IMPROVING READING ACHIEVEMENT AT GREENLEAF UPPER ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL: A MIXED METHODS STUDY

A Dissertation Prospectus
presented in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Education
in the Department of Leadership and Counselor Education
The University of Mississippi

Thomas C. Tillman

August 2018





ProQuest Number: 10844920




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10844920

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Copyright © 2018 by Thomas C. Tillman

All Rights Reserve

 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this action research study is to identify, implement, and evaluate best practices in

reading improvement in third grade at Greenleaf Upper Elementary (pseudonym) in support of a process

of continuous improvement. The study followed a mixed methods design. The student participants in this

study were 47 third grade students who performed in the bottom quartile in reading. Quantitative data of

third grade students’ test scores were analyzed from the school’s STAR reading program. The students’

cut scale scores from 2016-2017 in the STAR reading program were compared to their cut scale scores

from 2017-2018 in the STAR reading program. Qualitative data was analyzed from teacher interviews

held by the researcher. The ten teacher participants in this study were third grade teachers at the assigned

school. The interviews were conducted in two phases. Phase one interviews were held at the beginning of

the study. Phase two interviews were held at the end of the study. Professional development was used to

determine if student achievement in reading would increase at the assigned school. Third grade teachers

completed face-to-face as well as online training in the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and

Spelling (LETRS). Third grade teachers implemented the LETRS strategy to the students who performed

in the bottom quartile in an effort to increase student achievement in reading. Due to the implementation

of a new core reading program at the assigned school during LETRS implementation, a determination

could not be made if the LETRS strategy or the new core reading program (Collaborative Classroom)

attributed to the increase in students’ yielded growth upon analysis of the students’ STAR reading cut

scale scores.

ii
 DEDICATION

To my wife Romona, the love of my life, thanks for always being there, loving me and

encouraging me along the way. To my children, Cedric, Deshawn, and Ramon, I love each of

you dearly. I will try to catch up on the times I have missed. I would also like to recognize my

mom and dad, Shirley and Tom Tillman, along with my mother-in-law, the Late Susie Shaw

Holland, and father-in-law, J. W. Holland. Last but not least, I would like to give thanks to my

dear church member and elementary school teacher, the Late Jessie Goodman, who kept

encouraging me to go back to college and finish.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my Heavenly Father above for giving me the faith to believe obtaining

this degree would be possible, without Him I am nothing. I acknowledge my committee chair,

Dr. Douglas Davis and his time, effort, and imparted knowledge throughout this process. I

would also like to thank all of my committee members, Dr. Lane Gauthier, Dr. Susan

McClelland, Dr. Cecil Weeks, and leadership professors for their guidance and assistance.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………..ii

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………..iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………....iv

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………..………vii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...viii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………..1

Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………..1

Central Issue of Concern…………………………………………………………...3

Studies That Address the Problem…………………………………………………4

Deficiencies in Current Research……………………...…………………………...5

Significance of the Study for Audiences…………………………………………...6

Purpose Statement………………………………………………………………….6

Research Questions………………………………………………………………...8

Overview of the Study……………………………………………………………...9

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………11

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….11

Need for Improvement……………………………………………………………12

Research Related to Reading Achievement………………………………………13

Assessments to Measure Reading Achievement………………………………….30

v
 Conclusion……………………………………….………………………………..34

CHAPTER III:METHODOLOGY…………………………………………..…………...35

Introduction……….………………………………………………………………........35

Development of Action Plan……….………………………………………………......38

The Action Plan………………………….…………………………………………......40

The Evaluation of the Action Plan…………….……………………………………….46

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS………………….…………………………………………….51

Introduction………….…………………………………………………………...51

Change in Action Plan………………………………..…………………………..51

Quantitative Data……………………………………………..…………………..52

Qualitative Data…………………..……………………………………………....53
Participants………………….……………………………………………………54
Quantitative Results………………………………….…………………………..56
Qualitative Results………………….……………………………………………62
Summary……………………………………………….………………………...72
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS……………………...…..……….75

Discussion…………………………….………………………………………….75

Implications………………………….…………………………………………...78

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………....82

LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………………….88

APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol Phase I……………………………...………………..89

APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol Phase II………………………………………..….…92

APPENDIX C: Action Plan……………………………………………………...…...…..94

APPENDIX D: Logic Model…………………………..…………...……….……....…....98

VITA………………………………………………………………….……...………….100

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Accountability Results for Reading and Math………………………………………….…..2

2016-2017 STAR Reading and Math Fall Screener Results……………………………..…3

Third Grade STAR Fall Reading Screener 2016-2017…………………………………....13

Ten Evidence-Based Practices for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction……………….…16

2016-2017 Third Grade Student Demographics…………………………………………..38

Timeline of Activities………………………………………………………………………4

Description of Student Participants………………………………………………………..55

Description of Teacher Participants……………………………………………………….56

Descriptive Statistics of 2nd Grade Baseline Growth and 3rd Grade Growth After LETRS.58

Paired Sample t-Test of Actual Growth of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018……………………59

Paired Sample t-Test of Yielded Growth of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018…………………..59

STAR Reading Levels and Percentages……………………………………………………61

Passing Percentages of Bottom Quartile on MAAP and MKAS…………………………..62

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

STAR Reading and Math Correlations with MAAP………………………………………30

Intended 120-Minute Reading Block……………………………………………………...42

Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality BoxPlot............................................................................58

viii
 CHAPTER I

Introduction

Allington (2011) shares there are few students in the United States who read at a

desirable level. A student who is unable to read on grade level by the third grade is four times

less likely to graduate from high school by the age of 19 compared to a child who does read at a

proficient level (Sparks, 2011). Deficits in reading and the resulting ramification on a child’s

success in life can be staggering. Improving these deficits through organizational development is

the focus of this research. All students should be able to read well. Students who learn to read,

and read to learn, have a better chance of excelling and experiencing a successful life. Student’s

unable to read will likely experience issues throughout their lifetime. This research developed an

action plan to move as many of these students as possible to performing closer to proficiency or

above and to develop organizational capacity to improve reading proficiency. The action plan

was created through an inclusive process with stakeholders.






Past data shows that the school was not effectively growing the students who are in the

lowest 25 percent in reading. Minimal growth in the lowest quartile in reading is a problem due

to the group’s performance having a significant impact on the school’s accountability rating,

12.5 percent of the total score. The school’s 2016 accountability report showed a decrease in

reading proficiency when compared to the previous year. The percent of students achieving

required growth in reading decreased from 84.6% to 58.1%. The 26.5% drop was a major

1
concern. Moreover, the school showed a decrease in each category on the 2016 state

accountability report in reading when compared to the previous year; although the data from

2015 was from a different assessment.

Table 1

Accountability Results for Reading and Math

Accountability PARCC 2015 MAAP 2016 -/+ Change

Categories Accountability Results Accountability Results

Reading 61.8% 45.1% -16.7%

Proficiency

Reading Growth of 84.6% 58.1% -26.5%

All Students

Reading Low 25% 90.7% 58.8% -31.9%

Math Proficiency 45.1% 37% -8.1%

Math Growth 65.1% 75% +9.9%

of All Students

Math Low 25% 67.6% 74.8% +7.2%

Upon reviewing STAR data, the school still continued to struggle in reading. The

academic performance of the third grade students was a major concern because of the

Mississippi Literacy Promotion Act. According to the Literacy Based Promotion Act (2016),

students must be able to read on grade level by the end of their third grade year in order to be

promoted to the next grade level. The achievement of proficiency was the goal in order to ensure

each student’s success at the next grade level. After students move from third to fourth grade,

they are expected to be fluent readers who are reading to learn.

2
Table 2

2016-2017 STAR Reading and Math Fall Screener Results

Grade and Subject Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Grade 3 Reading 18% 23% 33% 16% 10%

Grade 4 Reading 24% 23% 31% 15% 8%

Grade 5 Reading 18% 33% 28% 15% 7%

Grade 3 Math 12% 15% 24% 29% 20%

Grade 4 Math 19% 16% 29% 24% 13%

Grade 5 Math 7% 15% 37% 30% 11%

This data suggests students may not have been exposed to strong literacy skills in the

lower grades resulting in these students not having a strong foundation in reading in their present

grade, students were not receiving effective reading instruction in the present grade, or a

combination of these factors. This data also may suggest educators had difficulty differentiating

and individualizing the instruction for all learners. Quality classroom teachers who are skilled in

teaching reading will be key in developing student’s reading skills as students face the great

literacy demands of the 21st century. Teachers will need to monitor students on a regular basis

and give support as needed.

Central issue of concern. The National Reading Panel (2016) concurred an effective

reading program should include phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and

comprehension. Providing teachers with professional development to implement a structured

literacy approach will be key in assisting students to improve in reading. The central issue of

3
concern in this action research is poor achievement in reading at Greenleaf Upper Elementary

School (pseudonym).

Demographics. Greenleaf Upper Elementary includes third, fourth, and fifth grades. The

student population was comprised of approximately 708 students. African American students

made up 23.4% of the population while Caucasians made up 72% of the student population.

Hispanics made up 1.7% while Asians, Island Hispanic, and multi-race each made up less than

one percent of the student population. Greenleaf Upper Elementary is a Title I school. Fifty-six

percent of the student population received a free or reduced lunch and was categorized as

economically disadvantaged.

Studies That Address the Problem

In the Connecticut longitudinal study, kindergarten school children from Connecticut

were targeted in the area of reading (Shaywitz, Fletcher, Holahan, Shneider, Marchione,

Stuebing, & Shaywtiz, 1999). These students were followed into their high school years and

later into their twenties. The students were given reading tests every year and every other year

they were given ability tests. Data was collected from the student’s teachers and parents. Data

was also collected from the students. The study found the students who were poor readers

seemed to have lower verbal ability from the beginning and attended more disadvantaged

schools than the group who were fluent or good readers.

In a second study which focuses on early literacy development, Lipsey, Farran, & Hofer

(2015) describe how pre-kindergartners from low income families in Tennessee got off to a good

start with learning how to read but by the end of their kindergarten year these same students were

not distinguishable compared to students who did not participate in the pre-kindergarten

program. By the end of the student’s third grade year they performed worse than their academic

4
peers who did not participate in the program. The study suggests students from low-income

families who attended the prekindergarten program were also students who had high mobility

and also attended schools, which had difficulty recruiting and retaining high-performing

teachers. These schools also did not have adequate resources.

Lyon, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Torgesen, Wood, Shulte, and Olson (2001) state the

majority of children who enter elementary school at risk for reading failure can learn to read at

average or above-average levels if they are identified early and given systematic, intensive

instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading

comprehension strategies. Lyon and Chhabra (2004) also share an ability to read by the age of 9

years of age portends a lifetime of illiteracy for at least 70% of struggling readers and that the

identification of children at risk for reading failure coupled with the provision of systematic,

comprehensive, and evidence-based reading interventions can reduce the number of students

reading below basic levels to less than 6 percent. Moats (1995) states crucial language and early

reading skills can be developed in the elementary grades, but it is important teachers have a solid

foundation in how to teach these abilities.

Deficiencies in Current Research

There was a need to determine how to effectively apply best practices from the research

within the context of the designated school. Best practices will not serve the purpose of

improvement if the practices are not used appropriately and if they do not meet the needs of

unique student populations. The implementation of best practice must be inspected and expected

of the teachers and staff and must be a part of the knowledge base of the professional educators if

improvement in reading is to be achieved. Studies are limited regarding reading improvement as

related to the college and career readiness standards in Mississippi. A commitment to the

5
improvement of reading from all stakeholders must be established to achieve progress and

sustainability to come to fruition. Moreover, the culture of the school and grade must be

fostering and receptive to the necessary initiatives. Student motivation will also be necessary in

making improvement in reading. Students, teachers, parents, and administrators must work

together to accomplish reading achievement.

Significance of the Study for Audiences

This study is significant due to the state of Mississippi’s commitment to ensure students

are college and career ready. If students are not reading on grade level by the end of their third

grade year, there is a great possibility these students will not be able to catch up (Helping

Struggling Readers, 2016). Unfortunately, this also suggests if students are not reading on grade

level by the end of third grade, they will more than likely drop out of school before completing

their high school years. Lyon and Chhabra (2004) explain, “because students who do not learn to

read will have difficulty mastering academic content, succeeding in school, and fulfilling their

life potential, the schools’ fundamental responsibility is to ensure that all students read

proficiently” (p. 12).

This study provided the school a more defined focus on reading and identify reading

strategies and interventions based upon best practice. Implementing best practices should help to

close the achievement gap, decrease the district’s percentage of high school dropouts, and

improve the school’s accountability level. It also chronicled the organizational learning required

for successful improvement in reading.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this action research study was to identify, implement, and evaluate best

practices in reading improvement in third grade in support of a process of continuous

6
improvement. The focus was on identifying best practices effective within the context of the

school. Educational interventions need to be culturally appropriate and to fit with parents’ and

teachers’ values, knowledge, skills and experience, as well as those of the families and

communities being served (Hornby, Gable & Evans, 2013). Sagor (2000) states three distinctive

purposes for action research: building the reflective practitioner, making progress on school-wide

priorities, and building professional cultures. It is important for a school leader to be reflective

in their practice. The school leader should think about his or her actions and consider what’s

working and what needs refining. Many times the decisions made within an organization are

made without a second thought. Being a reflective leader gives cause to making steps leading to

corrective actions, which lead to progress. Making progress is key within applied action research.

Last, but definitely not least, is building professional cultures. Building professional cultures

within our schools is vital if we are to make the necessary changes to turn around our schools.

Everyone within the organization has something to bring to the table to enhance the educational

process. Focusing upon effective literacy instruction in reading, the identification of struggling

readers, and specified interventions for increasing reading achievement will be critical in

improving reading achievement among the third grade student population at Greenleaf Upper

Elementary.

A mixed methods research approach, both qualitative and quantitative, was employed in

this action research design. Creswell (2014) defines qualitative research as an approach for

exploring and understanding how individuals or groups attribute to a social or human problem

whereas, quantitative research is an approach used for testing objective theories by examining

relationships among variables (p. 246). Moreover, quantitative research looks at the numbers

and involves statistics.

7
 Applied action research differs from traditional qualitative and quantitative research.

Qualitative research is an approach to explore and understand the reason individuals or groups

ascribe to a social or human problem (Creswell, 2014). Quantitative research is conducted to test

objective theories by examining variables and their relationship (Creswell, 2014). However,

applied action research involves both quantitative and qualitative research. Creswell (2014)

states the mixed methods approach may involve philosophical assumptions and theoretical

frameworks. Furthermore, the core assumption of the mixed methods approach is the

combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches provides a more complete understanding

of a research problem (Creswell, 2014). This action research utilized qualitative data through

interviews, and quantitative data through the STAR reading program, Mississippi Academic

Assessment Program (MAAP), and the Mississippi K-3 Assessment Support System (MKAS2)

state assessment results.

In developing the action plan, qualitative data was used to engage stakeholders, evaluate

support, and identify issues with culture. Quantitative research was used to identify gaps and set

target goals. In evaluating the action plan, qualitative data was used to gain teacher perspectives

of the implementation process and additional instructional support, whereas the quantitative data

was used to determine if professional development had a positive affect on reading achievement.





A series of research questions was used to evaluate the success of the action plan. The

central question is: What strategies will be used to improve reading achievement at Greenleaf

Upper Elementary? The research will seek to understand through a qualitative approach by

addressing the following sub-questions:

8
 1. What best practices will be effective to prepare students to score proficiently or

above in reading on the state mandated assessments for third grade?

2. How do teachers describe the reading program prior to LETRS implementation?

3. What elements of the current reading program need to be addressed to improve

reading instruction and learning at Greenleaf Upper Elementary School?

4. What specific factors impact the instruction implementation of the bottom quartile

in reading to move toward and/or achieve proficiency?

This mixed methods study will also seek to understand the following quantitative sub-questions:

1. How did reading performance improve following the implementation of LETRS?

2. Which subgroups benefited as a result of the implementation of the action plan?

3. How did the percentage of students scoring at levels four and five in 2016 on the

STAR Reading assessment compare to the percentage of students scoring at

levels four and five in 2017 on the STAR Reading assessment and MAAP?

4. How did the percentage of students scoring at levels one, two, and three in 2016

on the STAR Reading assessment compare to the percentage of students scoring

at levels one, two, and three in 2017 on the STAR Reading assessment and

MAAP?

Overview of the Study

Improving reading achievement at Greenleaf Upper Elementary through a structured

literacy approach was the focus of this study. The LETRS program was implemented to aid in

this task. As principal and researcher, a collaborative effort of setting into motion an action

research approach to aid in improving reading achievement was the goal. Third grade teachers

and students were instrumental in this study.

9
 Five chapters compile the work of this action research. Chapter One includes an

introduction to the study, statement of the problem, studies which address the problem,

deficiencies in the current research, significance of the study for audiences, and a purpose

statement. Chapter Two provides the review of the literature and a theoretical framework for the

study. Chapter Three presents the methodology of the action research, which consisted of a

mixed methods approach, encompassing both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The chapter

also contains an action plan along with the process of the evaluation. Chapter Four provides the

results of the evaluation. The concluding chapter of this study, Chapter Five, provides a

summary of all findings and recommendations from the action research.

10
 CHAPTER II

Literature Review

Introduction

Reading is a foundational discipline in education that permeates all other disciplines.

Whether its math, English, science, or social studies, being able to read is essential. Regardless

of the subject matter, reading is a necessity for success. It is important for all students to have a

strong foundation in reading in the primary grades in order to be successful throughout their

academic career as well as in their post-graduation years. In order for students to obtain a strong

foundation in reading, the best pedagogy to teach reading must be employed. The application of

these methods and strategies in the primary grades will provide students a better chance of

success as they move forward in their academic career.

The United States Congress along with the United States Department of Education

established the National Reading Panel in 1997 to conduct research regarding the best ways to

teach children to read (National Reading Panel, 2016). The tasks of this panel concluded in the

year 2000 after reviewing studies conducted in reading. Upon initiating their efforts in

completing their research, the panel was given the task to determine the most effective evidence-

based methods for teaching reading, deciding upon the methods of reading instruction for the

classroom and make a recommendation of how to get the information to schools all over the

nation. In addition, the panel was also given the task of developing a plan for more research in

the development of reading and instruction. The works of the National Reading Panel were

11
incorporated in former President George W. Bush’s plan to improve education, which is known

as No Child Left Behind (National Reading Panel, 2016).

The literature review begins with a need for improvement followed by research related to

reading achievement. Later, the literature review focuses on the “Reading Wars” between whole

language and the structured literacy approach. The literature review ends with a focus on the

assessments, which will be used to assess reading achievement at Greenleaf Upper Elementary.

Need for Improvement

Upon receiving the Mississippi Assessment Program student scores from the 2015-2016

school year, a meeting was held to discuss the results. The administrative team consisting of the

building administrators, data coach, and curriculum director were the stakeholders who

comprised the meeting. The building administration was shocked upon realizing our scores had

dropped in several areas including reading. Students’ end of the year STAR scores were pulled

from the 2015-16 school year and compared to the student’s MAAP scores. The comparison of

student scores showed students who scored below the 75th percentile on the STAR reading

assessment did not meet proficiency on the MAAP assessment. The decision was made to set

the proficiency level through the STAR reading program at the 75th percentile. Upon viewing

the STAR fall universal screener for the 2016-2017 school year, the data showed 153 third grade

students scored at levels one, two, or three on the STAR reading assessment. Only 55 students in

3rd grade scored at levels four and five. Students need to score at level four or five in order to

reach proficiency on the state assessments. According to the MAAP comparison through the

STAR reading program, the data shows 74% of our 3rd graders are beginning the school year not

performing at the proficient level. Students who are performing at levels one, two, and three are

identified as struggling readers.

12
Table 3

Third Grade STAR Fall Reading Screener Results 2016-17

Performance Levels Number of Students Percent

Level 5 21 10%

Level 4 34 16%

Total 55 26%

Level 3 68 33%

Level 2 47 23%

Level 1 38 18%

Total 153 74%

In addition, the Literacy-Based Promotion Act (2016) states each public school student in

Mississippi who exhibits a substantial deficiency in reading at any time, as demonstrated through

performance on a reading screener approved by the state in grades kindergarten through third

grade, must be given intensive reading instruction and intervention immediately following the

identification of the reading deficiency. With 74 percent of students in third grade scoring in the

lower performance levels of one, two, and three is a dire need for improvement.

Research Related to Reading Achievement

Literacy. Wraggs (1998) shares the surprise that almost 5,000 years passed between the

invention of literacy and serious worldwide attempts to determine what level people needed to

reach. Since then, however, there has been a large number of inquiries into the nature of literacy,

as well as investigations of literacy standards and literacy teaching in schools. Wraggs (1998)

also shares two basic models of literacy have emerged. In the first, the autonomous model,

learning to read is seen as important in that it develops such cognitive skills as precision,

13
memory, logical thought and detachment. The second, the cultural model, looks at the meanings

and uses of literacy in different cultures (p. 25). One may ask, “What makes a person literate?”

Wraggs (1998) explains:

A person is literate when he has acquired the essential knowledge and skills which enable

him to engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning

in his group and community, and whose attainments in reading, writing and arithmetic

make it possible for him to continue to use these skills towards his own and the

community’s development. (p. 26)

Although this is a sound definition of what it means to be literate, Wraggs (1998) further shares:

“people can be functionally literate with only rudimentary competence, if simple basic skills are

all that is needed in their community. What might have counted as literate for a village farm

worker a hundred years ago is illiterate for a secondary school pupil today” (p. 26). Wraggs

(1998) states, “although there are always one or two voices claiming that in an age dominated by

audio-visual technology books may be outmoded and literacy overrated, the vast majority of

parents and teachers are anxious for children to learn to read and write” (p. 27).

Cunningham & Stanovich (2011), share:

Reading has cognitive consequences that extend beyond its immediate task of lifting

meaning from a particular passage. These consequences are reciprocal and exponential in

nature. Accumulating over time, spiraling either upward or downward, they carry

profound implications for the development of a wide range of cognitive capabilities. (p.

137)

14
Cunningham & Stanovich (2011), further share, “the disparity in the reading experiences of

children of varying skill may have many other consequences for their future reading and

cognitive development” (p. 137).

Quality Instruction in Reading. Konstantopoulas, (2011), shares there is an underlying

belief that highly effective teachers can make a difference in promoting student achievement.

An important and timely task, then, is to examine the effects of teachers on academic

achievement. The study conducted by Konstantopoulas (2011), examines teacher influence on

student achievement. The data collected in this study was through a program called Project Star.

The data was collected over a four-year period from kindergarten through third grade. The

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) was used to measure student’s reading and mathematics

achievement in Project Star. The findings of this study support the idea that teachers do matter

and can significantly affect student’s academic outcomes in the current and the following years.

The teacher effects were more significant in reading. Upon the evaluation of this study, quality

instruction is important to the success of students in reading and in other subject areas. Teachers

must receive adequate and effective training in their preparatory course work in order to provide

quality instruction to students. Schools must ensure that not only are teachers certified to teach

the subjects they will be assigned but also ensure they are well versed in the assigned subject

area. Teachers who are well versed in mathematics and not in reading will probably not serve

well in a language arts position. Moreover, quality instruction should incorporate best practices

and differentiated instruction address the needs of students.

If improvements in literacy are to be achieved, best practices in reading must be

implored. Gambrell, Morrow, & Pressley (2007) provide ten evidence based best practices for

comprehensive literacy instruction (See Table 4). Motivation to read through a classroom

15
culture promoting reading is at the top of the list. Gambrell, Morrow, & Pressley (2007) stated,

“best practices include ways that teachers support students in their reading development by

creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation, such as providing a book-rich

classroom environment, opportunities for choice, and opportunities to interact socially with

others” (p. 19).

Table 4

Ten Evidence-Based Best Practices for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction

Best Practices

1. Create a classroom culture that fosters literacy motivation.

2. Teach reading for authentic meaning-making literacy experiences for pleasure, to be

informed, and to perform a task

3. Provide students with scaffolding instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics,

vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension to promote independent reading.

4. Give students plenty of time to read in class.

5. Provide children with high-quality literature across a wide range of genres.

6. Use multiple texts to link and expand vocabulary and concepts.

7. Build a whole-class community that emphasizes important concepts and builds upon

prior knowledge.

8. Balance teacher and student-led discussions of texts.

9. Use technologies to link and expand concepts.

10. Use a variety of assessment techniques to inform instruction.

Note. Adapted from Best practices in literacy instruction, p. 19, by L. B. Gambrell, L. M.
Morrow, & Pressley 2007, New York: Guilford Press.

16
 The National Reading Panel (2000) also presented several best approaches to reading

instruction. The approaches included explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, systematic

phonics instruction, methods or strategies to improve fluency and the enhancement of reading

comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000).

Differentiated Instruction and Its Effect on Reading. It is evident that each student

learns or comprehends in his or her own learning style. Some students are visual learners, while

others may be auditory, tactual, or kinesthetic learners. Teachers must assess and gear their

lessons to address each of their students learning styles in order to yield a greater gain in student

success and the mastery of skills. Students also may have gaps in their learning. What one

student needs may be different from what another student needs. This is why differentiated

instruction is important. In order for teachers to effectively differentiate instruction, they must

first assess the needs of their students.

In a research project to access the need for differentiation in reading instruction

Firmender, Reis, & Sweeny (2013) explain: “A gap exists in the reading achievement of diverse

students in classrooms across the country, as our highest achieving students often read well

above their current grade-level appropriate content.” Firmender, Reis & Sweeny (2013) studied

1,149 students in five diverse elementary schools. Out of the five schools chosen for the study, a

gifted and talented magnet school was included. A wide range of scores was observed in this

study, ranging from below the 10th percentile to above the 90th percentile. This study was a

quantitative study that investigated the range of reading fluency and comprehension levels of

elementary students in grades three through five.

One of the measures used in the study consisted of the ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills),

which was used to measure student’s comprehension skills. The student’s fluency was measured

17
by listening to each student read three 250-word passages where each passage increased in

difficulty. Students were given one minute to read each passage. The numbers of words read

correctly were recorded. As the data was analyzed, results showed a wide range in scores

between students’ reading comprehension and reading fluency scores. The results suggest the

need for student’s instruction to be differentiated. This will require teachers to individualize

their instruction in order to meet the needs of each of their students. Differentiation of

instruction sometimes does not come with ease. It may be necessary for teachers to be provided

with professional development in this area in order for them to effectively meet the needs of their

students.

Professional Development and Literacy. Effective professional development can be

essential in growing teachers to be more effective in growing students. Baker & Smith (1999)

describe two kindergarten programs that were revised in order to improve the literacy instruction

of students. The changes to the two programs targeted two areas of the students’ reading

instruction (phonemic awareness and alphabetic understanding). One of the schools focused on

incorporating new teaching practices while the second school focused on the development of a

supplemental program to enhance the learning of students who were at risk of having reading

difficulties. The implemented instructional changes were geared to meet the needs of each of the

assigned schools. Four principles of professional development were created and reviewed to

support the instructional implementation of these programs, which were tailored to meet the

needs of each assigned school. Baker & Smith (1999) share the principles of this new innovation

in the reading program as follows:

• to maintain a realistic focus on instructional goals

• to address both procedural and conceptual components of instruction

18
 • to promote collegiality and support structures to maintain focus and stability

• to examine the effects of instruction on student learning outcomes

As noted by Baker & Smith (1999), teachers at the assigned schools did not have a focus on

phonemic awareness or alphabetic understanding before the implementation of the project

activities. The concern with any effective change is sustainability. There are times new

programs are implemented but as time passes the programs are aborted. As a result, there is a

return to business as usual. However this research showed the implemented programs through

professional development were sustained by both of the assigned schools.

In a second study, Kennedy (2010), focused on improving reading outcomes in a high

poverty school. Empowering teachers through professional development was the objective of this

study. Professional development was provided to teachers as they set out to implement change

in teaching practice. The intervention began with students in four first grade classes. Teachers

were provided a change model through professional development which consisted of an ongoing

focus on student achievement and an inquiry-based, problem-solving approach. Quantitative

data was reviewed from student’s standardized reading scores as well as qualitative data

consisting of an initial questionnaire given to staff members to determine their current

instructional practices. Students showed significantly higher achievement in reading, writing,

and spelling than would be expected on the basis of their pretest scores. This study showed

literacy improvements could be achieved through effective and targeted professional

development. This study found several important conclusions. The first of these is the

importance of professional development for teachers in improving the reading skills of students

who are underachievers in literacy. Second, the study showed through the professional

development program the teachers appreciated having a creative hand in designing a literacy

19
program that was unique to the needs of their students while still addressing the standards and

objectives of the literacy curriculum. Third, the study stressed the importance of introducing

change gradually. When teachers were able to see positive changes in their student’s reading

outcomes, it motivated the teachers, causing them to have a change of attitude regarding their

students and their practice. Kennedy (2010) further shares, “a systematic, coherent, integrated,

and cognitively challenging curriculum is especially important in high context” (p. 386). A 90-

minute block for reading instruction was also expounded upon in the concluding statements of

this study along with the role of parental involvement. When reading and writing were a focus in

the home environment the effects were positive upon the student as well as the family.

Matthew Effect. An often-discussed hypothesis in the reading literature concerning the

development of individual differences in reading is known as the Matthew effect, proposed by

Walberg and Tsai (1983) and popularized by Stanovich (1986). Cunningham & Stanovich

(2011) state, “the term “Matthew effect” is taken from the Biblical passage that describes a rich-

get-richer and poor-get-poorer phenomenon” (p. 137). According to this hypothesis, good

readers improve their reading skills faster than do poor readers over the years by taking

advantage of their fluent and unobstructed exposure to reading. Protopapas, Sideridis, Mouzaki,

& Simos (2011) shared, “what justification in regards to evidence favors the appearance of the

Matthew effect?” According to Bast and Reitsma (1997), the Matthew effect model can be

described using a set of interrelated hypotheses. Focusing on reading comprehension, for the

Matthew effect to be present, two assumptions must be met. The first assumption states that

differences in the development comprehension between low and high ability students will be

demonstrated with divergent trajectories of growth, in the context of a stable rank ordering of

individual student performance. The second assumption states that the observed differences in

20
the development of reading comprehension are a function of other reading skills or other

cognitive skills in a relationship of reciprocal causation.

According to Protopapas, Sideridis, Mouzaki, & Simos (2011):

Several longitudinal investigations have attempted to confirm the predicted empirical

patterns arising from the theoretical framework of Matthew effects by comparing student

groups of good and poor readers or by more sophisticated statistical modeling of

individual variability across time.

In the longitudinal study conducted by Protopapas, Sideridis, Mouzaki & Simos (2011) the

Matthew effect was tested using 587 student participants ranging in grades from second to

fourth. These students were followed from the stated primary grade to their fourth grade year

and were administered five assessments. The assessments administered assessed the student’s

skills in reading, spelling, and vocabulary. Students were divided into ability groups based upon

the initial administered measures. The 25th and the 75th percentiles were the determining

percentage targets to form the low and high groups. The initial measuring instrument used in

this study measured the students’ spelling, reading accuracy, fluency, vocabulary and reading

comprehension skills. The assessments administered to the students were conducted in a quiet

room at the student’s school. The examiners were trained to meet qualifications to administer

the assessments. The students completed the assessments within two 45-minute sessions

depending upon their age and their individual distinctions. The TORP (Test of Reading

Performance) was used to measure the students’ reading comprehension skills and word reading

accuracy. A list of high frequency words were used to assess the students word reading fluency

skills. The students’ spelling skills were assessed by using 60 words selected from grade level

21
textbooks (grades one through six). Whereas, the student’s vocabulary skills were assessed

using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R).

The results of the longitudinal study conducted by Protopagas, Sideridis, Mouzaki &

Simos, (2011) showed students in the low and high groups both showed growth proving the

Matthew effects were not prevalent. The low performing group did not digress in reading

comprehension as the Matthew effects suggests. However, the low performing group did not

make the significant gains needed to significantly close the gap between themselves and the high

performing group.

In the second longitudinal study of interest conducted by Morgan, Farkas, & Hibel

(2008), kindergarten students were participants who were identified with certain socio-

demographic factors. This study measured which groups of children were mostly at risk of

experiencing the Matthew effect in reading. Indicators such as gender, ethnicity and socio-

economic status were considered while observing the student’s reading achievement outcomes.

As Morgan, Farkas & Hibel (2008) state, the study was designed to answer the following

question:

Do those most at risk for reading disabilities (i.e., boys, Blacks and Hispanics, and those

arriving at school from low-income households) begin, on average, near the low end of

the reading skills distribution and move further below the mean over time, whereas those

least at risk for reading disabilities (e.g., girls, Asians, and those arriving from high-

income families) begin near the top of the distribution and increase their advantage over

time?

The ECLS-K (Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class) reading test was used as

one of the measures in this study. The test assessed the student’s basic reading skills, vocabulary

22
and reading comprehension. The data collected in the study showed how the students who were

at risk in reading lagged behind their peers and did not increase in their reading ability. The

study concluded with a finding of the Matthew effect of those students who had a considerable

risk of a reading disability.

Morgan, Farkas & Hibel (2008) identified several limitations in this study. First, only

students in grades kindergarten, first, second and third grade were identified. There was not a

way to determine if the Matthew effect would be prevalent in students beyond the third grade.

Secondly, the students were not observed or assessed to identify if the lack of motivation was a

factor in the lack of success of the identified students. Thirdly, only small sets of variables

(gender, race, socio-economic status) were used in the study. This research could be substantial

since its findings helped to identify population subgroups, which supposedly would be likely to

lag increasingly behind in becoming proficient readers. The study is especially insightful since

schools all over the state are responsible for meeting set targets within each of their subgroups.

McNamara, Scissons & Dahleu (2005) also conducted a longitudinal study focused on

early identification of children at risk for reading difficulties. The Matthew effect was the focus

of this study as well. The study consisted of 514 kindergarten students. The study was purposed

to create an assessment tool to assess students who were at-risk of having reading difficulties.

The student participants were measured for age, phonological awareness and letter-sound

understanding. The results of this study showed the Matthew Effect to be evident since the

kindergartners identified fell further behind their peers after moving to the first grade

(McNamara, Scissons, & Dahleu, 2005).

Response to Intervention and Its Effect on Reading Difficulties. A study conducted

by Protopapas, Sideridis, Mouzaki & Simos (2011) showed early identification and early

23
intervention were found to be more effective in reducing reading difficulties than remediation

programs offered later in schools to students who had presented reading problems. Accordingly,

the stability of reading performance across school years has become a very important issue for

longitudinal research along with the implications and progression of differences between

competent and poor readers.

Fien, Smith, Smolkowski, Baker, Nelson, & Chaparro (2015) examined how a multi-

tiered instructional intervention model effects first grade at-risk student’s reading outcomes. In

this study, 16 schools participated. The schools were randomly assigned as a treatment or

control group for the study. Students were screened using the Stanford Achievement Test.

Students who scored above the 31st percentile received a tier one intervention whereas the

students who scored below the 31st percentile received a tier two intervention. Both groups of

students (treatment and control) received 90 minutes of whole group instruction in tier one and

an additional 30 minutes of small group intervention on a daily basis. In the treatment group

however, the teachers were trained in the implementation of explicit instruction within the core

reading program and providing more opportunities for student practice of skills. In addition to

the implementation of explicit instruction and increased practice opportunities, the at-risk readers

were given an additional 30 minutes of daily small group intervention. The study resulted in

positive outcomes in the student’s decoding, fluency, and reading comprehension skills. This

study suggests when students, who are identified as having reading difficulties, are intervened

upon by being provided explicit instruction as well as systematic intervention in their area of

need, they are able to make great and positive gains.

In a different study, Richey, Silverman, Montanaro, Speece, and Schatshcneider (2012)

investigated the response to an intervention model with a focus at Tier 2. A total of 123 fourth

24
grade students were identified as having a great probability of reading failure. The intervention

consisted of 24 sessions targeting fluency and expository comprehension of science texts. This

study is of great interest since it was conducted in fourth grade and not in the early primary

grades such as kindergarten and first. Students who received interventions performed much

higher on science knowledge and comprehension strategy knowledge and use but did not score

higher in word reading, fluency or other measures of reading comprehension.

Addressing Difficult Subgroups in Reading. In Mississippi, public school students are

classified into subgroups. Students are placed within these subgroups based upon meeting

specific criteria. The state and the federal government, in an effort to ensure growth within these

subgroups from year to year, hold schools responsible. Schools must meet or exceed adequate

yearly progress within each of these groups in order to escape the repercussions from the

aforementioned entities. Wright (2016) reported in Mississippi, the largest achievement gaps

exist between African-American and white students with a 28.6 percent point gap. Economically

disadvantaged students compared to their more advantaged peers showed a 26.5 percentage point

gap, while students with and without disabilities showed a 24.5 percentage point gap. According

to Wright (2016): “Achievement gaps occur when one group of students outperforms another

group and the difference in average scores for the two groups is statistically significant.”

Wright’s report shares achievement gaps among key subgroups, which Every Student Succeeds

Act (ESSA) identifies. The subgroups are as follows: racial and /or ethnic minorities,

economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities and English learners.

In a study conducted to improve reading performance for economically disadvantaged

students, Ng, Bartlett, Chester & Kersland (2013) found when strategy instruction and

motivation support are combined, students showed substantial improvement in reading

25
performance. Strategy instruction focuses on helping students to gain better comprehension

skills. Students are taught how to gage their own understanding of a given text by following a

series of strategies. Some of the strategies used in strategy instruction include having the

students to ask themselves questions about the text, looking back or forward through the text

and/or summarizing the text. Upon using the taught strategies students are equipped with

identifying their own areas of difficulty with a given text and can work through the text to aid in

their understanding of it. This allows the students to examine how the author has structured the

text.

Motivation support was implemented through the use of adult volunteers in a study

conducted by Ng, Bartlett, Chester, and Kersland (2013). The adult volunteers’ main

responsibility was to communicate with the students and give them feedback on their usage of

the reading strategies, which they had learned. The adult volunteers were a third party and were

allowed to communicate with the students via email messaging. The email messages served as

an intervention to praise and encourage the students, which in return motivated the students to

learn the reading strategies.

McKenna, Shin, and Ciullo (2015) reviewed research on reading and mathematics

instruction for students with learning disabilities. The study was a summarization of research

regarding the quality of school-based interventions, the allocation of instructional time, and other

implementation variables associated with student outcomes. The finding of the study shared the

low quality of instructional delivery and how the explicit instruction of phonics and

comprehension were taught less frequently in most cases.

Beecher and Sweeny (2008) shared: “Achievement gaps among culturally, linguistically,

ethnically, and economically diverse groups pose great concern to educators and policymakers.”

26
Upon observation, one must accept the fact the focus on the achievement gap has been of great

concern since the implementation of No Child Left Behind. Beecher and Sweeny (2008) further

share, “The educational literature is replete with recommendations for improving student

achievement and closing the achievement gap; however, research suggests that the gap remains.”

Williams (2003) shares, “A key to closing the achievement gap is to realize there is no “magic

bullet.” It would certainly be convenient if reformers could concentrate their efforts on one singe

area to get guaranteed results in boosting minority achievement.” Williams (2003) further

shares, “the truth is, the achievement gap is a complex, multilayered phenomenon that requires

an ongoing, sustained, multifaceted approach.”

Schools must be in a habit of observing and analyzing data to implement a plan to

address the gaps within their student population. All stakeholders will need to be brought to the

table. This will include parents, community, educators and students, to address the gaps within

each school’s specific subgroups.

Description of Reading Wars. Cambourne (2015) states the so-called “Reading Wars”

have been the subject of conversation in reading education for years. This debate began as a

series of competing methods, which have been argued and attacked over the years. According to

Cambourne (2015), the debate began over a choice between two pedagogies, which include the

whole language approach versus the structured literacy approach or phonics. The whole

language approach is based upon a visual recognition of word shapes principle whereas the

structured literacy approach is based upon the principle of phonics. Phonics is described as the

transforming of visual signs to speech sounds (Cambourne, 2015). Anderson (2000) states

many articles and learned studies have been conducted in an effort to declare peace in the

reading wars between the instructional techniques of whole language and phonics. Anderson

27
(2000) describes the phonics approach as a focus of word-decoding skills and the whole

language approach as an emphasis on textual meaning. Kim (2008) gives an exhaustive history

of the reading wars dating back to the mid-nineteenth century, when Horace Mann, an

educational reformer, railed against the teaching of the alphabetic code or the idea that letters

represent sounds. According to Kim (2008), Mann stated children should first learn to read

whole words and not letter sounds. In the 1950’s William Gray, a leading reading scholar,

encouraged teachers to instruct children to read using whole words and avoiding isolated phonics

drills (Kim, 2008). However, in the 1960’s and 1970’s, Jeanne Chall’s research on first grade

reading instruction proved phonics instruction was effective in helping children become skilled

readers. Chall’s findings are argued by theorists of the whole language approach (Kim, 2008).

During this time, Rudolph Flesch, an advocate of phonics instruction, attacked the whole

language approach proposed by William Gray. Flesch gave voice to his stance of phonics

instruction by writing the book entitled Why Johnny Can’t Read.

Presently, the National Reading Panel (NRP) continues to fuel the debate within reading

education of evidence-based practices (Kim, 2008). The NRP began a study in 1997, which

concluded in 2000 to determine which approach was best (whole language or phonics). The

findings from the panel stated the five components of reading (phonics, phonemic awareness,

reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) must be taught in an effective reading program

(Bomengen, 2010).

Whole Language Approach. Whole language in the simplest terms is a method of

teaching students to read through the recognition of words as whole pieces of language

(Bomengen, 2010). According to Bomengen (2010), the whole language approach to education

is a constructivist approach with emphasis on students creating their own knowledge from what

28
they experience. Constructivists believe students learn effectively by analyzing small chunks of a

system, such as learning the letters of the alphabet in an effort to learn language (Bomengen,

2010). Whole language focuses on helping children to make meaning from what they read and

to express meaning in their writing (Bomengen, 2010). In addition, whole language instruction

is used in an effort to create a plethora of opportunities for children to read independently, in

small guided reading group, and to be read aloud to by the teacher (Bomengen, 2010).

While the whole language approach seems to have its advantages, the approach over

looks the spelling and technical mistakes and can present problems for students with reading

difficulties (Bomengen, 2010). According to Bomengen (2010), students who have reading

difficulties need explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and decoding in order to

improve their reading skills.

Structured Literacy Approach. The structured literacy approach in reading instruction

prepares students to decode words explicitly and systematically and is more effective for all

readers (International Dyslexia Association, 2015). Structured literacy instruction includes

phonology, sound-symbol association, syllable instruction, morphology, syntax, and semantics.

Phonology is a critical element of structured language, which encompasses the study of

sound structure of spoken words. Students can become phonologically aware through rhyming,

counting words in spoken sentence, and by clapping syllables in spoken words. Phonemic

awareness, which is the ability to segment words into their own component sounds, is an

important aspect of phonological awareness (International Dyslexia Association, 2015). These

component sounds are called phonemes. Phonemes are the smallest unit of sound in a given

language that can be recognized distinctively from other sounds in the language.

Sound-symbol association involves mapping phonemes to symbols or printed letters. This

29
association must be taught and mastered in two directions: visual to auditory (reading) and

auditory to visual (spelling). In addition students must master blending sounds and letters into

words and vice versa. The teaching of sound-symbol association is often referred to as phonics

(International Dyslexia Association, 2015).

Morphology is defined as the smallest unit of meaning in language and includes the study

of base words, roots, prefixes, and suffixes, while syntax includes grammar, sentence variation,

and the mechanics of language (International Dyslexia Association, 2015).

Last but not least is semantics, which includes comprehension of written language

(International Dyslexia Association, 2015). According to the International

Dyslexia Association (2015), teachers must be skilled at individualizing instruction and the

instruction must be based on continuous assessment through observation and standardized

measures.

Assessments to Measure Reading Achievement

Several assessment measures were used in this study as a quantitative measure. These

assessments are described in this section. Each of the described reading assessments is

administered throughout the state of Mississippi.

Star Reading Assessment. The Renaissance Star reading program is a computer

program consisting of a screening and progress-monitoring component (Renaissance, 2017). The

Star Reading program will be used to measure achievement in this action research. The program

generates reading passages for the students to read followed with multiple-choice questions to

answer. Upon completion of an assessment, a diagnostic report is generated. The diagnostic

report shows the student's scale score, percentile rank, grade equivalent, instructional reading

level as well the student's oral reading fluency score. The scale score determines the performance

30
level of the student (level one, two, three, four, or five). Students can be ranked based upon their

scale score. In addition, students receive domain scores through the diagnostic report. The

domain scores are grouped into four categories: literature, informational text, foundational skills,

and language. Domain scores range from zero to 100 and give a percentage of mastery in the

areas of phonics, word recognition, vocabulary, and comprehension of text.

A linking study has been conducted by Renaissance to correlate the STAR assessment to

the Mississippi Assessment Program. The Mississippi Assessment Program is a summative

assessment through the Mississippi Department of Education used to determine students’

mastery of skills at grade level. The linking study was conducted to determine if Star Reading

and Star Math can predict student achievement on the Mississippi Assessment Program

summative assessment (Renaissance, 2017). The main findings from the linking analysis (See

Figure 1) revealed that Star Reading and Math are accurate predictors of how students will score

on the MAAP tests. Upon analysis the correlations were positive and averaged .79 and .80

between MAAP and Star Reading and Math (Renaissance, 2017).

31
Figure 1. STAR Reading and Math Correlations with MAAP

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5
Concurrent STAR Math Scores
Grade 6 Concurrent STAR Reading Scores

Grade 7

Grade 8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Mississippi Academic Assessment Program ELA Assessment. The Mississippi

Assessment Program is an assessment administered throughout the state of Mississippi to assess

student's mastery of standards in language arts and math. The MAAP English Language Arts

assessment is mandated by the state for grades 3 through 8. The assessment is divided into

sections including the following: reading informational text, reading literature, language, writing

development of ideas, writing organization, writing grammar and usage, and writing mechanics.

Third grade students are able to obtain a total of 60 points on the assessment. The test item types

include performance task, closed-ended, and open- ended. The performance task item is a texted-

based extended written response to a writing prompt requiring the student to read a text and

respond to a prompt using evidence from the text (Wright, 2016). The closed-ended items are

multiple choice items used to measure cognitive targets through well-designed stems. Stems may

be presented in the form of a question, a phrase, or an expression. The stem is followed by four

answer choices or options of which only one is correct (Wright, 2016). Multiple-choice

dynamics will also be used among the closed-ended item types. Multiple-choice dynamic items

32
will use drop-down boxes for students to select an answer choice or choices (Wright, 2016). The

last of the item types are open-ended items. Students will indicate their answer to these items by

clicking on an open cell, dropping and dragging items to a specified drop zone, and matching.

Two-part items, consisting of two standard response items will also be used as an open-ended

item type (Wright, 2016). Student scores can range from 301 to 399 for third grade. Based on

the student's score, students will be placed in one of the five performance levels (levels one

through 5). Levels 1 through 3 indicate poor or minimal performance, whereas levels three and

four indicate proficiency.

Mississippi K-3 Assessment Support System (MKAS2). The MKAS2 third grade

reading summative assessment is a criterion-referenced test which measures Mississippi third

graders' performance in terms of the reading standards which comprise the English Language

Arts standards in the Mississippi College and Career Readiness Standards (Wright, 2015). The

purpose of the assessment is to determine a third grader's promotion or retention decision based

upon the student's reading proficiency level at the end of third grade.

The MKAS2 is a computer-adaptive test where the web-based software continually

tailors the test based on the student's response to the current question (Wright, 2015). The web-

based software increases the difficulty after a correct answer and decreases the difficulty after an

incorrect response. Wright (2015) reports each student's test is individualized and concentrates

its content at the performance level of the student so the student's score is a reliable and accurate

measure of the student's ability. Fifty multiple-choice questions make up the assessment and four

domains are assessed which include the following: foundational skills in reading, informational

text in reading, literature, and language standards (Wright, 2015). A single scale score is

calculated for each test to determine the student's level of proficiency.

33
Conclusion

Literacy, or the lack thereof, affects the world in which we live in. It is of grave

importance that all students are proficient readers especially in the high-tech, competitive world

in which we live. The studies included in this literature review suggest students should be

identified upon entering kindergarten for reading impairments. These students should receive

quality instruction at the tier one level and move into a tier two or three intervention if they are

not making progress at the tier one level. An explicit research based reading program should be

implemented to support struggling readers. Teachers will only be able to help and assist these

students if they are given access and effectively implement an instructional program that is

geared to assist the individual needs of each struggling reader. Teachers must be provided

professional development to assist them in their endeavor to individualize the instruction and to

work with students in small group settings. Teachers in the upper grades must also be

knowledgeable and have the know-how to teach the components of reading in order to address

the needs of their struggling students. Of course, the main focus should be a driving force to

identify students as early as possible and give them the support they need to ensure reading

success.

34
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this action research study was to identify, implement, and evaluate best

practices in reading in third grade. Third grade was chosen since this is the grade that students

move from learning to read to reading to learn. It is important for 3rd grade students to have a

strong foundation in reading before maneuvering to the next grade. Third grade is a pivotal

grade and has been recognized as such by the Mississippi State Department of Education. As a

result of this recognition, the state department has implemented the MKAS2 (Mississippi K-3

Assessment Support System). With the implementation of this assessment, 3rd grade students

must achieve a passing score (926) in order to move on to 4th grade.

In this study, a mixed methods approach was used to evaluate the implementation of the

action plan and yield two analytical goals. First, STAR Renaissance reading scores were

analyzed along with the Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) and Mississippi

Kindergarten – Third Assessment Support (MKAS) scores to measure student achievement.

This data was used to measure progress in achieving benchmark goals in proficiency, growth,

and achievement gaps. Secondly, a qualitative data analysis was used to understand how the

reading program at Greenleaf Upper Elementary was perceived and implemented through

instructional practices, obtained through the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and

Spelling (LETRS) training. The quantitative data along with qualitative data regarding the

35
perception of the implemented instructional practices were instrumental in developing a

continuous cycle of improvement through organizational learning.

Research Questions

A series of research questions were used to evaluate the action plan. The central question

was: What strategies will be used to improve reading achievement at Greenleaf Upper

Elementary (pseudonym)? The research will seek to understand through a qualitative approach

by addressing the following sub-questions:

• What best practices will be effective to prepare students to score proficiently or above

in reading on the state mandated assessments for third grade?

• How do teachers describe the reading program prior to LETRS implementation?

• What elements of the current reading program need to be addressed to improve

reading instruction and learning at Greenleaf Upper Elementary School?

• What specific factors impact the instructional implementation of the bottom quartile

in reading to move toward and/or achieve proficiency?

This mixed methods study sought to understand the following quantitative sub-questions:

• How did reading performance improve following the implementation of LETRS?

• Which subgroups benefited as a result of the implementation of the action plan?

• How did the percentage of students scoring at levels four and five in 2016 on the

STAR Reading assessment compare to the percentage of students scoring at levels

four and five in 2017 on the STAR Reading and MAAP assessment?

• How did the percentage of students scoring at levels one, two, and three in 2016 on

the STAR Reading assessment compare to the percentage of students scoring at

levels one, two, and three in 2017 on the STAR Reading and MAAP assessment?

36
Research Site and Participants

Greenleaf Upper Elementary (pseudonym) was the assigned administrative site of the

researcher. The school was located in North Mississippi and was comprised of grades 3-5. The

student population was at 708 students. The school was recognized as a Title I school. Title I

schools are schools in which 40% or more of the students receive free and reduced lunch. Title

schools receive funds from the federal government that are used to aid in the learning of all

students. Greenleaf Upper Elementary had 56 percent of the student population, which receives

free and reduced lunch.

Third grade was the grade used for this action research since the selected grade was the

grade students should make a cognitive transition from learning to read to reading to learn. The

third grade hall houses ten third grade classrooms. Paraprofessionals (teacher assistants) were

used to assist teachers and students in the subject area of reading. A total of four

paraprofessionals were shared and rotated among the ten classrooms. The paraprofessionals

were given the responsibility of working with students who have been identified of having

reading difficulties. There were two third grade inclusion classrooms on the third grade hall.

Inclusion classes are populated with regular and special education students. All third grade

classrooms are self-contained (teachers teach all subjects). The third grade student population

was 71.4% White and 24.4% Black. Asians, Hispanics, Island Hispanics and students of

multiple races made up less than one percent of the third grade student population. There were

53% males and 47% females (See Table 5).

37
Table 5

2016-2017 Third Grade Student Demographics

Asian Black Hispanic Multi. White Is.Hispanic Total

M-1 M – 28 M–2 M–2 M – 82 M–0 115

F–1 F- 25 F–1 F–0 F – 73 F–2 102

Total – 2 Total – 53 Total – 3 Total – 2 Total – 155 Total – 2 217

Developing the Action Plan

The action plan was developed through a collaborative effort. The collaborative process

used is described in the following section. A collection of data using a mixed methods approach,

both qualitative and quantitative, was used. The initial data used in developing the action plan

was the 2015-2016 accountability report for Greenleaf Upper Elementary (pseudonym).

Collaboration. After viewing the quantitative data from the state assessments and the

Star reading results, interviews as well as classroom observations were conducted. The

interviews were conducted using the interview protocol (Appendix A). Upon analyzing the

qualitative data derived from interviews and observations with third grade teachers, several

pertinent factors came to light. The teachers relied upon the Journey Reading Series heavily.

Teachers shared, for the most part, they enjoyed using the Journey Reading Series basal reader

within their instructional practice since the lessons were outlined and the given activities

followed the stated objectives. The reading series also gave a slated list of vocabulary words,

which coincided with each of the stories in the basal reader. This resource was handy and easy

to follow, which in return required less of the teachers in regards to lesson plan preparation.

38
Most of the teachers had mapped out their submitted lesson plans from the previous years based

upon the basal reader’s outlined lessons and activities. Conceptualizing the qualitative data and

finding themes within the data was revealing. Teachers described their current reading practices

as well as what they felt like were their issues in addressing the needs of their students.

Comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency only comprised a portion of the components of

the current reading program, which was observed through the initial classroom observations.

Comprehension and vocabulary were the dominant components. Teachers stated their main

concern is for students to comprehend. Using centers or small groups as an instructional practice

had been a struggle for some of the third grade teachers. Upon classroom observations, whole

group instruction was practiced more often than grouping students to work in centers or small

groups. Third grade teachers were open about the need for professional development in the area

of reading instruction in order to meet the needs of struggling readers. The openness and the

identification of personal development needs were reflected in a willingness to attend

professional development in the area of reading.

The MKAS2 reading assessment was another resounding theme noted in the teacher

interviews. Most of the teachers interviewed made mention of the MKAS reading assessment

and their desire for their students to experience success. The end of the year MKAS reading

assessment is a driving force behind the instructional aims of the third grade teachers.

The curriculum director, along with the building administration, recommended the

teachers register for the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS)

since the training is mandated by the Mississippi State Department of Education for kindergarten

through third grade teachers. This professional development is designed to give participants the

39
knowledge of the five components of reading and assists in providing explicit reading instruction

especially to struggling readers.

The Action Plan

The action plan was developed with all third grade teachers and students in mind. Third

grade teachers played a vital role in the implementation process. The action plan consisted of

four action steps to assist in improving reading achievement.

The first action step of the action plan was to implement professional development to

address students’ area of need in reading. The goal of this action step was to provide training to

teachers in the area of reading through the LETRS training to equip them in meeting the needs of

the students. Teachers were required to view videos and complete reading assignments along

with face-to-face professional development sessions off campus with a certified LETRS trainer.

Teachers had to complete an assessment on each of the training modules and make a required

score before moving on to the next module.

The second step of the action plan involved the use of professional learning communities.

The goals of this action step were to encourage collaboration among the teachers and to improve

instructional practices and culture. The professional learning community meetings were held

weekly. The third grade teachers shared a common time to discuss instructional practices.

Teachers identified effective practices and were given opportunity to peer observe. Instructional

practices and activities were documented on the PLC meeting document. These instructional

practices were learned practices teachers received through the LETRS training.

The third action step of the action plan was to ensure students were benchmarked

assessed. Students are administered the Star Reading tests three time during the school year

(fall, winter, and spring). The third grade reading teacher assessed students in the bottom 25th

40
percentile during each benchmark period. The benchmark reports will be used to adjust the

reading instruction of the student if needed to ensure the student’s reading instruction is being

individualized to meet their needs.

The LETRS training requires a specific intervention. A 120-minute reading block was

intended utilize whole group, small group, and intervention grouping. The scheduling of the

reading block served as the fourth action step of the action plan. Unfortunately, a district

mandate prevent the use of this reading block for LETRS. Nonetheless, the reading block was

originally designed to give adequate time to address the five components of reading through the

implementation of the LETRS training. The goal was incorporate strategies from the LETRS

training and to ensure the instructional reading block is conducted in a systematic and explicit

fashion. The grouping of students into small groups was t be based upon student data derived

from the student’s diagnostic reading report through the STAR program and through the phonics

and phonemic awareness screeners. Teachers did identify students who were performing in the

lowest 25th percentile and provided the LETRS strategy twice weekly in phonics, phonemic

awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, or fluency (based on the students’ needs).

41
Figure 2. Intended 120-Minute Reading Block

 



 
"
!

 
$&$#

 
'"##

 $
# %#

 
# %#


14-34

 
 #
*
%)

%$#

$
5/
  %-$$"
"$ #!#

%$#
)


 %")
*
 !"# 

$&$#

"$
 $
$
($


 
" %!
0+
" %!
#

$

34-44
04-1/





" %!
1+
" %!
#

$

%$#
%$#

## 
0+
0
3
1
4
2
" %!
2+
" %!
#

$

## 
1+
1
4
2
0
3
" %!
3+
" %!
#

$

## 
2+
2
0
3
1
4
" %!
4+
" %!
#

$

Intervention 2/
%$#










 

 



Group




$%$#
'
"



$#&

$"&$ 
'
"&
$"&$ 

1
(
!"

0

0

1
$#
'),


'

Short-term goals. The administrative team in conjunction with classroom teachers set

the short-term goals. Teachers were unable to focus on LETRS during the 120-minute reading

block; however, additional literacy time devoted to the bottom quartile of students was used to

utilize LETRS. The cut-scale scoring chart provided by Renaissance through the STAR reading

program was used to set target goals for each screening period (fall, winter, and spring). The

42
target goal for each of the screening periods was set at the 75th percentile. Students were

assessed during each of the screening periods using the STAR reading program. The target score

for each screening period for 3rd grade students are as follows: Fall – 461, Winter – 500, and

Spring – 547. The students’ diagnostic reports were viewed to ensure the students’ growth

percentiles increased from one screening period to the next. Students were expected to show

growth monthly. An increase in collaboration among teachers to enhance teacher expertise

through the teachers’ professional learning community was also a short-term goal of the action

plan.

12-month measurable goals. State assessment results were analyzed to determine if the

percentage of students who scored at level four or five increased in comparison to the previous

year’s results for third grade students. The goal was to reach a combined percentage of 55 or

more at levels 4 and 5 on the end of the year STAR Reading and MAAP assessment. The goal

of the students who will be required to take the MKAS2 summative reading assessment was a

score of 926 or above. A score of 926 is a passing score on the MKAS2 assessment.

System goals. The building level administrators met with 3rd grade teachers during their

professional learning communities to ensure teachers were implementing the LETRS reading

strategies. Progress monitoring data was viewed during this time. Effective collaboration

among teachers was the aim of the professional learning communities. Collaboration among

teachers was expected to aid in the improvement of reading achievement as well as create a more

positive culture among the grade level teachers. A positive affect on the culture among the third

grade teachers was expected to transcend into positive relations with students, parents, and other

teachers throughout the school. The researcher also intended to gain knowledge and expertise in

this process through in-depth research, analyzing data, interviewing teachers, conducting

43
observations, and attending professional learning communities. The system goals addressed

structural and cultural aspects. In order for the implementation of the LETRS training to be

effective, all third grade teachers were required to register and attend the training. All third

grade teachers received the LETRS training. A first year third grade teacher received partial

LETRS training. The online component of the training was conducted during the third grade

teachers’ planning time twice weekly. Third grade teachers were provided substitute teachers on

the days of the face-to-face training. After the completion of the LETRS training, teachers were

convinced the LETRS training was necessary and appropriate for their instructional practice and

growth in reading achievement of their students. The action plan was evaluated following a year

of implementation. Qualitative and quantitative data was used to determine the success of the

action plan.

Resource Budget. In an effort to implement the action plan, a budget was secured

through the district office to aid the designated school. Third grade teachers attended four full

days of face-to-face LETRS training. Two days of face-to-face training was afforded in the fall

of 2016 and two days in the spring of 2017. Substitute teachers were used on the days the

teachers attended the LETRS training. Substitute teachers were paid $70 per day as allocated by

the district. The cost analysis for the 10 third grade teachers totaled $2,800.00. In addition to the

four full days of face-to-face training, the teachers had to complete 15 online sessions, which

could be done at their own pace. Teachers were able to use their school laptop computer to

complete the online sessions. The online sessions were completed during the teacher’s

professional learning community meetings.

Responsible parties. Third grade teachers, teacher assistants, and the building

administrators were responsible for implementing the action plan. The district office was

44
responsible for allocating funds to provide the needed professional development of the third

grade teachers. The building administrators were responsible for ensuring the teachers attend the

online and face-to-face trainings as well as securing substitute teachers. The teachers were

responsible for implementing the LETRS program within their classroom as prescribed.

Teachers were also held responsible for attending their weekly professional learning community

in an effort to share instructional practices as well as progress monitoring their students at the

prescribed intervals. The building administrators attended professional learning community

meetings on a weekly basis. Moreover, the building administrators observed third grade

classrooms regularly to ensure the implementation of the LETRS training.

Table 6

Timeline of Activities

Activity Function Date

Activity A Building and District Summer 2016

Administrators’ Meeting to
Review Accountability Scores
Activity B Teacher Interviews Fall 2016

Activity C Initial Teacher Observations Fall 2016

Activity D Teachers Begin LETRS Fall 2016

Training
Activity E LETRS Training Completed Spring 2017

Activity F Implementation of LETRS Fall 2017

Activity G Teacher Interviews Spring 2018

A timeline of activities (See Table 6) was employed to track the different activities of

implementation of the action plan. The action was developed after after a thorough review of the

45
accountability data derived from the student’s state assessment score reports. This activity was

conducted during the summer of 2016. After the review and analysis of the accountability

report, teacher interviews were held. Interviews were held with the teachers in an effort to

address their individual needs and rationales regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their

student’s scores. Utilizing the matrix, it was determined through the collective voice of the

teachers, professional development was needed to assist teachers in addressing the reading

deficits. These activities were conducted during the fall of 2016. The LETRS professional

development was offered to the teachers after receiving input and collaboration from the district

curriculum director. The LETRS training began in the fall of 2016 and was completed by nine of

the teachers in the spring of 2017. After the implementation of the LETRS training, teachers

were interviewed in an effort to gain insight regarding possible needs to effectively implement

LETRS.

Evaluation of the Action Plan

The action plan was evaluated after the course of one year. Needs assessment

instruments were created to assess the effectiveness of the action plan. All stakeholders

completed a needs assessment to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the action plan. The

needs assessment results were compiled and analyzed by the school’s leadership team. The

results were shared with all stakeholders. After each group met to discuss the results, a final

leadership meeting was conducted to create a plan of action to address the weaknesses of the

program and to celebrate the strengths. Students STAR test scores, along with MAAP and

MKAS2 scores, were viewed and analyzed to determine if students who began the year as low

performers in reading reached proficiency. Student scores were expected to be disaggregated by

46
subgroups to determine which subgroups benefited most from the implementation of the LETRS

training.

Purpose. The purpose of the evaluation plan was to create a process to address the

strengths and weaknesses of the action plan. Ensuring the action plan is implemented effectively

and the stated goals are reached was the aim of the evaluation. Since improving reading

achievement is the overall focus of the action plan, the evaluation plan served the purpose of

evaluating reading outcomes in third grade. The evaluation plan was also designed to identify all

stakeholders and how these stakeholders have served in fulfilling their respective responsibilities

implementing the action plan.

Process. A process of evaluating each goal of the action plan was employed. The first

action step of the action plan was to implement professional development to address student’s

area of need in reading. The goal of this action step was to provide training to teachers in the

area of reading to equip them in meeting the needs of the students. Teachers were required to

view videos and complete reading assignments along with attending professional development

sessions off campus with a certified LETRS trainer. Teachers had to complete an assessment on

each of the training modules and make a required score before moving on to the next module.

The classroom observation protocols were collected and analyzed to determine effective use of

the LETRS program, which addressed the five components of reading (phonics, phonemic

awareness, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary). The teacher’s needs assessment survey

was analyzed to assist in determining if teachers need additional support and resources to

effectively implement the LETRS program. The district’s literacy coach was valuable in

suggesting future training. If additional training was needed, the decision was made in

conjunction with the building principal and the administrative team. The administrative team

47
was responsible for evaluating this goal by analyzing and disaggregating the data from the

classroom observation protocols and needs assessment surveys.

The second step of the action plan involved the use of professional learning communities.

The goals of this action step were to encourage collaboration among teachers and to improve

instructional practices and culture. The professional learning community (PLC) meetings were

attended frequently and the findings were recorded on the PLC meeting document. The

administrative team will be responsible for evaluating the goals of this action step. The team

compiled the PLC meeting documents and reviewed them to determine if teachers were

effectively collaborating and sharing instructional practices. In addition, dialogue among the

administrative team was used in the evaluation of this action step.

The third action of the action plan ensured students are assessed utilizing the STAR

reading program. Students were administered the Star Reading tests three times during the

school year (fall, winter, spring). The Star Reading progress monitoring reports were analyzed by

date to ensure students were progress monitored at the intervals designated and met growth

targets.

Outcome. Formative assessment results were reviewed to determine if students were

mastering the language arts standards. Teachers conducted a test item analysis at the end of each

nine-week grading period in order to assess mastery. The mastery of standards was reviewed

each nine-week grading period. The test item analysis was shared within the teachers’

professional learning meetings to enable the teachers to identify the skills students mastered or

did not master. Teachers also discussed the lessons taught and shared effective lesson activities.

A summative analysis was conducted using the formative assessment results from each nine-

48
weeks by the administrative team. A report of the findings from the summative analysis was

shared with teachers.

Impact. The data obtained from the classroom observation protocols was used to

determine if the teachers within the third grade classrooms used the LETRS training activities

effectively. The students’ pre and post STAR test scores were viewed and analyzed to determine

if students who began the year as low performers in reading reached the level of proficiency. We

also hoped to disaggregate student results by subgroups to determine which subgroups benefited

most from the implementation of the LETRS training; however, the changes to the plan

eliminated the other subgroups from the research. Finally, third grade state assessment results

were used to determine the impact of the action plan.

Collaboration. The building administration consisting of the principal, assistant

principal, lead teacher, and literacy coach will meet each nine-weeks grading period to discuss

and analyze data from the classroom observation protocols and professional learning meetings.

After each group has meet to discuss the results, a final leadership meeting will be conducted to

address the weaknesses of the program and to celebrate the strengths.

Evaluation Timeline. The evaluation of this study was conducted in June 2018.

Benchmark assessment results were analyzed from each benchmark period (August, January,

March). Each classroom was expected to show 50 percent of their students scoring at levels

four and five on the benchmark assessments. The administrative team conducted a summative

report of the findings at the end of the first year implementation cycle. A needs assessment

surveys from the teachers will be analyzed at the end of the first year of implementation of the

action plan.

49
 Logic Model. The logic model is a diagram (See Appendix D) used to show the elements

of implementation of the action plan. A list of inputs is given which give the constructs of the

LETRS implementation along with the resources needed. The outputs listed are the activities

conducted as well as the participants who were responsible for the activities. Finally, short-term,

medium, and long-term goals are shared to describe the different phases of expectation.

50
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Introduction

Chapter IV provides the quantitative and qualitative results of the study. The purpose of

this action research study was to identify, implement, and evaluate best practices in reading

improvement in third grade at Greenleaf Upper Elementary in support of a process of continuous

improvement. This study used quantitative and qualitative data (mixed methods) to understand

what elements of the reading program need to be addressed in order for students at the assigned

school to progress towards a proficient level on the STAR reading assessment. Third grade was

chosen as the targeted grade level for this study. Third grade is when students move from

learning to read to reading to learn. Third grade reading performance is also targeted because of

the Mississippi Literacy-Based Promotion Act (2016, S.B. 2157).

Change in Action Plan

All third grade students did not receive the LETRS strategy as originally planned in this

study. Only students in the bottom quartile in reading received the strategy. The action plan was

changed due to the implementation of a new core-reading program at the assigned school. The

new core-reading program (Collaborative Classroom) called for 120 minutes of instructional

time for effective implementation. The Collaborative Classroom reading program encompasses

several components. The assigned school chose to implement two components (Making Meaning

and Being a writer) to encompass the core-reading program. The research team along with the

51
teacher participants of this study was instructed to follow the structure of the new core-reading

program. However, during the course of the new core-reading program, an independent daily

reading time was allotted. During the students’ independent reading time, it was agreed the third

grade teachers would implement the LETRS strategy with the students who performed in the

bottom quartile since these students’ reading deficits had to be addressed. Teachers worked with

these students one-on-one, and small groups at least twice weekly during the students’

independent daily reading time. The combined implementation of Collaborative Classroom and

LETRS make it difficult to determine the cause of any documented difference in the growth of

students. This limitation is modified by the qualitative data documenting teacher perceptions of

the process.

Quantitative Data

Quantitative data was derived from students’ STAR reading data, which is used to

determine if students in the bottom quartile in reading achieved growth or proficiency after the

implementation of the LETRS strategy. Student scores from the bottom quartile in reading were

analyzed to compare pre-LETRS growth in 2016-2017 to post-LETRS implementation growth in

2017-2018. The research team identified students in the bottom quartile by reviewing the

school’s universal screener (STAR reading) Fall 2016 reports. The screener was administered in

August 2016. After students were screened, the students’ cut scale scores were categorized into

four quartiles by the school’s leadership team. Students who were identified in the lowest

quartile are the focus of this study. As indicated in Chapter One, Table 1, the school’s

accountability results showed a significant drop between 2015 and 2016 in reading. The

accountability category with the most significant drop was the lowest 25 percent in reading.

52
Students’ August and April STAR reading scores from 2017-2018 are compared to STAR

reading scores from August and April 2016-2017. The following quantitative research questions

will be answered in this chapter. Research question number two could not be answered because

of required changes in the action plan.

1. How did reading performance improve following the implementation of LETRS?

2. Which group benefited as a result of the implementation of the action plan?

3. How did the students scoring proficient in 2016-2017 on the

STAR Reading assessment compare to the percentage of students scoring proficient in

2017-2018 on the STAR Reading assessment?

4. How did the percentage of students scoring below proficient in 2016-2017

on the STAR Reading assessment compare to the students scoring below proficiency

in 2017-2018 on the STAR Reading assessment and MAAP?

Qualitative Data

Qualitative data was obtained from teacher interviews. Interviews were conducted in two

phases. Phase one of teacher interviews sought to gain teacher perspectives of the school’s

reading program and in an effort to understand the current reading program. Phase one

interviews were conducted in April 2016-2017 before the implementation of the LETRS

strategy. Phase two was conducted at the completion of the study in May 2018. Phase two of

the teacher interviews allowed the researcher to determine if the third grade teachers found the

LETRS strategy beneficial in addressing the needs of the students. It also allowed the teachers to

give voice of what worked and what elements of the intervention need to be addressed to

determine how the intervention (LETRS strategy) should be improved. The interview protocol,

Appendix B, was used for the second round of interviews to gain insight from the teachers

53
regarding the implementation of the LETRS strategy. Each third grade teacher was interviewed.

The teachers were given the interview protocol two weeks before the interviews were held. This

was done to give the teachers ample time to gather their thoughts before the interviews were

conducted. The interviews lasted an average of 10 minutes in duration. Six of the interviews

were conducted in the principal’s office, while four of the interviews were conducted in the

assistant principal’s office. Both the principal and the assistant principal conducted the

interviews. Teachers were interviewed individually. Teacher responses were recorded,

transcribed, and coded for themes. A matrix was used to code the teacher responses to identify

common themes. The themes derived from the interviews are shared and discussed in this

chapter as pertinent qualitative data,
The following qualitative research questions are also

answered in this chapter.

1. What best practices will be effective to prepare students to score proficiently or

above in reading on the state mandated assessments for third grade?

2. How do teachers describe the reading program prior to LETRS implementation?

3. What elements of the current reading program need to be addressed to improve

reading instruction and learning at Greenleaf Upper Elementary School?

4. What specific factors impact the instruction implementation of the bottom quartile

in reading to move toward and/or achieve proficiency?

Participants

The LETRS strategy was implemented to the students in the bottom quartile during the

2017-2018 school year. The STAR benchmark data from fall and spring assessments in 2016-

2017 for the lowest quartile of students provides a baseline level of growth. Fall to spring

growth for the same group of students is compared to determine if students in the bottom quartile

54
increased their level of growth following the implementation of LETRS. All of the students who

participated in this study were identified as students who performed in the bottom quartile

category in reading and completed the full two years of school at Greenleaf Upper Elementary.

There were 47 students who participated in this study. See Table 7 for student demographic

information.

Table 7

Description of Student Participants

Demographics of Student Participants
Third Grade Bottom Quartile
Gender Male 23
Female 24
Race/Ethnicity African-American 11
Caucasian 32
Hispanic 4

The teacher participants in this study consist of ten third grade teachers. See Table 8 for

teacher participation information. Nine of the teachers participated in the LETRS training during

the 2016-2017 school year, whereas one of the third grade teachers received partial training

during the 2017-2018 school year. This teacher was not employed at the school until the 2017-

2018 school year, which caused her not to be able to receive the training along with the other

third grade teachers during the 2016-2017 school year. The training involved four face-to-face

training sessions along with 15 online sessions. The online sessions were completed by each of

the teachers at the assigned school during the teachers’ daily 40-minute planning times. A

certificate of completion was awarded to each of the third grade teachers upon their completion

of the LETRS training.

55
Table 8

Description of Teacher Participants

Demographics of Teacher Participants
Third Grade Teachers
Teacher Gender Ethnicity Numbered Years of Teaching LETRS
Training

Teacher 1 Female Caucasian 1 Partial

Teacher 2 Female Caucasian 15 Complete
Teacher 3 Female Caucasian 19 Complete
Teacher 4 Female Caucasian 10 Complete
Teacher 5 Female Caucasian 10 Complete
Teacher 6 Female Caucasian 11 Complete
Teacher 7 Female African-American 8 Complete
Teacher 8 Female Caucasian 15 Complete
Teacher 9 Female Caucasian 9 Complete
Teacher 10 Female Caucasian 24 Complete

Quantitative Results

This section answers the quantitative questions. Question one asks: How did reading

performance improve following the implementation of LETRS? In an effort to determine

improvement in reading performance, actual growth scores for the 47 students from 2016-2017

were compared to the students’ actual growth scores from 2017-2018. Actual growth scores for

each group were computed by comparing students’ beginning of the year cut scale scores to the

end of the year cut scale scores using the STAR reading assessment. The mean actual growth

score from 2016-2017 was 118.68. The mean actual growth score from 2017-2018 was 117.98.

A paired-sample t-test was used to determine whether there is a statistical difference in actual

growth between the pre-LETRS group (2016-2017) and the post-LETRS group (2017-2018).

In an effort to determine the student’s expected growth, the researcher used the

percentile-ranking chart from the STAR reading program. The program grouped the students



56
into a percentile category based upon their cut scale score. The STAR program estimated each

student’s expected end of the year growth based upon his or her fall benchmark assessment

score. This allowed the calculation of yielded growth scores (YGS). Yielded growth scores

were determined by observing each student’s actual growth versus their expected growth from

the fall to the spring using the STAR reading universal screener. Yielded growth scores from

2016-2017 were compared to the yielded growth scores from 2017-2018. The mean yielded

growth score from 2016-2017 was 27.85. The mean yielded growth score from 2017-2018 was

52.15. A paired-sample t-test was used to determine whether there is a statistical mean

difference between the pre-LETRS group (2016-2017) and the post-LETRS group (2017-2018)

upon comparing yielded growth scores. A Shapiro-Wilk test was used as a test of normality to

identify any outliers. The assumption of normality was violated. The Shapiro-Wilk test detected

five yielded growth scores that were more than 1.5 box lengths from the edge of the box in a

boxplot (Laerd Statistics, 2017). Upon inspection of these values, they were not determined

extreme and were kept as a part of the analyzed data. The boxplot shown in Figure 3 shows the

five student participants by number whose yielded growth scores were determined more than 1.5

box lengths from the edge of the box in the boxplot.

57
Figure 3. Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality Boxplot

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics of 2nd Grade Baseline Growth and 3rd Grade Growth After LETRS
Actual Growth Yielded Growth

School Year Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation

2016-2017 118.68 75.602 27.85 71.790

2017-2018 117.98 88.940 52.15 77.306

Upon analyzing the paired sample t-tests for actual growth and yielded growth of both

paired groups, actual growth of the paired groups was (t = -.043, p .966), while yielded growth

was (t = +1.74, p .088). The mean of the actual growth scores differed by .70 points while the

mean yielded groups scores differed by 24.3 points. The difference in actual growth between the

two years was almost zero (See Table 10); however, the positive change in the paired yield

growth scores following implementation of LETRS and Collaborative Classroom was significant

at the .088 level (See Table 11). Thus, there is evidence based on this data that the margin of

58
actual growth over expected growth, as measured by the STAR assessment, for the bottom

quartile of third grade students in the research site school increased following implementation of

LETRS and Collaborative Classroom; yet, it remains uncertain what may have actually caused

this change.

Table 10

Paired Sample t-Test of Actual Growth of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018

Mean -.702
Std. Deviation 110.773
St. Error Mean 16.158
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower -33.226
Upper 31.822
t -.043
df 46
Sig. (2-tailed) .966

Table 11

Paired Sample t-Test of Yielded Growth of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018

Mean 24.298
Std. Deviation 95.688
St. Error Mean 13.958
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
t 1.741
df 46
Sig. (2-tailed) .088

Research question two. Question two asks: Which groups benefited as a result of the

implementation of the action plan? This question could not be answered because of changes to

the action plan.

59
 Research question three. Research question three asks: How did the percentage of

students scoring at levels four and five in 2016-2017 on the STAR Reading assessment compare

to the percentage of students scoring at levels four and five in 2017-2018 on the STAR Reading

assessment and MAAP?” Of the 47 students who performed in the bottom quartile in 2016-2017

(pre-LETRS), four of these students (8.51%) reached proficiency level four on the spring STAR

reading assessment. Only two students (4.25%) of the same 47 students reached proficiency level

four in 2017 (post-LETRS) on the spring STAR reading assessment. None of these students

reached level five, which is the highest level of achievement that can be attained on the STAR

reading assessment.

Research question four. Research question four asks: How did the percentage of

students scoring at levels one, two, and three in 2016-2017 on the STAR Reading assessment

compare to the percentage of students scoring at levels one, two, and three in 2017=2018 on the

STAR Reading assessment and MAAP? Of the 47 students who performed in the bottom quartile

in 2016-2017 (pre-LETRS), three students performed at level 1 (6.38%), while in 2017-2018

(post-LETRS), six students performed at level 1 (12.76%) (See Table 12). Of the 47 students

who performed in the bottom quartile in 2016-2017 (pre-LETRS), seventeen students performed

at level two (36.17%), while in 2017-2018 (post-LETRS), twenty-one students performed at

level two (44.68%). Of the 47 students who performed in the bottom quartile in 2016-2017 (pre-

LETRS), twenty-three students performed at level three (48.93%), while in 2017-2018 eighteen

students performed at level three (38.29%).

60
Table 12

STAR Reading Levels and Percentages

Levels 2016-2017 Percentage 2017-2018 Percentage

Level 1 3 6.38 6 12.76

Level 2 17 36.17 21 44.68

Level 3 23 48.93 18 38.29

Level 4 4 8.51 2 4.25

Level 5 0 0 0 0

In addition, the researcher sought to determine if students increased in levels in the STAR

reading program upon comparing the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 groups. Upon analyzing the

spring 2016-2017 and the spring 2017-2018 levels of the 47 students, six students increased by

one level, 14 dropped by one level, while 27 remained at the same level. Most of the students in

this study remained at the same level, which suggest they did not lose ground from their second

to third grade year. The positive change in yielded growth from the paired sample t-test of the

pre-LETRS and post-LETRS groups would suggest an increase in performance levels four and

five and a decrease in the number of students performing at levels one, two, and three. The

change in cut scale scores by grade as determined by STAR may be the contributing factor for

lack of positive change upon viewing performance levels of the post-LETRS group when

compared to the pre-LETRS group.

Upon analyzing MAAP English Language Arts, and MKAS test scores from the 2017-

2018 group, 46 of the 47 students in this study achieved a level 2 score or above on the MAAP

ELA assessment or achieved a passing score of 926 or above on the MKAS assessments. Being

successful on these assessments allowed the students to be promoted to fourth grade. Mississippi



61
allows third grade students multiple opportunities to achieve a passing score on the reading

assessment. Third grade students are first given the opportunity to achieve level two or above on

the MAAP ELA assessment. If students do not achieve level two or higher, the students are

given the opportunity to achieve a passing score on the first round of the MKAS assessment.

Lastly, if students do not make a passing score of 926 or above on the first round of the MKAS

assessment, they are given a final attempt. Students are required to make a score of 926 or above

on the final attempt. The third grade passing rate for 2016-2017 was 98.1%. The third grade

passing rate for 2017-2018 is 99.5%. The aforementioned passing rates include all students in

third grade. Of the 47 students assessed on the MAAP ELA assessment, 40 passed. Of the seven

students assessed on the MKAS (first round), three passed. Of the four students assessed on the

MKAS (second round), three passed. Table 13 shows each of the assessments, the number of

students who were successful on each assessment, and the passing percentages.

Table 13

Passing Percentages of Bottom Quartile on MAAP and MKAS

State Assessment Number of Students Passing Rate

MAAP ELA 40 out of 47 85%

MKAS (First Round) 3 out of 7 42%

MKAS (Final Attempt) 3 out of 4 75%

MAAP & MKAS 46 out of 47 98%

Qualitative Results

This section answers the qualitative questions. Question one asks: What best practices

will be effective to prepare students to score proficiently or above in reading on the state

62
mandated assessments for third grade? In Chapter Three of this study, ten evidence-based best

practices for comprehensive literacy instruction are shared. Providing students with scaffolding

instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension to promote

independent reading was one of the ten best practices mentioned. Identifying students’ area of

weakness through the universal screening process proved to be effective to address the needs of

each student. The use of varied assessments to inform instruction was also an evidence-based

best practice mentioned in Chapter Three. However, identifying the students’ area of

weaknesses is not sufficient. Teachers were able to see the need for differentiated or

individualized instruction to meet the needs of the students. Small group instruction was also

beneficial in meeting the needs of the students who were performing in the bottom quartile in

reading. Teachers were able to work closely with these students to better understand and address

their gaps in reading. A phonics and phonemic awareness screener was used to determine if

students were in need of phonics instruction. The following teacher statements were noted upon

reviewing the interview protocol phase two responses. Teacher participant seven stated: “The

LETRS program was beneficial for students who struggled with or did not grasp the foundational

skills needed to read. These students had not mastered basic phonemic awareness and phonics.”

Teacher participant five shared how the LETRS strategy was structured to reach the learners in

her group by stating: “Phonemic segmentation is key. Phonemic awareness with sounds,

blends/digraphs to make sounds. The basics allowed phonics instruction to connect letters to

sounds, sounds to words, words to phrases, phrases to sentences, sentences to paragraphs.” In

addition teacher participant six stated: “It really helped my students with fluency and with their

writing. They began doing more and more writing as we went on and also their vocabulary got

stronger.”

63
 Research question two. Question two asks: How do teachers describe the reading

program prior to LETRS implementation? The phase one interview protocol was used to answer

this question. The interview responses were transcribed and coded in an effort to identify

possible themes. The interviews for phase one were held in the principal’s office, coded, and

transcribed for emerging themes. Upon analyzing the qualitative data derived from the phase

one interviews, several pertinent factors came to light, which should be noted as having an

impact upon reading achievement among the third grade students.

Teachers shared they enjoyed using the old reading program (Journeys) within their

instructional practices since the lessons were outlined and the given activities followed the stated

objectives. The reading series also gave a slated list of vocabulary words, which coincided with

each of the stories in the basal reader. This resource was handy and easy to follow, which in

return required less of the teachers in regards to lesson plan preparation. Most of the teachers

had mapped out their submitted lesson plans from the previous years based upon the basal reader

outlined lessons and activities. As stated by one of the veteran third grade teachers, the Journeys

reading series was the first reading program the teachers were given an opportunity to have input

in regards to the selection of the program. A reading textbook committee was formed as a part

of the process in selecting the reading program. Reading teachers from kindergarten through

fifth grade made up a large part of the committee. Because teachers were given an opportunity

in selecting the reading program, the teachers were excited about the selection of the reading

series. Teacher buy-in regarding educational decisions can be a powerful tool in aiding teachers

to feel apart of the process and ensuring the implementation of the selected program.

Although the 3rd grade teachers leaned heavily upon the antiquated reading series, the

series had not been sufficient over the years to address the ever-changing curriculums and state-

64
testing instruments handed down from the state department. The state assessment instrument had

changed each year for the past three years from the Mississippi Curriculum Test, 3rd edition

(MCT3) to Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) to

Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP). The teachers had to pull from other

resources in order to address the standards, which were to be mastered by the students. This

would be time consuming and require the teachers to detour from the basal reading series in

which they had become to enjoy. Unless the teachers searched for additional resources aligned

to the state standards, mastery of skills at proficiency would not become a reality using the

present reading series. However, teachers had developed reading modules by semester in order

to meet the rigor of the PARCC standards. These modules were developed around exemplar

texts, which were selected by the teachers from a list of suggested exemplar texts provided by

the state’s department of education. The third grade teachers used these modules until the

implementation of Collaborative Classroom.

Conceptualizing the qualitative data and finding themes within the data was revealing.

Teachers described their current reading practices as well as what they felt like were their needs

in addressing the skill deficits of their students. Reading comprehension, time, professional

development, and grade level preparation were the emerging themes derived from the phase one

interviews. Literacy instruction in third grade focused more so in the area of reading

comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency. It is to be noted the five components of reading are

phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Comprehension,

vocabulary, and fluency only make up a portion of the components of reading. Teachers stated

their main concern is for their students to comprehend. Teacher participant two stated: “I’m

working on incorporating centers in my room to work with students on their comprehension

65
skills, I have got to get them ready for MKAS.” This is the sentiment of the teachers due to the

fact third grade students are responsible for passing the Mississippi Kindergarten-3 Assessment

Support System (MKAS2). Teachers are very accustomed to using the Renaissance computer-

reading program (STAR) and Accelerated Reader (AR) as tools to enhance their reading

instruction. Teachers use the STAR reading program in order to identify the instructional needs

of their students. The computer program assesses the student’s ability to comprehend and sets a

cut scale score for the students to determine their growth. Students are assigned into one of five

different levels based upon their scale score in the STAR reading program. Students who fall

into the bottom two levels (levels one and two) are usually progress monitored each month to

determine if these students are moving toward proficiency. Proficiency is achieved upon

students reaching levels four and five with level five being the highest level of achievement.

Although there is an implemented process to identify the students who need additional

instructional support in reading, there is not a system to determine if students who enter third

grade have mastered the foundational skills in reading, addressing each of the components of

reading. This is a concern especially since student’s lack of phonics, and phonemic awareness

skills may hinder their ability to comprehend. Teacher participant five expressed: “I would like

some training to help me reach my struggling students.”

Time was a factor mentioned among the third grade teachers. They would like to have

more time to dedicate to their reading instruction. During the 2016-2017 school year, sixty

minutes was allotted on the schedule for reading, while fifty minutes was allotted for English

instruction. Teacher participant seven exclaimed: “If only I had more time.” Teachers were

accustomed to teaching English (grammar skills) and reading in isolation.

66
 Using small grouping as an instructional practice has been a struggle for some of the third

grade teachers. Upon classroom observations, whole group instruction is practiced more often

than grouping students to work in centers or small groups. The teachers realize they are able to

differentiate their instruction for their students more efficiently when they implement small

groups as a part of their instructional practice. Preparation could be a factor since setting up

centers requires identifying the needs of each student as well as having additional resources and

materials in place. In other words, advanced planning must be a priority in order to set up small

groups to ensure the mastery of skills.

In addition to the single focus on reading comprehension and the need for more time for

reading instruction, third grade teachers were very open about their need for professional

development in the area of reading instruction in order to meet the needs of their struggling

readers. It was very enlightening to hear these teachers admit their inadequacies and being open

to receiving training in their area of weakness. Their openness and the identification of their

own needs will be beneficial in their willingness to attend professional development in the area

of reading.

Students’ preparation for third grade was a concern. Some of the teachers shared some of

their students were not ready for third grade and should not have been promoted based upon their

grades and present performance within their classroom. The lack of student preparation seems to

have influenced the difficulty of teachers in reaching some of their students. One of the teachers

expressed her belief of second grade teachers sending students unprepared to third grade on the

premise of knowing these students will automatically have to repeat third grade due to their

inability to pass the MKAS state assessment. Teacher participant ten said: “Students are not

entering third grade on grade level and this is a serious problem.” Since it is a reality students

67
enter each grade not on grade level, it will be imperative for the third grade teachers to focus on

setting up small groups within their classroom in an effort to better address the needs of the

students. This will cause the teachers to differentiate their instruction in order to meet the needs

of all of their students.

The MKAS reading assessment was another resounding theme noted in the teacher

interviews. Most of the teachers interviewed made mention of the MKAS reading assessment

and their desire for their students to experience success. The end of the year MKAS reading

assessment seems to be a driving force behind the instructional aims of the third grade teachers.

Upon interviewing the third grade teachers regarding their academic background, most of

them have taught reading for seven years or more. Only one of the interviewed teachers had

taught reading for less than one year. It was quite striking that one of the more experienced

teachers interviewed had taught reading for seventeen years but stated she had not been afforded

any specific training in reading instruction. One of the veteran teachers mentioned she had

received specified training in years past. All of the teachers interviewed mentioned they were

presently receiving the Language Essentials for Teachers of Spelling and Reading (LETRS)

training. This training is designed to give participants the knowledge of the elements, which

should be included in a reading lesson. The training also assists teachers in identifying the

individual needs of students in reading.

Teachers responded with an array of responses when asked about present reading

strategies they are using within their classroom. Out of the ten teachers, only three of them listed

reading strategies that could be identified as being such. The others gave components of reading,

for example, fluency and comprehension, instead of reading strategies. This may be due to their

68
lack of understanding of what was being asked or it may suggest these teachers are not

knowledgeable of strategies that can be used during their reading instruction.

All of the teachers stated they had identified the students in their classroom who struggle

in reading. Their identification of these students was conducted through the STAR program and

through observation of the student’s classroom performance.

Research question three. Research question three asks: What elements of the current

reading program need to be addressed to improve reading instruction and learning at Greenleaf

Upper Elementary School? The phase-one interview protocol was used to answer this question

along with classroom observations. Only a few reading strategies were mentioned by the third

grade teachers. This group of teachers could benefit from additional training in order to enhance

their repertoire of reading strategies, which in return will allow greater opportunities for student

achievement. Efforts should be made to implement research-based reading strategies proven to

assist all students, but especially those students who are experiencing reading difficulties. The

teachers must be well versed in the components of reading as well. Even though the teachers

were able to give the five components of reading, they did not fully exhibit the ability to state

what each of the components entailed. This observation was made from the phase-one interview

protocol. Knowing the five components of reading and having the ability to provide guidance to

the students in these areas based upon the students’ specified area of weakness will be vital in

assisting these students. The teachers stated they addressed the five components of reading in

their reading instruction on a regular basis, but upon the conducted observation of their

classrooms only the components of fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension were observed.

There is a great need for the teachers to use an assessment to assess the students in phonics and

phonemic awareness since the present reading assessment does not specifically assess these two

69
components of reading. Whole group instruction was observed to be the main instructional

practice. The implementation of small group instruction would be an asset to the teachers as

well as to the students. The implementation of small groups would lead to differentiated

instruction, which would allow each student’s instructional needs to be met.

Research question four. Research question four asks, What specific factors impact the

instruction implementation of the bottom quartile in reading to move toward and/or achieve

proficiency? The interview protocol (phase two) was used to understand the issues affecting

reading achievement at Greenleaf Elementary. The responses from the interview protocol were

transcribed and coded into themes. Reviewing the phase two interview protocol responses,

several themes surfaced. The themes of time, resources, and additional training were among the

major themes. These themes are explained as a part of the qualitative review of the study.

Teachers shared a lack of time as a major factor. Due to the implementation of the new

core-reading program, which required 120 minutes of instructional time, the teachers shared the

difficulty of applying the LETRS strategy. Before it was decided to implement a new reading

curriculum, the original plan was for third grade teachers to exercise small group rotations in an

effort for all third grade students to receive the LETRS strategy. Students were to be grouped

according to their cut scale score/level using their STAR reading data. Due to the time required

for Collaborative Classroom, the research team decided to only expose the students who were

performing in the bottom quartile in reading to the LETRS strategy. The teachers would apply

the strategy during the IDR (independent daily reading) time given within the structured

Collaborative Classroom reading block. During IDR, students are allowed to independently read

a book of their choice. The teachers would normally visit with students and ask them questions

about their reading book to check for comprehension. While students read independently, the

70
third grade teachers were able to work with the students from their class who populated the

bottom quartile in reading to apply the LETRS strategy. Each classroom teacher had no more

than four students who were identified to apply the LETRS strategy. The following responses

from teachers were obtained from phase two of the interview protocol. Teacher participant three

explained: “We needed more one on one time working with the students.” Teacher participant

eight added: “We just needed more time to work with them.” Moreover teacher participant nine

agreed: “Time management was a challenge. I didn’t want to take away activity or math time

from my students just to implement LETRS.”

A collection of materials was provided to the third grade teachers as resources upon their

completion of the LETRS training. However, the third grade teachers shared they were not

trained how to effectively use the materials. Although these resources were not explained for

effective usage, the lack of knowledge for effective usage of the materials did not hinder the

application of the LETRS strategy. The resources were provided to enhance the teachers overall

reading instruction. In addition, some of the teachers expressed the need for additional human

resources. Since the certified teachers were held responsible for implementing the LETRS

strategy, a need arose for the teacher assistants to be trained in an effort to assist the classroom

teacher. This need arose due to the four teacher assistants being shared among the ten third

grade classrooms. The certified teachers felt they could better meet the needs of the other

students while implementing the LETRS strategy to the students who were performing in the

bottom quartile with a teacher assistant being available in the room to assist. Teachers were

asked: “What additional resources would be beneficial to continue the use of the program?”

Teacher participant one responded: “I would like to have an additional teacher assistant in order

to give more support to my students. The teacher assistant could work with some of my students

71
in small groups.” Teacher participant two replied, “As long as I have the assistance. The teacher

assistants worked well with this program this year.” These responses allude to the need for

human resources rather than materials.

It was expressed by several of the third grade teachers the desire for additional training.

The teachers felt the LETRS training needed to be ongoing and not just at the onset. Teachers

also wanted to be able to observe at a different school where the LETRS strategy was being

implemented or to have a trainer to come to perform a live demonstration of the strategy within

the classroom. This would help the teachers with their confidence and assurance of proper

delivery and application of the LETRS reading strategy. Another resounding theme noted is the

need for additional training. Teacher participant five said: “More training is needed to deepen

the understanding of the program. Peer observations would be helpful.” Teacher participant six

expressed: “I’d like a hands-on training with our assistants. I would like to begin sooner than we

did this year.” In addition, teacher participant three explained: “I feel like I need more training

to better implement the program to all my students.”

The factors of time, additional assistance, and additional training were voiced among the

third grade teachers impacting the instructional implementation of the bottom quartile. These

factors will need to be addressed at the assigned school in order to ensure the academic success

of the students in the bottom quartile. Students in the bottom quartile are less likely to move

toward proficiency if these factors are not addressed.

Summary

This applied research used a quantitative and qualitative analysis of data to determine if

the program achieved its goals and to learn how to improve the effort moving forward. The

quantitative results in this study reveal how students in the bottom quartile progressed toward

72
proficiency in the STAR reading program after the implementation of LETRS. The quantitative

data also shows how many of the students in the bottom quartile were successful after being

assessed on the MAAP or MKAS assessments. Students’ actual growth scores of the 2016-2017

group were compared to the 2017-2018 group, as well as yielded growth scores from each group.

Paired sample t-tests were used to determine the difference between the 2016-2017 and 2017-

2018 groups. Actual and yielded growth scores were calculated using cut scale scores from the

STAR reading assessments. Actual growth and yielded scores of both groups showed a

significant difference. The 2017-2018 group may have benefited from the LETRS strategy or this

difference may have resulted from the implementation of Collaborative Classroom. Upon the

researcher comparing STAR levels of the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 groups, six students

increased to the next level, 27 remained at the same level, and 14 dropped by one level. Of the 47

students in this study, none of the students reached level five. The percentage of students in the

bottom quartile who scored at levels one and two increased from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. The

percentage of students in the bottom quartile who scored at levels three and four decreased from

2016-2017 to 2017-2018. The decrease of higher levels and increase of the lower levels in STAR

could suggest these students’ area of weakness was not properly identified or the students needed

more exposure using the LETRS strategy as well as Collaborative Classroom. However, of the

47 students who participated in this study, 46 of these students were successful on the MAAP

ELA or MKAS assessment.

The qualitative results in this study revealed time, resources, and additional training as

major themes. Teachers desired more time to intervene with students in the bottom quartile using

the LETRS strategy. Time was limited due to the structure and time allowance of Collaborative

Classroom. Multiple teachers mentioned the need for additional teacher assistants. The

73
Interview Protocol (phase one) was used to inform the researcher of the initial state of the

reading program at Greenleaf Elementary. The qualitative data from the phase one interview

protocol speak to the fact of limited research based reading strategies along with a lack of

identifying the needs of students regarding the five components of reading. Students have been

identified who are having reading difficulties but their specific reading deficits had been

shunned. These deficits will need to be addressed in order for the students to begin to excel and

to close the achievement gap. There must be efforts made in searching for other resources that

will coincide with the program to address all the components of reading.

The observations conducted revealed teachers and teacher assistants, will benefit from

training in setting up reading groups to better address the needs of the students. There was a lack

of teacher/student engagement upon viewing the interactions between teacher assistants and

students. Student engagement is very important in ensuring students are receiving quality

instruction.

Moreover, this qualitative data yielded results that possibly would not have come to light

through a quantitative study alone. The qualitative study gave valuable insight into teacher

perspectives of the reading program. The teacher perspectives and their attitudes regarding their

instructional practice will yield a greater level of commitment and drive which in return should

lead to an increase in student achievement.

74
 CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this action research study is to identify, implement, and evaluate best

practices in reading improvement in third grade at Greenleaf Upper Elementary in support of a

process of continuous improvement. This chapter includes a discussion and implications of the

study. The chapter will entail how the study was conducted, what can be implied upon the

completion of the study, as well as next steps.

Discussion

Mississippi’s accountability model is used to measure school performance yearly.

Schools are held responsible for academic growth of students and student proficiency. The need

to grow students who perform in the bottom quartile continues to be a major component of

Mississippi’s accountability model. Public schools across the state are faced with the initiative of

addressing the bottom quartile in reading and math. There must be a planned and strategic attack

to address the needs of these students. Schools must invest in research-based activities to meet

the needs of the students. School leaders and teachers must be possess the know-how of

addressing the needs of these students.

The LETRS professional development, a research-based program, was beneficial in

providing teachers an additional reading strategy in their repertoire of strategies. However, the

strategy alone could not be determined as the main contributing factor in meeting the needs of

the students who performed in the bottom quartile. The LETRS reading strategy mimicked

75
module seven of the LETRS modules. The LETRS training consisted of twelve modules. The

LETRS module phonics routine consisted of the following components: statement of goal and

purpose, review of phonics skill, teaching of new phonics skill, word reading, word practice,

dictation, and word meanings with phonics vocabulary. The module was agreed upon to address

the needs of the students, especially the students who were experiencing reading difficulty.

Teachers began implementing the LETRS strategy mid-September of 2017-2018. The research

team met with the third grade teachers initially to share and emphasize the reading strategy and

to assist the teachers in identifying the students who were performing in the bottom quartile

category in reading. The literacy coach for the district was instrumental in providing guidance

for the teachers to ensure effective implementation. The research team met regularly with the

teachers in their professional learning community to track the progress of the identified students

and to offer additional support for the teachers if needed. A culture of collaboration seemed to be

enhanced as a result of these meetings. Teachers became more apt to analyze student data and to

make instructional decisions based upon the data. Teachers became more sensitive to the needs

of their students.

This study was a learning experience. Things don’t always work out as planned. In the

field of education you must always be flexible and adapt to the necessary changes. The

researcher was aware of a possible adoption of a new reading program at the assigned school but

did not anticipate the major changes to the school’s reading curriculum and schedule. The

teachers’ schedule had to be restructured in order to implement the new core-reading program

effectively. This caused a change in the school’s master schedule, which not only affected third

grade but the entire building. In addition, the new core-reading program consumed the teachers’

reading block, which allowed limited time to implement the LETRS strategy. The research team

76
had to be creative to allot time for the teachers to implement LETRS. The teachers in return had

to be conscience of their time during the reading block and manage it appropriately on a daily

basis. The researcher learned that teachers need much support when implementing new

initiatives. There must be a close communication between the administration and teachers.

Collaboration must take place frequently to ensure teacher needs are addressed. Without this

support, teachers can become burdened and discontent which can lead to frustration and negative

effects on student achievement.

The school’s leader must initiate organizational change. The leader must be able to

identify the strengths and weaknesses of the school’s programs, present the data regarding the

strengths and weaknesses, and be able to create an effective plan of action to address the

weaknesses. When teachers are informed and understand the weaknesses of the school’s

programs, they are more apt to follow the leader to address the weaknesses. In this study, the

researcher took a behavioral approach. Northouse (2016) shares the behavior approach focuses

on what the leader does and how the leader acts, and is composed of two kinds of behaviors (task

and relationship). Task behaviors facilitate goal accomplishment, while relationship behaviors

help followers feel comfortable with themselves, with each other, and with the situation in which

individuals find themselves (Northouse, 2016). Even though the teachers were dismayed by the

multiple initiatives they had to undertake, the researcher was able to facilitate the change with

the cooperation of the teachers.

The new core-reading program allowed the teachers to focus on the state standards,

which involved all of the students, while the LETRS strategy allowed the teachers to focus on

the five components of reading (phonics, phonic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and

comprehension). Teachers were able to identify foundational skills students needed to acquire

77
before the students were able to master the standards at grade level in reading. The LETRS

strategy led the teachers to observe the skill gap of the students who performed in the bottom

quartile. With all of these instructional pieces coming together, the instructional practices at

Greenleaf Upper Elementary were enhanced.

Implications

As expected, teachers were very concerned upon hearing about the implementation of

LETRS. The implementation of LETRS was shared with the teachers after their introduction to

the new core-reading program. Teachers wondered how they would manage applying the LETRS

strategy while implementing the new core-reading program. As the qualitative data showed, time

was a prevailing theme before and after the implementation of the strategy. In addition to

implementing a new core reading program and LETRS, teachers were also responsible for

addressing the needs of students who had been identified by the teacher support team as tier two

students. Tier two students would receive their intervention within the classroom and not from

the reading interventionist, as had been the case in previous years. The third grade teachers also

had to ensure these students were progress monitored every two weeks to track their progress.

Teachers were distraught and could not conceive how all of this would be accomplished within

their limited schedule. Several factors could have influenced the results of this study. First, the

teachers were trying to become acclimated to a new core-reading program. Professional

development activities for the effective implementation of the new core-reading program were

ongoing throughout the school year. The teachers had difficulty managing the implementation of

the new core-reading program and the LETRS strategy. Secondly, due to time constraints, the

teachers felt rushed in implementing the LETRS strategy. The teachers voiced the concern of a

lack of time in both phases of the interviews. Thirdly, the bottom quartile can be a difficult group

78
of learners, since these students are already experiencing reading difficulty. Longitudinal data

will be valuable to determine if this same group of students performed in the bottom quartile in

reading from elementary through their secondary school years. The literature review regarding

difficult subgroups speaks to the difficulty of moving this group of learners in an effort to close

the achievement gap.

Third grade is the only grade in the assigned school not departmentalized. Presently, all

third grade teachers teach both reading and math. A decision was made at the end of the 2017-

2018 school year to allow the third grade teachers to departmentalize for the incoming school

year. Five of the teachers would only teach reading, whereas the other five teachers would only

teach math. Teachers were assigned to teach math or reading based upon their end of the year

student STAR data. As noted in Chapter Three, quality instruction is important to ensure student

achievement. Schools must ensure that not only are teachers certified to teach the subjects they

will be assigned but also ensure they are well versed in the assigned subject area.

Departmentalizing in third grade will allow third grade teachers to have a single focus regarding

the subject area in which they will teach.

The teachers were very open to continuing the use of the LETRS strategy. Most of them

commented on how the strategy was beneficial to their students who struggled in reading and

who did not have a strong foundation in phonics and phonemic awareness. The LETRS strategy

will continue to be used at the assigned school with the students who perform in the bottom

quartile or with other students who may lack foundational skills in reading. Additional training

must be provided as expressed by several of the third grade teachers for sustainability. Teachers

may also be able to enhance the strategy upon visiting other schools in the state that are

implementing the LETRS program. The academic success of these students will be tracked as

79
they progress through fourth and fifth grade at Greenleaf Upper Elementary.

Introducing a single, major initiative, and not multiple initiatives, into a school’s

instructional program would be a strong recommendation for future researchers at the assigned

school. When teachers are afforded one initiative at a time, they are more likely to welcome the

change. Introducing multiple initiatives into a school’s instructional program can cause teachers

to become overwhelmed and possibly lose their overall focus in their instructional practices. The

implementation of Collaborative Classroom and LETRS was a mass undertaking at the assigned

school. Both programs were new to the teachers, causing the teachers to learn the new programs

before they could effectively implement them.

The next steps for continuous improvement are being considered at the assigned school.

Third grade teachers along with the literacy coach will meet at the beginning of the school year

with fourth grade teachers who will receive the bottom quartile students who were promoted to

fourth grade. Third and fourth grade teachers will discuss the reading deficits of these students

and develop individualized reading plans based upon the area of need of the student. The

literacy coach will share the LETRS strategy with the fourth grade teachers and offer training.

The training will include fourth and third grade teachers since the third grade teachers mentioned

the need for additional training. Third grade teacher assistants will also participate in the training

session. The training offered to the fourth grade teachers will serve as a refresher training

session for the third grade teachers. Third grade teachers will share what worked well with the

implementation of the LETRS strategy and what did not. The same process will be followed

upon these students moving from fourth grade to fifth grade. The schedules of the third and

fourth grade teachers will be examined in an effort to create more time if possible to implement

the LETRS strategy. A conversation between the researcher and district office personnel in May

80
of 2018 included the possibility of extending the instructional day by 20 minutes for the

elementary schools. For the 2017-2018 school year, the instructional day ended at 2:30 p.m.

Extending the day to 2:50 p.m. will allow the 20-minute extension to the instructional day. The

extension of the instructional day will aid the school in allowing more time for teachers to

address the needs of students in the bottom quartile as well as all students. Since the third grade

teachers will be departmentalized for the 2018-2019 school year, the researcher will inquire if an

additional teacher assistant can be hired. The additional teacher assistant would allow a teacher

assistant to work with one third grade reading teacher instead of multiple teachers. Presently, the

school has four third grade teacher assistants who were shared among multiple third grade

classrooms. The additional teacher assistant will allow more opportunities to work with students

in small groups, meet the academic needs of the students, and support the reading teacher.

81
REFERENCES

82
Allington, R. L. (2011, March). What at-risk readers need. Educational Leadership,

68(6), 40-45.

Anderson, K. (2000, June 18). The reading wars: Understanding the debate over how

best to teach children to read. Retrieved from $$!+..''',"", ".".$-

"-'"#-%"#$-$-$- &"- '-#$-$ -$-"-$ -".

Baker, S., & Smith, S. (1999). Starting off on the right foot: The influence of four

principles of professional development in improving literacy instruction in two

kindergarten programs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 239.

Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1997). Matthew effects in reading: A comparison of latent growth

curve models and simplex models with structured means. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 32, 135-167.

Bomengen, M. (2010, September 23). What is the "whole language" approach to

teaching reading? Retrieved from http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/ post/ 2010/

09/23/what-is-the-whole-language-approach-to-teaching-reading

Cambourne, B (2015, November 01). A brief history of "the reading wars". Retrieved from

http://www.cambourneconditionsoflearning.com.au/conditions-of-learning-blog-spot/-a-

brief-history-of-the-reading-wars

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American

Educator, 22, 8-17.

83
Fien, H., Smith, J. M., Smolkowski, K. Baker, S. K., Nelson, N. J., & Chaparro, E.

(2015). An examination of the efficacy of a multitiered intervention on early

reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48 (6), 602-621. doi: 10.1177/0022219414521664

Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2013) Reading comprehension and

fluency level ranges across diverse classrooms. The need for differentiated

reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly,57 (1), 3-14. doi:

10.1177/001698621460084, 19.

Gambrell, L. B., Morrow, L. M., & Pressley, M. (2007). Best practices in literacy

instruction. New York: Guilford Press.

Helping Struggling Readers. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/helping

Hornby, G., Gable, R., & Evans, W. (2013). Implementing evidence-based practice in

education: What international literature reviews tell us and what they don’t.

Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 3(57),

119-123.

International Dyslexia Association. (2015). Effective reading instruction for students

with dyslexia [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/effective-

reading-instruction/

Kim, J. S. (2008). Research and the reading wars. When research matters: How

scholarship influences education policy (pp. 89-111). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Education Press.

Konstantopoulas, S. (2011). Teacher effects in early grades: Evidence from a

randomized study. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1541-1565.

84
Laerd Statistics (2017). Statistical tutorials and software guides. Retrieval from

https://statistics.laerd.com/

Lipsey, M. W., Farran, D.C., & Hofer, K. G., (2015). A randomized control trial of the

effects of a statewide voluntary prekindergarten program on children’s skills and

behaviors through third grade (Research Report). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt

University, Peabody Research Institute.

Literacy-Based Promotion Act, S.B. 2157, Regular Session. (2016).

Lyon, R., & Chhabra, V. (2004, March 1). Membership. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar04/vol61/num06/The-

Science-of-Reading-Research.aspx

McNamara, J.K., Scissons, M., & Dahleu, J. (2005). A longitudinal study of early identification

markers for children at-risk for reading disabilities: The Matthew effect and the

challenge of over-identification. Reading Improvement, 42(2), 80-97.

Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2008). Matthew effects for whom? Learning Disability

Quarterly, 31(4), 187-198.

National Reading Panel. (n.d.). Retrieved May 08, 2016, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/

research/supported/Pages/nrp.aspx

Ng, C. C., Barlett, B., Chester, I., & Kersland, S. (2013). Improving reading performance for

economically disadvantaged students: Combining strategy instruction and motivational

support. Reading Psychology, 3 (3), 257-300. doi:10.1080/02702711.2011.632071

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Protopapas, A., Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., & Simos, P. G. (2011). Matthew effects in

reading comprehension: Myth or reality? Journal of Learning Disabilities,

85
 44(5), 402-420. doi:10.1177/0022219411417568

Renaissance Learning. (2017). Relating STAR reading and STAR math to the Mississippi

assessment program (MAP) Tests. Retrieved from

http://research.renaissance.com/research/380.asp

Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R. D., Montanaro, E. A. Speece, D. L., &

Schatschneider, C. (2012). Effects of a Tier 2 supplemental reading

intervention for at-risk fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 78 (3),

318-334.

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Shaywitz, S., Fletcher, J., Holahan, J., Shneider, A., Marchione, K., Stuebing, K., . . .

Shaywitz, B. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at

adolescence. Pediatrics, 1351-1359.

Snow, C. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Sparks, S. D. (2011, April 08). Study: Third grade reading predicts later high school

graduation [Web log post]. Retrieved from http: //blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-

school-research/2011/04/the_disquieting_side_effect_of.html

Williams, B. (2003). Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and

practices. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Wragg, E. C., Wragg, C. M., Haynes, G. S., & Chamberlin, R. P. (1998). Improving

literacy in the primary school. London: Routledge.

86
Wright, C. (2016). Mississippi Department of Education releases district-level achievement gap

data. Retrieved from http://www.mde.k12.ms/TD/news/2016/11/10/mde-releases-

district-level-achievement-gap-data

Wright, C. (2015). Third grade reading summative assessment test blueprint and sample item

booklet. Retrieved from http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/OSA/MKAS/parent-resources

87
LIST OF APPENDICES

88
APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol Phase I

89
Interview Protocol Phase I

Research Topic: Improving reading achievement

Research Questions:

• What do teachers perceive has attributed to the decline of reading achievement at

Greenleaf Upper Elementary?

• What should happen next to improve reading achievement?

Conceptual Framework: literacy instruction, difficult subgroups, and student achievement

Teacher Survey Questions: (administered to 3rd grade teachers).

Icebreaker:

1. (Describe for me your classroom during your reading instruction; what would I see

upon entering your classroom during this time)

Academic Background:

2. What specific training have you been afforded in reading instruction?

3. How long have you taught reading?

4. How long have you taught reading at Greenleaf Upper Elementary?

5. Which subject area do you feel you are the strongest (reading or math)?

Program Components:

6. How are you using the present reading program within your classroom (Journeys)?

7. What reading strategies have you found to be most effective?

90
8. What research based reading strategies are you presently using during reading

instruction?

9. Have you identified the students in your class who struggle in reading?

10. Upon the identification of your struggling readers, which subgroup are these students

categorized?

11. Are you familiar with the 5 components of reading? If so, tell me about them.

12. Are these 5 (components) taught frequently within your reading instruction?

13. Describe your current reading block.

91
APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol Phase II

92
Interview Protocol Phase II

Program Impact:

1. Have you observed any changes in your student’s reading achievement since the

implementation of the LETRS program?

2. Were these instructional practices more effective with certain subgroups?

Sustainability:

3. Would you like to continue using the LETRS program? If not, why?

4. What additional resources would be beneficial to continue the use of the program?

5. Are there presently any challenges needing to be addressed?

6. What recommendations would you give upon implementing this program?

93
APPENDIX C: Action Plan

94
Action Plan

I. Implementation of the LETRS Training

The program is designed to assist teachers in addressing student’s area of need

regarding the components of reading (phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency,

comprehension, vocabulary)

Strategy A: To provide focused and explicit reading instruction to struggling students

• Goal: To provide training to teachers in the area of reading to equip them

in meeting student needs in reading

• Why: Student’s reading instruction should be focused on their individual

need

• Actor(s): Principal, Third Grade Teachers

• Cost: Online training; Face to Face Training (Hybrid); Low Cost

Strategy B: Differentiate Instruction and provide intervention

• Goal: To increase the number of students who score proficient on the state

assessment in reading/language arts

• Why: An increase in proficiency scores will yield the school to achieve a

greater accountability score through the state department

• Actor(s): Principal, Teachers

• Cost: Low Cost

95
II. Utilization Professional Learning Communities to Improve Reading

Achievement

Strategy A: Improve reading instruction

• Goal: To improve the instructional practices of the educators

• Why: Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) is proven to be the best

way to improve instructional practices

• Principal, 3rd Grade Teachers

• Cost: Low time cost; Weekly PLC meetings

Strategy B: Grow all students toward proficiency

• Goal: Professional Learning Communities will enhance the culture of the

school and encourage collaboration of teacher

• Why: A healthy culture and collaboration of teachers is vital to increase

performance of teachers and students

• Actor: Principal, 3rd Grade Teachers

• Cost: Low time cost: Weekly PLC meetings

III. Benchmark Assessments

Strategy A: Use the STAR Reading Program to Assess Students Each Benchmark

Period

• Goal: Student achieves target score for each screening period

• Why: To ensure students are moving toward proficiency

• Actor (s): Principal, 3rd Grade Teachers, Data Coach

• Cost: Low

Strategy B: To Inform Instructional Practice

96
 • Goal: Classroom Instruction is Individualized

• Why: To meet and address the needs of the student

• Actor (s): Principal, 3rd Grade Teachers, Data Coach

• Cost: Low

IV. Instructional Intervention

Strategy A: Intervene with students who are in the bottom quartile in reading

 Goal: To provide remediation and extend instructional support

 Why: To assist students to achieve growth and close the achievement gap

among their peers

 Actor (s): 3rd Grade Teachers

 Cost: Low

97
APPENDIX D: Logic Model

98
Logic Model

 
  


LETRS
Professional
Development
Classroo
m


Activitie
Adequate Effective

use by Implement
Observati s are

Teachers of ation of
(Online & Face to ons Impleme LETRS LETRS

Face) nted to
Administr activities Training
ation address


the Five Sharing of
Formative
Compon Effective
Scheduling of Reading Assessme
ents of Mastery of


Block nts Instructional
Classroom Reading Practices Standards
PLC Teachers

Meetings
and Increase Inform All
in
Implementation of Assistants
Collabor
Instructional Students

LETRS Practice of and
ation Teachers Subgroups
STAR
and Achieve



Benchmar
Teacher End of
k

Testing
Expertis Year

e Students Target

Students
Meet or Growth

Exceed
Sh

Evaluation Questions: 1. How did reading performance improve following the implementation
of LETRS? 2. Which subgroups benefited as a result of the implementation of the action plan? 3.
How did the percentage of students scoring at levels four and five in 2016 compare to the
percentage of students scoring at levels four and five in 2017 on STAR? 4. How did the

99


 

1
00
Experience

• 2000-2002 Elementary School Teacher at Central Elementary, Oxford, MS

• 2002-2003 Assistant Principal of Central Elementary, Oxford, MS

• 2003-2004 Principal of Central Elementary, Oxford, MS

• 2004-2006 Principal of Lafayette Elementary School

• 2006-2018 Principal of Lafayette Upper Elementary

Education
• Graduate of Bruce High School, 1990

• College Student at Northwest Community College, Senatobia, MS 1990-1992

• University of Mississippi
Bachelor of Arts in Education, 2000

• University of Mississippi
Masters of Education, 2003

• University of Mississippi
Doctorate Degree in Educational Leadership, 2018

Honors
• Beta Club Student at Bruce High School, Graduated with Honors

• Robert W. Plants Student Teaching Award, The University of Mississippi

April 13, 2000

Skills
• Curriculum Leader
• Relationship Builder
• Technologically Inclined
• Effective Communicator


1
01