The research design is predicated on the concepts derived from the literature review. The integration of literacy across disciplines to prepare students for college and the workforce requires a comprehensive literacy plan with interdependent components that drive student achievement; therefore, the research design addressed the capacity of high schools to support a literacy plan of this magnitude. Moreover, the secondary administrator is an integral part in
supporting and leading the secondary literacy plan, which requires content and pedagogical knowledge. The research design for this study is structured to address the perceived needs and plans of administrators to fulfill their instructional leadership role.
The first research question addressed the capacity of high schools across the state of Pennsylvania to implement components of a comprehensive literacy plan. The question was addressed through a secondary data analysis of the school districts and charter schools’ response to the Keystones to Opportunity Local Literacy Needs Assessment (KtO LLNA) survey tool. The KtO LLNA was generated by the Pennsylvania Department of Education in an effort to award grant money from the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program to support the development of a comprehensive local literacy plan for students from birth through grade 12. As mentioned in the literature review, the state of Pennsylvania was awarded over $38 million to support the advancement of literacy across the state. Districts were responsible for assembling Literacy Planning Teams consisting of teachers, administrators, school personnel, and parents representing students age birth to grade 12. The Literacy Planning Teams used data and their perception to identify the areas of needed improvement within each of the statutory funding areas across the seven components of a comprehensive literacy framework. The KtO LLNA included the following components for the literacy teams to evaluate: Standards and Curriculum; Assessments; Instruction; Professional Learning and Practice; Literacy Leadership, Goals, and Sustainability; Transition; and Partnerships. Moreover, it outlined 101 specific strategies and actions recommended to support the implementation of a literacy framework across the seven components, which districts rated on a four-point scale based on their assessed needs. The KtO LLNA is located on the Pennsylvania Department of Education (2011a) website for all districts to access and use as a literacy planning tool.
The capacity for a secondary school to implement a school-wide comprehensive literacy plan includes both instructional and infrastructural components that interdependently support teachers and students, which the KtO LLNA addresses. An effective secondary program includes explicit literacy instruction, professional development frameworks, and administrators collectively supporting students while they development literacy skills to construct and communicate knowledge across the content areas (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Kamil et al., 2008). The KtO LLNA includes criteria for districts to evaluate the degree to which the elements of a comprehensive literacy program are in place in their respective schools. Additionally, an effective program includes teachers that use a curriculum that requires systemic literacy instruction in all content areas that requires complex, disciplinary text that necessitates students use a myriad of comprehension and cognitive skills, as well as their knowledge of vocabulary to further their understanding of content information to construct and communicate content information (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010; O’Brien et al., 1995; Shanahan, 2009). Effective teachers use a variety of formative and summative assessments to monitor student-learning outcomes to make appropriate adjustments to instruction where applicable (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). The KtO LLNA specifically requires districts to evaluate their use of curriculum, instruction, and assessment to support a comprehensive literacy program. It also addresses teachers’ participation in on-going, job-embedded professional development to build capacity and a school culture that supports teachers as they reconceptualize their role in teaching students how to read and write specific to their content area (Bean & Dagen, 2011; Jetton & Alexander, 2004; Moje et al., 2004). The KtO LLNA also requires districts to assess their capacity to maintain literacy at the forefront of decisions concerning personnel, budgets, professional development, curriculum, and supervision and evaluation (Bean,
2004; Bean & Dagen, 2011). Therefore, the KtO LLNA garnered statewide data on the current capacity for high schools to implement a comprehensive literacy plan.
The second and third research questions addressed secondary principals’ professional development needs and plans to prepare to implement the new PA Core Standards for literacy instruction in the content areas. Using a purposive sample, five secondary principals in Southwestern Pennsylvania were interviewed to amass information on principals’ current professional development needs to lead a school-wide literacy program and their plans to prepare for the challenges they may face (Bean & Dagen, 2012; Stein & Nelson, 2003). Effective secondary principals are not masters of all content areas, but they are responsible for having an in-depth knowledge of strong instructional practices and setting the vision for the school, leading individual personnel, maintaining a working knowledge of literacy instruction, and arranging professional development for the educators they lead, as well as for themselves (Stein & Nelson, 2003). Additionally, they are responsible for aligning new literacy standards with current content area curriculum to monitor student achievement to make appropriate adjustments to curriculum and instruction when necessary (Bean & Dagen, 2011). The guided conversation allowed the investigator to produce a narrative conveying the secondary principals’ perceptions of their role as the literacy leader in their school and their potential needs to implement literacy in the content areas.
Moreover, a fundamental component of a building principal’s role is to manage the process of change within the school culture (Fullan, 2002). Currently, many content teachers are unaware of how to embed disciplinary literacy instruction into their practice (Moje et al., 2004); therefore, the push for literacy standards across the current curriculum potentially creates a major change for most teachers. Developing teacher quality and building capacity for literacy
instruction across the content areas is addressed through on-going, job-embedded professional development that principals are responsible for supporting (Anders et al., 2000; Dillon et al., 2011; Hammerness et al, 2005; Bean & Dagen, 2011). Therefore, the investigator asked the principals questions that require a self-assessment of their preparedness to implement literacy standards across the content area and their plans for professional development for teachers and themselves (Bean & Dagen, 2012; IRA, 2010; PDE, 2012). As Stein and Nelson (2003) posit, knowledge of the components of literacy instruction is necessary for instructional leaders to lead a school-wide literacy reform; thus, the guided conversation between the principal and investigator addressed the principal’s strengths and needs as literacy leaders.
After identifying their needs, the capacity for principals to act as instructional leaders depends on their plans to prepare for the standards based literacy reform movement. The principals interviewed reflected on their current work to prepare to implement the new standards and their outstanding professional development needs not yet addressed. The questions used during the guided conversation addressed components of professional development that include collaboration with other professionals; participation in trainings; access to resources; and involvement with universities and other organizations that support educational reform (Bean & Dagen, 2012; Darling-Hammond, et al., 2010; Stein & Nelson, 2003).