From Practice to Policy: Using Teacher Action Research to Inform School District Policies With Regard to Special Education Services

The Multiple Purposes of Teacher Action Research
Over the last decade, research conducted by K-12 teachers about their own practices and instructional contexts has become a major professional development activity for teachers in a number of countries including the U.S. (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Hollingsworth & Sockett, 1994; Noffke, 1997). To a lesser extent, this research has also come to be accepted by the educational research community as a valid knowledge production activity. Increasingly teacher action research has been included in mainstream academic research publications as a legitimate methodology of educational research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001) and the research of K-12 teachers has frequently been published by respected academic publishing houses such as Teachers College Press (e.g., Ballanger, 19xx; Freedman, et.al. 1999; Gallas , 1998) and major academic journals such as Harvard Educational Review (e.g., Sylvester, 1994). There has been very little attention however, to the issue of how research conducted by K-12 teachers can inform educational policy making and the process of educational change at a level beyond individual teachers' own classrooms and schools. Although there has been some systematic study of the impact on teachers and their pupils of doing action (e.g., Zeichner, 2000), we could only find two examples of attempts to trace the influence of teacher research on policy making beyond teacher researchers' own schools. One case involved the use of research conducted by a group of seven mentor teachers on policies related to teacher mentoring in California (Atkin, 1994). The other involved an effort by the provincial government in British Columbia, Canada to introduce a more learner-centered approach to instruction by sponsoring teacher research groups throughout the province (Grimmett, 1995).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of two teacher action research groups sponsored by the Division of Educational Services of the Madison Wisconsin Metropolitan School District (MMSD) during the 1999-2000 school year on the teacher researchers and their pupils, on collegial relations and policies in the teachers' schools, and on school district policies and professional development plans for special education staff.
These action research groups were funded1 by Jack Jorgensen, the director of Educational Services in the MMSD, soon after cross-categorical programming had been introduced into the district as a new framework for organizing special education services. Cross-categorical programming, in which students with a variety of categorical disabilities are served by the same special education teacher, replaced separate programming for students who had been grouped instructionally by type of disability (e.g.,CD, ED, LD). The district began to rethink the way in which it delivered special education services following a shift to having children attend their neighborhood schools and an emphasis on inclusive classrooms. This shift to cross-categorical programming is consistent with national trends in special education. Staff surveys and focus groups that had been conducted by Jorgensen had indicated that there were a number of concerns and issues surrounding the implementation of the new cross-categorical model. Jorgensen decided to fund the action research groups for two reasons: to uncover some of the root issues that were associated with the implementation of cross-categorical programming, and to use what teachers learned in their research to inform the development of a multi-year professional development plan for special education staff. He also viewed action research as a form of professional development that would help teachers increase their knowledge and skills with regard to cross-categorical programming.
Methodology
Three interviews were conducted with each of the 15 action researchers and four facilitators of the two 1999-2000 research groups. Two of the three interviews were conducted during the research year (one in the fall and one in the spring), and a final interview was conducted the following year after the action research reports had been published and circulated throughout the school district. In the interviews, teacher researchers were asked to describe their action research studies, the experience of being a member of an action research group, and their perceptions of the impact of doing their study on themselves, their pupils, schools, and the school district. The facilitators were asked to describe both the individual studies and the group experience.
We also interviewed the coordinator of the district's special educational services division, Jack Jorgensen, who has funded similar groups each year since the original 1999-2000 research year. Additionally, we read all of the action research reports of the teachers in the two groups and observed a meeting in May, 2000 where members of the two groups came together with district central office staff and principals to discuss findings and the implications for individual schools and the district at large.
Action Research in the Madison Metropolitan School District
Since 1990, The Madison Metropolitan School District in Madison Wisconsin has sponsored an action research professional development program for district staff (Caro-Bruce & McCreadie, 1995). Over 500 teachers, administrators, counselors, social workers, etc. have participated in this program since its inception. The school district provides teacher researchers with one-half day of released time per month to meet in research groups with their colleagues. Each group is composed of 8-10 members from different schools and is facilitated by two people (often teachers) who have had some prior experience in conducting action research on their own practice. The groups have been organized either around levels of schooling (e.g., middle school) or broad themes of importance to the district ( e.g., equity, service learning, technology, literacy, English language learners), and meet monthly for four hours during or after the school day to discuss progress and receive feedback. Ongoing seminars are provided for the group facilitators by the district staff development office. At the end of the year, written action research reports are published by the district and distributed to all of the schools.
The MMSD classroom action research program operates on the basis of certain principles that are related to the particular structures that have been created to support teachers' research. Most important among these principles is a respect for teachers' intelligence and their ability to grapple with complex intellectual issues. This respect for teachers' capabilities is evident in the way that teacher researchers control their own research; choosing the topics they study, and the methods of data collection and analysis they use to carry out their research. The monthly group meetings follow a predictable structure and specific rituals and routines are established to create a culture for teacher learning that both honors and supports what teachers know and learn, and challenges them to problematize what they know.
The Action Research Studies and Groups
There were seven teachers in one of the two 1999-2000 special education action research group and eight in the other. Together this included thirteen special education teachers and two non-special education teachers, representing teachers from elementary, middle school, and high school levels. Although both groups included teachers from several different schools, each group included two pairs of people from the same schools. In only one of these cases however, did the teachers from the same schools collaborate jointly on the same study. The majority of teachers pursued individual research questions.
The studies employed a variety of research methods including teacher journals; systematic classroom observations; surveys and interviews with teachers and other instructional staff, students, school and central office administrators and sometimes parents; and analysis of student work and achievement data.
Researchers examined a variety of questions and issues within the broad theme of cross-categorical programming. For example, several teachers who surveyed staff within their schools or across the district about their views on specific aspects of cross-categorical programming gained information about how well particular models for service delivery were working from the perspectives of different participants, including students. In one of these cases, the inquiry was broadened to include special education teachers' feelings about their jobs, and in another case, a number of the researcher's assumptions about other people's views about cross-categorical programming were significantly challenged. In the other studies, several problem areas were identified and recommendations were made for improvement. One special education teacher presented an analysis of her career experiences working under several different models of service delivery and the one first-year teacher in the group presented excerpts from her journal that illuminated the need for professional development of first year teachers. A number of studies focused on how well the needs of particular pupils were being met by specific cross-categorical delivery models (e.g., in inclusive science and social studies classes in a middle school, in a particular team teaching arrangement between a regular education and special education teacher, in a collaborative effort between two different inclusive classrooms). Finally, another study examined the participation of special education students in extracurricular activities and compared the participation of non-special education students, special education students in inclusive classrooms, and special education students in pull-out models.
As a group, the studies uncovered multiple meanings that cross-categorical programming held throughout the district and identified numerous areas to be addressed in a subsequent district-level research-informed professional development plan.