Automated Template A: Created by James Nail 2011 V2.02

Self-contained to departmentalization: A case study of academic achievement in fifth

grade classes at an urban elementary school

By

Lynn Antoinette Horton

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in Elementary, Middle, and Secondary Education Administration in the Department of Leadership and Foundations

Mississippi State, Mississippi

December 2013

Copyright by

Lynn Antoinette Horton

2013

Self-contained to departmentalization: A case study of academic achievement in fifth

grade classes at an urban elementary school

By

Lynn Antoinette Horton

Approved:

____________________________________ R. Dwight Hare

(Major Professor)

____________________________________ James E. Davis

(Committee Member)

____________________________________ Penny Wallin

(Committee Member)

____________________________________ Matthew Boggan

(Committee Member)

____________________________________ David T. Morse

(Graduate Coordinator)

____________________________________ Richard L. Blackbourn

Dean College of Education

Name: Lynn Antoinette Horton Date of Degree: December 14, 2013 Institution: Mississippi State University Major Field: Elementary, Middle, and Secondary Education Administration Major Professor: R. Dwight Hare Title of Study: Self-contained to departmentalization: A case study of academic

achievement in fifth grade classes at an urban elementary school Pages in Study: 191 Candidate for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

With the escalating accountability requirements under No Child Left Behind

(NCLB), educators face intensified pressure to increase student achievement. As

principals strive to meet the demands of federal and state mandates intended to close the

achievement gap, schools often implement various organizational structures to help

improve student achievement. Changing how schools and classrooms are organized for

instruction as a strategy for school improvement has been one response to this pressure.

Elmore, Peterson, and McCarthy (1996) believed that changing the way schools are

organized will cause teachers to teach differently; hence students will learn differently,

and the overall performance of schools will increase.

Many organizational patterns in elementary schools have been controversial

issues for decades. One of these issues is the implementation of departmentalized

classrooms in the fifth grade. Because many elementary students receive their education

in a self-contained classroom from one teacher who is responsible for teaching all

academic subjects, the implementation of departmentalization may address the pitfalls of

the self-contained organizational setting. In the departmentalized setting, teachers provide

instruction in their area of specialization and students experience greater success.

Furthermore, departmentalization may help elementary schools respond to state standards

while seeking to produce higher achievement among students.

Many studies have examined the impact of departmentalization on student

achievement with numerous opinions on the issue. The literature, however, is dated and

lacks empirical evidence. As very little research explores departmentalization at the

elementary level, this case study explored how departmentalization impacted staff,

students, and academic achievement at an urban elementary school in Mississippi. The

data collection included interviews with teachers, surveys from staff and students,

observations of classrooms and planning sessions, and analysis of Mississippi Curriculum

Test, II (MCT2) data. The findings of this case study revealed students were exposed to

multiple teaching strategies from teachers who were able to use their planning time to

create learning activities and assessments for fewer subjects. As departmentalization

enhanced the fifth grade teachers’ accountability for the students’ academic and behavior

performances, the teachers felt pressured into adjusting their lessons to the 90 minutes

block schedule.

Key words: accountability, achievement, departmentalization

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to the Joy of my life. Joy Monique Horton Winding

lived her life well. With a lovely smile and unconditional love, she acted upon her

spiritual beliefs conscientiously by assisting anyone in need. Joy left a legacy of love

among the many lives that she touched through countless acts of kindness. At the age of

29, God saw that she was getting tired and a cure was not to be, so He put His arms

around her and whispered, “Joy come with Me”. I will forever be grateful to cherish all

the beautiful memories of you. You are truly missed more than I can ever express and my

love for you, dear sister, will never grow less.

The memory of a good person is a blessing. Proverbs 10:7

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When setting goals for myself, there were always obstacles in the way to deter me

from accomplishing those goals. There were also people in my life who were aware of

those goals and encouraged me to continue regardless of the obstacles. Now, I can

formally thank those people for doing that for me. However, I must first give honor and

glory to God for blessing me with the strength, courage, and determination to attain this

goal. As stated in Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ which stregtheneth

me.” I am also grateful that God has blessed me with a passion for educating youth and

assisting in their educational endeavors.

Although many have been influential in helping me to accomplish this goal, it is a

pleasure to thank my family for being the motivational force in the completion of this

dissertation. I would not be as strong as I am today without your love, so words cannot

adequately describe my deep gratitude for all you have provided me. I owe my deepest

appreciation to my parents, Earl and Ada Horton. You taught me at an early age the

importance of education. With your unconditional love, support, and guidance throughout

my life, I have always been capable of attaining any task or goal. My gratitude is also

extended to my sister, Sevee Patterson, for a special bond of love and devotion. You have

been a great source of support and encouragement. I am also fortunate to have two loving

and supportive brother-in-laws, Michael Patterson and Kelvin Winding. Both of you

continued to see my potential in spite of the frustration as I became overwhelmed with

iv

this project. As for as my nieces and nephews (Kellie, Nya, Rachel, Alan, and Michael),

your understanding during this process came without request. I pray that you will always

value education and work hard to achieve your dreams and goals.

A heartfelt appreciation is extended to my loving and devoted companion and

friend, Roosevelt Owens, Jr. As my soul mate, you have always been the wind beneath

my wings. Thank you does not do justice for the gratitude I feel for your love, support,

and encouragement.

It is an honor to thank my advisor, Dr. Rufus Dwight Hare, who was more than

generous with his time and expertise. Your willingness to assist me has been a major

support in my accomplishment. You were always ready for questions and, of course,

always had the answers. Your high level of expectations made me work harder than I

have ever worked in my life. You are definitely a guide to success. Also thanks to my

committee members who offered guidance and support to improve my research study.

I would like to express sincere appreciation to other family members, friends,

colleagues, and students who supported me during the completion of this study. Your

prayers and encouragement have helped in tremendous ways. However, my deep

appreciation is extended to Ms. Harris, Ms. Price, Mrs. Jacome, Mrs. Hughes, and Mrs.

Williams who assisted and supported me with their investment of time. Your input has

been a tremendous value to this project. I must acknowledge Ursula and LaTrice for a

bond of friendship that has made an everlasting impact on my life. The two of you have

truly been my “Rocks of Gibraltar” Thanks for the motivation and encouragement.

My appreciation is extended to my former bosses, Dr. Sanders, Dr. Ellis, Mrs.

Clark, and Mrs. Jones, for serving as role models, mentors, and friends. Each of you

v

played an integral role in my professional growth by sharing your leadership expertise. I

am so blessed to have been a member of your instructional leadership teams. All of you

are the light which guides my path in the decision making process of leadership.

Lastly, my love for children and the desire to help them succeed in their world is

another reason that I pursued this goal. I hope that my work will someday change the

lives of young people. Without the students, parents, and staff at an urban elementary

school in Mississippi, I could not have completed this case study. I will forever be

appreciative of your willingness to participate in this project. Thanks for serving as

participants in this case study.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1

Purpose of Study ................................................................................................6 Research Question .............................................................................................7 Definition of Terms............................................................................................8 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................10 Conceptual Framework of Study .....................................................................13 Overview of Research Design .........................................................................14 Overview of Methodology ...............................................................................15

Delimitations of Study .....................................................................................16 Significance of the Study .................................................................................16 Organization of Dissertation ............................................................................17

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .......................................................18

Organization of Chapter ...................................................................................19 History of Elementary Education .....................................................................20

History of Departmentalization ........................................................................21 Related Studies.................................................................................................22 Advantages and Disadvantages of Departmentalization ..................................24 Mandates of NCLB Act ...................................................................................28 Highly Qualified Staff......................................................................................30

Professional Development ...............................................................................33 Organizational Strategies and Planning ...........................................................34

Shared Decision Making and Empowerment ..................................................36 Departmentalized Classroom Structure and Scheduling..................................38 Instructional Time ............................................................................................41

Precursors of Student Achievement .................................................................42 Effective Teaching Strategies ..........................................................................44

vii

Teacher Beliefs and Personal Qualities ...........................................................47

Impact of Instructional Leadership ..................................................................49 Summary of Literature Review ........................................................................51

III. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY .............................................................56

Description of Research Design and Methodology .........................................56 Researcher’s Role ............................................................................................60 Description of Participants ...............................................................................66 Research Question ...........................................................................................67 Research Site ....................................................................................................68 Data Collection ................................................................................................69 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................71 Trustworthiness ................................................................................................73

IV. RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY ................................................................75

Overview of the Chapter ..................................................................................75 Case Introduction: Changing the School’s Structure .......................................76 Instructional Staff.............................................................................................83

Ms. McGee .................................................................................................87 Ms. Hazel ...................................................................................................91 Ms. Hayes ..................................................................................................95 Mrs. Weathersby ........................................................................................97 Ms. Gray ..................................................................................................100 Mrs. Sam ..................................................................................................103 Ms. Wheeler .............................................................................................107

Mrs. Green ...............................................................................................109 Mrs. Jordan ..............................................................................................112

Students ..........................................................................................................115 Research Question .........................................................................................118 Case Analysis: Discussion of Literature and Finding from the Study ...........123 Summary ........................................................................................................128

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................130

Overview of the Chapter ................................................................................131 Summary ........................................................................................................131

Limitations .....................................................................................................144

Delimitations ..................................................................................................145

Recommendations ..........................................................................................145 Stakeholders .............................................................................................146 Future Research .......................................................................................147

viii

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................150

APPENDIX

A. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD’S LETTER ......................................159

B. RESUMÉ .......................................................................................................161

C. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...........................................................................166

D. DATA COLLECTION FOR STUDENTS ....................................................168

E. DATA COLLECTION FOR TEACHERS ....................................................172

F. TABLES ........................................................................................................178

ix

LIST OF TABLES

1 Level of Mississippi Teaching Licenses ..........................................................179

2 Certification Codes of Participants ..................................................................179

3 Teaching Experience ........................................................................................179

4 Years Teaching 5th Grade ................................................................................179

5 Number of College Level Training Courses ....................................................180

6 Perceptions of Adequacy of Initial College Training .......................................180

7 College-Level Training in the Area of Reading Language Arts ......................180

8 College-Level Training in the Area of Mathematics........................................180

9 Teachers’ Input in the Decision-Making Process at School ............................181

10 Belief that Teachers with Specialized Training Can Better Serve ...................181

11 Workshops or Training Classes in Pedagogical Reading Language Arts Strategies ..............................................................................................181

12 Training Classes or Pedagogical Training in Mathematics ..............................181

13 Professional Development on the District or State Curricula and Performance Standards .........................................................................182

14 Professional Development on Utilizing Data ...................................................182

15 Professional Development or Pedagogical Training in Reading Language Arts ......................................................................................182

16 Professional Development or Pedagogical Training in Mathematics ..............182

17 Professional Development on Addressing the Needs of Students with Disabilities ............................................................................................183

18 Frequency of Ranking of Core Subjects Teachers Most Enjoy Teaching .......183

x

19 Descriptives of Ranking of Core Subjects Teachers Most Enjoy Teaching ...............................................................................................183

20 Ranking of Subjects Teachers Feel Most Effective Teaching .........................184

21 Frequency of Ranking of Subjects Teachers Feel Most Effective Teaching ...............................................................................................184

22 Descriptives of Ranking of Subjects Teachers Feel Most Effective Teaching ...............................................................................................184

23 Fifth Grade Academic Year as First Time Students Received Instruction in a Departmentalized Organizational Setting .....................................185

24 Teachers’ Preference for the Classroom Organizational Structure for Fifth Grade Students .............................................................................185

25 Personal Preference for the Classroom Organizational Structure for Fifth Grade Students .............................................................................185

26 Students Develop a Close Relationship with Teachers ....................................185

27 Departmentalization Organizational Structure Has a Positive Effect ..............186

28 Students’ Approval of Teacher's Instructional Style ........................................186

29 Standards Taught in a More Detailed and Comprehensive Manner ................186

30 Teachers Allow Students to Have Input ...........................................................186

31 Lessons More Engaging and Interesting ..........................................................186

32 Understanding of What the Teacher Wanted Students to Learn ......................187

33 Paired Samples Statistics—Language Arts Tests .............................................187

34 Paired Samples Statistics—Mathematics Tests ................................................187

35 Independent t-Test—Comparison of Academic Scores for Students’ Preference of Self-Contained and Departmentalization .......................188

36 2010-2011 Comparison of Academic Performance .........................................188

37 Ranking of Core Subjects Teachers Most Enjoy Teaching ..............................189

38 Ranking of Subjects Students Feel Most Enjoyable ........................................190

39 Frequency of Ranking of Subjects Students Feel Most Enjoyable ..................191

xi

40 Descriptives of Ranking of Subjects Students Feel Most Enjoyable ...............191

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

English Language Learner (ELL) Individualized Education Program (IEP) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Mississippi Curriculum Test 2 (MCT2) Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) United States Department of Education (USDE)

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

According to the United States Department of Education (USDE, 2005), the

national trend of low academic achievement has shown little increase since the 1960s.

Students throughout the nation have been assessed using the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP). Since the beginning of administrating NAEP in 1969, test

results have been stagnant with minimal increase in student achievement. With a surplus

of information and resources, it is astonishing to know that students are not scoring

significantly higher today than students from the 1970s.

The impact of curriculum revision in the elementary school in recent years has

generated renewed interest in classroom organization. Increased pressure on teachers to

be competent in teaching the rapidly expanding areas of knowledge has once again

focused attention on the relative merits of the self-contained classroom and the

departmental program. According to Heibert, Gallimore, and Stiger ( 2002), the No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has placed great emphasis on raising academic

standards for students as well as professional standards for educators. The federal

mandates of the NCLB have heightened concerns about students who are performing

below grade level (United State Department of Education[USDE], 2006) . Although test

results are only one measure of student achievement, they have become increasingly

important in assessing student learning. According to the Mississippi Department of

2

Education (MDE, 2011), in the spring of every academic year, Mississippi administers

the Mississippi Curriculum Test 2 (MCT2) to assess students in Grades 3 through 8 on

language arts and mathematics standards. Schools are to utilize the results of the MCT2

to determine if students are meeting grade level standards.

In this case study, the instructional staff at an urban elementary school was

specifically focusing on the performance of fifth grade students on standardized tests.

While some students consistently performed at the proficient level on the MCT2, a large

population of fifth grade students performed at basic or minimal levels. In a previous

group of 72 fifth grade students at this urban elementary school, the standardized scores

from spring 2010 on the MCT2 indicated 38% of students scored at the basic level and

14% of students at the minimal level in language arts. In mathematics, the results

indicated 40% of students scored at the basic level and 11% of students scored at the

minimal level.

After carefully considering issues that involved student achievement and after

analyzing the MCT2 data at an urban elementary school, one possible strategy to increase

student achievement discussed among the fifth grade teachers and support staff was

departmentalization. In many elementary schools, students receive their education in a

single classroom from one teacher who is responsible for teaching language arts, social

studies, mathematics and science. According to Chan and Jarman (2004), the

predominant plan of elementary school organization is known as the self-contained

classrooms. In contrast, departmentalization is a preferred type of classroom organization

for instruction at the middle and high school levels that is sometimes used at the

elementary level. Chan and Jarman (2004) stated departmentalization allows teachers to

3

teach in their area of specialization and students move from one classroom to another for

instruction. The implementation of departmentalization in the elementary school allows

more than one teacher to provide the instruction for various academic subjects.

According to Catledge-Howard, Ward, and Dilworth (2003) in their study involving fifth

grades, implementing departmentalization resulted in instruction of higher quality

because teachers took special pride in their subject-matter discipline and concentrated on

preparing a limited number of compelling and rigorous lessons each day that were

offered to multiple classes. Through departmentalization, three teachers along with the

support staff were departmentalized to teach the fifth grade students at an urban

elementary school. One teacher was responsible for Reading and Language Arts

instruction; another teacher provided instruction in Mathematics; and a third teacher was

responsible for Science and Social Studies instruction. Each teacher provided instruction

daily in a 90-minute block. In this departmentalized setting, the fifth grade teachers also

were assigned to homerooms where they performed certain administrative functions, such

as recording attendance and distributing information.

Departmentalization is an issue in education that needs to be thoroughly

researched. According to Chan and Jarman, (2004), traditional elementary schools are

typically organized into self-contained classrooms as opposed to departmental classes.

The self-contained classroom organization is based on the assumption that an elementary

school teacher is equally strong in all areas of the elementary curriculum. Yet, high stakes

test results indicate that the elementary classroom teachers may not be multi-talented in

all disciplines of the curriculum. Chan and Jarman (2004) reported there have been

concerns about the educational process in the elementary schools which include

4

organizational patterns or grouping strategies including self-contained and

departmentalized classrooms.

Kaufman and Stein (2009) stated that a number of attempts have been made to

revolutionize the delivery of instruction in the elementary school. Educators constantly

reform elementary schools to meet the needs of students. The administrators and fifth

grade instructional staff at an urban elementary school expressed their belief that

departmentalization in the fifth grade would help students meet and exceed the MDE

standards and assist students in the transition to middle school. As Chan and Jarman

(2004) have noted, departmentalization offers the advantages of subject specialization,

instructional teams, transition, and flexibility in instruction.

The first advantage listed by Chan and Jarman (2004) is subject specialization.

Subject specialization enables the teachers to bring various areas of expertise to the class.

Teachers are able to refine their knowledge and instructional strategies according to the

developmental needs of their students (USDE, 2004). As teachers develop an in-depth

mastery of content area knowledge, they are able to communicate students’ growth more

effectively to parents. This expertise allows students to optimize their learning processes

that go beyond the direct instruction (Hwang & Hernandez, 2002). As another result of

subject specialization, students receive more skilled instruction from teachers who

specialize in particular disciplines. From the teachers’ perspective, the instructional time

is better utilized by concentrating on fewer disciplines. Teachers can focus their skills and

have a greater breadth and depth of knowledge in their subject areas (Catledge-Howard et

al., 2003).

5

Instructional teams are another advantage of departmentalization (Chan &

Jarman, 2004). Teams are typically composed of between two and four teachers working

collaboratively to plan thematic units and lesson plans in order to provide a more

supportive environment for students (Coffey, 2008). Students will benefit because they

are exposed to the instructional wisdom of more than one teacher. Students behave and

achieve differently with various teachers and subject matter. Collaboration allows

teachers to develop a more accurate picture of their students, allowing them to better

meet students’ needs (Cousins, 1994). Additionally, team teaching creates an authentic

environment which reflects real life situations through active interactions among learners

and instruction (Hwang & Hernandez, 2002). Working on a team also allows teaching

partners to grow professionally. Collaboration provides for opportunities to solve daily

problems, select appropriate materials, and generate new ideas through brainstorming

(Baker, 1999).

The next advantage of departmentalization mentioned by Chan and Jarman (2004)

is transition. The transition to middle school from elementary school is made easier when

students have prior experience with departmentalized organization. Departmentalization

in the fifth grade offers an excellent solution to the transition problem in addition to all

the benefits of academic specialization. In addition, successful departmentalization

experiences in the fifth grade will prepare students for the academic and social challenges

that await them in secondary school. It is vital that fifth graders have exposure and the

opportunity to develop survival skills as they transition from the egocentrism of

childhood to a group-centered school environment.

6

The final benefit of departmentalization listed by Chan and Jarman (2004) is

flexibility in the learning environment, curriculum, and instruction. Many strategies are

implemented to support a unified, coordinated, and inclusive school. Flexibility is a key

term when thinking of how learners should be grouped for instruction. According to

Ediger (2000), rigid approaches to grouping must be avoided as they do not always take

into consideration of social development and academic achievement.

The Council for Exceptional Children (2005) indicated a heightened sense of

urgency surrounding access to the general curriculum and that student achievement has

evolved in part from the passage of the NCLB. NCLB required all states to have an

educational plan with challenging academic standards in math, reading, and language arts

that apply to all children. Hammenken (1997) noted that the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) required students with disabilities to have access to the general

education curriculum and be included in general state and district-wide assessment

programs with appropriate accommodations. While high stakes testing is influential in a

decision to implement a departmentalized organizational structure, it has benefits that go

beyond simply delivering content. Hammenken (1997) stated departmentalization creates

more opportunities for teachers to collaborate with their colleagues and share their

enthusiasm for their favorite subjects with all students.

Purpose of Study

The way in which an urban elementary school’s fifth grade classrooms are

organized may have a direct impact on students’ educational experiences. In order to

fulfill the school’s mission of providing children with the skills necessary to be

academically proficient and to excel to their fullest potential, school administrators

7

incorporated a change process, which included reorganization of time, materials,

resources, scheduling, curriculum delivery and teachers. Teaching in the 21st Century

calls for effective ways of teaching as well as an effective school organization that will

support more effective ways of teaching.

Most elementary students receive their education in a self-contained classroom

with one teacher who is responsible for teaching all content areas (Chan & Jarman,

2004). It is assumed that a teacher in the self-contained setting is knowledgeable and

competent in teaching all subject areas. Often teachers say they do not feel like they have

enough time to implement what is required nor do they have enough training (McCall,

Janssen, & Riederer, 2008). Therefore, this case study included information about the

implementation of departmentalization, subject specialization, and teacher preparation in

a departmentalized organizational structure. However, in the departmental setting, a

teacher is responsible for designing high quality lessons in one or two content areas. As a

result, there has been renewed interest in the departmental organizational structure in the

elementary classrooms with an attempt to provide a better opportunity for student

achievement. The purpose of this study was to examine the change of fifth grade classes

from a self-contained structure to a departmentalized structure. This case study sought to

understand the impact that departmentalization had on staff, students, and academic

achievement in the fifth grade. From the analysis of data, this study added to the research

literature on determining the feasibility of departmentalization in the fifth grade.

Research Question

This case study was guided by the following question that explored the impact

that departmentalization has on teachers and staff, and on student academic achievement:

8

How do the fifth grade staff and students transition from a self-contained

organizational structure to a departmentalized organizational structure?

The research questions below were generated to understand fully the impact of

departmentalization:

1. What is the preferred organizational structure for fifth grade education after

transitioning from a self-contained to a departmentalized structure?

2. Is departmentalization a more effective practice when attempting to raise student

proficiency levels and content understanding as evidenced by MCT2 scores?

3. Is there a significant difference in the academic achievement among fourth grade

students enrolled in a self-contained setting and those same students enrolled in a

fifth grade departmentalized organizational structure as measured by the MCT2

results?

4. How do teachers rank the courses they enjoy and in which they believe they are

most effective teaching?

5. How do the students rank the courses they enjoy the most?

6. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the impact of departmentalization in their

school?

Definition of Terms

Since there is inconsistent terminology in the literature, the following have been

defined to enhance the reader’s understanding of terms used throughout this case study:

Accuracy is the ability of an individual to perform a skill correctly.

Assessment refers to the process of collecting, synthesizing, and interpreting

information.

9

Content is the subject matter being taught in the classroom.

Co-teaching/Team teaching involves a general education teacher and a special

education teacher who share the responsibility of teaching students with diverse academic

needs in a classroom.

Culture is the learned beliefs, values, rules, norms, symbols, and traditions that

are common to a group of people (Northouse, 2007).

Curriculum consists of the content, skills, or topics for teachers to clarify and

cover along with the recommended timeline and instructional material.

Departmentalization is an organizational structure which allows educators to

teach breadth and depth of a subject, rather than teaching subjects with which they may

lack expertise.

Differentiated Instruction provides different avenues for students to acquire

content, to process or make sense of ideas, and to develop products so that a student can

learn effectively (Tomlinson, 2001).

Diversity is the existence of different cultures or ethnicities within a group or

organization.

English Language Learner (ELL) is a person who is in the process of acquiring

English and has a first language other than English.

Explicit Instruction is overtly teaching the steps required for completing a task.

Highly Qualified Teacher is an instructor who is fully certified by the state; holds

at least a bachelor’s degree from a four-year institution; and demonstrates competence in

each core academic subject area in which he/she delivers instruction.

10

Inclusion mandates students with disabilities to receive instruction in the general

education classes.

Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a written plan, required by the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), for students with disabilities in

educational settings.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is an United States federal law

that governs how states and public agencies provide early interventions, special

education, and related services to children with disabilities.

Instruction consists of the techniques, strategies and words used in delivering the

curriculum.

Professional Development is the skills and knowledge that an employee gains to

optimize personal development and career advancement.

Readiness is a student’s entry point relative to a particular understanding or skill

(Tomlinson, 1999).

Self-Contained classrooms consist of one instructor who is a generalist and

teaches every content area.

Theoretical Framework

The social constructivist theory was chosen as the supporting framework for this

case study as an aim to relate the importance of the setting in which students acquire and

develop knowledge. This theoretical framework is associated to the organizational

structure in the elementary school because the setting in which students learn is

important. Departmentalization provides opportunities for students to interact with

multiple content specialists who can provide quality learning opportunities (Andrews,

11

2006; Becker, 1987; Findley, 1967; Gerretson, Bosnick, & Schofield, 2008;McPartland,

1987; Moore, 2008; Page, 2009; Sowers, 1968). The social constructivist theory

promotes development as a social, collaborative activity. Although high-stakes testing

has demanded a standardized curriculum, the concept of the setting where learning takes

place is a relevant focus of this case study.

Studies on the topic regarding the effect of organizational structure on student

achievement exist. Chang and Jarman (2004) theorized that collaboration problems exist

among disciplines when the emotional needs of students were not meet in

departmentalized elementary schools. The negative implications of departmentalization

in the elementary school created challenges with integrated learning experiences across

the core areas. With restrictions in their freedom and flexibility to ensure maximum

learning by all students, teachers had to collaborate with other team members to ensure

maximum leaning potential for students. Moreover, some of the teachers did not make a

concerted and worthy effort of knowing and understanding each child to the same degree.

Thus, departmentalization in the elementary school hindered the teachers’ ability in

adjusting to the multiple emotional and social needs of students in several classes.

Therefore, conflicts regarding which organizational structure best addresses the

development of elementary students are debated by educators and parents. The question

of elementary classroom structure, self-contained or departmentalized, is as unresolved

today as it was decades ago. Every stakeholder involved in these deliberations has a

personal view regarding the best type of organization for instruction in core subject areas

at the elementary level (Ackerlund, 1959). Nevertheless, the trend in departmentalization

continues to fluctuate throughout the years. Educational change is always accompanied

12

with controversy. A basic fear of the unknown and an instinctive precognition of the

frustrations that can be expected from the introduction of change, serve as powerful

deterrents to the dramatic improvements of public education (Baker, 1999).

During the 20th Century, several educational reforms were taking place in the

United States, particularly in the elementary school. These areas included increasing the

enrollment, adding new subjects to the curriculum, and extending the school day.

Dewey, Wiles, and Bondi (1984) observed “schools as agencies of society designed to

improve our democratic way of life” (p. 268). Dewey, Wiles, and Bondi (1984) also

insisted that the elementary school should “build on the interest of the students and

should represent real life by taking up and continuing the activities with which the child

is already familiar with at home” (p. 267-268). The organizational structures in the

elementary schools began to make adjustments to coincide with the new curriculum.

Elementary classroom organizational studies were minimal for several years after

the 1970s. With the limited knowledge relative to organizational structures being used

across the nation, Rogers and Palardy (1987) conducted a survey of 125 elementary

school principals in the southeastern section of the United States. The information

gathered identified the organizational structure and grouping strategies used in

kindergarten through sixth grades. The findings indicated that the majority of the

classrooms were self-contained with the percentage of classes dropping at each

successive level (Rogers & Palardy, 1987).

In 1989, a group of parents became concerned about the consequences of moving

away from the traditional elementary classroom setting to the departmentalized setting.

The Board of Directors of the Des Moines Iowa Public Schools requested the Department

13

of Elementary Education to investigate the issue. In the report by Des Moines Public

School (1989), the traditional teacher was viewed as a generalist, rather than a specialist

in the departmentalized classroom.

Fifth grade is often the last grade level where students experience the traditional

classroom before they advance to the middle grades and a non-traditional self-contained

classroom. McPartland (1987) conducted a study on departmentalization and concluded

that the departmentalized setting weakened the students and teachers’ relationships, but

improved the quality of instruction. With the great demands on academic accountability

in the elementary schools, educational authorities have considered school improvement

plans to meet the demands. Therefore, the teacher strengths and weaknesses were given

immense consideration. Canady and Rettig (2008) stated it is unreasonable to expect all

teachers to be experts in all subject areas in the upper elementary grades. In spite of this

disadvantage of departmentalization in the fifth grade, elementary students benefitted

from the exposure of the instructional wisdom of more than one teacher. In addition,

children’s social experiences are broadened in a departmentalized setting by providing

additional opportunities to meet new personalities.

Conceptual Framework of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the change of fifth grade classes from a

self-contained structure to a departmentalized structure. Due to a continuous decline in

the number of students performing at advanced and proficient levels on the MCT2,

research to help resolve this problem was necessary. The school improvement team

worked to reform the current educational practices through restructuring. The initial step

in the reorganization or restructuring process was to identify reasons for change. The

14

following factors were considered by the school’s improvement team as a guide for the

decision making process: respond to students’ needs; lengthen the instructional module;

ease transition from elementary school to middle school; address state and national

standards; improve student achievement; provide remediation; establish teams and small

learning communities; move power of control to teachers; provide inclusion for special

needs students; and group and regroup of students for a variety of instructional purposes.

Overview of Research Design

This case study utilized classroom and planning observations of departmental

instruction, questionnaires among students and teachers, interviews among teachers, and

analysis of test data to determine how staff and students transitioned from a self-

contained to a departmentalize organizational structure in the fifth grade. The variable

introduced in this case study was the departmentalized organizational structure in fifth

grade. As MDE and the USDE measured and mandated higher student achievement, this

case study compared two years of summative test results in language arts and

mathematics to ascertain if students performed better after transitioning from a self-

contained classroom setting to a departmentalized setting. The comparison of test data

provided a generalization regarding whether departmentalization in the fifth grade was a

feasible organizational option for helping fifth grade students achieve proficient or

advanced scores on state assessments as well as maintaining job satisfaction among staff

members.

15

Overview of Methodology

Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) stated that qualitative research investigates the

quality of relationships, activities, situations, or materials. The purpose of qualitative

research is to understand participant meaning (Morrow & Smith, 2000). More

specifically, Creswell (1998) defined qualitative research as an inquiry process of

understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explores a

social or human problem. The researcher observed participants, conducted interviews,

reported detailed views of the participants, analyzed test data, and conducted the study in

the natural setting to seek a better understanding of the impact of departmentalization in

fifth grade classes on students, staff and academic achievement.

A case study is a research method based on an in-depth investigation of a single

individual, group, or event (Yin, 2009). Rather than using samples and following a rigid

protocol to examine limited number of variables, case study methods involve an in-depth,

longitudinal examination of a single instance or event. A case study provides a systematic

way of looking at events, collecting data, analyzing information, and reporting the results.

As a result of a case study being used as a research strategy, the researcher may gain a

sharpened understanding of why the instance happened as it did, and what might become

important to look at more extensively in the future (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

Most of the available research concerning departmentalization focuses on

multiple teachers providing instruction of the core subjects to multiple classes of students

throughout the instructional day. Instead of the traditional approach in a self-contained

organizational setting, the focus of this case study was the implementation of a

departmentalization model in the fifth grade. This case study involved questionnaires,

16

interviews, observations, and comparison of standardized test scores. Fifth grade

students, teachers and support staff at an urban elementary school represented the

participants for this case study. The participants included 60 fifth grade students and 12

staff members who were responsible for providing a quality education to these students.

The test data were divided into two specific levels: students who were taught the

core subjects in a self-contained setting during fourth grade and the same students

received instruction in a departmentalized organizational structure during fifth grade. All

fifth grade students were included in this study including those identified with learning

disabilities and as English language learners. In addition, this study relied upon

questionnaires from fifth grade students and staff members as well as the 2010 and 2011

MCT2 scores.

Delimitations of Study

This case study was limited to the fifth grade teachers and support staff in one

urban elementary school within Hinds County in Mississippi. The use of fifth grade

students as participants of only one school was a delimitation of this case study. Another

delimitation of this case study was limiting the implementation of a departmentalized

organizational structure to one grade within the elementary school setting.

Significance of the Study

Educators have debated elementary school organizational structure since the

beginning of the 20th Century (Gibb & Matala, 1962). One of the most significant aspects

of upper elementary organizational structure is the number of subjects or disciplines

covered by highly effective teachers. The teachers act as generalists and teach the entire

17

elementary curriculum during the instructional day in a self-contained setting. In the

other approach, students change from different classes in order for multiple teachers to

teach different subjects in the departmentalized setting. Thus, the departmentalized

setting requires teachers to cover fewer subject areas (Roger & Palardy, 1987). Some

educators have found that departmentalized organizational approaches offer distinct

advantages for the student (Culyer, 1984). This study investigated the relationship among

the departmentalized organizational structure and its impact on teachers and staff as well

as student achievement. The results from this case study identified the impact of utilizing

a departmentalized organizational structure in fifth grade classes for upcoming academic

years. This case study assisted the researcher in determining if a departmentalized

organizational structure was a more effective practice when attempting to raise student

proficiency levels and content understanding as evidenced by MCT2 scores while

increasing teacher satisfaction.

Organization of Dissertation

This case study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter provides an

introduction of the study. The second chapter provides the related research literature. The

methodology of the case study is explained in the third chapter. The results and

discussions of the case study are explained in the fourth chapter. Finally, the summary,

implications and recommendations of this case study are explained in the fifth and last

chapter.

18

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A reason for reorganization was to improve student achievement. Many issues

have arisen from the publishing of school and district scores that became a perceived

beacon of educational success in the eyes of the public (Merenbloom & Kalina, 2007).

Government officials, taxpayers, and parents wanted a quantifiable way to measure the

effectiveness of the educational process. The publishing of scores in local newspapers has

caused the community to make judgments regarding the administration and teaching

staff. There was some discussion of the degree to which K-5 reform proposals might

prompt the development of specialized schooling options. Specialization has

complemented higher academic standards (Dropsey, 2004). Children have always been

incredibly diverse and differed in the rate and ways they learned, the subjects that

interested them, the subjects they struggled with and excelled at, and the physical

environments that supported their efforts (Bonsteel & Bonilla, 1997).

In recent years, there has been growing emphasis on changing the way elementary

schools educated students. This emphasis has been due to increased attention to

standards based instruction and accountability that accompanied political reform

movements such as The Improving America’s School Act of 1994, Title V – Innovative

Education Program Strategies, and Goals 2000: Educate America Act (USDE, 2001). The

general purpose of these acts offered guidelines and suggested teaching strategies to

19

better enable all children to achieve at a high level. These acts, along with the more

current NCLB, gave educators the task of ensuring that all children have a fair, equal and

significant opportunity to obtain high-quality education (USDE, 2001). The increased

emphasis on these goals have caused administrators and teachers to search for

pedagogical strategies that enhanced student learning, developed critical thinking skills,

encouraged collaboration, and increased standardized test scores. One strategy explicitly

named by USDE that helped teachers shift the focus of their instructional delivery was

departmentalization.

The explosion of knowledge summoned new ways of teaching as well as

organizational patterns. The predominant organizational plan of the elementary school

was the self-contained classroom. Many of the educators in the elementary school were

unanimous in their advocacy of this organizational strategy (Chan, Terry, & Bessette,

2009). The self-contained classroom had certain presumed advantages. But with the vast

amount of content required to be taught and assessed, the major disadvantage of the self-

contained classroom was that one teacher couldn’t know enough to operate effectively in

all subjects. Departmentalization was a form of organization which had more

characteristics of secondary school than that of the elementary school. In this

organizational plan, each subject was taught by a specialist in that particular subject.

Most elementary teachers preferred to teach only one or two subjects (Franklin, 1967).

Organization of Chapter

A review of the related literature for this study was conducted to ascertain the

research studies and information available concerning departmentalization in the

elementary school. In the initial part of chapter, there is discussion about the history of

20

elementary education and departmentalization. A short selection of related studies are

discussed in this chapter. The advantages and disadvantages of departmentalization in the

elementary school are also discussed in the literature review. There are other aspects,

which are relevant to departmentalization discussed in this chapter including: mandates

of NCLB; highly qualified staff; professional development; organizational strategies and

planning; shared decision making and empowerment; classroom structure and

scheduling; precursors of student achievement; effective teaching strategies; teachers’

beliefs and personal qualities; and classroom climate. Finally, the last part of this chapter

summarizes the review of literature.

History of Elementary Education

Elementary schools existed as the basic foundational institution in the formal

educational structure (Cremin, 1970). The age range of students who attended elementary

schools in the United States depended on the organizational pattern of the particular

school. The elementary school curriculum provided work in the educational basics.

Additionally, an important part of elementary schooling was socialization with peers and

creating an identification of the child with community (Chan et al, 2009).

The European settlers in the North American colonies in the 16th and 17th

Centuries initially recreated the school systems of their homelands (Cremin, 1970). The

primary schools offered a basic curriculum of reading, writing, arithmetic and religion.

Cremin (1970) noted the movement to establish an American version of elementary

education was promoted by Noah Webster, who sought to create an American version of

the English language and instill an American identity into the young through language

instruction. In the 1830s and 1840s, elementary or primary school systems began to

21

replace the existing church controlled institutions. These state supported elementary

schools were open to children of all socioeconomic classes and ethnic groups.

Unfortunately, according to Cremin (1970) there were some exceptions in the southern

colonies. Enslaved African Americans were trained to be agricultural workers, field

hands, craft people, or domestic servants. Many enslaved African American children did

not attend schools until after the Civil War.

History of Departmentalization

In departmental instruction, each instructor taught only the one or two subjects of

which he or she was a specialist. The students shifted from room to room during the

successive periods in the day or the teacher rotated to the classrooms (Otto, 1954). The

impetus for departmentalizing instruction seemed to be an outgrowth of the reading and

writing schools in the New England states (Schuster & Wilson, 1958). The reading and

writing schools that prevailed in the New England states during the 17th and 18th

Centuries were departmental schools since each site had its own master, room and staff.

The students attended each department alternately and changed from one school to

another at the end of each day or half-day session. As the elementary school developed in

the southern and middle Atlantic states, and later in the New England states, the

departmental feature dwindled away. As a result, departmentalization disappeared from

the elementary school between 1850 and 1900. As the graded schools spread throughout

the country after 1850, the self-contained classes remained in session. None of the efforts

between 1860 and 1900 to return the departmentalized system were productive (Otto,

1954).

22

The movement for reorganization of the curriculum in upper elementary grades

reintroduced the ideas of departmentalization. Departmental teaching began in New York

City for the upper elementary grades in the 1900s. This arrangement was very similar to

the departments of the junior and senior high schools of today. This departmental plan

showed promise as other school systems began to implement it. Otto (1954) stated that

the Commissioner of Education reported in 1913 that 461 of 813 superintendents in cities

with population of 5,000 and over had some type of departmental teaching.

Related Studies

The National Education Association (1966) reported that in 1964-1965, the

Educational Research Services surveyed 97 large school systems which were using the

departmentalized form of classroom organization in one or more elementary schools.

Most departmentalization in these schools was in fourth thru sixth grades. Many of the

reporting systems used more than one pattern of departmentalization. The respondents

provided insights into why departmentalization had been implemented into their schools

systems and the ways it had been deemed satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Those favoring

departmentalization felt it was a good way to insure a well-balanced program for all

students. Teachers possessed a higher morale when teaching in their own special field.

Also, departmentalization helped to solve a shortage of elementary school teachers by

utilizing those individuals who were certified to teach high school subjects. In contrast,

some respondents had reservations about departmentalization because students lost time

in changing classes.

Woods (1958) made some rather interesting observations in his study of

departmentalization. Two schools, one departmentalized and one self-contained, were

23

compared after one year on the basis of achievement using the Stanford Achievement

Test Form D. It was found that the school with the self-contained form of classroom

organization apparently achieved more than the departmentalized school. This study

indicated that the learning process in the self-contained class was more unified than in the

departmentalized setting. However, all of the students in the upper grades preferred

departmentalization because their teachers were highly specialized in their particular

field. In spite of this benefit to students, another flaw in departmentalization was it lacked

collaboration among the instructional team. This resulted with students being overloaded

with homework or not being assigned homework assignments.

Subjects selected for Harris’ (1996) study were from an urban school system in

the northern region of the United States. The participants were predominantly of the

Hispanic origin and located in low socioeconomic stature. Two samples of sixth grade

students were selected for this study. Of the 60 participants, 30 students received

instruction in a self-contained classroom and the other 30 students received instruction in

a departmentalized structure. Academic achievement in this study was measured from

scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, which was the standardized test used by the

school system. The T-test was used to determine if there was a statistically significant

difference in mean scores after the experimental group had been exposed to the

departmentalized organization structure after one academic year. The results indicated

that students in the self-contained organizational structure scored significantly higher

than the students in the departmentalized structure.

Another study was conducted with two rural schools in Tennessee. McGrath and

Rust (2002) used 197 participants from fifth and sixth grades. All of the students from the

24

two schools were in self-contained classrooms in the fourth grade. However, one school

maintained its self-contained structure through the fifth and sixth grades while the other

school implemented departmentalized classes for fifth and sixth grades. Scale scores and

normal curve equivalents of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program were

used as the dependent variable, which would determine achievement in this study. The

scores in the self-contained fifth and sixth grade classrooms showed statistically

significant gains in the Total Battery as well as the Language Arts and Science subtests.

There were no significant gains in the areas of Mathematics, Reading and Social Studies.

Furthermore, there were no significant differences in instructional time for the self-

contained or departmentalized classrooms.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Departmentalization

Changes in school organization can effect students and teachers. Altering the

elementary school organization has benefits and disadvantages for students, parents and

teachers. Originally, departmentalization was implemented at the elementary level to

prepare students for the secondary level of education. Nevertheless, educators began to

question if students at the elementary level were actually ready for a departmentalized

organizational structure.

One of the advantages of departmentalization allowed students to receive

educational instruction from teachers who specialized in particular disciplines (Chan,

Terry, & Besette, 2009). Departmentalization allowed teachers to teach the subjects they

knew best. Specialization allowed teachers to stay abreast of new developments in

teaching methods, materials, equipment and professional literature. It took full advantage

of the best teacher resources and facilitated instructional planning. Specialization in one

25

or two subjects reduced the time teachers spent preparing for several subjects. Maximized

planning permitted teachers to utilize more centers or small group instruction and created

a literature rich environment. Teachers also provided students with purposeful and

authentic learning experiences. This enabled teachers to meet the various students’ needs

with differentiated strategies and activities. Therefore, lessons were meaningful and

more appropriate for each student. This enhanced the students’ opportunities to make

significant gains in academic achievement when lessons were taught with more intensity

(Gerretson, Bosnick, & Schofield, 2008).

A second advantage of departmentalization enabled grade-level instructional

teams to be formed, which coordinated teaching efforts across each discipline. Also

known as co-teaching or collaborative teaching, team teaching was an instructional

strategy used across subject areas in a variety of methods (Erb & Stevenson, 1999). When

done correctly, this approach has been shown to create bonding opportunities for students

and to engage teachers in collaborative, interdisciplinary planning (Coffey, 2008).

Creating and sustaining effective faculty teams resulted in greater stability and retention

of highly qualified teachers. Collaboration among teachers reduced isolation and fostered

a sense of community. The collaboration among teachers during team teaching provided

a positive classroom environment, which resulted in students working to attain higher

goals. This allowed students exposure to the instructional wisdom of several teachers.

Transition was another advantage of implementing departmentalization in the

elementary school. The transition to middle school from elementary school was made

easier when students had prior experience with departmentalized organization (Delviscio

& Muffs, 2007). Several studies have found that a sharp achievement drop occurred when

26

students experienced an abrupt transition from self-contained to departmentalized

classrooms (Alspaugh & Harting, 1995; Grooms, 1967; Lamme, 1976; Reuman, 1984).

When the elementary school aligned with the middle school organization, students were

better prepared for the transition to middle school. Additionally, students seemed to like

the freedom of moving around from classroom to classroom during the school day.

On the district level, Chan et al. (2009) reported a maximization of resources

when departmentalization was implemented in elementary schools. Throughout the

nation, districts and schools were dealing with budget restraints. Departmentalization

helped save funds because fewer kits containing teacher editions, classroom library

resources, and manipulatives were needed to enhance the delivery of instruction.

Another advantage of departmentalization allowed for more flexibility in the

learning environments as reported by Schrag (1993). Many strategies were implemented

to support a unified and inclusive elementary school. Students can be grouped in multiple

ways. The multiple ways of grouping students provided optimal achievement while

respecting the individual differences among students.

As with any organizational approach, there were also disadvantages involved in

departmentalization. Erb and Stevenson (1999) stated students coming from a traditional

elementary structure were accustomed to having a small group of peers and one teacher.

Sometimes students became overwhelmed when they had to change classes and had more

than one teacher in the elementary setting. If students did not feel connected to peers and

teachers, they might have had a higher rate of academic failure (Coffey, 2008).

In a study by Nebraska Department of Education (2000) the opponents of

departmentalization suggested that frequent movement of children from class to class

27

served as an interruption to quality teaching. These transitions may also have contributed

to inappropriate student behavior. Ackerlund (1959) found the self-contained classrooms

maintained a better student-teacher relationship, but it was difficult for teachers to be

knowledgeable and prepared to teach all subjects.

Legters, McDill, and McPartland (1993) stated a teacher who provided daily

instruction to several different classes of students cannot get to know well the needs of

each individual. The opponents of departmentalization believed students who changed

teachers for each period of the day would not relate to any of their teachers as strongly as

when only one adult was in their classroom. Also, specialized teachers may have adopted

a different orientation toward their responsibilities of student success. The Nebraska

Department of Education (2000) suggested that the teacher who spent most of the day

with one group of children in a self-contained classroom had the best opportunity to

integrate the content of the instructional program and to adjust daily activities to meet the

changing needs of the children.

A culture of isolation has prevailed within the American education system. The

Nebraska Department of Education (2000) suggested departmentalization actually

detracted from integration of curricular content, ideas, and issues that made learning

meaningful and focused instead of isolated subject matter. Proponents of self-contained

classrooms stated that departmentalization isolated subject areas, rendered less

integration, and denied students the opportunity to make connections. As high stakes

testing added to the isolation problems encountered by learners today, it has caused

teachers and students to focus on isolating the correct answer. Learning that occurs in

isolation would result in short term memory gain. This practice of subject isolation

28

prohibited the students’ opportunities to thoroughly analyze content and connected it to

bigger ideas. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) believed knowledge was not a matter of

getting it right but rather of acquiring habits of action for coping with reality.

Many students needed to feel a more intense sense of security within the

classroom. Because departmentalization was governed by a controlled rotation schedule,

this may have hindered the teachers’ ability to identify the individual needs of students.

The self-contained organizational structure allowed for more instructional time because

of the lack of class transition. Chang and Jarman (2004) have charged that collaboration

problems existed between disciplines in departmentalized elementary schools when the

emotional needs of students were not met. Many educators and parents were opposed to

departmentalization in elementary schools because they believed there was an advantage

of keeping the self-contained classrooms to maintain the uniqueness of a home-like

environment.

Mandates of NCLB Act

According to Cremin (1970) the primary curriculum within the United States was

often generalized into broad areas, but gradually became more specialized at the

intermediate and upper grade levels into more specific subjects. Because of the generality

of the elementary curriculum, there was a greater emphasis on methods and styles of

teaching. The typical elementary school curriculum was organized around broad fields

such as language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science. The standards movement,

which gained momentum in the late 1990s, has required more standardized testing in

elementary schools. Standards advocates argued that academic achievement can be best

assessed using standardized tests to determine whether students were performing at

29

prescribe levels. Strongly endorsed by United States President George Bush, the

standards approach was infused into the federal NCLB Act of 2001.

The heart and soul of NCLB were its requirements for annual testing and proof

that all students were making adequate yearly progress. Every year thousands of students

took standardized test and every year thousands of students failed them according to

Valencia and Buly (2004). Wallis (2008) implied the NCLB’s 2014 goal was something

no educational system anywhere on earth has ever done because every kid with the

exception for 3% with serious handicaps or other issues are supposed to be achieving on

grade level every year. With the implementation of NCLB, which mandated testing all

children from Grades 3 to 8 every year, these numbers would grow exponentially and

unfortunately, alarming numbers of schools and students would be labeled as in need of

improvement. The key provisions of NCLB included performance expectations in

reading. Each state set annual targets that would lead to the goal of all students reaching

proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014 (USDE, 2006). To address this

concern, schools began to change educational practices used in the classrooms.

Reese (2004) noted that amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

of 1965, NCLB made significant changes in the major federal programs that supported

schools in their efforts to educate our children. The law that is known as NCLB was the

primary statute governing the federal government’s role in education. According to Reese

(2004) the USDE was based on the principles of increased flexibility and local control,

stronger accountability for results, expanded options for parents and an emphasis on

effective teaching methods that were scientifically proven to increase student

30

achievement. The NCLB Act of 2001 placed emphasis on raising academic standards for

students and professional standards for educators.

The goal of NCLB was to ensure that all children had a fair, equal and significant

opportunity to obtain a high-quality education, and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on

challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments

(NCLB, 2001). According to the Center for Education Policy (2004), NCLB called on

states to develop stricter accountability systems that addressed achievement in all

schools. Standardized testing data in Mississippi have been gathered using the MCT2.

After evaluating MCT2 data, one of the possible strategies discussed among educators

was the implementation of departmentalization in the elementary school.

Highly Qualified Staff

Teacher knowledge has been shown to be directly related to the academic success

of students. Manzo (2004) stated that under the NCLB Act, the federal government, states

and school districts made some progress in carrying out the law’s requirement for

educators. In order to produce the benefits intended, states and districts established or

improved necessary systems for hiring and training teachers. An important component of

accountability under NCLB was the plans that states ensured all teachers of core

academic subjects were highly qualified. Highly qualified was defined as those teachers

who have obtained full state certification, held a bachelor’s degree, and have

demonstrated subject area competence (USDE, 2004).

In a study by Simpson, LaCava, and Graner (2004) the instructional importance of

paraprofessionals was also recognized, and these individuals were also required to meet

minimum qualification standards. The USDE (2003) said that paraeducators were of vital

31

importance in implementing IEP and supporting students with special needs in inclusive

environments. In recognition of this importance, there were highly qualified provisions

for paraeducators who instructed students. They must meet one of the following three

requirements: (a) had an associate’s degree or higher, (b) had completed at least 2 years

of study at an institution of higher learning, (c) or passed a rigorous state or local

assessment that demonstrated knowledge and skills needed to assist in teaching reading,

writing, and math.

Teachers’ qualifications and areas of certification need to be carefully examined

and evaluated to determine their eligibility to perform in the assigned classes. The MDE

(2011) governed certification and requirements. MDE mandated standards for the

elementary teacher preparation programs. There were important facts regarding the MDE

NCLB Act of 2001 for highly qualified teachers. Teachers with a K-8 license are highly

qualified to teach Grades K-6 regardless of the classroom configuration. Therefore, most

elementary teachers certified in Mississippi are prepared to teach all core content areas in

self-contained classes in grades kindergarten thru fifth. Based on the elementary

standards, MDE recommended that certain teachers are certified with endorsements to

teach designated departmentalized courses such as music, visual arts, drama, remedial

reading, special education and mild/moderate disability.

MDE (2011) has administrative rules which governed the certification of

Mississippi teachers. The following definitions are helpful in determining teaching

assignments.

1. Certificate endorsement means subject or subjects that a teacher is

authorized to teach at specific grade levels based on completion of

32

appropriate coursework and passage of the appropriate state teacher

subject examination.

2. Departmentalized classroom means a classroom in which instruction in a

specific subject is provided for a defined period of time.

3. Elementary certificate means an authorization to teach all subjects,

kindergarten to fifth grade in a self-contained classroom.

4. Self-contained classroom means a classroom in which one teacher

provides instruction to the same pupils for the majority of the pupil’s

instructional day.

MDE (2011) has an alternate licensing program to attract people who do

not

fulfill traditional licensing standards into the teaching profession. These

individuals may begin teaching with a temporary license; however, they must

simultaneously attend required education courses. Then, there were other programs where

a college graduate would complete the required education courses and then become

eligible for licensure. Most of these programs were designed to minimize the shortages of

teachers. There were also other programs focused on filling the many available teaching

positions in both urban and rural school systems where attracting and retaining teachers

from traditional licensing programs were difficult. In addition, teachers who wished to

obtain professional certification as an endorsement of qualification and competency

beyond that required for regular licensing might do so through voluntary, national

certification offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

33

Professional Development

Changes within schools have been depicted as a “fashion trend” as opposed to a

scientific building process (Stevens, 2004, p. 389). Often innovative approaches to

education were imposed or demanded by administrators without fully preparing teachers.

Often teachers were not provided with professional development needed to implement an

innovative program. Any newly implemented program cannot become successful without

full support and cooperation of the teachers and staff. Commitment to an idea was

different than knowing what to do in order to make it effective (Joyce, 2004). If

administrators were willing to provide professional development and resources needed

for an innovative program, teachers would perceive administrators as serious (Stevens,

2004).

Professional development is referred to the learning one is exposed to after

accepting the role of being an educator. Helping an educator become effective in the

classroom was the purpose of professional development. School and district wide

professional development programs were used to help teachers develop their skills and

abilities while becoming effective facilitators of the teaching-learning process (USDE,

2000). School districts throughout Mississippi provided extensive content professional

development that goes beyond the general courses that elementary teachers were required

to take for certification.

Simplicio (2000) asserted dated methods of instruction were no longer by

themselves sufficient and effective tools for teaching. The learning process has changed

and educators have been challenged to change as well. The improvement of education for

all students required teachers to have a variety of skills under girded with content and

34

pedagogical knowledge (Gentry & Springer, 2002). Also, high quality and well-

structured professional development provided opportunities for non-licensed or out-of-

area or veteran teachers and administrators to (a) upgrade their educational level, (b)

improve their skills, and (c) acquire a license (Williams & King, 2002).

According to Goldberg (1994), teachers and the quality of teaching make the

biggest difference in improving student performance. There was a growing consensus

among scholars, policymakers, and educators that sound organization and

implementation of professional development enhanced teacher quality and student

learning. It has been argued that professional development resources should focus on (a)

closing the gap between teachers’ knowledge and student performance goals, (b)

strengthening teachers’ understanding of the connections between content and students’

thinking and learning, and (c) creating a tighter organizational fit between teacher

learning activities and teacher work (Scribner, 2003).

Organizational Strategies and Planning

Departmentalization in the elementary school began with an expressed interest

from school administrators and teachers. Initial discussions should include possible

benefits to students. Canady and Retting (2008) noted time was a key aspect in

organizing a new organizational strategy in any school. There must be time for the

administrators and instructional team to get organized prior to the initiation of any new

organizational strategy. Therefore, students should begin the academic year with clear

expectations and procedures.

When implementing departmentalization in elementary classrooms, there were

several issues to be addressed by the administrators and instructional team. In order to

35

successfully departmentalized, all of the members of the instructional team must work

toward the same goals. Teacher buy-in and support were particularly essential to the

success of departmentalization (Chan et al., 2009). Involving parents at an early stage

would make it easier for them to understand the concept of departmentalization and how

it would benefit the academic development of their children. So, there must be on-going

communication with parents. Along with preparing in-depth lessons that met curriculum

standards, teachers must continually monitor students’ progress, emotional needs and

behavior issues. District level curriculum directors also may need to be involved in all

stages of the departmentalization initiative, as their continued support would undoubtedly

translate into critical resources needed by elementary schools to sustain this effort (Chan

et al., 2009).

Subject area content must be covered thoroughly while integrating the curriculum

among all subjects. The idea of integration enabled children to make sense of what they

were learning and connected their experiences in ways that led to concept development

(Burts, Charlesworth, & Hart, 1997). If concepts were introduced in one subject area and

reinforced in the others, children would develop a deeper comprehension level. In order

to successfully integrate the curriculum, teachers would need common planning time to

discuss lessons and analyze data. During regularly scheduled planning time, teachers

identified students who needed special attention and follow through with extra support

(Montgomery & Ross, 1994).

Organization in daily routines was also critical to the success of

departmentalization in the elementary school. Daily routines were kept consistent in all

classrooms. Therefore, rule and expectations must be consistent too. Furthermore,

36

Alspaugh and Harting (1995) advised that schools should expect achievement declines in

the transitional year when transitioning students from self-contained to departmentalized

classrooms.

Shared Decision Making and Empowerment

According to Thompson and Craig (2005) planning is a significant aspect in a

successful school. Teachers and students were the key components in the instructional

process. Good instructional planning was the result of a school’s instructional leadership

team who envisioned the school’s mission, goals, and beliefs. The beliefs of the school

should be articulated by the school’s leaders, staff, and students. These beliefs must be

based on educational theory and practice. Mission and goal statements were the

cornerstone of education. A successful school attained positive benefits by focusing on

the mission and goal statements. The mission statement framed the attitude of a school,

so that the whole mindset of an organization can be driven by a mission that sounded

simplistic but had the effect of focusing attitudes and performance on a promise made

publicly.

Killion and Roy (2009) stated a strong collaborative culture that valued

continuous improvement, honored teachers and administrators’ expertise, expected

ongoing learning about teaching, and invited faculty innovation was an essential element

in a high performing school. A school’s culture could manifest itself in customs, routines,

rituals, symbols, stories, and expectations. Deal and Peterson (2009) have found that

healthy and sound school cultures correlated strongly with increased student achievement

and motivation, and with teacher productivity and satisfaction. All educational

stakeholders should work collaboratively to create a vision for a positive school culture.

37

The instructional leaders’ role in changing the school’s culture was to act with care and

concern for others, worked to develop a shared vision and enhanced team building. High

levels of trust among stakeholders promoted risk taking and deepened the commitments

to the school’s initiatives. In addition, school leaders should solicit and utilize the

teachers’ input and insight to enhance shared decision making and leadership. Trust

among school community members could make or break efforts to reform classroom

practices, implement curriculum, or improve student performances (Bryk & Schneider,

2003).

Teachers should be empowered to make fundamental decisions concerning their

students. The greater the degree of teacher autonomy for making decisions about their

students and the team, the greater the degree of teacher innovation and creativity, varied

instructional strategies and techniques, and the ability to identify and address students’

needs and behavior (Steffes & Valentine, 1995). Teachers are the closest to the

instructional program, so they were in the best position for reestablishing instructional

priorities and judging the most appropriate ways to apportion time. Teacher

empowerment promoted teacher efficiency because teachers were able to make necessary

scheduling changes without requesting approval through administrative channels.

Dunbar (2004) stated teachers needed to monitor the effectiveness of their

teaching strategies to determine the need of change. Monitoring of effective instruction

was the heart of effective instruction. Decisions about curriculum and instruction should

be made by constantly reflecting, assessing, and evaluating students’ performances.

Modification and changes in approach should be made in response to students’ responses.

38

It was essential that this process be continuous and ongoing. Classroom practices should

be flexible and open to revisions based on student learning.

Professional educators’ awareness of the need to work in partnership with team

members is critical to students’ achievement. It was no longer feasible for a teacher to

know all there was to know about a discipline or subject and met the wide range of needs

in the classroom. Partnerships within the school and across the district must be formed to

support current educational practices. Collaboration among a team allowed teachers to

share responsibility for the implementation of the curriculum and promoted student

success. In many elementary school settings, teachers were required to share the

responsibility of co-teaching. As a co-teacher, it was important that colleagues shared

values and beliefs about teaching and provided constructive feedback to each other. The

drive to improve schools demanded an active leadership role among teachers. Teachers

were responsible for sharing the joint responsibility for sustaining improvement and

provided the best possible educational experiences for students.

Departmentalized Classroom Structure and Scheduling

According to Hackmann and Valentine (1998) if elementary schools are to

operate efficiently to meet their goals, the school day must be structured in the best

manner possible. A schedule can be defined as the plan to bring together people,

materials, and curriculum at a designated time and place for the purpose of instruction

(Ubben & Hughes, 1992). Scheduling was a mechanism to facilitate the school’s goals

and purposes in the area of curriculum, instruction, student grouping and staffing. Yet,

the development of the schedule was an unavoidable task that must be accomplished so

students and teachers could attain maximum instructional benefits from the time allotted.

39

George and Alexander (1993) asserted that few schools could overcome the

barriers of ineffective schedules or restrictive environments, so the creation of an

effective schedule was paramount to the development of a well-functioning program. The

following factors should be considered prior to scheduling.

1. The schedule should support interdisciplinary team organization.

2. The schedule should support an appropriate curriculum.

3. The schedule should support quality instruction in the disciplines through the

expanded and flexible uses of time.

4. The schedule should support child-centered instruction.

5. The schedule should promote quality teacher collaboration.

6. The schedule should promote teacher empowerment.

George and Alexander (1993) also believed that because most elementary schools

consisted of self-contained classes, students had to adjust to a new organizational

structure. Departmentalization could be implemented in a variety of ways. Achievement

grouping and teacher specialization was one approach of organizing the elementary

school. This approach allowed the teacher to master one subject and instructed multiple

classes. Another approach to departmentalization was team teaching. Team teaching

allowed multiple teachers to share the responsibility of providing instruction in one or

two subjects to multiple classes.

McGrath and Rust (2002) indicated departmental teachers allotted a similar

amount of instructional time in the five major subject areas compared to self-contained

teachers. The concept of extended time became an opportunity to learn because the

amount of time available for core academic subjects must be sufficient to ensure mastery

40

of basic skills. Additionally, the schedule should permit the use of such varied

instructional strategies as interdisciplinary instruction, cooperative learning, infusion of

technology, experiments, authentic assessments, active learning, independent study, and

small or large group activities.

Innovations in scheduling seem to be a popular educational reform for schools

across America. Merenbloom and Kalina (2007) indicated as early as the late 1960s,

elementary schools started to experiment with 90-minute classes. The Center for

Education Reform (1996) estimated that the number of schools that have implemented

some version of block scheduling ranged from 10 to 25%, while many more districts

were considering the concept.

Nicholas (2001) found block scheduling was a restructuring of the daily schedule

to create longer units of time for each class. Scheduling on the block system allowed

longer and more concentrated classes. When the classes were longer, teachers had more

flexibility. Moreover, the depth of knowledge increased from the knowledge level to

higher levels of application and analysis. With proper planning, the classroom activities

maintained high energy levels and a relaxed environment. Some advocates of intensive

block often argued that the longer class periods allowed greater opportunities to get to

know students on a personal level (Fritz, 2007).

Proponents claimed that block scheduling created a less pressured and more

intimate atmosphere in the school, where children were excited to learn and teachers were

inspired to teach (The Center for Education Reform, 1996). Advocates claimed that the

benefits of this system included: (a) better grades and fewer failures, (b) less discipline

problems, (c) more time for student and teacher interaction, (d) more time for labs and

41

advanced topics with motivated students, (e) less stress for teachers with preparations,

and (f) more varied teaching styles among teachers.

Instructional Time

The Public Agenda (2003) reported that at the core of a standards-based

educational system was the belief that there are skills and knowledge that all students

should acquire during an academic year. In order for students to be successful, there must

be sufficient time for instruction. There was a common agreement among parents,

teachers, and students that “setting and enforcing standards promotes learning” (p. 8).

Research was beginning to show that, with proper support and implementation, a

standard-based system could be an effective force for helping to raise student

achievement (Grissmer & Flanagan, 1998). Therefore, students needed adequate time to

learn.

According to a 2000 report from the Council of Chief State School Officers

(2000) on state policies and practices, 34 states mandated a school year of 180 days. The

report indicated current Mississippi law required children to receive a minimum of 180

instructional days. However, the time prescribed for instruction is 330 instructional

minutes. At the local level, districts must address the realities of the school day.

Anecdotal evidence from teachers suggests that time allotted for instruction is quickly

eroded by the many demands that arise during the school day (Meek, 2003). In the words

of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994), “American

students will have their best chance at success when they are no longer serving time, but

time is serving them” (p. 44).

42

Precursors of Student Achievement

Marzano (2000) stated teacher-level variables associated with raising the

academic achievement of all students were commonly grouped into three categories:

instruction, classroom management, and curriculum. Learning was a natural and ongoing

active progression. Students were active learners who processed, analyzed, and examined

experiences. Therefore, learning required engagement, which was an important outcome

of schooling and also served as a predictor of academic achievement.

Teachers who actively engaged students in a study by Resnick (1987) used hands-

on lessons that required students to use multiple learning skills and higher order thinking

to construct meaning and knowledge. These activities often required students to merge

their personal experiences with new concepts and skills. Tomlinson (2000) found that

based on students’ readiness, interest, or learning profile, teachers provided differentiated

instruction by adjusting the content, process, required products, or learning environment

to accommodate variance among learners. Students’ motivational goals influenced their

learning strategies and level of achievement. Teachers made a difference as they

influenced their students’ engagement by planning and providing task that were

interesting and challenging.

According to Phelan, Davidson, Locke, and Thanh (1992) it was important for

teachers to establish a positive relationship with their students. Each student’s preference

should be considered when teachers adapted the instruction for individual students.

Furthermore, students took learning risks when they knew they were accepted and

respected as individuals of worth. They felt valued in a non-judgmental culture. It was

43

imperative that learning was individualized to meet the needs of the each student.

Students must understand the world from their own unique perceptions.

Wenglinsky (2002) found some other precursors of increased academic

achievement were higher order thinking, independent practice and homework. Also

called critical or strategic thinking, higher order thinking could be described as the ability

to use information to solve problems, analyze arguments, negotiate issues, or make

predictions. Therefore, it was imperative that teachers used questioning techniques

effectively. Furthermore, independent practice and homework gave students the

opportunity to internalize concepts or processes and to practice new content and skills.

Well-designed homework assignments could also promote active parent involvement.

In a study by Cohen (2001), other essential components that affected student

achievement included an orderly and safe classroom climate, which fostered peer groups,

decision-making, and high expectations for success. The environment in each

departmental class was a vital part for the success of the program as well as for the

children. Students learned when they were certain of their physical safety. A positive and

nurturing climate included supportive and caring teachers. A feeling of mutual trust and

respect was also important in classrooms. Teachers should allow students to show their

strengths daily in a classroom setting where risk taking was encouraged to excel at

maximum potential. Moreover, academic success often depended on effective classroom

management. Effective classroom organizational and management during the first days of

school were vital in determining expectations, behavior patterns and procedures that

would continue throughout the school year. These procedures needed to remain

44

consistent throughout the academic year, so students would understand what was

expected of them.

Tempes (2001) reported that if school districts were going to hold schools

accountable for results, they should ensure that the schools had access to the following

components:

A rigorous, well-defined curriculum accessible to all

Instructional materials that matched the curriculum

Teachers who knew how to teach the curriculum in ways that both engaged

students and acknowledged their diversity

Frequently administered assessments that measured how well students were

mastering the curriculum and were used to help teachers improve their

instruction

Professional development opportunities for teachers that related directly to the

school’s curriculum

Ways to keep parents informed and involved about the educational futures of

their children

Leadership that supported a culture of high expectations

Effective Teaching Strategies

In response to expectations for data-driven instructional decisions and

accountability, Woodard and Johnson (2009) found school districts were looking for

ways to use best practices to improve student achievement. The changing face of society

was reflected in elementary school. The classroom teacher had the responsibility to make

45

sure that the instructional needs of all students were met during the lesson. This was a

daunting task, as students were at varied skill levels in each subject area. Teachers were

responsible for delivering instruction to a diverse group of learners who came to the

classroom with a variety of cultures, languages, learning styles, abilities, and disabilities.

The Department of Education Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2010)

found students reflected differing levels of academic readiness in various subjects.

Therefore, teachers must acknowledge that students learned at different speeds and

differed in their ability to think abstractly or understand complex ideas. The ways in

which teaching was carried out played a vital role in providing a motivating learning

environment. Teaching styles needed to be appropriate to the material to be learned and

to the needs and characteristics of the students who were doing the learning. A variety of

teaching strategies should be utilized in order to meet the diverse needs of students.

Demonstrating clarity about learning goals, time, materials, modes of teaching, methods

of grouping students, ways of expressing learning, and other classroom elements were

tools that could be effectively utilized in a variety of ways to promote individual student

and whole class success.

Teachers make a difference in the lives of students. Tomlinson (2001) stated

differentiating instruction means shaking up what goes on in the classroom so that

students had multiple options for taking in information, making sense of ideas, and

expressing what they have learned in class. The teachers needed to customize their

instruction. Another role associated with effective teaching was the ability to identify and

articulate the proper sequence and pacing of content within the curriculum. Rather than

relying completely on the scope and sequence provided by the district, teachers must

46

consider the needs of their students and determine the content that required more

emphasis as well as the appropriate sequencing of the content.

Marzano, Norford, Paynter, Pickering, and Gaddy (2001) believed setting

objectives or goals and providing feedback engaged the meta-cognitive thinking of

students. The objectives and feedback gave students direction and helped them think

about their own learning. When teachers explained the instructional goals to their

students, it helped the students narrow their focus and share the accountability for

academic achievement. The teachers set flexible goals and encouraged each student to

personalize their goals. Furthermore, as teachers provided ongoing feedback to specific

learning performances, students were able to determine their strengths and weaknesses.

Hattie (1992) suggested the most powerful single modification that enhanced

achievement was feedback. Classroom assessments were one of the primary tools that

teachers used to give students feedback.

Sweeny and Beecher (2008) found differentiated instruction was a global strategy

that was applied in the elementary setting to embark on the different cognitive needs of

the students. When effectively used by the teacher, he or she made adjustments in pacing,

methods of presentation, or degrees in complexity of information. Adapting the

curriculum and instruction increased students’ success. This enabled the students to attain

the same content in a manner consistent with their individual abilities and preferred

learning modality. The purpose of differentiated instruction enabled the teacher to modify

instruction, enhance the students’ understanding of assignments and their ability to plan

and execute tasks, use materials effectively, comprehend content presented in various

media, organize work, understand and use feedback, and express ideas proficiently.

47

Differentiated instruction kept the individual learners actively engaged and challenged to

achieve at a higher level.

Furthermore, numerous sections of NCLB required educators to use instructional

programs and approaches that were based on scientific research as reported by the Center

for Education Policy (2004). These requirements arose from the concern of members of

Congress that schools were implementing programs and approaches that had no scientific

evidence of effectiveness and were not improving children’s academic achievement.

Teachers and other educators must become better consumers in regards to methods

available for use with their students. Every teacher must be a product and research

evaluator to build advocacy and knowledge-based needed for effective decision making

(Simpson, LaCava, & Graner, 2004). Wayne and Youngs (2003) summarized the

importance of qualified, knowledgeable personnel: “Both institution and empirical

research told us that the achievement of school children depended substantially on the

teachers they were assigned” (p. 89).

Teacher Beliefs and Personal Qualities

Cohan (2001) found teachers’ support was essential to the success of

departmentalization. Highly qualified teachers were needed to intervene on deficit skills

of struggling students. High quality instruction was expected to minimize the number of

students who needed intervention or supplementary instruction and would also minimize

the number of students recommended for special education services. Teachers were

responsible for creating and maintaining a positive school culture. The beliefs and

expectations of teachers had a substantial impact on student academic achievement. The

teachers’ beliefs affected his or her actions and decisions in the classroom. Every teacher

48

believed that students could learn basic skills as a result of his or her teaching. As the

center of the educational process, students would become productive, responsible

citizens.

According to Tomlinson (1995) a one size fits all classroom is not realistic in

meeting the diverse strengths and needs of students. Teachers who believed there were

multiple styles of learning designed lessons for varied needs. In order to accomplish

positive results, many elementary teachers believed their delivery of instruction should

address multiple styles of learning. Teachers were required to be creative because of the

wide range of students with various ability levels and interest in the classroom. To

Tomlinson (1995) the educational environment should be designed to embrace each

student’s strengths and needs. Therefore, teachers must utilize best practices to design

learning opportunities that acknowledge students’ personal learning styles, interests,

knowledge and experience. The classroom instruction should focus on concepts and skills

rather than memorization of facts. It was important for students to be able to make

connections between subjects and facets of a single subject, to relate ideas to their own

lives, and to build networks of meaning for future learning.

Tomlinson (1999) presented some key principles for developing classrooms for

diverse learners. The teacher should clearly articulate the expectations for students’

achievement. Assessments and instruction were inseparable, so teachers had to analyze

data and plan lessons. Curriculum modifications were made to increase the likelihood

that students will better understand concepts. Teachers should encourage all students to

participate in respectful assignments. The classrooms had to be student centered and

promoted ongoing collaboration between the teacher and students.

49

Teacher should share a list of qualities or characteristics. Understanding each

individual student’s development in the specified subject was knowledge needed by

effective teachers. The teachers’ abilities to shape instruction and meet individual needs

were listed as characteristic. Personal attributes, such as being risk takers, being

passionate about their subject matter, and being energetic, caring, and flexible were

common among teachers deemed successful by their supervisors (Block, Oakar, & Hurt,

2002). These teachers believed that all students could be successful. The most effective

teachers had high expectations for their students. The teacher’s style of interaction and

encouragement of student’s active participation was also important.

Impact of Instructional Leadership

The Center for Public Education (2008) found elementary schools were constantly

asked to perform at a high level to improve the achievement level of students. Teachers

were on the front line and considered responsible for the majority of reasons why

students performed well in school. However, effective leadership was important when it

came to student achievement and effective teachers. The principal was responsible for the

over-all performance of the school.

Northouse (2007) stated leadership is a highly sought-after and highly valued

commodity. Educational leadership is a process whereby a principal influenced the staff

to achieve a common goal. One of the most important steps an effective principal should

make is to surround himself or herself with a quality staff. The next step of an effective

principal is to make sure that students performed at a high level. This goal was

accomplished by making sure the climate of the building is always conducive to

successful learning. Some of the steps utilized to accomplish this goal include: (a)

50

making sure there were very few distractions throughout the school day, (b) having a

clear discipline plan that everyone was aware of, (c) making sure the entire staff and all

students were aware of the school’s mission, (d) developing and implementing a strong

school improvement plan, (e) maintaining a bright and clean building, (f) displaying

students’ work and accomplishments, (g) making students responsible for their education,

(h) providing effective tutoring services, (i) being a visible principal, and (j) having a

positive and courteous staff who were willing to assist everyone.

If possible, another important step in effective leadership consisted of making

sure the entire staff and students were involved in the decision-making for the building.

According to Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstorm (2004) every staff member

must believe he or she was important and vital to the over-all success of the school. It

was also important to have the school and its students become part of an ongoing

evaluation process. As the principal worked constantly to improve the school each day,

utilizing different assessment tools were helpful with evaluating the overall picture of

what was happening in the school.

Marzano, Frontier, and Livingston (2011) found standardized testing of

elementary students was one form of assessment. In addition to evaluating students, the

staff should be evaluated throughout the school year. The principal used classroom

observations and walk-throughs as tools. The data collected from these multifarious

evaluation procedures were utilized to develop professional development opportunities

for the staff and to develop the school improvement plan.

51

Summary of Literature Review

Schuster and Wilson (1958) found the underlying reason for departmentalization

in the elementary school was the demand to meet standards and benchmarks of the

curriculum. Implementing or aligning with state and national standards impacted the

organization or structure of elementary schools. The movement toward state and national

curriculum standards provided an impetus for school reform. This reform raised

organizational as well as instructional issues. Educators were constantly encountering

students who were struggling in their academics. These students frequently failed

standardized tests. It was imperative that elementary schools examined how instruction

was implemented at each grade level. Merenbloom and Kalina (2007) belived as

educators prepared elementary students to meet the state and national standards, it was

important that teachers specialized in their content area. In order to meet these

challenges, many elementary schools sought to incorporate the change process by

reorganization of time, materials, resource, students, teachers, scheduling, curriculum

delivery and professional collaboration.

Individually and as a part of the school improvement team, teachers and

administrators contributed their voices to the reform process. Chan et al. (2009) identified

some factors to consider while evaluating the purposes and options for the improvement

of learning: respond to students’ needs; ease transition from elementary to middle school;

lengthen the instructional module; address state and national standards; improve students’

achievement; provide remediation; establish teams and small learning communities;

provide opportunities for inclusion of special needs students, and group students for a

variety of instructional purposes.

52

Dillon (2010) stated that currently NCLB requires the nation’s 98,000 public

schools to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as measured by student test scores.

Schools were trying to implement instructional practices that would benefit the students.

One of these practices was departmentalization, which was a common practice in middle

and high schools. When implemented in the elementary school, subjects were divided

among the teachers based on their strengths. Bean (1994) asserted that this approach was

beneficial when instruction was provided by highly qualified teachers and instruction was

tailored to address the individualized needs of students.

Nevertheless, Chan et al. (2009) found there was controversy about

departmentalization in the elementary school. This was an organizational strategy that has

not been accepted by some elementary schools, while being accepted by others. Although

there were some disadvantages in the literature about departmentalization, it seemed that

they could be overcome with proper planning, organization and professional

development. The advocates of departmentalization believed it had several advantages:

more efficient instruction, enrichment of the curriculum, better equipped classrooms,

collaboration of grade level instructional teams, highly trained teachers, targeted

professional development, maximized instructional and planning time, retention among

teachers and better transition of elementary students into middle school. The advantages

noted in the literature suggested a strong possibility of implementing departmentalization

to raise academic achievement of students and job satisfaction among teachers. The

literature also emphasized the benefits of having instructional teams in the departmental

setting for all students including bilingual students and those students with learning

disabilities. According to Delviscio and Muff (2007) departmentalization allowed

53

students to become familiar with the mechanics of middle school. Another advantage of

departmentalization provided the teachers more time for learning and planning

compelling and rigorous lessons. As an advantage, departmentalization enabled teachers

to perfect their knowledge while teaching to their strengths. Furthermore, when multiple

teachers shared the responsibility of instructing a group of students, the instructional team

produced a sense of community and shared commitment.

In contrast to the advantages of departmentalization, Nebraska Department of

Eduction (2000) stated that the opponents believed there were some disadvantages:

overemphasized subject matter, difficulty managing behavior, termination of the unity in

school life, overload of work for students and prevention of the integration of subject

matter. There was a belief that the focus on one subject did not permit an adequate

teacher-student relationship or expert in knowledge leading to improved teaching ability.

Therefore, students may not receive the structure needed to be successful in the

elementary school. Because of block scheduling and restricted times, there was a limited

amount of time that could be spent on a subject and students may not acquire the needed

information with the restricted allotted time.

In the literature, there was also discussion about the attributes needed to teach in

the elementary school. Marono (2000) identified some of the attributes necessary for

quality instruction which were: content knowledge and attitude, pedagogical knowledge,

knowledge of students, and knowledge of curriculum. Attitudes that supported teaching

included an enthusiasm and a willingness to create time for instruction and recognize that

all students had the right to be engaged in meaningful, learning activities. Cohen (2001)

found teachers, who possessed positive attitudes, encouraged similar attitudes in their

54

students by modeling curiosity. These teachers also used problem solving approaches to

answer questions, while being open to new ideas and respecting honesty.

Finally, each teacher’s behavior as reported in a study by the National Education

Association (1966) was related to student achievement. Characteristics such as setting

high expectations, employing scaffolding, integrating subject matter and providing clear

purpose and direction were all examples of effective instruction (Brophy, 1986).

Effective teachers were reflective practitioners who analyzed their instruction and

accepted responsibility for their students’ outcomes. Teacher effectiveness was linked to

the goals for academic achievement. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to cite

departmentalization as the reason for any school’s success or shortcomings. Freeman

(2009) said it was deemed necessary to analyze factors including teacher training,

principal leadership, and curriculum as factors that contributed to student performance

within a school.

As similar to the finding in the literature, the underlying reason for implementing

departmentalization in the fifth grade at an urban elementary school was to meet the

standards and benchmarks of the MDE’s curriculum. With a continuous decline in the

number of fifth grade students scoring advanced and proficient on the MCT2, there was

an impetus for school reform in order to meet AYP and improve the school’s

accreditation rating as identified by MDE. As a part of the school improvement team, the

teachers evaluated many factors that affected academic achievement prior to

implementing a departmentalized organizational structure, including: (a) responding to

students’ strengths and weaknesses, (b) revising instructional schedules, (c) considering

the needs of various instructional material, resources, and professional development

55

opportunities, (d) establishing instructional teams and learning communities, and (e)

easing students’ transition to middle school.

Another similarity of this case study and the literature was the controversy among

the teachers about the advantages and disadvantages of departmentalization. With

common planning time, collaboration, and professional development, the teachers

provided instruction to the fifth grade students in a departmentalized setting. Although

the teachers in this study were not core content subject specialists, they possessed

knowledge of the subject area content, pedagogical practices, curriculum benchmarks,

and various learning domains of the students. With high expectations for learning, the

teachers in this case study shared the responsibility of planning and providing instruction

as well as sharing the accountability for academic achievement among the students. In

conclusion this case study supports the findings of Freeman (2009) that stated student

performance is contributed to many factors including the organizational structure of the

school.

56

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the research methods used to complete

this case study. This case study examined the impact of implementing

departmentalization in fifth grade on students and staff at an urban elementary school.

This chapter contains the methodology used in this case study. It includes a description of

the research design, participants, research question, the research site, data collection

procedures, data analysis techniques, and establishing trustworthiness.

Description of Research Design and Methodology

Case studies are “an exploration of a ‘bounded system’ of a case over time

through detail, in depth data collection involving multiple case sources of information

rich in context” (Creswell, 1998, p. 61). Stake (1995) explained that case studies are

investigated because,

we are interested in them [case studies] for both their uniqueness and

commonality. We would like to hear their stories. We may have reservations

about some things that people tell us, just as they will question some of the things

we will tell about them. But we enter the scene with a sincere interest in learning

how they function in their ordinary pursuits and milieus and with a willingness to

put aside many presumptions while we learn. (p. 1)

57

A case study is an ideal methodology when a holistic, in-depth investigation is

needed on a single unit (Feagin, Orum, & Sjoberg, 1991). This case study was designed

to bring out the details from the viewpoint of the participants about departmentalization

in fifth grade by using multiple sources of data. Intrinsic case studies are often used in

exploratory research when researchers seek to learn about some little known phenomenon

by studying it in depth (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Stake (1995) stated the researcher has

interest in an intrinsic case study when the researcher is primary interested in

understanding a specific situation. Therefore, this intrinsic case study is appropriate and

is very important to the researcher, who is the assistant principal at this research site.

Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) defined a case study as a single individual, group, or

important example that is studied extensively and varied data are collected and used to

formulate interpretations applicable to the specific case or to provide useful

generalizations. Because the researcher was seeking to determine the impact of

implementing departmentalization in fifth grade, this research is categorized as an

intrinsic single case study design.

The goal of case study research is to understand the complexity of a case in the

most complete way possible. Qualitative data from the case study were collected through

participant observation and interviews. The data gathered in this case study addressed the

relevant aspects of departmentalization involving the administrator, teachers, and

students’ experiences, perceptions, and opinions.

This case study also involved the use of quantitative data. The quantitative data

for this study were collected through surveys and MCT2 data. Frequencies and percent

distributions were generated for the data collected from the surveys and MCT2 data. The

58

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for the analysis of quantitative

data. The paired t-test and the independent t-test were used to check for changes in the

students’ academic performance.

After the researcher was granted permission from the Mississippi State University

Institutional Research Board (see Appendix A) to conduct the study, the researcher met

the principal, fifth grade teachers, ELL teacher, exceptional education teacher, counselor,

literacy coach/interventionist, and academic tutors at an urban elementary school to

discuss this case study and request their participation. All staff members were provided

with a consent form. After obtaining teacher consent, the researcher met with the fifth

grade students to inform them about this case study and provide them with the parent

consent form. If the parent consent form was not returned, the parents were contacted by

phone to inform them of this case study. Another parent consent form was provided for

the students to take home and give to their parents.

When the signed parent consent forms had been collected, students were asked for

their assent. The researcher read the assent form to the students because some students

were not be able to read on the fifth grade level. The researcher was available to students

during transitional time or prior to instructional time for the researcher to answer any

questions about the case study.

The researcher had direct contact with the participants to obtain an in-depth

understanding of how departmentalization impacts teachers, staff, and students’ academic

achievement. This case study allowed the researcher an opportunity to facilitate

interviews and casual conversations with the participants in this case study. The

researcher held numerous casual conversations with teachers and staff during their

59

planning time. The researcher conducted casual conversations with students during their

school day. These casual conversations served as continual interviews over the duration

of the case study.

Teachers and staff were provided a written survey. These participants were

instructed to return the surveys to the investigator or place it in the investigator’s mailbox

in the main office at the urban elementary school. The use of a survey with teachers

allowed a sense of anonymity to teachers who work daily with the researcher.

The researcher administered the survey to students in whole group sessions within

the homeroom classes. These surveys were administered to the students in their

homeroom classes at the beginning or end of the instructional day. Again, the investigator

read the survey to the students because of various levels of reading comprehension. As

with the use of surveys with the teachers, the use of a survey with students allowed

students an opportunity to voice their opinions anonymously.

The final procedure consisted of collecting and analyzing the students’ MCT2

standardized test results from the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school sessions. The MCT2

results were compared to determine the difference in the overall achievement among

students. In addition to analyzing the MCT2 results, the responses from the student and

staff’s surveys were analyzed to understand the impact of utilizing a departmentalized

organizational structure in the fifth grade classes on teachers and staff, and on student

academic achievement at MDSES. This understanding was required for a successful case

study.

60

Researcher’s Role

For the past 20 years, I have served as a public educator in several communities

within an urban school district (see Appendix B). With 15 years of teaching experience, I

have taught first and fourth grades in the self-contained setting in Hinds County,

Mississippi. I was responsible for teaching reading, language arts, mathematics, science

and social studies. My teaching experiences occurred at two elementary schools and I

have had the opportunity to serve as assistant principal at three different elementary

schools.

After completing student teaching, I attended a job recruitment fair and was

offered a position as a first grade teacher. After signing a contract to teach, I was assigned

to teach at a low performing elementary school within the district. This low performing

Title I school was piloting team teaching in the first grade as a strategy to increase

student achievement. The teaching team consisted of two certified regular education

teachers who were responsible for teaching a class of students all of the core academic

subjects. I served as a team teacher in the first grade. The scores did not increase

significantly and the following year the school did not continue to utilize team teaching.

However, I did continue to teach first grade with the support of an instructional assistant.

After my third year of teaching, I decided to further my education by enrolling in

the Masters of Elementary Education (K-8) Program. In addition to pursuing my

Master’s Degree, I also decided to transfer to another school within the district that was

closer to my home. At my new school, I was assigned to teach first grade. As I taught at

proficient to commendable levels ratings throughout the years, I served on several

committees and began to assist with some of the administrative duties. During my 12th

61

year of teaching, I served as the lead teacher, principal designee, and coordinator of the

after school program. It was during this year that my principal encouraged me to pursue a

degree in educational leadership and supervision. After considerable thought and soul-

searching, I decided to further my education and professional knowledge by pursuing a

specialist degree in educational administration (K-12). After attaining the degree, my

principal decided to move me out of my comfort zone of teaching first grade. Because of

the decline in academic achievement in fourth grade and my consistently productive

teaching techniques, I was assigned to teach a self-contained fourth grade class in an

attempt to increase students’ achievement. During that year, I also decided to enroll in a

doctoral program in educational leadership and supervision because of my zest for

professional growth as well as professional knowledge in educating youth. When the

scores from the MCT2 were returned to my principal in June, the principal called me in

regards to my students’ performance. I was ecstatic and proud of my students for making

significant gains on the MCT2 as compared to the other three fourth grade classes in the

school. However, I had no idea that another opportunity was forthcoming. During the

second week of July, I was offered the assistant principal’s position at the school.

My responsibilities as assistant principal include many functions that aid the

principal in the overall administration of the school. Some of my responsibilities include:

planning, instructional leadership, management, professional development, fostering

community relations, and promoting interpersonal relationships. Countless hours are

spent on sharing ideas, changing attitudes, challenging others to do their best, creating

high expectations, and maximizing the talents of others.

62

Generally, planning helps define both the school’s goals and how to attain the

goals. Planning is one of my major responsibilities and planning allows me to

communicate a sense of purpose and direction while outlining the tasks to be performed.

Without planning, I would not be able to use my time effectively and efficiently.

Planning is also a prerequisite to other leadership functions. It is the basis for monitoring

and evaluation performance. With strategic planning, I assist the principal and staff

members with the development of the School-wide Improvement Plan, the Professional

Development Plan, and the Crisis Plan. Time is also dedicated to working with the grade

level instructional teams and the principal to plan programs such as Parent Teacher

Association meetings, Award’s Day, Parenting Workshops, Dads of Great Students’

meetings, Mothers and Daughters Involvement conferences, Muffins for Moms’

breakfast, and Doughnuts for Dads’ breakfast.

After plans are formulated and activities are organized, my next responsibility is

helping to lead staff members in achieving our school’s goals. As an instructional leader,

I have to use flexibility in facilitating, collaborating, and motivating in order to

accomplish daily tasks. Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the curriculum

is another responsibility. After the morning announcements are made by the principal or

by me, I begin the monitoring process. This includes classroom observations and walking

around the building to see if strategies are being implemented to reach our goals.

Feedback, pre-conferences, and post-conferences are provided to the instructional staff in

an effort to improve the quality of instruction and to compliment productive teaching

methodologies. After analyzing data from assessments, I meet with the team leaders and

instructional teams to utilize the data to improve instruction. Throughout the day, I

63

provide on-going assistance and communicate with the staff about productive teaching

strategies, effective classroom management strategies, and strategies to assist with

dealing with students who demonstrate inappropriate behavior. Another responsibility is

working with the special education teachers and academic tutors to ensure IEPs and RTI

interventions are be implemented appropriately. In addition, I try to stay abreast of the

current changes in education by reading professional literature and attending professional

meetings and conferences.

Once I have assisted with workable plans and methods of attaining them, the

plans are implemented with effective management skills. My management skills are used

to assist and monitor the usage of resources (human, financial, and material) to reach the

school’s goals and mission. One of my responsibilities is arranging for substitutes for

teachers who are absent. After the teachers notify me of their intended absence, I contact

substitutes or assign classified instructional staff member to teach for the day. Moreover,

management skills are needed daily to help operate the school. Because of conferences

with parents, professional development sessions, emergency issues, and scheduled IEP

meetings, I have to reassign academic tutors, instructional assistants, or support staff

members to monitor or implement the delivery of instruction for teachers. In addition, I

hold conferences with parents, students, and teachers as needed to support the success of

the school.

Another responsibility is assisting the principal with interviewing, selecting, and

recommending personnel. After candidates are chosen for employment, I help complete

the documents needed with the recommendation for employment that is submitted to the

district’s human resource department. Furthermore, ongoing evaluations of certified staff,

64

assisting with reports, responding to discipline referrals, conducting monthly emergency

preparedness drills (fire, tornado, lockdowns, evacuations), monitoring attendance,

supervising students throughout the day, attending school events and activities, inspecting

the building and grounds, and performing other related duties as requested are some of

the other responsibilities that I share with the principal.

Professional development is a continuous responsibility and duty. Along with my

principal, I plan and provide professional development sessions to the staff. In order to be

productive in leading professional development and staff meetings, I have to be aware of

new policies, procedures, and initiatives by attending mandatory training sessions for

administrators. As professional development opportunities (workshops, institutes, and

conferences) exist to address deficits or enhance learning opportunities within my

building, it is my responsibility to attend these sessions independently or with staff

members.

As a mandate in adhering to the school and district’s goal of improving parental

and community involvement, I work with community organizations to enhance the

learning opportunities at my school. There is always a need for tutors, test proctors, book

buddies, reading and science fair judges, and mentors to assist the staff and students

throughout the year. Therefore, it is important for me to communicate effectively my

school’s mission and goals to all stakeholders. Even though it is time consuming, I work

diligently to establish and maintain a rapport with our parents, school adopters, local

businesses and universities so they are willing to volunteer and visit the school. These

agents are vital resources because I sometimes have to solicit donations to support school

activities and programs.

65

An important responsibility involves maintaining a safe school environment by

managing conflict in an effective manner. I use a variety of techniques to solve problems

and dilemmas. I have to establish interpersonal relationships while serving as the

arbitrator when conflicts arrive between students, staff and students, as well as staff and

parents. As students and/or parents make a complaint or report a problem, I have to seek

more information and conference with the individuals involved to maintain a positive

school environment that is conducive to learning and teaching. In spite of being able to

lead my school effectively in the absence of my principal, I am constantly dialoguing

with her because she is the individual who is responsible for the overall operation and

function of our school.

In order to perform all of my duties and responsibilities, I work beyond 40 hours a

week. Every day brings new challenges as unexpected disturbances erupt that require my

immediate attention and action. Sometimes, unscheduled conferences cause me to

postpone activities that need to be completed. There is not a continuous pattern to

describe a typical work day. My workload is very heavy and tasks are completed at an

unrelenting pace.

A goal of a principal and assistant principal is to ensure the high performance of

students and staff in achieving the school’s missions and goals. High performance

requires the effective use of leadership functions such as planning, organizing, leading,

and monitoring new strategies, practices, and organizational structure changes. Knowing

that doing the same things would produce the same results, it was time for a change.

After consistent data from the MCT and MCT2 indicated inadequate growth in the

academic performance of the fifth grade, my principal and I started thinking about

66

strategies that may help improve our students’ academic performance and achievement as

well as improving our school’s state accreditation rating. Not knowing if it was a good

idea, I had to help come up with a plan. Because all of our fifth grade teachers were

certified through the alternate route process and the majority had prior teaching

experience in a departmentalized middle school setting, I suggested changing fifth grade

to a departmentalized setting as an attempt to increase students’ achievement and

teachers’ performance.

After making the suggestion to change the organizational structure in fifth grade,

the principal and I had to research and gather more information on departmentalization in

elementary school. Because I had been previously transferred from another school in the

district that had a departmentalized fifth grade, I shared some of the advantages and

disadvantages that I had previously experienced while serving as the assistant principal at

the other school. In a joint effort with my principal, we began reading current literature

and speaking with other principals in the district that had departmentalized fifth grades.

There was a consensus between the literature and experiences among the principals with

departmentalized fifth grade. Knowing that every school’s experience would be different,

we decided to talk with the fifth grade instructional staff about changing from a self-

contained to departmentalized setting in addition to establishing instructional and

professional expectations.

Description of Participants

Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) stated purposive sampling is a nonrandom sample

selected because prior knowledge suggests it is representative or because those selected

have the needed information. Therefore, the participants in this case study were purposely

67

selected from an urban elementary school. The student participants for this case study

consisted of 60 students from three intact fifth grade homeroom classes. The students’

ages ranged from 10-12 years old. This diverse group of participants had various ethnic

backgrounds, learning abilities, and learning abilities.

The other participants in this study were members of the urban elementary

school’s staff. These participants included: counselor, literacy coach/interventionist,

exceptional education teacher, ELL teacher, two academic tutors, and three regular

education teachers. All of these participants were college graduates with the exception of

one academic tutor, who had taken college courses, but had not completed all the

requirements of a college graduate.

Research Question

This case study was guided by the following question that explored the impact

that departmentalization has on teachers and staff, and on student academic achievement:

How do the fifth grade staff and students transition from a self-contained organizational

structure to a departmentalized organizational structure? The research questions that were

generated to respond to the problem of this study were:

1. What is the preferred organizational structure for fifth grade education after

transitioning from a self-contained to a departmentalized structure?

2. Is departmentalization a more effective practice when attempting to raise

student proficiency levels and content understanding as evidenced by MCT2

scores?

3. Is there a significant difference in the academic achievement among fourth

grade students enrolled in a self-contained setting and those same students

68

enrolled in a fifth grade departmentalized organizational structure as measured

by the MCT2 results?

4. How do teachers rank the courses they enjoy and in which they believe they

are most effective teaching?

5. How do the students rank the courses they enjoy the most?

6. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the impact of departmentalization in

their school?

Research Site

This case study was conducted at an urban elementary school in Mississippi.

The research site was located in a residential community, which included several

apartment complexes and businesses, as well as a community park and gymnasium

within the school zone. There were a number of pre-schools and after-care facilities that

served the research site’s students.

Under the Mississippi Assessment and Accountability Reporting System, the

research site was labeled successful. The research site was a public school located in

Hinds County within a low socio-economic community. Approximately 94% of the

students qualified for free meals. The student population of this Title I school included

the following subgroups: 85% Black, 10% English Language Learners, and 5% White.

Males made up 55% of the population. Within grades kindergarten through fifth, 10% of

the students had IEPs.

While conducting this research, the setting was in various locations throughout

the campus. The settings for the student participants and observations were in various

69

fifth grade classrooms. The settings for the teachers and support staff participants were

wherever they felt comfortable throughout the campus.

Data Collection

Yin (1994) identified six primary sources of evidence for case study research:

documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation,

and physical artifacts. Not all sources are essential in every case study, but the

importance of multiple source data to the reliability of the study is well established

(Stake, 1995). No single source has a complete advantage over the others; rather, they

might be complementary and could be used in tandem. Interviews, casual conversations,

surveys, and MCT2 data were used as instruments in this case study.

In addition, individual and group interviews of the instructional staff were

conducted during planning time in various locations throughout the school. The interview

protocol included open-ended questions regarding the participants’ opinions and

experiences regarding the implementation of departmentalization (see Appendix C).

Debriefing with the participants was conducted to obtain information on the clarity of the

interview questions and their relevance to the study. Extensive notes were taken by the

researcher during the interviews and casual conversations to ensure all data were

accurately described and analyzed.

Also, the researcher observed the participants in their natural settings during

instructional and planning times throughout the academic session. Observations were

conducted to corroborate data collected in the teachers’ surveys and interviews. The data

generated from this case study were used to determine if the implementation of

70

departmentalization in the fifth grade produced higher student achievement than the self-

contained organizational method.

One of the techniques of obtaining data is conducting surveys among the

participants. The data collection for students consisted of 10 questions about the

departmentalized organizational classroom structure at the urban elementary school (see

Appendix D). The difference between a self-contained and departmentalized

organizational setting were thoroughly discussed and explained with participants prior to

marking a “yes” or “no” response to the questions. The questions were formulated to help

the researcher gain a better understanding of the instructional methodology in the

departmental organizational structure.

The survey for staff consisted of 17 questions. This survey was about the impact

of departmentalization (see Appendix E). Again, the participants were provided with the

definition of self-contained and departmentalization organizational settings. This

instrument included questions about the following areas: (a) teaching experience, (b)

teaching certification, (c) professional development, (d) most/least favorable taught

subject, (e) preference of organizational structure, and (f) subject specialization.

The participants answered the survey and submitted them back to the researcher

or placed them in the designated location in the front office, ensuring a 100% response

rate. The data were sorted by the investigator and placed into an Excel spreadsheet for

data analysis. The data were analyzed to determine the perceptions and opinions of the

participants regarding the implementation of departmentalization.

The student scores on the MCT2 were also collected for analysis as part of the

case study (see Appendix F). The student scores assisted with the understanding of the

71

case of the transition to departmentalization. The MCT2 is based on the revised

statewide language arts and mathematics curricula (MDE, 2011). Tests in language arts

and mathematics are administered each year in May to students enrolled in third through

eighth grades. This test is used to measure language arts and mathematics achievement

for students participating in this case study. The results include a numeric scale score and

a proficiency level. The proficiency level represents standards based on cut scores

established by committees of Mississippi teachers and approved by the State Board of

Education. The proficiency levels are Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Minimal. The

data are disaggregated into reports at the student, class, school, district, and state levels.

Stakeholders use these reports to diagnose individual student strengths and weaknesses

and to judge the quality of education provided by Mississippi’s teachers.

Data Analysis

Yin (1994) stated that data analysis consists of examining, categorizing,

tabulating, or otherwise recombining the evidence to address the initial propositions of a

study. In order to understand how the fifth grade staff and students transitioned from a

self-contained organizational structure to a departmentalized organizational structure, this

case study employed a series of procedures to help the researcher with analyzing the data.

Data from the interviews and observations were analyzed using the constant

comparative method. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) indicated that the constant comparative

method was a technique for data analysis when there are multi-data sources. These

multiple data sources allowed for the analyzing data from triangulated sources, a

necessary characteristic of qualitative data. According to Goetz and LeCompte (1984a),

72

the constant comparative method involves categorical coding, which creates emergent

patterns and themes.

The data from the surveys helped to describe the students and staff’s perception of

departmentalization at an urban elementary school. The results from the survey

instruments are presented in tables by percent and frequency distributions (see Appendix

F). The percentages of responses to each item were summarized. The percentages of

responses to each item were summarized and are presented in chapter four to address the

research question.

Descriptive statistics were computed for the MCT2 scores for each comparison

groups. Group A consists of data from the fifth grade students who received self-

contained instruction in the fourth grade during the 2010 academic session. Group B

consists of data from students who received departmentalized instruction in the fifth

grade during the 2011 school session. The data from the MCT2 scale scores and

performance levels were analyzed using the mean, median and standard deviation and the

paired t-test using an alpha level of .05 for statistical significance. According to Huck

(2000), a coefficient alpha is used for assessing internal consistency. An alpha of .05

means that the probability of a Type I error would occur is 5 times out of 100 (Ary,

Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996, p. 640). The second statistical test performed by the researcher

is a two-sample t-test which compares the mean scale scores differences between the

2010 self-contained scores and the 2011 departmentalized scores.

The constant comparative method was used to analyze the notes from the

interviews and observations. Data were collected through interviews using open ended

questions to allow the staff to articulate their perceptions and experiences freely and

73

spontaneously about departmentalization. The constant comparative method involved

breaking down the data into units and coding them into categories (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). Using the constant comparative method (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), the researcher

analyzed the transcribed interviews and notes from observations along with the findings

of the surveys and the MCT2 scores as multiple sources of data in search of common

themes.

Trustworthiness

If an investigator’s interpretations of data are to be worthy, the data collection

must be reliable and valid. Reliability refers to the accuracy and precision of a procedure

(Thorndike, 1997). Validity is the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses

the specific concept or constructs that the researcher is attempting to reflect or assess.

Social and behavioral scientists critique the validity of studies that use such methodology.

Thus, qualitative researchers utilize various validation strategies to make their studies

credible and rigorous (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Credibility for this case study’s casual

conversations, interviews, and surveys were achieved using the validation strategy of

triangulation. Triangulation increases the reliability of the data and the process (Yin,

1994).

The primary source of data collection used in this case study was interviews,

observations, and a collection of artifacts. Interviews, open-end and focused, were

conducted with the teachers to gain knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages

of departmentalization, instructional planning and procedures, and experiences in a

departmentalized organizational setting since two of the teachers previously taught in the

middle school. Direct observations were continuous as the investigator collect data for

74

this case study. MCT2 data and artifacts were also gathered to help understand the impact

of departmentalization on academic achievement.

Trustworthiness, or validity, involves whether the research reports what is

supposed to be reported (Joope, 2000). To Creswell (1998), this is called verification. To

Goetz and LeCompte (1984b), validity is concerned with the accuracy of the findings. To

Creswell and Miller (2000), trustworthiness is dependent on the moral, ethical, and

academic judgments the researcher makes about the research process and the resulting

report of the research.

The involvement of students and teachers increased trustworthiness. Seidman

(2006) indicated there can be “gatekeepers who control access” (p. 43) to participants.

The inclusion of students and teachers was to an attempt to gain the trust of these

“legitimate gatekeepers” (p. 43). Additionally, the students and teachers were

“conversational partners” (Ruben & Ruben, 2005, p. 14).

75

RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY

Chapter Four is a presentation of the results of the research. The purpose of this

study was to examine the change of fifth grade classes from a self-contained structure to

a departmentalized structure. This case study sought to understand how the fifth grade

staff and students transitioned from a self-contained organizational structure to a

departmentalized organizational structure. This case study investigated the impact that

departmentalization had on staff, students, and academic achievement in the fifth grade.

Perceptions of teachers and students of the academic environment and changes were

solicited through the administration of a survey that examined the transition from a self-

contained organizational structure to a departmentalized organizational structure.

Observations were conducted to supplement and clarify data derived from participants’

interviews. MCT2 data were examined to determine student academic achievement

during the transition.

Overview of the Chapter

This chapter reports the results of my research to answer the research question:

How do the fifth grade staff and students transition from a self-contained organizational

structure to a departmentalized organizational structure? This chapter begins with an

introduction of the case which explains how the school changed its fifth grade structure

76

from self-contained to a departmentalized setting. Next, the description of the

instructional staff and students is presented. This description is followed by the findings

of the study and a discussion of the findings and the literature. The chapter concludes

with a summary of the chapter.

Case Introduction: Changing the School’s Structure

The elementary school selected for this case study was located in a city of

approximately 174,000 residents. The school was situated in a residential and commercial

section of the city. The school had an enrollment of approximately 460 students in

Grades K-5 with the majority of the population being African Americans. About 10% of

the students received special education services, another 10% received (ELL) services,

and about 95% received free or reduced-price meals. A small population of the students

(about 3%) transferred in and out of the school monthly. The school’s daily attendance

rate was about 95%.

While a large percentage of the third through fifth grade student body overall had

performed basic or proficient on the MCT2 and the school had made adequate yearly

progress (AYP), the fifth grade scores indicated a decline. The mean MCT2 scores for the

fifth grade students were below the district and state average scores. The data revealed

that there was a gap in achievement as students transitioned from the fourth to fifth grade.

This weakness had to be addressed if the school was going to maintain its label as

“successful” under the MDE Assessment and Accountability Reporting System. The

school administration and faculty had much work to do in order to improve the academic

outcomes of all its students. Concern with student academic success was the impetus for

77

reorganizing the structure of fifth grade from a self-contained setting to departmentalized

structure.

In August of the 2009-2010 academic year, the school staff reviewed data from

the MCT2 assessment which was administered in the previous school year. As before,

the fifth grade data did not show an increase as compared to the third and fourth grades.

After examining the strengths and weaknesses of the students’ performance with the

school’s instructional team, the administrative team posed questions to determine how the

instructional team could increase the academic performance among fifth grade students.

The instructional team offered many suggestions such as additional tutors and support

staff, smaller teacher-student ratio, after-school tutorial sessions, additional technology,

support from district’s curriculum department, professional development, looping, and

departmentalization. After listening to the feedback, I explained that the administrative

team would work diligently to provide support to the instructional team. I also explained

that some of the suggestions were beyond school level control because of budget

restraints and some were district level decisions.

During the next few weeks, the leadership team and school governance committee

met to discuss test data, professional development, school reform issues, and the Title I

school-wide plan. As a part of the reform effort of deciding to implement a

departmentalized setting in fifth grade, the principal and I began researching literature

and dialoguing with colleagues in other elementary schools within the district about

departmentalization in the fifth grade. Both the principal and I were not surprised to

learn that our colleagues’ experiences regarding the advantages and disadvantages of

departmentalization were similar to the finding among previous studies. With

78

inconsistency in the advantages and results of the test data from the other schools that

already departmentalized upper grades, the principal and I had a tough decision to make

that could possibly influence the increase or decrease of the academic performance of our

students.

Prior to initiating an action plan, the principal discussed with the parents of the

students about departmentalizing fifth grade during PTA meetings, conference days,

various assembly programs, and events that parents were invited to attend at the school.

At the end of the first semester, the principal and I met with the fifth grade teachers and

support staff. With a consensus, the principal, fifth grade teachers, support staff, and I

decided to departmentalize fifth grade for the 2010-2011 academic year. This decision

was made after reviewing the district’s first semester test data and our fifth grade had

scored significantly below the district and other elementary schools within the district in

mathematics and science.

During the second semester of the term, before the fall when departmentalization

would be implemented, the principal and I continued soliciting support from the district

level curriculum personnel and seeking ideas from the successful experiences of the

existing departmentalized fifth grade setting at the other elementary schools. An

inventory of all the resources needed to implement departmentalization in fifth grade had

to be undertaken to ensure successful implementation. The fifth grade teachers’

qualifications and areas of certification were examined to determine their new

assignments for the upcoming school year. The school facilities were examined to

reassign teachers to different classrooms for the upcoming year. A 90-minute block

schedule was created to ensure the MDE’s instructional time allotment for each subject.

79

Ongoing collaboration occurred throughout the planning process. The principal and I

responded to the concerns of the staff and parents. Yet, the majority of the current fourth

grade students had little concern regarding the transition to departmentalization for the

upcoming year. Most of those students were familiar with all of the staff members.

As the school began counting down the days left to prepare students for the

administration of the MCT2 during the second week of May, the administrative team

received written notification by the district’s human resource personnel that a teaching

contract for the 2010-2011 school year would not be issued to three of our teachers.

These teachers had several years of teaching experience on an emergency teaching

license because of the teacher shortage in Mississippi. Unfortunately, one of those

teachers taught fourth grade and another taught fifth grade self-contained classes. The

news about non-renewing contracts for the upcoming school year was detrimental to the

success of the fourth and fifth grade classes. As the teachers’ anxiety level increased

because of the approaching state test dates and the reality of becoming unemployed, these

teachers exhibited a low morale and did not continue to provide a quality education to

students due to excessive absences. It was understood that they were using their

accumulated sick and personal days to search for other employment opportunities and

prepare for the upcoming Praxis Exam to become highly certified.

After the administration of the MCT2 test, the principal and I received some good

news from the fifth grade teacher who did not receive a contract for the upcoming year.

The teacher was excited to inform us that she had passed the Praxis. As we rejoiced about

her success of gaining the requirements to obtain a standard teaching license, another

fifth grade teacher turned in her letter of resignation. This teacher was resigning because

80

her husband had been transferred to Texas. Nevertheless, more bad news was on its way.

Two weeks prior to end of the school year, the Deputy Superintendent announced a

mandatory meeting for all principals and assistant principals. The agenda for the meeting

dealt with personnel and budget issues. The district had a freeze on hiring new personnel,

so the principals could not hire new personnel to fill the vacant positions in the schools.

Based on qualifications and certifications, personnel would be reassigned within the

district to fill the vacant positions throughout the district; therefore, the majority of the

principals and assistant principals were very upset when they left this meeting. Many

thought it was unfair that they did not have a voice or choice in the educators who would

be reassigned to their buildings.

During the last week of school, the principal received the names of the three

teachers who were being reassigned to our school. Our school received one teacher from

the middle school. The other teachers were being reassigned from other elementary

schools. After receiving the names of these teachers, the principal began contacting the

principals from these three schools to gain information about the teachers who were

being reassigned to our school. As the principal and I closed the school year, we

informed a few of the fourth and fifth grade teachers that they might be reassigned to

another classroom for the upcoming year if fifth grade was departmentalized. The

reassignment of classrooms would allow all of the fifth grade homeroom classes to be

located within close proximity to each other. The close proximity among the classrooms

would help to safeguard instructional time and ease the rotation of the 90-minute block

schedule. Assigning the fifth grade classes in close proximity of each other would help to

81

decrease the amount of time that students and staff utilized in changing classes as well as

ease the supervision of students during their transition to other classrooms.

On the last contract day for teachers, one of the reassigned teachers to our school

for the next year visited our campus. In a brief meeting with the principal and me, she

expressed her disappointment with being reassigned to the elementary level from the

middle school; however, she would need our assistance while adjusting to her newly

assigned position as a fifth grade teacher. Although she had a few years of teaching

experience at the sixth and seventh grade levels, she had never taught at the elementary

level. In addition, she inquired about the organizational structure of the fifth grade

because of her previous assignment of teaching reading and language arts to sixth and

seventh grade students. The principal explained that we were in the process of

transitioning fifth grade from a self-contained setting to departmentalization for the

upcoming year. However, the principal or I would be contacting the teacher by the end of

the following week to discuss if we would still carry out the plan to departmentalized

fifth grade.

After the meeting with the reassigned teacher for the new school year, a member

of the district’s human resource department contacted us about another teacher who was

being reassigned to our school to fill the vacant position of the teacher who had submitted

her letter of resignation. Again, the principal called this teacher’s principal to gain more

knowledge about her job performance. During the next two days, meetings where held by

the principal and me with the other three teachers to gain more knowledge about their

experience and preference for self-contained or departmentalized classes in order to

assign them in the vacant positions in first, fourth, and fifth grades. After the meetings,

82

the principal assigned the two teachers from the other elementary schools to the first and

fourth grade positions. One of these teachers requested lower elementary and the other

teacher had been previously assigned to fourth grade while teaching at the other school.

One of the teachers who had been reassigned from another elementary school did not

have a preference of grade level because of her previous experience at the elementary and

middle school levels. Therefore, this teacher was assigned to teacher fifth grade for the

upcoming year.

On Thursday of the following week, the administrative team met with the three

fifth grade teachers. In the meeting, there was discussion about procedures, school-wide

expectations, and restructuring the fifth grade. After explaining our plans to implement a

departmental structure in fifth grade, the teachers were asked to decide if they would be

more productive in a self-contained or departmentalized organizational setting. After

discussing their previous teaching experiences, preference of subjects to teach, and

professional development needs, the teachers along with the administrative team decided

to implement departmentalization for the upcoming year. One of the teachers expressed

that she was very comfortable with teaching reading and language arts, so she was

assigned those subjects. Another teacher shared that she enjoyed science and had already

registered for some science professional development sessions during the summer. It was

her request to teach science and social studies. After listening to their request, the third

teacher laughed and said, “I will teach math, but I will need some support and

professional development to refine my skills in teaching math.” The principal assured

her of the needed support and professional development because math was one of the

targeted weaknesses in fifth grade. Prior to the close of the meeting, I shared a sample of

83

the 90-minute block schedule. From the teachers’ request, revisions would be made on

the days for special subjects and common planning time. The principal also informed

them of professional development sessions and conferences that they could attend during

the summer. Finally, the principal assigned one of the teachers as team leader for the

upcoming year. The team leader was the teacher who already had experience teaching at

our school.

Instructional Staff

The instructional staff who served as participants in this study were members of

the urban elementary school’s staff. The names used in the study are pseudonyms to

protect the identity of the school system, elementary school site, and teacher participants.

These participants included the following educators: counselor, literacy

coach/interventionist, exceptional education teacher, ELL teacher, two academic tutors,

and three regular education teachers.

As I obtained a better understanding of how departmentalization impacted the

instructional staff, I had direct contact with the instructional staff by conducting

interviews, having casual conversations, and observing them in the school setting. At the

beginning of the case study, surveys were administered to the instructional staff (see

Appendix E). During the first and second semester, interviews and casual conversations

were conducted during planning time in various locations throughout the school. These

casual conversations with the instructional staff were conducted to clarify the interview

questions and their relevance to the study. Also, I observed the instructional staff during

instructional and planning times throughout the academic session to corroborate data

collected in the teachers’ surveys and interviews.

84

The study participants represented a group of individuals with varying

backgrounds, degrees of education, and experience. These staff members were college

graduates with the exception of one academic tutor, who had taken college courses, but

had not completed all the requirements of a college graduate. Almost half of them had a

Class AA (Masters) level teaching license (see Table 1). More than 66% of the

instructional staff had a certification code of 117 for elementary education fourth through

eighth grades and 22% of them had a certification code of 120 for elementary education

kindergarten through sixth grades (see Table 2). These instructional staff members were

highly qualified to teach fifth grade students in a departmentalized organizational

structure. More than half of the staff members had 5-10 years of teaching experience and

about one-fourth of them had either less than five years or more than 16 years of teaching

experience (see Table 3). In spite of more than half of the staff members having 5-10

years of teaching experience, only one-third of them had 5-10 years teaching experience

at the fifth grade level (see Table 4).

Although the instructional staff were deemed highly certified under the federal

requirements mandated through the NCLB, more than 77% of them indicated they did not

believe that their initial college training adequately trained them to teach all subjects at

the fifth grade level (see Tables 5-6). More than two-thirds of the staff indicated that they

had college level training in reading and language arts, but more than two thirds of the

staff did not have any college level training in mathematics (see Tables 7-8). As the fifth

grade transitioned from a self-contained to departmentalized setting, about 66% of the

staff indicated that they did not have a voice in the decision-making process at the school

concerning the 5th grade classroom organizational structure (see Table 9). Furthermore,

85

almost 90% of the staff indicated that they did believe that teachers who have specialized

training in a specific subject can better serve students through some type of

departmentalization at the 5th grade level (see Table 10). However professional

development and pedagogical training was provided during the 2010-2011 academic year

to the staff to enhance their ability of teaching the curriculum (see Tables 11-12). More

than 77% of the staff indicated that they had professional development or pedagogical

training on the district or state curriculum and performance standards during the 2010-

2011 academic year (see Table 13). As the staff were instructed to use the test data to

plan their lessons, almost 90% of them indicated that during the 2010–2011 academic

year they had professional development or pedagogical training on how to utilize data to

make decisions about instructional strategies (see Table 14). In the content areas of

reading and language arts, eight of the nine staff participants indicated that they had

professional development or pedagogical training (see Table 15). The staff also placed a

lot of emphasis on mathematics, but six of the nine staff participants indicated they didn’t

have any professional development or pedagogical training in mathematics (see Table

16). With the mandates of NCLB, the staff were held accountable for the performance of

all students including those students with learning disabilities. In an effort to achieve

goals indicated in the students’ IEPs, 90% of the staff indicated they had professional

development or pedagogical training on addressing the needs of students with disabilities

(see Table 17).

Even though professional development was requested to teach mathematics

effectively, the core subjects, language arts and mathematics, which were assessed by the

MCT2, received the highest ranking for the subjects that the teachers enjoyed and felt

86

most effective teaching (see Tables 18-22). The instructional staff provided their rankings

for reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies for the students.

Reading and language arts had the highest mean rank, followed by mathematics, social

studies, and science. Science and social studies were tied for the fewest rankings of

number one.

As described in Chapter 3, the teachers who participated in this case study were

purposefully selected because they were responsible for providing instruction to the fifth

grade students. All nine of these educators are females who have various majors and

degrees. The teachers were Ms. McGee, Ms. Hazel, Ms. Hayes, Mrs. Weathersby, Ms.

Gray, Ms. Sam, Ms. Wheeler, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Jordan. These names used for these

individuals are all pseudonyms. A brief description of each teacher, her perception of

departmentalization in the fifth grade, and a description of the observation of her

instructional practices or planning strategies in the departmentalized setting are provided

in the following sections.

Each teacher was randomly observed once during different instructional blocks

and the counselor was randomly observed during a common planning setting to

corroborate her perceptions of departmentalization. The three core content teachers (Ms.

McGee, Ms. Hazel, and Ms. Hayes) were responsible for teaching all students including

those identified as ELL, Exceptional Education, and Tier III. The two academic tutors,

Ms. Wheeler and Mrs. Green, assisted in the classrooms with the three core content

teachers and provided tutorial sessions in their classrooms with small groups of students.

Mrs. Weathersby, exceptional educational teacher, team teaches with Ms. McGee and

Ms. Hayes in the mathematics and language arts classes. In addition to being a team

87

teacher in the general education classes, she provided intense instruction in her classroom

to address specified goals and objectives in her students’ IEPs.

Ms. McGee

Ms. McGee had been an educator for over nine years, but this was her first year at

this school. Her teaching experience has been in three districts in Mississippi, from rural

to urban. Ms. McGee had a bachelor and master’s degree with endorsements to teach

Elementary Education (K-8) and Social Studies (7-12). She had teaching experience at

the elementary and middle school levels. In the middle school, she taught math classes in

a departmentalized setting to sixth graders. Her prior teaching experience at the

elementary level was in a fourth grade self-contained setting. Ms. McGee was

responsible for teaching math to the fifth grade because of her previous experience of

teaching math in a departmental setting in the middle school. Ms. McGee described her

teaching style as very rigorous: “My classroom is very structured with clear, predictable

expectations and I expect students to think critically and to be proactive, diligent, and

invested.”

Ms. McGee believed that departmentalization enables students to be grouped

according to their abilities. Ability grouping allows her to plan lessons and activities that

are geared to the students’ skill levels. She said, “With the assistance of the support staff

(academic tutors, exceptional education teacher, ELL teacher and gift teacher),

differentiated instruction can be individualized to meet the students’ needs.” Ms. McGee

also indicated that departmentalization required team effort and commitment to educate a

diverse student population.

88

During the typical work day, departmentalization allowed her to have the

opportunity for ongoing collaboration to support the academic achievement among the

fifth grade students. Ms. McGee said, “Collaboration occurred during common planning

time, team meeting, and Teacher Support Team meetings.” She and the fifth grade

instructional team collaborated about instructional strategies, interventions, and behavior

problems. The opportunity to collaborate made it easier to come up with solutions to the

academic and behavior problems. If a conference was scheduled with a parent to discuss

any concerns, the fifth grade team supported each other by attending the conference and

providing feedback about the students’ performance in the other classrooms.

Ms. McGee believed there were advantages and disadvantages of

departmentalization. Advantages included the opportunity to develop in-depth mastery of

the mathematics curriculum. In the departmental setting, there was less burden of having

to plan lessons for five different subjects. Ms. McGee had more time to create innovative

and challenging lessons that increased her students’ understanding and retention of skills.

As she focused on mathematics only, Ms. McGee had more intense attention of each

student’s progress and deficits. Another advantage of departmentalization was the use of

limited funds to purchase games and manipulatives for just one subject. Prior to teaching

in a departmentalized setting, Ms. McGee had to use limited funding to purchase games

and teaching aids for all five core content subject areas.

To Ms. McGee, the 90 minute classes in the block schedule were the biggest

disadvantage of departmentalization. On numerous occasions, her students needed extra

time to complete assignments or master the focus skill of the day. Because of the strict

block schedule and lack of additional instructional time, a scheduling problem occurred

89

when students needed more instructional time to retain basic problem solving skills. In

her self-contained classroom, students needing more time in math could have continued

working on math while the class transitioned to another subject within her classroom, but

in the block schedule, students changes classes and students needing help with math

moved to another class and another teacher.

Ms. McGee’s classroom was located in a portable building adjacent to the other

two fifth grade classrooms. There were 24 students in this classroom. Within the

classroom, the students were divided into six groups that contained four students. The

heterogeneous ability groups of students sat at six tables. There were two tables located

in three rows, which allowed students easy access of rotation to the various small group

learning activities. The white boards were located in the front of the classroom. Each side

of the classroom had a door and three windows. Ms. McGee’s desk, storage closet, and

bookshelves were located in the rear of the room.

I observed Ms. McGee’s class during the second session of the block schedule. As

the students entered the classroom at 9:30 a.m., Ms. McGee stated several times, “Settle

down and begin working on the Bell Ringer/Re-teaching activity.” After a few minutes,

the students quietly began copying the two word problems from the board. As Ms.

McGee passed out the homework assignment, the academic tutor, Ms. Wheeler, took up

the previous night’s homework assignment. The exceptional education teacher, Mrs.

Weathersby, assisted three students with the Bell Ringer Activity. After a few minutes,

Ms. McGee read the word problems to the students. The students provided Ms. McGee

with the steps to solve the problems. While modeling the problem solving steps, Ms.

McGee asked opened ended questions to probe the students’ understanding. Upon

90

completion of this activity, the students and instructional staff members quietly exited the

classroom for a restroom and water break.

When the students returned to the classroom, they opened their mathematics

textbook to the day’s lesson on adding and subtracting fractions. Ms. McGee modeled the

steps of adding and subtracting fractions as well as identifying common factors of

numbers. Mrs. Weathersby and Ms. Wheeler assisted Ms. McGee with circulating among

the students to provide assistance and make sure they were on task. During this time, the

noise level began to elevate as assistance was provided to struggling students and time

was provided for students to copy notes from the board. After time was allowed for the

students to copy notes and get assistance from the teachers, Ms. McGee assigned students

to groups in order to complete various activities. Ms McGee reminded the students that

each small group and activity were assigned according to mastery of objectives on the

previous bi-weekly common assessment or previous independent practice assignment.

The students then transitioned from a whole group instructional setting to small

groups in order to participate collaboratively on various activities. This transition was

disorderly because one of the students wandered around the classroom as others began to

collect activities from designated areas in the classroom. Ms. McGee approached the

student as he wandered around the classroom and reminded him of the behavior

expectations for working in a cooperative group. In the meantime, the students worked

cooperatively on their small group activities. One group was facilitated by Ms. McGee

while Mrs. Weathersby and Ms. Wheeler rotated among the other five groups and

provided remediation. As Mrs. Weathersby rotated among the groups of students, one

male student (the same student who previously wandered around the classroom) left his

91

center several times to gain her attention for one-on-one assistance. Each time this

student approached Mrs. Weathersby and requested her assistance, she would tell him to

return to his group and raise his hand in order to gain the attention of one of the teachers

in the classroom. After approximately 30 minutes of center activities, Mrs. Weathersby

exited the classroom. As the second session concluded at 11:00 a.m., the students

returned their small group activities to the appropriate areas and a member of each group

explained the objective of the small group’s activity to classmates. While the students

prepared for the next class block rotation, the ELL teacher, Mrs. Sam, pulled three

students from the classroom for tutorial services. These students missed the initial 30

minutes of instruction during the next block of instruction. Upon returning to the next

class, the teacher must provide small group instruction to these three students who missed

the beginning of instruction.

Ms. Hazel

Ms. Hazel had been a fifth grade teacher in a self-contained setting for four years.

All of her teaching experience has been at this school. Currently, she served as the fifth

grade team leader and Science Fair Coordinator at the school. Ms. Hazel was responsible

for teaching science and social studies. She said, “Every student should understand about

how science is such an important factor in our everyday lives and how it can help us

understand the world around us”. Ms. Hazel considered herself as an overachiever and

lifelong learner. Her educational training included four degrees: a Bachelor and Master’s

of Business Education (7-12); a Master’s in Elementary Education (4-6); and an

Educational Specialist in Educational Administration and Supervision (K-12).

92

Departmentalization has demanded her to plan jointly with members of the fifth

grade team to meet the needs of students. In order to know the students fully, she

dedicated conversation time with colleagues who know the same students from a

different perspective. One of the advantages of departmentalization was the opportunity

to plan engaging social studies and science lessons as well as discovery lab activities

while integrating language arts objectives within her instruction. Another advantage of

departmentalization was the opportunity to work with all fifth grade students. This

benefitted the students as they enhanced their interpersonal skills by adapting to multiple

learning environments and expectations; unorganized students, however, struggled in the

departmentalized setting. Ms. Hazel believed another disadvantage of

departmentalization was the loss of instructional time as the unorganized students

searched for assignments and school supplies that were left in another classroom.

Overall, working on the fifth grade instructional team allowed Ms. Hazel to grow

professionally. The daily collaboration provided opportunities to solve problems, select

appropriate teaching materials, and generate ideas through brainstorming. The

interactions among the fifth grade instructional team have provided an increased level of

accountability. She stated,

Departmentalization on the elementary level takes a special group of teachers and

mature students to make this concept successful. The instructional staff has to

have similar discipline philosophies and maintain high expectations for all

students. Fortunately, I have had great teammates who are willing to compromise

on some instructional approaches so our students have consistency.

93

Ms. Hazel’s classroom was very attractive with bright and colorful charts and

posters on each wall. The white board and podium were located in the front of the

classroom. Bookshelves and a storage closet were in the rear of the room. On both sides

of this classroom were windows and a door. Ms. Hazel’s desk was located near the

entrance of the classroom. Her students’ desks were arranged in clusters to facilitate

small group activities. There were four tables for lab activities and two movable charts

for storage of center activities.

Upon entering this classroom during the last instructional block, Ms. Hazel and

her students participated in a whole group discussion on the differences between physical

and chemical changes among elements, compounds, and mixtures. All of the students

were engaged in the discussion and focused on the learning manipulatives that were used

to enhance the review of investigating matter. There was a sense of mutual respect in the

classroom as students raised their hands to provide input into the discussion. As the

students shared daily activities which represented physical or chemical changes, they

were required to justify and explain their responses. Prior to the end of the whole group

discussion, three ELL students, four Tier III students, and the academic tutor (Mrs.

Green) entered the classroom. (Tier III students are at risk for academic failure and

struggle with mastering objectives in reading, language arts, and/or mathematics with a

minimum of 70% accuracy. The students receive intense small group and/or individual

tutorial support in reading, language arts, and/or mathematics for six consecutive weeks.

After six consecutive weeks of interventions, the Teacher Support Team reviews their

progress monitoring to determine if interventions should be continued for another six

weeks.) Ms. Hazel asked these seven students to sit at a table which was located near her

94

desk. Mrs. Hazel assigned students to various groups. Then, she explained the

expectation for small group “Jigsaw” activities. After being reminded of the expectations

for small group activities, the students who had entered the classroom at the beginning of

the third instructional block quickly transitioned into small groups. In four cooperative

“Jigsaw” groups, the students used their science textbooks to answer guiding

comprehension questions about matter. As these students began working collaboratively,

Ms. Hazel and Mrs. Green provided small group instruction to the seven students who

had entered the classroom prior to small group learning activities. After discussing the

day’s objective with these students for approximately 15 minutes, these students were

assigned to join their classmates at various “Jigsaw” groups. (Jigsaw is a cooperative

learning strategy that enables each student of a home group to specialize in one aspect of

a learning unit. Students meet with members from other groups who are assigned the

same aspect. After mastering the material, students return to the home group and teach

the material to their group members.)

Each aspect group consisted of four students who used flow charts to organize

ideas. During this cooperative activity, the students discussed and justified their answers

to the guiding comprehension questions. Ms. Hazel and Mrs. Green rotated among the

groups of students to monitor their progress, check for comprehension, and provide

feedback. After approximately 30 minutes of discussion in the aspect groups, students

rotated back to their home groups for more intense discussion. The rotation among the

groups was very organized as every student adhered to the classroom routines and

procedures in an effort to safeguard the instructional time. Prior to the end of the block

95

session, a student from each home group told his or her classmates one fact that was

learned from investigating matter.

Ms. Hayes

Ms. Hayes was beginning her seventh year of teaching. Her previous six years

had been at the middle school level in a departmentalized setting. She has a Bachelor’s

degree in Elementary Education (4-6) and Master’s degrees in Biology (7-12) and

General Science (7-12). Because of her previous teaching experiences in the areas of

reading and language arts, she was responsible for teaching reading and language arts to

the fifth grade students. Ms. Hayes referred to teaching as a passion. With a deep desire

to love, nurture, and inspire children, she described her approach to teaching as varied,

eclectic, dramatic, and passionate. With a determination to build a strong foundation of

essentials that would allow her students to do their best, Ms. Hayes described her students

as awesome, incredible, interesting, intense, challenging, and inspirational. As an

advocate of departmentalization, Ms. Hayes said, “Students are expected to learn at a

much higher level, solve problems, and apply knowledge to real life situations.” She has

spent countless hours researching strategies to help her students excel.

Departmentalization has enabled her to establish and maintain an “awesome”

professional learning community. Her interactions with the fifth grade instructional team

provided great moral support. With the motivation and cooperation among the

instructional team, she has completed her teaching duties with greater satisfaction.

Nevertheless, she expressed that there are some disadvantages to departmentalization.

The rotation of students from class to class has been a problem when she and her

colleagues do not adhere to the schedule. There were also times when she needed extra

96

time to teach skills or complete lessons. During those times, she dismissed her class late

and caused a lack of supervision among the students who were waiting to enter her class.

When the students were not properly supervised, they disturbed the other classes by

talking and playing while waiting to enter the next teacher’s classroom.

Ms. Hayes’s classroom was decorated with posters and charts on every wall.

White boards were located on the front and left walls. Ms. Hayes’s desk and podium

were also located on the left side of the classroom. On the opposite side of the classroom

were book shelves and storage cabinets. There were several large windows on the rear

wall of the classroom. The students’ desks were arranged in clusters for small group

instruction. Within the five clusters of desks, there were a total of 20 students with four

students in each cluster.

After the students entered the classroom and spoke to Ms. Hayes and Mrs.

Weathersby, they quietly went to their desks and began recording their homework

assignment from the board into their journals. Then the students quickly copied the bell

ringer from the board. Ms. Hayes circulated among the students putting their progress

reports on the desks. In the meantime, Mrs. Weathersby circulated among the students

and encouraged them to use test-taking strategies and the charts to solve the bell ringer.

After a few minutes, one of the students volunteered to demonstrate on the board how to

“UNRAAVEL” the bell ringer problem and justified her answer. (UNRAAVEL is a test

taking strategy used in all subjects and grades to solve problems.) Then Ms. Hayes began

a whole group discussion about the reading and grammar objectives: facts/opinions,

formal/informal language, and compound subjects/predicates. Several open-ended

questions were asked to probe the students’ understanding. Ms. Hayes provided public

97

praise to students who demonstrated partial or complete accuracy. After Ms. Hayes, Mrs.

Weathersby, and the students had the opportunity to provide several examples of each

objective, the students transitioned into their small cooperative groups.

The students worked cooperatively in their small groups for approximately 20

minutes before rotating to another center activity. However, one of the groups had to be

reminded of the appropriate behavior expectations. Both of the teachers, Ms. Hayes and

Mrs. Weathersby, provided direct, explicit instruction to a group of students as they

monitored the other three groups who worked independently. As Ms. Hayes retaught

skills in the small group, one of the male students became frustrated and began to cry.

This student was provided with words of encouragement by Ms. Hayes and his

classmates as they continued using testing taking strategies to solve problems presented

in standardized testing format.

After working in the second group for 20 minutes, Ms. Hayes provided closure

for the lesson by allowing a student from each group to discuss something he or she had

learned in class. Then Ms. Hayes reminded the students to put their notes and

assignments in the designated folder as Mrs. Weathersby assisted two students with

organizing their folders. When Ms. Hayes announced it was time to rotate to the second

block the students quietly stood in a line and rotated to the next instructional block.

Mrs. Weathersby

With a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Education (7-12) and a Master’s Degree in

Mild/Moderate Disabilities (K-12), Mrs. Weathersby attained her teaching certification

through the alternate route program. She worked directly with students who had learning

disabilities. Becoming an educator had been her dream for countless years. Before Mrs.

98

Weathersby became a teacher at this school, she was a long term substitute within the

district at a middle school. She believes all of her students come to school with their own

unique set of knowledge, skills, and talent. She stated, “All children can learn with the

necessary support and interventions in the right environment. There is nothing more

rewarding then watching a child filled with glee after learning something new.” Her goal

as an exceptional education teacher is to meet students where they are and help them be

successful.

Mrs. Weathersby favored departmentalization because of the advantages for

students and teachers. Departmentalization enabled all students to have exposure to

different teaching styles and methods. Therefore, her students were able to solve

problems with a variety of techniques. In addition to the exposure of multiple teachers,

students were taught to adapt to changes. As an advantage of departmentalization for her,

Mrs. Weathersby had weekly opportunities to collaborate with the fifth grade

instructional staff about her students’ strengths and weaknesses. The ongoing

collaboration enabled her to gain additional strategies to use when reviewing and re-

teaching the skills that were previously taught in the regular education classrooms.

There were also some disadvantages of departmentalization. One of the negative

aspects of departmentalization was the time restrictions. Adhering to the strict schedule

limited the learning opportunities of her students. Because of her students’ deficits and

learning disabilities, she needed more time to differentiate instruction for her students to

comprehend the skills and objectives. Another negative aspect of departmentalization

was the inconsistent expectations among teachers for maintaining an orderly environment

99

conducive for learning. Instructional time was also lost as students rotated classes and she

spent time redirecting students to settle down in a different learning environment.

Mrs. Weathersby had experiences with departmentalization on both elementary

and middle schools levels. She said,

Departmentalization at the middle school level was a more pleasant experience

for me. Not only did I have the opportunity of collaborating and working as a

team with the grade level subject specialist teachers, I also had the opportunity to

work and collaborate with other exceptional education teachers.

She explained that the current collaboration is not effective between her and one

of her colleagues because of conflicting personalities. She had negative experiences

attempting to team teach in the regular classroom when the other teacher did not want her

to assist and interact with the other students without IEPs.

Mrs. Weathersby shared a portable classroom with another exceptional education

teacher. A wall partition separated her half of the classroom. Posters, anchor charts, and

students’ work samples are used to decorate the walls. Bookshelves and cabinets aligned

the front wall and the rear wall was aligned with Mrs. Weathersby desk and a table. On

each side of the room were tables with learning center activities and manipulatives. Two

tables are located in the center of the room where students sit during instruction. Two

small windows and a window in the door provided very little sunlight in the classroom.

Being the exceptional education teacher for fifth grade, Mrs. Weathersby spent

half of her time providing inclusion instruction in the regular education classrooms with

Ms. McGee and Ms. Hayes. (Because some of her students have specific learning

disabilities in the areas of reading and mathematics, the mandates within the students’

100

IEPs required her to team teach in the regular education reading/language arts and

mathematics classes. However, she assisted and provided accommodations within the

IEPs to her students with Science and Social Studies activities.) During the other half of

the instructional day, Mrs. Weathersby provided small group instruction to meet the

mandated goals within her students’ IEPs. Her students received one or two 45-60

minutes of small group (pull-out) instruction for reading/language arts skills and/or

mathematics skills. For small group instruction, these students were grouped according to

their needs, deficits in skills and objectives, and other heath impairments. Unfortunately,

small group pull-out caused these students to miss instruction from all three core content

classes when their needs could not be met during times for special subjects such as music

and library. While conducting a classroom observation, Mrs. Weathersby taught four of

her students how to use appropriate reference materials to understand and gain

information from the text. After listening to the story “Through Grandpa’s Eyes” students

inferred the meaning of the vocabulary words in context of the passage. After the

discussion of the meaning of the vocabulary words, the students used the dictionary,

thesaurus, and internet to verify their inferences of the words as well as define the

vocabulary words. Close proximity between Mrs. Weathersby and students allowed her

to redirect two students’ attention back on their assignment. Prior to the closure of the

lesson, Mrs. Weathersby reminded her students of the behavior expectations and played a

file folder game on using context clues to understand unfamiliar words.

Ms. Gray

Ms. Gray’s had a Bachelor’s Degree in Elementary Education (K-8) and a

Master’s Degree in Guidance Counseling (K-12). With 22 years of teaching experience in

101

two school districts in Mississippi, she had been working at this urban elementary school

since 1990. She had taught self-contained kindergarten and second grade classes.

Currently, she was the literacy coach and interventionist for all grade levels in the school.

As the literacy coach, Ms. Gray provided ongoing, job-embedded training and support for

teachers to build their capacity and effectiveness as reading teachers to struggling

students. Her duties as interventionist included: working with at-risk students to reduce

the number and severity of school discipline referrals, tracking the progress of referred

students’ behavior and academics, and working closely with staff member to provide

appropriate resources for referred students. In addition to providing direct instruction to

students and serving as a resource to classroom teachers, Ms. Gray believes that all

students can learn with the support of a caring teacher, a nurturing learning environment,

and a challenging curriculum.

As chairperson of the Teacher Support Team (TST), she helped teachers examine

students’ work samples, gives assessments to students, interprets data, and assist in the

RTI efforts. Her primary responsibility as interventionist was to improve student

achievement among the at-risk students by providing interventions to assist them with

being successful in school. Daily management skills were required to document progress

monitoring data of the interventions. Ms. Gray scheduled weekly meetings with teachers,

instructional assistants, and academic tutors to ensure fidelity of the interventions. In the

absence of the assistant principal, Ms. Gray facilitated team meetings and TST meetings

to review data and determine the appropriate interventions for students’ deficits. Other

duties included providing assistance to teachers in the completion of TST documentation

102

forms and performing classroom observations on behalf of the school district’s

psychometrist.

Her role as the literacy coach involved collaborating and serving as liaison

between the teachers, assistant principal, principal, and district curriculum specialist to

improve literacy learning. Ms. Gray was also responsible for sharing research and

modeling effective instructional practices for teachers within our building. During team

and staff meetings, she discussed effective and innovative teaching strategies and

assessment techniques for language arts. Many of her suggested strategies helped the fifth

grade instructional staff with differentiating instruction.

During the fifth grade team meeting, Ms. Gray served as the facilitator. She

emphasized the growing number of students needing interventions for academics and

behavior. With the assistance of the teachers, the previously taught objectives that were

assessed on the bi-weekly common assessments were identified for each core content

subject. After analyzing the results of the assessments, Ms. Gray and the teachers

identified students who scored below 70% in each subject. They grouped the students

according to objectives not mastered for the purpose of reteaching skills during the

following week. Ms. Gray provided the following suggestions for assisting students:

facilitating more frequent teacher lead small groups; incorporating UNRAAVEL using

transparencies for whole group, guided practice, and independent practice; using state

aligned questions in test format for homework to practice UNRAAVEL strategies;

integrating more charts and graphs for students to read and gather information; and re-

teaching skills and objectives not mastered during tutorial sessions. Prior to adjourning

the meeting, Ms. Gray and the fifth grade instructional team discussed the objectives that

103

would be taught during the next two weeks and other strategies that could be used in

tutorial sessions with students who received additional instructional support through Tier

III interventions, ELL support, and IEP goals.

As a former teacher in self-contained classrooms, Ms. Gray opposed

departmentalization. She expressed,

Teachers are more competent in their instructional strategies when they are

responsible for teaching all academic subjects to their students.

Teachers are more effective in the classroom when they have sole responsibility

for their students’ academic performance on high stakes state assessments.

Because of differences among the teachers’ expectations, there might be variance

in the rigor of the instructional methods. These differences in expectations for

student achievement would be a major disadvantage of departmentalization in any

grade.

In spite of her opposition to departmentalization, she believed teachers benefitted

from the daily collaboration of brainstorming ideas and strategies. Additionally, more

time was devoted to planning authentic and compelling lessons for one or two subjects.

Mrs. Sam

Mrs. Sam had earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Elementary Education (K-6) and

Master’s Degree in English as a Second Language (K-12). She had teaching experience

in one school district in Alabama and three school districts in Mississippi. Mrs. Sam had

spent almost 30 years teaching diverse youth at urban and rural schools. With teaching

experience in kindergarten through sixth grades in self-contained settings, her goal was to

teach effectively and instill and empower a passion for learning among her students. As

104

the ELL teacher, Mrs. Sam enjoyed having students from many multiple ethnic

backgrounds. She had been absolutely honored to teach at this school (research site) for

22 years. Mrs. Sam had always worked diligently to create a comfortable classroom

environment for her students. She said, “I strive to meet my students at their mastery

level and finds ways of teaching that impacts them individually.” Her primary goal was

to guide the ELL students toward gaining knowledge and skills to increase their English

proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

Upon registering for enrollment in the school, parents were required to complete a

Home Langue Survey. After reviewing the Home Language Surveys completed by their

parents, Mrs. Sam conducted assessments for eligibility in the ELL program. Mrs. Sam

provided remediation tutorial services for the ELL fifth grade students who qualified for

the supplementary services. Two of our ELL fifth grade students did not qualify for the

services. In order to qualify for ELL services, two factors were considered: a score of

minimal or basic on the MCT2 administered during the prior academic year and a score

below the mastery level on the World Class Instruction Design and Assessment for two

years. When teaching language objectives to the fifth grade students, Mrs. Sam created

lessons and activities to help them understand the English language and extend their

background knowledge. The district and state provided an ELL curriculum, but her

instruction was tailored to the students’ needs and integrated with the District’s adopted

textbook.

Her collaboration with the fifth grade team had not been consistently effective.

Being the ELL teacher for all grade levels within the school limited the opportunity to

regularly plan and interact with the fifth grade instructional team. Sometimes, her

105

colleagues dialogued with her as she went to their classrooms to get her students for the

ELL services. Along with the transition to her designated instructional setting on the

stage in the auditorium, instructional time was lost when students are transitioned to

different classes.

As an advocate for departmentalized classes for fifth grade students, Mrs. Sam

believed our students needed the exposure of departmentalization to better prepare them

for middle school. The exposure in the departmental setting allowed students the

opportunity to adapt to various teaching styles. She also believed that departmentalization

required students to become more responsible and organized when keeping notes and

assignments for multiple teachers. In spite of her favoring departmentalization for fifth

grade, Mrs. Sam believed there were many disadvantages to departmentalization.

Because her office was located on the stage, her students lost instructional time while

transitioning to and from various classes. (The school’s student population has grown

over the past decades. Therefore, new grade level homeroom classes were created in the

portable classrooms which were once used for the gifted, ELL, speech, and intervention

classes. Because of the spacing issues for classroom, the ELL classes were held on a

separate corridor from the fifth grade homeroom classes.) When going to the fifth grade

classrooms to get her students for ELL services, the teachers would sometimes stop their

instruction to dialogue with her about needs and deficits of their ELL students. Therefore,

the collaboration with the fifth grade team was not consistent. Her ability to plan and

collaborate with the fifth grade instructional time was also limited because she was

responsible for working with all teachers and ELL students in grades kindergarten

through five.

106

Many of the support staff were not assigned classrooms due to the previous

overcrowded classes. For the past few years, the student population had grown

tremendously at the school. In order to elevate overcrowded classes, new homeroom

classes were created by the administrators. Therefore, support staff were forced to use the

back of classrooms or small partitioned areas for tutoring or working with students.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Sam’s office was too small for her students to receive the

supplementary ELL service. She used the stage in the auditorium for classroom

instruction. There were four tables where the students sat in small groups for instruction.

There were bookshelves and tables where center activities and manipulatives were stored

for students to access. Her students had access to four iPads when technology was

integrated in the lesson.

As I conducted an observation, Mrs. Sam began her lesson with a review of the 12

Powerful Words. Two of her students led their classmates in singing the “12 Powerful

Words.” (The 12 Powerful Words helped students to better understand questions on

standardized test. These words were used to promote higher order thinking skills.) After

singing the “12 Powerful Words,” the students explained the meaning of the words. Next,

Ms. Sam used anchor charts to review some previously taught skills: root words, prefixes,

suffixes, and affixes. After the skills were reviewed, her eight students were divided into

two groups. One group of students worked cooperatively to identify the meaning of

words with affixes. The other group identified affixes that could be added to root words

to create a new word. During the group activities, Mrs. Sam asked the students open-

ended questions to probe their understanding. After 30 minutes of small group activities,

107

the students concluded the lesson by sharing their learning experience with members of

the whole group.

Ms. Wheeler

Ms. Wheeler began her career as an academic tutor in the middle school prior to

transferring to the elementary level as a mathematics academic tutor. In an effort to

enhance her professional knowledge, she enrolled in graduate school to pursue a Master’s

Degree in Business Education (7-12). With four years of experience as an academic tutor,

she strived to create hands-on mathematical activities which were fun and challenging for

students. She set high standards for all of her students. She said, “Every student is unique

and I want to nurture those differences”.

Ms. Wheeler believed that departmentalization enhanced the opportunity to

collaborate with the fifth grade team about instructional strategies, test-taking strategies,

and interventions. Even though she was responsible for tutoring mathematical concepts,

she engaged in continuous dialogue with her colleagues to stay abreast of the objectives

being taught in the other content areas. The team collaboration helped enhance her

professional growth by listening to strategies being used to effectively teach other content

subjects. Occasionally, she was requested by the principal or assistant principal to serve

as a substitute teacher in the absence of Ms. McGee.

Ms. Wheeler believed departmentalization offered the advantage of teaching the

subject that she was most comfortable and effective in teaching the objectives. She said,

Departmentalization provides many benefits to the teachers and students, but may

not be the best organizational strategy for our students. Teachers are able to

concentrate and plan more rigorous and hand-on activities for fewer students in a

108

departmentalized setting. However, all students may not be held to the same high

expectations for academic success in this setting. If a teacher has higher

expectations of one of her classes, these students may be motivated to excel at a

greater rate than the other classes. The review of data from our district’s nine

weeks examinations reveals that the scores are consistent and the average among

the test data were significantly higher or lower from the other classes among each

academic subject. It is apparent that students in one were being taught with more

rigor and challenging learning opportunities. Therefore, the expectations were not

consistent for all classes.

She also believed another disadvantage in departmentalization was learning the

numerous learning styles of a larger population of students.

Ms. Wheeler began her daily routine by assisting with the mathematics instruction

in Ms. McGee’s classroom during the first class block. After 9:30 a.m., she began pulling

students for RTI interventions or small group tutorial sessions. Ms. Wheeler was assigned

to the intervention room to implement interventions and small group tutorial sessions.

The intervention room was a classroom in the main building which was shared by both

fifth grade academic tutors. There were white boards located on the front and side walls.

Bookshelves and closets were aligned against the back wall. In front of the windows on

the outer wall were 12 computers. In addition, there was a mobile media center with 24

laptops. Students used the computers or laptops when technology was integrated into the

lessons. A smart board was also used to integrate technology into the lessons. She used a

table and stackable storage containers to organize and keep her instructional

manipulatives.

109

Ms. Wheeler worked with her students at a large table at the rear of the classroom.

In an observation of her tutorial session, a small group of students used cognitive skills to

review for a bi-weekly common assessment. Ms. Wheeler reviewed and modeled a few

problems that required comparing and ordering decimals to the nearest thousandth. As

she modeled how to solve the problems, she asked the students to use the test-taking

strategy of eliminating the obvious incorrect answer. Once the students had eliminated

the incorrect answer, they identified the key words that indicated which mathematical

basic operation was needed to solve the problems. The students provided the steps to

solve the problems and answered questions asked by Ms. Wheeler. After the students had

the opportunity to solve problems independently, Ms. Wheeler concluded her lesson with

a review of the daily objective.

Mrs. Green

Mrs. Green was the academic tutor for fifth grade language arts. She had taken

college courses in Psychology, but had not completed all of the requirements of a college

graduate. Mrs. Green had been employed by the district for 25 years with experience as

an instructional assistant in kindergarten and first grades as well as an academic tutor for

third and fifth grades. In kindergarten and first grades, the homeroom teachers and Mrs.

Green provided the delivery of instruction for all core subjects in self-contained settings.

For the past 10 years at the school, she provided tutorial support in language arts for third

and fifth grades. During the district’s extended year summer program, she retaught skills

to the fifth graders who received support services in the ELL or Special Education.

Mrs. Green was overjoyed and grateful for the part she played in fostering

students’ success. She said, “It is important to use several examples and instructional

110

methods to help students understand and demonstrate their knowledge of the objectives.”

Mrs. Green enjoyed working with fifth grade students because most of them had a goal of

going to middle school and worked harder to achieve that goal.

Mrs. Green believed there were several advantages of departmentalizing fifth

grade. The instructional team utilized their planning time to create authentic lessons to

meet the diverse needs among the students. Each member of the instructional team

became more competent in the one or two subjects that she was responsible for teaching.

As each member of the fifth grade instructional team became more competent, the

students would benefit and achieve at a higher level. She also shared some of the

advantages of departmentalization for students. Departmentalization helped prepare the

fifth grade students for middle school. Students became more responsible with organizing

assignments for multiple teachers. The departmentalized organizational structure helped

students adapt to multiple teachers’ personalities.

There were also some disadvantages of departmentalization. Mrs. Green believed

some of the fifth grade students struggled in a departmentalized setting because of their

maturity level. The lack of maturity among some of the students hindered their

organizational skills and readiness to adapt to multiple teaching styles. Some of the

students had not acquired the organizational skills needed for transition among classes in

the departmentalized setting. Along with the students, departmentalization had a negative

impact on the experiences for some teachers. Collaboration among the fifth grade

instructional staff was difficult because of personality conflicts. This hindered the

students’ progress when the instructional staff allowed their feelings to interfere with

collaboration effort regarding students’ needs based on test data. The next disadvantage

111

of departmentalization was adhering to the 90-minute block schedule in the

departmentalized setting. The restricted block schedule limited the opportunity for some

students to fully comprehend skills because the academic tutor must tailor her instruction

to adhere to a strict schedule in order that students do not return to class late and miss

instruction for another subject in the block schedule rotation.

Ms. Hayes and Mrs. Green were unable to work cooperatively and effectively

together; therefore, Ms. Hayes did not have the support of an academic tutor in her

classroom. (Because of the number of students in other grades needing strategic

instruction and Tier III interventions, there was not another academic tutor who could

assist in fifth grade. However, Ms. Hayes did receive assistance from another support

staff, who was designated to keep students assigned to in-school suspension.

Unfortunately, this staff member only assisted Ms. Hayes on the days when there were

not any students assigned to in–school suspension.) From the directives of the principal,

Mrs. Green assisted Ms. Hazel with science instruction during the first block period.

Whether in whole or small group, Mrs. Green integrated reading and writing skills within

the science lessons. After the first block, Mrs. Green pulled small groups of students for

tutorial sessions in language arts. Mrs. Green shared a classroom with Ms. Wheeler. She

used the front of the classroom to provide interventions to several small groups of

students. In an observation of Mrs. Green working with five students in her classroom,

she began her lesson by reviewing the school-wide test-taking strategies of the “12

Powerful Words” and “UNRAAVEL”. After reviewing the test-taking strategies, Mrs.

Green used the smart board and created a Venn diagram to compare and contrast a

glossary and dictionary. After the whole group activities, the five students used their

112

dictionaries to complete the next activity independently. Using their vocabulary words,

students looked in the dictionary to find the meaning, part of speech, pronunciation, and

origin. While the students worked silently, Mrs. Green monitored them and provided

feedback and assistance as needed. Mrs. Green concluded her lessons with another whole

group activity. Using flashcards, the students matched the vocabulary word to its

meaning.

Mrs. Jordan

In 1991, Mrs. Jordan began her career in education as an instructional assistant in

a second grade self-contained classroom. While working as an instructional assistant, she

decided to pursue a Bachelor’s degree in Social Studies (7-12). Once certified, she began

teaching social studies in the departmentalized setting to seventh and eighth graders.

After teaching for three years in the middle school, she pursued a Master’s degree in

Social Studies (7-12). While working with students who required counseling and therapy

sessions to adapt in the general education classroom, she decided to pursue a Specialist’s

degree in Guidance Counseling (K-12). With the counseling degree, Mrs. Jordan had the

opportunity to provide music therapy to students at the Mississippi State Hospital for five

years and then returned to the elementary school as a guidance counselor. Mrs. Jordan

had the opportunity of serving as the guidance counselor at the school for five years.

Mrs. Jordan worked hard to help our students develop a strong sense of ethics,

moral confidence and self-discipline through counseling services and teaching the

character traits. She enjoyed working with children because every day presented a new

challenge. She believed our fifth grade students faced unique and diverse challenges, both

personally and developmentally, that had an impact on their academic achievement. As

113

the elementary counselor, she provided education and intervention services, which were

essential in removing barriers to learning and promoting academic achievement. Mrs.

Jordan also counseled students in whole group, small group, and individual settings

throughout the week. In addition, she met with the fifth grade instructional team to make

sure mandates were met in the IEPs for students with Emotional Disabilities. Mrs. Jordan

spoke with students about topics such as goal setting, decision making, understanding self

and others, coping strategies, effective social skills, substance abuse, and diversity

awareness. She was also a member of the school’s TST committee and Crisis

Management Team, who worked with the teachers and administrators to create Behavior

Intervention Plans and Behavior Goals. Throughout the academic year, she provided

professional development sessions to the staff on revised or newly approved district’s

policies. She was the school’s liaison to various state or county agents and departments

within the district by assisting the fifth grade students with their transition to middle

school, reporting abuse to the Department of Human Service, or referring a parent to

therapy sessions with behavioral health services, etc.

In an interview with Mrs. Jordan about the implementation of departmentalization

in the fifth grade, she provided feedback about the planning and monitoring process. She

believed departmentalization had to be planned very carefully at the elementary level.

Departmentalization could be easily implemented in the fifth grade with the consideration

of teachers’ input and buy-in. Mrs. Jordan also believed this organizational strategy

would be more successful if all of the fifth grade instructional team shared similar

teaching philosophies and met frequently to discuss concerns with classroom

management, homework policy, progress reports, and the district’s pacing guide of the

114

curriculum. She also stressed the importance of support from the administrative team to

ensure team commitment and best instructional practices.

Mrs. Jordan discussed some of the advantages and disadvantages of

departmentalization in the fifth grade. One of the advantages for the instructional staff

was collaborating with the fifth grade instructional team during team meetings and

common planning sessions. During those collaboration sessions, she discovered how

some students relate differently to various staff members. Another advantage of

departmentalization was that the instructional team could develop a more accurate

synopsis of the students and better meet their needs. In spite of the advantages of

departmentalization for the instructional staff, she believed the students suffered from the

loss of instructional time while rotating to the next teacher’s class. Also, instructional

time was lost as teachers reestablished classroom control after students transitioned into

their class at the beginning of the instructional block.

In an observation of the fifth grade planning meeting for writing a student’s IEP,

Mrs. Jordan assisted the teachers with identifying some social and behavioral goals for a

student after Ms. McGee, Ms. Hayes, and Mrs. Weathersby identified the short term

instructional objectives for language arts and mathematics. Mrs. Jordan discussed some

interventions that would be helpful in assisting the emotional disturbed student function

in the inclusion and special education classrooms. In an effort to track the progress

monitoring of the student’s behavior, Mrs. Jordan shared a tracking sheet that she created

to document this student’s progress weekly by each teacher. She also verified that this

student would receive small group counseling services as well as 20 minutes of

115

individual therapy. After there was consensus of the revisions to this child’s IEP, the

meeting was adjourned.

Students

The fifth grade students who participated in this case study were 10-12 years old.

This diverse group of students had various ethnic backgrounds, learning abilities, and

learning disabilities. Most of the students came from families of a low socio-economic

status. Because of financial hardships or being migrants, a few of the students had

attended several schools prior to their fifth grade academic year. Some of the financial

hardships included students not having permanent homes, residing in shelters, hotels, or

with relatives. However, the majority of these students had attended this school since

kindergarten. In spite of challenges from their socio-economic status, these students

attended school regularly with a desire to learn.

While in direct contact with the students, I observed the students in their

classrooms during instructional time, had casual conversations, and administered a survey

to obtain an in-depth understanding of how departmentalization impacted academic

achievement (see Appendix D). The casual conversations occurred during the school day

either in whole group or individual settings. Casual conversations were held in the

morning and afternoon as the small groups of students left various tutorial sessions. Prior

to dismissal, casual conversations were held in the homeroom classes with the whole

group of students.

In October, the survey was administered to students in whole group sessions

within the homeroom classes at the beginning or end of the instructional day. Because of

the various levels of reading comprehension, I read the survey to the students. The survey

116

revealed 60% of the students indicated that the fifth grade academic year was the first

time they had received instruction in a departmentalized setting and more than 71% of the

students indicated that they preferred the departmentalization organizational structure

than the self-contained setting (see Tables 23 and 25). In the departmental setting,

students rotated to the three fifth grade homeroom teachers for instruction of the core

subjects. During the first hour of the 90-minute block, the students received direct

instruction from the teachers and a support staff member. However the last 30 minutes of

the 90-minute block was used for small group tutorial support provided by the academic

tutors, ELL teacher, and exceptional educator teacher as mandated by MDE. These

tutorial sessions occurred daily.

While observing the students in their classrooms, the majority of the students

adhered to the classroom expectations but indicated that they did not have the opportunity

to develop a close relationship with the multiple teachers in the departmentalized setting

(see Table 26). A small population of the students required behavior interventions or

behavior goals within their IEPs in an effort to keep them focused academically. Because

of the lack of a close relationship with the teachers, 88% of the students did not believe

that the departmentalization organizational structure had a positive effect on them

socially and academically after transitioning from a self-contained setting (see Table 27).

The fifth grade is the bridge year in the elementary setting as students prepare to

enter the middle school. The students had far greater responsibilities in terms of working

independently, remaining focused for longer periods, and having their materials

organized. The key to a successful year for these students included daily organization of

subjects and assignments. They were eager to rotate from the various teachers and

117

different classrooms in spite of them believing departmentalization did not enhance

teaching and learning in the fifth grade.

There was a strong emphasis placed on all of the core subjects. As the students

worked collaboratively and independently, they learned to organize and synthesize

information. Most of these students struggled to learn objectives within the fifth grade

curriculum and more than 90% of the students indicated that they did not like their

teachers’ instructional style (see Table 28). In spite of intent of departmentalization

enhancing subject specialization among their teachers, the students felt that the

curriculum standards were not taught in a more detailed and comprehensive manner when

compared to their previous teachers’ instructional style in the self-contained setting (see

Table 29). Over 95% of the students indicated that the teachers did not allow them to

have input during the delivery of instruction (see Table 30). When inquiring about the

lessons in the departmentalized setting, about 88% of the students indicated the lessons

were not more engaging and interesting than the previously taught lessons in the self-

contained organizational setting (see Table 31). Furthermore, many of these students

indicated that they did not understand what the teacher wanted them to learn (see Table

32).

Based on these students’ beliefs, the lack of statistically significant differences in

the mean scores of the 2010 and 2011 MCT2 results was one of the validations of their

perceptions of departmentalization. After changing from a self-contained setting to a

departmentalized structure, the mathematics and language scores improved slightly, but

there was no significant difference between the 2010 scores in a self-contained fourth

grade setting and the 2011 scores in a departmentalized fifth grade setting (see Tables 33-

118

36). In spite of the lack of significant gains in academic achievement after transitioning

from a self-contained to departmentalized setting, these students enjoyed the subjects that

were assessed by state exams. They ranked mathematics and language arts as the most

enjoyable subjects.

Research Question

The purpose of this study was to examine the change of fifth grade classes from a

self-contained structure to a departmentalized structure. This case study explored the

impact that departmentalization had on teachers and staff, and on student academic

achievement. The case study examined the question: How do the fifth grade staff and

students transition from a self-contained organizational structure to a departmentalized

organizational structure? Six research questions were addressed.

Research question one asked: What is the preferred organizational structure for

fifth grade education after transitioning from a self-contained to a departmentalized

structure? About one-third of the teachers indicated that they preferred the traditional

organization structure, while two-thirds of them preferred the departmentalization

structure (see Table 24). As noted in the interview with Ms. Gray, she opposed

departmentalization. It was her belief that teachers are more competent in their

instructional strategies when they are responsible for teaching all academic subjects to

their students. In contrast to Ms. Gray’s belief, Mrs. Weathersby and Mrs. Sam were

advocates of departmentalization. Mrs. Weathersby indicated that she favored

departmentalization because of the advantages for students and teachers. Mrs. Sam

favored departmentalization in the fifth grade because students needed exposure to

departmentalization to better prepare them for middle school.

119

About 70% of the students indicated that they preferred the departmentalization

organizational structure and about 30% of the students preferred a self-contained setting

(see Table 25). Although the majority of the students preferred the departmentalization

organizational structure in fifth grade, 95% of the students indicated that they did not like

their teacher’s instructional style (see Table 28). Unfortunately 93% of the students

indicated that they did not believe the standards were taught in a more detailed and

comprehensive manner (see Table 29). Changing to a departmentalized structure did not

enhance the lessons because 88% of the students indicated that they did not believe the

lessons were more engaging and interesting than the previously taught lessons in a self-

contained organizational setting (see Table 31). Furthermore, 88% of the students

acknowledged that the departmentalization organizational structure did not have a

positive effect on them socially and academically after transitioning from a self-contained

setting (see Table 27).

Research question two asked: Is departmentalization a more effective practice

when attempting to raise student proficiency levels and content understanding as

evidence by MCT2 scores? An analysis of the MCT2 data indicated the language arts

score improved from a mean of 145.62 in 2010 to a mean of 148.12 in 2011. The

mathematics score improved slightly from a mean of 148.74 in 2010 to a mean of 148.81

in 2011. A t-test was also computed to examine if there were differences in the academic

performance of the fifth grade students after the academic environment was changed

from a self-contained setting to a departmentalized structure. Even through the mean

language arts and mathematic scores for 2011 were greater than the mean language arts

120

and mathematics scores for 2010, the statistical analysis indicated that there was no

significant difference between the pre and post scores (p > .05) (see Tables 33-36).

Research question three asked: Is there a significant difference in the academic

achievement among fourth grade students enrolled in a self-contained setting and those

same students enrolled in a fifth grade departmentalized organizational structure as

measured by the MCT2 results? An independent t-test was computed to examine if there

were differences in the academic performance of the students in a self-contained setting

in the fourth grade and those same students in the departmentalized structure in fifth

grade. The language arts and mathematics scores were higher for the students in 2011

than in 2010. Although both, language arts and mathematics, scores improved over the

examined period and were greater in 2011, the statistical analysis indicated that there

were no significant differences between the pre and post scores (p > .05) (see Tables 33-

36).

Research question four asked: How do teachers rank the courses they enjoy and in

which they believe they are most effective teaching? Using the data from the

questionnaire administered to the teachers, they ranked the core subjects that they most

enjoyed teaching and in which they were most effective. The teachers provided their

rankings for the subjects reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

The frequencies of the rankings indicated reading/language arts received the most

number one rankings followed by mathematics. Science and social studies had the fewest

number one rankings (see Table 37).

The interview with Ms. Wheeler revealed departmentalization offered the

advantage of teaching the subject that she was most comfortable and effective in teaching

121

the objectives. She believed teachers are able to concentrate and plan more rigorous and

various hands-on activities for students in the departmentalized setting. In another

interview with Mrs. Green, she indicated that each member of the instructional team

became more competent in the one or two subjects that she was responsible for teaching.

As each teacher became more competent in teaching, the students would benefit and

achieve at a higher level.

Research question five asked: How do the students rank the courses they enjoy

the most? The students provided their rankings for the subjects reading/language arts,

mathematics, science and social studies. Mathematics received the most number one

rankings followed by reading/language arts, and science. Social Studies received the

fewest number one rankings (see Tables 37-40).

Research question six asked: What are the teachers’ perceptions of the impact of

departmentalization in their school? The prevailing theme that emanated from the

discussions within the interviews and observations was that departmentalization required

team effort and commitment in order to effectively educate a diverse student population

and promote successful academic achievement. Changing from a self-contained setting to

a departmentalized structure forced the instructional team to share accountability in

providing a quality education to their students. Departmentalization demanded the

teachers to meet regularly and discuss strategies, strengths and weaknesses from ongoing

test data, interventions, differentiated instruction, and best instructional strategies to meet

the needs of their students. Another attribute of implementing departmentalization in the

fifth grade provided the teachers with the opportunity to plan more in-depth lessons with

hand-on activities for one or two core content subjects with the goal of higher academic

122

achievement. Departmentalization also enabled each teacher with the opportunity to work

with every student and learn how students related differently with other teachers. These

teachers also believed commitment was needed in developing and maintaining

interpersonal skills to work more effectively as a team to educate students. These teachers

discovered the importance of maintaining consistency with rules, discipline, classroom

procedures, and classroom management.

In the interviews, the teachers described their interactions with the other members

of the fifth grade instructional team during a typical work day. They agreed that

departmentalization created a professional learning community that promoted ongoing

collaboration to support academic achievement among the students. The common daily

planning periods during the hours for special subjects enabled them to come up with

solutions to the academic and behavior problems. The departmentalized organization

setting allowed them to grow professionally as they supported each other and provided

feedback about the students’ performance in the other classrooms. These interactions

among the teachers provided an increased level of accountability and provided great

moral support.

The teachers discussed some advantages of working in a departmentalized setting.

In this setting, they no longer had the extra burdens of having to plan lessons for five

different subject areas. In addition to creating the opportunity to work with all fifth grade

students, the extra freedom attached to the departmentalized setting afforded the teachers

the opportunity to monitor the students’ progress and/or deficits and generated more time

to create innovative and challenging lessons that increased students’ understanding and

retention of skills. Additionally, they collaborated with the fifth grade academic team

123

about instructional activities, test-taking strategies, and interventions for academic and

behavior.

There were some specific problems or disadvantages in the departmentalized

organizational setting encountered by these teachers. They believe the 90 minute block

schedule was an occasional drawback to the departmentalized setting when students

needed extra time to complete assignments. Along with the block schedule and rotation to

various classes, departmentalization had a negative impact on the students who had

difficulty with organization. The negative impact of departmentalization was further

compounded by the loss of instructional time during the rotation of students from class to

class when teachers did not adhere to the schedule and students entered classrooms in a

playful mood, not ready to learn, while creating a distraction to the other classes while in

route to their change of classes.

Case Analysis: Discussion of Literature and Finding from the Study

This case study was designed to investigate the impact of departmentalization on

staff, students, and academic achievement in the fifth grade after transitioning from a

self-contained setting. The study was guided by the research question: How do the fifth

grade staff and students transition from a self-contained organizational structure to a

departmentalized organizational structure? Both quantitative and qualitative data were

collected and analyzed. In order to determine reliability and validity, the results of this

case study were compared with published literature and previous research findings.

There were similarities and differences found after analyzing the case and

literature. The first similarity was the instructional staff’s preference for an organizational

structure. Chan et al. (2009) stated many educators in the elementary school were

124

unanimous in their advocacy for the departmental organizational strategy. About one-

third of the teachers preferred a self-contained setting, while two-thirds of them preferred

departmentalization. Yet, this contradicted Franklin (1967) who stated most elementary

teachers in fourth and fifth grades that changed from a self-contained setting to a

departmental structure preferred to teach only one or two subjects.

Gerretson et al. (2008) believed one of the advantages of departmentalization

provided opportunities for students to make significant gains in academic achievement

when lessons were taught with more intensity. In addition to this belief, the students

support for departmentalization was very high in spite of them indicating that they did not

believe the lessons taught in the departmentalized structure were more engaging and

interesting than the previously taught lessons in a self-contained organizational setting.

The students’ support of the teachers seemed to be low in addition to them not

developing a close relationship with their teachers. These students expressed skepticism

about whether the departmentalization organizational structure had a positive effect on

them socially and academically after transitioning from a self-contained setting. In spite

of the students expressing some disadvantages of departmentalization in the fifth grade, a

large number of students indicated they preferred the departmentalization organizational

structure. The responses of the students seemed to be consistent with the findings

reported by Chan and Jarman (2004) that there have been concerns about the educational

process in the elementary schools, which include organizational patterns or grouping

strategies in self-contained and departmentalized classrooms.

One of the possible reasons for skepticism regarding the effectiveness of the

teachers in the various education organizational patterns was the perception regarding

125

whether the teachers were knowledgeable and competent in teaching all subject areas.

Often times, teachers say they do not feel like they have enough time to implement what

is required nor do they have enough training (McCall et al., 2008). As a consistency in

the literature and findings of the case study, the teachers indicated that the restrictions

and limitations of the 90-minute block schedule was a major disadvantage of

departmentalization. This was an important concern because Wang, Haertel, and Walberg

(1993-1994) claimed there were many issues that can affect student achievement such as

teachers’ effectiveness of practices and commitment, classroom management and

discipline, student engagement, positive learning environment, clear and high standards,

collaboration among the instructional team, staff development, strong leadership, and

parental involvement. As noted in the case, the teachers indicated that the block schedule

did not allow flexibility for differentiated instruction as needed to address the various

needs of the students.

With efficient planning and preparation, knowledge of teaching and learning, and

subject matter proficiency, teachers can be effective in any organizational plan. However,

a teacher may yield different results based on her strengths and deficiencies. Teachers,

like students, have multiple intelligences. According to Ackerlund (1959), it is nearly

impossible to be an expert in all subject areas. It is necessary for teachers to have an

adequate understanding of the subject matter they are responsible for teaching (Flick &

Lederman, 2003). The analysis of this case study uncovered that the three core content

teachers had no subject area endorsements of teaching certification for their assigned

subjects. These teachers only had prior experience teaching their assigned core subjects.

As Dropsey (2004) stated, specialization has complemented higher academic standards;

126

therefore, it could be argued whether these teachers had specialization or experience.

Therefore, the implementation of departmentalization as a more effective practice as an

attempt to raise students’ proficiency levels and content understanding as evidenced by

MCT2 scores could not be validated by the results of this study. There was no significant

difference in the mean scores of MCT2 data from 2010 to 2011. This could be a result of

a lack of subject matter knowledge or it could be a lack of motivation towards teaching

the assigned core subject. Kemp and Hall (1992) confirmed student achievement is

related to teacher competence in teaching. The literature also indicated that

departmentalization provided the advantage of planning meaningful lessons that were

taught with more intensity (Gerretson et al., 2008). The literature further indicated that

the teachers’ strengths and abilities played a role in creating lessons that promoted higher

academic achievement on district and state assessments.

Although these students were enrolled in a self-contained setting in the fourth

grade and transitioned to a departmentalized setting in the fifth grade, there was not a

significant difference in the academic achievement as measured by the MCT2 results.

The results of no significant difference in language arts and mathematics mean scores

from 2010 to 2011 contradicts the literature that indicated teachers’ strengths do affect

student achievement. Chang et al. (2009) stated, one of the advantages of

departmentalization allowed students to receive educational instruction from teachers

who specialized in particular disciplines. The language arts teacher, Ms. Hayes, believed

she was very effective in teaching her assigned core subjects. She felt that reading and

language arts were strengths for her. The mathematics teacher, Ms. McGee, expressed a

need for more professional development and support from the principal and assistant

127

principal. Yet, in neither subject was a significant difference in the MCT2 mean scores

observed.

Several previous studies found a sharp achievement drop occurred when students

transitioned from a self-contained setting to a departmentalization organizational

structure (Alspaugh & Harting, 1995; Grooms, 1967; Lamme, 1976; Reuman, 1984).

This was one of the differences from the analyses of the literature and this case study.

After changing from a self-contained setting to a departmentalized structure, there was

not a decrease in language arts and mathematics academic achievement on the MCT2

from 2010 to 2011. After ranking the courses the teachers enjoyed and believed they

were most effective, the frequencies of the rankings indicated reading/language arts

received the most number one rankings followed by mathematics. Furthermore,

Mathematics received the most number one rankings followed by reading/language arts

from the students. Even though subject specialization could not be validated by the case

study, there was no sharp decrease in academic achievement.

Some did not support departmentalization in elementary schools because this

setting did not support an environment for the teachers to truly know their students.

McGrath and Rust (2002) did not advocate departmentalization because it promoted a

subject centered emphasis rather than a more child centered emphasis. As Legters et al.

(1993) stated, a teacher who provided daily instruction to several different classes of

students cannot get to know well the needs of each individual. Other opponents of

departmentalization believed students who changed teachers for various periods of the

day would not relate to multiple teachers as strongly as when only one adult was in their

128

classroom. These previous research findings were similar to the responses from the

students in the case study who did not develop relationships with their teachers.

In a related research study conducted in fourth through sixth grades, some

respondents had reservations about departmentalization because students lost time while

changing classes (National Education Association, 1966). Similar responses were

provided by the participants in this case study about their perceptions of the impact of

departmentalization in their school. The teachers believed that instructional time was lost

during the rotation of classes in the block schedule. Instructional time was also lost as

teachers redirected students’ inappropriate behavior or assisted students who lacked

organizational skills. Another similarity was the flaw in collaboration. Woods (1958)

believed there was a lack of collaboration among the instructional team in the

departmentalized setting. In spite of most of the teachers deeming collaboration was an

advantage of departmentalization, there was a weakness with collaboration between Ms.

Hayes and Mrs. Green because of a lack of interpersonal skills. The final discrepancy was

with the previous study conducted by Harris (1996) of low socioeconomic students that

scored significantly higher in the departmentalized structure. The student participants in

this case study were from a low socio-economic status, but they did not score

significantly higher after transitioning to a departmental structure in fifth grade.

Summary

This chapter presented the findings that resulted from the analyses that were

compiled to address the impact of departmentalization on staff, students, and academic

achievement in the fifth grade. The staff at an urban elementary school wanted to offer its

fifth grade students the best opportunity in enriching their learning as well as improving

129

academic performance on the MCT2. With a large percentage of the third through fifth

grade student body performing at basic or proficient levels on the MCT2, the fifth grade

scores indicated a decline. As an attempt to address this weakness, the principal, fifth

grade teachers, support staff and I decided to departmentalize fifth grade for the 2010-

2011 academic year. Unfortunately, the findings of this study revealed there were no

significant difference in the 2010 to 2011 mean scores in language arts and mathematics

as measured by the MCT2.

The findings of this case study also indicated that there was a relationship

between changing organizational structure and academic success. Because the teachers

and students were familiar with the self-contained setting, they had to adjust to the

changes of being in a departmentalized structure. This diverse group of students

encountered far greater responsibilities in terms of working independently, remaining

focused for longer periods, and having their materials organized. The teachers shared

accountability in planning and delivering instruction to their students. In addition, the

teachers and students also revealed advantages and disadvantages of the departmentalized

structure that were either similar of different from findings of previous studies within the

literature.

130

SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter V is a presentation of the summary, discussions, and recommendations.

The purpose of this study was to examine the change of fifth grade classes from a self-

contained structure to a departmentalized structure. This case study investigated the

impact that departmentalization has on staff, students, and academic achievement in the

fifth grade. This study was developed because it was believed that the way in which an

urban elementary school’s fifth grade classrooms are organized could have a direct

impact on students’ educational experiences. Special attention was needed to examine the

manner in which education was dispersed in order to fulfill the school’s mission of

providing children with the skills necessary to be academically proficient and to excel to

their fullest potential.

Participants in this case study were purposely selected from an urban elementary

school. The student participants in this case study consisted of 42 students from three

intact fifth grade homeroom classes. The other participants in this study are members of

the urban elementary school’s staff. These participants included: counselor, literacy

coach/interventionist, exceptional education teacher, ELL teacher, two academic tutors,

and three regular education teachers.

131

Overview of the Chapter

This chapter begins with a summary of the previous chapters. Next, there is a

presentation of the limitations and delimitations of this case study. Recommendations are

provided for educators who may consider departmentalization in the fifth grade. The final

part of this chapter provides recommendations for future research.

Summary

Heibert et al. (2002) noted that NCLB Act of 2001 has placed great emphasis on

raising academic standards for students as well as professional standards for educators.

The federal mandates of NCLB have heightened concerns about students who are

performing below grade level (USDE, 2006). State assessments have become

increasingly important in assessing student learning. Mississippi used the MCT2 to assess

students in grades three through eight on language arts and mathematics standards in the

spring of every year (MDE, 2011). Schools utilized the results of the MCT2 to determine

if students were meeting grade level standards.

In this case study, the instructional staff at an urban elementary school was

specifically focusing on the performance of fifth grade students on standardized tests.

After carefully considering issues that involved student achievement and after analyzing

the MCT2 data at this urban elementary school, the fifth grade teachers and support staff

discussed strategies to increase student achievement. Departmentalization, an

organizational structure that allowed more than one teacher to provide the instruction for

the core subjects, would be implemented as a strategy to increase academic achievement

in fifth grade. According to Chan and Jarman (2004), departmentalization allowed

132

teachers to teach in their area of specialization and students moved from one classroom to

another for instruction.

Through departmentalization, three teachers along with the support staff were

departmentalized to teach the fifth grade students at an urban elementary school. One

teacher specialized in Reading and Language Arts instruction, another teacher specialized

in Mathematics, and a third teacher specialized in Science and Social Studies instruction.

These teachers did not teach in the manner of a traditional self-contained classroom;

instead, their classrooms were centered on their specialty area. Each teacher provided

instruction daily in a 90-minute block. In this setting, each teacher had every student

every day, allowing them to work collaboratively to monitor the progress of their

students.

This study examined the change of fifth grade classes from a self-contained

structure to a departmentalized structure. This case study investigated the impact that

departmentalization had on staff, students and academic achievement in the fifth grade.

From the analysis of data, this study would be useful in determining the feasibility of

departmentalization in the fifth grade. This case study assisted the researcher in

determining if a departmentalized organizational structure would be a more effective

practice when attempting to raise student proficiency levels and content understanding as

evidenced by MCT2 scores while increasing teacher satisfaction.

As the supporting framework for this case study, the social constructivist theory

was chosen to relate the importance of the setting in which students acquire and develop

knowledge. Departmentalization provided opportunities for students to interact with

multiple content specialists who provided quality learning opportunities (Andrews, 2006;

133

Becker, 1987; Findley, 1967; Gerretson, Bosnick, & Schofield, 2008; McPartland, 1987;

Moore, 2008; Page, 2009; Sowers, 1968). Although high-stakes testing demanded a

standardized curriculum, the concept of the setting where learning took place was a

relevant focus of this case study.

A review of the related literature indicated that many issues have arisen from the

publishing of school and district scores that became a perceived beacon of educational

success in the eyes of the public (Merenbloom & Kalina, 2007). The publishing of data

from state assessment in local newspapers and new broadcast has caused the community

to make judgments regarding the administration and teaching staff. This had led to a

growing emphasis on changing the way elementary schools educated students. These

perceptions of citizens regarding high stakes test data have caused educators to search for

pedagogical strategies that would enhance student learning.

Many previous studies were conducted to determine the effectiveness of

departmentalization in the elementary school. In previous related studies conducted by

Woods (1958) and the National Education Association (1966), there was controversy

about the effectiveness of departmentalization. Departmentalization has been accepted by

some elementary schools, while being accepted by others. Chan et al. (2009) believed

departmentalization had several advantages: more efficient instruction, enrichment of the

curriculum, better equipped classrooms, collaboration of grade level instructional teams,

highly trained teachers, targeted professional development, maximized instructional and

planning time, retention among teachers and better transition of elementary students into

middle school. The advantages noted in the literature suggested a strong possibility of

implementing departmentalization to raise academic achievement of students and job

134

satisfaction among teachers. In the literature, Erb and Stevenson (1999) also emphasized

the benefits of having instructional teams in the departmental setting for all students

including bilingual students and students with learning disabilities. Departmentalization

allowed students to become familiar with the mechanics of middle school. Another

advantage of departmentalization provided teachers with more time for learning and

planning compelling and rigorous lessons. According to Delviscio and Muff (2007),

departmentalization also enabled teachers to perfect their knowledge while teaching to

their strengths. Furthermore, when multiple teachers shared the responsibility of

instructing a group of students, the instructional team produced a sense of community and

shared commitment.

The Nebraska Department of Education (2000) believed there were some

disadvantages: overemphasized subject matter, difficulty managing behavior, termination

of the unity in school life, overload of work for students, and prevention of integrating

subject matter. Ackerlund (1959) noted there was a belief that the focus on one subject

did not permit an adequate teacher-student relationship or expertise in knowledge leading

to improved teaching ability. Therefore, students did not receive the structure needed to

be successful in the elementary school. Because of block scheduling and restricted

timing, there was a limited amount of time that could be spent on a subject and students

may not acquire the needed information within the allotted time.

In the United States, the elementary curriculum was generalized into broad areas

consisting of reading, writing, and arithmetic. It gradually became more specialized at the

intermediate and upper grade levels into more specific subjects. Because of the generality

of the elementary curriculum, there was a greater emphasis on methods and styles of

135

teaching. The typical elementary school curriculum was organized around broad fields

such as language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science. The standards movement,

which gained momentum in the late 1990s, has required more standardized testing in

elementary schools. Strongly endorsed by United States President George Bush, the

standards approach was infused into NCLB. The goal of NCLB was to ensure that all

children had a fair, equal and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education,

and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement

standards and state academic assessments (NCLB, 2001).

Teacher knowledge was directly related to the academic success of students.

Under NCLB, the federal government, states and school districts made some progress in

carrying out the law’s requirement for educators (Manzo, 2004). An important

component of accountability under NCLB was the plans that states ensured all teachers of

core academic subjects were highly qualified. The instructional importance of

paraprofessionals was also recognized, and these individuals were also required to meet

minimum qualification standards (Simpson, LaCava, & Graner, 2004).

According to Goldberg (1994), teachers and the quality of teaching made the

biggest difference in improving student performance. Simplicio (2000) asserted dated

methods of instruction were no longer by themselves sufficient and effective tools for

teaching. The learning process has changed and educators have been challenged to

change as well. School and district wide professional development programs were used to

help teachers develop their skills and abilities (USDE, 2000).

There were also attributes needed to teach in the elementary school. Some of the

attributes necessary for quality instruction included: content knowledge and attitude,

136

pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of students, and knowledge of curriculum. Attitudes

that supported teaching included an enthusiasm and a willingness to create time for

instruction and recognize that all students had the right to be engaged in meaningful,

learning activities. Teachers who possessed positive attitudes encouraged similar attitudes

in their students by modeling curiosity. These teachers also used problem solving

approaches to answer questions, while being open to new ideas and respecting honesty.

These teachers set high expectations, employed scaffolding, integrated subject matter,

and provided clear purpose and directions into their instruction (Brophy, 1986).

The research design was a case study. As defined by Fraenkel and Wallen (2006),

a case study is as a single individual, group, or important example that is studied

extensively with varied data collection used to formulate interpretations applicable to the

specific case. Because the researcher was seeking to determine the impact of

implementing departmentalization in fifth grade, this research is an intrinsic single case

study design. Qualitative data were collected through participants’ observations and

interviews. Quantitative data were collected through surveys and MCT2 data. The data

from the interviews and observations were analyzed using the constant comparative

method. Data from the surveys helped to describe the students and staff’s perceptions of

departmentalization. The results from the survey instruments were presented by percent

and frequency distributions. Descriptive statistics were computed for the MCT2 scores

for each comparison groups of the 2010 self-contained scores and the 2011

departmentalized scores. A constant comparative method was used to analyze the notes

from the interviews and observations. Open ended questions from the interviews allowed

137

the staff to articulate their perceptions and experiences freely and spontaneously about

departmentalization.

The researcher used purposive sampling to obtain the participants. The fifth grade

students, teachers, and support staff at this urban elementary school represented the

participants. The 60 fifth grade students’ ages ranged from 10-12 years old. This diverse

group of participants had various ethnic backgrounds, learning abilities, and learning

disabilities. The other 12 participants were staff members. These participants included:

counselor, literacy coach/interventionist, exceptional education teacher, ELL teacher, two

academic tutors, and three regular education teachers. All of these participants were

college graduates with the exception of one academic tutor, who had taken college

courses, but had not completed all the requirements of a college graduate.

The researcher had direct contact with the participants to obtain an in-depth

understanding of how departmentalization impacts teachers, staff, and students’ academic

achievement. As assistant principal at the research site, her goal was to ensure the high

performance of students and staff in achieving the school’s missions and goals.

Therefore, she was instrumental in planning and implementing the change from a self-

contained setting to a departmentalized setting. The researcher utilized various validation

strategies to make this study credible and rigorous. Credibility for this case study’s casual

conversations, interviews, and surveys was achieved using triangulation. Trustworthiness

was dependent on the moral, ethical, and academic judgment that the researcher made

about the research process and the report of the findings.

The research site is a public school that was labeled successful under the

Mississippi Assessment and Accountability Reporting System. The site was in a low

138

socio-economic community. The student population of this Title I school included the

following subgroups: 85% Black, 10% English Language Learners, and 5% White. Males

made up 55% of the population. Within grades kindergarten through five, 10% of the

students had IEPs.

The focus of this case study was the implementation of a departmentalization

model in the fifth grade. In the natural setting, the researcher observed participants to

seek a better understanding of the impact of departmentalization in the fifth grade classes

on students, staff, and academic achievement. Questionnaires were provided to the

participants. The data collection for the students consisted of 10 questions about the

departmentalized organizational classroom structure. The staff’s data collection consisted

of 17 questions. Interviews were also conducted with the teachers. The researcher also

compared two years of summative test results in language arts and mathematics to

ascertain if students excelled greater after transitioning from a self-contained to a

departmentalized setting. The test data was divided into two specific levels: students

taught the core subjects in a self-contained setting during fourth grade and the same

students received instruction in a departmentalized organizational structure during fifth

grade.

Six research questions were generated to respond to the problem of this study.

Research question one asked: What is the preferred organizational structure for fifth

grade education after transitioning from a self-contained to a departmentalized structure?

Even though the personal preference of 71% of the students preferred

departmentalization, the results of the analyses indicated that 88% of the students did not

believe that the departmentalization organizational structure had a positive effect on them

139

(see Tables 25 & 27). The teachers and students had conflicting views about the benefits

of the departmentalization. Two-thirds of the teachers preferred departmentalization,

while about one-third of the teachers indicated they preferred the self-contained structure

(see Table 24). About 90% of the students indicated they did not understand what the

teacher wanted them to learn and about 93% of them indicated they did not believe the

standards were taught in a more detailed and comprehensive manner (see Tables 29 &

32).

According to the interview with Ms. Gray, she opposed departmentalization. It

was her belief that teachers are more effective in the classroom when they have sole

responsibility for their students’ academic performance on high stakes state assessments.

In contrast to Ms. Gray’s belief, Mrs. Weathersby and Mrs. Sam favored

departmentalization. Mrs. Weathersby indicated that she favored departmentalization

because of the advantages for students and teachers. Mrs. Sam favored

departmentalization in the fifth grade because students needed exposure to

departmentalization to better prepare them for middle school.

About 88% of the students indicated they did not believe the lessons taught in the

departmentalized structure were more engaging and interesting than the previously taught

lessons in a self-contained setting (see Table 31), and 95% indicated they did not like

their teachers’ instructional styles (see Table 28). The students believed that their

teachers’ support was low because, as 93% of them indicated, they did not develop a

close relationship with the teachers (see Table 26). Furthermore, 88% of the students

indicated that they did not believe departmentalization had a positive effect on them

socially and academically after transitioning from a self-contained setting (Table 27).

140

Research question two asked: Is departmentalization a more effective practice

when attempting to raise student proficiency levels and content understanding as

evidence by MCT2 scores? The students’ reading and mathematics scores improved from

2010 to 2011. Analyses were computed to examine if there were difference in the

academic performance of the fifth grade students after the environment was changed

from a self-contained setting to a departmentalized structure. In examining how the fifth

grade staff and students transitioned academically from a self-contained organizational

structure to a departmentalized organizational structure, a review of the Language Arts

scores indicated improvement from a mean score of 145.62 in 2010 to a mean score of

148.12 in 2011. The mathematics scores improved slightly from a mean score of 148.74

in 2010 to a mean score of 148.81 in 2011. In each case, even though the mean scores for

2011 was greater than the mean scores for 2010, the statistical analysis indicated that

there was no significant difference (see Tables 33-36).

Research question three asked: Is there a significant difference in the academic

achievement among fourth grade students enrolled in a self-contained setting and those

same students enrolled in a fifth grade departmentalized organizational structure as

measured by the MCT2 results? The results of the analyses indicated the students who

preferred self-contained classes performed better than students who preferred

departmentalized classes in both academic areas. The language arts and mathematics

scores were higher for students who preferred self-contained teachers in 2011 than it was

for students who preferred departmentalized teachers. However, the language arts and

mathematics scores improved over the period examined, but the differences were not

statistically significant (see Table 33-36).

141

Research question four asked: How do teachers rank the courses they enjoy and in

which they believe they are most effective teaching? The teachers provided their rankings

for reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In each case, the

teachers’ perceptions about the core subjects they most enjoyed teaching and felt most

effective teaching were evenly matched. In each case, reading/language arts had the

highest mean rank, followed by mathematics, social studies, and science (see Table 37).

According to the interview with Ms. Wheeler, she revealed departmentalization

offered the advantage of teaching the subject that she was most comfortable and effective

in teaching the objectives. She believed teachers are able to concentrate and plan more

rigorous and various hand-on activities for students in the departmentalized setting. In

another interview with Mrs. Green, she indicated that each member of the instructional

team became more competent in the one or two subjects that she was responsible for

teaching. As each teacher became more competent in teaching, the students would benefit

and achieve at a higher level.

Research question five asked: How do the students rank the courses they enjoy

the most? The students provided their rankings for reading/language arts, mathematics,

science, and social studies. Mathematics received the highest mean ranking, followed by

language arts, science, and social studies (see Tables 38-40).

Research question six asked: What are the teachers’ perceptions of the impact of

departmentalization in their school? The teacher believed departmentalization required

team effort to provide a quality education to a diverse student body. The demand for

ongoing collaboration and team planning created a learning community to support the

educational endeavors in fifth grade.

142

The teachers believed there were many advantages and disadvantages of the

departmentalization organizational structure. Students were exposed to multiple teaching

strategies by receiving instruction and/or support services from multiple teachers. The

teacher took advantage of using their planning time to create learning activities and

assessments for fewer subjects. Departmentalization also created team accountability for

the students’ academic and behavior performances. In spite of the advantages of

departmentalization, the teachers believed the block schedule restricted teaching and

learning opportunities. They were pressured into adjusting their lessons to 90 minutes

daily. With a need for more instructional time, the rotation of classes complicated the

need to safeguard instructional time. Instructional time was lost as students changed

classes. The teachers also wasted instructional time by redirecting students’ inappropriate

behavior and helping unorganized students look for assignments.

An analysis of the case and literature reveal similarities and discrepancies. Erb

and Stevenson (1999) said students coming from a self-contained setting were

accustomed to having a small group of peers and one teacher. If students fail to connect

to their peers and the teachers, they would have a higher rate of academic failure (Coffey,

2008). Even though some advocates of the block schedule argued that longer class period

allowed greater opportunities to get to know students on a personal level (Fritz, 2007).

The block schedule was a major dilemma for the teachers in this case. Contrary to these

findings, the students did not feel connected to the teachers as a result of not establishing

a relationship. However, there was not a higher rate of academic failure on the MCT2

data from 2010 to 2011.

143

Another discrepancy was with expectations for academic success. Alpaugh and

Harting (1995) advised schools should expect achievement declines during the

transitioning year when changing from a self-contained setting to a departmentalized

structure. This was not the expectation of the staff in the case. After several years of

declining academic achievement levels on the MCT2, the principal and assistant principal

discussed strategies that would enhance the academic achievement in fifth grade. As an

attempt to increase students’ academic achievement, the school transitioned the fifth

grade from a self-contained setting to a departmentalized structure. In spite of the high

expectations for academic achievement, the responses of the students in this case seemed

to be similar with the findings reported by Chan and Jarman (2004) that there have been

concerns about the educational process in elementary schools with departmentalized

classrooms.

Another similarity in the findings and literature was that the effectiveness of the

teachers was related to student achievement. Brophy (1986) said, setting high

expectations, employing scaffolding, integrating subject matter, and providing a clear

purpose with directions were all example of effective instruction. The teachers used

various instructional strategies as well as differentiated instruction to meet the needs of

their students. As a team, the teachers accepted responsibility for their students’ outcomes

by sharing ideas, developing intervention strategies, and working collaboratively to

educate the students.

This urban elementary school was under increasing pressure to improve student

achievement outcomes and carry out its mission of preparing youth with the skills to

compete in a global economy as well as to participate constructively in a democratic

144

society. As part of this pressure, policymakers have developed increasingly sophisticated

accountability and support systems to steer schools toward improved performance. Along

with the new accountability systems, there has been threats of state takeover are part of a

widespread climate of dissatisfaction with many schools. Often under intense scrutiny,

elementary schools have begun to implement reform efforts.

The effectiveness of departmentalization can definitely be debated. This case

study brought effective organizational structure to the forefront. While there was still a

lack in proof for which school structure was more effective, this study indicated that

departmentalization did not produce significant gains in the means scores of the MCT2.

The assistant principal believed departmentalization would improve student achievement

if the teachers were able to share their specialized knowledge in a subject. The teachers

who participated in this study also felt departmentalization was an effective way to

ensure meaningful learning, but meaningful learning was significantly different form

ensuring successful standardized test takers. The findings of this case study indicated that

learning occurs when the teachers are well prepared and organized each day.

Limitations

Merriam (1998) indicated

The case study offers a means of investigating complex social units consisting of

multiple variables of potential, importance in understanding the phenomenon.

Anchored in real life situations, a case study results in a rich and holistic account

of a phenomenon. It offers insight and illuminates meaning that expand its

readers’ experiences. (p. 41)

145

The limitation of this case study was the uncertainty that the findings were caused

by departmentalization. This case study examined whether departmentalization was

related to better instruction and academic outcomes. McPartland (1987) stated specialists

provided higher quality content instruction than generalists at some cost to teacher-

student relationships. The students in this case study did not develop a close relationship

with their teachers. The teachers in this case study were not specialists; therefore the lack

of the specialists teaching model in a departmentalized setting did not validate higher

quality instruction. Furthermore, a study by McGrath and Rust (2002) found that self-

contained fifth grade students outperformed departmentalized fifth grade students in

academic achievement.

Delimitations

Delimitations surfaced as this case study was conducted. This study included the

participants from one specific urban elementary school during a specific period of 2010

through 2011 in which the school implemented departmentalization in the fifth grade. It

may be that one year was not enough time to discern meaningful changes in students’

performances as well as the students and staff perceptions. Another delimitation of the

study was the data collection. This case study used the quantitative data from only two

content core subjects.

Recommendations

The completing of this case study allowed for an examination of ways in which to

proceed in the future on improvements to departmentalization. Since departmentalization

in fifth grade did not guarantee a significant difference in the academic performance of

146

students in fifth grade as measured by the MCT2, every aspect of departmentalization

should be thoroughly considered before plans of implementation. From the information

provided in this case study, the following recommendations are made for stakeholders

and researchers.

Stakeholders

Principals, instructional staff, students, and parents have been very concerned

about the continuous decline in the number of students performing advanced and

proficient on state and district assessments. As a result, there have been continuous

concerns about efforts to reform the current educational practices through restructuring to

enhance students’ performance. One recommendation is that the principal and staff

examine the procedures and determine the effectiveness of departmentalization

throughout the academic year and over a number of years. As needed, school

administrators should schedule ongoing professional development and in-service for all

teachers and instructional staff involved in departmentalization. It is important for the

instructional leadership team, instructional staff, and school governance committee to

review students’ progress and teachers’ performance on a regular basis to determine the

effectiveness of departmentalization.

Comparing several years of data in multiple grades would result in a more

accurate analysis of the fifth grade structure. It is recommended that departmentalization

in the fifth grade should be continued for a long enough time for the effectiveness to be

analyzed and revised to meet the needs of students and staff. A suggestion for similar

future research is to examine archival MCT2 data for an extended period of time for the

two different fifth grade organizational settings, self-contained and departmentalization.

147

Another suggestion is to conduct further research in the area of departmentalization for

other elementary grades.

An improvement in communication with parents and students should be carefully

considered by the school administrators. School administrators and teachers should be

sure that each new group of students and parents are well informed about

departmentalization. It is suggested that parents play a role in determining some of the

aspects in the organizational strategies. It is important that the administrators and teachers

communicate with parents in a consistent and timely manner. Questions and comments

from parents should be discussed and responses should be given in a timely manner.

Future Research

Relevant research failed to consider consistently the effect of instructional

strategies, teacher preparation, and professional development opportunities in the

departmentalized settings. After analyzing the results of this case study, the

implementation of departmentalization could be improved by careful consideration of the

following suggestions. The first recommendation is conduct further studies and examine

the impact of teachers’ experiences and training on the effective implementation of

departmentalization in fifth grade. The second recommendation would be to implement

the same fifth grade departmentalized plan. It would also be interesting to have two

elementary schools from different urban districts implement the same departmentalized

plan in fifth grade, then analyze and calculate the data. The third recommendation for

future research is to conduct studies in an elementary school which may not necessarily

need to increase academic achievement; therefore, the impact of organizational structure

148

changes could be evaluated by conducting further research in high performing elementary

schools.

As stated in the literature, schools should create a learning environment that

fosters productive relationships between the teachers and students. Proponents (Becker,

1987; Chang et al., 2008; Dropsey, 2004; Harris, 1996; Lobdell & Van Ness, 1963) of the

traditional self-contained settings argued that students’ social and emotional needs are

better met in settings where students can develop meaningful relationships with peers and

teachers with whom they are more familiar. Conducting future studies on the topic of the

impact of organizational structure on students’ emotional and social development is the

fourth recommendation.

As educators are constantly searching for new ways to help students, another

recommendation is to implement departmentalization in fifth grade classes with the

emphasis of integrating skills from all disciplines into the various instructional blocks.

Students today continue to move from one discipline to the next discipline forcing the

information and content to be disconnected. Integrating the various disciplines of the

common core standards will enable students to understand the connections among the

disciplines. While most teachers are willing to accept changes and new strategies that will

reform the educational system, ongoing professional development opportunities will be

required in order to meet the needs of the students.

Finally, departmentalized settings have many definitions and are organized

differently in various schools (Chan & Jarman, 2004; Chang et al., 2008; Dropsey, 2004;

Gerretson et al., 2008; Hood, 2010; McGrath & Rust, 2002; Moore, 2008; Reys &

Fennell, 2003). An area for future research is to define these different settings and

149

formulate comparison groups based on those definitions. Using these definitions,

empirical research can be conducted to further examine the relationship of organizational

structure and student achievement.

150

REFERENCES

Ackerlund, G. (1959). School organization: Theory and practice. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.

Alspaugh, J. W., & Harting, R. D. (1995). Transition effects of school grade-levelorganization on student achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28(3), 145-149.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education.(8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baker, B. (1999). The dangerous and the good? Development, progress, and public schooling. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 797-834.

Bean, R. (1994). Integrating communication and skills training. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 5(1), 17-30.

Block, C. C., Oakar, M., & Hurt, N. (2002). The expertise of literacy teachers: A continuum from preschool to grade 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 178-206.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research For education: Anintroduction to theories and methods. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Bonsteel, A., & Bonilla, C. (1997). A choice for our children. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Brophy, J. (1986). Research linking teacher behavior to student achievement: Potential implications for instruction of Chapter 1 students. Teacher and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 4(1), 1-18.

Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-45.

Burts, D., Charlesworth, R., & Hart, C. (1997). Integrated curriculum and developmentally appropriate practice: Birth to eight. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (2008). Elementary school scheduling. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

151

Catledge-Howard, S., Ward, C., & Dilworth, R. (2003). Classroom organization structures and student achievement. Retrieved January 17, 2012, fromhttp://www.msstate.edu/dept/preps/files/ClassroomOrganizationStructures. pdf

Center for Education Policy. (2004). From the capital to the classroom: Year 2 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Wallingford, CT: Education World.

Chan, T. C., & Jarman, D. (2004). Departmentalized elementary schools. Principal, 84 (1), 70-72. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ693835)

Chan, T. C., Terry, D., & Bessette, H. (2009). Fourth and fifth grade departmentalization: A transition to middle school. Journal for the Liberal Arts and Sciences, 84(1), 70.

Coffey, H. (2008). Team teaching. North Carolina: Learn NC.

Cohen, J. (2001). Caring classrooms/Intelligent schools: The social emotionaleducation of young children. New York: Teacher College Press.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers and educational professionals. Arlington, VA: Pearson.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000). Standards based professional development for school leaders. Washington, DC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium.

Cousins, J. B. (1994). The reported nature and consequences of teachers’ joint work in three exemplary schools. Elementary School Journal, 94(4), 441-465.

Cremin, L. A. (1970). American education: The colonial experience, 1607-1783. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fivetraditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3) 124-131.

Culyer, R. C. (1984). The case for the self-contained classroom. The Clearing House, 57, 417-419.

Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Delviscio, J., & Muffs, M. (2007). Regrouping students. School Administrator, 6(8), 26-27.

152

Des Moines Public School, IA. (1989). Elementary school organization: Self-contained and departmentalized instruction. Report No. SA021313. Des Moines, IA: Des Moines Public Schools, Elementary Department. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED311546)

Dillion, S. (2010). Obama to seek sweeping change in ‘No Child’ law. The New YorkTimes. 2 (1) 1-4.

Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. New York: Macmillan.

Dunbar, C. (2004). Best practices in classroom management. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Ediger, M. (2000). High states testing and student achievement. Reading Improvement, 37(4), 173-178.

Elmore, R., Peterson, P., & McCarthy, S. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: teaching, learning and school organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Erb, T., & Stevenson, C. (1999). From faith to facts: Turning points in action-What difference does teaming make? Middle School Journal, 30(3), 47-50.

Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill, NC:University of North Carolina Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6th ed.). New York, N.Y.: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Freeman, S. (2009). Closing the student achievement gap. Bloomington, IN: Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning.

Fritz, C. (2007). Mathematics classroom cultures: Methodological and theoretical issues. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 319-326.

Gentry, M., & Springer, P. (2002). Secondary student perceptions of their class activitiesRegarding meaningfulness, challenges, choice, and appeal: An initial validation study. Journey of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(4), 192-204.

George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (1993). The exemplary middle school (2nd ed.) Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Gibb, E. G., & Matala, D. C. (1962). Studies on the use of special teachers of science and mathematics in grades 5 and 6. School Science and Mathematics, 62, 565- 585.

153

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984a). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(1), 51-70.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984b). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research, New York: Academic Press.

Goldberg, J. (1994). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9),905-935.

Grissmer, D., & Flanagan, A. (1998). Exploring rapid achievement gains in North Carolina and Texas. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Grooms, H. H. (1967). Pupil achievement and social development in intermediate grade departmental and self-contained classrooms. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED395298)

Hackmann, D. G., & Valentine, J. W. (1998). Designing an effective middle level schedule. Middle School Journal. 29(5) 1-15.

Hammenken, P. A. (1997). 450 Strategies for success: A practical guide for all educators who teach students with disabilities. Minnetonka, MN: Peytral Publications.

Harris, M. (1996). The effect of departmentalization on the reading achievement of sixth-grade students. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 395298)

Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36(1), 5-13.

Heibert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? EducationalResearcher, 31(2), 3-15.

Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research. (3rd ed.). New York: Longman, Inc.

Hwang, Y., S., & Hernandez, J. (2002). Elementary teacher education students’perceptions of team teaching. Education, 123(7), 22 1-2.

Joppe, M. (2000). The research process. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm

Joyce, B. (2004). How are professional learning communities created? Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 76.

Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2009). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematicscurricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663-693.

154

Killion , J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Lamme, L. L. (1976). Self-contained to departmentalized: How reading habits changed. Elementary School Journal, 76(4), 208-219.

Legters, N., McDill, E., & McPartland, J. (1993). Departmentalized schools. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Learning Points Associates. Retrieved February 8, 2011, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at6lk14.htm

Leithwood, K., Louis, S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Manzo, K. (2004). States making some gains in teacher quality, study says. Education Week, 24(2) 145-149.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). A new era of school reform: Going where the research takes us.Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching. Alexandra, VA: Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Norford, J. S., Paynter, D. E., Pickering, D. J., & Gaddy, B. B. (2001). A handbook for classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McCall, A., Janssen, B., & Riederer, K. (2008). More time for powerful social studies methods faculty and classroom teachers collaborate. Social Studies, 99(3), 135-141. Retrieved June 26, 2011, from Professional Development Collection database.

McGrath, C., & Rust, J. (2002). Academic achievement and between-class transition for self-contained and departmental upper-elementary classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(1), 40-43.

McParland, J. (1987). Balancing high quality subject-matter instruction with positive teacher-student relations in the middle grades: Effects of departmentalization, tracking and block scheduling on learning environments. Report No. SP028925. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED291704)

155

Meek, C. (2003). From the inside out: A look at testing special education students. (NoChild Left Behind Act of 2001). Phi Delta Kappan, 85(4), 258-270.

Merenbloom, E. Y., & Kalina, B. A. (2007). Making creative schedules work in middle and high schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mississippi Department of Education. (2011). Mississippi Curriculum Test, Second Edition: Interpretive guide for teachers and administrators. Iowa

City, IA: MDE/Pearson, Inc. Retried March 1, 2011, from http//www.mde.k12.ms.us/doc/student-assessment/2011_ig.pdf?sfvsn=1

Montgomery, A., & Ross, R. (1994). Education reforms and students at risk: Findings and recommendations. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2000). Qualitative research for counseling psychology. Handbook of counseling psychology. (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

National Education Association. (1966). Departmentalization in elementary schools. NEA Research Bulletin, 2(2), 27-28.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Education Reform:Unlocking the power of time. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.

Nebraska Department of Education. (2000). Planning the weekly schedule in the elementary grades. [Brochure]. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Education.No Child Left Behind of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301§ et seq.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Otto, H. J. (1954). Elementary school organization and administration. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A., Locke, H., & Thanh, C. (1992). Speaking up: Students’ perspectives on school. Phi Delta Kappan,73(9), 695-704.

Public Agenda. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talkabout what’s needed to fix schools. New York, NY: Public Agenda for Educators.

Reese, S. (2004). The highly qualified teacher under NCLB. Techniques: ConnectingEducation & Careers, 79(8), 33.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy. Reuman, D. A. (1984). Consequences of the transition into junior high school on social comparison of abilities and achievement motivation. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 25033)

156

Rogers, M. S., & Palardy, J.M. (1987). A survey of organizational patterns and grouping strategies used in elementary schools in the southeast. Education, 108, 112-118.

Ruben, H. J. , & Ruben, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schrag, J. A. (1993). Organizational, instructional and curricular strategies to support the implementation of unified, coordinated, and inclusive school.Communication Education, 42(4), 329-333.

Schuster, A. H., & Wilson, F. W. (1958). Leadership in elementary school administration and supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Scribner, J. P. (2003). Teacher learning in context: The special case of rural high schoolteachers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(12) 40-43.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.) New York: Teachers College Press.

Simplicio, J. (2000). Teaching classroom educators how to be more effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4) 329-333.

Simpson, R., LaCava, P. & Graner, P. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act:Challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in School & Clinic,40(2), 67-75.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steffes, R., & Valentine, J. (1995, February). Organizational characteristics and expected outcomes of interdisciplinary teaming. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of Secondary School Principals,

San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?

Stevens, R. (2004). Why do educational innovations come and go? What do we know? What can we do? Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 389-396.

Sweeny, S., & Beecher, M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-503.

Tempes, F. (2001). Holding the state accountable. Leadership, 31(1) 67-75.

The Center for Education Reform. (1996). Education World: Emerging strategies and structures for educational change. Washington DC: Education World, Inc.

The Center for Public Education. (2008). Teacher quality and student achievement. Redwood City, CA: Education.com, Inc.

157

The Department of Education Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2010). Literacy Enrichment and Academic Readiness for Newcomers (LEARN)Curriculum guide. St. John, Newfoundland: Department of Education.

Thompson, C. A., & Craig, H. K. (2005). Multicultural education of children and adolescents. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Thorndike, R. M. (1997). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades (ERIC Digest). Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Retrieved March 6, 2011, fromhttp://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/2000/tomlin00.pdf

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms.(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ubben, G. C., & Hughes, I. W. (1992). The principal: Creative leadership for effective schools. (2nd ed. ). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

U. S. Department of Education. (2000). Hard work and high expectations:Motivating students to learn. Washington DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Education. (2001). Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Improving America’s schools act of 1994. Retrieved October 4, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Final/intro.html

U. S. Department of Education. (2003). No Child Left Behind: A toolkit for teachers. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Policy Planning and Innovation. (2004).Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary’s secondannual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics. Retrieved June 26, 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005464

158

U. S. Department of Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind: The facts about math achievement. Retrieved June 26, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/math/math.pdf

Valencia, S. W., & Buly, M. R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readersreally need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520-531.

Wallis, C. (2008). No Child Left Behind: Doomed to fail. Time, 6(1), 16-18.

Wayne, A. J., & Young, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student academic achievement: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.

Wenglinsky, H. (2002), How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12) 389-396. Retrieved November 2, 2011, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/

Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. C. (1984). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (2nd ed.)Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Williams, D., & King, J. (2002). Rural school leadership in the deep South:The double-edged legacy of school desegregation. Washington, DC: RSCT.

Woodward, M. M. & Johnson, C. (2009). Reading intervention models: Challenges of classroom support and separated instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(3), 190-200.

Woods, R. C. R. (1958). Relative merits of departmental and non-departmental elementary school. Peabody Journal of Education. 36(11) 164-168.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods.(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

159

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD’S LETTER

160

Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects P.O. Box 6223 Mississippi State, MS 39762 (662) 325-3294 October 22, 2010 Lynn A. Horton 3344 Old Jackson Road Terry, MS 39170 RE: IRB Study #10-094: A Case Study of Academic Achievement in Departmentalized Fifth Grade Classes at an Urban Mississippi Elementary School Dear Ms. Horton: The above referenced project was reviewed and approved via administrative review on 10/22/2010 in accordance with 45 CFR 46.101(b)(1). Continuing review is not necessary for this project. However, any modification to the project must be reviewed and approved by the IRB prior to implementation. Any failure to adhere to the approved protocol could result in suspension or termination of your project. The IRB reserves the right, at anytime during the project period, to observe you and the additional researchers on this project. Please note that the MSU IRB is in the process of seeking accreditation for our human subjects protection program. As a result of these efforts, you will likely notice many changes in the IRB's policies and procedures in the coming months. These changes will be posted online at http://www.orc.msstate.edu/human/aahrpp.php. The first of these changes is the implementation of an approval stamp for consent forms. The approval stamp will assist in ensuring the IRB approved version of the consent form is used in the actual conduct of research. You must use copies of the stamped consent form for obtaining consent from participants. Please refer to your IRB number (#10-094) when contacting our office regarding this application. Thank you for your cooperation and good luck to you in conducting this research project. If you have questions or concerns, please contact me at nmorse@research.msstate.edu or call 662-325-3994. Sincerely, For use with electronic submission Nicole Morse Assistant Compliance Administrator

cc: Dwight Hare (Advisor)

161

RESUMÉ

162

Resumé LYNN A. HORTON 3344 Old Jackson Rd. Terry, MS 39170| 601-906-8290 | lhorton@jackson.k12.ms.us

OBJECTIVE

To obtain an administrative position that will allow me to contribute to the educational system by fully utilizing strong leadership abilities, innovative organizational skills, and sound instruction and learning techniques that improve student achievement; prepare students for the challenges of living and working in the 21st Century; and motivate students to become independent, life-long learners.

PROFILE

To obtain an administrative position that will allow me to contribute to the educational system by fully utilizing strong leadership abilities, innovative organizational skills, and sound instruction and learning techniques that improve student achievement; prepare students for the challenges of living and working in the 21st Century; and motivate students to become independent, life-long learners.

EDUCATION Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS Ph.D. in Education Administration K-12 Dissertation: “A Case Study of Academic Achievement in Fifth Grade Classes at an Urban Elementary School” (Anticipated) 2013 Mississippi State University, Meridian, MS Ed.S. in Educational Leadership K-12 2005 Jackson State University, Jackson, MS M.S. in Elementary Education K-8 1997 Jackson State University, Jackson, MS B.S. in Elementary Education K-8 1992

163

HIGHLIGHTS OF ADMINSTRATIVE QUALIFICATIONS

Leads, evaluates, and maintains the instructional focus Ensures that best instructional practices are incorporated into teaching

strategies Selects, recommends, and evaluates building personnel Develops and enforces procedures for effective student discipline in accordance with district policies and procedures Supervises building maintenance and bus transportation Provides appropriate staff development Maintains and executes policies of the Board of Trustees and District

administration Oversees the assignment of substitute teachers from the approved

substitute list Communicates the goals and objectives of the school Prepares school reports Performs other related duties as requested or assigned

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE

Principal - Jackson Public School District 2013 - Present

Assistant Principal - Jackson Public School District 2007 - 2013 Summer School Principal – Jackson Public School District 2011 Summer School Principal – Jackson Public School District 2008 Coordinator of 21st CCLC Program – Jackson Public School District 2006

- 2008

164

TEACHING EXPERIENCE 4th Grade Teacher – Jackson Public School District 2006 – 2007 1st Grade Teacher – Jackson Public School District 1992 – 2006

OTHER EXPERIENCE Tutor – Knowledge Learning 1998 - 2005

PRESENTATIONS

“Positive Behavior Interventions and Support” Nov. 2010 Jackson State University, Jackson, MS “Core Traits of Successful Living” Aug. 2004 Christ Missionary Industrial School, Jackson, MS

AFFILIATIONS, HONORS, AND MEMBERSHIPS

Mississippi Professional Educators Parent Teacher Association Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Heroines of Jericho Ladies of the Circle of Perfection Pi Lambda Theta Honor’s Society Alpha Epsilon Lambda Honor’s Society Jackson Elementary Principal’s Association

165

INTERESTS Assisting Youth and Seniors Reading Fishing Riding Horses and ATVs Camping

166

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

167

Interview Protocol

Hello! This interview is designed for the purpose of gathering data about the departmentalized organizational classroom structure in fifth grade at Minnie D. Sykes Elementary School. As a participant, you will be interviewed about your experiences as an instructor in the departmentalized organizational structure. Your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable.

The staff and students in forthcoming years of Minnie D. Sykes Elementary School will benefit from this study. The benefit of this study is to help provide a more in-depth understanding of the instructional classroom structure of departmentalization. There are no risks or discomforts in participating in this study. The notes and records of this research will be kept confidential. The researcher will not identify who has agreed to participate in this study. Participant’s names will not be used in the publication of this research. Pseudonyms will be used for all participants in this research. If you have questions regarding the specifics of this study, please contact me at 601-906-8290 or the dissertation director, Dr. Rufus Dwight Hare at 662-325-7110. For additional information regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel free to contact Mississippi State University Regulatory Compliance at 662-325-5220 or by email at irb@research.msstate.edu. Please provide a response to the following question?

1. How does departmentalization impact your role as a fifth grade teacher?

2. Can you describe your interactions with the other members of the fifth grade instructional team during a typical work day?

3. What are some specific advantages of working in a departmentalized

organizational setting?

4. What are some specific problems or disadvantages you have encountered working

in a departmentalized organizational setting?

5. Is there anything else that you would like to share about your experiences as an

instructor in a departmentalized setting?

Thanks for your participation.

168

DATA COLLECTION FOR STUDENTS

169

Data Collection for Students

Notice to Participants This interview questionnaire is designed and administered for the purpose of gathering data about the departmentalized organizational classroom structure in fifth grade at Minnie D. Sykes Elementary School. Your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable. All information will be kept strictly confidential. No respondent will be identified individually. Please do not put your name or any other identifying marks on this questionnaire. Please read the following descriptions before answering questions and complete by October 29, 2010. Thanks for your participation.

1. Self-contained An elementary self-contained structure generally consists of one instructor who is a generalist and teaches the entire required core subjects (Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) to one group of students for the complete academic year. Departmentalization Departmentalization is an organizational structure where several teachers with extensive knowledge in certain subjects share the responsibility of teaching core subjects (Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) for all students during separate time blocks. Instructions Mark (X) by your response to each question. Please select only one response to each question. 1. Was your fifth grade academic year the first time that you received instruction in a departmentalized organizational setting? _____ No _____ Yes 2. Did you understand what your teacher wanted you to learn? _____ No _____ Yes 3. Were the standards taught in a more detailed and comprehensive manner?

170

_____ No _____Yes 4. Does your teacher allow the students to have input during the delivery of instruction? _____ No _____ Yes 5. Were the lessons more engaging and interesting than the previously taught lessons in a self-contained organizational setting? _____ No _____Yes 6. Do you like your teacher’s instructional style? _____ No _____Yes 7. Were you able to develop a close relationship with your teacher? _____ No _____ Yes 8. Rank your favorite core subject which was taught in the departmental organizational setting from (1) MOST ENJOYABLE to (4) LEAST ENJOYABLE. _____ Reading/Language Arts _____ Mathematics _____ Science _____ Social Studies 9. Did the departmentalization organizational structure have a positive effect on you socially and academically after transitioning from a self-contained setting? _____ No

171

_____ Yes 10. What is your personal preference for the classroom organizational structure for fifth grade students? _____ Self-contained _____ Departmentalization

172

DATA COLLECTION FOR TEACHERS

173

Data Collection for Teachers

1. Data Collection of Teachers Dear Teachers: As part of the requirements to complete doctoral studies at Mississippi State University, I am completing the dissertation component of my degree program. Your participation in this study is requested. Thanks in advance for your responses. Please complete by October 29, 2010. Sincerely, Lynn A. Horton, Ed. S. 2. Important Information Confidentiality Statement: The notes and records of this research will be kept confidential. The researcher will not identify who has agreed to participate in this study. Participant’s names will not be used in the publication of this research. Pseudonyms will be used for all participants in this research. Voluntary Participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. You may change your mind and withdraw from this study at any time without penalty of loss of any benefit to which you may be otherwise entitled. Contacts and Questions: If you have questions regarding the specifics of this study, please contact Lynn A. Horton at 601-906-8290 or the dissertation director, Dr. Rufus Dwight Hare at 662-325-7110. For additional information regarding your rights as a research participant, please feel free to contact Mississippi State University Regulatory Compliance at 662-325-5220 or by email at irb@research.msstate.edu. 3. Purpose of Study In the fall of 2009, the fifth grade faculty at Minnie D. Sykes Elementary School changed from a self-contained classroom structure to a departmentalized structure. The purpose of the research is to investigate and understand the impact that departmentalizing has on teachers and staff, and on student academic achievement at Minnie D. Sykes Elementary School. Please read the following descriptions before proceeding to answer questions.

174

Self-contained An elementary self-contained structure generally consists of one instructor who is a generalist and teaches the entire required core subjects (Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) to one group of students for the complete academic year. Departmentalization

Departmentalization is an organizational structure where several teachers with extensive knowledge in certain subjects share the responsibility of teaching core subjects (Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) for all students during separate time blocks. _____ Check here to indicate you have read the above information explaining your voluntary participation and confidentiality rights. Instructions Mark (X) by your response(s) to each question.

1. How many years of teaching experience do you have? _____ Less Than 5 Years _____ 5 – 10 Years _____ 11 – 15 Years _____ 16 + Years

2. How many years have you taught fifth grade? _____ Less Than 5 Years _____ 5 – 10 Years _____ 11 – 15 Years _____ 16 + Years

3. What is your teaching class level of Mississippi Licenses? _____ Class A (Bachelor’s Degree Level) _____ Class AA (Master’s Degree Level) _____ Class AAA (Specialist Degree Level) _____Class AAA (Doctorate Degree Level)

4. What are your certification endorsement codes? (Click all that apply) ____117 Elem. Ed. (4-8) ____120 Elem. Ed. (K-6) ____119 English (7-12) ____125 Music, Performing Arts (K-12) ____140 Spanish (K-12) ____165 Music Ed. Instrumental (K-12)

175

____154 Mathematics (7-12) ____174 Reading (K-12) ____166 Music Ed. Vocal (K-12) ____182 Physical Science (7-12) ____177 English as a ____188 General Science (7-12) Second Language (K-12) ____196 Speech Communications ____192 Social Studies (K-12) (7-12) ____206 Emotional Disability ____215 Speech Language Clinician

(K-12) (K-12) ____221 Mild/Moderate Disability ____222 Severe Disability (K-12)

(K-12) ____223 Mild/Moderate Disability ____224Mild/Moderate Disability (K-8) (K-12) ____436 Guidance Counselor (K-12) ____901Middle Grade Math (7-8) ____440 Library/Media (K-12) Supplemental Only ____902 Middle Grade Lang. Arts ____903 Middle Grade Soc. Studies (7-8) Supplemental Only

(7-8) Supplemental Only ____904 Middle Grade Science (7-8) ____905 Middle Grade Math (7-8) Supplemental Only Spec. Ed. ____906 Middle Grade Lang. Arts (7-8) Supplemental Only Spec. Ed. Supplemental Only ____907 Middle Grade Soc. Studies ____908 Middle Grade Science (7-8)

(7-8) Spec. Ed. Spec. Ed. Supplemental Only Supplemental Only ____910 Spec. Ed. Fundamental

____ 971 Teacher Academy (7-12) Subject HQ (K-12) ____ 983 STEM-Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (7-12)

5. Have you had any specific college-level training in the area of

reading/language arts? _____Yes _____ No If you answered yes, how many college-level content courses have you taken? _____

6. Have you had any specific college-level training in the area of mathematics? _____ Yes _____ No If you answered yes, how many college-level content courses have you taken? _____

7. Have you had any specific professional development or pedagogical training in reading/language art? _____ Yes _____ No If yes, approximately how many workshops or training classes in pedagogical, reading/language arts strategies? ______

176

8. Have you had any specific professional development or pedagogical training

in mathematics? _____ Yes _____ No If yes, approximately how many workshops or training classes in pedagogical, mathematics strategies? ______

9. Have you had any professional development on the district or State curricula and performance standards? _____Yes _____No

10. Have you had any professional development on how to utilize data to make

decisions about instructional strategies? _____Yes _____No

11. Have you had any professional development on addressing the needs of

students with disabilities? _____Yes _____No

12. Rank the core subjects areas from (1-4) with one being the subject you most

enjoy teaching to four being the subject you least enjoy teaching. _____ Reading/Language Arts _____ Mathematics _____ Science _____ Social Studies

13. Rank the core subject areas from (1-4) with one being the subject you feel most effective teaching to four being the subject you feel least effective teaching.

_____ Reading/Language Arts _____ Mathematics _____ Science _____ Social Studies

13. What is your preference for the classroom organizational structure for fifth-grade students? _____ Traditional _____ Departmentalization

14. As a teacher, did you have a voice in the decision-making process at your

school concerning the fifth-grade classroom organizational structure?

177

_____ Yes _____ No

15. Did your initial college training adequately train you to teach all subjects at

the fifth-grade level? _____ Yes _____ No

16. Do you believe teachers who have specialized training in a specific subject

can better serve students through some type of departmentalization at the 5th grade level? _____ Yes _____ No

Thanks for your time and cooperation.

178

TABLES

179

Table 1 Level of Mississippi Teaching Licenses

Frequency Percent Class A (Bachelors

Degree Level) 5 55.6

Class AA (Masters Degree Level) 4 44.4

Total 9 100.0

Table 2 Certification Codes of Participants

Frequency Percent 117 6 66.7 120 1 11.1 177 1 11.1 Total 8 88.9 Missing 1 11.1 Total 9 100.0

Table 3 Teaching Experience

Frequency Percent Less Than 5 Years 2 22.2 5-10 years 5 55.6 16+ Years 2 22.2 Total 9 100.0

Table 4 Years Teaching 5th Grade

Frequency Percent Less Than 5 Years 6 66.7 5-10 years 3 33.3 Total 9 100.0

180

Table 5 Number of College Level Training Courses

Frequency Percent 2 1 11.1 3 2 22.2 4 2 22.2 5 1 11.1 Total 6 66.7 Missing 3 33.3 Total 9 100.0

Table 6 Perceptions of Adequacy of Initial College Training

Frequency Percent Yes 2 22.2 No 7 77.8 Total 9 100.0

Table 7 College-Level Training in the Area of Reading Language Arts

Frequency Percent Yes 6 66.7 No 3 33.3 Total 9 100.0

Table 8 College-Level Training in the Area of Mathematics

Frequency Percent Yes 3 33.3 No 6 66.7 Total 9 100.0

181

Table 9 Teachers’ Input in the Decision-Making Process at School

Frequency Percent Yes 1 11.1 No 6 66.7 Total 7 77.8 Missing 2 22.2 Total 9 100.0

Table 10 Belief that Teachers with Specialized Training Can Better Serve

Frequency Percent Yes 8 88.9 No 1 11.1 Total 9 100.0

Table 11 Workshops or Training Classes in Pedagogical Reading Language Arts Strategies

Frequency Percent 2 2 22.2 4 1 11.1 5 2 22.2 10 2 22.2 15 1 11.1 Total 8 88.9 Missing 1 11.1 Total 9 100.0

Table 12 Training Classes or Pedagogical Training in Mathematics

Frequency Percent 4 2 22.2 5 1 11.1 Total 3 33.3 Missing 6 66.7 Total 9 100.0

182

Table 13 Professional Development on the District or State Curricula and Performance Standards

Frequency Percent Yes 7 77.8 No 2 22.2 Total 9 100.0

Table 14 Professional Development on Utilizing Data

Frequency Percent Yes 8 88.9 No 1 11.1 Total 9 100.0

Table 15 Professional Development or Pedagogical Training in Reading Language Arts

Frequency Percent Yes 8 88.9 No 1 11.1 Total 9 100.0

Table 16 Professional Development or Pedagogical Training in Mathematics

Frequency Percent Yes 3 33.3 No 6 66.7 Total 9 100.0

183

Table 17 Professional Development on Addressing the Needs of Students with Disabilities

Frequency Percent Yes 8 88.9 No 1 11.1 Total 9 100.0

Table 18 Frequency of Ranking of Core Subjects Teachers Most Enjoy Teaching

1. Reading/Language Arts

2. Mathematics 3. Science 4. Social Studies

5. 6-1st 6. 3-2nd

7.

8. 3-1st 9. 3-2nd 10. 2-3rd 11. 1-4th

12. 1-2nd 13. 3-3rd 14. 5-4th 15.

16. 2-2nd 17. 4-3rd 18. 3-4th

Table 19 Descriptives of Ranking of Core Subjects Teachers Most Enjoy Teaching

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Rank of Reading/Language Arts

9 1 2 1.33 .50

Rank of Mathematics 9 1 4 2.11 1.05 Rank of Science 9 2 4 3.44 .73 Rank of Social Studies 9 2 4 3.11 .78 N 9

184

Table 20 Ranking of Subjects Teachers Feel Most Effective Teaching

19. Reading/Language Arts

20. Mathematics 21. Science 22. Social Studies

23. 1 24. 1 25. 1 26. 2 27. 1 28. 2 29. 2 30. 1 31. 1

32. 4 33. 4 34. 3 35. 1 36. 3 37. 1 38. 1 39. 2 40. 3

41. 4 42. 3 43. 2 44. 4 45. 4 46. 3 47. 4 48. 4 49. 2

50. 4 51. 2 52. 4 53. 3 54. 2 55. 4 56. 3 57. 3 58. 4

Table 21 Frequency of Ranking of Subjects Teachers Feel Most Effective Teaching

59. Reading/Language Arts

60. Mathematics 61. Science 62. Social Studies

63. 6-1st 64. 3-2nd 65.

66. 3-1st 67. 1-2nd 68. 3-3rd 69. 2-4th

70. 2-2nd 71. 2-3rd 72. 5-4th 73.

74. 2-2nd 75. 3-3rd 76. 4-4th

Table 22 Descriptives of Ranking of Subjects Teachers Feel Most Effective Teaching

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Rank of Reading/Language Arts

9 1 2 1.33 .50

Rank of Mathematics 9 1 4 2.44 1.23 Rank of Science 9 2 4 3.33 .86 Rank of Social Studies 9 2 4 3.22 .83 N 9

185

Table 23 Fifth Grade Academic Year as First Time Students Received Instruction in a Departmentalized Organizational Setting

Frequency Percent Yes 25 59.5 No 17 40.5 Total 42 100.0

Table 24 Teachers’ Preference for the Classroom Organizational Structure for Fifth Grade Students

Frequency Percent Traditional 3 33.3 Departmentalization 6 66.7 Total 9 100.0

Table 25 Personal Preference for the Classroom Organizational Structure for Fifth Grade Students

Frequency Percent Self-Contained 12 28.6 Departmentalization 30 71.4 Total 42 100.0

Table 26 Students Develop a Close Relationship with Teachers

Frequency Percent Yes 3 7.1 No 39 92.9 Total 42 100.0

186

Table 27 Departmentalization Organizational Structure Has a Positive Effect

Frequency Percent Yes 5 11.9 No 37 88.1 Total 42 100.0

Table 28 Students’ Approval of Teacher's Instructional Style

Frequency Percent Yes 2 4.8 No 40 95.2 Total 42 100.0

Table 29 Standards Taught in a More Detailed and Comprehensive Manner

Frequency Percent Yes 3 7.1 No 39 92.9 Total 42 100.0

Table 30 Teachers Allow Students to Have Input

Frequency Percent Yes 2 4.8 No 40 95.2 Total 42 100.0

Table 31 Lessons More Engaging and Interesting

Frequency Percent Yes 5 11.9 No 37 88.1 Total 42 100.0

187

Table 32 Understanding of What the Teacher Wanted Students to Learn

Frequency Percent Yes 5 11.9 No 37 88.1 Total 42 100.0

Table 33 Paired Samples Statistics—Language Arts Tests

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Language Arts 2010 145.61 42 15.10 2.33

Language Arts 2011 148.11 42 12.09 1.86

Paired Differences

Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) Language Arts 2010 -2.50 -1.73 14 .090

Language Arts 2011

Table 34 Paired Samples Statistics—Mathematics Tests

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Mathematics 2010 148.73 42 9.88 1.52

Mathematics 2011 148.80 42 8.73 1.34

Paired Differences

Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mathematics 2010 -.071 -.075 41 .941

Mathematics 2011

188

Table 35 Independent t-Test—Comparison of Academic Scores for Students’ Preference of Self-Contained and Departmentalization

Table 36 2010-2011 Comparison of Academic Performance

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Language Arts 2010 42 110.00 168.00 145.61 15.10 Language Arts 2011 42 109.00 170.00 148.11 12.09 Mathematics 2010 42 128.00 164.00 148.73 9.88 Mathematics 2011 42 122.00 160.00 148.80 8.73 N 42

189

Table 37 Ranking of Core Subjects Teachers Most Enjoy Teaching

77. Reading/Language Arts

78. Mathematics 79. Science 80. Social Studies

81. 1 82. 1 83. 1 84. 2 85. 1 86. 2 87. 2 88. 1 89. 1

90. 2 91. 4 92. 2 93. 1 94. 3 95. 1 96. 1 97. 2 98. 3

99. 4 100. 3 101. 3 102. 4 103. 4 104. 3 105. 4 106. 4 107. 2

108. 3 109. 2 110. 4 111. 3 112. 2 113. 4 114. 3 115. 3 116. 4

190

Table 38 Ranking of Subjects Students Feel Most Enjoyable

117. Reading/Language Arts

118. Mathematics

119. Science

120. Social Studies

121. 1 122. 3 123. 1 124. 1 125. 2 126. 2 127. 4 128. 1 129. 3 130. 3 131. 3 132. 2 133. 1 134. 3 135. 3 136. 3 137. 2 138. 4 139. 1 140. 1 141. 2 142. 3 143. 2 144. 4 145. 1 146. 2 147. 1 148. 4 149. 1 150. 2 151. 3 152. 2 153. 3 154. 3 155. 2 156. 1 157. 3 158. 3 159. 2 160. 3 161. 1 162. 1

163. 4 164. 2 165. 4 166. 3 167. 4 168. 1 169. 1 170. 3 171. 4 172. 1 173. 2 174. 3 175. 3 176. 4 177. 4 178. 4 179. 1 180. 1 181. 2 182. 4 183. 1 184. 1 185. 1 186. 2 187. 2 188. 1 189. 2 190. 1 191. 3 192. 1 193. 1 194. 3 195. 1 196. 1 197. 1 198. 3 199. 2 200. 1 201. 1 202. 4 203. 2 204. 3

205. 2 206. 1 207. 3 208. 2 209. 1 210. 3 211. 3 212. 2 213. 1 214. 2 215. 1 216. 1 217. 2 218. 1 219. 1 220. 2 221. 3 222. 2 223. 3 224. 2 225. 4 226. 2 227. 3 228. 1 229. 4 230. 4 231. 4 232. 2 233. 2 234. 3 235. 2 236. 4 237. 2 238. 2 239. 3 240. 2 241. 1 242. 2 243. 4 244. 1 245. 4 246. 4

247. 3 248. 4 249. 2 250. 4 251. 3 252. 4 253. 2 254. 4 255. 2 256. 4 257. 4 258. 4 259. 4 260. 2 261. 2 262. 1 263. 4 264. 3 265. 4 266. 3 267. 3 268. 4 269. 4 270. 3 271. 3 272. 3 273. 3 274. 3 275. 4 276. 4 277. 4 278. 1 279. 4 280. 4 281. 4 282. 4 283. 4 284. 4 285. 3 286. 2 287. 3 288. 2

191

Table 39 Frequency of Ranking of Subjects Students Feel Most Enjoyable

289. Reading/Language Arts

290. Mathematics

291. Science

292. Social Studies

293. 13-1st 294. 10- 2nd 295. 15-3rd 296. 4-4th

297. 17- 1st 298. 8-2nd 299. 8-3rd 300. 9-4th

301. 10- 1st

302. 16- 2nd

303. 8-3rd

304. 8-4th

305. 2-1st

306. 7-2nd

307. 12-3rd

308. 21-4th

Table 40 Descriptives of Ranking of Subjects Students Feel Most Enjoyable

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Rank of Reading/Language Arts

42 1.00 4.00 2.21 1.00

Rank of Mathematics 42 1.00 4.00 2.21 1.20

Rank of Science 42 1.00 4.00 2.38 1.08

Rank of Social Studies 42 1.00 4.00 3.23 .90

N 42 1 = Ranking of Core Subjects Teachers Most Enjoy Teaching, 2 = Ranking of Subjects Teachers Feel Most Effective Teaching, 3 = Ranking of Subjects Students Feel Most Enjoyable