SSLCL

$6.00

Do you have students who do not know how to read and write and teachers

who do not know how to “fix” them? Leading Change in Literacy consists

of three parts: First, Elizabeth Anne Neal describes how administrators,

principals, and teachers in the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County school

district went about changing its reading program. Next, Linda Tesh,

Patsy Turner, and Cherise Millsaps depict Surry County’s experience

with the Developing Efficient Readers program. Finally, to guide educators

considering districtwide reading literacy improvement, Leading Change

in Literacy presents the commonalities and differences of each approach

and makes recommendations for district leaders.

LEADING CHANGE IN

LITERACY

SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT STORIES

LEADING CHANGE IN

LITERACY

SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT STORIES

SHARING SUCCESS
dition or quality of b

ability to read 

n. The condition or quality of bei

esp. the ability to read and 

dition or quality of being literate,

ability to read and write

dition or quality of being literate,

ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of being literate,

esp. the ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of being 

esp. the ability to read and w

n. The condition or quality of bei esp. the ability to read and wr

n. The condition or quality of bei esp. the ability to read and wr

n. The condition or quality of being literate,

esp. the ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of being literate, esp. the ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of being literate,

esp. the ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of bei

esp. the ability to read and w
SERVE Publication, 1998

C. Steven Bingham, Ed.D.

Literacy Project Director

SERVE

Elizabeth Anne Neal, M.Ed.

Director of Federal Programs

Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County (NC) Schools

Linda Tesh, M.Ed.

Director of Federal Programs

Surry County (NC) Schools

Patsy Turner, Ed.S.

Instructional Specialist

Surry County (NC) Schools

Cherise Millsaps, M.Ed.

Literacy Specialist

Surry County (NC) School

LEADING CHANGE IN

LITERACY

SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT STORIES

Written for SERVE

by
Edited by

Charles Ahearn, Director of Publishing and Quality Assurance

Christy Casbon, Communications Specialist

Donna Nalley, Senior Program Specialist

Designed by

Tracy A. Hamilton, Design Specialist

1998

First Printing

The SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education

Associated with the School of Education

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names,

commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This document was produced with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. RJ96006701.
About SERVE

i

Special Thanks

iii

Purpose of Document

1

The New Three R’s in Reading & Writing:

Research, Redesign, & Rubrics—A Reading Literacy Case Report

2

The Surry County Developing Efficient Readers Project

8

Looking at the Districts’ Approaches: Recommendations for Leaders

16

R&D Program Manager’s Note

18

End Notes

19

References

20

Appendix

21

Table of Contents

Contents
About SERVE

About the SERVE Organization

i

SERVE, the SouthEastern Regional Vision for

Education, is an educational organization

whose mission is to promote and support

the continual improvement of educational

opportunities for all learners in the

Southeast. To address the mission, SERVE

engages in research and development in

educational issues of critical importance to

educators in the region and in the provision

of research-based services to SEAs and LEAs

which are striving for comprehensive school

improvement. Committed to a shared vision

of the future of education in the region, the

organization is governed by a board of

directors that includes the chief state

school officers, governors, and legislative

representatives from Alabama, Florida,

Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and

South Carolina, and representatives of

teachers and the private sector.

SERVE’s core component is a Regional

Educational Laboratory funded since 1990

by the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of

Education. SERVE has additional major

funding from the Department in the areas of

Migrant Education and School Leadership

and is the lead agency in the Eisenhower

Mathematics and Science Consortium for the

Southeast and the Southeast and Islands

Regional Technology in Education

Consortium (SEIR◆TEC). Based on these

grants and contracts, SERVE has developed a

system of programs and initiatives that

provides a spectrum of resources, services,

and products for responding to local,

regional, and national needs. These program

areas are

● Program on Assessment,

Accountability, and Standards

● Program for Children, Families, and

Communities

● Program on Education Policy

● Program for the Improvement of

Science and Mathematics Education

● Program on School Development and

Reform

● Program on Technology in Learning

SERVE’s National Specialty Area is

Early Childhood Education, and the staff of

SERVE’s Program for Children, Families, and

Communities is developing the expertise

and the ability to provide leadership and

support to the early childhood community

nationwide for children from birth to eight

years old.

In addition to the program areas, the SERVE

Evaluation Department supports the

evaluation activities of the major grants and

contracts and provides evaluation services to

SEAs and LEAs in the region. Through its

Publishing and Quality Assurance

Department, SERVE publishes a variety of

studies, training materials, policy briefs, and

other products of the programs. These

informative and low-cost publications include

guides to available resources, summaries of

current issues in education policy, and

examples of exemplary educational programs.

Through its programmatic, evaluation, and

publishing activities, SERVE also provides

contracted staff development and technical

assistance in many areas of expertise to

assist education agencies in achieving their

school improvement goals.

The SERVE head office is at the University of

North Carolina at Greensboro, with major

staff groups located in Tallahassee, FL, and

Atlanta, GA, and policy advisors in each state

department of education in the region.

Current and detailed information on any of

the program and service areas noted here

may be found on SERVE’s site on the World

Wide Web at www.serve.org.
SERVE–Alabama

Education Policy Analyst

Office forthcoming—please call

the SERVE main office for

assistance at 800-755-3277

SERVE–Florida

Database Information

Services Center

1203 Governor’s Square Blvd.

Suite 400

Tallahassee, FL 32301

850-671-6012

800-352-3747

Fax 850-671-6020

School Development and Reform

SERVEing Young Children

Publishing and Quality

Assurance

1203 Governor’s Square Blvd.

Suite 400

Tallahassee, FL 32301

850-671-6000

800-352-6001

Fax 850-671-6020

Eisenhower Consortium for

Mathematics and Science

Education at SERVE

1203 Governor’s Square Blvd.

Suite 400

Tallahassee, FL 32301

850-671-6033

800-854-0476

Fax 850-671-6010

Education Policy Analyst

Office of the Commissioner

The Capitol, LL 24

Tallahassee, FL 32399

850-488-9513

Fax 850-488-1492

Contact SERVE

Website: http://www.serve.org

E-mail: info@serve.org

SERVE–Georgia

Urban Education and

Teacher Leadership

41 Marietta Street, NW

Suite 1110

Atlanta, GA 30303

800-755-3277

Fax 404-577-7812

Education Policy Analyst

Georgia Department

of Education

2066 Twin Towers East

Atlanta, GA 30334

404-657-0148

Fax 404-651-4673

SERVE-Mississippi

Education Policy Analyst

State Department

of Education

P.O. Box 771

Jackson, MS 39201

601-359-3501

Fax 601-359-3667

wmoore@serve.org

SERVE–North Carolina

(MAIN OFFICE)

Assessment, Standards, and

Accountability

Education Policy

Evaluation

Executive Services

Operations

P.O. Box 5367

Greensboro, NC 27435

336-334-3211

800-755-3277

Fax 336-334-3268

Anchor School Project

Children, Families, and

Communities

Region IV Comprehensive

Center

SERVE Leaders Institute

Southeast and Islands

Regional Technology in

Education Consortium

P.O. Box 5406

Greensboro, NC 27435

336-334-3211

800-545-7075

Fax 336-334-4671

Education Policy Analyst

Department of Public

Instruction

Education Building

301 North Wilmington Street

Raleigh, NC 27601-2825

919-715-1245

Fax 919-715-1278

SERVE–South Carolina

Education Policy Analyst

Office forthcoming—please

call the SERVE main office for

assistance at 800-755-3277

Dr. John R. Sanders

Executive Director, SERVE

ii
Special Thanks

iii

Special Thanks . . .

to the teachers and administrators of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank and Surry County Schools

whose untiring efforts to improve children’s reading and writing have culminated in this

publication. We appreciate your willingness to share your stories with educators across the

Southeast and beyond.

We also thank the following individuals for reviewing and critiquing this document:

Sandy Bostelman, Curriculum Director, Ben Hill County Schools, GA

Paula Egelson, Senior Research Specialist, SERVE, Greensboro, NC

Gylde Fitzpatrick, Assistant Superintendent, Poplarville School District, MS

Becky Greer, Principal, Loflin Elementary School, Asheboro City Schools, NC

Wendy McColskey, Director of Accountability & Assessment, SERVE, Greensboro, NC

Nancy McMunn, Research Specialist, SERVE, Greensboro, NC

Vicky Mikow-Porto, Senior Policy Analyst, SERVE, Greensboro, NC

Joe Peel, Superintendent, Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Schools, NC

Patricia Schenck, Resource Teacher, Bay District Schools, FL
Responsive educators concur that the

demands of living in a technological,

information-based society call for improving

student literacy outcomes in schools. For

most schools, improving student reading and

writing requires leading change and

abandoning business as usual. District

leaders in two North Carolina local education

agencies have responded effectively to

leading change for improved student literacy

in differing ways. Leading Change in Literacy

provides a forum for leaders in these two

districts to share their stories—stories that

exemplify the critical role the central office

can play in facilitating reading improvement

districtwide.

A fundamental realization undergirding our

district stories is that, with school

restructuring, the roles and responsibilities

of central office personnel are changing.

Even as the decade began, education

researchers and practitioners were

discovering the importance of district

leaders supporting—as contrasted with

historically regulating—the growth of their

teachers and administrators.1

Echoing the new role for the central office,

noted school reformist Phil Schlechty,

argued that district leadership is all about

developing schools’ capacity for change and

improvement—not about making decisions

but rather causing decisions to be made.2

K.J. Tewel, acknowledging the need for

support and training for personnel in

restructured districts, lamented that the

change in our understanding of central

office is so sweeping that staff with such

titles as assistant superintendent, program

director, or supervisor are reinventing their

functions as they go.3 How, then, did the

district administrators whose initiatives

appear in this report go about leading

change in literacy?

Following numerous site visits to

schools in each district, conversations

with administrators, principals, teachers,

students, and community partners, SERVE

Purpose of the Document

researchers asked the writers of this

document to address a number of questions:

 What need or problem caused you to

want to improve your program?

 How did you begin?

 What does your reading program

look like?

 What results have you attained?

 How have you refined your initial

efforts and scaled up the program?

 What conclusions and

recommendations do you have for

other districts leading change in

reading?

Each writer has addressed these questions

and others with candor and humility,

realizing that improving literacy is a workin-progress.4

Leading Change in Literacy consists

of three parts: First, Elizabeth Anne Neal

describes how administrators, principals,

and teachers in the Elizabeth CityPasquotank County school district went

about changing its reading program.

(Ms. Neal is Director of Federal Programs

and a principal designer of the district’s

program.) Next, Linda Tesh, Patsy Turner,

and Cherise Millsaps, central office

personnel in the Surry County district,

depict Surry County’s experience with the

Developing Efficient Readers program.

Finally, to guide educators considering

districtwide reading literacy improvement,

Leading Change in Literacy presents the

commonalities and differences of each

approach and makes recommendations for

district leaders.

Purpose

1
Do you have students who do not know how

to read and write and teachers who do not

know how to “fix” them? This article

examines how one North Carolina school

system addressed this common problem and

improved student

achievement in the area

of communication skills

for grades 1-6. The

educators studied

relevant, applied

research and then

redesigned their

communication skills

program to reflect the

research while involving

schools in staff

development that

centered on the

redesigned components.

The Elizabeth CityPasquotank school

system has now

institutionalized the

program with the use of a document that

includes an instructional practice and

rubrics (teacher self-assessment weekly

checklist for effective communication skills

instruction). The document provides a

framework for schools and teachers to use

as they reflect and self-assess their

implementation of the components in this

research-based communication skills

program.

Who Are We?

The Elizabeth City-Pasquotank School

District is a small, rural, northeastern

North Carolina community with 11 schools

(7 elementary, 2 middle, 1 alternative, and

1 high school) and 6,200 students. In 1992

the new school superintendent and

assistant superintendent began to create a

school organization that was concerned

with continuous learning—focused not just

on knowledge but on the

application of knowledge.

This administration team

had goals that involved

making changes in teaching,

assessment, and leadership

in this low-wealth district

where achievement levels on

the state’s multiple-choice

tests were below state

average and not improving.

Significantly, Elizabeth

City-Pasquotank is the

25th poorest of the state’s

119 districts with over

62 percent of its K-6

students receiving free or

reduced-price lunch.

Why Did We Need to Change?

Catalysts for change in our elementary

schools’ communication skills curriculum

and instructional practices existed on

several fronts. First, the district administrators’ leadership, vision, and goals

inspired us to act. Second, our investigation into why large numbers of our

students read below grade-level revealed

that most of our K-5 teachers had taken

only one college course in teaching

reading. We had falsely assumed that

elementary teachers were experts at

teaching children how to read and write.

We recognized the need to tailor our

training efforts into adequately preparing

The New Three R’s in Reading & Writing:

Research, Redesign, & Rubrics—

A Reading Literacy Case Report

Elizabeth Anne Neal, M.Ed.

Director of Federal Programs

Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Public Schools

The New Three R’s

We had falsely assumed

that elementary teachers

were experts at teaching

children how to read and

write. We recognized the

need to tailor our training

efforts into adequately

preparing all elementary

teachers to utilize the

latest research and

instructional methods to

successfully teach all

children in a diverse

population.

2
all elementary teachers to utilize the latest

research and instructional methods to

successfully teach all children in a diverse

population. We also discovered that the

instructional leaders at many of our

elementary schools (principal, assistant

principal, and instructional specialist) had

limited knowledge and skill at teaching

reading and writing, especially to the

at-risk student populations.

As we began to analyze our needs under the

direction of our superintendent and

assistant superintendent for instruction, we

were presented with the opportunity to

pilot a new state accountability plan. The

latest comprehensive program to reorganize

North Carolina public schools, the ABC

Plan, completed its first full year of

statewide implementation in

1996-1997. The ABC Plan

focuses on school site

accountability, the academic

basic curriculum, and local

control. Under the plan,

individual schools and

their teachers are held

accountable for student

achievement as measured

by the growth and

performance of student

cohorts as they move from

grade to grade.

Each elementary school in

North Carolina is given

annual performance standards

and growth goals based on its

student population. The state then

uses end-of-grade tests in reading,

writing, and math (grades 3-8) to evaluate

the growth that has occurred at each

school. Under the ABC model, a school’s

annual performance would fall into one of

four categories: “Exemplary Growth,” “Met

Expected Growth,” “Expected Growth Not

Met,” and “Low-Performing.”

Our leadership viewed the new ABC Plan as

an opportunity to base accountability on

making progress with all students wherever

they started, rather than on comparisons

between well-funded and poor districts. Our

administrators realized, however, that the

decision to participate in the ABC pilot

would increase pressure on each of our

elementary schools to develop and

implement plans that focused on the best

instructional strategies for improving

reading, writing, and math for all students

at all grade levels. Armed with that

realization, district administrators guided

our elementary schools’ instructional

leaders and their staffs through the process

of systemic reading and writing

improvement.

What Did We Do?

In August, prior to the beginning of the

1995-1996 ABC pilot school year, our

superintendent, Dr. Joseph Peel, led our

district and school-level administrators in

a retreat in which he articulated the

need for change, starting a

dialogue that would build

capacity within the group to

promote change. He explained

the need for curriculum

alignment with all teachers

and administrators while

promoting a clear vision

and high expectations for

all children.

Superintendent Peel then

discussed the need for a

district-level “game plan”

which would enable us to

reach and teach all children.

He recognized the fact that

each elementary school

embraced site-based management

which provides school staffs the

flexibility to make their own decisions. At

the same time, he stressed that teachers

can no longer afford to go into their

classrooms, shut the door, and operate like

individual contractors. Dr. Peel explained

that the district was responsible for giving

direction and focusing instruction that

occurred at the school. The district would

provide direction so that the schools had

the capacity to make the changes necessary

to impact the classroom. Also during this

retreat, the schools, under the direction of

our testing coordinator, began an analysis

of individual school test data so that

schools could identify and celebrate their

A Case Report

3
strengths while addressing their weaknesses

with improvement strategies.

Furthermore, we began to develop a

common understanding that the

instructional decisions we made for our

students should be based upon research,

best practices, and data. This retreat lit a

fire of enthusiasm and motivation in each of

us. Dr. Peel proclaimed at the close of that

August retreat, “We are ready to rock and

roll”—and that we did! All left with a

renewed sense of confidence and

excitement.

We immediately began a district-level book

study led by Dr. Peel. Each administrator

read and discussed Becoming a Nation of

Readers. Dr. Peel encouraged principals to

replicate the book study with teachers at

their school; many did.

Administrators were given

several other books and were

encouraged to read and

share them with their

faculties, including

Cunningham and Allington’s

Classrooms That Work: They

Can All Read and Write,

Cunningham’s Phonics They Use, Allington

and Cunningham’s Schools That Work: Where

All Children Read and Write, and Routman’s

Literacy at the Crossroads.

The summer retreat was also the beginning

of our association with an outside reading/

writing consultant, Connie Prevatte. Ms.

Prevatte spent a day with our school

administrators explaining the latest

research in learning theory and

communication skills. While district and

school personnel studied the books, Ms.

Prevatte trained K-6 teachers to use the

Innovative Sciences’ Thinking Maps.

5

Thinking Maps provide a common visual

language of eight specific graphic organizers

that become a “toolbox,” enabling student

writers to actively organize information and

efficiently share content knowledge. Each

school decided to use Title I funds to

implement Thinking Map to help all students

become better readers and writers. With the

purchase of these materials, each school

participated in one initial day of training

and three follow-up days based on their

individual school needs.

Ms. Prevatte explained and modeled the

infusion of Thinking Maps into lessons and

discussed with each teacher the same

information she had shared at the retreat

on the latest communication skills research

and clinical practices to improve reading

and writing. She provided much-needed

follow-up activities over a period of two

years. These follow-up sessions provided

examples of quality instruction through

modeling lessons at each school. She gave

constructive, non-threatening feedback to

teachers and administrators on how to

improve instruction.

As Ms. Prevatte worked with our schools

and as we gained more knowledge about

reading research, we realized that

our communication skills

instruction was fragmented,

varying greatly from school

to school and even classroom

to classroom within the same

school. The most obvious

weakness in our communication

skills instruction was the lack of real

connection between reading and writing in

many classrooms. We also began to

question the soundness of using

instructional practices such as round-robin

reading, direct instruction in spelling and

grammar isolated from students’ writing,

and the assignment of drill and skill

worksheets which had little, if any, impact

on student learning.

By the end of the school year, we had

absorbed a wealth of information on how

best to teach reading and writing and had

begun to talk with teachers and

instructional leaders at the school level

about a communication skills framework

based on Patricia Cunningham’s Four-Blocks

Literacy Model.6

 This model seemed to

correlate most closely with the researchbased strategies we had been studying

throughout the school year. As the 1995-

1996 school year came to a close, many of

our principals, instructional specialists, and

teachers began to question what all our

research and discussions would look like if

The New Three R’s

Dr. Peel proclaimed

at the close of that

August retreat, “We are

ready to rock and roll”—

and that we did!

4
it were written. In other words, they wanted

a “game plan.”

Over the summer of 1996, the consultant,

Dr. Peel, and the Director of Federal

Programs used the research and Pat

Cunningham’s work to develop a

communication skills framework and belief

statements about literacy and literacy

instruction. The framework contains the

following six components:

 Teacher Read Aloud

 Self-Selected Reading with

Teacher/Student Conferences

 Teacher-Directed Reading

 Writing

 Word Skills

 Take-Home Reading

During the 1996 Summer Administrative

Retreat, we presented the “Communication

Skills Beliefs and Framework” to buildinglevel administrators. We had also designed a

a self-assessment rubric for teachers to use

in critiquing their instructional practices.

There appeared to be complete buy-in on

the document at the conclusion of the

retreat because we received absolutely no

negative feedback. We had assumed that

teachers and principals had embraced the

research and would use the rubrics as a way

in which to assess “where they were” in

being able to implement the six

components. We had envisioned teachers

and principals using this feedback and

designing staff development sessions with

the consultant for the second year of study

based on the feedback they received from

using the rubrics. However, this was not

what happened. Many teachers felt the

framework was too rigid and that it did not

take into account individual teacher styles.

Plus, they perceived the rubrics as an “I

gotcha!” summative evaluation instead of

the way it was designed to be used.

In schools where the administrators had

held book studies, intense summer staff

development sessions, and open discussion

of the reading and writing research,

acceptance for the six components had

greater endorsement. This finding led us to

believe that if teachers have plenty of

research to support change, they are more

willing to make the changes.

When we encountered this stumbling

block, Dr. Peel spent many days in schools

listening intently to teachers’ concerns,

many of which were valid and needed to be

addressed. Therefore, Dr. Peel decided to

form a Communication Skills Leadership

Council. This council consisted of about 28

people with K-6 representatives from every

elementary school in the district. Their

task was to examine the “Communication

Skills Beliefs and Framework” and recreate

a document that could be supported and

implemented in every grade 1-6 classroom.

Dr. Peel served as the leader of this group

which reviewed the research and generated

eight topics from the beliefs and

framework that they felt were controversial

or that teachers had a hard time understanding and/or accepting.

A Case ReportIf teachers have plenty of research

to support change, they are more

willing to make the changes.

5
These topics included such questions as:

 How should we teach spelling and

grammar?

 What does research say about the

best way to teach handwriting and

phonics?

 What is the purpose of oral reading?

To address each topic, the council

formed study groups of three

or four people with each

group assuming

responsibility for

becoming an expert in

one of the eight areas.

We provided each group

with a wealth of

research material on

their topic from which

they could pull

information. After

completing a month-long

study of research, each

group reported its

findings and made

recommendations to the

Council.

Once our research study and

reporting had been completed, we

once again looked at the beliefs and

framework. We wanted the final document

to be helpful in giving guidance and

direction to the new teacher as well as to

offer flexibility to the experienced and

successful teacher.

By the end of the 1996-

1997 school year, the

Council had revised the

beliefs and framework

creating a document

everyone believed in and

could support. Ironically,

most of the topics the

Council had questioned

initially were supported in

the final analysis. We

realized that in order to promote change,

we must support teachers individually in

their reading of research and in their

evaluation of best practices.

The Council saw a need to append the

document with a wealth of information.

Various members of the Council agreed to

devote part of their summer to compiling

additional information. Some of the

appendices included a suggested list of

graded read-alouds, methods for conducting

reading conferences, a checklist to use as a

way to monitor skills taught, samples of

take-home reading management

forms, essential skills for each

grade, and rubrics for assessing

writing across the curriculum.

The final document,

including the beliefs, the

framework for the six

components of a balanced

program, and the

appendices, was

introduced at the 1997

Summer Retreat. Retreat

participants, then,

introduced the revised

document to their school

staffs in August 1997. This

time, the acceptance of the

document was total and

genuine.

How Did We Do?

For the past two years, state test results

have been positive. During the pilot year

for the ABC Plan (1995-1996), every

elementary school in our district reached

the 110-percent exemplary growth

standard. These results

indicated that students

learned in every elementary

school, regardless of its

demographic composition.

When these scores were

disaggregated, we found

that all subsets of students

(gifted, minorities, females,

low-performing, etc.)

showed growth.

During the 1996-1997 school year, 75

percent of our elementary schools reached

at least the expected growth standards,

with four elementary schools maintaining

the exemplary growth standard that they

The New Three R’s

6

We realized that in order

to promote change, we

must support teachers

individually in their

reading of research and

in their evaluation of

best practices.
A Case Reporthad reached during the previous pilot year.

These test results over the past two years

have been achieved without excluding more

students from testing. The state assessment

program provides for exclusion of up to five

percent of exceptional children from

testing. We tested over 98 percent of all

students in grades 3-8, the highest

percentage ever tested in our district.

We are very encouraged by the last two

years of test results. Our district

administrators, principals, and teachers

believe that the quality of what is

happening in our classrooms between

teacher and student is improving.

What Have We Learned?

The dictionary defines change as “to make

different; alter; modify.” What this

simplistic statement fails to address,

however, is the timeline for change because

effective change requires time. As well, this

definition does not relate the need to

involve the people in the process who are

expected to implement the change. The

definition also leaves out that change is

often a traumatic, difficult, and sometimes

frustrating process.

We learned that teachers need to refine

their beliefs about good instructional

practices through reading the research and

evaluating what works and does not work

with their students. We discovered that

research provides guidance but must be

used with investigations of how practices

work with students in a particular

classroom.

 Through this process, we produced the

document A Connected Approach to

Communications Skills. As a result of its

two-year development, the final result is a

much more useful and valuable guide for

teachers than it was originally. We knew

two years ago that it was time for a change

in our reading instruction, and we based

the mission for our journey on a quote from

Becoming a Nation of Readers:

The knowledge is now available to make

worthwhile improvements in reading

throughout the United States. If the

practices seen in classrooms of the best

teachers in the best schools could be

introduced everywhere, improvements

in reading would be dramatic.

Through this initiative we realized that

teachers, as professionals, need to read

about, discuss, and internalize what

research says are the best practices so that

they can practice their craft supported by

a professional community using an

instructional framework.

7
Developing

What is Reading?

In the early 1990’s,

many business

leaders were

distraught over

the growing

number of high

school graduates

who could not

read well enough

to apply

information to solve

on-the-job problems.

Many of those same

graduates, however, had scored well

on standardized reading tests and were

experts at reciting information in its

original context. What had happened (or

not happened) in their reading instruction?

Searching for answers, educational reformers

asked children, “What is reading?” Some

defined reading as “saying the hard words

correctly.” For others, it was “doing

worksheets.” One child said it was “reading

the same story over and

over until everyone had a

turn.” Only the most

proficient students defined

reading in pleasurable terms

related to gaining useful or

interesting information from

the print. A few students

suggested personally

motivated reasons that

connected reading to

problem-solving. For most,

reading was something some

people did for fun at home.

In reality, children spent very little time

“reading” at school. Typical language arts

activities consisted of completing skill

sheets, reciting lists of unrelated words, and

copying information from the blackboard.

The Surry County

Developing Efficient Readers Project

Linda Tesh, M.Ed.

Federal Programs Director

Patsy Turner, Ed.S.

Instructional Specialist

Cherise Millsaps, M.Ed.

Literacy Specialist

Independent reading occurred

at free time on library

days. Those who truly

loved to read did so

on their own.

The North Carolina

Department of

Public Instruction

responded to this

dilemma by

adopting a new

language arts

curriculum in 1992 that

emphasized the need to

create daily opportunities for

children to read, write, and think at school.

The curriculum offered several definitions

of reading that encompassed a common

theme summarized as follows:

Reading is the dynamic interaction of

cue systems representing the reader’s

existing knowledge (semantic), the

structure of the language (syntactic),

and the sounds of the words (graphophonic) with the core of

this dynamic interaction

being meaning.

A new definition of

reading, however, did not

automatically produce a

change in instructional

practices. Many teachers

were frustrated because

their students were not

interested in reading, and

they found themselves

searching for new

approaches and

instructional alternatives for those children

who could not or would not read.

The Surry County literacy initiative began

in response to those teachers who

expressed a desire to better understand how

Educational reformers

asked children, “What is

reading?” Only the most

proficient students

defined reading in

pleasurable terms related

to gaining useful or

interesting information

from the print.

8
Efficient Readersto teach children to read and write using a

state curriculum that focused on a holistic

theory of literacy development. Even though

the professional literature advocated the

successes of meaning-based instruction,

most veteran teachers had little, if any,

training in how to implement these

strategies in their classrooms.

School systems that had adopted the

holistic philosophy without providing

adequate staff development for teachers

were plagued with vast differences in

instructional approaches and student

results. Some teachers thought whole

language meant reading the whole book to

the whole class. Most had a vague

understanding of how to teach reading,

writing, grammar, and spelling skills in a

holistic classroom. The lack of background

experience and training caused instructional

gaps because teachers tried to implement a

new philosophy without understanding the

integration of the cue systems involved in

literacy development.

A closer review of teacher preparation

revealed that most colleges and universities

required only one survey course in reading

that did not provide intensive training in

teaching reading and writing. Consequently,

teachers relied heavily upon the manual

from the basal text and other commercially

produced kits to guide them in preparing

lessons for the entire class. At this time,

teachers lacked the professional knowledge

needed to individualize instruction for

specific students. This lack of specific

preparation for teachers along with their

professional desire to meet the needs of

children bolstered the search for appropriate

staff development that would improve the

quality of teaching and create learning

environments supportive of successful

reading and writing processes.

Through an extensive search for literacy

experts who could provide staff development

for teachers, Surry County administrators

selected Dr. Christopher Baker, Professor of

Education at Salem College. A native

Australian, Dr. Baker exhibited a unique

passion for literacy. His challenging nature

and elevated expectations enabled him to

inspire teachers in critical thinking and

analysis uncommon in traditional

workshops. Most reported it was one of the

most professionally stimulating experiences

of their careers. Although we were unaware

of where our early efforts with Dr. Baker

would lead, staff development may now be

said to have occurred in two phases.

Phase One

Funds were limited during the early days of

training. Teachers volunteered to attend

Saturday classes with only the promise of

pizza for lunch as personal enticement.

Because of their hunger for professional

growth, most returned for the next series of

classes. When funds were available, the

administration paid small stipends. Dr.

Baker also contributed time and effort

beyond his consultant’s fee by providing

on-site demonstrations using various

techniques with both individuals and

groups of students.

But even with keen interest and expert

demonstrations, several pieces were

missing. For example, since funds were not

routinely available for substitutes and

stipends, classes were scheduled on

Saturdays throughout the school year.

Teachers attended when they could, but

several were not able to attend every

9

Some teachers thought whole

language meant reading the

whole book to the whole class.
session. Unfortunately, missed sessions

constituted “holes” in understanding.

A second problem involved the scope

and sequence of the training. Through the

training process, teachers examined multiple

literacy components, including reading and

learning theory, the writing process, assessment procedures, and miscue analysis—a

procedure that enables teachers to

diagnostically analyze reader strategies to

make appropriate instructional plans and

teaching strategies for literacy development.

For teachers to experience the entire

training package, they had to commit to

several Saturdays. Many were unable to

complete the entire training during a single

school year.

Another problem centered around the

funding issue. Money was not available to

purchase the necessary professional

literature and texts for training, so

comparing and discussing literacy concepts

from the research was not possible. As a

result, when new concepts were presented,

teachers’ questions and comments referred

only to “Dr. Baker’s philosophy.”

This professional development model

continued for about five years with highly

motivated teachers attending the classes.

During the last three years of this phase,

staff development funds from Title I and

special education were provided to defray

consultant expenses and provide small

stipends for teachers.

Despite the shortcomings, teachers who

completed the series of classes showed a

depth of understanding of the literacy

process not exhibited schoolwide. Their

standardized test scores revealed even the

most disadvantaged students performing at

or above grade-level. In addition, in schools

where Title I and/or special education

teachers worked collaboratively with regular

education teachers to maintain consistency

in instructional techniques for all children,

at-risk children out-performed their peers in

neighboring classrooms where collaboration

did not exist.

These “pockets of success” spurred the

decision to refine the model for training and

seek grant monies for funding. The new

model also attempted to correct earlier

inconsistencies in training as well as add a

lab school where teachers practiced new

strategies in a supportive setting. The

original project, Developing Efficient

Readers, began with the goal of all children

reading for meaning by the end of second

grade. With the success of inclusive

strategies for at-risk children, the project’s

motto became: “All teachers are responsible

for the education of all children.”

Phase Two

In Phase Two, although the training

components remained the same, numerous

improvements were made to the process.

Funding was generated from a number of

grants, including the Department of Public

Instruction and Goals 2000. Now teachers

applied to participate and committed to a

year-long staff development program that

included 50 hours of graduate-level training

in literacy processes and assessment

followed by a 50-hour supervised practicum

in a summer lab school. Successful

graduates of the 100-hour training program

received an endorsement in reading added

to their teaching license and $500 to use

for books to expand their classroom

libraries.

Developing

10
 The lab school was directed by Dr. Baker

who maintained high and demanding

expectations for all participants. He also

supervised the lab practicum and modeled

effective instructional techniques with

children. The curriculum was enhanced by

expanding the components of the original

model and by employing a rigid syllabus of

instruction utilizing current reading and

writing research. Significantly, the

instruction included practices designed for

individuals as well as small or large groups

of students.

Textbooks and notebooks of current

professional articles which were distributed

to teachers served as reference materials

and helped foster richer discussions and

deepened understanding. Texts employed

included Brian Cambourne’s The Whole Story;

Linda Crafton’s Getting Started, Moving

Forward; Yetta and Ken Goodman’s Reading

Miscue Inventory; Donald Grave’s A Fresh

Look at Writing; and Frank Smith’s Reading

Without Nonsense.

Because of the year-long training calendar,

teachers were allowed time to practice skills

and clarify their understanding of new

information. Teachers completed

assignments for each class session and

discussed these as a

group. Training was

aimed at first- and

second-grade teachers,

as well as Title I and

special education

teachers. Teachers in

other grades participated

on a space-available

basis. Over time,

collaborative efforts

evolved with teachers

forming instructional

teams to work with atrisk children.

The addition of a

summer lab school

enabled teachers to

practice strategies

learned in a supervised

and supportive setting.

Each teacher selected two students to share

the experience. Parents, too, were involved

in the lab school. They attended awareness

sessions and received ideas to use at home.

Parents responded positively to their child’s

participation in the lab with many

requesting permission for their child’s

future enrollment.

The Lab School Model

The key differences between the lab school

model and traditional staff development

involved the lab activities and ongoing

mentor support. The lab school

was designed as a supervised practicum

concluding the formal training process, and

it enabled teachers to practice instructional

strategies in a supportive environment

before implementing them in their

classrooms. The lab schedule served as a

model for a language arts block within a

typical school day. Teachers informed the

parents of two selected students that the

intent of the lab was to enhance teachers’

professional development. Even in the short

seven-to-eight-day program, however,

positive changes in students’ attitudes were

clearly evident. As a result, parents began

requesting that their children be allowed

to participate.

Organizing the lab

became a team effort.

Teachers selected a

theme and worked

collaboratively to

create a warm, inviting,

low-risk environment

supportive of literacy

learning. They

masterfully converted a

carpeted multi-purpose

elementary schoolroom

into a maze of books,

computers, animals,

and theme-related

paraphernalia. Personal

space was defined by

using blankets, quilts,

pillows, and a plethora

of books. In addition,

lab materials were

Efficient Readers

11
Developing

loaned or donated by a variety of sources

including educational products

distributors, book companies, software

distributors, and local businesses. Used

materials purchased with grant funds were

later distributed to schools for continued

use by trained teachers.

The Lab School Schedule

The lab schedule modeled a

balanced reading program and included

opportunities for teachers to work with

children individually and in groups. Each

sequential learning activity may be

summarized as follows:

 Whole Group Focus. The day

began with a whole group focus

around a musical theme. Teachers

and students danced and sang

together. Children quickly

remembered the words to songs

posted on charts, and, as a writing

activity, many added verses.

 Reading Aloud to Children. Each

teacher read appropriate material

to provide a specific focus for his/

her students. Many chose books

that provided background

information and vocabulary that

students would use later in the

day.

 Mini-lessons. Teachers chose their

most appropriate time for direct

instruction. They used samples

from the child’s writing to develop

lessons on spelling or grammar,

and used shared or guided reading

activities to focus on specific

reading strategies.

 Individual Reading Conferences.

Teachers scheduled a time to read

individually with each child every

day. These segments allowed for

practice and monitoring of reading

strategy instruction and assessment

of student progress. Teachers used an

individual reading conference form to

document student progress.

 Sustained Silent Reading (SSR).

Each day the entire lab community—

children and adults—stopped for a

fifteen-minute period of

uninterrupted personal reading.

Children genuinely cherished this

time, and good-natured protests were

heard when the time ended.

 Reflection and Sharing. Before the

children were dismissed, they

participated in a time of reflection

and sharing. Some shared an exciting

part of a story they had read or a

surprising observation in the “critter

center.” Their shared experiences

provided rich material for personal

journals or stories.

 Extension Activities. Centers

throughout the lab facilitated the

integration of language arts and the

content areas by providing authentic

reasons for reading and writing. An

array of opportunities were available

for students to express their

understanding of ideas and expand

on new concepts learned.

12
Efficient ReadersThe Extension Areas included the following:

 A Writing Center. This center was

filled with an assortment of note

paper, stationery, and colorful pens

and pencils to encourage children to

communicate their ideas with each

other or to publish their work for

display.

 A Critter Center. This center

was inhabited by a variety of

“caged” animals ranging

from quiet box turtles to

energetic hamsters with a

few well-supervised

snakes. A journal was

available for each

visitor to record

his/her

observations.

 A Computer

Center. This

space contained a

wide selection of

literacy software.

Children composed their

own stories, rewrote others

from computer text, and read

with interactive software. The

Wiggle Works program enabled

children to read and record

themselves on the computer.

Children arrived early and stayed

late for extra time with the

technology. Parents were also

impressed when children explained

and demonstrated the use of various

programs.

 A Drama Center. This center was

used for plays and puppet shows.

Children demonstrated literacy

acquisition through role-playing and

dramatic production.

 A Mail System. The system provided

for all children and adults to have

mailboxes. As a powerful motivator

for writing, children often used the

Writing Center to compose a special

message that later appeared in a

mailbox. Teachers wrote to children

each day as well as to each other.

In addition to these inviting and thoughtprovoking features for children, there were

specific responsibilities and expectations

for teachers. One of those was a videotaped

individual reading conference with one of

their students. Teachers viewed the tape

and completed a self-assessment form, then

shared the tape and their perceptions with

an assigned supportive mentor. Although

self-assessment

was not always easy, teachers

appreciated the benefits of

critically analyzing their

behavior and techniques

with children.

Supporting

Components

The other key component

of the Developing Efficient

Readers staff development

model that differs from most

was providing mentor support

for teachers during the lab school.

The mentoring aspect grew in depth

out of a need expressed by teachers

for modeling and support. Mentors

were selected based on successful

completion of the training and

demonstrated expertise in implementing

instructional strategies in the classroom.

They received additional training in

listening skills, questioning techniques,

and facilitating group discussions. During

the lab, they met daily with the literacy

trainer to discuss specific concerns and/or

to receive other suggestions on how to

assist a specific teacher more effectively.

Each mentor worked with five-to-six

teachers. Specific duties included leading

discussions on best practices, conferencing

with individual teachers about techniques,

modeling effective strategies as needed,

and assisting with the videotaped reading

conference. Because mentors were selected

from several schools across the district,

they began to provide continuous, informal

support systems for teachers at the school

level. As more teachers became trained,

these networks of teachers and mentors

supported each other.

13
Developing

Some teachers expressed a desire for

continued professional growth to remain

cognizant of implementation ideas and

current research. They wanted to meet

regularly to discuss hot topics and share

ideas. Consequently, a literacy support

group was formed and continues to meet

monthly. Teachers discuss issues from

professional literature as well as share

successes and frustrations they experience

in the classroom related to literacy.

The elements of the project grew above and

beyond any one person’s regular job

responsibilities. In order for a staff

development project this specialized to

succeed, someone knowledgeable needed to

have oversight. Using Goals 2000 grant

monies, a part-time literacy specialist was

employed to

 Arrange and organize continued

training

 Coordinate all the elements of the

lab school

 Facilitate mentor selection and

training

 Provide ongoing support for teachers

 Lead support group meetings

 Represent the project at professional

conferences

 Make presentations

 Assist with an outside formal

evaluation of the project

Recognition and Evaluation

As a staff development model, the

Developing Efficient Readers project has

received state and national attention. Most

recently, it was selected by the

SouthEastern Regional Vision for

Education (SERVE) as an

“exemplary district-designed

reading initiative” to be featured in

an upcoming videomagazine entitled

“Leading Change in Reading.” In

addition, presentations have been made

at several state, regional, and local

conferences and meetings including

 International Reading Association’s

Annual Conference in New Orleans,

April 1996

 Division of Compensatory Education,

U.S. Department of Education in

Washington, D.C., May 1997

 SERVE Regional Forum on School

Improvement in Atlanta, October 1997

As with any initiative, the ultimate

questions are: Is it working? and How do

you know it’s working? Evidence of

improvements in both instructional

practices and student outcomes were

assessed, yet a key indicator of the project’s

impact on teachers came from an

unanticipated source. In the fall of 1996,

the Surry County Schools requested a

curriculum audit of all instructional

programs. This outside evaluation

repeatedly cited the Developing Efficient

Readers Project as a model of positive staff

development that empowers teachers and a

vehicle for collaboration among regular

education, Title I, and special education

teachers.

Regarding student achievement, various

indicators noted the exceptional impact

this project had on children. Using North

Carolina’s End-of-Grade test scores, children

in classrooms of trained teachers achieved

above-average proficiency in reading,

writing, and math. More specifically, in

accordance with the North Carolina ABC

Plan, the 1996-1997 test results showed

that all nine of Surry County’s elementary

schools met their expected growth

standard, with six excelling

14
Efficient Readers

to the exemplary standard and one

recognized as a “School of Distinction.”

Furthermore, this elementary school

maintains a high percentage of trained

teachers.

The inclusion of thinking as a part of the

reading process had dramatic results.

Children routinely explained the reading

strategies they used to help them read for

meaning. Teachers shared success after

success as reluctant readers gained

confidence and became effective readers and

writers. Parents’ surveys and comments

consistently reflected observations of

positive changes in their children’s attitudes

as well as heightened interest in reading

and writing. Most importantly, students’

self-assessments consistently reflected their

positive attitude about reading and writing.

To complete the process of assessing the

effectiveness of the project, an outside

evaluator was contracted. This evaluation

focused on three areas: (1) the degree of

effectiveness of the staff development;

(2) the degree of implementation of the

strategies; and (3) the achievement results

of students in classrooms of trained teachers

for two consecutive years as compared to

the achievement of students of untrained

teachers. Initial results are expected by

spring 1998.

Currently, 78 percent of teachers in grades

K-2 and 21 percent in grades 3-5 have

completed training. Comparable training is

in the planning stages for upper elementary

and middle school teachers. A similar

training format has been designed with an

appropriate syllabus for instruction,

training conducted by a consultant in

collaboration with mentor trainers from our

system, and opportunities for teachers to

practice new skills and strategies with

mentor support. Efforts are also underway

to transfer literacy training responsibilities

for new, incoming teachers in grades K-2 to

trained mentor teachers. To facilitate more

site-based support, multiple lab school sites

throughout the district will be developed,

and mentors will be selected from those

sites. These site-based mentors will work

with teachers in training during the summer

lab school and will then continue to provide

mentoring and support throughout the

school year following the training.

What We Learned

Through the process of creating and

implementing a model for staff

development which matched the needs of

the system, we learned some notable

lessons which have significantly affected

current project planning. In considering the

need to sustain the positive effects of the

project, we learned that a plan for

continuing the staff development beyond

the years of the grant funding period

needed to be developed. Grant funding was

a critical aspect of designing the model for

staff development; however, training new

personnel and offering support for trained

teachers in implementing new classroom

strategies has to become locally funded.

In addition, through discussions with

teachers in the years following their

training, we learned that a strong need

existed for follow-up support in classrooms

of trained teachers similar to the support

received during the lab school training.

Because a model for classroom support

beyond lab school was not initially

developed, teachers achieved varying

degrees of success implementing new

instructional strategies in their classrooms.

Despite the formation of a districtwide

literacy support group after the second year

of the project, the need for site-based

support for classroom instruction still

existed.

More significantly, we learned that any

effective model for staff development must

be designed to meet the specific needs of

the district. Administrators must listen to

teachers to succeed in implementing change

in the same way that teachers must listen

to students to achieve the same goal. We

must all learn from each other as we move

through the process of change. Surry

County is still listening, learning, and

growing as we strive to obtain the goals of

literacy for all children.

15
Recommendations

No two change efforts are alike. Contextual

and human variables make even the most

rigid models bend. When, as in the case of

the two districts highlighted in this

document, the models are “home-grown,”

the path to replication often becomes a

virtual maze. Nevertheless, after looking at

each model along several dimensions, we

will venture a recommendation to district

and school leaders specific to that

dimension. In order of occurrence, the five

dimensions include

 Stated problem or need

 Start-up response

 Start-up results

 Refinement and scaling-up

 Results of refinement and scaling-up

1. Stated problem or need. Leading change

in reading at the district level can be a

daunting task. The success of the Elizabeth

City-Pasquotank County and Surry County

school districts’ efforts to effect positive

change in reading literacy indicate that

some problem or need was clearly and

pervasively articulated. Elizabeth CityPasquotank County simply wanted to move

the large numbers of students reading below

grade-level to higher levels of achievement.

Surry County wanted to meet the needs of

all children. Leaders in both districts,

however, concluded that teachers were

inadequately prepared by their preservice

institutions to teach reading and writing.

The districts admitted neither definition,

goals, nor strategies of reading instruction

were commonly understood by all

concerned. Even when an approach to

literacy was more or less agreed upon, as in

the case of Surry County’s affinity for

“balance,” teachers remained inconsistent in

implementing it.

 Recommendation #1: Identify and

define the problem thoroughly.

Looking at the Districts’ Approaches:

Recommendations for Leaders

2. Start-up Response. All change efforts

must begin somewhere and with someone.

Surry County leaders embodied the slow

and steady, bottom-up approach. Over a

five-year period, they facilitated teachers’

voluntary attendance at weekend training

sessions, offering little incentive beyond

the opportunity to improve professionally.

Alternately, Elizabeth City-Pasquotank

leaders used the one-year opportunity to be

a state accountability plan pilot site and

employed an administrative retreat to

jump-start their change effort. Through a

process of data analysis, their principals

discovered which students were not

succeeding at their schools and how to

match instructional strategies with

identified weaknesses. Elizabeth CityPasquotank leaders also recognized that

reading for meaning and writing effectively

required higher-order thinking skills from

students. Accordingly, they hired a

consultant to work with teachers on

Thinking Maps strategies. Both districts

employed one consultant over a period of

years. Neither looked for a quick-fix;

instead, they compiled and utilized

research, read widely, and developed their

people.

 Recommendation #2: Use research;

start where it’s right for you; and

use long-term consultants to

improve teachers’ capacity.

3. Start-up Results. As a consequence of

their initial efforts, both Surry County and

Elizabeth City-Pasquotank educators

pointed to incidental improved literacy

outcomes from students. Surry County

recognized, however, that they still

experienced only “pockets of success”

existing in the classrooms of teachers who

participated in the weekend training

sessions. Similarly, Elizabeth CityPasquotank County leaders produced a

common reference to serve as an

16
for Leadersinstructional and philosophical resource,

but the resulting “Communication Skills

Framework” was not initially accepted by all

teachers. Moreover, the rubrics for teachers’

self-assessment were also viewed by some as

a veiled attempt for administrators to play

“gotcha!” Clearly, more work was needed on

both districts’ part before change in reading

literacy instruction would get more than a

toe-hold.

 Recommendation #3: Use initial

results to improve the change

effort, and keep thinking!

4. Refinement and Scaling-Up. Learning

from their initial attempts to improve

reading and writing instruction, leaders in

both districts explored ways to refine and

then scale-up their efforts. For Surry

County, the refinement was made possible

by the acquisition of Department of Public

Instruction funds for staff development and

the receipt of a Goals 2000 grant to support

the lab school and its supporting

components, including mentoring and the

employment of a literacy specialist.

Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County leaders,

acknowledging the need for increased

building-level involvement, created a

Communication Skills Leadership Council

with teacher representation from all

elementary schools. Principals and teachers

formed research study groups to explore

literacy issues raised in the initial draft of

the communication skills resource

document. Recognizing the need for

effective reading across the content areas,

both districts are planning to broaden the

scope of their work to middle and high

schools.

 Recommendation #4: Involve all

stakeholders—those in the district

as well as state and federal

agencies—in refining and scalingup the change effort.

5. Results of Refinement and Scaling-up.

Surry County leaders report that students

in the classrooms of teachers trained in

Developing Efficient Readers typically

attained above-average proficiency in

reading, had positive attitudes toward

reading, and had meta-cognition about

their reading strategies. Remarkably, last

year’s test results showed that all Surry

County elementary schools achieved

“expected growth,” two-thirds met the

“exemplary growth” standard, and one

earned a “School of Distinction” under the

ABC Plan. Elizabeth City-Pasquotank

leaders, too, explain their students’ success

in terms of the state accountability plan—

the first year, 100 percent of their

elementary schools showed “exemplary

growth”; the second year, 75 percent

attained at least the “expected growth”

with four elementary schools maintaining

“exemplary growth.” These results were

attained while testing over 98 percent of

the student population. Emboldened by

their successes, Elizabeth City-Pasquotank

and Surry County leaders have subjected

themselves to the scrutiny of their peers

through state, regional, and national

presentations. Their willingness to share

their stories in this document attests to

their recognition that even effective

programs require continuous nurturing.

 Recommendation #5: To keep

progressing, publicize your

progress.

17
Note

SERVE recognizes that districts have a

compelling role to play in the improvement

of reading literacy. It is finally clear that

central office staff can make a difference.

Yet, while they can facilitate change, they

cannot force it. SERVE wants to support

the efforts of district leaders, principals,

and teachers across the Southeast in

building a regional community of learners.

Consequently, in addition to releasing this

document in print form, we are sharing it

with readers of our Web site in the hope

that, by using the pertinent guidelines,

others will contribute their stories of

districtwide reading improvement. You will

find us at www.serve.org.

In addition to the narratives presented in

this report, numerous documents created by

each district exist that may assist district

and school leaders in maximizing the

benefit of Leading Change in Literacy. While

we judged it beyond the scope of

this report to reproduce these documents,

you may acquire them and general

programmatic information by contacting

Elizabeth Anne Neal,

Director of Federal Programs

Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Schools

P.O. Box 2247

1200 Halstead Boulevard

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

Phone: 919-335-2981

Fax: 919-335-0974

and

Linda Tesh,

Director of Federal Programs,

Patsy Turner, Instructional Specialist,

or

Cherise Millsaps, Literacy Specialist

Surry County Schools

209 North Crutchfield Street

Dobson, NC 27017

Phone: 336-386-8211

Fax: 336-386-4279

R&D Program Manager’s Note

18
End Notes

End Notes

1

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1990.

2 Brandt, 1993. 3 1995. 4 The SERVE Promising Practices District Reading Program Questionnaire

may be found in Appendix A.

5 Hyerle, 1995. 6 1996.

19
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1990). Changing school culture through

staff development. B. Joyce (Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Brandt, R. (October, 1993). “On Restructuring Roles and Relationships: A Conversation with

Phil Schechty.” Educational leadership, 51 (2), 8-11.

Tewel, K. J. (April, 1995). “Despair at the Central Office.” Educational leadership, 52 (7), 65-68.

References

References

20
AppendixI. Overview of the Reading Literacy Program

A. What evidence of need for improved reading instruction existed?

B. What were the highlights in the evolution of the program?

II. Key Process Components

A. What ongoing staff support is provided?

B. What are some special training events?

C. How are parents involved?

D. What roles do principals and teachers play?

E. Who provides leadership?

F. How are proficiency standards for students developed?

III. Results and Recommendations

A. What results are you getting?

B. What have you learned from the project or program?

C. What do you think is the most successful aspect of your program?

D. What are your recommendations for other districts?

IV. General Information

A. School district name, address, phone and fax numbers

B. Superintendent and other key contacts’ names

Appendix

SERVE Promising Practices District Reading Program Questionnaire

21
dition or quality of b

ability to read 

n. The condition or quality of bei

esp. the ability to read and 

dition or quality of being literate,

ability to read and write

dition or quality of being literate,

ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of being literate,

esp. the ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of being 

esp. the ability to read and w

n. The condition or quality of bei esp. the ability to read and wr

n. The condition or quality of bei esp. the ability to read and wr

n. The condition or quality of being literate,

esp. the ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of being literate, esp. the ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of being literate,

esp. the ability to read and write

n. The condition or quality of bei

esp. the ability to read and w
SSLCL

$6.00

Do you have students who do not know how to read and write and teachers

who do not know how to “fix” them? Leading Change in Literacy consists

of three parts: First, Elizabeth Anne Neal describes how administrators,

principals, and teachers in the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County school

district went about changing its reading program. Next, Linda Tesh,

Patsy Turner, and Cherise Millsaps depict Surry County’s experience

with the Developing Efficient Readers program. Finally, to guide educators

considering districtwide reading literacy improvement, Leading Change

in Literacy presents the commonalities and differences of each approach

and makes recommendations for district leaders.

LEADING CHANGE IN

LITERACY

SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT STORIES

LEADING CHANGE IN

LITERACY

SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT STORIES

SHARING SUCCESS