Effective teaching
does not entail the provision of instruction alone. A highly qualified teacher will understand the
ongoing relationship between the curriculum, his or her instruction, and
ongoing formative
assessment to monitor and adjust subsequent instruction. The latter is always preferred rather than merely
labeling students as more successful compared to less successful. Effective teachers will be able to exhibit their
competency regarding these relationships through ongoing professional
development that increases classroom assessment literacy. As a result, standards-based curriculum will
be embraced, exciting instruction will be aligned with a developmental scope
and sequence, and student progress will be continually monitored through a diverse
but reliable process
of assessment for learning.
Providing
the district’s elementary teachers with professional development that increases
classroom assessment literacy will address every situation noted above. However, for early elementary education, it becomes
difficult to address the principled need for classroom assessment literacy without
first acknowledging the overall problems related to how best to address the delivery
of reading instruction during foundational school years. As a review of this problem, the National
Reading Panel report: Teaching Children to
Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading
and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (NICHD,
2000) concluded that effective reading programs should include instruction in
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension. By contrast, the National Research Council (Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998) concluded that beginning readers need “explicit instruction and
practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller
units of sounds...‘sight’ recognition of frequent words, and independent reading,
including reading aloud” (Snow et al., 1998, p.7). To promote a balanced approach to reading, the
National Research Council sought to explicate an “integrated picture of how
reading develops” (Snow et al., 1998, p. 2) and desired their report to “mark
the end of the reading wars” (Snow et al., 1998, p.vii).
Leaders must address both the need for
classroom assessment literacy and the school district’s high percentage of special
education referrals prior to second grade due to reading concerns. The effective educational leader will allocate
extensive professional development resources to promote the competency of the
district’s early elementary school teachers in English language arts while also
expanding their access to and familiarity with the tenets of an effective
first-grade reading intervention program. Rather than getting lost in the forest
of reading philosophy, an embrace of the Response to Intervention
(RTI) approach recognizes children learn in diverse ways and often respond well
to systemic, well-structured, and individualized approaches when the universal approach
does not allow access to success commensurate to one’s peers. Therefore, during the early elementary grades,
to advance the overall goal to promote classroom assessment literacy, it will
be most effective to ground professional development endeavors in content that
promotes reading instruction grounded in the philosophies and principles
advocated by Marie Clay, Jeanne Chall, Richard Anderson, David Rumelhardt,
Kenneth Goodman, and contemporaries in reading.
Based on results from reliable
assessments and a documented lack of success using universal or small group
instruction, students at-risk for reading failure will benefit from individualized,
Tier 3 RTI. For teaching reading skills
to their least proficient, most at-risk
learners, early elementary teachers should be aware of how to use a
research-based, multisensory
and systematic approach that increases the student’s phonemic and phonetic-awareness. Typically, the Orton-Gillingham method grounds many
of the available reading intervention programs.
Specifically, the Reading Recovery® program provides a
first-grade reading intervention based on the literacy instructional principles
advocated by Clay (1985). These
principles are evident in other programs such as, Reading
Rescue®, Project Read®, or Wilson
Reading System®
A two-prong
approach will address identified gaps in the early elementary teachers’
competencies related to classroom
assessment literacy and their ability to provide multi-leveled reading
interventions. Just as public schools
need to establish metrics for accountability of their teaching and learning
mission, so too must institutes
of higher education (IHE) and teacher preparation programs establish better
metrics for measuring the competencies of their graduates, including knowledge
of systems and ability to think systemically.
To address this, IHE and other teacher preparation programs must
recognize the aim for graduating “instruments of systems
change” rather than merely preparing individuals to administer
curriculum. Therefore, IHE and teacher
preparation programs must curriculum map their early childhood and elementary
programs to ensure teacher candidates high levels of classroom assessment
literacy by utilizing multi-leveled reading interventions.
To address competency
gaps exhibited by in-service teachers, the district’s early elementary school
teachers should have access to participation in a 60-hour professional
development course during the summer intercession. The professional development course would be
offered in two-parts. The course will be
provided over a 10-day period for 6-hours per day. During the first week, part one of the
professional development sessions would be comprised of instruction to promote
greater teacher competency in literacy (English language arts) and RTI. At the conclusion of week one, staff that are
positively evaluated for continued participation will be selected for
additional professional development that will promote their competency in the
awareness and utilization of a
multi-sensory, phonemic and phonetic-awareness based reading intervention.
During the
60-hour intensive professional development, it will be beneficial to present research
in the following eight areas:
1.
Identifying
students “at-risk" for reading failure
3.
Assessment for reading readiness
4.
Administration and interpretation of benchmark
assessment of reading progress
5.
Strategies for integrating decoding and spelling skills
6.
Teaching critical reading skills
7.
Response to Intervention: Multi-leveled, formative
assessment
8. Awareness
and utilization of a multi-sensory, phonemic and phonetic-awareness based reading
intervention (Project
Read®, Reading Recovery®, Reading
Rescue®, or
Wilson
Reading System)
Teachers,
researchers, and policymakers consistently indicate that the greatest challenge
to implementing effective professional development is lack of time (Abdal-Hagg, 1999). Teachers’ needs include time to understand
new concepts, learn new skills, develop new attitudes, research, discuss,
reflect, assess, and then integrate new approaches into their practice. Of essential need is time to self-reflect upon
their professional development (Cambone, 1995; Corcoran, 1995; Troen
& Bolles, 1994; Watts & Castle, 1993; Weiss & Cambone, 1994).
Considering the implications of traditional scheduling
patterns for implementing effective professional development, Abdal-Hagg (1999)
shared some approaches that various schools and districts have taken to finding
time for professional development. Effective
professional development addresses the flaws of traditional approaches, which
are often criticized for being fragmented, unproductive, inefficient, unrelated
to practice, and lacking in intensity and follow-up (Bull, Buechler, Didley,
& Krehbiel, 1994; Corcoran, 1995). Watts
& Castle (1993) found professional development generally was not seen as an
intrinsic part of making teachers more adept and productive in the
classroom. Their conclusion was grounded
in findings that indicate school schedules do not normally incorporate time to
consult or observe colleagues or engage in professional activities such as
research, learning and practicing new skills, curriculum development, or
professional reading. Administrators,
parents, and legislators often view with disfavor anything that draws teachers
away from direct engagement with students.
Teachers themselves often feel guilty about being away from their classrooms
for restructuring or staff development activities (Cambone, 1995; Raywid,
1993).
The
American view towards professional teacher development contrasts with
approaches found in foreign countries.
In China, Japan, and Germany, time for collegial interaction and
collaboration, is integrated into the school day (NECTL,
1994). In many Asian schools, which
generally have larger class sizes than U.S. schools, teachers facilitate fewer
classes and spend 30-40% of their day out of the classroom, conferring with
students and colleagues or engaged in other professional work. Donahoe
(1993) suggested that such set-aside time is particularly important when
significant school improvement plans are underway and advises states or school
district to formally establish “collective staff time,” just as they set
minimums for class time and teaching days. Raywid (1993) identified three broad
approaches to finding time for teachers to collaborate:
1.
Adding time by extending the school day or year,
2.
Extracting time from the existing schedule,
3.
Altering staff utilization patterns.
Based on a
survey of schools, Watts
and Castle (1993) identified five types of time created for professional
teacher development:
1.
Freed up time using teaching assistants, college
interns, parents, and administrators to cover classes; regularly scheduled
early release days.
2.
Restructured or rescheduled time lengthening school day
of four days, with early release on day five.
3.
Better-used time using regular staff or district
meetings for planning and professional growth rather than informational or
administrative purposes.
4.
Common time scheduling common planning periods for
colleagues having similar assignments.
5.
Purchased time establishing a substitute bank of 30-50
days per year, which teachers can tap when they participate in committee work
or professional development of activities (p.309).
The most
formidable challenge to institutionalizing effective professional development
time may be due to the prevailing school culture, which “generally considers a
teacher’s proper place during school hours to be in front of a class and which
isolates teachers from one another and discourages collaborative work” (NECTL,
1994).
“It is a culture that does not
place a premium on teacher learning and in which decisions about professional
development needs are not usually made by teachers but by state, district, and
building administrators. Paradoxically,
implementing a more effective pattern of teacher professional development requires
struggling against these constraints, but it may also help to create a school
climate that is more hospitable to teacher learning” (Abdul-Hagg (1999, p.4).
An
effective professional development program that invites and empowers teacher
learning must:
·
Be ongoing;
·
Include training, practice, and feedback;
opportunities for individual reflection and group inquiry into practice; and
coaching or other follow-up procedures;
·
Be school-based and embedded in teacher work;
·
Be collaborative, providing opportunities for
teachers to interact with peers;
·
Focus on student learning, which should, in
part, guide assessment of the instruction’s effectiveness;
·
Encourage and support school-based and teacher
initiatives;
·
Be rooted in the knowledge base for teaching;
·
Incorporate constructivist approaches to
teaching and learning;
·
Recognize teachers as professionals and adult
learners;
·
Provide adequate time and follow-up support; and
·
Be accessible and inclusive (Abdal-Hagg, 1999, p.2).
The success
of the district’s goal for optimizing classroom assessment literacy and a
program of early elementary multi-tiered reading interventions will be
contingent upon the effectiveness of the provided professional development, the
ensuing opportunities to utilize the provided skills or strategies, and the
level of accountability for expecting the implementation of the presented
skills and strategies. Action research on reading instruction
and specifically effectiveness of interventions continues to evolve. Therefore, effective professional development
is a necessary and ideally a highly desired foundation of the highly qualified
instructional leader.
References
Abdal-Hagg,
I. (1999). Making time for teacher
professional development. Eric
Clearinghouse. Washington,
D.C. ED400259
Black, P., & Wiliam, D.
(1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment
in
Education:
Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5 (1),
7–73
Bull,
B., Buechler, M., Didley, S., & Krehbiel, L. (1994). Professional development
and teacher time: Principles, guidelines, and policy options
for Indiana. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana Education Policy Center,
School of Education, Indiana University.
Cambone,
J. (1995). Time for teachers in school
restructuring. Teachers College
Record, 96(3): 512-43.
Chall, J.S. (1983) Stages
of reading development. New York: McGraw Hill.
Chall, J.S. & Feldmann, S. (1966). First grade
reading: An analysis of the interaction
of professed methods, teacher implementations and
child background.
The Reading
Teacher, v19, 569-575.
Clay, M.M. (1979). The
early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland,
New Zealand: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1985). The
early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey
with recovery procedures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1990, April). Reading recovery in the United States: Its successes
and challenges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education
Research association, Boston.
Cambone,
J. (1995) . Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College Record,
96(3) ,
512-43 ERIC: EJ 505 811.
Corcoran,
T.C. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A
guide
for state policymakers. Washington, D.C.: National Governor’s Assoc.
ERIC: ED 384 600)
Donahoe,
T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan 75(4): 298-305.
Flynn,
L.L. (1989). “Developing Critical
Reading Skills through Comparative
Problem Solving.” Reading Teacher, 42(9), 664-68.
National
Education Commission on Time and Learning [NECTL}. (1994). Prisoners of
Time.
Washington, D.C.: Author. ED366115 retrieved from:
Popham, W. J. (2008).Transformative
assessment .Alexandria, VA: Association
for
Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Raywid,
M.A. (1993). Finding time for
collaboration. Educational Leadership,
51(1)
30-34.
Ruddell, R.B., Ruddell, M.R., & Singer, H. (Eds.).
(1994). Theoretical models and
processes of
reading (4th ed.). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Stiggins, R. J. (2006).
Assessment for learning: A key to student motivation and learning.
Phi Delta Kappa
Edge, 2 (2), 1–19.
Troen,
V., & Bolles, KI. (1994). Two
teachers examine the power of teacher
Leadership. In D.R. Walling (Ed.), Teachers as
leaders. Perspectives on the
Professional
development of teachers (pp. 275-86).
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Vacca, R. T. & Padak, N. D. (1990). Who's at risk
in reading? Journal of Reading v33. n7
486-88.
Watts,
G.D. & Castle, S. (1993). The time
dilemma in school restructuring. Phi
Delta
Kappan
75(4): 306-10.
Weiss, C. H., & Cambone, J. (1994). Principals, shared
decision making, and school
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(3), 287–301.
doi:10.3102/01623737016003287
To cite:
Anderson, C.J. (April 30,
2016) Professional development for
reading interventions and
classroom
assessment literacy. [Web log post] Retrieved from
