Page 163

7—
Studies of School and
Classroom Effectiveness

Whereas Chapter 6 focuses on program evaluations, in which instructional language issues are paramount, this chapter focuses on empirical studies that attempt to identify school- and classroom-level factors related to effective schooling for English-language learners from early education programs through high school. Although instructional language issues are important in the research described in this chapter, they do not dominate. The research reviewed here is categorized according to four distinct methodologies: effective schools research, nominated schools research, prospective case studies, and quasi-experiments. Thus the chapter begins with a description of these methodologies. The chapter then summarizes the studies of each type reviewed and presents some observations on the features on these studies. Next is a detailed discussion of 13 attributes identified by the studies as being associated with effective schools and classrooms. The final section examines the methodological strengths and limitations of the four types of studies. Although different approaches to a review of this sort are possible, the present review is organized according to methodology because the committee believes the study findings should be viewed in light of the methodologies used to generate them. For example, some findings are richer in detail but less generalizable than others. Moreover, it is important to highlight the various methodologies because strengthening and integrating them is necessary if school and classroom research is to be improved.

State Of Knowledge

Beginning in the 1970s, and largely in response to findings by Coleman et al. (1966), Jencks et al. (1972), and others suggesting that differences in student



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 163
Page 163 7— Studies of School and Classroom Effectiveness Whereas Chapter 6 focuses on program evaluations, in which instructional language issues are paramount, this chapter focuses on empirical studies that attempt to identify school- and classroom-level factors related to effective schooling for English-language learners from early education programs through high school. Although instructional language issues are important in the research described in this chapter, they do not dominate. The research reviewed here is categorized according to four distinct methodologies: effective schools research, nominated schools research, prospective case studies, and quasi-experiments. Thus the chapter begins with a description of these methodologies. The chapter then summarizes the studies of each type reviewed and presents some observations on the features on these studies. Next is a detailed discussion of 13 attributes identified by the studies as being associated with effective schools and classrooms. The final section examines the methodological strengths and limitations of the four types of studies. Although different approaches to a review of this sort are possible, the present review is organized according to methodology because the committee believes the study findings should be viewed in light of the methodologies used to generate them. For example, some findings are richer in detail but less generalizable than others. Moreover, it is important to highlight the various methodologies because strengthening and integrating them is necessary if school and classroom research is to be improved. State Of Knowledge Beginning in the 1970s, and largely in response to findings by Coleman et al. (1966), Jencks et al. (1972), and others suggesting that differences in student

OCR for page 163
Page 164 outcomes were due largely to factors outside the control of schools, a group of studies appeared that challenged this conclusion by identifying effective schools and the characteristics that made them effective (e.g., Edmonds, 1979; Rutter et al., 1979; Weber, 1971; see especially Purkey and Smith, 1983). This research yielded what became (with some variations) a familiar list of "effective schools" characteristics, which included the following: • Strong leadership, particularly instructional, by the principal • High expectations for student achievement • Clear school-wide focus on basic skills • A safe, orderly school environment • Frequent assessment of student academic progress Despite early and ongoing criticism (e.g., Scott and Walberg, 1979; Stedman, 1985, 1987), effective schools research has evolved over the past two decades (Bliss et al., 1991), flourishing and even turning into a national movement. In terms of sheer numbers, it is now perhaps the most successful of the dozens of ideas informing school reform efforts nation-wide. According to Education Week (1995), more than 2,000 school districts—15 percent of the nation's 14,500—report using effective school research.1 In the 1990s, there has been a significant change in the way "effective" schools are identified, particularly in efforts to uncover effective schooling dimensions for English-language learners. Instead of designating schools as effective on the basis of measures of student learning or achievement, investigators now typically use a "nominated" schools design.2 As in the previous effective schools research, current investigators attempt to identify schools or programs that are ''exemplary." However, rather than being identified on the basis of outcome measures, schools are identified in accordance with the professional judgments of knowledgeable educators. Independent measures of student achievement are not in the data set reported by most of these investigators. In schools or classrooms with large numbers of English-language learners, this is often the case because investigators could not find adequate student achievement data to verify the validity of the nominations (Berman et al., 1992, 1995).3 However, in some instances, investigators have asked nominated schools to provide 1This figure might actually indicate diminished influence of the effective schools movement in the 1990s. A 1989 General Accounting Office survey estimated that 41 percent of U.S. school districts had programs based on effective schools research in 1988 (Bliss et al., 1991). 2However, there is still effective schools research that relies on student outcomes; moreover, not all research prior to the 1990s used student outcomes to determine school or classroom effectiveness. 3For example, Berman et al. (1992:6) found that "language proficiency results were of questionable validity, subject to sources of unreliability and not comparable; schools did not consistently assess LEP students on California assessment tests or had little accumulated data as a result of high transiency or poor attendance."

OCR for page 163
Page 165 information that corroborates their effectiveness4 or have attempted to verify the quality of nominees by examining "proxies" for student achievement in nominated classrooms, such as academic learning time (Tikunoff, 1983). Prospective case studies and quasi-experiments represent a different approach to studying effective schooling. Instead of finding schools that are already "effective" or have been nominated as such, prospective studies attempt to document changes in school-wide programs or classrooms and the effects of these changes on student achievement. In the ideal situation, the changes are based on strong theory. In the discussion of program evaluation in Chapter 6, we note many problems with large-scale efforts that have provided very little "bang for the buck." Among the prescriptions suggested are small-scale evaluations of the implementation of theory-based programs. The prospective case study approach to studying school and classroom effectiveness comes close to this ideal. An example of the prospective case study approach is the Case Studies in Bilingual Education project (Gold and Tempes, 1987), a collaborative effort during the mid-1980s between the California State Department of Education and five elementary schools serving large numbers of Spanish-speaking students. Applying theoretical models for the education of English-language learners and for the implementation of school-wide change, schools developed and carried out changes in curriculum, instruction, and organization to promote higher levels of academic achievement for Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Although the effects of the instructional program have been somewhat more mixed than is often reported (Samaniego and Eubank, 1991), the project appears to have been extremely successful overall and led to the development of a Title VII Academic Excellence Program, based on one of the California Case Study schools (Eastman), entitled Project MORE. A quasi-experimental design (Cook and Campbell, 1979) is generally defined as a research design that approximates the control of randomized design. We define the term somewhat differently: a quasi-experimental design employs comparison schools or classrooms and measured outcomes. Thus our use of the term is meant to convey designs that afford stronger conclusions than those typically used in effective or nominated schools research or prospective case studies. Quasi-experimental studies also begin with a school(s) or classroom(s) that is not more effective and perhaps even less effective than one or more comparable schools or classrooms. Investigators and educators implement a 4 For example, to be considered for inclusion in the Descriptive Study of Significant Features of Exemplary Special Alternative Instructional Programs (Tikunoff, 1983), applicants had to describe their programs and provide evidence of exceptional student performance in some combination of the following areas across at least 2 successive years: relative gains in English-language proficiency, in academic performance, and in special language programs before students were exited, and extent to which grade promotion requirements were met while participating in or after exiting the program.

OCR for page 163
Page 166 change or intervention predicted to improve student outcomes. Student outcomes (pre and post) are measured at the target and comparison schools or classrooms to determine the effects of the change or intervention. Because of the existence of a comparison site, the quasi-experimental approach offers the strongest basis for claiming that what was done at a target site produced changes in student achievement. Studies Reviewed For this review of the literature on studies of school and classroom effectiveness, studies that met the following criteria were included: (1) the school population(s) or classroom(s) studied included substantial numbers of English-language learners, and (2) investigators made some attempt (or at least claim) to identify school- or classroom-level factors, including instruction, associated with positive outcomes (or good programs) for these students.5 Studies that examined the relationship between student knowledge/skills and task demands on literacy and learning are reviewed in Chapter 3. In general, these studies did not examine school and classroom factors that promote learning; rather, they focused on student and task attributes and their relationship to learning. Other school-based efforts besides those examined here have aimed at improving outcomes for English-language learners, but there is insufficient information about them to permit an analytic review. For example, the Academic Excellence Program (funded by Title VII) identifies effective programs serving English-language learners. To be designated an Academic Excellence Program, a program must provide evidence that it has improved outcomes for these students and propose a plan for disseminating the program to other schools around the country. The Academic Excellence Programs represent a diverse array of curricular and instructional approaches that include, for example, content-based English as a second language (ESL), computer-assisted writing, two-way bilingual education, gifted and talented education, transitional bilingual education, programs for recent immigrants, and interactive computer technologies. Dissemination 5 A broad search was done to locate relevant articles and books for this review: The search focused initially on Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) documents dating back to 1985, using limiters relevant to the topics of interest. Very few studies were located, and as a result, indexes from the following journals were searched back to 1985 for relevant studies: Educational Researcher, TESOL Quarterly, Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, Urban Education, Language and Education, Equity and Choice, American Educational Research Journal, Review of Educational Research, Educational Leadership, Harvard Educational Review, Applied Linguistics, Bilingual Research Journal, Read Perspectives, and Journal of Reading Behavior. All reference lists from useful retrieved documents were checked for additional sources, and an effort was made to obtain relevant studies. Finally, experts on the education of English-language learners were consulted regarding books and reports that might be of interest.

OCR for page 163
Page 167 efforts generally involve school-wide adoption (e.g., awareness, training, technical assistance, follow-up; see Wilson et al., 1994) or "restructuring" (Wilson et al., 1994). Thus, the programs as originally developed and their dissemination to new sites probably involve school- and classroom-level factors that would be relevant to this review. At the moment, however, such information is not readily available and therefore could not be incorporated here. In addition, there are many national school reform networks. We reviewed the work of 13 of these projects6 and found that very few have provided empirical evidence on issues of successful schooling for English-language learners (see Chapter 10). In part this is because many of these projects remain unevaluated or do not specifically examine outcomes for these students. For example, Chasin and Levin (1995) provide a case study of an "accelerated school" (elementary level) where 13 different languages are spoken, but they do not report the English-learning status of English-language learners, address concerns that are specific to these students' educational experiences, or report changes in outcomes for these students. As a result of our literature search, we identified reports of 33 studies for inclusion in this review; these studies and reports are identified in Annex Table 7-1. Most of the studies fall into one of four design categories (Annex Table 7-1, column 4): effective schools/classrooms design (6 studies); nominated schools/classrooms design (7 studies); prospective case study design (5 studies); and quasi-experimental or experimental design (13 studies). There are also 2 studies that do not fall into a design category. Effective Schools Research The basic design and logic of effective schools research still inform efforts to discover principles or processes that can be used to improve schooling opportunities and outcomes for "at-risk" students. However, the design has become more of a hybrid, relying on both student outcomes and nomination. More recent studies examine attributes of effective classrooms rather than schools. Some of these studies are reviewed in this section. Although most of these studies do not focus on English-language learners, our review found some studies involving such students: one pure effective schools study (Carter and Chatfield, 1986), three studies that rely on both nomination and student outcomes (Edelsky et al., 1983; Garcia, 1990a; Moll, 1988), and two studies (Mace-Matluck et al., 1989; 6These networks include the Accelerated Schools Project, Center for Educational Renewal, Coalition of Essential Schools, Core Knowledge Foundation, Effective Schools Networks, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, National Paideia Center, New American Schools Development Corporation, New Standards Project, School Development Program ("Comer Schools"), and Success for All.

OCR for page 163
Page 168 Wong Fillmore et al., 1985) that examine the relationship between current schooling practices and the language and/or reading achievement of students who began their instruction in bilingual education classrooms. We include the latter studies in this category because their goal is to identify attributes of effective classroom instruction by examining correlations among student background information, instructional practices, and student outcomes. Nominated Schools Research Nominated schools studies included in this review are Lucas et al. (1990), Berman et al. (1992, 1995), and Tikunoff et al. (1991). Nominated classrooms studies include Tikunoff (1983), Pease-Alvarez et al. (1991), and Gersten (1996). A study that explores the replicability and stability of features identified in the initial study of nominated classrooms (Tikunoff, 1983) is also reviewed. Prospective Case Studies We reviewed five prospective case studies that document student change as a result of a theory-driven intervention. One is the Case Studies in Bilingual Education project (Gold and Tempes, 1987) mentioned earlier. A second explores the extent to which reciprocal teaching of question generation, summarizing, and predicting using students' primary language improves reading comprehension in that language; it also explores how these strategies are used in second-language reading (Hernandez, 1991). A third study examines the effects of a collaborative inquiry approach to science on learning by language-minority students (Rosebery et al., 1992). A fourth study examines strategies used by classroom teachers to facilitate students' comprehension of subject matter and improve their academic language skills (Short, 1994). A fifth (Cohen, 1984) examines the effect of status on peer interaction in activity centers structured to promote science and math learning; it also investigates the relationship between peer interaction and learning. Quasi-Experimental Research Our review includes thirteen examples of quasi-experimental or experimental research on school- and classroom-level factors associated with schooling outcomes for English-language learners. Five of these studies are adaptations of Success for All for English-language learners. Success for All is an intervention program from the Johns Hopkins Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk that focuses on helping students attain high levels of reading proficiency in elementary school. The Success for All studies are reported in Dianda and Flaherty (1995), Slavin and Madden (1994, 1995), Slavin and

OCR for page 163
Page 169 Yampolsky (1992), and Calderon et al. (1996).7 Although four of the Success for All studies could have been reviewed here as one (as synthesized and reported in Slavin and Madden, 1995), they are in fact different studies replicated in different school contexts and settings. Two other quasi-experimental studies included here (Goldenberg and Gallimore, 1991; Goldenberg and Sullivan, 1994) are also fairly detailed case studies. Each describes the issues and dynamics of change at a single elementary school with a large Latino population, and each makes pre-post comparisons of student achievement with that in comparable schools in the district. Finally, five quasi-experimental studies and an experimental study examine the effects of classroom interventions on English-language learners through use of comparison and control groups. The first quasi-experimental study explores the effect of metacognitive reading strategy training on the reading performance and student reading analysis strategies of third grade bilingual students (Muniz-Swicegood, 1994). The second examines the effect of thematically integrated mathematics instruction on achievement, attitudes, and motivation in mathematics among school students of Mexican descent, many of whom have limited English proficiency (Henderson and Landesman, 1992). The third explores the effect of curriculum content and explicit teaching of learning strategies on students' metacognitive awareness and their learning of content and knowledge (Chamot et al., 1992). The fourth investigates effective strategies for teaching literature to transition students (Saunders et al., 1996). The fifth investigates the effectiveness of a Spanish version of reading recovery entitled Descubriendo La Lectura (Escamilla, 1994). The experimental study investigates the effects of a "culturally appropriate" reading program on the reading performance of Hawaiian children (Tharp, 1982). Other Studies Two studies do not fall in any of the above categories. One (Minicucci and Olsen, 1992) is an exploratory study that examines 27 secondary schools; its purpose is descriptive. The other study (Fisher et al., 1983) explores the replicability and stability of features identified in the initial study of nominated classrooms (Tikunoff, 1983). It assesses replicability by studying a second sample of classrooms (89 at 8 sites) serving different ethnolinguistic groups, as well as by examining classrooms that have not been nominated as successful. It examines the stability of the instructional process by studying teachers and students for a second academic year in different settings. 7The Calderon et al. (1996) study encompasses only one aspect of Success for All—Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (BCIRC).

OCR for page 163
Page 170 Observations on Studies of Effectiveness Annex Table 7-1 identifies the important features of the 33 studies, including the school- and classroom-level attributes investigators claim are related to effective, or exemplary, schooling for English-language learners (as discussed in the next section). Several general observations can be made about this collection. First, this is a heterogeneous group of studies representing levels of schooling from prekindergarten to high school, employing at least four different types of designs (as discussed above), and ranging from single-classroom and -school studies to a study of nine different "exemplary programs" in a total of 39 schools. By far the greatest number of schools has been studied within the nominated schools research design. Second, school- and classroom-level factors associated with varying outcomes for English-language learners have received less attention than have other areas of research on these students. Clearly, the issue of language of instruction (whether English-language learners should be taught in their native language, and if so, to what extent) has dominated the research agenda (see Chapter 6). There have also been qualitative and ethnographic studies that have examined social context, language distribution, classroom interaction, and sociocultural enactments of classroom pedagogy (see Chapters 2, 3, and 4). Although these studies provide rich descriptions of educational environments, many do not relate practice to learning outcomes. Third, although many non-English languages found in U.S. schools appear to be represented in these studies, by far the most commonly found is Spanish. This of course reflects the reality that approximately three-fourths of English-language learners are Spanish speaking. Most of the studies were conducted in schools that were predominately Latino. However, some sites within larger studies had substantial numbers of non-Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Only a few studies—Slavin and Yampolsky (1992) (Asian), Wong Fillmore et al. (1985) (Chinese), Rosebery et al. (1992) (Haitian-Creole), and Tharp (1982) (Hawaiian)—targeted non-Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Fourth, as previously mentioned, by far the greatest number of schools and classrooms studied have been within the nominated schools design. These studies, as well as a few in the other categories, do not report student achievement data.8 The absence of outcome data does not mean that a study is uninformative. 8In their report on the California Case Studies, Gold and Tempes (1987:7) explicitly state that their project "was not designed as an experiment" and that they "carefully avoided efforts to set up premature or unreasonable comparisons." However, achievement data on the California Case Studies have been reported in various papers and publications (e.g., Krashen and Biber, 1988). Samaniego and Eubank (1991) conducted a more objective and rigorous secondary analysis of achievement data at four of the five sites. Three other studies included in this review (Lucas et al., 1990; Tikunoff, 1983; Tikunoff et al., 1991) report that some indicators of student outcomes informed the selection of the "effective" or ''exemplary" sites, but neither these data nor the criteria used by investigators are reported. Of the remaining studies, one was exclusively exploratory (Minicucci and Olsen, 1992) and makes no claim of trying to explain how effective programs came to be; the studies by Berman et al. (1992, 1995), Pease-Alvarez et al. (1991), and Gersten (1996) neither report outcome data nor apparently used student outcomes to inform the selection of nominated sites. With the exception of Short (1994), which is more of an exploratory study, the prospective and quasi-experimental studies report student outcome data.

OCR for page 163
Page 171 Indeed, these studies are filled with interesting and useful data about programs, staff, students, community, and, more generally, the very complex and challenging circumstances in which students and teachers must function. They also provide what in many cases are highly compelling accounts of dedicated educators working to create engaging, meaningful, and responsive settings for student learning. However, they do not link these settings to indicators of student outcomes, at least not in any explicit way. Finally, as noted above, these studies report a wide range of school- and classroom-level attributes related to effectiveness (see columns 7 and 8 of Annex Table 7-1). These attributes, summarized in the following section, can be conceptualized and categorized in many different ways. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the attributes discussed here represent concepts refracted through at least two sets of lenses (the original investigators' and this committee's), that the empirical bases for making strong causal claims vary considerably and are sometimes unknown, and that there are caveats associated with some of the attributes. For example, different attributes may be more or less important for different age groups or different ethnic groups. Therefore, none of these individual attributes should be considered necessary or sufficient conditions for the schooling of English-language learners. Attributes of Effective Schools and Classrooms Based on the findings of the 33 studies reviewed, effective schools and classrooms have the following attributes9: a supportive school-wide climate, school leadership, a customized learning environment, articulation and coordination within and between schools, some use of native language and culture in the instruction of language-minority students, a balanced curriculum that incorporates both basic and higher-order skills, explicit skills instruction, opportunities for student-directed activities, use of instructional strategies that enhance understanding, opportunities for practice, systematic student assessment, staff development, and home and parent involvement. Each of these attributes is discussed in the following subsections. 9Note that not all studies include all attributes, but the general attributes appear in many of the studies.

OCR for page 163
Page 172 Supportive School-wide Climate Teachers', students', and parents' beliefs, assumptions, and expectations for themselves and for each other probably exert a powerful influence on student learning opportunities and student outcomes (Rutter et al., 1979). It is not surprising, then, that a supportive school-wide climate, sometimes called school "ethos," is an attribute of effective schools for English-language learners. Such a climate is explicitly cited or can easily be inferred from almost all the studies reviewed. Carter and Chatfield (1986), Moll (1988), Lucas et al. (1990), Tikunoff (1983), Tikunoff et al. (1991), Berman et al. (1992, 1995), and Minicucci and Olsen (1992) report that a positive school-wide climate was a feature of the effective or exemplary schools they studied. The schools varied in their particular manifestations of such a climate, but overall emphasized three things—value placed on the linguistic and cultural background of English-language learners, high expectations for their academic achievement, and their integral involvement in the overall school operation. The schools studied by Lucas et al. (1990:8) "celebrated diversity." For example, although they made English literacy a primary goal, they also encouraged students to enhance their native-language skills in classes for those students who spoke Spanish. Moreover, a number of teachers and counselors had made an effort to learn to speak Spanish. Moll (1988:467) notes that "in contrast to the assumption that working-class children cannot handle an academically rigorous curriculum, or in the case of limited English proficient students, that their lack of English fluency justifies an emphasis on low-level skills, the guiding assumption in the [effective] classrooms analyzed seemed to be the opposite: that the students were as smart as allowed by the curriculum." One school studied by Berman et al. (1995) had a house structure whereby each house was named for a California State University campus with which it forged a partnership—but the continuously reinforced message was that high levels of learning and achievement were expected of all students. Integral involvement of English-language learners also characterizes effective schools and classrooms. Berman et al. (1995) found that school restructuring enabled the exemplary schools to design and adapt programs that best suited the needs of English-language learners—and all students. How does a school climate, or ethos, change from being "not conducive" to being "conducive" to high levels of achievement for English-language learners? Unfortunately, the studies do not offer much guidance here. Gold and Tempes (1987) report that teachers at their case study sites received training in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement, a program designed to boost teachers' expectations for their students, which in turn is assumed to boost student achievement. Gold and Tempes also report that steps were taken to improve the perceived status of language-minority students—administrator and teacher support for use of Spanish at school, cross-cultural activities, and cooperative learning.

OCR for page 163
Page 173 Yet we do not know whether and how these attempts to influence school climate directly affected the climate, in turn affecting achievement. Only Goldenberg and Sullivan (1994) address this question directly and prospectively. They claim that changes in school climate were the result of a complex process aimed at improving student achievement, begun by identifying school-side goals and expectations for students, followed by consistent, visible, multiple, and long-term efforts to work toward those goals. Teachers responded positively to the more meaningful and substantive focus at the school. Although the logic of attempting to change school climate through staff development and training to improve student achievement is supported by research on teacher expectations, an alternative hypothesis may merit attention: that school climate is at least as much a reflection of student achievement as an influence on it (Jussim, 1986). In other words, it may be that teachers hold high expectations when they have students who achieve, and conversely that they hold low expectations when students do not achieve. If this formulation is valid, it suggests that one important way to raise teacher expectations is to raise student achievement by creating structures at a school and helping teachers acquire skills and knowledge needed to be more successful with students, rather than by exhorting teachers to raise their expectations. Goldenberg and Gallimore (1991), for example, report that first grade reading expectations at the school they studied seemed to increase as a result of changes in first grade reading achievement, not as a result of training to raise expectations. Comer (1980) also describes how improved expectations followed the establishment of successful practices, which in turn raised expectations. School Leadership Consistent with findings of the effective schools research that began two decades ago, school-level leadership appears to be a critical dimension of effective schooling for English-language learners. At least half of the studies reviewed name leadership, often the principal's, as an important factor; the role of leadership can also be inferred from several of the other studies that do not explicitly cite it. A clear statement of the role of leadership comes from Tikunoff et al. (1991:10): "Without exception, exemplary SAIPs [Special Alternative Instructional Programs] came about because someone assumed leadership for planning, coordinating, and administering the programs." Both Carter and Chatfield (1986) and Lucas et al. (1990) name the principal's leadership as one of the elements that helps explain the effective or successful schools they studied. The principal is seen as playing a key role in many ways, for example, making the achievement of English-language learners a priority, providing ongoing direction and monitoring of curricular and instructional improvement, recruiting and keeping talented and dedicated staff, involving the entire staff in improvement efforts, and providing a good physical and social environment. Goldenberg and

OCR for page 163
Page 240 TABLE 7-1 Continued 1 Tharp (1982), The Effective Instruction of Comprehension: Results and Description of the Kamehameha Early Education Program 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 School(s) and Level(s) Studied Language-Minority Group(s)/School Mix Study Design1 Method for Selecting Target School(s)/Classrooms Student Outcome Data Reported School-level Attributes Classroom-level Attributes One laboratory school and two export schools (grades 1-3) Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian; Hawaiian Creole English ("pidgin") speakers Experiment (students randomly assigned to treatment within school) Privately funded laboratory school; unspecified how public schools selected Reading achievement in English (Gates-MacCintie Reading Test). No Reading program organized to emphasize direct instruction of comprehension (two-thirds allocated time); small group classroom organization permitted culturally accommodated instruction; monitoring and feedback of student achievement; some degree of individualization; quality control—monitoring of "instructional inputs." 1 Fisher et al. (1983), Verification of Bilingual Instructional Features Eighty-nine classrooms at eight sites Filipino, Vietnamese, and other Hispanic groups added to original Significant Bilingual Instructional Features (SBIF) study Replicability, stability, utility, and compatibility of features identified in Part I of SBIF Replication study included some of same classrooms nominated as successful, as well as other, non-nominated classrooms; stability study examined a subset of nominated teachers and students a second year in different settings No No Five features of effective instruction replicated only to varying degrees at two new sites and in non-nominated classrooms; teachers and students behaved differently during the second year in different contexts.

OCR for page 163
STUDIES OF SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM EFFECTIVENESS 241 Option Us 6 7 Student Outcome School-level Data Reported Attributes 8 Classroom-level Attributes ~blic Reading achievement in English (Gates- MacCintie Reading Test). No Reading program organized to emphasize direct instruction of comprehension (two-thirds allocated time); small group classroom organization permitted culturally accommodated instruction; monitoring and feedback of student achievement; some degree of individualization; quality control monitoring of "instructional inputs." No me ted 11 as ubset ers nd No Five features of effective instruction replicated only to varying degrees at two new sites and in non- nominated classrooms; teachers and students behaved differently during the second year in different contexts.

OCR for page 163
Page 242 TABLE 7-1 Continued 1 Minicucci and Olsen (1992), An Exploratory Study of Secondary LEP Programs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 School(s) and Level(s) Studied Language-Minority Group(s)/School Mix Study Design1 Method for Selecting Target School(s)/Classrooms Student Outcome Data Reported School-level Attributes Classroom-level Attributes Twenty-seven secondary schools (intermediate and high school); site visits to five schools (two intermediate, three high school) Spanish most prevalent; also Asian; visited schools approximately 50% English-language learners Not applicable— exploratory only Unknown; regionally and demographically representative schools selected No Exploratory only; study designed to describe programs and identify issues. However, English-language learner programming dependent upon site leadership; availability of trained staff; and staff willingness, organization, and departmentalization. No 1Study design is "effective schools," "nominated schools," "prospective case study," or ''quasi-experimental." An effective schools design is one in which one or more effective schools are selected on the basis of test data showing that students at the school(s) achieve either at grade level or at least at higher levels than the school's sociodemographic characteristics would predict. A nominated schools design is one in which schools are chosen on the basis of nominations from professionals who consider the school "good," "effective," "exemplary," etc. In both effective schools and nominated schools designs, researchers work essentially retrospectively, attempting to determine features of the school's organization or operation that help explain its effectiveness. Neither design directly or empirically addresses the issue of how a school came to be effective, except for retrospective accounts or inferences. A prospective case study begins with a school that is no better or perhaps even worse (in terms of effectiveness) than other comparable schools. It then examines changes in the school over time and tries to explain how the school(s) went from less to more effective and what the effects of these changes have been. There is no direct, concurrent comparison with other comparable schools. A quasi-experimental study is also a prospective study and begins with a school (or schools) that is no more effective and perhaps less effective than other comparable schools. However, it examines the effects of specific interventions on student outcomes and, most critically, concurrently in comparison with student outcomes at a comparable school (or groups of schools) not participating in the intervention. The quasi-experimental design offers the strongest basis for making causal inferences about school processes, dynamics, and structures on the one hand and improvements in student outcomes on the other.

OCR for page 163
STUDIES OF SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM EFFECTIVENESS 243 as 6 7 8 Student Outcome School-level Classroom-level Us Data Reported Attributes Attributes ly No Exploratory only; study No Ly designed to describe ols programs and identify issues. However, English-language learner programming dependent upon site leadership; availability of trained staff; and staff willingness, organization, and dep artmentaliz ation. school over time and tries to explain how the school(s) went from less to more effective and what the effects of these changes have been. There is no direct, concurrent comparison with other comparable schools. A quasi-experimental study is also a prospective study and begins with a school (or schools) that is no more effective and perhaps less effective than other comparable schools. However, it examines the effects of specific interventions on student outcomes and, most critically, concurrently in comparison with student outcomes at a comparable school (or groups of schools) not participating in the intervention. The quasi-experimental design offers the strongest basis for making causal infer- ences about school processes, dynamics, and structures on the one hand and improvements in student outcomes on the other.

OCR for page 163
Page 244 References Anderson, R., R. St. Pierre, E. Proper, and L. Stebbins 1978 Pardon us, but what was the question again? A response to the critique of the follow-through evaluation. Harvard Educational Review 48:161-170. Berman, P., and M.W. McLaughlin 1978 Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. VII: Implementing and Sustaining Innovations. R-1589/8-HEW. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Berman, P., J. Chambers, P. Gandara, B. McLaughlin, C. Minicucci, B. Nelson, L. Olsen, and T. Parrish 1992 Meeting the challenge of language diversity: An evaluation of programs for pupils with limited proficiency in English. Vol. 1 [R-119/1: Executive Summary; Vol. 2 [R-119/2]: Findings and Conclusions; Vol. 3 [R-119/3]: Case Study Appendix. Berkeley, CA: BW Associates. Berman, P., B. McLaughlin, B. McLeod, C. Minicucci, B. Nelson, and K. Woodworth 1995 School Reform and Student Diversity: Case Studies of Exemplary Practices for LEP Students (Draft Report). National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning and BW Associates. Berkeley, CA. Bliss, J., W. Firestone, and C. Richards, eds. 1991 Rethinking Effective Schools: Research and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Calderon, M., R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, and R. Slavin 1996 Effects of Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition on Students Transitioning from Spanish to English Reading. Unpublished paper for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Carter, T., and M. Chatfield 1986 Effective bilingual schools: Implications for policy and practice. American Journal of Education 95:200-232. Chamot, A.U., M. Dale, J.M. O'Malley, and G. Spanos. 1992 Learning and problem solving strategies of ESL students. Bilingual Research Journal 16(3-4):1-33. Chang, H. 1990 Newcomer Programs: Innovative Efforts to Meet the Educational Challenges of Immigrant Students. San Francisco, CA: California Tomorrow. Chasin, G., and H. Levin 1995 Thomas Edison accelerated elementary school. In J. Oakes and K. H. Quartz, eds., Creating New Educational Communities. 94th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cohen, E. 1984 Talking and working together: Status, interaction, and learning. Pp. 171-187, Chapter 10 in P.L. Peterson et al., eds., The Social Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Coleman, J., E.Q. Campbell, C.J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A.M. Mood, F.D. Weinfeld, and R.L. York 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Comer, J. 1980 School Power: Implications of an Intervention Project. New York: Free Press. Cook, T.D., and D.T. Campbell 1979 Quasi-experimentation. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

OCR for page 163
Page 245 Crawford, J. 1995 Bilingual Education: History Politics Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services. Dianda, M., and J. Flaherty 1995 Effects of Success for All on the Reading Achievement of First Graders in California Bilingual Programs. Los Alamitos, CA: The Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Edelsky, C., K. Draper, and K. Smith 1983 Hookin' 'em in at the start of school in a 'whole language' classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 14:257-281. Edmonds, R. 1979 Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37(1):15-24. Education Week 1995 Next generation of effective schools looks to districts for lasting change. Education Week (April 12):8-9. Epstein, J. 1992 School and family partnerships. Pp. 1139-1152 in M. Alkin, ed., Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 6th ed. New York: MacMillan. Escamilla, K. 1994 Descubriendo la lectura: An early intervention literacy program in Spanish. Literacy, Teaching and Learning 1(1):57-70. Fisher, C.W., L.F. Guthrie, and E.B. Mandinach 1983 Verification of Bilingual Instructional Features. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Friedlander, M. 1991 The Newcomer Program: Helping Immigrant Students Succeed in U.S. Schools. Program information guide series, No. 8. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Garcia, E.E. 1990a Instructional discourse in 'effective' Hispanic classrooms. Pp. 104-117 in Rodolfo Jacobson and Christian Faltis, eds., Language Distribution Issues in Bilingual Schooling. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters. 1990b Education of Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students: Effective Instructional Practices. The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Educational Practice Report, No. 1. Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Gersten, Russell 1996 Literacy instruction for language-minority students: The transition years. The Elementary School Journal 96(3):228-244. Gold, N., and F. Tempes 1987 A State Agency Partnership with Schools to Improve Bilingual Education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. California State Department of Education. Goldenberg, C. 1992 Instructional Conversations and Their Classroom Application. The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Educational Practice Report, No. 2. Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. 1993 The home-school connection in bilingual education. Pp. 225-250 in B. Arias and U. Casanova, eds., Ninety-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Bilingual education: Politics, Research, and Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

OCR for page 163
Page 246 Goldenberg, C., and R. Gallimore 1991 Local knowledge, research knowledge, and educational change: A case study of first-grade Spanish reading improvement. Educational Researcher 20(8):2-14. Goldenberg, C., and J. Sullivan 1994 Making Change Happen in a Language-minority School: A Search for Coherence. EPR #13. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Henderson, R.W., and E.M. Landesman 1992 Mathematics and Middle School Students of Mexican Descent: The Effects of Thematically Integrated Instruction. Research Report: 5. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, Santa Cruz: University of California. Hernandez, J.S. 1991 Assisted performance in reading comprehension strategies with non-English proficient students. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students 8:91-112. Jencks, C., M. Smith, H. Acland, M.J. Bane, D. Cohen, H. Gintis, B. Heyns, and S. Michelson 1972 Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Harper. Jussim, L. 1986 Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative review. Psychological Review 93:429-445. Krashen, S., and D. Biber 1988 On Course: Bilingual Education's Success in California. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Lucas, T., and A. Katz 1994 Reframing the debate: The roles of native languages in English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly 28(3):537-561. Lucas, T., R. Henze, and R. Donato 1990 Promoting the success of Latino language-minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review 60:315-340. Mace-Matluck, B. J., R. Alexander-Kasparik, and R. Queen in press Toward an Effective Educational Delivery System for Low-schooled Immigrant Adolescents. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Mace-Matluck, B.J., W.A. Hoover, and R.C. Calfee 1989 Teaching reading to bilingual children: A longitudinal study of teaching and learning in the early grades. NABE Journal 13:3. McDonnell, L., and P. Hill 1993 Newcomers in American Schools: Meeting the Educational Needs of Immigrant Youth. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Minicucci, C., and L. Olsen 1992 An exploratory study of secondary LEP programs. R-119/5; Vol. V of Meeting the Challenge of Language Diversity: An Evaluation of Programs for Pupils with Limited Proficiency in English. Berkeley, CA: BW Associates. Moll, Luis C. 1988 Some key issues in teaching Latino students. Language Arts 65(5):465-472. Moll, L.C., C. Amanti, D. Neff, and N. Gonzalez 1992 Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice 31(2):132-141. Moll, L., E. Diaz, E. Estrada, and L. Lopes 1981 The Construction of Learning Environments in Two Languages. San Diego, CA: Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition.

OCR for page 163
Page 247 Muniz-Swicegood, M. 1994 The effects of metacognitive reading strategy training on the reading performance and student reading analysis strategies of third-grade bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal 18(1&2):83-97. Olsen, L., and C. Dowell 1989 Bridges: Promising Programs for the Education of Immigrant Children. San Francisco, CA: California Tomorrow. Pease-Alvarez, L., E. E. Garcia, and P. Espinosa 1991 Effective instruction for language-minority students: An early childhood case study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 6:347-361. Purkey, S., and M. Smith 1983 Research on effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal 83:427-452. Romo, H. 1993 Mexican Immigrants in High Schools: Meeting Their Needs. ERIC Digest. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Rosebery, A. S., B. Warren, and F. R. Conant 1992 Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(1):61-94. Rosenshine, B., and R. Stevens 1986 Teaching Functions. Pp. 376-391 in M. Wittrock. ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. Rueda, R., C. Goldenberg, and P. Gallimore 1992 Rating Instructional Conversations: A Guide. Educational Practice Report, No 4. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Acquisition. Rutter, M., B. Maughan, P. Mortimore, and J. Ouston 1979 Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effects on Children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Samaniego, F., and L. Eubank 1991 A Statistical Analysis of California's Case Study Project in Bilingual Education (TR#208). Davis, CA: Intercollegiate Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis. Saunders, W., and C. Godenberg in press Can you engage students in high-level talk about text and support literal comprehension too? The effects of instructional conversation on transition students' concepts of friendship and story comprehension. In R. Horowitz, ed., Talk About Text: Developing Understanding of the World Through Talk and Text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Saunders, W., G. O'Brien, D. Lennon, and J. McLean 1996 Making the transition to English literacy successful: Effective strategies for studying literature with transition students. In R. Gersten and R. Jimenez, eds, Effective Strategies for Teaching Language Minority Students. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole. Saville-Troike, M. 1991 Teaching and Testing for Academic Achievement: The Role of Language Development. Focus, Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, No. 4. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Scott, R., and H. Walberg 1979 Schools alone are insufficient: A response to Edmonds. Educational Leadership 37(1):24-27. Short, D.J. 1994 Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social studies. TESOL Quarterly 28(3):581-608.

OCR for page 163
Page 248 Slavin, R., and N. Madden 1994 Lee Conmigo: Effects of Success for All in Bilingual First Grades. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April. Center for Children Placed at Risk of School Failure, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 1995 Effects of Success for All on the Achievement of English Language Learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April. Center for Children Placed at Risk of School Failure, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Slavin, R., and R. Yampolsky 1992 Success for All. Effects on Students with Limited English Proficiency: A Three-year Evaluation. Report No. 29. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, The Johns Hopkins University. Slavin, R., N. Madden, L. Dolan, and B. Wasik 1995 Success for All: A Summary of the Research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April. Center for Children Placed at Risk of School Failure, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Slavin, R., N. Madden, L. Dolan, and B. Wasik in press Every Child, Every Schoo: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Stedman, L. 1985 A new look at the effective schools literature. Urban Education 20:295-326. 1987 It's time we changed the effective schools formula. Phi Delta Kappan 69: 215-224. Sternberg, R.J. 1986 Cognition and instruction: Why the marriage sometimes ends in divorce. Pp 375-382 in R.F. Dillon and R.J. Sternberg, eds., Cognition and Instruction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Stevenson, D., and D. Baker 1987 The family-school relation and the child's school performance. Child Development 58:1348-1357. Tharp, R. 1989 Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching and learning in schools. American Psychologist 44:349-359. Tharp, R., and R. Gallimore 1991 The Instructional Conversation: Teaching and Learning in Social Activity. The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Research Report No. 2. Washington, DC: The Center for Applied Linguistics. Tharp, R.G. 1982 The effective instruction of comprehension: Results and description of the Kamehameha Early Education Program. Reading Research Quarterly 17(4):503-527. Tikunoff, W.J. 1983 An Emerging Description of Successful Bilingual Instruction: Executive Summary of Part I of the SBIF Study. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Tikunoff, W.J., B.A. Ward, L.D. van Broekhuizen, M. Romero, L.V. Castaneda, T. Lucas, and A. Katz 1991 A Descriptive Study of Significant Features of Exemplary Special Alternative Instructional Programs. Final Report and Vol. 2: Report for Practitioners. Los Alamitos, CA: The Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Trubowitz, S., J. Duncan, P. Longo, and S. Sarason 1984 When a College Works With a Public School: A Case Study of School-College Collaboration. Boston: Institute for Responsive Education.

OCR for page 163
Page 249 Weber, G. 1971 Inner-City Children Can be Taught to Read: Four Successful Schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. Wilson, C.L., P.M. Shields, and C. Marder 1994 The Title VII Academic Excellence Program: Disseminating Effective Programs and Practices in Bilingual Education. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Wong Fillmore, L., P. Ammon, B. McLaughlin, and M. Ammon 1985 Learning English Through Bilingual Instruction. Final Report. Berkeley: University of California. Page 250 PREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS SERVING ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LEARNERS: SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE The literature on preparation and development of teachers of English-language learners offers the following key findings: • In the view of many individuals and organizations, the nation does not have enough teachers with the skills needed to serve a linguistically diverse population. • Most teacher preparation and professional development programs are based on a growing body of knowledge regarding attributes of effective teaching for English-language learners. However, more empirical research and evidence on the effectiveness of these programs are needed. • Over the years, several organizations have developed guidelines and certification standards for teachers who work in English as a second language (ESL) and bilingual programs. These standards build on basic program standards and also include proficiency in written and oral forms of two languages, as well as skills in developing students' language abilities. • Recently, programs for teacher preparation and development have expanded their focus beyond skills-based, competency-driven curriculum to incorporate innovative methods for enhancing teacher learning. These efforts stress an inquiry-based approach to teacher learning whereby teacher reflection on practice is emphasized, along with collaboration with colleagues in "learning communities" and methods that involve ongoing teacher learning. • Current trends also include requiring that those entering or already in the profession—including mainstream, bilingual, and ESL teachers—be prepared to serve English-language learners and targeting minority populations to increase the pool of bilingual teachers. • Recent and ongoing innovative programs for professional development of teachers of English-language learners include the following:   — The Cooperative Learning in Bilingual Settings program of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Research in Educating Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR)   — The Latino Teacher Project of the University of Southern California   — The English for Speakers of Other Languages Inservice Project of Dade County Public Schools in Miami, Florida   — The California Cross-cultural, Language, and Academic Development Program

OCR for page 163
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: P...................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ....... .. .... .... .. ..... ...... . ...... . ... .... . ... .. ... ... . .. .. .. ..... .. .. . ..... ... ................. ~ n-cr^~-l--lvl~---^l~-v---v-c-v-c-cvr-lUl-cl~--l~ vr~ l--c-~wn-c-~-~---~-c-~-v-l-l~-~ ........................................... ~ ............................................................................................................................ :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':': :' ':' - -: :':':' ':' : ':' ':':':' ':':':':A :' : :'_:' ':': : :A: _: :':':': :':':' : A: ' : . . : . . . :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':': : :' . _': _' ':: ':' ':: - A :' : A': ~ ~:A _': :':':': _' 'A' ':'.B': :' . : :':'':' :':':':':':':':': :2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:':':':~:' ':' . : :' ...... ... ....... . _ _ j T'::::::::::::::::::::::::-- -- :::::::1: ::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :-::::::::::::::::::::_1:::_1 rem llT=raTl Iris ran nr`3nar=Tl~n anal rent LIT 1~3~^r}=re LIT annular. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I'~ ~ ~ ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I - - - ''' to ""'i'' ' '-l' 'i'U" -- 1" ~I ~th tl ~ .. ... ... ... ..... ~ .......... ... ............................................................................................................................. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:n:~:~.:.:.:~:n:^'l:':l'^n:':':T^='^n'^:~-:':':'\AllT:n:':':Tn:~:':':'~-:'~-::l'l'l:~:':':'n'^~:^t':':'T^':':'O'^~:t:~:':':'O':':':'E:l'n'^:l':'l:l'=Tl:^g:l:l`'l':':' E:l'-:-:-':':':': : ~:1-:-1:-V-:: ~:1-:-1:~-~-~1-:1: ~L-~-~l:-:l-~:l-: ~:VV:1:L:I-:-I: ~LI-:I~: ~-I~I-I-I:~: ~I:-:I-~-~:~: ~:L ~--I-:-V-: ~: ~1:1-1:-:1-~:~:1-~-L-l:~l:l-:V: ~:1~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: """""""""""" ~ MO$t {eaC Eet p(epara\lOn aE 0 p(OTeSSlo Ea eVelOpmeE t p[O lE E s are ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ~ D~ea~ o- E"""a""'g'E Wl'ng~ 'DO-0y~ OT~ 'K' -ow-l-eag-e~ .eg-a-.a-l-n-g~ au-rl-Du-le-s~ oT~ enecll-v.-e~ . - . teacninO Tor tn EIlSn lanOuBae le ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::,::i::::::::: """"Se'a'E C'E ""an'0""eVl0'e ECe""O' E""l' E'e""e)TeC\'IVeE 'eS's""OT"'l' E'eSe""'~ '{O E'E ES""a~e""n'ee'0e0" """""""""""""" ~ :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: ::: :::::::::::: i I : :::::::: ::::: ::: ::::::: ::::::: :::::::::::::::::: :'::: :': :'::::: :':::::: :'1:':':'::: :':: :': :::::':::::::':::::::'-:::::::::::::::::' .: ~veE l~e year$, $eve al organ1za ons ~e ueve ope~ gE l EelineS anu .................................................................................................................................. ......................... - , - -. - - - - , - - :~ :~: :~:t~: tl : ::: . t : :^ ~ ::t :t : : -: , :: ~ ~,, ~ ~ Il, ~. ^ ~. .:.:.:':':':':':':':':':':':'~='I:':LI':I':I~LI:V'I:':I':':'O'L=I:':I' E:" 1:' E=':':'I'V:I':':':'L=~WI:':I'=:I':=':':'V Y'I':l V:':': V V'V:I': - ':':I'I':I:':':~:I':'I:"'E:E'O'E:':I':':'"O':':'":':'=~Vl':I~:':':I=I':'I: - :':':':':':':':':':':':':':' '''' : :'''''''':'''::: :} ~ 1::: t:::: -:-:-:: -:-:-:-: :::: :- .::-:-:-:: -:-:-:-:: -:-:-:- .:.:.:..:.:...................... :~ :~-1:-:1-~-~:~ :~-~-r~ :r:~:1-~-1:~:~-1:-:1-~ ~-~:~:~ :r -~:~:~ :~:~-:~:-n-r-~-~-:~ ~ 1:-:1-~-~:r:~ :~-~ r ~^:~-~ :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':y-L ~y=::: :\ ~ ~ ~::: :~l: :! - ::: :V:! ~ l:!: l:Y L '"t':':':'E ':V y l: :~!: l: l - ~:::::::: :!: :!: l:~:~::: :~:L" l: :! ~ ":!: - "::: - ~ ~ l:~::: :V l: :!::: - ~::::::::::: -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-....-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:...:-:-:-::::::.:::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....:::: ~ a sta ~ a E ~ al I E I :tl I E I E 1~ a ~ E I t ::::::::::::::E.-::::.:.:.::~:::::.:.:.:.:::::::::::.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.::::::::::.:.:.:::.:.: ::: : :: :::: :: :: : ::::::::: :: -: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::ffA:t~:::::l:~:~:~:l:::l:~:~:~:~:::::::::~:~::::~:A:~:~:l:::::~:~:::::~:V t:1:1:~:::::1:~:::::~:~:~:1:~:~:1:~:~:::: - r' I ~ ~. '- I ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I l - - ~ V!---LVVV--E~l-!-yU~y=-~ ~---VY=~!---~---~-~tE-EO--!-I-~--U=-V-~-I~E -I!--Iy--~t E~-=I-~ ~-~-~-y-~=y=---=VI~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....:::::::::::::::::.... ::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ ~eCen~lV PE [E E S TOF teacner orepara~lon aE ~ oevelopE -e- E~ E -ave~ ~ 1 : ~ ................................................................... - ~ d dth i f sv d$kill - E d p t Ei i I ::::::::::::::-:-::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::-:.::::::::::::::::::::::-:,::::::::::,::::: ~ to~ l--nco-' o-o-rate~ l-n-novatl-v.-e~ m-et-n-oos---To-ne-n--nan-cl-nO~ te-ac-E -e-~---l-earn-l-n-a~ l~ n-es-e~ :::::::::::::::: :::::::::: :: ::::l - :: :::: : ::::::::::::: ::::: :::::: :::::::::: :: :::::: ::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:p ::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ eTTo-ns~ ~-Ee-ss~ an~ l-E -q-- E-I--~--vasea~ aE p-roac E~ to~ Teacne-~ l-earE -E- E-g~ wn-e-revy~ . ... ............... -. - - - . - - - - - - t-e~-b ............................................................................................................................. ...................... ii - :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:^' :E'I' '' '' :I':'i:' :' :':':'1:' ':':':~'E:' '' -r~ 'Itl: :' ''':':':' :' :^':':':' ' t^-- ^' --t~-- 't'''l' t: E' :' ' :':':'' ' '' :' :':' :' :':':':':':':':':':':':':':': ':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'~V'I: I ~:~ - '~'=~':':':!'i': I :':':':':':!'~!':'I:':!'I'I:':!'~':':': - V l:'l:':!'l:'I':!' - :!':'l:!':~:!='~':':':':':"'l:':!' - :':':'l:':!':l~:~!':'l:V - '~':':':~!':'l:"'L':':':!'I':l:Y-'V:!':V:w':':':V!':'I: - ' - t'I:':!'~':':': ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: :::: ::::::::::::::~:::::::::::.:::::::::::.::::::::~::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ t tE als I I ~ I I tE t th $e t IE al e IE ....... ... .. ...... ................... ............... .... ............................................................................................................................. .............. Tn= ~.r-^T^~.n In~l-l-l- El-n- ~---m-~-l-n-~r^~-m~ ~-lll-n- El--lal~ ~-n^---~-~l~ T=~^n~re ':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'~,': I :~:':':'~:!':~'1:' - .-'~' - 1 :V:!':'l:':':':':':':':':l'l:':!'w'l:~:~'l:!':'l:~':':':!':'l:'l:~'l:!':'l:~:Ll:' - .-'~:!':l:'I:'j:':':':~:!'l'1:!':'1:~'~'~'' ':':':':~'1:':!~':':':'~. .:~':':':~ .~. . ~1:',~'i':~:':':':':':' -2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 pE E aE d tv se EE yli$ E ia y aye le E EeES a Ed t 9eti y Ei it v :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . . . ~ E-eC-en-l~ a-E-a~ o-E-g-o-l-E-g~ l-E-E-oval-lve~ p-rog-E m-s~ ro-E~ E -Eoressl-v-E-a-l~ a-e.vel-o-E ~ ............................................. ........................................... .................... .................................................................................................................................................... ............... T~ h-~---.~ ~-~-~. ~-~-~^~ I:~ ~-~-:~-~:~ :l:~:~ ~-l-l:~-~:~-:-~:~:-l:~ ~-~-~:~:~ ~-:r~-r^:~ :~T~ +h:-~ :l-~:h:~:~ :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':::::::::::::::::': ':':I:'t=':':':~V~:~='I:'=LI':V:'=:':':'~'=~:I':'E:':I'I:I:'t~':':':I:I':'E:':':'~t'E:E'l':I~:U:"'E:':':'~:L`l'l':l~:~:':':'~:l': v~'I:':=l:'l:':l':':':V'l:':':':Ll':'l:=':':'~'w:l':'l:l:'t=':':':':':' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::: T ^ . a.lm~ . ^~^r ~^l^^' ^. l~l~ . .n'~-f~re~.., ^. ~^ll.r~^rn ~ --~.I.^rn -~---_~-~-I!--lv ! ~' ~ I l vJ-~--v-'---~-l~---~-~-l!-Y~-l-~-Ly---~!---~v-Y-L,-!-~! I ! ~l!!v! ...................... _ _ ........... - - - - I ne t 11 h t ~ aK t Uth L E a I e' I e E E le t t I - ~ ... .... ~ ............................................................................................................................. :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':1:':'1'O' E~ ~ --~:l':'l:n:T~:t':':' t-l-l-nt-l^--~^n^~-l~--l-n --nn-lO-m-l~ -l~rl^-~ ~- - -~v-~-l-!- c y - - -! ~ ~,. l!~ ~-l :!~V:!~:: l:l: :!:: ~ V:I:!'~:!':!':'1:!':'':':':I:':':'l~'1:':!'~':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'