In early 2002, 10 low-performing elementary schools were nominated from across the Southeast by their state departments of education or districts to participate in intensive field-testing of the ARA-E document. Throughout this time period, representatives from these schools participated in ARA-E professional development on a biannual basis. Four of these elementary schools were designated as intensive sites. For the 2002 -2004 school year, facilitators from SERVE visited the four schools on a monthly basis to support grade-level study groups, model lessons based on ARA-E, and observe reading instruction in classrooms. Six of the schools were labeled as demonstration sites; district administrators were trained to serve as facilitators. Participating teachers at intensive and demonstration sites submitted monthly logs of their ARA-E activities to SERVE, and SERVE facilitators also completed notes. The external report is currently being completed for this field test.

For the school year 2003 -2004 the Advancing Reading Achievement in Middle Schools (ARA-M) document was piloted on a limited basis in a suburban North Carolina middle school and a middle school in rural Georgia. Although educators in both schools had good student achievement results in reading, they were concerned about sub-group students who were not performing adequately. One team of teachers in each school (3 to 4 teachers at each location) agreed to try out the professional learning teams, use the ARA-M in their classrooms, and complete and submit logs. Results of the pilot showed that participating teachers used the strategies found in the document in their classroom with good instructional results.

For the spring semester of 2004 -2005 school year, one grade level from six middle schools in Georgia have agreed to field test the ARA-M document using the professional learning team model. Study groups will meet at least twice a month. A SERVE coach will visit four of the six schools on a monthly basis. The other two schools will have a district facilitator trained by SERVE serving in the same capacity. A similar middle school in each district is acting as the control school and will receive the intervention in the fall of 2005. These schools represent both low- performing and high-performing middle schools. Based on a request from SERVE, these schools voluntarily agreed to participate.

Questions the Project is Addressing:

ARA-E Pilot (Fall 2000)

• What is the impact of ARA-E participation on student achievement?

ARA-E Field Study (2002 -2004)

• What is the degree of educator participation in the study group process at each school?
• What is the degree of satisfaction with the ARA-E study group process at each school?
• How has classroom reading instruction been impacted at each school?
• What is the impact of ARA-E participation on student achievement?

ARA-M Pilot (2003 -2004)

• What is the degree of satisfaction with the ARA-M study group process at each school?
• How has classroom reading instruction been impacted at each school?

ARA-M Field Study (2005)

• What is the degree of satisfaction with the ARA-M document and study group process?
• What is the extent of teacher knowledge in reading instruction?
• What is the extent of research-based reading instruction in classrooms?
• Do students in ARA schools score differently on reading achievement tests than students in non-ARA schools with similar demographics?

Design:

• ARA-E Pilot (Fall 2000)
  A pre-test post-test design was used to determine differences in student achievement at the two pilot schools.
  
• ARA-E Field Study (2002 -2004)
  Because the nature of the delivery of the intervention and the differences in school characteristics, the design for this study was a nested case study in which each school was viewed as a single case. Focus groups, surveys, interviews, learning team artifacts, facilitator logs, classroom observations, and school state student achievement results for the past three years were used to describe each school’s experience.
  
• ARA-M Pilot (2003 -2004)
  The pilot report was descriptive in nature. The teacher logs, results of participant survey information, and principal interviews were used to develop the report.
  
• ARA-M Field Study (2005)
  This is a quasi-experimental study that is designed to determine differences between treatment (six Georgia middle schools) and demographically matched control schools (six Georgia middle schools) in teachers’ knowledge of reading instruction, use of research-based reading strategies, and student achievement. Teachers from one grade level in the treatment schools will participate in ARA-M professional development and the learning teams. One treatment condition will include the use of the ARA-M document, participation in the professional learning teams, professional development, and monthly visits from a SERVE coach. A second treatment condition will include the ARA-M document, participation in professional learning teams, professional development, and program support through a monthly coach telephone call and a district coach. The control will receive no intervention; they will not use the ARA-M document, participate in the professional development, or receive monthly coaching visits.

A standardized student reading test will be administered both pre- and post-intervention at treatment and control schools as well as teacher reading-instruction knowledge surveys and interviews with school principals. Classroom observations of reading instruction will take place at all schools throughout the intervention. At the treatment schools, teacher satisfaction surveys will be administered post-intervention and SERVE coaching logs and school professional learning team facilitator notes will be collected during the project.

Major Conclusions:

(The following conclusions are based on research that has been completed to date.) As a result of implementing the professional learning teams and using the Advancing Reading Achievement document, participating school faculties increased professional dialogue, gained a greater awareness of reading research, used a greater variety of teaching and learning strategies in their classrooms, and exhibited greater teacher collegiality. These increases were dependent on the amount of support and attention the school leadership team gave to the ARA project and the teacher composition of the professional learning teams.