Mills_Ch07.

qxd

1/18/08

12:46 PM

Page 189

To What Extent Are Literacy Initiatives Being Supported:

Important Questions for Administrators
LESLIE MARLOW

DUANE INMAN

CRAIG SHWERY

Berry College

Berry College

University of Alabama

ABSTRACT This study examined teachers expressed perceptions of states provisions for instructional materials and professional development opportunities related to state literacy
initiatives for K6 classroom teachers in ten southeastern
states. Approximately 400 teachers responded to a survey
instrument which included the topics of materials and professional development. Generally, the survey results indicate
that teachers did not express receipt of sufficient support in
implementing a state/district-wide reading initiative to the
extent one might deem desirable (or appropriate) by present
agencies.It appears that responding teachers perceived themselves to be ill-prepared to meet accountability mandates associated with literacy and that participating teachers lacked
training,had little access to sound instructional materials,and
were unfamiliar with the state standards. This information
results in questions that administrators must address if teachers are to effectively implement literacy initiatives proposed
as a result of state mandates.

Literacy Initiative Support Systems

Entering the 21st Century
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965),
Title 1, Part B, (Reading Excellence Act, P. L. 105-277) was the
first broad governmental initiative to address the literacy issue
by advocating that all children would be able to read by
the end of third grade. In 2002, ESEA was supplemented with
the No Child Left Behind Act. Similar to the Reading Excellence Act, the No Child Left Behind Act focuses on researchbased methods which some experts say will virtually
guarantee a more structured, skills-based approach to the
teaching of reading (Manzo, 2002; Ogle, 2002).This emphasis
on research-based methods has led to increased attention
regarding reading and literacy standards.National literacy standards suggested from both the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE) (1996) have provided the framework for states to
develop their own literacy standards including new state policy documentation intended to assist in bringing about positive
literacy changes in teaching and learning for individual states
(Kuder and Hasit, 2002;Wixon and Dutro, 1999).
While various states involved in redesigning their reading
initiatives are enacting specific reading goals and standards for
performance,many literacy educators,along with professional
teaching organizations,have questioned the validity of many of
the enacted reading measures (Block, Oaker, and Hurt, 2002;
Block, Joyner, Joy, and Gaines, 2001; Hoffman et al, 1998;

Allington, Guice, Michelson, Baker, and Li, 1996). Those

involved with improving literacy instruction must provide
on-going staff development to ensure that implementation of
reading reform models will be effective (Birman, Desimone,
Portor, & Garet, 2000; Joyce, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1995;
Carter & Powell, 1992). Professional development is a powerful process for enhancing the knowledge base for teaching and
the pedagogical skills needed to disseminate knowledge (Kraft,
1998;Hirsh,1999;Joyce and Showers,1983). Access to professional development opportunities provides teachers with an
important link needed to successfully implement reading initiatives and is a useful tool for improving classroom instruction,
curriculum design, and the effective use of primary teaching
materials (Lieberman, 1999, 2001; Blair, 2003; Birman, 2000;
Westchester Institute for Human Services Research, 1998).
Because state reading initiatives are relatively new components to teaching, there appears to be a dearth of research being done which examines state-mandated literacy
professional opportunities and associated materials programs being used by the states. The purpose of this study
was to examine teachers expressed perceptions regarding
their states provisions for instructional materials and professional development opportunities related to state literacy
initiatives for K6 classroom teachers.

Population
Using the states public school directory for each of several
southern states,each school district within each state was assigned a number. Gays Table of Random Numbers (1996)
was then used to identify 10 schools from each state.
The principal of each selected school was contacted and
requested to provide information from teachers who teach
reading (K6). Principals randomly contacted 10 teachers
who teach reading in their schools and obtained their
participation in completing the surveys.

Instrumentation
The survey instrument was comprised of four-point Likert
Scale items ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
The Likert Scale items fell into two categories:professional development and reading materials. Professional development
items focused on the description of the state literacy initiative,
provision by the school district to provide professional development opportunities and professional development opportunities provided by the state.The items focusing on materials
targeted their appropriateness for the various grade levels,
whether they effectively addressed the states current assessment instrument, and whether there were adequate supplemental reading materials available to accompany the mandated

189

DESIGN SERVICES OF

Mills_Ch07.qxd

1/18/08

12:46 PM

Page 190

Results

programs. Additionally, demographic items were included to

provide background information on the respondents.
The pilot study of this instrument was conducted in
Spring 2001.Test-retest stability was measured to determine
the reliability of scores over time. A group of approximately
100 K6 teachers completed the survey, once in January and
once in April 2001. The scores from each were correlated
and the coefficient of stability was calculated to be 0.92.
The pilot study results indicated the instrument to be reliable.

Demographics. As is evidenced in Table 1, the majority of

the teachers were white, teaching in grades 14 in schools
with an enrollment between 251 and 1000.There was a wide
variety among the respondentsteaching experience with the
greatest response being 29% who had taught over 20 years.
Professional Development. Teacher responses indicated
that 34% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed
that professional development opportunities from the school
district were provided. Sixty-six percent of the respondents
either disagreed or strongly disagreed that these opportunities
were provided. Teachers perceptions of the provision for
professional development opportunities from the state indicated that 31% of the respondents either agreed or strongly
agreed that these development opportunities were provided.
Fifty-nine percent of the respondents either disagreed or
strongly disagreed that these opportunities were provided.Ten
percent expressed that they did not know. In addressing how
thoroughly the literacy initiative of the district was described
to the teachers of that district, responses were split, with 50%
agreeing and 50% disagreeing that a thorough description
occurred. Therefore, while teachers indicated that they perceived themselves as being knowledgeable about state standards and the mandated literacy initiative based on the
information that they were provided, the majority expressed
their belief that they were not provided with professional development opportunities in order to enhance their information about the reading knowledge base and pedagogy
practices being used by the state and/or districts. Table 2
provides further description of the data.

Procedures
One thousand surveys were sent out to participating teachers
within the southern states. A packet of information was sent to
the principal of each identified school from the random sample. A cover letter and copy of the survey instrument were included in each packet. If the principal agreed to his/her
facultys participation in the study, the principal then distributed the survey instrument to the teachers who teach reading.The teachers were to independently complete the surveys
and return the self-addressed, stamped surveys. Only those
interested participated. If a principal was unwilling to allow
his/her teachers to participate, they were asked to return the
surveys in the return envelope to the researchers.These materials were submitted to a different school in the same geographic area.The return rate was approximately 40%.
For those participants or principals who wanted to know
the results of the survey, such information was requested
by the individual providing their name and address. All
information obtained by the survey was anonymously
reported in group totals only.

TABLE 1 Demographic information

Ethnic Origin
White

81%

African
American

8%

Hispanic

7%

Native
American/Asian

2%

No Response

2%

Ethnic Origin
White
African
American

81%

Hispanic

7%

Native
American/Asian

2%

No Response

2%

8%

Years/Teaching

Classroom

Current Placement

Teaching

15

11%

PreK/K

14%

610

15%

14

54%

1120

17%

56

32%

Over 20

29%

No Response

28%

Perceived Student

School Enrollment

!250
251499

23%
43%

5001000

27%

over 1000

6%

No Response

1%

190

# 100888

PH/OH/CHET

Mill

P N

190

K/PMS

DESIGN SERVICES OF

Mills_Ch07.qxd

1/18/08

12:46 PM

Page 191

TABLE 2 Responses to Likert items related to professional development

Strongly
Agree (4)

Agree
(3)

Disagree
(2)

Strongly
Disagree (1)

Dont
Know

Literacy initiative of the district was

described to teachers

24%

26%

30%

20%

n/a

Workshops provided by school district

15%

19%

42%

24%

n/a

Workshops provided by state

11%

31%

1%

Reading Materials. Eighty-seven percent agreed or

strongly agreed that the primary reading materials available
within their school were in accordance with the state literacy initiative and were appropriate for the specified grade
levels. Six percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed and
seven percent didnt know. When responding to the item
regarding the availability of primary reading materials
designed to meet the needs of specific grade levels the majority,87%,indicated the presence of such materials.Of those
responding to the item addressing whether they perceived
that the primary reading materials used by the school effectively addressed the standard evaluated by the required
assessment instruments, 47% agreed or strongly agreed and
49% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.Four percent didnt
know. When queried regarding the availability of adequate
supplemental reading materials to enhance state literacy initiatives, 15% agreed or strongly agreed that these materials
were available while 45% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
The remaining 40% expressed that they were unaware if
such materials were available.Table 3 provides additional description of the data.

Discussion
The majority of respondents indicated a concern regarding the
adequacy of primary materials provided in addressing the stan-

dards and teachers were evenly mixed in their opinions of the

efficacy of these materials. However, perceptions of the adequacy of supplemental reading materials revealed only 15% of
the respondents in agreement that their school provided adequate supplementary reading materials, while three times as
many teachers disagreed about the adequacy of such materials.
Interestingly enough, 40% of the teachers expressed that they
were not aware of the availability. While teachers can be unaware of information and availability of materials for many reasons, a breakdown in communication among administration
and teachers, perhaps even among colleagues, is a common
reason. If a breakdown in communication among the stakeholders does exit, administrators should reflect upon several
questions in an attempt to disseminate information more effectively: What media is being used to present the teachers
with information about the district reading initiatives? Are multiple forms of media communication being used? Is there ample opportunity for questions and responses in order for
teachers to clarify their perceptions? If not, when can time be
allocated to allow for clarification? Are teacher misconceptions
about availability of materials addressedand if so, how?
Only approximately 1/3 of teachers were in accord with
the idea that workshops are provided. Approximately 2/3 disagreed that workshops are provided.If the lack of provision for
workshops is indeed the case, administrators have some hard

TABLE 3 Responses to Likert items regarding reading materials

Strongly
Agree (4)

Agree
(3)

Reading materials appropriate for

specific grade levels

40%

47%

3%

3%

7%

Reading materials effectively

address state assessment

21%

26%

30%

19%

4%

4%

11%

27%

18%

40%

Adequate supplemental reading

materials

Disagree
(2)

Strongly
Disagree (1)

Dont
Know

Source: To What Extent Are Literacy Initiatives Being Supported: Important Questions for Administrators,
by L. Marlow, D. Inman, and C. Shwery, Reading Improvement, Vol. 42, No. 3, Fall, 2005, pp. 179186.
Copyright 2005 by Project Innovation. Reproduced with permission of Project Innovation in the format
Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.

191

DESIGN SERVICES OF

Mills_Ch07.qxd

1/18/08

12:47 PM

Page 192

questions to which they must respond: How are teachers to

implement new reading programs without being trained? Is it
the responsibility of the teacher to train him/herself, thereby
providing students with the skills necessary to read effectively
and ultimately pass the test? If workshops were available,
why did teachers select not to attend these workshops? Were
the provided professional development opportunities required or optional? What motivation can be provided to
encourage teachers to become more proactive learners? In
considering the broad topic of materials,participating teachers
indicated that the primary materials are appropriate for the
specific grade levels, yet only half expressed the belief that
those same materials effectively address the standards. Does
this indicate that perhaps the other half concluded that the primary materials were effective teaching tools, but, they didnt
address the state standards that are tested? Another possibility
is that funding may have been available for primary materials
but perhaps there was a lack of funding for the supplemental
materials. Was there the possibility that funding was not
deemed necessary for supplemental materialssince funds
were spent for the primary programs, supplemental materials
were not needed? An alternative explanation is that the comprehensive nature of new programs possibly precluded the necessity for the provision of supplemental materials. Teachers
should be provided with specific information related to all materials and their relationship to state and national standards.
The information provided by the participating teachers
raises additional questions for administrators when considering implementation of state/district-wide literacy initiatives:Was the issue of availability of supplemental materials
addressed in the workshops at state and/or district levels?
To what extent is collaboration occurring between the district schools and state agencies to ensure that teachers are
adequately prepared for implementing district-wide literacy
initiatives? How do districts ensure that schools have adequate teacher representation so that all schools will have a
specialist with training available as a resource for other
teachersa local person to whom questions can be directed and immediately answered?
With the increasing focus on research-based methods intended to guarantee a more structured approach to the teaching of reading, as well as the finances involved, administrators
and their agencies need to ensure that teachers are adequately
trained and supported for the implementation of these programs.The results of this survey indicated that teachers do not
perceive that they are being supported in implementing
state/district-wide reading initiatives to the extent one might
deem desirable (or appropriate) by present agencies.Teachers
indicate that they are ill-prepared to meet accountability mandates associated with literacy.They report that they have limited access to instructional materials and do not appear
familiar with the standards themselves. The results also provided a number of additional questions which need to be addressed by administrators to further analyze educational
circumstances and goals related to the state reading initiatives
between and among concerned stakeholders. The quality
of literacy initiatives themselves can never be thoroughly

investigated if the time is not taken to work through the

implementation problems indicated by those involved in
classroom presentation of the state literacy programs.

Note: From To What Extent Are Literacy Initiatives Being Supported:

Important Questions for Administrators, by L. Marlow, D. Inman,
and C. Shwery, Reading Improvement, Vol. 42, No. 3., Fall, 2005,

pp.179186.Copyright 2005 by Project Innovation.Reproduced with

permission of Project Innovation.

REFERENCES
Allington, R., Guice, S., Michelson, N., Baker, K., & Li, S.
(1996). Literature-based curriculum in high poverty
schools. In Block, C., Oaker, M., & Hurt, N. (2002).The
expertise of literacy teachers: A continuum from preschool to grade 5. Reading Research 37 (2), 178206.
Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter, A., & Garet, M. (2000).
Designing professional development that works.
Educational Leadership 57 (8), 2833.
Blair, J. (Feb. 5, 2003). With support, teachers would stay
put, report finds. Education Week,Washington.
Block, C., Oaker, M., & Hurt, N. (2002).The expertise of literacy teachers:A continuum from preschool to grade 5.
Reading Research Quarterly, 37 (2), 178206.
Block, C., Joyner, J., Joy, J., & Gaines, P. (2001). Processbased comprehension: Four educators perspectives.
In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Research-based
Comprehension Practices, 119134. NY: Guilford.
Carter, M., & Powell, D. (1992). Teacher leaders as staff
developers.Journal of Staff Development 13 (1),812.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies
that support professional development in an era of
reform. Phi Delta Kappa, 597604.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
www.ed.gov/offfices/OESE/esea
Hirsh,S.(1999).Standards-based professional development.
High School Magazine, 7 (4), 31.
Hoffman, J., et al. (1998). The literature-based basals
in first grade classrooms: Savior, Satan, or same-old,
same-old? Reading Research Quarterly, 33 (2),168197.
Joyce, B. (1999). Reading about reading: Notes from a
consumer to the scholars of literacy. The Reading
Teacher, 52 (7), 662671.
Kraft, N. (1998). A New Model for Professional Development. rmcdenver.com/eetnet/alapp.htm
Kuder, S., & Hasit, C. (2002). Enhancing Literacy for All
Students. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Lieberman,A., & Miller, L. (Eds.) (2001). Teachers caught
in the action:Professional development that matters.
NY: Teachers College Press.
Manzo, K. (Feb. 20, 2002). Some educators see reading
rules as too restrictive. Education Week 21 (23), 1, 23.
Ogle, D., in Manzo, K. (Feb. 20, 2002). Some educators see
reading rules as too restrictive. Education Week 21
(23), 1, 23.
Sparks, D. (1999). Real-life view: An interview with Ann
Lieberman. Journal of Staff Development, 20 (4).
Westchester Institute for Human Services Research.(1998).
The Balanced View: Professional Development, 2 (3).
Wixon, K., & Dutro, E. (1999). Standards for primary-grade
reading:An analysis of state frameworks.The Elementary
School Journal 100 (2), 89110.

192

# 100888

PH/OH/CHET

Mill

P N

192

K/PMS

DESIGN SERVICES OF