Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice

Reading Research Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 5-30

  Coburn, Cynthia E ^a   Woulfin, Sarah L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862209804     PISSN: 00340553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/RRQ.008     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R.T. (2006). Infidelity: What new teacher resistance reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76 (1), 30-63.
2. Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S.A. (2007). The cognitive politics of school sanctioning. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1261- 1302.
3. Bean, R.M. (2004). The reading specialist. New York: Guilford.
4. Bean, R.M., & DeFord, D. (2007). Do's and don't's for literacy coaches: Advice from the field. Retrieved March 23, 2011, from www.literacycoachingonline.org.
5. Bean, R.M., Draper, J.A., Hall, V., Vandermolen, J., & Zigmond, N. (2010). Coaches and coaching in Reading First schools: A reality check. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 87-114.
6. Bean, R.M., Swan, A.L., & Knaub, R. (2003). Reading specialists in schools with exemplary reading programs: Functional, versatile, and prepared. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 446-455.
7. Binder, A.J. (2002). Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American public schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9. Bright, E., & Hensley, T. (2010). A study of the effectiveness of K-3 literacy coaches. Portsmouth, NH: National Reading Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved July 29, 2011, from www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/ effectivenessfinal.pdf.
10. Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.A., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S.G., & Easton, J.Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: Westview.
11. Camburn, E.M., Kimball, S.M., & Lowenhaupt, R. (2008). Going to scale with teacher leadership: Lessons learned from a districtwide literacy coach initiative. In M.M. Mangin & S.R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 120-143). New York: Teachers College Press.
12. Coburn, C.E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170. doi:10.3102/01623737023002145.
13. Coburn, C.E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211-244. doi:10.1177/003804070407700302.
14. Coburn, C.E. (2005a). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509. doi:10.1177/0895904805276143.
15. Coburn, C.E. (2005b). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23-52. doi:10.3102/ 01623737027001023.
16. Coburn, C.E., Bae, S., & Turner, E.O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364-399.
17. Coburn, C.E., Pearson, P.D., & Woulfin, S. (2010). Reading policy in the era of accountability. In M. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E. Moje & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 561-593). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Coburn, C.E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making in the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115- 1161.
19. Cohen, D.K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ça change... In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27-84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
20. Cohen, D.K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-345.
21. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1880-1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.
23. Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007). "Coach" can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
24. Diamond, J.B. (2007). Where rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285-313. doi:10.1177/003804070708000401.
25. Diamond, J.B., & Spillane, J.P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176.
26. Dole, J.A. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in school reform. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 462-471. doi:10.1598/RT.57.5.6.
27. Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129-149.
28. Dutro, E., Fisk, M.C., Koch, R., Roop, L.J., & Wixson, K.K. (2002). When state policies meet local district contexts: Standardsbased professional development as a means to individual agency and collective ownership. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 787- 811.
29. Eisenhart, M., & Howe, K. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 642-680). San Diego, CA: Academic.
30. Firestone, W.A., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 724-749.
31. Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-34). New York: Teachers College Press.
32. Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
33. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
34. Gallucci, C. (2003). Communities of practice and the mediation of teachers' responses to standards-based reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(35). Retrieved September 29, 2003, from epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n35.
35. Gallucci, C., Knapp, M.S., Markholt, A., & Ort, S. (2007). Converging reform theories in urban middle schools: District-guided instructional improvement in small schools of choice. Teachers College Record, 109(21), 2601-2641.
36. Gamse, B.C., Jacob, R.T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First impact study final report (NCEE 2009-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
37. Garet, M.S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., & Jones, W., et al. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. (NCEE 2008-4031). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
38. Gioia, D.A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (6), 433-448. doi:10.1002/smj.4250120604.
39. Goldstein, J. (2007). Debunking the fear of peer review: Combining supervision and evaluation and living to tell about it. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(4), 235-252. doi:10.1007/s11092-006-9022-3.
40. Goldstein, J. (2010). Peer review and teacher leadership: Linking professionalism and accountability. New York: Teachers College Press.
41. Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practice in school psychology (pp. 699-717). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
42. Goodman, K. (2006). The truth about DIBELS: What it is, what it does. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
43. Gregory, S. (1998). Black corona: Race and the politics of place in an urban community. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44. Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & McMillian, S. (2008). The California Reading First Year 5 evaluation report. Morgan Hill, CA: Educational Data Systems.
45. Hill, H.C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318. doi:10.3102/00028312038002289.
46. Hoffman, J., Assaf, L., & Paris, S. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54(5), 482-492.
47. Ippolito, J. (2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive relationships with teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 164-190.
48. Jennings, N.E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
49. Kersten, J. (2006). Hybridization, resistance, and compliance: Negotiating policies to support literacy achievement. The New Educator, 2(2), 103-121. doi:10.1080/15476880600657272.
50. Kersten, J., & Pardo, L. (2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy practices in Reading First classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 146-154. doi:10.1598/RT.61.2.4.
51. Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
52. Little, J.W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. Review of Research in Education, 16, 297-351.
53. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
54. Manzo, K.K. (2005). National clout of DIBELS test draws scrutiny. Education Week, 25(5), 1-2.
55. Manzo, K.K. (2007, April 3). Reading probe will continue on Capitol Hill, Education Week. Retrieved September 13, 2011, from www.edweek.org/ew/articles/ 2007/04/04/31read.h26.html.
56. Marsh, J.A., McCombs, J.S., Lockwood, J.R., Martorell, F., Gershwin, D., & Naftel, S., et al. (2008). Supporting literacy across the sunshine state: A study of Florida middle school reading coaches. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
57. Marsh, J.A., McCombs, J.S., & Martorell, F. (2010). How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making: Policy implementation and effects in Florida middle schools. Educational Policy, 24(6), 872-907. doi:10.1177/0895904809341467.
58. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2004). Using scientifically based reading research as the framework for the Massachusetts Reading First Plan (MRFP) Instructional Program.
59. Massachusetts Department of Education, Office of Reading and Language Arts. (2005). Overview of the Massachusetts Reading First plan.
60. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2007). Overview of Massachusetts Reading First Plan. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from www.doe.mass.edu/literacy/ presentations/archive.html?section=mrfp.
61. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2008). Massachusetts literacy first: Managing the literacy block for student success: Massachusetts Reading First. Retrieved March 14, 2011, from www.doe.mass.edu/literacy/presentations/ 0708literacyblock.pps.
62. Matsumura, L., Garnier, H., Correnti, R., Junker, B., & Bickel, D. (2010a). Investigating the effectiveness of a comprehensive literacy coaching program in schools with high teacher mobility. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 35-62.
63. Matsumura, L.C., Garnier, H., & Resnick, L.B. (2010b). Implementing literacy coaching: The role of school social resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 249-272. doi:10.3102/0162373710363743.
64. McDonnell, L.M. (2004). Politics, persuasion, and educational testing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
65. McGill-Franzen, A., Ward, N., Goatley, V., & Machado, V. (2002). Teachers' use of new standards, frameworks, and assessments: Local cases of NYS elementary grade teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(2), 127-148.
66. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67. Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Watson, P. (2008). Perceptions and expectations of roles and responsibilities of literacy coaching. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(3), 141-157.
68. Pearson, P.D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(2), 145-162.
69. Pearson, P.D. (2010). Reading First: Hard to live with-or without. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(1), 100-108.
70. Piaget, J. (1978). The essential Piaget. London: Routledge.
71. Poglinco, S.M., Bach, A.J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J.A. (2003). Heart of the matter: The coaching model in America's Choice schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
72. Porac, J.F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397-416. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1989. tb00736.x.
73. Rainville, K.N., & Jones, S. (2008). Situated identities: Power and positioning in the work of a literacy coach. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 440-448. doi:10.1598/RT.61.6.1.
74. Rowan, B., & Miskel, C.G. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations. In J. Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 359-383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
75. Sandholtz, J.H., Ogawa, R.T., & Scribner, S.P. (2004). Standards gaps: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1177-1202.
76. Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C.T. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
77. Scott, C. (2007). Reading First: Locally appreciated, nationally troubled. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent-file.cfm?Attachment=Scott-NCLB5ReadingFirst- 103107.pdf.
78. Siskin, L.S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. Washington, DC: Falmer.
79. Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the all-good/all-bad discourse on accountability-explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 119-152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00350.x.
80. Smith, M.S. (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher's learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 351-375.
81. Spillane, J.P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
82. Spillane, J.P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143- 175.
83. Spillane, J.P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.
84. Spillane, J.P., & Burch, P. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public schools. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87-102). Albany: SUNY Press.
85. Spillane, J.P., & Jennings, N.E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449-481.
86. Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431. doi:10.3102/00346543072003387.
87. Spillane, J.P., & Zeuli, J.S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
88. Stein, M.K., Grover, B.W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488.
89. Stevens, L.P. (2003). Reading First: A critical policy analysis. The Reading Teacher, 56(7), 662-668.
90. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
91. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
92. University of Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts. (2002). Teacher reading academies: Participant binder. Austin: University of Texas.
93. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Guidance for the Reading First program. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/ guidance.pdf#search=%22reading%20first%20guidance%22.
94. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Introduction and overview: Reading First. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index. html.
95. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Reading First: States report improvements in reading instruction, but additional procedures would clarify education's role in ensuring proper implementation by states. Washington, DC: Author.
96. Vanderburg, M., & Stephens, D. (2010). The impact of literacy coaches: What teachers value and how teachers change. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 141-163.
97. Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
98. Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. (2004). The literacy coach's handbook. New York: Guilford.
99. Walpole, S., McKenna, M., Uribe-Zarain, X., & Lamitina, D. (2010). The relationships between coaching and instruction in the primary grades: Evidence from high-poverty schools. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 115-140.
100. Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
101. Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
102. Yatvin, J., Weaver, C., & Garan, E. (2003). Reading First: Cautions and recommendations. Language Arts, 81(1), 28-33.
103. Zigmond, N., & Bean, R. (2006). External evaluation of Reading First in Pennsylvania: Annual report, project year 3: 2005-2006. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.