Listserv Archives

Welcome to the May listserv reading discussion of Taking Action with
Teacher Research. My name is Joe Luft. I'm an ESL/social studies teacher at the Brooklyn International High School and a first year TNPI fellow in NYC. I would like to begin with two opposing views of the value of action research. Let's call this the case of Meyers, Rust, et. al. v. E.D. Hirsch.

Recently, I told someone that I was conducting an action research study and
they referred me to an article by E.D. Hirsch "Classroom Research and Cargo
Cults" (see http://www.policyreview.org/OCT02/hirsch.html for full article).
Hirsch refers to "the unreliability and fruitlessness of current classroom
research" and writes:

"Educational data are difficult to apply in a dependable way because of
contextual variables that change from classroom to classroom and from year
to year, and that drown out the effects of single or multiple interventions.
Clearly, therefore, one major assumption of educational research needs to be
examined and modified ‹ i.e., the assumption that data about what works in
schools could be gathered from schools and then applied directly to improve
schools." (I guess Hirsch won't be attending our presentations in June.)

In the Preface to "Taking Action...", Ellen Meyers and Frances Rust write,
"These studies have a particular relevance for teachers, school
administrators, and policymakers whose focus is on public schools. In part
this has to do with scale: for every documented case described here, there
are hundreds, even thousands of teachers and students struggling with the
same or similar issues." (Taking Action with Teacher Research, p. xvii)

As teacher researchers, how do we respond to Hirsch's criticism of classroom
research? Can we point to specific examples in the studies included in the
book that affirm our beliefs about the reliability of classroom research
done by teachers?

Joe Luft
NYC
April 30, 2003

Joe,
Thanks for getting the May discussion off to a provocative start. I love a good debate. Since E.D. Hirsch is a Virginian (or at least used to be based at University of Virgina--not sure what he's up to these days), I guess one of us should respond first. My first response is, consider the source--he believes there is "one right way" to teach/learn and that "core knowledge" can be dumped into children's heads a la his books Cultural Literacy, What Your Child Needs to Know in x Grade, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, every chapter of the TNPI book is a prime example of why Hirsch and those of his ilk are dead wrong about one right way to teach/learn. Speaking for myself, once I've researched a topic (writer's workshop for example), I reapply the knowledge I gained with each subsequent class of students. While I may not implement the "interventions" in exactly the same way, my students and I benefit from my previous systematic study of the topic and I don't have to reinvent the wheel every year. Instead, what happens is that I get better and better at that aspect of my teaching, with a corresponding rise in student achievement.

I rather suspect that other action researchers have had similar experiences, which goes against Hirsch's claim that what is learned one year doesn't apply to subsequent years and different classes.

Gail V. Ritchie, MEd, NBCT
May 1

While many of us would probably agree with Gail, perhaps we're losing the
battle in the ed policy arena. Nationally, we have No Child Left Behind and
the increased emphasis on "scientific evidence.” Note the new U.S.
Department of Education¹s "Institute of Education Sciences" (see "What Works
Clearinghouse" at http://www.w-w-c.org/).

In the introduction to "Taking Action...", it states that "We hold inquiry
to be axiomatic to good teaching. Good teachers, like skilled actors, are
constantly monitoring their audience, noting what brings attention, working
to engage participants, and thinking ahead to create seamless transition."
(pp. xvi-xvii) This may be obvious to us, but the dominant thinking seems
to reject this with its cry for "scientific research.” They're not talking
to us. Just look at the list of Ph.D.s on the "What Works" advisory board
(http://www.w-w-c.org/memberlist.html). You won't find a single classroom
teacher on the list. We're not scientists.

To our veteran action researchers (especially authors of the studies
included in the book), Can anyone point to an example of action research
that was taken seriously enough to influence policy-makers? We admire each
others' research, but does it actually influence policy?

Joe Luft
May 5

I'm sorry to be redundant, but, in response to Joe's request for action research that has impacted policy, I submit the following (I've talked about these before, as has Robyn Cochran):

Fairfax County Public Schools now has a retired teachers as mentors program, as suggested by Tina Yalen in her research while she was a TNPI fellow.

FCPS has many wonderful support systems, including mentors and coaches, in place for beginning teachers. It is my understanding that Robyn Cochran laid the groundwork for our current practice when she was a TNPI fellow.

TNPI fellows researched Master's Degree programs in Teacher Leadership; as a result, FCPS entered into partnership with George Mason University to offer a Master's Degree in Teacher Leadership. The second cohort is halfway through, and I am privileged to be an instructor in this program.

I seem to recall that the Wyoming TNPI fellows have had the opportunity to meet with policymakers and impact policy in their state.

I know there must be other instances of action research impacting policy. California? New York?

Gail V. Ritchie
May 9

I have an example of action research impacting policy/practice here in Miami-Dade County. After a presentation to the 11 principals in the Miami Central Senior High School feeder pattern, I am happy to report that all agreed to fund and implement Reading Is Fundamental book distributions to increase the presence of reading materials in the home environment to foster the development of literacy and an appreciation of books and book ownership. Our feeder pattern will distribute 32,000+ books to 9,500 economically disadvantaged students in Head Start through Grade 9 this year.
Earlier this year, I presented my action research to the principals of the Miami Springs High School feeder pattern and they have made application for a Reading Is Fundamental program. The Central feeder pattern will be expanding its program for next year to include one additional elementary school and grade 10 students in the high school.
Additionally, I have made a presentation to a State Representative, who serves on Florida's Legislative Education Committee, asking that Reading Is Fundamental book distributions be funded for all students in schools receiving a grade of D or F from the State.

Lois Magnus
May 9
Chicago

I read the E.D. Hirsch article and (I can’t believe I’m saying this), I don’t completely disagree with him on several points. Please let me know if you think I’m totally off-base—it’s a bit scary not disagreeing with E.D. Hirsch.

Far from being antithetical to Meyers and Rust, I thought that at times, the two pieces kind of work in tandem—though Mr. Hirsch might disagree. He argues that educational research should be nested in theories of cognitive psychology. Classroom research should be testing out in practice the broader theories of cog psych. Don’t you think we do this in our classroom research? We can’t formulate new theories about how children best learn, however, we do find out whether or not the theories, upon which much educational policy is based, play out in our schools and classrooms.

Second of all, we’ve been arguing for years that teaching and learning are idiosyncratic, and educational contexts are crucially important. I don’t think that any of us would argue that our own personal research could be generalized to all of educational policy—that’s why most of our policy recommendations are local. I’m not sure that we uncover “universal” educational truths in our research. We find out if a teaching method or strategy or curriculum or innovation works in our particular classroom, with our particular students, with ourselves teaching (usually). In any case, we can’t have it both ways. If we believe that our research is context sensitive, then it really isn’t general to ALL educational contexts. Of course, it’s not to be said that parts of our research aren’t relevant to other settings, but of course, if we’re honest with ourselves, different outcomes in different settings should be a welcomed expectation.

I think he believes, if I read him right, that most educational research doesn’t go far enough in interpreting results. He says of the STAR study, “This multimillion dollar study does not hazard a clear and detailed theoretical interpretation of its own findings.” That’s something we focus on relatively well in our action research—our policy recommendations emerge from our interpretation and analysis.

I did get annoyed when he talked about research being “invoked as a rhetorical weapon” in partisan educational wars—since it seems to me that his partisan right gets the prize in this category, redefining and therefore devaluing “scientific research” in the reading debate.

Please let me know what you think, but be kind.

Judi Fenton, NYC
May 11

The first year I was in what was then NTPI, I chose my research question
specifically in the hope of bolstering the effort to continue our schools'
waiver from the state testing program. It was sent to the Assessment
Consortium's own panel of experts, as well as, to the various and sundry people
the Commissioner assembled. Probably a few of them read it. It was part of
the massive pile of documents provided by the Consortium to the
Commissioner's Blue Ribbon Panel, which recommended that he give us another 3
years of waivers to enable us to refine our portfolio assessment to meet the
various concerns. He did not follow his own panel's recommendations. So
why should he give a hoot about my paper?

The point is something that Tom Sobel once told us. Policy makers will use
any and all kinds of research if it helps give credence to what they want to
do anyway. If they disagree with our policy recommendations or aren't
interested in the issues we are raising, then in the short run, our research
will not have any effect at that level. It may have an effect on our own
practice, on our school, group of schools, district, etc. It may also come
in handy when the pendulum swings and policy makers move away from their
emphasis on tests which is closely related to the term "scientifically
tested." (The scientific generally involves not only large groups of test
subjects, but before and after testing.) It would be naive to expect that any
or all of our papers would lead to dramatic policy changes. They are drops of water joining other water sources falling on the policy rock. However, the fact that we do action research lends us some credibility that opens doors to policy makers or influencers such as the
Education Commission of the States.

The one time in my life when my policy work clearly and directly led to a
policy change was when I was at Advocates for Children; Chancellor
Nat Quinones invited us to do an expose of high school admissions policies
and practices. He knew they were unfair, but he needed a source of outside
pressure. After my report, it took about a year, but some of the practices I
exposed were changed. (Not that high school admissions was really fixed.)

Diana Lam sat in on the TNPI Affiliates’ meeting last weekend and suggested
that we work together. She seemed to be interested in the New York TNPI
doing research on issues the DOE wants to know more about. We certainly
don't want to be hamstrung in what we can do research on, but this is an
overture worth pursuing. To the extent there is an intersection between what
we and they are interested in studying, we should take advantage of the
improved likelihood that our work would be read and used if DOE policy makers
actually were asking us to do it.

Janet Price NYC
May 11

I think it's really important that we take a deeper look at how we influence and/or inform policy. Sometimes we plant seeds (informing policy) and sometimes we see the plants grow (influence policy) and sometimes we see a bearing of fruit (influence of policy into true change). Also, the
influence/informing of policy can be at the local level (school site, district, county, region), as well as, at the state and federal levels. We need to realize that at each level we can influence and inform policy.

In Santa Barbara our Fellows purposely sit on a variety of committees and task forces from the local level to the state level in order to "be present" with an informed voice. Other Fellows are actively influencing policy at their school and district levels (Linda Wiezorek began a Saturday
School concept inviting at-risk students to what was posed as a prestigious writing academy). Students felt honored to be there and there was an amazing increase in writing scores. As a result of that action research, there are now about 8 schools in Linda's district holding Sat. School.
Her goal is to see this district-wide. Another Fellow, Harriet Levine, is working at her school level to influence policy to better prepare regular ed teachers having special ed students mainstreamed in their classes.

Hope these thoughts and examples help.

Carol Gregor
Santa Barbara
May 12, 2003

My question to all of you is: "Is teaching a science?" My answer would be "No." Even in medical terms open heart surgeries may follow similar procedures, but I would venture that the outcome is not always the same. There are many variables that come into play that influence the results. Teaching is complex because students are complex. Like Judi mentioned, our classroom research tends to be context sensitive, but in many cases, it can be generalized to similar populations or situations. No research is going to be fail proof, but as educators our action research is extremely valuable in that it not only helps us better understand and improve our practice, but it is also one way to empower educators to challenge "scientific research" that is handed to us by "experts" that have never taught a day in the classroom or know who are students are.

Have a great week,

Jane Fung
Los Angeles
May 18, 2003

Gail Ritchie
Fairfax
May 19