The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of collaboration among members of a first grade team as they participated in a state mandated reading initiative. The second purpose was to examine how top-down mandates of state reading initiatives and collaboration among team members translated into “secret stories” of classroom instruction for the three focus teachers. The study also considered my role as the campus reading coach, as I attempted to facilitate the translation of the reading initiative to meet the diverse needs of the team members, while navigating issues of power among the campus administration and the first grade team. Qualitative research methods were used to document and describe (a) the interactions and collaboration of the first grade team during grade level reading meetings; (b) the formation of micro-groups due to power issues; (c) literacy practices of the three focus teachers and; (d) the secret stories of members of the first grade team as they navigated the troubled landscape of the second year of the reading initiative. The first grade meetings were observed and documented for five months, as teachers completed the reading initiative modules and attempted to translate those practices in order to complement their existing classroom practices. Each of the three focus first grade teachers was interviewed and recorded during classroom instruction. Interviews with students were also conducted in order to gain the perspective of literacy practices from a child’s point of view. Data for the study included field notes from observations, student and teacher interviews, digital images of student work and classroom texts, and digital video and audio recordings of interviews and classroom instruction. The findings of the study indicate that teachers translated staff development practices in accordance with their existing beliefs and tended to gravitate toward and collaborate with those who shared common pedagogical beliefs. The role of the reading coach was best served when the coaching protocols were transparent to all team members. The study revealed the inevitability of conflict in an atmosphere of collaboration as well as the notion that teachers are the true curriculum makers regardless of the initiative. / text

The dissertation is a study to determine which program, Reading First or Bay State Reading Initiative, will demonstrate the greatest gains in reading for students in grades K-3 using a 3-Tier Reading Model. The findings from this study are intended to provide pertinent information on which best practices work in increasing student achievement for reading. Education reform continues to be a hot topic at all levels within the United States. With the spending of billions of federals, state and local dollars, the persistent talk of accountability is ongoing. Since NCLB inception, the year 2014 when all students need to reach proficiency in statewide standardized tests in mathematics and reading, continues to be a threatening time period. With each state setting its own definition and determination of what proficiency is, it is measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). This AYP measurement will determine each school’s progress incrementally until it reaches 100% in 2014. 48% of all schools in Massachusetts failed to make their AYP in 2004. It is predicted that by 2014, 90% of schools in Massachusetts will not reach its APY obligation (MassPartners for Public Schools, 2005). With the pursuit of reaching AYP, the search is still on for what best practices work in increasing student achievement. This study utilizes a mixed method research design; including quantitative analysis of the reading scores, a qualitative analysis of teacher and administrator perspective on the effectiveness vii of each program and a financial cost-effectiveness comparison of the two programs. The quantitative research design includes comparing DIBELS and GRADE results of two elementary schools for students in grades K – 3 each of which uses a different reading program. School A uses the Houghton Mifflin Reading Series for their core reading curriculum while School B uses Scott Foresman Reading Street. In addition to comparing the aggregate scores of each school to each other, a number of sub-groups will also be compared. These groups will include low income students (students who receive free and reduced lunch), students with limited English proficiency (LEP), and special education students. Mean comparisons will be utilized to identify which program produces the best results. In order to identify strengthens and weaknesses of each approach a questionnaire will be utilize to obtain this information from teachers and the administrators who took part in implementing both programs. In these times of tight budgets and difficult decisions on how to meet the needs of all students it is imperative that cost effectiveness is examined between the two programs. Which of these two programs will provide the greatest gain? How much will that gain cost? Which program will reap the best results for the least amount of money?