Partners for Success

1. Partners for Success A Service-Learning Tutoring Program

2. Partners for Success • Liz Blair • David Malone • Trip Stallings Duke UniversityProgram in Education

3. Partners for Success Overview • Created in 1998 • a collaboration between Duke University and Durham schools to provide an organized tutoring program that would best meet the needs of DPS students • Needs assessment by principals and teachers determined focus of the tutoring program • tutors would help most by working with low-achieving students on EOG test topics and state-mandated achievement goals

4. Why PFS? Perceived Problems • Many capable children do not succeed on EOG tests. • Teachers seldom have the time and resources to effectively work with tutors. • Training of college student tutors is typically insufficient. • College students do not connect theory (class concepts) to practice (tutoring sessions).

5. Program Development 1980s/ early 90s Traditional TPP field work 1991 Duke Class of 1991 endows PIE tutoring efforts 1996 NC schools adopt ABCs model 1996 Riggsbee and Malone approach Duke Power 1997 PIE joins with Community Affairs and DPS 1998 Duke Endowment funds PFS and other efforts 1999 SCLC becomes full-time position 2000 – 2004 PFS grows, adjusts, examines, shares

6. PFS Goals • Provide a structured, adaptable tutoring program • Bridge the gap between college and community • Help schools meet identified needs • Transform children’s attitudes about learning and school • Strengthen the Teacher Preparation Programs’ early field experiences • Provide a reflective service-learning experience for Duke students

7. Our Focus Goals for Today • Provide a structured, adaptable tutoring program • Help schools meet identified needs • Strengthen the Teacher Preparation Programs’ early field experiences • Provide a reflective service-learning experience for Duke students

8. GOAL 1:Provide a Structured, Adaptable Tutoring Program.

9. Program Structure Support Interaction Participants Education Professors School Service Learning Coordinator Service Learning Assistants PiE Courses Training & Supervision Duke Tutors Reflection Logs 16 Tutoring Sessions DPS Students Teachers & School Administrators

10. Research-Based Program Cohen, P., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-248. Juel, C. (1993). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 268-289. Clay, M.M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wasik, B.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one- to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 178-200.

11. Research-Based Program Wasik, B. A. (1997, December). Volunteer tutoring programs: Do we know what works? Phi Delta Kappan, 282-287. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605-619. Morrow, L.M., & Woo, D. G. (2001). Tutoring programs for struggling readers: The America Reads Challenge. New York: Guilford Press.

12. Adaptable Program Model • Conference Presentations • NCACTE • Durham Public Education Network • American Educational Research Association • North Carolina Campus Compact • NC Closing the Gap • Replication • Project H.O.P.E. • Light Up Literacy • Additional outside inquiries at • conferences and via email Publications Jones, B. D., Stallings, D. T., & Malone, D. (accepted for publication). Prospective teachers as tutors: Measuring the impact of a service-learning program on upper-elementary students. Teacher Education Quarterly Malone, D., Jones, B. D., & Stallings, D. T. (2001). Perspective transformation: Effects of a service-learning tutoring experience on prospective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29, 61-81.

13. GOAL 2: Help Schools Meet Identified Needs.

14. Profile of Partner Schools E.K. Powe Elementary Lakewood Elementary 2002-2003 EOG scores at or above grade level: 74.1% (M) 60.5% (R)* % Free/Reduced Lunch: 85.8% Ethnic Composition: 2002-2003 EOG scores at or above grade level: 76.9% (M) 63.7% (R)* % Free/Reduced Lunch: 83.3% Ethnic Composition: *Annual Yearly Progress Standards: Math – 74.6%; Reading – 68.9

15. Profile of Partner Schools Forest View Elementary G. Watts Elementary 2002-2003 EOG scores at or above grade level: 83.6% (M) 72.8% (R)* % Free/Reduced Lunch: 49.6% Ethnic Composition: 2002-2003 EOG scores at or above grade level: 79.0% (M) 66.5% (R)* % Free/Reduced Lunch: 94.9% Ethnic Composition: *Annual Yearly Progress Standards: Math – 74.6%; Reading – 68.9

16. Needs the Schools Identified • Improving EOG scores • Closing the achievement gap (DPS & NP- wide goal) • Improving student motivation and attitudes about school • Improving academic (reading & math) skills

17. DPS Students in Our Program This Year: Since 1998: # of DPS Students Served: 90 Sex: 50 M 40 F Ethnicities Represented: # of DPS Students Served: 462 Sex: 238 M 224 F Ethnicities Represented:

18. DPS Students in Our Program Numbers Served: Total: 462

19. Reading EOG Results for Students in PFS 2002-2003 • Reading • 2002: 48% (30 of 63*) at or above grade level (DPS: 4th – 72.9%; 5th – 86.1%) • 2003: 56% (35 of 63) at or above grade level (DPS: 4th – 75.7%; 5th – 89.5%) • 81% (51 of 63) improved or maintained EOG level *105 students served, but only 63 had both 2002 and 2003 scores

20. Math EOG Results for Students in PFS2002-2003 • Math • 2002: 57% (36 of 63*) at or above grade level (DPS: 4th – 82.5%; 5th – 88.2%) • 2003: 76% (46 of 63) at or above grade level (DPS: 4th – 84.0%; 5th – 89.5%) • 87% (55 of 63) improved or maintained EOG level *105 students served, but only 63 had both 2002 and 2003 scores

21. Limitations on Drawing Conclusions Lack of appropriate comparison group No random assignment Single standardized EOG test as primary outcome measure Overall quality of data Other confounding factors

22. Goal 3: Strengthen the TPP Early Field Experiences

23. Roles PFS Plays in Teacher Preparation • Parallels and supports the TPP Conceptual Framework • Recruitment & Retention • Self-Selection • Admissions

24. PFS and the Conceptual Framework Key CF Components Supported by the PFS Early Field Experiences: • Pedagogical Flexibility / Inclusive Instruction • Emerging Leadership • Cooperative Team Membership / Collaboration • Reflective Practice PFS contributes to candidate mastery of all 16 KSDs, with emphasis on 11 in particular

25. Pedagogical Flexibility / Inclusive Instruction • Apply a variety of teaching strategies (KSD 2) • Understand the needs of diverse learners (KSD 3) • Know the principles of child and adolescent psychology (KSD 4) • Develop behavior-management strategies (KSD 9) • Develop lesson-planning skills (KSD 10)

26. Emerging Leadership • Know and contextualize philosophical and societal roots of education (KSD 5) • Know and understand legal, ethical, and policy issues (KSD 6) • Exhibit characteristics of professional teachers (KSD 13)

27. Cooperative Team Membership / Collaboration • Work collaboratively with a team of educators (SLC, SLAs, teachers, professors) (KSD 8) • Develop a sense of the importance of equity in education (KSD 16)

28. Reflective Practice • (KSD 14 - to be detailed in the final segment of this presentation)

29. TPP Recruitment and Retention • Duke students seek structured service-learning experiences; PFS fills that need • Immediate connections between course content and field experiences aid in candidate retention – PFS provides students with hands-on applications of course concepts and theories • Many Duke students make decisions about a career in teaching as a result of their time in PFS and PFS courses

30. TPP Self-Selection • Perhaps the most critical role of PFS for TPP • Through reflection and experience, potential candidates must confront almost daily whether a) teaching and b) the TPP approach and philosophy are good matches for them before formal admission

31. TPP Admissions • PFS provides the directors with extensive data on potential candidates, including information about: • Interaction with students • Interaction with peers • Ability to be supervised • Capacity for reflection • Seriousness and responsibility

32. GOAL 4:Provide a Reflective Service-Learning Experience for Duke Students.

33. What Do We Mean by Service-Learning? Theory Practice Reflection Service-Learning

34. Ways Students Reflect • Layers of Reflection: • Reflection Logs • In-Class Discussion • Out of Class Discussion (Informal & LEAPS) • Class Writing Assignments • Reflective Practice

35. Reflection Reflection Logs • Students must answer these questions after each session: • Briefly discuss the activities, content, skills, and strategies that you worked on today. • What worked/did not work well today? Why or why not? • What will I do differently next time? What will I continue to do? How will I go about doing it? What insights did I have today about the tutee and myself? • What did you experience or reflect on today that relates to what you are learning in class?

36. Duke Student Outcomes Multiple sources of information are analyzed Reflection logs Self assessment surveys Teacher questionnaires Initial and end of semester essays Other written class assignments

37. Duke Student Outcomes Analysis of Duke students’ work suggests “perspective transformation” in four areas. Four themes emerge: Perspectives on learning and teaching Perspectives on identity Perspectives on responsibility to community Perspectives on personal satisfaction

38. Reflections on Partners for Success

39. Program Improvements Over Time • Addition of SLAs (1999) • Development of full-time SSLC position (1999) • Partnership with other Duke organizations, like CA (1999) • More extensive web use (web-based lessons online in 1999) • Focus on single-subject tutoring (2000) • More extensive dialog among tutors, SLAs/SLC, and professors (2003)

40. Next Steps • Increase teacher involvement • Improve communications between teachers and tutors • Gather more comprehensive diagnostic information about tutees • Expand and strengthen training; include more emphasis on cultural sensitivity • More closely align tutoring practices and outcome measurements • Strengthen evaluation (e.g., improve comparison group identification, continue to incorporate additional measurements [attendance, grades, conduct, etc.])

41. Lessons Learned • A well-structured service-learning experience can transform the quality of undergraduate instruction and interactions in the classroom. • Program success depends upon active involvement of all stakeholders. For example, teachers are a critical piece of the success puzzle – and a difficult piece to integrate, which can weaken the program’s effectiveness. • Clearly determining outcomes is complex and difficult. • There is demand for viable tutoring models like PFS.

42. Partners for Success would not be possible without wonderful support from our colleagues. Betsy Alden • John Burness • Harris Cooper • Adrienne Duffy Brad Hammer • Renee Haston • Janelle Haynes • Virginia Hill Barbara Jentleson • Marin Magat • Sam Miglarese Pamela Montgomery • Michael Palmer • Jan Riggsbee Lauren Ruderman • Robin Sakakini • Katelin Sensibaugh David Stein • Vicki Stocking • Jessica Vick • Helen Westmoreland Arts & Sciences • The Class of 1991 • The Duke EndowmentDurham Public Schools • Office of Community Affairs • LEAPSProject H.O.P.E. THANK YOU!