Implementation of the Interventions

Although the three curricula differed from each other in a variety of ways, teachers in all three groups received comparable levels of professional development. Each curriculum developer provided two to three in-service training sessions, off-site, for all teachers and aides who were involved in implementing the curricula, as well as interested directors.19 The training sessions represented a substantial effort on the part of developers, with national staff at BTL and RSL training sessions and the original authors at the BTL and BELL sessions. In addition, because, in spite of incentives, there was steady attrition of teachers, all three developers provided training sessions as new staff were hired for the classrooms.

During the year, each curriculum was assigned two mentor coaches, paid for by the SRC, and supervised by on-site coordinators employed by the developers. Each mentor was responsible for approximately 18 classrooms, which she visited twice a month, on average (some required more frequent visits, especially as teachers were replaced, while others were able to be visited monthly). The site coordinators also conducted mentoring visits, especially to new teachers or to teachers who were experiencing difficulty implementing the curriculum. The visits were similar across curriculum models, with each mentor visiting one or two classrooms in a morning, one or two classrooms in the afternoon, and completing paperwork at the end of the day. Each team developed a systematic way of recording and rating implementation progress and providing instructional feedback to teachers. The forms used by the coaches reflect the developers’ ideas about key components of the curriculum and effective strategies to communicate them. They were used to identify specific areas for teachers to work on, such as conducting more activities in small groups, spending less time in whole-group activities, using graphic organizers to build vocabulary from the book of the week, strategies for classroom management to help children focus.

Data from each model’s implementation rating scale were analyzed separately. While curriculum developers differed in their criteria for a “fully implemented” curriculum, the scales provided an estimate of the degree of implementation achieved by centers in each group. By the end of the first study year, six to seven months after the initial training sessions, key elements of all three curricula were being implemented in most classrooms. Ready, Set, Leap and B.E.L.L mentors reported that about 11% (4 classrooms out of 36) were not implementing at a satisfactory level; Breakthrough to Literacy mentors judged that 22% (7 classrooms) were still at a beginning level of implementation at the end of the first year. At the end of the study, a similar number of centers (3 to 4) in each group were still not implementing the curricula at a satisfactory level. In some cases, this was a teacher, newly hired late in Year 2, was not sufficiently familiar with the curriculum; in others, there was resistance on the part of the director or the teacher or both. Mentors were not allowed to drop these resistant teachers, but often the on-site coordinator assumed responsibility for regular visits to attempt to change practices.

In interviews, mentors from all three models reported independently the same features of successful implementers: a positive attitude towards instructional change; effective classroom management; and well-organized space and materials; healthy working relationships among directors, staff and parents; and frequent individual interactions between adults and children.

They reported similar barriers to implementation across the three models: resistance to instructional change; lack of trust and cooperation between teachers and administrative staff; difficulties encountered by teachers making the transition from Spanish-language to English-language instruction; and teacher turnover.

The latter problem seems to have been only slightly ameliorated by the retention stipends offered to all teachers. Over the two years of the study, teacher turnover was 28% in RSL classrooms, 42% in BTL classrooms and 44% in B.E.L.L. classrooms (in control classrooms, two-year turnover was 49%). Most of the teacher turnover in B.E.L.L. classrooms occurred in the first year; in Year 2 of the study, turnover was only 5%. For the other two curricula and for the control group, turnover rates were roughly the same for each of the two years. As noted earlier, the developers made appropriate provision for training replacement teachers. Because aides, and in many instances center directors, had been trained on the curricula, they were able to provide guidance for new teachers and ensure some consistency during the transition. However, the need for on-going training (as opposed to mentoring) was greater than developers anticipated and made considerable demands on the time of the on-site coordinators.