setting the “opportunity to read” standard: resuscitating the ssr program in an urban high...

© 2004 INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION (pp. 138–150) doi:10.1598/JAAL.48.2.5

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 4 8 : 2 O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4138

Douglas Fisher

Setting the “opportunity to read” standard:Resuscitating the SSR program

in an urban high school

Setting the “opportunity to read” standard:Resuscitating the SSR program

in an urban high school

One urban high school made significant

efforts to provide students with the

opportunity to read.

Schools across the United States haveredoubled their efforts to improve stu-dent achievement and meet the goalsestablished by the No Child LeftBehind Act, namely the provision thatstudents and schools make adequateyearly progress. At the secondaryschool level, teachers and administrators have fo-cused on ensuring that students can read and thatthey understand what they read. Unfortunately,less attention has been focused on providing stu-dents time to read and ensuring that they do read.Given the increased pressure for student perform-ance, teachers and administrators question the useof every instructional minute and wonder if pro-viding students with time to read is a wise invest-ment. The purpose of this article is to examine thejourney an urban high school took as the teachersand administrators struggled with the question oftime—specifically time devoted to free voluntaryreading. Starting with a single comment made by astudent, which led to committee work and signifi-cant policy changes, the chronology of resuscitat-ing free voluntary reading is explored.

The beginnings of change—A student commentSometimes a student asks a question or makes acomment that triggers significant policy change.

This is one such case. Miana (all stu-dent names are pseudonyms) stoppedher English teacher from the previousyear in the hall one afternoon. She hadrecently had her schedule changed andwas in a different fourth-period class.This meant that her 20-minuteSustained Silent Reading (SSR) period

was also with a different teacher. She told herEnglish teacher that her new fourth-periodteacher started class instead of letting them read.She continued, “My mom doesn’t let me just readat home. I can do my math homework or writemy essays, but she yells at me if I’m just reading.She wants me to watch my brothers and sisters orclean the house. The only time that I ever got toread was during 4-R [the SSR period]. Now that’staken away from me.” Miana made several impor-tant observations that day. For one, she noticedthat not all teachers were implementing SSR. Shealso noted the importance of reading time—timethat is especially valuable for students in urbanschools who may not have a place or the re-sources to read texts of their choice outside ofschool. Little did she know that her strategic

Fisher is a teacher andDirector of ProfessionalDevelopment with City

Heights EducationalCollaborative (4283 El CajonBlvd., #100, San Diego, CA

92105, USA). [email protected].

comment would trigger a renewed focus on SSRand generate discussion schoolwide.

Support for independentreading timeFree Voluntary Reading, Sustained Silent Reading(SSR), Drop Everything And Read (DEAR), andIndependent Reading have been recommended asways to engage students in reading on their own(e.g., Jensen & Jensen, 2002; Wiesendanger &Birlem, 1984; Worthy, Turner, & Moorman,1998). While there are distinctions among each ofthese methods, all of them involve studentsselecting texts and reading during school.Researchers and teachers have argued that sched-uling specific time for students to read can in-crease reading skills and have a positive impacton students’ attitudes toward reading (Akmal,2002; Dwyer & Reed, 1989). Perhaps thestaunchest supporter of independent readingtime is Krashen (1993), who maintained that freevoluntary reading is the most effective tool avail-able for increasing a child’s ability to read, write,spell, and comprehend.

In terms of students’ perspectives, Ivey andBroaddus (2001) noted that independent readingtime was important for middle school students.In fact, 63% of the 1,765 middle school studentsthey surveyed indicated that independent readingtime was their favorite activity in class. The valueof free voluntary reading time has been noted inother studies as well (e.g., Stewart, Paradis, Ross,& Lewis, 1996). This evidence led Ivey (2002) tomake three recommendations for content areateachers: Collect real books and other content-rich materials, read aloud to students, and pro-vide time for independent reading.

However, the National Reading Panel(National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment, 2000) could not document the ef-fectiveness of independent reading time and thusconcluded, “It would be difficult to interpret thiscollection of studies [the 14 that met their inclu-

sion criteria] as representing clear evidence thatencouraging students to read more actually im-proves reading achievement” (p. 3-26). Thusschool teams are left with a dilemma—should in-structional time be devoted to free voluntary read-ing programs such as SSR or DEAR? Teachers andadministrators in urban schools are even moreplagued by this question as they are often aware ofa significant number of students who cannot readat home because they do not have access to booksor the environment is not conducive to reading.The remainder of this article focuses on the dis-cussions, deliberations, and changes implementedin a high school determined to make a differencein student achievement.

Hoover High School educates just over2,200 students. Of these students, 75% areEnglish-language learners. Approximately 99% ofthe student population qualifies for free lunch, awidely accepted measure of poverty. In terms ofethnicity, 54% of the student population isLatino, 21% is African or African American, 20%is Asian or Filipino, and 4% is white. In 1999,Hoover achievement data placed it as the lowestperforming school in the county and one of thelowest performing schools in the state. As of2003, Hoover was no longer the lowest perform-ing high school and ranked around the middle interms of achievement for high schools in the city(see Fisher, Frey, & Williams, in press).

Of the 120 teachers who work at Hoover,95% have a current teaching credential, 70% havea graduate degree, and 45% are members of tra-ditionally underrepresented groups. The averageteacher at Hoover has been teaching 9.5 yearswith a range from 1 to 37 years.

In terms of literacy initiatives, Hoover im-plemented a literacy plan that included a school-wide focus on specific strategies (see Fisher,2001). Since 1999, Hoover teachers have partici-pated in monthly professional developmentevents focused on incorporating specific contentreading strategies into their instructional reper-toires, including read-alouds, anticipatory activi-ties, note-taking, graphic organizers, and writing

Setting the “opportunity to read” standard: Resuscitating the SSR program in an urban high school

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 4 8 : 2 O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4 139

to learn (for more information see Fisher & Frey,2004). In addition, the school has a full-time peercoach (paid for with Title I funds) who providesin-class support for teachers wanting to improvetheir practices. The peer coach provides demon-stration lessons, organizes professional develop-ment sessions, and engages in reflectiveconversations about literacy instruction withteachers. The school also has a full-time literacyadministrator (paid for with a combination ofTitle I and 21st Century Learning Communityafter-school program funds). One of the literacyadministrator’s primary responsibilities is the im-plementation of the literacy plan.

The data for this article come from a largerstudy of school change at Hoover. This study canbest be described as an action research programevaluation. Action research provides the researcheran opportunity to ask questions, collect data, im-plement change, ask new questions, collect newdata, make further changes, and so on (Stringer,1999). It is also a program evaluation in the sensethat decisions about a specific program (SSR time)were being made. Using an action research modelfor the program evaluation for the present studyallowed me to collect both quantitative and quali-tative data (Creswell, 1998). The data collected forthe present study included classroom observations,surveys, interviews, and field notes from staff de-velopment sessions and faculty meetings, as well asa member check in which individuals from theschool read, reviewed, and commented upon themanuscript prior to its submission. The cycle ofaction research, as will be described, required dif-ferent sets of data at different points in time. Whenspecific questions arose, data were used or collect-ed to inform discussions.

My role at Hoover is multifaceted, rangingfrom teacher to student teacher supervisor tomentor teacher to professional development co-ordinator. My colleagues and I regularly collectclassroom observational data and field notes. Inaddition, teachers regularly participate in focusgroups and individual interviews with me. I havea monthly opportunity to interview the site

administrator regarding school change and stu-dent achievement.

Was Miana right? Miana’s former English teacher raised the ques-tions she asked during the department meetingthe week following their conversation. TheEnglish teachers couldn’t believe it. As one of thesenior members of the department said, “Ofcourse it can’t be true—we’ve been doing SSR forover 10 years; teachers are having students readduring that time.” Other members of the depart-ment weren’t so sure. They proposed analyzinghow many students were reading during the SSRperiod and presenting this information to thewhole faculty for discussion. At Hoover, thefourth-period class time was extended by 20 min-utes. This first 20 minutes was to be used for SSRschoolwide. As a result, each of the other classeswas shortened. At least one member of theEnglish department commented that it might betime to analyze the SSR period and give all theteachers the minutes back and drop the readingperiod all together.

As a result of this conversation, a data col-lection plan was developed and implemented.Using the data sheet found in Figure 1, I collecteddata from 20 randomly selected classrooms, oneclassroom per day. Upon entering the classroom,four students were randomly selected for obser-vation for the 20-minute period, each student be-ing observed for 5 minutes. The data collectedwere based on the work of Von Sprecken andKrashen (1998), namely that if students are hold-ing a book, the observer assesses if the student isreading with a surrogate measure of page turningand eye movement.

The data from these 20 classrooms were ana-lyzed, and Miana was right. The SSR period wasnot systematically being used for reading. In fact,the data suggested that fewer than 720 of the 2,200students were reading during SSR. Weextrapolated this number because just over 400juniors and seniors left during or after lunch



because they did not have a fourth-period class(and thus no SSR time), and less than 40% of thestudents were reading during my classroom obser-vations. This class period was used for extra timein the content area (e.g., a chemistry teacher start-ed his class upon students entering the room), forhomework completion (e.g., a social studiesteacher allowed students to work on their home-work for the class or any other classes the studenthad), or for free time (e.g., an electives teacherread her e-mail while the class talked quietly).

Should it stay or should it go?The data were presented to the school’s literacycommittee. Clearly the schoolwide literacy plan

was not being fully implemented. While there wasevidence that content area teachers were usingconsistent literacy instructional strategies andthat students were improving in their literacyachievement (see Fisher, 2001), students were notbeing given time to read.

The literacy committee decided to collectadditional information and present it to thewhole faculty. One of the data points the commit-tee wanted was the impact that independentreading had on achievement. A literature reviewwas inconclusive, so the committee members de-cided to examine the Gates–MacGinitie scoresfrom the previous school year to determine ifthere was any evidence that reading time mat-tered. The Gates–MacGinitie reading assessment



F i g u r e 1S S R o b s e r v a t i o n l o g

Teacher ____________________________ Date ____________________

Instructions: Enter the classroom at the start of the Independent Reading period. Randomly select four

students to observe. For each student, complete the following:

Student 1: Gender: M F Does the student have a book? Yes No

Do the student’s eyes follow the text at an appropriate rate for reading? Yes No

Does the student turn the pages at an appropriate rate for reading? Yes No

Number of minutes of uninterrupted reading: __________________________




Number of minutes of uninterrupted reading: ________________________









is given to all 9th, 10th, and 11th graders duringthe first three weeks of the school year and againduring the final month of the school year. Thedata are used to determine overall progress inreading achievement as well as to determine whatpercentage of Hoover students make at least oneyear of growth in reading during a school year.Eight 9th-grade teachers were identified—fourwho were “high implementers” of SSR and fourwho rarely or never allowed students to read dur-ing that time. The Gates–MacGinitie scores werecompared from September for these two groups,and there were no significant differences. Whenthe May data were compared, the students whowere provided time to read independently on adaily basis had statistically higher reading scoresby .6 of a year (t = 8.83, p < .001). Thus the datafrom a quasi-experimental retrospective studysuggested that independent reading time mat-tered, at least for students in this urban school.

The committee members were convincedthat reading time was useful and turned their at-tention to resuscitating the initiative at the school.Again, the committee turned to the professionalliterature for assistance. A search of ERIC revealeda paucity of information on how to implement aschoolwide SSR or independent reading program.While several articles focused on various aspectsof SSR, DEAR, free voluntary reading, or inde-pendent reading (e.g., Yoon, 2002), none providedguidance to a high school staff wanting to imple-ment a schoolwide initiative.

The literacy committee also acknowledgedthe difficulty in creating school change. As Fullan(1993) noted, “we have an educational systemwhich is fundamentally conservative” (p. 3). Hesuggested that when school change is attempted inmost situations, “it results in defensiveness, super-ficiality or at best short-lived pockets of success”(p. 3). The members of the literacy committee ac-knowledged and accepted this challenge.

Believing that the independent reading timewas important, but unsure how to implement itschoolwide other than through scheduling 20minutes daily, the committee presented their rec-

ommendations during a faculty meeting. The fac-ulty meeting raised more questions than were an-swered. During this time, the principalannounced that a new task force would beformed on SSR and that the task force wouldpresent at the following staff development meet-ing. At Hoover, all teachers attend a monthly 90-minute professional development seminar duringtheir preparation period. Thus the staff develop-ment sessions are smaller (25% of the faculty ison preparation each of the four periods) and canbe more focused.

At that faculty meeting, the principal alsosuggested that the teachers consider a new stan-dard for Hoover students. He noted that everycontent area had standards and that the wholeschool was committed to increasing readingachievement. He proposed the establishment ofthe “opportunity to read” standard and suggestedthat we hold ourselves accountable for meetingthat standard.

Gaining schoolwide supportEmpowered by the administrator, the newly elect-ed SSR committee went to work. The committeerepresented each department on campus as well asnonteaching staff and students. The membersrealized that they needed to present the impor-tance of the SSR initiative to the faculty and ensurethat students had time to read each day. They de-cided to invite students to the preparation periodstaff development meetings and asked students toprovide testimonials during the session so that allteachers would understand the importance of thistime. A total of 26 students shared their views withteachers. Miana was one of the students whoshared her thoughts during the staff developmentsession. Jordi was another. During one session,Jordi said,“Man, it’s like the best. It’s the quiet timein my life—I can read because the teacher tells meto. Everybody’s reading. I can’t really take a bookand read after school ’cause of my friends, youknow. This is it for me. I read Seabiscuit(Hillenbrand, 2001) because [the librarian] told



me about it—you all should read that, that bookwas tight.”

Teachers were touched by the student pres-entations and the information presented by theSSR committee. At the end of each preparationperiod staff development session, teachers areasked to respond to a writing prompt. Theprompt for the day was “What will you do to en-sure that Hoover students meet the ‘opportunityto read’ standard?” An analysis of the written re-sponses suggested a new commitment to imple-ment the SSR plan as developed years before.These data suggested that the committee was suc-cessful in changing attitudes toward SSR, but notthe implementation of SSR. Only a few weeks fol-lowing the staff development session, during thenext whole-faculty meeting, teachers were talking

about the “lack of control” during the SSR period

and how “students didn’t bring books to read

during SSR.” The support for SSR was waning.

About that time, each of the SSR committee

members was given a copy of The SSR Handbook

by Janice Pilgreen (2000). Pilgreen identified

eight factors for successful implementation of a

schoolwide SSR program (see Figure 2 for defini-

tions). The committee read and discussed the

book and realized that simply scheduling the time

for SSR and creating a positive attitude among

teachers and some students was not sufficient.

In an attempt to develop an action plan and

prioritize implementation, the committee used

the eight factors identified by Pilgreen (2000) to

create a staff survey. On each of the eight items,



F i g u r e 2E i g h t f a c t o r s o f S S R s u c c e s s

1. Access. This principle deals with getting reading materials into the hands of students, which Pilgreen (2000)

saw as the responsibility of the teachers and the schools. This involves more than simply telling students

they must bring something to read.

2. Appeal. This factor deals with student interests, the variety and range of materials we offer to our students,

and, yes, even making sure that the materials we offer are “classroom appropriate.”

3. Environment. This has to do with physical comfort, alternatives to the traditional classroom setting, and

the possibilities of reading as a social, interactive activity for those students for whom reading in silence is

not conducive to the freedom associated with SSR.

4. Encouragement. This includes modeling, discussions, postreading opportunities for sharing, and enlisting

parent support and involvement.

5. Staff training. Providing training in SSR, answering organizational and how-to questions, and encouraging

all teachers to provide a specific set daily time for SSR are discussed.

6. Nonaccountability. While students are not required to complete the usual types of formal assessment, such

as book reports or tests of content knowledge, SSR practices do provide for informal accountability through

opportunities for sharing in discussion, writing, or other formats.

7. Follow-up activities. SSR, according to Pilgreen, needs to provide ways for students to “sustain their excite-

ment about the books they have read” (p. 16). Activities and shared experiences are very effective in

encouraging further voluntary reading.

8. Distributed time to read. Habits—including the habit of reading—are formed through sustained efforts

over time. Occasional lengthy periods of time set aside for free reading are not as powerful as shorter peri-

ods of 15 to 20 minutes at least twice a week.

Note. Adapted from Miller, H.M. (2002). Book review: The SSR handbook. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 434–435.

teachers were asked to rate the school using aLikert-type scale from 1 (terrible) to 5 (we’regood at this!). An open-ended question that read,“What one thing should we do to resuscitate SSRat Hoover?” was added to the end of the survey.The survey was distributed at the monthly staffdevelopment session, and thus 98% of the teach-ers completed the survey.

The results, found in Table 1, were used toguide professional development activities andspending decisions. It was clear that the SSR com-mittee needed to provide additional professionaldevelopment sessions on the logistics of imple-menting an SSR program. It was even more im-portant for the committee to focus on follow-upactivities and access to books. Given the otherpriorities at the school, the SSR committee couldnot have the whole 90 minutes of staff develop-ment time. To address this, the committee enlist-ed the help of the video production class. Studentgroups were charged with making “commercials”about specific aspects of SSR that could premiereduring the regular staff development sessions andthen be used on the closed-circuit TV duringannouncements.

One of the first commercials produced bythe video production class was titled “Shhhhh!”With very few words, the students used videofootage of their peers reading to convey the mes-sage that the SSR time should be quiet and fo-

cused. They used the soundtrack from an AustinPowers movie for the song “shh” in which one ofthe characters, Scott, is shushed repeatedly. In an-other commercial, students were shown selectingbooks. In one brief scene, an “actor” starts read-ing the first page of a book. When he comes tothe fifth word he doesn’t know, he puts the bookback on the shelf and says, “Man, that one is toomuch for me.” The end of this particular com-mercial reminds students that they can bringbooks, magazines, and newspapers from home toread. These commercials were a powerful force increating and maintaining schoolwide support forthe SSR period. As a social studies teacher noted,“Those commercials really get us going. I hear allkinds of talk, among students and among teach-ers, after each new commercial airs. The commer-cials kind of remind us about the importance ofSSR and our agreement to meet the new stan-dard.” However, two significant issues remained.

Putting your money whereyour mouth isBy all accounts, SSR was supported by the majorityof teachers at Hoover. However, the concern re-mained that there were not enough books in theclassrooms and that when a student didn’t have abook, problems arose. Remember that every



Ta b l e 1R e s u l t s f r o m S S R i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s u r v e y

Item Average score (T1) Average score (T2)

Access 2.3 4.5

Appeal 3.8 4.1

Environment 3.6 3.9

Encouragement 3.6 4.1

Staff training 2.1 4.6

Nonaccountability 4.0 2.4

Follow-up 2.9 3.5

Distributed time to read 4.6 4.8

teacher needed books in his or her classroom—notjust the English teachers. Fortunately, the schoolhad received a state grant for schoolwide improve-ment. Part of the grant acknowledged whatWorthy et al. (1998) knew—that the books thatadolescents like to read are hard to find in school.To address this, the SSR committee interviewedstudents about what they wanted to have availablein classrooms and created a student advisory com-mittee that made book recommendations.

From the state improvement grant, teacherswere each provided with US$800 (or a total ofUS$96,000) to purchase books for their class-rooms. The only stipulation for this money wasthat books (not classroom supplies) be purchased.While each teacher was provided with a list of rec-ommended books, a review of the receipts sug-gests that teachers spent a significant amount oftheir allotted money on narrative texts, which isconsistent with the findings of Ivey and Broaddus(2001). The following year, teachers were given anadditional US$500 to spend on their classroom li-braries (or a total of US$60,000). A review of thesereceipts indicates a balance between narrative andexpository texts. Table 2 contains titles that werecommonly purchased by the teachers. It is alsoimportant to note that the school purchased over80 magazine subscriptions and has over 100 news-papers delivered per day. The plan is to continuethis level of funding for the foreseeable future. Asone of the teachers noted, “I lost a few books thisyear, but how exciting to think that students arekeeping the books or giving books they like totheir friends and family!” She noted that one ofher books was gone for four months when a stu-dent “sheepishly returned it saying that everyonein the family had finally read it.”

In addition to teachers purchasing bookswith state grant funds, the SSR committee organ-ized a book drive and encouraged donations ofbooks and magazines. Donations were receivedfrom local libraries, teachers’ home collections,friends of teachers, and community members. Inaddition, members of the SSR committee rou-tinely scoured used bookstores for books (they

were reimbursed for these costs from the state

grant). As a result of the number of books collect-

ed, the committee established a book room in

which all of the extra books could be stored.

Teachers were routinely invited to stop by the

book room and take a handful of books to add to

their classroom libraries.

It is interesting that teachers gathered so

many books over the years they did not have

enough shelf space. As a result, there were a

number of requests approved to purchase book-

shelves from the state improvement grant funds.

During a classroom walk-through and observa-

tion, I noticed a number of students in wood-

shop building shelves. When asked about this,

the woodshop teacher replied, “I think they can

make some good money selling shelving to

teachers here. There’s also a great subtext—the

message in this classroom now is that we should

build things to hold our very, very important

books. I guess it’s just my way of helping out the

SSR plan.”

Even though teachers had more books in

their classrooms, they realized that some students

“couldn’t find anything to read” or could become

disruptive to other students during the SSR peri-

od. To combat this problem and ensure that SSR

did not become a time in which referrals to the

administrators were used, the SSR committee cre-

ated an invitation form. Teachers could complete

the form, noting that a specific student needed

additional support during SSR. The teacher could

invite someone specific into the class to talk with

the student about book selections, engagement

during the reading period, attitudes toward read-

ing, or general behavior. This invitation proce-

dure was an important management tool, as the

recommended practice for operating SSR pro-

grams involves the teacher reading on a regular

basis (Pilgreen, 2000; Von Sprecken & Krashen,

1998). Invitations are regularly sent to the librari-

an, the principal and vice principals, the reading

specialists, and the peer coach.





Ta b l e 2C o m m o n l y p u r c h a s e d b o o k s f o r S S R i n a n u r b a n h i g h s c h o o l

Title Author

Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul Jack Canfield

A Child Called It Dave Pelzer

Parrot in the Oven: Mi Vida Victor Martinez

Speak Laurie Halse Anderson

Romiette and Julio Sharon Draper

Always Running La Vida Loca: Gang Days in L.A. Luis Rodriguez

Tears of a Tiger Sharon Draper

Define “Normal” Julie Anne Peters

Tangerine Edward Bloor

Athletic Shorts: Six Short Stories Chris Crutcher

On the Edge: Stories at the Brink Lois Duncan

Dead Girls Don’t Write Letters Gail Giles

Give a Boy a Gun Todd Strasser

American Jazz Musicians Stanley Mour

The Chocolate War Robert Cormier

Stuck in Neutral Terry Trueman

When Dad Killed Mom Julius Lester

7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens Sean Covey

The Lovely Bones Alice Sebold

Handbook for Boys: A Novel Walter Dean Myers

Scorpion Walter Dean Myers

Breadwinner Deborah Ellis

Struggle to Be Strong: True Stories by Teens Al Desetta

About Overcoming Tough Times

Seabiscuit Laura Hillenbrand

The Skin I’m In Sharon Flake

Silent to the Bone E.L. Konigsburg

Monster Walter Dean Myers

Saying It Out Loud Joan Abelove

Hard Love Ellen Wittlinger

Roald Dahl’s Book of Ghost Stories Roald Dahl

One Hot Second: Stories About Desire Cathy Young

Am I Blue? Marion Dane Bauer

Hatchet Gary Paulsen

Vintage & Historic Drag Racers Robert Genat

A Day No Pigs Would Die Robert Newton Peck

Whirligig Paul Fleischman

Diana: Her True Story in Her Own Words Andrew Morton

Shabanu: Daughter of the Wind Suzanne Fisher Staples

Deliver Us From Evie M.E. Kerr

America E.R. Frank

Note. the books are listed according to the number of copies purchased.

Changing policyThe second year of resuscitation of the SSR pro-gram focused less on what individual teacherswere doing and more on the structures that need-ed to be in place to ensure the long-term successof SSR. The SSR committee made two recom-mendations to the site governance team (site-based management group) during the lastmeeting of the school year for possible imple-mentation the following year.

First, the committee requested that everyadult at the school read in a classroom, if at allpossible, during the SSR period. In other words,the committee wanted the counselors, adminis-trators, clerical staff, supervision aides—everyone—to read during SSR. The committeeexplained that students should see everyone inthe school community reading and the extraadults in classrooms could help with engagement.This recommendation was adopted and imple-mented. During a construction contract negotia-tion, the principal informed the company that itsworkers would have to read, and not drill orhammer, during the 20-minute SSR period.

Along those same lines, the SSR committeerequested that administrators regularly visit class-rooms to read. They asked the administrators notto schedule their time in specific classrooms but toshow up in a rather random fashion to ensure thateveryone at Hoover had students reading duringthe SSR period. This level of accountability wasbelieved to be an important component of thesuccess of SSR. A group of teachers asked for thistype of accountability and wanted some guaranteethat everyone was being held responsible for en-suring that students had an opportunity to read.

The second policy the committee membersrecommended for approval was a change in theSSR time. They noted that too many juniors andseniors left after lunch and did not engage in reg-ular, self-selected reading. They requested that theSSR period move from fourth to third so thateveryone could read. Again, the governance teamapproved the change in the bell schedule.

Status checkFollowing the significant investment in the SSRinitiative at Hoover over two years, the literacycommittee decided to evaluate the success of theeffort by reobserving a randomly selected groupof students. Using the same procedures, I ob-served 20 randomly selected classrooms. Again,four students from each of these classrooms wereobserved. The data from this round suggestedthat 88% of the students were reading. In otherwords, 1,936 students were engaged in independ-ent reading on a daily basis, compared with 720just two years before. While the committee mem-bers would like 100% of the students to read on adaily basis, they acknowledged the work of VonSprecken and Krashen (1998) and understandthat different students do not read on differentdays and that the reading time must becomeintrinsically rewarding.

We also completed a follow-up survey evalu-ating the eight factors of successful SSR programsoutlined by Pilgreen (2000). The two-year initiativeresulted in positive changes in each of the areas as-sessed except nonaccountability (see Table 1). Oncethe faculty at Hoover learned about non-accountability, they rated themselves and the schoolmuch harder. When follow-up conversations wereheld regarding nonaccountability, teachers indicat-ed that they were uncomfortable not assigninggrades or book reports or somehow making stu-dents document their reading. In other words, theywanted to find ways to monitor and check. As oneof the teachers said,“Nonaccountability is definitelythe most difficult concept for me to grasp in termsof SSR. As a teacher, I’m accountable for every-thing—standards, state tests, student attendance—everything. For SSR, this nonaccountability is adifferent idea and I’m not sure how I will know ifmy students are reading. I see them reading andthey seem to like it, but how do I know what theyare getting out of it?”

The issue of nonaccountability remains asignificant discussion point. To address this, theSSR committee planned a series of video commer-



cials and staff development sessions on follow-upactivities. One of the video commercials featuredseveral ways that students can engage in follow-upactivities, including book talks in which studentsadvocate reading a particular book, sharing theirfavorite parts of books with the whole class, mak-ing rap songs about their books, creating postersadvertising specific books, and holding partnerconversations about their books during the lastfew minutes of SSR. The hope is that by focusingon the types of things a teacher can do to encour-age follow-up conversations and activities, fewerteachers will focus on accountability and gradingconcerns relative to SSR time.

Lessons learnedEmpowerment and student voices. The school-wide focus on SSR, while continuing the profes-sional development initiative on strategicteaching and learning, standards-based reform,and meeting the state accountability targets, wasthe direct result of student concerns. During therenewed emphasis on SSR, students and teacherswere involved as partners in the process. Studentvoices were critical in creating widespread sup-port for continuing the SSR time at Hoover.Without those student voices and pleas for read-ing time, the stand-alone and distributed natureof independent reading at Hoover may have beendiscontinued. It seems reasonable to suggest thatstudents must be engaged in schoolwide initia-tives if they are to take hold and be successful. Asone of the English teachers commented, “Miana’srelationship with her teacher empowered her tospeak out and change something at our school.”

Schoolwide initiatives take time and support.Schoolwide initiatives, while popular in the re-form literature, are difficult to accomplish. Therealities of the school system and the variousteacher personalities confound even the most en-thusiastic supporters. Consistent with Fullan(1993), the Hoover experience suggests thatschoolwide initiatives require significant invest-ment in terms of time. Committees need time to

meet and develop recommendations, and teach-ers need time to discuss the plans. However, thatis only part of the answer. All the time in theworld may not result in significant changes if theadministrative team fails to assume the leadershipof the initiative. In the case of Hoover, the princi-pal stepped in, created a committee, empoweredthe committee to make recommendations, andthen held the teachers accountable for the deci-sions reached by the governance team. As an artteacher commented, “When we’re all on the samepage, it’s so much better. I know that I’m not theonly one providing reading time—we all are.”

The administrator’s role. Along those lines, it isimportant to note the role of the administratorsmaintaining change. The literacy administrator (inthis case, an assistant principal) and school admin-istrators are in an awkward position in implement-ing reform and schoolwide initiatives. At Hoover,two different groups (the literacy committee andthe SSR committee) made recommendations re-garding SSR. In addition, the school governanceteam supported the recommendations that camefrom the SSR committee and the school provided asignificant amount of professional developmentregarding SSR. While these are critical roles the ad-ministrator can play, the real test came when theadministrative team members, by their presence inclassrooms, ensured that students were given read-ing time. In addition, the principal, through hiscomments during staff meetings and inservicesessions, made the expectation clear—studentsshould be given time and opportunity to readevery day at Hoover.

Use data. In a large part, the success of theHoover SSR program came from the systematiccollection and analysis of information, which istermed action research by many (e.g., Sagor,2000). School teams can collect data, analyze thatdata, make decisions, implement those decisions,and then start the cycle again. This is essentiallywhat happened at Hoover. The work started withone piece of anecdotal data—a student comment.This triggered a more systematic data-collectioneffort and the subsequent actions. The initiative



did not stop there. Additional data were collectedand evaluated. From that second round, newpolicies and procedures were enacted, and the cy-cle continues. As the chair of the SSR committeecommented, “Who knew! Without the data, wewouldn’t have known what to do. We learned thatSSR is effective when done well, and we created away to make sure that it was being done well.”

The eight factors matter. Having something tocompare with was an important step in the devel-opment of a sophisticated change at Hoover. Priorto the acknowledgment of the factors related tosuccessful implementation of SSR programs, thecommittees at Hoover were stuck. The committeemembers knew that they needed to have a specifictime each day for students to read and that teachersneeded to read with students. However, teacherswere not provided with professional developmentregarding the implementation of SSR nor withfunds to purchase books for their classroom li-braries. Using the eight factors that Pilgreen (2000)identified gave the teachers a “gold standard” onwhich to evaluate themselves. These eight factorsalso guided the professional development providedto all teachers. As a science teacher commented,“Iknew we had reading time in the schedule, but Inever knew what to do with it. The first SSRinservice really focused me and let me know what I needed to do to help our kids.”

What made the difference?This article has provided a case study of oneurban high school’s effort to establish a newstandard—the opportunity to read standard. Italso provided information on the ways in whichteachers and students worked together to changeeducational policies at a large school over severalyears. We also know that the achievement changesat Hoover have been significant. However, thequestion often asked is “Which initiative madethe difference?” Was it the schoolwide implemen-tation of content reading strategies? What aboutthe block schedule, or perhaps the SSR program?What has been the impact of Hoover becoming a

professional development school? The answer issomewhere in there, yet it remains elusive.

Perhaps, as a peer coach and mentor teachernoted, “It isn’t enough to build literacy skills ifstudents aren’t provided the opportunity to usethose skills.” By that, he meant that students needthe opportunity to read books of their ownchoosing and they need time to do so. He alsomeant that simply reading without intentionalinstruction in reading is unlikely to change theliteracy development trajectory of adolescentswho have historically struggled to read.

REFERENCESAkmal, T.T. (2002). Ecological approaches to sustained silent

reading: Conferencing, contracting, and relating to mid-

dle school students. Clearing House, 75, 154–157.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:

Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dwyer, E.J., & Reed, V. (1989). Effects of sustained silent

reading on attitudes toward reading. Reading Horizons,

29, 283–293.

Fisher, D. (2001). We’re moving on up: Creating a school-

wide literacy effort in an urban high school. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 92–101.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Improving adolescent literacy:

Strategies at work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill

Prentice Hall.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Williams, D. (2004). Five years later:

The outcomes of a schoolwide approach to increasing

achievement in an urban high school. In D. Strickland &

D. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement

gap, grades 4–12 (pp. 147–163). New York: Teachers

College Press.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educa-

tional reform. New York: Falmer.

Hillenbrand, L. (2001). Seabiscuit: An American legend. New

York: Random House.

Ivey, G. (2002). Getting started: Manageable literacy prac-

tices. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 20–23.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A sur-

vey of what makes students want to read in middle school

classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–377.

doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.4.2

Jensen, T.L., & Jensen, V.S. (2002). Sustained silent reading

and young adult short stories for high school classes.

ALAN Review, 30(1), 58–60.

Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the

research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Miller, H.M. (2002). Book review: The SSR handbook.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 434–435.



National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching chil-

dren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific

research literature on reading and its implications for reading

instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pilgreen, J. (2000). The SSR handbook: How to organize and

manage a sustained silent reading program. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action re-

search. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision &

Curriculum Development.

Stewart, R.A., Paradis, E.E., Ross, B., & Lewis, M.J. (1996).

Student voices: What works in literature-based develop-

mental reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39,

468–478.

Stringer, E.T. (1999). Action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Von Sprecken, D., & Krashen, S. (1998). Do students read

during sustained silent reading? The California Reader,

32(1), 11–13.

Wiesendanger, K.D., & Birlem, E.D. (1984). The effectiveness

of SSR: An overview of the research. Reading Horizons, 24,

197–201.

Worthy, J., Turner, M., & Moorman, M. (1998). The precari-

ous place of self-selected reading. Language Arts, 75,

296–304.

Yoon, J. (2002). Three decades of sustained silent reading:

A meta-analytic review of the effects of SSR on attitude

toward reading. Reading Improvement, 39, 186–195.



setting the “opportunity to read” standard: resuscitating the ssr program in an urban high...

Documents