ED 392 272

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

CONTRACT

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICE

DESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

FL 023 616

Kraft, Richard; Ana Others

Grass Roots Middle School Reform: Culturally and

Linguistically Diverse Students in a Low SES

District.

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education,

Washington, DC.

Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages

Affairs (ED), Washington, DC.

95

T295005001

73p.

NCBE, 1118 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20037.

Reports Descriptive (141)

MFOI/PC03 Plus Postage.

Change Strategies; *College School Cooperation;

*Cultural Pluralism; Economically Disadvantaged;

Educational Change; *Educational Innovation; *High

Risk Students; Inservice Teacher Education;

Intermediate Grades; Junior High Schools; *Low Income

Groups; *Middle Schools; Program Descriptions;

Program Effectiveness

Design and implementation of a program to improve

education for a culturally diverse middle school population in an

economically disadvantaged area are described. The program involved

cooperation of the University of Colorado-BUENO Center for

Multicultural Education and a nearby school district. In the two

participating middle schools, students ranked low in the state in

academic achievement and were at high risk for dropping out of

school. The federally-funded program was designcd to increase student

achievement and self-esteem through teacher and paraprofessional

development courses, affective education, funding for Spanish and

Englisl, literacy instructional materials, support for mentoring, and

a 2-week study program in 1-lexico for teachers. The report first

provides background information about new national educational goals,

principles for work with limited-English-proficient students,

approaches to systemic reform, changing demographics and resulting

needs, and educational research and theory on achievement. It then

describes the program, including school-level needs, nature of

school/university collaboration, resources and needs assessment.

objectives, project model, key program elements (affective,

bilingual, and multicultural coursework for teachers, book fairs and

workshops, mentoring program, school tutorial and enrichment

programs, study in Mexico, affective education curriculum), and

lessons learned. The program is not formally evaluated here. Contains

42 references. (MSE) ***********************************************************************

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. * ***********************************************************************
Grass Roots Middle School Reform:

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

Students in a Low SES District

S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(Alice 01 Ldiniational nosnaich and implovenneni EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organreation

Originating it

0 Minor Changes have been made to

Improve reproduction quality Points ol view Or opinions stated in this die uniin I iin not nire,,,;ortly represent

official 01111 poytionor policy

Richard Kraft

Leonard Baca

Lorenso Aragon

Carmen de Onis

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

ce, C Ld): LIM

To 0HE EDUCATiONAL RESOURCES

;Nv.ORMATION CENTER (EPIC,

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education

(NCBE) is funded by the U.S. Department of Education's

Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages

Affairs (OBEMLA) and is operated under Contract No.

T295005001 by The George Washington I lniversity. Center for Education Policy Studies/Institute for the Study

of Language and Education. The contents of this publication are reprinted from the NCBE Resource Collection. Materials from the Resource Collection are reprinted "as is." NCBE assumes no editorial or stylistic responsibility for these documents. The views expressed do

not necessarily reflect the views or policies of The George

Washington University or the U.S. Department of Education. The mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by

the U.S. government. Readers are free to duplicate and

use these materials in keeping with accepted publication standards. NCBE requests that proper credit he

given in the event of reproduction.

The Nifleghe

IAN

WASHINGTON DC

Graduate School of Education and Human Development
GRASS ROOTS

MIDDLE SCHOOL REFORM:

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

Students in Low SES Districts

Richard Kraft

Leonard Baca

Lorenso Aragem

Carmen de Onis

BUENO Center for Multicultural Education

University of Colorado, Boulder

Spring 1995
Part I

Part II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Grass Roots Middle School Reform in a Low SES District.

Strategies for Working with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

Introduction 1

The National Education Goals 2

Working with Limited English Proficient Students 3

Systemic Reform 4

Changing Demographics 6

Educational Research and Theory on Achievement 6

The Innovation in Education Project Middle School Reform

A Collaborative Effort Between The University of Colorado BUENO

Center and Franklin School District 10 9

Project Summary 9

School Reform 10

University/School Collaboration 11

The Schools 11

The University 12

Available Resources and Needs Assessment 12

Objectives 13

Project Model 14

Key Elements 16

Affective, Bilingual and Multicultural Education Course Work 17

Book Fair/Workshops 18

Mentoring Program 19

School Programs 20

Mexico Study Abroad Trip

Aff0. education Curriculum 22

Project Findings

Bibliography

Appendices A through F
PART I

Grass Roots Middle School Reform in a Low SES District:

Strategies for Working with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

Leonard Baca & Richard J. Kraft, Professors of Education

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1983 publication of the National Commission on Educational

Excellence, A Nation at Risk, the American educational system has been involved

in one wave after another of reform. While some of the reports have pointed to the

changing student demographics, most ignore the very real educational challenges

facing the students who are most at risk in today's schools. Children who live in

poverty, those who suffer from high mobility rates as is the case of most migrants,

and students with disabilities, have generally not been the focus of most reform

efforts to date. Students from diverse linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds

have received very little attention in the education reform literature. The

Innovation in Education Project (IEP) reported on in this document was a serious

attempt to address both the theoretical and practical underpinnings necessary to

enact effective, bilingual/multicultural restructuring in two lower socioeconomic

middle schools with student bodies made up of 50% Hispanics/Latinos. A strong case can be made that many school reforms, advocated and

implemented over the past twelve years, have impacted negatively on minority for

children in general and specifically on children with Limited English Proficiency

(LEP). While efforts have been made to; establish higher standards, lower dropout

rates, increase basic skills, prepare better teachers, align the curriculum to fit

students, improve school attendance, implement the use of technology, focus on

site-based management, and provide for parental choice and participation, little has

been done to meet the unique needs of LEP students. In fact, with the publicity of

English Only Movements in various states, along with growing attacks on

affirmative action by prominent academics and the congressional cutting of federal

programs which serve the poor and the underprivileged, such as "Head Start" and

bilingual education, we are inclined to join Jonathan Kozol (1991) in suggesting that

"savage inequalities" are inherent in our educational system, more so today than at

the inception of the current reform movement. After having reviewed the literature related to the Goals 2000, it is our belief

that this initiative was developed primarily for political expediency and without

adequate consideration of the student population of the 1990s, particularly that

segment of the population labeled as language minority students. Furthermore, it is

apparent that in its inception, little or no attention was paid to the sociocultural

context in which schools operate and how this impacts on educational practice. In

short, the goals have been built on questionable assumptions that create a mismatch

between the goals and the students and schools they wish to reform (Baca, Escamilla,

& Carjuzaa, 1994).
Failure to take a grass roots or bottom up approach to reform by considering

student needs and community characteristics as the center of this reform has led

researchers such as Cardenas (1991) and Ogbu (1992) to assert that these initiatives

are not sufficient for the development of a comprehensive plan addressing current

educational problems. Cardenas summarized these concerns by stating that they fail

to address the most severe problems of the educational system: the perception of

atypical students as being deficient, the inability to distinguish between lack of

experience and lack of capability, low levels of expectations, and incompatible

materials and methodology between schools and students. If the Goals 2000 and

other current reform initiatives do not provide direction, support and resources to

address these inadequacies in existing schools, efforts at reform will continue to

yield disappointing results.

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS

Although the National Education Goals (1994) currently driving the

educational reform movement indirectly point to the challenges and needs of our

poor, minority and LEP student populations, given the new political and economic

realities of our nation, e.g., the present cuts by Congress to programs such as Head

Start, the likelihood of significant reforms coming to pass are minimal. Further

analysis of these goals will serve to shed light on this dilemma.

Goal (1) calls for all children to start school ready to learn, through provision

of quality preschool programs for children, in need, parental training and support,

and nutrition and health care. This goal is nearly impossible to meet, in a time of

balanced budget amendments, shifting costs from the Federal to the state and local

governments, and calls for the cutting back or elimination of Head Start, Women's

Infant and Child Health and Nutrition Programs, and most welfare programs. In

addition, thrs goal presupposes a deficit mind set applied to certain populations of

students entering school at the Kindergarten level.

Whereas Goal (2) se t. ks to raise the high school completion rate to 90% by the

year 2000, given the 30-50% minority and LEP dropout rates in many urban areas

and the continuing cutbacks in state and local funding, to say nothing of the life

chances of being stuck in a minimum wage job even with high school graduation,

this goal too appears to be unrealistic. Narrowing minority and majority

achievement gaps along with the improvement of citizenship caii9d for in Goal (3),

seems unlikely to be accomplished in light of the current "high stakes" standards

guiding the national curriculum movement and the examination boards. In spite

of the rhetoric about authentic assessment and site based management and political

movements to return power to the states, there is equally strong pressure towards a

more nationally controlled educational system.

The call to raise the percentage of students who are competent in more than

one language has obvious implications for LEP students. Regrettably this goal is

generally interpreted as teaching monolingual English speakers a second language

(L2) and LEP students English, rather than the maintenance of primary language

(Li) competence on the part of native speakers of Spanish, Chinese, or the many

other languages which LEP students bring to the classroom. Practices such as these
and teacher preparation are considerations in the instruction of these students.

Other than a perfunctory call for teachers to be prepared to teach increasingly diverse

student populations, Goal (4) ignores the decreasing number of teachers of color entering the profession and says nothing about the need for teachers to be

competent in more than one language.

Goal (5) calls for being number one in the world in science and mathematics.

It sounds equally irrelevant to children who haven't been given a chance to learn

basic communication or arithmetic skills. Adult literacy and lifelong learning is

Goal (6). At a time when K-12 programs are seeing rising class sizes and a

diminution in local, state and federal funds and when college loan and grant

programs are facing massive cutbacks or elimination, poor, minority and LEP

students are at even greater risk of falling behind their more affluent classmates.

The call for safe, disciplined and drug-free schools in Goal (7) is welcomed by every

parent, educator, and citizen of the country, but the futility of reaching the goal

through Just Say No, DARE, Three Strikes and You're Out, prisons, delinquency

centers, and minimal gun control, is all too clear. The inclusion of "bilingual"

parents in the greater involvement of parents in the schools in Goal (8) is the only

direct reference to the millions of LEP persons in our society.

WORKING WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS

In contrast to Goals 2000, recent meetings of national panels on LEP students

do provide a series of recommendations which need to be addressed by the current

reform agenda (August, 1994). Among the recommendations are:

1) The inclusion of persons knowledgeable and concerned about the

education of LEP students on all national, state and local panels.

2) Content standards should reflect the best available knowledge about how

LEP students learn and about how the content can be most effectively

taught to them.

3) The standards should acknowledge the importance of the abilities in the

non-English languages of LEP students, through the development of

foreign language standards that accommodate these students for whom

another language is their native language.

4) High expectations for all children will further the cause of educational

equity.

5) LEP student who are instructed in their native language should be

assessed in that language and these assessments should parallel content

assessments and performance standards in English. Modifications in

assessments and procedures would be encouraged to enable LEP students

to take content assessments in English.
6) States should develop systems of school and LEA accountability that fully

incorporate LEP students. States should set a limit on how long LEP

students can be waived from taking the same performance assessments in

English as their English-speaking peers.

7) There is a need for research and development if LEP students are to be

equitably and fully incorporated into systemic reform.

8) Native Americans must participate in the formulation of plans. standards

and assessment in the areas of Native American language and culture,

and also in coordinating plans, standards and assessments.

9) Assessments of workforce skills should be developed and conducted in the

native languages of students substantially represented in the United

States.

Suffice it to say, that if these recomraendations are followed, we believe that

many of our concerns about the past twelve years of educational reform will be

alleviated and the possibilities of educational equity will be greatly enhanced.

SYSTEMIC REFORM

We do not wish to take a completely negative tone on the current attempts at

systemic national reform, but do sincerely believe that far too little rhetoric, to say nothing of action, addresses the needs of most LEP students. The current

educational reform movement and the national political scene do not appear to be

very receptive to the needs of poor, minority and LEP students and a strong case

could be made that the educational reform movement of the past twelve years has

failed to make a difference, precisely because it has ignored this needy and growing

proportion of the student population. The question still remains as to why little

attention has been given to such well-documented areas of need and why proven

interventions such as Head Start, bilingual education, and parent-education

programs are under constant attack, rather than receiving the support that might

begin to solve some of the broader social problems facing our society. Sarason (1990,

35-36), in his provocative book The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform,

comes up with a possible explanation:

Any educational reform that does not explicitly and courageously own up

to issues surrounding changing patterns of power relationships is likely to

fail ... that the strength of the status quo--its underlying axioms, its pattern

of power relationships, its sense of tradition and therefore what seems

right, natural, and proper--almost automatically rules out options for

change in that status quo.

4
To seriously confront the issues of multicultural and bilingual education

would force a rethinking of power relationships in American society, to say nothing

of changing a wide range of educational traditions. Thus it was perhaps predictable

that most of the problems identified 12 years ago have proven intractable and

almost impervious to the attempted reforms. It is not sufficient, however, to blame

the politicians, as educational researchers and policy analysts promised far more

than they could deliver and subsequently scapegoat the practitioners in the schools

for not being able to solve societal problems caused by forces outside the control of

the school. Clark and Astuto (1994) conclude that:

The education reform movement of the 1980s and 1990s has produced

disappointing results. Policy makers who have labored over Federal, state

and local reform initiatives blame these results on the reluctance or

incompetence of practitioners. Educators who work at the school and

classroom levels blame policy makers for their lack of understanding of

the real life of schools. Many of the parties involved blame the victims. . . . Everyone wants to blame the delivery systems that fragment the social,

medical, psychological, nutritional, and educational resources and services

provided for children.

While the Innovation project did not seek to tie all the delivery systems

together, it did make a serious attempt to deal with a range of factors in the schools,

rather than just one small component. Most reform documents advocate giving

LEP and minority children "more of the same" (i.e., that which has not worked for

them in the past). If these students have not mastered English through ten years of

regular English classes, then is it likely that two more years of the same English

classes will solve the problem? If they are dropping out of middle and high schools

at totally unacceptable rates, then will toughening attendance laws and raising

entrance and exit requirements at various levels improve the situation? If they are

performing at lower levels than their majority, English speaking peers, then will

tougher assessments lead to higher performance? Will new curricular standards

make any difference, if the curriculum remains fragmented into 50 minute periods? Will teacher's attitudes be changed and alienation lowered if they are still

confronted with up to 150 students per day? It appears that there is an ever

increasing number of LEP and students from low socioeconomic groups failing,

which in turn serves to perpetuate the status quo. Neither the political nor

educational establishments of this country have made any serious a ttempt to

confront the special needs of these students during the past decade of the

educational reform movement. With the recent changes in Washington and the

national political climate, we fear the abandonment of these children at a time

when society can ill afford to not educate them for the complexities of the twentyfirst century.
CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS

With the massive immigration of the past two decades, the immigrant

experience is still fresh in the minds of millions of new American adults and

children. This experience has seldom been a pleasant one in either the broader

society or the school. For most immigrant children throughout our history, the

curriculum and pedagogy of the school can be considered anything but friendly.

Only with the advent of whole language programs, constructivist approaches to

instruction, and scaffolding upon students prior knowledge, has the dominant

culture begun to permit the lived-experiences of students to enter the classroom.

Unfortunately, these hopeful signs are limited to lived-experience as expressed in

the English language. Too often, the language and culture of the family have been

ignored or put down and an alien or imposed reality substituted. Children are still

forced to choose between family and school and go on to become "cultural

schizophrenics" (Nieto, 1992).

While it would be foolhardy to claim that bilingual education, multicultural

education or any other program will solve the broad economic, political, social and

educational challenges facing our society today, it is equally naive to believe that

educational reforms which. ignore the research on language and culture can be other

than doomed to failure. It is not just the minority or LEP students who are being

deprived of the benefits which result from this knowledge, but also the dominant

culture, English speaking students who will never experience a truly multicultural,

bilingual education. There are a range of theories or explanations for differential

achievement by various ethnic and linguistic groups in the United States and it is

important to once again reiterate these, as the Inno vation in Education project

reported on in this document attempted to confront some of the issues raised by

researchers and theoreticians.

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND THEORY ON ACHIEVEMENT

One of the needs addressed by the Innovation in Education program was the

gap in achievement between the majority and minority students in the two middle

schools. Many of the components reported on later in this document were designed

to address this problem. There are many theories which attempt to explain

achievement differentials and we shall quickly summarize these. The role of

teacher interactions and expectations of students in student achievement was coined

by Merton (1948) and popularized by Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) in their important,

but controversial book, Pygmalion in the Classroom. The effect of teachers'

expectations on the academic achievement of students has been taken seriously now

for the past quarter-century, whereas previously failure was likely to be ascribed

wholly to individual failure or family factors. The heredity theory has been around

for centuries, but was again popularized by Jensen (1969) and more recently by

Murray and Herrnstein in The Bell Curve (1994). These theorists and researchers

suggest that variations in intelligence and achievement are the result of hereditary

differences in conceptual and problem-solving skills and in symbolic thinking.

1 1
Anthropologists tend to reject simplistic racial and ethnic categories, holding that

race is a cultural construct dependent more on the classifier's own cultural norms

than on any biological unit of nature.

Throughout the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties, the cultural

deprivation theory became the dominant explanation for the gap in achievement.

The Coleman Report (1966), Equality of Educational Opportunity, was perhaps the

most influential of all the major reports of this era; and Moynihan (1965), now

Senator from New York, attributed some of the differential to poor home

environments and the cultural backgrounds from which children came. Parents

were "blamed" for not providing the appropriate cultural, cognitive, linguistic and

other skills necessary for their children to succeed in school. While the words

"cultural deprivation" are used less today, particularly among scholars, the concept

is still used in much of the political rhetoric. The reverse, "cultural advantage," also

entered the explanatory causes of differential achievement through Schwartz (1971)

and Vernon (1982), among others. This was put forward to help explain the success

of some minority groups as compared to others. Parental control and authority,

achievement motivation, family honor and a range of other cultural variables were

given as reasons for success. The concept of the "good" minorities, that is those

whose cultures more closely matched the dominant society, entered the discussion

during this period. Structural factors in schools have become increasingly important in

explaining differential achievement. The tracking of minority students, particularly

those with limited English proficiency, has been.documented by numerous studies. Braddock (1990) found that the practice of ability grouping was much more

prevalent in schools with large populations of La tino and African-American

childre i. Other research has pointed to the over representation of LEP students in

special education and low track classes. Testing is a second area in which minority

and LEP children are affected and it is one of the reasons that the bilingual

community has called for improved and more equitable assessment procedures.

The treatment of minorities in textbooks has been studied for many years, but as

:7ecently as 1991, Sleeter and Grant found women and people of color still under

represented in school texts and portrayed in more limited roles than white males.

They also found few books dealing with contemporary race and ethnic relations.

Other structural factors affecting school achievement have been identified such as

the curriculum, disciplinary procedures, the physical structure of the schools, the

teaching methods used by teachers, and the involvement of parents in their

children's education. Many of these structural factors were addressed by the

Innovation in Education Program. Cultural conflict theorists reject the cultural deprivation model and argue

that children do well or poorly in school, depending on how similar or different

their culture is from the mainstream culture and attitudes. When the home and

school are in conflict, children's achievement and other measures of school success

suffer (Valentine, 1968). Numerous other researchers have studied such things as

learning style differences (Witkin, 1962; Stodolsky & Lesser, 1971), communication

style (McDermott, 1982), and "wait times" (Tharp, 1989), to mention but a few of the

cu 1 tu ra 1 conflicts.

2

7
Societal and school discrimination is a structural explanation used by such

theorists as Bowles & Gintis (1976) and contemporary neo-Marxist critics. Ogbu

(1978), emphasizes the perceptions of opportunity and the feeling on the part of many minorities, particularly what he calls "cast-like" or "involuntary" minorities--

African-Americans, Latinos and American Indians--to not be allowed to compete for

the most desirable roles in the society. These groups begin dropping out in alarming

numbers by their sophomore year in high school (Rumberger, 1991).

Continued practices of curriculum differentiation, ability grouping, and

tracking has negatively impacted on Mexican-American students and made them

the most segregated group in our nation's public schools (Donato & Orris, 1994). Not

only do these students physically drr-r, out in high school, but as early as "the fourth

and fifth grade, many Mexican-Americans become psychological dropouts,

appearing to withdraw mentally from school. This withdrawal is characterized by

boredom, failure to work, inattentiveness, and behavior problems" (Ogbu & MatuteBianchi, 1992, p. 115).

These issues, as well as the theoretical differentials discussed in achievement,

played an integral part in not only the inception of the Innovations in Education

Project, but in its actual implementation at tne middle school level. Student selfconcept and motivation, pedagogy in the classroom, the structure of schooling,

interactions between staff, parents and students, and cultural and linguistic

knowledge were components of the educational innovation effort. Part II of this

monograph details just how this took place and.highlights the successes and failures

in addressing the following five identified needs:

1. To provide a delivery system to avoid fragmentation of the curriculum

and equitable learning for all students among and between grade levels;

2. To develop a system of articulation and sharing among all classroom

teachers, programs and administrative staff;

3. To train all staff in strategies in multicultural education for developing

students' linguistic literacy skills;

4. To improve school climate through affective learning experiences, and

the development of students' positive self esteem; and

5. To lessen t}-;, gap in achievement between the majority and minority

students.

1 3

8
PART II

THE INNOVATION IN EDUCATION PROJECT

Middle School Reform:

A Collaborative Effort Between

The University of Colorado - BUENO Center

And Franklin School District 10

Carmen de Onis & Lorenso A ragon

PROJECT SUMMARY

The University of Colorado-BUENO Center for Multicultural Education,

Boulder, Colorado, and a neighboring school district, Franklin School District 10,

participated in an Innovations in Education Project (IEP) designed to serve students

from low socioeconomic and linguistically diverse backgrounds at Grant and

Lincoln Middle Schools. These students rank amongst the very lowest in academic

achievement for the State of Colorado and many drop out of school at an early age.

Due to an increase in immigration to this area during the past five years, the

demographics have changed dramatically with the Hispanic/Latino population

reaching 50% throughout this school district.

The IEP Grant was implemented during the 1993-1994 academic school year

and was designed to increase the academic achievement and self esteem of these

students by means of school site based reform in both affective and bilingual/ multicultural restructuring at the middle school level. This effort was

implemented at Franklin School District 10 in collaboi.ltion with the University of

Colorado-BUENO Center, with funding secured through the US Department of

Education, Secretary's Fund for Innovation in Education.

The main thrust of the grant was to assist students, paraprofessionals, and

teachers via activities which included: 1) university course work, 2) methods and

strategies in English/Spanish as a Second Language (ESL/SSL) and bilingual/

multicultural education, 3) affective education, 4) stipends for purchasing materials

for the promotion of literacy across the curriculum in both Spanish and English, 5)

professional leave and pay for teachers and paraprofessionals to attend workshops,

mentor students and conduct outside school activities with students and parents,

and 6) a two week study abroad of Mexico's public education system.

The pu Tose of this section is to provide a past and present day perspective of

school reform at the middle school level utilizing a "bottom-up" approach to school

reform. The focus being the primary participants in the schools and the university

in a secondary position serving as a facilitator, with support from federal funding.

1 4

9
SCHOOL REFORM

Problems of Practice:

Reform strategies have historically been innovations imposed on schools

from outside agencies (e.g., higher education research projects, top-down projects

imposed by the central administration offices, district policy changes, etc.). Many of

these reform programs have subsequently failed because they did not consider

several critical features. These include whether or not; the reform addressed

specific student needs, the reform was supported by the community, teachers and

school administration, the school had the mechanisms to sustain and support the

reform effort, and if this effort was context specific (Corner, 1980, 1988).

As a result of the above, such "innovative programs" have often failed to

improve student achievement or school climate, and in some cases have also

negatively impacted school staff. Perceived failure of an innovation causes schools

and teachers to lose heart and become passive and non-developmental. Moreover,

professionals working in this type of environment are not empowered to take

responsibility for the success or failure of a specific innovation since they had little

or no input into the decision to implement it (Walker, Hood and Rodgers, 1991).

Schools tha t are forced into using pre-packaged solutions for improvement

usually implement them in a rote and proceduralized manner (Levine & Cooper,

1991). These schools, as a result, are not self-directing environments which can

assume responsibility for their own renewal and innovation (McDonnell, 1989).

Walker, Hood & Rodgers (1991) and Cummins (1989) found that meaningful change

in educational environments is highly correlated with the following factors: 1) the

teaching staff has to "buy-in" to the proposed innovation and has to cooperate in its

implementation; 2) the innovation has to be context specific and be directly related

to the students and staff at a particular school; 3) the school's administration must

support the proposed change; and 4) the school must have the human and

monetary resources necessary to support and sustain efforts at innovation.

In keeping with this theoretical framework, the staff and administration

at both Grant and Lincoln Middle Schools identified the goals for this Innovations

in Education Project. Although they had been in the process of implementing them

since 1989, the district had not had the necessary human and monetary resources to

completely implement and evaluate their reform efforts.

This project provided the additional resources necessary to support the

school-identified reform effort which included: 1) instructional strategies related to

the improvement of linguistic literacy, 2) an improved affective educational environment for students and staff development which. focused on high

expectations for all students, and 3) more collaboration among staff members within

and across school sites. The project then set about to provide systemic change at the

middle school level of a lower SES school district which was already in the process

of school reform and needed additional assistance to meet its goals.

1 5

10
UNIVERSITY/SCHOOL COLLABORATION

A Grass Roots Approach:

The IEP Project was conducted utilizing a bottom up approach (i.e., from the

district on site at the two middle schools, to facilitation at the university level). All

participants collaborated to provide input through surveys, questionnaires and

actual participation in course work, mentoring, the piloting of strategies, as well as

school wide activities. Together, school and university personnel specifically

addressed such issues as: teacher attitudes, classroom methods in affective

education, English as a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual strategies, along with

the overall improvement of school climate and student academic achievement.

This Innovation in Education Grant took place at Franklin School District 10,

located north of the Denver Metropolitan area, in one of the largest industrial-based

communities in Colorado, which in part accou.nts for the significant increase of

immigrant population over the past five years. The city's population served by

Franklin School District 1.0 is 25,000, with a student population of 6,139.

Due to the increase of immigration and a fast growing birthrate (Chapas &

Valencia, 1993), in no other place is the increase in Hispanic/Latino population

more evident than in the schools (Donato & Onis, 1994). Meeting the needs of these

students has become a district wide imperative. Out of a total of 2,481 students enrolled in Franklin School District 10 during 1992-1993, 50% were of

Hispanic/Latino origin. Fifty percent (50%) of this population indicated that they

use a language other than English in the home. Out of those who speak another

language (for the most part Spanish), 10.7% or 658 students were categorized as

limited English proficient (LEP). Out of this number, 325 LEP students were at the

elementary schools, 210 at the middle schools, and 123 at the high schools (Colorado

State Department of Education, 1992).

THE SCHOOLS

Grant and Lincoln Middle School/Franklin School District 10:

Franklin School District 10 operates one high school, an alternative high

school, two middle schools, the Burger King Academy, seven elementary schools,

and one pre-school. Although the district has had a previous history of

collaboration with the University of Colorado, low student academic performance

persists and is well below the national average. Many students live at or below the

poverty line and there is an abundance of teen pregnancies and extended families.

All District 10 schools have been involved in an overall school improvement

plan since 1989. The five areas designated by Franklin School District 10 as crucial to

effective schooling are: academic excellence, positive learning climate, organization

and management of the instructional setting, instructional effectiveness, and

parental/community involvement. Focusing on these initiatives, schools provide a

11 1 6
yearly report on each of these areas. In the arena of pedagogy, both middle schools

have been working on instructional practices for bilingual and at risk students.

During the 19934994 school year, Grant Middle School through a Carnegie

Grant began developing a comprehensive health program. Three paraprofessionals

were hired for each of the two middle schools. IEP course offerings throughout the

school year and summer, focused on both affective and bilingual/

multicultural strategies for working with limited English proficient (LEP) students,

as well as at risk students at the middle school level.

THE UNIVERSITY

The BUENO Center:

The University of Colorado-BUENO Center for Multicultural Education is

located in the School of Education at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The

Center has received numerous grants used to fulfill its mission of promoting

bilingualism, cultural pluralism, and cross cultural educational opportunities for

diverse populations. A number of notable programs are funded under their

umbrella by the US. Department of Education, Office of Special Education, Migrant

Education, and OBEMLA.

Founded in 1975, BUENO has been responsible for special projects and

educational opportunities for students, teachers and staff, and has served

communities and universities nation wide. The goal of the BUENO Center is to provide educational equity, bilingual/multicultural education and equal educational opportunities for diverse populations that have been historically

underserved in our educational system. The Center strongly promotes quality

education with an emphasis on research, training and service projects.

AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

At the inception of the IEP Grant, both middle schools were equipped with

computer labs and specialized staff consisting of counselors, nurses, psychologists,

special educators and child advocates. Bilingual programs and bilingual

paraprofessionals were in place at the elementary level. At the middle schools there

was one bilingual paraprofessional at Grant Middle School and one English as a

Second Language (ESL) teacher at Lincoln Middle School. The regular high school

had a bilingual paraprofessional, but as in the case of the middle school, had no

bilingual program.

Screening of limited English proficient (LEP) students was done at both the

elementary and the secondary level using the Language Assessment Scales

(commonly known as the "LAS"). The administration of this test has primarily

been done by paraprofessionals. Although there are bilingual programs in the

elementary schools, the tendency at the secondary level has been to immerse LEP

students into mainstream English classes as soon as possible. Services rendered to

12 1 7
these students have primarily consisted of pulling out the students for tutorial

assistance (by the paraprofessional) and the translation of lessons, with no program

orientation whatsoever or respective planning with classroom teachers. The

implementation of the IEP Grant and continued restructuring efforts by the school

district has greatly improved this situation.

The staff and administration at both Grant and Lincoln Middle Schools, by

means of a needs assessment survey, identified the goals for this Innovations in

Education Project focusing on staff collaboration, increased parental involvement,

improved school environment, high expectations for all students, instructional strategies for linguistic literacy, English as Second Language (ESL), and

bilingual/multicultural education. Taking into consideration the district blueprint,

it was evident that they had been in the process of implementing strategies for

dealing with these concerns for several years. However, as previously mentioned,.

the district did not have the necessary human and monetary resources to completely

implement and evaluate these reform efforts. The IEP Grant provided the

additional resources necessary to support this school-identified reform effort which

included: instructional strategies related to increased linguistic literacy; improved affective education for students; and staff development which focused on

encouraging more effective collaboration among staff at each of the school sites.

The Innovation in Education Project focused on seven objectives in three

major areas:

OBJECTIVES

Instructional Objectives:

1. To improve overall student achievement across the curriculum for students in grades 6-8 in Grant and

Lincoln Middle Schools;

2. To reduce the gap in achievement between minority and

non-minority students; and,

3. To improve student self-esteem and overall school climate through the implementation of after school

enrichment and tutorial activities.

13
Instructional Delivery Objectives:

4. To implement a school schedule that provides focused

and integrated learning opportunities for middle school

students and maximizes staff collaboration and team

building; and,

5. To implement teaching strategies which meet the needs of

diverse students.

Staff Development Objectives:

6. To provide opportunities for teacher enrichment and

other means to improve the status of teachers; and,

7. To guide staff in developing collaborative team-planning

systems in order to establish a system of peer support and

cooperation.

Specific activities for accomplishing project objectives may be found in

Appendix A, Plan of Operation.

PROJECT MODEL

Joining Theory & Practice:

Interventions began in the Fall of 1993 and were carried out through the

Summer of 1994. In October of 1993, two staff development resource teachers and

six bilingual paraprofessionals were hired to assist regular classroom teachers in

meeting the academic and social needs of at-risk students. Since the program's

philosophy was based on a grass roots approach, staff from both middle schools were

provided opportunities to create and articulate a training model which follows.

1 9

14
Multicultural

and

Affective

Education

Coui se

Innovations in Education Grant Model

Cultural

Experience

and

Mexico

Course

Staff

Development

Resource Teachers

and Demonstration

Lessons in

Classrooms

Adopt-A-Student

Mentoring

Program

Grant Middle Schoo/

Lincoln Middle School

Paraprofessionals

Teachers

Staff

After-School

Turtoring and

Enrichment

Program

Students

Bilingual

Paraprofessionals

Working with

Students

Classroom

Teachers

Purchase

Materials

15 20

Mentors

Interact with

Students in

Extra-curricular

Activities
The model proposed by the staff emphasized the working relationship

between the regular classroom teacher and the bilingual paraprofessionals. Staff felt

strongly that reform should begin with course work which would prepare them to meet the academic needs of their students, especially in the area of literacy

development. Staff were also interested in learning strategies for developing

students' self esteem. Taking into account the needs of the staff, two courses dealing

with ESL, Bilingual/Multicultural and Affective Education were provided in the

Fall of 1993 and Spring of 1994. Enrollment in these courses was offered to all

certified and classified staff at the two middle schools. A component of these

courses was the development of a system for peer coaching in which the staff development resource teachers would demonstrate lessons for teachers and

paraprofessionals. In the Summer of 1994, staff participants were provided the

opportunity to study language and culture in Mexico.

In addition, staff development resource teachers provided teachers and

paraprofessionals feedback en teaching strategies learned in class. Furthermore, staff

were encouraged to team-teach and to share these strategies with their colleagues.

An end product of this course work was the development of an affective education

curriculum to be used at Lincoln Middle School, 1994-1995.

Throughout the year, specific programs and extra curricular activities directly

benefit students were developed by the staff. These included an Adopt-A-Student

Program, an After School Tutoring Program and an After School Enrichment

Program. The Adopt-a-Student program provided opportunities for teachers and

paraprofessionals to mentor students. Mentoring activities included going out to

dinner, taking tours of the airport and the University of Colorado campus, attending

a cultural performance, going out to the movies, or helping students with

homework. The After School Tutoring Program provided students one-to-one

assistance with homework. The After School Enrichment Program was designed to

allow students opportunities to explore their talents in the areas of computer

technology, art and dance.

KEY ELEMENTS

By November, 1993, all components of the Innovations In Education Project

were underway at both the middle schools: 1) two staff development resource

teachers were in the schools on Tuesday and Thursday of each week visiting and

working with students and teachers in classrooms; 2) six bilingual paraprofessionals (three at each school) were hired to work with staff and students; 3) the

Multicultural and Affective Education Course was underway; 4) the Adopt-AStudent Mentoring Program was begun with each mentor working with one or two

students for four hours each week.

16
AFFECTIVE, BILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION COURSE WORK

All teachers, paraprofessionals and administrators from both Grant and

Lincoln Middle Schools were provided the opportunity to receive university/

college credit for course work conducted by the staff development resource teachers

and outside consultants to meet the needs of the schools both in the traditional

university class setting and within the schools. The course work spanned three

terms and was designed around a survey (see Appendix B) conducted the fall of 1994

whereby teachers gave input as to their interest and prior knowledge of affective and

bilingual/multicultural methodology. Teacher responses were tabulated into five categories in bilingual education

and seven in affective education. The following topics served as the underpinning

to the development of the university course work:

Bilingual Education:

1) Hands-On Approaches to Learning

2) Cooperative Learning Strategies

3) Interdisciplinary Learning Strategies

4) Multicultural Education

5) Alternative Assessment

Affective Education:

1) Self-Responsibility & Empowerment For Students

2) Working With Students From Dysfunctional Families

3) Motivational Strategies

4) Creating/Altering School Climate

5) Students Who Push Our Buttons

6) Conflict Mediation

7) Adventure/Outdoor/Challenge Education

The courses (see Appendix C and E) were formulated from the above

categories. Although some adaptations took place, these descriptions serve to

profile the course work content and approximate the timing of its delivery over two

semesters and a summer.

Included in course work were topics dealing with cooperative learning

techniques, theories of affective and bilingual/multicultural education, and

ESL/SSL strategies. Staff participants took part in outdoor experiences such as

"challenge courses" and were given an opportunity to pilot lessons in their

classrooms with their own students using the methodology presented in the course.

Many of these students have experienced little success in the public school

system. California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) scores for these middle school

students show that they have trouble with basic math computations, literacy, and

generally fall well below the 50% academically. In addition to this, few have

experienced any activities beyond the confines of the industrial city in which they

1722
live. In addressing this situation along with motivation and behavioral problems

within the classrooms themselves, extensive attention was given to not only

providing outside school experiences for these students, but creating positive

learning environments through active student participation by means of: 1) handson/cooperative learning techniques, 2) heterogeneous grouping, 3) the honoring of

students' language/culture, and 4) the utilization of second language practices (e.g.,

mini Spanish lessons were piloted to entire classes utilizing a sheltered approach).

During the 1993-1994 academic year, teachers were involved in a "grade

clustering" concept in which teachers were provided opportunities to plan with one another by grade level. This planning time provided the vehicle for the

development of thematic units across the curriculum utilizing such technology as

videotaping student presentations and computer projects to enhance students oral

and written skills.

Additional activities that came from "grade clustering" included a unit of study on the Olympics, a Renaissance and Multicultural Fair, and outside

environmental experiences at the YMCA Camp of the Rockies. Extensive

collaboration and interactions between students and staff, (pictures, videos, and

elaborate bulletin boards exemplified these events), provided sharing with teachers,

students, administrators and parents alike. Participants in the class received credit

for the development of affective, bilingual/multicultural curriculum, reflective

journals and shared-experiences in the implementation of model lessons

demonsizating the methods and strategies.

BOOK FAIR/WORKSHOPS

Participants in the Innovations Project consulted on how grant money was to

be spent and worked to set up experience-based activities to maximize the resources

found in the area. In addition to this funding, the IEP Grant provided each

paraprofessional, teacher and administrator, counselor, special educator and nurse

in the class $250 to buy materials. Additionally, the two libraries received

approximately $2,000 to purchase appropriate affective and bilingual resource

materials and books to augment both teaching and learning in the areas of literacy,

science, math, social studies and the arts.

A book fair, conducted by the staff development resource teachers, assisted

class participants in the selection process and sampling of materials for use in their

own classrooms prior to purchase. The publications chosen were authentic in

nature, many written in Spanish (depicting prominant Hispanic/

Latino figures as Cesar Chavez), appropriate to and matching the grade level

curriculum already in use. To maximize these stipends, many class participants

chose to pool their resources (e.g., in one case an administrator, a paraprofessional,

and a teacher were able to buy a whole set of Spanish encyclopedias).

Additional workshops were provided during the school day for middle

school teachers and paraprofessionals. The staff development resource teacl.ers

provided sample lessons in English/Spanish as a Second Language (ESL/SSL), ai d

the content areas of Social Studies, Math, Language Arts, and Science. "In kind

18
services' were provided by the school district through the hiring of one of the staff

development resource teachers to do a series of afternoon sessions to train

paraprofessionals from the entire school district. Since paraprofessionals and

teachers at the two schools felt that they had little or no training in reading, nor the

materials to teach this subject matter, the main focus of these classes was on

linguistic literacy (in both English and Spanish), exploring a variety of contemporary

approaches including "whole language," literature based reading, basic phonetics

and "reading recovery."

MENTORING PROGRAM

Adopt-A-Student:

A component of the Innovation in Education Project was the

implementation of an "Adopt-A-Student" program. Briefly outlined, the "AdoptA-Student" program was designed to provide students opportunities to interact

with teachers outside the normal school day and was intended for students who

were having difficulty being successful in school due to academic, behavior, or

family problems. Ten staff (teachers, paraprofessionals, counselors, etc.) from each middle

school were selected to pilot the program. In most cases selected mentors were each

assigned two students. These individuals were asked to spend at least four hours

per week, outside of the school day, with their mentees. They were paid $10 per

hour for their efforts. Additional funds were provided to pay for mentoring

activities.

Students who could most benefit from the Adopt-A-Student program were

selected by a committee composed of staff from each participating school. Selection

was based on absenteeism, grades, referrals to the office and other factors deemed

important by the selection committee. A log of mentoring activities was kept on each mentee and included the

following information:

1. Documented time spent with each mentee.

2. Identified student needs and records of students' progress.

3. Home contacts made and results of such visits/calls.

4. Non-academic activities completed.

5. Attending after school aci-ivities with the student.

6. Taking the student to a movie, a cultural event, bookstore, etc.

Forms used to monitor progress and to document the success of the Adopt-aStudent program may be found in Appondix D.

2 4

19
SCHOOL PROGRAMS

From its inception, the Innovations in Education Project (IEP) was designed

as a grassroots effort. Staff and building level administrators at both schools were

encouraged to implement programs that directly affected the social, emotional, and

educational growth of their students. Two such programs that were designed by

staff were an After School Tutorial Program and an After School Enrichment

Program.

Tutorial Piogram:

The After School Tutorial Program at Grant Middle School began in

November of 1993. While the program was open to all students, services were

targeted at students who were having difficulty in math, language arts, science or

social studies. Tutorials were held Monday through Thursday from 3:00-4:30 p.m.

The program was supervised by Grant Middle School's assistant principal. Eight

teachers each trimester were recruited to assist with the tutoring. Four teachers

tutored on Monday and Wednesday, while the remaining four tutored students on

Tuesday and Thursday. All teachers were paid an hourly rate of pay for their

services.

Teachers at Grant Middle School were asked to assist in identifying students

who were in need of tutorial assistance. Before formally recommending students

for the program, teachers talked to individual students about the program to

encourage their participation in after school tutorials. Once students agreed that

they would like to attend tutorials, the teacher completed a referral form and

submitted it to the assistant principal. The assistant principal then spoke with each

student about program expectations. A parent consent form was required before

students were allowed to attend tutorials. Parents who were unwilling to sign the

form were contacted by the assistant principal to further discuss the program. In all

cases, this contact proved beneficial as parents agreed to allow their child's

participation in the program.

The tutorial program at Grant Middle School had many positive results.

Report cards showed that students who attended tutorials raised grades in all areas.

Furthermore, teachers saw a decline in negative behavior from students who

attended the after school program.

Enrichment Program:

Staff at Lincoln Middle School felt that an After School Enrichment Program

would most benefit their students. After much discussion and input from students,

it was agreed that the Enrichment Program would focus on computer technology,

dance and art.

The computer technology program was held on Monday afternoons. The

after school dance program was held on Tuesday afternoons and the art program on

Wednesday afternoons. All after ,chool programs were from 3:30-5:30 p.m.

Students had an option of participation in one or in all of the programs. All three

25

20
after school enrichment activities were staffed by school personnel who were

provided additional pay for their time. A budget of $250 was provided to each staff

member to purchase supplies for their particular program.

A total of thirty two (32) students participated in the computer technology

program. Twenty six (26) students participated in the dance program and thirty

eight (38) students participated in the art program. Students participating in the dance program were involved not only in

learning traditional Mexican dances, but were also involved in designing their

costumes. Parents became involved in sewing costumes. As a culminating activity,

an all-school ''Cinco de Mayo" celebration was held. At an all-school assembly,

students shared with pride their language and culture with their parents and peers.

Students who participated in the Art and Computer enrichment activities

sponsored an Open House for their p^rents. Art work was displayed in the school

gymnasium and students demonstrated their computer skills to parents in the

school's computer lab. Refreshments were served in the school's cafeteria.

Parents indicated a high degree of satisfaction with this program and recommended

to school administrators that the enrichment program be offered the following year.

MEXICO STUDY ABROAD TRIP

Because of staff's desire to further study the language and culture of the

students with whom they work, the IEP Project Director sponsored a two-week

Study Abroad program in Puebla, Mexico. On June 2, 1995, ten teachers from Grant

Middle School and eight teachers from Lincoln Middle School boarded a plane

headed for Mexico City, in route to Puebla, Mexico.

While in Puebla teachers participated in a course entitled Studying Culture

(see Appendix E for course syllabus). The course was based on the premise that

culture was best learned by being immersed in it. Teachers selected an element of

culture they wished to explore and Were grouped accordingly. Following specific

guidelines, each group was directed to observe and interact with Mexican people and

to journal their findings. As a culminating activity, each group shared findings

about their study. Another component of the Study Abroad Program was a two-week exposure

to Mexico's public educational system. Working closely with the "Heroes de

Nacorazi" Public School, teachers were assigned to classrooms to teach Mexican

students English as a Second Language (ESL). Daily ESL lessons were approximately

45 minutes in length. In addition, teachers from Grant and Lincoln Middle School

were provided opportunities to observe teaching methods used by Mexican teachers.

Finally, teachers were involved in the learning of Spanish. Unique to the

course was the premise that language was best learned through acquisition of

language versus learning about the language. Textbooks were not used. Instead,

participants learned survival Spanish phrases and vocabulary that they would

encounter or need when visiting the city of Puebla. Although the program was only

two-weeks in length, all teachers rated this as one of the most beneficial experiences

in their educational careers.

1 21 6
AFFECTIVE EDUCATION CURRICULUM

In the summer of 1995, a team consisting of eight teachers met to formalize

an affective education curriculum for use in the district during the 1995-96 academic

year. With the assistance of an outside consultant, teachers began their

development of the curriculum by first identifying needs and then writing a vision

and mission statement based upon identified needs. After meshing the identified

needs to the vision and mission statement, objectives for the Affective Curriculum

were generated in the following areas:

1. Celebrating diversity in people and culture.

2. Responding to the needs of the individuals and to individual differences.

3. Reading for high standards in student and school performance.

4. Transforming educational delivery systems/services so that all students

meet success.

Lesson plans, including activities, were developed for each objective in the

four major areas. Evaluation, activity sequence, class management, visuals and

audio materials were identified and flow charts for lesson delivery were developed.

The end result of this activity was the developnient of an Affective Curriculum that

is presently being piloted in the district at the two middle schools.

PROJECT FINDINGS

Outcomes, Comparisons and Recommendations:

In accord with the Franklin School District 10's district blue print to provide

better services and appropriate curriculum to better match the needs of its students,

the IEP Grant was instrumental in furthering the district's restructuring movement.

These plans stretch into the year 1998 with continued staff development and

additional resources in the areas of bilingual/multicultural education, increased

parental involvement, and improvement of student achievement. The rehiring of

the paraprofessionals and the funding of additional workshops (1994-1995) shows a

continued commitment by the school district, as does the adoption of the affective

middle school curriculum.

Since the beginning of 1989, the district plan stressed change first at the

elementary school level (which is a common strategy in the national reform agenda

for LEP and diverse students), then subsequently at the secondary level. The IEP

Grant funding widened the vision of the district by including and implementing

change at the middle school level. In addition to the vision shared in the district

blue print, the IEP Grant was able to capitalize on such structural changes as teacher

planning by "grade clusters." This, along with the IEP Newsletter (Appendix F),

provided a setting by which articulation of the vision and methods presented to the

participants of the university class could be disseminated to the rest of the faculty

and genuine ownership of the grant could be engendered throughout the schools.

22 27
This then led to participatory activities ranging from mini Spanish lessons,

sheltered English and cooperative learning to such school wide activities as the

Multicultural Fair. Instructional support was further augmented by the IEP Project

by paying staff for the academic tutoring of students, and providing funding for

outside school activities for the students and their parents. In addition to the above

mentioned outcomes, programs such as the after school tutorial and enrichment

program, as well as the environmental education program at the Rocky Mountain

National Park remain in place at both middle schools It is important to note that a

significant number of individuals at the two middle schools participated across the

board in all or most of the components of the grant thus maximizing their

experiences and that of their students by: 1) taking the classes; 2) serving as academic

mentors; 3) involvement in affective education development, cultural events; 4)

participation in after school tutorials, extra curricular activities such as field trips to

the University of Colorado and the "Y" camp; and 5) attending the summer project

in Mexico.

The Need For Additional Support and Models:

Nationwide, to date, there have been few projects such as the one described

herein. Another model for consideration is "Project Theme" in California.

Although a longer term project spread over several years, it dealt with many of the

same dimensions as those imbedded in the Colorado Innovations in Education

Project. Eugene Garcia, who evaluated the project, found that "effective"

instruction for language-minority students included the following: de-emphasis on

tracking; heterogeneous grouping; integrated curriculum; emphasis on higher order

learning; linguistic skills across the curriculum; peer tutoring; cooperative learning;

and literacy activities that integrated curriculum revolving around themes of

culture, the fine arts, the Olympics, career choice, and AIDS. Further quantitative

data indicated that Project Theme students' attained academic success and also

improved their self-esteem.

Changing The Odds:

The commonalties of these two projects in the schools at the middle school

level serve to further inform practitioners, academics, and legislators as to the

validity and transferability of the strategies with students who are culturally and

linguistically diverse. It also lends encouragement and calls for continued support

for more research and models at the intermediate level. Students, the poor and

Hispanics/Latinos (Orfield, 1986), who have been scandalously absent from the

school reform agenda need to be made visible and valued in our society by

providing the means by which they can attain the necessary skills (Delpit, 1988) to

share in the "American Dream" of upward mobility.

23
Lasting School Reform:

Given the dimensions cited by Standford's Elliot Eisner (1994) in his book,

Cognition & Curriculum, there are five essential components to any lasting school

reform movement: 1) the intentional, 2) the structural, 3) the curricular, 4) the

pedagogical, and 5) the evaluative. To this list a sixth and perhaps the most

important, that of a "grass roots" approach, is indispensable not only in terms of

initial ownership and implementation, but in maintaining long term effects.

Projects ultimately must remain in the hands of the schools involving as their

constituency the students, teachers, administrators, staff and parents. Change can only endure if the participants have a shared vision, are involved from the

inception, play a significant role in the development and implementation of the

project over time, and have a stake in its continued evolution.

While formal evaluation of the project is still pending, looking critically at the IEP Grant in terms of establishing long range change, it is apparent that extensive work was accomplished in most of the categories mentioned here.

Although evaluation formed part of the lesson plans, emphasis was placed on

providing students with tools and not necessarily preparing them to "pass tests."

The focus was on building student's self esteem, and the exploration of successful

methods and strategies in dealing with students at the middle school level who do

not traditionally do well in the public school system (Donato & Onis, 1994). Although the value and use of portfolios as a means of qualitative

assessment was modeled and discussed in the university course and participants

collected artifacts to profile school activities and student work, the IEP project did not attempt to deal with the issue of quantitative evaluation. Certainly this essential dimension needs to be addressed in future studies, particularly when

dealing with students who have historically been ill-served by testing (imbedded

with cultural and economic biases), which have served to limit their educational

opportunities by placing them in low level tracks by the junior high level

(Gonzalez, 1990). As long as the evaluation methods do not reflect the reforms

implemented in the schools, change cannot be adequately measured. "To embark on

the reform of schools in order to achieve particular ideals while using forms of

assessment or evaluation that conflict in spirit, or in fact, with those ideals is to

scuttle one's chances for success" (Eisner, 1994).

In order for reform efforts to deal with such issues as evaluation and

alternative assessment at the middle school level, additional projects and

evaluations will need to be conducted. Unless substantial Federal Grants such as the

one that funded the Innovations In Education Project continue to provide money at

the middle school level, or funding from the private sector is secured, this will not

happen. As demonstrated in this monograph, school districts alone cannot provide

needed changes for the rapidly changing demographics in the public schools.

29
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography

August, D. (1994). For all students: Limited English proficient students and goals 2000. Focus:

Occasional papers in bilingual education #10. Fall, 1994.

Baca, L., Escamilla, K., & Carjuzaa, J. (1994). Language Minority Students: Literacy and

Educational Reform. In eds.Literacy, A Redefinition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers, 1994, Hillsdale: NJ.

Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

Braddock, J. (1990). Tracking: Implications for student race-ethnic subgroups. Report #1.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schools for

Disadvantaged Students.

Cardenas, J. (1991, June). Strategies for the education of the disadvantaged within our reach.

Intercultural Development Research Association Newsletter.

Chapa, G., & Valencia, R. (1993): Latino population growth, demographic characteristics, and

educational stagnation: An examination of recent trends. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 15, 165-187.

Clark, D. and Astuto, T. (1994) Redirecting reform: Challenges to popular assumptions about

teachers and students. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 75: 7, 1994. pp. 513-520.

Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington D.C. U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Colorado State Department of Education. (1992)Pupil number member and related iqformation,

Denver, Colorado.

Comer, J. 1980. School Power: Implications of an Intervention Project. New York: The Free

Press.

Comer, J. 1988. Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, November.

Cummins, J. 1989. Empowering Minority Students. Sacramento, CA: California Association

for Bilingual Education.

Delpit, Lisa D. (1988). The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other

People's Children. In Harvard Educational Review, 58, (3).

Donato, R., & Onis, C. (1994). Mexican Americans in Middle Schools: The Illusion of

educational Reform. In Rethinking Middle Sclwols: Theory Into Practice, 33 (3), pp. 173-

I 82.

Eisner, Elliot W. (1994). Cognition and curriculwn reconsidered. Second Edition. Teachers

College Press: New York.

31
Garcia, Eugene (1992). Project THEME: Collaboration for School Improvement at the Middle School for Language Minority Students. In Proceedings of the third national research

symposium on limited English proficient student issues: Focus on middle and high school

issues. United States Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs.

Jensen, Arthur A. (1969). How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? Harvard

Educational Review, 39, (1).

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.

Levine, D. & Cooper, E. (1991). Small is beautiful: Innovation from the insiae out. Phi Delta

Kappan. 72, (7).

McDermott, T. (1982). Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach to literacy and

social stratification. In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in Action, G. Spindler (Ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

McDonnell, L. (1989). Restructuring American schools: The promise and the pit fall. Paper presented at Education and the Economy: Hard questions, hard answers, conference, The

Institute on Education and the Economy of Columbia University, Brewster, MA.

Merton, R. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8. 193-210.

Moynihan, D.P. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. Washington, D.C:

Department of Labor.

Murray, C. and Herrnstein, R. (1994) The Bell Curve.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New

York: Longman.

Ogbu, John U. (1992). Understanding Cultural Diversity and Learning. Educational

Researcher, 21 (8).

Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York: Academic Press.

Ogbu, J., & Matute-Bianchi, M. (1992). Understanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity,

and school adjustment. In Beyond language; Social and cultural factors in schooling

minority students (pp.73-142). Sacramento: California State Department of Education.

Orfield, G. (1986). Hispanic education: Challenges, research, and policies. American Journal of

Education, 95, 1-25.

Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in du, classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.
Rumberger, R. (1991). Chicano dropouts: A review of research and policy issues. In R. R.

Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: research and policy agendas for the

1990's (pp.64-89). New York: Falmer Press.

Sarason, S.B. (1990), The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1990.

Schwartz, A. (1971). The culturally advantaged: A study of Japanese-American pupils. Sociology

and Social Research , 55 (3), 341-5.

Sleeter, C. and Grant, C. (1991). Race, class, gender and disability in current textbooks. The

Politics of the Textbook. In M. Apple & L. Christian-Smith (Eds.) . New York: Routledge

and Chapman Hall,

Stodolky, S. and Lesser, G. (1971). Learning patterns in the disadvantaged. In Challenging the

Myths: the Schools, the Blacks, and the Poor. Reprint Series #5 Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Educational Review.

Tharp, R. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constraints: Effects on teaching and learning in

schools. American Psychologist, 44 (2), 349-359.

The National Education Goals Panel. (1994). The national education goals report: Building a

nation of learners. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Valentine, C. (1968). Culture and poverty: Critique and counter-proposals. Chicago: University

Press.

Vernon, P. (1982). The abilities and achievement of Orientals in North America. New York:

Academic Press.

Walker, B. J., Hood, S. & Rodgers, F. ( 1991). ASAP schools: New ideas and structural

realities. Paper presented at the AERA conference, Chicago, April.

Witkin, H.A. (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley.
APPENDIX A

PLAN OF OPERATION
PLAN OF OPERATION SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES YEAR 1 - 1993-94 COMPONENT #1 (Objectives 1-3) - Instructional Goals Objective #1 To improve overall student achievement in literacy at Grant and Lincoln Middle Schools (grades 6-8); Objective #2 To reduce the gap in achievement between minority and non-minority students; Objective #3 To improve student self-esteem through the implementation of a consistent affective education program. ACTIVITIES PROCEDURES EVALUATION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PERSON Select staff development specialist. * Solicit applications from school. * Form committee of school site staff to select staff develop. spec. *Staff development specialist employed. August, 1993 August, 1993 * Project Director * Site Principals * Dist. 10 BiLDirector 7P7OTe7t1Sirector * Principal Investigator * Project Secretary 2 Arrange to offer course titled: "Literacy in the Middle School: An Inter d kciplinary Approach." (Fall Sem. 1993) and -Multicultural Infusion Strategies in content Area Courses" (Sp. Sem. 1994) * Offer course at Grant Middle School first semester and Lincoln Middle School second semester. * Classes approved for graduate credit at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and undergraduate credit at Aims Community College. * End semester evaluation of coui se. * List of participants. 3 Pie-coaching observations of k lassrooms. Observe participating teachers and paraprofessionals. * Observation checklists of each participating teacher and paraprofessional completed. Oct. 1, 1993 * Project Director * Staff Develop. Spec. * Principals * District 10 Bilingual Director -1. L,l l led ille demonstration lt.ssoi is and coaching ,k tk Oil", to complement * Each participating teacher and para to get one demonstration lesson, * Each participating teacher and para to teach two lessons with feedback from a peer. * Each participating coach teacher and para will serve as a coach. * Teacher and paraprofessional evaluation of demonstration lesson and coaching experience via surveys and end-of-semester interviews. Oct.-Dec. 1993 * Staff Development Specialists * Participating Teachers and Paraprofessionals * Project Director * Principal Investigator . I 'ost, illi lung observation of , lassiooms to observe implementation of literacy niethods. * Observe participating teachers and paraprofessionals. *Observation checklists of each participating teacher and paraprofessional completed. May 15, 1994 * Project Director * Staff Dev. Specialists * Principal Investigator * Dist. 10 Bil. Director 3 6
ACTIVITIES PROCEDURES EVALUATION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PERSON

6 FA aluate the impact ot course work combined with coaching. *Compare pre and post classroom observations. * Analyze staff surveys and interviews of coaching and coursework. * Results of comparison surveys and interviews. May 1994 * Project Director * Staff Develop. Spec. * Principal Investigator * Principals * Dist. 10 Bil. Director 7. Schedule 8 in-service days related to affective education models/contract consultants. * Offer inservices at Grant and Lincoln Middle Schools (4 days each site). * List of participants. * Participant evaluations of sessions. Oct. 1993 - May 1994 * Project Director * Staff Develop. Spec. *Consultants * Principal Investigator * Principals 8. Select 12 teacher committee to finalize affective education curriculum, * Committee selected via volunteers to choose 12 teachers (6 from each school) to finalize affective education curriculum. * List of committee members from each school. May 1994 * Staff Develop. Spec. * School Site Staff * Principals * Project Director * Dist. 10 Bil. Director 9. 's, hedule and conduct summer w ork project on affective education curriculum by teacher committee of 12. * Agendas for each day for the curriculum writing project. * Site for committee to work. * Agenda for summer pre-service for all staff. * List of dates for committee meetings. * List of committee members attending (by day). * Affective education curriculum document. June 1994 * Staff Development Specialists * Committee of 12 teachers * Project Director * Principal Investigator * Principals Ift st lied ule and conduct pre- sei vice for school site staif on methods and strategies tor implementing the a !fed i ve education curriculum. '' Organize speakers, agendas and activities for 2 day pre-service. * Copy and distribute affective education curriculum to all staff at both school sites. * Dates, time, place of pre-service. * Agendas for pre-service. * List of participants at pre-service. ' Participant evaluations of pre-service sessions. Aug. 1994 * Staff Development Specialists * Committee of 12 teachers * Project Director * Principals * Principal Investigator 11 ( hoo,,e teachers and students for "Adopt-A- student" Program. 37 Form committee to select teachers and students. Create selection criteria. Choose students. . Implement orientation for teacher mentors. * List of 20 teacher mentors and list of up to 100 students mentees. * Agenda from mentor orientation and list of participants. Oct. 1993 * Staff Development Specialist * Selection Committees * Project Director * Principals * Bilingual Director NI ) 11 1 It iltt. five ed tit at ion cuiriciiluin will he implemented and evaluated during the second and third project years.
ACTIVITIES PROCEDURES EVALUATION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PFRSON 12. Implement "Adopt-A- Student" Program. * Mentor/mentee journals. * Dv mmentation of activities, Results of interviews with mentors and mentees, analysis of achievement of students M program and school attendance and behavior. Oct. 1993- June 1994 * Staff Development Specialist * Teacher Mentors 13. Provide each classroom with $250.00 to use to purchas., materials in nglish and Spanish to !surploment literacy iny,truction in each middle st hool. *Bring catalogs of materials to staff meetings. *Have teachers share materials at staff meetings. *Invite distributors of educational materials to staff meetings. *Teachers bring back materials from conferences to share. *Classroom accounts of types and amounts of materials purchased. Oct. 1993- May 1994 * Staff Development Specialist * Classroom Teachers * Building Principal * Project Director * Bilingual Director 14. summary report of instructional strategies acti ities. * Prepare report. * Completed report submitted as part of 1st year's project results. June 1994 * External Evaluator I .7,. Identify st_:dents for summer unix ersity programs hom middle schools. Select teacher and staff committee. * Identify 40 sti dents. * Match students to university summer programs. * List of students and programs attended. * Interview students to assess impact. * Follow students in years 2 and 3 to assess achievement. Jan. 1994 - Aug. 1994 * External Evaluator 4 6
PLAN OF OPERATION SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES YEAR 1 - 1993-94 COMPONENT #2 (Objectives 4-5) - Instructional Delivery Goals ()hie. tive #4 To create and implement a school schedule that provides focused and integrated learning opportunities for all middle school students and maximizes staff. Objective #5 To create and implement a model for delivery of instructional services that is classroom based and allows for the needs of diverse students w be met within the basic classroom. ACTIVITIES PROCEDURES EVALUATION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PERSON

1 Implemcnt the team builtiing pi or, t to improve collaboration and statf utilliation. * Identify interdisciplinary teams at each grade level at each school site. * Identify team building consultants, contract and schedule team building dates, times and agendas. * Evaluate the team building projed. * Pre/post observation of team planning times to assess impact. * List of interdisciplinary teams, specialists and paraprofessionals. * Document consultant used, dates, times, places, and topics of team building experiences. * Participant evaluations of team . building experiences. * Analysis of pre/post observations to assess impact. * Participant evaluation of six unit course. Oct. 1993 - March 1994 Oct. 1993 (Pre- observation) April 1994 (Post observation) May 1994 Evaluation Report Oct. 1993 May 1994 * Staff Development Specialist * School Site Principals *Consultants * External Evaluator * Project Director * Principal Investigator * Bilingual Director *Project Director * Staff Develop. Spec. * School Site Staff * Principals 2. Inipk.ment innovative instructional methods via 3T approach. 4 Combine coursework and classroom application (see Goals 1 and 2).

1 Implement the visitation pi ogram to other middle s, hook. 4 1 * Identify middle schools implementing block scheduling and collaborative teaching and planning. * Select staff to visit other middle schools. . Staff to share results of visits at team pLmning sessions. * List of school visits and teachers participating. * Summaries of visits, * Copies of shared information from team planning sessions. Jan. 1993 May 1994 * Staff Develop. Spec. * Interdisciplinary team members from each school * Project Director * Principals

2
ACTIVITIES PROCEDURES EVALUATION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PERSON 4. I'mploy bilingual * Interview and select 12 bilingual * Paraprofessionals employed and on Sept. 1993 * School Site Principal paraprofessionals. paraprofessionals. staff. * Staff Development * Involve paraprofessionals in * Lists of paraprofessionals at team Oct. 1993 - Specialists collaboration and team building building sessions and their March 1994 * Interdisciplinary teams meetings. evaluation of sessions. of teachers * Document paraprofessional * Collect paraprofessional lesson Dec. 1993 * Principals activities with students. * Invite paraprofessionals to attend literacy cour.e and peer coaching plans regarding activities with students. June 1994 5. Implement the bonding * Identify one team per school. * Compare data collected for students Sept. 1993 - * Staff Development program by having one team * Follow and collect data on in bonding program to other middle Aug 1994 Specialist per ,chool follow the -.ame teachers and students for three school students. * School Site Principals tudents from grades 6-8. year project period. * Analyze data for students and Final report * Project Director * Collect annual data on student teachers doing the entire three year December 1994 * Interdisciplinary Team achievement attendance, and attitudes toward bonding project and extracurricular activities. bonding project. Teachers * External Evaluator * Collect annual data of staff attitudes (teacher, resource specialist and paraprofessional) toward bonding project. * Collect same data for teachers and students NOT in bonding project for three year period. 4 4
PLAN OF OPERATION SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES YEAR 1 - 1993-94 COMPONENT #3(Objectives 6-7) - Staff Development Goals Objective #6 To provide opportunities for teacher enrichment and other means to improve the status of teachers; Objective #7 To assist the staff in the complete implementation of their classroom based integrated instructional program. ACTIVITIES PROCEDURES EVALUATION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PERSON I. Prov ide teachers and pa ra professionals the opportunity and incentive to t omplete coursework for graduate and undergraduate l red it. * Disseminate info, about coursework opportunities. * Select teacher participants and enroll them in coursework (grad. credit for teachers/under- graduate credit for paras). * 1 st year class "Literacy in the Middle School" An Inter-disciplinary Approach and "Multicultural Infusion Strategies in Content Area Courses". * During coursework provide discussion on theories of peer coaching. *Number of staff and paraprofessionals who successfully completed the course. * Tchr/para evaluation of coursework via evaluation forms and interviews. Oct. 1993 - May 1994 * Project Director * Staff Develop. Spec. * Principal Investigators * Staff * Bilingual Director 2. Pro ide teachers and paraprofessionals enrolled in coursework with peer ( oadung everiences. * Observe classes of participating staff (pre-observ). *Conduct demonstration lessons (one per classroom) :11 classes of participating staff. *Conduct peer coaching observation and feedback for participating teachers and paraprofessionals (four lessons for each teacher). * Teachers and paraprofessionals conduct peer coaching sessions for other teachers (one per sem. *Comparison of pre/post observation instruments. * Participant eval. of coaching experience via end of semester eval. and interviews. Oct. 1993 - May 1994 * Staff Develop. Spec. * Project Director * Participating Tchrs and Paraprofessionals * Principals * Bilingual Director 1 Pi o ide teachers incentives to impro%e instruction via additional funds for supplementary classroiim inaterials. * Provide teachers with $250 per classroom to purchase supplementary instructional materials, * List of materials purchased by each classroom teacher. Oct. 1993 - May 1994 * Staff Develop. Spec. * Project Director * School Principal * Staff * Bilingual Director 45 46
AC1 IVITIES PROCEDURES EVALUATION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PERSON 4. Implement the team building * Identify interdisciplinary teams at each grade * List of inter- Oct. 1993 * Staff Dev. Spec. project to improve k.ollaborative team planning level at each school site. * Identify team building consultants, contract and disciplinary teams, specialists and paras. March 1994 * School Site Principals * Consultants and teaching. schedule team building dates, times and agendas. * Evaluate the team building project. * Pre/post observation of team planning times to assess impact. *Doc. consultants used, dates, times, places, and.topics of team bldg. exp. * External Evaluator * Project Director * Bilingual Director * Participant eval. of team building exp. * Analysis of pre/post observations to assess impact.
APPENDIX B

SURVEY

49
INNOVATION IN EDUCATION PROJECT

A Collaborative Effort Between

The University of Colorado - BUENO Center and

Franklin School District 10

Fall 1993

Interest and Familiarity Survey

Please rank order your level of interest (1 = highest level of interest) and your degree of familiarity with the

following concepts and programs:

Bilingual Education Strategies: 1 = I always use in my classroom

2 = I sometimes use in my classroom

3 = I am familiar with ...

4 = I am vaguely familiar with . . . 5 = I am totally unfamiliar with . . . Sheltered English Approach (using a content focused 1 2 3 4 5

curriculum with second language learners).

Primary Language Instruction (Instructing students in their 1 2 3 4 5

primary language).

3. Concurrent Approach (using both English and primary 1 / 3 4 5

language for instruction).

4. Alternate Day Instructional Approach (using students' 1 / 3 4 5

primary language and English on alternate days).

5. Multiculturalism in our schools. 1 2 3 4

6. Use of bilingual paraprofessionals in the classroom. 1 1 3 4 5

7. Hands-on approaches to learning. 1 2 3 4 5

8. English-as-a-Second Language Strategies. 1 2 3 4 5

9. Alternative Assessment (e.g., portfolios. journals, projects). 1 1 3 4 5

10. Cooperative learning strategies. I 1 3 4 5

I I. Interdisciplinary learning strategies. I 2 3 4 5

12. Whole Language approaches to learning. 1 1 3 4 5

13. Process Writing 1 1 3 4

14. Others: I 1_ 3 4 5

15. Others: 1 3 4 5
Affective Education

I. Assertiveness training (setting limits and boundaries in the 1 3 4 5

classroom).

2. Team Building activities for schools. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Support groups for students. 1 / 3 4 5

4. Motivational strategies for students. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Motivational strategies for students. 1 2 3 4 5

6. Examining our beliefs and assumptions about learning. 1 / 3 4 5

7. Creating/altering, a school climate. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Self-responsibility and empowerment for kids. 1 2 3 4 5

9. Working with students from dysfunctional families. 1 1 3 4 5

10. Stress-reduction/relaxation in schools. 1 1 3 4 5

11. Shifting student focus of control. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Peer coaching/mentoring relationships for staff. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Reframing student behavior. 1 2 3 4 5

14. Reflective practice for teachers. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Adventure/outdoor/challenge education. 1 1 3 4 5

16. Self-critique through audio/video taping. 1 2 3 4 5

17. Students who push our buttons. 1 / 3 4 5

18. The role of emotions in learning. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Enabling in the school setting. 1 2 3 4 5

20. Experiential education. I 1 3 4 5

21. Others: 1 2 3 4 5

li. Others: 1 / 3 4 5

51
Questions:

1. As a teacher, what is your main concern and focus for SY 93/94?

2. Describe your level of participation and involvement in the Franklin 10 community.

3. Describe the level of parent and community involvement in your school and classes.

4. What are your feelings about pull-out programs to accommodate differences in the student population?

5. Are you considering taking the Innovations in Education courses offered through the grant?

Yes No

If so, what are your expectations about how these courses could facilitate your teaching?

Demographic Information:

Name (optional):

Race/Ethnicity:

School:

Role in school:

Do you live within Franklin District 10 boundaries? Yes No

Number of years teaching experience (total)? In Franklin 10
APPENDIX C

COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

Fi3
COURSE SYLLABUS

School Year 1993-94

Date Topic Assignments

Sat. Nov. 20 Team Building, Planning, Goal Setting

West Pines Hospital

Peer Coaching

Bring notebook, journal and pen, dress warmly:

hats, gloves, sweaters, coats, sunglasses.

Bilingual and ESL Skills Development

through Demonstration Lessons and

Practice

Keep a daily journal of your efforts and

observations with monolingual and bilingual

students. Find a peer coach.

Tues. Dec. 7 Bilingual Skills, Strategies, Methods

Paraprofessionals will share their

experience

Bring your experience and journal to class.

Bilingual and ESL Skills Development

through Demonstration Lessons and

Practice

Observe and journal about effective methods of

working with monolingual and bilingual students.

Compare two strategies and describe the pros

and cons of each.

Tues. Jan. II The Community as a Resource

Parents, Businesses, Community

Members

The School as a Culturally Diverse

Community

Bring the name of one parent and one

business/community member who is willing to

support the school's efforts. Compile a human

resource database for the school.

Bilingual and ESL Skills Development

through Demonstration Lessons and

Practice

Form relationship with student thru Adopt-AStudent or tutoring; journal on motivational

strategies and observations. * Tues. Jan. 25 Motivation and School Climate;

Cooperative Learning and Peer

Coaching; Creating a Community of

Learners

Bring journal and experiences to class; complete

school climate survey.

Bilingual and ESL Skills Development

through Demonstration Lessons and

practice

Observe which kids push your buttons; describe

the situation; outline possible solutions and

strategies; look for cultural components of the

situation.

Tues. Feb. 15 Those Kids that Push Your Buttons:

Setting Limits and Boundaries

Cultural Discontinuities and

(neon fruencies

Bring experiences and journal to class; bring

"Kid that pushes your buttons" Case Study to

class; include cultural component.

Bilingual and ESL Skills Development

through Demonstration Lessons and

Practice

Make a home visit; describe your conflict

mediation and problem solving efforts in your

journal; write a case study about your

.1...&crience.

t.
COURSE SYLLABUS

School Year 1993-94

Continued

Date Topic Assignments

Tues. Mar 8 Conflict Mediation Training

Problem Solving and Decision Mak!ng

Cultural Discontinuities and

Incongruities

Define your conflict mediation style; practice

expandinv your range of conflict mediation

strategies.

Bilingual and ESL Skills Development

through Demonstration Lessons and

Practice

Work with students to build protection and

resiliency factors; observe and journal which

empowerment strategies work with which

students.

Tues. Mar 29 Self-Responsibility, Empowerment, and

At-Risk Populations; Teacher

Expectations/Student Achievement;

Labe line; Refrarning Student Behavior

Describe and/or chart student self-esteem in your

journal; use a student you adopt, tutor, or mentor.

Design a flow chart of empowerment strategies

based on your experience.

Bilingual and ESL Skills Development

through Demonstration Lessons and

Practice

Observe and reflect on your own personal and

professional growth; map out your professional

growth plan for the next year and the next five

and ten years.

Sat. April 23 Outdoor/Adventure Educatiog ae.d

Empowerment

West Pines Hospital

Bring your notebook, pen, and journal. Dress

warmly: hats, gloves, sweaters, coats,

sunglasses.

Bilingual and ESL Skills Development

through Demonstration Lessons and

Practice

Create three alternative assessment strategies

and bring copies to class for colleagues.

Tues. May 10 Alternative Assessments and Portfolios;

Empowerment through Competencies;

End of Course Celebration

Share your portfolio with your colleagues;

discuss what works and what doesn't; share

alternative assessment methods.
APPENDIX D

MENT ORING FORMS

Format Courtesy of Dr. Anita Salazar

Fort Lupton Public Schools

5 6
Record of Student Goals

Academic Coach Student

Date Goal(s)

Progress toward goal(s):
Record of Weekly Student Contacts

Name of Academic Coach Name of Student

Date Time of

Incident

Length of

Incident

Brief Description of Anecdotal Incident
Record of Monthly Family Phone Calls

Name of Academic Coach Name of Student

Date Time Length of Incident Summary of Incident
Record of Family Home Visits

Name of Academic Coach Name of Student

Date Time Length of Incident Summary of Home Visit
MONTHLY MILEAGE SUMMARY REPORT

NAME

Month Year

Date

Destination

(From - To)

Miles

(RT or 1

way)

Date

Destination

(From To)

Miles

(RT or 1

way)

17

2 18

3 19

20

5 21

6 22

7 23

8 24

9 25

10 26

11 27

12 28

13 29

14 30

15 31

16 Total Monthly

Miles

Account Number $ .20 x Total Miles =

Applicant's or Employee's Date Director's

Signature Signature

t; I

Date
Record of Tutoring

Name of Academic Coach Name of Student

Date Time Length of Incident Summary of Tutoring & Results

G2
Student Survey

Career Exploration Project

I am interested in the following careers:

If possible, I want to learn more about these careers in the following ways:

If possible, I would like to use my career exploration experiences to help fulfill some

course requirements in the following class(es):

Class Teacher
Record of Career Exploration Experiences

Date Length of Incident Description and Summary of ExEeriences
Student Career Exploration

Reaction Sheet

Student Name Current Date

I learned the following from my two career exploration experiences:

The things I liked best about my career exploration experiences included the

following:

The things I liked least about my career exploration experiences included the

following:

If I would do the career exploration experiences over again, I would make the

following changes:

Project Findings/Outcomes

Summary

G5
APPENDIX E

Study Abroad Program

(Course Syllabus)

66
Mexico Study Abroad

Summer, 1995

STUDYING CULTURES - ANT 210

3 Semester Hours

Daily 8:00 10:00 a.m.

Field Experience Practicum 10:00 12:00 noon

Course Description: Introduction to fieldwork in cultural anthropology. Study

techniques of learning about culture by first-hand investigation.

Required Text: Assigned readings will be provided by the instructor.

Course Objectives:

1. All students will be introduced to term L. and concepts pertaining to

qualitative research methods.

2. All students will learn about and employ the technique of Participant

Observation.

3. All students will study and learn about a culture distinct from their home

culture.

4. To provide students an experience that will enhance their abilities to more

readily recognize cultural characteristics their own students manifest, and to

accommodate to those characteristics.

Course Requirements:

1. Completion of assigned readings.

2. Attendance and participation.

3. Participation in a group to carry out a micro study of a social setting selected

with the instructor's input.

4. Preparation of a draft report of your micro study to share with the class in an

oral presentation.

5. Preparation of a final report of micro study.

Attendance/Participation--Though there will be a focus on "doing," to miss

scheduled class sessions and team/mentor meetings will be impossible to make up.

0 'i
Group Participation--This course is designed for participants to derive maximum

benefit by getting involved. In order to do so, cooperation and accepting

responsibility are essential.

Oral ReportAll members of a given group are expected to participate in this

activity, barring illness, hospitalization, or other major calamity. It's intended to be

a time to share your cultural insights.

Final Report--No, it won't be a "full-on" ethnography! What it should be is a

thoughtful, reflective composition based upon systematic gathering and analysis of

data

Possible points Point System Grades

Attendance/participation 20 100-90 = A

Participation in study group 30 81-90 = B

(based on self evaluation) 71-80 = C

Oral report 30 61-70 = D

- Final report 20

GS
Wednesday May 18/23

Sunday, June 5

Monday, June 6

Tuesday, June 7

Wednesday, June 8

Thursday, June 9

Friday, June 10

Saturday, June 11

Sunday, June 12

Monday, June 13

Tuesday, June 14

Wednesday, June 15

Thursday, June 16

Friday, June 17

Saturday, July 9

9

Schedule

- Distribute materials

Course overview

Discussion on culture

Confirmation of schedule

Cultural activity

- Assignment to teams

Lecture/discussion: Qualitative research

- Lecture/discussion: Culture

- Discussion: Participant Observation

Review/adjustment, team assignments

- Nitty-gritty: How will we accomplish this?

- Assignment of teams to Mentors

Team meetings

- Reconvene: Any questions?

Field Research Projects

Team sessions with mentors

Field Research Projects

*Team/mentor meetings (sign up)

- Field techniques seminar (whole group)

Field Research Projects

- We know. "It's the weekend .. . !" Great

opportunity to pass up altogether, unless

your social situation has a day off.

- Field Research Projects

*Team/mentor meetings (sign up)

- Field Research Projects

- Team sessions with mentors

Field Research Projects

*Team/mentor meetings (sign up)

- Oral Report Presentations

- Feedback: Instructor and Mentors meet

with individual teams

Meet to return FinI reports, feedback
APPENDIX F

INNOVATION IN EDUCATION PROJECT

NEWSLETTER
INNOVATION IN EDUCATION PROJECT

A Collaborative Effort Between The University of Colorado - BUENO Center

and

Franklin School District #10

news

Volume I. #3, Ja awry 27. 1994

INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION

CLASS COMPLETES FIRST SEMESTER

The staff development resource teachers ask

all educators enrolled in the IEP BUENO class on

multicultural and affective education, to please invite

them to visit your class and share with them your

grant-related work and activities before February 17.

Also bring your journalinotebook in so that it can be

reviewed. Staple together any pages that are private.

Please share with the staff development resource

teachers and your colleagues your successes,

accomplishments, and frustrations so that we can all

learn from each other. Your grade will be based on

attendance, your class participation, your

implementation of grant related ideas and

curriculum, and your journal.

Those enrolled in the first semester course (3

semester hours) will receive grades sometime after

February 17. 1994. We enjoyed working with you

during our first semester!

Lincoln Middle School Implements Activities

Program

Lincoln Middle School has implemented an

after school program which involves 20 students in

each of the following programs: I ) ballet folklorico,

2) computer science, 3) theater and drama, and 4)

cartoon in Thank', to all individuals involved and

for getting this program going! Keep up the

excitement and hard work!

.lanuary 27, 1994 Class to Focus on Bilingual

Skills, Strategies, and Methods

The Nlulticultural St udies/Iffectk

Education Class will he held at Lincoln Nliddle

School, 3:30 p.m. on January 27. The foal.; of the

class will be bilingual skills, strate:zies, and methods.

Please bring your ideas, accomplishments.

successes, and questions to class with you. See you

there.

IEP Class Participants

Are Asked To Order All Materials Through

Continental Book Company

Each teacher enrolled in both semesters of

the IEP grant course entitled "Multicultural Studies

and Affective Education" are authorized to spend up

to $250 for books and materials at Western

Continental Book, Inc., 625 East 70th Avenue.

Denver. The account has just been established and

we will give you additional information about how to

order as soon as the details of the ordering process

are worked out. Western Continental Book has

assured us that they are able to obtain hooks and

materials from any publisher. We have made this

decision in order to simplify and expedite the

ordering process. We will let you know how and

when you can begin submitting your orders.

Thanks.

71
About the Authors

Dr. Richard Kraft is a professor in the School of

Education at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He

is also director of a Title VII Doctoral Fellowship

Program. Kraft is known nationally for his work in

experiential education and has worked extensively in

Mexico and Central and South America over the past

several years in the areas of teacher education and

education reform.

Dr. Leonard Baca is a professor in the School of

Education at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He

is also director of the BUENO Center for Multicultural

Education. He has taught graduate and undergraduate

courses for the past twenty years in both bilingual and

bilingual special education and has written many

articles and texts on these subjects.

I mrenso Aragón is an associate director of the BUENO

Center for Multicultural Education. He has extensive

experience working with teacher training programs at

the University of Colorado, Metropolitan State

College, the University of Northern Colorado, and

Aims Community College. He has taught university

level courses in bilingual education, English as a

second language, reading, and Spanish.

Carmen de Onis is a doctoral candidate in education

at the University of Colorado, Boulder. She is also a

staff ckwelopment specialist at the middle school level

for the BUENO Center. She holds an M.A. in second

language acquisition from the University of Northern

Colorado, Greeley, and has extensive middle school

and university teaching experience in Washington,

Colorado, and California
r--

Grass Roots Middle School Reform:

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

Students in a Low SES District

Since the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk by the

National Commission on Educational Excellence, the

American educational system has been involved in

one wave after another of reform. While some of the

reports have pointed to the changing student

demographics, most ignore the very real educational

challenges facing those students who are most at risk

in today's schools.

Children who live in poverty, those who suffer from

high mobility rates as in the case of most migrants, and

students with disabilities, have generally not been the

focus of most reform efforts to date. Students from

diverse linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds have

received very little attention in the education reform

literature. The Innovation in Education Project (IEP)

reported on in this document was a serious attempt to

address both theoretical and practical underpinnings

necessary to enact effective, bilingual/multicultural

restructuring in two lower socioeconomic middle

schools with student bodies made up of 50 percent

Hispanics/Lainos.

KBE

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education

1118 22nd Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037

73