Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A literacy plan holds the potential to drive instruction and impact student learning, but too often once these plans are created, they sit on a shelf and are of no practical value to teachers doing the daily work of improving student literacy. This mixed-methods study investigated a statewide research–practice partnership with pre-K–12 teachers to design school literacy action plans that are inquiry based, culturally relevant, and responsive to local contexts. Our approach to literacy plan design supported educators through professional learning around co-constructed goals and initiated an iterative process of inquiry, revision, and growth. Initial needs/assets surveys, follow-up reflections and evaluations, and literacy plan documents provided evidence that a collaborative process in designing literacy plans is key and that teachers need to be supported as leaders in their schools to best build on their own literacy understandings and incorporate new evidence-based knowledge.

Keywords

literacy planning collaboration mixed-methods improvement literacy plans

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Education is currently spending more than $190 million a year to fund the creation and implementation of state and local literacy plans that promote evidence-based practices through the Comprehensive State Literacy Development (CLSD) federal grant program (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education [OESE], 2023). In 2020, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education was awarded a CLSD grant. As a research–practice partnership (RPP), the authors worked collaboratively with Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and 80 schools to support development and/or revision of local literacy plans that aligned with the state literacy plan. In the CLSD context, a literacy plan refers to a document outlining the literacy curriculum, instruction, and assessment to be used to improve student literacy comprehensively across grades levels and content areas.

At the start, Missouri had a state literacy plan that included a definition of literacy and a framework with five components: leadership, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and partnerships. Building from the state’s framework, our team developed processes to create school plans that invited teacher collaboration and were assets based, culturally responsive, and research driven.

Previous research has shown that the quality of an improvement plan is positively correlated with student learning outcomes (Fernandez, 2011; Huber & Conway, 2015) and called for plans to be streamlined, realistic, and focused on improving outcomes (Irvin et al., 2007; Schmoker, 2006). However, there is a gap in the research literature about processes for creating literacy plans that streamlines school, district, and state initiatives; are realistic; and whose focus is on improving student literacy. To address this gap, our work investigated the process of using an RPP approach to co-constructing school literacy action plans. We defined a school literacy action plan as a method of collectively identifying the schools’ needs and assets related to literacy and then documenting the goals, action steps, delegation of responsibilities, resources required, and timelines of implementation to sustain assets and meet needs (Kerkhoff et al., 2023a, 2023b).

Our method involved three years as participant observers working with teachers to develop literacy plans, and we have analyzed both the processes we have used and the impact of the plans on teachers using the following research questions: What factors and processes aided the development of literacy action plans? and What impact do educators experience from the process of codesigning local literacy action plans?

Review of Relevant Literature

At the time of this study, there was not a body of literature suggesting affordances or constraints of designing literacy action plans nor an evidence base supporting a certain process. However, because states across the United States are mandating literacy plans, we believe that this research is important to map promising practices. For example, our state is currently a) revising a statewide comprehensive literacy plan and b) legislating that each district create a literacy plan and that schools demonstrate alignment to the plan. A review of research identified mostly conceptual or reflective pieces regarding school literacy plans. As such, this section reviews the research on school, district, and state literacy plans as well as the related literature on school improvement plans (SIPs).

We posit a difference between formal top-down comprehensive literacy plans, which historically are documents tied to federal funding and set long-term goals for literacy across pre-K–12 (e.g., Snow et al., 2008), and bottom-up literacy action plans that are not necessarily tied to external accountability but instead are a process to respond to local needs in an iterative manner (e.g., Witte et al., 2010). Research by Meyers and VanGronigen (2021) suggested that both traditional long-term planning and more responsive iterative short-cycle planning are important to ensure that “each student receives rigorous and equitable learning opportunities” (pp. 11–12).

With regard to state literacy plans, there are currently no studies that investigate efficacy. Two studies described multiple states’ work to expand their literacy plans from K–3 to include grades 4-12 (e.g., Bates et al., 2009; Snow et al., 2008). These two studies described the success of certain states in addressing adolescent literacy in their plans and the challenges of many states due to limited funding, lack of resources, and political obstacles.

Specific to school literacy action plans, Witte et al. (2010) used case study methods to investigate creating a literacy action plan in a U.S. secondary school context. The findings suggested that the process of creating these plans can serve the ongoing and changing needs of diverse stakeholders: national and state assessment bodies, district and school administrators, teachers, students, and families. Inclusion of multiple stakeholders in the process amplified teachers’ influence on desired change (Lecos, 1997; Witte et al., 2010).

In addition to the structural and systemic changes literacy plans can address, Witte et al. (2010) also demonstrated the importance of creating a school culture of literacy. Although all stakeholders are important to a school’s culture of literacy, there are several studies that showed the critical role that leaders play in changing culture (Merga et al., 2021; Strunk et al., 2016). Unfortunately, research has suggested that school administrators too often do not have the knowledge, training, or commitment needed to usher in these cultural changes to improve literacy (Fernanders & Belson, 2023). For example, in Missouri, only 15% of elementary administrators have a degree in literacy, reading, or communication arts, and only 25% report ever having “received professional development on how to support teachers with literacy instruction” (Adams et al., 2018, p. 100). Even though school leaders may play a more significant role than other stakeholders in advancing a positive school culture of literacy important for sustaining change, it is teachers and literacy coaches who hold literacy expertise and play the most influential role in student achievement (Patfield et al., 2023; Rogers et al., 2021; Stephens et al., 2011). As such, more research is needed on teachers’ roles in designing literacy plans and the conditions under which participation and decision making are equitable among team members.

Without a body of research on literacy plans, we drew from the adjacent literature. Because the No Child Left Behind Act required low-performing schools to submit SIPs to their states for approval, SIPs are common in the U.S. educational system. Although SIPs represent top-down accountability structures, they share similar characteristics with literacy action plans because they contain goals to raise student achievement. Although literacy action plans are specific to literacy, SIPs may or may not include literacy goals.

Although SIPs are more ubiquitous than literacy plans, research on them is still limited. At least some evidence suggests that a high-quality SIP is associated with more successful implementation (Meyers & VanGronigen, 2019; Strunk et al., 2016) and higher student outcomes (Fernandez, 2011). Fernandez (2011) conducted a case study of a district in Nevada measuring the quality of plans using a researcher-generated 3-point rubric along 17 criteria. Example criteria included the specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals, research-based strategies to achieve goals, and a plan for measuring goals. Results suggested that the quality of the plan as operationalized by the researcher was positively correlated with student reading outcomes. A literature review and content analysis in Portugal by Carvalho et al. (2022) produced nine criteria for evaluating quality of SIP processes and products: (a) SMART goals; (b) alignment with the school vision and national priorities; (c) tailored to student population and context; (d) clear link between needs, goals, and solutions; (e) identifies evidence- and research-based strategies; (f) specified actions for implementation; (g) data-based decision making and monitoring process; (h) parent and community involvement; and (i) professional development opportunities. Missing in these nine criteria are the finding of the importance of plans articulating high expectations by Strunk et al. (2016), which aligns with culturally responsive teaching (Muhammad, 2020) and an explicit focus on equity.

The research broadly suggested that flexible, local-level, high-quality plans that are supported by administrators can lead to desired improvement (DeMatthews & Wang, 2023; Huber & Conway, 2015). Yet, several studies (Carvalho et al., 2022; Meyers & VanGronigen, 2019; Strunk et al., 2016) have shown most plans to be of low quality with a lack of authentic school principal engagement in SIP development. More research is needed that disrupts notions of quality that, as Souto-Manning (2019) stated, “have kept and continue to keep racial, cultural, and linguistic injustices in place” and that promote equitable engagement by diverse stakeholders. Additionally, previous research identified pitfalls in planning processes, including (a) creating more work for administrators and teachers (Levine & Leibert, 1987; Mintzberg, 1994), (b) entrenching “shared delusions” and “rigidity” (McLaughlin, 1993, p. 95), and (c) doubling down on processes that have not worked in the past because that is easier than starting something new (DeMatthews & Wang, 2023). As schools, districts, and states create plans to improve literacy, it is imperative that research investigates the process, product, implementation, and impact. This study aimed to begin filling the gaps in the literature by investigating the process for creating school literacy action plans from the perspectives of the teachers who will enact the plans.

Our Theoretical Framing of Literacy

Our work is grounded in sociocultural and sociocognitive understandings of literacy. We start from the premise that all literacy practices take place within social contexts that are inherently cultural and build on the unique histories of individuals and communities. These social contexts reflect the same inequitable power structures that exist in society; thus, what counts as literacy varies across different domains of life (e.g., home, school, and community; Barton & Hamilton, 2000). Our work seeks to disrupt autonomous models of literacy that conceptualize literacy as a general set of skills that one either possesses or not. Instead, we adhere to an ideological model that recognizes that definitions of literacy are not neutral nor simple but constantly shifting from one context to another (Street, 2003). Likewise, we draw on the New London Group’s (1996) pedagogy of multiliteracies, which focuses on integrating available designs of meaning across modes of communication other than print while situating literacy practices in the students’ own lifeworlds and with aims to support critical framing and transformation through overt instruction.

Although we start from a broad view of literacy within sociocultural contexts, we recognize that the academic-based literacy that is valued in schools stems from sociocognitive models of literacy (e.g., Purcell-Gates et al., 2006). Such models forefront language use within the political and social context of schools (Gee, 2015), as well as the social components of learning (Vygotsky, 1978), while attending to reciprocal cognitive processes that are required for literacy development (e.g., Clay, 1991; Duke & Cartwright, 2021). When we bring these theoretical frames together, our approach to literacy is comprehensive, emphasizing development from birth throughout a lifetime inclusive of speaking, listening, reading, writing, viewing, visually representing, critically thinking, and creatively thinking within print and digital modes situated within social and cultural contexts. These concepts frame our view of literacy teaching and learning and our RPP. Over the course of the 3 years of this study, we built inquiry communities connected to the local university and a statewide professional learning network with the shared purpose of improving literacy comprehensively and equitably.

Our Approach to RPPs with Schools

As an RPP, we frame this study as a collaboration of multiple stakeholders rather than a program or study coming from one instigator, such as a university researcher. A bidirectional approach adds relevance and usefulness to the research (Hopkins et al., 2019; Penuel et al., 2017). We sought to participate in research with a team in order to share from our own areas of expertise and experience and to learn from the multiple ways we see and make sense of the data collected. From this, we hope that our findings provide not just one researcher’s analysis and recommendations but a range of considerations that can be used for others in developing school literacy action plans.

The context of this RPP includes the authors, university-based teacher educators, and educational researchers, who served as brokers (Hopkins et al., 2019) mediating between the state and the schools to design research-informed literacy plans. Together with the state, we negotiated the composition of literacy teams that would design the plans. This negotiation resulted in a recommendation to each school point person for the grant (usually a principal, instructional coach, or literacy specialist) to create an interdisciplinary team of leaders with good rapport, including a building administrator, English language specialist, special education coordinator, literacy specialist, and teacher leaders who represented the grade levels and content areas of the school.

We also served as facilitators (Zapata et al., 2024) posing questions, sharing resources, nudging partners toward reflection, and giving encouragement (p. 8). We spent the first year of the grant 2020–21 building relationships (Farrell et al., 2021) and assessing the needs and assets of each school partner for the purposes of establishing trust and being able to provide professional learning (PL) responsive to the schools’ needs.

Assessing needs and assets included listening to educators’ concerns and interests through Zoom meetings and online surveys (because this was during COVID-19 lockdowns). We used the process of listening illustrated by Kee et al. (2010) with the following aims: “gain clarity about an issue; understand the needs, perceptions, and emotions of the speaker; gather data for feedback; allow the speaker to refine thinking by speaking to an attentive listener; seek patterns of behavior; and lay a path for building responses and solutions” (p. 95). After prolonged listening, we presented our review of the needs and assets as well as achievement data for literacy teams to process as part of their self-evaluation. We then invited each team to create a vision for literacy in their school that could guide their decision making and goal setting. Figure 1 illustrates the phases of the process.

Figure 1.

Literacy action plan codesign process.

We were committed to culturally and historically responsive (Muhammad, 2020) partnerships with intentionality to (a) disrupt power hierarchies, (b) value the diverse identities of the educators and their students, and (c) acknowledge the local sociopolitical context of the school and community. Responsiveness welcomes multiple perspectives and rejects the idea of mainstream assimilation. Part of being culturally and historically responsive is acknowledging how both language and teaching are racialized and actively fighting against racist ideologies (Baker-Bell, 2020; Lee et al., 2021; Theoharis & Haddix, 2011). Such an approach helps to “break down a socially constructed linguistic hierarchy based on subjective, and frequently prejudicial, beliefs” (Metz, 2019, p. 18). Responsive RPPs require reflecting on our own actions and impacts and adapting to better meet stakeholders’ evolving needs. Additionally, flexibility and creativity (Napitupulu et al., 2023; Reed & Swaminathan, 2016) are needed in responsive RPPs because plans are iterative and subject to change.

Our next focus was to cultivate an inquiry stance toward the design of school literacy action plans and the facilitation of PL. We worked with school literacy teams to collaboratively design their literacy action plans, whereas the state worked on revising the state comprehensive literacy plan. An inquiry stance approaches decision making and problem solving by collecting and analyzing evidence and revising conclusions as new evidence is presented (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2021). As such, although inquiry is labeled as the third phase in Figure 1, we saw the process as iterative.

Beginning in the summer of 2021, the RPP engaged in in-person PL at the universities and statewide online PL to learn with and from each other. PL topics included “Teachers as leaders, readers, writers, and creative intellectuals” and “Asset-based approaches to literacy assessment.” We also attended, sometimes as cofacilitators and sometimes as participant observers, literacy team meetings at schools. (See Kerkhoff et al. [2023a, 2023b] and online Supplemental Material for more information.) Additionally, as questions or gaps in knowledge arose during the process, we facilitated PL in schools from an inquiry stance.

Research has shown that an inquiry community where knowledge is co-constructed through reading, dialogue, and reflection is an effective model of PL (Anderson, 2017; Butler et al., 2015; Skerrett et al., 2018; Spires et al., 2018). As an RPP, we read relevant research, reflected on practice, and discussed evidence. The use of data to prompt reflection and deliberation holds potential to reduce bias in decision making (Katz & Dack, 2014). However, for reflection on data and collaboration on goals to be successful, Fernandez (2011) and Meyers and VanGronigen (2021) suggested that goals must be timely and relevant and include frequent monitoring. As such, we promoted iterative inquiry where questions, goals, solutions, and actions can change as needed in a responsive way.

Methods

To answer our two research questions, we designed a concurrent parallel mixed-methods study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; DeCuir-Gunby, 2020). The study was concurrent in that the qualitative and quantitative data were collected at the same time and parallel in that we first analyzed each source of data separately and then compared our analysis across data sources to develop findings. The research questions were, What factors and processes aided the development of literacy plans? and What impact do educators experience from the process of codesigning local literacy action plans?

Participants and Context

Participants included school building leaders and teachers from 80 schools across the state who were part of the literacy grant program. The schools were chosen based on assessment of an application that included need and commitment as selection criteria. Need was determined based on demographic and achievement data. Schools included elementary with early childhood, elementary schools, elementary and middle schools combined, middle schools, and high schools in urban, suburban, and rural communities. Table 1 lists the demographic information for the participating schools.

Table 1

Participant School Demographics.

Factor	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Locale distribution	City	28	35.00
	Suburban	26	32.50
	Town	10	12.50
	Rural	19	23.75
Grade-level distribution	Elementary	41	51.25
	Middle	24	30.00
	High	15	18.75
Percent with individualized education program	6–10%	9	11.25
	11–15%	42	52.50
	16–20%	25	31.25
	21–25%	4	5.00
Percent free and reduced-price lunch	No data	2	2.50
	1–20%	5	6.25
	21–40%	2	2.50
	41–60%	13	16.25
	61–80%	16	20.00
	81–100%	42	52.50

Data Collection and Analysis

We collected quantitative data at the beginning (i.e., February 2021) and end of the study (i.e., February 2023) and qualitative data in the middle. Table 2 provides an overview of the data-collection and analysis procedures.

Table 2

Data-Collection and Analysis Procedures.

Data source	When collected	Analysis
Core and teacher leader survey	February 2021 February 2023	Descriptive statistics
Literacy action plan products	February 2023	Descriptive statistics Content analysis
Professional learning evaluation	August 2021–May 2023	Content analysis
Pause and reflect written reflections	February 2022 February 2023	Content analysis

Surveys

Quantitative data were collected before the literacy action plan design process began and exactly 2 years later through online surveys. Data from the first administration provided insight into needs and assets for each school, informed the PL offerings, and served as the pretest for the research. The literacy team survey comprised Likert scale items inquiring about schools’ current condition of literacy support (1 = not evident; 2 = to some extent or to some degree; 3 = to an acceptable extent; and 4 = strong). The survey also included items to measure five dimensions aligned with the state literacy plan: (a) leadership and sustainability; (b) intentional instruction, intervention, and enrichment; (c) curriculum resources; (d) assessment; and (e) partnerships, for example, “Resources are dedicated to meeting literacy goals as defined in school/district literacy plan” and “Data from summative assessments are used to target interventions and make program changes.” Descriptive statistics from the first survey responses (n = 233) informed our needs and assets analysis.

The second administration served as the post-test for the research. The data from the first and second administrations were analyzed for change to measure impact after implementation of literacy action plans. We used SPSS software to run paired t test analysis at the school level (Morgan et al., 2019). We chose the paired-samples t test because we compared the same school for each item before and after. A thorough data-cleaning process of removing missing values resulted in 15 items across 30 schools that met the criteria of having the before and after measure.

Literacy Plan Content Analysis

The original research design was to compare existing literacy plans with literacy plans after the RPP’s codesigning process. However, data revealed that 66 of 80 schools did not have building-level literacy plans at the beginning, as shown in Table 3. Throughout the literacy action plan design process, we met with our school teams on a regular basis to get their input and provide formative feedback. Researchers coded the literacy action plans using both interpretive content analysis (Miles et al., 2016) and summative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) of plans that were completed by the due date (n = 71). Summative content analysis used a researcher-generated protocol of nine components developed from our synthesis of the literature on action planning. These components were provided to the schools as a checklist during the design phase, not as a prescriptive mandate but rather as a tool that summarized a review of the literature. Researchers rated the components as 0 = not evident; 1 = evident; or 2 = strongly evident (see Table 4) to provide responsive support during the process and to identify what components were used by schools. Two groups of researchers separately analyzed the plans. A test of interrater reliability was performed on a sample of the data with 80% agreement of summative content analysis, meeting adequate standards. For interpretive content analysis, the two groups reviewed the coding at an in-person meeting. When there were disagreements about codes, the team discussed until consensus was reached.

Table 3

Frequency of Literacy Plans at the Beginning of the Study.

Region	Had schoolliteracy plan	Had districtwide literacy plan
St. Louis	6/40	3/14
Kansas City	1/22	5/9
At-Large	7/18	6/10

Table 4

Content Analysis of Literacy Plan Products.

Component	Mode
Communicates shared vision/understanding/definition of literacy	2
Creates goals based on needs	2
Aligns with district and/or state literacy plan	2
Goals have a research rationale with evidence cited	2
Roles and responsibilities shared among core leaders, teacher leaders, and teachers	2
Includes possible partnerships to strengthen the plan	2
Includes action steps to reach goals	2
Has measurement plan to monitor progress of each goal	0
Has a realistic timeline	1

PL Evaluation

At each PL session, participants responded to open-ended questions on Google Forms regarding their understanding and experience of codesigning literacy plans. All qualitative data from the form were coded through an interpretative content-analysis process (Miles et al., 2016) to discover how participants experienced the literacy plan process and the impact of participating in codesign. For the first cycle of coding, we coded the first evaluation from their region and then met in person to apply teachers’ feedback provided by the survey to improve the literacy plan design process PL and to collaboratively create a codebook. We then used the codebook for continuing cycles of coding, adding and refining codes as agreed on collaboratively. At the conclusion of the study, we applied the codebook for a final cycle of coding across the PL evaluation data as a whole.

Pause and Reflect Written Reflections

We collected written reflections data during the winter regional PL sessions from participant teachers: St. Louis (n = 58), At large (n = 26), and Kansas City (n = 73). St. Louis and Kansas City were mostly urban and suburban with a couple of rural districts represented in each. At large is a mostly a small town and rural region. We first individually coded by region using the codebook from the previous data as a priori codes and also created codes inductively as needed (Saldaña, 2021). We then collaboratively coded across regions with the aim of identifying patterns of meaning.

Qualitative Analysis Across Sources

As the final step in the qualitative data-analysis process, we collaboratively analyzed the qualitative data across sources. Using our codebook, we created a matrix based on codes shared across data sources. This provided data triangulation as well as investigator triangulation to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings (Yin, 2016). We then conducted axial coding to draw connections between codes. These connections were evaluated for consistency in the data, relevance to the research questions, and consensus among the researchers. Resulting connections were labeled as themes, and each theme was defined.

Results

We organize the results by research question in the following two sections.

Research Question 1: What Factors and Processes Aided the Development of Literacy Plans?

In schools where teachers were aware of a literacy plan, the teachers reported that these plans were not accessible nor were they co-constructed with teachers. Therefore, current or preexisting plans were not seen as applicable to teacher practice. The factors and processes that teachers perceived aided the development of literacy plans that were applicable to their practice included collaborating with design plans and streamlining initiatives across the school, each described in turn.

Collaborating: Team Is Key in Developing Literacy Plans

Most participants (n = 95%) saw value in co-constructing a plan as a school team and collaborating with community partners to improve literacy outcomes for the students in their buildings. Specifically, 95% of respondents on the pause and reflect 2022 session stated that they believed that the collaborative process would result in improvements in literacy. With regard to partnering with the research team, a teacher reflected, “Having a third eye gives us a different perspective, and providing the research is a bonus. It’s validating and inspiring. Helps us maintain focus.” To address results from the needs and assets survey, four schools wrote priority goals to include community partners, such as, “Incorporate strategies to involve parents, businesses, and community stakeholders in literacy learning.” A content-analytic summary of the collaborating theme is provided in Table 5.

Table 5

Content-Analytic Summary of the Theme on Collaborating.

Type of collaboration experienced	Interpretation of impact	Exemplary statements
With grade-level team	Enhance team building.	“Bonding with my team <3.” “Got close to my school group and discussed meaningful things.”
With other teachers from same school	Create a shared vision and focus resources/attention on same goals	“ I do believe this will improve because if everyone is on the same page about our goals and in creating our goals, we will understand our ‘why,’ and it will provide success.”
	Foster a culture of collaboration that can transfer to other learning environments in the school	“[A culture of collaboration can lead us to] create a learning environment where we learn from each other (students from students, teachers from teachers, teachers from students).”
	Strengthen buy-in, which increases likelihood of implementation	“I think the most important part of any school-wide initiative is buy-in from 80% of the people who are impacted by the decisions made. Co-creating the literacy plan is essential to its success.”
Review needs and assets collaboratively	Tailor the action	“It helps us align our priorities schoolwide and allows us to hone in on the missing pieces.”
With teachers from district	Smooth transitions to higher grade levels and across content areas for students	“I believe that co-creating literacy plans will result in improving literacy in our school because it makes for a more cohesive learning environment for our students.”
With teachers from district	Align vertically	“Helps our district vertically with reading/writing assessments.” “Keep conversations vertically.”
With community and families	Expand focus and therefore outcomes beyond school boundaries	“Providing a community where children, families, and staff learn and grow together, foster a lifelong love of literacy, and promote literacy goals through teacher leadership and intentional instruction.”
With university faculty	Hear the research perspective	“Having a third eye gives us a different perspective, and providing the research is a bonus. It’s validating and inspiring. Helps us maintain focus.”
With leaders and teachers outside of school	Build positive professional network to inspire the work	“Working with colleagues in the district who are committed and tireless in their mission for expanding and improving literacy. This work is inspiring and affirms the ‘why’ in my personal beliefs about education.”
With leaders and teachers outside of school	Belong to a professional network to not feel alone in the work	“Seeing those who value literacy, when I feel as though our district (as a whole doesn’t).”

Participants in our study worked primarily in school-building teams to codesign literacy action plans at the local level. Participants had designated time in the summer PL sessions to begin creating their plans as a team. In the PL evaluation, one participant exemplified the data about appreciating the time, saying, “collaboration with the building team, we never get enough time to discuss during these days, and by the time we usually get the time, the ideas are long forgotten.” Many participants requested more time for collaboration in their evaluation and reflection data. In addition to school team time, PL sessions also included time for participants within a district to talk across grade levels and with district administrators. We served as brokers in these sessions, as in the words of the teachers, “helping with district-level talks” and “providing us with a great collaborating experience!”

Both collaboration opportunities started with prompts to create shared visions for literacy. Data coded across sources for shared visions revealed optimistic perceptions. For example, in the reflection session, a teacher stated that they perceived that “the literacy plan will improve literacy because if everyone is on the same page about our goals and in creating our goals, we will understand our why, and it will provide success.” Likewise, an administrator in an urban elementary school reflected, “I believe [the plan] will result in improving literacy in the classroom because it will provide a shared vision, understanding of our needs, and evidence-based strategies to address/target gaps.” And a teacher in another urban elementary stated: “Collaboration among educators in a school community allows for the common vision and collective effort necessary to improve student experiences and outcomes. Collaboration also allows for the best ideas to come forward as the team discusses, thinks and plans for success.”

The data showed that another impact of collaborating to codesign a school literacy action plan was increasing teacher buy-in. Across data sources, participants saw the process-based and decentralized nature of the plan as increasing their willingness to invest time and energy into making changes or additions to their literacy teaching. For example, a rural high school teacher reflected, “I think the most important part of any schoolwide initiative is buy-in from 80% of the people who are impacted by the decisions made. Co-creating the literacy plan is essential to its success.” Another teacher leader explained why they felt this way: “We have ownership of our plan that’s been created based on our school’s specific needs.” Teachers holding ownership of the plan was key to buy-in, although not without tension. Several participants across school contexts reported feeling concerned that school administrators who had not been part of the team might halt the progress. As an exemplary statement, a teacher wrote in a PL evaluation asking about anticipated challenges: “admin supporting the process and being knowledgeable enough to allow us to lead the process.”

Streamlining: Consistency and Clarity to Achieve Goals

From the teachers’ responses, we found that schools shifted from having missing or unclear literacy plans to developing literacy action plans that created alignment in practices, support, and resources. Few teachers (n = 15%) were aware of school literacy plans at the beginning of this study (as measured on the first PL evaluation survey with the item, “Does the school have a comprehensive literacy plan in place?” with response choices of yes, no, or I don’t know). Some schools had plans in place, but teachers were not aware of the plans or the plans were fragmented. For example, in one instance, a rural elementary school had one plan for assessing reading written by one individual on one document, whereas a different individual in that same school created a plan for reading intervention, neither collaborating with the other. Other schools relied on the literacy specialist to be the holder of all information, but in these cases the plan was not always in writing. If the literacy specialist left for another school, the plan left too. Administrative and literacy leaders in the schools indicated that they saw value in a school literacy action plan to streamline information about literacy processes for teachers in one place and to keep institutional knowledge through turnovers. One leader wrote in the summer PL evaluation that they valued “having time with my colleagues to share ideas and put them into a group plan instead of individual plans.” Although the documentation of the plans by a team helped streamline from many individual plans to a collective plan, turnover was still a major issue during the 2020–23 context. For example, a participant from an urban middle school stated in the summer of year 2, “We are going to revisit the plan since there is so much change.” Centering the literacy plan as an iterative process encouraged teams to revise each academic year as appropriate.

Participants shared that there were often several initiatives at the district or school level that made it hard to prioritize their efforts in their classroom. For example, a teacher stated in the survey, “I feel (as all teachers do all the time) like I’m being asked to do a lot of things, and I am struggling with the big picture of how to divide my time.” Including a diverse group of teachers in the literacy plan process provided an opportunity for schools to streamline initiatives across content areas and prioritize as a building. A high school teacher said, “The highlight has been finding tangible ways to combine the efforts of the English and science departments.” In the reflections, different participants stated that the literacy plan process helps “us align our priorities schoolwide,” “vertically with reading/writing assessments,” and “alignment of initiatives/strategies into instructional planning.” In this way, collaboration during the process resulted in the ability to streamline resources and initiatives.

Research Question 2: What Impact Do Educators Experience From the Process of Codesigning Local Literacy Action Plans?

Based on the literature, we were cautious about the literacy plan process being viewed as top down and imposed on teachers and classrooms. Early steps were taken to make this a collaborative local process, with the result being a codesigned literacy action plan. Therefore, we wanted to know whether teachers did view it as such and what their experiences could teach us about the process of building local literacy plans. Statistical analysis of the before and after teacher surveys via paired-samples t tests indicated that all 15 items showed positive change, with nine of the 15 items as statistically significant. Two items answer Research Question 2, indicating that the process impacted classroom practice in the following statistically significant ways: (a) the taught curriculum aligns with the written school/district literacy plan (t(29) = 2.89; p = .007; d = .53), and (b) personnel practices support and align with the literacy plan (t(29) = 2.64; p = .013; d = .48). Table 6 provides the complete results of our statistical analysis.

Table 6

Paired-Samples t Test.

Scale	Paired differences95% CI of difference, upper	t	df	Significance (two-tailed)
Administrator(s) demonstrate(s) commitment to learn about and support evidence-based literacy instruction in their school.	.467	1.533	29	.136
Literacy leaders know the cultures represented in their school/district communities and honor those cultures in their work with staff, community members, parents, and learners.	.525	2.112	29	.043
The district has a literacy plan in place that aligns with the K–12 state literacy plan.	.887	3.616	29	.001
The taught curriculum aligns with the written-district literacy plan.	.910	2.898	29	.007
Personnel practices support and align with the literacy plan.	.769	2.644	29	.013
Resources are dedicated to meeting literacy goals as defined in school/district literacy plan.	.727	2.083	29	.046
Daily schedules include appropriate time for collaborative planning.	.366	.769	29	.448
Teachers receive training on the integration of literacy into all content areas.	.958	2.570	29	.016
The written curriculum represents a culturally responsive plan for teaching and learning.	.669	1.663	29	.107
The written curriculum explicitly integrates different literacy modes such as digital, visual, material, and performance literacies.	.487	1.882	29	.070
Data from summative assessments are used to target interventions and make program changes.	.748	2.350	29	.026
Educators receive professional development to support their use of appropriate assessment tools.	.455	.849	29	.403
All assessments result in purposeful and relevant data that are shared with appropriate educators.	.806	3.340	29	.002
School programs and practices engage families and partners in literacy development.	.678	1.980	29	.057
Students’ communities and families are acknowledged and welcomed by the school.	.616	3.003	29	.005

Results from the paired t tests of before and after surveys showed that educators reported a positive increase in agreement with the following statements regarding literary leadership: (a) literacy leaders know the cultures represented in their school/district communities and honor those cultures in their work with staff, community members, parents, and learners (t(29) = 2.11; p = .043; d = .37); (b) teachers receive training on the integration of literacy into all content areas (t(29) = 2.57; p = .016; d = .47); (c) resources are dedicated to meeting literacy goals as defined in school/district literacy plan (t(29) = 2.08; p = .046; d = .38); and (d) students’ communities and families are acknowledged and welcomed by the school (t(29) = 3.003; p = .005; d = .55).

Additionally, two themes from the qualitative data addressed Research Question 2: (a) activating teacher leadership and (b) connecting theory and practice. Each of these themes is described in turn.

Activating Teacher Leadership

Teacher leadership was central to the framework guiding our work with schools. A teacher in the evaluations noted that this was not how initiatives were usually run at their school saying: “I am not sure the administration fully understands the [codesign] process; it is contrary to how things typically happen at the school. I am hopeful that with the support of the grant team, there will be systemic change.” They hoped that this example of teacher leadership at the building level would direct change for other initiatives in the future to enact teacher leadership. In the evaluation data, a participant reported on the literacy action plan codesign process: “It allows me as a teacher to have input and create actual real steps that will help my students instead of being told from the ‘top’ what I should be doing to help my students.” This quote highlights the professional and relational knowledge that teachers have of their students that they were able to bring to the codesigned plan.

As part of their process, participants engaged in inquiry and discussion with each other. Reflecting on this, a participant observed, “During this process, I have learned so much from the other teachers and implemented some of their ideas into my classroom.” One teacher commented that from the summer PL she gained “learning about ways to improve my craft of teaching reading and writing, reminding me of the importance of being a researcher within my classroom.” Participants also created action steps in their plans for professional learning from and with each other. Teachers prioritized what they needed to learn to meet their literacy action plan goals and identified people within their buildings who could teach them what they needed.

As the wealth of knowledge within the school became apparent, 15 schools created specific goals to systematize learning from each other. For example, an urban elementary school with a history of scripted curriculum and district-run professional development wrote this goal: “Create opportunities for teachers and literacy coaches to lead and model classroom strategies and create opportunities to collaborate on new ideas.” And another elementary team from the same district wrote: “Develop and implement a protocol that allows teachers to observe other literacy lessons during data teams.” An elementary school in another urban district chose to make a priority goal to systematically build teacher leadership capacity in their school: “Empower all teachers to become teacher leaders through targeted coaching feedback and development.” Overall, the theme of systematizing teacher leadership shows both the need for and progress made toward valuing the professionalism of teachers.

Connecting Theory and Practice

The data from this study indicate that participants applied an expansive view of literacy and considered the cognitive, affective, and cultural dimensions of teaching and learning when designing their literacy action plans. Codes included a focus on cognitive reading skills. For example, a suburban school wrote as their action plan priority goal: “Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the science of reading in the classrooms.” And an urban elementary school wrote: “Connect the science of reading to resources.” Additionally, codes included fostering a culture of literacy; for example, a priority goal was “Create a community that values reading, building excitement for reading and engaging the school community in literacy through book-related activities and events,” as well as fostering culturally responsive literacy, for example, “Implement thematic units with culturally responsive texts in content areas.” Table 7 shows the frequency of these three codes by region. The RPP process allowed for teams to write and implement their goals and action steps in response to their needs, so during the third year, while one school was “diving deep into phonics,” another school was “beginning schoolwide PD [professional development] on culturally responsive pedagogy” as part of their literacy plans.

Table 7

Priority Goal Codes Frequency.

Location	Cognitive foundations of reading	Culture of literacy	Culturally responsive literacy
St. Louis	25	23	10
Kansas City	25	3	10
At large	5	24	1

The literacy plan process and documents included the literacy-based theories and research that supported the practices proposed. As teachers reviewed the plans, they were reminded of the connections between theory and practice. Such a reminder does not make for a natural transfer to teaching, as one comment demonstrated: “It’s always easy to slip back into the way I’ve done it in the past. I need to stay focused on making these positive changes.” Connecting theory to practice requires intention on the part of the teachers. The iterative planning process provided regular reminders of what we were doing, why, and how. Another participant noted the challenges of “systemically distributing, implementing, and following up on a culture of literacy and the strategies that were offered.” The challenge for teachers and for those guiding the literacy plan work is in internalizing the way we establish a culture of literacy so that it is not discreet strategies taught but a deeper connection of theory and practice.

Across data sources, participants adopted multiple theories with a both/and approach. Italics are added to the exemplary statements displayed in Table 8. In all, “both/and” statements centered on the immediate, skill-centered instructional practices and their long-term dividends in creating engaged and informed lifelong learners whose critical thinking skills allow them to meaningfully contribute to various communities.

Table 8

Statements Showing the Both/And Approach to Literacy.

Exemplary statements
“By doing so, student engagement, student participation, and student learning will increase.”
“Improving literacy means increasing students’ understanding and confidence in speaking, writing, and reading.”
“For my students to be able to think about what they are reading and express their thoughts and to become lifelong learners.”
“Improved literacy means creating a learning environment where students enjoy reading/writing and these skills are used in their everyday life.”
“Improving literacy in my classroom means that my students will be able to read for comprehension and be able to function at a good level to meet or exceed expectations in their classwork in other classes. It also means that my students will learn to love reading for the sake of enjoyment.”
“[After implementing the plan, we will see that] students are stronger, more confident, and more enthusiastic in and about literacy.”
“I think systemically distributing, implementing, and following up on a culture of literacy and the strategies that were offered.”

Discussion

At the time of this study, there was no empirical research on how local literacy action plans support teachers in taking action to address students’ literacy needs. Nonetheless, literacy plans are routinely created at state, district, and school levels. These plans cannot impact change, however, if they are not enacted in teachers’ day-to-day practices (Fernandez, 2011; Irvin et al., 2007; Snow et al., 2008). Our approach to facilitating the development of literacy action plans stemmed from an aim to be responsive to the varying school contexts and PL needs of teachers and to co-create a participatory culture where collaboration thrives. We believe that there is a place for literacy plans to provide a framework to elicit teacher input on essential literacy practices that further the goals of schools and improve student learning outcomes. However, to be effective, educators need a stake in literacy plans; they need to know that their expertise matters. Our data indicated that there was increased buy-in for literacy initiatives when teachers were brought to the decision-making table. This finding corroborates previous scholarship on SIPs that calls for teachers to be part of the decision-making process (DeMatthews & Wang, 2023; Mbugua & Rarieya, 2014). Our data showed that when provided with structure and an opportunity for input, teachers’ voices can bring to life plans that otherwise might seem lofty and unobtainable and create possibilities for sustainable change.

Former research on RPPs demonstrated that researchers and practitioners often have different timelines (Farrell et al., 2021). The extended process of assessing needs and assets provided an important starting point for us in understanding the unique circumstances of each school. It was through our initial conversations with schools that we were able to (a) build relationships, (b) position teacher leaders as equal partners, and (c) establish inquiry as a stance for our work together. Our data suggested that schools valued us as partners who provided structures for collaborative inquiry and supported their inquiry by pointing them to research that justified promising practices and helped them to reconsider practices without a strong evidence base. The results of this study demonstrate that sustained partnership of literacy researchers with building and teacher leaders facilitates understanding and use of research in their local literacy plans.

The initial needs and assets assessment provided school teams with a starting place for their collaborative efforts. As they reviewed needs and assets, schools developed shared goals and created vision statements that built from the strengths that already existed while designing imagined futures to drive transformation. Importantly, these conversations opened spaces for more expansive views of literacy that moved beyond a singular focus on cognitive skills building to more fully incorporate aspects of student engagement with literacy and school cultures of literacy. Rather than simply experiencing changes initiated from above, the process created opportunities for teacher agency in articulating pathways for change, a condition the findings suggest is necessary for sustainable school change. If literacy plans are to “live,” teachers need to be continuously supported as leaders in their schools. In addition, teams of teachers need ongoing time for collaborative inquiry. They need time to analyze student work, determine appropriate assessments, and review research-based practices that will help them target their students’ evolving needs.

The process of co-creating literacy action plans brought about tensions while also providing opportunities to work through the tensions. For example, our analysis of the needs and assets data at a statewide level revealed the statement, “Students’ communities and families are acknowledged and welcomed by the school,” as an asset with one of the highest means across the state. However, the same analysis showed needs around developing a culturally responsive written curriculum and engaging families and community partners in literacy development. Addressing this tension afforded space for reflecting on actions and impact. Schools had to account for the fact that a welcoming attitude was not the same as taking action to promote culturally responsive pedagogies. For example, when schools outlined action steps related to creating an inclusive schoolwide culture of literacy, they also had to grapple with questions such as, How do we assess classroom and school library collections for cultural and linguistic representation? or How do we design schoolwide literacy events that not only honor family diversity but also position students’ cultural and linguistic resources as essential and necessary to literacy development? Engaging in the process provided an opportunity for educators to identify actions that would have a positive impact on the students, families, and communities that they served.

Despite the positive momentum that resulted as educators reflected on action and impact, we believe that this is an area ripe for further study and improvement. Although a focus on school culture offered a starting point for conversations about culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogies, many schools stopped short of creating goals and action steps aimed to more fully enact culturally responsive practices within their literacy curricula. Our PL was a collaborative, inquiry-based endeavor. Although we provided professional learning and asked schools to consider issues regarding culturally responsive teaching, we did not mandate that they include or prioritize culturally responsive teaching. Data showed that teachers believed that cultural responsiveness was important, and we witnessed personal transformations; however, with many competing priorities for the school literacy plans, culturally responsive teaching did not always rise to the top. As Jenkins (2018) said, becoming culturally responsive does not happen overnight, but over time, transformation can occur (para 13). Although the literacy plans do not necessarily document that transformation at a systematic level, they do contain evidence of a bend in the arc that points to asset-based approaches and culturally responsive pedagogy.

Considering that the context of our study was the 2020–23 school years, it is also possible that teachers were reluctant to document culturally responsive commitments on a public document. Zapata et al. (2024) describes 2020–23 as a time when teachers were negotiating backlash to racial equity movements, widespread censorship, concerns about “learning loss” from the pandemic, and “back to basics” legislation (p. 3). In fact, 2020–23 was the height of science-of-reading legislation, with Washington, DC, and 38 states passing laws (Schwartz, 2024), Missouri, also the context of this study, being one.

Our findings demonstrate that more intentional structures need to be put in place that allow time for deepened reflection and learning on how culturally responsive and equity-focused literacy instruction is fundamental to any other priority a school has. In addition, previous research on transformative change in schools has demonstrated that even when educators are committed to social justice, bridging theory with daily practice is not easy (Brooks et al., 2007). Continued collaboration provides an opportunity for the partners to bridge theory and practice and support teachers in taking action if the ultimate aim is to enact culturally and historically responsive, antiracist literacy education (Merchant & Shoho, 2006).

Implications for Practice and Policy

According to a study by Snow et al. (2008) of a RPP on literacy plans, “their greatest challenges lay inn ensuring that reading research drove policies and in providing high-quality teacher professional development” (p. 227). Professional learning that is connected to the development of a school literacy plan holds promise for meeting these two challenges aligned with what are known to be effective practices. Co-constructing a school literacy plan provided opportunities for PL that involved (a) understanding of research, (b) collaboration with other professionals, (c) active learning for teachers, (d) reflection as part of feedback, and (e) time investment to sustain the work, all features that Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) suggest should be found in PL. At the same time, providing PL based on needs that arose through the literacy plan design process created an infrastructure for responsiveness to local contexts, a component necessary when scaling educational change initiatives (Mbugua & Rarieya, 2014; Patfield et al., 2023).

Our aim was to avoid the pitfalls of creating more work and entrenching rigidity (Huber & Conway, 2015; Levine & Leibert, 1987; McLaughlin, 1993; Mintzberg, 1994). Of course, collaborating on the literacy action plan was hard work and did create a heavier load above what educators were already tasked with. However, we provided compensation for work conducted outside of contracted hours and aimed to align the work with other initiatives in the school whenever possible, such as including the literacy goals in the SIP. Overall, data showed educators perceived the work positively. More research is needed on the role of teachers in planning for improvement in ways that value their expertise and that do not feel burdensome to teachers.

Second, in our experience, teams wanted a template for a literacy action plan. However, research on SIPs suggests that templates can create rigidity and hinder a fruitful process (Meyers & VanGronigen, 2019, 2021). Research and our own experience indicate that templates may create a good product on evaluation at the surface level but may not actually impact change. The limited research on creating literacy action plans (cf Witte et al., 2010) suggests that the power in creating change is the collaborative process of creating the plan and not the written plan itself. To balance this tension, we broke down the action plan writing into phases and provided examples and guiding questions for teams to discuss for each phase. We also provided a checklist that could be used as a tool for reflection. Items on the checklist focused on components that previous research demonstrated affect change (e.g., Carvalho et al., 2022; Fernandez, 2011; Strunk et al., 2016). Our results indicated an increase in quantity of literacy action plans and consistency of components identified as impacting implementation and student outcomes from previous research.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This study explored the process model for designing local literacy action plans. We believe that the lessons learned may be transferable to other contexts (Yin, 2016) specific to creating school literacy action plans and more broadly to district and state literacy plans or school improvement plans. Future research can investigate the participatory process in other contexts to determine what is generalizable and what conditions are necessary for success. Additionally, as Fernandez (2011) asserted, “Many organizations attempt to engage in formal planning but not many are successful in producing effective plans or there may be a disconnect between planning and the actual execution of a plan” (p. 6). A delimitation of this study is that it did not explore student outcomes. Future research can investigate the implementation of local literacy action plans and impact on youth literacy outcomes to provide an evidence base to guide future work.

Conclusion

Because writing plans for improvement is part of our current reality in pre-K–12 schools, it is imperative that research share promising practices to make the process meaningful and the products useful in supporting teaching and learning. Our study presented a process that centered teachers as experts in their craft and change agents in their communities. The benefits of collaboration, teacher leadership, and connecting literacy theory and practice that teachers experienced in the collaborative literacy planning process are benefits that have a direct impact on school culture and classroom practice. The better the process, the more likely it is to help move schools forward toward sustainable, transformative change to best support learners.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-ero-10.1177_23328584251329906 – Supplemental material for Honoring Local Context: Designing Collaborative Pre-K–12 School Literacy Action Plans

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-ero-10.1177_23328584251329906 for Honoring Local Context: Designing Collaborative Pre-K–12 School Literacy Action Plans by Shea N. Kerkhoff, Amy Lannin, Katie Kline, Katherine O’Daniels, Julie Sheerman, Nancy R. Singer, Laura Obubo, Diana Hammond, Tracy Brosch, Nicole Higgins and Astri Napitupulu in AERA Open

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

ORCID iDs

Shea N. Kerkhoff

Amy Lannin

Authors

SHEA KERKHOFF is an associate professor of literacy and secondary education in the Department of Educator Preparation and Leadership at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. Her research focuses on adolescent literacy and global education

KATIE KLINE directs the Greater Kansas City Writing Project at the University of Central Missouri. She works to improve learning opportunities for all students by working in collaboration with educators across grade levels and disciplines.

AMY LANNIN is director of the Campus Writing Program and associate professor in English Education at the University of Missouri, Columbia. She supports and studies writing and literacies across the curriculum throughout secondary and postsecondary education.

KATHERINE O’DANIELS is an associate teaching professor of literacy education in the Department of Educator Preparation and Leadership at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. She teaches literacy methods courses and codirects the Gateway Writing Project. Her research focuses on in-service teacher professional learning.

JULIE SHEERMAN is codirector of the Missouri Writing Project at the University of Missouri, Columbia. Her research focuses on place-based literacies and disciplinary literacy.

NANCY ROBB SINGER is associate professor and interim dean of the College of Education at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. Her research interests include literacy and preservice teacher support structures.

LAURA OBUBO is a doctoral candidate at the University of Missouri, Columbia. Her research interests cover postcolonial language experiences, critical literacies, decolonial thinking, and transnational African identities.

DIANA HAMMOND has taught English and English as a second language at the middle, high school, and college levels and currently works as a teacher educator, literacy grant coordinator, and codirector of the Gateway Writing Project at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. As a doctoral student, her research interests include professional learning and teacher action research.

TRACY BROSCH codirects the Gateway Writing Project at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. She is a teacher educator and doctoral student studying teaching and learning processes.

NICOLE HIGGINS is an assistant professor of English and Africana studies at the University of Central Missouri. Her research focuses on creative writing and Black literature and cultural production.

ASTRI NAPITUPULU is a doctoral student and a graduate research assistant at the University of Missouri, St. Louis, with 11 years of teaching experience in a public high school in Indonesia. She identifies as a student visa holder, a multilingual, and a woman of color from the Global South and has research interests in transnational social justice and the intersections of teaching praxis and education policies.

References

Adams

Mauck

K. S.

Stark

(2018). A problem-based learning project investigating Missouri elementary administrator preparedness in leading literacy instruction [Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University].

Anderson

(2017). Participatory action research (PAR) as democratic disruption: New public management and educational research in schools and universities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(5), 432–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1303211

Baker-Bell

(2020). “We been knowin”: Toward an antiracist language and literacy education. Journal of Literacy and Language Education, 16(1), 1–12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1253929.pdf

Barton

Hamilton

(2000). Literacy practices. In Barton

Hamilton

Ivanič

(Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). Routledge.

Bates

Breslow

Hupert

(2009). Five states’ efforts to improve adolescent literacy. Issues & answers (REL 2009-No. 067). Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504786

Brooks

Jean-Marie

Normore

Hodgins

(2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460701700402

Butler

D. L.

Schnellert

MacNeil

(2015). Collaborative inquiry and distributed agency in educational change: A case study of a multi-level community of inquiry. Journal of Educational Change, 16(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9227-z

Carvalho

Cabral

Verdasca

Alves

(2022). Strategic action plans for school improvement: An exploratory study about quality indicators for schools’ plan evaluation. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 13(1), 143–163. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/37260

Clay

(1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Heinemann.

10.

Cochran-Smith

Lytle

S. L.

(2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research in the next generation. Teachers College Press.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.

12.

Darling-Hammond

(2021). Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1919080

13.

Darling-Hammond

Hyler

M. E.

Gardner

(2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

14.

DeCuir-Gunby

J. T.

(2020). Using critical race mixed methodology to explore the experiences of African Americans in education. Educational Psychologist, 55(4), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1793762

15.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Wang

(2023). How can principals lead in the school improvement planning process? Reducing biases in shared decision making. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 96(2), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2022.2163971

16.

Duke

N. K.

Cartwright

K. B.

(2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(suppl 1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411

17.

Farrell

C. C.

Penuel

W. R.

Coburn

C. E.

Daniel

Steup

(2021). Practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/research-practice-partnerships-in-education-the-state-of-the-field

18.

Fernanders

Belson

S. I.

(2023). The role of school leaders in increasing access to literacy interventions. In Robinson

S. A.

Ellis

A. L.

(Eds.), Critical literacy and its impact on Black boys’ reading readiness (pp. 97–114). Information Age Publishing.

19.

Fernandez

K. E.

(2011). Evaluating school improvement plans and their effect on academic performance. Educational Policy, 25(2), 338–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904809351693

20.

Gee

J. P.

(2015). Social linguistics and literacies (5th ed.). Routledge.

21.

Hopkins

Weddle

Gluckman

Gaustch

(2019). Boundary crossing in a professional association: The dynamics of research use among state leaders and researchers in a research-practice partnership. AERA Open, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419891964

22.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

23.

Huber

D. J.

Conway

J. M.

(2015). The effect of school improvement planning on student achievement. Planning and Changing, 46(1/2), 56–70.

24.

Irvin

J. L.

Meltzer

Dukes

(2007). Taking action on adolescent literacy: An implementation guide for school leaders. ASCD.

25.

Jenkins

C. M.

(2018). Educators question your level of cultural responsiveness. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 2(3/4), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.26077/kttj-v296

26.

Katz

Dack

L. A.

(2014). Towards a culture of inquiry for data use in schools: Breaking down professional learning barriers through intentional interruption. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.006

27.

Kee

Anderson

Dearing

Harris

Shuster

(2010). Results coaching: The new essential for school leaders. Corwin.

28.

Kerkhoff

S. N.

Kline

Lannin

O’Daniels

K. A.

Sherman

Singer

(2023a). Co-creating school literacy action plans: Leading responsive and sustainable action for change in times of turmoil. Literacy Today. International Literacy Association. http://bit.ly/426e28l

29.

Kerkhoff

S. N.

Kline

Lannin

O’Daniels

K. A.

Sheerman

Singer

N. R.

Brosch

Hammond

Obubo

(2023b). Teacher-generated literacy action plans: School improvement that starts with teachers. English Leadership Quarterly, 45(3), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.58680/elq202332291

30.

Lecos

(1997). The promise of professional development schools. George Washington University.

31.

Lee

C. C.

Falter

M. M.

Alston

C. L.

(2021). Antiracist teaching in English language arts: Toward a full humanity for all students. Language Arts, 99(1), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.58680/la202131414

32.

Levine

D. U.

Leibert

R. E.

(1987). Improving school improvement plans. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1086/461504

33.

Mbugua

Rarieya

J. F. A.

(2014). Collaborative strategic planning: Myth or reality? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213499258

34.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In Little

McLaughlin

(Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 79–103). Teachers College Press.

35.

Merchant

B. M.

Shoho

A. R.

(2006). Bridge people: Civic and educational leaders for social justice. In Marshall

Oliva

(Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 85–109). Pearson Education.

36.

Merga

M. K.

Roni

S. M.

Malpique

(2021). School leadership and whole-school support of struggling literacy learners in secondary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 534–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220905036

37.

Metz

(2019). Accommodating linguistic prejudice? Examining English teachers’ language ideologies. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 18(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-09-2018-0081

38.

Meyers

C. V.

VanGronigen

B. A.

(2019). A lack of authentic school improvement plan development: Evidence of principal satisficing behavior. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0154

39.

Meyers

C. V.

VanGronigen

B. A.

(2021). Planning for what? An analysis of root cause quality and content in school improvement plans. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(4), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2020-0156

40.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Salndana

(2016). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.

41.

Mintzberg

(1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Free Press.

42.

Morgan

G. A.

Barrett

K. C.

Leech

N. L.

Gloeckner

G. W.

(2019). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. Routledge.

43.

Muhammad

(2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. Scholastic Press.

44.

Napitupulu

Easterling

Hamm

Kerkhoff

S. N.

O’Daniels

K. A.

Singer

N. R.

Hammond

Brosch

(2023). Centering teacher expertise, needs, and wellbeing in inservice teacher education. Education Sciences, 13(7), 753. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070753

45.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. DOI: 10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

46.

OESE. (2023). Comprehensive literacy state development: Funding information. https://bit.ly/43gtj4S

47.

Patfield

Gore

Harris

(2023). Shifting the focus of research on effective professional development: Insights from a case study of implementation. Journal of Educational Change, 24, 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09446-y

48.

Penuel

W. R.

Briggs

D. C.

Davidson

K. L.

Herlihy

Sherer

Hill

H. C.

Farrell

Allen

A. R.

(2017). How school and district leaders access, perceive, and use research. AERA Open, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417705370

49.

Purcell-Gates

Jacobsen

Degener

(2006). Print literacy development: Uniting cognitive and social practice theories. Harvard University Press.

50.

Reed

L. C.

Swaminathan

(2016). An urban school leader’s approach to school improvement. Urban Education, 51, 1096–1125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914553675

51.

Rogers

Elias

Scheetz

(2021). Pathways to critical literacy leadership: An examination of a cohort model of professional development. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211024626

52.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

53.

Schmoker

(2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. ASCD.

54.

Schwartz

(2024). Which states have passed “science of reading” laws. Edweek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07

55.

Skerrett

Warrington

Williamson

(2018). Generative principles for professional learning for equity-oriented urban English teachers. English Education, 50(2), 116–146. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee201829439

56.

Snow

Martin

Berman

(2008). State literacy plans: Incorporating adolescent literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.m96u215h587348hn

57.

Souto-Manning

(2019). “Good teaching” and “good teachers” for whom? Critically troubling standardized and corporatized notions of quality in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 121(10), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912101003

58.

Spires

H. A.

Kerkhoff

S. N.

Fortune

(2018). Educational cosmopolitanism and collaborative inquiry with Chinese and US teachers. Teaching Education, 30(4) 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1506431

59.

Stephens

Morgan

D. N.

DeFord

D. E.

Donnelly

Hamel

Keith

K. J.

Brink

D. A.

Johnson

Seaman

Young

Gallant

D. J.

Hao

S. Q.

Leigh

S. R.

(2011). The impact of literacy coaches on teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(3), 215–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11413716

60.

Street

B. V.

(2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91.https://doi.org/10.52214/cice.v5i2.11369

61.

Strunk

K. O.

Marsh

J. A.

Bush-Mecenas

S. C.

Duque

M. R.

(2016). The best laid plans: An examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 259–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616864

62.

Theoharis

Haddix

(2011). Undermining racism and a whiteness ideology: White principals living a commitment to equitable and excellent schools. Urban Education, 46(6), 1332–1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911416012

63.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

64.

Witte

Beemer

Arjona

(2010). “Re-Vision”: Our journey in developing a secondary literacy plan. American Secondary Education, 39(1), 15–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41406180

65.

Yin

R. K.

(2016). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford Press.

66.

Zapata

Adu-Gyamfi

González Ybarra

(2024). “I want to say the right thing”: Developing translingual literacy practices through early care educator and university researcher partnerships. Occasional Paper Series, 2024(51), 7. https://doi.org/10.58295/2375-3668.1512

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.78 MB