Revamping reading: one district moves from a patchwork to a coordinated curriculum and coaching to improve reading skills among elementary students systemwide.

Imagine an entire school district's elementary reading achievement scores rising while the percentage of student participation in the state testing program increases from 80 percent to 99 percent, Imagine a place where classroom teachers and principals engage in monthly in-house professional development linked to specific student achievement goals, where reading coaches in each building facilitate professional development and model effective instructional practices.

Imagine a school district where an articulated reading and language arts curriculum aligns with both classroom and state assessments, where what is taught is tested and what is tested is taught, Imagine a place where timely review of student performance drives daily instructional decisions and interventions support struggling learners.

Sound too good to be true? A few years ago, it seemed unimaginable to us and our professional colleagues in the 10,500-student Waterloo, Iowa, school district. Before that picture became a reality, our district weathered storms of fiscal crisis, low state-mandated achievement test scores and inconsistent reading instruction. How did the school district get its act together and why did such a journey begin?

A Troubled Past

Throughout the 1980s and early '90s, school leaders in Waterloo faced a gloomy horizon. Economic hardships, including declines in property values and rising unemployment, resulted in decreasing school enrollment and limited financial resources. By 1995, the district had accumulated several million dollars of debt. From 1995 to 2005, the student minority population had increased from 28 percent to 35 percent; students eligible for free and reduced-priced meals rose from 47 percent to 54 percent; and the number of English language learners grew from approximately 60 students to more than 1,100.

By 1996, returning the school district to fiscal solvency became the highest priority. This required severe expense reductions that eliminated key positions formerly responsible for overseeing the curriculum. As a result, coordination and articulation of curriculum throughout the district began to erode. With out critical resources, teachers and principals fended for themselves and a patchwork of reading programs, methods and materials prevailed. The system no longer functioned as a unified district but as a confederation of 13 independent K-5 school buildings.

Many teachers taught reading without the ongoing professional development needed to successfully instruct and motivate an increasingly diverse student population. Teachers began to doubt their ability to have a positive impact on student learning. They rarely shared professional ideas, successes or materials. Teacher autonomy with little accountability thrived. What prevailed was a culture of "just shut your classroom door."

Within this context, student performance on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills documented a steady decline in reading ability. By 1999, the percentage of 4th-grade students proficient in reading comprehension reached an all-time low. A similar trend occurred in grades 2, 3 and 5. Significant achievement gaps based on students' socioeconomic status and ethnicity also emerged.

The successful implementation of a plan to regain fiscal solvency allowed district leaders more time to focus on issues related to curriculum and instruction. In 1998 an international curriculum management audit team offered this objective review and new challenge to us: "District leadership is at critical crossroads. The resolution of the financial crisis has enabled other longstanding needs to emerge. Chief among them is the long-neglected issue of improving student achievement for all children, most noticeably the swelling ranks of low-income students and those with learning disabilities."

Sharing Leadership

Where does a school district begin? How do you lead constructively and collaboratively toward sustainable reform? How do you create a consensus of purpose and practice? How can you encourage, challenge and support teachers and principals as instructional leaders? And how can you accomplish all this with increasing student diversity and still remain fiscally solvent?

First, we took the audit team's advice to heart. The school board established a set of broad goals to increase student achievement, to close the achievement gap and to maintain fiscal stability. Then we looked inside our elementary buildings for savvy teachers successfully using instructional practices showing promise. This became the first step toward gradually getting our own act together rather than seeking an outside rescuer or some kind of quick fix.

We discovered exemplary reading teachers who had consistently established a record of positive student outcomes directly linked to professional development. Many of these were Title I instructors who had been engaged in the Reading Recovery professional development model for several years. They learned how to collaborate with colleagues to adjust instruction and build on individual student strengths. Individually tailored lessons allowed teachers to customize instruction and select materials to meet each learner's needs, rather, than trying to fit the learner to the instruction and materials. Children who had struggled began making significant achievement gains regardless of their economic status or ethnicity.

With more than half the students in the district on free or reduced-priced meals, and one of every three students a minority, identifying teachers who had effective outcomes with all students became one of the most crucial strategies for improvement.

As part of the district's Title I plan, early interventions such as preschool and Reading Recovery proved successful with 65 percent of struggling 1st graders achieving reading and writing proficiency by the end of grade 1. However, many children remained at risk of losing their achievement gains as they moved into the upper grades. The effectiveness of early interventions magnified the need for an articulated elementary curriculum, ongoing professional development and focused teacher collaboration.

In a collection of essays titled Stirring the Waters, describing the influence of Marie Clay's educational theories, Gay Pinnell and Irene Fountas explain: "Good first teaching is not what happens when you adopt a particular reading program, no matter how good it is. Good first teaching means several years of high-quality instruction, intervention and extra support for those [children] who need it and a range of supports such as quality materials and professional development that will help teachers to do their jobs better."

This philosophy became the foundation of the district's curriculum and professional development initiatives.

Building Blocks

Two key districtwide initiatives opened the way to improved instruction: (1) the Reading Excellence Grant Project and (2) locally written Reading and Language Arts Curriculum Guides. The latter addressed the immediate need for improving instruction in every classroom and served to sustain the districtwide improvement effort.

A unique opportunity to address deficiencies related to professional development and the reading curriculum came in the form of a U.S. Department of Education Reading Excellence grant. The $1.3 million grant was awarded in 2000 for a three-year period. The project began with resources limited to only four eligible elementary schools, based on federal guidelines. Reading grant resources, research-based instructional practices and professional development consistent with the Reading Recovery model provided the impetus for improvement.

Critical decisions regarding how to use this resource provided a clear definition of purpose, a well-defined curriculum framework and focused professional development. Key professionals from across the district including both of us formed a dynamic leadership team that developed and coordinated activities to improve student reading achievement within and beyond the scope of the initial Reading Excellence parameters.

We developed a plan based on a careful review of student demographics and achievement trends. The team outlined a curriculum framework called "Building Blocks for Reading Excellence." The framework clearly defined these specific, research-based instructional components to be incorporated into every elementary classroom: teacher read-aloud, large and flexible small-group reading, phonics, spelling, writing, self-selected reading, reading across the curriculum and reading at home.

Instructional materials consisted of a wide range of leveled books centrally located in each elementary building. Teachers increased time spent on reading and writing instruction during each school day. Exemplary Reading Recovery teachers became reading coaches assigned to support project implementation and embedded ongoing professional development at each building.

We recruited two national reading consultants with successful track records as effective professional change agents. The consultants were experienced classroom teachers and staff developers who agreed to work under our leadership team's direction. The consultants worked directly with principals, classroom teachers and reading coaches to plan and deliver specific, onsite professional development activities within the school day to extend teacher expertise.

Teacher training sessions always included time to study and observe theories of teaching and learning in practice. Roving substitute teachers released grade-level teacher teams to work with a consultant for 90-minute sessions throughout one school day each quarter. Each session included lesson planning immediately followed by demonstration of a specific reading or writing lesson with children. A typical session began with a teacher describing a lesson he planned for his students. The consultant taught the lesson while the team of teachers observed.

After the demonstration lesson, the consultant facilitated a post-lesson discussion with the teacher team. In follow-up visits, the consultant continued to facilitate discussions, but the teachers began taking turns teaching lessons within their classrooms as their colleagues observed. Gradually, consultant visits phased out and reading coaches reinforced and sustained teacher learning.

By 2001, reading instruction and student achievement scores in K-5 classrooms began to reflect the results of the professional development activities, teacher accountability expectations and student data analysis from multiple sources, such as basic reading inventories, writing samples and standardized tests. Because the project produced desirable results, district leaders immediately prioritized financial resources to expand the initiative by incorporating the "building blocks for reading excellence" framework into a district reading and language arts curriculum. The era of patchwork reading curriculum came to an end.

Stronger Curriculum

We customized K-5 reading and language arts curriculum with a coherent set of expectations for teaching, learning and timely monitoring of student progress. We incorporated the most productive instructional methods and materials tested during the Reading Excellence pilot project into districtwide, grade-level, user-friendly curriculum guides.

With written guides providing sample lesson plans, professional resources and district standards, benchmarks, objectives and assessments, our teachers now are better prepared to teach. Material that is taught is assessed. Assessment data collection and analysis informs instructional decisions.

Grade-level teams in each building meet monthly to design, collect and review student assessment data to adjust instruction so all students can attain district objectives. Teachers are learning how to study data, how to make timely instructional decisions and how to adjust what they do based on observable individual student strengths. Daily small group reading instruction gives students a chance for guided instruction using materials carefully selected for them. Reading coaches facilitate professional learning communities in each building.

Our district leaders now expect building principals to be instructional leaders, to recognize and support effective teaching and to understand and use multiple forms of student-achievement data to monitor curriculum implementation. Professional development for principals runs parallel to ongoing teacher training. Building principals attend regularly scheduled sessions throughout the school year on topics with titles such as Principals' Guide to Small Group Reading Instruction, Data-Driven Leadership and Teacher Evaluation. All elementary teachers, including special education teachers, are learning how to connect informal reading assessments to their daily instructional practice.

The Big Picture

In 2005, student achievement in reading comprehension reached new heights for all students with shrinking gaps between student ethnic groups. From 1999 to 2005, the percentage of 4th-grade students proficient in reading comprehension on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills increased from 47 percent to 62 percent, with the percentage of proficient 4th-grade African-American students increasing from 26 percent to 53 percent. At the same time, the percentage of 4th-grade students scoring in the 90-99th percentile increased from 6.8 percent to 9.5 percent.

These accomplishments represent only part of the journey back to our basic mission. We have learned that change is neither easy nor without controversy and that all professionals need time to develop new skills and practices, to study what is working and what is not working, to use student data systematically and to make adjustments when needed.

Many challenges remain as we review current efforts and new initiatives through a lens focused on the district's primary mission: excellence in teaching and learning. We continue building on what works for our students, sharing leadership, learning from our mistakes and keeping that big picture in sight.

John Van Pelt is an associate superintendent in the Waterloo Community Schools, 1516 Washington St., Waterloo, IA 50702. E-mail: [e-mail]. He becomes superintendent in Lake Villa, Ill., in July. Mary Ann Poparad is the Reading Recovery teacher leader in Waterloo, Iowa.