Introduction Children living in poverty in the United States experience

Children living in poverty in the United States experience challenges to literacy

learning. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP, 2015), 16

million U.S. children live in families with incomes below the poverty line of $23,550 a

year for a family of four. Children living in poverty may experience reduced health,

nutrition, working vocabulary, and cognition and more stress and depressive symptoms

compared to other children (NCCP, 2015). They may be exposed to food, for instance,

with less nutritional value due to their families’ low income and limited food options

(Morgan, 2011). Children living in high poverty have been found to have more untreated

ailments, greater exposure to lead, and a higher incidence of asthma than middle-class

children (Gorski, 2013). It may well be that each of the factors associated with poverty

influence literacy learning for students.

Researchers have found that the health factors associated with living in poverty

have the potential to negatively influence poor children’s learning (Reglin, Akpo-Sanni,

& Losike-Sedimo, 2012). Darling-Hammond (2013), for instance, found that these

factors were correlated to lower attention, reasoning, learning, and memory among poor

children. Lower attention, reasoning, and memory may be cursory for poor achievement

in literacy.

Children living in high-poverty environments are particularly at risk for failure in

school (Gorski 2013; Morgan, 2011; Vera, 2011). They may be less engaged in the social,

instructional, and environmental opportunities provided by their schools (Gilboy,

Heinerichs, & Pazzaglia, 2015). Because of stressors from living in high poverty such as

high stress, poor nutrition, and poor health conditions, children may carry cognitive

problems that can make school more of a challenge (Morgan, 2011). Typically, by fourth

grade, high-poverty students score well below their more advantaged peers on national

assessments (Morgan, 2011; Vera, 2011). Additionally, students who live in highpoverty

school districts particularly experience poorer facilities (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, &

Schellinger, 2011) and have less equipped human and physical resources available to them

(Ecker & Sifers, 2013). Lack of human resources may include a higher staff to student ratio

and/or teaching staff with lower experience levels when compared to more affluent schools

(Morgan, 2011). Ill-equipped physical resources include a lack of technology, poor building

infrastructure, lack of media resources, and other physical needs for teaching and learning

(Ladd, 2012). Ill-equipped and lower-resourced schools compound the achievement gap

for high-poverty students, according to Ladd (2012).

Compounded achievement gap pressures may be a contributing cause for the problem.

Reducing the achievement gap and improving student literacy can foster social

equality, which should be the goal for all learning institutions, according to Mohamed,

Petras, Ismail, and Eng (2013). Social and physical conditions present in schools can

influence student achievement, both positively and negatively (Ecker, & Sifers, 2013;

Ladd, 2012; Morgan, 2009). Educators often struggle to address the achievement gap

between high-poverty students and more advantaged students (Mohamed et al., 2013).

According to Morgan (2011), however, educators can facilitate, mediate, and eliminate

the effects of the social implications of high poverty on students’ academic achievement.

Cognitive capacity, literacy, and intelligence are teachable skills that students, regardless

of their socioeconomic background, can achieve (Willingham, 2011).

High-poverty students may experience learning environments that do not regularly

address or meet literacy learning needs that some schools provide for students. Ashby,

Burns, and Royle (2013) posited that children deserve access to a rich and diverse literacy

curriculum with the expectation that they will obtain the necessary literacy skills for

lifelong learning and success. Roe, Smith, and Burns (2011) affirmed that schools

provide students with the foundational reading skills, fluency skills, analysis

proficiencies, and comprehension abilities necessary for proficiency in reading. In order

to do this effectively, educators must identify the specific problem. In the following

subsection, I discuss the problem I researched as part of my project study. The local

problem is discussed with background supported by archival data at the national, district,

and local level.

The Local Problem

The local problem addressed in this study was the low reading achievement of

high-poverty fourth grade students in a small rural school in the Mid-Atlantic region of

the United States. Despite small class sizes, highly qualified teachers, and a Common

Core-curriculum, high-poverty students’ literacy proficiency levels were more than 20%

below that of the general student population, as reported on the 2015 Partnership of

Assessment for Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC) literacy subtest as reported

by the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE, 2015). In 2011-2015,

highpoverty students at the local setting were, on average, 10% less proficient on state

level literacy achievement measures when compared to their more advantaged peers

(MSDE, 2015). The data suggest a gap in performance that depict high-poverty student

literacy concerns at the local school.

Background of the Problem

In comparing the achievement of high-poverty students and low-poverty students,

free and reduced-price meals student (FARMS) identification was used to identify

highpoverty students. Students receiving federal meals live in households with a

substantially lower income when compared to the national income median (United States

Census Bureau, n.d.). In 2015, children from families with incomes at or below 130% of

the poverty level were eligible for free meals; those with incomes between 130% and

185% of the poverty line were eligible for reduced-price meals (United States Department

of Agriculture, 2014). To be consistent with national and state level statistics, I

designated students who fell at or below 130% of the poverty level and who received

FARMS support as being high-poverty in my study.

At the local setting in 2015, 50% of high-poverty students scored 3 or greater on a

5 point scale on the PARCC literacy assessment as compared to nearly 70% for the

general population. In removing Level 3 tier scores during data scrutiny, the percentage

of high-poverty students scoring proficient dropped to 25% compared to 55% for the

general population. Fourth grade high-poverty students demonstrated poor performance

on literacy measures with less than 45% of students meeting 3 to 5 tier scores.

International student assessment data from the Program for International Student

Assessment (PISA) study suggest that school location and the median wealth of a school

location affect how much students’ socioeconomic status affects their test results (Marks,

Cresswell & Ainley, 2013). The problem of low literacy achievement for high-poverty

students in high-poverty educational settings was also recognized in the 2015 U.S.

national data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2015).

Highpoverty literacy achievement gaps evidenced in state level archival data, local

archival data, and the current literature represent a problem in the achievement of

students and may be the result of the teaching and learning process in U.S. Schools.

(Ladd, 2012, MSDE, 2015; NCES, 2011). A call for schools and school policy to address

and renew efforts that incorporate strategic and purposeful pedagogy to remediate literacy

instruction for high-poverty students surfaced in educational discussion and emulated the

discussion at local school settings (Ladd, 2012). The low student literacy achievement

represented in the data suggest an expansive problem exists for high-poverty students.

National Assessment of Education Progress’s (NAEP) Nation’s Report Card from

2015 (NCES, 2015) showed that 9-year-old students’ reading scores had increased since

1970. However, other U.S. data indicate that not all 9-year-old students in the country are

achieving federal reading standards. NAEP data from 2007-2015 highlight significant

discrepancies in scores for students in poverty when compared to more advantaged

student groups (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The data indicate over a

25-point deficit in scaled scores for high-poverty students when compared to all students.

In several national studies, researchers identified fourth grade as the critical point

in which student future literacy success can be predicted (Richards-Tutor, Baker, Gersten,

Baker, & Smith, 2016; Willingham, 2012). For the purpose of this study, I compared the

high-poverty achievement gap for Grade 4 on the NAEP. The NAEP is administered in

school districts across the United States every other year (NCES, 2015). NAEP reading

scale scores range from 0- 500. Scores reported from each demographic indicate

significant discrepancies from year to year. The data collected from the National Center

for Education Statistics website are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Grade 4 Literacy Achievement Proficiency for All Students as Compared to High-Poverty

Students (NAEP Scaled Scores-U.S. Averages)

________________________________________________________________________

Year All students High-poverty

students

2007 232 205

2009 232 206

2011 235 207

2013 236 207

2015 237 209

The high-poverty achievement gap is also evident in the Maryland state level data

collected from the NCES (2015) and is depicted in Table 2. On average, a 27.4 scaled

score deficit by high-poverty students from 2007-2015 is evident.

Table 2

Grade 4 Literacy Achievement Proficiency for All Students as Compared to High- Poverty

Students (NAEP Scaled Scores-Maryland)

________________________________________________________________________

Year All students High-poverty

students

2007

235

207

2009

236

210

2011

242

215

2013

242

216

2015

237

207

Similarly, the local district struggled to address high-poverty student reading

needs by the end of fourth grade, as evident in reading assessment scores. I used the

PARCC assessment system data to demonstrate trends (MSDE, 2015). A student score of

3-5 on a 5-point scale indicates literacy proficiency. A review of PARCC data indicates

that high-poverty students were less likely to score in the upper 4-5 tiers (see

Table 3).

Table 3

District Comparison of Grade 4 Literacy Achievement Proficiency for All Students and

High-Poverty Students-PARCC

________________________________________________________________________

Scoring 3, 4, or 5 Scoring 4 or 5

________________________________________________________________________

All Students 77.3% 49.4%

High-Poverty Students 57.4% 25.7%

Note. 3=Partially Met Expectations; 4=Met Expectations; 5=Exceeded Expectation

(MSDE, 2015)

Longitudinal analyses of data show an increase in the number of high-poverty

students from 2011-2014 combined with an overall decrease in elementary school literacy

performance. Poverty rates at the district level increased from 10% to over 25% in this 5-

year span (MSDE, 2015). The decline in literacy achievement was greater for high-

poverty students (see Table 4).

Table 4

District Longitudinal Literacy Achievement Proficiency for All Grade 3-5 Students and

High-Poverty Students Grade 3-5: State Assessment

________________________________________________________________________

Year All students High-poverty students

________________________________________________________________________

2011 93.9% 86.4

2012 93.8% 87.4%

2013 92.5% 83.7%

2014 91.9% 83.0%

The decline in scores during the 5-year span decreased at similar rates (by approximately

3%) for both student groups. Declines in literacy proficiency, with close to an 8% drop in

average literacy assessment scores from 2011-2015 indicate trends and patterns of lower

performance.

Rationale

Evidence exists for the problem at the local level from several data sources. The

problem is also evident in the research literature. The compounding poverty factors that

impact literacy achievement provide the rationale for the problem.

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level

U.S. demographic family income trends and projections suggest that U.S. schools

are significantly challenged with meeting the needs of a growing impoverished student

body (National Education Association, 2014). With increased poverty rates for children

in the United States, and shifts in geographical demographics that transformed middle

income locales to low income locales, the task of effectively closing learning gaps and

promoting positive achievement outcomes for all learners is more urgent (National

Education Association, 2014). In the United States, an increase in economic inequality

exists between high-income families and low-income families (Putnam, 2015), with a

majority (51%) of public school students coming from low-income families (Putnam,

2015). The local school exhibited growing poverty rates from 2011-2015, with the

number of students receiving FARMS increasing from 12% to 40% (MSDE, 2015).

The problem for this study existed at a rural mid-Atlantic elementary school

serving close to 400 students. During the 2015-2016 school year, the demographic

population of the school was 85% White, 10% Hispanic, 7% Black, 5% Multiple races,

and 3% other races. In 2015, 15% of students received special education services, and

3% received English Language Learning (ELL) services (MSDE, 2015). Nearly 41% of

students lived in high poverty and received FARMS. Table 5 provides a breakdown of

high-poverty demographics by grade-level.

Table 5

2015-2016 Demographics of High-Poverty Local School Environment by Grade Level

Grade level

High-poverty population

62.07%

54.85%

33.96%

39.13%

31.03%

42.08%

05 31.11%

(MSDE, 2015)

From 2013-2016, the local setting focused its school improvement efforts on

reducing the literacy achievement gap for students from high-poverty backgrounds.

During this 3-year period, the FARMS population of students increased from 29% to over

40% (MSDE, 2015). At the local setting, in each year from 2011-2014, the subgroup of

fourth grade high-poverty students scored far below all students on state reading

assessments; 64% scored in the proficient range in reading as compared to 90% of the

general population (MSDE, 2015). School leaders recognized that literacy achievement

for high-poverty students was below the performance of grade-level peers from more

advantaged groups. In 2014, state assessments identified the current status of school

achievement among students in the state. Similar to national, state, and district trends, as

the percent of the local student population that is considered high-poverty increased

(MSDE, 2015), literacy achievement for all students declined. The decline has been at an

even higher rate for high-poverty students as indicated from the MSDE (2015) school

assessment results (see Table 6).

Table 6

Literacy Achievement Proficiency for Grade 3-5 Students (All Students as Compared to

High-Poverty Students) at the Local Site

All students

High-poverty students

2011 95.2%

91.9%

2012 94.4%

87.9%

2013 91.6%

78.1%

2014 88.3% 76.9%

Note. State assessment

The percentage differences for both groups (general and high-poverty) from 2011-2014

indicate a 15% decrease in scores among high-poverty students during this time. The data

reinforce the trend of negative changes in literacy scores.

As the high-poverty student population grew, the collective performance for all

students on literacy measures declined. The data from Table 6 suggest that the gap in

performance grew quickly and influenced the entire student population. For example, a

5% or greater decline in scores occurred each year from 2011-2014. Moreover, FARMS

students’ literacy scores declined at a greater rate compared to the general population (see

Table 7).

Table 7

High-Poverty Demographic and Local Longitudinal Literacy Achievement Proficiency

for Grade 3-5 High-Poverty Students: State Assessment

________________________________________________________________________

Percent population Literacy achievement high-

poverty high-poverty students

________________________________________________________________________

2011 12.4% 91.9%

2012 18.6% 87.9%

2013 22.4% 78.1

2014 33.3% 76.9%

(MSDE, 2015)

School leaders identified apparent themes and strategies and uncovered specific

learning prerequisites as part of professional development for staff. District and school

leaders hoped that job-embedded professional development consistent with effective

community of practice design could remediate the problem (Mayer, Woulfin & Warhol,

2015). The local school performance paralleled that of the larger educational community:

the achievement gap for high-poverty students remained despite a renewed effort and

attention to the data. Stakeholders drilled down to determine trends and possible

solutions with PARCC assessment data. The data further substantiated the achievement

gap in fourth grade literacy where students demonstrated 74% proficiency while only

48% of high-poverty students scored proficient (MSDE, 2015).

The NAEP and state data suggest that poverty possesses a strong negative

influence on achievement at the local setting. Despite the strategies the school

community employed from 2012 to 2015, the local institution demonstrated an

achievement gap for high-poverty students. Notwithstanding small class sizes of no more

than 23 students for reading, 100% highly qualified teachers, and common core

implemented curriculum, high-poverty students by the end of fourth grade struggled to

meet literacy achievement standards. This trend depicted a substantial gap in practice

that validated this study.

Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature

Krashen (2011) stated, “Poverty is clearly the most serious problem. In fact, it

may be the only serious problem in American education” (p. 18). The literature suggests

that the gap in literacy achievement is the result of compounding poverty factors, which

reinforces exploration of additional solutions, strategies, or practices to remediate literacy

needs (Rosenberg, 2012; Willingham, 2012). Some researchers found that differential

educational risk factors exist in rural areas for high-poverty students that are not

considered factors in urban settings (Greenough & Nelson, 2015; Ullici & Howard,

2015). Therefore, the problem has unique rural nuances that required attention. Rural

nuances include generational factors that may not be typical in the urban setting as well

as monolithic community issues that give rise to cycles of poverty (Ramalho & Urick,

2013).

When students do not possess comprehension and fluency skills by the end of

third grade, students can become tracked in intervention systems that have not always

worked to meet their individual needs (Richards-Tutor et al., 2016). Little intervention, if

any, is as effective as ensuring students reach literacy standards through early school

years (Hagans & Good III, 2013). Ladd (2012) documented that children from

disadvantaged households perform less well in school than those from more advantaged

households. Through qualitative case study measures, Loyd and Hertzmans (2010) found

that high-poverty rural settings maintain high residential instability and mobility, which

leads to worsened literacy scores over time and lower fourth-grade scores compared to

more affluent surroundings. Also, in a review of experimental studies, poverty is

associated with lower test scores in reading achievement (De Marco & Vernon, 2013).

A review of the literature indicates that most research on poverty is typically

focused on major urban settings (Greenough & Nelson, 2015; Ullucci & Howard, 2015).

It is significant, however, that across the United States more than half of high-poverty

students in elementary school live in nonurban settings (United States Department of

Agriculture, 2014). Using less typical socioeconomic characteristics such as immigration

status, race, and parent education, Lloyd and Hertzman (2010) found that schools with

higher affluence regardless of diversity make greater literacy gains. Concentrated urban

neighborhood affluence is associated with better fourth-grade outcomes and improvement

in scores over time. Lower rural wealth concentrations result in lower test scores and lower

improvement over time. The empirical correlation between poverty and underachievement

suggests that poverty is a stronger demographic influence than the other demographic

descriptors of race or special services (Loyd & Hertzman, 2010).

The empirical relationship between poverty and lower literacy scores for

elementary students was also apparent in the literature review (Hagans & Good III, 2013;

Krashen, 2011). The research suggested that many low-income children struggle to

acquire early reading skills (Tivnan & Hemphill, 2015). Studies focused on the

individual student, the school, the district, the state, and/or the country used various

measures of family socioeconomic status or different definitions of high-poverty

including income-related measures such as family income, education level of the parents,

occupation type of the parents, or employment status. In each, poverty negatively

influenced student achievement (Ladd, 2012). Poverty as a socioeconomic factor is the

strongest predictor of low performance for students (Hagans & Good III, 2013; Krashen,

2011). Moreover, the research substantiates that poverty negatively influenced student

achievement for over 20 years (Korenman, Miller, & Sjanstad, 1994).

Preferences and behaviors of teachers may contribute to the problem. Some

teachers with strong credentials are reluctant to teach in schools with large concentrations

of high-poverty students (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2011). Colclough (2012)

discovered that teachers today are not lower performing or less committed when

compared to teachers of the past; instead, gaps in teaching and student performance grew

over time based on socioeconomics of the school environment. Moreover, the gap in

performance for high-poverty students persists at rates much greater in high-poverty

schools as compared to schools with higher affluence and could be the result of variance

in teaching practices and teaching capacity among the different environments.

In a quantitative study that discussed early school skills for high-poverty students,

60% of children from high-poverty households scored below even a basic level in reading

at the end of the primary grades (Hagans & Good III, 2013). For high-poverty students in

rural areas, the achievement in early school years remained low despite more than 3

decades of federal investment in programs to remediate or prevent reading failure (De

Marco & Faegans, 2013). The evidence of low achievement surfaced on nationally

normed literacy assessments and interventions, where minority status and poverty linked

to lower oral reading fluency scores (Paleologos & Brabham, 2011). Hagans and Good

III (2013) discovered that students in high poverty underperform regardless of monetary

investment or prescribed research-based interventions. Likewise, Colclough (2012)

determined that students from well-funded schools with higher socioeconomic

backgrounds outscore schools with lesser monetary resources.

The inequities resulting from poverty in learning environments cause students to

struggle and disengage from school (Wang & Machado, 2015). Possible sources of

disengagement include rural factors such as geographical isolation and other

neighborhood disadvantages. Wang (2011) discovered that rural students need more time

to learn the same amount of knowledge and skills than counterparts in urban settings. In

a correlational study, De Marco and Vernon-Faegans (2013) discovered that disadvantage

in rural communities can influence child learning development. To measure children’s

lowered receptive language abilities, De Marco and Vernon-Faegans (2013) explored

impeded language acquisition and discovered that lower neighborhood safety in poor

areas correlated to lower childhood vocabulary. Low performance also resulted from

poor early reading development in low-income rural homes (De Marco &

VernonFaegans, 2013; Dinehart & Manfra, 2013; Hagans & Good III, 2013). Thus, rural

highpoverty low-language childhood experiences negatively influence childhood literacy

(De Marco & Vernon-Faegans, 2013).

The influence of high-poverty on academic achievement was significant in the

case of language and literacy competence (Hartas, 2011). Moreover, the data, findings in

the literature base, and scope of the problem globally, nationally, and locally suggest that

high-poverty teaching and learning factors contribute to the identified gap in practice.

High-poverty literacy gaps could contribute to future school and societal problems, such

as lowered graduation rates and unpreparedness for college and careers (Mette &

Scribner, 2014). This phenomenon is of great importance for the education profession as

teaching, learning, and social change actions continue to target and address high-poverty

achievement gaps.

The review of the problem of lower literacy achievement for high poverty learners

in the literature provided me with extensive and well-documented evidence of the

problem in the global context. Tivnan and Hemphill (2015) suggested that educator

urgency in closing the achievement gap for students in poverty be made priority for

school reform. In the literature, school officials are called on to ensure educational equity

for the underprivileged (Tivnan & Hemphill, 2015). While educational institutions and

researchers alike have worked on intentional processes that readdress school policies for

disadvantaged students, the literature suggests dramatic changes in the way that schools

do business to meet high-poverty learning demands (Stone-Johnson, 2013).

Definition of Terms

The following list includes key terms and definitions used in my project study:

School culture: The assumptions, beliefs, routines, practices, and norms that

influence the teaching and learning process at a school (DuFour & Marzano, 2012).

Communities of practice: A group of people who share a history of experience.

Although a systemic vision for the community of practice may be in place, not all

members share a common trajectory or agree on a collaborative mission (Wenger, 1998).

Collaboration: The work that teachers do with time and tools that engage them in

life-long learning that improves teaching and learning practice. Collaboration typically

occurs in the form of teaching teams, but individual members must be committed to

working together to change long-standing assumptions, expectations and practices

(Carrol, Fulton, & Doerr, 2010).

Emergent literacy: The process of acquiring reading-related skills during the

formative pre-school years beginning with a pre-kindergarten child’s awareness of

language, understanding and recognizing letters as symbols, foundations of print, and

naming and sounding letters by the end of pre-kindergarten (Whitehurst & Lonigan,

1998).

Learning community: The school community inclusive of students, teachers,

instructional support staff, support staff, parents, school leaders, and other stakeholders

who work directly or indirectly with the teaching and learning process (DuFour &

Marzano, 2012).

Learning systems: The curriculum implementation, professional development

processes, teacher actions, leadership actions, school goals, student expectations, student

engagement, collaborative processes, decision making systems, and stakeholder

relationships in a school (Mette & Scribner, 2014).

Learning structures: The physical school facility, school schedule, team meeting

structures, leadership structures, and lesson plan structure and delivery that support

teaching (Tivnan & Hemphill, 2015).

Macro factors: The global historical, political, and societal structures that

influence student learning (Fletcher, Grimley, Greenwood, and Parkhill, 2013).

Micro factors: The institutionalized historical, political, and societal forces that

regularly influence day-to-day classroom interactions between the teacher and student

(Fletcher et al., 2013).

Significance of the Study

This study is significant to the educators at the local site because it addresses the

problem with plausible changes in practice that may benefit student literacy learning.

Moreover, the study has significance for the broader educational profession, including

teacher and administrator preparation. Finally, positive social change is possible as a

result of the findings from this study.

Significance of the Study for Educators at the Local Site

This study is significant to the local teachers and school leaders in their reform

efforts toward reaching higher literacy achievement for students by the end of fourth

grade. Reforming an established learning community where collaborative practices

regularly address the specific needs of each and every student is a monumental

undertaking (DuFour & Marzano, 2012). The pursuit of student excellence in literacy

achievement regardless of student socioeconomic status proves to be difficult for many

schools (De Marco & Vernon-Faegans, 2013). Regardless of such difficulties, schools

discover ways to meet high-poverty literacy needs. Schools possess the capability to

enhance practices that improve the literacy achievement of students regardless of

highpoverty factors (De Marco & Vernon-Faegans, 2013; Krashen, 2011). This project

study contributes to the local learning community and provides best practices to consider

for continuous reform efforts that may improve high-poverty literacy.

Students at the local school can benefit from the study. The study outcomes

potentially influence instruction and increase reading achievement for high-poverty

students as well as the general population. Students who meet literacy standards by the

beginning of fourth grade are more likely to succeed in school and in future college and

career pathways (Foorman, Koon, Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, 2015). The local

community of educators may be able to implement strategies discussed in this project

study to increase the achievement for high-poverty students who are typically

underserved. In meeting the reading achievement needs of the local fourth grade

students, future success in school, college, or careers is increased (Mette & Scribner,

2014).

While the reduction of poverty in society is beyond the scope of educational

institutions, mitigating the influence of high poverty on academic achievement is within

educational means (Ladd, 2012). The overall significance is that the local school can do

something to eliminate or reduce achievement gaps caused by poverty. With the learning

of literacy skills for students, especially by the end of fourth grade, considered highly

complex and measured as a strong predictor of future communicative, cognitive and

social capacities (Ferraz, Pocinho, Pereira, & Pimenta, 2015), it is the responsibility of

educators to meet student literacy needs. This study and the suggested outcomes may

provide local school leaders and teachers with the effective protocols for meeting such

literacy needs for students.

At the local setting, the ability to use the project outcomes to enhance its

community of practice could be beneficial for student literacy achievement.

Administrators may be able to use the outcomes for improved professional development

and instructional leadership. Classroom teachers may be able to use the project for

improved instruction. Local teacher specialists may also find the project outcome useful

in delivering improved adult professional learning strategies. Finally, students would

benefit through enhanced instruction that correlates to greater literacy achievement.

Overall learning community improvement could increase the likelihood that eventually

all high-poverty students would meet literacy standards by the end of fourth grade.

Significance of the Study for the Education Profession

Educator capacity is described as the most effective measure to close test score

gaps for high-poverty students (Lauen, 2013). Further study in methods to improve

educator aptitude for high-poverty students improves educator capacity

(DarlingHammond, 2013). The implications and findings discussed in this study for the

education profession comprise of a contribution of information to the research base and in

the field for implemented practice. The findings and project are of benefit for local

teachers, district leaders, school administrators, teacher preparation programs, and other

school districts for improved capacity in meeting high-poverty student literacy needs.

Teachers are afforded additional strategies, practices, and reflective opportunities.

District leaders and administrators could use the findings to support future

decisionmaking for curriculum implementation, literacy interventions, and other fiscal

and physical resource decisions. Teacher preparation programs may use the findings to

increase teacher preparation competencies. Moreover, schools in the United States

confronted with high-poverty literacy achievement gaps, could use this research to

enhance their communities of practice.

The pursuit of pedagogical best practices that address the needs of an

everchanging student population, especially students who were typically underserved, is a

primary responsibility of the education profession (Kaniuka, 2012; Tam, 2015). The

implications from this project study contribute to the education profession and support the

pursuit of additional pedagogic best practices. Teachers need the information to continue

to grow in teaching and instruction practices in their classrooms. Teacher preparation

programs need this information to maintain excellence in the field and provide new

teachers with more competency and experience before entering the classroom.

Administrators who are leading teachers need the information to support informed

decision-making that close achievement gaps. Finally, schools in the United States need

this information, to further support, implement, or transform communities of practice to

meet ever-changing high-poverty student literacy needs.

Implications for Positive Social Change

Quality education creates positive social change by providing a foundation by

which members of society can minimize the effects of sociocultural and opportunity

disparities and differences (Gorski, 2013). The achievement gap for high-poverty

students as well as other disadvantaged student groups requires critical dialogue and a

search for the best practices that school communities can use to defend students from

disadvantages (Philpott & Dagenais, 2012). Providing structures and effective tools for

communities that promote increased teacher collaborative capacity and student literacy

performance enhances the education of students and enhances future social change.

Therefore, the resultant positive social change from this project study include potential

expansion of college and career readiness, a rise in graduation rates, an escalation in

earning power, and upward social mobility for all students and especially high-poverty

student in local, national, and global learning communities.

Research Questions

The local problem addressed in the study was the low reading achievement of

high-poverty fourth grade students in a small rural school in the Mid-Atlantic region of

the United States. The purpose of the study was to explore the perceived best practices at

a learning environment that support high achievement for high-poverty students and

gather an understanding of the educator perceptions of the mechanisms that can solve the

literacy achievement gap. The guiding research question to determine the design,

methodology, and scope of the study was: What are principal and teacher perceptions of

best practices that increase fourth grade literacy achievement for high-poverty students in

a high-achieving elementary school? At the local level, this addresses the specific

problem of low-literacy achievement for high-poverty students. Moreover, the

overarching question also aligns to the problem at the global, national, and district level.

Ambiguity exists in the literature on the specific school-based strategies in support of

increased achievement for high-poverty students (Ferraz et al., 2015; Ladd, 2012).

Various instructional interventions have led to little impact of chronic achievement gaps.

Therefore, an exploration of the perceived best practices at a learning environment

experiencing high achievement for high-poverty students was necessary to provide

specific practices for other school communities. An understanding of the educator

perceptions of the mechanisms that can solve the literacy achievement gap was a strategic

goal for this study.

Schools exist that demonstrate success in raising literacy achievement for

highpoverty students. A qualitative study that explored the perceptions of current practice

in such a school, specifically a high-poverty, high-achieving learning community,

influences future practices at the local learning community. An examination of effective

professional practice in the high-achieving elementary school environment promotes

professional growth for teachers and increases literacy achievement for low-income

students in the local setting. The research to determine which best practices were

essential for increased teacher capacity also leads to improved student literacy

achievement. Researchers and practitioners suggest that the instructional decisions and

opportunities for students that occur in schools are the result of institutionalized micro

and macro social, cultural, and political factors (Fletcher et al., 2013). An analysis of

principal and teacher perceptions of these micro and macro factors at a high-poverty

high-achieving learning environment delivered plausible outcomes to reshape and

redesign future best collaborative practices as a solution to low reading achievement.

Specific research questions were as follows:

RQ 1: What are the campus principal’s perceptions of the classroom best practices

(micro factors) that contribute to high levels of literacy achievement for students in

poverty at a high achieving elementary school?

RQ 2: What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom best practices (micro

factors) that contribute to high levels of literacy achievement for students in poverty at a

high achieving elementary school?

RQ 3: What are the campus principal’s perceptions of the systems and structures

(macro factors) that influence high-level literacy instruction for students at a high

achieving elementary school?

RQ 4: What are the teacher perceptions of the systems and structures (macro

factors) that influence high-level literacy instruction for students at a high achieving

elementary school?

Review of the Literature

To find relevant current studies to support the problem, I searched the literature

using the following databases: Academic Search Complete, ERIC and the Simultaneous

Education Research Complete, Open Library, ProQuest, SAGE Research Complete, and

the Google Scholar engine assigned to the Walden University Library. By combining

keywords and Boolean phrases such as literacy achievement, high-poverty, and learning

community with the terms best practices, shared leadership, collaboration, educational

leadership, school reform, school renewal, teacher capacity, and reading interventions, I

yielded significant results. In the second stage, I reviewed the abstracts of the works and

narrowed the scope of literature by selecting the most relevant works to the research

question. Seminal works were chosen for inclusion in the literature review based on their

potential contribution to the conceptual framework of the paper, relevance to

sociocultural principles, school literacy improvement, learning community best practices,

and high-poverty implications for student learning. Works addressing attempts by

practicing educators to promote school literacy reform efforts through learning

community best practices based on social change values were reviewed, analyzed, and

synthesized in a self-designed matrix to elicit themes. Works that addressed the

interdependence of micro and macro sociocultural factors in schools as they related to the

research question were reviewed, analyzed, and synthesized in a similar amalgamation

matrix. The combination and synthesis of the descriptive studies established a connection

to the conceptual framework and suggested approaches for improving literacy instruction.

The literature review begins with a discussion of the sociocultural conceptual

framework that grounds the study. This is followed by an analysis of the problem

through thematically grouped and organized review of the sources in terms of theoretical

constructs and topics of importance: high poverty as a factor in inhibiting achievement;

literacy learning; micro factors that influence school literacy improvement; macro factors

that influence school literacy improvement; and a discussion on the suggested best

practices. By organizing the review in this way, the scholarly literature is funneled from

higher-level concepts and broader problem implications to the specific studies and critical

analysis where literacy learning for high-poverty students is based.

Conceptual Framework

The professional research of scholars and the opinions of practitioners suggest that

the instructional decisions and opportunities for students that occur in schools are the

result of institutionalized micro and macro social, cultural, and political factors (Fletcher

et al., 2013). Researchers indicate that the lower achievement of high-poverty students is

related to such dynamics and worthy of a scholarly endeavor (Dexter & Stacks, 2013;

Kaniuka, 2012; Matsumura & Wang, 2014; Shippen, Miller, Patterson, Houchins, &

Darch, 2014). Originally discussed by Vygotsky (1978) as part of the social

constructivism theory and expounded by neo-sociocultural theorists (Wertsch, del Rio, &

Alverez, 1995), the conceptual framework driving this study is the sociocultural

framework. The framework is summarized as an awareness of circumstances

surrounding individuals and how their behaviors are affected by their surrounding

specific social and cultural factors (Fletcher et al, 2013). Wertsch et al. (1995) described

teaching and learning as an empathetic art that relates the social and cultural differences

of students to curriculum. Teaching must include the prerequisite knowledge of students

and a hyper-awareness of sociocultural factors to plan learning pathways that meet

student sociocultural needs. The sociocultural framework combines teaching practices

alongside knowledge of students’ high-poverty backgrounds and cultures to support

engaged practitioners in self-reflective learning that improves both teaching practice and

student achievement (Fletcher, 2015). Derivatives of the framework as discussed in the

literature include the socioecological theories, social constructivist, socioemotional

theories, and other wider socially derived theories (Berkovich, 2013; Colclough, 2013;

Fletcher et al., 2013; Lam, 2014; Lenters, 2013; Wilcox, 2013).

Students and adult learners make meaningful connections with school

environments when commonality exists between school cultural contexts and the

experiences of personal lives. The ability to improve reading instruction for high-poverty

students requires an exploration of the explicit skills of competent reading with wider

school and community structures that influence reading achievement (Fletcher et al.,

2013). Fletcher et al. (2013) postulated a sociocultural systematic learning model

framework that isolated the conditions in which children can improve reading

achievement among the macro factors and micro factors that contribute to the social

milieu that is present in school. Wertsch et al. (1995) posited that learners, adult or child,

must be immersed in this social milieu before anything can be learned and materialized in

the brain. The construction of knowledge is an active participation of collaboration

between learner, teacher, and environment within the attributes micro and macro factors

(Lam, 2014; Wilcox, 2013).

The micro factors relevant to this project study included: educator efficacy,

beliefs, teacher capacity, student expectations, instruction, and decision-making

(Berkovich, 2013; Colclough, 2013; Fletcher et al., 2013; Lam, 2014; Lenters, 2013;

Wilcox, 2013). The macro factors relevant to the study included: school culture, school

climate, political forces, social positioning, organizational conditions, and accountability

measures (Berkovich, 2013; Colclough, 2013; Fletcher et al., 2013; Lam, 2014; Lenters,

2013; Wilcox, 2013). The sociocultural macro and micro factors regulate student literacy

achievement through the relationships between school, student, and community (Fletcher,

2015). In order for students to achieve at a high level, micro and macro factors must be

situated around high quality instruction that emphasizes sustained connected learning

opportunities for both students and staff (Matsumura & Wang, 2014). School

improvement initiatives concentrated on social practices inherent to individuals and

communities correlate to significant achievement outcomes (Jesson & Limbrick, 2014;

Lenters, 2013).

The logical connection among the key elements of the framework includes the

research on teacher perception and beliefs in regards to student expectation and

achievement (Banks et al., 2013; Griffith, Massey, & Atkinson, 2013; Kaniuka, 2012;

Wilcox, 2013). A sociocultural comfort zone exists for learners and teachers (Banks et

al., 2013; Ferguson, 2014). Moreover, in order for student achievement to rise, both

teachers and students need to step outside of this comfort zone. In doing so, educators

and students make use of the sociocultural or social practices in the teaching and learning

approaches to literacy (Lenters, 2013). Literacy is best conceptualized socially as an

ideological process encompassing skills of learning to decode print and comprehend

written language through connections. These connections are the direct result of the

social, political, cultural and linguistic complexities inherent to the beliefs of individuals,

schools, and communities that shape perceptions and the use of literacy skills (Lenters,

2013). High-poverty students and teachers interact in ways that are symbolic of these

complexities. Teachers and students influence each other as expectations for achievement

are built in the teacher-student relationship. For example, low expectations may lead to

lower achievement while high expectations may lead to higher achievement. In a

longitudinal qualitative case study grounded in the sociocultural framework, Fletcher et

al. (2013) discovered influential factors that affect school improvement and postulated

that professional perceptions leading to high-level literacy achievement are rooted in the

sociocultural components. Learning community collaborative practice, ongoing

professional development, and implementation of reading programs derived from school

data, school wide support, and many others were included. It was of significance that

researchers discovered that elementary reading instruction and sociolinguistics permeate

each of the influential factors (Fisher, Frey, & Nelson, 2013). Effective reading

instruction was presented as the most important sociocultural factor in elementary student

achievement and teacher professional development (Broadley, 2012). Thus, literacy

instruction for students in high poverty is influenced by sociocultural forces inside

instruction (micro) and forces outside of instruction (macro). To fully understand how

micro and macro factors inhibit literacy learning, the sociocultural factors explicit to high

poverty must be examined.

High-Poverty Factors That Inhibit Literacy Achievement

Educators’ views toward poverty and the systematic decisions made based on

subconscious biases were found to further perpetuate low achievement for high-poverty

students (Banks, Dunston, & Foley, 2013; Sparks & Reese, 2013). In an exploratory

mixed-methods study, Banks et al. (2013) found that negative attitudes existed about the

expectations of achievement for students who live in high poverty. In a like study, Sparks

and Reese (2013) examined sources of variation for language development and

discovered that lower verbal abilities in high-poverty students hindered academic

progress. Variations in language correlated to increased identification of high-poverty

students for speech language and special education services. Moreover, high-poverty

student literacy learning is linked to complex systematic and institutional norms that may

perpetuate bias and false identification of students for special services (Sparks & Reese,

2013).

In a study of school and socioeconomic social factors, Reglin et al. (2012) found

that indirect factors related to high-poverty inequalities in education are related to the

social and cultural disparities between the richer and poorer segments of society. Parental

involvement, parent-child interactions, along with the family’s general attitude towards

learning and academic success bears a negative influence on student performance (Topor,

Keane, Shelton & Calkins, 2010). Data indicated that teaching quality and resources

spent in high-poverty areas were reduced when compared to more affluent neighborhoods

or school districts (Ladd, 2012). Students who live in highpoverty homes typically attend

high-poverty schools and are further disadvantaged from social and fiscal inequality

factors. Furthermore, the literature recommended that special attention be given to high-

poverty students and high-poverty schools to further reduce disparities and barriers to

learning and achievement (Kaniuka, 2012; Tam, 2015).

A longitudinal study completed by Dexter & Sacks (2013) linked a lack of

preschool learning development as a negative influence on literacy. Children who have

underdeveloped literacy skills experience difficulty in catching up to their peers. Dexter

and Stacks (2013) quantified that early kindergarten students who possess low emergent

literacy skills have greater than an 80% chance of being a low reader with low

comprehension by third grade. Children not reading well by the end of first grade have a

90% chance of remaining low readers (Dexter & Stacks, 2013). Early comprehension

delays increase the likelihood that high-poverty students will encounter more learning

problems in school as the initial reading gaps continue to widen over time (De Marco &

Vernon-Faegans, 2013).

Several important indirect contextual factors contribute to the phenomena of the

low academic achievement in high-poverty students. Elements include pre-literacy gaps

from social and contextual poverty factors, social diversity challenges, negative social

influences of student poverty, and inadequate teacher preparation, experience, or

professional development to address substantial need in high-poverty schools (Dinehart &

Manfra, 2013). There was also evidence that the low literacy performance of highpoverty

students results in low engagement and lesser fine-motor skills in early elementary years

(Dinehart & Manfra, 2013). Low engagement and reduced fine-motor skills from early

life poverty indicate that the early indirect literacy factors relate to later lower

engagement in the learning process.

A review of the research also suggests that rural schools have challenges in

maintaining a faculty of highly experienced teachers compounded by limited access to

high quality professional development (Porche, Pallante, & Snow, 2012). The social

attributes of professional development were reported to be of high value for teacher

growth (Fisher, Frey, & Nelson, 2013). The absence of such professional social attributes

for high-poverty rural schools compound improvement efforts, because the sociocultural

factors that underpin an informal network for educators typically provide for a continuous

cycle of growth significant to student and school sociocultural needs (Ramalho & Urick,

2013). Moreover, rural teachers may not be adequately prepared to effectively

collaborate with one another due to prohibiting sociocultural factors like lack of trust,

which was indicated as a typical characteristic of rural high-poverty locales (Bausmith &

Barry, 2011; Ramalho & Urick, 2013).

Collaboration amongst teachers was empirically addressed and considered a

strategy to improve teacher capacity and instructional repertoire (Bausmith & Barry,

2011; Lenters, 2013). For example, in an explanatory mixed methods study, Broadley

(2012) investigated a model that provided collaborative connectedness for rural teachers

in Australia. The connectedness allowed faculty to experience a cycle of social growth

that resulted in improved professional development and capacity building. The research

of Porche et al. (2012) indicated that teachers were more willing to try new

methodologies when collaborative opportunities were included as a macro factor in

school professional development. D’Ardenne et al. (2013) indicated that teachers crave a

high level of collaboration with each other to share critically and interrogate practice

through reflection. Such collaboration could potentially shift learning community culture

and build individual teacher capacity (Anderson, Mascall, Stiegelbauer, & Park, 2012;

Fletcher et al., 2013; Matsumura & Wang, 2014).

Outcomes of education are mediated by the local, social, and economic contexts

of the school community (Colclough, 2013). The literature indicated that poverty’s

adverse effect on quantity and quality of instruction further reduces and prevents

highpoverty students from the social benefits of public education (Jesson & Limbrick,

2014). The complex interactions between the social and cultural circumstances of

poverty among the same social and cultural contexts of school are barriers to high-

poverty student learning (Jesson & Limbrick, 2014). This is a contradiction in the belief

that the education system should serve as a social allocation that breaks down inequality

(Colclough, 2013). Moreover, the literature suggests that education’s influence on

reducing social inequalities is no longer as strong as it once was, and the positive

influence that once existed has been degraded due to social and political factors (Elliot,

2014 Lenters, 2013; Paleologos & Brabham, 2011).

Literacy Instructional Factors

The broader problem of low achievement for high-poverty students in schools is

underpinned in sociocultural factors that influence literacy instructional factors. Literacy

learning, which includes fluency and comprehension, was presented as a concurrent

theme throughout the literature base. Furthermore, five domains of literacy were

discussed: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and

reading comprehension (Ferguson, 2014; Ferguson, 2013; Fletcher, 2015; Foorman et al.,

2015; Jesson & Limbrick, 2014, Lenters, 2013). By isolating the five domains in both

quantitative and qualitative methodology, researchers found that high poverty’s social and

cultural contextual factors influence student achievement in these literacy domains

(Ferguson, 2014; Ferguson, 2013; Jesson & Limbrick, 2014, Lenters, 2013). The

experimental studies of Richards-Tutor et al. (2015) and Shippen et al. (2015) focused on

strengths of reading intervention that used literacy domains as the diagnostic

measurement. In each study, it was discovered that high-poverty negatively influenced

literacy scores. Therefore, high poverty’s social and cultural complexities must be

considered when programming for literacy instruction.

De Marco and Vernon-Faegans (2013) discovered that inadequate explicit reading

instruction within the literacy domains results from minimal professional conversation

focused on generational and situational poverty implications. Tam (2015) suggested that

isolative teaching practice, inadequate use of formative assessment for explicit feedback

for students, and inexperience analyzing student achievement data leads to unfocused

instructional conversation. Isolationism by teachers with a lack of targeted instructional

decisions was listed as a contributing factor for lowered student literacy (Kaniuka, 2012).

Isolationism and the absence of explicit teaching practices might contribute to the

phenomenon of low literacy achievement for high-poverty students.

Increased professional competence was empirically correlated to the augmentation

of sociohistorical and sociocultural barriers to student achievement in reflective

professional development for teachers (Hargreaves & Harris, 2011). Researchers found

that professional development derived from reflective and collaborative approaches result

in increased positive literacy performance (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Hargreaves &

Harris, 2011; Stone-Johnson, 2013). When educators align culture and collaborative

tasks to address and explore complex student literacy learning phenomena, equitable

plans of actions with improved teaching practices result (Mette & Scribner, 2014). The

implications of teacher collaboration toward equity may be the pathway to greater

competence for teaching literacy to students.

Collaborative discourse as a learning community practice has also gained attention

at the U.S. national level (DuFour & Marzano, 2012). With the arrival of the Common

Core and Race to the Top legislation, a new mutual level of accountability is expected for

student performance in global 21st century literacy skills. Older educational technologies

and strategies combined with new 21st century literacy tools have forced schools and

districts to rely on strong collaboration, partnerships within and among teaching teams,

and egalitarian approaches for professional growth (DuFour & Marzano, 2012). The

implications of low literacy achievement for high-poverty students in the education

profession were grounded in these heightened ethical responsibilities and accountability

measures.

Macro Factors That Influence School Literacy Achievement

I synthesized the literature to determine the macro factors that influence school

literacy improvement. The macro factors are school culture, school climate,

social/political forces, social positioning, organizational conditions, and accountability

measures (Berkovich, 2013; Colclough, 2013; Fletcher et al., 2013; Lam, 2014; Lenters,

2013; Wilcox, 2013). Education is described as an open system, embedded in a complex

social context with macro factors within and outside of district boundaries (Berkovich,

2013). Macro factors are represented in the state and national political forces that drive

educational decision-making. Macro factors affect the many hidden institutional

distinctions that perpetuate the work that schools do, in both high performing and low

performing schools (Berkovich, 2013, Colclough, 2013, Lam 2014). In fact, in regression

studies that addressed higher-performing low-income students, the school ecosystem and

societal macro system were reported to influence all facets of instruction (Wilcox, 2013).

The research indicates that several interrelated school climate factors make a

difference in school literacy achievement: (a) a high understanding of student populations

(b) intensive literacy instruction; (c) technology rich instruction; (d) a collaborative

approach to curriculum; and (e) the ability to adapt and deploy resources, (f) the use of

performance data, and (g) connections with families (Berkovich, 2013, Colclough, 2013,

Lam 2014 Wilcox, 2013). Empirically, school culture was considered an influential

constituent in all areas of student achievement because learning expectations result from

the lived and hidden culture that exists in a school (Wilcox, 2013). Lam (2014) reported

that before high-poverty students even interact with teachers, expectations are being

formed as a result of macro processes. Lam (2014) discovered that teacher expectations

of students was a distal variable that exerted influence on the overall school climate and

suggested that school climate and culture contribute to high-poverty students being

exposed to a tracking system due to low academic and literacy performance. Thus, many

social and political complexities inherently shape structures and cultures of schools.

Reading is the fundamental skill that is critical to success in society (Shippen et

al., 2014). Although accountability measures have been adopted and laws have been

passed to ensure all children gain adequate reading skills, a large number of socially

disadvantaged communities, congested in rural and urban areas of high poverty continue

have not met reading standards (Ladd, 2012). The social positioning or the variability in

income levels of schools in disadvantaged communities and the students these schools

serve, contribute to children’s literacy performance (Morris, Halliburton, Morris,

Robinson, Myers, Keyes, & Terranova, 2013). Reading ability indirectly relates to social

positioning. For example, researchers report that higher income and elevated social

positioning lead to better overall achievement for students (Jesson & Limbrick, 2014;

Marulis & Neuman, 2013; Morris et al., 2013). Moreover, greater health risks, both

physical and psychological, were indicated as factors that reduce literacy achievement for

students in disadvantaged areas (Marulis & Newman, 2013). Thus, lower human social

position contributes to increased chances at reading failure.

Parental education, which is a component of social position, was also addressed

empirically. Although there are numerous studies that do correlate parental education

(especially the mother’s level of education) to academic achievement (Baker &

VernonFeagans, 2015; Barr, 2015), Dexter and Stacks (2013) posited that parent

education has little influence on household reading. Dexter and Stacks (2013) found that

higher levels of parent education supported success in school because the extent in which

pre-school children gained vocabulary and academic language is greater in higher

educated households. In several studies, the early language prerequisites of students were

quantitatively studied through pre-post-test-designs with early intervention strategies and

measured with standard forms of assessment (Jesson & Limbrick, 2014; Marulis &

Newman, 2013). The success of the intervention was entirely dependent on the literacy

strengths and base vocabulary of the student. The social attributes or position of the

students, their parents, and the schools they attended thematically correlated to future

literacy strength (Shippen et al., 2014), which suggests that high poverty as a

sociocultural phenomenon negatively influences learning. Thus, social context is a macro

factor that influences student learning before students are even exposed to classroom

instruction. In summary, educators are not only responsible for understanding

sociocultural macro influences, but should consider such factors when determining school

structures and systems to strategically reach the literacy needs of all learners by the end

of fourth grade, especially those in high poverty.

Micro Factors That Influence School Literacy Achievement

Self-efficacy is a component of the sociocultural conceptual framework and is

considered a micro factor in student achievement (Fletcher, 2015). In several studies,

teacher or learning community self-efficacy surrounded transformation and social action

in school improvement (Anderson et al., 2012; Kaniuka, 2012; Vaughn, Roberts,

Klingner, Swanson, Boardman, Stillman-Spisak, Mohammed, & Leroux, 2013). For

example, Banks, et al. (2013), researched efficacy through a quantitative p-square

analysis and discovered a correlation that teacher experience with high poverty and the

ability to make sociocultural connections could raise expectations for disadvantaged

student populations. The efficacy results in pedagogical strategies that recognize student

weaknesses and plan for students according to increased cultural content. Also,

considerations existed for self-examination of classroom literacy goals, instructional

methods, and delivery. Furthermore, the ability to learn and negotiate new and unfamiliar

social and cultural constructs advances educator practices and awakens a renewed sense

of self-reflection and heightened efficacy (Colclough, 2013). Therefore, real-world

actualization of learning community efficacy may be one best practice that improves

literacy achievement for students.

Educator beliefs, capacity, expectations, and decision-making were also prevalent

as micro factors that influence student literacy achievement. In using a qualitative survey,

Griffith, et al. (2013) found that educators, who skillfully balanced decision making with

beliefs and expectations of greater student performance, produced better achievement.

Ferguson’s (2013) research suggests that when teachers possess higher capacity or a

repertoire of knowledge and pedagogical skill, expectations for students are greater.

Anderson et al., (2012) found that such micro factors directly influenced the effectiveness

of school reform efforts; the individual teacher and his or her practices as a micro factor

contributes as the greatest differential influence for student literacy learning.

Several researchers empirically discovered that learning community expertise, efficacy,

experience, and commitment to greater achievement substantially influences student

progress (Anderson et al., 2012; Matsumura & Wang, 2014).

Best Practices That Influence School Literacy Achievement

Best practices that influence high-poverty student literacy achievement existed in

the seminal works for students in high poverty. Viable methods for improved practice

include literacy coaching and derivatives of professional coaching models. (Ferguson,

2014; Matsumara & Wang, 2014; Miller & Stewart, 2013). Also, effective learning

community collaborative practice remained linked as a high yield strategy for school

reform (DuFour & Marzano, 2012, Wilcox, Murakami-Ramalho & Urick, 2013).

Researchers indicated that high quality sustained professional development

(RichardsTutor et al., 2015), explicit literacy instruction (Shippen et al., 2014), and

analysis of student achievement data (Vaughn et al., 2013) are differential as best

practices in raising literacy achievement. Although no causal relationship has been

established for professional learning community (PLC) effectiveness, such collaborative

practices may contribute to improved student achievement in learning communities

because effective collaboration has the potential to influence literacy instruction and the

academic achievement of high-poverty students (Fletcher et al., 2013). Fletcher et al.

postulated that the collaboration of teachers and other school stakeholders might result in

structures that improve student achievement. Researchers discovered that the

implementation of non-isolative practices could reduce teaching factors that contribute to

less achievement, lower graduation rates, and inevitably less future opportunity for career

and college for under advantaged students (Slavit, Nelson, & Deuel, 2013). Thus,

effective school reform cannot be performed in isolation.

In a case study that examined a critical friends approach for teachers, Moore and

Carter-Hicks (2014) shared that teachers learn best when, “they open their work to the

insights and perspectives of others-a trusted group of colleagues” (p. 14). As such,

literacy-coaching models were reported to maximize the effectiveness of professional

development while solving collaborative challenges and empowering teachers to make

authentic transformation (Lenters, 2013; Miller & Stewart, 2013). The sociocultural

collaborative coaching procedure included modeled guided practice, interactive dialogue,

and espoused best practices in professional development topics that drove coaching

conversations and regular sustained professional development. Although no causality

exists, researchers indicated that student outcomes tended to be greater in schools that

implemented such coaching strategies (Elliot, 2014; Fisher, Frey, & Nelson, 2012),

especially when the professional development included the expansion of literacy

instruction designed for improvement (Porche et al., 2012). Such professional

development and coaching examples suggest that collaborative purpose and shared

school-wide structures for literacy instruction could provide the responsive strategies

needed to improve literacy achievement for high-poverty students (Elliot, 2014; Fisher,

Frey, & Nelson, 2012).

A number of approaches exist throughout the literature to address the problem of

low literacy achievement. The research is limited in a specific strategy, model, practice,

or assessment tool. Many of the studies conducted, included settings where achievement

gaps were so substantial that major adjustments to school processes and practices caused

researchers to constantly question their effectiveness and state that generalizability was

limited (Berkovich, 2013; Colclough, 2013; Ferraz et al., 2015; Porche et al., 2012;

Wilcox, 2013). Therefore, the validation of reform efforts and the lack of probable

causation of student achievement present several implications for next steps, especially in

relationship to the local settings needs.

In summary, the literature review described a sociocultural conceptual framework

that grounds the study with social psychological phenomenon related to teaching and

learning implications. The social, historical, political, and institutional forces that

contribute to student literacy achievement are both explicit and implicit in the education

field. The social, historical, political, and institutional forces exist in the micro and macro

factors that contribute to literacy teaching practices in school, society, and within

children’s social environments. The micro and macro factors also contribute to learning

community practice and the work that teachers and school leaders do to make a difference

in student achievement.

Implications

Considering that quality literacy education provides a foundation by which

members of society can minimize the effects of sociocultural and opportunity disparities

and differences (Gorski, 2013), it is the responsibility of school as a social institution to

further analyze the problem and determine promising solutions. For the local community

and the context of this project study, an exploratory focus on perceived best practices like

enhanced communities of practice, social responsibility, collaborative leadership, shared

district support, and learning community collaboration, further supports improvement

efforts. Therefore the examination of a school with similar poverty demographics to the

local setting but with greater literacy achievement provided the next steps to address the

gap in practice. Identified best practices provide relevance to Walden’s mission of social

change by potentially enhancing other communities of practice.

The project informed by the findings of this study not only addresses the problem,

but also provides schools with more tools to indirectly improve student performance

through high yield collaborative strategies and practices among professional educators.

The project (see Appendix A) is a professional development program designed to provide

literacy specialists with leadership skills and a strategic framework that enhances local

school literacy improvement through professional coaching for instructional equity.

Potential project pathways were plentiful, but the current research base and the data

analysis from this study determined the specific scope and design of the project. The

project is discussed in detail in a later section.

Summary

The problem of below standard literacy-achievement for high-poverty students by

the end of fourth grade is detailed in the achievement data of the local setting.

Furthermore, a review of the research base suggests that high poverty negatively

influences student literacy achievement. High-poverty literacy learning is a substantial

area that deserves additional scholar and practitioner attention. The global, national,

state, and district achievement data offer evidence that the problem exists outside of the

local environment. Moreover, reading and writing are critical life skills and substandard

literacy performance from high-poverty students has far reaching implications for

students’ future life success.

Themes that detail the constructs for lower achievement of high-poverty students

were presented. These included disadvantage and barriers from social, political,

economic, institutional, and educational contexts. Regardless, scholars and practitioners

indicate that schools have a moral responsibility to reduce such disparities and build

opportunities for high-poverty students (Cavanagh, Vigil, & Garcia, 2014). Districts and

schools already have the tools needed to make substantial differences. High-poverty

schools exist where impoverished students have met and exceeded literacy achievement

standards. Scholars and leaders in the field call for educators to examine such schools

and engage in further study and action in eliminating the high-poverty achievement gap

for students.

As a response to the local problem and for further study and action, I examined a

school environment and explored which practices educators find most useful in meeting

high-poverty student literacy needs. The inquiry contributed to a project design for the

local setting and provided more information for the field. The discussion of the

methodology appropriate for this research is detailed in Section 2.

Section 2: The Methodology

The local problem addressed in the project study was the low reading achievement

of high-poverty fourth grade students in a small rural school in the MidAtlantic region of

the United States. The purpose of the project study was to explore the campus principal’s

and teachers’ perceived best practices at a learning environment that supports high

achievement for high-poverty students. I also sought to gain understanding of educators’

perceptions of the mechanisms by which the literacy achievement gap can be solved. The

guiding research question to determine the design, methodology, and scope of the study

was: What are principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of best practices that increase fourth

grade literacy achievement for high-poverty students in a high achieving elementary

school? Due to the nature of the research question, the research method of a qualitative

research paradigm (specifically, an instrumental case study) was chosen. The

purposefully selected sample was demographically similar to the school identified in the

local problem. The purposefully selected sample studied differed from the local setting in

that it demonstrated high literacy achievement on state archival assessment data.

A discussion of the sample and participants in the study with ethical treatment

parameters and data collection and analysis procedures follows. I describe the ethical

treatment, Institutional Review Board (IRB), and permissions gained for the sampled

environment. The section comprises of data collection and analysis procedures that

support reliability, credibility, and validity of research methods. Finally, projected

limitations in the collection and analysis of data are discussed.

Qualitative Research Design and Approach

Merriam (2009) stated, “Qualitative research is not conducted so that the laws of

human behavior can be isolated. Rather [it is performed] to explain the world from those

who experience it” (p. 238). Researchers in the social sciences of sociology, psychology,

anthropology, political science, humanities, and economics originally implemented

qualitative research approaches (Creswell, 2007). Some educational researchers adopted

the use of qualitative inquiry because research in education is defined by a topic of study

rather than by a particular discipline. I designed this study for inquiry in the topic of

high-poverty student literacy achievement rather than an examination of the discipline of

reading. The study of education includes the study of individuals (educators and

students), and considerable efforts make the results of educational research applicable to

improving practice. I designed this study in hopes to contribute additional knowledge

and improved practice in the field. Educational researchers have studied teaching and

learning in diverse sites, which have included micro sociocultural contextual factors that

affect learning. Sociocultural learning factors, themes, concepts, and frameworks have

been effectively examined through qualitative inquiry (Giorgi, Estepp, Conner, &

Strippling, 2013 ). This study investigated a diverse school environment with micro

sociocultural contextual factors from high-poverty.

Inquiry and experimentation in education have a long history with traditions

rooted in quantitative studies, with qualitative inquiry gaining more attention,

justification, and practice in the 20th century (Creswell, 2009). Qualitative inquiry is

largely an investigative inductive process, where the researcher uses collected data to

explore a phenomenon through a social frame of reference (Creswell, 2007). To explain a

phenomenon, the researcher immerses him or herself in the everyday life of the setting

and seeks perspectives and meanings from the participants. Creswell (2007) said that

perspective-based research questions that uncover the opinions and perspectives of

participants in the study are best explored through qualitative methods. As a result, I

constructed perspective-based questions for this study. Hatch (2002) indicated that

inductive exploration is best done with qualitative inquiry. This project study’s purpose

and research questions were rooted in inductive methods to uncover best practices from

the perceptions of campus educators. Merriam (2009) suggested that qualitative

measures be used in educational research when the researcher wants to learn about one

particular phenomenon. I designed the study with exploratory methodology to collect

data to explore high-poverty positive literacy achievement phenomenon from the

educators’ perspectives.

My justification for selecting a qualitative research design over a quantitative

approach for the study was grounded in the work of Creswell (2012), Hart and

McLaughlin (2012), and Yin (2008). According to Creswell (2012), qualitative design

allows the researcher to investigate the phenomenon of the study with greater depth. Hart

and McLaughlin (2012) stated that qualitative research is more open-ended and flexible

than quantitative research. Moreover, Yin (2008) submitted that case study methodology

is best to determine perceptions and beliefs. Case study methods with well-established

protocols in a bounded system contain the opinions, perceptions, and beliefs of the

individuals in the bounded system (Hatch, 2002). To effectively discover, remain

openended, and explore bounded perceptions, I selected case study methodology because

it provided the proper method of collection of data to answer the perspective-based

research questions. The subquestions for this study were:

RQ 1: What are the campus principal’s perceptions of the classroom best practices

(micro factors) that contribute to high levels of literacy achievement for students in

poverty in a high-achieving elementary school?

RQ 2: What are teachers’ perceptions of the classroom best practices (micro

factors) that contribute to high levels of literacy achievement for students in poverty in a

high-achieving elementary school?

RQ 3: What are the campus principal’s perceptions of the systems and structures

(macro factors) that influence high-level literacy instruction for students in a

highachieving elementary school?

RQ 4: What are the teacher perceptions of the systems and structures (macro

factors) that influence high-level literacy instruction for students in a high-achieving

elementary school?

Each research question required personal contact with sampled participants.

Personal contact permitted worthy examination of the research questions and systematic

collection of data. Furthermore, I gathered quality amounts of descriptive information for

analysis and interpretation and established a holistic picture from the inductive process

and the open structure. Creswell (2007) indicated that the use of case study methods

gives researchers the opportunity to look for particularity. Case study methods ensure the

development of themes in the context of the specific site. Case study methodology

provides the best opportunity to inductively analyze the natural setting through emergent

design with a theoretical and interpretive lens. In this project study, I used case study

methods to explore the complex interlinking aspects and conditions of different systems

within which high-poverty students engage in reading development. This case study

design also afforded me with detail and perspicuity into the many co-occurring

phenomena, factors, and best practices of the selected sampled environment.

Stake (2005) suggested that an instrumental case study in which the researcher

examines the practices at the learning environment provides insight into an issue. An

instrumental case study is used to accomplish discovery of insight into an issue or helps

to refine a theory (Baxter & Jack, 2008). In this project study, an instrumental case study

was used to facilitate the examination of one instructional setting that has demonstrated

high levels of literacy proficiency for its high-poverty students. Instrumental case study

methods inform practice through the exploration of perceptions of best practices by the

professionals working with children on a daily basis. The tradition of qualitative

instrumental case study permitted an open-ended procedure and system to remain

bounded by time, place, and context (Creswell, 2007). The emerging variables and

perceptions examined were looked at in depth while the contexts were scrutinized.

Baxter and Jack (2008) indicated that such scrutiny allows the researcher to pursue the

external interest. For this study, the external interest was the perceptive best practices to

inform project directions.

Other possible qualitative methodology choices included narrative research,

phenomenology research, and ethnography. These choices were deemed less effective

because they did not provide the required direct contact or intensive study within the

bounded system. Narrative research requires chronological restudying of themes. This is

not sufficient for examining educator perspectives and developing themes of best

practices from such perspectives. In fact, narrative research is too narrow a design

because most cases specifically study one or two individuals or groups.

Ethnography and phenomenology were ruled out as methods because the research

questions were situated in exploration of educator perceptions of best practices for

literacy achievement of high-poverty students. Phenomenology, narrative, grounded

theory, or ethnography were not appropriate, because the research questions were not

purpose-based. Instead, the research questions were problem-based and designed to

resolve the issue of a lack of understanding of the perceptions of the participants, which

again suggested case study methods be used (Ellis & Levy, 2008).

Instrumental case study as the chosen methodology offered the appropriate

exploration of the complexities of professional relationships to answer the research

questions. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) asserted that instrumental case study

embodies the belief that humans are complex and that schools are multifaceted

environments. The complexities of schools and human interaction are rooted in the

sociocultural conceptual framework that underpins the methodology choice. As an

example and model for design, I used Giorgi et al.’s, (2013) case study research. The

study inductively uncovered understanding of perception based educator dispositions for

disadvantaged student growth. In a comparable manner, I appropriated the same

methodological strategies in the empirical study for this study’s data collection and

gathered the necessary perspectives to answer the research questions through

sociocultural conceptual understanding.

Participants

Case study methodology explores a bounded system or single setting. One school

community served as the bounded system and allowed for a theoretical lens to be used

that was grounded in the sociocultural framework (Wertsch et al., 1995). In emphasizing

a holistic approach at a single sample site, I explored and examined the phenomenon and

engaged in research to uncover the perceptions of participants in the learning community.

I used the following procedures for gaining access, criteria for selection,

researcher/participant relationships, and protection of participants.

Procedures for Gaining Access

The study occurred in a school setting. I completed the school district’s process

for gaining approval and request for research. Also, a letter of cooperation with the

school district was obtained from the school district’s system of accountability, research,

and strategic initiatives offices. After approval was given by the Walden IRB—

2016.08.1616:37:18-05’00’, I scheduled a meeting with the building principal to

determine a non-intrusive interview schedule. I also invited volunteer teacher

participants to a general meeting to explain confidentiality, safeguards, and potential

risks.

Criteria for Sample Selection

One elementary school community was purposefully sampled to engage in the

indepth case study. The selected study site had similar demographics to the setting of the

local problem. The school will be referred to as School A throughout the study. The

school’s FARMS population was used as the priority in the selection and is within 5% of

the local problem based setting. The high level of literacy achievement as measured and

illustrated by formalized state archival assessment data (MSDE, 2015) was also utilized

in the selection process. The literature of Bogdan and Biklen (2007) indicated that

qualitative research requires purposeful sampling of participants to ensure rich and

thorough data collection. Therefore, I selected another rural Mid-Atlantic school with a

42% FARMs rate (similar to the local setting) that currently has over 90% of highpoverty

students meeting literacy benchmarks as measured by the 2015 PARCC assessments

(MSDE, 2015). Table 8 provides the overall demographic comparison.

Table 8

Demographics of High-Poverty Sampled School Environment (School A) Compared to

Local School

Demographic

Local School

Sample School

Total Population

388

402

FARMs Rate

41%

42%

White

85%

82%

Multiple Races

Black

10%

Hispanic

10%

12%

Special Education

15%

13%

ELL

Table 9 provides a breakdown of high-poverty demographics by grade-level as compared

to the local school environment.

Table 9

Demographics of Local School Compared to High-Poverty Sampled School (School A)

by Grade Level

Grade level

High-poverty population

local school

sample School

62.07%

75.00%

54.85%

53.04%

33.96%

44.96%

39.13%

37.13%

31.03%

42.08%

33.08%

31.11%

42.11%

(MSDE, 2015)

Table 10 provides literacy proficiency comparisons on the 2015 administration of the

PARCC assessments for all students and high-poverty populations.

Table 10

Literacy Proficiency of Local School Compared to Sampled School (School A)-PARCC

2015

Demographic

Literacy proficiency

local school

sample school

All Students

74.0%

93.6%

High-Poverty

Students

30.2%

56.5%

(MSDE, 2015)

Table 11 provides literacy proficiency comparisons on the 2015 administration of the

PARCC assessment for all 4th grade students and 4th grade high-poverty students.

Table 11

Literacy Proficiency of High-Poverty Grade 4 Students: Local School Compared to

Sampled School (School A)-PARCC 2015

Demographic

Literacy proficiency

local school

sample school

4th Grade High-Poverty

Students

63.5%

85%

(MSDE, 2015)

Sampling of this particular environment congregated purposeful and homogenous

selection of a bounded system of participants to answer the research questions. As

indicated in Table 10 and 11, the sampled school was demographically similar with

greater literacy achievement than the local school.

Criteria for Participant Selection

Lodico et al. (2010) indicated that the overarching criterion for participant

selection be that the individual possess similar attributes or experiences that support

exploration of the research questions. For the project study, the criterion was:

participants are educators who have familiarity working with fourth grade rural,

highpoverty, high literacy achieving students based on the archival state assessment data

or PARCC scores. The sampled group included 10 participants for interviews (Hatch,

2002). Hatch (2002) suggested that interviews be conducted with participants of varying

experience levels to support saturation and credibility of findings. To align with the

problem presented in fourth grade literacy and to provide data to answer the research

questions, interview participants included: the principal, four fourth grade teachers, one

fourth grade literacy teacher specialist, two fourth grade special education teachers, and

two fourth grade reading intervention teachers. At the time of the study, the campus

principal had 14 total years of experience as an educator, including 9 years as a classroom

teacher of multiple grade levels, 2 years as an assistant principal, and 3 years as principal

of School A. At the time of the study, teacher participants possessed varying experience

levels at the school. See table 12 for years of experience and assigned pseudonyms used

for teacher participant description of findings.

Table 12

Teacher Interview Participant Pseudonyms, Position Title, and Experience Levels

Pseudonym Position Title Years of Experience

Teacher A Special Education 18

Teacher B Special Education 2

Teacher C Reading Intervention 20

Teacher D Fourth Grade 18

Teacher E Fourth Grade 10

Teacher F Fourth Grade 21

Teacher G Fourth Grade 6

Teacher H Literacy Teacher Specialist 17

Teacher I Reading Intervention 10

Researcher Participant Relationship

Methods of establishing a researcher-participant working relationship included the

use of Patton’s (2003) Qualitative Checklist and adherence to the ethical issues portion of

the checklist. This included an explanation of the purpose of the qualitative inquiry and

methods to be used. I built a strong rapport and maintained enough distance from the

sampled bounded system to maintain credibility. I made sure that School A was out of

my district feeder area and that I had little contact with the school. Before interviews, I

met with participants to discuss the purpose of the study and shared expectations for the

interview process. I shared personal information about me as a researcher and built trust

through empathic listening and responding to questions or concerns. I discussed the

possibility of the project portion of the study, a professional development plan or outcome

for implementation in other school environments. This exposed my awareness of School

A’s success and built excitement for participants and ensured a risk-free interview

environment. I told participants they had the opportunity to share best practices that

make the greatest difference for students at their school and share the many great

strategies that contribute to the literacy achievement. This created interview sessions that

allowed for open shared perspective and risk-taking from participants.

Protection of Participants

I provided participants, all over 21 years of age, with risk assessment through

clear informed consent. Participants had access to transcribed interview data and coding;

it was made clear that all collected data was confidential. I also adhered to school system

boundaries for data collection and maintained all ethical and legal expectations. Because

interviews were recorded through a digital recording device, participants’ permission for

recording was obtained. Participants were provided with the semi-structured

interviewprotocol prior to the interview. The interview protocols were preplanned.

To adhere to Walden IRB approval and ensure ethical practices, only the principal

and teachers were included. Students were not included. Prior to collecting data,

participants signed the Informed Consent document electronically. All data collected was

kept confidential and pseudonyms were used to identify participants in the final report of

the study.

Data Collection

Creswell (2012) indicated that qualitative research requires an in depth

understanding from multiple perspectives while sampling. I conducted interviews with

the principal and teachers. This method of data collection was necessary to answer the

research questions. It was also preferable to engage in multiple interviews in case study

methodology as a provision for triangulation during the data analysis portion (Creswell,

2012). For ethical purposes, the interview method supported maintenance of researcher

credibility and preserved the fundamental appreciation for qualitative inquiry while

sufficiency of data collection was established to answer the research questions.

Research Questions and Data Sources

RQ 1 was examined and answered from a campus principal interview at the

sampled setting. Responses to questions 1 through 7 on the Interview Protocol for the

Principal at the Study Site provided data relevant to RQ 1 (see Appendix B). RQ 2 was

examined and answered through teacher interviews at the sampled setting. Responses to

questions 1 through 7 on the Interview Protocol for Teachers at the Study Site provided

data relevant to RQ 2 (see Appendix C). Responses to questions 8 through 11 on the

Interview Protocol for the Principal at the Study Site provided data relevant to RQ3.

Responses to questions 8 through 11 on the Interview Protocol for Teachers at the Study

Site provided data relevant to RQ4.

Interview

Interviews as a method of data collection are highly valuable in qualitative research

(Merriam, 2009). In fact, interviews are one of the most used data collection methods in

education research (Creswell, 2012). Because it is difficult to observe specific

perspectives, behaviors, and feelings regarding best practices for literacy achievement of

high-poverty students, interviews were necessary as a method of data collection for this

study. Interviews were one-to-one semi-structured. One-to-one semistructured

interviews provide qualitative researchers the most effective route to saturation

(Lodico et al., 2010). Self-developed interview protocols based on the work of Joyce and

Ferguson (2012) guided the interview process. The protocols were designed with

descriptive information about the phenomenon and questions designed to elicit

perspectives of best practices (Joyce & Ferguson, 2010; Merriam, 2009). I designed one

interview protocol for the principal interview (see Appendix B) and one for the teacher

interviews (see Appendix C).

Access to interview participants included voluntary participation from the sample

location. I collaborated with the principal to determine specific timeframes outside of

instructional time, which eliminated interruption to the instructional program or teacher

duties. I collaborated with the principal to determine a location, the office conference

room, for comfortable interviews and minimal disruptions. Participants voluntarily

agreed to the interview timeframe prior to scheduling.

First, I interviewed the campus principal. After gathering demographic

information at the start of the interview, interview questions that aligned with the research

questions were used. Appendix B details the campus principal interview questions.

Teachers were interviewed next. I gathered teacher demographic information at the start

of the interview and then asked interview questions that aligned with the research

questions. Appendix C details the protocol design with teacher interview questions.

I utilized interview strategies as suggested from the literature to maintain and

control bias (Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam, 2009). Step one included a prepared and

organized interview process with questions that prompt experience, behavior, opinion,

values, feelings, knowledge, senses, and background. Probes were utilized to expand

upon answers. Multiple questions were avoided. Leading questions were not used. The

interviews were 30 to 60 minutes in length. Throughout the interview process I

maintained neutrality, was respectful, nonjudgmental, and non-threatening. As the

interviewee responded to the open-ended questions that were posed, I carefully listened

for the opportunity to ask one or more of the following probes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007):

What do you mean?

I’m not sure that I am following you.

Would you please explain that?

What did you say then?

What were you thinking at that time?

Give me an example.

Tell me about it.

Take me through the experience.

Is there anything else that you would like to add? (p. 104)

Turner (2010) shared that qualitative research is complicated and can be

strengthened by utilizing research guidelines from other studies and by employing an

expert panel in interview designs. I first developed questions in collaboration with my

doctoral committee chair at Walden University. I then developed an interview protocol

and guide based on the review of the literature and used model case studies as examples.

Research to support the use of these questions derived from primary inquiry completed

by Giorgi et al. (2013) where teacher perceptions were identified through verbal and

nonverbal expressions used in the classroom. Mahiri and Maniates’ (2013) framework

for first grade reading and Pecore’s (2013) mixed-method study that utilized interviews to

gather teacher perspectives regarding constructivist problem based learning strategies

were used to support interview protocol development. Second, to extend credibility of

research findings, I utilized experts’ opinions in developing and modifying the interview

research protocol. The expert panel probed for biases, sought meaning, and clarified the

interview questions and found all questions to be acceptable as written. For this project

study, I sought experts who knew a great deal about both the substantive area of inquiry

and the methodology. Veterans in the education field participated as members of the

panel, each with over 17 years of experience working in schools or at the district level

who have participated as researchers while practicing. Joyce and Ferguson, (2012)

indicated that quality research utilize each of these characteristics of expertise for the

question review to enhance findings.

Interviews were recorded with an audio electronic recording device. I took written

notes to record my reactions. Upon completion of each interview, I completed verbatim

transcription with word-processing software. Interview transcripts included identifying

factors, line numbering, and margin areas for coding as recommended by Merriam

(2009).

Data Management and Storage

I maintained a case study database that was explicitly organized as described by

Yin (2008) and cited by Merriam (2009). I recorded field notes in an electronic

journal/tablet and transcribed notes into a word-processing for future coding. I collected

interview data using the electronic tablet. This allowed for a convenient means to

transcribe notes. I kept transcription of all qualitative data collection organized in the

form of field-notes and transcripts from audio recordings. While in the field, I

maintained an electronic research log to collect data, reflections, and interpretations. I

designed a qualitative database and created a computer folder to house electronic

transcripts and collected data.

Data were kept confidential and secure with encryption and password locks for

access on my personal laptop computer. Again, all transcriptions included pseudonyms to

protect participants. Data were and will be stored for a period of 5 years following the

completion of this study and expunged thereafter.

Role of the Researcher

I identified personal values, assumptions, and biases at the start of the study. I

shared with all participants the purpose of the study and that the study was a requirement

of my doctoral program. I also conveyed that this case study was an opportunity for me

to grow both personally and professionally. I shared that as a researcher and as a

practitioner of educational leadership, I would use the learning from the study to make

adjustments to my own leadership practices and dispositions.

Past roles. I have served as a classroom teacher in elementary school and middle

schools. Each of the teaching experiences was in an urban school environment. I also

served as an assistant principal in an urban high socioeconomic elementary school and at

an urban elementary school receiving federal funds to support high-poverty students. My

first principalship was at an urban charter school with high poverty before transferring to

the rural school district at which I am employed. Most of my career has been spent in the

mid-Atlantic greater Washington D.C. area, but in my early years I worked in

northeastern Pennsylvania. The myriad of experiences working with different

populations of students and learning communities provoked preconceptions that required

reflection and bracketing during data collection. A discussion of biases is detailed later in

this section.

Current role. At the time of data collection, I served as the principal of a rural

mid-Atlantic school in the same district of the sample. The school location was 20 miles

from the sample location and is considered a separate school region. According to Hatch

(2002), this was enough distance for the study to be credible.

Relationships to participants. I did not have any personal or professional

relationships with the teacher participants; however, I had a collegial relationship with the

principal. I did not have supervisory capacity over the participants, which further

supported credibility and reliability. My role did not affect data collection while

interviewing. Because I examined what was working at the school related to high literacy

achievement, participants willingly shared effective strategies and practices. The project

study could lead to greater collaboration and cohesiveness amongst schools, which is one

of the initiatives that the district has pursued.

Potential bias. Due to my role as a school leader, I sometimes observe adult

learners actively “not-learn” due to a fixed mindset, even when they have self-assessed

gaps in their practice. The resistor typically does not possess the intrinsic motivation to

make future goals and has trouble finding relevance in new and innovative strategies.

This led me toward a pursuit to gather more knowledge about positive phenomena that

supports the growth of educational leaders. I brought this assumption to the research and

actively utilized reflexivity to address this bias throughout the research process.

Merriam (2009) indicated that qualitative researchers want to know the meaning

people apply to their experiences. To maintain credibility of findings, I utilized

bracketing as a method to reduce bias. I addressed specific biases throughout the

collection and analysis of data. These researcher biases evolved from personal and

professional experiences and include reflection on the inequities in system resource

allocation, institutionalized norms, and perceptions of contributors to the achievement

gap, social tensions, and sociohistorical contexts. Dispositions surrounding personal bias

and reflection required substantial bracketing which is further discussed in the credibility

section.

Data Analysis

Data analysis occurred throughout the research process concurrently and

systematically based on inductive holistic process (Hatch, 2002). For example, after I

transcribed data into word processing documents, I used the process of coding to gather a

sense of themes and detailed thick description, which is recognized in the literature as

standard practice in qualitative research (Hatch, 2002). I replicated the method of coding

from the empirical work of Giorgi et al. (2013). I managed data by hand, through codes

and categories attached to meanings from the data. I searched for results that subdivided

the data into developed straightforward categorical labels (Bogden & Biklen, 2007). The

inductive coding process concluded when 40 codes emerged. While coding, the analysis

included replication, category, and response patterning to uncover underlying

perspectives from generated responses.

Creswell (2012) indicated that effective coding elicits themes, so I organized

learning and reexamined the sub questions and data using categories to develop themes as

the organizational framework. I continuously looked for patterns to generate themes. I

found recurrences in the transcripts and field notes. Themes developed from the shared

perspectives and based on the pattern of responses and words or themes expressed most

often. Responsive, sensitive, mutually exclusive, and conceptually congruent themes

emerged to answer the research questions.

Evidence of Quality

To assure accuracy and credibility, I incorporated quality procedures based on the

methods discussed by qualitative experts (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Hatch, 2002).

Quality procedures included member checks, cross checking, triangulation, discrepant

case analysis, bracketing, and clarification of researcher position. First, I engaged in the

method discussed by Creswell (2012) as member checking. Member checking involved

asking the participants to review the accuracy of my findings. For the study, I took the

findings back to the participants to check for accuracy. Keeping my own bias or values

out of the observational data supported validity. I employed member checking

immediately following data collection and at the completion of theme identification after

coding. Each teacher interviewee, as well as the participating principal, had the

opportunity to review transcripts of his or her individual interview session, data

transcribed, and my analysis and interpretations of the sessions. This process was

completed electronically through email with confidentiality disclaimers provided. Return

dates for completion of data review were provided to participants to ensure completion of

the member checking process.

After coding and theme development, a second round of member checking

ensued. I completed member checking electronically through email with confidentiality

disclaimers. Return dates for completion of data review were provided to participants to

ensure completion.

Another qualitative researcher audited the data analysis to provide credibility and

validity and to justify the coded data themes. The qualitative researcher completed an

EdD Program at the University of George Mason and at the time of this study, held an

executive level research position at a neighboring school district. This person signed a

confidentiality agreement. I provided the peer a copy of transcripts. The peer checker

applied thematic searching to the data. Afterward, we compared and discussed codes to

stipulate adjustments and facilitate reflective dialogue. Once completed, we pooled data

into the agreed upon themes.

Triangulation and Discrepant Cases

Merriam (2009) indicated that qualitative inquiry is not used to examine objective

truth or reality. Therefore, multiple sources of data used for triangulation elicited

mutually exclusive categories that were conceptually congruent. The emergence of

multiple themes required discussion and validation during peer review. Triangulation of

interview response data validated themes that emerged and ensured comprehensive

thematic review. According to Hatch (2002), perspective analysis that maintains a

qualitative tradition requires a triangulation of the data sources that examines the

consistency of different data sources from within the same method. I triangulated

interview data to cross-verify and validate findings. Triangulation occurred after

completion of data collection methods to establish common themes. During

triangulation, I reread and re-examined the data to be sure codes, categories, and themes

were labeled correctly. Bogden and Biklen (2007) indicated that this method of

dependability offers the detailed thick description and analysis necessary to confirm

tentative explanations in the triangulation process.

I examined data that supported alternative explanations and purposefully looked

for these variations by completing discrepant case analysis. I used discrepant case

analysis to search for and discuss elements of the data that did not support or appear to

contradict patterns or explanations that emerge (Creswell, 2007). I looked for data that

supported alternative explanations and purposefully reviewed data for variations from the

coded themes (Merriam, 2009).

Researcher Bias

To further substantiate credibility I included bracketing throughout the data

analysis and interpretation phase of the study. Bracketing is a method used in qualitative

research that mitigates the preconceptions and biases that reduce credulity of findings.

Coming from phenomenological origins it does not have a uniform definition or process,

but has the potential to enrich data collection, research findings, and interpretation

through an ongoing process of self-awareness (Tufford & Newman, 2010). Bracketing

included writing memos or reflexive notes while engaged with the data. Tufford and

Newman (2010) indicated that bracketing is best saved for the analysis process.

Therefore, all bracketing of preconceptions and presuppositions occurred during this

process to allow for greater levels of engagement with the raw data.

To facilitate the bracketing process, I reflected on myself as a researcher

throughout data analysis and interpretation. I utilized the conceptual framework as

described by Tufford and Newman (2010) to simultaneously enter and withdraw from the

data to obtain clarity of interpretation and compare the data to the sociocultural

framework that grounds this study. This phase of bracketing was no way linear and was

emergent based on outcomes that the analysis uncovered. As part of the bracketing

process, I engaged in researcher position and active reflection during the analysis.

Because bias remains a naturally occurring human characteristic, researcher position and

active reflection is to be used during inquiry as an exploration of the investigator’s

reflection on one’s own beliefs during the research process (Creswell, 2007). During the

data preparation, organization, and coding phase, I wrote my reflections and position on

the data through filtered personal assumptions and beliefs.

Merriam (2009) shared that qualitative inquiry, “is not conducted so that laws of

human behavior can be isolated. Rather to explain the world from those who experience

it,” (p. 238). Therefore, I maintained reliability of the study through consistency of the

examination or the consistent findings that were represented in the data. The study

outcomes did not search for replication. The reliability and dependability were

substantiated from the internal validity and credibility methods that included participant

review of transcripts, triangulation of data, investigators position, peer examination,

member-checking, and external audits of data methods, collection, and analysis

(Creswell, 2007).

Merriam (2009) indicated that adequate external validity requires sufficient data

description so the context of the study can be accessed elsewhere. Trustworthiness and

authenticity are necessary in qualitative methods. I utilized maximum variation of

participants to ensure adequate external validity. I shared the negative and discrepant

information in the findings and reported bias as indicated above. Particularity or the

development of themes in the context of the specific sampled site emerged rather than the

onset of generalizability. Hatch (2002) suggested the use of outcome particularity as an

adequate external validity measure. In this study outcome particularity maintained

authenticity and eliminated my judgments or opinions regarding the data.

Limitations

The study followed a qualitative inclusive-case study research approach, involving

the use of the semi-structured interview as the primary method. The study involved a

preliminary descriptive examination of the perceptions of the principal and teachers of

one learning community and was limited to 10 subjects at the school because the number

was sufficient for saturation (Hatch, 2002).

The circumstances that affected or restricted methods of analysis of research data

included personal bias from self-reporting of the data. Similarly, relying on pre-existing

data and conducting a qualitative research study where data were self-gathered rarely can

be independently verified and can contain several potential sources of bias that require

levels of bracketing (Hatch, 2002). In the data collection portion of this study, I

prioritized collection of perspective data to maintain authenticity. By keeping

perspective-based data a priority in collection, I eliminated researcher judgments and

opinions regarding the data.

Shortcomings included longitudinal effects. Due to personal limitations, I was

unable to stay within the bounded system for an elongated time frame. Due to the varied

responsibilities that school staff members had at different times of the school year, it was

difficult to build the necessary trust to gather honest perspective from participants.

Conditions or influences that could not be controlled that resulted in restrictions on

methodology included confirmation of bias. Gilovich and Ross (2015) indicated that

researcher bias can influence the research in both positive and negative ways and

discussed human tendency to evaluate information that leads to perseverance in initial

beliefs. To overcome this pervasive bias, I challenged propositions, especially when they

confirmed current views and preferences. This condition required high-level advocacy

throughout the research process to avoid confirming bias and effectively evaluating the

data. In qualitative research, these limitations might mean that the findings cannot be

generalized to the larger population (Hatch, 2002). Once again, the overall goal in in this

study was not transferability, but rather the ability to acquire a richer understanding of the

phenomenon of study (Merriam, 2009).

Data Analysis Results

Collection of data occurred over a 2-week time frame. After gaining consent and

following procedures specifically outlined in the methodology section and IRB

application, I met with the participants and interviewed each before and after school

hours. Recorded interviews were transcribed and sent via email to members for member

checking. Once transcripts were checked for accuracy, the data were analyzed and the

analysis was sent to participants again for a review. Bracketing occurred throughout the

investigative process. Once the participants confirmed the accuracy of the transcripts,

transcripts were coded to elicit themes. Triangulation was completed and furthered

credibility of elicited codes, categories, and themes. Member checking and peer review

were utilized to ensure correct and detailed labels. Another qualitative researcher audited

coding and reviewed themes to ensure dependability and credibility of findings. As a

result of the methodology, themes resulted relative to the sociocultural conceptual

framework. The micro factor themes are described in the findings for research

subquestions 1 and 3, and the macro factor themes are described in the findings for

research sub-questions 2 and 4.

Generation of Data

After an initial meeting with the campus principal to discuss project study purpose

and confidentiality, I asked for an opportunity to sample teacher participants in a

voluntary manner. The campus principal provided a schedule and dates for which I could

visit the school to complete interviews. I invited volunteer teacher participants to a

general meeting to explain confidentiality, safeguards, and potential risks. Interviews

occurred over a 2-week period, before and after school instructional hours. The principal

interview was conducted first. After concluding the principal interview, I interviewed the

fourth grade teachers. Teacher interview participants included the fourth grade reading

specialist, fourth grade reading intervention teacher, fourth grade special education

teachers, and the fourth grade classroom teachers. A total of 10 interviews were

completed. Interviews were transcribed with transcripts member-checked, coded,

reviewed, and audited. Hand coding elicited particular themes as presented in the

findings.

According to Hatch (2002), the perspective analysis that was used in coding

required a triangulation of the data sources to maintain consistency. Interview data were

triangulated to cross-verify and validate findings. Codes were reread and re-examined to

be sure all categories and themes are labeled correctly. The design included a plan for the

triangulation of data sources. As a result, interview data were triangulated to crossverify

and validate findings. Triangulation occurred after completion of data collection methods

to establish common themes. During triangulation, coded transcripts were reread to be

sure codes, categories, and themes were labeled correctly

The interview transcripts were presented in double spaced formats. Open coding

was utilized as I analyzed the data and highlighted key terms and phrases. Analysis was

done by circling and highlight specific sections of the text. I then assigned codes and

labels. The primary codes used were descriptive and included code labels such as:

coaching, professional learning, collaboration, cultural competency, equity, equitable

strategies, outreach, student-centered, vocabulary acquisition, discourse strategies, peer

coaching, self-reflection, instructional goals, professional learning goals, schedule,

technology, and access. Comprehensive lists of the code labels for sub-questions 1, 2, 3,

and 4 can be found in Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendix F, and Appendix G,

respectively.

I used brackets to the right of the transcribed text to include self-reflexive notes

and indicate codes. After the initial phase, I reviewed the large number of codes,

synthesized larger chunks of the raw data, and combined codes into groups through axial

coding (Hatch, 2002). I analyzed the raw data with the initial codes to illicit themes and

particularity of the perspectives generated in the interviews. Analysis generated specific

shared perspective of strategies and the meanings, participation, relationships, and

conditions attached to the statements. Decontextualized data were synthesized into

combined categorical codes.

The categorical codes were synthesized and condensed according to the

sociocultural conceptual framework micro factor categories and macro factor categories.

Following the categorical labels, I further synthesized the analysis and generated several

themes for each research sub-question. To maintain particularity, during the peer review

process a mutual decision was made on which findings were most relevant to the research

sub questions. Discrepant findings were categorized through the removal of codes that

did not answer the research question or contribute to themes. Discrepant cases included

discussion of specific ineffective teaching strategies and descriptions of perspectives that

did not answer the research questions. The majority of these data were removed because

they focused on perceived negative factors that did not directly influence classroom

instruction in a positive manner. The off codes were not aligned as a best practice and

expunged from analysis. Transcripts were analyzed several times to ensure the

description and themes chosen were credible and aligned to the guiding research

question.

Findings

The guiding research question to determine the design, methodology, and scope of

the study was: What are principal and teacher perceptions of best practices that increase

fourth grade literacy achievement for high-poverty students in a high-achieving

elementary school? The findings are presented in perceived strategies as themes derived

from codes. They are presented by sub-question in narrative description, with detailed

and salient qualitative data described. See Table 13 for findings illustrated for each

research sub-question labeled by themes.

Table 13

Themes Generated for Perceptions of Best Practices that Influence Literacy

Instruction

Research Question Themes

________________________________________________________________________

RQ 1 Language Acquisition

RQ 1 Guided Reading

RQ 1 Instructional Equity

RQ 1 Positive Teacher and Student Relationships

RQ 1 High Expectations for Literacy Achievement

RQ 2 Language Acquisition

RQ 2 Positive Teacher and Student Relationships

RQ 2 High Expectations for Literacy Achievement

RQ 3 Collaborative Leadership

RQ 3 Positive Professional Relationships

RQ 3 Instructional Coaching

RQ 3 High Quality Professional Development

RQ 4 Instructional Coaching

RQ 4 High Quality Professional Development

RQ 4 Positive Professional Relationships

Note. RQ 1=Principal perceptions of classroom instructional practices (micro factors); RQ 2=Principal

perceptions of systems and structures (macro factors); RQ 3=Teacher perceptions of classroom instructional

practices (micro factors); RQ 4=Teacher perceptions of systems and structures (macro factors);

Hatch (2002) indicated that narrative description of findings is suitable when

results are described from case study methodology. Because findings were the result of

extensive coding, triangulation, and removal of discrepant cases, the data were

synthesized into emergent themes that represented particular answers to the research

questions. Detailed description and analysis to confirm tentative explanations in the

triangulation process supported expression of these findings. Examples from the data to

illustrate findings were chosen based on connection and fidelity to the research questions.

The discovered and amalgamated themes are listed as answers to the questions.

Research Sub-Question 1. The first sub-question asked: What are the campus

principal’s perceptions of the classroom best practices (micro factors) that contribute to

high levels of literacy achievement for students in poverty in a high-achieving elementary

school? The themes as answers to this question were language acquisition, guided

reading, instructional equity, positive teacher and student relationships, and high

expectations for literacy achievement. Each theme presented as a best practice for RQ 1

is further described with narrative description as follows.

Language acquisition. The campus principal shared a perspective that educators

can significantly make a difference in high-poverty student literacy by providing

opportunities for students to gain greater language. This included incorporation of

strategies that built vocabulary in the classroom as well as the prior knowledge that is

required for successful use of text. The campus principal shared that conversational

instruction or routine discourse must be purposeful and prescribed. She said, “Kids don’t

just talk here. They are involved in conversations that are directly related to the

acquisition of new knowledge and languages.”

Best practices shared within the instructional and classroom environment

particular to fourth grade included building vocabulary through language using schematic

experiences to increase conversational vocabulary. The campus principal indicated that

teaching environments that include more opportunity for conversation and vocabulary

acquisition regularly maintain higher levels of achievement for high-poverty students.

She said, “We do everything we can to teach children how to have purposeful and

engaging conversations about what they are reading. We also focus a lot on writing

about reading.”

During the discussion, the campus principal discussed language acquisition. The

campus principal shared that student vocabulary acquisition and construction must be part

of each classroom culture for high-poverty literacy success. Strategies such as sentence

starters and exposure to knowledge gaps increase purposeful conversation in the

classroom and are critical for high-poverty rural learner language acquisition. The

principal shared that conversational strategies are the instructional strategies that

stimulate dialogue between peers and between teacher and students. While discussing

conversation and discourse she stated, “I think some of the vocabulary development is far

more purposeful and prescribed in this kind of setting. Some of the conversations are far

more purposeful and prescribed in these settings. Kids don’t just sit on the carpet and talk

here. You have to build that culture you have to build the vocabulary. I don’t think you

have to do the same in other settings.”

Additional best practices for language acquisition perceived by the principal

included the creation of real-world opportunities for writing about reading and

vocabulary acquisition through schema that build conceptual experiences. Piaget (1952)

defined schema as the building blocks of mental models and cognitive functioning.

Schema can also be viewed as a cognitive function that organizes knowledge for

understanding. In this study, the campus principal discussed schematic strategies for

students to build conceptual knowledge of language through real-world experiences.

Also, provisions for equitable instruction, or giving each child exactly what they need

regardless of background, and differentiation were perceived as best practices for greater

language acquisition. The principal indicated that pedagogical and instructional

provisions made for purposeful conversation influence student engagement. Student

engagement for high-poverty student literacy achievement equated to greater language

acquisition at the site. Greater language acquisition also was related to greater comfort

with difficult texts and rigorous content for high-poverty literacy learners. Increased

language acquisition and experiences with texts equated to greater achievement on

formative and summative assessments for high-poverty literacy learners.

Guided reading. First defined by educator and researcher Clay (1989), guided

reading is defined as the intensive small group instruction provided to students based on

reading ability. The teacher works with a group of students who demonstrate similar

reading behaviors and read similar levels of text. Students work with the teacher to read

text that is at their instructional level, which is slightly above levels of independence

(Pinnell, 1989). The campus principal described guided reading as, “explicit

differentiated small-group classroom pedagogy for literacy.” As a classroom instruction

micro factor, the many opportunities for writing about reading, vocabulary acquisition,

schematic development, and creation of student conceptual experiences at the case study

site are delivered in small group instructional-guided reading process. The campus

principal shared that guided reading instruction in every classroom was a 2-year

professional development process. It required a large amount of time and specialist

resources. The principal stated, “So let’s say I am new teacher and I am learning guided

reading. I am going to have a veteran teacher come in and teach me guided reading.

Then another dose of PD is going to come from a literacy specialist about guided reading

practices.”

The principal indicated that the level of ownership and the knowledge of student

reading abilities are a direct result of formative benchmarking and individualized

instruction from the guided reading process. The small group instruction was said to be

high yield and effective for high-poverty learners. The fluency, comprehension, phonetic

awareness, and vocabulary needs of high-poverty students are effectively addressed

through the small-group guided reading sessions at the setting. Some students with

greater needs were able to participate in guided reading more often. Small group guided

reading allowed for double and triple doses of small group and one-on-one directed

instruction. The campus principal shared that guided reading as an instructional step

made a great difference for high-poverty learners. She stated, “When I got here we were

not doing guided reading. We implemented it and have seen great gains in literacy

achievement, especially for our fourth grade students.”

Instructional equity. Equity in the classroom directly correlates to the teacher’s

ability to meet student need and build a purposeful learning environment that values

differences of experiences, backgrounds, and cultures (Gorski, 2013). The campus

principal indicated that instructional equity as a micro factor best practice gives staff the

ability to design instruction that meets the needs of all learners. For the case study site,

the campus principal shared that teachers use student experiential factors to design

literacy instruction. An example is finding text that is highly relevant to the students’

personal lives. She indicated that staff regularly utilizes knowledge of student life

experiences to determine effective instruction that create schema development for

students. Schema development is employed when experiential content is used to prime

students and build background knowledge for literacy instruction. The principal

suggested that teacher to student instructional effectiveness is related to the knowledge a

teacher has about student backgrounds. The campus principal stated, “I think building the

capacity of staff is huge; and I think part of building the capacity of staff, is not just the

instructional strategies it is also knowing your demographic.”

The campus principal specified that teaching environments that build more

opportunities from equitable practices, typically exhibit classroom cultures conducive to

increased risk-taking and conversation. Such classroom cultures exhibit greater literacy

achievement because student vocabulary and language experience needs are met. In a

discussion about equity in the classroom the campus principal said, “Effective instruction

is the result of teacher self-reflection on the beliefs they have about children. When we

think about our interactions with students and why we make the choices we do, we can

uncover our own biases about teaching and learning.”

Positive teacher and student relationships. The principal submitted that the

relationship that teachers build with students during instruction and other times in the

school building is of significance for literacy learning. For example, the use of

experiential factors of students and the knowledge of lack of life experiences are critical

prior knowledge concerns for designed instruction. The campus principal said, “All

teachers need to know their children, understand their experiences, and design instruction

with some risk taking that places the ownership of learning on the student.” Teachers use

learner empathy to determine instructional schema as deemed critical for effective

instruction. While discussing learner empathy, the campus principal stated, “Another

thing we focus on is building a culture of kindness so students are not victims. They are

empowered to take control of the learning environment and we are hoping to shift their

thinking where they no longer think, ‘this always happens to me,’ instead they think, ‘I

have control over my environment.’”

The campus principal indicated that instructional strategies for literacy must

include high levels of trust between teacher and student. Phonemic and comprehension

strategies as instructional approaches are impossible without high levels of instructional

trust, especially when students are struggling. The campus principal expressed her

perceptions and beliefs that quality instruction is essential for all students in poverty. She

said, “All of our students deserve to learn and grow.” She also indicated, “Students come

to us hungry. All of these pieces impact learning, so relationships that are built on quality

instruction is necessary.” She indicated, “Effective literacy instruction places the role of

the teacher in the classroom as more of a facilitator. This takes trust between teacher and

student.” The principal indicated that teachers who know their students and provide a

safe and welcoming environment offer students a better chance to achieve at high levels.

High expectations for literacy achievement. The campus principal shared that a

vision of excellence and high expectations is highly related to the elevated levels of

literacy achievement at the school. The campus principal expressed perceptions that

literacy achievement is directly related to the professional belief that quality instruction is

a fundamental right for all students in poverty. The campus principal explained that

students “come not ready to learn in many ways.” She explained that high-literacy

achievement for high-poverty students is directly influenced by the school culture beliefs

and norms. The campus principal said, “All of our students deserve to learn and grow.”

The principal also shared, “If you are not willing to learn and grow, how can you expect

your kids to learn and grow. This is what we do every day all the time, all of us. All of

us are in this. That is the message we send. High expectations everywhere.” Moreover,

the principal signified that every staff member is responsible for each student’s

achievement regardless of where or with whom a child is placed. Regardless of student

background, disability, socioeconomic status, culture, race, or learning gaps, students will

learn at a high level. The principal affirmed, “Our kids deserve it!”

Research Sub Question 2. The second sub-question asked: What are the

teachers’ perceptions of the classroom best practices (micro factors) that contribute to

high levels of literacy achievement for students in poverty in a high-achieving elementary

school? The themes as answers to this question were language acquisition, positive

relationships with students, and high expectations for literacy achievement. Each theme

presented as a best practice for RQ 2 is further described with narrative description in the

sections that follow.

Language acquisition. Similar to the perspective of the campus principal,

teachers revealed that additional emphasis on language acquisition for students led to

greater levels of achievement for high-poverty students in reading and writing. Teacher F

shared that high-poverty strategies differed for language acquisition: “The guided reading

group with the vocabulary background and learning how to decode words in the small

group setting is more effective for high-poverty learners.” Teachers expressed the

strategy of building student knowledge of high frequency words and planning instruction

that use abundant vocabulary for accountable, purposeful conversation during lessons as

effective. For example, Teacher F said, “Literature groups, literature circles. It is one

way to hold kids accountable for actually reading and talking about reading because a set

of kids are reading the same text and help each other with it. They use lots of vocabulary

in their talks.” Also, best practices of discourse or conversational strategies during

classroom instruction contributed to the high levels of literacy achievement and language

acquisition for fourth grade students. Questioning and clarifying techniques used for

student language acquirement regularly influenced literacy instruction and achievement.

For example, Teacher G shared, “I clarify information, or I help them structure their

answers a little bit better. So mapping it out for them so they have a little more success.”

Through the support of the literacy specialist, teachers use common practices that

incorporate student conversation about text and experiences. The teachers specifically

mentioned several instructional strategies for daily literacy instruction. The strategies

discussed included connections to prior knowledge, language literacy opportunities,

literacy circles, feedback loops, sentence starters, vocabulary awareness strategies,

context clues, prediction, characterization, text feature instruction, and thematic analysis.

While sharing the explicit strategies used in the classroom, Teacher D said, “Just getting

students to think deeper about what they are reading has been helpful. All of them have

the strategies as a reference when they are writing about reading. To go back and kind of

think step-by-step.” Teacher D also shared specific student centered labels for the

strategies listed, “RACER, PALM, Sign Post, Notice and Note, Where is the Text

Evidence?; Reading with a pencil…I give them a small visual. Sometimes we will copy

them and put them in their reading journal so they can refer to them there.”

Teachers also shared that visual representations of content, often viewed as

cognitive models, or cues in visual formats for word recognition or acquisition of

required comprehension, support high-poverty students. The visuals provide context for

new vocabulary and new experiences while students read unfamiliar text. Visuals

maximize instructional sequences and support greater language acquisition. One example

was shared by Teacher E: “Just making sure that you are giving them models if they are

having difficulty or lower level reading. Giving them models of t-charts and Venn

diagrams to go along with it.” Teacher G shared another example: “It is more about

making sure students are engaged and understand. Clarifying information and reteaching

with visual representations or other models if they need it. Usually those that are not in

high poverty get it the first time and don’t need extra structure or visual representations.”

Teachers discussed maximization of time during the student day. Maximization

of time included maintenance of student engagement through high levels of interest in

text, purposeful intensive instruction and conversation, and prominence on student

interests in instruction designed to build experiences with language. For example,

Teacher B said, “We use all times during the day, even arrival and dismissal times. They

are not necessarily instructional times, but we meet with students to maximize the time

we have with them.” Finally, conversational opportunities for students are planned for

and designed throughout small group and whole group instruction. Much of the talking

that occurs in the classroom between and among students was said to be purposeful and

related to text and connections to student experiences. The teachers perceived that

personal connections to text built stronger more fluent readers and critical thinkers.

Positive relationships with students. Similar to the perspective of the campus

principal, teachers perceived positive relationships with students to be an influential

micro factor best practice in achieving greater levels of proficient literacy for highpoverty

students. Experiential factors from student home lives were shared to influence student

learning in both positive and negative ways. Teachers perspectives were comparable to

the statements in the literature in which researchers stated that students in generational or

situational poverty experience lower health, lower nutrition, lower working vocabulary,

higher stress, lowered cognition, and increased depressive symptoms (Reglin, Akpo-

Sanni, & Losike-Sedimo, 2012). Lower health, nutrition, working vocabulary, cognition,

and greater levels of stress and depression were listed in the data of this study as a

negative influence to student learning and a strain to the school community. Teacher A

said, “More than 50% of our students come from difficult home lives. Parents are more

worried about putting food on the table. This means they do not have time to worry about

school or read to kids. Many times I need to coach parents on how to parent a school-

aged child.” Teacher G said, “When kids are more worried about difficulties at home

they aren’t ready to learn at school. We need to work through that.”

When students have home lives that do not always meet their physical, nutritional,

medical, and emotional needs, school and learning to read and write are not a priority.

The data suggest that teachers with the ability to build relationships and develop an

awareness and empathy of student home factors can build responsiveness for literacy

needs. Such learner empathy results in deliberate instruction and created schedules of

learning that meet the prerequisite instructional and literacy acquisition needs of

highpoverty students. Teacher B shared, “Sometimes it is as simple as bringing a child

to get breakfast in the morning or taking them to the library to find a book that they are

interested in. Or even finding community resources to buy them some new books.”

The data suggest that maintaining positive student relationships is also achieved through

an openness and awareness of students’ strengths and weaknesses. This requires teachers

to regularly engage in conversation about students. Through perceptive analysis of

student strengths and weaknesses, teachers can build environments that are trusting and

allow for risk-taking. Also, the awareness and ability to self-reflect about the

interactions teachers have with children can support an environment focused on growth.

Teacher C shared, “When students know you care about them, and you are in their

corner…they will work hard and do their best.” Teachers can script lessons based on

knowledge of student backgrounds. Such scripted lessons that factor in student

experiences potentially result in greater engagement.

High expectations for literacy achievement. The literature indicates that high

expectations communicated from the adults in a learning community for student success

are fundamental in raising achievement in any school setting (Gilboy et al., 2015). High

expectations were an apparent theme in the synthesized teacher perception data as a

micro factor influence in instruction. Teachers shared that higher expectations for literacy

achievement led to students achieving substantial growth on literacy measures.

Regardless of student circumstances, the communication of high expectations from staff

members in the learning community has sustained improved achievement, especially

during the guided reading block. For example, Teacher H explained, “Just getting to

know the kids and doing guided reading the right way has made a huge tremendous

difference for our kids, regardless of poverty or not poverty they all deserve the chance to

meet high expectations.” This statement was further corroborated by the statement of

Teacher I, “So when you are reading a text in your group and you all read the same thing

and reading at the same level that builds a level of confidence. It places greater

expectations on students.”

Examples of high expectations in the guided reading process were depicted. High

expectations required instructional flexibility especially with student grouping.

Participants at the setting defined flexible-grouping as a practice where students are

expected to change instructional groupings throughout a quarter, semester, and school

year based on learning standard attainment. Teacher D stated, “Provisioned hot-seats

during instruction ensure that each child is held accountable for literacy growth. Hotseats

are a strategy that guarantees students read to the teacher at least once a week as a

formative check for understanding. Hot-seats allow for moment-to-moment

differentiation and adjustment of reading instruction. The hot-seat strategy also provides

for individual attention and conversation from teachers to students with specific

individualized and customized high level expectations for literacy learning communicated

on a daily basis.”

Hot-seat instruction is a strategy similar to customized instruction and assessment

indicative of one-to-one guided reading instruction. Valiandes (2015), discussed one-

toone instruction as a differential tactic in meeting the needs of students in reading and

writing instruction. Ntelioglou, Fannin, Montanera, & Cummins (2015) also specified

that one-to-one instructional methods afford explicitness for greater reading and writing

achievement for students. At the sample setting, anecdotal data collected during one-

toone instruction is applied to future flexible grouping of guided reading groups. The

oneto-one design propels an expectation of explicitness, excellence, and accountability

for every student. The data from the interviews also suggest that one-to-one instruction

and assessment ensure growth and achievement in literacy is measured.

Research Sub Question 3. The third sub-question asked: What are the campus

principal’s perceptions of the systems and structures (macro factors) that influence

highlevel literacy instruction for students in a high-achieving elementary school?

Campus principal responses and the resulting themes for RQ 3 were representative of

system and structures of the human resources and development of human resources. The

themes as answers to this question were collaborative leadership, positive professional

relationships, instructional coaching, and high quality professional learning.

Collaborative leadership. Supports and structures that are the result of shared

leadership decision-making were reported to be an influential macro factor system and

structure that influenced instruction delivered in classrooms. Best practices in

collaborative leadership depicted in the data include collective leadership in support of a

vision for systemic organizational learning and shared decision making for instructional

practices. Campus reading specialists at the sample site are considered experts.

Specialists regularly collaborate with campus leadership to deploy human resources,

professional learning, and other resources for increased teacher capacity. In discussing

shared leadership, the campus principal said, “I lead, but I lead from the background. It is

sort of The-Wizard-of-Oz kind of thing. I trust my specialists to drive the bus.”

The collaborative leadership is most effective because of a shared vision of

improved literacy achievement. For example, “We have certain school focuses [sic].

Our school leadership, we all work together to lead our school to achieve these goals.”

The perceptual interview data indicate that shared leadership with campus reading

specialists, teachers, and other members of staff increased teacher capacity, collaborative

practice, and data based decision-making. To that end, the campus principal felt that

increased collaborative practice influenced the high achievement in literacy for

highpoverty students.

Positive professional relationships. Learning community trust appeared as a

macro factor in the analysis of the campus principal interview transcript. For example, “I

can learn from you,” was shared as a common message to increase openness across the

learning community. The data reveal that the ability to engage in professional dialogue

and routine examination of practices indirectly influenced literacy instruction. The trust

created through supervisory practices presented opportunities for positive relationship

building. In discussing professional supervision of teachers, the principal stated, “They

trust me that I don’t come in and do the ‘got you’ thing. They get mad sometimes. We

put data up and we talk heart-to-heart about what that data means and why it looks the

way it does. But, they trust me and I think it is because I am in their rooms all the time.

We have conversations all the time. It’s been huge for building trust and relationships.”

The collaboration amongst grade level teams, institutional collaborative norms,

and the implementation of a culture of respect were represented as structures that effect

literacy learning. The campus principal shared, “The capacity of my staff is creating a

culture of trust in this building. That is a big job. Really opening their classrooms to

each other and taking the time to reflect and talk about what they do well.” As a result,

positive school culture and expectations of commitment to student growth were noted,

especially for students in disadvantaged population, which included the high-poverty

student demographic. The principal also established strong professional relationships by

providing choice and autonomy in the professional learning process. While discussing

the professional relationships of staff, the principal said, “I give them the ownership.

They are driving their own PD. It is risky, but it builds trust.”

Instructional coaching. Instructional coaching appeared most often in the data

analysis as a macro factor influence of high quality literacy instruction in the principal

interview. The campus principal regularly placed monetary, human, and scheduling

resources toward effective implementation of coaching for staff. Supervisory feedback

and teacher learning processes comprised of instruction coaching was shared as a best

practice. The principal indicated best practices in which veteran and novice teachers

working and learning alongside the expert literacy specialist occurred. Coaching models

included grade level team collaboration, peer observation and classroom visits with

reflection, teacher driven professional development, and reflective journaling.

The campus principal described differences in coaching paradigms. Some grade

levels had greater professional learning ownership in the coaching process than other

grade level teams. According to the campus principal, the time and monetary investment

in coaching had a direct influence on literacy scores. For example, “You can see the

difference. You can see the data and although you are not pointing fingers you can say

there is some kind of magic that is happening here.” The campus principal indicated that

data analysis that resulted in celebration of achievement in coaching conversations led to

greater teacher and staff ownership and participation in the coaching process. Success

was contagious and supported increased coaching in other school teaching teams.

The literacy based peer coaching and instructional coaching is based on teacher

reflection. An effective measure to increase teaching capacity included a high regard for

the literacy specialist as an expert. Expertise led to increased teacher capacity for literacy

teaching and learning and established high levels of trust among the professionals in the

building. For example, the principal asserted, “My specialists drive the coaching. They

are seen as the experts.” In discussing the guided reading coaching that takes place

during professional learning, the principal explained that the literacy specialist was the

expert in the building and driver of excellence, adding, “The literacy specialist was

instrumental in pushing it forward.”

High quality professional learning. A final macro-factor identified by the

campus principal as a best practice for literacy learning was the attention to professional

learning of the staff for improved instructional capacity designed for reading, writing, and

discourse. The principal first discussed the onset of high quality professional

development in the guided reading program as a 3-year professional learning plan. For

example, “We started guided reading 3 years ago when I got here, because we really

knew we had a need. We needed a better system to know where are students were. What

they could read and couldn’t read. We started this process three years ago. I feel like we

have far more buy in.”

Collaboration amongst grade level teams was an effective strategy for improved

instruction. The principal shared a detailed discussion about collaborative and peer

coaching models. The ability to share the leadership with specialists and team leaders in

the school building resulted in ongoing professional learning opportunities. The campus

principal expressed opinions regarding high quality professional learning in the interview.

For example, “We use our resources and money. I really have set-aside time…the literacy

specialists and math specialist are scheduled to deliver PD every

Thursday.”

An important aspect of the professional learning relating to high-poverty literacy

achievement was the direct result of self-reflection. The campus principal modeled

selfreflection and expected it from the staff of the school. Case in point, “We reflected

using rubrics this year. Where we are in our teaching…Self-reflection is difficult but it

improves instruction and enhances teacher growth.” Strengthened teacher capacity was a

major factor to improve instruction. The campus principal shared visionary and reflective

strategies, cultural competence, and language acquisition as major components for

professional learning that related to literacy achievement at the setting. These major

components are of significance because the research in the literature indicates that highly

effective institutional professional learning positively influences school literacy programs

and increases productivity of teachers and students during literacy instruction (Ferguson,

2014).

Research Sub Question 4. The fourth sub-question asked: What are the teachers’

perceptions of the systems and structures (macro factors) that influence high-level

literacy instruction for students in a high-achieving elementary school? The evidenced

themes as answers were instructional coaching, high quality professional development,

and positive professional relationships. Themes were consistent with the campus

principal findings and overlapped in instructional coaching and high quality professional

development.

Instructional coaching. Instructional coaching was represented most often in the

teacher interview data. The teachers indicated that this practice was highly influential in

meeting the learning needs of staff for improved literacy instruction. For example,

Teacher B, who was a novice teacher shared, “I like it. It gives me a chance to see

teachers and take ideas. I like to learn from others.” The ability to engage in reflective

observational practice with colleagues in a non-supervisory manner supported learning

community efforts in improved instructional capacity. Teachers explained that the

campus principal highly supported the use of instructional coaching and adjusted the

master scheduled to include time for effective implementation of coaching for staff.

Teacher G reiterated the strengths of instructional coaching and said, “It was great to be

involved in the coaching sessions. We get to see little things that teachers are doing.

You can also see the things that you aren’t doing that you can improve on. I think it is

really a real growth for some of us.”

Lead learning specialists, including the literacy specialist, supported the teacher

learning process. Often the literacy specialist modeled coaching for grade level teams

and worked alongside teachers to share best practices for literacy instruction. The teacher

interview data also suggests that grade level team collaboration and peer visits enhance

coaching sessions. For example, Teacher B said, “I like it. I can watch others teach and I

learn so much. I get more ideas. I also like when others provide me with feedback about

what I do well and where I can improve.”

The teachers explained that literacy based coaching was significantly meaningful

for teaching and learning of the entire community and could contribute to even greater

literacy achievement in the future. In school A, coaching led to greater implementation of

differentiation in literacy instruction. The differentiation of instruction was targeted

toward high-poverty learners to support reduction of the achievement gap for highpoverty

students. Coaching sessions included data analysis and regular reflective opportunities

and conversations positioned on strengthened instruction.

High quality professional development. In each of the nine teacher interviews,

participants opined high quality professional development as a macro factor best practice

for greater high-poverty student literacy achievement. The campus leadership designed a

schedule that permits all classroom teachers to participate in professional development on

a weekly basis. The professional development is designed and based on teacher interest

and school improvement plans; the professional development is related to high-poverty

student literacy achievement and school climate. The literacy specialist is viewed as an

expert in providing the professional development and shares in leadership and facilitation

with the campus principal and other members of school leadership. Teacher H, one of the

lead literacy experts at the school specified, “I wear so many different hats. I think the

biggest thing, even speaking about the guided reading piece, is training teachers to be

consistent in their practices…I think that just helping teachers to know how to listen to a

kid or look at the data. How do I take the data from a benchmark assessment and use it?

How do I teach a student to make meaning of the text? How do I teach kids to think

beyond the text? What type of questions do I write? How does the student read? How

does the student comprehend? How can I make my instruction better to meet my kid’s

needs?”

Teacher G shared perceptions of professional learning, “We are doing the new

guided reading group lesson plans. It is making us think more and getting those

higherlevel questions. It gets us more involved in our teaching. A lot of teachers here

continue their education, taking classes constantly.” Substitute coverage is provided for

teachers to self-reflect and engage in peer conversations about professional development

topics. Professional development is thematic, focusing on one or two concepts for the

entire school year. An example of influential professional learning topics for high-

poverty literacy learning is the guided reading professional development that occurred

from 2014 through 2016.

Positive professional relationships. The data reveal positive professional

relationships based on trust, specifically the supervision process and literacy specialists’

expertise, as perceived macro factor best practices. The effective peer coaching at the

setting required a great deal of trust with colleagues. For example, Teacher H shared her

perspective on trust and risk, “Teachers have to try something new and be willing to take

risks. I think eventually that will make the most difference because they are going to

have, you know someone to do it with…It is ok to grow, it is ok to make mistakes, it is ok

grow from our mistakes. That’s how we learn best; by doing it, by trying, by not feeling

you have to be perfect.” The data depict professional learning communities and teacher

coaching inquiry groups as additional supports for teacher growth that require positive

professional collaborative practices and relationships. The data also illustrate positive

trusting professional relationships evident in the instructional coaching practice at the

setting. The teachers value instructional coaching and collaborative practice. The

collaboration and coaching built a climate of trust and professional risk taking which

strengthened capacity for teaching reading and writing at the school. Teachers felt that

strengthened capacity improved instruction with direct influence to student literacy

achievement. For example, Teacher I said, “I trust my team. I trust this staff. I trust our

leadership. This has led me to growth as an educator and as a teacher of reading. I am

not afraid to try something and fail. I never say ‘I can’t’. I say, ‘I can’t yet.’”

Teachers at the site regularly share in the day-to-day instruction of students.

Through collective collaboration, data analysis, and flexible grouping, students are placed

into reading groups based on success toward reaching standards. In some cases, students

may move from group to group several times a year. As a result, students may see several

reading teachers in one school year. Teacher I said, “We use data and discuss it to

determine groupings.” Teacher A said, “We work together to determine the best

placement for students during the reading block.”

Flexible grouping requires substantial collaborative conversation. At times,

teachers will combine efforts and co-teach in a single setting. The co-teaching requires

regular professional meetings to collaborate and co-plan the instruction that will take

place. Teacher B discussed planning alongside the literacy specialist as effective. She

said, “She sat down with me a lot to share how the guided reading block would be

structured differently and what to expect. And…she gave me resources to look through

and to use. The cooperation really helped the kids.” Additionally, co-planning affords

distinguished levels of differentiation for the neediest students. Many of the neediest

students are in the high-poverty designation. Such collaborative processes create strong

levels of trust among the professionals in the building. Teacher H shared, “Working

together has become a great success for us. We do a lot of collaborating and working

together.”

Connections to the Literature

Classroom best practices (micro factors). The findings resulting from the data

collected during the campus principal and teacher interviews and the subsequent analysis

demonstrate significant association and connection to other existing literature for micro

factor themes. The best practices identified as micro factor themes were language

acquisition, guided reading, instructional equity, positive relationships with students, and

high expectations for literacy achievement. To reiterate, each theme was derived from

perception data and represented synthesis of high quality instructional practices from the

data.

In a quasi-experimental study, Valiandes (2015) evaluated the effects of

instruction for student literacy learning. Similar to the campus principal and teacher

perceptions, Valiandes (2015) found that the quality of instruction in the classroom led to

greater literacy achievement for students. Comparable to the data collected in this study

on themes of language acquisition, positive teacher and student relationships, guided

reading, and high expectations for literacy achievement, Valiandes (2015) suggested that

the quality of differentiation in the classroom was influenced by teacher knowledge of

students, their experiential factors, teacher cultural proficiency strengths, and the quality

of the relationship between teacher and student. Willingham (2012) submitted that

intensive instruction provisioned for increased language acquisition may reduce

disadvantage in literacy caused by poverty for students. Thus, literature confirms the data

collected at the sample site; language acquisition, high expectations for literacy learning,

and guided reading instruction are regarded as best practices that may influence greater

literacy achievement for students in high poverty.

The literacy functions of fluency, decoding, vocabulary acquisition, and phonemic

awareness were represented in the data as a component of the guided reading theme for

campus principal and teacher perspectives. Fletcher (2015) indicated that each of these

literacy functions are greatly influential in literacy instruction. Guided reading

instruction described by the campus principal encompassed descriptions of fluency,

decoding, vocabulary acquisition, and phoneme strategies. Roskos and Neuman (2014)

indicated that effective literacy instructional planning includes an awareness and attention

to fluency, decoding, and vocabulary development for individual students. The principal

reaffirmed that the achievement of students was the direct result of the attention teachers

gave to literacy factors such as phonemic awareness, vocabulary development, and fluent

reading practices.

Naraian (2016) indicated that inclusive educators advocate for students regardless

of experiences. Naraian also specified that instructing students with the intellectual

schema of prior skills ensure equitable success in a literacy environment for students.

This literature is of significance, because the data collected in this study also revealed

instructional equity and positive relationships with students as influential best practices

for literacy achievement.

Teachers’ instructional practices are influenced by social consciousness capacity

(Lazar & Reich, 2016). Teachers who approached students through personal relationships

and full ownership over their learning were described in the literature as highly influential

in moving achievement. Social equity was also evidenced in the collected data. The data

revealed that effective classroom literacy instruction for students in high-poverty included

elements of high expectations for student performance. Relationship building and

cultural competence brought about greater achievement in students from high-poverty at

the case study site. Therefore, the social consciousness capacity was demonstrated in the

data in the form of instructional equity and high expectation themes as described. Several

studies indicated that implementation of equitable strategies and direct compassion for

student experiential factors from educators improved student achievement (Anderson et

al., 2012; Fletcher et al., 2013; Matsumura & Wang, 2014; Tam, 2015). In a like manner,

the campus principal discussed the need for staff to focus on experiential factors for

students, because part of improved literacy achievement is the ability to ensure student

physical and emotional needs are met prior to entering the classroom, “Are students fed,

did they sleep, and are they in a positive place to learn?” Thus, the perceptual data and

the findings in the literature are comparable. Language acquisition, guided reading,

instructional equity, positive relationships with students, and high expectations for

literacy achievement are potential practices to consider in efforts to improve high-poverty

literacy achievement.

Systems and structures (macro factors). The richness and depth of the campus

principal and teacher perceptions from the interview data resulted in macro factor themes

of collaborative leadership, positive professional relationships, instructional coaching,

and high quality professional development. The themes represented the instructional and

professional learning capacities of the teachers in the school sample and demonstrated the

ownership by leaders for the growth of the learning community. The themes revealed in

the data resembled the research base on PLC practice (DuFour & Marzano, 2012; Tam,

2015; Wilcox, Murakami-Ramalho & Urick, 2013). The data revealed a vision and

purpose to achieve increased levels of literacy achievement with shared leadership,

ownership, and expertise. The data were representative of the examples of highly

effective PLC practices discussed in the literature (DuFour & Marzano, 2012).

The literature substantiates the themes of high quality professional development

collaborative leadership, and instructional coaching. The collective leadership and

selfreflective attention of teachers and other education professionals aligned the work of

classroom instruction in coaching conversations. Collaborative coaching conversations

were considered examples of best practice for improved literacy instruction at the sample

site and in the literature. For example, Lazar and Reich (2016) suggested that leaders

who collaborate, share, model, and demonstrate student and self-learning ownership

strengthened teacher growth and instructional capacity. The data collected in this study

suggests that collaboration in the learning community influenced the literacy achievement

of students. Other researchers concluded that school leaders who take collective

responsibility for teacher improvement have schools that demonstrate greater

collaboration and achievement (Anderson et al., 2012; Fletcher et al., 2013; Matsumura &

Wang, 2014). The data and the literature suggest that the collaborative commitment of

adult and student learning directly benefits literacy achievement.

The research of Vanblaere and Davos (2016) corresponds with the theme of

positive professional relationships. Vanblaere and Davos indicated that an entire learning

community is mutually responsible for strengthening teaching practices. The data

collected in this study indicate that collective practice and peer and self-reflection for

teachers’ improved pedagogical craft. Likewise, the literature suggests that collective

practice is influential in self-reflective work because it prompts teachers’ introspection

and fosters professional growth (Hairon, Goh, & Chua, 2015). Although no causal

relationship has been established for collaboration or PLC effectiveness to increased

literacy achievement, such collaborative practices may contribute to improved student

achievement in learning communities because effective collaboration has the potential to

influence literacy instruction and the academic achievement of high-poverty students

(Fletcher et al., 2013). Fletcher et al. also postulated that collaboration of teachers and

other school stakeholders result in collaborative and professional learning structures that

improve student achievement. Rather than a direct relationship of collaboration

increasing literacy, the instructional practices teachers use while engaged in collegiality

provide for more intensive conversation, planning, and instructional methods for literacy

instruction (Roskos & Neuman, 2014). Effective collective practice and collaboration

may be the result of positive professional relationships.

The data from this study depict instructional coaching as a priority best practice at

the case study site. This finding is significant in relating the data collected in this study to

the current literature. The literature indicated that peer coaching provides models for

instructional practices (Lazar & Reich 2016). Literacy coaching and derivatives of the

professional coaching models were suggested as viable methods for improved practice

(Ferguson, 2014; Matsumara & Wang, 2014; Miller & Stewart, 2013). Also, the literature

denoted that peer coaching prompts teacher questions, prompts self-reflection, and raises

teachers’ consciousness about social justice, instructional micro factors, school macro

factors, and cultural awareness and competency (Fletcher, 2015; Lazar & Reich, 2016).

The data from the current study depict professional learning communities and teacher

coaching inquiry groups as additional supports for teacher growth. The data from the

current study site also depict instructional coaching practice as a best practice to raise

teacher capacity. Although no causality exists in the research for coaching to increase

literacy achievement for high-poverty students, the literature endorses instructional

coaching as a best practice due to its pragmatic application for improved instruction,

especially in schools that have minimal professional development budgets (KohlerEvans,

P., Webster-Smith, A., & Albritton, 2013; Vanblaere & Devos, 2016).

Researchers indicate that best practices of high quality sustained professional

development (Richards-Tutor et al., 2015), explicit literacy instruction (Shippen et al.,

2014), and analysis of student achievement data (Vaughn et al., 2013) were differential as

best practices in raising literacy achievement. Each of these were represented in the data

collected at the case study site as labeled codes and were included in the thematic

synthesis. The perceptual data collected in this study and the findings in the literature

were comparable. Therefore, collaborative leadership, positive professional relationships,

instructional coaching, instructional equity, and high quality professional development

should be considered as potential practice to improve high-poverty literacy achievement.

Project Deliverable Based on Findings

The project, a professional development program for literacy specialists entitled

Literacy Coaching for Equity, is designed to provide school based literacy specialists

with the leadership training to consistently implement literacy coaching and equity

conversations in their respective local school communities. This project is grounded in

the sociocultural framework and designed for both the micro (classroom instruction) and

macro factors (systems and structures) of the school as the primary learning institution.

In this study, best practices depicted in the data encompassed instructional equity, high

quality professional learning, relationships that professionals have with each other and the

students, and instructional coaching. Research suggests that schools possess the

capability to enhance practices that improve the literacy achievement of students

regardless of high-poverty factors (Demarco & Vernon-Faegans, 2013; Tivnan &

Hemphill, 2005; Krashen, 2011). The data collected in this study suggest that literacy

achievement is influenced by the quality of instruction delivered. The data also suggest

that quality instruction is the result of high quality professional learning delivered through

individualized coaching. Furthermore, the outcomes from this study designate that

individualized coaching is highly effective when delivered by the literacy specialist. The

discoveries from this study also stipulate that instructional equity infused with

relationship building processes potentially create environments where exceptional

language and literacy acquisition occur. Based on the literature and study discoveries, I

concluded that coaching and equity should be considered for future practice.

The literature reinforces the findings and fortifies the effectiveness of positive

school culture, instructional equity, and instructional coaching as operative strategies for

school improvement (Anderson et al., 2012; Fletcher et al., 2013; Matsumura & Wang,

2014; Tam, 2015). The research also reinforces the findings from this study; learning

community literacy coaching and inclusive and equitable learning environments are best

practices for sustained and substantial improvement (Griffith, Massey, & Atkinson 2013;

Matsumara & Wang, 2014). Therefore, a professional development program for literacy

specialists that prepares literacy experts as leaders for instructional coaching and equity is

well suited for future practice and supported by the findings of this study and the

literature.

The crosscurrents of societal, political, and historical factors influence the quality

of education that students receive (Colclough, 2012). It may be that teachers who possess

a more critical lens in equity and literacy factors can identify the norms in school culture

and work with stakeholders to determine if these norms create barriers for student

achievement. The findings from this study suggest that professional conversations that

occur in schools directly influence instructional practices, which validates that teachers’

knowledge of students enhances such conversations.

It may be that in a rural school setting, school staff must first examine much of the

rural poverty nuances and culture to understand high-poverty learning implications.

Banks, Dunston, and Foley (2013) indicated that teachers should become more

knowledgeable about the diverse population they serve and immerse themselves in the

cultures represented in their classrooms. Coady, Harper, and De Jong (2015) suggested

that the lower achievement in literacy learning for students is a cultural phenomenon

based on inequities from the social, political, and schooling context. Thus, a professional

development project for literacy specialists preparing them to coach staff in providing

equitable learning experiences for students from rural poverty areas may move learning

communities toward greater excellence in high-poverty literacy achievement.

Summary

Due to the nature of the research questions, instrumental case study research

methods were employed as the method of data collection and analysis. The setting

displayed high levels of literacy achievement as indicated in state archival performance

data. The sampled environment had similar demographics to the local setting. The data

collection and analysis procedures that supported reliability, credibility, and validity of

research methods included interview, transcripts, member-checking, coding, and

peerreview.

Findings included coded analysis of micro and macro factors of literacy

instruction into categorical codes in each sociocultural factor. The categorical codes were

further synthesized into major codes resulting in themes. The micro-factor themes

combined from campus principal and teacher data are language acquisition, guided

reading, instructional equity, positive teacher and student relationships, high

expectations for literacy achievement, and positive teacher and student relationships.

The macro-factor themes combined from campus principal and teacher data are

collaborative leadership, positive professional relationships, and instructional coaching.

Based on the findings, a professional development module for literacy specialists with

instructional coaching and equity proficiency as the primary objectives is considered as

the project deliverable.

Section 3: The Project

I designed my project, a professional development program for literacy specialists

entitled Literacy Coaching for Equity (see Appendix A), to provide school-based literacy

specialists with the required training to implement literacy coaching and equity

conversations at the local school. I included detailed objectives, overarching goals,

training sessions, timeframes, and training materials to prepare literacy specialists for

instructional coaching. The professional development training plan outlined in this study

may strengthen literacy specialists’ capacity for literacy coaching. As I reported in

section 2 of this study, the interviewed participants indicated that improved classroom

teaching and learning practices for reading and writing resulted from effective literacy

specialist coaching. Moreover, the improved classroom teaching and learning practices

that resulted from literacy coaching influenced positive achievement for students in high

poverty.

The project’s overarching goal is to provide school-based literacy specialists with

the leadership training they need to consistently implement literacy coaching and equity

conversations in their local school communities. My objectives for the project are for

literary specialists to (a) build leadership capacity to lead as experts in peer coaching at

their respective learning community, (b) gain the prerequisite knowledge to coach and

equip all teachers of reading with equity and cultural proficiency strategies that

encompass cultural responsiveness for literacy instruction, and (c) gain expertise in peer

coaching models that incorporate conversations about high-poverty students and their

literacy learning needs.

Rationale

The problem addressed in this study was the low reading achievement of

highpoverty fourth grade students in a small rural school in the Mid-Atlantic region of the

United States. As a response to the problem, I created a literacy specialist professional

development program. The professional development considers equity standards that

address literacy improvement. I selected a professional development genre to create

possible systemic and local change based on content and adult learning factors.

The project is based on my data analysis of participant responses in which they

asserted that professional training (literacy coaching) was necessary to help solve the

problem of low high-poverty literacy. Moreover, the literacy specialist at the study site

possessed capacity in effective coaching techniques. Qualitative data collected in this

study demonstrate that school leaders, including the literacy specialist, made a

pronounced difference in literacy programs. Leadership structures inclusive of literacy

and equity of instruction led to greater levels of achievement. The data from this study

also indicate that effective schools employ responsive pedagogy, factoring in student

backgrounds and experiences. Such responsive pedagogy is the direct result of increased

capacity and awareness among the members of the teaching staff (Davis, 2012).

Therefore, this study’s findings suggest that improved literacy instructional practices

resulted from literacy coaching.

Findings of this study illustrate that instructional coaching strategies result in

literacy achievement gains. It may be that a school-based strategy that ensures

schoolcentered coaching sessions may remediate the problem. Also, a school-based

strategy embedded with cultural responsiveness and literacy instruction may support

high-poverty learners. The project I developed corresponds with my study data because

instructional coaching and instructional equity are represented in these data as strategies

that led to greater levels of achievement in reading.

Professional development is an improvement practice that contributes to school

transformation (Parker, Wasserman, Kram, & Hall, 2015). It affords educators the ability

to engage in adult learning that enhances teaching and learning for students (Briesch,

Briesch, & Chafouleas, 2015). The provision of this development also supports school

communities in the pursuit of higher quality education (Neuman & Moland, 2016; Stack,

Moorefield-Lang, & Barksdale, 2015). Ongoing professional development that regularly

meets the learning needs of teachers and education professionals contributes to greater

achievement and advancements in teaching quality and student engagement (Neuman &

Moland, 2016; Stack, Moorefield-Lang, & Barksdale, 2015). Quality professional

development supports positive and long-lasting school cultural change (DuFour &

Marzano, 2012).

When replicated, the sample school’s strategies, practices, and success with peer

coaching and intensive guided reading professional learning may provide similar results

for other campuses, especially among students in underserved populations. To address

and build such strategies into the regular practices at other schools, educators and

instructional leaders must remove barriers that inhibit learning and create educational

opportunities for high-poverty students (Tour, 2016). The design of the project portion of

this study may help educators remove sociocultural barriers and inequities that inhibit

learning. The training described in the project responds to the problem of low

highpoverty literacy by using the findings of this study for literacy specialist professional

development. In meeting the needs of current and future high-poverty students, the

training detailed in the project offers literacy specialists, through instructional coaching

training, the tools to identify, demystify, and appreciate differences in approaches to

learning and performance that raise awareness around high-poverty student literacy needs

(Costa & Garmston 2015; Lofthouse & Leat, 2013). Literacy specialists will collaborate

to explore and review skill sets and strategies to narrow the gap for high-poverty students.

I hope that they will form a more creative and productive literacy teaching experience

with effective outcomes for high-poverty learners.

Review of the Literature

To find relevant and current studies for my project development, I searched the

following databases: Academic Search Complete, ERIC, Education Research Complete,

Open Library, ProQuest, SAGE research complete, and Google Scholar. I accessed these

resources via Walden University Library. By combining keywords and Boolean phrases

such as literacy achievement, high-poverty, and learning community with the terms best

practices, shared leadership, collaboration, equity, school improvement, literacy

coaching, improved teaching, adult learning, educational professional learning,

professional development, teacher training, and educator training, I was able to yield

significant results. In the second stage, I reviewed the abstracts of the works and

narrowed the scope of literature by selecting the most relevant works to the project genre

and design. Seminal works were chosen for inclusion in the literature review based on

their potential contribution to the project genre, relevance to findings, school literacy

improvement, literacy best practices, and strategies to meet the needs of high-poverty

literacy learners. Works that address the attempts by practicing educators to promote

school literacy reform efforts through literacy coaching and best practices based on social

change were reviewed, analyzed, and synthesized in a self-designed matrix to elicit

themes. Mechanisms and solutions from the literature that include micro and macro

sociocultural literacy factors in schools as they related to the data analysis and findings

were reviewed, analyzed, and synthesized in a similar amalgamation matrix. The

combination and synthesis of the descriptive studies established approaches that support

the project direction. The literature was funneled and synthesized through an

interconnected analysis of the theory and research that support the genre, theory, and

content of the project.

The literature review begins with a discussion of theory related to the genre of

professional development. The development of the project from theory is discussed.

Next, the literature that provisions for the content of the project is synthesized. The

project content includes a discussion of equity, literacy theory, and collaborative practice.

Project Genre

To support the selection of professional development as the project genre

appropriate as a solution to the problem, the literature was synthesized to include

importance and relative effectiveness of professional development related to school

improvement. Equity and literacy professional development literature supported the

genre choice for the project. Professional development is considered a significant and

effective strategy that schools and districts regularly use to improve student learning

(Gravani, 2015).

The professional learning genre recognizes the characteristics of literacy

specialists as adult learners. As adult learners, literacy specialists require unique learning

experiences. The professional learning plan was designed with Knowles’s (1984)

andragogy approach. The literature indicates that professional learning plans prescribed

to the learning of the educator, with an overarching goal of student success, improve

student-learning outcomes (Gilboy et al., (2015). To guide literacy specialists, several

adult learning needs were considered: literacy specialists as individuals, literacy

specialists as school leaders, and literacy specialists as representative of district vision.

Additionally, the coordinated learning experiences designed to achieve common

outcomes for high-poverty students were established with the following adult learning

theory principles: (a) self-direction of learning, (b) experiential, (c) goal oriented, (d)

relevant to participant needs, (e) practical in design, and (f) collaborative (Roessger,

2015).

The findings of this study and the literature suggest that the thematic identified

learning community practices inclusive of literacy coaching and teaching equity through

professional development activities directly influence the achievement of students in

literacy (Mayer et al., 2015). Literacy learning is complex, influenced by interactions

between sociocultural, cognitive, and pedagogical elements (Jesson & Limbrick, 2014).

The review of literature suggests that professional development engage staff in the

collaborative inquiry required to address complex structures in literacy learning (Neuman

& Moland, 2016; Parsons, Malloy, Parsons, & Burrowbridge, 2015; Stack et al., 2015;

Whorrall & Cabell, 2015). Complex analysis of school literacy structures is possible

through the creation and construction of professional development that address social

complexities (Murakami-Ramalho & Urick, 2013). In fact, professional development

with teacher collaboration and coaching sessions, defined as communities-of-practice, are

highly effective (Stone-Johnson, 2013). Professional development has the potential to

provide the fundamental catalyst toward overall school improvement, especially when

educators work together to share in a vision of what they want students to learn and be

able to do. Therefore, a professional development project as the genre should positively

influence school performance (Parker et al., 2015).

Danielson (2013) indicated that improved practices that enhance learning in the

classroom result from teachers engaged in professional development. Older educational

technologies and strategies combined with new 21st century tools have forced schools and

districts to rely on professional development for strong literacy coaching, equity

coaching, collaboration, partnerships within and among teaching teams, and egalitarian

approaches (Lazar & Reich 2016). While there is evidence that effective teaching leads

to improved reading comprehension (Boyd, 2015; Voss, & Lenihan 2016; Whorrall &

Cabell, 2015), especially for high-poverty students (Boyd, 2015), to be effective,

instructors must set up the classroom environment in an equitable manner (Briesch et al.,

2015; Ntelioglou et al., 2015). The literature indicates that such practices are rarely

possible without explicit professional development that enables teachers to collaborate

and engage in acquisition of new pedagogical skills (Briesch, et al., 2015; Cribbs &

Linder, 2015). Cortes (2013) discovered significant instructional change in educational

organizations where professionals were engaged in regular professional learning

opportunities. Neuman and Moland (2016) suggested that improved teaching capacity

from professional development activities potentially shift respective learning

communities in support of change. Naraian (2016) postulated that major school cultural

thinking for literacy teaching and learning is possible through professional development

of staff. Daniel, An, Peercy, and Silverman (2015) also suggested that professional

development prompts literacy specialists to promote inclusive literacy for high-poverty

learners. Therefore, professional development as the genre choice is a significant strategy

and problem solution that could lead the local school, district, and learning organizations

toward exceptional instruction for high-poverty learners.

In a multi-methods study, Hargreaves and Harris (2011) indicated that culturally

responsive professional development increased awareness of sociohistorical cultural

nuances and barriers to student achievement from teaching practices. Increased

awareness of cultural nuances and barriers resulted in improved teaching quality and

strategies that enhanced student engagement. Also, in several other studies, professional

development led to enhanced teacher capacity and heightened collaborative approaches

that positively affect high-poverty literacy challenges (Collie et al., 2012; Hargreaves &

Harris, 2011; Stone-Johnson, 2013). Roessger (2015) suggested that reflective

components in professional learning and coaching settings strengthened instructional

capacity.

Mayer et al. (2015) indicated that school reform is impossible in isolation; rather,

improvement requires effective professional development amongst teams of educators.

Subsequently, for school communities, professional development provides opportunity to

focus on the extraneous factors like enhanced communities-of-practice, social

responsibility, collaborative leadership, shared district support, and learning community

collaboration. All of which support changes in school culture (Denton et al., 2015).

Moore and Carter-Hicks (2014) found that literacy and equity professional development

programs promoted growth for teachers and led to increased literacy achievement for

low-income students. Hence, a professional development program for literacy specialists

to prepare them as instructional literacy and equity coaches is essential for increased

teacher capacity and improved high-poverty student achievement.

Demarco and Vernon-Faegans (2013) stated that schools already possess the

people and resources to improve the literacy achievement of students regardless of high-

poverty factors. The literacy specialist, as a school human resource, is already a standard

professional position for most school settings (Calo, Sturtevant, & Kopfman, 2015).

Therefore, literacy specialist training in the leadership required to examine social

responsibility and equity in literacy instruction is appropriate for the professional learning

genre (Ntelioglou et al., 2015).

In several examples from the literature, researchers found that teachers and

instructors embraced layered professional development designed by the curricular

specialists and school leaders (Phillips, Nichols, Rupley, Paige, & Rasinski, 2016;

Powers et al., 2016; Tour, 2016). On the other hand, when professional development was

mismatched to staff needs with ongoing inability to significantly improve student

achievement, the stagnation or sliding of student achievement gains were detrimental to

staff morale (Collie et al., 2012). The decrease of staff-morale often yielded a school culture

dominated by teacher autonomy rather than by collaboration (Bruns & Machin, 2012),

lowered morale among staff members, and a message that it is acceptable for students to

fail (Collie et al., 2012). As reinforcement for school improvement planning, Means,

Paddilla and Gallegher (2011) suggested that bringing district staff together to engage in

meaningful and purposeful professional development about students and student literacy

could thwart stagnation in school culture. Thus, the genre of professional development is

justified as an appropriate solution to the problem.

Change is required to solve the problem in this study. The literature indicates that

effective school leadership teams use professional development processes to create

change (Powers et al., 2016). The literature suggests that effective professional

development supports school efforts in change through enhanced social responsibility,

increased engagement of all learners, and increased achievement for high-poverty

students and other disadvantaged groups who are typically underserved (Mette &

Scribner, 2013). Anderson et al. (2012) suggested that effective professional

development balances centralized expectations, accountability, and resource management

with flexibility and support. Professional development also enables school personnel to

adapt district goals and plans to the local circumstances. Moreover, professional

development in the form of collaborative practice was more effective in improving

highpoverty student achievement than any other strategy (Kanuika, 2012; Naraian, 2016;

Stack et. al 2015). Thus, professional development may be the catalyst that creates the

required change.

The scholarly literature indicates that teachers who deliver instruction directly to

students are the most influential factor for student improvement (Calo et al., 2015;

Clotfelter et al., 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2013; Ferguson, 2013; Lauen, 2013; Morgan,

2012; Owen, 2015). Therefore, a professional development program designed to train the

people that work directly with students is well suited for improvement. Professional

development with explicit demonstrations of skill is highly effective for increased teacher

and leader capacity (Gilboy et al., 2015). The theoretical and empirical literature base

supports the professional development genre as a solution to increase literacy specialist

capacity in leadership and coaching for increased student literacy achievement.

Project Content

To reform schools, education professionals and experts must narrow the learning

gap for students with learning weaknesses from disadvantaged backgrounds (DeCuir &

Dixon, 2012). To narrow learning gaps, the content of the professional development

project incorporates equity practices, literacy achievement, and collaborative training in

literacy coaching. The findings from this study indicate that collaborative practice

through literacy coaching sessions support student achievement gains. Therefore, an

andragogical approach to support adult learning content (Gravani, 2015) was chosen for

the professional development content. As a result of the data in this study, which revealed

the importance of collaborative coaching in literacy improvement, the project content

includes collaborative practice, literacy theory, equity, and cultural competence with

inclusive coaching techniques. Collaborative practice, equity, and literacy proficiency

through professional development content substantiates improvement in student

achievement and perpetuates literacy achievement for underserved high-poverty student

populations (Ntelioglou et al., 2015).

The findings from this study indicate that learning community collaborative

practice is effective in improving high-poverty student achievement. In support of this

study’s findings, the literature indicated that learning community collaborative practice is

effective in improving high-poverty student achievement (Fletcher, et al., 2013; Kanuika,

2012). Therefore, the project content includes an emphasis on collaborative

opportunities.

The findings from this study suggest that student achievement data be utilized to

support coaching conversations. Philpott and Dagenais (2012) indicated that

achievement gaps and the data to support such gaps provide a springboard for critical

dialogue in collaborative conversation or school improvement. Such discourse on

equitable education for all student groups stimulates dialogue about the implications for

teaching reading and writing in today’s diverse schools. Training the literacy specialist as

a leader in data analysis and discourse is advantageous in the continued search for the

best practices in defense of high-poverty disadvantage

Due to the theme of collaboration and trust discovered in the findings of this

study, the professional development content is saturated with learning community

collaborative processes for adult learning. Learning community practices that result from

inclusive literacy and equity models create a heightened awareness of student

achievement data as well as professional awareness of the social and historical constructs

that readily influence high-poverty students in school culture (DeMarco &

VernonFaegans, 2013). Likewise, the data from this study indicate that effective

collaboration focused on equity factors related to literacy, potentially shifts literacy

instruction and positively influences high-poverty student learning. Fletcher et al. (2013)

suggested that collaboration focused on literacy and equity features increases

achievement in reading and writing. Through collaboration on literacy and equity

features, the professional development project content provisions for improved school

culture and future practice to deeply influence student achievement.

The findings from this study demonstrate that effective practice include the

literacy specialist in shared leadership models. The project content includes structures

and tools to promote increased literacy achievement through literacy specialist leadership

and expertise. The most vibrant and successful lead educators are those that recognize

the essential benefits of professional learning, reflection, and refined practice

(FerrierKerr, Keown, & Hume, 2015). Literacy specialists typically serve as the lead

literacy learner in schools and routinely provide school based professional learning. The

professional development of literacy specialists enhances the leadership of the position

(Wilcox, 2013). Such renewal and strengthened skills for the literacy specialist

perpetuate improved school culture (Willis, 2015). When school communities view the

literacy specialist as the conduit of excellence for professional learning and collaboration,

other educators in the same community are influenced to improve (Wilcox, 2013).

Providing structures and effective tools for communities that promote increased teacher

collaborative capacity and student literacy performance enhance the education of students

and social change (Costa & Garmston, 2015). Thus, literacy specialists possess the

ability to support learning communities in even greater examination of literacy instruction

as it relates to equity. Literacy specialists possess the leadership potential to lead others

in improved practice.

The findings from this study suggest that teachers can increase student reading

motivation by providing authentic literature experiences. Findings further submit that

student motivation is an influential marker of improved achievement. Motivation for

reading is dramatically influenced by student reading success (Denton et al., 2015).

Literacy motivation is a factor in instructional equity professional development, because

motivating a diverse range of students to find success is inherently challenging (Willis,

2015). The correct selected text to meet the individual needs of students improves

reading motivation (Naraian, 2016). Literacy specialists trained in inclusive literacy and

equity may be able to lead teaching teams toward exceptional selection of text for

instruction of high-poverty learners.

The development of cultural competency for educators should occur through

open-ended ongoing reflective conversation (Hagans & Good III, 2013). To support

reflective open-ended discourse, this study’s professional development project contains

cultural competence discussions and strategies as a learning component to enable

educators to be effective with students from cultures other than their own (Cortes, 2013).

Furthermore, a pathway for literacy coaches to foster and facilitate conversations that

over time develop culturally proficient school literacy is addressed. Pathways include an

ongoing discussion of culture, race, and under-privilege that is present in school

communities (Willis, 2015).

Naraian (2016) posited two effective instructional practices to raise student

achievement: (a) direct modeling of reading and (b) explicit demonstration of cognitive

reading strategy. Other explicit instructional components critical to literacy learning

include modeled metacognition of decoding strategies, clarification strategies,

summarizing, self-monitoring of errors, understanding of context, organization of writing,

and putting thoughts to paper (Denton et al., 2015). The findings described in Section 2

of this study also illustrate that student background knowledge is cursory for effective

instructional planning and delivery. Knowing student background leads to explicit

instruction that contributes to proportional achievement. To be effective for students, the

teacher recognizes prior knowledge of these interrelated skills and uses it to program

effectively for literacy instruction. Gilboy et al. (2015) theorized that activeteaching and

instructional design considerate of student background is highly effective for students.

The extensive reading experiences from explicitness in instruction foster reading

independence and confidence in students. Through such explicit reading experiences,

students can transfer and determine which structured practices to use while engaged in

independent reading (Gilboy et al., 2015). Transfer of modeled skills is done successfully

for many reading purposes: reading to learn, reading to perform a task, or reading for

information (Naraian, 2016). The professional development content will train literacy

specialists to lead and coach others in these consistent explicit practices for instruction.

The campus principal perceptual data from this study suggest that regular

assessment to monitor reading and writing skills is effective practice. At the sampled site,

the monitoring of skills led to greater instructional focus and supported improved student

performance. The literacy literature indicates that achievement based assessment and

adequate monitoring of student growth leads to greater achievement (Lazar & Reich,

2016). Assessment of literacy is complex, requiring assessment of effort and

improvement. Working with students to determine start-points and end-points during the

school year supports greater student achievement (Naraian, 2016). In a qualitative case

study of existing teaching and learning practices in literacy instruction, Waniganayake

and Shepherd (2015) discovered that rubric based assessment and evaluation positively

improves achievement for students. Moreover, transparency in success-criteria supports

student ownership of achievement and fostered further growth in literacy (Stack et al.,

2015). The professional development content incorporates opportunities for literacy

specialists to review assessment theory and assessment best practice during the

instructional coaching and equity training sessions.

Aligned literacy coaching, equity, and cultural proficiency addresses achievement

gaps through analysis of disadvantaged student learning phenomena (Foorman et al.,

2015). The professional development content explores complex student learning

phenomena and instructional complexities through instructional coaching practice. Mette

and Scribner (2014) indicated that instructional coaching must be taught to school based

leaders. In a qualitative case study of three school sites, Ferguson (2013) discovered that

literacy coaching aligned professional capacity building across school teams, which led to

consistent and improved literacy teaching practices for students. In Ferguson’s study,

effective literacy coaching included consistent collaborative practice focused on specific

learning outcomes and data analysis. The collaborative data-based practice had direct

improvement on student literacy achievement. Accordingly, the project includes content

to support literacy specialists in development of learning quality and data analysis

through effective coaching skills.

Summary of Project Genre and Content Literature

The theory and literature base supports the selection of the professional

development genre for the project. Several theoretical and empirical examples postulate

substantial district and school improvement as the result of employed professional

development. The problem of this study will be addressed through similar professional

development methods. The project content is reinforced by literature and theory

surrounding adult learning concepts, instructional equity, literacy achievement, and

learning community collaborative practice.

Project Description

The project’s overarching goal is to provide school based literacy specialists with

the leadership training to consistently implement literacy coaching and equity

conversations in their respective local school communities. The professional

development design is a trainer-of-trainer model. Improved literacy coaching (trainee as

trainer) will support increased teaching capacity at respective learning communities to

change major school cultural thinking. As the primary participant engaged in this

professional learning opportunity, the literacy specialist will gain the skills to implement

equity proficiency during coaching sessions. Literacy specialists are the appropriate

targeted audience and possess the potential leadership skills to coach and influence

literacy teaching and learning factors for high-poverty students (Owen, 2015). Many

school districts regularly employ lead literacy specialists, coaches, or other forms of

professional development personnel for school based literacy improvement (Calo et al.,

2015). Literacy specialists are typically responsible for implementing a comprehensive

literacy program and coaching, supporting, and guiding teachers in best practices for

literacy instruction (Calo et al., 2015). Calo et al., indicated that school based literacy

specialists or literacy leaders are highly influential in improving school literacy programs.

To establish the most strategic and effective professional learning program for literacy

leadership capacity, the school based literacy teacher was selected.

In respect to high-poverty student learners, the literacy specialist is the

schoolbased leader with the most direct influence on classroom reading teachers’

planning and instruction. By the nature of the role, the literacy specialist is best suited to

build a school based literacy program focused on the elements of an equity learning

culture. The adult learning from the project is purposeful and planned as the constructed

support system to achieve identified goals for the literacy specialist as the lead school-

based coach and equity leader.

The professional development model is designed based on the data collected at the

sample school as well as the salient literature base. Both the literature base and the

relevant data from this study support the program for literacy specialists as the primary

audience to achieve project goals. The collected data in this study signify that

instructional coaching and instructional equity strategies are the potential best practices to

use in other learning communities to raise literacy achievement. Instructional coaching is

effective practice and contributes to high levels of literacy achievement for all students,

especially for students in underserved populations including students in high-poverty

living conditions (Eady, Drew, & Smith, 2015; Ferrier-Kerr et al., 2015; Gilboy et al.,

2015).

Project Objectives and Structure

The objectives for the project are: (a) literacy specialists will build leadership

capacity to lead as experts in peer coaching at their respective learning community; (b)

literacy specialists will gain the prerequisite knowledge to coach and equip all teachers of

reading with equity and cultural proficiency strategies that encompass cultural

responsiveness for literacy instruction and (c) literacy specialists will gain expertise in

peer coaching models that incorporate professional discussion about high-poverty

students and their literacy learning needs. Each objective is rooted in the professional

learning, literacy, equity, and coaching findings in the literature base.

The initial sessions assist school literacy specialists to determine culture structures

of literacy achievement gaps. Second, literacy specialist participants gather multiple

perspectives from each other and other educational leaders. Third, participants examine

cultural beliefs, values, and norms. Finally, literacy specialists engage in preliminary

coaching and strategic professional dialogue alongside their own school community

engaged in the work of collaboration with school teams.

The first objective is supported by several prominent examples from the research

base. In an exploratory qualitative study, Matsamura and Wang (2014) discovered that

literacy coaching effectiveness was related to the level of leadership expertise of the

literacy specialist as a coach. Training literacy specialists in strategies for school literacy

leadership influenced coaching capacity for literacy specialists. Training literacy

specialists in literacy leadership also facilitated their growth as effective leaders and

expert coaches in the local school. Calo et al. (2015) suggested that the role of the

literacy specialist adapt to the demands of 21st century learning environments to situate

the literacy specialist as one of the experts in proficiency for learning environments. The

findings from the current study suggest that transformation of the role should include

equity proficiency for high-poverty student literacy achievement.

The second objective is relative to improved practices for increased literacy

achievement in schools (Fletcher et al., 2015). In a case study of literacy coaches,

Griffith et al. (2015) discovered that teachers trained as literacy coaches exhibited teacher

professional knowledge, influenced positive decision making, guided reflections that

were responsive to student need, and balanced required standards and macro factor forces

outside of the educators’ control. Instructional coaching improved school culture and

produced greater literacy achievement for students. Willis (2015) suggested that poverty,

race, and literacy significantly influence success for individuals. Willis also indicated

that training school leaders to effectively engage in dialogue that engages educators in

practice from a sociohistorical context could lead to greater student improvement. This

professional development project will allow literacy specialists to gain the prerequisite

knowledge to coach and equip all teachers of reading with equity and cultural proficiency

strategies through sociohistorical dialogue for literacy instruction.

The third objective is supported by this study’s data that is demonstrative of

learning community practices, professional conversations, and collaborative school

culture. The third objective includes a heightened awareness of student achievement data

as well as professional awareness of the social and historical constructs that readily

influence high-poverty students within school culture. DeMarco and Vernon-Faegans

(2013) indicated that student improvement could result from heightened sociocultural and

sociohistorical awareness. Effective collaboration has the potential to influence literacy

instruction and indirectly influence the achievement of high-poverty students (Fletcher et

al., 2013). Therefore, the project implementation encourages conversation and

collaboration of professionals and revitalizes the learning community practices that

review sociocultural and sociohistorical school structures. The professional discourse

about each social factor in teaching and learning establish the framework of all the

discussion activities during sessions.

The targeted long-term professional learning plans are grounded in inclusive

literacy, equity, and coaching content. Sustained reflective activities and sessions where

literacy specialists can collaboratively and continuously enhance their equity knowledge

and coaching implementation are incorporated. Costa and Garmston (2015) stated that

professional learning requires self-reflective opportunities to reach primary, long-term,

and district level goals. The learning paths for each professional learning session contain

many differentiated reflective opportunities.

Each training session includes opening and closing segments for self-reflection of

practices related to literacy coaching for equity. During the beginning of each session,

literacy specialists engage in self-reflection of the previous work completed for inclusive

literacy and equity. At times, self-reflection will include analysis of informal coaching

that may have transpired at their instructional setting.

The second portion of each session includes learning opportunities to collaborate

with peers. Collaboration examples include practice coaching, practice of didactic and

difficult conversations, and practice of equity dialogue. Participants will provide each

other with constructive feedback. Collaborative activities and sessions to engage in

conversation for relevant learning community questions are incorporated in the plan.

Each session concludes with a summarizer or closing segment for literacy

specialists to summarize new learning and add it to their repertoire of instructional

leadership and expertise. According to Lofthouse and Leat (2013), training professional

coaches require summarization points to allow participants to construct pathways for

newly attained knowledge. Lofthouse and Leat discussed staff resistance to coaching and

recommended that trust-based management of coaching be instituted. Thus, thematic

closure and synthesis of expert literacy leadership with activities to practice trust-based

management are planned for each training session.

Needed Resources and Existing Supports

Implementation of the project requires needed resources and supports. Training

facilities for sessions are required. Technology to support the audio and video portions of

the training is necessary. In order for successful implementation of the professional

development program, full support is needed from district leaders and school principals.

This includes providing time for literacy specialists to be part of the training. A modified

school district budget to pay for training, materials, consultants, and substitute teachers is

essential for successful implementation.

School district leadership with expertise in literacy achievement and literacy

equity would support implementation. District employed professional development

specialists and outside consultants in adult learning theory and practice would also

support implementation. District personnel who completed training in cultural

proficiency can be relied on to support consultants to implement the training plans and

provide the specific professional development to the audience. In 2015, the district

created strategic plans and system wide goals to improve cultural proficiency for business

and instructional staff. The district strategic initiatives will support the work of

instructional equity and professional coaching for staff. The professional development

model is well situated for immediate implementation to meet school system strategic

goals.

Potential Barriers and Solutions

I identified several barriers to full implementation. Barriers include weaknesses in

previous cultural competency training by participants, length of training time needed for

effective implementation, and budgetary constraints. Limitations of the plan include the

selection of a proper facilitator or consultants for the study. Another barrier to full

implementation is the emotional readiness of literacy specialists for equity and coaching

training. Some stakeholders may view the opportunity as biased toward lower level

learners and wonder how opportunities are equitable for the more advantaged student.

The historical context of disadvantage will be challenged and some stakeholders may not

be ready to confront the difficulties of subconscious self-discovery. Trust amongst

stakeholders will also take time to develop.

To address the barrier of participant readiness, team building and trust work is

embedded in the training plan. Ground rules will be established and the element of

nonclosure from the process is incorporated. Davis (2012) suggested that potential

conversation surrounding literacy and other school cultural inequities will require deep

introspection. This includes examining personal stories in order to confront beliefs,

perceptions, and biases (Singleton, 2014). Participants will self-assess where they are on

the cultural proficiency continuum. The proficiency continuum is based on the work of

Lindsey, Roberts, & CampbellJones (2013) and requires that participants honestly reflect

on their strengths and weaknesses for various educational factors and beliefs related to

cultural proficiency. Participants will treat the continuum as a needs assessment and rate

themselves on a 1(low) to 10 (high) scale of prior knowledge. Participants will rate their

prior awareness and prior understanding of cultural destructiveness, cultural incapacity,

cultural blindness, cultural pre-competence, cultural competence, and cultural

proficiency.

To address possible limitations in facilitation, a consultant that does not work with

literacy specialists on a regular basis should be chosen to support the lead facilitator; a

neutral party without connections to the learning community (Singleton, 2014). This

could include a professional development specialist within the district or a neighboring

district who typically works with other stakeholder groups. Facilitators with less

connection to participants can provide the optimal risk-free environment needed for

successful implementation.

The planned extended time frame and differentiation plans are potential solutions

to previous cultural competency knowledge barriers. A 24-hour plan provides an

adequate amount of time to ensure commitment from necessary stakeholders (Broadly,

2013). Differentiation for adult learning addresses the varying levels of expertise from

participants and could prevent any level of resistance from stakeholders that may delay

the process. Vanblaere and Davos (2016) indicated that effective professional

development regularly assesses readiness of staff. Gravani (2015) submitted that

professional development with strategic plans to address staff needs were more effective

for school change. Therefore, facilitators will be required to factor in prior knowledge

during each training session.

Budgetary limitations can be addressed through grant funding, partnerships from

the community, and private organizations that partner with the school district. Threats to

the successful implementation from stakeholder resistance can be addressed by district

goal setting procedures. A review of student achievement data to show the extent of

achievement gap issues for students from disadvantaged populations could be shared with

stakeholders to demonstrate project need. Principals and district leaders can also support

any possible resistant participants by creating a sense of urgency and establish the

importance and relevance for literacy specialists as it relates to local school academic

achievement.

Proposal for Implementation and Timetable

Implementing the project portion of this study, a professional development

program for literacy specialists entitled Literacy Coaching for Equity, is based on the

results discussed in Section 2 and will take place during one school year in the school

district. Broadley (2012) posited that professional learning based on institutional and

instructional equity must be long-term; therefore, the project designed for this study

incorporates a total of 24 hours of professional development delivered in 10 sessions for

literacy specialists to prepare them as lead literacy equity coaches for local school

communities. Training begins with a 6-hour retreat. The remainder of the professional

development leadership training meets for 2 hours, once a month over the course of 9

months to provide literacy specialists the time necessary to address any diversity

proficiencies.

A pathway for leaders to foster and facilitate conversations that over time develop

culturally proficient schools require extended timeframes with outside time for reflection

(Coady et al., 2015). To ensure trust with participants, and ongoing discussions of

culture, race, and under privilege that may be present in the school community,

participants will need to meet regularly and often (Lofthouse & Leat, 2013). The

fivephase program creates opportunity to gather perspectives, build on the trust within

and among local stakeholders, analyze structures, and develop deepened awareness

through several levels of implementation.

During the first phase, a variety of methods are employed to establish trust of

participants, assess knowledge, and establish norms. The second phase engages

participants in a broader understanding of equity leadership by using video, articles, and

activities that provide participants with perspectives outside of their normal purview. In

phases three, four, and five participants develop a framework to examine the issues raised

in the first two phases and to identify and explore the beliefs, practices, and policies that

contribute to inequity. The participants develop a shared message and create action plans.

Action plans result in enhanced leadership capacity to lead discussions about inequities in

literacy instruction.

Roles and Responsibilities

Various personnel would be involved in this initiative. School-based literacy

specialists are responsible to participate in each training session. I will lead the

facilitation of the professional development sessions and collaborate with district leaders,

campus principals, outside consultants, building facility personnel, technology services,

and audio-visual experts to ensure successful implementation. Each department’s

responsibilities were selected based upon current roles and responsibilities with other

district professional development initiatives.

My role as lead facilitator of the project for the school district is to lead the

training as an expert facilitator and provide leadership support to consultants. I will

collaborate with the other personnel to ensure responsibilities are carried out, project

content is implemented with fidelity, and design differentiation for adult learners where

needed. My expertise and leadership will be available to support other department’s

responsibilities.

District leaders are responsible for communication of the professional

development project to the system staff, alignment of strategic initiatives with the

project’s plan, acquirement of monetary resources, selection of the appropriate facilitator

or consultant, outreach to the community outreach, analysis of formative and summative

assessments of project effectiveness, and selection and securement of location. Campus

principals are expected to support the attendance and engagement of the school-based

literacy specialist in the training. Additionally, principals may need to procure substitute

funding, align project objectives to school level improvement initiatives, and provide

leadership for school based integration. The role of the outside consultants includes

preparation of materials, review of the training plan, implementation of the training plan,

development of rapport with participants, collaboration with campus principals,

partnership with the district leadership, differentiation of content based on participant

learning needs, and analysis of formative and summative evaluations

Building facility personnel are responsible for preparation of furniture and room

arrangement. Audio-visual services will be expected to acquire and prepare software

technology, media devices, wireless Internet, and any other media needs. Technology

services may also be needed for maintenance of technological equipment and hardware,

which includes laptops, wireless Internet hardware, and audio and video projection

devices.

Project Evaluation

Timely professional development assessment addresses adult learner attainment

and implementation of learned practices (Lodico et al., 2010). Project evaluation with

formative assessment during the training and summative assessment at the conclusion of

the training is designed for participant completion. Formative and summative survey

assessments are intended to determine effectiveness and implementation of learned

practices. The formative survey assessment is administered at the mid-point of the

professional development. The final summative survey assessment is administered at the

conclusion of the professional development.

As an evaluation instrument, both formative and summative survey assessments

are effective in evaluating the effects of professional development (Anderson et al., 2012;

Gravani, 2015; Lazar & Reich, 2016). Closed and open-ended formative and summative

surveys provide district leaders and professional development presenters the immediate

input needed to make mid-point adjustments and revisions to training plans for future

implementation. Moreover, effective professional development trainings apply

summative assessment to scrutinize carry-over of skill and practices (Gravani, 2015).

Open-ended narrative response evaluations were chosen for this project. Adult learning

needs are surveyed, and professional training plans adjusted based on the input collected.

For this project, formative and summative assessments were designed to evaluate

carryover and gather rich and extensive information.

The formative assessment instrument for the project is located in Appendix A.

Open-ended formative assessment questions assess attainment of coaching techniques.

The formative assessment checks for understanding in leadership learning and local

school application. The questions ask participants to reflect on internal beliefs, changes

in beliefs as a result of training content, and implications from such results. School and

learning community implications are assessed as well as participant requests for learning

style provisions.

The summative assessment instrument is located in Appendix A as part of the

project materials. Summative assessment gauges the effectiveness of the training

objectives and content. Questions are used to determine the effectiveness of the

professional development implementation for school implementation and improved

student learning. Student achievement data is requested as a part of the assessment to

examine evidence of improved practice, other successes, and challenges from the

implementation.

Consultants and district leaders are required to review the open-ended evaluation

data to determine training effectiveness. Adjustments to future training may be required.

The content and process learning of participants is analyzed to determine success of the

new literacy equity knowledge of participants. Principals are encouraged to review data

from assessments to further support systemic efforts. Literacy specialists are invited to

review formative and summative data to review successes and challenges of the

professional development model. Input from assessments will be used to refine the

project syllabus and scope and sequence for future professional development. Finally,

assessments will determine the effectiveness of coaching practice implementation at

schools.

Project Implications

The problem of low reading achievement for high-poverty students is addressed

through professional development of literacy specialists. The professional development

influences the literacy specialist’s capacity to coach learning community members.

Coaching sessions will engage the local teachers in dialogue about high-poverty learning

needs and increase school-based cultural proficiency and cultural responsiveness practice.

Through the training, the literacy specialist will become the lead peer-coaching expert.

The coaching sessions and literacy specialist expertise will influence a positive change in

teacher practice for high quality literacy instruction for students. The ability to create

understanding and respect of culture and family difference promotes the success of all

students by confronting socioeconomic diversity challenges. Moreover, the conversations

and actions that result from the coaching process will provide the local setting, as well as

other settings, with the tools and strategies needed to confront learning barriers (Lindsey

et al., 2013).

Quality education creates social change by providing a foundation by which

members of society can minimize the effects of sociocultural and opportunity disparities

and differences (Gorski, 2013). The achievement gap for high-poverty students as well as

other disadvantaged student groups has provided a springboard for critical dialogue and a

continued search for the best practices for school communities to defend students from

disadvantages (Philpott & Dagenais, 2012). Such discourse on equitable education for all

student groups stimulates critical dialogue about the implications for teaching in today’s

diverse and ever-changing society. Providing structures and effective tools for

communities that promote increased teacher collaborative capacity and student literacy

performance could enhance the education of students and augment future social change.

Therefore, the resultant positive social change from this project could include increased

college and career readiness, increased graduation rates, increased earning power, and

upward social mobility for students in many learning communities.

Local Community

Literacy gaps are a complex and multifaceted issue. As discussed in the first

literature review in Section 1, a number of sociocultural factors contribute to the

performance of children obstructed by achievement gaps (Fletcher, 2013). This project

addresses the prerequisites of learners in the local community as a means to address the

multi-faceted and complex gaps for high-poverty students. Each is addressed by training

a leader (the literacy specialist) with the essential skills to address learning needs of

stakeholders. Students benefit from the opportunity to engage in literature and textual

material that are relevant to their cultural and individual needs as a result of newly

acquired literacy specialist leadership expertise (Daniel et al., 2015). As a result of the

project plans, literacy specialists attain the leadership skills required to support

improvement in literacy programs. With improved school literacy programs, families

benefit, because increased reading and writing awareness can benefit family structure and

build additional opportunities for children; reading success leads to greater success in

school (Gorski, 2013). Administrators benefit from the project because supplementary

leadership structures and increased concentration on equity in the school literacy program

challenges the current state of instruction and propels achievement (Hagans & Good III,

2013; Singleton, 2014).

Community partners benefit because enhanced literacy for local students

adequately prepares a future work force. Teachers benefit from the project because it

provides literacy specialists with decision-making skills to determine teacher professional

development needs. The project focuses on current educational issues with the potential

to increase teaching and learning confidence and foster additional solutions to meet

student needs. Increased confidence and expanded teaching repertoire supports expanded

teaching expertise (Willis, 2015). Mastery of equity in literacy supports greater teacher

understanding of the social and cultural contexts that contribute to learning in schools

(Fletcher, 2013). Greater understanding of the institutional social and cultural extraneous

(outside of the school) factors of the student population may well prime enhanced

pedagogy and mastery in teaching, which furthers the professional knowledge base of

educators (Cortes, 2013; Ntelioglou et al., 2015).

Far-Reaching

This opportunity responds to cultural diversity in the larger social context. It

promotes cultural proficiency for the involved stakeholders because recognition of

institutional barriers can ensure educational opportunity for all students (Singleton, 2014).

To reiterate what was discussed in Section 1, poverty rates from shifting economic

demographics are rising for children in the United States (NEA, 2015). As a result, the

task of effectively closing gaps and promoting positive achievement outcomes for all

learners is more urgent (NEA, 2015). Additionally in the United States, there has also

been a noticeable increase in economic inequality with a majority (51%) of public school

students coming from low-income families (Colclough, 2012). The project responds to

the demographic shifts in public schools and gives educators tools, strategies, and best

practices to develop high-poverty reading and writing skills to reduce academic

achievement disparities.

The project influences the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural

context through a research-based district level response to each context by developing a

shared decision making leadership paradigm shift for literacy specialists. The problem of

inequity requires effective leadership attention in 21st century schooling institutions

(Galloway & Ishimaru, 2015). In a discussion of new 21st century leadership standards,

Galloway and Ishimaru suggested that reforming schools requires a prioritization of

efforts to include narrowing the gap for students who already come to school with

learning weaknesses due to the constraints of their disadvantaged background. The

inequitable undercurrents of learning weaknesses from high poverty contribute to less

achievement, lower graduation rates, and inevitably less future opportunity for career and

college for under advantaged students (Ullucci & Howard 2015). To remediate such

disadvantage and learning weaknesses, this project addresses learning factors from under

privilege and challenges literacy specialists to review assumptions and institutional norms

that contribute to lesser achievement with a shared leadership lens.

Conclusion

The project, a professional development program for literacy specialists entitled

Literacy Coaching for Equity, is designed to provide school based literacy specialists

with the leadership training to consistently implement literacy coaching and equity

conversations in their respective local school communities. The data from this study

indicates that effective schools factor in background experiences of students to make

connections with the concepts being taught. The data also suggests that the incorporation

of responsive pedagogy that embraces student backgrounds and experiences improves

literacy achievement. As a result, a project that focuses on strong professional capacity

through professional instructional coaching training is recommended for practice.

The literature review empirically addressed professional development project

genre theory, evidence appropriate as a solution to the problem, and theory and research

to support the professional development project choice. Provisions from the research

base for the project content include adult learning strategies to engage participants in

collaborative equity, literacy, and culturally responsive professional learning experiences.

Implications involve student, teacher, community, and administrator growth in learning

abilities.

The project evaluation methods encompass formative and summative assessment

of professional learning participants. Implications for social change comprise of

influences to the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. Increased

teacher collaborative capacity and student literacy performance enhances the education of

students. Enhanced education and social change from the project includes increased

college and career readiness, increased graduation rates, increased earning power, and

upward social mobility for students.

A continuation of the project’s implications for the future is described in Section

4. Reflections and conclusions of the research in this doctoral study as well as

selfreflection and introspection of self as a researcher-practitioner is included in the next

section. The project’s strengths, influence for social change, and implications for future

research are presented.

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions

The ultimate goal of early elementary school is to successfully teach children to

read and write (Littky & Grabelle 2004). Many high-poverty students enter school with

language deficits and disadvantages in literacy learning (Darling-Hammond, 2013). In

educator attempts to meet all student learning needs, high-poverty disadvantages make

meeting education needs and standards more challenging (Fletcher, 2013). Children

living in high-poverty environments are at an increased risk for literacy failure in schools,

especially those with high concentrations of impoverished populations (Gorski 2013;

Putnam, 2015). These students, like all students, need to complete fourth grade as

proficient readers and writers as a prerequisite for greater opportunity in school and in life

(Fletcher, 2013). I learned from the findings in this study, that educators have the ability

to help students reach the prerequisite of proficient literacy.

Many U.S. schools with great concentrations of high-poverty students have failed

to reach the goal of graduating competent readers (De Marco & Vernon-Faegans, 2013).

But, some schools have accomplished this task (Darling-Hammond, 2013). Some schools

regularly meet the needs and challenges of high-poverty student literacy (De Marco &

Vernon-Faegans, 2013). I studied one such school. The school selected for this case

study exhibited best practices of equity of expectations, a constructive and

studentcentered school culture, and a PLC immersed in professional coaching, cultural

competency, and literacy leader expertise. As a result, the project, a professional

development program for literacy specialists entitled Literacy Coaching for Equity,

provides school-based literacy specialists with the leadership training they need to

consistently implement literacy coaching and equity conversations in respective local

school communities.

In this section, the project’s strengths for addressing the problem are considered.

Several recommendations from the limitations of the project design are shared as well as

alternatives for problem remediation. I analyze new learning from this project study and

discuss my reflections as a scholar, practitioner, project developer, and researcher.

Finally, implications and directions for the education field and future research are

addressed and suggestions are made for educators.

Project Strengths and Limitations

The ongoing and long-term timeframe of the professional development training

plan is a strength. The professional learning plan I developed may create consistency for

the local school district by creating shared common language and expectations for

professional coaching. The project is a flexible starting point for reducing literacy

achievement gaps that result from institutional factors. Schools can use the leadership

learning from literacy specialists and work as individual teams with other key

stakeholders to develop strategies and frameworks that meet the unique needs of each

campus. Professional learning that allows for autonomy in implementation and flexibility

based on organizational needs stimulates organizational improvement (Lodico et al.,

2010). Therefore, in my design, I considered flexibility, autonomy, and individual

campus organizational pace, which should positively influence systemic change.

Realistic and experiential practice sessions for participants are another strength in

the project’s scope and design. Participants will engage in authentic practice exercises to

refine instructional coaching capacities. Gladwell (2008) indicates that to become an

expert in any one behavior or skill, one must have 10,000 hours of practice. The

professional development project incorporates extensive practice sessions with

selfreflective exercises. Practice coaching sessions and self-reflective components are

designed to offer participants a safe and risk-free environment. Differentiation is

provisioned through participant practice that integrate the needs of students at each

individual setting.

A limitation is that study data collected at one site may not be sufficient for

generalizability of results. Although use of a single case study site may offer deep

descriptive pragmatic knowledge, it does not allow a researcher to prove causation for

other environments (Hatch, 2002). To further reinforce themes and findings from this

study and reinforce project training plans, additional research at other schools is required.

Regardless of data limitations, the present study provides other educators and researchers

with a framework to recreate the inquiry at additional sites and engage in further

exploration of inclusive literacy and equity practices for student reading and writing

achievement. The interest, peer-to-peer professional conversation, and pending research

in the field could lead to greater development of pedagogical or professional development

practices that further improve school communities and contribute to future successful

achievement by high-poverty students.

Also, the selection of a narrow audience (literacy specialists) can be considered a

limitation. Entire school leadership teams could engage in this training. To make

systemic change and truly engage in professional conversation about inclusive and

equitable practices in literacy instruction, a common language for educators is needed

(Singleton, 2014). To be more effective and systemic, administrators and classroom

teachers may also require this training to develop a common language about literacy

improvement. A risk-free environment may need to be replicated for all school-based

stakeholders to establish a common framework and professional vocabulary.

Recommendations for Alternative Approaches

I considered several alternative solutions to the problem. A community-based

equity study that affords the local school an opportunity to discuss the problem and create

additional solutions in partnership with local business and other community agencies was

considered. Such a program would require additional monetary resources to compensate

professional staff for time outside of the business day. Remedial intervention programs

were considered but were deemed impractical based on study data. Data from this study

indicate that intervention programs were not as successful as high quality instruction

derived from effective coaching and professional learning practice, so I ruled out

interventions as a possible project.

Other alternative considerations include (a) training for administrators and

teachers rather than literacy specialists; (b) a 3-day training module with supervisory

follow-up; (c) an online training; or (d) a hybrid of online and in-person training.

According to Gravani (2105), each of these adult learning options is beneficial for a

myriad of stakeholder groups but is well beyond the scope of findings considered for this

single project design. The practical choice was to train one highly capable staff member,

the school’s literacy specialist, in effective coaching strategies and to infuse inclusive and

equitable practices within the literacy program through an immersive year-long process.

Scholarship, Project Development, and Leadership and Change

During this project study I established new skills as a scholar. The active pursuit

of knowledge at a scholarly and doctoral level was achieved through the proposal stage,

research and synthesis of the literature, data collection, project development, and ongoing

self-reflection. I gained intellectual experience and knowledge from critical and

constructive feedback of my committee members. The coursework prepared me for the

project in terms of research and reaching saturation with published literature. Moreover,

the application of coursework learning, coupled with the expertise of my committee,

granted me the familiarity required to complete a substantial scholarly project such as

this. I learned how to identify a gap in practice and how to use archival data to identify a

problem. I assembled new techniques and strategies to develop research questions and

study methodology from scholarly questions. I gained knowledge on how to design a

study to answer research questions and use the findings to inform practice. I became

well-educated on the requirements of effective professional learning adult curriculum. I

gained more learning on leadership and social change. I also learned that my decisions

and study are far-reaching and important; they will potentially influence students,

teachers, leaders, and communities in many positive ways.

Project Development and Evaluation

During the review and analysis of the data collected in this study, I learned how to

consider an educational project as a solution to a gap in practice. I chose a professional

development project as the genre after careful consideration of the findings from this

study and the literature base that I reviewed. I learned that professional development

planning, development, and evaluation require extensive knowledge in data analysis,

current educational research, and adult learning theory. I refined my literature search

skills to ascertain research that supported professional development as an effective

strategy to improve teaching and learning. I also gained knowledge on the importance of

evaluation in professional development and discovered that both formative and

summative evaluations are required to assess the strength and limitations of professional

training.

The knowledge, conceptual understanding, and thinking skills of adult learners are

significant to consider in developing a professional learning plan. I learned how to use

data from the study and literature to design a project with adult learning considerations in

place. The data provided a direction for the project choice. The data offered a catalyst

for the literature search related to both the project genre and the project content. The

literature reaffirmed the choice of genre and content. I became well-read in scholarly

literature and gained the ability to select scholarly and credible literature to support

project vision, ideas, objectives, plans, material creation, presenter selection, and

audience selection.

I learned that professional learning plans require flexible designs with provisions

for facilitator elasticity and decision-making. The instructional outcomes for adult

learners must reflect the learning needs and professional capacity to support viable results

for improved teaching (Tam, 2015). The audience must be considered in the

development of professional learning plans (Gravani 2015). I discovered that flexibility

in project development requires that professional learning activities remain central to the

overarching objectives. For successful implementation of professional learning,

overarching objectives are to be designed based on data analysis and district need. Upon

reflection, I realized that the political undercurrents in school improvement and district

resources also drive the decisions in professional development trends.

Leadership and Change

Leadership and change require humility, perseverance, and trust when engaged in

the process of research design and project development. Humility came in many forms,

which included: (a) the ability to use critical feedback from my committee to enhance my

writing; (b) the ability to reflect on lack of research or scholarly knowledge, which

created feelings of vulnerability; and (c) the ability to accept fluid goals and timelines. I

learned that humble, perseverant, and trusting leadership can support the work of

investigative inquiry for data driven solutions to gaps in practice.

Perseverance was learned when challenges surfaced. Challenges included

schedules for data collection, revisions for writing, transcription of data, analysis of data

to determine themes, synthesis of current literature, and time management. I learned to

trust the research process and ask questions. Often I wanted to develop conclusions or

rush to judgments based on my own thoughts, values, and experiences before the

adequate applied research was completed. I paused and reflected during such times of

supposition to be sure I minimized biases and bracketed predispositions. This ensured

greater validity and reliability of themes developed from data collection.

Through the process of project development, I learned that leadership and change

in education requires a strong scholarly knowledge base and the ability to critically

review scholarly dialogue, literature, and research for application in local school issues

and needs. The 21st century educational leader possesses the ability to anticipate needs of

stakeholders and utilize current information with specificity. The research base is

expansive and compels leaders to critically synthesize the information to meet the needs

of the local institution. From the synthesis of research and learning in this study, I was

able to gain confidence and develop a project to meet local system needs. I also learned

how to connect the project to other research-based practices while contributing new ideas

to the education field.

Through the problem identification process, initial literature review, and

methodology development, I discovered and integrated a four-step process that

assimilates scholarship with leadership. The first step is to identify a problem or gap in

practice based on data. Once the problem is identified, the second step is to search the

field for the current knowledge in addressing the problem. The third step, based on the

learning and scholarship of others, is to take action based on that knowledge and

implement steps for change. The final step is to reflect and refine the actions taken in

collaborative inquiry with shared leaders. Each step is in an effort to change and improve

the teaching and learning process for every student. This process can be used for any gap

in educational practice.

Analysis of Self as Scholar

My learning and practice as a scholar evolved throughout the doctoral capstone

project study. I gained knowledge from my chair, committee, peers, and other professors

throughout the writing of this study. I learned how to review the current status of school

achievement data to identify a problem. I gained expertise in the articulation of a

problem statement driven through trends and public archival information. I learned to

strategically narrow my problem statement so that it could be researched through

scholarly methodology.

As a scholar, I learned how to use a problem statement to design specific research

questions for study. It was a challenge to design specific research questions that aligned

to the problem statement. I learned and reminded myself throughout the capstone

process, that alignment to the problem statement was fundamental in scholarly study.

During the literature review portions, I learned the challenges of scholarly

exploration with online databases. It required tenacity and consistency to find

appropriate credible literature. I discovered how to use expert Walden librarians to help

me refine searches. During synthesis of the literature, I often questioned and reflected on

whether I reached saturation. I grew in self-awareness and learned to pay close attention

to my thinking to recognize patterns in literature. In recognition of patterns, I learned

how to synthesize research and find themes. Synthesis of the current knowledge base

was challenging. I realized early on in the capstone process, that I needed to develop

strategies to gather information, recognize salient information, reflect on how it related to

the problem of study, and use it to build a proposal. I acknowledged that my own

selfdirected and self-developed amalgamation strategies were necessary in completing the

research and project development.

I discovered that choice and design of methodology to effectively answer and

align to the research question is a challenge. I had to determine and select which

methodological choices were best suited to research the questions. I also learned how to

narrow down methodology to determine the best design for the study. I became better

educated on qualitative methodology and components of effective case-study research.

This includes the ability to choose an appropriate sample, design data collection

instruments based on literature, transcribe data, and analyze data for emergent themes. I

also learned that conclusions drawn from this study require critical reflection and

connection to other current literature sources.

I improved as a scholarly writer and learned how to be more succinct and

scientific in my syntax. My desire to improve the learning situations for high-poverty

students propelled my exploration. The scholarly passion for finding solutions to the

local problem gained the interest of peers, family, and executive level district leadership. I

anticipate that other scholars and researchers will use findings from this study and the

project for additional study and practice for meeting high-poverty literacy needs. The

excitement from others in the educational field has clarified the pursuit of excellence in

the project design.

Analysis of Self as Practitioner

As a campus principal practitioner, I learned the importance of sharing leadership

with others to improve the teaching and learning process. I also learned the importance

of collaborative and shared decision-making process based on data. The role of campus

principal is complicated and overwhelming; one cannot do everything needed in isolation

to meet the needs of an ever-changing student population. The role requires tenacity,

resiliency, and the ability to delegate and mobilize others. The findings in this study

indicate that a vital professional partner in school leadership is the literacy specialist.

This doctoral study reaffirmed for me the requirement of a trusting professional

partnership between the administration and the literacy specialist. I learned that school

improvement and change in literacy programs are more successful when instructional

literacy leaders are part of shared strategic decision-making. As a practitioner, I will

create stronger foundations with leadership teams that regularly incorporate the literacy

specialist as the expert for school literacy instruction and improvement.

Analysis of Self as Project Developer

The design of a project based solution substantiated by literature and problem

based original research offered me the chance to learn how to develop an innovative

project to address educational trends. I learned how to incorporate the literature and the

findings from this study into a project as an effective solution. In doing so, I gained

critical thinking strategies that applied the findings from this study to a project genre that

best meets the needs of teachers and students. I discovered how to use the findings to

influence a literature search. Once I completed the literature search, I learned how to

funnel the literature and compare research-based concepts to findings from this study. I

discovered relationships that guided project content. While in the midst of project

creation, I gained evaluative skills to review and reflect on both the findings and literature

to ensure project objectives and content were solution based and connected to the

problem.

Previous to the project in this study, I had little experience in professional learning

development for adult learners. Meeting the needs of adult learners is different from

meeting student learning needs. Professional development is a major factor in improving

the quality of education for students (Gravani. 2015). In order to improve education

quality, professional learning for adult learners needs to be sustained during and after

professional learning sessions. As a result, I learned to develop sustained professional

learning to meet adult learning needs.

I learned that individual learning needs of participants must be considered.

Leaders who systemically provide professional learning objectives to meet individual

learning needs create greater effectiveness in professional learning (Hadley,

Waniganayake, & Shepherd, 2015). Time management of professional learning and

established systems of support are also required for effective professional learning

systems. Ongoing and long-term time frames are required to establish embedded

practice. For professional learning to be most effective, projects and plans require

participants to be immersed in sharing ideas, stories, tips, and resources, in overcoming

obstacles. The project for this study maintains this premise and regularly incorporates

idea sharing and collaboration to overcome high-poverty literacy gap challenges.

I learned that the challenges and problems of the local school are similar to other

school communities. I also learned that commitment to student learning requires data

based planning for improvement. To change standard operating procedures in schools, a

sustained and effective professional learning plan is required for teacher and educator

integration. Collaborative school environments built on professional trust and inquiry can

be developed through such professional learning plans.

Stakeholder relationships are the foundation for competency-based education in

complex educational environments. For example, the relationships educators make with

leaders, students, families, and each other are cursory for equitable practice that promotes

greater achievement. I learned that educational projects as solutions to identified gaps in

practice compel educators to share responsibility in influencing social change. I learned

that project development, regardless of audience, genre, or content, is a collaborative

process where social change results from the shared work of a myriad of educational

stakeholders. In the design of the project portion of this study or professional learning

plan, I learned that leadership can influence others and provide educators the tools to

plan, teach, and learn in such a way that makes a difference through school culture and

shared human interactions. My leadership in project development could potentially help

other educators to upgrade the teaching and learning that takes place in classrooms, thus

improving high-poverty student literacy achievement.

Reflections on the Importance of the Work

The importance of the project design and the developed practices for improved

literacy achievement for students is far-reaching and necessary. Too many failing schools

exist in the United States (Darling-Hammond, 2013). National assessments illustrate that

achievement gaps exist for high-poverty learners. Beginning in the year

2008, a trend of shrinking human and fiscal resources for public school districts

developed (Berkovich, 2014). Therefore, a project that requires minimal fiscal resources

but addresses achievement gaps with self-reflection and concrete practice for educators is

important for sustained improvement of public education.

This study and the developed project are one solution to an expansive problem.

Project outcomes are significant, in that teaching staff will grow and reach more learners.

By reaching more learners, high-poverty student literacy rates could increase that may

result in increased graduation rates and future college and career opportunities for

impoverished students. This project study places educators in training plans to work

collaboratively to ensure every student succeeds in literacy. It promotes advocacy,

literacy specialist coaching expertise, and quality instruction to ensure that high-poverty

student needs are targeted and adequately planned and provisioned for in literacy

instruction.

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research

The project’s implications for social change are a substantial element of this

doctoral project study. The potential impact for positive change exists at several levels.

Implications within the study’s boundaries are at the individual, family, organizational,

societal, and policy levels.

At the individual level, the student in high poverty will benefit from the increased

awareness that educators have on meeting individual literacy needs. Increased awareness

will positively impact the individual student’s literacy achievement with increased

opportunity for student success. Increased literacy achievement will give students greater

confidence and opportunity for academic, social, and emotional success in school. With

enhanced literacy, the individual student possesses greater opportunity for college and

career preparedness (Fletcher et al., 2013). Such preparation will lead to opportunities for

upward social mobility.

Family literacy is vital in supporting early child language and reading

development (Topor et al., 2010). Implications from the project in learning environments

could support increased literacy for the family. Increased social mobility for the student

may provide additional opportunity for the family to experience success and foster

increased parental involvement. Family activities that reinforce, strengthen, and build

family literacy skills could foster greater reading and writing motivation. Success with

literacy could foster school and home partnerships that supports increased student

achievement. Strengthened family and student literacy could result in successful

graduation rates in later school years.

The organizational level is impacted at the local level and district level.

Professional development will provide the capacity necessary to instill a heightened focus

on literacy inequities that exist as part of school culture. Literacy specialist expertise in

equity measures for literacy instruction will benefit local teachers and administrators.

The local setting could use outcomes from the project to support future instructional

decisions and practices. Decisions and practices that factor in equity for literacy

instruction may lead to greater achievement for high-poverty students in reading and

writing. The project engages professionals in uncovering the context of achievement

gaps to support school-based coaching. An increased understanding of the contexts of

disadvantage is a catalyst for school communities to begin the collaborative work that

brings all students to literacy standards by the end of fourth grade. An increase of student

readers and writers by the end of fourth grade could create greater levels of achievement

throughout students’ public school careers in a myriad of subject, content, and social,

areas.

At the district level, social change is addressed through practices that increase the

capacity of the members of the entire organization. A culture of understanding and

cognitive focus on student literacy needs will enhance decision-making for district level

leaders. The pursuit of greater achievement for high-poverty students essentially reduces

or eliminates the achievement gap and bridges excellence and competency for

disadvantaged learners. Increasing competency for learners may mitigate the influence of

high poverty on district resources.

At the societal level, the project can be used to improve teaching education

programs and higher-level certificate and degree programs. In order to further reduce

achievement gaps due to disadvantage, especially for high-poverty literacy improvement,

teacher preparation programs and specialist certification programs must reconsider

program outcomes and include elements of equity training. Components of the project

can be used by other school districts and education organizations to further advance their

workforce capacity in teaching high-poverty learners.

At the policy level, equity discussions and improved competencies support future

executive policy making regarding curriculum implementation, school staffing,

scheduling, calendar decisions, literacy interventions, and professional learning plans.

Policy making centered on equity of literacy instruction, could instill the indirect support

needed for student literacy achievement and provision for increased opportunity for

current and future students. Social change in the form of increased graduation rates,

workforce development, and career readiness for students could result from such policy

changes.

Overall, enhanced equity capacity of education professionals, regardless of title or

organization, could provide the tools to address high-poverty literacy achievement gap

undercurrents. Policy may be able to address undercurrents such as bias, belief in student

ability, and micro and macro factors that institutionally cause further disadvantage. The

project builds awareness of the sociocultural disadvantage phenomena. A more equitable

education system may lead to improved social outcomes for present and future students

(Gorski, 2013). With awareness, the adults working for and with children can begin

conversations and actions to build a better and more equitable system of education.

Recommendations for Practice

The project can be applied to other schools, school districts, higher education

institutions, and in policy making. Although the project was designed with literacy

specialists as a primary audience, the project can be applied to other school and district

educators. The project can be replicated with other school systems, individual school

campuses, school staff, and district personnel. Higher education institutions educational

leadership programs could implement the project. Educational organizations that

regularly establish standards or complete field research can measure project effectiveness

in school districts to improve methods and practice. The same organizations can use

project content to develop policy or teacher training curriculum.

Applications of this project study and the potential for the education profession

exist in PLC practice. When used to train other school leaders and staff, equitable

teaching and learning strategies could be used in PLC improvement efforts to reduce

disparities in literacy achievement. Project genre and content could be used to enhance

PLCs and to build greater learning community trust. The project content can be used to

build a consistent common professional equity language and vocabulary for staff to use

when engaged in dialogue about equitable teaching and learning practices. When applied

to a greater educational audience, the project content and genre instigates the restoration

of PLC practices. Refined practices could include the collaborative, strategic, coherent,

inclusive, shared, and equitable school culture frameworks for improved student

performance.

Recommendations for Future Research

An implication for future research includes the consideration of several methods

of additional study. Quantitative studies on professional coaching to measure the

effectiveness of equity and literacy coaching paradigm shifts in local settings could

support this study’s findings. Possible experimental studies that measure student reading

achievement before and after the project’s implementation will garner more information

of project effectiveness. Quantitative experimental methods, which measure instructional

coaching effectiveness related to literacy achievement, could determine the effectiveness

of professional coaching development. A quasi-experimental study that surveys staff on

instructional coaching as it relates to increased teaching capacity could support greater

understanding of coaching effectiveness. A quantitative investigation for rural student

literacy and rural student language acquisition from specific research based interventions

would also enhance the learning from this project study and could provide other plausible

solutions for meeting student literacy needs.

Also, using a similar design, methodology, and sampling at other high-poverty

rural school sites could support this capstone project’s findings and outcomes.

Phenomenological studies that explore the phenomena related to barriers in professional

learning communities as they work toward high-poverty literacy remediation could

support future scholar and practitioner improvement efforts in high-poverty literacy

achievement. Finally, mixed methods research that explores the effectiveness of coaching

on high-poverty literacy achievement through quantitative measures followed by in depth

qualitative inquiry at several schools or districts could uncover additional solutions.

Conclusion

The local problem addressed in this study was the low reading achievement of

high-poverty students in a small rural school in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United

States. The purpose of the study was to examine the perceptions of a campus principal

and teachers at a high-poverty and high achieving elementary school to determine best

practices in meeting high-poverty student literacy needs. The sample school selected for

this study was characterized by equity of teacher and student expectations, a constructive

and student centered school culture, and a PLC that was steeped in professional coaching,

cultural competency, and literacy leader expertise. The data collected in this study depict

practices that can be replicated for other school settings as a solution to the problem.

The project, a professional development program for literacy specialists entitled

Literacy Coaching for Equity, was designed to address the problem and to provide school

based literacy specialists with the leadership training to consistently implement literacy

coaching and equity conversations in their respective local school communities. Such

coaching could propel literacy success for high-poverty students. Project strengths

include the ongoing nature of the professional development program and the practical and

simplistic elements of coaching practice and self-reflection. The inability to train all

school stakeholders or develop common language for the entire school community are

limitations in the project design. Providing similar professional development to

administrators and other members of the learning community are alternative solutions to

the problem and address the limitations in the project.

I learned about scholarship, gained high-level knowledge, and developed my skills

as a scholar. I achieved scholarly practice through regular self-reflection during the

proposal stage, research and synthesis of the literature, data collection, project

development, and ongoing collaboration with my committee. The knowledge, conceptual

understanding, and thinking skills of adult learners are the ultimate factors in developing

a professional learning plan. Leadership for change is a four-step process of problem

identification, analysis of current knowledge, action planning, and reflection. I grew as a

scholar during the capstone project through more effective writing and scholarly research

exploration.

As a practicing campus principal, I learned that school improvement and change

in literacy programs are more successful when instructional literacy leaders are valued for

expertise in leadership and improvement. As a project developer, I learned how to meet

the needs of adult learners and plan sustained and authentic professional development.

The project’s potential for systemic social change includes educational leadership

development for equitable policymaking and enhanced equitable teaching capacities that

lead to greater graduation rates and workforce preparation for students. Educator

preparation programs can increase public education student success, through inclusion of

project elements for future practitioners. Enhanced student success will lead to greater

social outcomes for present and future students. The project portion of this study is a

collaborative, strategic, coherent, inclusive, shared, and equitable professional learning

structure for high-poverty literacy performance with potential to create a positive

difference for students at the local setting and for many other teaching and learning

organizations.

Introduction Children living in poverty in the United States experience

Students also viewed