuals’

prior

knowledge of reading instruction and arose as a result of

insufficient

knowledge

of

the

innovation

(reading

strategies), along with a corresponding lack of confidence

in the decision-making process, i.e., specifically, when and

where and how to use the innovation within the classroom.

The individuals who attended the meeting focused on the need

for a supportive environment in which to be learners first

and teachers second, a place where individuals could develop

confidences as they collaborated on problems incurred in the

implementation process, a context where they could together

celebrate successes and provide insight into failures (all

teacher

center

characteristics),

an

acknowledgement

and

legitimation of the fact that,

according to Laura,

"the

process takes time and refreshers and review."

 

258

First

Meeting.

The

number

of

participants

who

volunteered

without

coercion

to

be

part

of

the

group

appeared to be significant.

From the original fifteen who

had attended the Information Meeting at the end of the

previous school year (at least five more who had expressed

an interest but were unable to attend that meeting), nine of

those appeared at this first meeting.

(As was stated under

the

Reading

Support

Group

meetings

summary

of

the

Information Meeting, a number of personal and professional

conflicts were prohibitive.)

The final count of those who

committed themselves to this venture turned out to be eight

(excluding myself).

Paquette (1987), Hull (1975), and Duckworth (DiShino,

1985), while instituting similar groups meeting for similar

purposes all intentionally had similar numbers.

Hull: At first, we limited membership in each seminar

to

no

more

than

ten,

which

seemed

to

provide

opportunity for free and open discussion at the same

time that it was clear that the functioning of the

group was the responsibility of each of its members.

When group size was less than six because of illness,

[etc.], discussions sometimes seemed less productive

(p. 16).

Paquette: Growth can be enhanced through a collegial

support system that values group activities, provides

moral support and facilitates small groups of from 8-10

per group (p. 39).

DiShino: Eight of us were able to participate.

One

withdrew because of other commitments (p. 6).

One member of the group, Chris, who conducted her own

Math Support Group on a monthly basis, reacted to the number

positively, as well:

"How did you feel about the meeting

 

259

yesterday?

I thought it was the right amount for that type

of support group." [Fieldnotes, 9/8/89]

A word about my participation in the group would seem

appropriate

at this

point,

for

it seemed at the

first

meeting that I spent a great deal of time talking.

Although

I felt that I needed to take a directive role in this first

meeting in order to give it structure, I hoped that those

who were present would not interpret this as my group.

I

consciously attempted to solicit a great deal of involvement

on the part of the participants, ranging from a relational

get-acquainted activity at the beginning, to a written input

assignment,

to

a resultant brainstorming segment,

to an

"action-research" project (i.e., good vs. poor readers), to

a discussion about the most convenient day and time.

I also

stressed the fact that it was not, first and foremost, my

group based on my agenda; rather, it was to be their group

based on their perceived needs.

As time went on, my role as

group facilitator/coordinator became less directive, so much

so that by the final meeting, Chris observed: “I felt also

like

we

covered

the

areas

really well,

whether

it was

accidentally or very planned and we just didn't know how

planned it was."

[Fieldnotes, 12/12/89]

I silently tbok

that as a real compliment: it reminded me of Dewey's quote

that "by indirection we direct."

The emotional factors that these teachers felt to be

essential to the success of the Reading Support Group were

either explicitly articulated or tacitly intimated time and

260

again.

The following characteristics were supplied at this

First Meeting (in response to the question, "What are some

of the things that you hope this group might do or try to

do?"):

-provide support as we try new techniques;

-that we support each other when the going gets rough

and that we have people in our building who can be called

upon for reading "advice;"

-that we can talk about different reading approaches

and discuss what worked and what didn’t work in a non-

threatening manner--respecting individual teaching

styles;

-a

support group

is

one

in which the members are

willing to share their ideas, frustrations, etc.

[Site document,9/7/89]

When asked what the group should have a right to expect

from its members, the following components were listed:

-dependability and responsibility

-enthusiasm

-regular attendance, except for important reasons

otherwise

-honesty (listed 4 times)

-respect

~privacy

-everyone shares (listed 4 times)

-no one leader

-sharing questions, doubts, misgivings

-sharing what is working, as well as what isn’t

—willingness to share ideas

-understanding

-positive attitudes toward learning

—support

each

others’

right

to

teach

in different

manners

[Site document, 9/7/89]

Vulnerability

and

openness,

honesty

and

humility,

tolerance

for

both

ambiguity

and

for

other

persons’

differing opinions, patience over the long haul, commitment

and

enthusiasm

were

all

present

from

the

beginning.

Emotional and personally-unveiling phrases like, "Hey, we’re

slow

learners,"

"my

insecurity,"

"fear,"

"lack

of

confidence," "scares us to death!", "not comfortable," "so

 

 

261

afraid," "frustrating," "overwhelming," "scares the livin’

daylights out of me!" permeated especially the first three

meetings to such a degree that the third meeting closed with

this dialogue:

Truda: Hey, if we’re nothing else, we’re honest!

Karina:

Aren’t

teachers

learners?

Model

that

to

children.

[Fieldnotes, 9/19/89]

During the Debriefing at the Final Meeting, the same

two individuals were joined by two others to reiterate this

theme in answer to the question that was posed, "When you

went through original list of My Hopes for This Group, did

you have a feeling for whether or not we had done the kinds

of things that were listed here?":

Truda (laughing): I put a big star next to “honesty!“

That’s what was so great about it!

Karina: Yes, I know of forums where honesty is there,

but

the

good

feeling

isn’t.

And

what’s

really

impressed. me is the fact that. we can live with the

fact that we teach in different ways.

And I think

that’s great!

I mean, that’s the

way

to

be

a

community is to live together and be different and be

glad about it.

Laura: That’s what I felt,

too.

I was apprehensive

when I started with a group like this, knowing our

vast philosophical differences.

I thought, “Will it

work?

Will it all ’jibe’ together?"

Chris: And I think the openness, too, even though you

didn’t agree, there was a lot of opening of the way

you believed—-listening to other people and thinking,

"Well,

let’s try that," or "Maybe this is ‘valid."

[Fieldnotes, 12/12/89]

This confirms several precedent literature findings.

It illustrates the existence of Devaney’s

(1977) teacher

center characteristic of warmth.

It also reflects the fact

that,

in keeping with Hall’s (1975) recommendation, self—

concerns were legitimated.

Additionally,

it demonstrates

Wood and Thompson’s (1980) conclusions about ego involvement

 

262

in adult learning:

anxiety,

fear,

guilt,

and a negative

self-concept

may

initially

arise

as

new learning takes

place.

This

also

confirms

Knott’s

(1987)

paradox

of

empowerment:

she says that to be empowered first involves

the experience of powerlessness, of feeling defenseless, of

being vulnerable and exposed to pain.

At the First Meeting, the participants were asked to

relate

what

they

felt

that

they

would

be

willing

to

contribute to the group.

Their comments reflected their

varied levels of perceived individual expertise ranging from

both

confidence

and

uncertainty

about

leadership

responsibility;

all,

however,

specifically

offered

to

provide

something:

food,

journal

articles,

supplies,

or

"whatever," "as needed--just ask!"

In actuality, seven of

the eight did chair or co-chair at least part of a meeting.

I stepped in only if no one else expressed an inclination to

do so.

All members willingly supplied samples of classroom

applications related to the topics covered,

some with a

great deal of enthusiasm and pride, as seen from the Reading

Support Group synopses.

I was astonished by the vast number and wide variety of

reading—related topics that these attendees wished the group

to address, from the very concrete and practical to the very

broad and philosophical.

The compiled list would have made

for a very thorough syllabus in a college or university

teacher education course in reading. It affirmed the fact

that staff development should start from where people are,

 

263

not where they should be, based on the belief that teachers

are professionally competent people who can and will select

priority areas for their own inservice needs.

In conjunction with the call of Duckworth (1984) and

Chall (1986) to encourage these teachers to be researchers

as well as to be reflective about their own teaching,

I

proposed an "action research" project and the idea of a

journal.

The teachers did follow through. on ‘the former

assignment,

but

the

concept

of

writing

in

a

journal,

although

received

as

a

"good

idea,"

did not become

a

reality.

Comments on that actuality occurred during the

eighth meeting when I queried them on the topic.

Their

response reflected time and schedule constraints:

"Why

don’t we do it?

It isn’t that we don’t want to--we do.

It's just that it’s not possible during the day, and by the

time the end of the day comes, we forget or are busy with

other thingsfl'

There was also concern that I would read

their journals already at the second meeting, which seemed

to be considered an intimidating thought.

When I asked at

the Final Meeting whether anyone would volunteer to allow

me to read hers, not one person responded.

The issue of the

journal

came

up

again

at

the

conclusion of

the

Final

Meeting:

Karina: I’m going to write in my journal tomorrow.

Truda:

Show—off!

Rebekah: No, I think she means for the first time.

[Fieldnotes, 12/12/89]

The dailiness and the realities of teaching, previously

discussed under "Staff Development" in Chapter 2, appeared

 

264

to impede journal writing.

Not only were they "busy" and/or

they "forgot," but they also seemed to want to protect their

privacy by not displaying what they had entered in their

journals.

The

underlying

feeling

seemed

to

be

that

observation was

equated with evaluation,

and evaluation

risks exposure.

The members of the group listed a number of factors as

influencing

their

teaching

of

reading:

the

strategy

workshops,

reading

teachers/colleagues,

course

work,

professional reading, peer observation, participation in the

curriculum write, the needs of students.

It was testimony

to the fact that “the roads to wisdom are many" (Jackson,

1975).

Staff development, therefore, it is concluded, must

be offered in a variety of forms to meet individual unique

learning styles and needs.

It was

obvious that the individuals themselves had

diverse concerns related to their personal and professional

selves.

They

had differing

self-perceptions,

differing

personal

and

professional

histories,

reflected differing

levels

of

prior

knowledge

and

feelings

of

success

in

teaching

reading.

As

those

who

write

about

the

characteristics

of

adult

learning

challenge,

these

uniquenesses must be recognized and utilized.

Specifically,

Wood and Thompson (1980) cite these characteristics of adult

learning: the learning must be job-related and immediately

useful, relevant to personal and professional needs; there

must be evident results; there is ego involvement; there is

 

265

the need to individualize instruction; motivation rests with

the adult learner, so the purpose of staff development must

be to create and encourage favorable conditions; there must

be respect, trust, and concern shown for the adult learner.

As was just demonstrated, in the Information and First

Meetings there were many of the lower level of Hall’s (1975)

Stages

1

(Informational)

and

2

(Personal)

Concerns

expressed.

By the halfway point, the Sixth Meeting, those

personal concerns had given way to Stage 4: Consequences or

Impact Concerns.

Sixth Meeting.

The sixth meeting reached somewhat of a

climax, both in time and in significance.

It illustrates a

number

of

issues

which

recurred

throughout

the

twelve

sessions.

The

issues

related

to

time

and

schedule

constraints,

as well as to the climate of the meetings,

characterized by Devaney’s (1977) teacher center components

of warmth, concreteness, time, and thought.

Time

and

Schedule

Constraints.

This

meeting

had

originally been scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, but it

was cancelled by afternoon recess of that day because at

least half of the individuals throughout the day had spoken

to me of personal or professional conflicts.

As I heard of

more and more people who were not going to be in attendance,

I contacted the person who was in charge of refreshments.

She said it would be preferable to cancel than to meet with

so few, and she offered to freeze her "wonderful treat" for

the next time.

She also talked of the fact that she had a

266

personal commitment that evening which would have made her

schedule

tight:

"I

would

have

left

early

anyway."

[Fieldnotes 10/11/89]

It can be seen that the meeting times were flexible in

an attempt to be sensitive to individual obligations.

The

meeting the following week, October 19, started out with six

persons (including myself).

Karina, Bonnie, and Jennifer

were attending a Writers’ Workshop at the area Intermediate

School District headquarters.

Each had told me that she

would be coming a bit late to the Support Group Meeting.

By

4:30, both Karina and Bonnie had arrived, but Jennifer did

not come at all.

It was evident time and again that these individuals

had numerous personal and professional obligations.

They

were

constantly

juggling,

constantly vacillating between

personal and professional levels of concern (Lieberman &

Miller, 1979).

Hall (1975) emphasizes that it is imperative

to respect-—not to ignore-—those concerns.

Climate.

These participants had developed an esprit de

corps throughout their time together, and the factors which

Devaney (1977)

identifies as characteristic of a teacher

center (warmth, concreteness, time, and thought) surfaced

and are reflected here.

Warmth.

Role of Facilitator to Members.

Murphy

(1989) says that for empowerment to occur, the "soft side"

of leadership must be evidenced: through gentle, unheroic

leadership comes local autonomy.

To that end, the multi-

267

faceted

role

I

took

upon

myself

can

be

demonstrated

concretely within the context of the Sixth Meeting:

confirm/affirm--"That [reading curriculum guide] is a

real work!"

question--"When not using basals in the prescribed way

we used to, what kind of materials will the district

cometu)

with?

What

do

you

think

are

the

alternatives?"

active listen-~"So, [reading teachers should take] more

of a consultant role?"

provide a springboard for discussion--"There are three

people here on the Reading Study Committee.

What kinds

of decisions did you have to face as you wrote [the

curriculum guide]?"

offer materials--"I brought three extra copies of the

curriculum guide for those of you who don’t have one."

summarize--"I don’t know whether we’ve come to any

conclusions today.

I don’t know that.

that. was our

purpose."

orchestrate--"I think that is a good basis for the next

article."

"We’ve got to bring this to closure."

be flexible--(To Karina who had unexpectedly brought in

a one-page summary from a course of basic strategy

groups)

"Would you be willing to walk us through

 
this, rather than through the other article?"

invite participation--"Is anyone willing to chair the

next

meeting?

Does

anyone

have

any

material

on

assessment?

Bringing our own report cards may be a

good way to start."

Warmth.

Role

of

Participants

to

Each

Other.

Celebrating

successes

and

sharing

disappointments

characterized the environment that evolved.

As was stated

earlier, vulnerability and honesty were traits that surfaced

almost immediately.

These members focused upon the support

aspect

and

gave

each

other

constructive

criticism

and

positive feedback.

 

268

Rebekah

(gesturing toward Truda):

Hey,

this

is the

"Queen of QAR"!

Truda: I am having a ball!

Laura: Well, how rewarding!

Truda: If I could think of any excuse in the world to

not teach reading, I would do it.

Chris: That’s the way I used to feel with math.

Truda:

Today

I

made

the

kids

write

their

own

[questions].

Laura: It's interesting.

See, it wasn’t that hard!

Truda: It’s marvelous!

Suzann: You changed your tone of voice when talking

about workbooks and QAR.

Truda: That’s [the reading curriculum guide] your baby

.

.

.

When I see that thing, it boggles my mind to

see what you guys accomplished in four days!

Bonnie: You’ve got to remember we broke it down in four

days.

Chris: They were working months before.

Truda: I understand. But I still, I still am impressed.

There’s no doubt about it.

Concreteness.

These

individuals

dealt

with

concerns that were close to their own situations.

The

learning that took place was concrete and clearly adaptable

to individual classrooms and teacher personalities.

The

focus upon what was best for their own students was also of

prime importance.

Chris: We had a special education meeting this morning.

I was sharing with them about some of the implications

I was seeing in being able to have kids mainstreamed

into

regular

education

classrooms

so

much

more

productively for reading now than I ever was before,

because they’re getting it in a manner in which they

can meet success in the classroom, and

then I can take

them and work.

They can do what we ask of them, and

they have so much to offer.

Truda: I would like to completely do away with pull-

out programs, because they can never schedule you at

the right time.

Kids go out during language, so what

do they do?

They miss language.

Suzann: I have gone to flashing words, but I hate it.

I feel [another teacher] is doing it and so and 50’s

doing it, and I sit there and I just hate it--flashing

 

269

words.

Do you ever expect them to read just words off

cards?

I think if I don’t do that, they’ll look like

non-readers.

Truda: Today I made the kids write their own Right

There and Think and Search-—and some did it right!

It

was fun!

Time.

This concept was not directly discussed at

the

Sixth

Meeting,

but

it

was

addressed

at the

Final

Meeting:

Suzann:

One of the reasons we can communicate and

share

so

much

and

so

well

is

because

we’re

not

stressed out.

We come here and we’re relaxed .

.

. If

we want to stay and talk to Marlene until six, we can.

If we want to [do that during the day], there’s no

time when we’re not interrupted.

And to do anything

to not rush that--just forget it.

Thought.

As time went on,

individuals began ‘to

reflect on their own past perceptions and practices, as well

as to trust their own judgments when it came to current

classroom management, methods, and materials.

They began to

see that their own learning clearly impacted on student

learning (i.e., a sense of teacher efficacy); consequently,

they

also

became

cognizant

of

the

fact

that

teacher

satisfaction

correlates

to

student

learning.

These

excerpts reflect those issues.

Guilt

Truda: I never felt like I was doing anything in

reading.

Read a story, answer the questions, try

to find something-—you know, that kind of thing.

And I saw it was going nowhere.

But now, we

really have

a

good time.

And see,

my whole

problem was my guilt--my guilt about not going

through that dumb textbook.

And now I’m barely

into it, because I feel like, "Why go

into

these

stories until we’ve got this comprehension

dovvn

pat--the ’what you’ve go to look for,’ and things

like that?"

  

270

Critique of Commercial Materials

Truda:

We

lived

and

died

by

the

workbook.

Therefore, our grading was, "Is the workbook page

right or wrong?"

Not, "Do they understand thus

and

thus

and

thus?"

or

"Can

they

answer the

reflective questions at the end?"

wrlicrx

is

a

terrible basis, because I’ m convinced that anybody

who writes those workbooks doesn’t know anything

about reading' or teaching of reading.

I’nt not

being facetious.

I’m serious about it.

We gave

it up.

That’s not to say everything’s bad.

I

don’t want to be totally negative.

But I never

really had a sense of accomplishment.

Rebekah:

It was so obscure.

They threw in a

comprehension page that was bizarre, and then all

of a sudden it was a phonics-type thing.

Truda: No carry-through, no continuity--just pick

and choose.

Laura: I asked my daughter in fourth grade, "Why

do you do the workbook?"

Not a clue.

"Do you

think it will help you in your reading?"

"No,

it’s not reading.

It’s just fill-in-the-blank."

Karina:

Nowhere do you find eight words and eight

blanks in reading.

Impact on students

Chris:

What they’re doing here wouldn’t get to

what my kids need.

Chris:

William Glasser’s book pinpoints that kids

don’t have choices any more in school, and that’s

why they’re turned off, and they don’t take as

much

responsibility

because

everything

is

dictated.

They have no control over learning any

more .

We need to build in choices within the

structure.

Karina:

If

we

go

K,

1,

2,

3,

4

and teach

strategies and when and how to use them and let

them have ownership .

.

.

Chris: And freedom of their own interests.

Karina:

Then are we going to see a revolution

here?

Chris: You’re going to see kids more turned on.

That sure beats amnesia!

Karina: As a professional educator, I would hate

to think that a school could do that much harm;

however,

when

you

look

at

the

evidence,

it’s

pretty damning.

 

271

Teacher as Learner

Truda:

It’s like Rebekah told [her students] when

she was teaching Reciprocal Teaching, "This is new

to me, too."

And [my students] know this [QAR] is

new to me, too, and they love it, they love it.

Some of

[the Question-Answer Relationships]

are

really

hard

to

decide,

and

we

work

it

out

together.

That working together and coming up

with an agreeable solution is so good for the

kids .

.

. so

I

might

teach

that all year.

I

figure I’m on a roll.

It is just so much fun,

[which]

I

never

ever

have

had

in

reading

before.

Teaching and Learning

Truda: To me, one of the hardest things in the

world is to get kids to realize that they' are

responsible for their own learning, that I can’t

take my finger and drill a little hole in their

head.

I can show them the way and I can teach

them, but the learning is their responsibility,

and it’s frustrating.

Karina:

Why

are

school

children

like

that?

Preschoolers take the responsibility for their own

learning .

.

.

I don’t know what happens by fourth

grade that you feel that you have to drill holes.

Is

that

a

critique

of

the

schools,

or

a

developmental stage where amnesia sets in?

Educational Pendulum

Truda:

May

I

mention

one

more

thing?

In

education, we tend to throw everything that was

before

out

instead

of

using

the

best

of

everything.

We’re not throwing phonics out, for

crying out loud, we’re just finding that you go

beyond that.

Educators are very good at that--

like new math.

The meeting ended with the individuals (Laura, Bonnie,

and Rebekah) who had been part of the Reading Curriculum

"write"

the

previous

summer,

illustrating

that

Omega

teachers were given access to decision making, how seriously

they took their task, and how their peers responded to those

efforts.

 

272

Teachers Empowered to Develop and Write Curriculum

Laura: We got input from everyone on the staff.

Chris: They’re the ones that have to carry it out.

Laura:

They gave

the

input

and

we had to try to

assimilate it and put it into the framework.

Rebekah: We kind of "freaked out" when we came back one

day and someone said,

"This could have appeared ten

years ago."

Bonnie: We didn’t comprehend what we were supposed to

be doing.

There was a lot of frustration that day.

Is it too cumbersome?

Is there too much there?

Truda: But when you think about all the child will need

for life right there .

.

.

These snippets of conversation during the Sixth Meeting

portray

the

growing

collective

autonomy

of

these

participants as they together grappled with issues relevant

to their personal and professional lives.

Debriefing Session.

During the Debriefing Session

(presented

in

toto

under

the

Reading

Support

Group

Meetings),

the

participants

who

were

involved

in

this

project

expressed a number of

satisfactions

(empowering

aspects) and frustrations (disempowering aspects).

These

will be categorized according to Keyes’ (1988) the personal

self and the professional self both as teacher and learner.

Personal Self.

As was stated earlier, the group had

developed a real sense of community throughout their four

months together.

Within the warmth (the ability to take

risks without repercussions of failure) of the environment

provided by the group, these teachers spoke of an increase

in self-esteem.

This is in keeping with the CART survey

(National Education Association, 1988) discussion, where the

conclusion is reached that greater participation results in

higher levels of satisfaction and reduced stress.

.

‘

‘

o

.

‘ " “-"" ‘ "
'7 " Ut'msmV

'
(hip-.9 r:,-. -.~) ~ .. 3 .1 .V“

‘0 a:

v

“

b4 t.‘l'L L4 L13" ‘

'

“b "

 

273

There is evidence of empowerment in the fact that these

teachers were renewed and energized by this experience.

They spoke of satisfaction in the fact that the proposed

topics

were

more

than

adequately

covered

in

a

non-

threatening way.

There was an appreciation expressed for

the

honesty,

along

with

the

good

feeling,

of

the

interpersonal communication.

There was an opening to the

viewpoints of others, as well as a clarifying of one’s own

thinking.

There was the feeling of being 'more relaxed,

freed,

and

having

the

burden

lifted

in daily planning

because

of

the

newly-acquired

knowledge.

There

was

an

acknowledged

contrast

between

the

terribly

inadequate

feeling

experienced

originally

to

the

more

comfortable

feeling with what is now being done.

There

was

surprise

exhibited related to the awareness that what teachers enjoy

is directly correlated with student learning.

There was a

celebration, both individually and collectively, of growth

and sense of accomplishment.

There was the recognition that

original feelings of discomfort in unmasking oneself and

comparing oneself to the others in the group was replaced by

an appreciation for individual differences.

The expressions relating to a lack of power came mainly

from contrasts to the beginning.

There was admission to an

original apprehension regarding the workability of such a

philosophically and experientially diverse group, as well as

a

sense

of

inferiority

in

contrast

with

the

others’

expertise.

The

one

recurrent theme throughout was

an

 

274

acknowledgement that the weekly meetings had required a real

commitment on the part of the members.

Truda said, "When I

thought of coming here every week,

I [groan]fl'

To which

others chimed in,

"Yes, yes."

Chris confided, "When four

o’clock comes each day, I wonder why I have committed myself

to yet another activity.

But by the time I get home after

each meeting, I tell my husband how great it is.

I get more

out of this than classes I take."

Professional Self: Learner.

Empowerment evidences came

as these individuals saw the Reading Support Group

as a

viable learning experience.

The activities and discussions

focused

on

their

concerns,

expressed

interests,

and

perceptions of their own staff development needs.

They saw

the new learning as an extension of the strategy inservices:

"It helped to start to put it together."

They had developed

into a community of

learners,

and they celebrated their

differences:

they could appreciate the fact that they had

different

needs

at

different

times,

and that they had

different philosophies of teaching.

Individuals began to

trust their own judgment as to methods and materials.

There

was a real open-mindedness, a listening to each other, with

"a

lot

of

persuasion

going

both

ways:"

no

one person

dominated.

The conclusion was that there was not one best

way to teach reading; rather, it was recognized that each

had her own style which "worked" for her.

In many ways, however, the skills or knowledges were

less important than the new attitudes they developed about

 

275

themselves individually and collectively.

The affective

domain

far

outweighed

the

cognitive

domain

when

the

participants

reflected

on

the

"attitudes,

knowledges,

skills, and dispositions" that had resulted from their group

participation.

They expressed appreciation for the benefits

of sharing each other’s joys and failures; in regard to the

latter, it was comforting to recognize that other teachers

experienced frustrations in teaching, as well.

As

to

the

future,

there

was

a

call

for

ongoing,

voluntary support with resource persons and colleagues of

different grade levels.

Such support was desired on a

regular basis (although not weekly), and it should be at a

time when teachers would not be rushed or preoccupied with

classroom responsibilities.

Several allusions were made to time as a disempowering

factor.

The weekly time commitment was difficult for these

busy individuals ("a thousand things out there are vying for

our

attention"),

and

it

was

stated

that

interested

colleagues would have joined the group had it not demanded

such

a

great

time

commitment.

Lack

of

time

for

the

preparation and classroom implementation of the new learning

was expressed also.

Another factor in this regard was the

realization that ownership in the innovation implementation

takes a great deal of time ("at least a couple of years")

and support ("a lot of hand-holding").

The prior inservices

were viewed as insufficient to truly implement: some felt

that

seeing

the

strategies

modeled

within

their

own

 

276

classrooms and with their own students would be the most

desirable.

These

members

talked

about

the

need

for

overt

administrative support,

specifically for release time to

allow their peers to take advantage of similar collaborative

groups on other than their own time: "everyone is crying for

time to communicate."

Professional

Self:

Teacher.

In

this

connection,

student achievement, managing the tasks of teaching, and a

general sense of efficacy were empowering (Mager, Myers,

Maresca, Rupp, & Armstrong, 1986).

Comments here related to the realization that teacher

satisfaction is tied in to student learning.

To that end,

teachers in the group were perceived by themselves and their

fellow members as enjoying teaching reading now more than

formerly.

Again, individual preferences were legitimated:

"we all have our own thing that we like doing and works

well.“

The

knowledge

gained

had

practical

benefits

for

planning:

"not so much flummin’," as well as "more bags of

tricks to draw from."

As a result of the learning they

themselves

experienced,

these

teachers

felt

that

their

students were benefiting also.

Several

spoke

of

personally

controlling

reading

materials and trusting their own judgment rather than being

bound by the materials, as formerly.

In fact, a member of

the Reading Study Committee stated that the Committee should

 

277

not rush into purchasing a text, the opposite of what had

been advocated in the initial stages of the Committee’s

work.

To sum up the benefits, one participant said that she

felt a "sense of accomplishment [in teaching reading] that

I’ve never felt before."

The

disempowering aspects

stated

in

the

Debriefing

Session related to the former use of scripted. materials

(i.e.,

"slavish use of basals"), the lack:

of' a concrete

picture of what the strategies looked like (modeling' and

peer coaching in their own classrooms would be welcome), and

a lack of carry-through from previous grades (other teachers

from feeder grades were not using the strategies).

In summary, the deterrents to empowerment related to

lack of time (due to personal and professional conflicts);

lack

of

adequate

inservice

training

in

the

reading

strategies;

lack

of

support

(administrative,

collegial);

lack

of

control

(external

locus);

lack

of

readiness

(will/desire).

Contributors to empowerment included warmth

(esprit de corps--access to support, freedom to take risks,

sense of

being engaged with colleagues

in

an

important

undertaking),

concreteness

(focus

on

particulars

and

specifics,

not

generalizations

and

abstractions),

time

(extended,

away

from

pressures),

and

thought

(open-

mindedness, reflective thinking).

The Loucks-Horsley et al.

(1987)

characteristics of

effective staff development can again be used for comparison

here.

A resounding, "yes," can be given to several:

the

.-

«‘

I

    

278

Reading Support Group fit these characteristics very well in

the areas of collegiality and collaboration, experimentation

and risk taking, incorporation of available knowledge bases,

appropriate

participant

involvement

in

goal

setting/

implementation/evaluation/

decision

making,

time

to

assimilate

new

learnings,

incentives

and

rewards.

In

addition, this was built upon principles of adult learning

and the change process.

The characteristics related to

overt administrative support and formal placement of the

program

within

the

philosophical

and

organizational

structure of the school and district would have to be judged

as non-existent.

This relationship) of personal goals to

organizational

goals,

along

with

the

tandemness

often

associated with teacher centers (Rogers, 1976), are worthy

of further study.

Portrait of an Empowered/Disempowered Teacher.

After

nearly four months of "listening for the voice" (McDonald,

1988)

of these "very special natives"

(Florio,

1981),

I

excerpted evidences of empowerment and disempowerment from

each

Reading

Support

Group

Meeting to

form

an

overall

composite of an empowered and a disempowered teacher in this

setting.

Portrait of an Empowered Teacher

She sees herself as a life-long learner, a "pioneer."

She is receptive to new ideas, and she seeks new ways of

improving her teaching.

She recognizes that there are many

 

279

roads to wisdom; therefore, her learning occurs in a number

of ways and through a number of individuals (e.g., peers,

observation, reading, coursework, her own experience within

and outside the classroom).

She works in a supportive environment, and she looks

for

and

receives

continuing

support:

resources

and

materials,

plus

personnel

(administrative,

collegial

[dialogue and modeling]).

She

is

willing

to

take

risks

and

make

herself

vulnerable to others.

She gives and receives suggestions;

she asks questions of herself and others; she is willing to

share her knowledge and skills with others.

She takes time to reflect, to discuss, to listen, to

clarify, to understand, to reach resolutions.

She validates

her own beliefs and actions,

seeking congruence between

research and practice.

She conducts her own research within

her classroom:

she trains herself to observe and to make

sense of her observations.

She

is

open-minded,

willing

to

change

when

new

knowledge warrants it.

She recognizes her own growth and

development.

She is flexible as she plans, knowing' her students’

interests and needs.

She has a large repertoire ("bag of

tricks") and knows when to draw out the one most appropriate

for each situation.

She feels that her teaching directly influences her

students’ learning: she has a sense of efficacy about her

  

280

teaching.

She is able to manage well the tasks of teaching:

both she and her students are productively learning and they

enjoy learning.

She is able to use methods and materials as a tool, not

as a handcuff; she is a manager, not a slave.

She

trusts

her

own

judgment

(internal

locus

of

control),

and she is willing to champion for' causes she

believes in and/or to challenge "the system" if she deems it

necessary.

She feels that what she says can and will make a

difference.

She has a general sense of well-being, satisfaction,

and accomplishment.

Portrait of a Disempowered Teacher

Overall,

she

is

self-deprecating,

frustrated,

desperate, anxious, guilty, intimidated, lacks confidence,

does not feel comfortable, feels inferior.

She feels out of control. She feels time pressures and

schedule constraints: she perceives that she does not have

time

for preparation and classroom implementation.

She

feels

overburdened

by

innovation

bundles

and

system

overload.

She

does

not

possess

sufficient

knowledge

and

understanding of subject matter (here, reading methods and

materials) to teach and/or implement the innovation with

confidence.

She blames others for her lack of knowledge:

she

281

possesses an external locus of control.

She is influenced

by peer pressure.

She feels isolated, "crying for time to communicate

with her peers."

She does not trust her own judgment; she is text- or

script-bound and test-driven.

She perceives a lack of administrative support, both in

time and resources.

She resents, but feels helpless to do

anything about, bureaucratic mandates (here, regarding

legislated testing and special services guidelines).

She

feels that her voice is not heard.

She sees little impact of her teaching on her students’

learning.

She goes through the motions of teaching without

ever feeling successful.

Empowerment Questionnaire.

At the end of my two years

of

data-gathering,

I

assembled

an

empowerment-focused

questionnaire

which

combined

the

"Elementary

education

policy poll" (Instructor, Landsmann, January, 1986, p.

20)

and "The second Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa poll of teachers’

attitudes toward the public schools: Teacher control of the

educational process" (Phi Delta Kappan, Elam, June, 1989, p.

793).

The former poll began with the question:

"Do teachers

really care about shaping education policy?"

Based upon the

editors’ explicitly-stated assumption, "INSTRUCTOR knows

that you do"

(Landsmann,

1986a,

p.

20), this survey' was

 

282

billed as a way to

"

.

.

. provide teachers for the first

time

ever

with

an

opportunity

to

directly

influence

education policy at the very highest level."

Participants

were informed that their input would be incorporated into a

report to then-Secretary of Education Bennett.

Along with a

tabulation of the 8,500 responses to the poll four months

later,

the Ipstguggp; editors gave this very brief and

general profile of the individuals who chose to complete

and return the survey:

While

respondents

do

not

represent

a

conventional

random sampling of teachers, their characteristics are

very similar to those of INSTRUCTOR subscribers and to

teachers in general.

They are much like those who

testify at public hearings-—concerned enough to try to

make things better (Landsman, 1986b, p. 32).

The latter poll appeared in print three years later.

This Second Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa Poll (the first poll by

that name had been reported five years earlier) was carried

out more formally and scientifically.

It was conducted as a

mail interview to a sample of 2,000 teachers selected from a

Market

Data

Retrieval

list

to

represent

public

school

teachers as a whole nationwide.

Region and grade level were

stratified

proportionately.

The

return

rate

was

830

respondents

(41.5%).

The results were tabulated in the

June, 1989 issue of Phi Delta Kappan (p. 793).

I gave the combined surveys [Appendix I] to both the

Omega elementary teaching staff

and the Reading Support

Group members.

The sheets were color-coded to discriminate

between the two groups.

I assured all recipients, "This

task is completely voluntary and anonymous.

You are free

  

283

not to participate at all, and you may refuse to answer any

questions without recrimination." [Site document, 12/6/89]

Twenty-seven (60%) classroom teachers and seven (87.5%)

Reading

Support

Group

members

responded

to

the

questionnaire.

Comparisons among the groups (the nation-

wide Instrugtgz and the Second Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa Poll

respondents, the Omega classroom teachers, and the Reading

Support Group members) will now be made for both surveys

[see Tables 3 and 4].

A summary of the results for each

group will now be given.

Discussion for Table 3:

Instructor’s Elementary Education Policy Poll

1. Curriculum

The national average listed 38% of the recipients as

feeling that they make most of the decisions related ‘to

curriculum.

Omega’s classroom teachers felt much the same

(41%).

In

contrast,

71%

of

the Reading Support Group

members

felt

that

they

make

most

of

their

curriculum

decisions.

Eleven percent of the national respondents said

that they make none of the decisions in this area.

No Omega

teachers (either classroom or Reading Support Group) felt

that they make none.

2. Texts and Supplementary Material

In this area, only 22% of Omega’s classroom teachers

felt that they make most

of

the decisions.

This was

somewhat below the national average of 30%, and less than

half of the Reading Support Group average of 50%.

Thirteen

 

PART I: INSTRUCTOR’S Elementary Education Policy Poll

284

WHAT DECISIONS DO YOU MAKE?

I make important decisions related to:

“1.95.:

some

09112

[12

1. curriculum

Nat l

Class

Support

2. texts and supplementary material

N t’l

Class

'

Support

3. instructional'methods

'l

Class

Support

4. test selection

Class

Support

5. inservice training in my school

38%

41%

72%

30%

22%

50%

76%

89%

100%

39%

63%

43%

50%

60%

29%

56%

74%

43%

20%

11%

36%

9%

14%

11%

0%

0%

13%

4%

7%

3%

'0%

25%

11%

7%

43%

at’l

Class

Support

7%

0%

14%

45%

47%

37%

4%

60%

43%

43%

 

I have opportunities:

11.511!

ms:

lune

DI

7. during the school.day to talk to

my colleagues about teaching

Nat'l

Class

Support

15%

15%

68%

16%

74%

7%

8%

0%

14% 86%

0%

8. to observe my colleagues teach

Nat’l

Class

Support

5%

37%

0%

33%

4%

68%

61%

56%

14%

4%

 alsaxssomsfimcsnwrnr

6.

I participate in decisions about

hiring teachers in my school

Nat'l

Class

Support

9.

I am meaningfully involved in

choosing the subjects and

grades I teach

Nat'l

Class

Support

3%

4%

0%

24%

26%

29%

17%

4%

29%

45%

52%

57%

79%

93%

72%

28%

19%

4%

14%

 

{renewal}: inflequantl}. BREE—hr.

10. My principal provides me with

useful guidance in instruc—

tional matters

Na ’1

Class

Support

16%

11%

56%

59%

14%

14%

43%

26%

30%

29%

 um

2111.1191‘ m:

might

11. More training in subject matter

will make me a better teacher

Nat'l

Class

Support

40%

44%

43%

41%

48%

57%

18%

7%

0%

 

Nat'l n=8,500

Class n=27 (41.5%)

Support n=7 (87.5%)

Table 3: Instructor’s Elementary Education Policy Poll Results

  

285

percent of the Instructor participants felt that they make

none of the decisions, while 7% of the Reading Support Group

members and 4 percent of the classroom teachers felt that

they make none.

3. Instructional Methods

All (100%) of the Reading Support Group members and 90%

of their classroom counterparts felt that they make most of

the decisions about instructional materials.

This compares

to 76% of the nation-wide average.

4. Test Selection

Feelings

of

teachers

nationally

(39%)

were

rather

closely correlated to those of the IReading Support. Group

members (43%) in making most of the decisions in this area.

Just as many Reading Support Group members (43%) felt that

they make none of the important decisions related to test

selection, as compared to 25% nationwide.

In contrast, 63%

of the general Omega teaching population felt that they make

most of the test selection decisions, and only 11% felt that

they make none.

5. Inservice Training

A mere 7% of teachers nationally felt that they make

most

of

the decisions

related to

in—school

inservices.

Reading Support Group members doubled that number (14%),

while more than five times as many Omega classroom teachers

(37%)

felt that they make most of the decisions in this

area .

 

7. Collegial Dialogue

286

Both the Omega classroom teachers and the national

averages came to 15% in regard to many opportunities for

collegial dialogue during the school day.

No one in the

Reading Support Group said that she had many opportunities

in this area; however, one member (14%) did mark her answer

between the categories of many and some.

8. Colleague Observation

More

than

one-third

(37%)

of

the

Omega

classroom

teachers said that they had many opportunities to observe

their peers teach.

In contrast, none of the Reading Support

Group members stated that she has many opportunties here.

Only 5% of teachers nation-wide claim that they have many

opportunities in this area.

6. Hiring Decisions

None of the Reading Support Group members claimed to

always be meaningfully involved in hiring teachers in their

school, and 72% said that they never are.

Very infrequent

meaningful

involvement

in this

area was

also evidenced

nationwide (3%) and by Omega classroom teachers as a whole

(4%).

National

percentages

(17%)

evidencing

some

opportunties in this area were four times higher than for

the Omega classroom teachers (4%), and in each instance the

category never was most frequently marked

(79%

and

93%

respectively).

9. Subject/Grade Selection

Percentages across the board were rather consistent in

 

287

this area:

24% of the nation-wide sample, 26% of the Omega

classroom ‘teachers,

and 29% of the Reading Support. Group

members felt that they are always meaningfully involved in

choosing the subjects and grades they teach.

None of the

Reading Support Group members felt that they were never

meaningfully

involved

in

subject

or

grade

selection.

Approximately half of the teachers in all three samples (45%

nationally, 52% Omega classroom teachers, and 57% Reading

Support

Group

members)

stated

that

they

are

sometimes

meaningfully involved in this area.

10. Principal Guidance

Only 11% of the Omega classroom teachers, 14% of the

Reading Support Group members, and 16% of teachers nation-

wide feel that their principal frequently provides them with

useful guidance in instructional matters.

Nearly one-third

of

all

the

Omega

teacher

respondents

(both

classroom

teachers [30%] and Reading Support Group members [29%]) felt

that

they

never

receive

useful

guidance

from

their

principal.

These results are slightly above the national

average of 26%.

11. Subject Matter Training

Again, teachers in all three settings were remarkably

consistent in their perceptions regarding this category:

40% of teachers nationally,

43% of Reading Support Group

members, and 44% of Omega classroom teachers feel that more

training in subject matter knowledge would make them a

better teacher.

Summary.

288

The discussion on the nation-wide Instructor survey

draws the following portrait:

Nearly

all

of

you

make

important

decisions

about

instructional methods you use--76 percent make most

instructional decisions,

and another 20 percent. make

some.

And all of you have some say about curriculum,

texts, and tests.

But only three in 10 are involved in textbook selection

most of the time.

That condition, along with the fact

that more than a quarter of you are never involved in

deciding the grade or subject you teach could have a

significant impact on the ability to make your best

decisions on methods of instruction.

Most of your authority involves decisions affecting

your students. Few of you make decisions affecting your

schools.

Only a fifth are involved in hiring teachers

in your schools.

Nearly half have no say in decisions

about inservice training, although nearly all believe

more

inservice

for beginning teachers will

improve

teaching.

.

.

You

tell

us

that

talking

about

teaching,

observing colleagues, and receiving instructional

feedback from the principal

.

.

.

doesn’t happen

often.

More than 60 percent of you never have a chance to

observe other teachers.

A shocking 81 percent rarely

or

never

get

instructional

guidance

from

your

principal.

But 83 percent report that you have some

chance to talk to teachers about teaching during the

school day (Landsmann, 1986b, pp. 30-31).

Nearly all of the Omega classroom teachers felt that

they make important decisions about instructional methods--

90 percent make most instructional decisions, and another 11

percent make some.

Sixty-three percent felt that they make

most of the decisions about test selection.

In the areas of

curriculum and textbook/supplementary material,

virtually

all of the teachers felt that they make some or most of the

decisions

(100

percent

and

96

percent

respectively).

 

289

Although more than 75 percent of these teachers felt that

they are meaningfully involved in choosing the subjects and

grades

they

teach,

92

percent

said

that

they

never

participate

in decisions about hiring teachers in their

schools.

Nearly 60 percent of the teachers felt that they

make none of the decisions related to inservice training in

their schools, in spite of the fact that 93 percent believed

that more training in subject matter would or might make

them better teachers.

All but

one teacher said that s/he

had

opportunities

to

talk

to

his/her

colleagues

about

teaching during the school day, yet more than half of the

respondents

(56

percent)

said

that

they

had

no

opportunities to observe their colleagues teach.

Just three

of the teachers (11 percent of the respondents) said that

their

principal

frequently

provided

them

with

useful

guidance in instructional matters, while 30 percent said

that their principal never provided such guidance, and the

majority (59 percent) said that they infrequently received

such help.

All of the Reading Support Group teachers felt that

they make important decisions about instructional methods.

All of the teachers also felt that they make some or most of

the decisions

(100 percent and 93 percent respectively)

related to curriculum and textbook/supplementary materials.

In the area of test selection, 43 percent felt that they

make most of the decisions, while just as many (43 percent)

felt that they make none of the decisions.

Although 86

 

290

percent of these teachers felt that they are always or

sometimes meaningfully involved in choosing the subjects and

grades

they

teach,

71

percent

said

that

they

never

participate

in decisions about hiring teachers in their

schools.

Forty-three percent of the teachers felt that they

make none of the decisions related to inservice training in

their schools, in spite of the fact that 100 percent of them

believed that more training in subject matter would or might

make them better teachers.

All of these teachers said that

they had some opportunities to talk to their colleagues

about teaching during the school day, and all but one said

that she had some opportunities to observe her colleagues

teach.

Only one of the teachers felt that her principal

frequently

provided

her

with

useful

guidance

in

instructional

matters,

another

marked

frequently-

infrequently, and 29 percent said that they never received

such guidance.

The majority (43 percent) said that they

infrequently received such help.

Discussion for Table 4:

The Second Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa Poll

The

following

table

and

graph show the

degree

of

satisfaction/dissatisfaction the participants in each group

displayed in the ten areas polled.

This was determined by

taking the differences between the average responses to

"actually have control" and "should have control."

[Hotez

Although

the

Second

Gallup/Phi

Delta

Kappa

Poll

gave

respondents choices on a five-point Lickert scale, a four-

291

point

scale was

used

as

this portion of

the poll was

replicated for

this

study.]

The resultant score was

interpreted as the indication of the degree of satisfaction

(+

n

=

saturated

with

decision-making

participation

opportunities, 0 = amount of decision-making opportunities

alright .as

is,

-

n-“=

deprived

of

decision-making

Key

Nat’l

n= 830 (1.1.5:)

Class

n=

27 (60:)

Swarm:

7 (87.52)

participation opportunities) experienced in each area.

  

PHI DELTA KABPWGALLUP POLL

8.4

8.2

8.8

-8.2

-8.4

-B.6

-8.8

-1.8

-1.2

—1.4

-1.6

 

NAL’I

.Class

Super:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Student Placement

Textbooks

'

-1.2

-1.1

Disciplinary Policies

-1.2

How to Teach

Grading Policies

Homework

- .4

-1.2

- .3

Academic Standards

_

—1.5

-1.1

- .6

- .6

— .1

— .3

+ .1

- .5

What to Teach

+ .1

O

9.

Expenditure of Funds

—l.2

10.

School Schedule

,

~1.6

- .9

- .8

— .4

-1.0

- .6

0

— .3

+ .3

-1.4

+ .1

-1.2

— .9

Table 4: Gallup/Kappa Poll Decision-Making Responses

 

Summary.

292

In the national survey, teachers perceived themselves

as lacking actual authority in nine out of ten cases.

The

single exception was determining what to teach.

The two

areas

in which teachers felt most seriously deprived of

authority were

determining

academic

standards

for

their

schools and establishing the school

schedule.

Not far

behind were:

setting grading policies,

determining which

students are placed in, which classes, setting (discipline

policy for the school, and determining how school funds are

spent on instructional materials.

The Omega classroom teachers who responded felt like

they lacked authority in eight out of ten cases.

They also

felt that they had sufficient authority in the area of

determining what to teach, and that they had slightly more

than enough say in the area of determining the amount of

homework

given

to

students.

They

felt most

seriously

deprived in the area of student placement.

Not far behind

in dissatisfaction were determining how school funds are

spent on instructional materials and determining the school

schedule.

Next came the tied areas of selecting textbooks

to be used in class and setting disciplinary policies for

the

school.

Following closely behind was the area of

determining school academic standards.

A somewhat lesser

degree of dissatisfaction was expressed in the setting of

grading policies.

There was merely a slight dissatisfaction

in deciding how to teach.

 

 

293

The Reading Support Group members felt that they lacked

authority

in

seven

out

of

ten

cases.

They felt most

satisfied in the area of deciding how to teach a given

class.

They felt that they had more than enough decision-

making authority in the areas of homework and deciding what

to

teach

in

class.

They

were

most

dissatisfied

in

determining academic standards

for the

school,

followed

closely

by

the

expenditure

of

school

funds

for

instructional materials.

Next came a dissatisfaction in

textbook selection and determining the

school

schedule.

Slightly less dissatisfaction was expressed regarding their

role in student placement and setting grading policy.

Toward Reading Curriculum Implementation

The following questions were proposed in Chapter 1

related to the topic of reading curriculum implementation:

1.

How does the district attempt to implement its

new reading curriculum?

2.

What kinds of concerns do teachers express as they

attempt to implement this new reading curriculum?

3.

How does the district attempt to meet those needs

or address those concerns?

4.

What evidences are there that these teachers feel

empowered/disempowered

as

they

seek

to

effect

reading

curriculum

change

within

their

own

classrooms

and

the

district?

Of the three major topics dealt with in this project,

this

area of

implementation was especially difficult to

assess

adequately,

due

to

at

least

two major

factors.

First,

according

to

Hall

(1975),

implementation

of

innovation can take from 3-5 years, a time framework beyond

-the scope of this study.

Second, there are several other

 

294

curricular areas presently being addressed, an occurrence

which Hall calls innovation bundles.

Many’ of the Omega

elementary teachers expressed concern about such overload as

they were

involved

in writing and/or receiving several

curriculum guides at once.

This research project can, therefore, only investigate

the very beginnings of implementation.

Many of the research

questions for this topic can be answered by referring the

reader back to the discussion on each type of inservice just

covered in this section.

The

impact

of

the Reading Study Committee

initial

inservice is especially difficult to isolate.

The comments

of the individuals immediately upon the completion of the

final session were used in this manuscript. to judge the

effect.

The impact of the Reading Strategic Inservices can be

judged on the basis of the participation of the attendees at

the Reciprocal Teaching Debriefing Session, along with the

post-Debriefing

interviews

and

the

Information

Meeting

stated concerns.

The impact of the Reading Support Group on reading

curriculum

implementation

was

synopsized

throughout

the

meetings and summarized at the end of each session, as well

as reinforced and extended by the comments at. the Final

Meeting: Debriefing.

 

 

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this document,

I have focused upon the issue of

teacher

empowerment

and

its

evidences within the

Omega

district.

I identified the factors in this setting which

facilitate and impede empowerment,

as well as reactions

toward

teacher

empowerment.

Subsequent

to

that,

I

investigated

staff

development

for

reading

curriculum

implementation, seeking a staff development model that would

be congruent with the components of teacher empowerment.

A

top down model

(an outside expert),

an interactive model

(on—site

trainers),

and

a

bottom-up model

of

staff

development were studied as they occurred during my time in

the field.

The major concentration was on the third one, a

Reading

Support

Group,

fashioned

on

the

concepts

of

a

humanistic

teacher

center.

Finally,

an

empowerment

questionnaire

was

discussed,

and

comparisons

were

made

between

the

national

averages,

the

Omega

teachers

in

general, and the Reading Support Group members.

This

final

chapter

summarizes

the

study,

draws

conclusions,

and

looks

at

the

implications

and

recommendations of teacher empowerment for staff development

toward reading curriculum implementation.

It also contains

questions for further study.

295

 

296

Summary of the Study

It has been shown that the Omega district has made many

attempts to empower its teachers.

This empowerment. was

specifically examined in relationship to the work of the

district Reading Study Committee,

originally a group of

twenty-four K-12 volunteer teachers who were commissioned to

study the present state of reading in the district, inform

themselves

of

recent

research

in

the

field,

and

make

recommendations

for

the

future

direction

of

reading

instruction

within

the

Omega

Public

Schools.

The

end

product

was

to

include

a

district

written

reading

curriculum

guide

and

procedures

for

dissemination

of

information to classroom teachers,

as well as decisions

about appropriate materials.

Evidences of Empowerment.

The three components which Maeroff (1988) identified as

essential to empowering teachers (status, knowledge, power)

formed the framework for the research data.

Cited evidence

confirmed the presence of these three aspects within the

Omega

district.

Status

was

boosted

through

providing

administrative support, encouraging internal leadership, and

eliciting and addressing teachers’ needs.

Knowledge was

increased through informing the decision makers, utilizing

on-site

trainers,

and

educating

classroom

teachers

and

administrators.

Access to decision making was provided

through facilitating collaboration, developing collegiality,

and sharing power.

 

Mixed Reactions to Empowerment.

297

The

mixed

reactions

to

teacher

empowerment

(e.g.,

satisfaction,

excitement, pleasure, but also ambivalence,

confusion,

misinterpretation,

impatience,

and

even

withdrawl)

arose

in relationship to the realities that

teacher empowerment changes the status quo, shifts power,

and takes time.

Impediments tp Empowerment.

The

Maeroff

principles

were

seen

as

facilitating

empowerment, but there were present several impediments to

teacher empowerment in this setting, as well.

First, time again came into play here: time to learn

new roles, time to get input from "the ground up," time to

acquire new knowledge, time to write a curriculum, time to

plan for innovation, time to implement new reading methods.

Second,

the

nature

of

previous

inservices

caused

teachers

to

feel

uncertain

about

implementation

of

innovative strategies,

since the inservices were seen as

insufficient

in duration and content.

Individuals also

perceived a

lack of support in implementation,

both in

personnel and in resources.

Third,

there

were

concerns

expressed

related

to

innovation

overload,

due

to

the

fact that

several

new

curriculum guides and additional changes within the teaching

context

were

simultaneously

being

recommended

and/or

required.

Staff development plans for all of these

 

 

298

curriculums were lacking: integration of curriculum guides

was recommended, but it has not yet become a reality.

Fourth, external pressures were experienced in the form

of bureaucratic mandates, especially with regard to state

assessment testing and reading support service guidelines.

Fifth, a history of teacher isolation in the district

made

it

necessary

for

teachers

to

learn

how

to

work

collegially and collaboratively.

Sta

Deve o

e t f

wer

nt.

Three

types

of

staff

development

aimed

toward

implementing innovation in the area of reading curriculum

were

highlighted.

The

first

type,

the

Reading

Study

Committee Initial Inservice, represented a top down model

where an outside expert was brought in.

Its benefits and

deficiencies for teacher empowerment and reading curriculum

implementation in this context were noted.

The second type

represented an

interactive model where

on-site trainers

conducted

voluntary

Reading

Strategy

Inservices.

Its

strengths

and weaknesses

toward teacher empowerment

and

reading

curriculum

implementation

in

this

setting

were

identified.

The third type,

the Reading Support Group,

represented

a

bottom

up

model

where

a group of

eight

teachers met on a weekly basis to discuss topics related to

their

own

identified

concerns.

Its

empowering

and

disempowering aspects were cited.

 

299

A comparison of the three with the Loucks-Horsley et.

al

(1986)

essential

characteristics

of

effective

staff

development for successful change efforts was made.

Conclusions of the Study

Not only did I give evidence that teacher empowerment

is a reality in the Omega district, but I also confirmed my

original

hypothesis

that

the

Reading

Support

Group

represented one type of staff development that would empower

teachers.

When

measured

by

the

characteristics

listed

for

effective

staff

development,

the

Reading

Support

Group

conformed

to

them

very

well

except

in

the

areas

of

"sustained

administrative

support,"

"integration

of

individual

goals

with

school

and

district

goals,"

and

"formal placement of the program within the philosophy and

organizational structure of the school and the district."

This reflects the concern expressed in the literature on

teacher centers about their "tandemness" (Rogers, 1976).

The characteristics of the Reading Support Group also

correlated with the criteria which Maeroff (1988b) cited for

inservice education at its best.

As such, it (a) broke down

isolation

and

built

networks

(an

esprit

de

corps),

(b) bolstered confidence, (c) increased knowledge of subject

matter and pedagogy (providing fresh information and. new

insights,

along with ways to put this knowledge at the

disposal of students),

(d) provided the kind of learning

 

300

that fires enthusiasm, and (e) involved teachers in kinds of

projects that provided access to decision making (at least

within this group context and within their own classrooms).

The final criterion, follow up mechanisms, was recognized by

the members of the Reading Support Group as essential for

the

future,

specifically,

at times

convenient

for more

colleagues to participate ("every other week or once a month

would be viable" and, ideally, on release time).

Furthermore,

the

Reading

Support

Group

met

the

requisites that Berliner (1987) validated for bridging the

gap from theory to practice: talking about practice permits

individuals to examine, reinforce, refine, and expand their

own theories.

In addition, it possessed the /I/D/E/A (1967-1972) and

Rand

School

Renewal

and

Change (1974)

recommendations:

(a) the school site should be an important component of the

change process, and teachers (and administrators) should be

provided skills and time necessary to focus attention on

school-site

problem

solving;

(b)

staff

development

activities

should flow from and be related to problems

identified by the staff who play a major role in determining

staff development and inservice activities and needs;

(c)

teachers (and administrators) have expertise to help solve

roblems,

and,

therefore,

collegial sharing should figure

prominently in staff development activities.

Wood and Thompson’s (1980) composite of Adult Learning

Characteristics also were congruent with the Reading Support

 

301

Group content and context: (a) the topics were job-related

and immediately useful; (b) they were relevant to personal

and professional needs; (c) there were evident results;

(d)

because of ego involvement, there were indications of

anxiety,

fear,

guilt,

and negative self—concepts as new

learning took place; (e) there was the need for instruction

to be individualized,

since each individual came with a

unique past history; (f) this staff development effort aimed

to encourage

and create

favorable conditions

(Devaney’s

[1977]

warmth,

concreteness,

time,

and

thought)

for

learning, since motivation for learning rested with these

adult learners;

(g) there was respect, trust, and concern

demonstrated for the learner.

Lieberman and Miller’s (1978) implications for staff

development, based on their perceptions of the realities of

teaching (social realities and dailiness) apply, as well:

(a) the

Reading

Support

Group

engaged

the individuals;

(b)

it took a reactive stance, starting from where these

teachers were, not where they should have been; (c) it got

individuals personally involved in implementation with and

by people who understood these participants’ needs; (d) it

established supportive conditions;

(e)

it looked at staff

development according to a growth model.

In harmony with

the final implication, Feiman (1983) has singled out the

teacher center as one example which meets the criterion of a

developmental style of inservice education.

 

302

Based on the

literature on teacher empowerment and

staff development, in conjunction with the evidence gained

from the field, I concluded that a humanistic teacher center

does have the ability to empower teacher participants.

Implications/Recommendations Resulting from the Study

Overall, I feel that this study has confirmed the route

that the Omega Superintendent and Board of Education have

begun to pursue in an attempt to provide a facilitative

climate within which teachers of the district have been

encouraged and enabled to take responsibility for designing

and

implementing

improvements

within

their

respective

curricular areas (i.e., teacher empowerment).

This study,

however, has also pointed out several areas of concern and

challenge that appear to be worthy of further note at this

critical time.

There are several implications which arise from this

study, and they will again be classified according to the

categories embodied within the title of this study.

I will

follow the stated implications with recommendations to the

Omega Public School’s Board of Education as they continue on

the path they have chosen.

The recommendations specifically

relate

to

the

areas

of:

(1)

awareness

of

mission,

(2) support from administrators, (3) evaluation of teachers,

(4)

use

of

personnel

in

creative

ways,

(5)

need

for

developing collaboration and collegiality, and (6) concern

for teacher overload.

 

303

Empowerment Issues.

For the district.

The district must have a clear sense of mission, and

administrators,

teachers,

parents,

students,

and

the

community must be

aware of that mission and must work

together to accomplish it.

With that mission clearly stated

as a priority, it will be possible for each to exert his/her

own efforts to see that it is accomplished in the way s/he

sees fit.

Recommendation # 1: Awareness of mission.

I recommend

that increased attention be given to informing school board

members,

administrators,

teachers,

parents,

students,

and

the community of the mission of the school district.

This

may be

done

through presentations

and publications.

For Administrators.

Administrative

support

is

crucial.

This

includes

giving recognition, reinforcement, and respect.

It means

providing

teachers with the opportunity to have a say, as

well as legitimizing that say.

This administrative support

must be overt and ongoing.

Administrative support must take

a variety of

forms,

including financial,

personnel,

and

resources backing.

Administrative

leadership

must

be

strong,

but

not

autocratic;

rather,

it

must

be

"soft."

In

sports

terminology, it can be likened to a playing coach.

In music

terminology,

it can be likened to an orchestra conductor

directing the many different instruments into one harmonious

 

304

symphony.

Other descriptors are coordinators, facilitators,

and enablers.

Administrators must share their power with teachers,

assuming that the best decisions which can be made in regard

to the classroom are made by those closest to the situation.

This may mean that administrators initially need to trust

teachers before teachers have proven worthy of that trust.

Recommendation #

2: Support from administrators.

I

recommend that in-service education be made available for

administrators

in

order

to

provide

them

with

the

facilitative

skills

and

process

orientation

that

is

associated with empowerment.

For teachers.

Teachers

should

assume

leadership roles within the

district, and they should be given the time, encouragement,

and training necessary to help them to succeed in those

roles.

The empowered teacher moves toward an internal locus of

control,

resulting

in

reduced stress,

higher

levels

of

satisfaction, a discounting of luck or fate, an acceptance

of

responsibility,

and

a

feeling

of

influence

in

her

educational

environment.

S/he

is

energized by her/his

teaching.

Recommendation

#

3:

Evaluation

of

teachers.

I

recommend that consideration be given to the relationship

between

teacher

empowerment

and

the

criteria

by

which

teachers

are

evaluated.

As

teachers

take

on

new

   

305

responsibilities,

the tasks and roles of these teachers

should be acknowledged as vital to their employment.

Staff Development Issues.

For staff developers.

The

goal

of

staff development

is

the

professional

development of teachers (i.e., teacher empowerment).

Staff

development must be continuous and ongoing, it must take a

variety of

forms

to meet the

individual needs of each

teacher (one size does not fit all).

It must be long-term

and sensitive ("handholding," "spoon fed").

Staff

development

does

not

happen

by

itself-—

collaborative leadership is needed.

Teachers tend to resist imposed, prescribed inservices

which are often interpreted as an attack on their present

teaching or an assumption of incompetency.

Teachers can be helped to identify and solve their own

problems.

Staff development should start where teachers

are, not where they should be.

This is based on the belief

that teachers are professionally competent people who can

and will

select priority areas

for their own

inservice

needs.

Self-concerns must be legitimized.

There must be an

acknowledgement of and respect for self concerns, as well as

overt attempts made to address and resolve those concerns.

Teachers, like students, come to the learning situation

with a great deal of baggage.

Instruction for teachers as

learners must be individualized, just as it is for students.

 

306

Teachers should be made to feel that what they know and

do will be respected and does make a difference.

Teacher

prior knowledge must be recognized and extended.

Staff development should discard a training model for a

growth model.

It must be acknowledged that growth is slow

and not even-paced; development is non-linear.

The

focal

point

for

staff

development

is

the

individual,

working with others,

trying to do the best

possible

job

of

educating

children.

Norms

must

be

developed

within

the

faculty

that

encourage

sharing,

collaboration,

innovation,

risk-taking,

and

reflective

thinking.

Recommendation # 4: Use of personnel in creative ways.

I recommend that,

in addition to administrative support,

teachers also need to have professional assistance on a

regular

basis

from

non-administrative

colleagues.

One

method of support might be to assign teachers already in the

district to assume the role of helping teachers,

those

individuals

who

can

take

the

role

of

facilitators

and

coordinators in each curricular area with the knowledge,

skills, initiative, and time to give help as needed.

This

help may be through technical assistance, staff development,

additional resources, or released time.

A second method of

support could occur in split-time positions, where teachers

assume the role of consultants/coordinators to their peers

half time while teaching children half time.

A third method

of

support might be the hiring of

a

staff development

:2 "nave  

a to} (IRS. pnintnrs s bsuvr.h azuonu Insane

5*“ m mint-an

.-"MP':‘!'

-"'

w'n'

5..

1"‘- .c

"

.2 .u

-

I

.

”+3?-

:'H." “(1.0"!

_ run

. a I

 
 

307

coordinator,

a person who can serve as

an advisor and

advocate

for

staff

members,

one who

can help teachers

clarify and follow up on their development experiences.

For teachers.

Teachers must continue to be learners if they are to be

empowered.

This allows them to create and use their own

knowledge, as opposed to depending upon outside experts.

Teachers, not curriculum, are the most important part

of

the

instructional

program,

for

the

reality

is

that

teachers become the curriculum in their own classrooms when

the doors are closed.

Teachers must be active in their own education: they

must be trusted to recognize their own needs, form their own

purposes, and direct their own activities in the learning

process.

Teachers are their own best resources for identifying

and solving many of their own problems: they have different

needs at different times, and they are in the position to

best know their own needs.

Recommendation # 5: Need

for

developing

collegiality

and collaboration.

I recommend that better use be made of

the

present

structure

of

department/grade

group

Chairpersons.

Since it takes time to develop a sense of

collaboration and collegiality, these groups should meet on

a regular basis (at least once a month) in order to help

teachers identify and solve problems most closely related to

their own settings.

To demonstrate to teachers that the

 

308

administration views this

as

a priority,

these meetings

should occur on release time, possibly dismissing school an

hour earlier or starting school an hour later once a month.

Implemenpapipn Issues.

For staff developers.

Teachers do not change teaching behavior because they

have

a

curriculum guide

or

because

they are told to.

Teachers need to take ownership if change is to occur.

Teachers

will

take

greater

ownership

if

they

are

empowered through involvement and participation and if they

are at least partially responsible for defining their own

education

problems

and delineating their own needs

and

receiving help on their own terms.

("You can teach an old

dog new tricks.")

Change takes time.

It is more than getting started.

There needs to be support provided throughout. Teachers must

be

assured

of

on-site

assistance

as

innovation

of

the

implementation occurs.

Teachers

must

be

aware

of

the

requirements

for

implementation of the innovation, with. clear expectations

given.

Innovation must be presented as something that can

be done a little at a time: needed skills must be clearly

outlined.

The teacher must be encouraged to trust his/her own

judgment, to adopt or adapt as s/he sees fit.

Teachers

cannot

empower

their

students

if

they

themselves do not feel empowered.

If teachers are tightly

 

 

309

controlled

by

bureaucratic

mandates,

they

will

tightly

control their students.

Teachers’

satisfaction

(efficacy)

is

tied

in

to

children’s learning.

When evaluation is made, it is important to remember

that,

as with any new innovation, initial results may be

worse rather than better.

Recommendation #

6: Concern for teacher overload.

I

recommend that the district be especially sensitive to the

issue of elementary teacher overload at this point.

Since

even relatively simple innovations take time, there should

be

restrictions

about

how

many

curricular

areas

are

addressed at one time: less may be more.

To that end, it

would be advisable to have one teacher representative from a

specific curricular area meet with either the Board of

Education as a whole or the Education Subcommittee of the

Board

monthly

in

order

to

share

their

unique

goals,

concerns,

and

successes.

Teachers

should

be

given

assistance (peer, consultant, administrative, and resources)

as they attempt to integrate the varied curricular areas.

Questions for Further Study

There remain additional questions to be answered, both

in the context of the broader educational community and

within the narrow confines of the Omega district.

Again,

they

will

be

divided

into

the

categories

of

teacher

empowerment,

staff

development,

and

reading

curriculum

implementation.

 

Teacher Empowerment.

310

How do teachers become empowered?

Do they assume

certain decision-making roles because of experience?

Are

they encouraged by their administrators?

Have they' had

certain training?

Are they a special breed: i.e., do they

have certain cognitive,

emotional,

social,

or policital

characteristics?

Can anyone/everyone be empowered?

What is the impact--long and short term--of teacher

empowerment on student achievement?

Staff Development.

To what extent should staff development concentrate on

the practical day-to-day needs of teachers as opposed to

also being concerned with

larger questions dealing with

educational theory, research, and philosophy?

Can teachers

grow without consideration of these broader questions?

What should the role of administrators be within the

context of staff development?

Should staff development be

so exclusively teacher centered that principals and other

administrators are excluded from participation?

C

a

n

schools

change

very

much

if

administrators

are

not

involved?

How

can

staff

development

include

both

administrators

and

teachers

without

threatening

either

group?

How can staff development programs attract reluctant

teachers?

How

can

they

meet

the

needs

of

beginning

teachers?

 

311

How can staff development avoid the tandemness that

seems to dominate so much of their offerings and instead

provide a more coherent, sustained, and continuous help for

teachers?

Reading Currigplmm Implemention.

How will the new reading curriculum guide be perceived

and utilized by the teachers in the district?

What challenges and concerns will teachers face as they

actually implement the new curriculum?

How will curriculum implementation be monitored and

assessed in a teacher-empowered setting?

How can the topic

be addressed without "disempowering" individuals?

If all of

this is done by volunteers, what happens when the time comes

to ensure that the curriculum guide is followed and not just

put on the shelf or in a drawer, as had previously occurred?

Who

makes

the

decision

regarding

implementation

and

evaluation? the Curriculum Director, building principals,

the Reading Study Committee chairperson, or peers?

How will

articulation and consistency and continuity be addressed?

How

will

the

New

Definition

of

Reading

and

its

concomitant strategies impact on student achievement?

How

will student reading achievement be assessed in the future?

 

". -

r.=._'

udh-rrv’. um to m

'

-.'

fibrlm

7 P-‘ibwt; .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, C.B. (1986, November).

Teacher education to change

the

workplace.

Paper

presented

at

the

American

Educational Studies Association Convention, Pittsburg,

PA.

Ambrosia, F.

(1989).

The case for collaborative, versus

negotiated, decision making.

NASSP Bulletin, 23

(518), 56-59.

Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I.G.

(1985).

Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of

the Commission on Reading.

Urbana: University of IL

Center for the Study of Reading.

Apple, M. (1983).

Curriulum in the year 2000: Tensions

and possibilities.

Phi Delta Kappan, em (5), 321-326.

Ashcroft, L. (1987).

Diffusing "empowering": The what

and

the why.

Language Arts, éi (2), 142-156.

Bacharach, S.B., Bauer, S.C., & Shedd, J.B. (1986, April).

the learning workplace: The conditions and resources of

teaching.

In

National

Education

Association,

Conditions & Resources of Teaching: A Special Report py

NBA (1988).

West Haven, CT: NEA Professional Library,

7-40.

Bader,

L.

(1989).

Communicating with teachers--honestly.

Phi Delta Kappan, 1g (8), 626-629.

Ball, D. & McDiarmid, B. (1987). Understanding how teachers’

knowledge changes. NCRTE Colloguy, 1 (1), 9-13.

Ban,

J.R.

(1980).

Cited in Halpin, G., Harris, K., and

Halpin, G. (1985).

Teacher stress as related to locus

of control,

sex,

and age.

Jour a

x er'

1

Education, 53 (3), 139.

Barr,

R.

(1986).

Studying classroom reading instruction.

Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (3), 231-236.

Barth, R.S.

(1985, April). The principal and the profession

of teaching.

Prepared for the California Commission on

the Teaching Profession.

312

 
 

 

 

 

313

Benson, C.S.

(1986).

Improving the learning workplace: A

strategy for action.

In National

E d 11 c a t:

i o n

Association (1988), Conditions & Resources of Teaehing:

A Special Report by NEA. West Haven, CT: NEA

Professional Library, 61-75.

Berliner, D. (1987).

Research on teacher effectiveness and

instructional time.

Paper presented at TE National

Conference, University of AZ at Tucson.

Blackman, C.A., Crowell, R.A., Holly, M.L., & VanVoorhees,

B. (1982, November).

Teachers as organizational staff

members:

The foundation for staff development/school

improvement.

Paper presented at The National Council

of States on Inservice Education, Atlanta, Georgia.

Bodgan, R.C.

& Biklen, S.K.

(1982).

anlitetive Beeeerep

for Education: An Introdmction to Theory and Methode.

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Boehnlein, M.

(1987).

Reading intervention for high-risk

first-graders.

Educational Leadershi , gm (6), 32-37.

Bradley,

A.

(1990,

February).

Who’s

in

charge

here?

Teacher Magazine, 22-24.

Brandt, R.

(1989).

On teacher empowerment: A conversation

with Ann Lieberman.

Educationel Leadership, 5e (8),

23-26).

Braunius,

B.D.

(1983).

Participatory

research

for

curriculum building: Establishing intentions in adult

religious education.

Doctoral dissertation, Michigan

State University.

Brody,

J.E.

(1982).

Cited in Halpin,

G.,

Harris,

K.,

&

Halpin, G.

(1985).

Teacher stress as related to locus

of control,

sex,

and age.

Journal of Experimemtel

Education, 5; (3), 139.

Brophy, J.

(1984).

The teacher as thinker:

Implementing

instruction.

In G.

Duffy,

L.

Roehler,

&

J.

Mason

(Eds.),

Comprehension

instruction:

Perspectives

end

suggestions (pp. 71-92).

New York & London: Longman.

(1979).

Teacher

behavior

and

its

effects.

Occasional

Paper

No.

25.

East

Lansing,

MI:

The

Institute

for Research on

Teaching,

Michigan

State

University.

Buckley, M.H. (1986).

When teachers decide to integrate the

language arts.

Language Arts, e3 (4), 369-377.

 

 

314

Burrell,

D.

(1976).

The

teachers

centre:

A

critical

analysis. Educational Leaderehip, ;; (6), 422-427.

Calfee, R.

& Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading.

In

M.

C.

Wittrock

(Ed.),

n bo k

f

a

h

0

Teaching, 3rd ed.

New York: Macmillan, 804-849.

Campbell, D.R. (1988).

Collaboration and contradiction in a

research

and

staff-development

project.

Teaehers

Cellege_8ecgrd, 29 (1), 99-121-

Carbo, M.

(1988).

Debunking the great phonics myth.

Phi

Delta_Kappan, 52 (3), 226-240.

Carnegie Forum (1986).

A Nation Prepared; Teachers fer the

2ist Century.

New York: Carnegie Forum on Education

and the Economy, Carnegie Corporation.

Carr, W.

& Kemmis, S.

(1983).

E_2_ming_§r1_icall_xngwing

e o '

't'

-

Through

Action

Research.

Victoria,

US:

Deakin

University Press, 24-51.

Casanova, U. (1989, January).

Research and practice: We can

integrate

them.

NEA

Today.

National

Education

Association, 44-49.

Castle,

5.

(1988,

April).

Teacher

empowerment through

knowledge

linking research and practice

for

school

reform.

Presented

at

the

Annual

Meeting

of

the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,

LA

Chall, J.S.

(1986).

The teacher as scholar.

The Reading

Teacher, ;9 (8), 792-797.

. (1989).

Learning to read: The great debate--20

years later.

Phi Delta Kappan, 1g (9), 521-538.

Clandinin, D.J.

(1986).

Cleesroom Practice: Teacher Imegee

in Action.

London & Philadelphia: The Falmar Press.

Clark,

C.M.

(1984,

June).

Research in the service of

teaching.

Paper presented at the Contexts of Literacy

Conference, Snowbird, Utah.

&

Lampert,

M.

(1986).

The

study

of

teacher

thinking: Implications for teacher education.

Jodrnel

0

ac er

u a

n, ;1 (5), 27-31.

Clay,

M.

(1989).

The

Early

Detectign

Qt

Reading

Difficulties, 3rd ed.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cohen, D.R. (1988, Winter).

Practices of human improvement.

Michigan State University.

Unpublished document.

 

 

315

(1988)

Teaching practice:

plus ca change

.

.

Issue Paper 88--3. East Lansing, MI: National Center for

Research

on

Teacher

Education,

Michigan

State

University.

Combs, A.W. (1988).

New assumptions for educational reform.

Educational Leadership, in (5), 38-40.

Crandall,

D.P.

(1983).

The

teacher’ 5

role

in

school

improvement. Educatipnei Leadership, 41 (3), 6-9.

Cuban,

L.

(1984).

Policy and research dilemmas in the

teaching of reasoning: Unplanned designs.

Beyiem_pf

Educatignal_3eseargh. 54 (4), 655- 681

(1988).

A fundamental puzzle of school reform.

__l_D_l§__K_PP§h, £2 (5), 340‘344-

Cusick, P.A.

(1973).

Inside High Scheel.

New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Devaney, K.

(Ed.) (1977).

Essaye en Teeehers’ Centere. San

Francisco:

Teachers’

Centers

Exchange,

Far

West

Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

(1976),

What's a teachers center for?

Edmeetienei

Leadership, ;; (6), 413—416.

& Thorn (Keeney),

L.

(1975). Exploring Teachere’

Centers.

San

Francisco:

Far

West

Laboratory

for

Educational Research and Development.

Dewey, J.

(1904).

The relation of theory to practice in

education.

In R.D. Archambault (Ed.), Jehn Dewey on

Educetion.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

(1933).

Why

reflective

thinking

must

be

an

educational

aim.

In R.D. Archambault (Ed.), Jehn

Chicago: University of Chicago 
Dewev on Education.

Press, 212-228.

(1956).

Experience

and

Edueetion.

New York:

Macmillan.

Dillon, D.(1990).

Pinning down empowerment. Instrpeter,

92

(5),26-36.

DiShino, M.

(1985, May).

The many phases of growth: One

teacher’s experience of learning.

Unpublished paper.

Duckworth,

E.

(1986).

Teaching

as

research.

Harvard

Educationai Review, dd (4), 481—495.

 

 

Duffy,

G.G.

& Roehler, L.R.

(1988).

Teaching skills as

strategies. The Reading Teacher, 59 (4), pp. 414-418.

316

.

The

tension

between

information-giving

and

mediation:

Perspectives on

instructional

explanation

and teacher change.

Prepared as a chapter for possible

inclusion

in

a volume on research on teaching for

meaningful and self-regulated learning in ‘the series

entitled Advances in Research on Teaching, J. Brophy,

Ed., JAI Press, Inc.

(1988, June 1).

&

Mason,

J-

(1984)-

Q9mprehensign__instruetigni

ers e t'ves

and

su

e

'

.

New York &

London:

Longman.

Durkin, D. (1978-1979).

What classroom observations reveal

about

reading

comprehension

instruction.

Bending

Research Quarterly, 14, 481- 533.

(1981).

Reading comprehension instruction in five

basal reader series.

Reading Reeeereh Quarterly, 1e

(4), 515--544.

Eisner,

E.W.

(1984).

Can

educational

research

inform

educational practice?

Ehi Delta Kappan, dd (7), 447-

452.

Elam,

S.M.

(1989). Second Gallup-Phi Delta Kappa poll of

teachers’

attitudes toward the public

schools.

Ehi

Delta Kappan, 1g (10), 785-798.

Eldredge, J.L. & Butterfield, D. (1986).

Alternatives t

0

traditional reading instruction.

The Reading Teacher,

39 (1), 32-37.

Erickson,

F.

(1985).

Qualitative methods in research on

teach1ng.

Occasional Paper No. 81. East Lansing, MI:

The Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State

University.

Fagan, W.T.

(1989). Empowered students; empowered teachers.

The Reading Teacher, 5; (8), 572-578.

Farr, R.

(1986).

Reading: Trends and ehalienges, 2nd. ed.

Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.

Feiman (Nemser), S. (1989).

Class notes.

(1977).

Evaluating teacher centers.

In Essays on

Teacher Cent

5,

K.

Devaney

(Ed.).

San Francisco:

Teachers’

Centers Exchange,

Far West Laboratory for

Educational Research and Development.

 

317

(1983).

Learning

to

teach.

In

Handbook

of

Teaching and Eolicy, L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), 150-

170.

(1979).

Technique

and

inquiry

in

teacher

education:

A

curricular

case

study.

Curriculum

Inguiry, 9 (1), 63-79.

& Floden, R.E. (1980).

What’s all this talk about

teacher development?

Research Series No.

70.

East

Lansing,MI:

The Institute for Research on Teaching,

Michigan State University.

Fenstermacher, G.D. & Berliner, D.C. (1985). Determining the

value of

staff development.

The__Eiementery_333nmzi

Jonrnai, Ed (3), 281-314.

Floden,

R.E.

(1985).

The role of rhetoric in changing

teachers’ beliefs.

Teaching and Teeeher Educatien, 1

(1), 19-32.

Florio, S. (1981).

Very special natives: The evolving role

of teachers as informants in educational ethnography.

O.P. # 42.

East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research

on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Frymier,

J.

(1987).

Bureaucracy

and

the neutering of

teachers.

Phi Delta Ka

an, E2 (1), 9-14.

Fuller, F.F. (1969).

Concerns of teachers: A developmental

characterization.

American Research dournel, d (2),

207-226.

Gage,

N.

L.

(1977).

The Scientific Basie of the Art pt

Teaching. New York and London: Teachers College Press.

Garrison,

J.W.

(1988).

Democracy,

scientific knowledge,

inquiry,and

teacher

empowerment.

Teachers

College

Record, E9 (4), 487-504.

Gensante, L.U. & Matgouranis, E.M. (1989).

The more I see,

the better I teach.

Educetionel Leedership, Ad (8),

28.

Gibboney,

R.A.

&

Gould,

J.M.

(1987,

August).

Staff

development and educational research through dialogue

in

two

school

systems:

A conceptual

and empirical

assessment. ED290215 EA019828

Glaser,

B.G.

& Strauss,

A.L.

(1967).

The Qiseovery of

Grounded Theory.

Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

Goodlad, J.

(1984).

A Place C

ed SC 001:

r s ec s for

the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 
 

318

Goodman, J. (1987, April).

Key factors in becoming (or not

becoming)

an

empowered

elementary

school

teacher.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association.

Washington, D.C.

Goodman, K.S. (1987).

Taking charge of your own teaching.

'

I 15 (2), 63-65-

, Goodman, Y.M.

& Hood, W.J.

(Eds.)

(1989).

The

Whole

Language

Evaluation

Book.

Portsmouth,

NH:

Heinemann.

Greene, M. (1986).

Reflection and passion in teaching.

Jeurnal or Cnrricnium end Supervieign, 1 (1).

(1979).

Teaching:

The

question

of

personal

reality.

In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.).

Etett

eve o

ent:

N w

De

nd

ew

e "

Eerspectives.

New York & London:

Teachers College

Press, 23-35.

Greer, J.V. (1989).

Another perspective and some immoderate

proposals

on

"teacher

empowerment."

Exceptienel

Children, e; (4), 294-297.

Griffin, G.A. (1979).

Guidelines for evaluation of staff

development

programs.

In

A.

Lieberman

&

L.

Miller

(Eds.).

Etaff Development:

ew Demands

'

'e

New Perspectives.

New York & London: Teachers College

Press, 126-140.

Grumet,

M.R.

(1989).

Dinner

at

Abigail’s:

Nurturing

collaboration. NEA Todav: Issues ’89, 1 (6), 20-25.

Guskey, T.R.

(1986). Staff development and the process of

teacher change.

Educ tional Researcher, i; (5), 5-12.

Guthrie, L.F. & Hall, William s. (1984).

Ethnographic

approaches to reading research.

In

P.

D.

Pearson

(Ed.).

Handbook

of

Reading Reseerch.

New York:

Longman, 91-110.

Hall,

G.E.

(1975, November).

The effects of "change" on

teachers

and

professors-~Theory,

research,

and

implications for' decision-makers. Preconference draft

for

presentation

at

the

National

Invitational

Conference

on

Research

on

Teacher

Effects:

An

Examination

by

Policy-Makers

and

Researchers,

NIE

(National Institute of Education).

 

319

& Loucks,

S.

Teacher concerns as a basis for

facilitating and personalizing staff development.

In

A. Lieberman &

I“ Miller (Eds.).

Staff Qevelepment:

New Demands

New

ealities

New P r

c 'ves.

New York

& London: Teachers College Press, 36-53.

& Rutherford,

W.L.

(1975)

Concerns of teachers

about implementing the innovation of team teaching.

University of TX at Austin: Procedures for' Adopting

Educational

Innovations

Project,

Research

and

Development Center for Teacher Education.

Halpin, G., Harris, K., & Halpin, G. (1985). Teacher stress

as related to locus of control, sex, and age.

pf Experimentel Education, 5; (3), 136-140.

Hammond, D. (1985, February).

Where the basics fit.

Presentation

at

the

State

of

Basals

Conference,

Kalamazoo, MI.

Hanley, P.E. & Swick, K.J. (1983).

Teacher Renewel:

Revitalization

of

Ciessroom

Teachers.

Washington,

D.C.: National Education Association.

Hoachlander,

E.

Gareth

(1986,

October).

Improving the

learning

workplace:

Can

we

afford

the

cost?

In

National Education Association, Conditions E Resourees

of

Teaching:

A Special Report by NBA

(1988).

West

Haven, CT: NEA Professional Library, 77-87.

Holmes Group (1986).

Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the

Holmes Group.

East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group, Inc.

Hoy, W.K. & Rees, R. (1977).

The bureaucratic socialization

of student teachers.

Journal of Teacher Education, ad

(1), 23-26.

Huey,

E.B.

(1908,

1968).

The Psychology and Pedagggy pt

Reading. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.

Hull,

B.

(1978,

April).

Teachers’

seminars on. children’s

thinking:

A

progress

report.

Grand

Forks,

SD:

University of North Dakota.

Instructor (1986).

Here’s what you care about most! ii (9),

30—32.

. What do you care about most? £5 (5), 20-22.

Jackson, P.W. (1975).

Old dogs and new tricks: Observations

on the continuing education of teachers.

In L.J. Rubin

(Ed.),

improving

ln-Service

Educetion:

Prepoeal

and

procedures for change.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

 

 

320

Joyce,

E.

&

Showers,

B.

(1980).

Improving

inservice

training:

The

messages

of

research.

Educetignai

Leadership, 11 (6), 379—385.

Kanter, R. M. (1985).

Managing the human side of crlantge.

Management Review, 2A (8), 52-56.

(1983).

The Change Masters.

New York: Simon and

Shuster.

Karant,

V.I.

(1989).

Supervision in the age of teacher

empowerment. Educatignal_Leadership. 46 (8). 27-29-

Katz,

L.

(1972).

Developmental

stages

of

preschool

teachers. Elementarx_§9h991_ggurnal, Z; (1). 50-54.

Keyes, T.P. (1988, February).

Teacher empowerment and

renewal:

A

14-month

mid-career

enhancement

policy.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

New

Orleans, LA.

Kimpston,

R.D.

& Anderson,

D.H.

(1986).

The locus of

curriculum decision making and teachers’ perceptions of

their own attitudes and behaviors toward curriculum

planning.

Journal of Qurriculum and Supervieion, .1

(2), 100-110.

Knott, C.A.

(1987, October).

The paradox of empowerment.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Association

for

Adult

and

Continuing

Education,

Washington, D.C.

Knowles, M. (1973).

he

du t Learner: A Ne lec e

ecies.

Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 172-175.

Lagana, J.F. (1989).

Managing change and school improvement

effectively.

NASSP Eulletin, 1; (518), 52-55.

Lampert, M. (1988, Fall).

Class notes.

Landsmann,

L.

(1988).

10 resolutions for teachers.

Ehi

Delta Kappan, d2 (5), 373-374.

Language Arts (1987, February).

Lezotte, L.W.

(1979, June).

Teacher centers: The new

marketplace for teacher educators? A resounding maybe!

Occasional

Paper

No.

23.

East

Lansing,

MI:

The

Institute

for Research on Teaching,

Michigan State

University.

 

 

321

LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J.P. (1982).

Problems of

reliability

and

validity

in

ethnographic

research.

Review of Educational Research, 5; (1), 31-60.

Leiter, M. & Cooper, M. (1979).

Staff development and

school change.

In A. Lieberman & L. lflller (Eds.).

Staff

Development:

New DemandsI

New Realities,

New

Perspectives.

New York

&

London:

Teachers College

Press, 107-125.

Lickona,

T.

&

Hasch,

P.

(1976).

Research on teachers

centers. Educatienal_Leadershin. 33 (6), 450-455-

Lieberman, A.

(1988).

Expanding the leadership team.

Edueetional Leedership, ed (5), 4-8.

(1988).

Teachers and principals: Turf, tension,

and new tasks.

Phi Deita Kappan, d9 (9), 648-653.

&

Miller,

L.

(1979).

The

social

realities

of

teaching.

In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.).

Staff

Deyelopment:

New

Demandsl

New

Bealitiee,

New

Perspectives.

New

York

&

London:

Teachers

College

Press, 54-68.

Lightfoot, S.L. (1983).

The Good High School: Portraits of

Character and Culture.

New York: Basic Books.

Little,

J.W.

(1982).

Norms

of

collegiality

and

experimentation:

Workplace

conditions

of

school

success.

American Edueatienal Research dournei,

i2

(3), 325-340.

(1984).

Seductive

images

and

organizational

realities in professional development. Teachers College

Record, Ed (1), 84-102.

Lortie, D.C.

(1975).

Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Loucks-Horsley,

S.,

Harding,

C.K.,

Arbuckle,

M.,

Murray,

L.B.,Dubea, C., & Williams, M.K. (1987).

Continuing to

Learn:

A

Guidebook

for

Teacher

Development.

U.S.

Department of Education: The Regional Laboratory for

Educational Improvement of the Northeast & Islands and

The National Staff Development Council.

Maeroff, G.I.

(1988a).

Blueprint for empowering teachers.

Phi Delta Kappan, d2 (7), 473-477.

(1988b).

The Empowerment of Teachers: Overcoming

the

Crisis

of

Confidence.

New

York

and

London:

Teachers College Press.

til-T01-   - n

m Juli)”. __..

1 mm“ .5 n1 -.

..n-ubnc-J.

aim}

we!!!

'.i' I

I

._-|.

_;

.T

‘

..I

.

-..

If:|

l'

a!

.

.

_

.

_I‘.

-

'

' 2.3.3 .eufllflb

.1131“!on

.

:.-_:-.a.

322

(19880).

Teacher

empowerment:

A

step

toward

professionalization.

N SS

ul e 'n, 1; (511), 52-60.

(1989).

The principles of teacher empowerment.

The Edneation Digest, he (6), 6-9.

Mager, G.M., Myers, 8., Maresca, N., Rupp, L., & Armstrong,

L.

(1986).

Changes in teachers’ work lives.

The

W. a (3), 345-357.

Marsh, D.D. (1987, April).

Research utilization strategies

for preservice and inservice teacher education. Paper

presented at the (68th) Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.

Martin,

D.S.

(1981).

Reinventing the curriculum wheel.

Educatienal Leadership, ;9 (2), 130-131.

McCutcheon,

G.

(1985).

Curriculum

theory/curriculum

practice: A gap or the Grand Canyon?

SCD Yeerheok.

Alexandria,

VA:

Association

for

Supervision

and

Curriculum Development, 45-52.

McDonald, J.P. (1988).

Democracy, scientific knowledge, and

teacher empowerment.

Teachers College Recerd, E2 (4),

471-486.

McEvoy, B. (1985).

Everyday acts: Staff development as

continuous and informal routine.

Paper presented at

the American Educational Research Association.

McKean,

R.E.

(1977).

Uses

of

research

in

curriculum

development. Unpublished manuscript.

McKee,

P.

(1975).

A Primer for Parents.

Boston,

MA:

Houghton

Mifflin.

McLaughlin, M.W.

& Marsh, D.D.

(1979).

Staff development

and school change: The Rand Corporation Change Agent

Study (1974).

In A. Lieberman &

L. Miller (Eds.),

Staff

Development:

New Demands,

New Beelitiee,

New

Perspectives.

New York & London:

Teachers College

Press, 69-94.

McNeil, L.M.

(1988).

Contradictions of control, part 1:

Administrators and teachers. Ehi Delta Keppen, d9 (5) ,

333-339.

(1988).

Contradictions

of

control,

part

2:

Teachers, students, and curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan,

d2 (6), 432-438.

 

 

323

(1988).

Contradictions

of

control,

part

3:

Contradictions of reform.

Ehi Delta Kappan, e2 (7),

478-485.

Menters, S. & Yarger, S. (1988). Teaching as a professional:

Leadership,

empowerment,

and involvement. Journal of

Teacher Education, 22 (1), 32-37.

Michaels, K.

(1988).

Caution: Second-wave reform ‘taking

place.

Educetienai Leadership, 52 (5), 3.

Michigan

Reading

Association:

Reading

Curriculum Review

Committee. What research says .

.

.

(1987). Leadership Training Modules.

Miller,

L.

& Wolf,

T.E.

(1979).

Staff development for

school change: Theory and practice.

In A. Lieberman &

L. Miller (Eds.),

staff peyelopment: new Qemends, new

Realities,

New

Perspectives.

New

York

&

London:

Teachers College Press,

144-160.

Mosenthal, P. (1984).

The problem of partial specification

in translating reading research into practice.

The

Elementary School Journal, 22 (2), 199-227.

Murphy, J.T. (1989).

The paradox of decentralizing schools.

Phi Delta Kappan, 12 (19), 808-812.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983).

A

Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National

Education

Association

(1988).

Conditions

&

Resources of Teaching: A Special Report by NEA.

West

Haven, CT: National Education Association.

Norton, R.A. (1986, November).

Ownership and function: A

case study of an inservice project.

Paper presented at

the (65th) Annual Meeting of the California Education

Research Association.

O’Loughlin, M. & Campbell, M.B. (1988, February).

Teacher

preparation,

teacher

empowerment,

and

reflective

inquiry: A critical perspective.

Paper presented at

the

Annual

Meeting of

the American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.

Omizo,

M.M.,

Omizo,

S.A.,

&

Michael,

W.B.

(1987).

Relationship of locus of control inventory for three

achievement domains

(LOCITAD)

to two other locus of

control

measures:

A

construct

validity

study.

Educational and Psychologicai Measurement, 21 (3), 737-

742.

 

324

Paquette, M. (1987).

Voluntary collegial support groups for

teachers.

Educational Leadership, 22 (3), 36-39.

Pearson, P. D., Ed. (1984).

Handbook of reading research.

New York & London: Longman.

Primiano,

E.

(1989).

Lauro Cavazos talks about reading

and his education goals.

Instructor, 22 (9), 34-37.

Rallis,

S.

(1988).

Room

at

the

top:

Conditions

for

effective school leadership.

Ehi Delta Kappan, e2 (9),

643-647.

Reimer,

B.L.

& Warshow,

L.

(1989).

Questions we ask. of

ourselves and our students. The Reading Teacher, 22

(8),

596-606.

Rice,

K.

(1987).

Empowering

teachers:

A

search

for

professional autonomy.

Information Anaiyses.

Masters’

Thesis: Dominican College of San Rafael.

Unpublished

Document.

Robinson, H. A.

(1977).

Reading instruction and research:

An historical perspective.

In H.

A. Robinson (Ed.),

Reading and Writing Instructign in the United states:

Historical Trends.

Newark, DE: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Reading and Communication Skills, 44-57.

Rogers, V.R.

(1976). Teachers centers in the U.S.: An idea

whose time has come?

Educational Leadership, 22 (6),

403-405.

(1976).

Why

teachers

centers

in

the

U.S.?

Educational Leadership, 22 (6), 406-412.

Romberg, T.A. (1988).

Can teachers be professionals? In D.

A.

Grouws

&

T.J.

Conney

(Eds.),

Perspectives

en

Research (n1 Effective Mathematics Teaching.

Reston,

VA: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.: National Council of Teachers

of Mathematics, 224-244.

Rosenholtz, S.J. (1986, August).

Understanding the learning

workplace: The NBA conditions and resources of teaching

survey and the research on effective teaching.

In

National

Education Association

(1988),

Conditions

&

Resources of Teaching: A Special Report by NEA. West

Haven, CT: NEA Professional Library, 41-60.

Routman,

R.

(1988).

Transitions:

From

Literature

tp

Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rowley,

J.

(1988).

The

teacher

as

leader

and

teacher

educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 22 (3), 13-16.

325

Rubin,

L.

(1989).

The

thinking

teacher:

Cultivating

pedagogical

intelligence.

Jour

of

ac er

Education, 22 (6), 31-34.

Savage, J.F. (1989).

A shift in theory in reading research.

Education Digest, 22 (8), 49-53.

Schiffer, J. (1979).

A framework for staff development.

In

A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.),

Staff Qeveiopment:

New Demands

New R alitie

New Pers e

iv 5.

New York

& London: Teachers College Press, 4-22.

Shanker, A. (1986).

Teachers must take charge.

d

at'

Leadership, 22 (1), 12-13.

Shannon, P. (1983).

The use of commercial reading material

in

American

elementary

schools.

Quarterly, i2, 68- 85.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of

research on staff development: A framework for future

study and a state-of-the-art analysis.

Educetipnei

Leadership, 22 (3), 77-87.

Shulman, L.S.

(1983). Autonomy and obligation: The remote

control of teaching.

In L.

S.

Shulman &

G.

Sykes

(Eds.), Handbo k of t achin

and

.

New York:

Longman, 484-504.

(1987).

Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the

new reform.

Harvard Educational Reyiew, 21 (1), 1-22.

(1978).

Relating theory to practice in

educational research, Occasional Paper No.

12.

East

Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching,

Michigan State University.

(1986).

Those who understand: Knowledge growth in

teaching.

Educational Researeher, 4-14.

Sickler, J.L. (1988). Teachers in charge: Empowering the

professionals.

Ehi Delta Kappan, d2 (5), 354-356, 375-

376.

Simmons, J.

(1985). Exploring changes in teacher thought as

they

do

action

research

in

their

classrooms:

Strengthening the link between research and practice.

Paper

presented

at

the

Annual

Conference

of

the

National Staff Development Council, Denver.

Sizer, T.R. (1984).

Horace’s Com romise: T e D'

mm

of the

American High School.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

 

 

 

326

Smith, N.B. (1934, rev. 1965, 1986).

Ameriean Reading

Instruction.

Newark,

DE:

International

Reading

Association.

Sparks,

G.

(1983).

Synthesis

of

research

on

staff

development

for

effective

teaching.

Educational

Leadership, AT (3), 65-72.

Stimson, T.D. & Applebaum, R.P. (1988). Empowering teachers:

Do principals have the power?

Bhi Qeite Keppan, 12

(4), 313-316.

Tifft, S. (1990).

Power to the classroom!

Time, 122 (1),

56-57.

Timpson, W.M. (1988). Paulo Freire: Adovcate of literacy

through liberation. Educetionel Leadership, 52 (5), 62-

66.

Tyler,

R.

(1949).

Ba 'c

Pr'

i

es

Instruetion.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

VanNote

Chism,

N.

(1985a,

April).

The knowledge that

teachers value:

Findings from a: case study.

Paper

presented

at

the

Annual

Meeting

of

the

American

Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

(1985b, April).

The place of peer interaction in

teacher development: Findings from a case study.

Paper

presented

at

the

Annual

Meeting

of

the

American

Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Venezky, R.L. (1984).

The history of reading research.

In

P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handpook of Reading Besearc . New

York & London: Longman, 3-38.

Wade,

R.K.

(1984-1985).

What

makes

a

difference

in

inservice

education?

A

meta

analysis

of

research.

Educational Leadership, AT (4), 48-59.

Weber, E. (1987).

Everything you need to know about the new

definition of reading--Well almost everything! Lansing,

MI: Teacher Teacher.

Weiss,

S.

(1988,

December).

Are

you

treated

like

a

professional or a tall child?

NEA Toda , 4-5.

Whitelaw,

N.

(1989).

A

look

at

teacher

empowerment.

Teaching K-8,

i2 (6), 84-85.

 

327

Williams, R.C. (1979).

A political perspective on staff

development.

In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff

Development:

New

Demands,

New

Reelitites,

New

Eerspectives.

New

York

&

London:

Teachers

College

Press.

Winograd,

P.

&

Greenlee,

M.

(1986).

Students

need

a

balanced reading program.

Educetional Leadership, _2

(7), 16-21.

&

Smith,

L.

(1987).

Improving the

climate

for

reading

comprehension

instruction.

The

Reading

Teaeher, 21(3), 304-310.

Wise, A.E. (1988). Legislated learning revisited. Ehi_Delte

Kappan, 69 (5), 328-333.

Wixson, K. & Peters, C. (1984).

Reading redefined: Michigan

Reading

Association

position

paper.

The

Niehigan

Readin

Journal, 11, 4-7.

Wood,

E.H.

& Thompson, S.R.

(1980). Guidelines for better

staff development.

Educational Leadership, 21 (5),

374-378.

Yarger, S. (1990).

The legacy of the teacher center.

In B.

Joyce

(Ed.).

Changing

School

Culture Through Steff

Develo ment,

Yearbook

of

the

Association

for

Supervision

and

Curriculum

Development.

Alexandria,

VA.: ASCD, 104-116.

Yeatts, E.H. (1976).

Staff development: A teacher-centered

in-service design.

Educational Leadership, 22 (6),

417-421.

Yinger,

R.J.

(January,

1979

2nd printing).

Fieldwork as

basis

for theory building in research on teaching.

Research

Series

No.

19.

East

Lansing,

MI:

The

Institute

for Research on

Teaching,

Michigan State

University.

Yonemura, M. (1986).

Reflections on teacher empowerment and

teacher education.

Harvard Educational Review, 22 (4),

473-480.

Young,

J.H.

(1988).

Teacher participation in curriculum

development:

What status does it have?

Jou

a

Curriculum end Supervision, 2 (2), 109-121.

Zaltman, G., Florio, D.H. & Sikorski, L. A. (1977). Dynamic

Educational Change:

Models,

stretegies,

Tactics,

and

Management. New York: The Free Press, A Division of

Macmillan Pub. Co., Inc.

 

 

328

zigarmi, P. (1979).

Teacher centers: A model for teacher

initiated staff development.

In A. Lieberman & L.

Miller (Eds.).

Staf

D vel

ent: New

e

n s

ew

Eealities,

New

Eerspectives.

New

York

&

London:

Teachers College Press, 189—204.

, Amory, J.,

& zigarmi, D.

(1979).

A model for

individualized

staff

development

program.

In

A.

Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.).

staff Development: New

Demands, New Realities, New Perspectives.

New York &

London: Teachers College Press, 161-173.

 

flea: Flemontarv Teachaoa.

-".--'

-'

.'...g."

-

1?

-

T

-

-

,

.

.-

...-

'm-J

:‘J. cptn—r'flfliir ta 5.

'

- -_

$3.:

- Ila-‘1‘

Ui‘h

't

-

'.

. 'I' Atalanta-fl

APPENDICES

 

329

APPENDIX_A

 

A292550”!JKLANUPQRSIDVvxzzlacvsrgyilkiglofiéksivVEiféaagéE?&47iEi?

Dear Elementary Teachers,

June 1. 1989

During this

past school year, you have had the opportunity to be

exposed

to

‘

,

fs

Redefinition

of

Reading,

along

with

strategies that

are congruent with that philosophical statement.

This summer a new

reading

curriculum

will

be

written

by the

members of

our district's

Reading Study

Committee.

It appears

that the new curriculum will be in teachers' hands this fall, and

that textbook adoption will take place in the fall of 1990.

As many

of you know,

I have spent this past year on a sabbatical

leave in

order to

complete the

course work

associated with my

pursuit of

a Ph.D.

degree in

Curriculum and Instruction with a

major emphasis in Reading/Language Arts from MSU.

To that end. I

have

begun

to

gather

data

relating

to

the

work of Reading

Curriculum Implementation and Staff

Development

in

the

Public Schools over the past semester:

I have attended meetings,

interviewed teachers and administrators, observed classrooms. and

collected documents.

The cooperation and support I have received

in these undertakings had

been

phenomenal!

I

would

like to

continue

with

the

next

stage

of

data

collection

for

my

dissertation by setting up a weekly reading support group for the

first semester of the 1989-1990 school year.

As I

envision it,

this would be a voluntary group of elementary

teachers who wish to meet on

a weekly

basis for

the purpose of

reflecting upon

and discussing reading theory and practice as it

relates

to

the

new ' reading

curriculum

guide

and

its

implementation in classrooms within the district.

No one

is under

any obligation to attend; however. if you would

be at all interested in becoming a participant in this group. you

are

invited

to

attend

an

informational

meeting

on Thursday

morning, June 8,

1989,

at

7:45

a.m.

in

the

Early Childhood

Center.

To be discussed at that time will be issues related to:

Rationale for a Reading Support Group,

Leadership and Support Roles,

Goals and Expectations.

Meeting Day and Time.

Please let

the reading teacher in your building know if you plan

to attend the June 9 meeting.

Si

erely,

rgene g/Qéraunius

 

ABCDEFGHIJKLXWOP RSTUVYXYZABCDEFGHIJKIHTUP RSTUVVXZZABCDEFGHIJKLX

330

 

 

APPENDIX B

INFORMATION SESSION

for

PROPOSED READING SUPPORT GROUP

June 8. 1989

Personal Hopes/Concerns

Hopes.

When you read the announcement, what did you envision or

hope such a reading support group would entail?

Concerns.

What kinds of concerns did you have related to this

proposed study?

Proposed Reading Support Group

What

Role of TFAFHPR AS RPSPARCHPR, an active way of thinking

about how we can improve our work as teachers within a

Teacher Center atmosphere characterized by:

warmth--collegiality and collaboration. non—threatening

concreteness—-real-life, focus on specific and concrete

time-—time to discover needs, genuine change takes time

thought-—take more responsibility for curricular

and instructional decisions

How

During weekly meetings, we will work on case studies/

journal entries, reading curriculum guide, and/or literature

related to common problems

Why

Learn more about how children learn, acquire skills in

curriculum development and implementation

Increase self esteem and confidence, increase

resourcefulness and willingness to seek and share advice

time

When

Where

331

 

 

332

TEACHER AS RESEARCHER QUESTIONS

READING PROCESS

l.

2.

8

F
-
I
U
I
O
I
K
D
O
O
K

How did I learn to read?

What is reading.

What do people in

.

have to know in order to teach

reading?

How do they get that knowledge?

How is reading taught in ’

?

Text/Context

How do I teach reading?

Why do I teach that way?

How does what I teach relate to the total reading curriculum?

.

Why do some children have difficulty reading?

Who is a poor reader that I know?

What makes that person a

poor reader?

If a person is having difficulty, what would I do to help

him/her?

Who is a good reader that I know?

What makes that person a

good reader?

TEACHER' S ROLE

)
h
3
0

What is the purpose of the reading instruction I provide

for my students?

How do I plan for reading instruction?

What do I do to promote students' movement toward reading

expertise?

How do I assess my students in reading?

Why do I do it in

that way?

In my classroom, what kinds of things do I do to help my

students become more literate?

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

How do I grow and develop professionally, especially in

reading.

Who/what most influences my thinking regarding reading

instruction?

Since I began teaching, how have my ideas about reading

instruction changed?

If there were no constraints, what would an ideal reading

program look like in my classroom?

MY

OWN RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 

APPENDIX C

August 23, 1989

Dear

You attended an information meeting on June 8, 1989 in which

the possibility of carrying out a voluntary reading support group

during the first semester of the 1989-1990 school year was

briefly explored.

On the basis of that meeting, I put together

the following proposal for my research project entitled,

Implications of Teacher Empowerment for Staff Development and

Reading Curriculum Implementation.

ABSTRACT

This ethnographic case study will document, describe, and

attempt to explain the concerns that elementary teachers in one

district face as they begin to implement a new reading curriculum

which incorporates current reading research into classroom

practice.

The context for this research project will be a voluntary

reading support group which will meet weekly from Septemeber 7-

December 14, 1989.

The format of the meetings will follow a

teacher center concept, where the teacher participants will be

encouraged and enabled to set their own agenda for topics related

to the concerns they encounter in the process of readin

_

curriculum innovation and implementation.

I will take the role

of observer participant and will assume the duties of group

coordinator.

All meetings will be audio—taped.

In addition to attending the weekly meetings, the

participants will be asked: to keep Journals within which they

will reflect on their classroom reading practice (tensions,

questions, successes); to voluntarily and anonymously fill out

surveys or questionnaires related to the topics under discussion;

to agree to be interviewed by the researcher (a maximum of two

times during the course of the term) as to their perceptions of

their role in implementation and support group participation;

and,

if they volunteer without coersion or recrimination, to take

the role of group facilitator at one or more of the meetings.

ANONYMITY/CONFIDENTIALITY

Confidentiality will be dealt with by protecting the

.

identities of those involved in the study. The identification of

the town and schools will be disguised and identifying

characteristics altered.

No actual names will be used at any

point throughout the study.

Pseudonyms will be used in all

observational field notes and transcripts.

When audio-tapes are

used during reading support group meetings and interviews, the

information will be transcribed and the original tapes will be

erased.

No names will be attached to school, classroom, or group

documents.

The research report itself will not be made available to the

administrators in the district in which the study is conducted.

333

  

334

The raw data will not be used in any evaluation and will not be

released to any personnel of the school district.

It is

conceivable that at some future date a summary of the findings

may be shared with the district curriculum director for

consideration in future planning for curriculum innovation

implementation.

RISK/BENEFIT RATIO

0 not foresee any physical, legal, or economic risk to

the subjects.

There are some potential social and psychological

risks which I will attempt to minimize.

First, there is the lack

of anonymity.

Here, the promise of confidentiality will be given

as listed‘above.

Second, the procedures of data gathering and

any public revelation of the analyses of that data may cause some

psychological and emotional concerns (e.g., self-consciousness).

In this area, the participants will be reassured that the purpose

of the study is for information, rather than for evaluation.

Third, the time commitment involved in preparation for and

attendance at the weekly meetings, as well as for the individual

interviews, could be considered prohibitive factors.

An attempt

will be made to offer the meetings at a time when it is most

convenient for a majority of the participants.

Interview

schedules will also be set to coincide with personal preferences.

Benefits to the participants will focus upon the opportunity

afforded to gain insights into their own thinking and practice,

and, hopefully, into their students‘ thinking, as well.

The

emphasis upon collegiality and self—governance should also

contribute toward the participants' feelings of support and

worth. I also feel that the results of this project will help

this district, as well as other educational communities, to

better understand the role that empowerment has upon reading

curriculum implementation and staff development.

CONSENT PROCEDURES

The consent form on the subsequent page<s> lists the

requirements, the benefits, and the assurance that individuals

are free not to participate at all without any recrimination and

that they may refuse to answer any questions or to withdraw at

any time without penalty.

You are asked to read the consent form<s> carefully and

check those items which you feel you understand and to which you

can give your endorsement.

If you intend to participate in this

project, please take the completed form<s> to the first meeting

on September 7, 1989 at 4:00 p.m. in the Early Childhood Center.

Should you have any questions or reservations about any 0

all of this summary, contact me at

School

' or

at home

.

I am excited about this project and look forward to

collaborating with you on it!

WOQIQ :4 ’ér (LJ

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

CONSENT FORM FOR READING SUPPORT GROUP MEMBERS

The research project, Implications of Teacher Empowerment

for Staff Development and Reading Curriculum Implementation, has

‘been explained to me and I voluntarily agree to participate in

this project.

I know that the research study is being done in

partial fulfillment of Marlene Braunius' doctoral degree from the

Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Michigan State

University and will be carried out from September through

December, 1989.

I understand that as a collaborator in this research, I will

be asked to do the following:

1. Attend thirteen 1 1/2 hour weekly reading support group

meetings from September 7- December 14,1989 (exempting November 9

[Parent- Teacher Conferences] and November 23 [Thanks:giving]);

2. Share my reflective journal entries with the members of

the reading support group;

8. Permit Marlene to act as an observer participant

(audiotaping and/or taking field notes) during the weekly reading

support group meetings of which I am a part;

4. Allow Marlene to interview/tape record me regarding my

view of reading instruction, the support group’s

work, and my

role in it (maximum: one hour);

Benefits which may result, but cannot be assured, from this

study include the following:

_1.

1 will have the opportunity to gain insighi into my own

thinking and practice regarding reading instruction;

2. The results of this project could help the district to

better understand and implement the Reading Study Committee‘s

recommendations in terms of bridging the gap between on-paper

curriculum and its practice in classrooms, and ultimately, lead

to greater articulation and achievement in the entire district;

3. Marlene will serve as a resource person whenever that

assistance will not interfere with her research activities.

I also realize that:

__

l.

I am free not to participate at all without penaltyr and

that no peer or administrative pressure will be exerted, either

directly or indirectly, regarding this decision;

__

 

2.

I may refuse to answer any questions at any time without

any negative consequences;

3.

I may withdraw from this study at any time without any

recrimination;

,

_4. Data collected will be used in Marlene's doctoral

dissertation and may also be used in articles, presentations or

instruction;

5. All data collected will be kept confidential and reported

without any individual identification of teachers, schools, or

school district;

 

_§. I may waive my personal confidentiality, should I wish to

do so, as in the case of authoring papers or making joint

presentations about our research.

   

Signature

Date

335

 

APPENDIX E

   

'READING SUPPORT GROUP

The first of thirteen weekly

   

g

‘ reading support group sessions will

    

lfi%§‘g be held on THURSDAY, September 7,

  

gafia‘from 4:00-5:30 p.m. in the Early.

  

‘fib’ Childhood Center.

 

Marlene Braunlus

   

opportunity to discuss areas of

-utual interest and concern.

   

/fimngl .
If you wish additional information,
School

contact Marlene at

    

or at home

  

  

READING SUPPORT GROUP

  

 

   

 

The first of thirteen weekly

reading support group sessions will

  

be held on THURSDAY, September 7,

from 4:00-5:30 p.m.

in the Early

Childhood Center.

Marlene Braunius

will be coordinating this activity.

where participants will have the

 

   

 

opportunity to discuss areas of

-utua1 interest and concern.

   
   

(“teams .

If you wish additional information,‘

contact Marlene at

School

   
 

or at home

336

 
 

 

 

APPENDIX F

MY HOPES FOR THIS GROUP

1.

This was billed as a Reading Support Group.

What does that

mean to you?

What are some of the things that you hope this

group might do or try to do? What do you hope to gain by

being a part of this group?

2.

Name three reading—related topics that you would like this

group to address.

3.

What do you think the group should have a right to expect

from its members?

4.

Tell what skills/abilities/leadership/jobs you are willing to

contribute to the group.

337

 

 

)
.
t

o
t

o
C

MY HOPES FOR THIS GROUP

Meeting # I: September 7, 1989

1.

This was billed as a Reading Support Group.

What does that

mean to you?

What are some of the things that you hope this

group might do or try to do?

What do you hope to gain by

being a part of this group?

It means that together we will be able to share ideas which

can be adapted to other classrooms and other subjects.

I hope to

get a broader resource of possible materials and ideas.

--provide support as we try new techniques

—-I hope we look at what works and how we know that!

--be a better diagnostician of reading problems

My hopes are that we can share ideas and problems with

possible solutions.

That we support each other when the going

gets rough and that we have people in our building who can be

called upon for reading "advice."

-—learn how to get children to break the code-—reading and

writing

-—learn how to gear my expectations (goals)

.

-—learn how to recognize where children are in their reading

development and what their next step is

(grouping & gifted)

I hope that we can talk about different reading approaches

and discuss what worked and what didn’t work in a non-threatening

manner—-respecting individual teaching styles

I want to understand what motivates people to change

teaching behaviors over the years-—implications for staff

development which interests me

I feel a support group is one in which the members are

willing to share their ideas, frustrations, etc.

A reading support should help each member in difficult areas

of reading.

I am not confident in my teaching of reading.

I

would like to know what I am doing right and how to improve.

 

339

2.

Name three reading-related topics that you would like this

group to address.

writing experience stories

beginning reading--how to get them going

skills vs. meaning

how to meet the needs of all children in our settings

how do we measure success

whole language

grouping for instruction

fitting everything in

working with heterogeneous groups

effective materials

beginning reading/writing

expectations of the young reader (goals)

whole word versus phonics

whole language

literature-based instruction

integrated curriculum

new reading strategies

Zeeland reading text adoption

whole language (across the curriculum)

implementation and assessment

literature-based instruction

reading/writing connection

whole language approach

putting the "new" reading curriculum to use in my classroom

using the two approaches listed above

MEAP

comprehension/higher level thinking

measurement/assessment

skills vs. content-~weight of each

strategies feedback

meeting needs of all students

productive seatwork/groupwork

time management

how to teach children reading

goals of reading instuction

teaching comprehension

measuring comprehension skills

teaching higher level thinking skills

new reading concept

 

CATEGORIES IN ORDER OF PRIORITY

 

340

3.

What do you think the group should have a right to expect

from its members?

dependability and responsibility

enthusiasm

regular attendance, except for important reasons otherwise

honesty

respect

honesty and privacy

everyone shares--no one leader

understanding

honesty

positive attitudes toward learning

support each others' right to teach in different manner

honesty

sharing questions, doubts, misgivings

sharing what is working as well as what isn't

(especially with reading strategies)

willingness to share ideas

involvement on a weekly basis

contributions of ideas

give and accept criticism

freedom to ask--cha11enge--etc.

341

4.

Tell what skills/abilities/leadership/jobs you are willing to

contribute to the group.

I don’t feel comfortable being a leader because of my

inexperience, but I am willing to do whatever.

as needed--just ask!

I’ll be glad to supply treats and supplies.

It would be fun to team teach in our buildings.

Leadership??

snack

make reservations for dinner sometime

share journal articles, etc.

refresher on previous strategies (QAR, Reciprocal, Mapping,

Webbing)

chair or co/chair

share about-—Reading Recovery (Marie Clay)

--Readers’ Theater across the curriculum

food

sharing any articles that have been read recently

bring refreshments

photocopy

work with others

anthing — really - if it is possible for me to do

 

APPENDIX G

(as proposed 9/7/89, and as categorized 9/14/89)

READING SUPPORT GROUP TOPICS

I.

_"New" Definition of Reading

A. Congruent Strategies for Comprehension Revisited

1. story Grammar/Mapping

2. Reciprocal Teaching

3. KWL (Know, Want to Know, Learned)

4. Probable Passages

5. QAR (Question-Answer Relationships)

B. Role of skills Instruction

Skills as Strategies

C. Assessment

1. Goals--Omega’s New Curriculum/Textbook Adoption

2. Evaluation

a. Formal--State’s Education Assessment, etc.

b. Informa1--Classroom diagnosis/remediation

e.g., Reading Recovery

II.

Emergent Literacy

A. Expectations

B. Beginning Reading/Writing

III.

Alternative Approaches/Materials

A. Whole Word vs. Phonics

B. Language Experience Approach

C. Whole Language (Across the Curriculum)

e.g., Readers Theater

D. Literature-Based

E. Integrated

F. Reading/Writing Connection

IV.

Management

A. Implementation

B. Grouping for Instruction

C. Meeting Needs (low, average, high/gifted)

D. Productive Seatwork/Groupwork

E. Time Management

342

 

343

READING SUPPORT GROUP WORKSHEET

 

Date

Topic

Leader(s)

Food

 

9/ 7/89

Get Acquainted

Marlene

Marlene

My Hopes for this

Group

 

9/12/89

Reaching Topic

Marlene

Rebekah

Consensus

 

9/19/89

New Definition

Story Mapping

Laura

Chris

Bonnie

 

9/28/89

Reciprocal Teaching

Marlene

Suzann

 

10/ 3/89

KWL

QAR

Bonnie

Laura

Jennifer

Probable Passages

Karina

 

10/19/89

Where the Basics Fit

Marlene

Skills as Strategies

Karina

Goals

Bonnie

Truda

Omega’s New Reading

Laura

Curriculum

Rebekah

 

10/23/89

Assessment:

Marlene

Chris

Formal/Informal

 

10/30/89

Remedial Techniques

Karina

Suzann

Chris

Laura

Bonnie

Laura

 

11/13/89

Emergent Literacy

Suzann

Language Experience

Jennifer

Reading/Writing

Reading Recovery

Bonnie

Karina

Marlene

 

11/30/89

Alternative Approaches

Whole Language--

Laura

Karina

Literature

 

12/ 7/89

Alternative Approaches

Basals

All

Content Areas

Marlene

Rebekah

Karina

 

12/14/89

Management

Evaluation

Suzann

Bonnie

Marlene

All

 

  

APPENDIX H

READING INTERVIEW

by

Carolyn L. Burke

When you are reading and you come to something you don’t

know, what do you do?

Do you ever do anything else?

Who is a good reader that you know?

What makes him/her a good reader?

Do you think that she/he ever comes to something she/he

doesn’t know when she's/he's reading?

Yes

When she/he does come to something she/he doesn't

know, what do you think she/he does about it?

No

Suppose

that she/he does come to something that she/he

Pretend

doesn't know.

What do you think she/he does

about it?

If you know that someone was having difficulty reading, how

would you help him/her?

What would

a

teacher do to help that person?

your

How did you learn to read?

What did (they/you) do to help you learn?

What would you like to do better as a reader?

10.

Do you think that you are a good reader?  

yes

no

344

 

APPENDIX I

To:

Elementary Classroom Teachers

From: Marlene Braunius

Re:

Attached Questionnaire

Date: December 6, 1989

I am completing data collection for my dissertation research

project, IMPLICATIONS OF TEACHER EMPOWERMENT FOR STAFF

DEVELOPMENT AND READING CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION, and I would

greatly value 10 minutes from your very busy schedule to complete

the attached questionnaire* before December 15.

This task is completely voluntary and anonymous. You are free not

to participate at all, and you may refuse to answer any questions

without recrimination.

The results of the survey will be used to

help set the context for my study.

If you have any questions. feel free to call me at home (669—

3675) or at school (

).

Please send the completed

questionnaire to me in the inter-school mail (MARLENE

BRAUNIUS/ .

SCHOOL).

Thank you sincerely for your cooperation in this matter!

*The questionnaire is excerpted from Instructor (January/May

1986)

and Phi Delta Kappan (June 1989), where nation-wide

results are discussed..

345

 

346

PART I: INSTRQQTQR’S Elementary Education Policy Poll

What decisions do you make?

Circle the appropriate underlined word below:

1.

I make most some npne of the important decisions related to

curriculum for my students.

2. I make most sgme ngne of the important decisions related to

texts and supplementary materials for my students.

3.

I make most some none of the important decisions related to

instructional methods for my students.

4. I make most some npng of the important decisions related to

test selection for my students.

5. I make mgstmmn_n§ of the important decisions related to

inservice training in my school.

6. I always sgmepimes neye; participate in decisions about

hiring teachers in my school.

7. I have m_py some no opportunities during the day to talk to

my colleagues about teaching.

8. I have ma ny some up opportunities to observe my colleagues

teach.

9.

I always sometimes neve; am meaningfully involved in choosing

the subjects and grades I teach.

10. My principal frequently infrequently never provides me with

 

useful guidance on instructional matters.

11. More training in subject matter knowledge wi llmmight willn 0;

make me a better teacher.

PART II: PHI DELTA KAPEAN'S Second Gallup Poll

In your opinion, how much control should teachers have over

the aspects of the educational process listed below?

Use a scale

of 1 to 4, where 1 represents something you think teachers should

have no control over and 4 represents something you think

teachers should have

om lete

ontr

ver.

Next, please indicate how much control teachers in your

school actually have over these same aspects of the educational

process.

Use the same scale, where 1 represents something you

think teachers in your school have no control ove; and 4 is

something you think teachers have complete control over.

1. Determining which students are

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

should have

actuall

ve

placed in which classes

2. Selecting textbooks to be used

in class

3. Setting disciplinary policies for

1

l

the school

4. Deciding how to teach a given class 1

5. Setting grading policies

6. Determining the amount of homework

given to students

7. Determining academic standards for

the school

8. Deciding what to teach in class

I

l

1

9. Deciding how school funds are spent 1

on instructional materials in school

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

10. Determining the school schedule

1

2

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

l

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

 

APPENDIX J

FINAL SESSION OF READING

SUPPORT GROUP-DEBRIEFING

The word "debriefing" is a military term,

according to my husband.

Before going into

combat, soldiers are briefed about their

roleS/ expectations with a summary of what

may happen.

After the battle, these same

soldiers are asked, "How did it go?" and

"What actually gig happen?"

Hopefully, you were all adequately "briefed"

in the initial information sessions.

You

have been in the "battle" for the past 4

months.

Now it

is time to take stock:

How

did it go?

What actually did happen?

i would like to submit these four questions

to guide our discussion for Tuesday's meeting:

1.

Throughout this support group, what kinds

of feelings did you experience?

2.

What kind of information (attitudes, skills.

knowledges) have you gained that has in—

fluenced your thinking?

3.

How does what you learned relate to what

you previously knew or believed about

reading (e.g.,confirmed/disconfirmed)?

4.

What conclusions have you reached about

the issues of reading curriculum implemen-

tation and/or staff development as a

result of this experience?

(To put it another way, What would you

recommend to the Reading Study Committee

as a result of this type of inservice?)

347

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

     

STQ TE UNIV. LIBRQRIIES

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZII

 

'
,
I
.
h
'
_
6
a
v
'
"
a
'

  

      

i
.
,
»
l
.
r
.

   

    

    

,
,
.
{
_
.
,
.
.
.
.
-
.
I

.
,
3

|

 

 

It'u-mx~‘  

v: “VHS, ..f“ ‘ ‘ .' 7N

-

  
  
  

 "I“ «Wu...

a.m....

       _., ‘