collaborating to promote effective elementary practices across seven school districts
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 13 November 2014, At: 15:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Peabody Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20
Collaborating to PromoteEffective Elementary PracticesAcross Seven School DistrictsSheri Rogers , Kathy Danielson & Jill F. RussellPublished online: 18 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: Sheri Rogers , Kathy Danielson & Jill F. Russell (2000)Collaborating to Promote Effective Elementary Practices Across Seven School Districts,Peabody Journal of Education, 75:3, 133-144, DOI: 10.1207/S15327930PJE7503_9
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7503_9
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Collaborating to Promote EffectiveElementary Practices Across SevenSchool Districts
Sheri Rogers, Kathy Danielson, and Jill F. Russell
Collaboration between a metropolitan university’s college of education andurban and suburban school districts is described via an initiative to supportdissemination of effective elementary practices across 7 districts. The effortfocused on the creation of 4 booklets that described best practices as identifiedthrough the research-based literature. Parent involvement, literacy instruc-tion, multiage classrooms, and brain-based learning were the areas targetedfor attention. Two conferences to share the information were also a part of theplan for dissemination. Trust and camaraderie evolved as faculty members,teachers, and administrators worked together to create a product and share itwith their colleagues.
PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 75(3), 133–144Copyright © 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
133
SHERI ROGERS is Associate Professor, Department of Teacher Education, University of Nebraska,Omaha.
KATHY DANIELSON is Professor, Department of Teacher Education, University of Nebraska, Omaha.
JILL F. RUSSELL is Assistant Dean of the College of Education, and Executive Director of the Metropoli-tan Omaha Educational Consortium, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Sheri Rogers, Department of Teacher Educa-tion, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Kayser Hall, 514, Omaha, NE 68182. E-mail:[email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
This is the story of one of many collaborative ventures between a metro-politan university’s college of education and seven area school districts.The umbrella for the collaboration is the Metropolitan Omaha EducationalConsortium (MOEC). The specific collaborative initiative to be highlightedfocuses on effective elementary practices. In particular, the initiative wasintended to identify what the research says about effective practices and tocommunicate that information in persuasive ways to those who are in aposition to implement effective practices.
This article describes the context and background for this collaborativeeffort, the goals and strategies, and the outcomes. It also discusses the bar-riers that had to be overcome, the factors contributing to success, and thecauses for celebration.
Views of the Authors
The authors are Sheri, a faculty member in the University of Nebraska atOmaha’s Department of Teacher Education; Kathy, also a faculty memberin Teacher Education; and Jill, the executive director of MOEC, who is alsoassistant dean of the college. As a group we believe:
We are strengthened by our shared community. The opportunity to lis-ten to another’s perspective strengthens and reinforces our own resolve.Colleges of Education are seen as models of working together toward acommon goal: educating our community’s children well. If we do notwork together, what kind of message are we sending to teachers, to stu-dents, and to parents in that community? To work together, we mustpull together to support our individual success stories and to offernonjudgmental advice to those between successes.
MOEC
MOEC was established in 1988 by the dean of the College of Education atthe University of Nebraska at Omaha in cooperation with five local schooldistrict superintendents. After just a few more years two additional districtshad joined, comprising essentially all of the urban/suburban public districtsof the metropolitan area. The goals of MOEC are to serve as a catalyst to pro-mote the best education for youth and educators and to provide a vehicle forcommunication and action across educational institutions.
Member organizations pay dues. The consortium is housed at the uni-versity out of the dean’s office. Oversight is provided by the Executive
S. Rogers, K. Danielson, J. F. Russell
134
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Steering Committee whose membership is the superintendents and thedean. Staff includes two full-time equivalent professionals and a part-timeassistant. The primary means of accomplishing work is through taskforces. There are 12 or so task forces in place that deal with such issues asassessment, middle level, technology, personnel, staff development, andso forth. These task forces include representatives from the school districtsand the college. In addition, there are several ongoing projects that havebeen institutionalized, including a mentor training program, a graduateinduction program, and a summer leadership program.
History of the Effective Elementary Practices Initiative
Three task forces have contributed to the initiative to be describedherein. The Effective Elementary Practices, Early Childhood Committee,and Reading and Literacy Task Force groups had merged several yearspreviously when it was recognized they were discussing many of the sameissues. The Combined Task Force met on a regular basis throughout theschool year in various locations around the metro area.
The Effective Elementary Practices group had originally been estab-lished to help design a model elementary school in conjunction with a localgroup connected with the Chamber of Commerce. Kathy had been the uni-versity representative of this group. This had been a very politicized activ-ity. One of the issues of contention was: How would governance of such amodel school be handled with respect to seven different school districts?After the group had identified the characteristics of a model elementaryschool, the members of the MOEC Executive Steering Committee had de-cided they would like to see these characteristics in all the elementarybuildings, not just in a single model school. The Task Force was asked toredirect their efforts toward assisting all schools in developing modelschool characteristics.
The Early Childhood Committee was actually the oldest of the threetask forces. It had been in place for about 8 years. This group had ad-dressed a wide range of topics and had previously produced program di-rectories and a monograph on the need and value of early childhoodeducation and parent involvement programs.
The Literacy Task Force was the newest group of the three. Sheri had askedthat this group be created. Her story about its establishment is as follows:
One of the reasons I had accepted my position at the University of Ne-braska at Omaha in the first place was because of the preexisting connec-tion to the area schools offered by MOEC. My research is done in schools,
Effective Elementary Practices
135
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
and I was leaving connections to local schools behind with my formerposition. MOEC’s preexisting scaffolding allowed me a foothold in thecommunity I wished to learn with and from. During my interview withthe MOEC staff while on my prehire visit to the university, I had askedabout a literacy task force. There was none, but several others were sug-gested that I joined when I was hired: the Assessment Task Force andalso the Safe Schools Task Force. Although I enjoyed my time with thecommitted individuals on each of these task forces, I never felt that I wasmaking a meaningful contribution.
Later, I asked again if it would be possible to create a Literacy TaskForce. One of the reasons I asked the question was because I thought Iwould be allowed to do so. I trusted that my suggestion would not beridiculed or belittled. Friendly, helpful, and supportive people are easierto work with. Although this seems obvious, it is not always the case thatindividuals involved in collaborative situations are open to new ideas. Ifound that because I knew my question would, at the very least, be val-ued, I was willing to ask it. The immediate response was, “Okay, we’llask the superintendents and the dean.”
The willingness the staff displayed to work with me toward the posi-tive possibilities, instead of insisting on pointing out the danger inherentin beginning anything new, made all the difference. My ideas were ap-preciated, not demeaned. Problems, when they developed, have beenput in their appropriate perspective, not seen as the be all and end all ofany of our particular goals.
I was never once told: “That isn’t the way we do things here.” It wasmentioned that a professor had never asked for a task force previously,but there was no insistence that because it had never happened before itcouldn’t happen now. The removal of roadblocks was essential to the be-ginning of this entire project.
One of the priorities of the committee, in addition to sharing literacyresearch and successful practice, was to include teachers in our taskforce makeup. We didn’t think we could accomplish the literacy changesthat would be necessary if we relied only on administrators and readingspecialists. Teachers had to buy into the ideas we were presenting.Teachers had to close their classroom doors and try some of the thingsour committee would talk about. Teachers had to lead other teachers toan integration of literacy theory and literacy practice. This priority hasbeen a struggle, but we continue in our desire to hold meetings whenteachers can attend.
As we gathered together as a task force, we were joined by other taskforces with similar ideas. We began to reshape our goals based on whatemerged as the number one common goal: to put quality educational re-
S. Rogers, K. Danielson, J. F. Russell
136
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
search on common themes into the hands of practicing teachers and ad-ministrators. This goal consumed the time of the task force during thefirst year.
With that as a backdrop, the Combined Task Force chose to identify theresearch behind effective elementary practices and to create user-friendlybooklets that shared the rationale and research behind the preferred meth-ods and structures. It was intended the booklets would bridge the re-search-to-practice gap for teachers and administrators, as well as provideevidence that could be shared readily with board members, parents, or themedia who may be questioning certain methods. Along the way, two con-ferences were planned to help with the dissemination of information.
Activities
The Combined Task Force, together with the MOEC offices, offered thefollowing concrete activities:
1. A sharing of professional readings, drafting of booklets, reflecting,discussing, defending, and synthesizing our own professional philoso-phies of quality learning and teaching.
2. Development of professional research booklets: Parent InvolvementPrograms, Multiage Classrooms, Principles of Brain-Based Learning, and Ef-fective Literacy Instruction. (Note that all of the booklets are available onlineat the following site: http://www.unocoe.unomaha.edu/booklets.htm.) Thebooklets answered the questions: What does research say? How may this bemanifested in the classroom? Where can I go and see this kind of practice?What Internet sites may I go to if I have additional questions?
3. A professional research conference in which practitioners, many ofwhom were listed in the booklets, offered their advice about the researchfrom a first-hand perspective.
4. An additional conference with Dr. Brian Cambourne from Australiato offer follow-up to the first conference and to further integrate the collab-oration across MOEC member organizations.
Goals of Research Booklets
The primary goal of the research booklets was to address the constantchallenge of integrating theory with practice. The topical areas of educa-tional research identified by the Task Force as needing to be addressed in
Effective Elementary Practices
137
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
our metropolitan schools were the Multiaging Classroom, Parent Involve-ment Programs, Effective Literacy Instruction, and Principles ofBrain-Based Learning. These areas were researched extensively with a greatdeal of support and help from the Dean’s Office at the College of Education.This allowed the subcommittees to read, reflect, discuss, and eventuallywrite a synthesis of the research, as well as identify sites of best practices in-volving local practitioners.
Primarily because the brain-based group insisted on providing areader-friendly format, we offered a “less-is-more” axiom. The goal of thebooklets was to have them read. To ensure that this would happen, wewanted them to present the essentials in a nonthreatening format.
Goals of Conference
Although the subcommittees insisted on the existence of a booklet-shar-ing conference, they did not necessarily have the time to plan the conference.This job fell primarily to the three of us. The subcommittees wanted thesebooklets read, and because the booklets themselves offered the subcommit-tee members as natural presenters, they and the same practitioners listed onthe booklets became the conference presenters in many instances. These in-dividuals are still the experts people turn to as they seek to follow the modelestablished by these individuals, their schools, and their districts. The pointwas to encourage practitioners to be helping other practitioners.
Representatives from all of the districts and the university were in-cluded in the conference agenda. It was decided to invite undergraduateand graduate classes at the university to participate in the conference at nocharge. Faculty who chose to do so allowed students to attend the confer-ence instead of holding class that day. This allowed the natural integrationof the College of Education, its faculty and administrators, the CareerAdvancement and Development for Recruits and Experienced Teachers(CADRE) associates (the MOEC–teacher education graduate inductionprogram), together with the preservice and in-service teachers we serve, toillustrate the layers of learners in a concrete, formal conference. The confer-ence further allowed us to illustrate in a less concrete fashion the power ofsuch a collaboration. Without the prior 10 years of successful collabora-tion, this connection would have been less than natural. It would havebeen false and suspect. With the MOEC scaffolding firmly in place, wewere able to build on the in-place structure and soar to new heights.
As professors, one of our goals for the conference was to allow ourpreservice teachers to see firsthand what in-service teachers do: Learnthroughout their careers. The connections our students made with in-ser-
S. Rogers, K. Danielson, J. F. Russell
138
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
vice teachers were priceless, but they also discerned that they were learning,in their university courses, pertinent information that was viable for real life.
One of Sheri’s individual goals for the conference became the timely is-sue of Nebraska State Education Standards. Many of her graduate stu-dents were concerned that they would be forced outside of their ownlearning and teaching philosophies in order to adapt to the state’s stan-dards. Although many of Sheri’s preservice students were not familiarwith the standards, Sheri, who is also a member of a local school board,knew that these same future teachers would soon be evaluated on whetherthey were adequately addressing the standards. The conference was a nat-ural way to address both concerns. The layers of learners at the StandardsSections were impressive to just sit back and watch.
In-service teachers attended sessions offered by preservice teachers,specifically in the area of Nebraska State Standards, as “students” pre-sented their Standards sections of their professional portfolios. Theself-confidence the presenters gained from this was career-choice affirm-ing. One such preservice presenter offered:“They [in-service teachers andadministrators] actually took notes on what I did!”
In addition, preservice teachers learned about MOEC in a way they hadnot before. They learned firsthand about the opportunities for collabora-tion, learning, and sharing of pertinent information. They wondered howthey could be a part of this organization when they are practitioners. Theywill spread the word.
Timeline
The subcommittees met for over a year to develop their booklets. Con-nections were formed within subcommittees and allowed each member tonot only learn from the process but also to be empowered to take the re-search they were reading directly back to their own buildings. The sub-committees were insisting on a conference to disseminate the booklets in away that would not leave them lost on some storage room shelf. These in-dividuals insisted that the fruit of their year-long labor would be devouredby the in-service teachers who would gain sustenance from the contents.We let the subcommittees lead us toward the conference.
Outcomes
Several outcomes were unplanned, but probably the most powerfulwere the following:
Effective Elementary Practices
139
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
1. The opportunity to plan the conference and the booklets afforded thethree of us to work together toward common goals. This has spawnedmany additional projects.
2. A model of collaboration. Sometimes it only takes asking, “Can I dothis?” Perhaps we did not completely trust that administrators would bedelighted to take on additional work for themselves. We have found thatadministrators are not only quite easy to work with, but if change is re-quired, they can be very powerful allies to ensure it is not squashed by theever-present, negative individuals always happy to offer their thoughts onwhy you cannot do something.
3. Our collaboration offered a valuable service-learning opportunityfor our preservice and in-service students. Not only did the booklets pro-vide this opportunity, but also the conferences, and the planning of confer-ences have offered opportunities for students to assist with nontraditionallearning experiences. In addition, those students who were presenters atthe conference have continued in their pursuit of learning.
4. The reading, writing, listening, and speaking on professional educa-tional research topics was a priority that we have continued in our futureplans. The very act of reading, writing, listening, and speaking about edu-cational research outside of the classroom, and the opportunity to learnwith and from each other in a nonthreatening atmosphere, was its ownpositive outcome.
5. We came together as a group who cared about continued growth,and we were afforded the opportunity to do so from an empoweredstance. The choice of particular strands or themes, as well as individual re-search studies, was offered. The opportunity for many group members toparticipate in Internet searches, sometimes for the first time, was invigorat-ing to witness. This was an empowered group that will only increase theirlearning through additional professional experiences.
6. The College of Education students who were lucky enough to attendthe conference, or who have benefitted from the booklets, feel invited intowhat Frank Smith (1992) called the “literacy club.” Early invitations to theexpanded literacy club, the MOEC club, ensure the continued strength ofthis community of learners.
Causes for Celebration
When the booklets were finally completed and printed, the hard workof all of the subgroups was in a tangible format and thus warranted cele-bration. Committee members were proud of the appearance and content ofthe booklets.
S. Rogers, K. Danielson, J. F. Russell
140
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The successful conference was also a cause for celebration. We hadnearly 250 participants at our early June conference (after the school yearhad ended). Feedback was very positive. In fact, many said they wished ithad gone on all day, or for several days.
Another cause for celebration was the networking that had taken placeduring the process of writing the booklets. Professors, teachers, and ad-ministrators shared information that was useful to each group of profes-sionals. Teachers now knew some names and faces at the university, andprofessors knew some excellent teachers in the field that they could call onfor practicum experience or for guest speakers in college classes.
Future Plans
The collaboration has provided the opportunity to expand our futureplans to include whatever seems appropriate given the quick-changing ed-ucation climate. The collaboration with administration ensures that wehave the support we need to be flexible. As Sheri defends the MOEC bud-get at area school board meetings, she is proud to do so as she offers whatour task force specifically has accomplished. We only envision further col-laborations to best serve quality learning and teaching.
The Combined Task Force’s current goal involves establishing a profes-sional reading group. At our first organizational meeting this year, the com-mittee spent time talking about what they wanted to read next. The interestand enthusiasm is infectious, and to know the members will pass this excite-ment for learning to others is all the more rewarding. This is all because peo-ple were willing to work together on an equal basis for a common cause.
We want to ensure that our task force practices what it preaches: Lifelonglearning is essential for good teaching. We are learning through reading andreflecting, and we also continue to learn through our collaboration.
Analysis of Pertinent Factors
The following is an attempt to step back and consider the impact of vari-ous factors on the collaborative venture. It includes an examination of fac-ulty involvement, contributors to success, and problems to be overcome.
Faculty Involvement
Encouraging faculty to become involved on yet another committee can bedifficult. We were successful in getting four literacy professors involved in
Effective Elementary Practices
141
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
this project by underscoring the importance of faculty input in the writing ofeach of the booklets. We also told participants that many classroom teacherswere involved and that this was a way for professors to network with localteachers. For two relatively new professors, this was an important compo-nent of becoming involved because it gave them information about localschools and possible practicum placements for their college students.
Each of the four faculty members helped with the writing of the book-lets. In several instances, the faculty member was the chair of the bookletwriting committee and spearheaded the search for research and profes-sional reading. Allowing faculty to point out important pieces to read gavesome direction to a potentially unending task of reading lots of materialabout each subject area.
In addition, we enlisted the help of CADRE Associates. CADRE Associ-ates are experienced classroom teachers who mentor first-year teachers ina cohort graduate induction program. These experienced teachers werethen able to pass on useful information to their mentees (first-year teach-ers) and to their fellow mentors.
Faculty were also involved in the planning of the conference. Together, webrainstormed with other committee members about local teachers who woulddo wonderful presentations in the areas we had identified as important issues.
Faculty also helped with announcing the conference. Several professorsrequired students in their summer classes to attend the conference if theydid not have other class conflicts. A number of graduate and undergradu-ate students then benefitted from attending the conference.
Contributors to Success
One of the factors that contributed to the success of the booklet writingwas that we shared common goals. We wanted to give teachers and ad-ministrators research-supported, up-to-date information that would behelpful. When working on the booklets, we reminded ourselves that toomuch information would be overkill; thus, we tried to keep our bookletsprecise and meaningful. By reading, discussing, and then gleaning out themost important pieces of information to share, we modeled our own life-long learning processes.
A big factor in the success of these booklets was the help of a graduatestudent who located countless articles we requested from her. Every meet-ing would find her giving us stacks of articles to read or research piecesthat we had requested. Her help in this process was very valuable.
Another factor contributing to the success of this program was the cama-raderie and sense of community that had been established. Groups met fre-
S. Rogers, K. Danielson, J. F. Russell
142
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
quently and got to know one another. We were comfortable sharinginformation, editing one another’s work, and working toward a well-writ-ten product.
We were fortunate to have a variety of people on each committee, rang-ing from professors, administrators, and classroom teachers. All points ofview were considered in the writing of the booklets and in the planning ofthe conference. This multiple perspective enhanced the process as well.
Problems Encountered and How Overcome
One of the problems always encountered when working with a largegroup of busy people is finding time to meet. Often only a few members ofthe subgroups were able to meet with the entire committee, but care wastaken to make sure the subgroups met at times that were convenient tothem. Special consideration was given to times that would be convenientfor classroom teachers.
There was a spelling subgroup committee writing their own booklet,from which the literacy subgroup felt they needed input. Eventually, theliteracy subgroup adopted what the spelling group had developed and in-corporated it into the literacy booklet so that spelling was not consideredseparate from literacy.
The whole notion of whether to have a summer conference was a bit of aconflict, especially at the end of March when we started planning it. In-stead of tabling the conference, we felt those booklets needed to get in thehands of teachers. We went ahead with the conference, despite the com-ments of a few members of the committee who had low attendance at sum-mer conferences they had planned in previous years. We were glad wedid—for the conference was a huge success and had great attendance.
Conclusion
As partners in this undertaking to take a long-term approach to bring-ing research to bear on classroom and building practices, we enjoyed theengagement in our own learning, the connections with colleagues in otherorganizations, and the sense that our combined efforts will impact onteaching and learning for educators as well as P–12 youth.
Collaboration is an effective means of furthering a professional’s owngoals, his or her organization’s goals, and the broader education commu-nity’s goals. It is, though, a step-by-step, day-by-day evolving phenomenarather than a tidy, preplanned process. In that sense it cannot always be di-
Effective Elementary Practices
143
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14
rected or predicted because it allows all partners the opportunity for influ-ence, growth, and changing opinions.
Real change and ongoing learning by organizations require team learn-ing and shared vision (Senge, 1990). Heisenberg said that “science isrooted in conversations. The cooperation of different people may culmi-nate in scientific results of the utmost importance” (as cited in Senge, 1990,p. 238). We would argue that educational improvement is also rooted inconversation, and conversation is the foundation for collaboration.
References
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:Doubleday.
Smith, F. (1992). Joining the literacy club: Further essays in education. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
S. Rogers, K. Danielson, J. F. Russell
144
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 1
5:56
13
Nov
embe
r 20
14