Managing the Complexities of a Statewide Reading Initiative

Working with the National Council of Teachers of English, South Carolina has taken the bold step of focusing professional development in reading on teachers, rather than programs. And the decision is paying off.

By Denise N. Morgan, Karin Saylor-Crowder, Diane Stephens, Amy Donnelly, Diane E. Deford, and Erin Hamel

SOUTH CAROLINA is taking a bold step in professional development for reading teachers. Instead of focusing on programs -- e.g., basal reading series or computer-based reading programs -- the state department of education, in conjunction with state universities and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), is focusing on teachers' knowledge base. The department is doing this because it wishes its efforts to be grounded in research, and what the research overwhelmingly makes clear is that it is the teacher, not the method, that makes a difference.1 The goal then is to deepen and broaden teachers' knowledge base about reading as a means of improving literacy instruction and literacy scores in South Carolina. To achieve this goal, the state created the South Carolina Reading Initiative (SCRI), a multi-year, research-based professional development model. Funded by an annual $3.2-million appropriation from the state, teachers and principals in 121 South Carolina schools work together to examine and discuss the latest research in the field of reading and the implications of this research for their instruction.

While large-scale, long-term professional development efforts are more complex than the one-shot professional development offerings traditionally associated with education, Roland Barth has argued that "unless adults talk with one another, observe one another, and help one another, very little will change."2 Furthermore, he has pointed out that the best way to foster these conditions is through the establishment of long-term collegial groups. The SCRI model ensures long-term collegial conversations by stipulating that teachers and administrators meet bimonthly in site-based study group sessions. In these sessions, teachers and administrators read research and critically question both the research and literacy programs. They then use their increased understandings and their knowledge about children to inform instructional and assessment decisions in their school. Literacy coaches facilitate these study groups under the guidance of university professors and state department liaisons. The coaches also work in participating teachers' classrooms, giving demonstration lessons, observing lessons, and providing feedback.

Because South Carolina was the first state to implement a professional development model with the features just described, there were many complexities encountered along the way. In the first three years of this initiative, much was learned about both the difficulties and the benefits of such a large program. We understand, for example, that what made the implementation particularly complex were the diverse expectations that stakeholders held about the job description of the literacy coach and about support for coaches, study group experiences, the roles of school and district personnel, and the change process.

Staff members at the state department had a vision of how these aspects would unfold within the model; these visions gave way to multiple realities as the model was implemented throughout the state. In this article, we share the vision and the realities as they have been lived in South Carolina. We then offer some insights into how we have used this information to adjust and modify subsequent versions of SCRI.

Job Description of the Literacy Coach: The Vision

The envisioned literacy coach was to act as a consultant, a knowledgeable person who would be available in a school to help teachers and administrators better understand how children learn to read and write. Literacy coaches would help teachers examine their current instructional and assessment practices and introduce authentic, research-based practices that could be incorporated into their literacy instruction. Each coach would work in four schools, spending one day a week in each school. During the day, the literacy coach would be available for classroom observations and demonstration lessons. During the observations, the coach would provide feedback to the teachers about their instructional techniques. The demonstration lessons would allow teachers to observe the literacy coach as he or she modeled a research-based, authentic instructional practice with their students. After school, the literacy coach would conduct site-based, bimonthly study groups with teachers and administrators who voluntarily made a three-year commitment to participate in this initiative.

Job Description of the Literacy Coach: The Realities

The position of literacy coach was new. It was something that had not been envisioned before in the state. Therefore, school districts and administrators interpreted the position in different ways. In some schools, the coach was regarded as a consultant; in others, the coach was seen as an additional teacher. For example, many teachers wanted the literacy coach to be available for informal talks prior to the start of the school day, in the halls, or in the lunchroom. Teachers used these times to ask a quick question, borrow a professional book, or discuss students' work. Some schools protected the literacy coach's time so that these informal conversations could occur. However, other schools saw the literacy coaches as "girl/boy Fridays," assigning them lunch, bus, and recess duty for the days they worked in those schools. In addition, literacy coaches were sometimes asked to fill in as substitute teachers or test proctors.

Support for Coaches: The Vision

Within SCRI, university and state department personnel were expected to work with the literacy coaches, grouped in cohorts, for a three-year period. The position of regional literacy coach was created to provide additional support. The regional coaches would make site visits to observe the literacy coaches and give them feedback. The literacy coaches all had master's degrees in reading and were hired by their districts because of their expertise in language arts. The school-based coaches, along with the state-hired regional coaches, would attend intensive three-week summer literacy institutes that focused on language arts. These institutes would be held prior to the beginning of the school year and serve as a review of best practices in language arts. During the school year, the cohorts would also come together one day a month to continue their professional development. Throughout this experience, the literacy coaches would be expected to engage regularly in professional reading.

Support for Coaches: The Realities

For many of the coaches, the summer study came as a review, but for some, the theories and practices were new. For those encountering new information, reading a 70-page professional book like What Matters? A Primer for Teaching Reading in a single night felt like too much, too soon.3 While many of the coaches were overwhelmed by the information about reading and language arts, they were underwhelmed by the information they were given about the job they were about to do.

The literacy coaches came from various positions: some had left the classroom just days before their SCRI coursework began; others had held administrative positions for years. This meant that some of the coaches had a great deal of experience working with adults, and others had little experience. It became clear that the literacy coaches needed more than just an understanding of language arts. They needed an understanding of the principles of coaching, the challenges of dealing with adult learners, and the complexities of working with teachers who might be resistant to change.

Study Group Experiences: The Vision

SCRI is grounded in the beliefs that learning is social and learners construct their knowledge with others.4 Therefore, the summer literacy institutes for the coaches were designed so that participants would learn through observing, questioning, reflecting, and engaging in dialogue. This common format would support an inquisitive stance: "Here is what we know about how children learn. This is what we know about the reading process. How does this resonate with what we know from experience? Based on our reading and experiences, how can we best support children as learners? How can we best help teachers-as-learners capitalize on what we know is best for our children?" The coaches would live this inquiry process as learners. Simultaneously they would learn how to help teachers and children live the same process.

Indeed, the state department staff expected that coaches would take an inquiry stance when working with their study group participants. The study groups with teachers were not to be "make and take" kinds of sessions, in which the focus is on how to do an "activity" and both the theory (why do this?) and the research (does this work?) are ignored. On the contrary, while the state department believed that it was important for teachers to understand the procedural part of the new practices, they also felt that it was critical for teachers to understand research and theory. Leaving understanding at a procedural level would limit the ability of teachers to make modifications to meet the needs of particular students at particular times.

In these study groups, the literacy coach would not be expected to have all the answers. Rather, teachers and administrators would bring informal and formal assessments, artifacts, and stories to the study group sessions and discuss their experiences with children and share their observations. These experiences and observations would be informed by professional reading. Thus participants would be expected to read voraciously -- perhaps more than they ever had before. While this reading was predominantly professional articles provided by the state department working collaboratively with NCTE, teachers would also read books or book chapters related to the topic of study. The role of the coach was to use his or her understanding of the topic to help participants construct new knowledge from their experiences and readings. In this way, supported by research and evidence, the teachers would become the decision makers about what worked for their students.

Study Group Experiences: The Realities

For some teachers, however, taking an active role in their learning was a new experience. Many expected the coach to lecture while they took notes. They were surprised when they realized that the SCRI study group sessions were not of the sit-and-listen variety. Some teachers were uncomfortable discussing their experiences; others welcomed the opportunity to view current practices from a variety of perspectives. Teachers tried new practices according to their level of comfort: some tried everything immediately, and some needed to work with an idea for some time before trying it out in the classroom. As a result, some teachers were less able to participate fully in the conversations because they had not tried out the practice.

When it came to focusing on the research behind the practice, many teachers had difficulty articulating what they were doing and how they believed it helped children grow as learners. Some teachers were uncomfortable talking about their beliefs. In order to be able to discuss theory, the teachers had to do a great deal of professional reading in addition to carrying out their day-to-day teaching tasks. Study group participants demonstrated various appetites for this reading. Some teachers had fallen out of the habit of reading on a regular basis and were initially overwhelmed by the assignment. In addition, many of the articles were situated within a theoretical framework and thus written in a scholarly manner that was unfamiliar and highly challenging to the teachers.

District and Principal Support: The Vision

In order for SCRI to succeed, it was essential that teachers participating in the program receive the utmost support from school and district personnel. South Carolina was getting national publicity as a result of its low literacy scores,5 and it seemed reasonable to assume that schools and districts that applied and were chosen to participate in SCRI would do whatever necessary to foster their teachers' implementation of best practices. This commitment would mean that study group time would be protected as a time for intellectual growth. As curricular and intellectual leaders of their schools, administrators would be invested in the study group. As principals learned alongside teachers, the traditional division between administrators and teachers would be minimized. In addition, administrators would be gaining a better understanding of the complexity of literacy instruction and of the challenges faced by their teachers. With the help of the literacy coach, administrators could use SCRI as a catalyst for change in their schools so that teachers could more effectively help children learn to read.

District and Principal Support: The Realities

In most cases, school and district personnel were very supportive of SCRI. In others, they were less invested than originally hoped. In some schools and districts, teachers were allowed the freedom to implement best practices as they engaged in learning about them. In other settings, district and school mandates ran counter to the practices explored in the study groups, and teachers felt less able to incorporate the new practices into their classrooms. Principals varied in their level of support for the study groups. Some were very enthusiastic, attended meetings consistently, and even scheduled additional study groups for themselves and their teachers. Some missed study group sessions because of district staff development obligations or other meetings. Some came unprepared for the meetings, did not complete their readings, and could not participate in the group discussion. In some cases, the principals brought other work to complete during the study group session.

The Change Process: The Vision

Knowing that change takes time, the state department was committed to making SCRI a long-term endeavor. In order to participate, teachers and administrators were asked to make a three-year commitment to SCRI. The state believed it would take at least three years for the participants to fully investigate and understand the latest research about literacy instruction and to integrate new practices into their instruction. The time dedicated to these collegial groups would provide teachers with opportunities to reevaluate and broaden their thinking about children and how they become readers and writers. It was believed that teachers who volunteered would be highly enthusiastic about the chance to come together as participants in a community of learners to discuss best practices with other professionals. These voluntary participants would read about and inquire into language arts topics and then engage with these topics through first-hand experiences in the classroom. Teachers would have an "open door" policy so that the literacy coach could visit classrooms freely and often. This would allow the coach to provide demonstration lessons, offer valuable feedback, and engage in casual conversation about the teachers' understanding of best practices.

The Change Process: The Realities

Change takes time. Participating in long-term study groups and working with a literacy coach were new experiences for most participants. Many teachers did not know what to expect and therefore were hesitant in the beginning. In the original design, participation was voluntary, but in some schools teachers were "strongly encouraged" to participate. This heightened the apprehension about making a three-year commitment. In investigating literacy practices, some teachers needed little time before trying out new ones in their classrooms. Other teachers needed lots of time to work things out in their heads prior to attempting them with their students.

The literacy coach was to assist teachers in the classroom by providing feedback and guidance in the implementation of best practices. Some welcomed the literacy coach into their classrooms with enthusiasm. Others had never experienced someone coming into their classroom to observe a lesson simply for support purposes. They were familiar with observations only for an evaluative purpose. It was a new concept for teachers that someone would come in and help them with -- and not evaluate -- their teaching. There were therefore some teachers who initially preferred not to have the coach come into their rooms.

Looking Back, Looking Forward

At the end of the first cycle of SCRI, the participants unanimously believed that, while changes could be made that would better address the realities encountered, SCRI had been an overwhelming success. As one teacher commented, "I think it has made me a better teacher. It has taught me strategies that I need to teach my kids to make them better readers and writers." Another teacher explained,

What SCRI does is give teachers the confidence a lot of times to go in and try something. And you can come back and you have a core group of people in your building that you can talk to: "You know, I tried this and it worked, but I am not sure about this." And you have 10 or 12 people sitting there saying, "Well, you know, the same thing happened to me." Or, "When I did it, I tweaked it this way."

SCRI has helped a broad range of teachers. An experienced teacher told us, "After teaching for 28 years, I finally know what it is I need to know in order to help children learn to read." A relatively new teacher reflected, "SCRI has helped me pull a lot of weeds and replace them with proven strategies and techniques that are working to the benefit of my students. Until this year, I did not know how to teach children to read. I have been teaching for five years."

The success of SCRI is being felt in schools and districts. In some schools, there is a waiting list of teachers who want to participate in the program. In other schools, literacy coaches were asked in both the second and third years to begin first-year groups for teachers who originally did not volunteer to participate but now wanted to be a part of this initiative. Some teachers who were new to their schools in the second year asked to join in the new study groups as well. One district hired an additional coach to meet the demand. Some of the districts that did not originally participate in SCRI are now asking about hiring a literacy coach for their schools.

The state has carefully monitored the implementation of SCRI, and based on its findings, a number of changes have been made to the model. These changes were included in SC Reads, South Carolina's federally funded Reading Excellence Act version of SCRI, and have been proposed for the second, state-funded SCRI, which began in summer 2003. The following changes have already been implemented in the new model.

* Have literacy coaches serve one school, instead of four, to provide concentrated support for the teachers and administrators.

* Have literacy coaches spend the first year in the classroom co-teaching with another teacher so that the coaches will have the opportunity to try out the very practices they are learning about.

* Provide literacy coaches with a specific course on coaching and provide time within other courses to address issues related to coaching.

* Provide literacy coaches with an opportunity to deepen their understandings about language and literacy by focusing more intently on fewer topics in the first summer.

* Provide school and district personnel with detailed information about the role of the literacy coach so that they better understand the nature of the position and the necessity of allowing the literacy coach to have a flexible schedule.

* Provide to all participants a thorough overview of the initiative and the multi-year commitment to this professional development endeavor. Help participants understand that the study groups require their active participation.

The following changes were implemented in the two new versions of SCRI for grades K-5 and grades 6-8 and will be implemented for the Reading First version of SCRI.

* Create teams in each participating school consisting of administrators, representative grade-level teachers, and the literacy coach to support teachers' experimentation with and implementation of best practices.

* Hold meetings for principals to support them in using SCRI as a catalyst for school change. Principals could meet with other principals to talk about how they encourage and support their teachers' exploration of best practices. They could discuss how they have begun to share what they are learning with the entire staff. They could explore ways to redesign staff meetings. For example, staff meetings could begin with discussions of professional literature. The "nuts and bolts" issues usually addressed in staff meetings could be shared through staff newsletters, e-mails, or after-school announcements.

* Help principals see the pivotal role they play in study group sessions when they position themselves as co-learners and demonstrate their commitment to the initiative with their presence and enthusiasm.

While these changes have been made or proposed, key components remain unchanged. Through SCRI, South Carolina continues its research-based commitment to focusing on teachers and providing them with multiple-year support in their critical examination of literacy practices. South Carolina believes that having a knowledgeable literacy coach in each school will provide teachers and administrators with opportunities to discuss current literacy practices and help one another implement best practices tailored to their student population. South Carolina understands that change does not occur overnight and that with support and guidance, teachers and administrators can make informed, effective instructional decisions for the students with whom they work.

South Carolina is betting that teachers can become more knowledgeable about literacy in order to make a difference in a life of a child. So far, the bet is paying off. Research on SCRI teachers suggests that their beliefs and practices are increasingly consistent with those the program promotes.6 During the first year of SCRI, children in the classrooms of SCRI teachers were more strategic readers than children not in the classrooms of SCRI teachers, and they were better able to comprehend and retell what they had read.7 In South Carolina, betting on teachers, not programs, is helping children become better readers.

1. The following sources have informed our work in this area: Richard Allington and Haley Woodside-Jiron, "The Politics of Literacy Teaching: How Research Shaped Educational Policy," Educational Researcher, November 1999, pp. 4-13; Linda Darling-Hammond, The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools That Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997); Elaine Garan, "Beyond the Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Phonics," Phi Delta Kappan, March 2001, pp. 500-506; Susan Ohanian, One Size Fits Few (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 1999); and Denny Taylor, Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science: The Political Campaign to Change America's Mind About How Children Learn to Read (Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998).
2. Roland Barth, Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, Parents, and Principals Can Make a Difference (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990), p. 32.
3. Diane Stephens, ed., What Matters? A Primer For Teaching Reading (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 1990).
4.SCRI is grounded in a theoretical framework based in part on work by Lev Vygotsky, Thought and Language, trans. Alex Kozulin (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986); Brian Cambourne, The Whole Story: Natural Learning and the Acquisition of Literacy in the Classroom (Auckland, N.Z.: Scholastic, 1988); and John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1938).
5.Patricia L. Donahue et al., NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, March 1999).
6.Amy Donnelly, Diane Stephens, Diane DeFord, Dorinda Gallant, Denise Morgan, Karin Saylor-Crowder, and Erin Hamel, "Examining Teachers' Beliefs and Practices: The Reading Profile of the South Carolina Reading Initiative," unpublished Technical Report, University of South Carolina, Columbia, February 2003.
7.Diane DeFord, Denise Morgan, Karin Saylor-Crowder, Tae-Il Pae, Robert Johnson, Diane Stephens, Amy Donnelly, and Erin Hamel, "Changes in Children's Cue and Strategy Use During Reading: Findings from the First Year of Professional Development in the South Carolina Reading Initiative," unpublished Technical Report, University of South Carolina, Columbia, February 2003.