Success for All: Nghiên cứu điển hình về tác động của mô hình cải cách toàn diện tại trường tiểu học đô thị

University of St. Thomas, Minnesota UST Research Online Education Doctoral Dissertations in Leadership School of Education 2017 Success for All: A Case Study of a Comprehensive Reform Model’s Effect on an Urban Elementary School Lynette K. Scott University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, lksaka@hotmail.com Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.edu/caps_ed_lead_docdiss Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Scott, Lynette K., "Success for All: A Case Study of a Comprehensive Reform Model’s Effect on an Urban Elementary School" (2017).

Education Doctoral Dissertations in Leadership.edu/caps_ed_lead_docdiss/86 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Education at UST Research Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Education Doctoral Dissertations in Leadership by an authorized administrator of UST Research Online. For more information, please contact libroadmin@stthomas. Success for All: A Case Study of a Comprehensive Reform Model’s Effect on an Urban Elementary School A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST.

THOMAS SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA By Lynette K. Scott IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION 2017 iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my parents, Herman and Carrie Bannister, who taught me the value of faith, that all things are possible. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the love, support and opportunities my parents, Herman and Carrie Bannister, gave me throughout my life. They always told me how proud they were of me; I only wish they were here to accept my dedication of this work to them.

To my brother Greg, and his family, Laura, Joshua, and Chantelle, and my mother-­­in-­­law Jeannine Scott, thank you for your encouragement and support. I wish to thank my friends Rhonda, Rachel, Marletta, and Lois who never gave up hope. To Peggy Sullivan, Mae Schunk, Capetra Parker, and Dr. DeLariah Jones: thanks for assistance with writing, editing, and resources, and for your constant words of encouragement.

Thanks also to all the teachers, teacher assistants, parents and students who previously attended Roosevelt Elementary: without you this study could not have been possible. To my current administrator, Dr. Delores Henderson: thank you, thank you, and thank you for your constant support, push and encouragement to “get it done. Trudi Taylor, we have come full circle, thank you, thank you.

To my committee members, Dr. Sharon Radd and Dr. Jeanne Mortinson: thank you for not giving up on me and for helping me realize my dream. Bob Brown, my chair: we have come a long way and it could not have been done without your persistence and perseverance.

Finally and especially to my loving husband John: thank you for your constant encouragement, patience, patience, patience and never ending love. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPROVAL PAGE……………………………………………………………………………………………….iv TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………….v TABLE OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………….viii PREFACE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….1 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………….…6 Significance of the Problem ……………………………………………………………………….6 Overview of Chapters…….7 Definition of Terms………….9 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.11 Historical Perspective of Education Reform in America………………………….11 School Reform in the 19th Century…………………………………………….12 School Reform in the 20th Century…………………………………………….15 School Reform in the 21st Century……………………………………….…17 Effective Schools Research……………………………………………………….21 Interpretations of the Experts……………………………………………………………….……23 Specific of Success for All……………………………………………………………………….40 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………….47 Follow-­­up Interview Questions…………………………………………………………….48 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………………….49 Setting: The Implementation Process………………………………….……………………49 Description of Interviewees…………………………………………………………………….…64 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS………………………………………….66 Standardization of Learning…………………………………………………………………….77 Follow-­­up Interviews…………………………………………………………………………………80 Accountability………………………………………………………………………….…83 CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………….89 General Recommendations………………………………………………………………………92 Recommendations for St. Paul Public Schools………………………………………….95 Summary and Closing Thoughts.105 Appendix A: Letter of Invitation to Participation……………….106 Appendix B: Consent Form…………………………………….107 Appendix C: Interview Questions…………………………………………………….109 Appendix D: Follow-­­up Interview Questions…………………….110 Appendix E: Reading Results of MCA………………………………………………………111 Appendix F: Letter from SFAF……………………………………………………………….112 vii TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Format of Success for All .2: Success for All Instructional Components .1: Classic Adoption Curve…………………………………………………………….………94 viii ABSTRACT Over the past several decades, many reform models have been employed in school settings that attempt to improve student academic achievement. The results of the program implementation are often reported in a strictly quantitative manner, as higher or lower standardized test scores.

This research project focused on one such reform model’s implementation, but studied the results in a broader, more qualitative context, examining the impact of the program on the larger school community -­­ administrators, teachers, parents, and students, as well as on quantitatively measureable student outcomes, test scores. The case study approach, a widely accepted qualitative research methodology, was selected as the most effective means of analyzing the effects of the program for various stakeholders. The program researched was the Success for All reading program implemented at an urban public school, Roosevelt Elementary, in St. Data analyzed included audio-­­taped interviews; observations of subjects; school district information; Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) and Success for All Foundation records.

All participation in the study was voluntary. Findings were developed relating to themes of trust, standardization of learning, creativity/flexibility, success/pride, accountability, resistance, and abandonment. Implications for educational leadership and both general and targeted recommendations were identified. ix PREFACE The journey for this study has been arduous and challenging.

The course work with the cohort had been new and exciting, resulting in healthy, thought-­­ provoking, lively discussions. Each course had a purpose that allowed me to reflect on my learning and look at issues through a critical lens. After nearly completing the coursework, I felt fully prepared for the next step, the “dissertation.” My topic was chosen, the research methodology was determined, and my committee members were assembled. But “life happened” in ways I could not have predicted.

There was a seesaw effect that appeared every August for roughly five years: shortly before I was to return for a new academic school year, I would have a minor or major health issue. During this time, I had good intensions and proceeded with intent. I carefully organized my committee and thoughtfully navigated the last coursework to be completed. After taking a doctoral elective course with Dr.

Sue Huber, I knew she would be an excellent choice as my chair. I could work with her to complete my dissertation and I valued her professionalism. At that time, Dr. Huber was the Dean of the College of Education, Leadership and Counseling.

Shortly after beginning my work with her, however, she was appointed Interim Executive Vice President and Chief Academic Officer at St. Thomas and was no longer able to serve as Committee Chair. I reassessed the situation and choose Dr. Bruce Kramer as my Chair.

We had a good student/professor relationship and a mutual respect for each other. He was preparing to take a sabbatical and I was preparing the groundwork for my study. x Upon his return from sabbatical, however, the University of St. Thomas had other plans for Dr.

He was appointed Interim Dean of the College of Education, Leadership and Counseling and would not be able to continue as my Chair due to the responsibilities of his new position. Disappointed and devastated, I was determined to achieve my goal. I reached out to Dr. Robert Brown who was retired but still deeply involved with the University.

He had served as my advisor during the completion of the Collaborative Urban Educator Program (CUE) and master’s degree program. He graciously accepted the role and we began to work. Brown and I have had our challenges during this time, but persevering through the obstacles in the way, we intend to be victorious in our efforts. 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Background My passion for advocating for students and for educational opportunity came from my personal educational experience.

As an elementary school student, my peers teased me for going to the “dummy class,” “ not-­­so-­­smart class” or the “special needs class.” I could read, but I had problems with comprehension. The derogatory terms made me feel unintelligent and inferior. The name-­­calling lowered my self-­­ esteem and my confidence that I could become a good reader. Reading was difficult and I lacked the strategies to be successful at the task.

During my formative years of reading, I was instructed with Dick and Jane primers. The primers lacked characters who were persons of color. (Dick and Jane later added an African American family.) Instruction in reading consisted of phonics taught out of context, spelling and pronouncing sight words. I could read the words, but I had continuing difficulty understanding what I was reading.

If I couldn’t understand, how was I going to learn? I put up a mental barrier regarding reading. If the content was interesting, I had no problem. However, I had to read more difficult or technical material multiple times to comprehend the content. Clarification came for me once I could discuss the topic.

Over time, I learned to compensate for what I call this “self induced” disability. 2 As I began my work life, I had no interest in a career in education and almost had a fear of teaching. I was raised with the view that teachers knew everything. As a student in school at the elementary, secondary, and post-­­secondary level, I looked at teachers as the knowledgeable persons who had all the answers and could provide guidance.

After several years of employment changes, my educator friends encouraged me to explore the career option of teaching. The childhood memories returned: how was I going to teach if it required the arduous task of technical reading and understanding difficult text? Particularly, how would I be able to teach reading? I feared the unknown in relation to teaching. I reconsidered teaching, however, when my desire to excel in the business environment grew ever more challenging in the difficult economy. Teaching came at a time in my life when any other option looked desirable compared to starting over at the bottom of another organization.

I applied to the University of St. Thomas Collaborative Urban Educator (CUE) program, a teacher licensure program for individuals who held a bachelor degree in an area other than education and who had extensive experience working with children. After acceptance into the program, I managed the rigorous course work, mastered lesson planning, and learned about teaching specific subjects such as math, science, and reading. The real test came when I was with the mentor teacher and the students.

I gained courage and knowledge from my mentor and the confidence to teach and become a licensed educator. 3 Teaching proved an exciting and rewarding career change. I joined the staff at Roosevelt Elementary School in an urban school district in Minnesota. Through collaborating with master teachers, acquiring classroom management skills, and developing positive relationships with students, I became an effective classroom teacher.

My biggest challenge was the instruction of reading and helping struggling readers with comprehension. I developed a passion for teaching reading to the at-­­ risk child, who struggled as I had, but I sometimes found I had insufficient concrete strategies to meet all the needs. As an educator, my passion for children to read was fueled by my own experience. My philosophy is that every student has the potential for success, including students who struggle with reading.

My mentor suggested various reading strategies to meet the needs of the students. While my students read adequately and performed well on standardized test, there was always the need for improvement. Roosevelt’s student population had become more diverse, with an increase of enrollment of students of color, second language learners and students who came to school with few academic skills. Minnesota at that time was also implementing new and more rigorous assessments and standards.

Roosevelt’s principal realized its student population needed more than just a new basal reader. The principal desired a program that focused on reading that would be applicable to all students, including the increasing number of English Language Learners (ELL). The program needed the capabilities to integrate the Minnesota State Standards into the curriculum, and as well needed to be research based and data driven to increase student standardized test scores. 4 In the fall of 1997, the principal of Roosevelt Elementary began scrutinizing comprehensive reform models that had an emphasis on reading.